Loading...
1985 08 05 I I I ;C0 REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 5, 1985 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson Councilman Geving, and Councilwoman Swenson Members Absent None Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Bill Monk, and Lori Sietsema APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Due to a large agenda this evening, the following items will be discussed on a future agenda: discussion on the population, employment and house- hold forecast from the Metropolitan Council and discussion on the Lake Ann improvements. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: l.a. Conditional Use Permit Request for a Group Home for up to Ten Boys, 2600 Arboretum Blvd., Mid-American Baptist Social Service. b. RESOLUTION 085-39: Set Hearing Date for Preliminary Resolution on an Industrial Revenue Bond, The Lane Company. c. Preliminary and Final Plat Approval, Vogel Addition, 810 Creekwood Drive, Clara and Ann Vogel. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. votes. Motion carried. Mayor No negative PUBLIC HEARING CREEKWOOD DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order with the following interested per- sons present: Anne M. Vogel, 815 Creekwood Drive, Chaska Dale & Peggy Gunderson, 8840 lake Riley Blvd. Apt 117 Bill Monk: The project that is before the Council is a public improvement hearing. It involves a number of properties along the public street to be improved as well as numerous single family lots on Audubon as well as the golf course. The improvements go from HWY 101 past Mandan Circle all the way to the west edge of Halla Nursery. The improvements of paving a 20 foot bituminous mat along the ground level that J-_ t_) !~~:.l Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -2- already exists. In the feasibility study that is being considered tonight, the improvements include grading and drainage improvements to be done by the city as I routine maintenance work at no cost to the owners. The only cost being assessed back are the engineering costs associated with the project itself and the costs of the 2" by 26" mat that will be put down along the gravel section of the road. There are proposed, at this point, no right-of-way acquisitions. The estimated project cost is $16,500. It is to be assessed at the end over a number of residential properties. Most of them will be down to on-line, off-line properties; off-line being assessed at $300 because they must use this road to get to and from HWY 101; on-line properties being assessed at a 2-1 ratio at $600 per unit. The nursery has been set at 4 units for an assessment of $2,400 and the Bluff Creek Golf Course has been determined by using a useage arrangement because we couldn't come up with any unit determination, and they are being proposed to be assessed for $9,600. There being no comment from the public, Councilman Geving moved to close the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CREEKWOOD DRIVE STREET Councilwoman Swenson: charged? There are no IMPROVEMENTS: On the grading and drainage situation, how will that be costs included in the report. Bill Monk: We would do that just as routine maintenance. We take the blade down and put gravel down, blade it, and set the drain and set the grade by itself. Councilwoman Swenson: I assume by these four assessments to Halla Nursery, we are saying that we will give them four building permits if they wanted to divide their property. I Bill Monk: Based on -- that changes between to be re-evaluated. the current now and the Before this ordinance, that is really what we are saying. If time that the project is assessed, that would have project is assessed, we may have to review that. Councilwoman Swenson: In other words, that assessment would be reviewed if and when that change is made. Bill Monk: The feasibility study is nothing more than a proposed assessment. The Council has to make that determination. Councilman Geving: If we were to get a protest for the eventual assessment against the Bluff Creek Golf Association, could we substantiate a protest of $9,600 out of the $16,500 being charged to them? Bill Monk: I think we can. -- Councilman Geving: Have we ever had any contact with officials from the golf asso- ciation on this matter and are they aware that this kind of assessment could be fa cing them? Bill Monk: I have personally talked with at least one of the partners on two occa- sions and ever since the feasibility study was done the only comment received was I basically, "we will pay our share," and we never talked about what that was, but they have been contacted. They were also sent a copy of the feasibility study. I I I Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -3- .' (~'~', -. .- '-.-'" .'- RESOLUTION 085-40: Councilwoman Swenson moved the adoption of a resolution approving the preparation of the plans and specifications and authorize the solicitation of bids for the Creekwood Drive street improvements. Resolution was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. LAKE ANN BOAT ACCESS: Bill Monk: There are some items that I have written up regarding the total costs of the project and how much will come back on the city. A reduction in the contract is possible, but after looking at the work that is included, I believe that the bid, as it stands right now, is really too good to pass up. Councilwoman Watson: Part of this project is the bikeway between the Greenwood Shores park and Lake Ann Park. The Greenwood Shores park has seen a substantial increase in use since it is connected to Lake Ann Park. There is a concern about that gate, for instance, is frequently down. There are cars going in and out of that park. I don't know how to answer that problem. I realize that maintenance must get down to the lift station. But there have been some problems and we have seen an increase in useage. As we increase the accessibi- lity of that park, it is going to increase the useage. Councilman Geving: On the pathway between Greenwood Shores and Lake Ann, you are mentioning that this is adjacent to the existing wood chip trail, why aren't you going right over the top of that? Bill Monk: I was looking at the walking and hiking and that is something that you would want to promote, and I believe that the wood chips in a trail really does promote that. We would really have to remove the wood chips and get a base anyway for a bituminous bikeway. Councilman Geving: You indicated the status of the park fund. Would you explain what you were talking about there, Bill? Bill Monk: What we did was take a look at the park fund revenues and expenditures anticipated this year and we are pretty close to those numbers. We also looked at the expenditures projected for this year and for future years for other park lands (i.e. South Lotus Lake, Herman Field) LAWCON grants that have been submitted and see what the status on those projects was and how much of a balance there was in the fund. After looking at that it seemed that the balance was pretty healthy. With that, the recommendation that is being made right now could be made without any fears that we would run out of money or take the project down to a minimum balance. Councilman Geving: Apparently when we first started, there was an indication that we would probably reach this $90,000 and we would split the cost between the state por- tion and our own. We have expanded the project, could you explain to us where that expansion occurred. Bill Monk: Several things occurred. When the original estimate was done, I did not anticipate that four years would go before the project actually became a reality. There has been continual problems with the parking down by the beach. People are parking on the grass, and there is just not enough room. The major change that was made in the plan was the doubling of that parking lot, graveling and paving the parking lot. As we do the boat access and the picnicing, it is going to do nothing but get worse. That did substantially add to the project anywhere from $8,000 to $12,000 for that one item. 84 Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -4- Councilman Horn: What do we know about this paving company? Have we got any recom- mendations from other people? I Bill Monk: I have worked with them before and they do have a good name in the paving community. I feel that an executed contract with them would do the work. Mayor Hamilton: I was curious about these bids. It is obvious that some of these companies were looking at something other than what the rest of them were looking at. I am curious how there can be a $6,000 difference just doing excavation. I understand that if a company doesn't really want a bid they are going to bid high so they don't get it. Is that basically what has happened here? Bill Monk: A lot of that happens. They keep each other honest by just sending in bids and figuring not so much what the project is worth, but what it would take for them to do it and make any money. Most of the companies at this point are tied up for the rest of the year. I was hoping that one or two would at least come in that did not have enough work to do. We did get one real good bid. RESOLUTION #85-41: Councilman Geving moved the adoption the low bid from Preferred Paving, Inc. in the amount of boat access. Resolution was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, No negative votes. Motion carried. of a resolution approving $101,123.94 for the Lake Ann The following voted in Councilmen Horn and Geving. 1985 SEALCOATING PROGRAM: Bill Monk: We did get bids from the two largest sealcoating outfits in the Metro area. I am recommending that the Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. bid in the amount of $62,959.00 be accepted and the contract be awarded this evening. I RESOLUTION #85-42: Councilwoman Watson moved the adoption of a resolution approving the low bid from Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. in the amount $62,959.00 for the 1985 Sealcoating Program. Resolution was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Amend July 15, 1985 Council minutes, page 6, paragraph 4, last sentence under PIPER RIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 85-4, Councilman Geving: What responisbility does the City of Chanhassen have to clarify that bid with Mr. Yolk before we reject his bid? Amend July 15, 1985 Council minutes, page 17, paragraph 10, second sentence under SOUTH LOTUS LAKE, Councilwoman Swenson: There was great opposition for that because we were going to change the ecology of the water. Amend July 15, 1985 Council minutes, page 17, paragraph 4, last sentence under SOUTH LOTUS LAKE, Mayor Hamilton: The funds are available, the site has been selected, it took a very long process, and it hasn't been a very good process, and at this point I see no reason to continue discussion about something that has been discussed for two years, and input by the public would be reviewed by the Citizens Committee. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the City Council minutes dated July 15, 1985 as amended. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: I Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I I r ,~r: Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -5- Councilwoman Watson moved to note the Planning Commission minutes dated July 10, 1985. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. SOUTH LOTUS LAKE: --- LAWCON GRANT APPLICATION FOR BOAT ACCESS/PARK IMPROVEMENTS, CITY QI CHANHASSEN: PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUEST FOR ~ ATTACHED AND DETACHED UNITS WEST QI AND ADJACENT lQ HIGHWAY ~ BLOOMBERG COMPANIES. Don Ashworth: The City Council did establish the Citizens Committee task force in May of 1983. That committee spent a two-month period of time in coming to a recom- mendation. They reviewed various sites, including the DNR site, Carver Beach and the Bloomberg site. Their recommendation to the Council was that the Bloomberg site should be pursued as the preferred boat access site. If negotiations with Bloomberg fail, the City should then pursue the DNR site. There is a question regarding funding. The funding for the project is through the grant that was received for the north area boat access. The entire park costs associated with this project are pro- posed to be paid for from that grant. As part of that, and has been alluded to by others, is a $40,000 payment that is proposed to be made to Mr. Bloomberg as a part of the land purchase or swap. The reason we refer to it as a swap and continue that way is there is $40,000 in assessments on the northerly site. The City of Chanhassen had attempted, for a number of years, to dispose of the northerly five acres. The state would not allow the City to dispose of that or trade it unless a site of equal value were obtained. Three years ago the Park Commission budgeted monies to payoff the outstanding assessments on that property because it did not appear as though we were going to be able to dispose of that property. There are no assessments on the Bloomberg property. Accordingly, Mr. Bloomberg would pick up the assessments. In fact, it is a true swap in that he would be picking up the $40,000 assessments on that parcel and there would be a cash payment at this point in time to reimburse him for the amount of those assessments. Mark Koeqler: Just for orientation purposes, the exhibit on the monitor on the board now shows HWY 101, the dark blotches and through this portion are the apartment buildings. The park is the area that is bounded by the green. We have it broken down into two pieces because of the entrance of South Shore Drive. This piece here, which is approximately two acres and we term the upper area, this piece down here, which is a little over two acres is termed the lower area. We have got HWY 101 here with South Shore Drive coming in between. Looking at the upper area, which is approximately two acres, serves two principle purposes. 1) the parking for the boat access itself and 2) for any other facilities that are down along the lake shore. We have got 10 car and trailer stalls in the middle of it. Presently, there are 10 car spaces identified there as well. Additionally, we have shown in conceptual form at this point, that we have a softball diamond and a play area that could be accom- modated at the site. I would reiterate that those are not a part of the grant at this point in time. The parking facility, the grading, and the landscaping improve- ments would be part of the grant itself. In terms of what we are looking at from a landscaping concept is that we are providing an entryway that will have a tree canopy along the boulevard area, which is primarly Red Maple and Norwood Maple as you come into the site. Throughout the rest of the park area we really used plant materials for two purposes; for both visual attractiveness and for a physical barrier. You will notice the concentration of mass planting in this area. We have got a very steep slope through there and we are encouraging people to go around that area to get to anything that would ultimately be up above. If a ball diamond goes in, we would 235 Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -6- encourage that there be a dense screen planting along this portion of this property that would be supplemented by fencing, potentially along the outfield and along the park boundaries so that we would have a secure area for the play space. That is the concept for the upper area and the landscaping. In regards to the grading and draining aspects, what we have done with the parking lot is that we have tried to cut the parking lot down into the site. Drainage in the ball diamond will continue to come out to HWY 101 just as it does at the present time. The drainage within this portion of the site will actually come down into the parking lot area. The parking lot will be used to some degree for a detention facility. Additionally, at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, we have added a detention pond between the parking lot and the streets, which we will control the water that comes into that. Out of that detention pond we have got a catch basin and a storm sewer system which will then be on down in the lower part of the access itself and eventually move into the lake. The access in the lower portion really has a number of primary components, the turn around, the watching facilities, which is the major one, as you can see by looking at it. It accommodates vehicles to come down to launch a boat. There are two parking spaces that are down there in the center, which were put there specifi- cally under the recommendation of the state, which are for elderly and handicapped individual use. There is a little area right here that is identified as a picnic area, a drop off type of point so that someone can come down and drop off a family, etc. In addition to the boat access, other activities that occur down there is really the picnic area. That, again, is a concept thing. There is no money in the grant for tables or grills, etc. The City has indicated from time to time that might be an appropriate site. There is existing tree cover all through here, which is essentially somewhat dictative where the access goes. The access location, we have located as far to the west that we reasonably can. The major constraint there is that we are trying to preserve the canopy of oak trees that exist. The access is approximately 110 to 120 feet from this property line. What we have done and shown in terms of improvements along that area, we show, as you go