The URL can be used to link to this page

1984 08 20 I I I RmUIAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING AOOUST 20, 1984 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. '!he meeting was opened wi th the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Geving Councilwoman Watson Staff Present Don Ashworth, Bill Monk, Scott Martin Barbara Dacy, Roger Knutson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwanan Watson IroVed to approve the agenda as as presented with the following addition: Kenny's Markets. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving Iroved to approve the consent agenda pursuant to the City Manager's recarmendations: a. Zoning District change from R-lA to C-2, 7995 Great Plains Blvd., Chanhassen American Legion, Final Reading. b. zoning Ordinance Amen&rent Establishing Application Fees for House Moving permi ts and Wetland Alteration permits, Final Reading. c. 1984 Bond Sale, September 24, 1984. RESOLUTION #84-44 d. 1985 Revenue Sharing, October 1, 1984. e. Resolution Appointing Election Judges for State primary Election. RESOLUTION #84-45 f. zoning Ordinance Amen&rent, Contractor's Yards in R-lA District, Final Reading. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen SWenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DIS'lRICT: Conrad Fiskness and Fred Richards were present. Conrad Fiskess - We just want to cover our bases with the municipalities involved. We have already been to see Chaska and told them what we intend to do and convey our desires to continue to work through the municipalities. Sane of the areas of acti- vities that we are involved with as a result of this, we have an overall plan which we are reviewing and we are already working on that. That will be put together with the idea of incorporating anything that needs to be done to bring the Bluff Creek area up to speed to meet our plans, requirarents, and other legal requirements. There will be a special levy, one time, that relates just to that area. '!hat will cover the cost of the initial planning. '!here will have to be flood plane deli- neation and there is a one time charge which is not properly assessed to the other parts of the district. In the planning that we are doing you are required by this 509 legislation by the end of 1985 to have a significant arrount of water resourse planning done and what we are doing is going to be adaptable to that. Bluff Creek will be brought up to speed in that 509 planning right along with the rest of our district. We are reviewing our rules and regulations. They are currently enforce. One issue that the Water Resourses Board did not address at the time that they added Bluff Creek to our watershed district was that of representation. Our roard had gone on record as saying that it was no doubt appropriate that additional represen- Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -2- tation would be appropriate fran that area. The board said it was not appropriate at that time to do it. We do want you to be aware that at such a time that you feel that representation fran that specific area would be prudent and desirable you have the privilege to request that. In the interim I will do my best to represent the portion of Bluff Creek that is in Chanhassen for you. We would like to issue an invi tation for two upcaning events. One is on September 5th we are having a slide presentation at our regular Wednesday meeting and that is a slide presentation on Bluff Creek. We are going to look at it by way of slides on Wednesday night and then the following Saturday, September 8th at 8: 30 a .m. we are going to have our annual tour and a good portion of that tour will be dedicated to looking over the new territory that has been assigned to our responsibility. You are all very welcare to join us. I Councilman Geving - When you make your tour on Saturday the 8th I would like to have you especially look at that area on Highway 101 just as you go down the hill near Lakota Lane. Iakota 1984 STREET SEAICOATING PROGRAM: RESOLurION #84-46: Councilwanan Watson rroved the adoption of a resolution accepting the low bid of Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. in the arrount of $70,863.75 for the 1984 Sealcoating Program. Resolution seconded by Councilwanan Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen SWenson and Watson, Council..rren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. M:>tion carried. MINUI'ES: Arrend the August 6, 1984 Council minutes by adding the following on page 17, LAKE VIRGINIA roRCEMAIN: Mayor Hamilton - We did have a good discussion and staff maintained their position that they still think the Lake Virginia forcernain is the best way to go. We main- I tained our position. I think that we accanplished sane things. Sandra listened and was totally confused and Curt DeVries is on our side and he feels we are getting the shaft by what their staff is proposing. She offered to canpranise and so we accepted. Eden prairie and Chanhassen can sit down and propose a canpranise of sane kind. I thought we painted a really good picture and gave a strong case for our position and I think she understood it. That's where we are at. AIrend the August 6, 1984, Council minutes by changing the second paragraph under SITE PLAN REVIEW, PROPOSED EXPANSION OF UNITED MAILING, IOC. BUILDING AND OFF STREET PARKING FACILITIES, page 3: Councilman Swenson - Number 11, I have to have an explanation of this. "A petition for easement vacation muyst be filed prior to formal consideration of the applicant's request by the City Council. HaNever, the parking lot expansion project may proceed upon receipt of the vacation petition, notwithstanding the location of the unused easement." Arrend the August 6, 1984, Council minutes by changing the 9th paragraph, page 14, under ZONING ORDINAOCE AMENDMENT REX;UIATING THE M)VING OF USED BUIIDINGS IN'IO OR WITHIN THE CITY, FIRST READING: Councilman Horn - You are saying that there are no other methods to get that same type of R rating that can be done to an older structure. Mayor Hamilton rroved to include the City Attorney's opinion regarding The Dale Green Canpany as a part of the August 6, 1984, Council minutes. M:>tion seconded by I Councilwanan Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanan Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Councilwanan Watson abstained. M:>tion carried. I I I Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -3- Councilman Horn rroved to approve the August 6, 1984, Council minutes as amended. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanan SWenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Councilwanan Watson abstained. Motion carried. Councilman Geving rroved to note the July 25, 1984, Planning Cannission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen SWenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Mayor Hamilton rroved to note the July 25, 1984, Public Safety Carmission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwanan Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen Swenson and Watson, Council.tren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. t-btion carried. Councilwanan Watson volunteered to be the alternate to the Public Safety Cannission. BILLS: Councilman Geving rroved to approve the bills as presented: Checks #021694 through #021793 in the amount of $2,187,865.42 and checks #020328 through #020432 in the arnount of $114,457.30. A check to Midwest Asphalt in the arnount of $11,028.56 and a check to Asphalt Paving Materials in the arnount of $2,410.87 also be approved. Motion seconded by Councilwanan Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen SWenson and Watson, Council.tren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. t-btion carried. FINAL PIAT, ROGER'S ADDITION: Bill t-bnk - Most final plats go through on a consent agenda form with no changes fran the preliminary plat. This one is a little bit different in that it included a torrens proceeding which had brought up a couple of i terns which I addressed in the report. I basically have forwarded this to the Council without a recarmendation on it but have tried to hit up the areas that need to be addressed. If there are questions I believe the applicant or an attorney for the applicant is here. Mayor Hamilton - Since the time has elasPed for this to be reconsidered, why is it not your recarrnendation that they must re-apply? Bill t-bnk - The section that is in here of State Law says that this is a minimun. The State Law sets a minimum time table for which preliminary plats and final plats are good for. The Council has every authority if they think that nothing has changed substantially to approve and basically set any maximum time frame that they wish to set but they also have the opposite to enforce the minimum time table and to deny it and then the applicant can go back through the proceeding. It's up to the Council and in looking at the particular item as to whether it thinks that anything has changed and whether another public hearing should be called for and an item should be routed back through the process and in this section of State Law, I believe, that discretion is given to the Council. That's the reason that it just wasn't routinely sent back through the process. Mayor Hamilton - What would constitute a significant change? Scott Martin - New ordinance. You could have changed the ordinance to reclassify Lake Riley like we did in the case of Lotus Lake. Don Ashworth - The question is one of why it took over a two year period of time to carplete this project. The developer has stated that this was beyond his control. Basically he is here before the City Council to explain to you whether or not that reason is legitimate or not. If you feel as though that he should have carplete it Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -4- wi thin the two year period of tirre you can require it to go back to Planning Carrnission but if you feel as though that he tried and was unable to get it canplete because of things beyond his control you can approve the plat at this point in tirre. Mr. Rogers - The land planning finn could not attend this evening. I do have the attorney that handled the torrens proceedings, Frank Kluegel. I was not aware there was a tirre limitation. Had I been aware of that I definitely would not have gone into the torrens proceedings because Mr. Kluegel told me that if everything went srroothly it would take about a year. What canplicated the problem, basically is that part of the fann land on the west side of the road also has land on the