Loading...
1j minutes 1 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 14, 1993 In honor of Flag Day, the meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance around the flag in the upper parking lot area of City Hall, followed by the reading of a Proclamation Declaring National Flag Day by Mayor Chmiel. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn ' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Jo Ann Olsen, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin Al -Jaff, and Todd Hoffman ' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the ' following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve Additional Funds for Hazardous Materials Containment Equipment for the Chanhassen Fire Department. d. Final Plat Approval, Vinewood Addition, Stuart Hoarn. e. Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition, Located East of Powers Boulevard, Argus Development: ' 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approve Development Contract for Site Grading i. Resolution #93 -49: Approve Change Order No. 1 to Lilac Lane, Project 91 -4. j. Resolution #93 -50: Approve Change Order No. 1 to West 78th Street Detachment and Downtown Improvement Project No. 92 -3 for the Installation of ' a Temporary Traffic Signal on West 78th Street at Great Plains Boulevard. k. Approve Vending Agreement for Concessions at Lake Ann Park Ballfield Concession Building, Jack Jensen, Chanhassen Athletic Association. ' 1. Approve Findings of Fact and Decision Revoking Conditional Use Permit No. 88 -11, Harry Lindbery. m. Southwest Mutual Aid Association Joint and Cooperative Agreements: ' 1) Resolution #93 -51: Use of Fire Personnel and Equipment 2) Resolution #93 -52: Use of Fire Education Display in the Form of a Small House on a Movable Trailer. n. Accept Donation from American Legion Post 580 for the Fire Department. ' 1 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 o. Wetland Alteration Permit, Requested by the City of Chanhassen to accommodate Improvements to Powers Boulevard. 11 p. 1) Site Plan Review for a 16 x 19 Addition to the Existing Pump House No. 6 For U.S. West Communications Fiber Site, Located East of Chan View and West 77th Street and North of Highway 101, City of Chanhassen. 2) Approve Land Lease Agreement with U.S. West. q. Approval of Accounts. r. Board of Equalization and Review Minutes dated May 10, 1993 ' City Council Minutes dated May 10, 1993 City Council Minutes dated May 24, 1993 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 27, 1993 s. Resolution $93 -53: Approve Plans and Specifications for Trunk Utility Improvement in Section 9 and 10; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Project 92 -5. 1 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 ( *These consent agenda items were pulled for staff clarification.) *B. WINDMILL RUN LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY ' ONE -HALF MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, THE ROTTLUND COMPANY: 1) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. 2) APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR SITE GRADING. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. You should have before you tonight kind of a summary packet which includes kind of an outline of the ' corrections. Basically staff report corrections to these items. I've also included the corrected pages with the highlighted changes in the attachment. Basically for item 1(b), Windmill Run. The changes involved in the development ' contract on page SP2, Section 5. Delete the words, in Phase I. It does not apply to this contract. The second change for that item is on page GC7 where it's a revision to the specifications on allowing building permits to be given and it's highlighted as such. And the third change for that is again, ' development contract page GC7, deleting the words Lot 1, Block 1 and changing Lake Drive West to Galpin Boulevard. Again, grammatical changes that were in error. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Let me have an action on each one as we move through. Can I have an approval for item 1(b). Councilman Senn: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion. 1 2 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 I Councilman Wing: Please. Just a quick comment for planning. We're approving something that really isn't complete here in that we haven't seen the landscaping. And I'll trust staff is going to take care of this but on item 11• 1(b), final plat approval. This is the first housing development going in on CR 117 and I think that the berming, the landscaping, the trees, whatever's going to happen there should be done pretty thoroughly and as aggressively as we II can. And we're not having an opportunity to see what type of landscaping this developer is going to present on CR 117. Whether it's going to be trees or lilac bushes or berms or whatever. So this development and subsequent I developments, I'd like to make sure that we see the landscape plans prior to us voting on the final plat. Because this is kind of being done, assuming that these are going to be done and again staff certainly will handle this well. I'm II sure they have to this point but I just want to mention the landscaping plan should be at the ultimate if you can. What's the word I want? Councilman Mason: Optimal? II Councilman Wing: Optimum as possible and I want to make sure there's adequate landscaping along CR 117. Thank you. II Mayor Chmiel: And that will be added as condition number 23? Councilman Wing: Well item number 20. The applicant shall submit an amended II landscaping plan. I just want to make sure that the plan is optimum and just a comment that we're approving is not knowing what that final plan is. I'm not dissatisfied with that. I Councilman Senn: I was assuming that would come back. Mayor Chmiel: Not unless you get your final plat. Okay. With that, you'll II make sure that that is added to condition number 20. Councilman Wing: Staff intends to do that and I'm happy with the motion. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Charles. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, if you would so allow, I believe the developer is I here tonight and would just like to make a brief comment on this item tonight. Todd Stutz: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm Todd Stutz, Executive II Vice President of the Rottlund Company. I concur with the terms and conditions of the development contract for this final plat with one exception. We would like some special consideration as it pertains to starting one home on the II property. What our request is, that we would be given permission to obtain one building permit for the property prior to the final plat being recorded for the purposes of constructing a model home for the fall Parade of Homes. II Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann or Kate, have we done this before? Kate Aanenson: Stone Creek. II Mayor Chmiel: Before the final plat is being approved, or registered with the Council? II 3 II II City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 11 Councilman Mason: That's already in here. Councilman Senn: I thought that's what we did with the change. Charles Folch: Actually this request takes it a step further. They'd actually ' like to begin building before the plat is actually filed. Mayor Chmiel: Before the plat is filed with the County. Prior to is what they're saying. And this is saying the City may issue one building permit for a model home. They're asking that that procedure, and the question I have for staff, have we done this before? Kate Aanenson: Yes. We did it for Stone Creek and it was a lot of record and as long as he provided two acceptable drainfield sites, we allowed them to do that. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Does Council have any other thought on that? If you would so move that we would allow them to do this at that particular time. Can I have a motion for that? ' Councilman Mason: I'll move approval of them to go ahead and build a model home. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to allow the developer for Windmill Run to construct a model home. All voted in favor and the motion ' • carried. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Final Plat and ' Development Contract for Site Grading as amended by staff and the previous motion for Windmill Run, Rottlund Company. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' C. OAK PONDS /OAK HILL, LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARDS, LOTUS REALTY: ' 1) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. 2) APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. ' Charles Folch: This item involves a development contract again, page SP3, Section 8, Subsection (e). Basically this section should be deleted as non - applicable to this development. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. While we're at 1(c)(2). We may as well address 1(c)(1) as well. Mark. ' Councilman Senn: I'm a little hesitant to go ahead and give these final approvals tonight. The last time this was before us, the applicant committed to us to and assured us that'4 andscaping would be installed around the temporary trailer which we okayed. None of that has been done, at least as far as I can 4 yk City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 see so that's why I asked that this be pulled tonight. I'd like to either somehow be assured that that's going to happen or hold this item until it does happen. Here we are well into, halfway through June and I can't see the weather or anything else really being a factor or reason why not. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There were some other concerns too. Kate. Kate Aanenson: The neighbors did have some concerns that were brought to my attention and we have just been finaling out those 6 buildings and not all conditions of the plat are going to apply. A lot of their concerns are the most northerly portion of the project. The rental units. Although we want to make sure that the landscaping plan is reflected for the whole site. Some of the concerns that they have specifically involve lighting and the like and those will be, we're carrying those forward when we do that section of the plat. But I passed out to you three conditions that we would, we think would make sense to add to this plat and those being that increasing of the landscaping. There was a commitment to do some of the landscaping on the most northerly edge to allow some maturity before that phase gets developed and so, in addition some more screening. When the building was pulled out and those were pulled forward. There was a concern that looks like the landscaping was less but what really did happen is pulling that forward, some of the parking lot landscaping was eliminated. Basically the fact that there's less parking and the like. So what the residents have asked is some of that parking, that planting that was in the parking area be placed behind the building so we've changed that. Instead of the 10 Austrian pines be placed later to allow the residents to specifically set those in a point where they would block or provide the best screening. And we changed that to 6 Austrian pines. In addition to 4 deciduous trees be placed between the 8 and 12 unit buildings. They feel that that would provide the best buffering. And then the second condition as I mentioned. To provide 50%c of the landscaping north of those buildings in Phase 1 and 2. Be placed now to allow them to grow until they get to that phase. And then the third one would be in this same area too. That snow fencing.be placed around trees 4 inches in caliper at 4 feet in height. Again, we've identifed in our condition, we put all oak trees had to be identified and a snow fence around those. And they're concerned that anything of that size, 6 foot or greater, be saved because that's their buffer. And again we're talking about the top of the hill down towards their homes. And again we think that that makes sense. And we've referenced that back to the landscaping plan that you have in your packet which is dated April 7th. Councilman Senn: Just a clarification. We were talking about 16? , Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yeah. The notes in the plan say 10. We want that changed to 16. Councilman Wing: I just have a comment at the end of this process I'd like to make. Are the neighbors satisfied? Does this meet their? Mike Henke: I'd like to give you each. My name is Mike Henke. I'm representing some of the residents on Canyon Curve area. I'd like to just give you each a copy of some of the concerns that we have...highlight some of the concerns and comments you had...considr those before you... 5 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 11 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I don't think I, their concerns are basically that they shouldn't all be done. One of the other things too is they brought up the 11 fact that in the December landscaping plan, they had roughly about 476 species of trees. On the current one there is 471. And I had a call from the developer who indicated too the fact that they did remove an 8 plex out of there so they ' took out the numbers of trees. Is that correct Kate? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Plus as I mentioned before, when we pulled the buildings forward, there was trees in the parking area that were eliminated ..approximately 6 right there. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So those additional 6 would be what you've indicated. ' And I know that we looked at the size and numbers of trees too. I think at the time it was indicated that there would be 12 to 14 foot pines planted. According to the current landscape plan, those are going to be 8 feet. Is there ' any reasoning for that? Kate Aanenson: I'll let the developer speak to that but I think... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the developer here? Brad Johnson: I just left a baseball practice so excuse me. Mr. Mayor. We ' have been, during the day we've been trying to answer some of the questions that have come up relative to the landscaping. I believe the only issue that is left to be satisfied as part of our development agreement is the landscaping plan has ' to be approved by the Council and I think we left that one in the air at the last meeting. We have presented a landscaping plan to staff. Up until today we thought it had met the needs. I had a chance to review some of the things that we had said that we would do. One of the things you should remember is that ' part of our solution at the last meeting in the last second is that we gave up a full building of 8 units to try and solve this problem. In other words, we moved everything forward and farther away giving up 8 units. That cost us a ' considerable amount of money and also throws the numbers off because that 8 units represents approximately 10% of the total project. Therefore, 10% of the trees because we were screening that particular building. In addition to that, ' as Kate said, the trees had moved up. Now, since that time we had gotten some comments from the neighbors which we have agreed to. I think Kate read the list. We will add 16 trees. We will do certain things and we're more than willing to do those types of things. That's kind of where we are. Now, from a ' landscaping point of view, I've asked Kate Halla to come up here and go over why we're doing what we do, if that's necessary. And then number 2, relative to your question Mark, you are correct. We had agreed to landscape that. I think ' the weather has been a little wet and has caused some problems over in that area. But as part of your conditions of approval of this, the Mayor does end up signing the plat and we are willing to live with, before we can file the plat the fact that those trees are in place. And we understand through the Halla organization they can be in there within a week to a week and a half. So I think we can solve that particular problem. As I said, the delay has been due to the weather. Kate, Kay, do you want to go over the rationale now? ' Kay Halla: Hi, I'm Kay Halla and I can discuss why the trees. We had discussed possibly moving 14 foot or taller trees in at one point and I believe that the discussion was that to get trees of that size you would need a tree spade and in 6 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 fact that is true and I checked with not only people in my company but in some Y P P Y P Y companies that do a lot of commercial work and asked what was the largest evergreen you can move that would be balled and burlapped so a machine would not be needed down a slope, which might be impossible. And the answer was 8 feet and that's why it's kind of stuck at 8 feet because without a machine you can't go much higher because the trees would not survive. So that's where we are with that size. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any questions? I was just reading some of the things from the meeting that was held on June 14th. Or excuse me, the meeting that was held on December 14th. And in there Brad, you made the statement that Kay Halla says that they have access to 12 and 14 foot pines and within reason we're willing to try to do that. I think we're willing to come sort of force back there if we can figure out what is necessary. And now we're talking. Brad Johnson: Remember that's prior to us removing a whole building. We were trying to shield a building that's no longer there. Mayor Chmiel: I thought that was part of the conditions to move some of that as well, plus the screening that was going to be done. Because from indications that I mentioned at that time that I wanted to see, landscaping. Three things I wanted to see there was landscaping, landscaping, landscaping. And making sure that there was the proper amount of screening to that residential neighborhood. Brad Johnson: I think if you read the Minutes of that meeting, the solution to those problems was the removal of the building. The whole discussion up until the last page of that issue dealt with the fact of how close that one building is so we removed the building. That's one thing. The second thing is that as part of the conditions we were supposed to increase the landscaping on the northeast corner of the property. I guess where we got caught is that because we took out a building, theoretically if you have less trees that are needed because the building is not there so we left approximately the same number of trees and moved it in that area. I think what we're trying to address in this other thing that Kate presented to you was additional solution. I mean we're not opposed to adding additional landscaping over in that corner and so at the present time we're up to adding 6 more trees that were not there before and we have fewer buildings. And I feel it's sort of unfair for us not to be given credit at all from the screening process. The fact that we removed a total building. I mean that was the reason for doing that. That was all part of that discussion. Now I think it's, we thought the staff was comfortable with our plan. The neighbors apparently felt that we should add some more trees. We've agreed to do that. I mean we talked about that earlier. But the main issue here is the fact that we removed a whole tree, or a whole building and that was I bet a third of that discussion that day was can we screen the building and so we agreed at the end to remove it. That was the idea. So I think we should always be given credit for doing that. Yes we'll add some additional trees. And at the present time we felt additional 6 evergreens would help. Plus 4 conifers. Kate, do you feel that we can help anymore? I mean we're willing to do some things in that area. What else can we do? Kay. ' Kay Halla: I think part of the discussion, as I remember, we were discussing a lot of evergreens in December too and then the decision was made that no, they 7 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 needed a mix. At first they wanted a lot of evergreens but then they felt that II the deciduous and evergreen mix would be better and I feel that with the pines that would be placed after construction, I think we can do a real good job placing those with the help of the neighbors too so it's after construction in strategic locations. I think that will do well and pines do grow. I specifically chose pines versus spruce because pines do grow almost twice as fast. I Mayor Chmiel: You're right. Thanks. Any other discussion? Now from my undersatnding, there'd be items 1, 2, and 3 that would be added to this in making sure that that would take place. Which is a memorandum that Kate and Dave ' Hempel has dated June 14th, written to Don Ashworth regarding the Oak Ponds final plat, additional conditions. And in addition to that, your question mark to having these trees planted on site at the trailer and that would be prior to their submitting for platting to the County. And that I can hold because that II has to be signed and until they're. Councilman Wing: What'd we ask for? A little white fence and a few potted I plants? We didn't ask that the trailer be landscaped other than to just be aesthetically pleasing. ' Kate Aanenson: It has to be skirted. Councilman Senn: We wanted something other than a trailer just sitting there. II Councilman Mason: ...we talked about planting trees there. Councilman Senn: No. It was really just some potted stuff. II Councilwoman Dockendorf: That could be moved afterwards. Councilman Senn: Yeah, that could be moved afterwards or whatever. I mean it was just really just a matter of breaking the edge off of the... Councilman Mason: Yeah, it seems to me if they can get the trailer in there, I they ought to be able to get the skirt and a couple of planted plants in there. And I know they had trouble getting the trailer in but it's in there now. ' Councilman Mason: Yeah, geraniums aren't real hard to transport I don't think. Councilman Wing: I would agree. I drove by there. ' Councilman Mason: I guess I'd like to ask Council if they think this is enough trees. II Mayor Chmiel: Well that's something I would. Councilman Senn: You look at their coverage. I don't know, you know the coverage is definitely there as far as the screening goes. I mean there's a point it becomes counter productive because what you put there is going to start killing what else you put there. Especially if you start getting into a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees."' 1 1 8 • 4 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 Kate Aanenson: I think what you have to look at too, I think Mark, this is what the staff felt, is we were trying to stay off the slope and to the bottom. We were trying to keep everything, so really if you look at the massing, it really is a lot of it on high. I think there might be some areas that some different ground cover but. Councilman Senn: It's pretty intense I mean from what. Kate Aanenson: And they've got the boulevard streetscape along Powers too. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If you feel comfortable with it, I'd like to get a motion to approve this with the additional 3 conditions plus having things done to the trailer site prior to signing of the final plat. Councilman Wing: I've got one silly, non related comment I'd like to make. Perhaps it'd be appropriate after the motion, if you'd allow me just a moment. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Wing: Then I won't try and sneak it in. I'll so move approval. Now wait a minute. I lost track of what we're doing here. Did anybody take notes? I would move approval of items 1(c)(1) and (2) with the additional 3. Yeah, I had the 3. What was the 4th one? Oh, amend the trailer. So the additional 3 items as on the sheet from Kate. And then the 4th item would be that this not go until that trailer is landscaped to a reasonable aesthetic level, whatever that might be. ' Councilman Senn: I second that. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the Final Plat and Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for Oak Ponds /Oak Hill, Lotus Realty with the 3 additional conditions as outlined in the memorandum from Kate Aanenson and Dave Hempel to Don Ashworth dated June 14, 1993. And with the condition that the final plat will not be signed until the landscaping is completed at the temporary sales trailer located on the site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Wing: Could I just address one item on this? Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead. I think that this is, my comments are directed ' towards the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. I wanted to be on record tonight with my opinion on this because I want to carry forward to them accordingly. I think that the HRA has to set priorities for it's remaining TIF dollars. It's going to run out and we've got some enormous projects coming up and the dollars aren't just unlimited anymore so I think they have to set priorities for those dollars and then stop with those priorities. As the Council has discussed subsidizing low income housing or subsidized housing needs, perhaps as mandated by the fact that the City should be doing that. I don't think that this particular development necessarily meets those standards for either low income housing or subsidized housing so to see the HRA come through and provide tax increment dollars for this bothers me primarily because it's high density housing that brings in a lot of people. Brings in a lot of traffic and I see brings in a lot of service demands on the city. And if we're 9 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 going to, I don't want to sit here on the Council and encourage high density housing projects unless they can be supported by the private sector, number one. And number two, the market is in fact driving this. So to have to have tax increment dollars to make something like this go, I think is an inappropriate use of money and I just want to be on record accordingly. Thank you. G. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR SITE GRADING, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, 1 PHASE I, PROJECT 93 -1. Charles Folch: Item 1(g) deals with the development contract for the site ' grading for the Chanhassen Business Center. Page SP4, Section 8(f). Change Phase I to Phase II. Phase II is the correct. ' Mayor Chmiel: With those changes, can I have a motion to approve item 1(g). Councilwoman Dockendorf: So moved. 1 Councilman Wing: Second. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the 1 _ Development Contract for Site Grading of the Chanhassen Business Center, Phase I, Project 92 -1 amended on page SP4, Section 8(f), changing Phase I to Phase II. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' H. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR DEER RIDGE, PROJECT 92 -18. ' Councilman Senn: Really I just want to get an update of where we are with the annexation effort in connection with this project. Don Ashworth: I'm glad you asked. I received by fax today from the City Attorney's office a notice from the Municipal Board, State of Minnesota, in the matter of detachment of certain land, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law. And the basic line is, is that the Municipal Board has approved the annexation/ deannexation. It has been duly filed and it is official. If there's one battle left it is to insure that HUD continues to rule in our favor. Meaning by having one home in Hennepin County, we do qualify for those dollars. They set the ' rules. We live by the rules. We hope that they don't change the rules. That's the one hurdle that potentially is there. Maybe the Mayor might wish to speak about some of the additional letters that have been sent in, etc. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we've sent several letters to our Representative in Congress as well to approve this. Showing the processes that we've gone through and working with the City of Shorewood and trying to eliminate all given problems that could come forth but as Don mentioned, sometime this could come up again and someone sort of shoot a hole in our saddle but only HUD could do that themselves. Hennepin County is in full agreement with everything we've gone ' through the process. They say we qualify and I'm sure they're going to substantiate that from Hennepin County. Councilman Senn: This is really I guess kind of indirectly related to this but we did kind of directly relate it to it in our last action. Kind of wanting to • 1 10 1 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 II make sure that was resolved before we went ahead with this J ro'ect. For P whatever it's worth, if it's done at the state, that's great. I did hear from the homeowner of the property involved and they have yet to sign a consent and they also made it real clear that they really wanted to do what they could to cooperate and go along with it because they wanted, they understood what we were trying to do and wanted in effect to see us do that. At the same time though, II they were a little upset over the fact that all these meetings and hearings were taking place and they were never even informed of one, including the State hearings so maybe in the future there's got to be some way we can plug or better II do that process. At this point it sounds like we may have a new citizen but we may have a new upset citizen rather than a new happy citizen. We've got to think of possibly a better way of handling that. Again, now these are not directly related so I don't think that needs to effect the action tonight but I II think that does something that deserves some follow thru. Don Ashworth: I mentioned to the Mayor today the fact that I had to confess, I II received some correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. Cox. I had not had a chance to get back to them because they had asked, most of it was asking that we work something out with the County which Hennepin County gets into a more technical II area. Don made a good suggestion. Why don't you just give them a call. We did meet with them though in terms of trying to tell them when dates would occur as far as meetings like with the Shorewood City Council. I didn't know, and I don't know that anybody really does, on the Municipal Board. Do they publish I that? Did you know that they were acting? The third thing I did notify. Roger Knutson: To answer your question, I don't know whether they publish their II agenda or not. Once the two communities agree, that's all there is to it essentially as I said 2 weeks ago when we had this item. So they just routinely put it on. Mayor Chmiel: I was rather surprised just to hear tonight that they've already II gone through the process because I didn't think it was that quick. Roger Knutson: Well they told me, if I got the stuff to them by June 2nd, they II could have it approved by June 4th. Councilman Senn: Yeah, then I think we should have let the homeowner know that II I guess is all I'm saying because they found out either by reading the newspaper or by calling the State and finding out an action had already been taken so that's what they're kind of upset about. Yeah, no reason to make a major issue II of it but I think in the future we ought to try to do something. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, do you want to move approval? II Councilman Senn: Yep, I'll move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. II Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for Deer Ridge, Project II 92 -18. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. II 11 II i , City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 T. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO UPPER BLUFF CREEK SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 91 -17A. Charles Folch: And finally item 1(t) here involves a change order for Upper Bluff Creek, Phase I. In the staff report, page 2, the final recommendation sentence. The amount had a typo in it. It should be $74,816.00 and not $75,000.00. Just a typo there that needs correction. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. With that change, can I have a motion? Councilman Mason: So moved. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Resolution $93 -54: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Change Order No. 3 to Upper Bluff Creek Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Improvement Project 91 -17A amended to change the amount in the staff report from $75,816.00 to $74,816.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried ' unanimously. U. CHANHASSEN HAVEN PLAZA 3RD AND 4TH ADDITIONS. Councilman Senn: Sharmin, what exactly are we accomplishing by doing this? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Okay, we originally had agreements. The landscaping agreement ' that we had before was not as detailed as the new one that we have. Councilman Senn: The landscaping? ' Sharmin Al -Jaff: The easement agreement that we have. So what we're doing is we're declaring the first one null and void and adopting the new one. ' Councilman Senn: Okay, but we aren't changing any of the. Sharmin Al -Jaff: Except for the details. ' Councilman Senn: Except for the detail on the landscaping period? Sharmin Al -Jaff: On the landscaping. Councilman Senn: So there's really no change in roadway or roadway configuration or anything? Sharmin Al -Jaff: No. But the roadway originally, the roadway was an outlot and now we're saying, let's replat it as part of, okay. This is the roadway. ' Originally it was an outlot and it was an outlot when Emission Control Station was built. Now when Abra and Goodyear have come in, our engineering department looked at this proposed...and said wait a second. This remains as an outlot and Lot 3 develops, there's just a very good chance that the outlot...platted as part of Lot 3. And when we do that, all they would have to do is provide a trunk access easement to those other parcels. So that's all there is to it. Roger. 1 ' 12 1 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 Roger Knutson: See if I can do it in three sentences. Plat 1, they had a private driveway and Plot 2 came in, they wanted it to go public. You already approved a public. What you're doing here tonight is getting rid of that I. private driveway easement. Scraping it to reflect what you've already approved. This is really a housekeeping issue. Councilman Senn: So it will be public? II Roger Knutson: Yeah. This won't create, make it public. You've already done II that. You approved the plat, was it 2 weeks ago? Whenever it was. A month ago. Mayor Chmiel: Longer, yeah. I Councilman Senn: But I thought this was ending up being a private driveway. I mean I thought we had nothing to do with this. II Roger Knutson: It's private? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Yes. II Roger Knutson: Okay, I misspoke. Okay. I got it other way around. Councilman Senn: Okay, turning it back to a private driveway will not, okay II you're making it part of Lot 3 correct? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Right. II Councilman Senn: Okay now, is that going to turn around and allow more to be put on Lot 3 than you can now put on Lot 3? II Sharmin Al -Jaff: No. Not at all. The only thing that it will do is it won't allow that piece to go tax forfeit. That's the only thing it will accomplish. I Someone will be responsible for it and it's going to be Lot 3. Councilman Senn: Lot 3 will be responsible for it? II Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. Which is the future parcel that will be developed south of Goodyear and Abra. II Councilman Senn: I think I get it. I'd just as soon have somebody else move on this one because I'd like being consistent. Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion? 1 Councilman Mason: I'll move approval on item 1(u). I Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. 1 Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded the following actions for Chanhassen Haven 3rd and 4th Additions: Declaring null and void a II 13 1 II City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 11 previously recorded declaration of roadway and landscaping easements, and adopting a new declaration of roadway, utility and landscaping easement. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a 4 to 1 vote. Mayor Chmiel: And I think we know your reasoning. Councilman Senn: Yep. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. ' PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF A PORTION OF WEST 78TH STREET, PROJECT 92 -3. Public Present: Name Address Charlie James 6640 Shady Oak Road, Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Basically we're, another housekeeping item. The original alignment that's shown for the West 78th Street detachment project, which was acquired a few years ago through the platting process, with the revision to the alignment. That finally went through here with the project. There's some excess right -of -way which we do not need and we've indicated the area as such on the diagram. Basically in order to vacate ' that right -of -way we need to go through this formal hearing process. Mayor Chmiel: As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address this particular issue at this time? If seeing none, I'd ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to close the public ' hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Questions. Councilman Senn: For the sake of discussion, it seems to me that we shouldn't be taking this action at this time. I understand that we have a piece of ground II which was dedicated to us and now we're determining we don't need to use it all. At the same time, all the abutting property is tied up in a condemnation, if you want to call it a dispute or whatever. It would appear to me that it'd maybe be II not the best idea to simply to turn around and give back part of the property at this point given ongoing negotiation. And you know, in effect payments have already gone out on part of that etc., but I know there's stuff still going on. I'd much rather see this item kind of held and worked into an overall solution rather than just bring it back to this point. See how everybody else feels. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I guess I don't really know. Charles, give me a little I more insight to this. Councilman Wing: Yeah, what's the rush? 1 ' 14 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: If it's housekeeping basically, what's the, do we have to do this now or can we do this at a later time or is it better to do it now? Don Ashworth: If I may. I don't know if Mr. James is present this evening or not, but the shaded area represents the area that we had originally anticipated for West 78th Street. Councilman Senn: I understand. Don Ashworth: It was through the request of Target that the roadway was moved to the south and we ended up taking part of Mr. James' property which he much would have preferred maintaining this corner lot in it's entirety. When we made this reduction in size, and again recognizing that he had originally dedicated, donated, that to the city, it simply made sense to us that that should be vacated or returned to him since we were the ones that made the decision in regards to the street. I hear what you're saying in terms of we still are trying to determine the value for this piece. Well, it's this piece here minus that part of the right -of -way that we already have. So it's this smaller portion of property. Those two issues should be kept separated in my own mind. I mean we made the decision that we were going to take this parcel. And he should have the right to present into a court setting what he thinks is the value of that piece. I don't think that it's right that we should use what it is that he has dedicated to us as a tool to potentially resolve or get a better deal or however you might word it. The acquisition of this piece of property from him. Roger. Councilman Senn: No, Don let me just, on that. I mean we own the dedicated property do we not? Don Ashworth: He dedicated it to the..., yes. Councilman Senn: Okay. In the process of that dedication, that dedication was done through negotiation and both sides got something out of that negotiation as it related to the dedication. Okay? So there was a value to that property through the dedication. Okay now, at the same time, I agree. There is a value to the property we're condemning, taking to the south of it. Okay. I don't agree that you can just kind of separate both issues. I think it needs to be part of the same negotiation, or at least left open until the negotiation on the other one is complete. ' Don Ashworth: I agree with you in that there probably was, I don't know if there was a negotiation but if I sat in his position and heard the City come before him and say, we need to move this street up so we can get adequate stacking distance. We'd like your cooperation in dedicating this roadway so we can do that. The first thing I would look at to see is, they've created, meaning the city, two corner lots for me. One on the north side of 78th and one of the south side. His motivation for working with us to create that new street would have been high. The new proposal by Target was devastating to him because he had gone through everything in the property for the new road believing he would have a new lot. Now only to find that the roadway is moved. We're going to continue to keep one half of this roadway that he had dedicated anticipating a lot on either side of the roadway and now we're going to condemn him out of 11 the smaller piece that's left on the south side. All of these original 15 ' City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 1 motivations were, I would say, shattered by the city's desire to see this roadway move to the south and leave him with an unbuildable lot on this south side. Councilman Senn: I understand that but at the same time, from reading ' everything on this, that's also why we're being asked to compensate him for all those damages. Okay. Now, how you can separate that from the issue north of there is beyond me because that turns around and lends value to the property to ' the north. It gives you a better lot depth, in terms of the property to the north and makes that easier to develop so I don't see how you can just kind of take these and separate them. I really don't. Mayor Chmiel: Well, let me just add something in here. The kinds of negotiations that we've done with Mr. James over the years, he often times has felt like he was the stuckee from the City and I think the cooperation that ' we've received from him on some of this, I just think it would show just good faith on the city's standpoint to proceed with this kind of action tonight. Richard. ' Councilman Wing: Well I'm glad that Mark's bringing these issues up because they're significant and I think if it was anybody but Charlie James, I might say I think you have a valid point and I think we ought to at least hold on to this for a while. I agree with the Mayor. I think he's come and gone and cooperated and done his part. I think he deserves...and then keep this other issue separate. I think at least hike and myself and the of us have worked with him ' for 2 years now in my tern and enough's enough. I don't wish to...again, my mind's cluttered. I thank you Mark for bringing that up. In this case I agree with the Mayor. I think it's not worthy pursuing. Mayor Chmiel: Roger. Roger Knutson: Mr. James, I'll back it up. He's been great to work with and he's been very cooperative. But that's not why we requested this be put on here tonight. We think it's in the city's best interest and...office, we requested this be put on tonight is more than anything...condemnation. I just as soon not ' discuss that but if you want a letter on that. Councilman Wing: I'm happy where this is at and I'm going to take staff's word ' for it and I'll move approval. Or excuse me, is the public hearing open? Mayor Chmiel: No, it's closed. ' Councilman Wing: Then I'm going to move approval of this vacation, West 78th Street, Project 92 -3. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? ' Councilman Mason: I'd just like to concur with what Councilman Wing said. I'm glad that Councilman Senn brought this up too but I do think knowing the history behind it, it sounds good. 1 ' 16 i City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 f Resolution $93 -55: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Vacation Request No. 92 -3 -6 for that portion of West 78th Street right -of -way as depicted on the attachment which was previously acquired through the platting of the Charlie James property. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING: UPPER BLUFF CREEK TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE II, PROJECT 91 -17B; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Mayor Chmiel opened the public hearing. Public Present: ' Name Address Roger & Gayleen Schmidt 8301 Galpin Blvd. Michele Foster Opus Corp, P.O. Box 150, Edina 55440 Bret Davidson 7291 Galpin Blvd. ' Henry Wrase 8175 Hazeltine Blvd. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This is the stage two project of a very large, overall trunk utility improvement project for the Upper Bluff Creek service area. This project was petitioned by three landowners/ developers. Carlson, O'Shaughnessy, Gateway West /Opus who either own or have secured development rights for these properties amassing nearly 300 acres worth of land. About a month ago the Council received this formal feasibility study and last Tuesday staff and the project engineer held a neighborhood meeting with the affected property owners and we had a pretty decent turnout. Had some good discussion on the project. The next step tonight is of course to conduct the public hearing. We have our project engineer, Phil Gravel of Bonestroo here tonight to provide you with information on the defined work scope for the project, the estimated cost and proposed method of financing. With that I'll turn it over to Phil. Phil Gravel: Thank you Charles. As Charles mentioned we did have a neighborhood ' meeting last week and I think it went very well. It was fairly well attended and we were able to answer a lot of questions that some of the smaller property owners had on this development. The three things...on this property are Opus, with their property...Pemtom Land Company has...The project that Charles mentioned is a continuation of the Bluff Creek Project, Phase II. This would be considered Phase II of the project. The project consists of sanitary sewer and watermain improvements. The sanitary sewer will be improved by constructing a lift station down near where the existing Chanhassen cemetery is and from that lift station there will be a forcemain which will pump the effluent from the lift station up to an existing sanitary sewer in the Hans Hagen development that was just installed this year. From the lift station we'll run out gravity sewer in through the Pemtom land and the Opus land and also stub out for the Trotters Ridge area. There was also some discussion as to whether or not to service the future elementary school site through this lift station and it's been decided to wait and service that thrdgh a future, the Phase III gravity sewer that goes up further up the Bluff Creek area. The watermain on the project is quite a bit more extensive. Again what we're trying to establish here is some looping and this is all part of the master water plan. What the watermain will do will be - 17 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 II to connect on where Phase I left off near the Hans Hagen development entrance. II And in fact, some of this has been installed via a change order which you approved earlier this evening. From that point the watermain will extend north along Galpin Blvd. Continue north along Highway 5 and connect onto a watermain I extension that will be installed as part of project 92 -5. Another significant water portion of this project would be extending water westward through the Pemtom land and the Opus land. An exact alignment for this extension will be, dependent upon the developer's final plans to their property. We've shown Opus' II latest plan here and another thing that could possibly be revised based on their final layout would be not to extend the watermain as far south as 82nd and just get over to TH 41 via this collector street here. Another big item associated I with this is the water tower which we've discussed in the past, and Mr. Wrase's here tonight who's kind of affected by this. The cost for the project were listed in the report. The sanitary sewer estimate is $500,800.00. The watermain estimate is $957,000.00 and a total cost is $1,457,800.00. Assessment II wise we're proposing to do what we've done similarly on the last few projects and that is to only assess the smaller properties one assessment unit at this time and they would be assessed the remainder of their assessment at such time I as they develop. Under that scenario there's still a positive revenue from this project of about $572,000.00 and the positive revenue generated is to be put towards future water towers and wells and a portion of the sanitary sewer II already installed that services this area. I can just show what the assessment area for this phase of the project is. As I showed before, the majority of this is the three big land developers with a number of smaller parcels involved that would be assessed that one unit. With that I can open it up to any questions. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing, as I mentioned. Is there anyone wishing to address this issue at this time? Yes sir. Would you II like to come forward and please state your name and your address for the record. Roger Schmidt: My name is Roger Schmidt. I live at 8301 Galpin Blvd. One of I those four properties there. And I guess someplace along the line I kind of missed out on including those properties in the assessment. When things are, I don't know if it was, I don't think it was Phase I but when we were talking about MUSA line and so forth about a year ago, I remember coming up here and I when I left I was under the impression that those four properties would be left out as well as Timberwood on this assessment. So someplace inbetween then and now, they're in there and I wasn't aware of it. And of course I'd just as soon II not have those properties included at this time. As far as my own personal needs too, I've talked to Phil at the neighborhood meeting. I have some plantings along the road there that Phil says he's going to try and work with me II on in handling those as the sewer goes in. But my main concern is those four properties. I just was not aware that there was going to be an assessment. I would prefer that they not be assessed at this time and then they be assessed when we have to hook up. Thank you. I Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Charles. Can you address that part of it? I Charles Folch: As I understand it, and a lot of this the MUSA expansion work went on prior to my tenure here. But as I understand it with that, the MUSA line change, there were a couple of areas such as the Timberwood, the Sun Ridge Court and there's another area off of Lake Lucy Road that were large lot II residential subdivisions that occurred during the mid to late 80's. Before the II 18 II City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 1 MUSA expansion people spent significant dollars putting in new septic, state of the art septic systems and wells and alternate sites accordingly and that was a commitment I guess made at that time as a part of the Comp Plan amendment was to leave these 3 subdivisions as rural residential, large lot subdivisions. And the other properties outside of that, south of Timberwood were not a part of that. , Phil Gravel: I can address some of that too Mr. Mayor. The four properties that Mr. Schmidt talked about were not addressed in the Phase I report and as you recall in the Phase I report, we were only assessing the area south of the railroad tracks. When it came time to write the Phase II portion of the report, we met with staff and defined the assessment area for Phase II and at that time we included those four parcels. Another issue Mr. Schmidt brought up was his trees. In the next couple weeks Charles and I are going to meet with the County Engineer and discuss the plans for redoing the Galpin Blvd. and widening that road and see what effect that will have on the adjacent property owners and we'd like to coordinate our utility construction with their plans for redoing that road. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue? This is a 1 public hearing as I mentioned before. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none, I'd like a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard. Councilman Wing: I guess not. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mr. Schmidt, what's the age of your well and septic? ' Roger Schmidt: It's probably...it's an oversized... Councilwoman Dockendorf: And your neighbors were constructed in a similar timeframe? Roger Schmidt's comments could not be heard on the tape. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: So what's the average life of a normal septic system...? ' Phil Gravel: As Mr. Schmidt said, if they're not overly taxed, they can last quite a bit longer than. They can last in the 30 year range. Councilwoman Dockendorf: What's the capacity of both systems...taking into consideration what's been proposed with Opus and the other residential development. Would it have enough capacity so that at a future point... Timberwood? 1 19 ' 11 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 .I Phil Gravel: The particular project that we're talking about tonight doesn't II have enough capacity to serve Timberwood. Phase I did have marginally enough capacity to include Timberwood and it's deep enough that if we could service Timberwood, if it were ever desired to do that. And that was just made as a I precautionary measure. 1 II Mayor Chmiel: Any other? Michael. II Councilman Mason: Not at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. II Councilman Senn: Phil, I mean what does it do to these numbers when... Phil Gravel: It really has no effect. The one unit assessment for those I properties is around $2,200.00 so that's $10,000.00 with the four of them. The total assessment for those parcels, the ultimate assessment would be more like $40,000.00 but ultimately I guess they could be assessed at such time as they 1 did develop. Councilman Senn: In terms of the $2,000.00, what's... II Phil Gravel: The $2,000.00 has little or no effect. As you saw on the chart I had before there's a, the terms on that assessment are, we would have an assessment hearing in the fall of '94 and the City generally runs those out 12 II years. 