Loading...
1984 03 05 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 5, 1984 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson, and Councilman Geving Members Absent Councilwoman Swenson Staff Present Don Ashworth, Bill Monk, Bob Waibel APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved to approve the agenda as pre- sented. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved to approve the consent agenda pur- suant to the City Manager's recommendations. a. Hydrant Installation on Pleasant View Road. b. Purchase Air Compressor, Fire Department. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried AWARD OF BIDS, TWO 3/4 TON PICK UPS, ONE 27,500 GVW DUMP TRUCK: RESOLUTION #84-13: -COuncilwoman-watson-moved the-idoption of a resolution accepting the following bids: a. One 1984 3/4 ton pickup with box and 4-wheel drive in the amount of $10,299.00 as bid by Waconia Ford-Mercury, Inc. b. One 1984 3/4 ton pickup with box and 4-wheel drive in the amount of $10,469.00 as bid by Waconia Ford-Mercury, Inc. c. One 27,500 GVW single axle dump truck cab and chassis in the amount of $15,149.00 as bid by Waconia Ford-Mercury, Inc. d. Two pickup plows including hydraulics and installation in the amount of $1,697.00 each as quoted by LaHass Manufacturing and Sales Inc. e. One box, plow, sander and hydraulics installed on dump truck as bid by Midland Equipment Company in an amount of $11,995.00. Resolution seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Councilman Horn moved to note the February 8, 1984, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW, 18791 ARBORETUM BLVD. INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIES, INC: Mr. Donal~Voe is requesting to convert the existing residence at-rB791 Arboretum Blvd. to an office use. The property is currently zoned P-3. Mr. DeVoe was unable to attend the meeting but sent a representative. He stated that Mr. DeVoe is willing to connect to city sewer, water and street to the rear of the property. _ouncil Meeting March 5, 1984 -2- Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the site plan for conversion of the resi- dence at 18791 Arboretum Blvd. to office use with the conditions as recom- mended by the Planning Commission: I 1. That the applicant obtain any necessary building permit approvals for planned structural alteration involved in the proposed change in use. 2. That the use of the existing accessory buildings on the property be restricted to uses accessory to the office use of the property. 3. That the applicant vacate the existing direct access onto Highway 5 and secure access via Lake Drive East within six months after the construction completion of Lake Drive East. 4. That the applicant connect to municipal sewer and water service within six months after the completion of installation of Lake Drive East sewer and water services. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. BOY SCOUT TROOP 330: Boy Scout Troop 330, along with their leader Ed Newinski, were present to observe a Council meeting. SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION, LOTUS LAKE: Councilman Geving - I have a question why there seemed to be some deviance from earlier plans that were later revised. What was the basis for going back and redoing that study? Bob Waibel - A concerned citizen did come and talk to us about some sta- tistics and some information concerning the data that we did have. I went out and rechecked the data again. The area of change involved the number I of riparian units on the lake itself. The initial study showed 88. That was done via windshield survey and aerial photo interpretations. That was revised using a more accurate means of accounting for the number of riparian units which was going back through utility records showing which houses were hooked up to sewer and water. I came up with 101 units as opposed to 88 giving us a development density of 29.4 units per mile of lakeshore. The other two areas, lake depth and average depth came from updated DNR survey information concerning the lake itself. The initial survey was in 1949, I believe, and this new survey was in 1969 or 1979. Councilman Geving - In my opinion I believe that the classification was fairly arbitrary even though they did use the guidelines that are generally followed in classification of lakes but it does make one wonder when there is only several lakes in the whole county that are classified this way and why Lotus Lake was picked. I guess I am most interested in the percent of the lake which could be chemically treated under this proposal which would go from 10% to 5%. Don Ashworth - Through reclassification it does go to 5%. One of the questions is that it is my understanding that the only chemical kill treat- ment that has occurred on Lotus Lake is one instance and I think the Council did see that in the aerial photos, adjacent to the Derrick pro- perty. The problem is that that was calculated to be approximately .10%. So even moving from 10% to 5% you still have a significant number of I chemical applications that could still be considered. I don't know if the reclassification is going to get to the real crux of the issue that you may be looking to. If the City Council were to pass a resolution asking that no chemical killing be allowed, would the DNR respond to that? Would they honor that? I I I Council Meeting March 5, 1984 -3- Dave Leuthe, DNR - It's a section of fisheries and I am with the division of waters and the fisheries is the one that regulates the chemical treat- ment of lakes. They also regulate removal of weeds by mechanical means or other means, too. I can't say for certain. I guess we would look into it but I am not sure what the legalities of deny that right to property owners. The fisheries section apparently has done testing to see in their opinion whether there was a significant affect on the fish or other things as a result of the chemical treatment and it really is something that is cosmetic. It will work