east side. We torrensed the three lots, obviously we had to torrens the fann too and this is where we ran into a multitude of problems. If you have sane questions about those problems I would refer you to Mr. Kleugel. I apologize for the long delay. I had no idea what was involved when I started this thing. It just got out of hand. We got in so deep that we couldn't back out. I think the end result of the torrens pro- ceedings has been beneficial to all of the landowners. We settled sane problems. SPencer Kluegel - This file represents the torrens proceeding. I won't go into it in detail unless you have specific questions which I will be very happy to answer. We were faced with the basic decision at the outset to go ahead with the platting or torrens the property first and then go ahead with the platting. It usually works out right to torrens the property first and then go ahead with the platting so that if you have a mistake in your plat the torrens proceeding isn't going to cane along later and get your plat all fouled up so we operated on that basis. Once we got into the torrens proceeding the problems that were raised are, first of all the City of Chanhassen when they vacated old Lake Riley Road and drew up a deed for Mr. Rogers to sign to give them the land for the new Lake Riley Road an error was made and there was a little sliver on the surveys that ended up not being vacated by Chanhassen and there was much correspondence with Craig Mertz. We got that squared away. We ran into two boundary problems with neighbors to the north. We ran into a problems with a wandering easerrent, Williams pipeline Easement. The torrens proceeding had 42 defendants all of whom had to be serve properly. It was a contested proceeding in that the boundary problems that we had the problems claiming that there was a problems and there was a problem, did so in good faith and they protected their interests and thus contested the torrens proceeding. We negotiated those problems out. The slow wheels of the Examiner of Titles office and the volumes of paper work resulted in the delay. The actual torrens proceeding was finished three/four rronths ago and since then the surveyor has been at work based on the new registered land coming up with a new plat. The plat is absolutely identical to the plat that was presented here and given preliminary approval to except for one deviation. '!he pre- liminary plat had three 93 foot wide lots. Because of the boundary problems and the negotiated settlement the new plat is 3-3/4 feet shorter spread over the three lots. It affects on the total of those three lots which are 40,200 square feet, it takes away 200 square feet of property. That's the only difference in the plat as being su1:rnitted nCM and as it was originally approved. I agree with Mr. twbnk in that State Statute does give the Council the right to go ahead and approve the plat despite the fact that it has gone beyond the tirre limits that the Statute sets. There is nothing different nCM except that 3-3/4 feet and to send us back at this point, Mr. Rogers has a sale on one lot which is supposed to close September 1st and there is a strong possibility he could lose that sale. I think it would be an undue hardship. I do believe he was justified first of all in torrensing the property and secondly that the torrens proceeding took two years but that is what they take expecially when they are the type that had the problems that we had. Mayor Hamilton - The problems were with the property to the north. Is that what the major holdup was? I I I I I I Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -5- Spencer Kluegel - That was one of the major holdups, yes. When you have legal descriptions that cover distances and start fran two different points you end up with boundary problems. In this case there was a gap between the property that Mr. Rogers owned and the property just to the north of him. Aoother problem develoPed with Mrs. Swenson's property in that there is a little sliver of land in the middle of the road in which the torrens application encroached over onto what is the proper legal description for Mrs. SWenson and that became a problem. Councilwanan SWenson - When did you enter into discussion with the Grants? Spencer Kluegel - I don't recall the date. I would have to sort through this file but it was after the papers had been served, the sumrons canplaint had been served on all the narres. Councilwoman SWenson - Were you aware that you had preliminary approval for one year? Spencer Kluegel - I was not aware of that. Councilwoman SWenson - You are a torrens attorney but you weren't aware of the fact that this is a state minimum requirement? Spencer Kluegel - That's correct. Councilwoman SWenson - I question when your service to the newspaper was not until July of 1982 when your year was up in December of 1981. I guess I would question the fact that there has not been changes, there has been, there is a change in the property owners to the north, the City has becane very involved in water usage inten- sification, the DNR is even rrore concerned about this at this time and I believe there is sufficient changes in this property to require that it go back through the process particularly because of the errphasis on water usage. We do have changes of lot size. The Planning Carmission was reluctant as you recall in fact they denied this and I believe the neighbors have a right after this length of time to another option of a public hearing. Norman Grant - I own that property to the north that he was referring to. I do have a couple of concerns that I would like to express before the Council. First and for- rrost, things have changed and I think they have changed dramatically. The land problems that Mr. Kluegel was referring to came to us and at a great deal of expense they were solved. By the same token I think the neighborhood is rrore conducive to larger lot sizes. Rather than three lots I think there should be two lots. Also, I have one very large concern and that's the use of the land and sCIre carments that have been made off the record as to what that land would be used for. Will it be residential or will it be an outlot, SCIre type of a beach lot or sCIrething of that nature. I have got SCIre very strong concerns and would strongly reccmnend that this go back to the Planning Carmission and back through the normal process and allow us a chance to voice our opinions. Councilman Geving - What is the size of your lot, Norman? Norman Grant - 156 feet of shoreline. Councilman Geving - What is yours, Pat? Councilworran Swenson - 85 feet. '!he one on the opposite side of Ire is 145 feet. Spencer Kluege1 - One point that I would like Mr. Rogers to address and that's the point brought up by Mr. Grant and that is what his intentions are for these three Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -6- lots and the point brought up by Mr. Grant that maybe one of the lots is going to be a beach lot or a common lot. Mr. Rogers - I have got a purchase agreement right here for individual buyers. I I never gave you that irrpression. I don I t understand why you are here. You gained three feet on this torrens thing. Norman Grant - I am here to contest this thing. Mr. Rogers - It kind of gets under your skin. I am in this thing too deep to con- sider anything except three lots frankly. It's been surveyed three ti.Ires. It's a can of worms. Norman Grant - For the record, also, Pat (SWenson) you Irentioned July of 1982 was when we were served notice. It was actually July of 1983. Councilman Geving - You said you had sales agreements for two of the lots. Mr. Rogers - I have got a sales agreement for one of the lots. Councilman Geving - Which lot is that? Mr. Rogers - IDt 2. Councilman Geving - You say you have something cooking for IDts 1 and 3 also. Mr. Rogers - IDt 1. IDt 3, I believe my son Tan is going to buy. Councilman Geving - '!his is the problem that I have as a Council person, this thing I has been hanging now for several years, if this were to proceed tonight how fast would you proceed to sew this up and finalize this plat? Spencer Kluegel - We have the two hard copies and the acetate here tonight which the City Engineer has told Ire that in the event that it is approved we leave them right here and the signatures would be acquired and we would pick them up tarorrow and we could actually file the plat tarorrow and if it was your desire we would file the plat tanorrow. Councilwooan Swenson rroved that on the basis of the change in lot size, the change in property ownership and since two years and eight rronths have past since this prelimi- nary plat approval was made and that there is concern in the carmunity for the increase in intensification of lot usage which an additional lot would bring that this should return for a public hearing at the Planning Carmission. M::>tion seconded by Councilman Horn. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. M::>tion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, STABLING OF FOUR HORSES ON PROPERTY ZONED R-l, 675 LAKarA LANE:Councilman Horn rroved approval of a conditional use permit (84-7) to allow the stabling of four horses on property in R-l District. M::>tion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. lobtion carried. REQUEST FOR PAVING CREEKWCX)D DRIVE: I Mayor HaffiITton - Would this be paved all the way fran Highway 101 back to the golf course? Bill lobnk - '!he terminus of Creekwood is at the northwest corner of 775 Creekwood. -- I I I Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -7- Mayor Hamilton - Would it be possible for the golf course to have their cars cane in off of pioneer Trail? Bill MJnk. - We looked at the layout of the golf course on an aerial and we looked at the location of the clubhouse. The clubhouse is in the southeast corner and it is quite a distance away fran pioneer Trail. I have not approached the golf course but with the way that the golf course is laid out and the grades, I believe, it would be difficult and expensive and at this point I am just trying to address the Creekwood issue. Mayor Hamilton - It just seerred like if we go ahead and do this certainly the golf course is going to benefit. The problem that I have is that if we aSSl1II\9 that we did it, the only reason that we are doing it is because of the golf course and if the golf course wasn I t there the people wouldn I t care because there wouldn I t be all the dust and dirt so it seems like the golf course are the ones that are making the problem by creating all the dust and dirt and yet perhaps we can It assess