8 to 12 years. Charles Folch: Typically about 8 years. II Councilman Senn: So what's your annual net end up to be? Charles Folch: Just basically take the $2,200.00. Divide that by 8 and you II assess, or attach the principle each year to the unpaid balance. Councilman Senn: Does that sound better to pay a little now and most of it I later with development or putting it in that type of context? Roger Schmidt: I think what my biggest... II Councilman Senn: I guess my general feeling is I kind of hate to see the four property owners be really at all penalized. I mean the whole basis and driving force for this project is the major developments. I see it really is something I that's going to effect us really financially if we would tack the total assessment on at a later date or when they expect to derive the benefit from it. It seems to be right now, if I'm hearing it right, even though the 6 year old I septic system in the one case...we could look at that as being the same thing... Charles Folch: Councilman Senn, you're correct. The $10,000.00 plus or minus dollars that would be generated for this revenue schedule is pretty miniscule 1 when you're looking at over a million dollar project. But we have set precedence on the two previous,projects where we've come up with this policy that we've instituted for propetrty owners such as the Schmidt's who have either II large lots, hobby farm type properties with a single family dwelling, not 20 1 r 4 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 intending to develop. So as not to force them off their property, we basically in the past have just assessed one unit assessment for the trunk benefit and the future units would not be collected unless the property would develop. And it does not have a significant impact on this project but if we deviate from that policy, the question will come up again on future projects where maybe we have 15 -20 -30 property owners in this situation and you do need those numbers, those dollars in there to provide a positive cashflow in the assessment revenue schedule. So long term, it may not effect this project that much but long term, if we set a precedence that deviates from that policy and no longer assess these properties, it could have financial impact on future projects. Mayor Chmiel: Charles, what would it cost Mr. Schmidt for this? What would his cost basically be? Charles Folch: Basically one unit of trunk sewer and water assessments. Mayor Chmiel: $970.00 and $1,275.00. Charles Folch: And $1,275.00. 1 Phil Gravel: I'd like to add, reiterate what Charles said that the precedence setting here is pretty important. There are 12, actually 12 parcels in this project that would fall under that one unit scenario. And something that's kind of interesting is under Bluff Creek Phase I, I'm sure you remember. there were similar people in here on the east side of Audubon Road that said they'd never hook up and we actually have one of those households that wants to hook up now, for reasons of failing septic systems. So I think that's kind of important to realize that this could be a benefit to these properties right now if they did need to hook up. ' Councilman Senn: Phil, I guess what I'm getting back to is, why the surprise? I mean it never occurred... Phil Gravel: The surprise is, I guess I'd like to address that a little further. As I mentioned before, under the Phase I part of the report, which was over a year ago, we addressed which properties would be assessed and we tried to address which properties would be assessed in the future but we paid more attention to Phase I because that was the areas that were actually under the public hearing at that time. The statutes require that the construction must be done within a year after the public hearing so the people that that hearing applied to were only the ones that were actually getting construction at that time. When it came time to do the report for Phase II, we further analyzed the assessment area and we in fact refined some of the initial assessments as I'm sure Opus would attest to because their's changed quite significantly. And in that process of refining, we determined that these lots, the four lots in question were no different than any of the other large, single family lots that were assessed under Phase I and were also included in this phase. I guess the simplest way to put it would be it was an oversight of Phase I. Councilman Senn: But as we went through Phase II, and the public part of that 1 process. • 1 21 1 1 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 size. Meaning more than 2 acres. 3, 4, 5 acres. 5 and 10 acres. See, I think you've got parcels that aren't all that different than in Phase I. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? II Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question. Mr. Schmidt, are you representing the 3 other? II Roger Schmidt: No. Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's just yourself. Because to be quite honest, I'm more concerned about the homeowner who has the 6 year old septic system. I'd be more adamant. Oh you are. Okay, do you have anything to add to the discussion? Mayor Chmiel: Would you come up to the microphone please so we can at least get I this recorded. Besides I want you on TV. Resident: No. When we built our home in '86 and we have the 10 acre parcel and II so our septic system and the well is all fairly new. So you know, that's just where we're at. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And what's your opinion about? Resident: You know, we hate to see the ramifications of having, you know if our taxes get high and having the feeling that if we're going to get pushed out of II there with having to pay so many taxes. I guess that was our biggest headache was to think of that part. The $2,000.00 part is not such a worry at that point. It's just that down the road if we feel like our taxes, if it's just ' going to be skyrocketed. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion of Council? Okay, anyone else? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Anything else? You have before you the proposal. Is there a motion? Councilman Mason: We'll discuss after the motion? Mayor Chmiel: Whichever is your preference. Councilman Mason: Well, before a motion gets made. We have, certainly I do remember some of those agonizing evenings. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I do too. Councilman Mason: They were not pleasant. My concern, and what I'm hearing here is that money basically is not the issue but the fact that you, for whatever reason were left out. And I, that's a tough one because on one hand I 24 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 say, well let's leave them out of the loop completely and then they don't have to do it. If it was just one incident and I knew it would never happen again I would want to do that. But I see that as a real can of worms opening up and T can only apologize for the city that you were left out. You shouldn't have been and that is unfortunate. I think as good as city staff does with communications, clearly we always need to be on our toes. I hope that's the lesson in on this. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Anyone else? ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well as long as we're discussing before the motion, I guess I understand the concerns from those four homeowners and I think in addition to them being left out of the loop and bringing this forward, the issue that the property owner mentioned was she was concerned about future taxes and that kind of thing. The project's going to happen so we can't do anything. We're not prepared to chuck the whole thing. I guess unless there's further discussion, I'm going to move that we approve the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvement for Phase II. Mayor Chmiel: And authorize preparation of plans and specs, Project No. 91 -17B? Councilwoman Dockendorf: That too. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: I'll second it. ' Mayor Chmiel: You can see it's sort of angonizing for us to go through these processes as we do. It's not the most simplest thing for us to proceed with. You have to look at the overall thing. Roger Schmidt: I know the public hearing is closed and I apologize for that but I think... Councilman Mason: Can I comment? Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead. Councilman Mason: I don't think you are and I suspect if I were one of the four lots, I'd feel exactly the same way that you do right now. Oh I know I would because, and I've commented on this to staff and other Council members. I don't think you get jaded sitting on Council but you know it's like when I just lived in Carver Beach, that was the only thing I was concerned about. And by gosh if something was happening to Carver Beach, I was going to be here pounding on the gavel and now it's just such a bigger picture up here. And I don't deny your feelings. Like I say, I'd feel the same way if you were sitting here and I was sitting there but I guess I honestly don't think that's the case. Councilman Wing: I'll tag onto what Mike said a little bit...and growth is here and your area's been by- passed. I mean it's painful for me out on Highway 7 to see stoplights going in. I'm in the middle of progress. I'm in the middle of growth but I think I can take some pride in the fact that the Council is not forcing hook -ups on those properties. And they're only doing one unit charge. 25 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 Whether it's 1 unit or 10 units or 100 units so we're not forcing anybody to g y y sell. I mean we've really been conservative and really been forthright with these but we can't stop the overall growth of the city. We can't, there's nothing we can do. It's like trying to get in front of a train and you're in front of the train. I think we've been real conservative and fair on this. Overall consistently Roger. Consistently. Not just you and I hear what you say about, if it hadn't have been a surprise, you probably wouldn't be here tonight. I hear that. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If hearing none, we have a motion on the floor with a second. Resolution #93 -56: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the feasibility study for the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Project No. 91 -17B and authorize the preparation of project plans and specifications. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AWARD OF BIDS: REFURBISHING OF FIRE ENGINE NO. 210, REJECT BIDS. Don Ashworth: The report is quite short and that is we're recommending the rejection of bids. The truck committee just basically was not happy. I should forewarn the Council that in that process we took a real good hard look at that truck. We feel that that truck can last us several, several years into the future but it may, it will in fact mean investing a few more dollars than we were looking to from before. It will probably require a split year funding, meaning partial funding in '93 and partial funding in '94. Councilman Wing: What this says is, we're coming back. I'll so move rejection of bids. Mayor Chmiel: Do I have a second? 11 Councilman Senn: Do we have to formally do that? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, reject bids. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to reject all bids for the refurbishing of Fire Engine No. 210. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Wing: These bidders should heed your warning. And I bet when this is rebid, there will be some consideration on their part... Mayor Chmiel: I would certainly hope so. Councilman Wing: Because these were pretty high. Mayor Chmiel: Yep. They were all and all, thank you. 26 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT AN 18,522 SO. FT. BUILDING, AN UPPER AIR INFLATION BUILDING FOR LAUNCHING BALLOONS, AND A FUTURE NEXRAD RADAR TOWER FOR THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE, LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 IN THE CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, CHANHASSEN VENTURE, INC. Kate Aanenson: Just to refresh your memory, Chanhassen Business Center, you ' approved tonight the grading plan and...One, the National Weather Service...This item went before the Planning Commission and prior to that there was a neighborhood meeting held on April 28th. Over 400 notices went out on that. That was prefaced by the fact which we've included in your packet, the flier that went around with concerns about the health hazards. At that neighborhood meeting there was approximately 29 people which is about half the residents so I think that was a very well run meeting. I think a lot of the concerns were addressed at that meeting. Such that at the public hearing, that nobody got up to speak. The Planning Commission did request for an independent review of the findings that the Weather Service provided as far as limited health concerns and I've included in that in your packet. I neglected to put the resume in of Professor Davidovitz and I've included that. He has a speciality in reviewing this type of technology and his conclusions were that it would not result in an increased health risk. What I specifically had him look at was the issue itself of the Nexrad radar. The site plan, and I have the architect who will go over this more specifically but...couple of issues that staff has raised. There's three components to it. One, the office building, which is low profile. One story. Then the Nexrad radar...and the upper air inflation building. This is where they launch the weather balloons each day. When we originally looked at the...Chanhassen Business Park a couple years ago, we knew at that time the Weather Service was looking at this location. At that time we requested that this be done as, that it be owner /occupied so it wouldn't be a tax exempt property. That it'd be a leased property and that's the way it's being proposed. It is brick. We've got samples of the brick here tonight. I'll let the architect go through the design of the building in a little bit more detail. As you recall, when we put the standards together for the industrial park we did require 50 foot of landscaping with a berm and trail along Audubon in addition to 100 foot buffer along to the south. Some of the concerns that the staff had is that's the only thing that's reflecting on the site plan. We'd like to see a little bit of additional landscaping... The site itself or the whole part which we feel good about is actually recessed into a bowl. When you're looking on the top of the building...from the top, from Audubon Road you see 3 to 14 feet below grade is the actual grade of that building so we feel that that looks better than looking down on top of fencing. Keeping the mechanical equipment on a low profile. Again, one of the benefits of this site...Obviously we've got a concern about the height of the tower and the upper air inflation building which is 35 feet and the tower itself which is 127 plus the 7 foot radar on top. To try to give you some scale, it's less than the U.S. Cellular tower that's out there but similar in height to the water tower. One of the concerns or issues that was addressed in the staff report was the parking. The standard would require 80 stalls. We feel that's more than necessary given the total number of employees and...we feel what they provide a similar maximum of 35...50 parking stalls is sufficient...The signing on the building, I've shown you what we require in the PUD which I've included in the report...you're not going to be able to see very much. You'll have to come in to the interior of the park to see the signage itself. During construction, because this road isn't, they want to be operational in February, we've allowed temporarily for them to get access 27 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 to the site during grading so they can simulataneously be working on their site and grading the access directly off of Audubon Road. Assuming that as soon as there's a hard surface on Lake Drive, that they'll vacate that and we believe that should happen no more than 90 days and then get their access off of Lake Drive... So with that, the conditions that the Planning Commission added was the report from the health. Someone independent to review the health concerns and that we look at lowering the building 6 feet. It is staff's position that we feel it makes sense to keep it, I mean raising it 6 feet. That we keep it at the lower grade so you can see less of the building. We think it makes more sense as far as the visibility of the tower and the upper air inflation building. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, 16 and 17 are the two additional ones that came? Kate Aanenson: Yes, and actually there is a number 18. We ask that full park and trail fees be paid at the time of building permit. You should add that one. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Kate. Is the developer here? Wayne Perlenfein: The developer isn't but I'm representing them. My name is Wayne Perlenfein. I'm with Rogers - Perlenfein and Associates. Our firm of architects and engineers have been retained to assist in the development of plans and specifications for this project. As Kate has said, it is basically an office building, and that in itself is somewhat misleading. It is going to house weather monitoring and river level monitoring equipment. It's basically a large computer type facility. It is a three structure building. The main, excuse me if I go over here. There are 3 buildings...The upper air inflation building...radar tower. As you mentioned, it does...with the landscaping codes, from the park dedication area and because of the topography of the total development, the building is not in and of itself, going to be extremely noticeable. You're going to be hard pressed to see this building unless you are on the interior road in the development. The tower will extend over the tree tops. We think that the staff and the PUD developers have done a nice job in their exterior landscaping along the park area. The buiding is chiefly a masonry building. The proposal is to use a brown brick with a couple lighter colored accent bricks going on the building. Parking has been provided in excess of what the employee count will be in anticipations of providing for visitations. Even though it's somewhat less. With me today are experts in the fields of the use and of the facility and the ramifications of the radar who can answer your questions far better than I as to what we discussed at our two public meetings. So for the sake of brevity, I'll leave it at that and we'll just kind of introduce ourselves and answer your questions as they come up. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this proposal at this time? Seeing none, I think we've all gone through the Minutes of the meeting as well as the Planning Commission Minutes. We know exactly what questions were and asked of. And since I had last seen or since I have just seen the qualifications of Mr. Oa. Kate Aanenson: Davidovitz. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. That's almost as bad as Chmiel. And I would like to ask Council if they have any specific questions in relationship to what we're 28 44' City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 looking at for the project. Richard. Councilman Wing: Kate, I was kind of confused on the building materials. This is going to be kind of a showpiece building with a lot of public interest possibly and a lot of tours so I guess I'm really looking at this being, of coming Chanhassen quality if you will. You use the word block in here. Is this in fact going to be brick exterior? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Wayne Perlenfein: It is brick. Councilman Wing: So we're not going to be looking at a block building. , Kate Aanenson: No, and they have... Wayne Perlenfein: If I may qualify that. The major building is all brick. The lesser buildings out back do have a rock faced block with them. It's an integral color. It's not a gray block. We're not painting it. It will be a custom color. From 5 feet away you won't know it's not brick. ' Councilman Wing: Kate, the one meeting I really wanted to attend that I missed was the neighborhood meeting and I guess a lot of us over the year this has been coring have saw this as kind of a unique experience for Chanhassen. Or a unique event. The health issues I understand has been addressed and I understand there's no problem here. How do the neighbors, the neighborhood who were selected on that, how are they taking this installation next to their neighborhood? Any concern? I thought there'd be a pouring out tonight of people trying to stay away from this. Kate Aanenson: I think the weather service did a very good job of running the meeting and staying after and answering specific questions. But I that they well documented and pretty...explained the technology and I think the concern was the constant beam and it's a pulsating and it's constantly moving and it dissipates as it moves out so. Mayor Chmiel: And it's on for only 3 minutes? 1 Wayne Perlenfein: By way of an explanation, Larry if you could perhaps...a brief summary of what your...put it in context. , Councilman Wing: Well, I'll be happy to listen to that but I just want to clarify my question in that the neighborhood was generally. Kate Aanenson: I think there was a comfort level, if that's your question. They felt comfortable with the explanations and that their concerns were alleviated. , Mayor Chmiel: I think that's probably an indicator just this evening by not seeing a crowd. ' Councilman Wing: Yeah, that'e4 hat I was hoping. 29 y City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 Councilwoman Dockendorf: And if I could just tack onto that. I've spoken to a number of the neighbors and although they were somewhat perplexed at the explanation of all the pekowatts, etc, there was a comfort level there. Councilman Wing: I think the interesting thing is, with all the microwave towers and what's in there, if we were to send a sensor up in this room right here, we'd be stunned by what's coming at us from all the different directions and maybe this is really a minor issue and I guess that's why I wound up with this thing. But I wanted to make sure that the neighbors were clearly in agreement with the health standards being met here, because that would really be a significant issue and I have no problem with this. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. The other thing I think I read in here and someone else has made the mention of it for the National Weather Service located in Beautiful Downtown Chanhassen and I'd like to see that followed through. Councilman Senn: We're calling downtown that far? Councilman Mason: Could we just have, and I see that Commissioner Ledvina is here too tonight. Could we just have a little discussion about why some people want to raise it and some people don't want to raise it. Yeah, the 6 feet, I'm sorry. I don't know, maybe you don't want to say anything. I don't know. Matt Ledvina: Well yeah, maybe I can address the background. We took a look ' at. Mayor Chmiel: Just for. Matt Ledvina: Okay. Matt Ledvina, 2711 Piper Ridge Lane. Member of the Planning Commission. We took a look at the grading on the site and overall there's about 150,000 cubic yards of grading that will have to be removed from the site. Soil and as we learned, this project in terms of the grading has an impact on the other developments in the area but at the same time we felt it would be beneficial if the site could be raised, thereby reducing quite a bit of that grading. I guess it's a general concept that we'd like to try and maintain the landforms and when we have mass grading like this we're really not doing that. I think also some of the concerns related to the landscaping and they did address those issues. So I guess we feel that if the overall project is in need of that additional soil, then that's not so bad. But as a general rule of thumb we'd like to try to reduce grading on the site when we can. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Matt. Councilman Mason: I know it's nice to have a commission member present at these meetings so when questions do come up, it's nice that the Planning Commission's doing that. And staff didn't want to do it, why? Kate Aanenson: Well, originally there was a question of where the sewer would be coming from. Whether or not, because we talked about a possible 2 or 3 connections off of, going across Audubon and we looked at that and we'd make the sewer 20 feet underneath the road and there was a problem if we had to get in and service it. That issue is kind of removed now so it looks like they will be sewer access I believe. I wish Charles was here, off of Lake Drive. But the 30 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 other issue is the larger impact of the rest of the industrial park. When we looked at this, it is a bowl and it's a field and if there's a way that we can, this is one of those industrial parks that we feel like this is a perfect opportunity with the railroad tracks to screen by lowering those buildings. Causing less impact to the neighbors and there's ramifications all the way down. Not only this lot, which is a proposed...so we feel the best interest is protecting those neighbors as far as the visibility. That it makes more sense since it is really, the topography to that has been altered already and to maintain that recessed feeling to that, for the noise mitigations. There will be trucks going down there and we feel that that's the best interest of the neighbors to keep it recessed. A comment was made from the audience which was not heard on the tape. Kate Aanenson: It would exceed 7% which is less desireable. Councilman Mason: If it was raised? Kate Aanenson: Raised, correct. Getting up into the site. , - Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'd like you to answer the question that had come up previously. Larry Predwick: My name is Larry Predwick. I'm the Regional Nexrad Meteorologist from the National Weather Service. Region Headquarters in Kansas City. And the question came up as to the relative values of the amount of radiation that this system would generate. I have a slide here that I'll show you to give you some comparisons. Let me first of all begin by showing this. You kind of get an effect of what we're talking about in terms of this type of radiation. This is determined to be what is called the...averaged over a 6 minute period of time. Down here you'll notice where the occupational standards have been set... Here is where we stand, and actually this was blown up to this same scale, we would be off the zero line. Here's the comparison to give you some idea of what we're talking about. If you're out in the sun at noon day, you'll receive approximately 8 milowatts worth of radiation per square centimeter in a 6 minute period of time. The American National Standard Safety is set for 5. A typical microwave oven is 60 /10,000 at 10 feet away...It was brought out earlier or mentioned that this radar operates in an entirely different type of mode than most microwave systems. It operates in a pulse rode. In other words, the system is sitting there listening oh approximately 3 minutes a day. It sends out short pulses of energy measured in microseconds. In other words, millions of a second and then listens for that signal to come back. So the actual total time that the radar is in the radiate mode is only about 3 minutes per day out of a 24 hour day. With that, I have another slide...is that the radar is constantly trying to do what we call a volume scan. And here is an example of that. A complete that approximately .5 degrees plus elevation. Take a volume sample, or a slice sample. And then it goes up approximately half a degree and takes another one. Continues in this particular mode and this is what we call a percipitation mode actually. It's about 5 minutes for this thing to...so the majority of time, not only is it not radiating but it's also, when it does...radiating at an elevation above the h,orizon...The best way that I can kind of compare this is sort of like a atscan. You go through the body and it sits there and looks at...any 31 ' City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 particular feature that they want to from your right shoulder for example to your left hip. Well, with this type of volume...we can also do that with weather phenomena. Here we can determine...for approximately 3 minutes out of the day. The rest of the time it's in an elevated fashion anyway... Councilman Wing: Why put it down, for lack of a better words, in a hole? Why '• ' wouldn't you pick the highest place in Chanhassen or highest place in the Twin Cities? Does it increase your ground clutter? Larry Predwick: That's one feature, yes. There's...economy here as well. There's a number of sites that we looked at but quite frankly they're all considerably more expensive. When you take into consideration the power ' requirements we have... Another reason for selecting this site is because of the proximity to, this is a joint use system. There are three actual federal agencies involved in developing this system. The...Federal Aviation ' Administration is the other because all three will be using the information this thing generates. So it has some value in this particular southwest of, for example of the major airport... Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Are there any other discussions? Councilman Senn: I keep hearing all the wonderful warm fuzzies over the safety ' issue and when I turn to the conclusion, on the consultant's report, I keep wanting to see a definite conclusion. And somehow it has once again escaped me. It basically says the exposure level is resulting from normal operation of the Nexrad system should not result in increased health risks to the general public and surrounding communities. Why can't it just, you know normal operation. I mean that raises a question. Can this operate outside of normal operation? Next question. Why doesn't it say will instead of should? Next question is why ' does it say the immediate area of the surrounding community? Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can ask. ' Councilman Senn: I guess I am. I don't know if there's somebody here who can answer them. Mayor Chmiel: I think it's all in the...Is there anything that you can add to those questions that he's asking? ' Larry Predwick: I think if you take a look at any research done by the medical community, I don't think that you will find the word will used in any of the documentation because quite frankly there is no absolute certainties in any kind of medical research. I think that you will find that virtually any of the research that goes on in those particular areas are statistical in nature and everything is based upon the evidence that we know at a given point in time. And I think that is, as best as I could put it, is simply part of the normal ' vocabulary or the jargon that is used within that kind of context. Is that there is literally no absolutes. However, if you look at it from the perspective of how they write these sort of things, that's about as strong a language as you'll ever see them use. Councilman Wing: Would you cohhur with that Roger? That this is reasonable. 32 1 Gll7 GUUITLti11 TICCLLIIy -- Jule 14 Roger Knutson: An expert never stands up and guarantees you something. 1 Councilman Senn: It's better to have an expert that stands up and tells you nothing right? Larry Predwick: I think Einstein said something that an endless number of reports would never prove him right but it only takes one to prove him wrong. ' Councilman Senn: My question Larry I had too was. Larry Predwick: And I think the other question that you raised was the ' proximity? Councilman Senn: Yes. ' Larry Predwick: I think the point there was that beyond the mere nature of the system is that there is nothing to even consider because.by the time that you get beyond the near range of the system, the signal level is so significantly lower that it's almost inmeasureable. So that's the only time that we ever bring that sort of thing up is in the near proximity. It'd be kind of like making a comparison to a microwave oven across the street. . Councilman Senn: Well that just validates my point. I wish you would say the immediate area then. Rather than surrounding communities implies to me that nobody in Chaska is going to be affected. Larry Predwick: Well that's probably quite true because by that time the center. Councilman Senn: It doesn't say the immediate area's not going to be. I don't know. Councilwoman Dockendorf: If I could tack onto your question, or part of it. Has this been looked at in conjunction with the TV tower that sits out there and all the other towers that are out... Councilman Senn: There will be four out there. The water tower, and you have the Cellular one. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well the water tower doesn't... Larry Predwick: I think it's important to note that if you're saying collectively with all these other systems that are out there, the answer is no because of the fact that the frequency that this system uses is so significantly , different than for example high band radio or television broadcast signals. It's so significantly different you can't even make a comparison. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So, it's not going to fry my innards but what's it ' going to do to my TV reception, anything? Larry Predwick: Nothing. It operates at such ahigh frequency and for such a short period of time that, I might point out that we have a system like this operating right now in Pleasant Hill, Missouri which is just outside Kansas 33 Lrny l.oL[nC11 meeting .tune 14, 1993 City, right next to a residential subdivision. It's been operating there for well over a year and we have, as a matter of fact.several of our employees live in that subdivision and it's adjacent to the site like this one is and there's been absolutely nobody that's ever even known that the thing is there other than to look out the window occasionally and see the top of the tower. ' Mayor Chmiel: I think too, if you take into consideration the number of employees that are also working in these facilities, they probably have more exposure than anybody else. Larry Predwick: As a matter of fact, the system that we're operating right now at the airport probably generates more potential, or more exposure because it operates at a constant, almost at a constant elevation probably 99% of the time. ' And this is going to be significantly different. It's operating in an elevated mode about 90% of the time. Councilman Senn: I had one other thing I wanted to, if we could address the road. So far this has kind of been a piecemeal deal out there. So far we've stuck a church in an industrial park and now we're sticking this in an industrial park and so far it just seems kind of non - traditional uses in an industrial park. Is there anyway as part of this thing that we can get the... I mean it doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense why we're bringing it down a deadend road...this project is only a short distance later you're going to put in a cul -de -sac and finish it off anyway. Is there a reason why we're not requiring that? Kate Aanenson: Well the final two lots with this whole subdivision, they platted out to two lots so to get, we're requiring as far as that goes, just to bring the road to that point, just like we would with a subdivision when they're ' only filing so many lots. We bring the road to that point. They haven't got anything, a project on line to require or desire to get that road to go further. As far as Jehovah Witness, they'll have the access directly off of Audubon. It's similar to what we do in a residential Where they just bring ' it to that, to service those lots. It's quite a ways as far as the interior and that's the only lot that will be platted at this time. So I guess it's a matter of cost for the developer. Councilman Senn: But aren't we bringing the road all the way in to just about the end point? ' Kate Aanenson: Right...but they've only finaled two lots. The Jehovah Witness, which has access off of Audubon and this lot. There's nothing been approved for those other lots off of the street. Councilman Senn: So that could in fact not even be the road system? ' Kate Aanenson: It will be. We've approved that layout for that road as part of the grading plans, storm water issues, sewer, water. That will be the road. Anything else that comes on those lots will come back before you for site plan approval. Mayor Chmiel: I think that was something that we discussed previously. ' 34 . :; City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 Kate Aanenson: Right, and those standards for the PUD are in here but yes, that is the ultimate. The only thing you may see is if someone wants a larger lot, they may assemble some of those lots for a larger project. Say Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Maybe they'd become one lot, or 6 or 7. They may snap together if they need a larger parcel for something. Councilman Senn: But that wouldn't change the road system? ' Kate Aanenson: Correct. The road system's pretty much locked. Councilman Senn: I was just trying to think of where else we've done industrial i commercial and put in partial road systems and. Kate Aanenson: Again, this is a deadend street too. It's not going to go 1 anywhere else so. Mayor Chmiel: It's not going to extend any further than it would other than that cul -de -sac that's existing. Where that's shown. Okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf: We see a very nice drawing of what the major building's going to look like and it sounds like we're not even going to see it. What really is missing here is the two very intrusive structures and I'm disappointed not to see a picture or presentation of what they're going to... Kate Aanenson: Oh, that's the upper air inflation building and that's the block that should look like brick. That was mentioned. That will be 35 feet high. And in the upper air inflation. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: The Nexrad. Right, the drawings are nice. My point is. ' Wayne Perlenfein: Of what the actual tower looks like. And here's an overlay of the facility that looks, it's a smaller facility but it will give you a relative. Kate Aanenson: So that would be the height. 127 plus the 7. And we did put in the staff report that they do fence, put a fence around those and we recommended that be a green vinyl to kind of. And we also mentioned in the staff report, going with the whiter colors as far as blending into the sky. Councilwoman Dockendorf: My only point is we've got a really nice drawing. I ' would have liked to have seen. Kate Aanenson: The whole scale. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, something like that. That's what I'd like to see. , Wayne Perlenfein: The reason it's not shown on the... Kate Aanenson: Let me clarify that. That won't be coming up for another year ' but since the staff knew it wa.*.coming we recommended or we told them that they had to bring that in at this tune. We didn't want to force the hand and say 35 well now we've approved the site, you've got to approve the tower. We wanted everybody the opportunity to comment on that at this time so we said that even though it's not going in possibly for a year, we want you to come forward and show us what that's going to look like and how it would be reflected on the site plan. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: So next year we'll be seeing it... Kate Aanenson: No, we're approving it now but getting the comments and everything. ' Larry Predwick: We've provided pictures of what that will look like. ' Councilman Wing: While she's digging that out, if we have in fact addressed the health issue significantly that the neighborhood is secure, and I think we put the effort into that question. That I can feel comfortable with this. I'll rove approval of Site Plan Review for the Weather Bureau construction. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? ' Councilman Mason: Are we going over any of the, as with all the conditions? Mayor Chmiel: With all the conditions that will look. ' Councilman Wing: I didn't hear any to be added. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we added 18. Mayor Chmiel: Item 18. Councilman Wing: Oh excuse me. Kate Aanenson: Park and trail fees be paid at the time of building permit. Mayor Chmiel: Motion on the floor, was there a second? Councilman Mason: I will second that motion. 1 Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Site Plan 193 -4 for the National Weather Service subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat of CBC - Phase I shall be recorded with Carver County. 2. Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Depending on the storm ' sewer calculations, the City may require catch basins and /or pipe. 3. A revised site grading plan incorporating the final approved grading plan ' for CBC -Phase I, including the trail location through the site, shall be resubmitted to the City for review and approval. ' 36 1 City Council Meeting - The 14, 1993 4. The proposed site grading along the south property line shall be revised to 1 save the existing stand of trees. 5. All landscaping materials, i.e. trees and shrubs, shall be planted outside 1 the proposed street right -of -way and not over any public utility lines, i.e. sanitary sewer lines and watermains. 6. The site plan shall be amended to show the additional right -of -way and drainage and utility easements that will be conveyed to the city with the final plat of CBC -Phase I (17 feet of right -of -way and 25 feet of drainage and utility easement). 7. The property owner will be responsible for its share of the pending Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvement costs (Project No. 91 -17A). B. Grading and site preparation will only be allowed for the Weather Service after the underlying PUD and development contract have been recorded. Surety will be in place for the grading of both sites. 9. The landscaping between Lake Drive and the NWS building should be a , combination of deciduous and conifer trees, with some ornamental trees placed in an informal setting. Additional landscaping for the buffer strips should be deciduous trees including more Sugar Maples, Lindens, Marshall Ash, and conifers should include more Austrian Pinds and Spruces. 10. Signs require a separate permit and shall be consistent as shown on the ' site plan dated April 16, 1993. 11. Compliance with the conditions as stated in the memo from the Fire Marshal dated May 12, 1993. 12. Compliance with the conditions in the memo from the Building Official dated May 10, 1993. 13. The hipped roof entrance canopy shown over the main entrance shall be placed over the two front entrances. In addition, two hipped canopies shall be placed on the rear of the building to provide screening for the roof top equipment. 14. Fencing around the NEXRAD Radar shall be green vinyl. The color of the brick (and standing seam siding) on all of the buildings shall be brown and tan. 1 15. A waiver to the parking standards shall be given; 52 parking stalls shall be provided based on the maximum number of employees as 50, with 36 people generally working at one time. If the number of employees changes, the parking will be re- evaluated and more parking may be required. 16. An independent third party shall review the health issues and report their findings to the City Council. 1 37 II 17. The grade of the NWS building should be reviewed by staff to see if less grading can occur so that the building could be raised six (6) feet. Staff is recommending that the grade be left as proposed by the applicant. II 18. Full park and trail dedication fees shall be paid at the time of building 1 permit application. II All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: II RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL, REQUIRING DEDICATION OF A TRAIL EASEMENT, LAURENT ADDITION, MAYOR CHMIEL. II Mayor Chmiel: This is done by myself asking Jo Ann to answer specific questions of Mr. Laurent, which he raised by calling me. I don't see Mr. Laurent here this evening. I Jo Ann Olsen: I talked with Paul Laurent this morning and they're not going to be coming. I understand that this was just to, not to discuss tonight. Just to I ee whether or not you do want to discuss it in the future. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. And being that I was in the affirmative I said that I would bring this up but we would need a second and approval by Council. II To then bring this forward to our next meeting and discuss this at that time. I Hove a motion. Is there a second? I Councilwoman Oockendorf: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? II Councilman Mason: This is just to bring this back in 2 weeks right? Mayor Chmiel: Right. II Councilman Senn: Any why are we bringing it back? I Jo Ann Olsen: They're unhappy with having to be required to dedicate easements, specifically the trail easements of right -of -way. It's basic stuff that we always pet whenever there's a plat. When you bring it back for reconsideration, we will obviously not be recommending that you remove that condition. But II normally they would still be going through final plat. They have preliminary plat approval and so typically this is a condition that they could bring back again and say we still don't agree with this but they don't want to spend II anymore money towards the application. So if they find that you're not going to give on that, change those conditions, they're probably going to drop the whole application. II Mayor Chmiel: I think the point that Mr. Laurent brought up to me is when he was here, is he indicated that he was sort of overwhelmed and he didn't quite understand what the process was. And because of that particular position I II decided that okay, let's relook at this again so he can either understand the position and the recommendation where staff's coming from. What's being 1 38 II II Lzty council rieering June rte, 19Y3 proposed. I wanted him to at least have his second chance to know exactly why 1 we're either saying yes, we'll change it or no, we will not change it. Councilman Senn: Can't he do that with staff and doesn't he still have an opportunity when he comes through for the other. Mayor Chmiel: No, because it does have to come through for a reconsideration. , If any of those conditions are removed... Jo Ann Olsen: With final plat but that costs again to make the final plat submittal. It costs more money that he doesn't want to put towards a process. Mayor Chmiel: What he's trying to do is just have his son put a house next to where he's located. Because he's doing that, he goes through that whole process. There's more involved in this and I think we'll get into it a little later. Also with MnDot. So there's some things that we should look at and I think all that information we can obtain from Jo Ann in the next... Councilman Senn: Are you pushing it then because you changed your mind on the previous vote or is that? Mayor Chmiel: No. Only because he felt that at the time that this was presented, he didn't understand the processes that he had to go through in doing that final platting at this particular time. And also that dedication of that particular. Jo Ann Olsen: Right. They were in attendance of a meeting when it was in front of you for the preliminary plat but they didn't speak. I think they were just kind of overwhelemed with the whole thing and didn't understand what it really meant and want another chance. Mayor Chmiel: So with that we have a motion on the floor with a second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to reconsider a condition of approval requiring dedication of a trail easement for the Laurent Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: ' Mayor Chmiel: There are no administrative presentations. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could I just make a comment? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sorry to interject that. I just want to thank Jo Ann for the update from the Tree Board... Councilman Wing: Can I also throw in, just a little out of order. Mayor Chmiel: You bet. No, that's alright. , 1 39 11 City Council Meeting - June 14, 1993 Councilman Wing: I would like to put a motion before the Council that the City Manager no later than 0900 hours, June 15, 1993 call the American Legion in Chanhassen, will go on display and order a new flag... Mayor Chmiel: Also along with that Dick, and I'd like to chime in on that, is to really thank the Legion for all their past performances and the assists that they've been doing to the city with the donations that they're providing to us. 1 Councilman Wing: They just put a flag on the fire station. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I think I would like to see a letter back to the Legion thanking there for that and have that signed by Council. Councilwoman Dockendorf: As long as we're on the topic, all the smoke detectors ' that they donated, is there anyway that we can let people know that that came from a donation? Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah. I think they, when they provide those to whoever comes and asks for them, they do tell them. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All 1 voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9 :45 p.a. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager II Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 40 i j • 11 . uifLeitte,eL 1 // A CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION - REGULAR MEETING 11i JUNE 2, 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes and Nancy Mancino STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer 1 PUBLIC HEARING: NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR COLONIAL GROVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ' RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. THE PERMIT SHALL DESCRIBE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE USE ALLOWED. Public Present: Name Address ' Jeff Kvichaug 6681 Horseshoe Curve Harold & Kathy Dahl 6631 Horseshoe Curve Art Bofferding and Phyllis Pope Bofferding 620 Carver Beach Road Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli ' called the public hearing to order. Batzli: Is the applicant here tonight? The applicant for Colonial Grove is not here tonight? Is anyone here who would like to address the ' Commission on this issue? Yes, please come forward. Phyllis Pope Bofferding: My name is Phyllis Pope Bofferding and I live on ' Lotus Lake. 620 Carver Beach Road. Would like to speak against going back to any more boats or any boats at that dock. I think the lake is already over crowded. The size of boats that we're seeing on the lake today are much, much larger than in 1981 or even several years ago. It's a hazard to go out. We haven't had any nice days this year but the first nice day, I think you take your life in your hands going out on that lake and I would hate to see any higher level of useage than there is right now. 1 Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission? ' Jeff Kvichaug: I would. My name's Jeff Kvichaug and I live at 6681 Horseshoe Curve on Lotus Lake. I'd like to go on record also opposing the non - conforming use permit that's been applied for. It seems to me that when they applied for this, given the facts and circumstances that have 1 surrounded it thus far, the burden of proof rests with the applicant to prove the amount of boats that were moored or stored overnight there back at the 1981 survey. At that point in time. I don't think that that question has been proven at this stage through the application or the information that I have available. The applicant isn't here tonight to discuss it. And I think the Planning Commission has made a pretty regular ' basis or judgment that they have to have a pretty sound basis for not following the survey that was taken in 1981. Again, I'd like to reiterate Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 2 the fact that what a previous person said is that there's a lot of boats on Lotus Lake already. And I just don't think it'd be good precedent to set ' with the amount of homeowner associations that we have on the lake to start amending those standards that we have adopted. ' Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Harold Dahl: My name is Harold Dahl at 6631 Horseshoe Curve. I'd also like to go on record opposing any additional boats on Lotus Lake at this ' place. I'm concerned in terms of setting precedent. I believe that there are approximately 7 other beachlots that could be effected by this precedence if we allow Colonial Grove to have boats docked at their site ' without a proof or evidence that they had already had a non - conforming use permit that covered that property. So when I moved on the lake several years ago, that lot, outlot had already had boats stored there. From my ' perspective I don't really care if the boats are there or not but I'm very concerned about the precedence that it might set in terms of any other outlots that might come and ask this commission to provide for space for them as well. So primarily precedence. ' Harberts: I have a question. Do you have a boat? Harold Dahl: Yes. Harberts: And how do you store and how do you get your boat to the lake? Harold Dahl: I put it on the public access and I store it at my home. Harberts: Okay, so you go down TH 101 to that public access? 1 Harold Dahl: Yes. ' Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in ' favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: ...spent more time on this than is necessary. We've discussed ' this, this is the second time. I'm going to maintain that the boat launch is an expansion of the use. I think it's clearly an expansion of use and should be denied. 45 foot dock was in place. It seems reasonable to me. ' That could handle a couple of small boats. I don't have a problem with the 2 boats docking. It seems reasonable that that size dock could handle that. The fact that those boats may have been out on the lake, I'll buy that. ' Batzli: Are you referring to Colonial or Schmid's there Jeff? ' Farmakes: Pardon? Batzli: Are you referring to the Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake or Schmid's? Farmakes: I've got Schmid's here. Planning Commission Meeting I June 2, 1993 - Page 3 IF Batzli: Okay. Colonial Grove is in front of us right now. Farmakes: Why don't you pass on to the next. I Batzli: Okay, Nancy. II Mancino: Kate, do any of the, can you tell by any of the inventories, these beachlot inventories, whether a boat has been there overnight? I mean do they, there's no way of. ' Aanenson: I did the one in '91 and I'm assuming that the one, that the way they've done it is someone went out during regular city hours and went an saw how many boats were at the dock. Whether it was a sunny day and all the boats were in the water or not. Mancino: So it's during the week. It's not on the weekend and all that I kind of stuff? Aanenson: Yeah. I can just give you the date. Mancino: Okay. So we have here that in 1981 that they had 3 boats docke . I have no problem with continuing that use in 1981 from now on. And that is that 3 boats can be docked overnight. That's all I want to say. I'm 11 favor of 3 boats docked overnight. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Jeff, are you. I Farmakes: Give me another minute here. Batzli: Joe, do you want to go ahead? II Scott: Sure. Kate, which day, as far as day of the week? Do you have 1 that info? Aanenson: June 6th. Scott: Pardon me? Aanenson: It was June, the '81 date? I Scott: '81 and '91. Or if you have all three. Aanenson: '81 would have been June 12th. '86 was July 14th. '91, I don" have the exact date. I believe it was right after Labor Day weekend. Fir part of September. Scott: That seems like we will be seeing probably every beachlot in the I next however many months and I'd agree with Commissioner Mancino that we should maintain the level of useage and not expand it. So I would suppor maintaining it at 4, per the '91 survey. That's the end of my comment. Mancino: Oh, I said 3. I went back to '81. 1 II 11 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 4 II Scott: So we'll use, so from a P recedent standpoint, then we should use and I'll go with 3. Use '81. I Ledvina: Kate, in the background part of your report you say a non- conforming use permit was approved by the City in June of 1981. Now this I is different from many of the other beachlots in that a permit was issued. Is that correct? I Aanenson: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. So were there other non - conforming beachlots where a permit was issued or is this the only one? 1 Aanenson: Some of them have conditional uses that meet the other criteria. That have enough frontage and have enough square footage. This one is I insufficient in square footage and frontage so I'm assuming that when they received this, it was kind of simultaneous with the non - conforming permitting process going through because they were in the process of 111 subdividing that property. Ledvina: Okay, so they were under the spotlight because they were establishing this beachlot and the ordinance was coming into play during II the whole. Aanenson: I'm assuming that. That's my best guess. II Ledvina: Okay, so really if we take a look at this permit. I guess in my mind this permit represents the level of use that was allowed by the city and agreed to by the Homeowners Association. I guess your interpretation I is that that no boats are to be moored. I think in this case that perhaps the survey is not a worthwhile piece of information because of this formal permit. Further in your report you state that the Planning Commission I Minutes state that a conditional use permit would be required to dock boats overnight. Was that permit ever granted or applied for? I Aanenson: Well, that's in 1980 when they were subdividing the property. So I'm assuming, and just drawing some conclusions here that in 1980, when they were subdividing the property, it was noted that if you're going to have a beachlot there, you'd have to go through the non - conforming permit 1 because the permit was issued in '81. Ledvina: Okay, so that's why. 1 Aanenson: Right, there was a directive to go through the process. I Ledvina: Okay. Alright. Well I guess in general I feel that I would support the staff interpretation of that permit and view that as the, I don't know, controlling factor in this instance. And I would support no boats docked overnight. 1 Batzli: So you're basing that on the non - conforming permit that they had and not the level of activity in 1981, which was our initial charter when I we entered this exercise to determine. Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 5 1 Ledvina: Right. Well, they may have had 3 boats at that dock but if that was not consistent with the permit, we shouldn't condone the use of that beachlot if that wasn't allowed. I guess this is different. I view this as different because there was that permit that was issued June 15th. Whe was the survey done? Aanenson: June 12th. During the day. It was during the day so no one's!' ever witnessed whether or not they're overnight. Batzli: Well it's my understanding, is it correct that they were , prohibited from having a dock as well? Aanenson: No. If you look in the permit, it does say you can have a doc l It specifies 100 feet. Batzli: Where's that? 1 Aanenson: Section, on page 3 of the permit. Section 2.05. Where it's handwritten in 100. Batzli: Why in 2.11 does it say no dock shall be constructed or erected? Anyway. Nice permit. Okay, was that. Ledvina: It's different than the other ones and I think that because thiJI permit occurred almost simultaneously at the survey, I think this is a much more substantial piece of evidence in determining the appropriate use. 511 I would defer to staff on their interpretation of this permit. Batzli: Okay. Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, I agree with Matt. I think this supersedes the inventory. I think based on the documentation that's been supplied, that the conditional use permit doesn't allow, for overnight storage. Batzli: Okay, Diane. Harberts: I agree Matt and Ladd, and I don't have anything to add. I guess what I'm not hearing is someone from the Association in terms of convincing us any different. We've heard from people in that area that I feel that they, well express their desire not to have it approved so I'm going to concur. Ledvina: I have a question Mr. Chairman. ' Batzli: Yeah. Ledvina: Kate. Did the applicant see this report prior to tonight? I I presume they did and thl know what the City's or your interpretation is and, okay. Batzli: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: Apologies for getting this switched around. But my comments all the same on both of these. I've always taken a position of '81. Unless 4 11 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 6 there's a reasonable way to believe otherwise. In light of the conditional use permit, I will change my statement on that. It has always been my ' comment that if there's a dockage space of 40 -50 feet, at least and they used a couple of boats. The boats didn't happen to be there at the time of the survey, it seems to be reasonable that there may be boats during the day out on the lake. So I've always allowed for that. If there's a ' conditional use not allowing overnight storage, it seems to me going back to '81, that those numbers are apparent... Batzli: I don't know. I look at this and I really think to myself that, several boats is not an intense use of this particular outlot in view of it's previous history of having that many boats, regardless of whether the city had initially condoned it or not. I find it fascinating over the ' years that we go out and we do surveys and we find that there are boats out there and we don't do anything about it for 10 years. And now we say, well they didn't have the right to do that. Well, I'll give them the benefit of ' the doubt. We did surveys. It wasn't like we didn't know they were there. My feeling is let them have 3 boats. That's what they've been doing for over 10 years it looks like. ' Conrad: And as a lawyer, what do you think a legality? Basically you're saying, does that negate the contract that we have with them? Batzli: Well clearly there was you know, you can look at UCC law and say that, regardless of the written terms, you look to the actions of the parties which may modify the contract. And here we've known for over 10 years that they are acting outside the scope of the contract. Without a very intense use and I thought our initial purpose here was to determine what the level of use was in '81 and to I think in part determine whether that's a reasonable use for the particular piece of property. Here, they've been acting that way. We didn't do anything about it. We acquiesced over a period of 10 years and I don't find it unreasonable, so. ' Conrad: Kate, were there complaints by the neighbors? Aanenson: I did get calls from people after this notice went out but, no. ' Conrad: There's probably never been complaints over the years by residents and then the only other thing that I would say is, have you looked at this area? And do you recognize that maybe the sensitivity and proximity to the ' creek and the lily pads and the habitat that's there. That is what's different about this and a 25 foot lake, that's what is different. ' Batzli: But what's the difference between having 3 to 8 people mooring their boats there during the day and allowing 3 of them to park it there overnight? You're going to get traffic in and out of there. As a matter ' of fact, you're going to get additional traffic if you make them pull it out. I don't know. By allowing the boats there, they're going to park right on the dock so you're going to get the traffic in and out. If the issue is whether this will intensify the use by allowing 3 of them to be moored overnight, or tied to the dock. I shouldn't say moored. But I don't know how that intensifies the use. Now we can talk about whether we're going to enforce the contract and if there's a waiver provision in there that says, you know, if we forgive your trespasses once that doesn't Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 7 mean we're going to do it in the future, which is also a nice little legality. We can talk, you know we can take either side on that and we c argue it and let a Judge decide, if it got down to that. I don't know ho strongly the applicant really wants to moor boats at the docks, since the didn't show up today. It seems that, counting noses here, we may have a 4 to 3 decision one way or another and that may raise their attention for 1 when this goes in front of the Council. Conrad: The only last point is Brian, because the condition, the non- conforming permit that was granted didn't address, it didn't say you coulc' It didn't say you couldn't. Correct. So legally, what do you think that means? II Harberts: I think it's clearly two issues. You've got your permit here that says one thing and then you can take it to the next stage where you talk about what have been the actions...may not have done anything, were 11 they aware of it? You know you can certainly argue that point but I don' think that creates the right to, you know clearly when it's spelled in terms of what the permit said. I think that's the discussion point right here is, this is what the permit says. Is this what should happen? Scott: Well it seems like we're focusing on. Harberts: I mean it's pretty black and white. Scott: I think we're focusing on intent and the way I take a look at thi is that, there's plenty of things in here where it says you can't do this you can't do that and you can't do that. The dock is fine, and I think most people would assume that a dock is going to be used for a number of different purposes. Perhaps keeping a boat overnight is one. Perhaps it isn't. It specifically says no mooring buoys. But that's about as close as it comes and my interpretation of a mooring buoy is usually something that's out farther into the lake and maybe that was addressed because of III possible traffic problems with having boats out that far. They also say no swimming platforms, which I think would be in about the same sort of proximity. But there isn't anything in here that expressly forbids boat dockage overnight and that's kind of where I'm coming from. Because if ii' would have been forbidden, obviously they would have been here but then the survey would have had a little bit more meat to it I think. Harberts: Well and I guess just to maybe belabor the point a little bit i terms of, you know the survey says 3, 7 and 9 and if we say okay, 3 is the threshold. What if we go out and do the survey again and in 1992 or 199311 they have 9 boats out there? Do we just, would 9 be the magic number the Batzli: No. We go to 1981, and according to our charter here, we go bac to 1981 and if they want more than was shown on our survey, they have to provide evidence that it was there. What I think some on the Commission might be saying is that they will take that at face value because it's not expressly forbidden under the permit and since the applicant isn't here, they're going to be given the 9 that they requested since there was no evidence to say that there were actually 9 there being parked. I don't know if it's a good result. As Ladd said, this might not be a very good area but I don't know that, I don't know. I guess in view of Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 8 the circumstances the way I see it, I don't know why we would deny it Y Y Y based on no express language that said you can't do it. The fact that they've been doing it for 10 years and I don't know they've really increased the intensity of, it looks like, at least this one record here of these Minutes indicate that several people have boats that they want to be ' parked at the dock. I don't know if they actually did it. Well, I mean how many boats are there Ladd? How long have you lived on the lake? ' Conrad: There's quite a few. Harberts: More than 3? ' Ledvina: Mr. Chairman. A question for Kate. What, if you have it, what specific section were you referencing in the permit that states that, or where you draw your interpretation that no boats be docked? I gues is it ' just an overall thing that it doesn't allow or is there a specific element within the permit that leads you to believe that? ' Aanenson: Well it says specifically that you can have a dock. It says that you can have a dock. Then it also says that under 2.08, no mooring buoys shall be placed upon the waters. No airplanes, seaplanes. And if you go through all the lists, it doesn't say you can have x number of boats ' at the dock which raises two issues. They came back in '84 and said if you want to go beyond that, you have to come back and go through the conditional use. They did come back in 1984 and got 2 canoe racks. The issue here is, if you look at the number of residents that belong to the association, which is the number of lots is 73 homes. Where then do you draw the line as to what the maximum number of boats that can be at the i dock. Where does it stop and that's the intent of the ordinance is to say that there is a maximum number of permitted. If there's complaints, we can go down there and say you're exceeding the number of boats that are allowed at that dock. We don't have a magic number of what the limit is. Scott: Well I think we can talk about physical limitations because that's a very shallow, the lake's very shallow but it's very shallow there and a 100 foot dock, depending upon water level, is not going to give you enough draft to put boats in. And from, I was down there a couple weeks ago and there is a physical limitation to the number of boats that you can have at the dock. Also, I don't think we should confuse...so I think there are ' some physical limitations and I always put more confidence in physical limitations than I do on legal limitations because it seems like the physical ones will hold sway. 1 Harberts: What does the City do to enforce the permit? 1 Aanenson: How many boats, go out and inspect them. Harberts: And what do they do if there's more than 3 or whatever? ' Aanenson: Send the Association a notice that they're in violation of the ordinance. And if they don't rectify it, then we proceed to prosecute them for violation. 1 Harberts: Has the City ever done that? 1 Planning Commission Meeting II June 2, 1993 - Page 9 II Aanenson: Well we just issued them. This will be the first summer that we'll be inspecting them all. Batzli: Is there a motion? II Mancino: I move that we approve that 3 boats be allowed to be docked II overnight at the dock. To be tied to the dock overnight. Scott: I'll second that. II Batzli: Any discussion? Conrad: Don't call the question yet. 1 Batzli: I'm not going to. Conrad: I'm just thinking. That's the only thing. I'm not going to say, anything. Batzli: Normally Kate we have a little chart here that we approve these il accordance with based on what they're requesting. Aanenson: I didn't put that in only because we're looking at, we'll issue" them a permit but all we're looking specifically is just the number of boats. Batzli: Just this one item to modify their. 1 Conrad: That's kind of confusing. When did we, we cooked at them. Are amending what we had approved before? Aanenson: Well this was given to them in 1981. Conrad: So they have not been in recently? II Aanenson: No. No. I Batzli: They haven't been in since '84 for their canoe racks. Aanenson: Correct. II Mancino: If there's only one canoe rack up right now, and the second one has not been added since 1984, do they still have the right to put the II second one up? Aanenson: Well that's a philosophical question that the Council has kind II of said, that's the same question if we say you can have 10 boats. Then one year they only put in 8. Does that now say they can only have 8? Because for some reason someone's traveled that year and hasn't put their boat in. And at this point I think the Council feels like, unless it's all substantial change in use over a number of years they're going to change it. But if they've gone under one year, or if you feel like you want to call it back, if there's complaints or issues and you want to call it bac II Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 10 and revoke it, otherwise I don't think the Council at this point wants to go back and every year relook at them and lower them down. Farmakes: I think if we look at our past practices of these things, we haven't been critical. ' Batzli: No, and we view that as a low intensity use. ' Farmakes: Correct, and the major issue that we argue over has been how many docks but the footage of the dock and how many boats are there. So I don't know if I want to get into picking...canoe rack. ' Batzli: So I assume your motion is to amend the existing non - conforming use permit? Mancino: Non - conforming use permit and making it clear, yes. Batzli: That they're limited to that number of boats. Okay. Is there any other discussion? Mancino moved, Scott seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approving that three (3) boats be allowed to be docked overnight at the ' Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Beachlot. All voted in favor except Harberts, Conrad and Ledvina who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. ' Batzli: I think it passes 4 to 3. You voted aye? ' Scott: Yes. Batzli: Okay, your reasons for voting nay? Ledvina: Well, personally I think that their conditional use, well this permit should apply and I would defer to staff's judgment in enforcing or working with this permit. That's my basis for voting against the motion. ' Batzli: Ladd, do you want to? Conrad: Same as Matt. Batzli: Okay, Diane. Harberts: I would concur and also again make the point, the discussion tonight from the residents was, their desire to not have it approved and no one from the Association was here in support of this. Those are my reasonings. Batzli: Okay, thank you. 