for awhile to remove the vegetation but the next growing season or shortly thereafter the vegetation will return. Basically, the fisheries section has said that they wouldn't be allowing this type of treatment if it was of significant affect on types of fisheries. Don Ashworth - According to our calculations, under the current classification approximately 150 applications like that could be con- sidered. Reclassifying would put it down to 75. I guess my question is, whether it's 75 or 150 I think if it's similar to the pictures we saw this past year, it's too many. Dave Leuthe - From my understanding it was a very small percentage that was treated and you haven't even approached what you could under a recreational development. It is a significant issue and I guess maybe if it was in the form of an ordinance or a resolution it may have more weight with the department. I will have to do some more checking with the section that controls that to see if could, at the wishes of the City Council, stop people from requesting treatment of the lake. Councilwoman Watson - Do we have any idea when they do this? Are we told or they go to the DNR to get the permit and it just goes right past us. Bill Monk - The DNR sends the city copies of the permit. We don't know until-arter it has actually been applied for, sometimes until it has been approved. Dave Leuthe - There has only been one permit and I am not sure if you received copies of that or not. We could probably look into the situation where you would be notified. Councilwoman Watson - I would think at the very least it would be benefi- cial for us to be aware. Mayor Hamilton - I think that's something that we should follow up on. Dave Leuthe - Bob, did you check in depth on that? I know you were going ro-Took into that and I didn't follow up myself. Bob Waibel - I recall it would be quite difficult for DNR to consider spe- cial treatment for Lotus Lake or a special category for any lake as far as their policy with regard to how much of the lake can be treated whether it's general development or recreational development. They primarily use that guideline uniformly throughout the State and to his knowledge they have not given any special case treatment for any particular lake. Councilman Horn - I have looked through the different classifications and I found some things that I liked better about one that seemed to apply and I found some things I like better about the other. There were none that Council Meeting March 5, 1984 -4- really seemed to match exactly to what we are looking for. I also noted that the setback area which would appear to have a minor affect, the dif- ference between setback areas seemed to be a minor issue. I think one of I the more significant areas is lot size and I think that I see that as being one of the biggest issues. If we were to request lot sizes of 20,000 square feet I think quite a few of the lots that are currently developed are less than that. I do, however, think we need to stick to the 15,000 square foot lot size that's shown. Mayor Hamilton - It's not clear to me if the classification were to be changed, wouldn1t our ordinance still regulate the lot size? Bob Waibel - As far as the Zoning Ordinance goes, if the shoreland classi- fication in that area is more restrictive, that applies. As far as the changes would be from 15,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet for riparian lots any of them within 1,000 feet would be a minimum of 15,000 with the exception of PUDs. The change in setback requirements would also apply. What normally happens is that a building permit is applied for and the building inspector gives me the application, I review it and if it is not conforming to the Shoreland Management Ordinance then it goes through a variance process and goes through the City Council for its review. Councilman Horn - As I recall, it is merely pointed out at that point that the Shorela~anagement Act calls for this particular specification. In a lot of past circumstances we chose to not live by that restriction. Bob Waibel - The only way to get around that would probably be to set those areas up as special districts in themselves with the consent of the DNR to I give special treatment. To avoid the administration of all the variances. Councilman Horn - That was my biggest concern with changing it to a recreationar-development. Then taking the other side of the coin, my biggest concern in leaving it the way it is, is the general description of what a general development lake is. It says, these are areas that are presently developed as high density. I agree that Lotus Lake has a majority of the development taken place on it that will take place but I don't believe that it's presently developed as high density multiple use areas. "And provide guidance for future growth of commercial and industrial establishments which require locations on public waters". I find that to be very difficult to live with in describing Lotus Lake. Bob Waibel - That book that you are referring to, the DNR Shoreland Management Classification Supplement, does have some key phrases in it such as, balance and flexibility. They recognize the difficulty in trying to make a description that would fit all lakes within the State by three simple categories. Councilman Horn - I think my preference at this point would be to change the classification but be receptive to variances from the 20,000 square foot lot size. Mayor Hamilton - You know this is not a public hearing. There has been a I public hearing held on this item although we have people from both sides of the issue are present. If there is anything you would like to say, any comments you want to make, I would certainly be happy to have you stand and state your name and let us know what it is that you feel about this thing. I I I Council Meeting March 5, 1984 -5- Bob Do1s - I live at 7407 Frontier Trail. My feeling is that, in retrospect, the classification of Lotus Lake as a general development lake