1k. Minutes It
CHANHASSEN CITY CQUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 22, 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 Mason, Councilman Workman,
Councilman Wing, and Councilwoman Dimler
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Todd
Hoffman, Scott Harr, Paul Krauss, and Sharmin Al -Jaff
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions under Council Presentations:
Mayor Chmiel wanted to add a resolution requesting the classification of certain
roads as Minor Arterials and certain roads to an A Minor Arterial; Councilwoman
Rimier wanted to get an update on the'Minnewashta Parkway Improvement Project.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations: -
' b. Resolution 192 - 70: Approve Change Order No. 1, Chanhassen Senior Center.
' f. Approve Signal Justification Report for Trunk Highway 101 North Leg, Project
No. 88 -22B.
11 g. Resolution #92 - 71: Approve Change Order No. 1 for Trunk Highway 101
South, Project 90-20.
h. Resolution #92 - 72: Approve Joint Powers Agreement, Optical Scan Voting
' Equipment, Acknowledge Low Bid Approved by Carver County.
i. Wetland Alteration Permit for Placement of a Dock through a Class A Wetland,
7570 Dogwood Road, Peter and Deanna Brandt.
j. Approval of Accounts.
k. City Council Minutes dated June 6, 1992
Planning Commission Minutes dated June 3, 1992
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated May 19, 1992
11 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1
1
1
1
_ _ _
. .
_ .
_ _
•
_ _
•
_ _
1
1
_ _
•
•
. _
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
A. APPROVE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES TO
NEIGHBORING CITIES FOR 1993.
Councilman Wing: I apologize to Scott for bringing this up at the Council
meeting. I meant to discuss this with him today but as long as it's on the
Consent. We're providing a good service to these other cities and I'm real
content with that and I trust Scott to make the decision on whether we go or not
and if it's good for the city or not. But we have to replace some vehicles and
the vehicles go on the city budget and I'm just wondering if we couldn't pull a
CSO truck or whatever is needed and divy that up between the cities and simply
take it out of the city coffers altogether and let this contract pay for a
replacement vehicle. And we'll have a share in it but rather than, we make a
few dollars here or we don't make a few dollars, could we in fact use this
contract to provide it's own vehicle.
Mayor Chmiel: I was going to answer that but be my guest.
Scott Harr: Go ahead Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Dollar appropriations are in the contract for depreciation of the
vehicle and those dollars I think would offset some of those things that you're
concerned with. I don't know if we could technically go back and charge off a
truck to the balance of the other cities in doing this but we are getting our
money's worth back from that plus the small margin of profit that we still have
where it's still not costing us nor our citizens any dollars.
Councilman Wing: I'm real comfortable with that and the only suggestion would
be to maybe look at accelerating costs just enough to make up for any lack you
may have. I just want to be real alert that we're accelerating costs to make
sure it's providing adequate vehicles because we were short one last year that
wasn't in the budget.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we could look for is to some of these trucks and cars
that are labeled as dogs and lemons, maybe we can get them a lot cheaper.
Councilman Wing: Thanks Scott.
Scott Harr: Glad to help.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other?
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I just make a comment? Because Public Safety is
here I just wanted to commend them for the wonderful job they did on the Open
House and I think the public really, really enjoyed it. And learned a lot too.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make that as a motion to accept item
(a) Richard?
Councilman Wing: I would so move acceptance of item (a).
Councilman Mason: Second.
1
1 2
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992 II
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Joint Powers
Agreement to Provide Animal Control Services to Neighboring Cities for 1993.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
C. ACCEPT UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO MINNEWASHTA HIGHLANDS, PROJECT 88 -6. '
Councilman Workman: I saw this and I thought of the two gentlemen in the front
row over there. Jim Jasins and Jim Borchardt and I guess I just called to ask
them if they felt everything was satisfactory and whether or not accepting
utility improvements here would work out. As you know they've got a serious
water problem there and I don't know if they want to address it or not at this
time as an opportunity to talk about it before we accept them or others but.
Apparently a lot of the water problem is going to be taken care of with
Minnewashta Parkway improvements. Maybe we can talk about Ursula's Council
Presentation now as far as an update on what is going on in conjunction with
this because I'm curious about that also.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Charles.
Charles Folch: Sure. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. We have experienced
some delays in starting the Minnewashta Parkway project primarily due to some
easement acquisition that we were going through. We didn't anticipate them
taking as long as they did. There were certain easements that we needed before
we could start construction. There were a few others that we felt well, if we
got them ahead of time, fine. If we didn't, we can work around them. As of end
of last week, we now have all the easements we need. The needed easements to
start the project. A pre- construction conference has been scheduled for this
Thursday with the contractor. I would expect that they will be mobilizing
equipment through next week and we'll be probably planning a construction start
after the 4th of July. As it relates to the drainage experienced up there east
of Minnewashta Highlands and south of Maple Ridge. As Tom pointed out, yes
indeed, with the improvements that are proposed to Minnewashta Parkway as it
relates to the Maple Ridge Development, that drainage will basically be taken by
the parkway storm sewer system and will no longer make use of that detention
pond that's on the southern portion of the development. In addition with the
installatin of curb and gutter in driveway aprons, there will no longer be
overflow water running down through the gravel driveway which goes down to serve
the properties that have been described and in addition to the storm sewer
system from Minnewashta Highlands will also be picked up via Minnewashta Parkway
so hopefully it's planned to reduce the amount of drainage heading back to
Minnewashta Parkway be directed to Lake St. Joe. Well, through detention ponds
to Lake St. Joe. 1
Councilman Wing: It seems like that area needs to be checked for runoff. Mud's
getting on the road and washing around the sides and there seems to be quite a
bit of erosion out there.
Charles Folch: Yeah what happened, we had a home that was being built and as a
part of the building permit approval process we require, we notify them and
require that erosion control be placed and be put up. Unfortunately, towards
the end of last week they had some debris piles that needed to be removed off
that lot and in doing so they took the erosion control down but did...to put it
back up so they have been notified to put it back up.
3
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
II
Mayor Chmiel: That's good because I drove Minnewashta Parkway just the other
day too and there's just mud all over through that specific area.
Councilman Workman: I guess if Mr. Borchardt or Mr. Jasins. '
Mayor Chmiel: Do either of you have any comments? Just please introduce
yourself with your address.
Jim Borchardt: Hi. Jim Borchardt, 7331 Minnewashta Parkway. I think things
were going fine until the storm of a week ago Sunday. I checked the water. We
had about 2 1/2 feet of accumulated in Jasins property which we have never had
any water even in that 11 inch rain. What was that about '88?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Jim Borchardt: Another hour of rain and we would have had two flooded houses.
I don't think we can wait the year, year and a half until we get some relief.
We're getting a lot of water dumped on. We've only gut a 10 or 12 inch culvert
taking the water away from two 15 inch and mathematically it doesn't work. I
did talk to Dave Hempel today and he said it works out good on paper but when
you've got water 2 -3 feet deep in your basement, it doesn't work out good on
paper. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles, is there anything that we can see to somehow alleviate
that problem?
Charles Folch: Well, I happened to be out in the area today and was notified by
Dave that he had received a call. I took a look at the site. I couldn't detect
where exactly the flooding problem had occurred on the site so maybe I can make
contact with Mr. Borchardt and we can talk about that further. Up to this
point, this is the first time we've been notified that there's a problem that
potentially would endanger property as far as related to flooding of homes and
' such. At this point, I think one of the first things we could do is at the pre -
construction conference, recommend that that area there as far as storm sewer
installation be one of the priority areas to get completed on the project. I
don't think that's a problem to request that of the contractor. Other than
that, I'd have to see where the problem's occurring. The holding pond
evidentally, it looks like it's in acceptable shape. It's not blown out so
' there's no problem there. At this point I don't have any immediate solutions as
far as what the problem is.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we could suggest that you do meet with Mr. Borchardt and
II see just exactly what he's indicating and try to set something up with him. Tom.
Councilman Workman: Well, that's kind of deja vu all over again because I know
they've met with Bill Engelhardt and they've met with Gary Warren and probably
Charles too. And I'm not trying to put Charles on the spot and give us a
magical fix here tonight. The problem is, it's been a problem for the 3 years
I've been on the Council or whatever and we've still got the problem. It seems
II to be getting worst. I don't know if it's related to this subdivision. I don't
if bringing up approval of this, the utility improvements for this Minnewashta
Highlands is appropriate or not. If that's where more water is coming from or
what. In discussions with Mr. Borchardt, it sounds like the holding pond an
11 4
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992 II
hour after the storm has no water in it so what it's holding, it might be
holding water for 15 minutes. I don't know if that's what those things are
intended to do but there seems to be other problems. I guess I'd like to know
when, what the estimated time of completion at the earliest could be for a water
situation like that on Minnewashta Parkway. I mean even if they did it first,
we're still talking about a year from now probably.
Charles Folch: They would start on their storm sewer work first all throughout
the entire roadway. That work would be done within the first couple months of
the project.
Councilman Workman: I guess I don't know. I mean I don't know what to suggest '
as a solution.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think with Charles. 1
Charles Folch: Maybe if I can, excuse me Mr. Mayor, ask Mr. Borchardt. Where
exactly was the flooding occurring on the property?
Jim Borchardt: In Jasins' low area there.
Jim Jasins: You know where the driveways off to the right of the low area and
the culvert comes under the driveway and that whole area fills up up to the
level of in the garden which is, he's right. It's about 2 -2 1/2 feet deep.
Charles Folch: That's the outlet basically for that holding pond right? 1
Jim Jasins: Right. If the holding pond would hold something, I think it would
help a lot but it doesn't hold anything. It flushes right through there.
Jim Borchardt: I was at the holding pond within I would say minutes of when the
rain subsided and there was no water in it. '
Mayor Chmiel: What's the size of that containment pond and capacity?
Charles Folch: Capacity of the pond? I'd have to check the project design 1
calcs to verify that. There is the culvert leaving the weir structure is a 12
inch corregated metal pipe but there is a restricter cap put on it which
basically has a 4 inch diameter opening on that to hold back the water. • '
Mayor Chmiel: Sort of slow it down is what you're saying?
Charles Folch: Exactly.
Councilman Workman: Well I'd be willing to attend another in the field work
session. So I guess if we can get, maybe get everybody back together. I don't
know if we're going to look at the same thing.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, to see whether or not something can be done. Ils
Jim Jasins: It will certainly help if they put it on the front end of the
project. '
5
II City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that's what they're proposing on doing and putting
I that sanitary or I should say the storm sewer in first and that way that should
grab that and remove it accordingly and should alleviate the given problem
there, or hopefully.
II Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, if the problem is related to the holding pond for
Maple Ridge, then really I guess I don't see that there's a direct problem with
the water or drainage aspects associated with the Minnewashta Highlands project.
II It appears that it's coming off of Maple Ridge.
Councilman Workman: I have a similar water problem in my own back yard and
II you're kind of wondering if a 100 year storm comes, whether or not you're going
to have some more serious problems. That's why I ask about how long because
time is of the essence I guess.
II Mayor Chmiel: We've had that one particular year twice 100 year floods within
that one same year so.
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval of 1(c).
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
1 Resolution $92 -73: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to
accept Utility Improvements to Minnewashta Highlands, Project 88 -6. All voted
I in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
(D) STONE CREEK SUBDIVISION: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, APPROVE PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT.
II Councilman Workman: My only question here is, now I only see half the picture
here and I'm kind of wondering what's going to happen to the, you know we talked
about a second outlet. Where is the second outlet going to be in the future?
Paul Krauss: Two things. Or several things. The first is that after the
packet was printed, in fact this morning we received a request from the
II applicant for a continuance. His concern is that the City has not yet let the
contract for the sanitary sewer improvement that will serve this project and
until they do, he's relunctant to proceed and have houses built that don't have
any outlet. So this is continued until our contract comes up which is going to .
be in the next month or two? Now in terms of your exact question there. All
you're seeing there is the phase 1 construction. The rest of it is as you saw
' it, the entire preliminary plat. The only potential for the secondary outlet,
and it's a long shot at best, is that road that runs out to the east over
property that Volk and I believe Amcon own. We did look at, we went back to the
County after the meeting here and looked at another curb cut on the County Road
II and we're told it really did not work.
Councilman Workman: Well I guess I have, I mean there's not going to be
II something coming out of this east end presumably for, well maybe never.
Paul Krauss: Well you know, land has a tendency not to sit around forever but I
think that there's a very good likelihood that when you get into final design,
all you're going to do is extend that road up there as a cul -de -sac to serve
1 6
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992 II
that narrow strip of land between Timberwood and Bluff Creek. The difficulty
comes in bridging or getting across Bluff Creek to get to the north up to the
east /west collector. That's feasible from an engineering standpoint. Anything's
feasible but whether or not you want the environmental impact and can justify
the cost will be the real main question.
Mayor Chmiel: The cost probably would be the largest item in the whole thing
would sort of be prohibited. '
Councilman Workman: Well I guess I just feel like, for this Council, maybe
that's fine. To approve it like this but long range planning aspect of it tells
me that we're going to give another Council a problem and a dilemma. Timberwood
thing re- opening or to the east or to whatever and I guess I just wanted to hear
maybe other comments about that. We can choose to ignore future Councils of
course but without getting the full picture, now we've kind of retreated and
we've got half the picture when all of it can change and it can be re- opened.
Obviously the Timberwood people could have a concern.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Workman, if I could. Your concern is, I think that the
prelimiary plat showed the Timberwood connection. But you approved that with a
condition that said eliminate it. That's of record. I supposed if we wanted to
back it up, we could require the concurrence submittal of a new preliminary plat
that shows it removed so that will be in the file so that next year or 10 years
from now, whenever this comes up again, that would be the historic record that a
future Council would rely on.
Councilman Workman: Well 1 mean the Teton barrier is an example of when
roadways can be changed and reopened. I don't have a problem approving this. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael, you had some concerns on some of this as well.
Councilman Mason: Well I wanted to talk a little bit about the curb cut and '
what not and that's been cleared up so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess does anyone have any other questions or any '
solutions to Tom's question.
Councilman Wing: We approved this with one entry. '
Mayor Chmiel: That's right.
Councilwoman Dimler: Basically we did. '
Mayor Chmiel: That's basically what it boiled down to.
Councilman Wing: And to eliminate it, I would have liked to have seen it
redesigned where you had an entry that split off immediately into a T so that
you only had a very small portion that was affected here. And I'm comfortable
with what we did for the folks in Timberwood. I have no desire to reopen that.
I don't like this proposal. There's a lot of houses in a narrow strip with one
access and there's a lot of hazard there. I can see where the Fire Department's
concerned about this. It's not right but I won't dump that on the Timberwood
folks.
7 i
II City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
Councilman Workman: I'm not suggesting opening it.
I Councilman Wing: No, no. I'm not either. I don't like this Tom and I think
it's not a good project. I think we are looking for trouble in the future.
II Councilman Workman: I guess I felt this proposal would come back with perhaps a
different configuration.
II Mayor Chmiel: Well that's what they were going to look at. But evidentally
there's no way of doing it.
II Councilman Workman: I guess that's not my problem.
Mayor Chmiel: So with that, would you like to entertain a motion?
II Paul Krauss: Again, the request is for a continuance.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes it is.
I Councilman Workman: So we'd have to look at this again?
II Paul Krauss: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, one more time.
II Councilman Workman: Do we need a motion for a continuance?
Councilwoman Dimler: Or table.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Yeah I think you should have a motion for a continuance.
II Councilman Wing: Could this go back to Planning Don with the knowledge that we
said no to the Timberwood connection and relook at this with only one entry as a
known entity now? There's no more gray area now. It's one entry with this
project. Maybe Planning would have some additional comments.
I Paul Krauss: First of all, you've already approved the preliminary plat. Now
that's not final plat approval but preliminary plat and this is a question
I possibly Roger can define it. In my mind it's always been pretty much a tacit
approval of the project. That major changes at that point are really only going
to come about if the applicant wants it but you've pretty well given your
II blessings to it. But as to whether or not sending it back to the Planning
Commission would accomplish anything.
•
Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't think it would.
I Paul Krauss: I can't say that it would. I mean we've looked at this thing
every which way from Sunday. There is no other access point. And having said
II that, having an access point that branches is still a single access point. It
just has two branches.
Mayor Chmiel: Two wrongs don't make a right and we do have others with as many
or more with one entrance within the city and I think that was our basic
II 8
II
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
judgment that we pulled it on at that particular time and voted on it
accordingly.
Councilman Workman: I'll move the continuance.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table final plat approval
and approval of plans and specifications and the development contract for Stone
Creek Subdivision until the sanitary sewer improvement project for this area of
the city has been approved. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Al Klingelhutz: What item was deleted? ,
Mayor Chmiel: Item that was deleted was the approval of consultant services
agreement with Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik and approve joint powers agreement
between MWCC, Chaska, Chanhassen, intercommunity flow.
Al Klingelhutz: That was number? '
Mayor Chmiel: 1(e) and 8.
Al Klingelhutz: I did see something in the Villager that there was going to be ,
some discussion on Mosquito Control tonight. Has that been deleted?
Mayor Chmiel: I didn't see it on the agenda. 1
Al Klingelhutz: It was in the Villager because I double checked tonight before
I came up. '
Todd Hoffman: That's on Park and Rec tomorrow night.
Al Klingelhutz: It will be on Park and Rec? ,
Mayor Chmiel: Park and Rec. Yeah, that was all in that same one column. In
fact I looked at it at first and I thought, my lord. Look at that agenda. I
saw 2:00 in the morning written all over it. But it was the Park and Rec as
well as the City Council.
Al Kligenlhutz: Well I'll be at the Park and Rec. ,
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF A PORTION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE, TROENDLE ADDITION,
PROJECT 91 -3.
Mayor Chmiel: As I mentioned, this is a public hearing and anyone wishing to
make comments after we've had staff clarification, may do so at that particular
time. Who has this? Charles?
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As the staff report eludes
to, basically during the development of the Troendle project, the developer
9
II ,City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
requested or made a suggestion to staff about possibly slightly realigning the
I westerly portion of Nez Perce Drive through the plat so as to better facilitate
a future extension of Nez Perce out to Peaceful Lane and ultimately to Pleasant
View Road. Staff has reviewed this. We've concurred with the idea of possibly
realigning this and therefore proceeded with getting the necessary documents to
conduct the vacation.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I guess I don't disagree where we could save
some trees and reduce the amount of fill necessary for the extension of it. I
think it's a prudent way to review it and come up with a conclusion. Is there
anyone at this time wishing to make a presentation? As I mentioned, this is a
public hearing. Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion to close the public hearing.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
' Resolution $92 -74: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve the vacation of Nez Perce Drive as described on Exhibit A contingent
' upon the developer providing the City clear and free title on the new parcel
being conveyed on Exhibit A. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
AWARD OF BIDS FOR 1992 SEALCOAT PROGRAM, PROJECT 92 -8.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. On Thursday, June llth the
II bids were opened. Received and opened for the 1992 street repairs and sealcoat
program, Project 92 -8. We received very favorable bids. In fact the two bids
were I think just a few hundred dollars apart with the low bid coming from
I Allied Blacktop at $64,860.92. In reviewing the bids, it's apparent that this
year's bidding climate, the timing, the economy and such made things very
favorable. As most of the bid items for the project his year were 20% to 25%
lower than those received in 1990. What I would recommend that staff be
I directed to do by Council is to again review the pavement management program and
assign, as appropriate, with recommendations from the program, additional
streets to be sealcoated so that we can maximize the city's dollars on this
I year's program. As I mentioned in the report, $90,000.00 was budgeted for the
program so we can, with the favorable bids this year, we can cover quite a few
streets this year.
Mayor Chmiel: Do we know what streets those might be?
Charles Folch: Well I think those will probably, there may be some areas, I
I think the Business Park. The Chanhassen Business Park. Park Road and Park
Drive was a key area. That's probably going to use up a fair amount of that
remaining amount. What we try to do is look for areas that meet the
I qualifications from the pavement management report and are also somewhat located
in close proximity to the general areas that are being done so that the
1 10
•
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
contractor doesn't have a problem with remobilizing his equipment on various
sites around the community.
II
Mayor Chmiel: Are we sure that we're going to keep this at that $95,000.00
figure so we don't have to come back in again and appropriate more dollars? ,
Charles Folch: No. We're going to keep it right at that.
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval.
II
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. II
Councilwoman Dimler: Again, and I know I asked about Chan Estates last time and
II
I know you answered me but again, if we have some extra money so to speak, is
there anything that can be done to do potholes and stuff in that area? I know
we're waiting for the final there on the intersection but.
II
Charles Folch: From a sealcoat standpoint, from this program.
Councilwoman Dimler: You can't use that money for filling?
II
Charles Folch: Yeah, sealcoating isn't going to help the situation down in Chan
Estates. From a maintenance standpoint, severe potholes and such that would be
II
a road hazard, certainly our maintenance crews will go in and try to maintain
those. Large areas where you they have a lot of alligator cracking and such,
require quite a bit of work to do and really our city forces don't have the time
or the money to do it.
II
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and I guess I'd just like to make a comment. I have
often felt that just because time passes doesn't mean that things are going to
II
get more expensive and this is a really good example of that. Very seldom is
the important urgent and I think we can even save money so I'm real happy with
these bids.
II
Charles Folch: Yeah in this case, with this type of project, a lot of the
dollars go to the cost of oil and that's stabilized or come down somewhat so.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's one of the things that we're doing as well now by II
not indicating what the engineer's estimate has been and putting that out on
paper. Waiting to get our bids and then we find out what his estimate is
II
because they come in and give you that bid or close to whatever it was. And I
like that better.
Councilman Wing: I had several phone calls from the Heights area and I think
II
you had Minnewashta Heights area calls. Are they in this program? We're going
to be looking at assessments out there if we don't do something pretty quick.
Charles Folch: There will be some overlaying. Leveling work done up in the II
Minnewashta Heights area. There's a few, there's a couple intersections which
really have some bad potholing and rattling which we intend to take care of.
II
There's also one segment on Dogwood which we have, right by the park there where
11 II
II
' ,City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
we've got a low spot. There's quite a bit of pavement breaking up and such and
II we hope to take care of that and get rid of that low area. But again, those
will be relatively minor, what I would call minor type repair work done on those
roadways to try and get a few more years out of them if we can.
II Councilman Wing: Are we going to be sealcoated? Are we part of the sealcoat
program?
II Charles Folch: No, they won't be part of the sealcoat. Typically you don't
want to sealcoat fresh pavement. You probably want to wait 4 or 5 years for it
to chalk up. What we've found is that new pavement that's sealcoated, when the
II plows go through over the winter, they pull it up right away.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor with a second.
II Resolution #92 -75: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to award
the bid for Project No. 92 -8, the 1992 Street Repair /Sealcoat Program to Allied
Blacktop, Inc. at a bid price of $64,860.92. All voted in favor and the motion
II carried unanimously.
I NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR PLEASANT ACRES
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
' Public Present:
Name Address
II Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth
Mark Rogers 3851 Leslee Curve
James Jasins 7301 Minnewashta Parkway
I Jim Borchardt 7331 Minnewashta Parkway
Tom & Ann Merz 3201 Dartmouth
Resident 3895 Lone Cedar
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, this is being reviewed under the ordinance amendment
that you passed some time ago requiring the older non - conforming beachlots to
II come in and get a permit. The Pleasant Acres subdivision was approved in 1954.
The beachiot was developed in 1960's. When we, when staff surveyed this thing
in 1981, they then found that there were two docks with a total of 4 boats at
the dock with room for another 6 boats and that there were 6 boats on land. So
a total of 10 boats. The association is requesting approval of it's 1992 status
quo which includes 16 boats at the dock, one canoe rack with an additional 3
boats on land so I think you're looking at a total of 19 boats as we define
II boats in the survey. The Planning Commission reviewed this on June 3rd. They
recommended approval of the 10 boats which were found in the 1981 survey. They
also made recommendations on other aspects of the beachiot which 1 think were
' generally, apart from the boats, were generally consistent with what had been
requested. They also requested that a milfoil sign be posted. That's become a
standard condition of the Planning Commission. With that we are carrying
forward the Planning Commission recommendation on this which is for a total of
10 boats and the other conditions as proposed.
1 12
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992 II
Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Is there anyone here from the Association '
who'd like to talk to Council at this time? Yes, would you please just come
forward and state your name and address and who you're representing.
Mark Rogers: My name is Mark Rogers. My address is 3851 Leslee Curve and I
live in Pleasant Acres and have since May of 1986. I represent Pleasant Acres
tonight and in summary we support the Planning Commission's recommendation with
one significant exception and that is the number of boats. In particular we are
requesting 16 boats which is not only the number that we had in 1992 but in all
the years that I've had a boat down there which is 1988 through 1992. So we ask
for 16 boats on the basis of two reasons, and I have a sheet which outlines my
arguments if you'd care to see it. First of all, item A(1). We do not believe
that the City's 1981 survey is a definitive assessment of the boat count down
there and the primary reason for this is in A(1) but also in some others. The
ordinance clearly defines maximum limits. The survey was not intended to
identify what the maximum levels of boat useage were in 1981. There is no
evidence that the survey was conducted more than once or that those levels were
ever exceeded. Item A(2), Mr. Thomas Merz who is in the audience today, at a
City Council meeting earlier this year had stated at one time that he recalled
there being 15 boats at Pleasant Acres back in 1981. Now, in the last Planning
Commission meeting Mr. Merz denied that he said this or that he intended to say
this. However, I believe a check of the transcripts will show the comment.
Now, item A(3). We also had boats moored to the north in front of a vacant lot
which I believe were uncounted by the City survey staff. Now that sets forth
why we believe the survey itself isn't sufficient to determine the number of
boats. The Planning Commission had indeed asked us did we have any pictures or
Minutes or documentation to support the 16 boat rule and the answer, as far as
I've been able to determine is we have no pictures whatsoever of what was there
in 1981 or 1982. As far as Minutes or so forth, in going back to the historical
records, I can only see a note in 1984 that the boats were docked on a first
come, first serve basis. Basically a very free system which was abandoned as,
well as far as I know, it was abandoned in 1988 when the number of boat users
really started to climb and in fact now there are 28 that would like to have
boats down there and we are only letting 16. Okay, now perhaps the most
significant and controversial issue surrounding this for us is the legal
question. And it not only is a matter of number of boats for Minnewashta or
Pleasant Acres but perhaps for other associations in the city as well. So I'm
moving onto page 2. Now, in reviewing for the Planning Commission meeting I saw
a memo that the City Attorney's staff had drawn up and directed to him and it
was specifically addressing the number of homes to be included in Pleasant Acres
and this is an item that we had been concerned about. We talked to the City and
asked them about it because we could see these problems coming. There were 53
homes according to the City in 1981. By our count now there's 80. There's
approximately 20 more homes under development in the neighborhood and there's
additional lands that have not yet been developed. So anyway the City developed
this opinion and basically said that the City could not limit the number of
homes. That was the conclusion it was intended to confer. Now I went back to
this opinion as I was preparing for the Planning Commission meeting and again
tonight. And while I agree, and the City Attorney will state this, that the
memo was intended to address the number of homes in the association. The cases
it discusses also discuss things such as number of boats, what exactly an
extension of the use is and is not. And I believe that these cases place quite
13 1
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
a bit of doubt as to how you can construe the use in 1981 to be only the number
I of boats that are present. In fact, the cases refer to the use in any given
year as being that use that's actually there plus a potential increase use due
to the undeveloped lands or unplatted lands. Now, the reason I'm bothering with
' this is because even if we had expanded the number of boats, what I'm saying is
the number of boats we had up until the point where there was a specific statute
or ordinance which prohibited exactly further development or increase the use of
the lot, there is no grounds for finding an increase use. And I'm saying that
I that specific ordinance is the one that you just passed. Now if you're going to
say that the ordinance which defines what is use, increase use for
non - conforming uses, that ordinance has been changed at least twice since 1981
' and I suspect the reason for the change was because it was worded loosely or
inconclusively in those years. So without going through each of these
paragraphs which I'm highlighted in my memo, I'd like you to key on two of them.
The first italicized one I'd like to read. Even if, however, the Court would
II
restrictively interpret Chanhassen's ordinance to require the beachlot to remain
at the size and scope it had attained when the ordinance was passed, that's even
if, that size and scope would have included the proposed increase since the
I access rights were deeded prior to the passage of the ordinance. That's an
important paragraph. The second one I'd like to read is on the last page, top.
Specific Wisconsin County case. The structural enlargements were held not to be
' an illegal expansion of the non- conforming use because the Plaintiff failed to
show that the changes violated any statute or ordinance and that's what I just
got done explaining. And the last one. The law of zone and planning. A non-
conforming use may generally be increased in volume, scope and intensity which
' intends to me to show that how a non - conforming use is regulated depends,
affects greatly what can actually happen there. The blanket rule is not that
there cannot be one more boat there than there was in 1981. There cannot be one
more foot of dock there than there was in 1981. And this is the issue we're
presenting. Now unfortunately I don't have an attorney here to argue this and
I don't know that the Council is the place to hold that kind of debate but I am
I asking you to read by yourselves. I know that you can read as well as any
lawyer can and I'm seeing a number of discrepancies here which I think raise
concerns about what I believe to be a weakness in the ordinances that you
passed. Thank you.
I Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Tom Merz: My name is Tom Merz and it still bothers me how I was quoted as
saying that there were 19 boats. I happened to bring along a file because I
remember trying to bring, trying to review what had happened in the last 30
years or so of my association with Lake Minnewashta. And in that first 5 years,
II
being on the Planning Commission, there wasn't a beachlot that was allowed to go
in with a boat dock. I mean we didn't, each new beachlot that came into the
City of Chanhassen was allowed a dock only without any additional boats. In
I 1982 we made this presentation for everybody concerned. We talked about
riparian, non - riparian use and we took Lake Minnewashta and we tried to make it
so called equitable by establishing what we thought was the riparian, non-
' riparian boat use. By that we closed down all of the public accesses and we
went back and said, and dealt with Carver County and said if we do this, how can
we get a control of the lake. Well, they said okay. If you'll control and shut
down all of your public accesses, we'll allow all the public access to come in
II the lake at that point and there was two remaining outlots and as I remember
' 14
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992 II
beachlots. One was Pleasant Acres and one was Lake Minnewashta. And in 1982,
my notes that I had talked about that night, there was 6. I said now because
these people have arbitrarily taken their 6 boats and in a period of 10 years
they've gone up to 16 boats and to think that we'll it back and allow this, you
know I mean it's like we have no laws or regulations. Just people can come by
and abuse that. We're not following any rules so for me to have said there was
16 boats in there, I wouldn't have been around or I would not have said that.
The purpose of my being here. I wonder why I keep coming back and trying to
beat my head against the wall. I mean what the hell is in it for me. I keep
wondering what I'm, but I think that I've got enough time and effort invested in
this thing and my true interest is making sure that we're preserving something
here. And I think in 1982 we all agreed that we had something that we were
preserving. We had a park that was controlled. We had beachlots. We had
access and I sit here now and I see these people coming back here and say let's
go from 6 to 16 and I say, my God. If you're going to do that, I mean you're
the smallest part of this area. Now you look at Carver County. They're going
to come back here and want 100% increase and we're going to have 70 -80 boats on
this lake and the lake doesn't support that. And my purpose of coming here
again tonight is saying, if you look at an outlot and think something like this
is attractive with 16 boats. I mean you wouldn't put 16 boats up in that
neighborhood. You wouldn't use it for a parking lot and to look at that lake
and say that that's attractive, that's not attractive. You don't see another ,
piece of property on that lake that's got 16 boats with their old tops and all
their bottoms and if you want that, you've got access to the lake. Go up in
your neighborhood and open it up and put up 10 or 12 nice, park those nice boats
up in your neighborhood. My main concern is saying we all agreed to this 1982
baseline and I think we've increased it once or twice and for gosh sakes, you
know the burden of proof has to be on this neighborhood. It was 6 boats that
were in the water and the Planning Commission comes back and says, well there
were 4 more boats on the land so maybe let's give them 10 boats. And now
they're coming back and saying, 16 boats. '82 is the baseline and I think
you're wrong in your statements. It said there was 6 boats in the water and
there was 4 more canoes or something stored on the shore so they said, well
let's go to 10. And now we're saying let's go to 16. Again, we have no ways of
stopping this. Unless we agree that the 1982 baseline, we can prove that there
were 6 boats in there. 6 boats in the water is what your documents say. That's
what we should allow and to go on, all we're doing is continuing to, the next
one, there's 2 or 3 more people coming up here. We have a '82 baseline that we
agreed to. For God's sakes, let's stay by it. Thank you. '
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Jim Jasins: My name is Jim Jasins, 7301 Minnewashta Parkway. I'm concerned
about the Pleasant Acres access. That they're really overselling it now.
There's a new subdivision going in and I've been there and I've talked to the
real estate people and they say sure. You can have a boat down here. Get on a
list. It will take about a year, year and a half and you can have a boat here
and I went back twice and asked the lady again, now are you sure of that and she
said, you bet. I say, that's misrepresenting and misleading people. If they're
telling people that they can have a boat there, something's going wrong.
Mark Rogers: I agree. '
15 1
1
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
'1 '
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Jim. Anyone else?
II Jim Borchardt: I'd just like to comment. Jim Borchardt, 7331 Minnewashta
Parkway. The representative from Pleasant Acres said that they had boats parked
in front of a vacant lot and this is the one part that disturbs me. We're '
II having these boats infringe on other people's lots and maybe not right now they
don't have them but he admits they did have them. Or supposedly. Now pretty
soon if we put 16, 20, 28 boats, we're going to be infringing on an entire
I subdivision's lots. I think we have to look at other people's rights. Not just
the right of this single development but everybody's right as to do I have the
right to boat out in front of my home. Thank you.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else?
Mary Jo Moore: Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive. I've been here a number of
II times. My concern is the lake quality and the lake useage and we did decide on
the 1982 census. Every association, which at the time I was a member, knew what
that census was for their various lots. They had at that time the right to come
II in and say, wait a minute. These boats are missing or whatever it was. There
are many associations that have remained at the census of 1982. Pleasant Acres
has not. They've expanded and expanded. There have been a number of them that
I have done that. I think it's a penalty to the others that have stuck by the
ordinance. And when I go to a Planning Commission meeting and it's a public
hearing and I voice my opinion and then I find out that the Council has not
taken the recommendation of this commission and all of a sudden we've got a 100:
I increase on various lots. I don't think it's fair to the citizens of this
community that have to continually come to these meetings. I may as well run
for election I've been here so often. I don't know what else we can do. I
I don't know why we're going through this time and time again. I think the 1982 '
census, it should be the burden of proof on the association and that's what we
should stick by. Thank you.
I Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? If not, let's bring it back to Council
for discussion. How would you like to start Ursula?
I Councilwoman Dimier: Oh that would be just a great priviledge. I guess I'll
piggyback on the comments just made by Mrs. Moore. I agree it is difficult but
my recollection is that we decided on the 1981 and we just did that maybe 3 -4
II months ago. And this is the process we're going through now is to go back and
try to determine what was there in 1981. At least that's what I'm understanding
that we're doing. So perhaps after this time that will be the last time anyone
will have to come in. After we make this determination. That's what we're here
II today. And I would like to ask Mr. Rogers, in relation to the vacant lot that
you were mooring in front of. Who owns that lot and did you have permission and
how did that happen not to get into the census?
II Mark Rogers: The lot is now owned by Mr. Josephs. Who owned it at the time in
1981, I don't know. Whether or not we had permission, again I don't know. But
at that time we also didn't have the dock setback ordinance which you just
II
passed yet this spring. While it certainly would have violated good common
sense to go and infringe on your neighbor's lawn, and that is certainly the
premise that we've been operating under, it was a swampy vacant lot. And to my
II knowledge there were no complaints from any homeowners or landowners from doing
II 16
II
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992 1
this practice. And as long as I'm talking about complaints, I'd like to say
that to my knowledge we have no neighbor complaints about our beach at this
time. And in...
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And then I would like to ask Mr. Krauss here, do
I understand this correctly? That we're talking about 10, the Planning
Commission recommends 10 motorized boats, plus one canoe rack that has 6 canoes
on it? '
Paul Krauss: Yes, Councilwoman Dimler. Some of this may go back to a little
bit of confusion as to how the '81 survey was done. You've got a copy of that I
think about on the 4th page of your report. In '81 what they found was that
there were boats docked. There was 6 boats, I'm sorry. There were 4 boats
docked with room for 6. Then there's a category for boats on land. They found
6 boats on land. Then there was a category for canoe rack and there was none so
I think the Planning Commission interpretted it fairly liberally and assumed
that those boats on land were in fact motorized boats and they took that and
added it to the boats in the water and came up with 10. '
Councilwoman Dimler: So they are already expanding when they say 10 motorized
boats plus 6 canoes. That is a total of 16 boats.
Paul Krauss: Well canoes and boats are treated differently.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Okay. Also I wanted
to, has the milfoil sign been put up yet?
Paul Krauss: Oh I'm sure not but that will be a condition.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's part of the condition? Okay. Well, from
everything I've heard and also from the comments that were made by Mr. Rogers, I
do believe that the City does have a right to protect the lakes within it and I
think that's what this is all about. And I do believe that the Planning
Commission was very generous in the 10 motorized boats plus the canoe rack, the
two docks, a boat launch and a portable toilet. I believe that's what the
recommendations were. I would do along with the Planning Commission's
recommendations.
Councilman Wing: ...Mr. Rogers' in a prior discussion that I also supported the '
Planning Commission. I think they're kind of our eyes and ears and kind the
jury that has time and ability to sit and discuss these items at length. We
have seven very prominent members of our community that made a decision,
unanimously to go with 10 boats which I consider to be very generous and I had
suggested maybe the outcome because we were trying to flex on behalf of the
landowner versus try and take the opposite view and cut them back as much as we
can. So if there was a gray area, we tended to give towards those owners. And
this ordinance clearly recognized the problem back in the late 70's and early
80's and addressed it to the best of it's abilities and I guess it's unfortunate
the City simply didn't maintain and prosecute on an aggressive basis back then.
They may be paying for that now but I'm very comfortable with what Planning
Commission did and I think it's right. I guess before moving on Mr. Mayor, I'm
kind of, in all fairness to Mr. Rogers', I think he's got a very excellent '
presentation and I'd like to hear Roger's comments about page 2 and some of the
17 '
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
comments that Mr. Rogers' made because I think they may be... I'd hate to move
II on here without you addressing some of these.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was going to be my suggestion as well.
II Councilman Wing: As a matter of fact, Mr. Mayor, because you're somewhat
familiar with reading this type of material, could I yeild to you at this time
and follow up on that line.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I would like to have Roger make comments in
regard to these other points that have been made within the documentation that
I was provided on some of the, the Waukesha County vs. Seitz and a couple of these
others. I'd like to hear some words of wisdom for the amount of dollars that we
pay you.
1 Roger Knutson: This memo was prepared by a law clerk back in 1988 and the issue
that it addressed was just one issue alone. Whether additional homes joining
the association or being built after the fact constitute an illegal expansion of
1 a non - conforming beachlot and my answer was no. To expand this discussion in
these cases beyond that is to misread the cases. They were, these are not full
discussions of, for example the Wisconsin case. It takes a little bit of the
I case and discusses what's pertinent to this issue. To understand the case in a
broader context you've got to read the whole case. And for one thing, it only
discusses a non - conforming use. Not non - conforming structures. For whatever
reason, the way the case came down, the issue of non - conforming structures was
1 not addressed by the case...and a later decision by the same Court in, I don't
have the year. Several years later, it specifically distinguished that case by
saying that that case did not consider the aspect of the increasing a structure
1 as non - conforming. Such as a dock or what have you. So it's a very limited and
narrow holding which is applicable to the question I was asked in 1988 but I
believe nothing else. I think it's my perspective...that the process for the
II last number of years. I think Council's direction has been very, very clear and
it's been, it said what we're trying to do is...1988, January of 1988. Keep it
there but you can't expand beyond what's there then and what the process you set
in motion a number of months ago was to document what was there in '88 and give
II those people those rights.
Councilwoman Dimler: '81.
1 Roger Knutson: '81. '82 actually...and nothing more and that's what you've
been going through. The Planning Commission has been going through a very
painful process and now the pain continues. The decision was made to do this
II because of the constant controversy over what rights do people have and what
rights don't they have and you wanted it documented once and for all.
1 Mayor Chmiel: And I think too, just my opinion, is when the beachlots were
established and we have one that was supposedly established within our area,
which was then deeded over to the City. The intent behind that was just using
II it as a beachlot. Not for boats. So I guess that's where I sort of look at it
as well.
Roger Knutson: If you wanted to get extremely tough on your ordinance, you
II could even make a stronger interpretation and since the docks come out every
il 18
1
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992 , '
year, once they're out they can't go back in. But the Council has not chosen to
do that. '
Mayor Chmiel: Anything in addition to that?
Councilman Wing: No, thank you. '
Councilman Workman: Well Roger, in fact the Courts told us we had to do this.
Or it came back to us to have to make these decisions.
Roger Knutson: What happened is a neighbor, a member of, a neighbor sued an
association saying the City was not enforcing it's ordinances and the neighbor
tried...Attorney General and by the City Attorney try to force compliance
because he thought the ordinance was being violated. And the Courts s.aid no.
The City can enforce it's ordinances, a private citizen cannot. We weren't a
party to that lawsuit and that...
Councilman Workman: In following up a little bit with what Ursula said. The
City, I mean our Council meetings are usually a half to two- thirds talking about
water, water surface issues. Where is the water flowing from, through and
into? I mean that's all I ever talk about is water and that is our duty. My
understanding since I've been here is that water surface issues are our issue.
We handle it. The bottom, the top inch is ours and the rest is the ONR's
apparently. I'm curious for Mr. Rogers', are there any covenants out there that
say who gets them? How many? I mean could this in effect have gone on and on
and on to 32 boats or where were you heading with this?
Mark Rogers: ...covenants per se... Where we are, why we have 16 boats now
versus 28 or however many is due to our own policy of self regulation. We just
didn't believe that the beachlot could handle any more than 16 boats. We wanted
to keep a reasonable swimming area because it is a very nice beach. We've got a
very good swimming area... Now as far as if there were 140 homes that one day
would belong to the association, I don't believe that we would have expanded
beyond the 16 that we already have. That list would grow from 28 to 128. There
are reasonable limits and that's why we're at 16.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilman Workman: Well again without, I know each of these beachlots has
different histories and we've tried to, much to the amazement of many, we've
tried to interpret those and you're right, none of us are attorneys so it is a
difficult and ugly and painful task to try and decide what and how we should do
that taking into account the entire and whole big picture. And I think
everybody on this Council genuinely does have, in this instance tonight, Lake
Minnewashta at heart. I don't think any of us wants to unfairly punish one boat
owner or homeowner or riparian or not and so it isn't fun. We just have to have
something to go by and in this instance, it seems to be 10 with Planning
Commission recommendation and that's all I have to go by.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael. '
Councilman Mason: I was at that Planning Commission meeting and I too thought
the Planning Commission was pretty lenient. I wanted to make one comment about
19 '
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
' I
what you said about how we reacted to one of the others with the beachlot. That
' issue was 4 to 3 so there was quite a bit of disagreement on the Planning
Commission also as to how many boats should be. I think it was Trolls Glen, but
I'm not sure. So we do listen to them. I agree with the Planning Commission.
They obviously thought about it quite a bit. I think we do need to look at Lake
' Minnewashta and not just one part of the area around it. I intend on supporting
the Planning Commission.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I clarify something? I have heard Mr. Rogers say
' several times the use of the beach and I wanted, I think I want to make it clear
here that the new homeowners, no matter how many new homes you have coming, they
can be members of that beachlot association and they can use the beach and
everything else that's there, they just can't have a boat. They have a boat
' launch. They could even have a boat and launch it on the public access and use
the lake but they just can't moor their boat down there.
' Mark Rogers: They can moor their boats down there if they put their name on a
list...
Councilwoman Dimler: Right. Yes, that's within your association. You make
that decision on who gets the slips. The City just tells you how many slips you
can have. Right. But from what I was hearing you say, it's like they can't be
members of the beachlot association. I wanted to clarify that that's not what
we're saying here.
Mark Rogers: No.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I sort of stated my opinion on some of this too. What
I look at as well is in looking back at that 1981 inventory that showed 4 boats
that were docked and 6 boats on land and immediately as I saw 6 boats on land,
I'm automatically thinking of canoes. I'm not thinking powerized boats. So I
think too, the Planning Commission is lenient in giving this that 10 and I too
would sort of agree with that particular perception. The only problem being as
I mentioned before, the canoes to me are not a problem. I think the more you
have there, the more problems can be within that particular area. So with that
if there is no other discussion, I'd like to call the question and ask request
' for a motion.
Councilman Mason: I'll make that motion. Approve the non - conforming
recreational beachlot permit for Pleasant Acres with the provisions described in
this report.
Mayor Chmiel: That it cannot exceed those 10?
' Councilman Mason: 10 boats.
' Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: Paul, is the dock setback ordinance an understanding of these
permits now? I'm concerned about ones coming up that have clearly moved onto
20
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992 '
other properties. Is the dock setback, does it have to be specified? Is it
just a city ordinance that's going to be enforced? Where do we stand on that? '
Paul Krauss: Roger gave us a reading on that.
Mayor Chmiel: That was last time. '
Paul Krauss: Whether it's applicable after the fact.
Roger Knutson: As you know I'm preparing, I finished the draft today of
revisions on the dock setback ordinance. All we're doing today is defining what
was there in 1982. ...modifying it. Not saying it's good, bad or indifferent
or anything else. Here's what was there in 1982.
Councilwoman Dimler: So I'm also understanding that that includes all the other
Planning Commission recommendations as well in this same motion?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: The canoe rack, the two docks, the boat launch, the
portable toilet and the milfoil sign.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. ,
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the
Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot Permit for Pleasant Acres Homeowners
Association to include motor vehicle access, off street parking for 10, one boat
launch, two seasonal docks (96' x 67' and 96' x 12'), one canoe rack, 10 boats
docked, swimming beach, marker buoys, swimming raft, 7 power lifts and a 11 portable chemical toilet. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
BLUFF CREEK ESTATES, KEYLAND HOMES, LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 ON THE EAST SIDE
OF AUDUBON ROAD:
A. REZONING FROM 42, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 61.45 ACRES INTO 78 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A WETLAND.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: The applicant is requesting to subdivide a 61.45 acre site
into 78 single family lots. Access to the subdivision will be provided by a
looped road off of Audubon Road. It is proposed to be developed in four phases.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
with one exception. Lot 8 has an existing garage. The proposed rear property
line is setback at 20 feet from the garage. The ordinance requires a 30 foot
setback. The Planning Commission was strongly opposed to a variance to the rear
yard setback and they recommended that the applicant adjust the property line to
eliminate this variance. There is a wetland on this site. The wetland includes
the protected water of course of Bluff Creek. It is contained within Outlot A.
The applicant is not proposing to disturb this wetland. However, out ordinance
requires any development within 200 feet to receive a wetland alteration permit.
We are recommending approval of the wetland alteration permit with conditions
outlined in the report. The applicant is also requesting to rezone the property
21 '
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
' 1
from A2 to Residential Single Family. This is consistent with the
1 Comprehensive Plan. We are recommending approval of the rezoning. There is one
issue that was brought up at the Planning Commission and we would like to bring
it to your attention as well. There is an existing driveway on the site. It's
in the shape of a horseshoe. Staff had recommended that this driveway be
1 eliminated. It accesses off of Audubon road. We also recommended that access
to Lot 8 would be through Lot 7 so that would require a cross access easement.
The applicant requested that he maintain his existing driveway. A couple of
1 issues with that is one, we have some safety concerns. Second issue is the
driveway will be encroaching onto the deceleration lane. Charles might want to
elaborate further on that. Other than that, we are recommending approval of
I this application with conditions outlined in the report.
Mayor Chmiel: What is that distance from the existing driveway to the proposed
road that will go in?
1 Sharmin Al -Jaff: I'm sorry Mr. Mayor.
I Mayor Chmiel: What is the distance between the driveway and the road? How many
feet?
1 Sharmin Al -Jaff: It's approximately 200 feet.
II Mayor Chmiel: What's the distance requirements between one point to the other
Charles without it causing any problems? The sight lines.
1 Charles Folch: Well, the City has no ordinance governing the spacing of
driveways as say for example Carver County would have. In general we would
I typically use MnDot's standards for, or based on the design speed of the road,
for spacing of intersections. What the critical situation here is that for the
two entrances into the subdivision, we're proposing to construct right turn
lanes into the subdivision and what you end up having with the driveway there is
1 you have a driveway coming out which will access right basically in the taper
section of the turn lane. While this is not an ideal situation, it's not
unique. These situations do occur on other rural type highways. In general we
1 would prefer not to see it but it's something we could work around if it came
down to that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay with speeds that are existing now, was that 50 in there now?
Charles Folch: It's 50 at that portion of the roadway.
1 Mayor Chmiel: As the area progresses and more residential goes in, will that
continue to be that speed limit there?
1 Charles Folch: Probably not. It will probably get downgraded to either 40 or
45 mph.
I Councilwoman Dimler: I had a question on the sight line. It runs east and west
there pretty much through the property and I don't know how deep it is. But I
also know that you're not supposed to put a structure on top of the pipeline?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct.
1
1 22
1
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992 II
Councilwoman Dimler: I saw that a portion of the road does cover it. That Road
E. 1
Sharmin Al -Jaff: They allow roads, sidewalks to go over the pipeline. It is 3
feet deep. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Their main concern basically with Williams Pipeline is that
there's not weight distributed on top because then that causes reactions down
below and could...
II
Councilwoman Dimler: That won't be a problem in the future then itself?
Mayor Chmiel: It should not. II
Sharmin Al -Jaff: I called and asked them and they said they had no problems II with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone from the subdivision that would like to discuss
this? Just please state your name and who you're representing and your address
II
please.
Jim Hill: Your Honor. My name is Jim Hill. I'm a consultant for Keyland and
II
the fee owner, Rod Grams. Principle is Dick Schuller is here with us this
evening. The petitioner has agreed with the recommendations of staff and the
Planning Commission recommendations with the exception of the driveway. We
talked to staff and we are in agreement to connect the acceleration and the
II
deceleration lane in front of and between the two accesses off of Audubon so
that the driveway, assuming that, although Mr. Grams would like both of them
left as is, he can see that one would have to be taken out. The northerly one, II which is to the right on the picture there. And that the existing driveway to
the historic home, which Mr. Grams has been asked to keep because of the
architecture and also the Chaska brick. He would like to and he's selling that
I
on the basis of the two lots. There will not be two lots there. There will be
one because the real estate and marketplace has indicated that the historic home
and it's setting needs the driveway. Should have the driveway that has always
existed and the larger lot. So the two lots will be combined into one. So that
II
there would be an additional lane then inbetween the two openings off of Audubon
in which then that one driveway would enter. He is asking for at least that in
the preservation of the site. Thank you.
II
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any discussion? Michael.
Councilman Mason: I say let them keep the driveway. I understand the City
II
Engineer's position but like Charles said, they're already out there and clearly
it sounds to me like the speed limit's going to be getting lowered on that road
in a matter of years anyway. There is certainly something to be said for the
II
historic preservation. Other than that I'm fine with it. I'm a little
concerned. What's your client's feeling about not, I think I missed that about
the variance for the shed. Are they willing to adjust the lot line?
II
Jim Hill: Your Honor, we have looked at the lot line and we will adjust it...
Councilman Mason: That's about all I have on it. 1
23
I
II
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Tom.
' Councilman Workman: Yeah, the two issues are the roadway and setback, right?
Mike and I were both talking about it. Mike ended up saying what I thought he
' was going to say about, big deal. Was that your comment?
Councilman Mason: Well kind of.
Councilman Workman: But you know the same thing with me. We're not talking
about a whole lot of trips. The darn access has been there forever. Granted
there hasn't been two, one to the north and one to the south that close but I
' don't, and I can't get worried about that and if they move the lot line, then
great.
Councilman Wing: I concur with Tom and Mike and I think preservation of what
they have there is...That's part of our historic background. I guess I really
have no comment because this is all up front and it's by the rules in effect.
If I could just whine slightly to say, we pat ourselves on the back and we cheer
' when we moved the MUSA line and we opened up 3,000 acres for development as if
the land couldn't be developed if we hadn't done it. But by opening it up,
everything that comes before me is this mass of little lots and mass of rows and
' mass of houses and ohhh. I say what are we doing. So it's wonderful we opened
this up but it's all coming back this way. Now this is standard subdivision and
this, now Paul. Don't look that way. I just couldn't resist. Was a PUD
considered and was there any advantages to a PUD?
Paul Krauss: No not really on this site. Early on when we first met there was
a question of using PUD to reduce lot sizes below 15,000. I told them that that
really wasn't appropriate. You're talking about a site really that does not
have a whole lot of character.
' Councilman Wing: Yep, I agree. The lots are larger.
Councilwoman Dimler: I concur with the drive. Keeping the driveway and I'm
glad to see that they'll adjust to avoid a variance situation. I'm also
' wondering if they could adjust to avoid the wetland alteration permit. Could
you comment on that?
' Paul Krauss: I think what we really have to do is adjust the ordinance so it
doesn't require one. They're not in the wetland. They're only near one and our
ordinance is a little strange on that.
Councilwoman Dimler: So it's our ordinance problem, not the problem with the
lot configuration?
I Paul Krauss: Not only are they not going to be in there, but they're dedicating
it all to the city anyway.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Good. I have no problem then.
Councilman Mason: I'd just like to make a quick comment if I could about the
landscaping. It's always refreshing to see people doing more than they need to
to make something look nice like that. Thank you. Thanks.
' 24
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: I went through this quite readily and there's variation of all
different sized lots and I came up with, I might have missed one but about 9
that only are at 15,000 square feet. All the rest are over and above and many
with 27,000. Some were 29,000. Some that are, I believe that was probably
pretty close to being the largest. But the overall, no there was one. It was
35,000 and that was the biggest but in looking at this I came up with 9 of those
that were 15,000 square feet which I felt was very well done. I think it will
prove to be a good development for it. There's one question that I had left.
The outlot. What size acreage was that? Do you have any idea? 19 acres. Okay.
Just for my own concern. Other than that I guess I don't have any real concerns
with what's going in and I think that it will prove to be beneficial. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Just one quick question. Paul, just for my anxiety level, can
I just assume that everything that occurs within the MUSA line boundary from
this day on are going to be 15,000 foot square lots or smaller in PUD? I mean
is that just fact?
Mayor Chmiel: That's by ordinance, 15,000.
Councilman Wing: No, no, minimum. Can I just assume they're going to be 15,000
foot subdivisions or PUD's slightly smaller? I mean that's pretty much
financially what's going to dominant?
Paul Krauss: I think you can expect that but I think the Mayor made a very good
point here. That out of the 70 lots, 9 of them were at the minimum.
Councilman Wing: No, I like this one.
Paul Krauss: And above that. Again, I mean they're making a silk purse out of
a sows ear a little bit here. I mean you've got a green space that's being
dedicated. They're adding a lot of landscaping to basically a soybean field.
When you're dealing with much more rolling terrain with more wetlands and trees,
the lots tend to be a lot bigger than that anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay with that I'd like to request a motion for each one
separately. The first one I'll request is a rezoning from A2 to RSF, 92 -3 and
with the two conditions contained.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I'll so move as stated by yourself.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve Rezoning 192 -3 '
property A -2 to RSF with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the
conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required
financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded against
the property.
2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #92 -5 and Wetland
Alteration Permit #92 -6. '
25
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
II Mayor Chmiel: The second will be the preliminary plat to subdivide the 61.45
acres into 78 single family lots and approving the Subdivision #92 -5 as shown on
I plans dated May 4, 1992 subject to the following conditions of item 1 thru 17.
Councilman Mason: So moved.
II Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Subdivision
1 $92 -5 as shown on the plans dated May 4, 1992 subject to the following
conditions:
1. All storm sewer drainage pipes should be designed for a 10 year frequency
storm utilizing a rational method. Storm drainage retention pond,
detention areas and outlet piping shall be designed for a 100 year
' frequency, 24 hour single event using the "SCS Method" established for use
in Minnesota. The discharge rate shall not exceed the pre - developed runoff
rate. Ponds shall also be designed to "NURP" standards.
2. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with
the current edition of "City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates."
Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications shall be
' submitted for City Council approval.
3. The applicant shall apply and obtain permits from the Watershed District,
ONR and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their
conditions of approval.
4. Watermain systems shall be designed to ensure adequate fire flow for the
site. Design calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer to
verify pipe size.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and
provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of
the development contract. The final plat shall be contingent upon the City
' Council authorizing and awarding a public improvements project for the
extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to service the site.
6. All lots shall access from interior streets and not Audubon Road, except
for the existing historic Chaska brick home. Street grades shall not
exceed the 7% maximum street grade per City ordinance. A deceleration/
acceleration lane shall be provided on Audubon Road. The center island
' shall be deleted from the southerly access street (Road E).
7. The final plat shall be amended to include expanding the 15 foot wide
drainage and utility easements to 20 feet wide and extending the drainage
easements through Lots 12 and 13, Block 1. The following easements shall
be provided:
11 a. Dedication of all street right -of -way.
1 26
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992 ° II'
b. Conservation and drainage easements over all protected wetland and 1
ponding areas. Provide access easements to allow the City to maintain
all ponding areas.
c. A 20 foot wide utility and drainage easements over all sewer, water and II
storm sewer lines located outside public right -of -way.
d. Conservation easements over areas designed by staff. 1
e. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line. II f. Dedication of Outlot A to the City.
8. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the pipeline company for any
II
grading or construction activity within the pipeline easement.
9. Fire hydrants should be spaced approximately 300 feet apart throughout the 11 subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
10. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing 1
site grading unless MnDot's planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas
disturbed with slopes of 3 :1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed
and wood fiber blanket.
11. Until Phase II improvements are completed, interim sediment and /or
retention ponds shall be constructed and maintained by the applicant to
I accommodate Phase I storm runoff. The applicant shall amend the grading
plan to take into consideration the runoff from the back yards for Phase I
to accommodate future upgrading of Audubon Road (urban design). The grades
on Lots 25 and 26, Block 3 shall be redesigned so the driveway grades do
II
not exceed 10%. The applicant shall supply earthwork calculations for both
phases to the City Engineer for review. Erosion control fence along the
westerly portion of the development (Phase II) adjacent to the wetlands
shall be the City's Type III. Additional erosion control fence (Type I) II
shall be installed on Lots 7, 14, and 15, Block 3 and Lots 8, 10, and 11,
Block 1 as check dams.