them. Councilman Geving - What it really cernes down to is a rna.tter of assessment of benefit of that road and the laws are very specific as to benefit and unless we run that road out to the golf course so that they are a benefitting partner to this, I don I t know whether or not we can get by with an area benefit. Roger Knutson - You can assess non-abutting parcels. Under Minnesota Statutes you can assess non-abutting properties if the benefit is there and benefit is detennined by the value of the land before the improvE:m:nt versus the value of the land after the improvE:m:nt. Councilman Horn - '!be golf course could really challenge that if they are running to capacity ncM:--What benefit can they get if they are already at capacity. Councilwoman Watson - They are not losing business because they have to cane in off a short dirt road. Councilwoman SWenson - If they are creating the problem. Roger Knutson - Even though they are creating the problem it doesn I t necessarily justify the assessment. Councilman Geving - I think. what we need here is we need to have a feasibility study to detennine how much m:mey it I s going to cost to build this road and who is going to pay for it. '!ben get our rna.rbles all together and cerne back and review the feasibi- lity study, meet with the Creekwood residents and the golf course to see if, at that ti.rre based on the arrount of money if they want to go through with it. Bill MJnk. - My suggestion is in one way different, I would just cerne up with a rough cost first on the improvE:m:nts instead of going through the full feasibility, con- tacting the appraiser and work through the appraiser and give the answers to the questions just like you have outlined so instead of having the Council do the full feasibili ty work out the parameters that would be used for that feasibility study and find out whether it is workable. If it is workable then the Council would be in a position to proceed with a full feasibility and we would go through it over the winter months because there is no way we could construct this year anyway. Mayor Hamilton - I was just wondering if putting a trip counter on the road to deter- mine the numter of trips. Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -8- Bill r-bnk - If the appraisal canes back and says benefit could be justified we would try and base any assessment on the trips per year basis. I think that would be pretty easy to detennine but the basic question is one of benefit and I can't address that. I wanted to get the feeling from the Council whether they were agreeable to I proceeding with the paving and with this approach. If they are we will proceed that way but I didn't want to get involved in an appraiser if the Council was opposed to this type of approach. Mayor Hamilton - I believe it's a good idea. Councilwoman SWenson - AOOut how distant is it from the public road to the golf course and whose private road it is? There is three houses and that is a private easement. Councilwanan SWenson - Under what ownership is this and is perhaps the golf course a part owner of that. Roger Knutson - We would look into the ownership. Bill Monk - I am not asking for approval of a feasibility study but just approval of the concept and we would then proceed. 1here could be sane expense. It could be up to several hundred dollars involved. Councilman Horn - Before I proceed to spend much rrore than that I would like to have a feeling from the residents in that area if we were to proceed with this under our normal assessment policy whether they would be interest at all. Bill Monk - We would stop short of a feasibility study. We would not SPend that moch I tiIre.-r am talking about just really proceeding with the appraisal approach that we would then know where everybody stands before we proceed. 1hat's why I want to stop short at that point, bring it back to the residents and the golf course. If we can assess then maybe we cane back before the Council to see whether to proceed but pro- ceeding beyond that point I think would be a mistake until we know what the appraisal said. Councilwoman Swenson rroved to approve the appraisal concept for the upgrading the Creekwood at a cost not to exceed $500. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen SWenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CHANHASSEN INN MJTEL: Mayor HamiltOll- You will note on the request that Larry (Zam:>r) wants to build 14 addi tional rocms on the northeast end of the rrotel. He also had proposed building additional four rooms plus a 50 person meeting room on the south. I would like to include that consideration of that part also. Scott Martin - Larry's original proposal included 18 rooms, 14 on the newest addition and four towards Highway 5 which also included a 50 person capacity meeting room. You do not have before you the original report because we rrodified that to be con- sistent with what we understood the proposal to be so there was sane editing of that report since the actual withdrawal of his request occurred before the Planning Carmission actually considered it at the public hearing. Sane of our corrrrents are I still very much applicable however. '!he building and parking setbacks as proposed are inconsistent with what we have used as a policy in that commercial district from Highway 5 to West 79th Street. '!he Highway 5 setback would be as low as eight feet to the parking area, 13 feet on the other side and as I recall from the former report, 18 feet for the proposed building addition from the right-of-way. I I I Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -9- Mayor Hamilton - Haq wide is the right-of-way? Scott Martin - The right-of-way is 100 to 150 feet. The plan shows the setbacks fran the right-of-way fran the property line. Eighteen feet for the building and as you rrove eastward because of the way the line is not exactly square with the parking lot edge it is 13 feet on the eastern side and the western side down to eight feet and that corrpares with a standard we have been using of a minimum of 25 feet but in the case of the prairie House Restaurant and Holiday Station we have required they set back even Substantially further. On the West 79th Street side we have required a minimum of 25 foot building setback and in ooth instances the developer's on either side of that street set their buildings back substantially further than that. The Planning CaImission was concerned also aoout the approach towards Highway 5 and the concept that the City has adopted in the downtown redevelo:pnent program for a green- way, open space image fran Highway 5. The proposal before you is right at the maxi- mum lot coverage. That does conform. It is the setbacks that are the biggest concern. We have at the request of the Planning CaImission looked at a redesign of the parking lot and we do show we can provide for 61 total parking spaces by simply redesigning the existing layout. That, in ccmbination with cross easement parking agreerrent that Mr. Zarror has with Mr. Korzenowski will provide for a total of 107 parking spaces for the two uses which would be adequate under our ordinances to pro- vide parking. With the addition of the other four roans and the rreeting roan on the south end, however, you would fall short again. Under the original plan staff recan- mended denial as the proposal is to overdevelop the site. I guess I feel the same way today. We felt there was a coopranise being reached between the Planning Commission and Mr. Zamor in that allowing the 14 roan addition and redesigning the parking lot and making use of the excess parking that is available next door. Councilwanan ~son - In reading the report fran the Highway Department "require an additional 30' of right-of-way of this lot" in this circumstance we wouldn't be able to give them that. Scott Martin - If there were no structures there they might very well take it. '!hey would have to canpensate Mr. Zamor. Mayor Hamilton - The rrotel as it exists today is certainly a beautiful addition to the City of Chanhassen and without question is drawing business to this City. Councilman Geving - I like the idea of adding the rreeting room. I think there is a big demand for meeting space in the City. I am very much in favor of adding the pro- posed four uni.ts for a total of 69 and the 50 person rreeting room. I do have a can- ment though on the suggestion in the staff report of the four foot high fence, I don't that's necessary. If we look at Attachment #5 and the plantings that are pro- posed that will cover that. I think if those were implemented that will handle that because we have tried fences in Chanhassen and fences just don't seem to work out. I think a nice greenway there with sane evergreens as suggested would do it. I am in favor of the 18 units. Mayor Hamilton - It seems like the parking that Iarry has "laid out, his flow is better. Certainly traffic can rrove around there better. Councilwanan Swenson - One of the reasons for allowing the variance on West 79th Street was to give us rrore green way on Highway 5. NcM it seems like we are giving up land on ooth sides. I can see what you mean aoout the flow of traffic. Mayor Hamilton - Maybe you can never get enough greenway but it certainly looks nice the way it is now. Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -10- councilwanan Swenson - I have no canplaints whatsoever about the nntel. Councilman Geving - I do believe the parking plan shown on Mr. zarror' s Attachment #1 is superior to the Attachrrent #5 and throw in part of what Barbara (Dacy) had I designed for green space in Attachm:mt #5, forget aoout the fencing and I think you have got it made. /' Councilman Geving nnved to approve the conditional use permit request to allow the expansion of the Chanhassen Inn Motel to 69 units and a 50 person meeting room and that Attachment #1 as shown dated July 16, 1984, be the attachment for the vehicle nnverrent and placerrent of parking spaces and to incorporate the plantings on the: south side as shown in Attachment #5. fution seconded by Ma.yor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Ma.yor Hamilton, Councilwanen ~nson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. fution carried. Councilman Horn - When this project originally went in it specified same type of a limit on the number of units this could have. I am wondering what that number was. There was, a staff recannendation as to the maximum number we should put in there. Councilwanan Watson - We just saw two phases of the project. , Councilman Horn - It disturbs me a little bit that we don't have the old minutes fran this so we can refer to those. Obviously there was sane thought put into that maxi- mum number at that tiIre and I would like to know what the reasoning was. I think we need to go back through the whole proposal every tiIre a new request canes up to find out what the thinking was by previous Councils on the issues. Councilwanan Swenson - I agree. Perhaps we could do that in the future. I PROPOSED IDTUS lAKE ESTATES BEACHIDT IMPROVEMENTS: Mayor Hamilton - The next item on the agenda is the proposed Lotus Lake Estates Beachlot inproverrents, (a) a variance request to install one additional dock and to allow the overnight storage of 10 watercraft, (b) conditional use permit request to allow certain recreational beachlot irrprovements. The Board of Adjustments and AWeals met this evening and considered this item, they were requesting four things: (1) the installation of one additional seasonal dock, (2) the installation of four sailboat nnorings in the abutting waters of the beachlot, (3) overnight storage of 10 watercraft, without any restriction on nntorized watercraft, and (4) continuation of the existing pedestrian walkway to provide access to the new dock ,and nnorings. Item four we did not discuss because that is a permitted use now. Item #3 and #1 we had passed to the Council without a recorrmendation. Item #2, we approved. What we need to discuss tonight are items #1 and #3. One of the things that we discussed as far as the docks and boats since the purpose of putting the dock in would be to have boats nnor there, I would guess that you don't want to have a dock there if you can't have boat~ nnored there. Peter Beck - The request is to spread the ten boats over the two docks which are the way they fit best given the size of the docks. Councilwanan Watson - Would they still want the dock without the boats? Peter Beck - I am representing the association of 44 members and I can't really I agree to anything other than what they have authorized us to seek. I don't know the answer to that. There is the possibility they may want a second dock even if it is restricted to just fishing and swirnning. I I I Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -ll- Councilman Geving - Is that your answer affinnatively that the homeowners association would request a separate dock even if the notorized or other craft were not allowed? Peter Beck - I can't say that. The association can only act by a vote of 2/3 of its merrIOOrs and even though I am their attorney I can't say. Mayor Hamilton - We will deal with the first one first, the installation of one addi- tional seasonal dock. Peter Beck - A n\lI1lter of our association :rrembers are here tonight. Unless there are specific questions that I feel I missed a point they will, at my request, not speak to expedite things. I hope you will appreciate that they are here and they are very concerned aoout it and are willing to speak if the Council wants. On the issue that just came up, I don't want the Council to think that it's an all or nothing proposi- tion. I only have the authority to seek what the association and its duly noticed meeting by 2/3 vote authorized me to seek so if sorrething lesser is approved I will take it back to the association and they would decide at that point what to do. I am going to cover very briefly sorre of the points which I have made in a long letter to the Council and to the Board of Adjustments which I hope you have had an opportunity to read. I had asked that that letter me made a part of the record so that I don't have to go through point by point tonight. Basically, we have presented three options to the Council. As you know we want the four things that the Mayor men- tioned. Two are pretty much resolved. We are down to the two issues, the additional dock and the overnight storage. We are proposing that can be handled in one of three ways. First, due to the history of Lotus Lake Estates and the creation of the outlot we oon't believe a variance that the City's beachlot ordinance should apply because of the contractual relationship between the City and the owners so that a variance would not be required. Alternatively, if your City Attorney advises you or if you determine that it does apply and a variance is required we are requesting the variance and finally, I will address it separately if necessary, if the variance is denied we suggest that the ordinance itself should be amended. This map will show where we propose the dock to go. That location has been suggested because it's an area where there won't be any disturbance to any sensitive areas. It's trying to achieve a separation of uses between the two docks and the swimning beach to lessen congestion and have a snaIl inpact on the appearance of the outlot as possible. We have taken some shots fran the lake to show as you are looking fran the lake where these uses would go. As you can see you get a little ways out in the lake and the existing dock becanes alrrost invisible because of the heavy foliage in that area. The developnent history is fairly long and involved. I touched on it in my letter. Originally, the piece of property was supposed to be platted with individual lots to the lake. '!he plan was changed, apparently at the City's request, to provide a recreational outlot to provide access to the whole subdivision and that so-called Outlot B was created and because the subdivision had so much frontage on the lake it became very large, sOIl'e 900 feet of frontage, 31 acres in area. At the time the plat was approved the development contract was entered into which contains a couple paragraphs related to the outlot. Paragraph 28 requires that before there be any alteration or development on the outlot a permit be sought fran the Council. That's the permit we are requesting. It's to be treated as a conditional use permit. I don't believe it is actually a conditional use permit but it is to be deemed a con- ditional use permit, same procedures but the permit we are actually seeking is pur- suant to the terms of that contract. The contract prohibited overnight carrping on the outlot. There is no question that all parties agreed at that time that there wouldn't be overnight camping. It does not prohibit overnight storage of b:>ats or the installation of docks nor does it provide for a conservation easerrent in this area. '!here is a four foot easerrent for a path but there is no conservation ease- ment. In fact in reading the developrrent contract it appears that it was con- terrplated that there would be oocks or watercraft on the lot because the developers Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -12- were required to establish a hcm::owners association which in turn would and provide covenants for the City Attorney to review which would provide once again that the homeowners association had control over requests for structures and docks. So far fran prohibiting them, it seems to anticipate this type of a request and there has I been a lot of discussion as to the history and background of that. My version is taken fran the paper, the minutes of the rreetings, the developnent contract itself and that's the indication we get fran the docurrents. There has been a couple of requests under that paragraph of the development contract, prior requests, for use, first in 1980 a beach and a few other things. It was approved. Secondly, in 1981 a nUI11ter of irrprovements were requested although I think, a conversation pit and naybe one or two other things were granted, that request was substantially denied. It incllrled a request for a number of docks and that sort of thing. The City Manager has suggested in his rnerro that that was an agreem::.mt reached in 1981 and I would sub- mit that it wasn't it was a request for a conditional use pennit which was acted on by the Council and substantially denied. At that point the hareowners did not realize the irrpact that these restrictions would have on their property values. They decided that they did not want to invest the m::mey to pursue it further. We are back here tonight because in the interim it has becorre apparent to them the dramatic impact that the inability to get on the lake with watercraft is having both on their property values which have increased ~ 15% to 20% and on their ability to use and enjoy Lotus Lake which is an amenity that they purchased when they bought their lot. Fisherm:m have to carry their nntors up and down where I think nnst Council members know is a fairly steep hill even to get on the lake and do a little fiShing. Bigger boats they have to trailer to a public landing. The inconvenience has been nnre than they expected. r-bre significantly the inpact on their property values has been far greater than they thought. I would like to suggest that this is a caYpletely dif- ferent request than in 1981. The use is much reduced, just one extra dock, the over- night storage of the ten boats and we think the circumstances are quite a bit I different because we now have the experience and we know what restrictions on this lot have done to property values and secondly, because in the interim the outlot has been deeded over to the 44 owners in the present Lotus Lake Estates Subdivision. In 1981 it was contemplated that this outlot would serve another 100 or so lots in what was then outlot C and is now Fox Hollow. Those lots are not served by this outlot and that's a significant difference when the Council is considering what type of use this outlot would receive, what intensity of use it will receive. There was ~ question at the Planning Coomission as to whether in 1981 there really was 144 lots. I went back and looked at the conditional use pennit itself I think you will find on page 2, Section 2.03 it expressly says that the use at that time was for the 44 lots plus any lots to be platted as part of Outlot C which was the 100 lots. That is a change in circumstance today that we think rrerits your consideration. The first request is that you grant a penni t under the tenns of the development contract. We feel that is appropriate because of the history and because of the development contract. 'lb nnve on to the variance issue, if it is your decision that the ordi- nance is applicable we feel this is an appropriate case for a variance because of the very unusual circumstances surrounding outlot and they would be 1) the history which I have already related and the conterrplation of the parties at that time that there could be these type of irrprovements and 2) because of the physical nature and loca- tion of the lot. It is extremely large, 3i acres sane 900 feet of frontage, unique in the City and its location is also unique. It is not adjacent to any individual property owner on either side nor is there anyl::x:xiy in the imnediate proximity to it which would be impacted or whose enjoyrrent of their property would be directly impacted by the ten boats scattered on these locations. Your Zoning Ordinance sets I forth standards for the granting of a variance. 