across the site, a con- tinuation of the existing tree cover that is there. We have put some large species in through this portion, with the ultimate hope that they will help mitigate the view from these houses up here. These properties sit approximately 40 feet above the ele- vation of the lake so that we are not going to stand here and tell you that we are going to screen those completely, because we are not. But we think as those trees mature the canopy will help soften the view down into that area. We have used plant materials for physical purposes as well as aesthetic purposes. We have provided an extensive barrier, which is quite dense along this portion of the site because of the buffer of the adjacent residential property. We have provided another buffer in this area, which is actually a somewhat depressed area, which is intended to buffer the parking stalls from the actual lake. The other feature on this particular portion is the stretching along this site of the access, we have put in a walkway trail that will lead up to the parking lot. We have consciously located the picnic facilities, the trail and the access as far away from the residential property as we reasonably can. The other control measure that has been put into place so far in review of the Park Commission is that surrounding the entire boat access itself on both sides we have proposed a ballard and chain assembly. We define that for both vehicular and pedistrian flow. Additionally, we would propose that there would be signage throughout this portion to indicate that is the end of the park property boundaries. The balance would be private property and no trespassers would be permitted. Looking at the grading aspects of the lower area. Up above we have a continuation of that storm sewer that comes down from the detention pond, which is right off of the parking lot. We are proposing to run a storm sewer down, which would kind of meander through the access itself. Along the way we have got a series of sump type catch basins which will help slow down the flow of water and in addition will allow some additional sedimentation to occur. When you get down to the lower part of the access, the catch basins will eventually outlet into a drainage swale, that has been I I I I I I r r, Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -7- identified down through this portion of the site. There is an additional catch basin in this area as well, because what we essentially have done, is taken the boat access and tipped it away from the lake inward so that any storm water that falls upon the access will come back into the site rather than going out directly into the lake. That drainage water will come into this lower area, and in all likelihood, on a final plan, this catch basin will probably be connected back here and brought out and the drainage would occur in that fashion. This grading and drainage plan has been reviewed preliminarily by the Watershed District. They were in general consensus with it. They said they would take a look at the catch basin connection that I just mentioned and possible dentention down in that area in addition to a swale. The boat access drive that proceeds on down is about 10 percent at its steepest, which does occur throughout this portion of the site. That is an overview. (Mr. Koegler was referring to a chart throughout his presentation.) Councilman Geving: I think one of the things that Don alluded to when he introduced Mark was that you were going to try and answer some of the questions of the Hill Street memorandum. Do you feel that you have hit upon all those items? Mark Koeqler: let me hit upon one, Councilman Geving, which may need a little more emphasis and that would be drainage in the general area. I don't want to advocate that we have done an overall drainage plan. You are well aware that we took strictly park property. The City Engineer and the developer's engineer have been looking at that portion of the site. Essentially, when we have looked at drainage in the park, what we had done is we had defined these black lines, which indicate the existing drainage boundaries right now on the property as it exists. This portion of the site is somewhat sheet draining down towards lotus lake. The center section comes down toward the lake. This funnel shaped area comes down to HWY 101. This portion comes down to HWY 101 slightly askew and then the balance of the drainage through this portion comes down across the properties that Mr. Melby and his neighbors have referenced in their letter. At the present time there is sheet drainage that does come across those properties. That is the way the contours are at the present time. What we will actually be doing, in looking at this project, there is a dash line along this portion that roughly defines the line of the drainage area that we will be excluding from the pattern as it exists right now. The drainage within this line and the existing dark line through this area, will now be collected in the detention system in the storm sewer system that will eventually flow down to the swale and out into the lake. So that water will be channelized more directly to lotus lake in this fashion rather than a sheet fashion that is presently coming across the lower portions of those properties. We are not changing the balance of that particular area, but just with the access we are chipping away at a portion of that. Councilwoman Watson: That would, at least to a degree, keep the park water on the park property as opposed to any increase we have going across neighboring lots. Jack Melby: I have seen this presentation before and it hasn't changed. We are very familiar with the amount of drainage in the area. The water that is going to be coming out of this development down the hill, which is a steep grade and we know it is going to happen and we are very concerned about the velocity of that water. We talked earlier about simply not putting a swale in there, but building a berm three to four foot high to contain it and I can assure you that it is going to come down there and wash out the beach area. The other concern is the water that is going into HWY 101 along the drainage ditch that will also come down and go through those three properties so all the water and runoff created by the development of these roads, etc. is being directed into those properties. Our primary concern is, it is going to increase the volume because of the density of that development, but more importantly, Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -8- the velocity. It is a very steep hill and I expect to see damage at a moderate rain- fall and certainly at heavy rainfall. I think you should reconsider the plan in terms of velocity for exploring and make some plans to check that water flow. I Mayor Hamilton: That would be done. This is very preliminary, as Mark has said, the way that he sees it at this time how the water would flow. But I am sure before anything is finalized, we would have a very thorough study done of what the best way to handle the water is and where it is going to go and how we can direct it to where we want it to go. That has always been a concern of ours. Councilman Gevinq: I would like to follow up on that because I think it is valid point. We talked about berming along HWY 101 and I am not so sure that I want to push that because of the view angle and some other ideas. I do believe that maybe the separation that we are talking about could be clear cut, very definitive and if it means berming the area between the proposed park area and Mr. Melby's lot line, then I would say berm the entire thing all the way up to the line that we see on the chart. I believe that berming should be a part of the land. Councilwoman Watson: Would that be the same time as we would discuss potential fencing of that lower portion as well? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Councilman Horn: Is there a certain portion of the runoff from the development that would go down this street, or how is this separated from the remainder of the development? Bill Monk: Two systems will work. We have looked at both the development and this I. proposal. The bulk of the water will be handled through the development and through the basins created on the development. There is some street drainage that will be coming from the development, from the short cul-de-sac in the Bloomberg development will flow towards them. We have incorporated all those areas into our calculations. Henry Sosin: I commend you for considering Jack Melby's property in the plans that you are trying to perfect. I hope that doesn't mean, however, that all the water that we are talking about coming from the parking lot in the other area is going to be piped rather than sheet flowed into lotus lake, because as you all know, pipe draining is probably the worst kind of drainage as far as the effect on the ecology of the lake. Mayor Hamilton: I think you made the same type of comment at the Planning Commission meeting and Bill had attempted to reply to that at that time. So I think we are all aware of that and we don't certainly like piping of water. This is a very preli- minary sketch and it is just an idea that Mark has put on paper so that we can get some idea and so you can have some idea of a possibility that can happen. I think we need to discuss it in more detail and perhaps have an engineering firm look at the actual water flow and how we can handle it better. We will be looking at this in more detail. Councilwoman Watson: This would simply be an attempt to direct the water. It would not have anything to do with what happened to it while it was being directed. Mayor Hamilton: I think Mark did add one retention pond to the north of the parking lot since the Planning Commission meeting because of some of the comments that were made there. I I I I I (:'-1 Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -9- Jack Melby: I was wondering about the operating hours and alcoholic beverages. Is this the appropriate time for that question? Lori Sietsema: The operating hours of the park must be open 16 hours a day between 4 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, because it is a LAWCON grant. Lake Ann Park has the same stipulations. We open that park at 6 a.m. and close it at 10:00 p.m. Our park ordi- nance indicates that parks have to be closed at 10:00 p.m. As far as alcoholic beverages, the park ordinance does not allow anything stronger than 3.2 beer. It is up to the City Council whether they want to eliminate that in that park. They have the option to have a park rule banning alcohol from that park. Mayor Hamilton: Doesn't the DNR have some regulations regarding that? Lori Sietsema: I don't believe so. Jack Melby: Just to remind you, in previous Planning Commission and City Council meetings, we talked about the privacy issue down there. That is one of the concerns that we have with late night vandalism and things like that. We recommended at that time that there would be some kind of fencing along the south side of the park pro- perty to help us in the area of trespassing, vandalism and things to that order. Would you respond to that. Mayor Hamilton: Again, this is a preliminary plan and I think we are all aware of your concerns and we are concerned about that. I think we want to do whatever we possibly can. I can understand that it is a little difficult for you to keep an eye on your boat, etc. all the time and we will do everything we can to address that. Wes Arseth: What is going to be the controlled number of boats to be down there at one time or during the night time? Lori Sietsema: We have a couple of options. One option is there are 12 parking spots, with proper signage in the parking area, boat access area, as well as on the streets, and frequent police patrolling, a limited number of lake users will be able to get on the lake. Anyone parking in an illegal area would be ticketed or towed, discouraging abuse. A second option is to install a gate house at the boat access site with a park attendant on duty during park hours. The park attendant would be responsible for closing the boat access when the parking area is filled until a parking spot opened up, thus limiting the number of boats on the lake. Wes Arseth: What about the ones in the condominiums that launch a boat and park their trailer in the garage? Lori Sietsema: Once the parking area is filled they would not be allowed to launch their bo~t. However, there would be no way we could control that before the parking area is filled. Wes Arseth: Why don't we have a numbering system that only so many boats go in the lake? Lori Sietsema: I don't believe that is legal. Wes Arseth: The DNR does it all the time with the number of parking spots. Lori Sietsema: I called the DNR and asked them if we could just limit it to twelve boats even though there were parking spaces available, and they told me that you can't do that. If there are parking spaces available we have to let them in. Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -10- Mayor Hamilton: more and see if number of ideas will do. I think that is something else that we are going to have we can't find the best solution to that problem. We have and the Council has not had an opportunity to discuss it, to discuss heard a which we I Wes Arseth: This is the issue that I have been talking about all the time. But there is no regulations here. If it were down at the other site, there would be some regulations. Mayor Hamilton: There would be no regulation there either. We are talking about exactly the same thing. No matter where the boat access is, if a person decides to put their boat in and take their car and trailer back home or where ever they want to put it, it is going to be the same no matter where you are at. The thing is, if they don't have any place to dock their boat, they take their boat out. Wes Arseth: Say we get too many boats in the lake at one time, that becomes a problem of traffic. What would you do? Mayor Hamilton: We are going to have to have the Sheriff's Department out there patrolling it. Wes Arseth: Would you shut down the lake? Mayor Hamilton: How do you shut down the lake? Wes Arseth: With the number of power boats. Mayor Hamilton: I am certain that we would have recommendations back to us from the I Sheriff's Department because it could become a dangerous situation and then we would have to do something to our ordinance to enforce it more strictly, which would include everybody on the lake, not just the boat access. Wes Arseth: Well, then we are putting a lot of money into the access for naught. Mayor Hamilton: I don't know that. I don't think that there are going to be hundreds of people coming here to put their. boat on lotus lake. Wes Arseth: I just hope not. Councilman Geving: I think, too, that you have got to recognize that there is a significant drop from the parking area to the boat launching area. You are going to have to want to get onto the lake pretty badly if you want to drop your boat off, drive up the hill and walk back down to get to your boat, then come off the lake and do the same thing over again. It is not going to be that convenient. I suspect that after people try it once or twice, they won't come back. I really don't think that it is going to be that popular. I am just wondering about the boat access. What are you going to do with Carver Beach? Are you going to take that out or what? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, that will be closed. Councilwoman Swenson: It is going to be my recommendation that we leave open the I option, if it is not decided at this point, to put in a gate house. It is my recom- mendation that we leave this option open and if we find what you are suggesting is I I I l JC ? Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -11- happening, then we will say only 12 boats will be let in. When 12 boats have been put on, then that is it. This works on lake Riley. It has cut down the traffic on the lake. It may not be necessary to do that, but I would certainly request that this Council would consider such as option. Rick Murray: I commend Mrs. Swenson for her comments because if this does become a problem then this is an option that this body still has later to help gain control of the lake. I think this thing has been studied for some time and I want to commend the staff for what they have done and also the Council for their efforts. Henry Sosin: I would like to go back to a more basic problem. Having attended several meetings here and also the Planning Commission meetings, and my sense after the Planning Commission meeting, and I think it was expressed in their minutes, is that there was great concern about the safety features related to any access on the east side of the lake, mainly vehicular traffic from HWY 101. In addition to the vehicular traffic, I believe the Planning Commission even recommended not going ahead with the park because they were so concerned about city attraction from the park. I know that one of their recommendations in their motion was that Council give serious consideration to, what I think the minutes said, the other three possible access sites. I am not sure what was meant by those. My real concern is that the Council really does seriously consider that there may be a better site, a more safe site, for a boat access on the lake. The DNR seems to have, at this site, accepted split parking, like at the Carver Beach site. Don Ashworth: I did contact the DNR and they said that they were unaware of any rule changes that were any different today than they were at the time that they had discussed the various issues with the lotus lake task force group. I did mention the Carver Beach site and questioned the potential of split parking. They could not see how parking could be achieved in the Carver Beach area. They were trying to think of how it potentially could occur. As much as they are aware of the area they could not see how it could be achieved. They did say that there were no differences today than they had expressed back to that committee at that point in time. Mayor Hamilton: Also, the traffic concerns that you have suggested certainly concerns all of,us. That was, indeed, one of the recommendations made by the Planning Commission that we have a traffic expert look at what would be best way to handle the traffic in that area, which I am sure we will do. Henry Sosin: The difference, I believe, is that initially the DNR refused the Carver Beach site because the Carver Beach parking area was located above the site and their objection was that no one who has a physical handicap could use that site. That is very similar to what they are accepting here. Two different spots below for han- dicaps and the rest up above. There is a park there and the DNR actually did walk that when they were looking at the Carver Beach site, as did other people and citi- zens as well. But their objection was only the handicapped parking, not the fact that there would be off site parking for others. As we mentioned at the last meeting, I think to call the DNR and say a little change, they are obviously going to say no. If the Council were to decide that there is a real problem with safety and if there is a possibility of achieving an access at another site which eliminates that problem and which the lake Study Commission gave you as a number one choice for ecological reason initially, then I think it would be worth while to approach the DNR with a very positive status, saying we need it there, because. ( :: / L :... Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -12- Don Ashworth: There were several problems associated with the Carver Beach area. It was not just the parking. We have a road system that if you would attempt to bring any type of a vehicle down to the boat access, none of those roads are wide enough or capable of providing any type of traffic to get down to the site. The second concern was the physical construction of the access itself. If you looked at the presen- tation by Mr. Koegler, there is quite an extensive area that is being shown for that. My point is that I don't think the parking is the only issue of concern to the Citizens Committee in looking at Carver Beach. I Councilman Horn: The committee did look at the Carver Beach site and at one point there was a lot available right across the street from what had been the mooring area and the committee felt that had the Council at that point acquired that land that would have been a viable access. Since a house was built on that property, we tried to figure out all kinds of ways to get parking in that area without having to go up to the other park, which is almost a half a mile away, and it seemed like there was no other way to get any kind of parking close to the vicinity. I think that option did exist at one point, but when the committee reviewed it we didn't see a reasonable way to get parking in the vicinity that would be at all code. Don Ashworth: The Council did approve for the Mayor and Manager to sign the grant at the last meeting and set this meeting up as discussion, so you need not take any additional action. Georgette Sosin: I would like to ask Councilwoman Swenson a question. On Lake Riley when you had that access with a gate, did that come on after it was approved with no gate or did they put it on at the beginning. Councilwoman Swenson: No, that was put on because it was determined that it be required. I Georgette Sosin: That was the point that I wanted to make. Mayor Hamilton: We will be reviewing that, I am sure. It will certainly be one of the items that we will want to consider very carefully. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUEST FOR ~ ATTACHED AND DETACHED UNITS WEST ]I AND ADJACENT lQ HIGHWAY ~ BLOOMBERG COMPANIES: Mayor Hamilton: This item was reviewed also on July 15, 1985. There were some recommendations made by the Council to Mr. Bloomberg. He asked for some time to review those requests that the Council had made and he has replied to them. We have the item back on tonight so that we can review it again this evening and look at the changes that Mr. Bloomberg has made. Barb Dacy: At the JUly 15 meeting the City Council made several recommendations as to how the plan should be amended. It can be seen by the minutes the recommendations were that the duplexes should be eliminated to reduce the density to 2.7 units per acre which coincides with the Planning Commission recommendation to close the access to West 77th Street. A recommendation was made that additional berming be made along TH 101 and that there be individual riparian rights for the four riparian lots on Lotus Lake. There was an additional recommendation in that the duplex lot be split so that there would be two single family lots instead a duplex lot and two single family lots. The applicant has reviewed the City Council minutes and has submitted I this revised plan, which represents the fourth revised plans since the initial appli- cation. He has reduced the number of units from 66 to 62. Now proposed are 20 single family units, 14 duplex units and 28 condominium units. The gross density of I I I Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -13- the project is 2.91 units per acre. That excludes the acreage for the boat access and park. The net density is 4.23 units per acre. That excludes the public right of way. The average single family lot size is 19,356 square feet. The average duplex size is 6,348 square feet. The median lot size is 16,500 for the single family lots and 7,500 square feet for the duplex lots. In conformance with the DNR recommen- dations, the applicant has indicated a conservation easement to match the 930 eleva- tion contour in the area adjacent to the lake to preserve the slope. He has also amended the drainage and utility easments in this area to conform with staff recom- mendations for the existing ravine between lot 17 and 18 as well as he proposed a retention pond on the north part of lot 16. An additional change was made, lot 3 was originally a duplex lot and it has now been changed to a single family lot. The con- dominium units was originally 31 and three condominium lots have now been eliminated. The land use pattern remains as has always been considered to match the existing single family uses which propose single family uses and to surround the perimeter of the plan with single family lots. There has been a reduction in the number of duplex lots. Seven lots remain as duplexes. The intent of the land use pattern is to con- centrate the highest density of development in the center of the parcel adjacent to the cluster street, the park and across the existing high density development. The traffic issue is also a major issue discussed both with the Commission and the Council meetings. The Council concurred with the Commission recommendation to not connect the proposed South Shore Drive with West 77th Street. Staff is maintaining its previous recommendation that a connection be made with a right on only, turning movement at the westerly access onto TH 101. The grading and drainage features have also significantly changed since the initial time of that location. The cul-de-sac in the northwest corner of the plat has been pulled back in conformance with staff recommendations and the necessary easements identified as mentioned earlier. DNR approval: As you know, the PUD must be approved by the Department of Natural Resources. We discussed at the last meeting the issue regarding individual docking rights for each of the four riparian lots. I talked to the DNR staff regarding the Council's desire to have each of those riparian lots enjoyed. They normally allow one dock per lot. The DNR's adamant that not only that the slope be maintained, but that the number of docks in that area would be minimized as well. They will not approve the plan if the docks in this area exceed two docks. I also indicated in the report that they would approve up to eight slips. That was incorrect. They now indicate that is now four slips. They will only approve two docks and four slips. Mayor Hamilton: Which lots? Barb Dacy: lots 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. I believe on lot 16 they already have a dock, so it is lots 17 through 20. Councilwoman Watson: That would be one slip per lot. Barb Dacy: Correct. Two docks and four slips. Mayor Hamilton: The existing dock is not included in the numbers. Barb Dacy: Yes, that is correct. Mayor Hamilton: So it would be three docks then. Councilman Horn: So there can only be four boats there. ~ Dacy: Correct. Mayor Hamilton: On the two docks. There is one dock there already. Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -14- Councilwoman Watson: So there would be six boats making multiple use out of the pre- sent dock. I Councilman Gevinq: The dock on lot 16 remains as is, that is excluded. Councilwoman Swenson: Then it would be two in addition to that? Councilman Geving: Yes. Councilman Horn: Do we need the DNR approval on this? Barb Dacy: Yes. Councilman Horn: When does the DNR supercede our lake ordinance? Barb Dacy: The most restrictive rules will apply, where there is a conflict between local regulation or state regulation, which ever is the most restrictive will apply. The shoreline management ordinance is adopted by the City ordinance #65. That clearly states that the DNR has to approve a PUD or final plans. Councilman Horn: What basis do they have for limiting the number of docks, what is their precedent for that? Barb Dacy: They believe the unique nature of the site beyond the slope and they want to protect the integrity of the lake and the shoreline in that particular area and minimize the number of structures and the number of slips per dock. Councilman Horn: I guess if we are concerned about the challenge ability of our ordinance, I would really be concerned about that one. I Barb Dacy: The parks and open space issue, the Park and Recreation Commission recom- mended that a trail easement be identified between the condominium area and TH 101 provided pedestrian access from the neighborhood to the west to the post park site. Also the Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the City Council pursue negotiations with the developer to acquire what is known as Block 4. It is triangu- lar in shape and approximates two-thirds of an acre. According the the Park and Recreation Commission this would be suitable for tennis courts, volleyball and basketball areas. Staff concurs with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommen- dation and would recommend that the City Council strongly consider reducing the park charge per unit in view of a land dedication agreement of this two-thirds acre parcel. In summary, staff is recommending approval of the proposed preliminary and final development with rezoning to P-l, planned residential development, based on the plans received on July 31, 1985, and subject to the following conditions: 1. DNR formal approval. 2. No more than two docks and four slips for lots 17-20, Block 1. 3. Watershed District approval. 4. Recommendations in the City Engineer's memo dated June 10, 1985. 5. Dedication of a trail easement between TH 101 and the condominium area. 6. Authorizing staff with City Council final approval to negotiate the dedication of Block 4 for park purposes. 7. Revision of the landscaping plan to show one tree per duplex unit at the rear of the duplex lots. I I I I Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -15- Herb Bloomberg: I don't know if I understand exactly what the DNR is restricting in regard to the shore. They are limiting the four lots to two docks, I understand that, but are they going to jeopardize the Fenger lot? Are they taking jurisdiction there? I would rather take that lot out of the plat. My sister won't sign this plat if she loses her dock. She has lived there for 17 years and has dock rights. Barb Dacy: If there is an existing dock there on your sister's property, their recommendation does not include that existing dock. This is for the four proposed new lots. Herb Bloomberg: dock and so she lake, I hope. We had planned a dock there before. But she hasn't been using the certainly isn't losing rights because she hasn't been using the Councilman Geving: That is something that we better check on, but I am sure that it's not true. Barb Dacy: It has always been my understanding that those two docks were for the preliminary proposal and would not affect your existing dock. Mayor Hamilton: We will clarify that for you, Mr. Bloomberg, to make sure. Herb Bloomberg: We got involved in acquiring this strip of land where the blue house is over on the east edge because we have been trying to develop without it and that has been happening for two years. I didn't think that we would be losing the dock rights for this home that had a dock and there is even one there today on the shore. It is a sandy shore and that is part of my reason in wanting to cooperate to get this lake access on this end of the lake because it is such an ideal one from an ecology standpoint. There is no way that boats can stir up the soft bottom and hurt the eco- logy of the lake. There has been concern in regard to the activity, and I think that anyone recognizes that that could be a problem, but you have grand fathered in two lake residences, both with lake rights. What I would like to do would be to find if we couldn't trade those two dock rights for one single dock that could be used for four slips which would let them maintain their dock. Another advantage would be that, for whatever concern there is in being the last dock in the line next to the public access, that this be a buffer dock. I would think that Mr. Melby would maybe appreciate four friendly neighbors that would help police that. Mayor Hamilton: Did you have anything else, Mr. Bloomberg, that you wanted to relay to us? Herb Bloomberg: It is quite obvious that this will be going through the next phases. One thing that I built from the start, I love this view down the lake. You can see the hills that over look Christmas lake two miles away. I would like to see it writ- ten into the park board stipulations for maintaining this landscaping and that this would be forever a site line so that when you are driving north on TH 101 you will get a nice glimpse of that lake. We all know that with one building and with some trees and shrubs in the way we have lost that forever. We named that road South Shore Drive and I think it would be nice to see what shore you are talking about. Councilman Geving: I think you could help with that by when you develop that area, make sure you leave that view open with the homes that you are planning. If you plan it that way, it will stay that way. Herb Bloomberg: I have problems on a couple of building sites, too, which restricts me too, but I think it is well worth the effort. Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -16- Councilwoman Watson: Here again we come to the drainage problem and I realize we discussed that in relationship with the park, but if we could keep the water from this site and try and minimize any water that leaves. It is all the same problem and I am sure that it can all be dealt with at that time. I don't know when we will be dealing with crossing TH 101. There will be people crossing TH 101. One suggestion was a pedestrian overpass and I realize that would be extremely expensive. Don Ashworth: Mr. Koegler, I know you did look at that issue briefly on the pedestrian/traffic issue. Mark Koegler: Yes we did. We had taken a look at the pedestrian issue in regard to the park. TH 101 is, admittedly, a difficult situation. Anybody that is in the area is well aware of that. The apartments across the way from the potential park is really the concern that we were looking at. In order to look at that we reviewed the project and talked to the apartment management people. They indicated that there are approximately 20 - 25 children in the entire apartment complex right now. Two of the buildings are adults only. From their observations, the smaller children are kept within the complex and they said they have only seen teen-age type kids walking into town along TH 101. Regardless of that, we still need to provide the safest crossing as possible. What we have looked at, opposite the driveway that comes in with the parking that is close to TH 101 at that point is probably the best location for a marked crosswalk across there. We also talked to the Minnesota Department of Transportation about the possible installtion of the flashing warning signs for pedestrian crossing in that area and they agreed that this would probably be appropriate there. I would like to point out that they would not share in the cost of that and that would be a city expense. That can be done reasonably and economi- cally. . Another reason that we proposed the crosswalk here is because it would tie into the trail, which I believe is one of staff's recommendations that leads behind the condominium units over into the park itself, which would allow people to get across TH 101 either into town or in the park or whatever the best connection might be. We have addressed that as a preliminary fashion. Councilwoman Watson: The access on South Shore, is this a right out only? Bill Monk: The original plan that was submitted called for two access points onto TH 101 and a connection onto W. 77th Street. At the last meeting the Council had talked about leaving the two access points onto TH 101 completely operational with all turning movements and not making any connection to W. 77th Street. That has to be made a part of whatever motion the Council makes on this item. That should be specified. Councilwoman Watson: Okay. The only logical thing would be to have people be able to make either a right or left turning movement out of those two streets, especially since the desire is to cut off W. 77th Street. Mayor Hamilton: If you want to talk about the movement of traffic, perhaps you could address the Hill Street intersection issue. Bill Monk: Since the very beginning, I have always thought that as the series deve- loped, one of the primary concerns would be a realignment of the southern most Hill Street access onto TH 101 on a really bad curve with severe sight distance restric- tions in either direction. I proposed that the existing southerly access point of Hill Street be closed off and realigned into this plat, that street would not be built to a full section, the section would be built more along the lines that already exist there right now. You could eliminate that dangerous access point. That has always been a part of the plan and is a part of the plan that is being recommended right now. I I I I I I Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -17- Wes Arseth: You know, Bill, the east side of Hill Street exiting onto TH 101 is an extremely dangerous area. As the traffic from the development exits out there, you are going to have that multiplied many times over. Is there any thought of putting the dead end on that. Mr. Powers has talked to me about giving some land of his that he owns back there and trading it off for the front part of it and making it a cul- de-sac back there, which would make it a lot safer than what we have right now. Mayor Hamilton: Is there any chance of tying the Horr property into that also so that he could come up and go out through Hill Street because his access has been really bad. Bill Monk: I don't believe so. I think that actually is frontage onto TH 101. I would not pursue the cul-de-sac option. I believe that the straight forward approach with having lakeshore come right up on TH 101, most or all of the traffic would use the access points on TH 101. Hill Street was going to be designed somewhat now so it looks not much more than a wide driveway. In order to try and stop people from making that move, since it is not a difficult move onto TH 101, almost 100 percent of the traffic would go directly to TH 101 where there would be turn lanes and those type of improvements. You could pursue the cul-de-sac idea, but my approach on this is just to get rid of the one right on the curve. If the Council would give me direction, I would be more than happy to meet with the homeowners and take a look at the possibilities. Councilman Geving: I would recommend that we get a petition from the homeowners on Hill Street to close off their home street and we start from there. Unless you do that it looks like we are taking the initiative. Councilwoman Watson: I am amazed at the DNR's decision. I think there is a lot of land like this on a lot of lakes and I am surprised that they have chose~ this par- ticular moment to be arbitrary about that particular issue. Councilman Geving: As a result of our last meeting we asked Mr. Bloomberg to go back and realign his plat and he has done some of those things that we had asked him to do. One of the recommendations that we made is that he reduce the number of con- dominiums and he has now reduced his condominiums from 31 to 28 and the front end of the north side of the plan now looks very nice to me. I believe that there is a cer- tain amount of riparian rights that are available to Lot 16, there should be no question about the lot and the dock on that particular lot, nor should there be any question, in my mind, on the dock for Block 2. Secondly, I had spoken about closing off West 77th Street. I believe that should still happen. I had recommended that we take Lots 1, 2 and 3 and create two single family homes facing onto South Shore Drive, so if we would remove one lot there, which means that instead of having three small lots, we would have two very nice lots of approximately 13,400 square feet each. They would be facing South Shore Drive, which means that would have no impact on what happens on West 77th Street. I would recommend that we do like I initially said at the last meeting, make that line between Lots 2 and 3 all the way from the east to the west and create two lots rather than three. My next comment has to do with the berming along TH 101. I want to back off from that comment a little bit because I do believe what Mr. Bloomberg had to say is exactly correct. We want to retain the view of the lake. Along with that, I believe we ought to think seriously about putting in a trail way, a bike way, or some way of accessing the entire length of this plan from the downtown area across the plan and continuing on up TH 101. We received a letter from Chuck Hurt. He is the president of the Lotus Lake Betterment Association. What he is proposing to do is just exactly what we said. I think that would be a very nice betterment to our community to make that happen. On the right-out that was proposed for the west most entry way to South Shore Drive, ~.~ Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -18- I believe that we should have all turning movements there and not just a right out. I don't believe that we could ask people to drive north all the way up to the northern most and eastern most entrance to this planned community to enter their home. I would like to see that be all turning movements on both of those accesses. In regards to the docks, I don't believe that the DNR is correct in their assumption of what they are trying to do to us with giving us two docks and four slips. It is totally unreal and we have not been faced with this before from the DNR. This is the very first time we have had this kind of comment or request from the DNR. I think we ought to vote to have it for this development and see if we can't push that through. The two docks I don't have any problem with, but we shouldn't treat Mr. Bloomberg or anybody else differently. We should give them four slips or five slips for each one of those docks. In regards to the gross density, we are now getting down, in terms of gross density, to the area that we talked about before and that was an objective of 3.0. We are at 2.91 on our gross density and I think that is very acceptable. I believe that we should not provide for any decrease in the park dedication fee, nor make any attempt to acquire Block 4. I think Block 4 will take care of itself in due time. We have adequate amount of space dedicated to the park. My personal opinion is that there should not be a reduction in the park dedication fees for any of this development. I also agree with the City Engineer that we should eliminate the existing south access to Hill Street. Councilman Horn: Councilman Geving covered most of the comments that I would have made with the exception that the Council had also recommended the elimination of the duplex lots. I read in Mr. Ashworth's recommendations on August 5th that Mr. Bloomberg is concerned about the duplexes on lots 21 through 23. I think those con- cerns are valid in that case. However, we also have the duplexes on lots four through nine that have not been addressed and I don't see the arguments used on lots 21 through 23 being valid for those lots, so I would like to reinforce the recommen- dation that we had made the last time we reviewed those that they would be single family lots along that section. Mayor Hamilton: I think lots 6 and 8 are not duplex lots, they are single family lots. Councilman Horn: I could share Dale's and Carol's comments about the DNR. I think they have expressed them adequately. It is hard to find any consistency with what they are doing with a recommendation like that. But other than the recommendation for lots 4, 5, 7, and 9 and concurring with the recommendation to close off W. 77th Street and make the South Shore exist a right in, right out, that would conclude my recommendations. Councilwoman Swenson: I certainly agree with Councilman Horn. When I was working on this, I was concerned about the size of the duplex lots. If, in fact, the duplexes are eliminated as I also feel they ought to be along the west side, we rarely smile at anything less than 15,000 square feet for a single family dwelling and yet we have a request here for 12,200 square foot buildings sites that are being divided in two. I am not pleased with that. The first option that I would have would be to eliminate the duplexes. By eliminating the lot, which I thought we had recommended last week, we have 11 lots going through lot 12 and through 11 down which constituted about 157,500 feet. If we were to take those 11 lots and divide them equally, we would wind up with a 14,300 square foot lot, which for a single family dwelling is usually what we request. My first preference would be the elimination of the duplexes. In regards to the rest of the things, I am in complete agreement with everyone else. ~. I I -I 1 I r'-, ,- (':! -- Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -19- Mayor Hamilton: I am very pleased that Mr. Bloomberg came back and responded to our comments and concerns about changing some of the items in the development. I am not convinced that closing off West 77th Street is the best idea. Councilman Gevinq: I am now proposing that this development contain a total of 57 units. That total consists of the elimination of one of the single family lots in Block 1, the elimination of the four duplex units identified as Block 1, Lot 4, 5, 7 and nine and making those single family, leaving the duplexes on Lots 21, 22 and 23 and we have eliminated five units for a total of 57 units for this plan. Mayor Hamilton: I am wondering how far we are going to ask Mr. Bloomberg to go. He was here three weeks ago and we asked him to cut out several lots again, he responded to and solved nearly everyones concerns and now he has come back and we are asking him to reduce some more. So the next time that he comes back, we ask him to reduce again, pretty soon we'll be down to one house. I can't agree with cutting out another five. I think you are asking him to do too much. Councilwoman Swenson: May I review our minutes for the 15th of July when we discussed this? I suggested, should we review our recommendations and Councilman Geving replied, "I think we need to identify them." Councilwoman Swenson: "Our first recommendation that we would make would be to eliminate the duplexes, which reduces the density to 2.7, close W. 77th Street and the berming would be appropriate and the individual riparian rights for docking would be retained." Mayor Hamilton: "And that the development contract states that there be no cutting other than to put a walkway down to the dock." Councilman Geving: "I made a recommendation on the corner, making 2 lots out of the proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1." According to the minutes that we have, what we are recommending tonight is consistent with what we recommended on the 15th of July. Barb Dacy: I need some additional Council direction as to the status of Block 4. I know it is the applicant's concern that it is not to be used for park uses, that some type of determination be made if he could locate a couple of the condominium units on that lot or try and subdivide it for single family or duplex use. I believe the applicant is concerned that if it is not used for park purposes that he will have two-thirds of an acre of land that is just sitting there and not being used. I need some Council direction to give to the applicant as to what to do with Block 4. Mayor Hamilton: I think Dale's comment was that that will take care of itself in the long run. He felt that we had enough park space. I guess I would think that purchasing Block 4 would certainly be advantageous to the City. To have parkland combined with the property that is at the well house right now would make a very nice park. But I think Dale felt that it would take care of itself in due time and perhaps some time in the future maybe we could think of making use of that. Councilman Gevinq: I just don't want to mix that issue up with the whole plan, because it has not been a part of the plan. It is silent in the plan. Mayor Hamilton: But it is a part of the overall property. Councilman Geving: It is a part of the property. If Mr. Bloomberg wanted to designate that for condominiums or something, I wouldn't have any problem with that. Don Ashworth: There would be a change though, in that all the way through in the park commission at looking at this, that has been part of the park plan that has been considered by the Park and Recreation Commission. In the negotiations, that has included the lot. But if the Council determines not to pursue that, Mr. Bloomberg should be able to use that. ~~4~; Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -20- Councilman Gevinq: Maybe we should just indicate that we will continue negotiating with Mr. Bloomberg as our original intention. The Park Commission's recommendation clearly stated that we should attempt to negotiate purchasing that sometime in the future. I don't know when that would be, because that could cost us a considerable amount of money. The only other consideration that I would make is that we could acquire Block 4 by reducing park charges on all of the 57 units that are proposed to equal the cost of Block 4 so that, in a sense, we would acquire Block 4 through the park dedication process. Councilwoman Watson: How do we establish the value on that property? Don Ashworth: In all the discussions that we have had regarding the purchase of the property from Mr. Bloomberg, this parcel has always been included in those discussions. As far as the total amount of money is concerned, that would be paid over a period of time. We did discuss whether or not there would be any easing of the park acquisition charges that would be applied against the property, and I have left that issue open not saying that the city would make a reduction or not. Councilwoman Watson: I would prefer to see it done in that manner as opposed to purchasing the land. Mayor Hamilton: That is what the recommendation was. Wes Arseth: I have a question on Hill Street. I noticed the road is going adjacent to TH 101, it makes a sharp left and then makes a sharp right again. Every winter we always have troubles with the snow plows making that bend by Mr. Power's house. Is there any problem on separating those two southerly lots and putting Hill Street bet- ween that? That seems to be a lot more wise. Bill Monk: We did review that, but the problem is the placing of the existing blue house on the property. We are waiting for the potential layouts for the property in there. It seemed best to bring it up. I do believe that we can make it workable and we will separate those lots that much more from TH 101 as that access road. That was looked at and in trying to separate it you lose too much of the use of the space in the flat area. I do believe that the layout that is there is workable. Mayor Hamilton: We could do that. That is an alternative that we should keep in mind. ~ Schmieg: I guess I resent the comment that you made, Mr. Mayor, on the fact that asking Mr. Bloomberg to do something different than when he was here last time. Along with everybody else and in the minutes it was very clearly stated and by you also as to the number of units that there would be after the duplexes were cut and everything else. I don't think it has been unfair. It has been very up front. The Planning Commissioners have said it, the Council members have said it and I don't feel that that is a fair statement. I think you've been very up front with him and then to come back and completely ignore all your requests, I found, quite startling. Councilman Geving moved to approve the preliminary and final development plan request with rezoning to P-l based on the plans stamped "Received July 31, 1985" and subject to the following conditions: 1. DNR formal approval; I I I I I I Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -21- '~.