12. Outlot A shall be deeded to the City. In consideration for this, full II
trail fees will be credited. An 8 foot wide bituminous trail shall be
constructed from proposed Road E to the rear of Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 1,
Block 3.
13. The applicant shall convey to the City a temporary street easement for the II temporary cul -de -sac at the end of Road E. In addition, a sign shall be
installed on the barricades stating that the street will be extended in the
future. All street right -of -way for all plat phases to be dedicated with
Phase I platting. 1
14. The developer shall acquire the required utility construction permits from
the PCA and Minnesota Department of Health.
II
27 1
1
*City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
15. The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Rezoning #92 -3 and the
Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -6.
16. The applicant should work out with city staff to provide whether or not
' Lots 10 and 14, Block 2 are in fact buildable between the Planning
Commission and City Council meeting.
I 17. Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other
means acceptable to the City.
' All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: The third is the Wetland Alteration Permit for construction
within 200 feet of a wetland. And that consists of Wetland Alteration Permit
II #92 -6 with the following conditions of items 1 thru 4.
Councilman Workman: So moved Mayor.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Wetland
II Alteration Permit #92 -6 with the following conditions:
1. All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III erosion
control. The erosion control shall be maintained in good condition until
the disturbed areas are stabilized.
2. The wetland area remain undisturbed.
3. The applicant shall receive a permit from the Watershed District.
I 4. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #92 -5 and
Rezoning #92 -3.
II All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Jim Hill: ...the driveway?
II Mayor Chmiel: The driveway in my estimation, by everyone indicating that there
was no concerns, was to be remain in existing and that's the addendum to that
motion.
II INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTH WORK/MINING OF A GRAVEL PIT, 100 FLYING CLOUD
DRIVE, TOM ZWIERS, MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE.
' Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, first thing you should know on this is that Thursday
afternoon after the packet was printed, we got a letter from Mr. Zwiers'
II attorney requesting a continuance stating that both he and Mr. Zwiers would be
unavoidably absent from tonight's meeting. Mr. Brill does have an associate
attorney here tonight for that. Now Roger and I had some conversations on this
I think Friday morning to determine what the course of action should be and a
I couple things about that. In the past Mr. Mayor, after we've had items printed
in the newspaper as being on the agenda and notify people in fact, in the past
r 28
1
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
you've directed us to keep things on the agenda, because at that point it's too
late to switch gears. Secondly, and possibly Roger can expand on this, this is
an item that's been going around in circles now for rayon 2 years and has already
been the subject of substantial litigation and is likely to be the subject of
more litigation. We're not sure what advantage would be gained in further
delays. We didn't delay this. We've processed it consistent with the
directions of the Judge. We also have a very clear statement at the Planning
Commission from Mr. Brill that basically they're not willing to agree to most of
the conditions that were developed anyway. So we're not sure what purpose it
would serve to continue it again but that's possibly the first thing you ought
to look at. Whether you want to go forward with it tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: As I see, we have an awful lot of people here who were sent
notices that are present and absence. Their thoughts are here but their bodies
are not. I think just let me put something else out here. I know we've been
toying around with this too long. There's a lot of the conditions that I read
in here that they're not in agreement to and it's going to take us some
additional discussions. Where do you think this should go from where we're at
right now? Without additiona litigation.
Roger Knutson: It's our recommendation that the Council proceed and act on this
matter. It's been before the City for 2 years and it's been a very frustrating
matter I'm sure for the applicant as well as the City...by delaying it. The
applicant has known for some time this would be on tonight's agenda and he chose
to go fishing. It's his perogative. That may or may not be a strategic
decision on his part. Whatever it is, we think this matter should go forward.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Roger Knutson: I passed out to you before tonight's meeting a draft of the
proposed Findings and a decision based upon your finding staff's recommendation
and the Planning Commission's recommendation. Taking into consideration Mr.
Brill's concurrence on a number of issues from the June 17th letter.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Have we provided that to his counsel as well?
Roger Knutson: City Council has it.
Mayor Chmiel: I mean their counsel? ,
Roger Knutson: No. I just finished it.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there something you'd like to say. Please just '
state your name and who you're representing.
Anthony Gleekel: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Anthony ,
Gleekel. That's G-1-e-e-k-e-1 and I'm from the law firm of Siegel, Brill,
Gruepner and Duffy. 300 -100 Washington Square. Downtown Minneapolis and we
represent Tom Zwiers and Moon Valley Aggregate. I'll just limit real quick
comments to the continuance since you haven't made that determination yet.
Number one, bare with me because I am pitch hitting for Mr. Brill. I was
involved in this case up until the time of trial and I have not really been
involved since. Mr. Brill did send a letter of June 17th and has talked to
29 '
11 ,City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
Mr. Krauss and Mr. Scott and I believe he talked to Mr. Knutson this afternoon.
II Two reasons why we recommend a continuance. One is the fact that neither Mr.
Brill or Mr. Zwiers can be here tonight. Mr. Brill's letter states our position
at this point in time as far as what Mr. Zwiers is agreeable to and what he's
II not. It's my understanding that Mr. Brill has talked to or requested with Mr.
Scott and Mr. Krauss to sit down and talk further about some of the conditions
and what further can be agreed to and what cannot be. Secondly, and correct me
if I'm wrong Mr. Krauss but I believe that a conditional use permit, interim use
II permit application has been submitted for the north parcel?
Paul Krauss: Yes it has. It's scheduled for the next Planning Commission
meeting.
Anthony Gleekel: Okay. There's two parcels there and it didn't become the
I issue until after the litigation and we, the facts were presented at trial and
the determination that was made that the north parcel had no non - conforming use
right as far as mineral extraction. Following Judge Kanning's Order, a
conditional use permit, interim use permit application was submitted on the
II
north parcel to mine some clay, which I believe is the impetus for the last 2
years of negotiations, trial and much discussion in this matter. We believe
that the conditional use permit, interim use permit for the north parcel should
I be heard at the same time that the interim use permit for the south parcel,
which does have non - conforming use rights, because as you'll see on some of the
plans here, there are some interrelationships between the two. Although the
I mining, and I've not seen the plans. It's not significant on the north parcel.
There are some erosion control plans, ponding and what not that tie the two
together. We believe that it makes sense for the city and although there has
been a lot of tons passed to get this thing looked at in one fell swoop, they're
II two different permits or three different permits that are before the city but it
makes from a planning perspective to get it looked at at one time. And that's
another reason we request a continuance. But I am here to make a presentation.
I To pitch hit for Mr. Brill and to answer any questions if you do reach the
merits. Thank you.
I Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I was just going to ask you your opinion of that
statement of tying this all together into one. I think these are separate
issues.
II Roger Knutson: Very separate issues with very separate standards for approval..
One of the things, one of the reasons we recommended that you go forward is not
to confuse the issues. They're two separate parcels with two separate...
II separate requirements. We recommend that they be treated separately.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. That's the thing I wanted to address at the time
when I heard this because I think it is two separate things that we're going to
II
discuss. So with that, if everyone has had an opinion, or taken a position in
reading the Finding of Facts and Decision as to what Roger has pulled together.
If you haven't, I'il give you a couple minutes just to give a quick look see.
II It's pretty much all that was contained I think in what we had before us except
it's a little clearer in context.
I Paul Krauss: The Findings of Fact are basically a replication of the conditions
with some clarifications. In fact there are one or two points that Mr. Brill
II 30
II
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
made in his presentation that we agreed with and we amended the conditions
accordingly. I guess in the interest of brevity, I'd just as soon not give all
the background on this and everything else to you. You've heard all this. The
only thing I wanted to stress though is, Judge Kanning gave us some very
specific guidelines as to what we could and could not consider. That the
conditions we applied on this should deal with health and safety aspects of the
proposal. That this is a grandfathered, non - conforming use which we essentially
have never disputed. We tried to be very cognizant of that and come up with the
conditions that we felt were appropriate to protecting the health and safety. I
guess to be honest, in some cases we wish we could do more but that was the
guidance we got from the Judge and that's what we quite specifically tried to
do. Which put us in the position of recommending approval with the conditions
you see before you in the Findings of Fact.
Councilman Wing: Is there a reason why we wouldn't approve this? '
Mayor Chmiel: Not to my knowledge. Does anyone have any specific questions
related to your attorney? The only other thing that I see here as I had read
through, the $400.00 which we had charged and there was some discussion on that.
Is that our full fee for that?
Paul Krauss: Roger and I had a long discussion about that. And it was the City
Attorney's recommendation that we stick with that $400.00 fee. I guess Roger
can expand on this if you will but this kind of falls into a gray area.
Roger Knutson: I think the recommendation is, we don't want that to be the '
issue...and not get off on peripheral issues.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, before I get ready to vote on this I do have
one more question and that is on the Findings of Facts number 4, the
continuation of the gravel mining operation requires and earth work permit
pursuant to our City Code. Is that to be reviewed yearly or is this, if we
approve this tonight it's approved forever?
Paul Krauss: There is an annual review.
Councilwoman Dimler: Just annual review and we do need to approve the permit ,
every year, not just have a review?
Roger Knutson: You review the permit compliance with conditions basically. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so if they're not in compliance, then we have
another opportunity to do something?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Wing: Also, under these decisions, some of these I think were 1
clearly opposed by the Attorney at the public hearing so that approval of this
is what we're requesting. Everything in here?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
31 1
,II .
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
Councilman Wing: In the packet he stated some of these weren't acceptable.
II Roger Knutson: We're recommending adoption of this.
II Mayor Chmiel: Right. The adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision which '
is dated June 22nd...consider the application of Thomas Zwiers, Moon Valley
Aggregate, a sole corporation, for an earth work permit and the Planning
Commission previously conducted a public hearing...published mail notice. The
I City Council heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak now
makes that. That's basically the...
I Anthony Gleekel: Mr. Mayor, I guess before you vote on this, on the Findings of
Fact, I'd like to make a few comments since I am here and to answer some
questions. It parallels Mr. Brill's letter. First of all Mr. Brill's letter,
I because there was some confusion as we reviewed it this morning, was based on
some Findings of Fact that I believe Mr. Krauss gave out at the Planning
Commission meeting so they may not go, parallel exactly in commenting on
Findings of Fact that may be in your packet and I've not seen what Mr. Knutson
I prepared but it sounds like he prepared Findings of Fact which took into what we
agreed to plus just resetting out the Findings of Fact that came out of the
Planning Commission. One thing, Mr. Krauss is correct in saying that Judge
I Kanning's Order did discuss limitations on only things that promote health and
safety. It also, Mr. Kanning, Judge Kanning also set forth rather unequivocably
that the City cannot control or limit the amount of materials that Mr. Zwiers
and Moon Valley Aggregate took out of the non - conforming use parcel. The south
II
parcel. And Mr. Brill's letter in a few occasions, and I hope you will read it
before you vote, does recognize in a couple areas that it possibly could limit
the amount that's taken out. One is request for an erosion control plan which I
I believe, and again because I haven't been involved for a while, involves a pond
that's now on the south parcel. The question is, maybe I believe the City has
desired some further plans on that and there's been some discussion about
I recommending a larger sized pond to take into account further erosion and
further runoff. The pond has thus far and in the entire operation that Mr.
Zwiers has been involved in has taken the runoff with no problem except for that
one occasion in a 10 inch rain but other than that, the natural runoff that's
I occurred plus the excess runoff as the mining proceeds has been taken fine by
the pond. If the pond is required by the city to be enlarged, based on a
recommendation from the City Council and the Planning staff, in a situation
II number one where it's not needed from practical considerations. Number two, the
enlargement of it may limit the amount of material he takes out of there without
really promoting a health and safety factor because it's not needed. The pond
I there exists is controlling the runoff fine. That's one of the points I believe
that Mr. Brill makes in his letter.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it's probably the opinion of the City that that is not
II true. The capacity is not as such that containment will not be there. Paul?
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we actually don't know. This is not a pond that's done
II to any engineered design with runoff calculations that you normally see. This
is a pond that Mr. Zwiers, to his credit, went out and dug one day. As to
whether it's working or not, it's kind of a gerry rigged arrangement. Whenever
it rains they have to bulldoze dirt across to make sure the water goes in there.
II We don't know how it outlets. We know that there's been problems in the past.
II 32
II
We know that Fish and Wildlife Service has raised concerns with sediment and
material going into, I think it's Rice Lake. We also know that MnDot's had
II
problems with culverts sedimenting up as well.
Mayor Chmiel: Right and I think that was one of the concerns I had. The other II concern that I had too, in looking at the entirety of that particular project
and we're putting a dollar fee of having cash escrow in the amount of $51,000.00
to guarantee the maintenance of that erosion control and site restoration. How
did we calculate that?
II
Paul Krauss: We've all raised that question? Honestly, it's a very low figure.
It's based upon a standard engineering calculation for maintenance of erosion I
control. It's certainly, it's highly unlikely that it could restore the site.
It's impossible to compute a figure for that really. So this is the same
calculation we used when you see a subdivision before you to compute what their
letter of credit would be or I believe it's the same calculation we used on the
II
other grading requests we've had elsewhere in the city.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay...what the project is or what they have there as far as II land, I don't think we have anything or had anything quite that large.
Paul Krauss: Or that deep or that involved, no.
II
Mayor Chmiel: When I look at that $51,000.00, it sort of bothers me a little
bit because I don't think we could probably touch that if we put another
$100,000.00 to it.
II
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I'd probably agree with you. It was the only number we
could have a rational basis for. It's based upon a formula that we've used II frequently.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
II Paul Krauss: And it's also, Mr. Brill objected to it. I mean so fundamentally
they even disagree with that but that's neither here nor there.
Anthony Gleekel: I guess I just wanted to reiterate, look at Mr. Brill's letter II
and that I am here to answer questions. And again, as far as the continuance
and the reviewing the north and south parcel, I did not mean to, nor did II I believe I stated that they should be looked at as they are different
standards. Now that it's been determined that one is a non - conforming use and
one is not. Although if in fact even under different standards under the city's
ordinances, as they will be reviewed, there is some, because they are contiguous
II
parcels. Because there is the similar use on the property, there is some merit
to, we believe to looking at them together and not under the same standards but
together as a larger plan under the separate standards under the City's
II
ordinance. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other discussion by Council? Hearing none, I'd II call for a motion.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, we've got their end use plan, correct?
II
33
II
II
'II City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Paul Krauss: Well kind of. I mean that's what that is. Again, that has some
relationship to Judge Kanning's Order. I mean we originally had two plans. One
II dug a hole that went down forever. The other one was almost half. Well, it was
a little bit better. Judge Kanning since stated that that secondary plan was
the basis for the plan that should be submitted to us and that was done with
some changes that were outlined.
Mayor Chmiel: Modifications that were done too.
I Councilman Workman: Well I'd move approval. Basically we're following Planning
Commission action right?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think there's a little more clarification. If we were
to adopt the Findings of Fact and Decision of the Findings of Fact as Roger
pulled together. That he gave...
' Councilman Workman: So with those additions, I so move.
Councilman Mason: Second.
II Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the Findings of
Fact and Decision dated June 22, 1992 as prepared by the City Attorney for
II the Interim Use Permit for Earth Work/Mining of the south parcel for Moon Valley
Aggregate. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE HIGHWAY 5 TASK FORCE.
II Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we're trying to move ahead as quickly as possible to
get that Highway 5 program up and running. As you're aware, we split it into
I two phases. One is the Highway component and the HRA considered funding of the
environmental assessment for the roadway purposes. The other is the urban
design type of approach. The Code and for that we had agreed at an earlier
meeting to set up a task force and there was some outlines as to who should be
II on the task force and how the make -up should be. The Planning Commission has
nominated two people. Most of the City Council, at least all the City Council
wants to be notified of those meetings. You can come as you will. The HRA has
I apparently selected Jim Bohn who was...earlier. Dave Johnson has been selected
by Public Safety. Park and Rec is looking to nominate somebody in short order.
What that leaves us with is the need for business representatives and.
II Mayor Chmiel: We have those.
Paul Krauss: Well we have one of those, unless you're aware of a second name.
II I've asked Kevin McShane to appoint, to try and get some other name.
Mayor Chmiel: I read it here as, accept Donn Andrus and Kevin McShane's
II nomination as representatives.
Paul Krauss: No, Kevin McShane was going to find somebody. Now maybe we can
find Kevin McShane. That would be...but what I recommend is that you approve
whoever he comes up with in advance because we'd like to get the first meeting
11 34
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992 �.
going July 9th. If you would. Also another suggestion. I had a meeting with
the staff of Camiros and Barton- Aschman on and as we were talking about laying
out the program for this first meeting, it occurred to us that possibly we ought
to designate a spot here for Peter Olin and Landscape Arboretum. He's been a
major, he's had major involvement in this and I think a lot of times bringing
somebody into the fold, and I almost bite my tongue saying it but, bringing
somebody into the fold is better than not and I think Peter, I mean he could
certainly add a lot.
Mayor Chmiel: Did he have an opportunity to send his request in?
Paul Krauss: Peter very rarely, I mean he's got a lot going on. Even when I've
sent him notices on stuff, he responds 2 months later. I think it's just his
calendar. I'm sure he'd like to have some representation. Now whether it's him
or somebody else.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I don't have any real concerns.
Councilman Workman: I would suggest that the group not get too huge.
Councilwoman Dimler: I also have, I suggested one time that we have a member of
Public Safety Commission. '
Paul Krauss: We have Dave Johnson from Public Safety.
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh you did put that in? Okay. '
Paul Krauss: Yeah, I'm getting names at the last minute as they're coming in.
So basically tonight I guess we're looking at you to select from those 6 people
for resident at large positions. With that and with Kevin McShane's nominations
of somebody, we should be all set.
Councilwoman Dimler: When do you want to hold the first meeting?
Paul Krauss: July 9th.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do we have time to interview these people or do you just
want us to make a decision from what you've written?
Paul Krauss: We're kind of trying to fast track it. What we laid out for the
summer is realizing that we can't get large public meetings in the summer very
easily, we wanted to have a meeting July 9th which was an organizational
meeting. Bring people up to speed. Lay the groundwork and then a meeting, I
think it's August llth or something in that timeframe where we're going to
develop, what are the issues and opportunities in the corridor. And in the
first week in September, after school's back in session.
Councilman Mason: School's in session the first week.
Paul Krauss: After the 8th. My kids go back the 8th. After that second week
in September, or during the second week in September, we would hold a public
neighborhood meeting to get everybody to tell us what they think they'd want to
get out of the corridor.
35
11
- II -City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
II Mayor Chmiel: July 9th, you're planning on having that meeting. It's going to
run in conflict with Public Safety. Are you aware of that?
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, you know we have so many nights that are conflict one
I way or the other these days. We can double check it.
Mayor Chmiel: How about July 1Oth which would be Friday?
II Paul Krauss: Well, yeah. Actually I'm going to Scout camp with my son.
Councilman Mason: When is the second meeting?
II Paul Krauss: I believe it was August llth. I didn't bring my calendar down
here.
II Mayor Chmiel: The only reason, I'm not going to be here that day. The 9th and
I'd like to be here on that first meeting.
II Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the kick off meeting is probably going to go over a lot
of stuff that you're familiar with. I almost think the second meeting's going
to be more interesting.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you're looking at August what?
I Paul Krauss: I'll double check my calendar but 11th sounds right.
Mayor Chmiel: Will you get back to us and let us know?
II Paul Krauss: Yeah.
Councilman Mason: I had that same concern about the first meeting Don because
I I've got Solid Waste Advisory that night. But if it's all preliminary stuff.
Councilman Wing: Well I'm on vacation. I'm willing to come home a day early
I so.
Mayor Chmiel: He'd be happy to fly back for this.
I Councilman Mason: Yeah, gee thanks a lot.
Councilman Wing: Is the roadway ownership really adequately represented? Is
I there anyway we could get roadway ownership? Some property owners...
Councilman Workman: There's a coalition.
Paul Krauss: Well you can rest assured that they're going to be auditing all
the meetings. They're going to have Tim Keene at the meetings and maybe John
Shardlow. 1 don't know.
II Mayor Chmiel: Paul, I'd like to have an interview of these people. I really
would. I think in everything that we've done in getting these people on board,
II we've had that opportunity to do that review.
1 36
II
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992 II
Paul Krauss: When is our next Council meeting?
Councilwoman Dimler: Not until the 13th. So we would have to interview them.
Mayor Chmiel: We could interview them before that. '
Councilman Workman: Mike made the suggestion maybe we should put all 6 on.
Paul Krauss: You know when we say we have a problem with large groups, I think
the problem is just to get the mass and the continuity. I don't have that much
of a difficulty with a larger group.
Councilman Mason: If 6 are expressing an interest and.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I agree. If we don't have time to interview them,
put them all 6 on.
Councilman Wing: If you look at, you attend the Water Utility, that large round
table. It's not cumbersome. It's helpful. Everybody puts a little input in. I
think we should have a bigger group frankly.
Paul Krauss: Well, with the storm water committee, if we're down a couple
members on a given night, there's really enough to keep it going.
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we get a motion to.
Councilman Workman: The recommendation as Kevin McShane being nominated, I
don't know that.
Councilman Mason: No. No, it doesn't. Kevin McShane's nomination. Check your
apostrophe there Councilman Workman:
Councilman Workman: You could read that more than one way. '
Councilman Mason: No you can't with that apostrophe.
Councilman Workman: Yeah you could.
Councilman Mason: It's the possessive. So it's his nomination.
Councilman Workman: The nomination of him.
Councilman Wing: I'd like to hear from Roger on this issue. '
Roger Knutson: All I can say is I can spell potato.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move the establishment of and the
appointments to the Highway 5 Task Force as listed with Kevin McShane listed or
his alternate if required. '
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Mason: 6 members or not? '
37
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, he clarified.
Councilman Wing: 6 lay members plus Council. Wait a minute. 6 appointments
plus.
Mayor Chmiel: Plus the additionals from the commissions as well.
' Councilman Wing: And Council.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to appoint the Highway 5
Corridor Study Task Force to be consisted of the appointed members from the
City's Commissions and City Council plus the following residents at large:
James Domholt
' Brian Wellman
Linda Carlson
Craig Swaggert
' Ann Cathcart
Nancy Mancino
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
' Mayor Chmiel: The next item, Resolution requesting the classification of
certain roads as minor arterials and nominating certain roads to A minor
arterial systems.
' Paul Krauss: I apologize for this coming to you very late but the Metro Council
distributed some maps to the County Engineer and to the City about 3 weeks ago.
The Metro Council maintains a map showing, and these are two different things.
' Arterials and A minor arterials and what they're doing is they're focusing their
funding dollars back through to these designated roadways and the Metro Council
plays a major role or will be playing a major role with Ice Tea Funding. Now
' very few roads out here are designated as anything on the Metro Council system.
They designate Highway 7 and future 212 as A minor. They don't designate
Highway 5 as anything, which is kind of goofy.
Mayor Chmiel: Designated as a 4 lane.
Paul Krauss: So again, the importance of this thing is to get them recognized
' as part of the system and these recommendations go to the transportation
advisory board of Metro Council who makes the ultimate recommendation to them.
What we'd like to do is get the system to reasonably represent what we're doing
here so we worked up this recommendation with the County Engineer. I could go
through each of the roads and tell you which ones they are but I could tell you.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think it's necessary.
' Paul Krauss: There's no controversial sections that I'm aware of that are being
designated.
' Councilwoman Dimler: The County agreed right?
38
City Council Meeting - June 22, 1992
II
Paul Krauss: There are a couple though that I think that were omitted from
Roger Gustafson's recommendation. I'd like your resolution to consider adding
those. The first one is, on Galpin Boulevard. They designated Galpin as a
minor arterial. That's the lower designation, from Lyman to TH 5 but they
didn't designate it north of TH 5. Now I'm not sure if that's because it gets a
little weird when it Sets up into Shorewood /Excelsior but it really should have
continuity I would think going up to the north and I'd like to see that on the
system. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: It seems to be Carver County until Shorewood.
Paul Krauss: The second one that I think is real important for us to get on 1
this minor arterial system is the north frontage road paralleling TH 5 that
we're looking to have, hopefully funded under the Ice Tea Program. This is a
road that's going to intercept a major number of trips keeping them off of TH 5
and I think it's certainly as important to us as many of the other roads that
are designated and I'd like to see that included. As far as the A minor
arterials go, which is the more major designation, I fully agree with what
Roger's saying. Roger's saying, Gustafson. Roger's saying that in addition to
TH 7 and 212, that A minor arterials, the bigger designation should include TH
5, Old Highway 212 when new 212 is built, TH 41 and TH 101. So I'm fully in
agreement with that. So the only two changes I'd recommend is that we add the
north parallel collector and that we add Galpin north to the City line.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Are you sure we're covering all our bases to what we basically
need to have down?
Paul Krauss: I'm pretty certain. 1
Resolution 092 -76: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve the Resolution requesting the classification of roads as Arterials and A
Minor Arterials as outlined by the Carver County Engineer with the following
additions: adding the north collector running parallel to TH 5 and Galpin
Boulevard north of TH 5 to the City line. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth 1
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
39 1
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
UNEDIT
JULY 1, 1992
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes, Ladd
and Steve Emmings. Tim Erhart arrived during discussion of item 3.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joan Ahrens
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kate Aanenson, Planner II;
and Tom Scott, City Attorney
PUBLIC HEARING:
NON- CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR MINNEWASHTA
HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive
Tom & Ann Merz 3201 Dartmouth Drive
Michael G. Plehal 6210 Elm Tree Avenue
II Tom Huntington 6300 Dogwood Avenue
Mary Onken 6221 Greenbriar Avenue
Mick Saul /Sharon Carlson 6321 Dogwood Avenue
I Richard Nelson 6241 Elm Tree Avenue
William Finlayson 6320 Fir Tree Avenue
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order.
Batzli: Is the dock encroaching in the dock setback area?
II Aanenson: No it's not. It's at the minimum, 10 feet. Yes.
II Batzli: Boats then are on the opposite side away from the setback area?
Okay. We're going to open it up to public comment now. Again, if you'd
step up to the microphone and give us your name and address, if you'd like
to address the Planning Commission.
Mary Jo Moore: Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive. I've been here a
number of times and I guess quite honestly I don't want to be here. I
1 don't want to be fighting neighbors. The Heights I realize is one of the
oldest established neighborhoods with a recreational beach and even though
there's a setback, the docks are set like T's with lifts and to me, from
the lake, it looks like they are encroaching on the property owners. The
adjacent property owners. It also, to me appears that they've expanded
substantially in the last. Whoops, I lost it They've expanded
substantially plus they've added a raft that's right out from these docks
and these boats and to me it's unsafe. I personally keep quite a distance
from it but I don't know if other people coming in would keep a distance.
At any rate, I think any expansion is out of the question. This is a very
II small lakeshore lot and I recommend or I request, my opinion is.that it
1
i I ,
. I
1 r r
t v
I �
MN 1111111 ME ME ME 11111 Mill MIII lin 111111_ =I OM ME VIII MEI
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 2
should not be expanded beyond '82 and I realize it's been there for a
number of years. One of the first. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Now you aren't at one of the adjacent properties but
you do live on the lake? Is that correct?
' Mary Jo Moore: Yes. I'm a lakeshore owner. I do have an association on
each side of me however.
' Bill Finlayson: What is her address?
Batzli: I'm sorry, could you give your address again.
Mary Jo Moore: 3231 Dartmouth Drive. I'm in the Shores.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Bill Finlayson: I'm Bill Finlayson. I'm the Beach Chairman for the
Minnewashta Heights Beach Association. I live in Minnewashta Heights.
6320 Fir Tree. I have a number of, well maybe I do. These are
documentation of our.
Emmings: We have it in our packet.
Aanenson: I made copies of it. They have it in their packet.
1 Bill Finlayson: Oh good. Okay, fine. These are documentation of the past
years of people who owned boats and people who had boats... Minnewashta
Heights is an association of approximately 73 homes. The centerpiece of
that association is Lot 9. A well maintained lakefront property where our
' members can swim and boat and enjoy Lake Minnewashta. We have good
relationships with our neighbors and take any concerns that they may have
seriously. Over the years we have made boat slips available to our members
and we've always regulated the number of boats that can be put at the dock.
We've always in the past been able to accommodate those members who would
like to have boat slips but as of last year all slips have been used and we
I are currently running a waiting list of one person. In 1981 the Heights
had 17 people signed up for boat slips. Today we use the number 14 as our
number for what we use. We haven't grown over the years. We've always
been, worked with that number or approximately thereof. And we've always
tried to keep those numbers constant. I don't understand what Minnewashta
Shores is feeling that they are being encroached on their property.
Mary Jo Moore: I'm speaking on my own behalf.
Bill Finlayson: I understand. She mentioned a swimming raft. The
' swimming raft has been there for, I don't know. Probably more than 10
years. It's always been there as far as I know. It's the same as any
swimming raft on Lake Minnewashta. It's in it's proper spot anchored to
the bottom and it has reflectors all the way around the raft. That's the
same as any swimming raft you'll find out there. I don't understand how
that ever even came up. I believe that's all I have right now. Is there
any questions that I can answer from you people that you have?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 3
1
Batzli: Are you requesting room for 14 boats or 17?
Bill Finlayson: We are requesting room for 14 boats. In 1981 we had 17 II
boats signed up. I believe the count was 6 and room for 14. We've always
used the number 14 pretty much as our number that we work with.
Batzli: Did you move in in 1987?
Bill Finlayson: I moved in in, let's see. Approximately 6 years ago.
What would that be?