'lb surrmarize them, 1) there be spe- cial circumstances or conditions. We feel that this lot does present a special cir- cumstance and condition due to its size, its location, it's unlike the typical 50 foot beachlotjoutlot which is flanked on either side by individual property owner and which nay be overused given its size if it's a large subdivision. Also, the special I I I Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -13- circumstance going back to the history and the expectation of the parties when the developrrent contract was entered into. '!be second standard is that the variance be necessary for the preservation and enjoynent of substantial property rights. 'lbe right of these riparian owners in Lotus Lake Estates to have access and use the lake is clearly a substantial property right and it has been their experience that this right has been severely affected both due to the inconvenience and the danger of lugging rrotors up and down that hill and the property values which have been substan- tially affected. The third standard is that it not be materially detrimental to public welfare or injurious to adjacent property. I don It believe the qoostion on public welfare, the City being affected by an additional dock on a lot of this size and the additional boats on a lake the size of wtus Lake, again, of course, if even two lots had been platted there would have been the right to two docks and ten boats and in respect to being injurious to adjacent property I have mentioned already, there are no property owners .inIrediately adjacent who could reasonably be said to be affected. Finally, that the variance be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. It is my belief that the intent of this ordinance was to protect property owners imnediately adjacent to undersized outlots fran over use and excessive boat traffic that could interfere with their enjoyment of their property. That situation just isn It raised by this where there are no people in the irrmediate area and it is such a large outlot. Really to say that it is not in keeping with the intent is to say that the intent of the ordinance was in fact to preserve the lake for individual property owners at the expense of beachlot owners and if that is the intent, I hope it I S not, but if that is the intent of the ordinance we would suggest that it I S improper, that it I s unfair and it I S unreasonable and I will get into that a little bi t rrore detailed if necessary on the next i tern with respect to amending the ordi- nance. I don It think that was the purpose of it. I think it was to prohibit abuse of beach lot situations, a 50 foot below standard outlot that served 100 lot sub- division and I don It think that pennitting this limited use of this outlot is contrary to that. '!here has been concern at the Board of AdjustIIents and the City Manager has expressed sane concern that if this reqoost is granted it will generate similar reqoosts from other beachlot owners. I can I t stand here and tell you that I S not true you may very well get rrore reqoosts. Of course, it is the right of those people to make that reqoost and they have that right now notwithstanding what happens wi th this. What I can tell you is that in my opinion by granting the variance we have requested you will not be obligating yourself to grant a variance in the 50 foot outlot that has inmediately adjacent property owners. That is a mu::::h different si tuation and a variance has to be considered in light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the reqoost and I would say far fran obligating yourselves to grant every reqoost for a beachlot that e<:llreS in I think you would be setting a standard as to what types of uses very large properly located beachlots can be granted. '!his is clearly a very limited use for this size of lake front property. '!here just siIrply is no other outlot of this size located away fran adjacent owners unless you have a request to put ten boats on a 3! acre, 900 foot outlot that is located with no adja- cent owners and has the history that this has with respect to expectations that reqoost you would have to grant but of course you won I t get it because there is no situation similar to this. Scott M:lrtin - Since Mr. Beck on several occasions referred to the developrrent contract Perhaps the Council should have the ability to look at that. It is circled. It is #28 and he seems to be reading in sane intent there but it stands alone. I did incloo.e in your packet the current conditional use pennit in its total which does control the property to date. Peter Beck - I would ask if you are going to read paragraph #28 you also take a look at my letter which contains excerpts fran paragraph #25 which, I think, contemplates the structures and storage of watercraft. With respect to the 1981 contract, I just mentioned it because it did contemplate the 100 extra lots. I also noted that it does not in any way restrict or prohibit the association fran making a further council Meeting August 20, 1984 -14- request and I think it's appropriate for them to do so given the course of events and years that are intervening. Councilwoman Swenson - We have here a copy, Peter, of a restated Conditional Use pennit I beach lot IDtus rake Estates and it was signed by Mr. VanNest, Rick Murray, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Babcock, and Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Ashworth and this was dated the 2nd day of November 1982 and one of the conditions here is that not rore than 24 canoes or small sail boats may be so stored overnight in the four boat racks. When at the last time the Council granted all these other concessions and your association agreed to this now what assurance do we have that if we were to go along with you are saying that two years fran now you are not going to COI1le back and want 44 boats or five docks or anything else. What faith can we have in what you are requesting? Peter Beck - We can't coomi t future owners. Every one that is now a member may sell and they might think they need something else but I think that your job is to con- sider these requests and evaluate them individually based on their rrerits. I think that all the conditions of this pennit have been rret to my knowledge and there has been no breach of these conditions. No all of the improvements have been installed yet. Mayor Hamilton - In taking your boat out of the water fran 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., it's a three hour period of time that you can't have your boat in the water and I don't think there is a lot of boat traffic from 2:00 to 5:00 a.m. and you stop and think about that I am not sure how much hann it does having a boat sitting in the water with a rotor on it fran 2:00 to 5:00 a.m. NaN all of the people in the asso- ciation a perfect right to use the lake, all 44 of those could put a boat in the water each day and use it fran 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. and take the boat out now. That's the current regulation. In looking at that I don't recall what we were I atterrpting to prove by using those times or what we were driving at or trying to accOmplish other than I felt we were looking for non-intensification of use of the lake but there isn't a lot of use between 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. anyway. On the other side of the coin when I look at the agreement that we have and went to great lengths to develop with the developer at that time, B-T Land Canpany, the City staff, the Council and the Planning Carmission spent an awful lot of time working on this and caning up with an agreement that we felt 'was fair to both sides and rKM we are facted with a request to intensify the use of that outlot. I think if at any time during that process I had thought that this type of thing would happen rore than likely not only on this outlot but on others should this be approved, I would for one would not be in favor of outlots because you could have, in this case about seven homeowners would have a dock and they would have approximately 35 boats but at the same time I am not sure there would be a dock for each one of the lots. We were searching for a way to try to reduce the use of the lake and try to keep it safe and clean for everybody and keep the water quality high while at the same time trying to be fair to all those who live in serre proximity to the lake. I thought we had reached that. Councilman Horn - I have reviewed in great detail all of the old Council minutes and I have had many discussions with Rick Murray about the old Council minutes. I feel that the Counsel is stretching a little bit when they feel it was the City'S intent to make this a beachlot. I found no record of that in the minutes that I reviewed. I don't know where that implication came fran. As far as I was concerned it was clearly the intent of the developer to make that a beachlot so rore people would have I access to the lake which is exactly why beachlots have a different type of regulation against them than what riparian lake owners have. I also failed to find where the City had implied a dock request by it recarmendation in the conditional use pennit. I think that and I have a lot of sympathy for the people that roved into that area. I know some of them have since roved out because they were lead to believe certain I I I Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -15- things from the people that they oought their hares from which is not the fault of the City that they had certain rights that indeed the City had not granted and indeed the developer knew the City had not granted and as far as the issue of pro- perty values, I am a little disturbed by having that corre back and used against us at this point because this Council did take upon itself the job of trying to get those proPerty values put rcore in line with the intended use and ncM to see this care back and used against us I think you have to question whether we should pursue that action in this case. The letter from Mr. Beck had indicated that we indeed may be being arbitrary by selecting a difference between a beachlot and what I would call a riparian