>. "..": r:) v <2-,) 2. Two docks with 5 slips each on riparian Lots 17 through 20, Block 1, excluding the Fenger property and the blue house on the eastern part of the property. Staff will contact DNR regarding their requirements as to the amount of the dockage that can be permitted; 3. Watershed District approval; 4. Recommendations in the City Engineer's memorandum dated June 10, 1985 excluding recommendation 04: a. Four drainage design modifications be adopted: -Lowering the center island area of the townhouse turnaround so it can function as a landscaped detention basin with a controlled outlet. Should this location prove unacceptable, equal area must be provided elsewhere on the upper shelf area. -Using catch basins with sumps to retain large sediment par- ticles (now that the City has a vacuum truck for removing the silt build-up) and drop manholes to dissipate energy and reduce runoff velocities. -The two outlets be released into elongated swales on the lower shelf adjacent to the lake so disturbance from the discharge on the lake is minimized and additional area is provided to allow sedimentation in a location that can be readily accessed and maintained. These swales will have to be located so as not to interfere with the existing forcemains. b. The northwest cul-de-sac be shortened and lots realigned to avoid disturbance of the steep slopes adjacent to Lotus Lake. c. All Streets be constructed to City standards including a 28 foot width, and 18 inch gravel equivalency and lined with concrete curb and gutter. d. eliminated. e. All MnDot requirements for drainage and access within TH 101 right- of-way be included as a part of City approval. f. That an additional 17 foot wide strip be dedicated along TH 101 for future highway improvements. g. That all DNR and Watershed District conditions concerning density and drainage be incorporated as a part of the City's approval. 5. Dedication of a trail easement between TH 101 and the condominium area; 6. Authorizing staff, with City Council final approval, to negotiate the ded- ication of Block 4 for park purposes and for park fee credits; 7. Revision of the landscaping plan to show one tree per duplex unit; (~~ Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -22- 8. Connection into West 77th Street is not permitted. All access points shall have full traffic movements; 9. Lake views from TH 101 shall be retained; I 10. Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, shall be combined into two single family lots facing South Shore Drive, and Lots 4, 5, 7 and 9, Block 1, shall be single family lots; 11. Staff should investigate the possibility of berming along the lot line between the Melby property and the Bloomberg property; 12. Staff will continue to look into a cross-over of TH 101. The last two conditions are items that will be pursued by City staff in its prepara- tion of final specifications for the boat access and park. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. Bill Monk: I have a problem with the condition to allow dock rights with the existing blue house. That might involve allowing the private dock in a public park. I don't know with the DNR regulations if that will be commended. Don Ashworth: We may have to bring the issue back. Bill Monk: The Council may want to direct staff to pursue that, but I really don't know whether that is actually possible. If you look at the plan, the park cuts that property off. That property no longer extends all the way down to the lake. You caught me a little bit by surprise with that request. If the dock is to be straight 1- down, it could definitely cause major problems with the park access site. Mayor Hamilton: It will remain as is in the motion with the understanding that staff will pursue it and it will then come back to this body. Roger Knutson: I have not discussed this with Mr. Bloomberg, but if Mr. Bloomberg decides that he would rather go along with the DNR request and have a confrontation or law suit with them, it would be the Council's willingness to allow him to go with two docks with two slips each rather than five, if that was his desire. Mayor Hamilton: We would amend the motion at that time. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Herb Bloomberg: There are a number of factors. One is in regard to docking for the blue house. I know the City of Minneapolis they rent anchorages to boats. It seems to me, in view of the circumstances, losing a dock if you were involved in a trade taking five acres with no lake and trading it for five acres with 300 feet of beautiful lake shore. It doesn't sound like very good business to me. Maybe there can be something done that would help that. One other angle is if we eliminate the duplex lots and maybe you want to consider squeezing them together to be over 100 foot lots when you put them together. The other thing is that I feel eventually with the development with this whole park scheme, that there will come a time when the public would want to make a connection there and I would like to offer to donate that portion of the road as a park with the stipulation that someday it might be used as a roadway. I can see a few years from now that little league baseball is going over I I I I Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -23- here and you have bicycles and walking and all of that, and I think you wouldn't have trouble getting a few hundred signatures of people to the west to say that they would like their youngsters in the middle of that park without going onto TH 101. So maybe things can change. I am satisfied that we don't need the connection now, and maybe forever. But I think that we could maybe keep some of those options open. VARIANCE lQ THE ~ FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK FOR ~ DECK, 7300 LAREDO DRIVE, ALAN FOX: FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ~ DECK, 801 PONTIAC LANE, PAUL NAAB: LOT AREA AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCEt'FOR~~ SINGLE FAMILY HOME, 1565 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE, ALBERT DORWEILER: VARIANCE lQ CONTRUCT ~ ADDITION TO A NON-CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 2821 TANGERS LANE, OLSEN/HAWLEY: The above four items were approved unanimously at an earlier Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting. Therefore, no action was required by the Council. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT lQ THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE, CITY Qf CHANHASSEN: Barb Dacy: Attachments H9, 10 and 12 are going to be the primary points of discussion. H9 is the existing beachlot ordinance, HID is the proposed ordinance and H12 is the proposed ordinance proposed by Councilwoman Swenson. I would like to run through the differences between the existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance. The rirst item in the beachlot ordinance is conditional uses of any R-l District per- taining to the location of the chemical toilet facilities. The current ordinance allows that they be placed on the beachlot but they be required to be placed 75 feet backl from the ordinary high water mark. The proposed ordinance only allows these facilities for administratively authorized special events or if the Council finds it such" the facility will not entirely affect adjacent properties. The Planning Commission felt that this particular proposed language was too vague. So that was their major concern with this item and that the present language be maintained. Secondly, the current ordinance does not permit any motor vehicles to be driven or parked on the beachlot. The proposed ordinance does permit those if you launch from the beachlot by a motorized vehicle but does not allow any vehicle to be parked on the beachlot. The Planning Commission was very much opposed to the proposed ordi- nance amendment regarding this particular section. Item C. remains the same. That prohibits overnight camping on a beachlot~ lItem D., the current ordinance does not allow the overnight storage or mooring of watercraft or overnight docking of watercraft. The proposed ordinance allows overnight mooring or storage of up to five watercraft. The rest of this section regarding storing of items remains the same. Item E. refers to launching on the beachlot. This is mentioned again just because the way the proposed ordinance is structured. Item F., the current ordinance requires that a beachlot be 100 feet in width at the ordinary high water mark and landward 100 feet. The proposed ordinance requires 200 feet of lake frontage for a beachlot to have a dock, plus another 200 feet for each additional dock. There is also an area requirement for a dock and this is that a beachlot must have at least 30,000 square feet for the first dock and 20,000 square feet for each additional dock. So the proposed beachlot would have to meet both the frontage requirement and the area requirement in order to have a dock. Items F. and G. remain the same in the proposed ordinance as to the number of units a beachlot can serve. The final item that the proposed ordinance allows and is not included in the existing ordinance is that in areas that are designated as conservation easements shall not be considered as part of the beachlot. So that is more restrictive than the existing ordinance. I would now like to review attachment H12 and highlight the items that are different Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -24- from the previous ordinance. In item A. the language is simplified to just state that except for administratively authorized events, a maximum of three days per year, chemical toilets are not permitted on any beachlot. The next major change is in I regards to overnight storage. Proposed is that no recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than five watercraft in total, only three of which are allowed to be motorized watercraft. Additionally, the language continues to allow canoes to be stacked on racks and the overnight storage of sailboats. Again, docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is still permissible. That has not changed from the existing ordinance. So what has changed is the number of boats to be stored overnight and the types of boats, motorized and non-motorized. Item E. proposes the 200 feet of lake frontage require- ment and 30,000 square feet in beachlot area before a beachlot can have a dock. However, it says a limit of three docks shall be permitted on any recreational beach- lot, with a maximum of nine motorized watercraft, except on a body of water in excess of 600 acres in which case DNR regulations apply. I believe you were referring to the PUD calculation standards that the DNR used to calculate the proposed number of slips in the Red Cedar Cove townhomes. Councilwoman Swenson: This can remain at the 75 feet or be increased to the 100 feet which we require. But that can be discussed. Barb Dacy: The rest of the ordinance that Mrs. Swenson has proposed mirrors the existing ordinance as far as designating swimming areas, however, the last item J., does not permit launching from the beachlot unless it can be manually carried across the beachlot. No vehicle may be parked, driven across or utilized upon any area of the beachlot except for the purpose of the erection and dismantling of a dock. Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to add to that the inclusion of the item D. in the proposed amendment which you said the areas designated as conservation easements. I Barb Dacy: In your staff report, we also did some calculations as to how these pro- posed regulations would affect the existing beachlots. Under the existing ordinance, six out of 14 beachlots would be able to have a dock. Under the proposed ordinance directed by the attorney and staff, only two of the 14 would be able to have an addi- tional dock beyond what they have now and that was Lotus Lake Estates and the beach- lot on Lake Minnewashta Shores. We did some additional calculations today as to how Mrs. Swenson's ordinance requirements would affect the beachlots. For example, under the first option you can have one dock per 200 feet of lake frontage plus 30,000 square feet and an additional dock would be an additional 200 feet plus 20,000 square feet and a maximum of three docks per beachlot and a maximum of three motorized boats per dock for overnight storage, a maximum of five boats per dock allowed over night. In the Lotus Lakes Estates case, three with a total of nine motorized boats and an overall total of 15 boats would be permitted. The Red Cedar Cove is an item that will be discussed later on the agenda, but we thought you might be interested in how these would affect that particular development. So that would result in three docks with nine motorized boats with an overall total of 15 boats. The second option would be to increase the area of requirement on the secondary requirement for another dock to 30,000 square feet, which would require that Lotus Lake Estates could have two docks with a total of six motorized boats and an overall total of ten boats. For the proposed Red Cedar Cove, there would be three docks for a total of nine motorized boats and an overall total of 15 boats. So you have several options before you. The Planning Commission did not have the benefit of Mrs. Swenson's proposed ordinance amendment, however, they were adamant that no boats be launched from the beachlot. Their ultimate recommendation was to maintain the existing ordinance and to deny a proposed ordinance amendment. I I I I Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -25- Roqer Karjalahti: It was discussed before with the public access point and closing the Carver Beach access to any public launching. The way the proposal was before Councilwoman Swenson's suggestion of launching over this common lot, to me, was abso- lutely ridiculous. Here we are trying to restrict what is coming and that would just open it up. Jack Melby: I would like to see the existing ordinance remain pretty much as it is with the exception that the overnight storage of five boats be changed to three boats. The ordinance, as it stands, is a very sound ordinance and is the best that a lot of people have come up with and I think it ought to stay just the way it is. Steve Burke: I seem to get the feedback from the Planning Commission and the Council. Just before we listened to the Council talk about the DNR gave you the out to say that you can only put docks and alleviate some of the crowding on this one lake and you were adamant about," we are going to try and get those riparian rights back into those four lots," and now you are back with these lots saying, don't let anybody get on the lake. But you had an opportunity over there and you are saying let them back on because we shouldn't do that. You have a blue house that you are considering letting them keep their dock. It just doesn't seem right. I am won- dering, is the Councilwoman's proposal going to go before feedback, because none of her proposals have been given the opportunity to get any public feedback at a public hearing. This is the first time that I have been aware of it and I think the Council is aware of her proposed changes. I would hate to see, without public feedback, this thing be buffaloed right through because I could write up an ordinance and submit it and you probably wouldn't make overhead projections of it. Pat McMahon: This ordinance is three years old and it was inequitable and it still is. It is inequitable in many ways. If you look at the lotus lake Estates shore front, it has got 1,000 feet, almost 60,000 square feet of property and that is equiv- alent to about six shore front homes with riparian rights. We don't even have the equivalent of one. What is missing is a sense of proportion. I think that what is needed here is some common sense and compromise and I think the City Attorney's pro- posal and Councilwoman Swenson's proposal go a long way towards some equity to go on. Rick Murray: I do not think that the launch across the beachlot is a desireable thing to have. I do think, however, that this city will continue having problems with development, especially in relation to when this ordinance was brought into affect a few years ago. I don't think there has been any major relations or decent property development in the last three years. The question then comes up, what are we going to do about this situation? You can take a lot of situations where a land owner will come in to see what he can do for his property and with this particular ordinance as it stands, it is very difficult for a land owner to see the logic and the reason for some of the ways that this ordinance functions. Jack Melby: I have listened to a lot of what has been said and I think in terms of the problems that exist and the problems that potentially will exist, I think a lot of those problems will automatically be dealt with one day if we simply stand behind the existing ordinance. Candice Steele: I live on Horseshoe Curve. There are two main issues that I have when changing the present ordinance. One has to do with conservation of the waters and I think wave action from increased numbers of power boats will really cause problems. The water quality of this lake is awful. The second factor has to do with safety. That is frightening. As I look at the number of power boats that are on the lake already, that is frightening. Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -26- Tim Rashleqer: I live at 31 Choctaw Circle. I know some of you had a qualm about what is safe on the lake and what the lake is going to have to do for preservation. I think our qualm is to have preferable rights to the lake and if it is going to have I. to be controlled on a more continuous format, I think we would agree and accept the outcome of that format. But the argument equitable usage is going to be a problem for the safety or the regulation of that lake. The wetland argument, I know that many of the people here that argue about the use of the wetland, I can't but notice that they have got their lawns all the way to the lakeshore edge and they have 100 horse power boats sitting by the dock, that doesn't seem to be the issue tonight. I hope that isn't what this is about. I think that what this is about is equitable use of the outlot. I commend the people that wrote this. In my four years here, this is one of the finer documents that controls and protects the outlots. Roger Karjalahti: I really feel for the people over at lotus lakes Estates. Before we bought on Frontier Trail, we looked at a lot over there. But we knew that the land down there wasn't zoned for docks and that even if you were the one right on the water, that wasn't your land at the end and you couldn't go down there and use it, you couldn't put up a dock. All these things that are happening now are just things after the fact. When you guys bought, that's the way the rules were. Tom Merz: I live on lake Minnewashta. I hope we are all here for the same reason and that is that we have a resource such as our lakes. I feel that we have seen in the last five years since this ordinance has been implimented that the quality of our lakes have gone down hill. I would hope that if we are talking about the increased type of access to this lake, we presently have with lake Minnewashta probably one of the 35 public accesses to our lake. These things should be properly redistributed. I would hope instead of having more boats to this lake, let's redistribute that to your outlots or whatever you are going to do taking it away from this public access. 1- Mayor Hamilton: I think we have several issues to discuss here. One being specifi- cally what the effect that Pat's proposed ordinance changes, with the favor of the Council and for the Planning Commission to have further discussion, and to have a public hearing before it is altered, that is one issue we need to discuss. There is no question that the issue of beachlots and outlots is certainly a difficult one to try to decide on. There are certainly some good points on both sides, however, I think what this Council is trying to do and has been trying to do ever since the first ordinance was developed was to be fair. In my mind, that's the overriding fac- tor. We have got to be fair to everybody. Because one person lives on the lake doesn't give him the right to keep the other person off. It is a difficult issue to decide and I hope all of you realize that we are trying to be fair at all times. Councilwoman Watson: At this point in time I am in favor of leaving the ordinance as is. Councilman Geving: Every time we talk about the beachlot ordinance it is a hot issue. I believe that the beachlot ordinance was well thought out. We have spent a lot of time on it. I have been on the Council for over 10 years and I think that this is one of things that has been tested by time, at least over the past three years. I believe that we should maintain it as is. There are some minor adjustments that could be made such as the launching of boats and the trailers across the beach- lot, and the possibility of eliminating chemical toilet facilities and camping. Those are very minor things. The thing that Councilwoman Swenson is proposing is a very major departure from the original intent of the ordinance. I have a real 1 problem with this. This came as a surprise to me in our packet. I didn't realize that this was going to be an issue, so I would like to leave the issue as it is and not let it proceed any further at this time. I I I Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -27- Councilman Horn: I would like to make a couple of comments about the memo on August 5th stating the background of this ordinance. It doesn't quite jibe with the way I recall things happening. First of all it states that the Ecological Committee was reactivated in 1979 by the Planning Commission to rename the lake Study Committee. That is true as far as it goes. What they failed to state in there is that the Planning Commission was directed by the City Council at that time. This statement would make it appear that this was something that the Planning Commission did on its own. Being on the Planning Commission at that time, I recall very clearly that it was a direction from the City Council at that time that the Planning Commission start up a ordinance to serve as a subdivision ordinance for beachlots. This was the Planning Commissions method of doing that. Also it states in the next paragraph that during a tour of the City lakes it appeared that several riparian lots were over used. I am not quite sure what that means. What was actually observed was that there were many of these common out lots that were being over used. There were quite a few on lake Minnewashta that looked like marinas. There were a few on lotus lake that were obviously in very ill kept conditions. Obviously, they found the best and the worst on the lakes. We found Sunrise Hills Beach, which was very well done and we found a few others that were in the opposite extreme. It was very clear to us at that point that something had to be done about this because of all of the problems that we saw on the lake, the majority of it had to do with these beachlots. That was the reason that this was formed. Of all of the proposals that I have seen come for- ward to change this ordinance, the only one that makes any sense and logic at all to me is to qualify the amount of useage by the land area along the lake. The original feeling was, and the original violators that created this ordinance, was the 25 foot lots, the 100 foot lots that had 40 and 100 homeowners using it. In fact, we have one that has 25 feet of lakeshore that has 80 homes using it right now on lotus lake. That is the kind of access that this ordinance was put in place for. So I think there is some merit to raising the question of, if you have a certain amount of lake frontage that you should have a certain amount of useage. However, I think in some other instances, the dock ordinance was a little excessive. I am certainly sym- pathetic to Jack Melby's requirement that that be changed. I think that is exactly what Councilwoman Swenson's proposal took into account. It is perhaps a little more liberal than I would be, but I can't separate those two. I think we would have to consider the amount of use on a dock along with any ordinance that would affect this so that we would look at both of them together. As far as any of the other propo- sals, I think that is the only one that I would see that even requires discussion. Otherwise, if those ordinances were not considered together, I would certainly concur that we go along with the Planning Commission's recommendation to leave it as is. lAST SENTENCE AMENDED 09-09-85, PAGE J. Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to point out that actually what I had here is ordinance modifications. That probably should have read ordinance amendment modifi- cations. It is not new and is not anything that has not been before the Planning Commission. As a matter of fact, I could well have not submitted that and this evening suggested that we make these modifications to the ordinance amendment that is now being presented. For example, on this first item, which is A., that remains the same. The only thing that I have changed there is to eliminate the possibility of a chemical toilet. Believe me, you do not want a chemical toilet. Three days a year for special events, this is fine. The areas as conservation easements remains the same. Recreational beachlots shall not be used for overnight camping purposes. That is the same. The proposed ordinance recommended five watercraft per dock. My recom- mendation is five, but with three motorized and the docks and canoes remain the same. Item E. is the same as when it was before the Planning Commission, the 200 feet and the 30,000 square feet for one dock and an additional 20,000 square feet is required for each additional dock. This remains the same as the amendment. Item F. remains the same as the proposed amendment. Item G. is the same as the proposed amendment. Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -28- Item H. is the same as the proposed amendment. Item I. is the same as the proposed amendment. Item J. is the same. The only thing is for the swimming areas it says, I in the original ordinance, that the swimming areas are clearly delineated with offi- cial U.S. Coast Guard marker buoys. I only recommended that they have officially . approved buoys, and the elimination of the launching. They both may be launched from a beachlot, however, no boat, trailer, motor vehicle, shall be parked on any recreational beachlot. I completely concur. The only thing my ordinance amendment has done here is to take the amendment that has been in front of the Planning Commission and modify it, eliminating those things which are totally objectionable, in my particular opinion. In essence, it is not a new ordinance amendment, it is merely a modification to the one that has been proposed. I feel that this was fair. We have had this ordinance in place for three years, but I do feel that it has been totally inequitable to eliminate all dockage of motorized units or overnight units on recreational beachlots. Particularly, if they conform to these things. I think we have to bear in mind that what happens is that if we continue having these problems, it may well be that the Council will determine that there won't be any beachlots and you will have riparian rights, which means you are going to wind up with a lot more boats on the water than you are if you have a modification of this type. My recom- mendation was that the maximum dockage would be three docks with nine motorized units. A non-motorized unit, I do not believe, will affect the quality of the lake. I do not feel that the regulations that we have put down on this proposed amendment are, in fact, going to do anything except make the situation more equitable for everybody. SENTENCE 10 AMENDED 9-9-85, PAGE 3 Fred Oelschlager: I live on Chanhassen Road and I am a life-time resident of Chanhassen. You have a good ordinance now. I hate to see it knuckle under every three years when something else goes up. Everybody can still use the lake because of I the public access. Councilman Horn: If I can recall back to some of the discussion on the Lake Study Committee, I think that the reasoning given at that time for being more restrictive on new beachlots was the fact that we knew that we couldn't do anything about existing beachlots. They were already grand fathered in. What we did was lump beach- lots as a category and said, okay, we know that they were excessive in the past, now if we take that group of users and make it a little more conservative in the future, some years down the road we are going to have an average that will be consistant with the homeowners with the existing property owners. That was some of the reasoning that went into making this ordinance more conservative on beachlot owners because it excesses already existing in that type of development. LAST SENTENCE AMENDED 9-9-85 Councilman Geving moved to deny the entire modification to the existing Recreational Beachlot Ordinance. Motion was seconded Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Councilwoman Watson and Councilmen Horn and Geving. Mayor Hamilton and Councilwoman Swenson opposed. Motion carried. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST lQ AMEND THE WATER SURFACE USAGE ORDINANCE, JACK MELBY: Mayor Hamilton: It was requested on July 15 that the Council consider amending the water surface usage ordinance to allow the storage of three boats rather than five. I hope you received a copy of the memo that was sent out by Don Ashworth. Jack Melby: Yes I did. I Mayor Hamilton: Do you concur with the feelings in there? I I ) f:-~ - Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -29- Don Ashworth: The ball is really back in your court, Jack. We have your request on file. If you are representing the homeowners association, and bring back to us posi- tions from those, the City's policy has been then to initiate the hearing process. Given the significance of this change, it has been the policy of the Council to make sure that a majority of those people who would be affected would want this type of change. Jack Melby: I understand. The request was made from our homeowners association to ask for the change. So the next step for us is to do something formally in terms of requesting a public hearing. Is that right? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Are you meaning to suggest that you want no more than three motorized boats? Jack Melby: It allows five now, we want to get it to a total of three. Mayor Hamilton: So we will need to wait for something back from Mr. Melby. We can ask Mr. Melby if he wants to get a petition from his neighborhood saying that this is something that you would like to see done. It will then be placed on the Planning Commission agenda and there will then be a public hearing. Jack Melby: I ha ve not had a the letter and just got to read the letter tonight. The folks in our association chance to read the letter. What we have planned is for them to read then we will get back to you. Mayor Hamilton: That is fine. RED CEDAR COVE, 3900 RED CEDAR POINT DRIVE, PLOCHER/GESKE: A. Variance Requests ~ the Requirements ~ the Beachlot Ordinance. ~ Preliminary and Final Plat Review. C. Conditional Use Permit for ~ Recreational Beachlot. D. Conditional Use Permit for ~ Boathouse. VARIANCE REQUESTS lQ THE REQUIREMENTS QI THE BEACHLOT ORDINANCE: Barb Dacy: You have three options, as you recall, there was a motion to reconsider the proposed variance request at the July 15th meeting and action was tabled until this evening. The options open to you are to either deny the request, to approve the variance request as proposed, or to approve the variance requests with modifications. What the applicants are requesting the variances for: 1) to allow the ability to ingress and egress to launch proposed boats across the beachlot, however, that was changed. The applicants felt that they could live with the requirement that they would have to require their owners to use the public access on Lake Minnewashta, but have the ability to have the dock company come in twice a year and install and remove the docks. 2) To allow for overnight storage, mooring and docking of up to a com- bination of 18 boats, slips and moorings. 3) To allow the trailers on the beachlot and to launch boats or other watercraft by use of motor vehicles, trailers, and/or wheeled dolly. Again that has been resolved through the ability of the applicant to require that the boats be launched through a public access. 4) to allow for a maximum of a 100 foot dock length. However, on their plans, they show dock lengths that do not exceed 82 - 85 feet in length. So, basically, if you are considering the varian- ces tonight, what you would be allowing is for the overnight storage of a certain combination of docks and/or moorings. However, for the sake of the record, make clear in the motion as to what you intend to approve or disapprove of as to the launching of vehicles or the ability of vehicles to be going over the beachlot pro- perty, and be specific as to the proposed dock length. If the variance requests are approved, they will need the approval of the conditional permit, which is item C. on this item. Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -30- Fred Plocher: The basis for our request for the variance has been that if we are not allowed to provide our owners with overnight storage of a boat, we would be forced to abandon this plan. We have got to get riparian rights in order to make this an eco- nomically feasible subdivision. I might point out that in the past, the Planning Commission has unanimously approved the plan. At the last Planning Commission, I think it is fair to say that all Planning Commission members nodded their head when I asked that this probably wasn't the best possible use of this land. It is a wonder- ful plan that has a tremendous amount of open space. Our contention is that if we don't get some fairness on the beachlot ordinance, we will be forced to do the second best thing. We have not been able to understand how this logic has escaped some people. I think our case is so strong. This afternoon I drew something up. It is only that lake portion. Compare it to the beautiful open space, 150 foot setback from the lake of the townhouses. Let's compare them. Represented here is that same area down by the lake. To make the numbers work on this thing, we have got to sell riparian rights. An alternate to this plan, with all this open space and these townhouses at 150 feet away from the lake, would be this. This is what would be allowed by the present beachlot ordinance. There is 75 feet per lot on the lake, as per ordinance. It has a 90 foot width at the setback of the house, as per the ordi- nance. Seventy-five feet back from the lake, as per the ordinance. They are roughly 20,000 foot lots, per the ordinance. There is a beachlot with 130 feet and at an average of over 100 feet deep. These dock lengths get out to four feet of water. That is roughly 85-86 feet. You have seven, 86 foot docks. The ordinance says that these individual owners can have five boats. For fear of seeming to be ridiculous, I drew in three boats. Three times six is 18, which we are requesting. If the draw backs of this plan are not apparent to the Council and to the public, I would like to point out just a few things. I have 19 reasons why you should pass our variance request. I have one reason why maybe you shouldn't. The advantages to Chanhassen are the lakes, the general environment of the Red Cedar Cove townhomes with dockage proposals over a detached home plan forced by the present beachlot ordinance. The advantage to doing this is that it meets the beachlot ordinance-no hassel, no public meetings. On this one there would be a little hooting and hollaring. 