Batzli: That was just the first time your name showed up on the list of
boats. That's why I asked. So you weren't around in '81 but you have been'
there since '87?
Bill Finlayson: Yes. '
Batzli: Okay. So you're relying on these documents to tell you how many
boats there were back then right? 1
Bill Finlayson: Yes. Which is fairly good documentation.
Batzli: Okay. '
Bill Finlayson: Some of those names on the list don't live there anymore.
Are gone now.
Batzli: Okay. I'm sure if we have more questions, we'll speak up. Would
anyone else like to address the Commission?
Tom Merz: My name is Tom Merz and I live at 3201 Dartmouth Drive. The
purpose of my coming here again is, if everybody truly understands what we
did for '81 and how we arrived at that baseline. And as I sat here last I
week and we talked about Pleasant Acres and we talked about the baseline
means the amount of boats in the water. And baseline in 1981 and the
purpose of that, to go back. I don't know if anybody wants to go back but I
there was a lot of reasons why we arrived at the 1981 baseline. If
somebody would like me to review that, I can go on. If that's a moot
issue, then we don't need to. Is anyone not familiar with how we arrived
at those figures and how it was a compromise with Carver County Parks. It 11
was a compromise with what they called a riparian /non - riparian homeowners.
It was a compromise with the outlot owners. I mean are all of you people
kind of aware of how that arrived? And even you people are sitting here II
asking for?
Emmings: Maybe we don't. My understanding of why we're using '81 is
that's the year that we first had a beachlot ordinance so that any beachlot'
that was established after that date had to be under the ordinance and any
other beachlot was grandfathered in at that point. That's what's been
explained to us by staff. 1
Tom Merz: Okay. The reason for this whole thing, and because I've been
involved in. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 4
' Emmings: Now when you say the reason for the whole thing.
Tom Merz: The reason for the '81 baseline, okay. The reason for the '81
baseline was, at some point we had to arrive at what we called a riparian
and non - riparian use of the lake. Riparian being for every 20 acres of
lake there is an access for a boat, there's a non - riparian. And riparian
' on the homeowners, non - riparian is the non - lakeshore owners. And if you go
with DNR rules and regulations, they say that the non - riparian use for a
lake such as Minnewashta is 1 boat per 20 acres. Surface acres of lake.
There's 700 acres of lake. There's 35 boats should be the non - riparian use
of that lake. I mean this is part of a DNR document and that's how they
establish access. With that then, all of the people in Minnewashta, so we
had Minnewashta Heights and all of the different organizations came up with
' an agreement. Is let's try to maintain this use. We had number one was
Carver County Parks came in. Carver County Parks came in and they wanted a
total of about, they were asking for, let's say they could have gone up to
60 -70 boats. We maintained and agreed that to, if Carver County would
restrict themselves to their 15 and 25, 40 boats, that then we would go
back to all of the existing, what we called outlots and we would freeze
' them at the 1981 baseline. We would then, by that control there was no
more access to Lake Minnewashta. So that established it. We had a DNR
regulation of somewheres around 40 boats. By the time we had, the park
came in at 45 boats and by the time we had the 3 or 4 different acres, we
were up to almost 90 boats. So we were 2 times let's say the DNR
regulation for a, what they call a non - riparian use of the lake. And the
purpose of this was for all of us, we saw Carver County Park as something
that would be our biggest ally or our biggest enemy and how would we
control that. Well they agreed to those type of guidelines so long as we
would maintain the rest of the lake through no more access to it. Through
maintaining what outlots that we had with what we called a grandfather
clause. So that's how we arrived at the 1981 baseline and that was the
purpose of this thing. 5o when we talk about expansions, you wonder why. I
mean I have no reason to come here but to say that when we allow last time,
1 we went from the Pleasant Acres. They went from 6 to 10 boats so I say
well we go up 40 %. Excuse me. My mouth is a little dry. We go up 40% so
what happens then is theoretically in my mind we come back to Carver County
that all of a sudden is our biggest ally and they're going to say, well
you're increasing all of these outlots. All of this other access to the
lake. Therefore we want to take our access and bring it up 40 -50 %. So we
can have another 30 -40 boats on there. Well I think that defeats what all
' of us are here for and that's my primary purpose is to maintain the quality
of the lake we've got and we've done that through this 1981 baseline. And
as you allow increases to this, you're opening up something that we're all
' going to. I mean we who have kind of agreed to maintain that lake will
find something that in the future we're going to overuse that lake so.
That's my purpose. The second reason, if you ask my opinion on that lot,
' to drive down that lake and to look at one, what is it, 50 foot? I think
it's 50 foot and you see 14 or 15 boats or 17, whatever's on that and you
see all of the adjoining homes that have 2 boats, I mean that's not right.
Why should people have to drive on that lake and look at that type of a
congestion on an outlot? They have access for maintaining their 1981
baseline through coming the park just like anybody else. I think.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 5
1
Emmings: How does this help us know what they had in 81? That's our
problem you understand. If we know what they had in 1981, we'll leave it ,
there. The problem is documentation of that.
Tom Merz: Yeah. So the burden that we agreed last time, the burden of
proof. We had documentation that says, I don't know whether there's 14. If'
there are 14 boats and they're not asking for an increase, I have no
problem with that. If there's 13 boats and they're asking, and we have the
documentation that says there's 14 boats, I mean it's up to other people to
prove. The burden of proof is on them to prove that they have 17 or 18
boats. Whatever they're asking for. So all I'm asking you is to maintain
that '81 baseline for those specific reasons. It's an overall plan of
controlling the lake. Anything else?
Batzli: Let me ask you one question. Is this baseline agreement with the
Park, is it in writing somewhere? Is it, I mean who came up with this?
Tom Merz: There's a guy by the name of Mike Litticoat and through his
other people from the Park. I mean I served on when Naegele sold the park
to Carver County and then Carver County had, what they tried to do was
develop this park. 5o we had a park development committee for the next 6,
7, 8 years. And finally in about 1981, the agreement was just with, they
started out with 15 boats and that little mini and then they asked for an II
increase. When Naegele sold the property to them, the condition on the
property sale was that they would only have 15 boats of 15 horsepower or
less access to that lake. Minnewashta, the Park came back. This was about'
'65. Maybe in about '75 they said that they wanted to increase this useage
and so at that point it was stalled until about 1981 and then it seemed to
be an agreement that we would all live by. Well, if you talk to Carver II County, that's an agreement they're willing to abide by and I think that
for the rest of us, once we break those guidelines rules, on what basis can
we hold them to their agreement? So the man you would contact is Mike
Litticoat. You talk about Carver County Parks, we don't have any more than'
an agreement with. We have a conditional use permit with the City of
Chanhassen. Carver County and City of Chanhassen have a conditional use
permit and in that conditional use permit there's a total of 35. 15 and
25, 40 boats. That's all they're allowed to use and they control 'that
through the trailer accesses that they have in the park.
Batzli: Who is this Litticome person? ,
Tom Merz: Litticoat is the head of Park and Recreation for this District.
I mean for the Carver County. He is the head man for Carver County Parks. 1
Emmings: As part of that effort, were there any surveys done on the lake
to see what the, you know how many boats were at what places on the lake
and particularly in the beachlots?
Tom Merz: I think only it was Chanhassen's, when you, somebody went out
and made a count of the boats at that time. I don't think there was 1
anything more sophisticated than that. And it was boats in the water and
last time you went with, the way I interpretted what you did last time was
you took the 12 boats in the water and you took the 5 boats, or 5 and 5 is II
10. So you gave them a total of 10 boats. Well, in essence those boats
II Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 6
II that weren't in the water were not part of that '81 baseline. And I don't
know what Minnewashta Heights has here. But that's what I know. That's
II what we fought so hard for and that's the purpose of this whole thing is
to, there's a purpose of it. There's a plan and if you check with Carver
County and if you check with the City of Chanhassen, they have a
I conditional use permit or a permit. Whatever it's called, with Carver
County Parks and that spells out the amount of boat access. That spells
out that we have closed all other private access. Private or public access
to Lake Minnewashta and all of the access comes through the park. Does
II that make sense?
Batzli: No. It's interesting information that I haven't heard before.
1 Emmings: Are you aware of these agreements or documents?
Krauss: I've had occasion to work with Mike on a number of, well a number
I
of instances. In fact he's been down here before you on occasion for park
expansion projects. And Mike did explain to me that there is a CUP between
the Park Board and the City. It does limit their, there's 2 boat landings.
II They're limited in size and I think they're also limited to the size of the
motors that can be put in on each one. And it was under those guidelines
that the City authorized the Park to go forward. I'm not aware of any
I recipient agreement that binds the City to anything. It's a CUP and there
may have been some understandings but as Mike explained it to me, it was a
CUP for the Park to build their facility.
II Batzli: Okay. Thank you.
Tom Huntington: Hi. I'm Tom Huntington. The President of the Minnewashta
I Beach Area. Actually the Association. Just one comment to bring us back
on focus that we're talking Minnewashta Heights here. We're not talking
expansion. We're talking 14. Not the 17 that we had documented in 1981 of
I actual people that were on the lake and had their boats in our area. And
I just wanted to be clear and reiterate the fact that it is based on the
ruling that the way I understand it, from what I've read, is that we are to
go back on the 1981 number of boat counts that were on the area at that
I time. And we have documentation to back that up if need be or actually
people that we can contact if that has to be done. Any questions?
I Conrad: Yeah. Our inventory pretty much tracks those docked when we did
it and that's a point in time. 6 in '81. 6 in '86. 7 in '91.
Tom Huntington: Is there something where you?
II Conrad: ...saying there were 14 boats.
I Tom Huntington: Well actually 17 as of 1981.
Conrad: Those were assignments. Were there boats on the water?
II Tom Huntington: Actually I am newer to the neighborhood. I've been in the
neighborhood for 5 years. I couldn't actually say myself but what I
understand.
II
II
Planning Commissi
II
Planning Commission Meeting II July 1, 1992 - Page 7
Conrad: You see that's real important for us. We're trying to be as fair II
as we can but boats on the water is a really key issue.
Bill Finlayson: Yes but your counts are...don't know how many boats were II
out, at the dock at the time or. Basically what your count.
Tom Huntington: If somebody went down today.
Bill Finlayson: If you asked the same question, were there actually boats
there? Then we'd have to give you the same answer. We don't know
without...
II
Conrad: The only thing I'm raising is, it's real consistent, our records.
If they weren't consistent, then I'd sort of...
II
Emmings: I can tell you this. I can see this from my house. This
beachiot and there's no question in my mind that 7 boats for '91 is wrong.
That is dead wrong. It's way short. There were at least twice that many II
boats there.
Tom Huntington: Yeah, so that visual count there was not accurate and I'vell
been on the lake for 5 years and I know last year...
Emmings: It's also very clear.
II
Bill Finlayson: Also, the record keeping gets much better since I took
over in 1991. We had 14 boats. They're maybe not in all the time...
Batzli: Is there anybody here tonight who is in the homeowners association'
or was around back in '81?
Tom Merz: I've been in that area...I've lived there from '70 -'75. In 1981'
there were 14 boats there, what does our record say? How many were in the
water then? II Conrad: 6 boats.
Tom Merz: ...prove, the burden. That's what we said all... The burden of
proof has got to be on somebody else. They've got to come up with the...
Well prove it. Not us.
Conrad: Well Tom, just so you know the Association has given us a listing II
of individuals who were assigned slip positions throughout for the last 15
years or whatever.
Tom Merz: Kind of like the ordinance we had before that said we had access"
because they were part of the covenants... Everybody had access to the
beachiot. That was part of the covenants. That was the argument before II
and we're giving everybody...on this '81 baseline and all we're doing is
destroying it for ourselves. You look at me. I'm really not the bad guy
here and I hope you don't come out, I don't care. I really don't care but ,
I think the long range plan...
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
II July 1, 1992 - Page 8
Bill Finlayson: It's important to note that the '81 count that said 6 also
1
mentioned the number 14.
Tom Merz: I'm asking who mentioned 14? The City?
1 Batzli: Yeah, the City.
I Tom Merz: The City...
Batzli: Okay, would anyone else like to address the Commission?
I Mike Plehal: My name is Mike Plehal and I live in Minnewashta Heights. My
address is 6210 Elm Tree Avenue. My wife and I have lived there for about
3 1/2 years. Looked in there. We wanted to be on a lake but are unable to
II afford it. It's our first home but the access and the boat slip
availability was very appealing to us. So I just want to make sure that
before any decisions are made, a number of us came into this area keeping
II that in mind and we looked at the home and decided on the home and bid on
the home knowing that there were really plenty of boat slips down there.
And if there was a year or two waiting period, that that really wouldn't be
a problem. But that's a very, very appealing thing to us. Particularly
II that particular area I think is just straight middle class and you go down
to the lake and the value is twice probably or more compared to the rest of
the houses right within the neighborhood.
II Emmings: Let me ask you a question Mike. I walked down there tonight on
the dock and where I see your assignment is for '92. Do you know what this
map looks like? You're assigned number 4.
I Mike Plehal: Yes.
II Emmings: Your slip is right next to the main dock on the inside.
Mike Plehal: Yes.
II Emmings: And now there was a boat lift there and no boat when I was there.
Mike Plehal: Right. The storm that came through here about 2 weeks ago,
II we happened to be up north at the time. Broke the boat free from the lift
and.
II Emmings: The lift looked like it was bent out of shape.
Mike Plehal: Yeah. It totaled both the lift and the boat.
1 Emmings: And so where's your boat?
Mike Plehal: The boat is totaled.
II Emmings: Okay, and it's gone off the lake?
II Mike Plehal: Yeah. We pulled it off.
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 9 1
Emmings: If the City went down and counted today, they'd see no boat.
They'd see a spot. There's a lift. There's kind of a lift that looks like,
it's seen better days sitting in that spot but there wouldn't be a boat but
there'd be a space.
Conrad: I don't have a problem. I think that's real clear. You see a
lift.
Emmings: I don't know if it's always so clear. And if it was clear in
'81.
Conrad: Did they have boat lifts?
Emmings: I think so.
Mike Plehal: That's all I have. 11
Emmings: Alright, thank you. 1
Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Rich Nelson: Yes, my name is Rich Nelson. I live at 6241 Elm Tree Avenue II
with my wife Nannette and we like Mike just moved in recently. Much more
recently than he did. March of 1992. And again, I guess our big decision
in moving into the area was the access to the lake and when you see on the II
map that you have there, the boat lift. Or I guess the spot that I'm
assigned, my boat is not down there today. I have a boat. It's in my
garage and I'm in the process of looking for a boat lift to keep the boat
down there safely and securely. I've been out on the lake here probably 3
or 4 times this season and it's very enjoyable out there. It's not
crowded. I mean from what I've seen. Being out there Saturday and Sunday,
prime time use. There is absolutely no problems with congestion or excess II
traffic out there. So I just wanted to point that out as well.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? 1
Mary Onken: Hi. I'm Mary Onken. I live at 6221 Greenbriar. We moved up
here about 7 years ago and I also was very attracted by the lake lot. I
have some secretary notes from a long time ago, starting about 1974 and
they talk about, about 10 years before your ordinance that talked about how
this space was filling up even then. So I think the 14 boats has been a
long standing thing for us. We haven't expanded. I agree with your need II
to regulate the lake. In the little time that we've been here, about the
last 7 years, I've seen changes. There's quite a bit of building around the
lake and I can see where these homeowners associations can put an awful lot
of access to the lake. I think the park is a very fair way to regulate the,
number of people coming in. I think we pretty well all agree in the
Minnewashta Heights group that we just want to maintain our status quo. ,
What we have. We're not looking for expansion. We want to be good
neighbors. We want to see the lake regulated in a way that will keep it in
very good shape. Shifting to another subject a little bit. I know it
isn't the object of tonight's deal but I've seen a difference in the water II
quality. My nephew also did some studies when he went to college to look
into the different ways to save lakes. I wonder if the commission would
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 10
also, or whether your Planning Commission would look into ways that the
11 sewer water and the waste water or storm sewer water could be cleaned up
before it comes into the lake. Right now I think it just pretty much goes
right in.
Batzli: We are actually in the process of, we have a task force, the
Surface Water Quality Task Force. Right now I think they're devoting a
' substantial amount of time to plotting the lakes that we have and the
quality and trying to put some projects togethers. If you do want to
follow up on that, I encourage you to talk to Paul in our Planning
Department. It's been a very active group and we're moving ahead and I
think we're actually leading a lot of the communities in the State as far
as putting something like this together and getting going on it.
' Mary Onken: I think that's great. So I think we support your, what you're
trying to do and we don't want to expand. We want to stay where we are.
Thank you.
Conrad: What do you have in your book on 1981? Anything that we should
know that we don't know?
' Mary Onken: Oh I don't know. I was reading this and I had to guess what
years you would be focusing on initially. So I think even back, I think it
was in '74 they talked about 14 boat slips. Space for 14 boats.
Conrad: Anything that you could show in there that says that can give us
more information on actual use?
Emmings: In '81.
Conrad: Be real persuasive.
' Mary Onken: I'm sorry, but I don't have that. I think looking at the
number of boats that are in the slips is kind of akin to looking at my
garage and my driveway and trying to figure out how many cars I have. On
any given day maybe 4 of us will be done and there won't be any cars at
home. And on another day, the whole works might be there so counting the
number of boats at a particular time I think is kind of a strange way to
arrive at how many boats were there.
Farmakes: Do you pay for your assignment?
' Mary Onken: Sorry.
Farmakes: Do you pay the Association for your assignment?
Mary Onken: For my boat slip? Yes, we started voluntarily additional
assessments for the boat slips and we have a dues for the association of
which most of that association dues goes for insurance.
Farmakes: Do you keep records of those payments?
Bill Finlayson: Yes. For 3 years now we've collected for boat slips.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 11 1
Farmakes: Okay, but not for '81? '
Bill Finlayson: No. But we have a Treasurer who would keep track of that.
Batzli: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else like to address the
Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Emmings moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Ladd, why don't we start at your end.
Conrad: Are the neighbors to this beachlot, are they part of the
Association?
Bill Finlayson: All lakeshore people are part of it.
Conrad: They are? Anybody here? '
Bill Finlayson: Do you have a map on this? Those homes are.
Conrad: Anybody here that lives next door? We haven't heard any problems"
with the swimming beach? The issue goes back. I think everything that I
see is fine except for the number of boats and I guess I still haven't been
persuaded. I'll wait for maybe some other input from the Planning 11 Commissioners. It's a mighty small lot and it's just a mighty small lot.
I think it is a little bit at risk in terms of safety but if we haven't
heard any problems. The neighbors aren't complaining, then I'm fine with
that at this point. I think the staff has recommended marker buoys and I
think that has to be done. The only other issue other than, in terms of
what the association is requesting, is boats. And I guess I'm still not, I
haven't been moved from the 6 in the inventory but maybe somebody on the II
commissioner can sell me. I think the other ones, what we're trying to do
is be real fair in terms of the beachlots that are coming in. Trying to
somehow make some sense out of what we're doing and the last thing we want"
to do is really take away some rights that you've got. We hate that.
We're not comfortable. Yet on the other hand, as you've heard Tom Merz
talk about the other thing we're trying to do is merge the needs of the 11 lake. Not necessarily the riparian owners but the needs of the lake and
the safety issues and there are a number of boats that can be on the lake
without making it a hazard. And that's really true. It is 20 acres per
boat. Minnewashta probably has more boats allocated to it than are safe II
conditions. Part of that is the problem of the park. But it's also a
problem of beachlots too...and also a problem with homeowners. But anyway,
that's right now, I think everything's okay other than the number of boats.II
I guess somebody has to, I haven't seen anything to move me. I think if
the homeowners showed me a picture -or somebody showed me something in 1981,
I think I could. Obviously the dock can take 14 boats. It's built to fit
but I haven't seen the use yet that can sway me.
Batzli: So you would recommend 6?
Conrad: Right now that's what I'm thinking until I hear the rest of you. II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1 July 1, 1992 - Page 12
Batzli: Matt?
Ledvina: I understand the arguments as it relates to boats being out of
the water and boats being out on the lake and the intention for the
' homeowners association for the number of boats. That seems to be, they've
done a good job of laying that out. And I think if that, if they can
indeed prove that they intended to have 14 boats, and those boats in use on
that lot, I think that would be a reasonable number to allow. I'm a little
bit concerned about the documentation that's been submitted to us. You
know they appear to be older diagrams and such but there's really no
1 authors identified and I think this is the documentation that's provided
really swaps me in terms of going with the 14 boats but, and it seems to be
certainly legitimate but I would like to see the names of the individuals
that were involved in preparing the lists.
Bill Finlayson: If you'd like to see originals.
' Ledvina: Well, would you happen to know the individual that for example,
determined the 1981 assignments and wrote the list? I mean is that readily
available?
Bill Finlayson: There were various Beach Chairmans. You'll notice
documentation...there's diagrams so people took various amounts of effort
depending on who those individuals were over the years. Some just...notes
and some did more than that But they're all authentic and I have the
originals and the names that appear on, many of those names don't live in
the neighborhood.
Conrad: Do you have By -Laws?
Bill Finlayson: Yes.
' Conrad: Anything that relates to the dock assignments in the By -Laws?
Bill Finlayson: Actually it hasn't been a very big problem in the past, so
it hasn't been a very big priority. But recently in recent years now, at
our last meeting we had asked for a committee to draw up just what you're
asking for. More stringent rules because it hasn't been a problem before
so it just hasn't gotten done. Now it has to be done... We don't have
rules per se. We will probably next year.
' Ledvina: Well it's a difficult issue and the other items of the inventory
and the requests, I don't have any problem with. Again the real issue is
the number of boats that are requested here and I am leaning toward
allowing the 14 that you have currently documented here but I am open to
other discussion. That's it for me.
Batzli: Okay. Steve.
Emmings: Like I say, I'm a little bit, I personally experience this
beachiot every day so I think I'm being objective about it but I want
' everybody to know that I do. My house is tipped at such an angle that
I actually look a little bit to the east so I look straight out the end of
my house. I can see this a few lots over. Frankly, it bothers me less
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 13 1
than I might have thought it does. It's a very small piece of land. I
think they do a very good job of keeping up the shore area. It's way too
small for the number of boats that are on it. There's, anybody who'd say
anything else is, well. It's ridiculous. But nevertheless, that's not
what we're here to decide. Now you get, you have to have 200 feet of II Lakeshore and 30,000 square feet to get one dock with 3 boats you know so
you can see that proportionately you're way over. I've always thought that
it crowded the neighbors a lot and I think that's very unfair to the direct,
neighbors but you know, the neighbors on each side aren't here tonight.
When they've got a chance to say their piece, they aren't here and that's,
...if you don't speak up, sometimes you can't get heard. I think they've
adjusted this year somewhat and I think it's less of a problem this year II
than it has been in past years but to me it does not appear that they're
back inside the setback but it may just be deceiving when you try to
eyeball it. It's congested over there. The thing that bothers me the
most about it is the light they have out there all night long. If they've II
got one of these big, bright lights out there and that's probably important
maybe for safety and the use of it but that impacts me and I don't like it
but, I don't even see that on here as an issue. I don't know if that was
there in '81. As far as the swimming raft goes, I know that's been there
as long as, I've been out there since '82 and I know that swimming raft has
been there at least as long as I have been. So we come right down to the II
nitty gritty here which is the number of boats. If I had to bet, I'd say
that there are more boats now than when I was first out there in '82. It
just looks like it but I never counted them back then so I don't know II either. 5o when I look at the documentary evidence that we have, which I
think is all we've really got to go by, I see the list of 1981 assignments
and that's 17. And then when you look back in the history, in 1979 it
shows 12 and '78 it shows, I'm not sure what it shows. It shows 11 I think,
with spaces for 15. In '77 it shows 12 boats. But as you look back here,
and back in '76 there's a total of 14 and the dock is always basically in
the same configuration. So if I decide on it based on this information
that we have in front of us, I don't know any other way to go but with the II
14. Even our own surveys, when they say 6 with room for 14, that suggests
to me that same dock configuration was there. How could they count the,
how could you count a space without, you know what I mean? You're not
making up those spaces. Those docks are out there with the main dock with
the arms coming off it. Even that suggests to me that it's a 14 boat dock.
Conrad: Is intent good enough for you?
Emmings: No, but I know when I look down here at 7 in '91, there is no,
absolutely no question in my mind. There are the same number of boats
there this year as there were last year. I really looked at it last year
because I knew this was coming so I looked at it more closely. I didn't
count the boats but I looked at it more closely. And I'd say if anything,
right now when I was out there today, there were fewer boats than there
were last year. At the peak. And you know that boats aren't there all the
time. 5o that makes me suspect that the numbers. So I don't know. I'd II
like to see it restricted to 3 boats. If I had my way, I'd say they can,
you have 3 boats and that's it but we clearly don't have that power. We've
got to try and get at the number that was there and we've got to try and
make sure that we've got a fair number and we've got to make sure that it
doesn't ever expand any more. And based on all of the stuff that they've
1
Planning Commission Meeting
II July 1, 1992 - Page 14
shown us out of their records, I'd go along with the 14 boats. I don't
II like it but I'd go along with it.
Batzli: Anything about marker buoys?
II Emmings: Um, well sure. I don't really have any way to judge whether it
makes it safer or not to have the buoys. If our staff thinks that it's
II important for safety purposes, I certainly wouldn't contest that.
Batzli: Jeff.
I Farmakes: I would go along with staff recommendations on this. Back up
the buoys. It seems to me that for anyone who has, went through the
expense of putting out dockage, it's quite expensive. And if the City
I documented that there are 14 spaces there for dockage, the fact that there
only happened to be 6 boats there at the time. I guess, maybe they were
out on the lake or maybe they were in the shop or something. I'm willing
1 to believe them. That that's what they had there and it made the intent of
the '81 ordinance. Or '82, if it was enacted in January of '82. But
that's in line with that and I don't think we have anything to say one way
or the other that that's now what was there that's conclusive. So that
II being the case, I'm willing to take their word for it.
Batzli: Okay. Well, I remember being at this beachlot back in '78 thru,
1 well '76 thru about '80. I had a good friend in the neighborhood and I
remember going down there. There were a lot of boats back then. I never
counted them. I remember swimming to the raft. I mean all this stuff was
there. Whether the boats were physically in the water at the time this
I
thing was counted, I guess I kind of take Jeff's approach that, I can't
imagine that peopled in't have. You know people that had slips maybe
pulled their boats in and out occasionally. I guess I'm not going to guess
1 that. I believe that there were probably more than 6 boats from my
recollection on those docks so I'm going to go with the 14 that they're
requesting. I think it's reasonable. The only thing I would like, I would
1 like staff to double check this angle on the park. Make sure there's
nothing in writing regarding this or some other survey.
Aanenson: The conditional use permit?
1 Batzli: Yeah. And I'd like to see the marker buoys out. Anybody have a
motion? I'd love to hear it.
1 Conrad: You were there in '78?
II Emmings: '76.
Batzli: Well yeah, throughout school with friends. College.
1 Conrad: And do you feel the staff inventory was not?
Batzli: I seem to remember more boats than 6 but I couldn't say for sure
I how many that were there.
Conrad: If there are 14 boats, where does the swimming beach go?
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 15 1
Bill Finlayson: The boats stay on the west side of the dock. The swimmin
beach is on the east side of the dock so they don't infringe on each other.
They don't take away, the boat people do not take away any rights of the
swimming beach. The majority of the lot...
Conrad: 50 feet. Okay, so you've separated boats from swimmers. II
Bill Finlayson: 60 feet. 1
Emmings: The dock runs down the middle and the boats are all on the west
and the swimming is on the east from my observations.
II
Conrad: But basically the boat access is over...neighboring property
owners. You really couldn't have boats on your own 50 feet but as long as
the swimming beach is separate. Okay. The homeowners aren't here
II
complaining.
Emmings: I'm going to move that the Planning Commission recommend approval,
of the Minnewashta Heights Non- Conforming recreational beachiot with
basically everything that our report says that the Minnewashta Heights
Association has requested with the addition of or with these following
changes. That the boats at the dock would be 14 and that if marker buoys II
will enhance the safety of the swimming beach, that they be installed.
Who's made that determination?
Aanenson: Well the concern was the raft is way out beyond the length of 1
the dock. Quite a ways out there. Actually the length of the swimming
beach is probably only 8 to 10 feet at the most so it'd be a linear II swimming beach on the way out to the raft. Just when you get out to the
raft there's not a conflict with the boats coming in. So I think it's
appropriate to say that we will check to make sure if it will enhance it or
not. 1
Emmings: Okay.
Conrad: So the buoys would have to surround the raft? How would the II
markers?
Aanenson: That's what we'd have to look at. 1
Bill Finlayson: Marker buoys, will staff, if marker buoys are required,
will you diagram for us...? 1
Batzli: Is there a second to Steve's motion?
Ledvina: Second.
II
Batzli: Is there any discussion?
Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II
approval of the Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot Permit for Minnewashta
Heights with one seasonal dock, 150 feet in length, 2 canoe racks, 14 boatsll
docked, swimming beach and a swimming raft, which staff will look at to se
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
II July 1, 1992 - Page 16
if marker buoys will enhance the safety of the swimming raft. All voted in
II favor except Ladd Conrad who didn't vote and the motion carried.
Batzli: And when will it go to the City Council?
1 Krauss: The 27th.
I Batzli: July 27th this issue will go before the City Council and I
encourage you to follow the issue up. As I indicated, we recommend. They
make the final decision. Thank you all for coming in.