lake owners rights and I don't think that's an arbitrary decision at all. It's a very rational decision based on the fact that one owner uses a riparian dock, one owner may have five boats m:>ored there but it's very seldon that he has all five of them in operation at one ti.rre and I think the obvious issue is overinten- sification. Also, I don't find anything that says that a beachlot has the sarre rights as a riparian lot. I think the whole intent of the ordinance was for the can- rcon type ownership situation so that the possibility of overintensification exists and I think we did go beyond even what we intended in the ordinance in what we have allowed in the previous agreement and I share Pat's concern if we allow this one, a year later they will cane back with further intensification. I don't believe it's because of any attenpt that the City had to mislead anyone in that area. I think there was a definite discrepancy between what the people were told who built there and what the City would allow. Councilworran SWenson - I feel that we do have an ordinance in place and it was brought aoout after many hours of deliberate consideration and I just feel we have ei ther got to stay with our ordinance or not oother spending the ti.rre and rroney to write them. Councilman Geving - We worked very hard on the ordinance. We tried to be fair to the horreowners associations. Back in 1978, I believe, we were up to plat G or H before it was finally agreed upon that we had arrived with the developer at a plat that we all could work with and it did incllrle the plat just as you see it tonight with a beach lot that was really the developers idea. It wasn't our idea. We made many allowances to the. developer and to the homeowners association since that ti.rre. We didn't intend to have any docks in that area. It was strictly going to be a con- served area. An area we wanted to preserve because there is a lot of very fragile aquatic vegetation in that area and that was our intent. We had originally carved out a very nice piece of lakeshore that was going to be a conservation district and when we finally got down to negotiations with the developer, the developer changed at that ti.rre in 1978 and we did sane allow SOIre things to happen there incllrling a beachlot. There is a nice sandy beach there now. I think that the maintenance of the area is terrific. I have looked at the proposed site for the second dock and I believe it would be a desirable site because I think there would be less inpact on the vegetation in that particular area but I have to go back to SOIre of the laws that we create as people here for the City and those ordinances must stand the test of ti.rre. They must stand rrore than a two year period. This ordinance was amended in January 1982 and we are only in 1984. I believe we have to stay with that. Those are the things that build a city. My Personal feeling is that we have an ordinance in place and let's keep it that way. Let's not try to arrend it, abuse it or bend it and not allow the request that is before us tonight and that's to do anything other than what's intended. I would like to read in the ordinance. "It is the intent of this ordinance to preserve the present quality of public waters by preventing uncontrolled and excessive use of the surface of public waters, the abutting shore- line, and thus securing the safety of the public in the use of public waters." I think that was really our intent as far back as three or four years ago and I think we have to stay with it. Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -16- Peter Beck - First of all, sa:reone has suggested that you allowed rrore in 1981 than was already was allowed, well, that's not true. '!he ordinance as you know was not adopted until 1982 so nothing illegal was allowed in 1981 or it wasn't any variance I at that tim=. Secondly, because of the fact that the ordinance wasn't adopted until 1982 these people could not know that a mat would be prohibited on their outlot when they purchased in 1980 and 1981. 'llie developrrent contract did not say that docks are prohibited. It did say that overnight carrping was prohibited. 'lliey knew that but there is nothing in there that would cause them to believe that they couldn't put a dock or a boat on there. Mayor Hamilton - Just to ccmnent on that, if the developer would have notified all the people that oought hanes, they would have known. It's not like he didn't know what was going on. I think a lot of the fault lies there. Not at the City. Peter Beck - 'lb read the developrrent contract, it doesn't seem to Ire to be any reason for a clause that provides you shall request a pennit, you can't have it anyway. Secondly, these people are riparian owners. 'lliey own lakeshore land so to say they are not and that justifies denying them access to the lake is inaccurate. 'Ihe fact that they own the riparian land as part of an association does not make them any less riparian owners and should not make them second class citizens. I would also point out that although the integrity of your ordinances is important and significant this Council has not been reluctant to grant variances where appropriate and I saw several granted tonight so I believe this issue should be addressed on its Irerits like any request for variances. Kay Fricke - When I am out at the beach or my kids are using the beach or my hus- band is out sailboating or we have people out canoeing and there is no rrotorboat down at the dock, on occasion when you need to get out there and help sanebody there is no ooat to be used. 'lliere is no way to get out there and look. I Ixm Miller - When you were giving your address you kind of glossed over the fact that it wouldn't increase the traffic on the lake. You know it would increase the traffic on the lake. Peter Beck - I never suggested that these people should be restricted to parts of the lake. Court MacFarlane - Rick Murray was before the rake Study Carmi. ttee several tim=s with different requests and he was certainly aware of the work that we were doing on the ordinance at least a couple of years prior to its adoption. Ron Harvieux - I am a lake shore owner and I guess in 1978 my wife and I took a ride through what is now IDtus rake Estates when the developer was just pushing the road in there. We were trying to find IDtus rake land and it was real clear to us at that tim= and there was just no decision at all as to whether there would be boat dockage. In fact they said there might be a marina. There might be this or there might be that. I don't know that anyone could hide behind that and say that, if they were mislead we are all big ooys and we have to make a conscious decision on what we are buying and it's a little bit of the buyer beware I guess. We had to choose to hold off and try to buy sane lakeshore which we did and we are paying taxes for it. I feel we made a conscious decision. It sounds a little bit to Ire like sa:reone else wished and hoped and now they want to try to change it. Jerry Crandall - I am a member of IDtus rake Estates Hareowners Association. When I oought my lot I had my attorney review the docurrents including the developrrent contract and at the time there was nothing in there that prohibited a beach, nothing that prohibited a dock. At the same tine there was nothing in there that said that I I I I council Meeting August 20, 1984 -17- there could be docks or there would be a beach or a dock so I guess it was left up to the association to "rrake application for a permit". Which we did prior to the beach ordinance being instituted and we made a proposal for approximately ten docks and that was turned down by the City Council so for the City Council to arbitrarily say that they had no part in making the decision of whether or not there would be docks there is incorrect. We had no beach ordinance enforce at the time that I bought my lot. We had no beach ordinance enforce at the time that my house was built and I rroved to IDtus Lake. '!he developer did not mislead Ire to the extent that I could put any dock that I wanted down there. I understood carm::>n usage having lived in two previous haneowners associations, however, the City Council did arbitrarily take away my right to put a boat in the lake and limited the dock. What we have done as 44 homeowners is said we can be self-governing. We could all buy a boat, trailer it across the lake and put 44 boats in the lake every day for all but three hours just as you said. Instead we have said, give us two docks, five boats, we will police ourselves with the n~r of people that put their boat in and use that lake on a daily basis. We have haneowners who own boats on Lake Minnetonka, etc. We are not looking to put a cabin cruiser in this lake. We have people who like to fish. '!here are people that like to go out there with a small sailboat, maybe with a rrotor on it if there is no wind. We will be a self -governing body. We have done pretty well so far with what you have given us. All we are asking for is a chance with those n~r of people that want to use that lake and want to put a boat in, let us govern the idea that we can actually have a rrotor there. Right now I carry a 3 HP up and down every time I want to go fishing in that lake. I consider that sanewhat of an injustice. My taxes were just lowered canplirrents of you people. I don't know that you realize maybe you made a mistake or the fact that we have been inequitably taxed since 1979 when I built my house. We are just asking for a small piece. We are not asking for 50 boats or 45 boats. I would just as soon the lake were a quiet lake quite frankly. Let's have everybody take every rrotor off the lake but the Council didn't want to make that decision the last time I suggested it either. Let's do it then we won't have this situation. Pat McMahon - You can see fran the drawing that there are seven lots abutting the outlot and you observed yourself that that's equivalent to 35 boats and we are asking for ten boats. I think it points out a sense of proportion that seems to be missing from many of the carments that have been tossed around. I think many of the horreowners in our association, we don't necessarily believe we have the same level of riparian rights as a hcmeowner whose lot abuts the water, many of us don't incl\rling IT!Yself but by the sarre token we believe we have S<:lre rights to the shore and I think the thing that's missing is the sense of proportion and I don't know how to describe it any better. I think our application is a reasonable canpranise. Tim Rashleger - I would like to defend sane of the people who aren't so lucky as a couple of us are to be able to haul our rrotors up and down that hillside. We have sane elderly residents who have been unable to carry their rrotor up and down that hill and I think it's a shame that the very people that ought to be able to use that lake to its maximum, the people who have paid their taxes for the last 65 years can't get their rrotor down there unless they actually C<:lre and get one of us to physically help them bring their rrotor down to the lake. I know first hand myself I use that lake once a week, sometimes twice a week with a boat that I go through the incon- venience of parking over on the other side of the lake and walking from carver Beach and all the other fooling around to get your boat in. I wouldn't use that lake pro- bably any rrore or less than I do right now if I had a boat on that lake. It is just the inconvenience that this state of affairs puts this comnunity in. A lot of thought and a lot of serious consideration has gone into this by this group of fami- lies. We have really negotiated our way down to what we thought was a terribly realistic view of how we could use 900 feet of shoreline. It's a far cry fran what we were talking al:x:mt a couple of years ago. I hope everyone up there realizes that we have worked very hard as a self-governing group to get to this point. Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -18- Rick Murray - There have been several inferences to the developer of this project, SOire of which probably are fair and sorre of which are ma.ybe unfair. I appreciate sorre of the catments that were ma.de. I probably know this project as well as anyone I here. There was a time when a past Council could have ma.de that a conservation ease- rrent. At that time as the records show it was not done. I know I have argued this point several times before. OUr developers agreement when we entered into a contract was relatively straight forward as the gentleman said. Things were kind of left up in the air and that's about as clear as you ma.ke it. We ma.de sane proposals as time went by and as residents occupied our first addition. Sane of those proposals were accepted. Sane were declined but the option was always there to ma.ke the proposal. I am sarewhat disturbed if the Council, in light of the shoreland ordinance and what was intended by that ordinance, seems to take a position that the application is unwarranted. I think the application is warranted. NcM whether you folks as a body decide that that is a reasonable application, that ma.y be your jurisdiction but I think we have the right to ma.ke the application. That was part of the original developer's agreerrent. NcM, we have subsequently limited that parcel of land fran what was originally envisioned when Ecklund and Swedlund had the property. I think the application before you is probably reasonable. There is another thing that bothers Ire and ma.ybe I will speak to it now, as long as the Council and as long as the City continues to support the 70 or 80 or 90 privatly held pieces of property around the lake to the exclusion of the other pieces of property around the lake there is going to be this kind of question. '!he gentleman's point previously that ma.ybe we should ma.ke ita quiet lake and dispell this argument is probably very good cooment and should Irerit consideration. I would support that kind of action. I think this proposal is reasonable and I would hope that it would merit your careful consideration. Councilma.n Horn - I think one of my statements might have been misinterpreted and I that is the corrm:mt that the City had nothing to do with the dock issue. That cer- tainly was not what I was stating. What I was stating was that it was not the City'S decision to ma.ke that an outlot. It was the developer's decision to ma.ke that an outlot. Those could indeed been seven individual lots going to the lake and that was entirely within the developer's prerogative to do. I think also the issue of inten- sification was addressed by this Council and if we have had seven individual lot owners there they would not have been using all five boats at the same time so to canpare 35 boats with ten boats, to Ire, is not equivalent in this case. I think it would be very rare fran what I have seen of lakeshore owners that they would be using rrore than one boat at a time. We are asking for ten rrotorized boats versus the seven lots that would have been platted for that area. The difference is very minor. It's the dif- ference between seven boats and ten boats being held privately. What we are talking about here is alrrost a throw. Councilwoman Swenson - If you were to have the same rights as a riparian horneamer on that property you would only be allowed to have five boats. They could be motorized though. Councilwanan SWenson - You want to settle for five rrotorized boats and one dock? If you will give me five rrotorized boats and that dock, I'll take it I back to the hareowner' s association and I think you have a pretty good chance of us taking it. Right now you have limited us to sane rowboats. We can police the canoes. We can police everything else. We can police the boats on the water. What you have done to us virtually is told us that we have to have a quiet lake unless we go across the lake and put our boat in every day. I I I Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -19- Mayor Hamilton - I was just talking with our attorney to try to clarify a question that I had and that is since the outlot has been turned over to the haneowners asso- ciation should that lot be treated as one CfNIler. If in fact that is construed to be a lot of record, one CfNIler, this is your association then you would be entitled to the same rights as any other single lot CfNIler, five boats in total. One 00ck, five boats total incltrling sailboats, canoes, rrotorized boats and everything else. I am not sure that's right. I am asking the question. What I would like to do is to have Roger do a little research and resolve that. I don't think we can resolve that here tonight. Peter Beck - There is no question that the minimum constitutional right of these folks to be treated like any other lake shore CfNIler. In terms of the ordinance they are not. Councilman Geving - I think the thing that we have to avoid so that a future Council doesn't get stuck with this very same question again and again as the haneowners associations turn over and different applicants corre before us to discuss another dock. We have to resolve this through the ordinance process and not through the variance process. Tan Seifert - The first time we were concerned noticably was when the ads started running for the houses that were being built. They were saying IDtus rake, boat, swim, dock, all this other stuff. We called the City Attorney. We called the City Administrator. We said, what's going on here? They don't even CfNIl lakeshore do they? They assured us, no Outlot B is a conservation outlot. I was a founder of the Lotus rake HCJTeOwners Association and in 1980 or 1981 a guy that built an extremely large hem: in IDtus rake Estates, he had called me up and said I want to build a dock and I was wondering if I can address your haneowners association and I said well, we are just a group of people who have a corrnnn interest in that and I don't see what basis you have for calling us you should talk to the City Administrator because I wasn't even certain that you folks even CfNIled the land. As far as the boats, there is probably 1500 feet of shoreline fran 500 Pleasant View Road down to 600 Pleasant View Road and there is three rrotorized boats. Walter Coudron - I was a member of this carmi.ssion and given certain charges by you folks. At that time the canposition of the carmission was two outlot CfNIlers, two private haneowners with private lakeshore and two people fran within the city who didn't have anything to do with outlots or lakes. Just about everything that has been hashed out tonight came up at one time or another in our meetings. I think we had a good canposi tion of people to hash those things out and to come up with a workable ordinance. I know we stretched ourselves in sane areas and probably regret- fully so now. When we start talking about five boats we really stretched ourselves. I think it should have been less boats than the five. I know when we talked about the hours of 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. we stretched ourselves again in case sem:body had to give sanebody a ride hem: or they had party on their dock or sem:thing like this. Sane of the things that we really didn't I don't think was in the hom=owners asso- ciations and when we started talking about boats on a dock and we were very specific in that a homeowners association was a beachlot. Any rrore than two people was a homeowners association. It wasn't a private lakeshore haneowner and I think there are problems when you start talking that conpared to the five boat situation. The other thing on five boats as we wrote it they had to be registered to the haneowner that was there. Not to an association or anything else. It had to be specifically to that person and they couldn't be renting out dock space or anything like that. It was restrictive in that sense and I think it should be. The sad part is at the time I was appointed to this carmi.ssion I was a member of the Park and Recreation Ccmnission and I rerernber Mr. Murray or his predecessors corning to the Park and Recreation Carmission talking at that time of the outlot and they were going to have Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -20- a flotation type walk path to the proposed City park at that time and there wasn't going to be any docks or anything else. It was going to be a preservation of the nature and wildlife. We have gone all the way fran that nature type atrrosphere to an outlot with a sand beach and to a dock with canoe rack to a later proposal of just I let us have four rowooats out there and we will re happy. It went fran four row1::x:>ats to we will put rrotors on them and sare time in the history of this we are going to have to dig our heels in. Councilwoman S~nson rroved to deny the request for the variance 84-8, items 1 and 3, on the basis of the fact that they are not in confonnity with the existing ordinance and there is no basis for variance in the criteria setforth and based on the discussion this evening. The City Attorney will prepare findings of fact and set out the reasons for the denial. M::>tion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwaren ~nson