was out of sink with what the lake had been used for and had been developed at that point and I would view the reclassification to a recreational deve- lopment lake to be a more appropriate use that it currently is being put to and would also insure that there would not be undesirable or detrimental damage done to the lake by the introduction of commercial activities or things of that nature. I think that the move to reclassify initially got wide spread support from the City Staff and the DNR and it was favorably viewed by the Planning Commission and would probably be in the best interests of the City at this point in time. Craig Kurvers - I live at 7220 Chanhassen Road. I am opposed to the reclassification. I guess the objective to reclassify it would be to pro- tect the lake and that's the whole objective. In looking back at it, I believe the lake itself is presently roughly 95% developed to its maximum development and I think in the report that staff presented to you he says 80% is currently developed. There is also the Derrick property and the Bloomberg property that's platted and undeveloped which I believe us with approximately two other parcels that are undeveloped. That would leave us with roughly 5% undeveloped. What we are saying is we should put more restrictive standards on the 5% that's undeveloped and I think what's going to happen is if we do impose restrictive standards what we are saying is we are going to have to run into a situation where there is going to be variances if these people request them on these remaining 5% parcels. I think the legality of it, it would be a tough time to enforce it because there has already been precendent set on the other 95%. I believe we already have the framework to control the lake and it makes little sense at this point to reclassify it. David Wo11an - I live in Sunrise Hills and I am President of the Sunrise Hills Association. We are actually for the reclassification. The last time this came up at a Council meeting we had stated that if it was left the way it is many dangers to a lot of the boaters in the area, there would be more boaters, there would be more people on the lake. As the gentleman just stated here, where do you stop? Where to you draw the line? We should have reclassified the lake a long time ago. As shallow as it is it should have been classified many years ago as a natural lake. Me1 Kurvers - I live at 7240 Chanhassen Road. I am going on record as opposed to it also. I think we are just saying to change it because of whatever reason, maybe to 50 feet. There are houses that are there. We have nothing that says it's going to change the lake. I think the whole thing is that you have got all the other restrictions and everything else and people have to come to you for permits and what not for their houses. Just for the sense of changing the lake, nothing has been presented to me that is going to change that. I have lived there all my life and I cer- tainly want to see the lake stay as good as it possibly can but I can't see just because someone wants it changed, just to change. If it was proven to me that it would make it that much better I guess I would not be opposed. Mayor Hamilton - Somebody mentioned about commercial development, how can you have commercial development even though it's classified as general and the zoning is not such to allow it? Wouldn't our Zoning Ordinance regulate that? Council Meeting March 5, 1984 -6- Bob Waibel - Pretty much it does right now. There is no commercial zoning on-the lake as is. The reference in the supplement from the DNR talks about general development lakes as characteristically having commercial .1 development on them such as resorts, etc. or possibly some vacant land zoned commercial. Court MacFarlane - I live at 3800 Leslee Curve and I am chairman of the Environmental Protection Committee. We recommended that the reclassifica- tion of Lotus Lake take place primarily because of our concern for the sen- sitive environmental nature of that lake. The shallowness of it. The fact that it's a long, narrow type of lake that has a lot of lakeshore but not a great deal of water out in front of that 1akeshore. It was really a major concern of ours and that's the reason we support it. Georgette Sosin - I live at 7400 Chanhassen Road. Bob Do1s neglected to say he represented Lotus Lake Association. He is currently the President and I would like that on the record that he was quoting a board decision when he spoke. I am speaking for myself. I would like to remind you that Lotus Lake is the only general development lake with the exception of Lake Minnetonka and Lake Waconia and those of us who know Lotus Lake can see by knowing those two other lakes that this is an error because Lotus Lake has nothing in common really with those other two large lakes. It was an error in the past and it's one that, I feel, must be corrected now for lots of different reasons. My main reason is for the future because it's not just the City that looks at Lotus Lake and what its classification is and it's not just the DNR, it's the watershed district and it's developers and if you all remember with the Derrick project one of the big arguments that was made, for instance about the docks, was that Lotus Lake was a general deve- lopment lake so why can't we go ahead with putting the dockage in. This was a big argument to their favor. I think it's a philosophical decision. It has to do with what's going to happen to Lotus Lake in the future when you guys are not going to be on the Council. My point is that it is not, nor has it ever been a general development lake and it should not be that now and in the eyes of people outside of our community when they see a piece of paper crossing their desk very quickly and it says general deve- lopment lake and they have 1,500 projects this does influence them as to whether to give a permit or not in terms of dredging, in terms of chemical processing, in terms of lots of different kinds of