1) The plan that we would like to do will create less lake activity or equal lake activity than this one. Our plan giving 18 individuals a right to have a boat on the lake will not create any more lake use than restricting that to six fine folks plus the beachlot. 2) The visual pollution of the dockage would be less because of clustering of the docks. The visual pollution of the structures would be less because of doubling or more of the setback. These houses are going to be 75 feet from the lake. You better believe they are going to be there because of grade problems up here. I have pic- tured 1,800 square foot houses here. I predict they are going to be bigger than that because they are not going to have a basement. They are going to have to build in storage. Our townhouses, the closest one is placed a distance back from the lake. Some of them almost three times the distance back from the lake. The lakeshore and dock maintenance would be better because it would be done by contractors. Here you have to rely on six individual people and kind of a loose beachlot association main- taining this beach area and these docks. I think it is fair to say that one out of seven might not do a good job. I guarantee that an association that is very much involved in the whole operation of the townhouse situation, they are going to be plowing their own roads, they are going to be mowing their lawns, there are going to be repainting the houses, they are going to be reroofing the houses, they are going to be getting common insurance on the structures. This is not a loose association that is worried about a beachlot a half a block away. The majority rules. You can bet that the people that are paying $150,000 for a townhouse, they are going to want it nice. This will be well maintained. We could nail that conditional use permit with all sorts of things and say you can pull it if you don't maintain it. Under the plan that we want to do, the runoff into the lake is going to be protected. Mr. I I ( I I I 'j Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -31- Geske and I both live I! miles away from this site. We are concerned about the lake. We appreciate the beachlot ordinance in controlling the lakes and preserving the lakes. I think we are doing that. There will be no control of the runoff. It will go directly into the lake. On our plan and on the engineering plans you have, much of the runoff that is created by this development will have a settling pond here and a slow grassy swale drain into the lake after the solids have settled out. In other words, this plan preserves the lake better than if you follow the ordinance. The folks are going to be real proud of their lots and their lawns. On the townhouse plan, the association document, as we have agreed at previous meetings, will say that there will be no fertilizer used on the common area. The townhouse plan preserves the lake more than the detached housing plan does. We were asked by some of the neighbors if we could possibly put this road out to Minnewashta Parkway and not come out the other way. Bill Monk said it wasn't a good idea. The Council and the Planning Commission agreed. So this plan does not include an access out to lake Minnewashta. This plan is forced on us by the ordinance which would have to include an access out to Minnewashta Parkway. The townhouse plan will generate very few children for schools and other special services. With the detached housing plan you will have families with two or three children. This plan you have practically no children. The townhouse plan is less destructive of vegetation and natural grade. We have placed these things around the trees. The townhouse plan requires no tax money to maintain the roads and no city personnel to maintain the roads. This will be a private roadway. The townhouse plan creates more visible open space. The townhouse plan creates a precendent for undeveloped land in the city, which I believe gives the Council and Planning Commission more flexibility to take the best overall plan instead of being hand cuffed by an ordinance. Our marketing plan and design is for middle age, singles, working couples. We are assuming that our average occupancy of each home is going to be two. That could be disputed. We have had three people that have given us money so far. Of those three, there was a couple and and two singles. That is less than two per lot. With the detached housing plan, I don't think it is unfair to say that there would be an average of four per lot. Because of the population and age and number there is going to be very much less traffic generated off of our plan than the forced plan. Our plan is defensible in court. I question if the other one is. All structures, landscaping, outside storage are controlled by the architectural design and the developers and the association, rather than 14 or 15 individuals doing their own thing. The townhouse plan gives an alter- nate to Chanhassen residents. Instead of moving out of town, they can stay in town and get a different type of housing that they may want. The townhouse plan creates less impervious surfaces. The overall townhouse plan has the support of the vast majority of the residents in that neighborhood. (Mr. Plocher was referring to charts throughout his presentation.) Councilwoman Swenson: It has been agreed already that there won't be any boat launches. Right? Fred Plocher: Yes, we have withdrawn our request. Councilwoman Swenson: Overall, what is the variance request? Barb Dacy: The overnight storage. The applicant is requesting the ability to store overnight, 18 watercraft combined mooring and/or docking. Councilman Gevinq: I would like to propose that we return to the City Council action and the motion that Mayor Hamilton made on July 1, 1985 items 2b. To allow member vehicles ingress and egress to the Homeowner's Association to set and remove docks; and 2d. To allow for overnight storage, overnight mooring, and overnight docking of up to a combination of 18 boat slips and moorings; and allow three docks instead of two; and the dock length will be based on the depth of the water; and also subject to DNR approval of more than 12 boat slips. I was absent from that meeting that night ~\ LJ Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -32- and was not able to vote on the motion and I would like to proceed along those lines. Mayor, if you still feel strongly about your motion, because that is exactly what is being requested in item l3.a. Since it has been voted on for reconsideration, it is applicable and appropriate for us to do this action. Councilman Geving moved to take Mayor Hamilton's motion of July 1, 1985, wherein he moved to approve the variance, ordinance 47-AB, Section 14.04, Recreational Beachlot: items 2.b. To allow member vehicles ingress and egress to the Homeowner's Association to set and remove docks; and 2.d. To allow for the overnight storage, overnight mooring, and overnight docking of up to a combination of 18 boat slips and moorings; and allow a maximum of three docks; and the dock length will be based on the ability to extend to 4 feet of water in conformance with the beachlot oridnance; and also DNR approval of more than 12 boat slips. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. Councilwoman Watson: I was looking for something by way of a compromise. I feel that a variance was in order here, but I was looking to a variance that would allow the 12 moorings that the DNR would allow. Mayor Hamilton: I just want to clarify that 18 is not necessarily all motorized boats. It is a combination of boats and moorings for sailboats. Fred Plocher: It is our intention to go to the DNR. If they say 12, we are going to have to live with a more restrictive number. We believe that is a special site and that they will increase that. Mayor Hamilton: their decision. and say that 12 If we say a combination of 18, let the DNR review that and make Mr. Plocher said he is willing to live with that if they come back is all they are going to let them have. Councilwoman Swenson: Barb, may we have a clarification here. I remember in our discussion we were talking about the possibility of 12 plus 6 non-motorized. Is the DNR regulation for 12 motorized units or 12 watercraft. Barb Dacy: On page two of the staff report, when we originally drafted this when we were discussing this with the DNR, according to their calculations, 12 boat slips would be permitted. When I asked, would this pertain to motorized vehicles, she said yes. If there was to be six additional sailboat moorings, she stated that the DNR would have to look at that as to the placement of those sailboat moorings in relation to the docks and to the overall function of that entire area. However, if it is approved for more than 12 boat slips, there is apparently a procedure that the appli- cant has to go through with the DNR to exceed that number as based on their PUD calculations. Georgette Sosin: I was kind of surprised that the developer would show the worst possible comparison to what you want to sell. It is obvious that if you had a choice you are going to take the better choice. That goes without saying. I was just surprised at the way it is drawn. I don't think that the fact that you did it this afternoon is an excuse, because I think that just promotes your cause. If I had to vote between two plans and looking at the way it is presented as an artist, I would object knowing that he could do a far better job with six houses. I am hoping that this presentation is not going to influence the Council on their decision tonight in view of the fact that he is obviously making a pitch for what he wants. Councilwoman Watson: In all fairness, this is not Mr. Plocher's first presentation to us. This was a brand new presentation. I I I I I I Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -33- Georqette Sosin: We are concerned about the implications of your variance to the other outlots in the future as well as those now. Councilwoman Watson: absolutely nothing to perfectly clear. Each variance is considered as an individual case. One has do with another. I think that is something that we should make The following voted in favor of the motion: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Geving. Councilman Horn opposed. Motion carried. I would like to know how you think this is fair to the citizens as to what you have just approved and to what you just denied. Where is your fairness, where is the equality. This is ridiculous. Mayor Hamilton: I don't know exactly what you are referring to. You put down one association that wants the same thing and you let somebody else have it. Mayor Hamilton: We have not dealt with any other association here this evening. We dealt with a proposed ordinance change and that was defeated by the Council by a vote of three to two. So we need to go to court to have you treat us fairly? We deserve to be treated fairly. What do we do now? Mayor Hamilton: I would suggest that you contact the staff and ask them what your next move ought to be. It is appalling that you can go for this development which has exactly seven lots in front, the same as lotus lake Estates, which we probably have more lake frontage. Mayor Hamilton: This is the one that is that is the one that we have to vote on. with lotus lake. in front of us at the present moment and We haven't had anything before us dealing We have come before you before. We have spent a great deal of money coming before you. Mayor Hamilton: With the present ordinance as it is, your hands are tied. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAN REIVEW: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the preliminary and final development plan request 185-5 for 18 townhomes based on the plat stamped "Received June 19, 1985" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission of a detailed landscaping plan for the areas on the south and east property lines; 2. Conditions listed in the City Engineer's memorandum dated July 5, 1985: a. Since multiple sewer services are proposed, maintenance must be covered within the association covenants. ! . ~~ Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -34- b. Although the watermains are to be city facilities, restoration of utility repairs will involve private property. For that reason, restoration of private facilities within municipal utility easements should be handled by the association and covered in the covenants and development contract. I c. Final design of the storm sewer system including the creek realignment shall meet all requirements of the Watershed District and DNR. Also, maintenance of the private storm sewer system shall be covered in the association covenants to assure continual compliance with city and Watershed requirements. d. All streets shall include bituminous surfaces lined with concrete curb and have a minimum driving width of 24 feet. Maintenance should also be covered in the association covenants. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT: Mayor Hamilton: They need a conditional use permit to have the recreational beachlot. Barb Dacy: What the Planning Commission stated is that they denied the conditional use permit proposal and recommended that that applicant instead conform to the existing ordinance. What you would be considering under the conditional use permit you could establish any type of conditions that you would feel appropriate to insure I that the beachlot is maintained properly. Mayor Hamilton: Don't we have a generic type of agreement with other conditional permits for beachlots? Do we have such a thing, Roger? Roqer Knutson: Yes. We have used it in other places. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the conditional use permit for a recreational beach- lot and authorized staff to prepare the language for the permit. Staff will then include the following conditions in the permit and submit the conditional use permit for Council review as a consent agenda item at the August 19th meeting: 1. Conformance with the standards of the Beachlot Ordinance except where specific variances were granted; 2. Allow member vehicles ingress and egress to the homeowner's association to set and remove the docks; 3. to allow for overnight storage, overnight mooring and overnight docking of up to a combination of 18 boat slips and moorings; 4. To allow a maximum of three docks; 5. The dock length will be based on the ability to extend to four feet of water; I 6. DNR approval of more than 12 boat slips; and I I I Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -35- 7. Based on the plans stamped "Received June 19, 1985." Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Geving. opposed. Motion carried. favor: Mayor Councilman Horn CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A BOATHOUSE: Fred Plocher: On this diagram there is a dotted line, which is part of the building that is there. We would remove that. It would be demolished. It is on the right of way and there are all sorts of things wrong with it. The newer portion would remain and it would be remodeled to look like the siding of the townhomes and the roof will look like the townhomes. The Planning Commission approved this idea. We got tangled up in semantics of whether it was a boathouse or what is was, because we are not storing boats there. The idea of it was because of the dockage, it would be a nice amenity if the building were converted to 18 little rooms or big cages, etc. to keep miscellaneous items in there. Councilman Gevinq: What is the size of this structure? Fred Plocher: It is around 30' by 24'. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the conditional use permit for a boathouse sub- ject to the following conditions: 1. The boathouse cannot be used for habitation and cannot contain sanitary facilities; 2. Submission of detailed landscaping and architectural plans at time of building permit application; and 3. No gasoline or flammable material can be stored in the boathouse. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. Councilman Horn: The only question that I had is if it is going to be a boathouse, where are these people going to store their gas cans? Councilwoman Watson: In their garages. Councilman Horn: Is that better than down there? Councilwoman Watson: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: I think it is because down at the boathouse there is a possibility of some vandalism if kids break in there. If it is in their garage, there is going to be a less chance of vandalism in there residence. Councilwoman Watson: They are going to be much more aware of what goes on in their garage than they do with the boathouse. The following voted in favor of the motion: Mayor Hamilt?n, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. .;--:~ .:-;"',) ",,_..., /J Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -36- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR A lANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR'S YARD, 6421 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD, GARDENEER, INC.: Barb Dacy: The site is located at the Junior High School east of and adjacent to Highway 41. As you recall, on May 2, 1984, Gardeneer, Inc. received a conditional use permit for their landscaping business subject to the following conditions: 1) that the outside storage and business activities be in conformance with the approved site plan and subject to City Council review and reconsideration three years from the execution of the conditional use permit. Also, listed for conditions of ter- mination were if there were to be a material change of condition of the neighborhood where the use is located and violations of the terms of the permit. What has hap- pened is that staff was notified of an expansion of Gardeneer's activity by the adja- cent property owner who is complaining of noise, especially early in the mornings and on weekends. The property owner noticed the expansion of the area walking one day along his property lines. In response to this, staff sent Gardeneer a letter notifying them that in order for this activity to continue that the applicant would either have to cease activity or apply for an amendment to the conditional use per- mit. The area that Gardeneer has expanded is to the south of the site and totals approximately one acre, 220 feet by 320 feet. Occurring on the site is the storage of trees and growing of trees. When first noticed, there was storage of large boulders in the northeastern corner of the expanded area. In a letter to the city, Gardeneer explained that they needed the additional area because of an excess in inventory. However, they were not aware that they were violating the conditional use permit. The letter states that the increased storage area would be required until October 31, 1985 to allow the trees adequate growing time to prevent damage. Gardeneer's activities of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays and limited hours during the weekends. The Commission and the Council need to evaluate the extent of the expansion of the landscaping contractor's yard activities. The Planning Commission was quite adamant in their motion that the Council not amend the conditional use permit to allow the expanded activity and consider revoking the con- ditional use permit altogether as established and return the site to its original condition. Staff's recommendation is as follows: The large boulders on the site have been removed and the vehicle activity required for maintaining the trees should be minimal. Staff recommended that 1) the hours of operation be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 9:00 a.m. to noon on Saturdays; 2) that all plant material be removed before October 31. 1985; 3) The area must be returned to its ori- ginal state by November 15, 1985; 4) The Planning Commission and the City Council review the use on an annual basis; 5) That the area not be expanded into, again, the landscaping contractor's activity, but to concentrate on the originally approved site. Included in your packet was a letter that was prepared by Mr. and Mrs. Mancino regarding their problems that occurred as to the Gardeneer expansion. At this point a small film strip was shown on the Gardeneer area, which is transmitted as follows: Mike Sobraske: My name is Mike Sobraske and I am an employee of Gardeneer, Inc. I would like to have the Council take a look a the area in question and get a good pic- ture of what exactly we are asking for as far as storage and for what period of time we are actually requesting it for. We sold a few large jobs this spring and it became quite obvious that we were not going to have enough space to store all of that and keep our equipment adequately screened behind the building as requested. My neighbor, Dave Gestach, owned this piece of property with two of his partners and I requested that we use some space back here on a temporary basis. Unfortunately, it was an agricultural area and I did not know that I was going to have to get any permits. Unfortunately, I am very sorry for that. Nevertheless, that is the way it sits at I I I I I I Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -37- this point. The only problem that we have right now with moving the material is that the plants will have to be planted, otherwise, if you take the material up right now, the chance is very good that we could run into some problems with the plants and they will die. Don Ashworth: Really, the only time that you come back in here is if you need any of this stock, otherwise it is simply watering it. Mike Sobraske: back at night. Right. That occurs usually in the morning and when the crews come Otherwise, during the day all there is is watering. END OF FILM STRIP Mike Sobraske: I would like to have the Council and the Mayor take a look at a couple of pictures that we have of the site in question. I believe this gives you an idea of exactly where the area is and how it relates to HWY 7 and HWY 41 area. The second picture is from a little different view point. This gives you an idea as far as where the area in question is and where the neighbors are. Mayor Hamilton: Did you cut through the fence? Mike Sobraske: We didn't cut through the fence, no. It is a cyclone fence, and right at that particular point it was unbolted. It is not damaged or anything. We sold a large boulder retaining wall this fall. So we got some boulders out of one and stored them for movement. So we stored some larger boulders. Since then they have been removed. Councilwoman Watson: I think the complaint regarded the hours of operation. How long have you been utilizing this site? Mike Sobraske: Since the middle of May. Councilman Gevinq: Why did you expand your operation and not notify us? Mike Sobraske: Unfortunately, without intent, I did not know that a permit was needed to store the trees there. Councilman Geving: Aren't you familiar with the conditional permit that was given to Gardeneer? Mike Sobraske: I wasn't at the time. I am very much, now. Councilman Gevinq: Who is Thomas Wartman? Mike Sobraske: He is the owner of Gardeneer. Councilman Geving: What is your relationship to the Gardeneer Corporation? Mike Sobraske: I am the general manager. Councilman Geving: So the firm is still in Mr. Wartman's name? Mike Sobraske: I believe it is in Gardeneer's name. I am not sure. Councilman Gevinq: Has the ownership of Gardeneer changed in the last year. Mike Sobraske: No. Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -38- Councilman Geving: Mr. Wartman is still the owner? Councilman Gevinq: The reason that I ask that is because I see three different names appearing on the applications. I Mike Sobraske: Yes, he is. Mike Sobraske: We are not the land owners. Councilman Gevinq: I understand Gardeneer in Mr. Wartman's name. for Gardeneer. I just wanted to that, but the conditional use permit Now I see that you are coming in as make sure that the ownership has not is given to the applicant changed. Mike Sobraske: No. Councilwoman Watson: Gardeneer has had an operation on a commercially zoned piece of property at one point in time, didn't they? Mike Sobraske: Yes, we did. Councilwoman Watson: It just surprises me that you wouldn't be aware that you can't move any place and start putting up trees and piling boulders, etc., because in that area you certainly couldn't have moved over and just started using the piece next door no matter whether you knew the guy or who it was. It seems to me it was a more sophisticated operation than to think that you could simply do it and as long as nobody found it, you were alright. Especially when you moved into an area that you did by the school. That is a very limited area. The perimeters of the use of that school building were very limited to begin with. Mike Sobraske: If I could point it is a little far. what we are asking at this take that decision back, I certainly would, but at this Right now, it amounts to a little less than 90 days for point. I Councilman Horn: ~ mit. I think we I guess I wouldn't be in favor of revoking the conditional use per- should give them another chance. Mrs. Mancino: This has started in the middle of May and they are still there without a permit. There is still noise and various other things going on after 5:00 p.m. and we also have pictures that were taken at the beginning of July that shows what all has been going on. Sam Mancino: We first became aware of this on May 20th, which is almost 12 weeks ago. I left a message for Gardeneer's crew with all three numbers that I could be reached at to try and find out exactly what was going on. I wasn't sure what was going on. However, I walked out and saw boulders, trees, a hole in the fence, and a lot of heavy traffic moving in. I thought there had been construction started in the area because for several days I had been hearing trucks going in and out starting early in the morning. I think you see the aerial survey there that suggests that we are quite some distance away. I know at the Planning Commission, several people came from the Murray Hill area who also complained about the noise. I think if you look through the pictures you will see the quantity of the equipment. They would start early in the morning and run well into the evening. I wanted to see what was going on, I left messages, but I never heard any response to it. I have got a couple of I answering machines and I had secretaries taking messages for me and I never heard anything back on it. So we called Barbara and inquired about it. She had not heard of it either. It kind of surprises me a little bit because I have met Tom and he has been in development before and he certainly knows about permits. I I I f' - -,~ Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -39- Mike Sobraske: Tom Wartman really wasn't involved in this and that is exactly why he is not here tonight. He wasn't involved in the initiation of it. Tom is not really involved in Gardeneer anymore. That is the number one reason why the problem occurred and I guess if I could take that decision back, I would at this time, but unfortunately, we can't. I believe we have made a concerted effort to cut down on the noise, especially on the weekends. It is a strict policy that nobody goes back there unless they are cleaning it out. The other neighbor who is not here tonight, he had mentioned about problems with snow removal. In the Murray Hill area that auxiliary lot, that's probably the lot he is discussing and that is the lot that Plehal plows in the middle of the night and we don't do that. If you are going to take things out of context, it will definately make things look a little worse than it is. Sam Mancino: I would like to find out from the Council what the the conditional use permit was because it sounds very simple and believe this permit is worded that it is for storage of plants. machinery, it has ongoing traffic. The fact is that you are not you are moving them around on a daily basis. original intent of straight forward. I If you look at the storing the plants, Mike Sobraske: Sam, the plants are stored there until they are planted. What it amounts to is that we got back there because the boulders have been removed. There is another building back there, there is no equipment stored back there. The only thing other than watering, occasionally we have to take a plant out. Sam Mancino: I guess it comes down to one simple issue. That is what good is a con- ditional use permit system if people violate it. Mayor Hamilton: Well, if you have another system that is better, I guess we would be interested in hearing about it, but the conditional use permit system works and it works when people, like yourselves, have a complaint against somebody and then you come and tell us. We are not out roaming the country side to try and find violators. Under the conditional use permit, it really is up to the neighbors who have a problem to let us know about that. That is how the whole system works. That is the only way it can work. We do try to review, on an annual basis, every conditional use permit that is in existance and we have people go out and inspect the premises to make sure they are doing exactly what they should be. We are now suggesting that this con- ditional use permit be reviewed on an annual basis rather than a longer period of time, which was originally passed. It could be less, too. It could be reviewed every six months. I think our staff normally does a really good job on getting on these things right away. Did you recall talking to the Mancino's? Barb Dacy: We have spoken together several times. Mayor Hamilton: Did you try to take some action earlier to alleviate the problem? Barb Dacy: Yes, I notified the applicant by writing and consulted with the City Attorney to make sure what we were doing was correct. I am with the Minnetonka Schools. The school board does not have an official position on this, but I thought I should mention that a school board member called and addressed that they were opposed to the expansion, so I am here to be very supportive of the 90 day period where they are going to be allowed to finish up this project. If they went before the board, they wouldn't find much support for con- tinuing the expansion on the site. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think he has got any support here for expansion, but that wasn't a part of the bargaining, initially. Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -40- Mike Sobraske: The process has taken since May to get through tonight. I Councilwoman Watson: I think from looking at these pictures it doesn't take a scho- lar to realize that perhaps this operation is bigger than where it is. I think we weren't thinking of anything of the scope that Gardeneer is operating at that school as one of the uses in that very limited district. It doesn't take much to realize that it is a much larger business than I ever intended that should be there. My feeling is that they should be able to continue this and get it cleaned up. I think that Gardeneer should be looking for an area more in keeping with the business they are operating. Councilwoman Swenson moved to amend the conditional use permit for Gardeneer, Inc. with the following conditions: 1. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to noon on Saturdays; 2. Removal of all plant material before October 31, 1985; 3. The area must be returned to its original state by November 15, 1985; 4. The Planning Commission and City Council will review the use on an annual basis; 5. The expanded area now being occupied should not be used for outdoor storage or other activities; I 6. Information regarding the status of the position that Mr. Thomas Wartman holds at Gardeneer should be submitted to staff; 7. Staff is required to report back to the City Council by December 1st regarding compliance of the conditional use permit by Gardeneer; 8. The applicant shall submit a detailed vehicle list; and 9. Violations of any condition of the conditional use permit will result in immediate revocation. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. votes. Motion carried. Mayor No negative LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST AND REQUEST lQ AMEND THE LOCATION Qf THE METROPOLIAN URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY, ~ ACRES NORTH Qf AND ADJACENT lQ LYMAN BOULEVARD AND WEST Qf LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, RICHARD EIDE: RESOLUTION #85-43: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution approving the Land Use Plan Amendment Request #84-5 to redesignate ten acres of Residential Medium Density to Residential Low Density and to change the MUSA boundary to include the southwesterly ten acres of the applicant's parcel subject to Metropolitan Council approval. Resolution was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in I favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I I r " Council Meeting, August 5, 1985 -41- REQUEST FOR EXTENSION lQ REQUIREMENTS TO CONNECT TO SANITARY SEWER, 9005 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, ED SIEBENALER: Mayor Hamilton: The applicant has requested that this item be removed from the agenda for this evening and would like to put it on at a later time. Don Ashworth: The court found him in violation of the ordinance and gave him a 30-day period of time to come back to the City if something is to be worked out. Otherwise, the court will impose sentencing. He asked that he be able to come this evening. He called me up this afternoon and said that he would like to have that withdrawn and he will be on the August 19th agenda. At that point in time he will be asking for a variance to build onto that existing structure. But he, in the process, did tell me that he would conform to every point that I had in my letter. So whether he does or not, I don't know. Mayor Hamilton: With that being the case, I think it is only fair that if Pat or some of the neighbors see a violation that the court ordered, specifically cars, cam- pers, tents, or more than one family using that site then you should call and we will go out and tag him and bring him back to court. That's the end of it. We will then shut him down. Don Ashworth: The only thing that we went to court on is the connection to sanitary sewer and the removal of the satellite. Mayor Hamilton moved to table this item until the August 19, 1985 applicant's request. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. meeting as per the The following Councilmen Horn and CITY NEWSLETTER/PUBLIC INFORMATION/COMMUNITY IDENTITY: Mayor Hamilton stated that the Chamber should be involved in the City Newsletter/ Public Information, etc. He felt that if the South Shore paper is going to come in that the Chamber should encourage their members to advertise in it to make it even better. This would be a weekly newspaper and it would take the place of the Carver County Herald. Councilwoman Watson moved to adjourn the Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No meeting. Motion Mayor Hamilton, negative votes. was seconded by Mayor Councilwomen Watson and Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager kjs