1 PUBLIC HEARING:
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTHWORK /MINING OF A GRAVEL PIT, LOCATED NORTH OF
1 HWY. 212 AND EAST OF THE CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY. MOON VALLEY
AGGREGATE.
(Tim Ehart arrived to the meeting during discussion of this item and Steve
II Emmings left the meeting during discussion of this item.)
Public Present:
1 Name Address
II Dave Johnson
Richard Vogel 821 Creekwood (Left written comment)
105 Pioneer Trail
Dennis & Catherine Bartholow 9841 Deerbrook Lane
Emily Pischieder 185 Pioneer Trail
I Tom Dalyonrod 8280 West Lake Court
Jeffrey Michell 9961 Deerbrook Drive
Gerald Bertsch 8556 Irwin Road, Bloomington
1 Rick Sathre
Tom Zwiers Sathre- Berquist, Consultant Engineers
Moon Valley Aggregate
II David Johnson had to leave the meeting early and left this written
statement to be included into the record.
I TO: Chanhassen City Council
FROM: David Johnson
821 Creekwood
II Re: Moon Valley Gravel Site.
Ladies /Gentlemen:
I Due to time constraints I am unable to be present to present concerns
over the further mining of the Moon Valley site.
1 As an occupation I am a realtor. I am keenly interested in how one
area of a development can affect other areas of development. Unless
11 extreme caution is used in upfront agreements, the end result can be and
most often is unacceptable.
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 17
II
It is in this spirit that I express my concern as a resident but also II
as a person employed in the real estate industry, that an end use plan be
proposed that is acceptable to the city, specifically the adjacent
homeowners. Once an acceptable plan is accepted, there must be a financial'
instrument in place (i.e. payment bond, letter of credit, etc.) to insure
that the plan accepted is carried out.
A cost of restoration of $50,000. was proposed at a previous meeting. II
I believe this to be severely inadequate to accomplish even the most
minimal restoration and believe that realistic costs must be addressed now -
up front! 1
It is my concern that the operator's past conduct to residents and
city concerns may be indicative of how future agreements or concerns are 11
handled by this operator.
Frankly, I do not see that this operator has earned anyone's trust and
I am concerned that this may be a pattern. Please be careful.
II
David S. Johnson
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item.
II
Batzli: Does anyone on the Commission have a question they want to ask
II
Paul before I open it up to further public comment?
Farmakes: I have a couple of questions. Is that bond listed in here?
II
Krauss: The letter of credit?
Farmakes: No. It says $40,000. in here.
II
Krauss: I believe there's another condition that.
Farmakes: Yeah but it doesn't have a financial amount. II
Krauss: No. What we intend to do, and I was speaking for the City 11 Attorney. By the way, we have Tom Scott from the City Attorney's office
here tonight. One of the things that we would like to do is we have a
working relationship with the DNR forester. We'd like to get his input as
to what he thinks the cash value or what it would actually take to do that
job and we would insert that, if it gets through the Planning Commission
tonight, we would insert that into the conditions for the City Council
approval.
II
Farmakes: I'm curious where the $40,000. or where that amount came from?
Do you feel real comfortable with that? 1
Krauss: Frankly, whether I feel comfortable with it or not isn't the
question. The City Engineer's office does. They have a rule of thumb that
they use for, an acre of disturbed area costs x number of dollars to finish
grade, reseed and maintain erosion control and it's a formula they've used
pretty standard for a number of years on development projects. And that's
II
II Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 18
II
where that number was '
enerated from. So they're comfortable with '
g Y it and
I'm.
II Farmakes: Is that formula the same on a piece of farmland as it is on a
bluff area?
II Krauss: I honestly don't know the answer to that. I suspect it probably
is. There's a little room for fudging in it I suppose to recognize
II difficulty but this area, the area that they're mining up on top is in fact
farmland. It is relatively flat. The grades that will result from this
are relatively flat. That's not the work on the bluff line. The only work
that they would have to be doing on the bluff line is the reforestation on
II that lower ponding area.
Batzli: Anything else Jeff?
1 Farmakes: No.
Batzli: I see the applicant's here. Would you like to respond to the
conditions and otherwise, address us.
Rick Sathre: Mr. Chairman, I'm Rick Sathre from Sathre - Berquist. I'm the
II engineer for Mr. Zwiers on this portion of his operation. Tom Zwiers is
here with me tonight. Well staff's done a very thorough job as usual and
you've got a lot of information before you. I think what I'd like to do is
II share a little bit of information and then I'd make myself available for
questions. I made a few transparencies as well and I'll try to help to
educate a little bit you, and perhaps the neighbors. I think there's some
people here that are very interested and maybe I can help them too. This
II is a blown up map that's on the grading plan drawing that shows the north
45 acre parcel that Mr. Zwiers owns with the relationships to the railroad
corridor on the west side, the large lot single family neighborhood the
II opposite side of the railroad corridor and the large tracts to the right
side of the site are in Eden Paririe and directly below the word site, the
next parcel south of that is the Moon Valley gravel pit area. Down running
I along the bottom side of the drawing you can see 169 and then the lake.
Rice Lake across the highway. So I guess the urbanized neighbors are to
the northwest, across the railroad corridor. This might be clear as mud
from this distance but this is what's called a USGS or United States
II Geological Survey map which shows 10 foot contours since 1958. It was
updated in 1972. The site was, the contours shown on here weren't altered
in 1972 by USGS when they updated their mapping. South of this line on the
II bottom side here, this the pit area. What you see there is the bluff
before it was mined. When it was a ski area. I remember driving by there
many times as a kid with my parents in the 50's and seeing those big grassy
slopes when it was, when they had the ski rope or the rope tow going up the
II hill. The north triangle is what we're talking about really tonight. The
45 acre area that's not been mined. I moved that same map up a little bit.
In that '58 mapping, this 10 foot contour mapping, the trees on the site at
I that time were, it's real hard to read here. I brought the original of
this map if anybody wants to look at it. There was a significant treed
area to the west and on the very southwest corner of the 45 acres we're
II talking about tonight. This is still forested. This is then. Then the
easterly portion of the 45 acre tract was and is still forested as well.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 19 '
But even in 1958 the mined area down low was basically a hole in a ground. 11
I think you can see the structure now. It's a house or something down
there at the base of the slope. This is the 45 acre piece. Again, down at
the bottom. Down at the south end is the, beyond that horizontal line is
the mined area. The area that's still being mined. North of that line is II
this 45 acre tract. Again, the southwest part down here has mature trees.
This is south facing, southwest facing bluff. The area, most of the area
north of this red line is open land. As Mr. Krauss indicated, there's been
agriculturally used and so it's only treed around the edges in the steeper '
sloped areas. The ravine system, there's a deep erosion scar that leads up
into Eden Prairie to the east and another scar that leads down into the II railroad cut. When that railroad was built, ever so long ago, that was `a
major earth moving operation. There were deep cuts made to the north and
big fills to the south. Well, that slope probably wasn't handled very well
so that has eroded. The blue arrows on this drawing show the direction of
water flow now. So there's a bluff line here, the water that falls on the
south and west and south and east sides of that line actually go toward the
river directly. Whereas the water that's north of this line towards the
top side of the drawing actually drain down through the ravine. It's one
or the other of the ravines. The big goal of this clay mining operation,
as Mr. Krauss indicated, there are several. One is to generate the clay to
cap the landfill. The second by product or goal that we have is to
stabilize the erosion situation. This map shows the red lines on this map
are the, would be the drainage boundaries after the grading is done.
Here's that ravine system on the east side. The way the contours are drawn
here on this grading plan, there would be a ridge line created along here. II
The water that falls, the rainfall that falls westerly of that line would
now drain into this upland pond. Again up in the north point of the land,
there's another what we're creating is a seepage pond or a sump. Where we
would direct the water to the well. This is about 5 acres up here. This
is about 15. The water would all be directed inward. So I don't know if
this helps anything or not. Basically what we can do is we can capture
much of the water that's now, runs over the edge and down the ravine.
Capture it and take it inward and allow the water to seep into the soil and
work through the ground instead of work over the edge of the bluff. This
is a map that shows that southwest corner of the north 45 acres. The major,
stand of trees that exist there. The major bluff line that Mr. Krauss was
talking about. The intent is to save all these trees on the major slopes. '
Save this major bluff line but to remove the secondary bluff that's right
along the property boundary. So the end result would be to create that
pond basically down at the bottom of that big slope and expose that tree
area to the full view. I'll take a minute and go through some of the staff
recommendation items. The first item on the recommended conditions was the
staff would like a copy of the easement or the rights that Mr. Zwiers has
over the property in Eden Prairie that he'd used for access out to Pioneer I
Trail. He actually purchased the land in Eden Prairie that he needs for
that access several years ago. We've brought copies of the documents
tonight and we'd introduce them into the record for future review. So he I
not only has easement rights, but he actually owns the land that the road
goes out over. I think that the conditions relative to protecting the
roadways, cleaning up mud and such are logical and prudent and practical.
I really don't have any problem with any of. the conditions except as we get"
toward the end. In number 7, the staff has recommended that $40,000.
letter of credit be posted to cover site restoration. What I've talked to
11
Planning Commission Meeting
1 July 1, 1992 - Page 20
Mr. Zwiers about is trying to work out some sort of a dual obligy bond.
He's providing the site and providing the material but he isn't actually
picking it up and moving it. It's a contractor. It's the contractor for
the landfill that's actually doing the work. Well what we would propose to
try to work out is to have that contractor post a bond that names Mr.
Zwiers and protects him. Makes them liable or responsible for restoration
but also it protects the City of Chanhassen. So if we can work that out,
it would be to his benefit and to the City's to have both protected by one
instrument.
Batzli: I know that in our ordinance we talked about this situation.
Where the applicant would normally be the person removing and we required
that the owner be co- listed on the permit. I guess we never envisioned
that the owner would be on there, not the person doing the work.
1 Krauss: Well, I guess we'd want to make them co- liable I guess. I don't
have that much difficulty with that but I have a question about the bonding
arrangement that Rick is suggesting. First of all we've always been
11 counseled by the City Attorney's office to deal with letters of credit.
They're much more effective instruments for the city to use if need be. But
maybe I could refer this to Tom Scott and answer as to whether or not that
' bond would be acceptable.
Tom Scott: My initial reaction would be that it wouldn't work. That we'd
want a letter of credit from the applicant, Mr. Zwiers as the owner of the
property. Whatever arrangements he might make with his contractor to
protect himself would really be between him and his contractor. Would be
my initial reaction. And that we would have a letter of credit from Mr.
11 Zwiers and Mr. Zwiers is the applicant and the owner of the property would
be securing the restoration of the property.
Rick Sathre: I don't think we want to reivent the wheel or try to invent
something new. So I guess I throw it out as an opportunity to explore a
potential more than anything. I feel an obligation to protect my client
from that contractor just like I feel an obligation to provide, try to
figure out how to protect the City too. We want this to be done right and
the property is worth a lot of money now and it will be worth a lot of
money in the future. The last thing that we want to do is end up with it
being damaged somehow. So I guess we want to work to try to make that the
simplest and most straight forward for everybody that we can. Down on
condition number 13 on page 15. Mr. Zwiers and I have talked about the
reforestation plan for mine bluff phase. A lot of the land, faces of the
slopes in there have been left alone for a long time. Maybe have never
been mined. At this point I don't think that we have any problem coming up
with some sort of a plan that shows how those newly mined areas. The areas
that aren't vegetated now would get replanted. I think that's appropriate.
I think that's a good trade off to...financial guarantee that the City
wishes to obtain to guarantee the implementation of the plan is a bit of a
hardship because of the time table. Normally when the City requires a bond
or letter of credit or some sort of financial guarantee, it runs for a
period of 1 to 2 to 3 years while an activity is started and finished and
it goes through the guarantee period perhaps of a building of a street or
something. Here where this is a mining operation, a lot of the pace of the
mining is a function of building in the area. Road building in the area.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 21 1
Just general development of public facilities. Mr. Zwiers sells gravel to
contractors or cities or entities that are building something somewhere. If
things don't happen fast, then he doesn't sell much. If they do happen
fast, then he sells more. What I'm really saying is he really can't even
predict what the life of that mining operation is. Whether it's 2 or 3
years or 22 or 23 years. So to post a financial guarantee, a letter of
credit now for so much per tree or so much per acre for the revegetating
that pit area, can be a real burden after whatever, 4 or 5, 10 years. And II
so, well it's a hardship and I'm not sure how to deal with that. I don't
think that the City has any interest in punishing him in any way. We
understand the goal is to protect or to insure compliance. I would hope II that there would be some other way to, like conditions withholding further
approvals or building permits or some other way to limit his future use
other than posting a $20,000.00 letter of credit that would be still there
after 10 years or something. We'd like to explore that and I would hope
that we could find some way to guarantee something that wouldn't be too
onerous. Lastly the condition 14 relating to the damage, the ravines and
how to repair them. I think what I would propose is probably what the
engineers and the planners have in mind anyway and that's really to go out II
onto the site and the ravines and look and see which slopes are still
barren and try to figure out what would be best to try to get something to
grow on those faces. The grading operation that we're proposing would
direct water back away from the ravines so there wouldn't be all this flood
of water coming down there. So there wouldn't be as much erosive force
anymore. Trying to get something to grow again on almost a vertical face II
is hard. Nature does it over the period of many years and man isn't so
good at, mankind isn't so good at tampering in a productive way. What I
wouldn't want to see happen is for us to go into the ravines with a dozer
or Caterpiller or something and make a bigger mess than we solve a problem.
And I know the staff doesn't want to create a problem either. So somehow
we have to carefully deal with the issue and probably some sort of seeding
operation of those barren clays and sands would be the most productive. Well
would propose to work on that in the next couple weeks. Try to come up
with a solution. We'd like to answer questions that you have and would be
available for the neighbors too if they have something that they're worried"
about or wish answered. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. This is a public hearing so if you'd like to address
the Commission at this time, please step forward and give your name and
address for the record.
Dennis Bartholow: I'm Dennis Bartholow, 9841 Deerbrook Drive. I've got a II
couple of concerns regarding this whole operation. First of all the, this
operation here, they're going to dig down to an elevation of 800 feet to
get to the sand so that they can send the water down to the ground water
level. The elevation of my property which is located, well over here in
this direction. The elevation is 920 feet. When we put our well in, we
went down 160 feet and found water. Put the well at 230 feet. If they go
down to 800 feet here, that would mean they would have 40 feet before they II
hit the ground water which I don't think is adequate for filtration. And
then to get to my level would be another 100 feet about. So I'm real
concerned about polluting the ground water in that area. The idea of a
seepage pond rather than a holding pond is that they're going to flush that"
water right into the ground water. All of the homes in that area,
11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 22
Deerbrook as well as Lake Riley Woods and any future, all use well water.
We do not have city water out there. All of that water potentially could
become contaminated. 5o I have a real strong concern about having these
seepage ponds that close to the ground water elevation. Also, there was a
traffic concern. If you drive down Pioneer Trail from CR 4, you'll find
that it's a 50 mph road. There's a dip that prior to the exit from this
area of the 40 acres or so that they want to strip the top off of. Prior
to that exit there's a dip that drops down and comes back up over the hill
and immediately on your left is the exit. Now I've had the experience of
having a car stop there and come up over that hill and have to hit the
brakes real hard to avoid hitting it. If we have 20 to 30 trucks in this
operation running 6 days a week, from 7:00 in the morning to 6:00 in the
afternoon, I think there's a serious potential for an accident there.
Because those trucks have to come to a stop before they can turn to cross
the road into that entrance. You might want to take a look at that because
when you come up over that hill at 50 mph, you don't have, you have very
little time to stop prior to hitting those trucks. So it's a safety issue
as well. As far as the views are concerned, if we were to strip away this
peninsula, all the homes are located up here. Up high. The reason that we
bought the property was because of the view of the valley. If we strip
away this peninsula located here as indicated, then we're going to be
looking at a mining operation and that's a real scarey idea for us. Our
property values are going to drop dramatically if when you look out your
back window you see a mining operation, and that's what's going to happen
there. Maybe it's going to help the people over at Shakopee a little bit
who are up on 5th Avenue or whatever so they don't have to look at this
stripped portion of land but for everybody along this area up here, we're
going to be looking at a mining operation and that's not really the reason
that we bought into that property in the first place. Also if we go back
to this location here. My lot is located right there. Directly across
from here. I do see that area most of the year, especially in winter. I'm
going to have to listen to all of that activity as well as my neighbors who
are just starting to move in now. I'll have to listen to all that activity
and deal with the dust while the whole operation is going on. And again,
that's 6 days a week from 7:00 to 6:00 at night. That's not a real
pleasant idea. Also, around the turn of the century, this was a large hill
right here. The railroad came through and dug their way straight through
here. There are very sheer bluffs on both sides that are not vegetated and
they haven't been since the turn of the century. Erosion has not been a
problem for 90 some odd years. I don't know why there's a problem now. I
would strongly suggest that you take a hike down this railroad tracks,
11 which is supposedly going to become a bike trail. Walk down the railroad
tracks and take a look at the views for yourself. It's very beautiful and
you'll also see the sheer cliffs here that are not vegetated and the
erosion is not a problem. This cliff over here is not nearly as sheer as
the cliffs over in this area here. 5o it was basically just dug out.
Nothing was done to handle the erosion problem and it hasn't been a problem
up until apparently now. Also, if you continue walking down this trail,
you'll look down in this valley and it's a very beautiful valley. You'll
probably see a lot of deer and that type of thing. There is a creek that
comes through here. There's two creeks on the other side over here. If
they come in here and start tearing all this out, now you get to view a
mining operation rather than the natural beauty that is there and I would
strongly suggest before you make a decision, that you do actually hike down
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 23 ,
that trail from TH 101 up to CR 4, and take a look at the entire operation
that you're discussing. You'll see it's really a very beautiful area and i
it would be I think a very poor...and I am again very concerned about the
ground water. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to address the 1
Commission?
Jeff Michell: I'm Jeff Michell from 9961 Deerbrook Drive. I have a 1
question to the city staff first. Is there a timeframe or limit attached
to your recommendation for this project?
Krauss: For the activity to be completed?
Jeff Michell: Yeah. 1
Krauss: They're request to us outlines this being completed either this
summer or early next spring. We have not set a deadline...accepted what
they've told us. But it may be appropriate to put a condition in. It
certainly could be added.
Jeff Michell: Yeah, I'd like to make that request. And I'd also like to
reiterate some of the concerns that staff and the city attorney have raised
with regard to making sure that suitable performance guarantees or letters
of credit or whatever they are, are in place to make sure that the
development comes off as predicted. My neighbor has illustrated I think II
pretty nicely that there's trade -offs in this. It's not, it may be a, seem
like a win situation in some aspects of this property but there's some
things that are being given up in a really beautiful and natural place. We'
don't have any lakes down there but we've got a really nice woods that's
going to be different when this is all over. And if it's going to be
different, it'd better be nice and different. If it's half completed and II
not very nice, I think that would be a tragedy. That's all.
Batzli: Thank you.
Emily Pischleder: Emily Pischleder, 185 Pioneer Trail. I was just
wondering if you're going to be mining out in the area that was mined out
in '87? Are you going to be taking any more dirt out of there that you did"
then and you will be trucking it out on the road that you used at that
time? Would it run through Dornkempers? Is that the way you're going to
truck it out? 1
Rick Sathre: Yes.
Emily Pischleder: Then I'm wondering if you're going to be taking more out"
of the area that was mined out in '87. Which is directly behind my house.
Right by the radio tower.
Rick Sathre: The proposal is to mine or remove clay from that area and
just to the north of it but also the majority of the material would be
removed from the area farther south from where it was mined before.
11
11
Planning Commission Meeting
II July 1, 1992 - Page 24
II Emily Pischleder: Okay, but you will be taking some more out of that area
again?
Rick Sathre: Yes.
II Emily Pischleder: Okay.
II Rick Sathre: The northerly seepage pond that we show is just northwest of
that old mined area. As long as I'm up here, could I speak to the ground
water issue?
11 Batzli: Sure.
Emily Pischleder: Well that area hasn't had anything done to it...radio
II tower that they approved at that time also. And we did the same thing when
we bought our house. When we built our house it was because of the view so
we don't have anything to look at now.
II Dennis Bartholow: Yeah that area has been stripped and nothing was done to
take care of it.
I I Batzli: The northern part?
Dennis Bartholow: The norther part. The confidence level that after this
II project that it will be repaired is really quite minimal based on past
history of what we've seen happened there.
II Batzli: Okay, thank you. Do you want to address the ground water issue?
Rick Sathre: Yes, thank you. Ground water movement is, as you might
expect, toward the river. The ground water levels are higher as you move
I away from the valley or move into the bluffs. The river, the Minnesota
River is at about 700. Elevation 700 and I think the testimony you heard
was that the ground water where their well is, the water that they're
I drawing must be at about 750 or 740. Something like that. You well's 160
feet deep?
Dennis Bartholow: No. We hit water at 160 and the well is around 200
II feet.
Rick Sathre: Okay. So they're down, they're probably down at about 700.
II The same elevation that the river is. As was mentioned, the bottom of that
seepage pond that's on the board there now is at about elevation 800 which
would be oh about 50 feet above the top of the ground water table and about
I 100 feet above where their drawing their water from. Now movement of the
ground water that, movement of water that seeps into the ground at this
location would, the water would follow that general gradient the same as
all the rest of the water that's moving through the soil there which is
II towards the river. Water that seeps into the ground here should not move
toward those neighbors on the other side to the north. It actually should
be moving towards the river. I don't have anything with me tonight to
II prove that but.
Dennis Bartholow: Why would the water move towards the river?
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 25 1
Rick Sathre: Because it's a downhill gradient. It just naturally flows
downhill through the soil. 1
Dennis Bartholow: Right, so if it flows downhill in this direction...wants
to flow into the river. The river isn't...ground water. 1
Rick Sathre: Partially it is.
Dennis Bartholow: Partially but not a whole lot. That water can still
flow in both directions. Furthermore we have a seepage pond to the
northern portion as well as the southerly portion. Actually we've got 3
seepage ponds. One of them is directly across the railroad tracks from my
property. It's maybe at the most 400, maybe 500 feet away from my well as
the crow flies.
Batzli: Do you have any evidence or understanding of what would be
required for filtration of water to make it safe down to an existing well?
Rick Sathre: I'm not prepared to speak to it now. From my engineering
background, I've read studies of how far septic system, waste water had to II
move through soil to cleanse itself. When we're designing sewage, septic
tank systems. Drainfield systems. We're always careful to site the well II
75 or 100 feet away from the drainfields so there's adequate horizontal
separation. It would be certainly the water that you're discharging out of
your, into your drainfield would be more polluted or have more, well it's 11
waste water. It's your household waste water. That water would be much
more polluted, if you want to call it that than the general surface runoff
from the farmland. Certainly the agricultural land or any land, grass has
pollutants in it. But they're filtered out through movement through the II
soil.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the
Commission?
Jerry Bertsch: I'm Jerry Bertsch, 8556 Irwin Road in Bloomington. I'm the
proud owner of Lot 8, Block 1, Deerbrook. I have the largest lot•in
Deerbrook. I just got in from out of town. I don't know much about the
project. I was quite impressed with your presentation and I'm not here to
strifle entrepreneurism. If you have clay, you should be entitled to take II
it off the property. However, I do have concerns about my property which
all of it borders the railroad track on the other side that you're
intending to do. I don't have a problem with this as long as this II commission understands that this thing can't go on for a period of years.
I agree with their concerns. If it's a short term project, let it be done
but I expect the commission, representing me and the rest of the property
owners to make sure that there is a plan for restoration of the property. II
That the topsoil is replaced as they had discussed. That there's no effect
on my side of the railroad tracks, especially the creek and that was
something I hadn't thought about earlier because that seeping pond could I
effect that creek and that's one of the reasons I bought that property is
the creek down there. It's absolutely gorgeous. And if that disappears,
it's really going to be a problem. There is, as long as there is
guarantees. Bonds or letters or credit, I'm sure you folks can work
everything out in terms of making sure there is guaranteed restoration.
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 26
The mature trees on that southeastern, or yes. Southwestern corner, as long
as they will stay there, that's important. And of course no effect on the
ground water. So you have quite a job ahead of you to make sure that these
things are going to be kept for the rest of us and I wish you the best of
11 luck. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Would someone else like to address the Commission at
this time?
Richard Vogel: I'm Richard Vogel and I live at 105 Pioneer Trail. One
concern that just came up tonight, when the new mining ordinance was put
into effect a year ago or whenever it was, there as a lot of effort I was
told made into that ordinance regarding setbacks from adjoining property
owners. Now I'm hearing tonight that, in this case, to my knowledge this
is one of the first times that will be tested. All of a sudden that
doesn't apply. And I don't think a 300 foot setback from an adjoining
property owner is unreasonable. At that time that was what was arrived at.
The other thing is, I guess for my own selfish reasons I have some property
in Hennepin County that borders this project. For 4 years now there's been
nothing done to that hole that's up there and from what I've heard at other
meetings on the south property, I don't know if we're getting any closer to
getting any resolutions on that either. I think it's in court right now.
One of the things Mr. Sathre said about the bond, and I hope I'm using
these terms right. One of his objections to it was, they didn't know when
the mining operation, whether it was going to be a 1 year, 2 year, a 10
year or 20 year operation and that's what really worries me up here. The
mining operations I've seen, they all keep going. Maybe there will be
termination next spring or whenever this is done and maybe a year later
they'll be in for another permit to do something else.
Batzli: On that particular issue, I think that the applicant said that the
' tree reforestation on the north /south boundary is the one that they
couldn't, they wouldn't want to implement because of that timing problem.
The restoration of the main area which would be mined, the problem wasn't
the timing. It was a question of they weren't actually going to perform
the work so they wanted the contractor on the hook.
Richard Vogel: Okay. But all I'm saying is what I heard was he didn't
' know when the operation was going to be for 1, 2 or 20 years or whatever.
I guess I'm disappointed in, you say the planner for promoting this I guess
mostly because the setbacks from adjoining property owners on the new
ordinance that was put into effect that was supposed to be okay, are going
to be dropped. And I think the bond, letter of credit or whatever it is,
I'm not sure. I did not get the report here what they're asking for but I
think if 540,000.00 is the figure, you can't do very much for $40,000.00.
And if this property is left set, who is going to reforest it or who is
going to take care of it then if it's dropped? Also I'm told on the south,
the old Moon Valley, that they are saying that they can mine directly up to
the property line of the north property because they own the property on
both sides. I would hate to see that happen. Now I don't know if this is
so or not but that's what I have heard. Eventually those steep slopes are
' going to give way. Maybe not this year, next year but eventually they are.
They don't loosen all at once. You get heavy rains and a little bit slips.
Some more heavy rains and eventually something does go. But basically I
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 27 i
would like, if anything is done here, there should be a timeframe. I think
it could be more detailed what is really going to go on there and I think II
the setbacks for the new ordinance should be strictly adhered to. Thank
you.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? 1
Cathy Bartholow: I'm Cathy Bartholow. My husband, Dennis already spoke.
We're at 9841 Deerbrook and I guess the only thing I would add is that II personally I'm not, I wish you well in business. This has, you know it's
kind of hard. We watched the one before this. We're measuring back and
forth what, personally we bought our property and built our dream home on 11
that land and you who are in business. I think it comes down to
accountability and what I learned from reading your planning report, as to
the history and the track record and not knowing you all, I have that
report really to base my concerns on, is that somebody will be accountable ,I
for this and that everything that everybody has said so far, there are
trade offs and somebody will make sure that it is a safe operation and that
it is reforested with, not seedlings this big but reforested when you're li
talking reforestation. What does all these things mean? When you're
saying reseeding it, well I know from seeding my own lawn, you can't just
throw grass on there and have it grow. It takes work and it takes making
sure that that does happen and we want to make sure somebody's accountable II
to making sure that does happen and we're not seeing anything documented
for us to protect us from that standpoint. And that's all I guess I would
ask. Thank you. 1
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Okay. 1
Rick Sathre: I'm a small businessman too, just like Mr. Zwiers and maybe
many of you. I see, well mining operators are kind of lumped with used car"
salesmen and maybe attorneys and bad engineers.
Batzli: Geez, that hurt.
Rick Sathre: Wasn't that terrible? II
Batzli: I'm an engineer and an attorney.
II
Rick Sathre: Dog gone it. Well, I put myself in there too. I know Tom
Zwiers to be a hard working, honest man. He wants to do what's right and II
he doesn't like being bureaucratically nickeled and dimed to death just
like everybody else doesn't want that. He wants to do what needs to be
done and he's approaching this new permit in a very straight forward manner
and I know he'll live up to the terms of the permit if it's issued. The
II
old mining operation is a second, you know it's a different thing. It
reminds me a little of a farm. The farmers came in ever so long ago and
stripped the land of all it's vegetation and every year they do the same
thing and they put in a crop and take it in the fall and use it to survive."
That's a little like what he's doing and I hope he, when he's done with it
puts it back so everybody can enjoy it. I guess that's your goal. Mr.