things that do affect us very directly. I urge you to rectify what was incorrect and make it correct now. I Craig Kurvers - I would like to make just one more comment concerning the classification of Lotus Lake as far as general development goes. I think there was very sound arguing by the DNR when they classified it as a general development. I think there is a real good argument that it is like Waconia, like Minnetonka developed in that nature and there was some cri- teria that they had used to evaluate that and general development would be the density per shore mile in the area of the lake and I think as far as the updated figures when we look back and it was brought up by Mr. Geving that the figures were increased to reflect putting in the general develop- ment. I can also substantiate that those figures themselves are probably low and there is an argument that the figures for Lotus Lake fall on the high side of general development and there is a few things as far as the average depth of the lake, I have two reports here, one is from the Department of Natural Resources. at the State Fair and they give the average depth as 21 feet not 17 feet. I also have a report on file by Carver I I I I Council Meeting March 5, 1984 -7- County where they list the median depth of Lotus Lake at 25 feet if you would like to see that. It's really not a shallow lake. The only thing is that they use in there as far as criteria for a general development lake is that shore1and of a lake should be steep. I can tell you for a fact that 70% of that 1akeshore has steep banks. It's a general development lake just like Lake Minnetonka, just like Waconia. The DNR recognized that and they called it a general development lake and I think we should also. Mayor Hamilton - I have been studying this for quite some time and have gone over and over all the material that's been presented by everyone and trying to determine what information was correct what was incorrect. There was certainly conflicting information coming from both sides. It seems that the goal for all of us should be 1) treat all the residents fairly and equally in this community, and 2) protect the quality of the lake. As Georgette said we want to protect it for the future and the only way we can do that is to try to do those things that would seem to me is going to improve the quality of the water and if you look at the difference between a general development lake and a recreational development lake, you take the number of shore1and lots that are left to be developed in both general and recreational and if you take the more restrictive figures you may reduce that number by half a dozen. Now, I think the amount of pollution or bad affects that a half a dozen homes is going to have on that lake over the next 100 years or 200 years or whatever is going to be rather insignificant. If, in fact, we really want to preserve the lake and do what is best for the lake it would seem to me that the best thing to do would be to continue to do educational type things like the seminar that the homeowners association put on. They probably help the lake more than anything and that's what is going to improve the water quality. You drive around the lake today and you can see where people are mowing their grass right down to the lake. They have beautiful lawns. They are nice and green and you can bet that they are putting plenty of fertilizer on them and that fertilizer is getting in the lake. Every time it rains the fer- tilizer goes in the lake. Other things that you can do is by process of dredging, reducing the amount of salt that we put on our streets which we have done in the City of Chanhassen but we have to get the county to do it, we have to get the state to reduce the amount of salt so that runoff does not go into our lakes. You get runoff from Eden Prairie. That runoff goes into Lotus Lake. If you really wanted to improve the quality of the lake you would make it a quiet lake. If it got so bad that you were concerned about the death of the lake then you would want to make it absolutely quiet. You would allow no motors on it, only row boats or canoes, sailboats. That, I think would improve the quality of the lake con- siderably. I think what we really need to do is to be realistic about our decision. We have to be logical and really consider those things that are going to do the most good for the lake in the long run. I think changing the classification and perhaps penalizing a few people who have some pro- perty left on the lake in reducing the number of homes that might be built by only about six, I don't think it's going to have a significant impact on the lake. Through the use of our own ordinances we have in place now and which are being improved we have the ability to control what is going to be developed on the lake. I think it should remain as it is. RESOLUTION #84-14: Councilman Geving moved the adoption of to reclassify Lotus Lake from a general development lake to development lake. Resolution seconded by Councilman Horn. voted in favor: Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Hamilton voted no. Motion carried. a resolution a recreational The following Horn. Mayor Council Meeting March 5, 1984 -8- Mayor Hamilton - I talked with Pat (Councilwoman Swenson) this afternoon and she wanted me to say for the record that she was in favor of reclassi- fication. CORRECTION OF DRAINAGE PROBLEMS, TH 101 BETWEEN LAKOTA AND BLUFF CREEK: RESOLUTION 184-15: Mayor Hamilton-moved the adoption or-i resolution authorizing the City Engineer to work out a cooperative agreement with MnDOT to correct the drainage problem and also monies from the Municipal State Fund should be appropriated for the Citys share of the costs. Resolution seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. PARK AND RECREATION INTERN: The City Manager had appointed Lori Sietsema as-a six month Park and Recreation Intern. Councilman Geving moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager I I I