and Watson, Council.1ren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. M::>tion carried. ZONING ORDINAN:E AMENDMENT, R.F.JJUEST 'lO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT 'lO SECTION l4.04(2)(d) TO ALIJ:Ji/ '!HE CNERNIGHT S'lORAGE, MJORING AND rx:x:::KING OF WATERCRAFT ON AND ADJACENT 'lO REX:REATIONAL BEACHIDTS: Peter Beck - My thoughts on the subject are in my letter. The ordinance is ill- advised for three reasons. First as a practical rratter it is going to have exactly the opposite affect of what I have heard expressed tonight as the purpose. That is to limit, reduce lake usage, intensification of use because there is no developer or property owner in his right mind who is going to develop riparian land with a beach- lot that will foreclose his access to the lake. I think if the Council is going to pursue the ordinance nevertheless on the assurrption that they can prevent a riparian landowner fran platting lots to the lake that issue has been resolved the other direction already in this City. You just don't have the right to take away that land. You are going to end up with people platting lots down to the lake. Each lot is going to be pennitted one dock with five boats and it's my suggestion that that is going to result in intensification of use because you are not going to be getting a 900 foot outlot with ten boats. You are going to get seven or nine lots with five boats each and to say of those five boats rraybe only two will be used at a tirne I don't know if there is any factual basis for saying that in the first place and I don't know that it's accurate. Even if it is, also that same arguIIeIlt argues that the ten boats because there is 44 owners all ten will be used at the same tirne. I don't know if there is any basis for saying that or that that's accurate. I think overall the difference between 40 boats and ten is apparent. As a practical rratter I think the ordinance is ill-advised. I think you are going to see no rrore beachlots platted in the City. Maybe you don't want them but I think they are a decent device for rranaging the City's lakeshore and I think that reasonable restrictions on their developrrent could be adopted. Restrictions related to the frontage, related to the area of the outlot, related to the number of lots served, that leaves sane reasonable use for those riparian owners. I think the City would be within its rights to adopt those kind of restrictions but the prohibition on overnight storage on this outlot, I don't think so. I see two legal problems, the equal protection problem that surfaced briefly. Councilwoman ~son pointed out that we could be treated like regular owners, well, regular owners are pennitted five rrotorized boats and there is no basis that I see for saying that an individual property owner with a 100 foot lot should have five rrotorized boats and 900 foot outlot none. I don't see a reasonable basis for that. I think it will fall on an equal protection challenge and I also think that this particular outlot there is factual basis for saying that this regulation has taken this property from these people. It's taken their riparian rights. Riparian rights are unique. They are accorded special deference in the decisions of our Suprerre Court, decisions that go back to the l800s. They can not be taken wi thout canpensation and I think the ordinance does that by limiting the use and I think the facts on the value of the outlot and what's hapPened in this subdivision, I I I I I Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -21- hOIres have not sold in the subdivision. They have not been able to sell them for the value of the ITOrtgage. I suggest that the ordinance be amended so that all riparian owners in the City are treated equally. 'Ihat' s all that our request is. Not special consideration, just equal' treatment. Mayor Hamilton - Do Council nanbers have any questions, cooments? Mayor Hamilton ITOved to deny the request to amend Section 14.02(2)(d) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the overnight storage, lIDOring, and docking of watercraft on and adjacent to recreational beach lots . M:>tion seconded by Councilman Horn. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. M:>tion carried. SUNNYSIDPE ADDITION BEACHIDT, roT 37, SHORE .ACRES: Mayor Hamilton ITOved to table this item to October 1, 1984 as requested by Steven Burke. M:>tion seconded by Councilwanan Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamil ton, Councilwanen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. APPROVE PLANS AND SPEX:IFICATIONS, PHEASANT HILL AND WArDRIP SEX:OND ADDITION: Bill M:>nk - The Council took several actions on July 23rd. The first one that needs Council attention tonight is the developnent contract for both Pheasant Hill and Waldrip's Second Addition. The Council tabled action on the develOI;XI\eIlt contract until several sections were ITOdified. I believe those sections have been ITOdified. We made minor revisions to Section 7.02 and added a Section 7.13. The developer has asked that a half sentence be put on the end that I am not inplying that assessments would be based on special benefit to apply to Pheasant Hill and as they would be derived therefran. I think that was inplied in the sentence but could be added so I am recoomending that the phrase "based upon special benefit to the plat of Pheasant Hill derived therefran" and the sa.IIe type of phrase be put in Waldrip's. It just inplies that the City would only be assessed as benefit is derived. This would be added in Section 7.13. The developrrent contracts are very much the sa.IIe. I tried to put in all of the Council's ideas on that one. The final plat was approved. It takes no further action. You accepted the feasibility study detailing inprovements with the stipulation that stonn drainage section be expanded. There is a separate section attached by the engineering finn who did this project and I have alluded to sane those numbers in my meno and I believe that I can state that the rate and voll.I[re numbers will not have a negative inpact on the downstream property. Mr. M:rrill Steller did get notification. He was mailed a copy of the cover mem::> and the agenda. Lastly, plans and specifications were approved. I attached the first three sheets because they give the Council a very good overview but since the plans are quite bulky and the specs are just as bulky I did not put final sets in each packet. Mayor Hamilton - Merrill Steller was apparently satisfied with the drainage infor- mation? Bill M:>nk - I don't know. I didn't talk to him. -- Mayor Hamilton - It would appear as though it certainly is better for him. It gives him less flowage for a longer period of tiIre. Councilwanan Swenson - Do we have any way to assure that the City could be held hannless in the event that storm water runoff does create that problem in the future? Bill r-bnk - As much as I would like to say that I would like to put the total b1.am= and everything else on every developer that canes through, when the City does a 429 improvement and approves that inprovement it is taking sane implicit responsibility. Council Meeting August 20, 1984 -22- We have looked at the downstream. We have tried to cover those points. If problems do occur, the City may be looking at a hostile group in the future as part of an assessrrent hearing. That is how that would end up. We have looked at it. '!here are no houses that would be darraged. 'lb.e question canes up of your ponding rrore water on I nw property. I believe the City could sustain what it's doing is reasonable that it is a trade-off and at this point to initiate major downstream storm water irrprove- !rents is uncalled for rot you are taking sane responsibility because the Council is approving the plans. We could transfer sane of that but you can't transfer it all. Roger Knutson - Cities are getting sued rrore and rrore frequently on just that sub- ject. That is always a real question. The only thing you can say is that there are no guarantees. We have the best protection we can with good plans, a good develop- !rent contract. RESOLUTION #84-47: Mayor Hamilton rroved the adoption of a resolution approving the final plans and specifications and development contracts for Pheasant Hill and Waldrip's Second Addition. Resolution seconded by Councilman Geving. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. MJtion carried. REPRESENTATIVE 'ID '!HE MIC OPT-oUT ADVISORY <:XM1ITTEE: Mayor Hamilton roved to appoint Barb Dacy to the M'lC Opt-out Advisory Carrnittee. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen SWenson and Watson, Councilrren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. APPROVE JOINT cxx)PERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR CCM,mNITY DEVEIDPMENT BlOCK GRANT PROGRAM: I RESOLurION #84-48: Councilman Horn rroved the adoption of a resolution approving a joint cooperative agreement with Hennepin County for Carrnunity Development Block Grant Program. Resolution seconded by Councilwanan Watson. 'lb.e following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. MJtion carried. KENNY'S MARKET: Mayor Hamilton noted that he has received a phone call fran a resi- dent stating that he has had difficulty with Kenny's and juveniles purchasing cigarettes by the carton and beer. Staff was directed to send a letter to Kenny's. CODIFICATION OF ORDINANCES AND COMPLETION OF ZONING/SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES: The City Attorney will solicit proposals for codifying the city ordinances. COMMUNITY SERVICES AGREEMENT - DIS'lRICT 112: Don Ashworth - We have been working with the school district and attempting to recognize that Lori's position very much needs to be coordinated with our school districts. For a number of years Chanhassen residents have been shut out of programs offered by Chaska and a lot of those programs are offered on school property. 'lb.ey do have a lead agency role in sane areas. They have very established rren' s basket- ball and a number of other programs that really don't make a lot of sense for us to duplicate those type of services. I think the agreement is very workable. There is no additional cost to the City. I would hope that on September 5th we would talk a about this a little rrore when Lori is here. No action is really needed. Councilman Geving rroved to adjourn. MJtion seconded by Councilman Horn. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamil ton, Councilwanen Swenson and Watson, Councilrren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. MJtion carried. I Don Ashworth City Manager