Vogel mentioned the fact that it would be prudent to have a 300 foot
setback for the edge of the grading or the edge of the mined area. On that
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 28
north 45 acres, I guess technically we probably are proposing to mine it
but it's more like a grading operation for a subdivision. We're grading
slopes that are no steeper than 3:1 and most of them are more like 7% and
10% which are fairly flat slopes. So imposing the 300 foot standard here
where technically it is mining but it doesn't look like mining. I don't
know if it passes the smell test or not. But we think we're, by going
within 300 feet of the property boundary, it allows us to better cut off
the water that's going over the edge of the ravines. We're getting out
near the property boundaries so we can slope the ground back into the
center of the property and get the water to run to those seepage ponds. If
we don't go out, if we stay more than 300 feet away from the boundaries,
11 that just means we can't do that job the way we're proposing to. And again
Mr. Vogel was concerned about restoration and the when of it. Staff report
says restore the land in phases, and that's what our proposal is. As each
area is excavated, topsoil would be respread in the street areas as it's
done. The mining operation on this north 45 acres, the clay, the intent is
to try to get it out, all of it out this year. If that doesn't happen,
then it would be next spring. With some luck and if the approvals don't
drag on too long, if they are forthcoming, then we try to beat the weather.
The contractor at the landfill definitely wants to get the clay over there
this year and if it doesn't come from this site, for whatever reason,
there's another site that already has a permit issued so he could get it
from another place too. But the material on this site is very tight. It's
a very tight clay. It's better for the closure of the landfill than most
clays that you find and so that's why they've sought to take it from this
site. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Conrad moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
,, Batzli: Jeff, do you want to lead us off?
Farmakes: I'm not an expert in water issues. I'm assuming the city has
II people there. I think it's an understandable concern for property owners.
I'm looking back, we've heard words like accountability and responsibility
and so on. I'm disturbed by the packets that I've read in the past and my
I involvement here on the issue of good faith will we enter into these
things. Particularly with this operation. I think that there's some
accountability or the attitude in dealing with the city in the past and I
I would certainly recommend that the Council would, the city be very careful
in how they bond, this performance bond goes through or letter of credit or
however the city takes it. I question how they're arriving at *40,000.00.
If that's a rule of thumb that they use or general thing they pull out of a
II hat or is that involved in litigation that's involved afterwards? And then
the issue of the trees, there's no dollar figure on that. And the issue of
timing, as to when that would take place and when they would have to, is
II that also a performance type bonding situation? Or would they have to ask
for another permit in stages and so on? The issue that was brought up on
the safety, I think that's a legitimate issue as well. Those roads back in
I there are not very safe. In fact I couldn't think of probably some more
dangerous roads than you can find in the State than back in there along
that bluff. I'm really not a water engineer as I said before I started out
i
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 29 1
so I really can't address the issue of the water quality but I certainly
think you're entitled to find out how that would effect your, and what cost
if it did, effect it. That you'd be looking at or the city would be
looking at. What headaches that would provide.
Batzli: I have a question before we move on here Paul. And that is, there'
isn't much in the conditions as far as conditions to insure that the
existing wooded areas are saved, if you will. There's nothing about II staying a certain distance away or erecting snow fences or illustrated on
the plans that these are, do not disturb areas. How are we intending to
look at those issues?
Krauss: Chairman Batzli, I think you're raising a real good point. We do
have a canned set of conditions that we apply to subdivisions. It would be
wholly appropriate to insert those here. Frankly, you know we've put a lotil
of work into these reports and conditions but we simply are unable to
conceive of all the situations that may occur which is one of the reasons
for bringing it in front of people like you. I think that's a good
condition to add. We certainly have required that on another development. II
Batzli: But are you comfortable that there's a plan somewhere or something
in the conditions that illustrates exactly where they're going to remove
this clay and which areas are do not disturb areas on the site?
Krauss: Yeah. The plan that we have is quite explicit on that account.
It's comparable to plans that we receive for residential subdivisions and II
I'm comfortable in that regard. However, we normally do add conditions
that would be appropriate here as to establishing snow fenced areas outside
the drop line of trees and if they do damage trees that are not supposed to
be taken, that there is compensation for that that makes it pretty onerous.
That is again a condition that we placed on other subdivisions.
Emmings: Just a couple of things. Basically I'm going to go along with
what the staff has proposed because I think there's obviously been a
tremendous amount of thought and care given to this, all the issues in
here. I thought there should be, I thought whenever we had an interim use II
permit that we always had a termination. Either an event or a date. I
assume that the event here is the ruining of 250,000 cubic yards of clay but
I think maybe what we should do is add a condition that says, the
termination will be when 250,000 cubic yards of clay have been mined or by
July 1, 1993, whichever comes first.
Tom Zwiers: ...has a time limit on that when he has to beat it and then hell
has a penalty clause. If he hasn't got it completed, and I can find out
when that date is Steve but it isn't very long I know and then he gets
penalized.
Emmings: Is it this year?
Tom Zwiers: I believe it's in the spring of next year.
Emmings: Okay, so if we made it July though, that wouldn't. That's a
year. That's a whole year from now. That shouldn't get.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 30
Tom Zwiers: We'd better have it hauled by then or we'll be...
Emmings: I just think there ought to be a date in addition to the event
that we can look to. And I would imagine if they're not done, they can come
back and say we need more time. But I think that date needs to be in
there. The only other condition. I guess, I think that the potential
effect on ground water for people with wells is serious enough so that the
city engineer ought to look at that before it gets to the City Council and
we ought to be well satisfied that this is not going to have an effect on
ground water. I agree with Jeff on the road thing as potentially a very
serious traffic or safety problem. I don't know what can be done there but
again the city engineer should know. What can be done to make that as safe
as possible for people who use that road. Otherwise I'd go along with
what's in the staff report.
1 Krauss: If I may, as to the road. We've asked, technically where the road
exists out onto Pioneer is not in Chanhassen which is why we put a
condition in here that the Eden Prairie City Engineer be brought into this.
Because we want to make sure that whatever needs to be done to protect
safety is done. Pioneer Trail is a road designed for very heavy use. It
was rebuilt in the not too distant past. It is fully able to handle that
kind rta of traffic
. Nowha
II , you may not want it to do it constantly and we could
certainly undersnd tt but it is designed for that kind of use.
Emmings: I don't know the road right at that spot but what I heard
somebody here say is that you've got a situation with a dip and you come
over a hill and there could be a truck stopped waiting to turn. You're
11 just asking for it.
Krauss: And there is a condition regarding posting of trucks hauling signs
but that is why we did ask that this be coordinated through the city of
Eden Prairie.
Emmings: That's it for me.
1 Batzli: Okay, Matt.
1 Ledvina: I think Paul did an excellent job of putting this together.
There's a lot of issues that are involved in this type of project. I think
the waiver of the 300 foot setback is a very reasonable proposal. It
allows the applicant to work within the open area and allows also the trees
11 to be saved on the property and to fix the wrongs that have been created in
the past. If we actually did use that 300 foot setback, then the area that
was disturbed previously in the northern corner wouldn't be fixed. So I
I think that's very important that we have the opportunity to regrade that
and fix that. I have some concerns about the dollar value for the letter
of credit. I can see that when you disturb 22 acres, you can burn up
$40,000.00 very quickly and I can envision that that number for restoration
II actually doubling so I would like to see some hard numbers discussed in
terms of what it would take there. I think you can have a rule of thumb
but if you would have to go out and hire contractors to do the work, the
I dollars per acre that the city might be looking at may be something that
they can do internally and don't have overheads added to it or something
but I think that, given the scope of the project, the $40,000.00 would be
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 31 1
definitely on the low end of value of the restoration. So I'd like that
number be evaluated. Two of the residents talked about the potential or a II
stream bed or creek bed. I hadn't heard anything or hadn't seen anything
in the staff report on that. Is that involved in the project at all or is
that just?
II
Rick Sathre: Let's use one of the overheads and we'll work it out on that.
Maybe the neighbors can help here too because I'm not sure where, exactly '
where it runs but I see a major ravine over here on the west side and it
leads to this point. I know that it goes down through here and it drains
out into the river valley there. It must cross under the, I think I see
the path right here. The ponding site that we're talking about for the II southwesterly seepage pond would actually be right over in here. I'm not
sure how that would effect the creek. I don't think it would effect it in
any way. 1
Ledvina: So the grading would not effect the appearance or the topography
of the creek?
II Rick Sathre: No, because the creek is several hundred feet away from these
properties.
Ledvina: Okay, thank you. I also support identifying a duration for the II
project and think July 1st would be a good time line. I think that's all I
have at this point.
II
Batzli: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: I think the applicant...concerned with point number 7 on the 1
guarantee of $40,000.00 and who should do it and I guess I would like, our
attorney suggested that the applicant... I'd like to make some connections
between 6 and 7. I don't know where the $40,000.00 came from and I'd sure
like to make sure that we tie things together. A plan versus the money and/
again I don't know if $40,000.00 is right. It may not be and I think the
key to what we're doing here is that we tie a plan that's approved to cost 11
that's realistic. I think that's essential and maybe the $40,000.00 was
right but I would not, I'd really rather not see this go to Council until
there's a connection between a plan and the cost. It's sort of make
believe in my mind at this point in time and that's okay as it passes
through us but I think somebody's got to react to something that's real andll
not guesswork. And if it's less than that, the applicant benefits. But on
the other hand, if it's more, I think we've got to guarantee that this site ll
is taken care of. I know we have to guarantee that the site's taken care
of and I think staff's aimed in that direction and I know the applicant has
full intention of performing. I think the other concern that the applicant
had on 13, I believe it was and again, I guess the guarantees that Rick was '
talking about. How we would restore something on the bluff and whatever
and you're talking about something we don't know anything about. So here
we are. We're talking about something the applicant doesn't know anything I
about and we're using general words and again I guess there's got to be a
plan and I think staff is asking for that. There just has to be something
in front of us. I don't know how much money the applicant stands to make il
on this but I think there's some downstream obviously in terms of
property available for development. There's certainly going to be some
II
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 32
money sometime to repay and to make this property subdividable for
' residential development. But I think on point number 13, I think there
needs to be some financial guarantees and I too agree, until somebody shows
me how this works, I don't have a clue but that's for staff and the
' applicant to work out. The seepage versus the holding and the ground
water, absolutely essentially. Somebody's got to guarantee it. It doesn't
take place until there's a guarantee. And I guess in the real world there
are no guarantees but I just wouldn't feel comfortable at all if we had any
possible, any possibility of contaminating the ground water that people are
using for their well. Not at all. And I don't know the difference between
seepage and holding. I think I have a clue about what it is but I just
' need some experts talking to us about this and informing the City Council.
They should not do a thing until that expert advice is given. Shouldn't.
The time of excavation, absolutely. There has to be an end.
1 Batzli: Do you like July 1?
Conrad: July l's okay. I think that's generous but it's there and it's
' probably going to be done before that but there has to be a time. I'd like
to see our engineer review traffic safety. Maybe that's not our road to be
doing it but whoever is right, that they be looking at that for safety
' considerations. That has to happen. Paul, there's an inspection fee of
8900.00. How are inspection fees handled? That's 8900.00 for a one time
shot or do we do this over?
' Krauss: No. It's taken out of the Uniform Building Code and it applies in
this case and it's actually, I honestly don't know how they come up with it
but it's to cover our cost of going out and monitoring the site.
II Conrad: Throughout the one year of excavation?
Krauss: Yeah, so we would have an engineering technician going out there
II periodically and making sure that the grades that are being set are those
which are on the plan and that there's erosion controls being maintained
and generally that the site's being operated in an acceptable manner.
1 Conrad: And how often would you, what makes you think that would be done?
Krauss: It really depends on, you know after the first few visits, if
things are going well. You can probably go it on 5 or 6 visits over the
course of the operation and then responding to complaints, if we receive
any, on an as needed basis. Additionally, one of the things that's
II required in here is that the applicant has to give us an as built survey of
finished grades. So we're not trying to prove that he did what he was
supposed to do. He's got to prove it to us through a survey.
1 Conrad: What would you charge a City Engineer out at on an hourly basis?
What do you charge the swamp committee for your time? No, I don't really
' mean that but, what's an engineer charged out at?
Krauss: We do not have a rate schedule that's set up. I mean I can tell
you what the City Engineer.
II Conrad: ...how much might we charge an engineer's time on it?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 33 '
Krauss: Actually Ladd, my time is not charged to any. I mean my salary's •
drawn off of projects but we don't charge the project. If you hire a
consulting firm, if the consulting engineer makes 830.00 an hour, they may I I
charge you 890.00 an hour to retain him.
Batzli: Paul, you've done a great job of avoiding the question. Where arell
you going with this?
Conrad: I'm just trying to figure out if we did inspections, I don't know I
what it takes because this is a big project.
Batzli: Yeah, it's huge. So do you think it's low? Do you think it's I
high?
Conrad: What we have are basically 10 hours packed into inspection over
the.
Krauss: You're assuming that (a), the city engineer's going to go out
there all the time which is probably not the case. It's probably going to I
be one of the technicians, which is considerably less expensive. And that
(b), the City is making a profit on inspections by paying the engineer's or
technician's salary and then we have a billable that we charge as well. Well
don't operate that way. We are still a public entity and we cover our
expenses.
Batzli: Do you think it's low Ladd? '
Conrad: I guess the issue is not the money. The issue is making sure we '
have the inspections. I don't have a standard to put forth but I'm a
little bit nervous about, you know when I see 8900.00 for inspecting, and I
hear what Paul's saying. We don't relate hours to money for fees yet on
the other hand I do. It's like, I just think we should be there and I
think that relates a little bit to the history we've had with this project.
I'm just not convinced yet. We've had too many things that have been in
court. Too many problems. Just flat out. Until I'm comfortable, I would,
we've just got to be real careful. Not holding things up. The safety, you
talk about inspection. The 300 foot setback. We waived it. We waived it
and I had a tough time. We waived it on all sides. Where did we waive the
300 foot setback?
Krauss: Basically, this is very rough. You can't scale off of this
drawing but if you wanted to look at the 300 foot line, it's someplace back!'
like that. The lines overlap as you get up towards the north end. Maybe
in fact, it's probably even a little more significant than that. It
probably comes to a point like in here.
Conrad: So we waive it on all sides because of the benefit we're going to
get through some future, through excavation or through grading?
Krauss: For the reasons that I mentioned in that handout. Now the points
of where this busts the 300 foot setback are along the railroad tracks here
and along this part of the Eden Prairie line and down in this corner. This
part of the operation is consistent with that. And you know honestly, I
don't like to go back to intent of the draftees of the ordinance but I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 34
wrote the ordinance. I wrote it with the City Engineer and we were quite
' explicitedly trying to deal with, that provision dealt with major mining
operations and we only have one of those in town. But the ordinance was
designed to deal in other respects with all types of grading in the city.
If you want to move, as a homeowner, if you want to move 50 yards of dirt,
you need a permit under that ordinance and there is no setback requirement
or when you grade for a subdivision, there is no setback requirement.
We've also approved, I think at least 4 major excavation operations where
that setback was frankly waived. One of them was on the McGlynn site. Now
they've been approved but they haven't been operated on. They haven't been
conducted. One was on the McGlynn site, which would have frankly lowered
the site and prepared it for development as well as getting material for TH
5. We had one on, the fellow's name escapes me but, Jeurissen. Bruce
Jeurissen. Further down Pioneer Trail. And Halia had similar requests.
Conrad: The purpose of the setback, primarily because you drafted it, the
300 feet is to primarily protect neighbors right?
Krauss: Well exactly. So when we think that, the important point is we
think that largely that goal has been attained through the existing
topography. Through the preservation of the trees. Through the
limitations on the hours of operation. Through the ability to shut them
down if dust becomes a problem. The ability to shut them down Saturdays if
that's a problem. You also have very significant terrain that separates
this site. I mean the homes located west of this property have some
remarkable views of the Minnesota River Valley and they're in a lot of
different directions, depending on the way the houses are placed. This
line appearing here though is a little bit misleading. The houses are
' quite a ways back from there. This railway corridor is 100 -150 feet wide
and the homes, I don't have the exact information but the home is someplace
back up in here. There's a very deep valley there before it goes back up
again. So there's significant topographic buffering, I suppose inbetween
there. And this, again this is a limited duration request. It is a use
that's a permitted use in this district under the interim use guidelines.
We hope we take great care with the fact. We understand that this is an
area that's in transition and we certainly don't want to, I mean there's a
balancing act here and we don't want to step on the toes of our residents.
At the same time we want to be reasonable if we can with the request as
long as it's consistent with our ordinances and goals.
Batzli: Let me just ask for one clarification. You said there's a buffer
there. What you really mean, it's a linear distance buffer but it's not a
line of sight buffer, correct?
Krauss: Well, I think it's actually both but for me to, I can't stand here
' Commissioner and tell you that from every bedroom window of every home,
that you'll never see this because we haven't made that attempt to figure
that out. But I know that when you're on this site and looking back
towards those homes, the few homes that you can see are fairly obscure
angles and the fact is, is those homes that can see this site, or at least
the upper portion of the site, are looking at a field with a remnant mining
operation in it now. When this is all said and done, they're going to be
' looking at a field. So it's not really, you know it's going to be 10 feet
lower but when you're 300 feet away, it's not going to be perceptible.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 35
Erhart: Well I think it looks like a good project. We're solving a number
of things here. We've got a hole there now. This is going to finish it
off. It's going to help cap a landfill in Eden Prairie once and for all
with some clay that's not too far away. If we don't allow this one,
they're probably going to be hauling it through the city like we had what,
a year ago?
Krauss: There were hauling out of Chaska along Pioneer Trail.
Erhart: And we had an accident up here and somebody got killed or whatever
it was. What was it?
Krauss: I don't know.
Erhart: Anyway, I drive TH 101 and those trucks came down TH 101 which is 1
curved, I'd just as soon leave them in Eden Prairie and get the job done.
I agree, that's one of the points I had, we should set a time limit on
here. I was going to suggest one year from approval. July is certainly I
okay. In either case it solves a problem and if it's acceptable to the
applicant. I think we do need to check that ground water issue. Some
expert who can give us a qualified answer on that. Paul, you're going to
have to justify to the Council this 40 grand, otherwise you're going to
spend another hour at the Council meeting discussing that and I know
nobody, you or the Council doesn't want to do that. One big thing here and
that is, I think what I'm being sold, Rick sold, is selling us on that
we're going in and what we're doing is landscaping this piece of property
and that's why we need the variance. And that's fine. I heard everybody
say we want, not only set a time table but.we want to make this final. I
understand, the way I'm being sold on this variance, this is the final.
This is final, final, final. Therefore it is simple in my mind that we
ought to tie with this variance that the owner and future owner gives up
the right to further mine this property and make it final. Tie the
variance to that.
Krauss: Tim, if I can clarify a point. You came in part way through the
conversation. We reviewed this matter further, after the report went out
with the City Attorney and realized that the approach with the variance was
the wrong methodology here. That the ordinance does provide for a waiver
of conditions. But your concern as to a prohibition against further mining '
requests, I guess I don't see any reason why that couldn't be part of a
condition.
Erhart: That's what I would say. If it's a waiver, then tie the waiver toll
relinquish any future mining rights to this property. And if we're going
to finish it off, let's finish it off. This really is adjacent to a I
residential development at this time and it's inappropriate to continue to
mine. It's probably not big enough. So we really restricted it to the 300
foot setback. 5o I'm sensing that the developer, or the applicant is...
impossible so, that's the only thing I've got.
Ledvina: I'd like to make a motion.
Batzli: I'd like to talk first. I need to say something. '
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 36
11
Ledvina: I'm sorry.
Erhart: I move we let Brian talk.
' Batzli: Okay. But I appreciate you jumping in there. We need to catch
up. I like the timeframe. I think we need something in there, before you
make the motion. I hope you have something in there about the trees. As
far as setting something up. I think the applicant raised at least 3
' concerns. One was the access easement. I assume that we'll look at that
and amend that condition after we've had a chance to look at that. The
other one was this $40,000.00. I think we've kind of beat that. I also
' thought $900.00 was low but if staff is comfortable with that. I don't
think it matters what the money is. I would rather see, I just want to
make sure that we're going to be out there checking to make sure that
everything's going according to how we think it should go. And what that
' means is, we need some good plans from the applicant regarding erosion
control. The staging. The restoration and things like that and then we
follow up on those items because I think that if we don't follow up, then
who do we have to blame later on if it doesn't go. And these people who
actually oversee it, I'd appreciate it if you'd call our staff if you see
something that doesn't look quite right. The timing problem of the
' reforesting the mine bluff face, I'd like to ask our attorney if this
somehow provides an improper linkage between this property and the southern
piece. That we shouldn't be doing this.
Tom Scott: No.
Batzli: Okay.
Tom Scott: We've reviewed that and we didn't think there was any problem.
Batzli: Okay. If the applicant doesn't have a problem with doing this,
and it's merely a question of timing regarding providing the financial
guarantee, I guess I'd like to see something worked out. Interestingly
enough, if we get financial guarantees today for a certain dollar amount,
by the time they're done in 20 years, that's not going to buy one tree
unless you require it to be increased over time. So actually the
applicant, he's putting away money today and he's not going to be able to
do it for that amount of money in the future. So I don't know exactly what
you're really looking for here. I don't know what could be enforceable. I
don't think you really want a situation where he has to add to the
guarantee over a period of years because the cost of trees keeps going up.
So I don't know what you really have in mind here and I don't know that we
can cover it.
' Krauss: Well, if I could for just a sec. Mr. Zwiers is a businessman and
he understands contractual obligations and we try to operate in as
professional and businesslike manner as possible. I think you're aware
11 that for many years we've required developers to enter into development
contracts and post financial guarantees. Now it would still be my
recommendation that we get some sort of a financial guarantee but how we
can structure that is open to some discussion. If possible I suppose that
something could be written to the chain of title to obligate all future
property owners or something like that. But it may well be that if there's
i
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 37 1
a dollar amount figure set for this, that there be an annual contribution II
made to an account. An interest bearing account that would just be set
aside to accrue for this operation so that at some point in the future,
whenever Mr. Zwiers is ready to do it, he just withdraws the funds from
that to do it. We need to talk about that but we're willing, I guess to 1
plant something.
Batzli: See my point is, if he's going to be done by July 1st of next year'
on this piece of property, for him to default on this condition down the
road, what are you going to do?
Krauss: Well and that's why we need to sit down. I need to sit down with 1
Mr. Scott and Mr. Zwiers and figure out the appropriate way to approach
that but I think if we're creative enough.
Tom Scott: The simplest way would be to require them to keep the letter of
credit in effect.
Batzli: But that basically ties up money for. 1
Tom Scott: That ties up a certain amount of assets that have to be behind"
that letter of credit. There may be some other ways. Maybe there's a
bonding mechanism or some other way we can do that. I guess that's what
Paul's saying. I mean we could just point blank say, letter of credit has
to remain in effect. Maybe that's what we'll have to do but there's
hopefully some other mechanism we could use too.
Batzli: I think the waiver of the setback is appropriate here in that,
given what they're trying to do here. However, if we get into another
situation where someone's going to go fairly close to their lot line to do
something similar, how are we going to distinguish that over this type of
an operation? Is it the creation of some sort of a steep slope? Is it thel
fact that there wouldn't necessarily be a buffer with a railroad track
running through there? What is it that we point to and say, this is
different? 1
Krauss: First of all there's a waiver. You're not subject to the same
findings that you might be with, precedent setting issues that may be
attended with a variance. I think that's what your concerned about. Very 1
clearly under the waiver provisions, it allows you and the City Council to
evaluate conditions on a site specific basis and make your determinations
as such and not be bound I guess, I would say by the precedent and the
hardship and the other things that come with a variance. What makes this
property or this request reasonable under the waiver I think is very site
specific. There's really no way to work this site in an effective manner
and achieve what we want to achieve and achieve what the owner would like
to achieve without that. To fix the problems that are out there, you've
got to work in that area. I think Commissioner Ledvina pointed out quite
aptly that you can't put the ponding in where you need to put it unless you
work within that area. Undoubtedly you'll be confronted by these sorts of
things in the future. We've already processed 3 or 4 of them. We'll
probably get some more but I think you've got to take them on a case by
case basis.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
g
July 1, 1992 - Page 38
Batzli: I guess I'd like maybe a more clear statement of your reasons for
' why we should waive them. I didn't have much time to look at this and I
know we actually spoke earlier on that issue but I just think you should at
least set it out very clearly to the Council why you think this justifies a
waiver and I don't know in my own mind whether it's because it's how we
want it to turn out is a good reason. That could justify anything.
Krauss: Yeah. The addendum that I handed out tonight tries to get at the
' rationale behind the waiver. We can certainly write that into a set of
findings much the same as we would for a variance and lay that out
explicitedly.
' Batzli: Well I don't know. It just kind of caught me as far as being set
out clearly as to what makes this site at least unique enough to waive it
and I get away from the discussion of the variance kind of language but,
' because we'll see more of these and the question is, should we be
recommending to waive it? Shouldn't we? Is there something in the
conditions that talks about the waiver? Adopting a finding of facts to go
with it or rationale?
Krauss: No there is not and what needs to be looked at is in the
conditions where the recommendation takes place. You substitute the waiver
language for where the variance language was. There are findings that are
contained in this addendum.
' Batzli: So you'd like it with a 300 foot setback waived in accordance with
your discussion in this addendum?
' Krauss: Yeah, and then we can certainly clarify those points.
Batzli: Okay. And I think the water's critical. Safety's critical.
Trees, we had talked about. The creek. Make sure that that's not being
adversely effected or if it is being effected, we at least know how and why
and what the effect is. And last but perhaps least, these ponds that we're
creating. Just for the record here. Will these ponds eventually if they
start growing kind of Class B wetlands kind of things around them or in
them or if they even somehow hold water, when cattails start growing and
purple loosestrife and everything else, do these become wetlands and will
they then become untouchable and become part of our mapped wetlands in the
city?
Krauss: Let me give you a two part answer to that. Under local
ordinances, we're in the process of developing an updated wetlands
protection program. Under the draft as it now exists, we've got 4
categories of wetlands ranging from pristine to utilized. Utilizied are
' functionally not defined as wetlands any longer or won't be I supposed if
this ordinance gets adopted the way it's drafted. What utilized means is
that it was specifically designed for a water quality protection or storm
11 water protection function and not as a wetland or wetland remediation. The
second part of that answer comes in because there's not only, for the last
8 years Chanhassen has been operating in a vaccum. You know we've been
protecting wetlands but the rest of the State hasn't. There is a new State
law that does protect wetlands and most of you are aware that I sit on the
committee that's drafting the rules for the new State law. And I had
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 39
explicit language written into that, to the rules so that ponding areas
that are created for non - wetland function purposes are not going to be II defined as wetlands under the State law. Again that's contingent on the
rules being approved as they currently are drafted but I think that that's
the case. So the answer to your question is no, they won't be wetlands.
Batzli: So these grades that we're talking about that Tim wants to say, II
this is it. No more mining at least, these ponds when this land is
developed, will more than likely be wiped out and the water will be
redirected once more.
Krauss: That's not clear.
Erhart: Excuse me. What was that?
. Batzli: Well eventually this property will be developed and they'll look
at this seepage pond in the middle that's kind of mucky, kind of something
and the issue is, they're going to try and do something else to this
property in order to develop it. Now they don't have to save it as a
wetland, Paul just told us. It doesn't hold water. It's going to be kind II
of mucky parts of the year. Who's going to want that in their backyard?
Krauss: Well a couple of points though. We are recommending that an
easement be provided over these water bodies so that the City would be
involved in any decisions to alter it. It may well be that when the land
is developed, it may be more appropriate to put the water someplace else or�
to modify these and in that regard that's no different than most of the
development proposals we see that have some kind of an alteration.
Batzli: My point is this. We're doing it now you know. Granted we don't II
have a site plan in front of us or that we know where the house pads are
going to go but it wouldn't take a whole lot to sit there and say, this is
kind of where you're going to put it. Does it make sense to be directing
all the water to the center of this? Is there any access in to the road t
access this piece? You have to go right through the middle of the muck
you're creating. I don't know. I'm looking at it kind of looking down the
road saying why are we doing this if it doesn't make sense because you know'
that eventually this is going to be a very, you know once the mining on the
south stops, this will be a very attractive parcel to build homes on.
Krauss: The honest answer is we don't know how the development's going to
take place up there. There has been, well under the original Moon Valley
request, the end use plan was developed before the ponding area was I
developed for that site and clearly the road's not in the right place on
this one for that pond area to be where it's going to be. There's plenty
of room to move it up there. This assumes that these are large lot
residential, developed without sewer and water. If sewer and water is
available at some point in the future, well it may be through Eden Prairie.
Eden Prairie has stuff not too far away. Then of course it will be
substantially different. But the fact is, every development in Chanhassen II
has an obligation to manage storm water and maintain water quality.
Whoever develops it, whenever they do it is going to have to meet those
goals. If those ponds serve the purpose, great. If they don't, they'll 11
have to revise them so that they do.
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 40
1
Batzli: I'll leave it up to your professional judgment. My point is that
if this makes sense that we have to do it this way, if there's no
development right there, let's do it this way. But if there's a way that
fits into the grand scheme of things so that we don't end up regrading
' everything 2 or 3 times to develop this in 5 years, I don't know why we're
doing this to create an area which will develop wildlife and do certain
things and then suddenly we're going to grade it up again in 5 years
because the south part has either been mined or else the property generally
1 becomes too valuable to mine so they sell it and develop it. Something
that I don't think really was looked at, and if in fact they're submitting
plans like this for the southern piece for the eventual completion or what
' have you, for purposes of a lawsuit or for whatever purpose, and it doesn't
make any sense at all to what they're doing on the north side, I don't get
it.
' Krauss: I gave some thought and it you may think it's reasonable to do it,
to asking them to modify this based upon the ponding plan so we had a plan
of record and it may not hurt to do that. My reason for not asking them
was, what happens on that site, how residential development occurs is open
to so much conjecture at this point that, am I asking them to spin their
wheels by generating another map? It never hurts to have on in the file
but you know, a lot of things can happen up there to change it. I am
confident though that the grades that will result from this petition are
consistent with residential development. They're not touching the
homesites in the trees which is where the homes want to be. They're not
leaving grades that can't support homes and roads and driveways out in the
field area and I was comfortable that this can support that use.
' Batzli: You're comfortable, I'm comfortable. Okay. Matt, I'd love a
motion.
Ledvina: Okay. I'm going to try. I would like to make a motion that the
Planning Commission recommend that Interim Use Permit #92 -5 for Earth Work
be approved with the waiver of the 300 foot setback subject to the staff
conditions and following modifications and additions. I would like that
' conditions number 6, 7 and 13 be re- evaluated by staff with input from the
applicant. I would like to add several conditions starting with number 15.
That all soil removal according to the grading plan be completed by July 1,
1993. Condition 16. A plan is developed to protect trees as indicated on
the plan and to maintain erosion control during construction. Condition
17. Ground water contamination issues be evaluated to insure protection of
water wells in the vicinity of the site. Condition 18. Develop
considerations for traffic safety on access points to the roadways
involved. And condition 19. That the applicant relinquishes future rights
to future gravel mining activities or potential mining activities at the
site. Is there anything else?
Batzli: Do we have plans that you want to include into the motion?
Krauss: The dated plans?
Batzli: Yes.
Krauss: It's 6/5/92.
1
Planning Commission Meeting II
July 1, 1992 - Page 41
II
Batzli: So, do you want to make your motion in accordance also with those
plans 6/5/92? 1
Ledvina: And also that the activities and conditions of the permit relate
to the plans dated June 5, 1992. 11 Conrad: Point 7, 13 and 14 be reviewed.
Ledvina: 6, 7 and 13.
I
Conrad: 6, 7 and 13 be reviewed.
Ledvina: Be re- evaluated.
1
Batzli: Is there a second?
Erhart: Yeah, I'll second it. I
Batzli: Okay. Discussion Ladd. 1
Ledvina: We had some concerns about the.
Conrad: I don't...staff. That's my biggest concern. To be re- evaluated. II
I don't know what that means.
Erhart: But I think when you go back in the Minutes, I think it's clear II
what we're asking for. Clarify some things. To look at some numbers.
Justify the numbers. Be able to justify the numbers in our recommendation
to Council. Additional recommendations.
II
Farmakes: Are we expecting to see this again?
Batzli: No. We're asking that Paul's prepared when the Council asks him II
those questions I guess.
Conrad: So 6, 7 and 13 Paul, talking about being more accurate where they II
tie in money to plans. Does that mean that the plans will be submitted?
What's the timeframe for these plans? Are they expected to be there for
City Council review or are those things that happen after?
II
Krauss: Speaking for myself, I think clearly we'd want to resolve all
these issues prior to going to City Council. Those are of a magnitude that
they're not administrative.
II
Conrad: Your point Matt on ground water. In his motion Paul, who's
responsibility will that be?
II
Krauss: Frankly we're going to ask the applicant to clarify that. We'll
review the information.
Conrad: It is his responsibility?
Krauss: Well, we're not in the position of preparing submittal materials II
for applicants.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
9
July 1, 1992 - Page 42
Conrad: And that's your intent?
' Ledvina: Right. Just so the issue gets resolved and evaluated.
Krauss: Of course we'll concurrently, I mean we'v sent a copy of this to
the Soil Conservation Service and Carver County Soil Survey and we will get
information as we can get it but I think specifically the applicant's
probably going to have to contract with somebody with some expertise to
prepare an evaluation of that.
Conrad: So let's go back to point number 9 Paul, in terms of the clay
' liner. Who's job is it to presuade us, it's the applicant I assume, to
persuade us that the pond is designed properly.
Krauss: Oh, that's something. This came from my city engineering
department. The applicant hasn't indicated that they have any problem with
that condition. That's a pretty simple design detail that we'll take care
of in- house. I mean they'll give us the revised design and the engineering
' staff will say if it needs to be modified.
Conrad: There was a comment from one of the agencies that was concerned
with that particular aspect of the pond.
Krauss: I think it came from our engineering office.
Conrad: The District, Carver Soil and Water Conservation District. The
clayed area. They were concerned of the clayed area. So who's job?
Erhart: Who would review stuff like that Paul?
Krauss: We do in- house. That's normal.
1 Conrad: So the applicant designs it. I don't know. It just seems like a
real big issue. The whole issue of what we're doing to ground water and we
got one concern from a recommending body or review body and we've got an
issue here that's really big in my mind and I don't know. I guess I'm a
little uncomfortable with how it's solved. Who's got the responsibility?
Batzli: How would you like to see it resolved?
Conrad: I don't know. I just want to make sure somebody's got
I responsibility and we're making changes to the motion here, I want to make
sure that we're guiding staff to make sure somebody's got the onous to
prove it. And ground water is such a key deal. We can't take any chances
on this one. It's not just a passing deal. It's really quite significant.
II Erhart: Rick, where'd you come up with idea? Have you done something like
this before? We've never seen anything like this before.
Rick Sathre: I think you haven't seen it much in Chanhassen because you
have so many clay soils. In the sandier communities of Minnesota, I'm
thinking about Anoka County, North. Andover, Anoka, Coon Rapids. Most of
II the pond sites are seepage ponds. You also see them a lot in Eden Prairie
in the sand soils over in southeastern Eden Prairie mostly. There's many,
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 43 1
many, many depressions that have no outlets and all the drainage has been
just seeping into the ground. So the concern is always, is this going to II
seal up over time? Is it going to fail to function just like a drainfield
might? But that's very common. Very common thing. We're very concerned
about protecting wetlands so that we can promote ground water recharge.
Just a question of are we doing it appropriately here. The soil people,
they raisee that issue too, like you noticed Ladd. Is the water going in
too fast? Should we slow it down so that it's better filtered? That's a
valid issue.
Conrad: So do you prepare Rick, the engineering reports to pacify? How
does this happen? 1
Rick Sathre: Well, I think that we would seek another consultant as well
who specializes in ground water issues.
Batzli: Does this then require borings out there to get the right
filtration?
Rick Sathre: I would think it would be by checking the rate of seepage
through that sand. I think...measuring the rate. It would be an
engineering process. Probably involve a testing lab. 1
Conrad: And does this change over time? Does it get better? Or does it
get worst? Seepage. As long as we prepare it and this thing is filtered
better later on after the original?
Rick Sathre: I think that over time seepage tends to slow down. The
filtration would be better. We don't want to allow the seepage pond to
stop seeping because then you don't solve your basic problem which is
trying to discharge the water back to the ground water. It's a cycle.
Batzli: Assuming then that you need a certain size outlet for this pond II
and the outlet constricts over time, the original calculations for the pond
were done by yourself? Okay.
•
Rick Sathre: In a 100 year storm event right now, that big central pond
would, there'd be about 6 feet of water in the bottom of it and that would
seep out. We're not sure of the seepage rate because we haven't tried to II
measure it. I would expect in those sands that water would drain away at
at least 1 inch per hour. So there would be 6 feet of water depth in that
pond, bang. Right after the storm. 1
Batzli: Is it an expensive process to go to a hydrologist or whoever it is
to take the boring and do that calculation and do it? What are we asking
for to present that kind of evidence to our engineering department for
review? Do you know?
Rick Sathre: All I can do is take a wild guess. I would think that it'd II
be more than $1,000.00 and less than $5,000.00. It is significant. Very
significant.
Conrad: We need our engineering department tell us or tell the
applicant what is expected in this regard. I think the fundamental thing
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 44
r
is we have to protect it. Not even close to taking a chance. Paul and
staff can figure that out.
Batzli: Well, do you want to propose a friendly amendment to that
condition? I don't even remember what.
Conrad: I don't have a clue how I'd word it to tell you the truth. Paul's
heard it.
Batzli: But I think when we've done things like this in the past where we
basically said that, applicant shall provide information to city
engineering for their approval regarding seepage. Whatever we're going to
' say but we've done this in the past. I mean it's up to them to provide
information for us. Satisfactory to us that this isn't going to be a
problem.
Conrad: Matt, do you want to change something?
' Ledvina: Not necessarily but. I've suggested in, condition 17 I stated
that the ground water contamination issue be evaluated to insure protection
of the water wells in the vicinity of the site. If we can also add that
this issue shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the staff prior to the
1 City Council hearing this application. I don't know, does that help?
Conrad: Sure.
II Erhart: I seconded the motion.
' Batzli: Do you accept that amendment?
Erhart: Fine. If you're happy, I'm happy Ladd.
' Batzli: You had another one Ladd. Ground water was one. What was your
other one?
' Conrad: I think we've taken care of it...went back a couple time. I
couldn't find it.
Batzli: The 6, 7 and 13 issue. Re- evaluating.
I Conrad: Well Matt has, and I think staff has heard the issue. I don't
think we need to belabor the point but it is really tying the plan to the
1 cost and the applicant needs that but we need the plan first so we can see
the cost and that's in restoration. We've got to be convinced we know what
we're going to get and the applicant's got to know before this gets to City
11 Council what's expected of them and not after. It can't wait...staff to
work with the applicant.
Batzli: Okay. Is there any other discussion?
II Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Interim Use Permit #92 -5 for earth work, as shown on the plans
dated June 5, 1992, with the waiver of the 300 foot setback, that staff
Planning Commission la g Co ion Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 45 ,
be directed to re- evaluate conditions 6, 7 and 13 with input from the
applicant prior to City Council, and subject to the following conditions: '
1. Provide staff with a copy of the access easement over the off -site
haul road. ,
2. Prior to the start of operations, a truck entrance designed to
minimize tracking of mud and debris into the right -of -way shall be
constructed. Plans should be submitted for approval by the City
Engineer. The operator is responsible for cleaning the public
right -of -way as often as requested by the City Engineer. "Trucks
Hauling" signs shall be posted. '
3. The City of Eden Prairie's Engineer shall be contacted by the operator
prior to start of operations to ensure that concerns they may raise 1
can be adequately dealt with.
4. Use of explosives to support this operation are prohibited. Hours of
operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6 :00 p.m., Monday thru Saturday,'
excluding national holidays. If the city receives complaints
regarding Saturday operations, the City Engineer may require that
these be halted. ,
5. Dust control shall be the operator's responsibility. If conditions
persist which make dust control ineffective, the City Engineer may
require temporary halting of operations.
6. The applicant is required to phase site restoration in a manner
acceptable to the City Engineer. He should provide staff with a
written phasing plan for approval.
7. The applicant shall pay an inspection fee of $900.00 and provide the
city with an acceptable financial security (letter of credit or cash)
in the amount of $40,000. to cover the costs of site restoration.
8. Drainage plans to be reviewed by 8onestroo Engineering prior to City II
Council review. Fees for this shall be paid by the applicant.
9. Provide permanent drainage easements in favor of the city over the
retention basins. Drainage calculations are to be provided to
demonstrate that the ponds are properly sized. Place notice in
chain -of -title that current and future owners are responsible for
keeping the basins functional. When development occurs, the city
would normally accept responsibility for the ponds. The applicant
must demonstrate that all ponds have bottoms located in the sand layer
or structured outlets will be required. A clay liner is required on II
the west edge of the north pond to protect the adjacent side slope.
The applicant shall provide the city with an as -built grading plan of
the ponds to ensure that they comply with approved specifications. ,
10. Provide and maintain an erosion control plan acceptable to the City
Engineer. Designate black dirt stockpile areas for approval by the '
City Engineer.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 46
1
11. Project approval by the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District is
' required.
12. Modify plans for the southern pond to minimize tree loss on the north
side of the pond. The applicant's engineer shall demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, that this ponding area does not
disturb local drainage patterns.
13. Provide staff with an acceptable reforestation plan for the mined
bluff face on the Moon Valley gravel mine site. Adequate financial
guarantees to ensure that the plan is implemented upon the completion
' of mining shall be provided.
14. The applicant's engineer shall prepare a plan to repair erosion damage
found at the two locations on the north site described in the report.
' This plan is to be undertaken as a condition of approval.
15. That all soil removal according to the grading plan be completed
' by July 1, 1993.
16. A plan is developed to protect trees as indicated on the plan and to
' maintain erosion control during construction.
17. Ground water contamination issues be evaluated to insure protection of
water wells in the vicinity of the site and that this issue be
resolved to the satisfaction of city staff prior to going to City
Council.
11 18. Develop considerations for traffic safety on access points to the
roadways involved.
19. That the applicant relinquishes future rights to future gravel mining
' activities or potential mining activities at the site.
All voted in favor except Commissioner Farmakes who opposed and the motion
' carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Batzli: Your reasons.
Farmakes: I just think it's premature. There's too many major unanswered
questions here that if I voted for this, I guess I would be saying that it
didn't make any difference what the answers to those questions would be and
' I think that's true.
Batzli: Okay. Fair enough. The motion carries. When will this be at the
City Council? Do we know?
Krauss: It's scheduled for July 27th. That's subject, to all the ducks
being in order before it goes there and I think what we'll do is we'll
II assure everybody that got a notice that we'll re- notify them of the meeting
date. So if it's on the 27th, we'll notify you. If it's at a later
date...
Batzli: Okay. Thank you all for coming in.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 47 '
Erhart: Can we stop for a second here Brian? I want to clarify something.
For the purpose of shortening these meetings, I really question. This may II
be an opportune time to spend 5 minutes discussing what the function of
the Planning Commission is regarding these kinds of things. Somehow I feel
that maybe some of us think that we are actually writing the actual
development contracts here. I don't think that's what we're doing. I
think we're a recommending body. I think we're a body that's supposed to
kind of kick these things around before they get to Council. Kind of help
them get some of the issues out on the table. Paul, could you be involved 11
with this? I'm looking for, tell me if I'm wrong or right. But kick these
things around. Give staff kind of a trial balloon to get in here and thro
these things at and see what sticks. What doesn't. What the concerns are
so that when it goes to Council, it's something that's...rough edges and
filed off and so forth. I question whether we're trying to get, trying to
be too perfect by the time it leaves here because in fact we're just simply'
making recommendations and raising issues. If I'm wrong, then please
correct me. I think we're all asking these questions. My goodness, it's
quarter to 11:00 and we've only gone through 2 things. Well you started
before I got here but we're spending an enormous amount of time on this
thing and so I don't know. What is the purpose of us? Are we trying to
get everything nailed down here when it leaves? Don't our Minutes count
for something? I always assumed they did. I throw the question out. '
Conrad: I would really debate whether the Council thoroughly digests the
Minutes that we have. The motion, the stuff that Paul, the motion that well
make and the revisions to it in my mind count far more than any dialogue
that we've had. We flush out the issues. Our control is to reject. We
don't have much in control but we can reject. We can delay. We can turn
down. We can postpone. That's our control. If we don't think that peopl
have done their job prior to getting here, then our job is to get more
information.
Erhart: Any bad plan we should reject it and put all kinds of hurdles.
Farmakes: I think in that particular case with that particular applicant,
all the more reason that those questions should be answered so we'can do
our job and make those recommendations. For the most part I agree with
what you're saying.
Batzli:_ But see I didn't think with this particular applicant, even if we II
had the answers to those questions, our decision, you know what the money
costs. What the dollar figure was. What these other issues were. That II
wouldn't have mattered. The only thing that truly would have mattered to
us probably would have been the water quality issue but the City Council
can look at those findings as easily as we can. I don't know what more we 11
could have added to that particular one you know.
Conrad: The same dog gone things that we do. The same ones.
Batzli: Oh yeah, and they'll talk about them as if we didn't cover them. II
Conrad: Absolutely and so, if we can get staff working on some of these II
issues, we might as well spare the applicant a little bit. Not that we
needed to in this particular case. Yet on the other hand, if the City
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 48
Council's going to cover it, we don't need to do it a second time. If
' we're real uncomfortable that we're giving the City Council unclear
information, then we should table. We should keep it down here. If we
don't think staff can get the information that they need.
' Batzli: But I don't know. I sensed Tim was kind of asking a more global
question than just this last one. I think in instances of the two things
we've had tonight, typically you know we don't have a lot of people here.
' When we do end up having people here, I am very loathe to cut them off. So
I let everybody ramble and talk tonight that wanted to talk.
•
Erhart: Yeah, but up here or out there?
' Batzli: Up here.
' Erhart: Oh.
Batzli: And that's really what made the meeting long. The beachlots have
always been, we've always gotten a lot of people and they all get up and
say the same thing but I don't want to be the one to shut them off because
they all came here. They think what they have to say is important and I
don't necessarily disagree. But if I came to this meeting and the Planning
Commissioners sat up here and said, does anybody have anything new. Well
no, you're going to say the same thing. Go away. I don't think we can cut
that out.
' Erhart: I wasn't getting at that. I was trying to understand, and maybe
just to review, the balance between how specific this motion has to be
' versus what our comments are in the Minutes as it relates to what staff
does when we leave this meeting and how Council reacts to what we do.
That's the point I, that was the question that I had. I want to clarify in
my mind and maybe for all of us.
' Farmakes: Well that's assuming too that the Council members don't inquire
and ask us about particular things even when we're not here. If you're
' going to have an informed answer when you respond to them, if you have
questions about something, I think you should bring those up if they're not
there. On these types of situations, like the restoration plan on this
particular one, it's an open ended question. What it will be. There is no
plan at the end.
Erhart: Yeah, I agree.
Farmakes: ...based, at least I was on this particular applicant because it
seems litigation follows this person like a fly on whatever. And what I'm
11 saying is, the attitude that I had, at least looking at this is one of
mistrust.
Erhart: No, I understand. What I guess I'm trying to get at is, I think
it's great that we each get out what we consider the issues. It gets in
the Minutes. The question is, how much time should we spend on trying to
structure a motion that deals with every one of the issues that each one of
us has. I'm not too sure that that's necessary to really struggle with
this motion issue because I always believed that, Jeff if you've got an
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 49
issue about one thing and it's probably backed by one or two others, even
if it doesn't get in the motion, staff takes a look at it. Particularly if
they agree that it's a reasonable concern whether it's in the motion or not
I guess. Also that the Council will.
Batzli: I would disagree. I would say staff ignores it. No offense.
Staff ignores it and maybe one Council member catches it and they raise it.
They say, well what about this? And staff says, well only one person
thought of it and they didn't even put it in the motion. Then I've been all
the meetings and they say, well Brian. What did they think and I'll say,
well 3 of us raised it but it didn't get in the motion. They say, well
fine then, forget it. If I get something into the motion, I have a 90%
chance it's going to be approved by the City Council. If you don't get it II
into the motion, you have a 10% chance that it's going to be up to City
Council. It's that clear. You change that motion. Whatever you get into '
that motion is going to be acted on and they act on most of what we say. So
if it's not there, you don't have any chance.
Batzli: And even if it's half crazed, at least then staff has to argue ,
against it.
Conrad: You've got to fix it because he's not going to move something up II
that doesn't make sense. He just won't.
Erhart: How much would you expect the Council to discuss this particular II
one?
Krauss: Well it's really going to be contingent upon how many of the
neighbors show up at the Council meeting.
Erhart: Say nobody shows up.
Krauss: If nobody shows up and we're able to, I think we do a good job of II
responding to what's raised, particularly in motions. Provide the answers
should they be raised, I think it stands every chance of getting fairly
rapidly approved. In speaking for staff I think, you know you really need II
to ask the Council what they think and you may have the chance. I think
we're going to try to schedule them to come in here at your next meeting
just to talk. They want to talk for 30 minutes or something. '
Batzli: They don't want to admit that they don't read the Minutes.
Krauss: I don't read the Minutes.
Batzli: Yeah I know.
Krauss: Whenever we get sued we read the Minutes.
Erhart: You don't think they read the Minutes? 1
Batzli: I can't, I mean you see the stack. It's this deep and they can't
be reading it all for content and digesting it.
t Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 50
Krauss: But the issues that we deal with are pretty complex. I don't
know, sometimes I get accused of making things more complex than they need
' to be but I find that if I'm not, it comes back to haunt us later on. When
you do that, you risk not seeing the forest through the trees or however
that analogy is supposed to go, and it's useful for me to hear, you know
you missed this. You've got to beef this up. Citizens raise these
concerns. Some are legitimate. Some have to be responded to whether
they're legitimate or not. And these are the answers that you've got to
bring forward to tie up all the loose ends. Then we know exactly what we
need to do.
Batzli: And here's a test. City Council members, if you're reading these
Minutes, give me a phone call.
Erhart: You've got $100.00 for every one that calls you.
Batzli: Okay, so we'll see. Now don't you tip them off.
Conrad: Plus, have you ever tried to read Minutes and get a consensus?
11 Batzli: It's very difficult to read through these verbatim Minutes.
' Conrad: You can't get an idea what. You know you say some off the wall
things about Communism. They don't...
Batzli: I yearn for those days.
' Conrad: I know. Those were the good days. It's just hard for them to get
a feel. I've always wanted to condense.
Erhart: Maybe we shouldn't have verbatim Minutes anymore. When I started
we didn't have them. If nobody reads them. If nobody reads them, why do
' we do verbatim Minutes?
Batzli: Because we use them for the record later on.
' Erhart: If nobody reads them, who needs them?
Batzli: Well we do read them later on. I mean later on, when this project
' blows up. We pull out the Minutes. We say, well what did this guy.
Farmakes: 10 years from now they know who to blame for the problem.
' Batzli: Your 5 minutes are up. But I agree. To the extent that we can
shorten and /or otherwise reduce our time before the mics, we'll do that.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 20, CONCERNING
ALLOWED USES IN THE BH ., HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS DISTRICT.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
wanted the record to show there was no one present for this public hearing.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 51
Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 11
Batzli: Is there any discussion on this issue?
Erhart: The only discussion is, where's the motion? ,
Batzli: The red tie to Communism are lapping at our shore Tim. Is he II still in jail? That was his line. Would someone like to make a motion?
Erhart: I move that we amend the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with the
recommendation of the staff report dated June 25, 1992. 1
Batzli: I second. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Erhart: Is the motion clear Paul? Okay. ,
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Code, Chapter 20,
Section 20 -712 eliminating auto service centers as a permitted use in the
BH, Business Highway District. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE VIII OF THE CITY CODE
CONCERNING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. 1
Batzli: I don't know that we need a staff report.
Krauss: Yeah, we didn't have a category for really old business. '
Batzli: Really, really old business. This isn't a public hearing or
anything right? '
Krauss: Well actually, you've always continued the public hearings.
Batzli: Okay. Well, is there, there's no one here to address us. The
record should reflect that. Is there a motion to close the continued
public hearing?
Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded to close the continued public hearing. All ,
voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Discussion. Does anybody want to say anything other than me? ,
Erhart: About this thing here?
Batzli: Yeah. i just want to say one thing. That's why I had it carried
over. Okay, go ahead.
Erhart: I don't understand it. Never have. ,
Batzli: Never will?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 52
Erhart: Maybe not. I don't understand why we have sections (f), (g).
Essentially those issues in both the cluster home and the single family
homes. I don't understand why we want to deal with boulevard plantings. I
mean the whole idea of PUD's, it opens it up to flexibility and now all of
a sudden we're jumping in here in section (f). (e), I'm fine. That's one
of the goals. Broad goal is to preserve natural features. Tree stands,
wetlands, ponds, scenic views and all that stuff. And then all of a sudden
(f) , we jump into specifics and by golly, by the time we get to (f)(3) ,
1 we're down in the foundation plantings. Why do we want to sit here and
define exactly what someone has to provide with the PUD? I don't
understand this.
Batzli: Okay, so you're talking about (f) or didn't you like (g)?
Erhart: Both (f) and (g) .
' Batzli: Now why didn't you like (g)? Let's talk about (g) .
Erhart: What do we got to get in here and talk about free standing garages
for? We don't on any other ordinance. It has nothing to do with anything.
We don't regulate garages in the city.
Batzli: Where's that in (g)? I'm sorry.
Krauss: Actually you do.
Erhart: Why does it have to be addressed in a PUD? The PUD says, I
thought the introduction paragraph is excellent. I commend you on that.
1 Batzli: The intent?
Erhart: Pardon?
Batzli: The intent section?
Erhart: Yeah. I think it's just great and I'll tell you what, you could
cut this whole thing off at, you talk about minimum sizes and that's been
the issue we've always discussed and every time in the past I say why do we
1 include all this other stuff and...why do we get into that?
Batzli: Let me defend (g) and then let's talk about (f). (g), you want
' certain architectural treatment agreement with the City. I mean that's
part of the PUD development plan right? You're not telling them what it is
but they have to at least tell you what they're going to do and follow it
through. I mean these are tight, typically tighter clustered groups of
houses and if you really cluster them, like you should be doing, although
nobody ever does in this particular ordinance, I think you want an overall
theme or what have you that you know what's going in there. Maybe you want
a tudor mansion against a you know, Mexican kind of villa sitting next to
each other. I don't know. But I think you want an idea of what's going in
there. Garages, it says we may regulate it and guidelines relating to
placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, etc.. When you're on these
smaller lots, and you're right next door to everybody else, I think that's
reasonable.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 53 '
Erhart: Let me give you an example. Paul came in here with this Stone
Ridge. Stone Creek. Stone Creek and said, we'd really like to make this all
PUD because what we really want to get in return is one thing and that is
we want larger lots in the wooded areas so we can preserve trees. I never
heard anything that they wanted architectural standards. I never heard
anything that he wanted foundation plantings. Or guidelines recommending II
air conditioners. We wanted to preserve trees. And so now all of a sudden
we're jumping into regulations concerning air conditioners, dog kennels,
storage buildings, foundation plantings and why do we want to get that
specific?
Batzli: This is nothing more than what you'd find in a regulated
development that had covenants. Except basically the PUD, the developer's
coming in here and doing some of these things in advance.
Erhart: If we look at this parcel of land and we sit down with a '
developer, and our big concern is dog kennels, then we can make dog kennels
the issue in exchange for giving him smaller lots. I don't understand why
it has to be in this ordinance. If the issue is tree preservation, then II
the issue is tree preservation. Why do we need to delineate it here?
Because we're requiring every guy that comes in here with a PUD now to talk
about dog kennels. That's what you've got here. Am I wrong? If I'm wrong'
I'll shut up.
Krauss: Tim, a couple things. Some of the conditions that you mentioned
are conditions that apply to all other single family development. If it
comes in under a PUD and we don't specifically mention it, it may not be
applied to the PUD. Yeah, you do have the ability to tailor conditions in
the PUD but will you remember to do it every time and will you be '
consistent? Secondly, the City's gotten burned before on PUD's because
developers have sold the City a bill of goods. Let me have reduced lot
sizes. I'll reduce home costs and make a nice environment. '
Erhart: Why do we even ask for this?
Krauss: Well, what you can control is you can make sure that, first of
all, you've got to explore that the sole reason for doing a PUD. If you're
going to represent that it's going to save environmental features, then
demonstrate it. If you're going to represent that it's going to lower
housing cost, and if that's a valid thing for the city to consider, then II
demonstrate it and commit to it. The problem we had in the past was that
none of those commitments were ever made. '
Erhart: Then we didn't design the agreement good enough.
Krauss: I think that's real evident. Separate the two issues for a moment"
too. Clustered housing and single family housing. Clustered housing is a
medium density type of housing concept. You would require a site plan
review for it if it came in in the R -12 district. I don't see why you
shouldn't have the same kind of guidelines established if it comes in under!'
a PUD. When we look at, the tree issue, I must admit having re -read
(f)(4) . (f)(4) , you can tell this is a year old because this is the
language that was looked at, remember when we were looking at the tree
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 54
' ordinances? That was the current language that was never adopted with
everything else.
Batzli: Yeah, but I kind of wanted to approve it and kind of sneak it
through there and see what they did.
Krauss: I don't have a personal problem with it. The PUD's a two way
' street. I mean the developer may be getting much more attractive lots. He
may be getting a lot more economic flexibility. He may be saving costs for
services. And the question is always, what does the City get?
Erhart: But, don't you see that on that development, Stone Creek. With
this ordinance, this guy would be required to put 2 trees in every back
yard and he would look at you and say, no way. What you want is a tree
preservation up on that hill but your ordinance requires that you've got to
put 2 trees in every yard. Why do we want to encumber ourself with that?
' Krauss: No. In Stone Creek, all those lots up in the trees, the executive
home lots that Hagen was referring to, wouldn't require anything.
Erhart: I'm talking about, this ordinance would require all the other lots
' out in the alfalfa field for the developer to put 2 overstory trees in the
back yard. He has to put foundation plantings in. He'd have to put
exterior landscaping, well that's general anyway. But I don't understand
it. Why we want to get ourselves fixed into this rigidity.
Batzli: Why don't you want to make Chanhassen a nice place to live for the
' people who move in? Why are you trying to make it a good deal for the
developer?
Erhart: It's not a good deal. We don't have to give him the PUD. Up
until the last minute we just say no. If we have done something wrong in
the past, it's because we didn't negotiate correctly.
11 Batzli: Well, we're still not going to negotiate. You and I are going to
see it after it's been negotiated and do you want to give staff a tool to
use? I mean if one of these is, well let's ask. Let me ask this question.
If you go and start negotiating with the developer under this ordinance,
can you say well, okay we'll give up the two trees but you've got to give
me another couple acres for the park? Currently the way this is written.
Erhart: You're talking a variance now.
Batzli: Well but let's change the language so that you can do it. I want
1 to give you something to negotiate with because right now you don't have
anything under this thing.
Krauss: The negotiation process, I mean we're pretty good at doing it. We
can get a lot out of it and I would prefer, I like having a certain amount
of guidance frankly. I mean if I go into a room saying I can cut a deal on
any part of this project because it's a PUD and try to second guess how the
Planning Commission or City Council might react to that deal once it's cut,
I'm not terribly comfortable with that. I mean I like to think I can read
your goals into a project and anticipate the Council's but that's a pretty
r
II
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 55
II
hit and miss thing to, and then I have to represent the fact to a developer
that if you cut this deal with me, I will work with you on this project and'
we'll try and get it approved.
Erhart: ...PUD's have a preliminary meeting with the Planning Commission II
to sit down and outline what our goals are. We each contribute and then
you start working on a plan.
Krauss: Well it takes a fair amount, even though at concept stage sounds '
innocuous and inexpensive, it turns out it's not. I mean there's a fair
amount of work required to get it to that point.
Erhart: Particularly if you haven't talked to the Planning Commission and II
you don't know what they want, it gets real expensive. You can spend a lot
of time in hoping to get what we want.
II
Krauss: Yeah, and I'm not sure how you'd, I mean I sort of scenario in
what you're saying. To come to the Planning Commission without a plan.
Just say I've got this parcel and I want to do it as a PUD.
II
Erhart: Yeah, you've gone out there and here's some neat things and I'm
concerned. We've got these trees and wetlands and park area. It's park 11
deficient or something. And we go out and look at it and we say yeah.
These are our concerns. Then go to the developer and say look it. We'd
like you to do this PUD and here's what, in exchange for some smaller lots"
here's the things we'd like to get out of this. Then he goes away and
comes up with this plan.
Krauss: But then again, you would be substituting yourselves for my staff II
and you would be trying to cut a deal in anticipating that the Council
would go along with it and that you were negotiating in good faith. Also
if you're concerned about the length of your meetings, wait until you try I
to design a project...
Erhart: Oh, we're not going go design a project. Give broad, essentially.
You're going to come to us and say, these are my concerns and we're going
to either agree or disagree. And then you're going to go and submit a
plan. We're not going to do that. We're going to support you or qualify
it. I don't want to be the guy dominating this discussion. 1
Batzli: Does anyone else have Tim's concerns that (f) and (g) are overly
restrictive in a PUD? Ladd, do you?
II
Conrad: No. Yet I was the one that would have gone for PUD that was
written in about 5 sentences. But the Commissioners elected not to go that
route.
II
Batzli: Well I think part of why we, keeping this in historical
perspective, I think the reason we didn't was because we were told by the II
Council that we shouldn't do that.
Erhart: I can't remember anymore the whole sequence.
II
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 56
Batzli: They didn't want something that said, you can do anything you
' want. Here's the density. Don't go below that and we'll take a look at
it, which would have been your ordinance. Which would have been, I think
it would have been an interesting way to do it but you know, Council didn't
want to see that.
Erhart: Is that right Paul? ...they didn't appreciate that point of view.
Krauss: You know, I honestly don't remember either except the direction
that I, I mean the Council's kind of gone different directions on this too
but I heard them saying that they want guarantees that they're not going to
11 be left holding the bag. That if they are to consider lot area
adjustments, which some of them are reluctant to do, that it has to be in a
format that guarantees that these are going to be liveable, developable
i lots.
Batzli: So I thought we did an okay job with that as our guiding beacon.
' I mean I still don't like it. I've beat my concerns to a pulp and I got
one or two people on the Council on a band wagon and then I think they
dropped off somehow so I've given up the ship. Do you have concerns?
Ledvina: I can see Tim's side of the issue. I can see Paul's side of the
issue and this pre -dates me by quite a bit so I really, I'm not really
going to provide any more comment on it.
' Farmakes: I'm going to go forward as it is. I don't think there's
anything wrong with even if a developer having some knowledge of what the
expectations are, particularly when you're talking medium density. I can
understand what Tim's saying but actually if I was to go and design
something, I'd like at least some understanding of what the expectations
were. I think I'm hearing you right, that you believe that this will give
' them what your expectations are. So I support it.
Batzli: I only have one question and that is, in your intent section,
' which I also think you did a very nice job on. I do have one question and
that's, this is whether this is intended to be something that we throw out
to the Met Council. That yes, we do this and we're wonderful and that is
the statement that lot sizes should be mixed to offer a range of housing
11 pricing options. Within most development that I've seen, PUD's go through,
there's not a real wide range. Just by way of example, something like
Lundgren Bros. where they're going to put you know, $250,000.00 to
11 $350,000.00 houses. Is that what you're intending that, they're not all
one price or are you really seriously saying you should have small cots
here that are $90,000.00 and a $450,000.00 house over there?
Krauss: And you're right. That used to be a Metro Council approach. Your
concern's a valid one. It wasn't my intention to be dogmatic and require
that. It applied in the situation again like Hans Hagen wanted to put the
more modest priced homes in the field on smaller lots and maximize it but
that was almost a secondary. If you'd care to eliminate that or put in an
and /or type of modifier. Something along those lines, that would be fine.
11 Batzli: Well before Steve left he told me that he liked that language and
that he's a proponent of that. I mean is anybody else Bung ho for this
r
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 57
1
type of language in our ordinances?
Conrad: I want it out. 1
Batzli: Tim?
Erhart: I'm opposed to the whole thing. 1
Batzli: Matt?
Ledvina: No comment.
Batzli: Jeff, any comment? 1
Farmakes: I'm taking a different meaning from you, since you're a lawyer.
Batzli: Well what's your meaning? Just that there's a narrow range? That,
there's a narrow range and that's good enough as long as they're not all
one price that there has been a range? But see it says lot sizes should bei
mixed to reflect that and to offer a range. And what I don't want to see
is, I don't want to see preservation of the tree stands with 50,000 foot
lots that these guys are going to build T'aj Mahals on and then the 8,000
square foot lots or 10,000 minimum, down in the cornfield and I don't, I '
personally find that repulsive that they're, you know that somehow these
people are getting the tree stands and it's not preserved. My idea of a
PUD is to have a cluster of homes, small lots, and commonly owned wooded II
areas and that's not what the people are going to do. They're going to
include it into private lots and the people down at the bottom get the
shaft and the question is, are we looking at our ordinances from a, is it
the common good of the people moving into this particular development?
I've beat it and I think that this almost encourages people to say, yes.
You've told me you want the range so I'm going to put the $450,000.00 house
up on the hill. Take all the trees. Take all the nice views. Then I'm II
going to put these shlocky little things down in the cornfield. These
people have no, they don't get the benefit of the trees, other than I
supposed they can look at them but yet they're moving into the smaller
sized lots and my issue has always been, I'll get off my soapbox in a
minute. That if we have a minimum sized lot, somehow or another, why are
we allowing these people to have a smaller sized lot? Then we should have
the smaller sized lots throughout the city if there's not a good reason to
have the bigger sized lot. And these people haven't gotten anything for,
you know we're supposed to be looking out for general welfare, safety,
whatever but yet we're saying, go ahead. Put these guys on a smaller lot.
Let them look at the trees because we told them to offer a range of prices.
So I found that kind of disturbing. But I guess it depends on how you
interpret it. 1
Farmakes: And that also reflects I think what the market is. Obviously
you're going to have a bigger house, more land, less density, higher price
tag. Most people aren't going to be purchasing that. I guess it will
depend on each individual developer who comes in here and shows what he's.
Batzli: But my only point was that it said, lot sizes should be mixed to
reflect and to offer, and the issue was whether we wanted to state that it,1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 58
' I think it should be mixed to reflect the size and environmental
limitations but I think it may be mixed to offer a range of housing pricing
options. I don't know that I want to say the guy has to do that or to
positively encourage that.
1 Farmakes: Take the Lundgren development. They had the two corner, they
had about 3 or 4 left over lots once they got done laying out everything
else. They had a couple of little leftover pieces and they stuck those
houses on it and those...swamp. There were reduced sized lots that
happened to be next to houses that fit in better to the overall plan and I
think I know what you're saying but I don't know if it's marketed that way
though. The PUD would be marketed that way. If they're put down in a
gully and we're up in nirvana up on the hill with the trees, I don't think
it'd be marketed that way.
1 Batzli: Well I know it won't be marketed that way.
Krauss: There's another aspect though that that gets to. On the less
attractive land, I many times have developers come in and say, you mean you
don't have a 10,000 square foot lot. I can't make, I'll just go PUD and
make every lot 10,000 square feet because then they're all cheap and I can
' sell every house for $116,000.00 because that's what I do in Chaska.
Excuse me Chaska. And you know, you'd like to have some basis for saying,
not here you won't. I mean you've got to rationalize your PUD. You may be
entitled to some smaller lot sizes but you're going to have to earn it.
You're going to have to demonstrate why this density's supportable based on
environmental constraints and no, the City does not support a goal of your
allowing uniformity of cheap housing. The goal is to get a mix in there.
Batzli: So you're looking at it from, well. You're telling me you're
looking at it from the alternate end of, they come in, they ask for all
cheap things and you can use this as a leverage to say, we need more
expensive things too.
' Krauss: Right. That is a fact of what they do.
Batzli: Okay. Well I would be happy then to at least say and /or. 5o you
may have a plug but yet it's softened. Anybody else go along with that? I
know what Tim's not going to say.
Conrad: And /or what? Where are you?
1 Batzli: And /or to offer a range of housing pricing options. It's in the
intent section. Lot sizes should be mixed to reflect the site's
environmental limitations and opportunities and /or to offer a range of
housing pricing options.
Conrad: I'd like to take, I would rather, boy I just can't agree.
Farmakes: Typically Paul, I'm not that familiar only seeing a few PUO's
around here but they seem like they're marketed, there isn't that large of
11 a disparity of upper end pricing and the lower end pricing. I mean it's
not huge. We're not talking 4 or 5 times difference. We're talking a 50%
maybe or somewhere in there?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 59 '
Krauss: Yeah. I mean this is ballpark numbers pulled out of a hat but the'
Lundgren development probably goes from $165,000.00 - $70,000.00 to
$280,000.00 -3.
Farmakes: Yeah, I've just never seen where the pricing shifts as far as II
some of what we're discussing here or we're worried about.
Krauss: But in terms of a monthly mortgage, that's a real substantial
difference in income levels and ability to pay. I don't know. If you want,
to get rid of it, I can always argue the point. It's not hard to do. I
mean this is, there is a class of developers that always throws it out on
the table. This is what I can do someplace else and you always tell them,
that's not what you can do here. I mean if everybody's more comfortable
eliminating it, I can live with it.
Conrad: And you're talking about the range of housing prices?
Krauss: Yeah. See Brian's concern is a valid one because the Metro
Council used to mandate that you put in language that we will provide
housing for the full range of humanity.
Conrad: We had that in the comprehensive plan. '
Krauss: Right.
Conrad: We were going to do that. Why bundle it into a PUD? 1
Krauss: Well again, I took the more pragmatic approach. I was trying to
ensure that we didn't get the bottom end of it but I think you've got
every, you know in the context of what else is in here, you've got the
rational basis for not allowing that kind of stuff to happen. If somebody
comes in here and says my sole purpose to do this is to get lowered priced II
lots and they look crummy and, tell them to go away.
Conrad: I don't mind the statement, lot sizes should reflect the sit'e II environmental limitations and opportunities. I don't need the word mixed
in there but I'd like the lot sizes should reflect in there. If we took
mixed out, then I'm fine with that. I don't know why, I came in here
tonight thinking I was going to not oppose this.
Erhart: You know, just a point. I don't want to take a lot of time but
just listening to the discussion. It's convincing that we should be
outlining some broad goals and potential desires for a specific site. But
there is no way that you can forecast in a rigid document what we would
like to get out of any specific site at any time in the economic situation."
It's ridiculous that we're laying out specifics here.
Batzli: Well, we haven't had an ordinance now for, how long? A year?
Krauss: A year. Year and a half.
Batzli: Has any PUD guys come in and said,.well since you don't have an II
ordinance I can do whatever I want and let's talk about it?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 60
Krauss: No.
Batzli: Have we had any PUD guys come in and ask except for that one that
you laid out?
11 Krauss: Yeah, lots.
Batzli: And they were discouraged because we didn't have an ordinance?
Krauss: Well you know, the lack of certainty is the developer's worst
nightmare.
Batzli: So if we have an ordinance that says we want you to come in with a
PUD proposal and we'll take a look at it, are people going to go that way
' or not?
Krauss: I doubt it, and this is my gut reaction. We could always ask
developers but the thing that they detest most is coming, they hate coming
before public bodies where people come up with things saying, it's a good
project but it'd be a whole lot better if you knocked off 10 lots. Why?
Well that 10 lots was the profit and those kinds of things scare them to
death. And to just throw it open to a public review where the die is cast
before there's been an opportunity to refine a plan that they're
comfortable with, I think most of them will be very relunctant to do it.
' Erhart: But they do have something in concrete. They have a subdivision
ordinance. They can come in with a standard subdivision. That's lock
solid. If they don't want to come before us and do a little batering, they
don't have to. On the other hand, if there's a site and they're sensitive
to some of the things and want to come in and talk about it we have...
ordinnace allowing them to do that and encouraging them to do that and it
maybe lay some broad things that we would think would be appropriate to
discuss such like a mixture of housing and preservation of environment.
Increased park sizes.
Batzli: I think the fundamental difference probably between us is you're
probably comfortable with our subdivision ordinance and I'm not.
1 Erhart: No. I think we need a PUD. I think we need flexibility. Let's
not write an ordinance that, it give us flexibility but what it really does
is it really actually is more restrictive than our subdivision ordinance.
It gets into more detail about what the guy's going to provide than our
subdivision ordinance.
Conrad: You can look at it Tim from the standpoint there are guidelines.
Erhart: No, they're not. They're absolutes.
1 Conrad: Well yeah.
Batzli: But we can change two words and make them guidelines.
Erhart: Then I'm comfortable. These are things that we may want. These
are things that we ought to discuss.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 61 1
Conrad: But the developer would like to know what those guidelines are.
Erhart: Then he should do a subdivision. You can't, by the whole '
character of what a PUD is.
Batzli: We haven't gotten any that are that creative. I don't know why, II
I mean I want to see these creative ones but we don't see any. We see
PUD's that are disguised subdivisions and they've gone that way in order t
relax cretain setbacks or to crowd certain homes. The only reason they've
used our PUD since I've been here, now maybe we're going to get a flood of
them in here after we pass this thing but I wouldn't mortgage the farm on
it. Or bet the farm. 1
Erhart: I think maybe our goals weren't clear enough at the time Brian.
Maybe our staff wasn't comfortable with negotiating. Maybe a whole bunch
of things. I don't know. It seems to me if we want something and they can,
get something so that they can snake a profit at it.
Batzli: Well I never thought I'd be arguing for this thing so you know. II
Conrad: Come on, where is everybody? I was sure you were opposed.
Batzli: I am opposed. II
Conrad: Where are you on this?
II
Farmakes: I've already said where I am on this. I'm listening to what
Paul's saying. If negotiations have taken place on their end, at their
level and he's asking for these things, it seems to me these are good
negotiation tools to position where the city, where these expectations are II
and this whole thing is a variance so I mean if I'm going to be a designer
and I'm going to go and try and come up with something that I have a
reasonable expectation that if I spend a lot of money doing these drawings II
and coming in here and trying to sell this to you, I have a pretty good
expectation by the time I bring it before here, with Paul's recommendation,
that I'm going to have a pretty good idea that it's going to fly.. Or
II
otherwise I'm not going to do it.
Conrad: So you're generally comfortable and Brian has swung over. 1
Batzli: I haven't swung over. I've just been beaten down. I just want to
move it so that we have an ordinance so that people actually might use it. 11
I mean unless we can agree to put something in effect, as Paul said,
they've had a lot of inquiries. Nobody's going to do it. We're only going
to learn. I mean this is either going to be right or it's going to be
wrong. But in the past it's been wrong so we're no worse off. The only II
issue is, can we actually get some PUD's going that we get some
architecturally neat things. Some clustering. I don't think we'll get it
but at least we'll get some ideas flowing through here and we'll see what II
we're going to get. And if we haven't gotten it yet, we have another
opportunity to come back and fix it. But until we get it in place, we
don't even know what we've done wrong.
II -
Conrad: And this may be your last shot. You know if you kill the sucker.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 62
Erhart: I can't kill it by myself. Don't look at me like some kind of...
Conrad: It is interesting though because the City Council didn't want what
we wanted. You never jumped on the band wagon when I brought that up. You
were off in the weeds somewhere.
11 Erhart: Well we were off on this 10,000 thing and this always was, at the
end I'd always throw in, I don't understand this stuff. If you look back
in the Minutes, that's what you'll see.
Batzli: You were confused?
Erhart: No. We spend 90% of our discussion talking about 10,000 foot lots
and densities and that stuff and then, I was always confused and I never
understood why we have it this way.
Batzli: I was talking about the Communist hordes, not the 10,000 square
feet but.
Erhart: Let's vote.
Batzli: Yeah, let's have a motion.
Conrad: well Matt you know the least, so why don't you make the motion.
Batzli: He knows the most but he said the least.
Farmakes: Time marches on.
Conrad: Seriously, one quick thought. In minimum lot size, we're
excluding wetland. Do we also exclude steep slope?
Krauss: No.
Conrad: We don't? So steep slope, even though it's unbuildable, just like
l a wetland is, counts?
Krauss: Right.
Batzli: But it would be subject to all sorts of setbacks from our steep
slope ordinance.
Krauss: If it's on the bluff line, the bluff line applies.
Batzli: In the designated bluff line areas.
i Krauss: Yeah.
Batzli: Otherwise just level the sucker.
Krauss: We went through this kind of discussion, in fact you were involved
with that. We originally thought of.
Batzli: Do you have a lot of steep slopes on his farm?
11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 63
Krauss: I don't know. But you know, in fact we had Rick Sathre in here
telling us that if we just used percentage of slopes you eliminate, you can,
do it but the way, the way we were thinking about doing it would have
eliminated walkout lots. I mean it got a little bizarre.
Batzli: Do we have a motion?
Conrad: No. '
Batzli: Then is there a motion to table?
Erhart: Table for what purpose? Someone's got to make a motion. 1
Conrad: I recommend that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the revised PUD ordinance according to the staff report or staff, according,
to the draft printed on May 26th with striking, under the intent section,
in the sixth line down, striking the words, be mixed to ". That's my
motion.
Batzli: Okay so you're, just before someone seconds it, just to clarify
it. So you're leaving in the words in the seventh line, and to offer a
range of housing pricing options? ,
Conrad: Yeah.
Batzli: Okay. Is there a second? 1
Farmakes: I'll second it.
Batzli: Discussion. You seemingly changed your mind. You didn't like
that language at first. Is there any reasoning or rationale that you want
to share with us? You just don't want me to vote for it either? 1
Erhart: Now that's brilliant strategy.
Batzli: It was excellent Ladd. Quick thinking. t
Conrad: Yeah, quick thinking. No, I thought it through and I'm okay with
those words. 1
Batzli: I mean it doesn't even make sense now. And to offer doesn't go
with, should reflect. Lot sizes to offer a range of housing. I don't
care. If you want to do it that way. Is there any more discussions?
. Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend '
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20 for Residential
Planned Unit Developments with the following changes in the Intent Section.
Line 6 should read as follows: Lot sizes should reflect the site's
environmental limitations and opportunities and to offer a range of housing!'
pricing options.
Conrad and Farmakes voted in favor. Batzli and Erhart voted in opposition.'
Ledvina abstained. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 2, I abstention.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 64
Erhart: So it's defeated. The reason for voting nay is that I think, the
way it's written, we have an intention to create an ordinance that gives us
' greater flexibility than our subdivision ordinance but in fact, the way
it's written, the fact is that it actually provides less flexibility and it
is specifies certain things even beyond the subdivision ordinance. And
11 what I recommend we do is to re -write the ordinance. Deal with the minimum
lot sizes or deal with density. I think that's fine. I think the intent
statement is great but I think we should be outlining some general things
that we want and perhaps to find a process for completing a PUD and
concentrate more on the process than trying to make specific things.
Batzli: I'd vote for it then. The only reason I didn't vote for it was
because this thing doesn't, that sentence doesn't make sense anymore and
I don't.
Farmakes: Run it through. I don't think it's a big issue really.
Conrad: That's not a big issue Brian. To vote against it because.
Batzli: I'm voting against it for that reason right now.
Erhart: Well why doesn't someone just make another motion?
' Batzli: I'd like to see a motion that, if anyone else has another motion.
We can pass it up to the Council. We recommend that they don't approve it
as written as far as I'm concerned at this point.
Conrad: The motion failed but another motion can, make another motion
right now. We're not going to pass it up. Something's got to happen.
Batzli: Yeah I know, so is there another motion?
Farmakes: I'll make the motion to alter the line as you have it there.
Batzli: So that it reads, lot sizes should reflect the site's
environmental limitations and opportunities. Is there a second? I second
it. Is there discussion? If it's still 2 to 2 I'm really going to crack
up.
1 Conrad: What did you want? Lot sizes.
Batzli: Lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitations and
opportunities period. So the words, and to offer a range of housing
pricing options is struck. Is there any discussion?
Farmakes moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
' approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20 for Residential
Planned Unit Developments with the following changes in the Intent Section.
Line 6 should read as follows: Lot sizes should reflect the site's
environmental limitations and opportunities.
' All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and Ledvina abstained. The
motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1 with 1 abstention.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 65
Ledvina: If I understood the criteria by which this proposal was being
evaluated, I would try to make some determination but I'm so confused as toll
what we're looking at.
Farmakes: We were too. 1
Conrad: But we voted.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning 1
Commission meeting dated June 3, 1992 as presented.
OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT FORM. 1
Krauss: That one I think we ought to maybe lay over because there's some
questions. 1
Erhart: Also I think, I haven't talked to Steve about this but I know in
the history...he has strong feelings about people's rights to do things in
their own yards and if somebody wanted to hold this over, I think it'd be
just fine.
Farmakes: I'd be curious as to how this fit in with this thing on Monday
where they talk about the city compensating landowner's for trees on their I
property.
Krauss: Oh, you mean the Lucas Decision? 1
Farmakes: The Supreme Court.
Krauss: I don't think anybody really knows yet what the implications are
but I had a conversation with Roger about that decision this morning and I
used to get all worked up about these Supreme Court decisions thinking the II
sky is falling and generally you find it's because somebody screwed up or
did something... I'm not sure they're nearly as pervasive as you might
think at first blush. 1
Batzli: Where's that thing about this article? One Planner's Reflection
of the Edge City. You write that?
Krauss: Yeah.
Batzli: And it's going in which issue? 1
Krauss: It should be this coming on.
Batzli: Congratulations. You downplayed your work. I liked it. Should 1
we table this easement? Okay. If nobody's opposed, we'll table that over
to the next meeting.
Erhart: The next meeting is what, the 15th?
•
Krauss: The 15th, yes. 1
Erhart: Why does Council want to meet?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 66
Krauss: The Council, I've got to double check if that timing works but the
' Council wants, on an annual basis they sit down with all the Commissions
and keep the communications open. Ask what your issues are but hopefully
they'll tell you what their issues are. I'm not sure if we'll have frankly
1 enough time to do it on the 15th.
Erhart: Is this an annual meeting?
1 Krauss: I think we've gotten them once or twice before.
Farmakes: Can I ask you a question since we spent so much time on this PUD
and we just sort of skipped over the City Council update. Do they really
believe you when you tell them that that's just sort of a variance
guideline, the PUD situation? What's your opinion on that?
1 Krauss: What do you mean a variance?
Farmakes: The Councilmen that I've talked to on this PUD thing, it seems
to be mistrust that what they're doing is making an ordinance people can
build on and that the City's committed to. But the way it's been explained
to me over and over again is that it's really a variance. That the City
' can refuse if they don't feel that it's appropriate to approve it. 5o why
then do I continue to hear this almost a reluctance that we're approving
this type of thing? Is there a trust factor there?
' Krauss: I don't think it's a matter of trust because staff's relationship
with the Council is a pretty good one. But I think, I don't want to
characterize it unfairly either but you've got the Council, the people I'm
most familiar with on the Council are people who have moved to this
community 15 -20 years ago and they did it for some very explicit reasons in
terms of what kind of liftstyle was offered. I don't know, maybe there's
something of a mind set that that's exactly what everybody wants as the
standard mode of living. There's also, I mean they're very comfortable
with the lifestyle they have. They have good lives here and they think
that that is something worthy to pass on. I guess I don't dispute that but
I think there's other ways of getting at it and I'm not all clear if the
Council's going to go through with it or not.
1 Farmakes: When they come in here, should there be more discussion with us
in regards to those issues? Those issues and the second coming of American
city. A lot of stuff that we're doing is the exact opposite of what
they're.
Krauss: See that's the thing. I mean you talk to people like Councilman
Wing and he's got very strong feelings of support for the
neo- traditionalist movement and the kind of stuff we hear from Bill
Morrish. This PUD is fully consistent with achieving those goals, yet
they've got a lot of trouble digesting that. I don't know how to
rationalize that, except to maybe ask Bill to talk to him about it because
they have some type of...
Farmakes: Well a lot of traditional suburban planning, which we've been
' into here for, since after World War II, or at least the past 25 years, is
not really based on diversity. It's highly suspicious of it and I get a
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 67
lot of feedback from that and I'm sure maybe you do too. That that's why
the 10,000 square foot and so on. A buzzer goes off whether it's relevant 11
or not. There seems to be a lot of walls that we smack into there when we
start to discuss some of this stuff even in the HRA and the downtown
development. We continue to build these large parking lots facing access
streets and we place the building farther back when a lot of current design
information has been coming out the past 10 years saying no, that's not the
right thing to do. It used to be the right thing to do back in the 70's I
but now we've discovered that we should be doing it differently. We
continue on. And basically the developer is framing that down into
reality. We say yeah. It's sort of a philosophical thing. I'm not sure
if we caught up with that and I'm not sure, they're sort of accountable to
their voters. What kind of information they're getting there and whether
or not they really believe it. From a professional level.
Krauss: There's a real philosophical change I suppose that needs to come II
but you know, it's one thing to see and read all this stuff and be
interested and want to try some of this stuff but on the other side,
there's a reason that all of us, myself included, moved to the suburbs.
And there's a million and a half people in the Twin Cities did it. It
clearly offered them something they were seeking so I'm not as willing as
the neo- traditionalist are to throw it all on the, and say everybody's I
wrong. All the decisions you made were erroneous and you're foul people
and you messed up the world and let's remake it. On the other hand, I
think Chanhassen's in a really unique position to do some very nifty,
innovative stuff that will make this a community that's different than most
of the suburban communities. And I think we're well on the way to
achieving that and it's stuff that I'm pretty convinced, maybe conceitedly
that most people, once it's here, most people are going to be real proud of
it. And real comfortable with the changes it has. With the ability to
have a real downtown. With the ability to walk to places or bike to
places. With the ability not to go on a highway to go everyplace you have
to go. Those are things that we can offer here that most people can't.
Most towns can't.
Batzli: So, do we talk to the City Council about these things? '
Krauss: I think it'd be an interesting discussion. Frankly it's probably
a whole lot more interesting than, what do you want us to do next year.
Don't rock the boat.
Batzli: One question before I want to adjourn and that is these II provisional population estimates by the Met Council. Are these meaningful
to us?
Krauss: Very.
1
Batzli: Why? That's what I didn't get.
Krauss: Did I give those to you?
Batzli: Yeah. They're on the back of your Administrative
section.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 1, 1992 - Page 68
Krauss: Oh. When ou go to the Metro Council with a comp plan amendment,
9 P P ,
or to justify, rationalize building a road or to rationalize getting
funding for a county park or a trail system, or build a sewage treatment
plant like in Chaska. The first thing they do. They make projections okay
and you think projections are innocuous. If it doesn't turn out to be
1 correct, we'll change the projections. They don't. They change reality to
fit the projections. You're way ahead of the game to have projections that
are real and reasonable. For the first time I, I think it was the first
time I've ever heard of it. The Metro Council's population projections are
actually larger than we projected when we did the comp plan. Now that
doesn't necessarily mean that people are going to come and knock on the
door at Chanhassen tomorrow and say the Metro Council told me to move here
' so I'm going to come. But it's indicative of the fact that the Metro
Council agrees with us that this city is in a real, it's in the driver's
seat.
Batzli: And everything else is moving along? Target's moving? Task
force's are moving?
Krauss: First task force meeting for the corridor study is on the 15th
before the Planning Commission meeting.
1 Batzli: When does the City Council talk to us?
Krauss: It should be on the same evening.
Batzli: Okay, so everybody will be here for that.
Krauss: We're starting to get a lot on that agenda. I'm a little bit
leery of it.
Erhart: The 15th?
Conrad: I won't be here.
Batzli: I don't know if I'll be here or not. Okay, as far as HRA, have
you been getting the HRA packet now?
Krauss: No. We talked about that this morning.
1 Batzli: Here we've got a guy who actually is going to go to HRA meetings
for us. We've got to start getting him the packet. Because they're going
' a lot of stuff right now. They're doing the bowling alley thing.
Krauss: That's why I included, in fact Ashworth asked me to make sure that
you got all those reports because we thought you'd find it interesting.
Batzli: On the Target and the bowling alley and all that stuff? Yeah.
Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m..
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim
1