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 11 1 PUBLIC HEARING: NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR SCHMID'S ACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. THE PERMIT SHALL DESCRIBE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE USE ALLOWED_ Public Present: Name Address Sherri & Tim Latterner 3790 Meadow Lane Bonnie & Pat Monahan 3801 Meadow Lane Dale Collins 3931 Aster Trail Dale Keehl 3841 West 62nd Street Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive Mike Melkert P.O. Box 150, Waconia Gary Carlson 3831 West 62nd Street Mary & Tim Colleran 6560 Minnewashta Parkway Tom Owens 120 5o. 6th Street, #1512, Minneapolis 5540 Ken Durr 4830 Westgate Road, Minnetonka 55345 Craig Miller 6450 Minnewashta Parkway Dana Johnson 50 West Pleasant Lane, Tonka Bay 55331 Jim Hofer 7098 Red Cedar Cove Kate Aanenson presented the staff report. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. ' Mike Melkert: Good evening. My name is Mike Melkert. I'm an attorney. I've been hired by Gary Carlson and other property owners who are seeking ' the permit this evening. As it was said in the background information, this was already before you once. What we're asking for this evening is that you reaffirm your previous recommendation of allowing 10 off street I parking spaces, one dock with one boat allowed to be docked, and one one boat allowed on the shore. We're also asking this evening that you allow launching rights for small canoes and fishing boats. When this was before you previously, I think the Minutes show that you felt there wasn't sufficient evidence to allow launching rights at that time but now we feell there is sufficient evidence and we'll be presenting that this evening. I've spoken with Mr. burr's attorney, Mr. Owens and he thought, and I agr that probably the best way to do this is if I give my short presentation and then we hear the witnesses in favor of the permit and then he gives his presentation and then we hear his witnesses. I'd like to point out just couple of things to you. In my letter, which was passed out before the meeting I tried to assemble for you in a concise and easy to look at fashion what I believe is relevant information. The letter addresses specific points raised by Mr. Durr's attorney. Most of the points raised" by Mr. Durr's attorney are not relevant to what you're doing right here this evening. What mays + be relevant is the parking spaces. When Mr. Carlson gets up here he's going to show you photographs showing that turning vehicles around in the area is not a problem as Mr. Durr contends He's also going to show you photographs showing that the area is blocked trees and wildlife vegetation so there's not a real problem with blockage. I'd also like to direct your attention to the survey which does show in IL 1981 there was a dock. There were vehicles using the property and there w a boat on the property. Attached to my letter as Exhibits D and E are 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 12 letters from previous property owners showing that during 1981, there were ' boats being taken down to the lake and off loaded into the lake and that the lake was being used for recreational purposes. And those letters are attached. The witnesses will also be testifying as to those facts. If you ' have any questions concerning Mr. Owens letter or my response, I'd like you to address those to me. Otherwise, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Carlson to give his presentation and then after he's done, we'll continue with the rest of our witnesses. ' Harberts: I have a question. What do you consider, I think you said small canoes and small fishing boats. 0o you have a size of a small fishing boat? ' Mike Melkert: 16 feet or less, would that do? ' Harberts: What about horse power on the motor? Gary Carlson: Well, the pictures will show, and if you've inspected the site, you wouldn't take a very large boat in there unless. ' Harberts: Unless you had 4 wheel drive. Gary Carlson: I have never seen anyone launch over a, there will be testimony to small ski boats and that's 40 or 60 or 75 or 85. Nowadays ski boats are 100 and 120. I don't own that size boat. I can't represent all of the other people, what size boats they might. It's not a safe site for large boats, no. It's not for two axle trailers with huge Cris Crafts. Harberts: What size do you launch or what size do you have? ' Gary Carlson: I have a 14 foot fiberglass runabout. ' Harberts: What's the horse power? Gary Carlson: 60. 1 Harberts: 60? Gary Carlson: 60. Good evening, my name is Gary Carlson. I reside at ' 3831 West 62nd Street. I wish to thank Kate Aanenson for a very good job that the staff and the city has done of bringing this to you twice and working with all of the residents and the heirs that have the right to use ' this site. I'd also like to thank the entire Planning Commission for their time that they donate to the city and for the betterment of the city. I support the ordinance that we're working toward getting a beachlot, non- conforming beachlot permit for. I support holding Minnewashta to a level ' that it can support and basically going by a past inventory. And as we can all agree, this inventory as can be expected is quite lacking. It's kind of like asking in 1981, on a particular day if I was using my backyard and ' then asking Joe Scott on another day in 1986 if he was using his backyard and then by 1993, if he hadn't used his backyard on those 3 days that I came to look, I would take away his backyard. That's basically what the inventory tries to call out, so it is lacking some of the points but our ' members basically want a permit that is contingent with what the site will support. What has happened in the past as far as level of useage. That II Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 13 it's been a very limited recreational useage by a few of those that have the right to use it. Their heirs that have the right to use it and some the heirs are here that have direct lineage to the Schmid's and then ther are the assigns and that's where I came in 23 years ago when I bought one of the lots. One of the Schmid's Acre tracts and there are a lot of the II assigns here and some of those assigns won't testify tonight but they will' stand and give their name and their address and that they would like the useage to continue because some of the assigns are changing each year as new homeowner buys or a particular property is sold to a new homeowner. The level of useage that we want to determine is what was happening in '8 and again, as your survey, it's hard to come right back to a day or a summer and say what that level of useage was. The level of useage we'd like to support is consistent with the site and if you've seen the site, not I will send the pictures around and while the discussion's going on, you can just pass them from site to site. And if you have any questions I about any of the pictures, you can certainly ask me. Mancino: Are these 1993 pictures? Gary Carlson: These are 1993 pictures, but the site has not changed in t 23 years that I've used it. It's basically the same site. In 1981 I think my daughter was at that age that she crawled there in her diapers and by II '86, she was running and waterskiing there. In 1993, she takes her horse • down there. So if you see a horse going right onto the lake swimming, that's quite an exciting event for her, and the horse loves it. And I appreciate the time in front of you because I have a handicap daughter in wheelchair and when she sees her dad on television she just about jumps ou of the wheelchair so I appreciate the time that you've given me to make m presentation. The first witness I have comes in the form of writing by M Al Gelschus and I won't read his whole letter because you have it in fron of you. He's a long time employee of NSP and a close personal friend of our Mayor, of course. The easement for that area was always used by us all others for. He states in his letter that he's lived here for 30 years. TIF easement for that area was always used by us and others for many recreational activities including launching of small boats, canoes, etc. We enjoyed, and then he goes on to say some more about it but that's the meat of this is that they used it during the 30 years that they lived her . And buying the property from Al, the current owner is here and he's airead s from him used it some and will continue to use it and you'll hear fro and let hi a him make his statement at this time. Dale Keehl: Good evening. My name is Dale Keehl. I reside at 3841 West' 62nd Street. I bought my house from Al Gelschus last September so I haven't had, I've been down to the access a couple times. I've known Al for, I've worked with him for 24 years and when I was first with NSP I well there a couple times with him and used the access and that was one of the main reasons, besides the park and stuff, that I bought his house. Is because I had a chance to, I would have a chance to use the lake with my J1 two boys and do some fishing. The boat I have, even with my 4 wheel driv I wouldn't be able to launch it there. It's not an improved launch or anything. I could see where a small fishing boat could be launched but ' mine wouldn't. I would use the park's launch area. And as far as, I probably wouldn't use it for leaving my boat there overnight. I'd trailer it and leave it but I would really like to be able to use the lake with my II Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 14 11 two boys and have a place we could come and have a picnic real close to our I house and stuff like that. And I guess that's all I've got to say. Thank you. Gary Carlson: Also the next, one of the active users of the lake during I that time that you want to establish your history would have been Bill Friberg. His statement is also of record with you and I'll just refer to the parts in it that are again pertinent to his history. Establishing the I history of the useage. Bill Friberg is retired from NSP and is also a close personal friend of our Mayor. As to his honesty, the Mayor can attest. Bill lived there from '59 to '87. During this time our neighbors, I Al Gelschus' family and us used this easement. We built a dock, launched our boats. We picnicked, swam, waterskied from this easement. Also, our other neighbors that own property on Schmid's Acres Tract used this easement. For this reason we feel that their use should continue. He I owned until '87. Terry Toll couldn't be here this evening. If you want a written statement for the Council's consideration, he will be glad to furnish one. He couldn't attend this evening. 1 Batzli: If you can make, if he wants to give a statement, you can provide it to the staff to make it of record and the Council would then have it available. I Gary Carlson: Alright, thank you. The next witness I would have is Clint Wager. Through this time, him and his wife used it, and his dog. That's I basically is they walked the dog there and would both go swimming and he would allow his children to go there. He's recovering from hip surgery and he would provide a written statement, and I can attest to his useage as I well as he would. The dock has been well documented in your inventory but I would call upon the Latterners are here this evening. They've been, Bill Friberg was docking. When he quite docking, then I supplied the dock and Dale Collins who is here, his son -in -law helped me many summers put it in I and take it out. And when that dock expired, I bought one from the Latterner's who are in the dock business so Mrs. Latterner is here tonight and she will now testify that the last 3 years I've put in and taken out a I dock. And she also is an assign and has the same right to use it that I do and so she's. I Batzli: Let me ask a question before you bring Latterner up here. Your entering testimony here of somewhat more recent events. Is this to disspell the notion that you've somehow abandoned any rights that you may have? Do you have people here that can talk about what was happening in 1 1981, or what are we doing here? Gary Carlson: Well the last 3, 4 mentioned people all testified to what I was happening in '81. Batzli: So these people are, you're not necessarily giving timeframes but I all these people, the written comments are. Gary Carlson: Are mostly through the '81 series. And then the recent is that we haven't abandoned the site. 1 Batzli: Okay. 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 15 1 Mike Meikert: There is some issue here by Mr. Durr's attorney that there! was an abandonment and that's where the testimony came in. Sherri Latterner: Hi. I'm Sherri Latterner. I live at 3790 Meadow Lane. We bought our lot in 1991 from Gary and we put the dock in that spring J1 before we even had built our house. And we have put it in last year and put it in this year. We do use the site quite often. We don't use it much on weekends because we go out of town but we go there after dinner. • Go swimming and the problem that I heard about turning around cars and parking, we've never had a problem being able to turn around our car and we have a 4 wheel drive truck that takes up quite a bit of space. And we've. never had a problem with that and enjoy it very much and would like to continue to use it. Harberts: Sherri, do you have a boat? Sherri Latterner: Yes we do. Harberts: And where do you launch it? ' Sherri Latterner: We don't use Lake Minnewashta much. We keep our boat u at our cabin. We do have a small one here but we don't use it very often We usually go to Virginia to fish. Gary Carlson: Now at this time I would like to enter into the record, there are some people here that are also assigns on the property that woull have the right, the recreational beachlot be continued. It's been a limited use for recreation on a limited basis lot and we would like that continue. My application was, on the number of cars, you can see that on picture I think there's 8 in there and we're not even on the drive. We'r just all pulled off to the side. The reason the number is 10, and there's been some contention or worry that we're going to start a parking lot the for 10 cars. It's only to be within permit. I have myself and my family 8 brothers and sisters. My wife has 7 and if we have a family get together on a 4th of July, and not even all of us would have to meet at the lake a we'd have 10 cars. The level of useage, the most I've seen is maybe 12 cars or that would count a boat and trailer as a car. I've seen 2 boats and trailers and the accompanying families down there and that's only one in the 23 years I've been there. So the reason I'm asking for 10 cars is that in, if someone has a picnic there, any of the assigns or the heirs h a gathering there, that they won't be out of permit. We're not requesting and we don't advocate a continuous parking lot for 10 cars. It's just thig we show that we, by those pictures that there are available room on a 50 II foot wide access for that number of cars, and also to turn around on that site. There are some people here. I'm sorry, I missed one testimonial a that would be also to the useage during the '81 and on up to the present. And I missed having him come forward. That would be Dale Collins and he has a statement for you. Dale Collins: I'm Dale Collins, 3931 Aster Trail and our family has ownell Lot 8 for nearly half a century now. I think they bought the place in 1950. At that time we used it primarily for swimming. There was no air conditioning at that time and so we'd take a bar of soap and go down ther at night. We also used it for fishing and we would take a small duck boat II Planning Commission Meeting II June 2, 1993 - Page 16 I in or a canoe. And this continued on up into this 1981 era and at that time my useage and my father, who was quite old at that time, and rather declined but our children used it a lot and like Gary said, my son -in -law I helped him put the docks up. But they used it primarily for swimming purposes. So we would like to see another permit issued and I have a letter from my daughter who couldn't be here. She owns the north part of Lot 8. It says, to the Chanhassen Planning Commission and those concerned. I With regard to permit for lake access to Minnewashta, as deeded to my Schmid's Acres Lot 8 property, I would like to see the following stipulations met and the permit. One, removal of the road curb that has I been placed in front of it. Two, one dock. Three, the permit to park cars. Four, no overnight boat or car parking. Five, 10:00 p.m. closing. Six, access to the deeded owners only. Also, if the road curb was placed upon demand of an access neighbor, I would like to see legal action taken II by the County Attorney against these persons for denial of access to private property. Cathy Collins Sheridan, 3921 Aster Trail. And I pretty much concur with all of her recommendations. We realize that times have I changed. There's more people in Schmid's Acres and I don't think it's for the better. It used to be a lot of nice dairy farms and now it's a lot of crummy people farms. 1 Mancino: Mr. Collins, have you used, you or your family used the access every year since 1950 in some way or another? I Dale Collins: Yes. Mancino: Every year. I Dale Collins: Yes. We have a canoe that we carry in now. II Farmakes: The 5 to 6 parking spots that are listed in the '81 survey. Do you concur with that? Dale Collins: Pardon? 1 Farmakes: The 5 to 6 that are listed in the '81 survey, do you concur with that? How many off street parking spaces do you recall in '81? Dale Collins: How many were there? Mancino: How many cars parked? I Dale Collins: I don't know how you'd estimate. I mean it's a long access that's 50 feet wide so there's room for a lot of cars. But there would be very seldom more than 1 or 2 at any time. Gary Carlson: The next party would be Mrs. Monahan. She's an assign and I she'd just like to enter her name that she was here and in support of the. She also has the right to use the access. Batzli: Thank you. I Gary Carlson: Her name is Bonnie Monahan. Is there anyone else that wants to speak in support of the access? I might ask a question. Now you've II 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 17 1 heard that we do use it and we wish to continue to use it in a recreation manner. And if you have any questions of the pictures that are there. That's the same dock that has been installed for the last 3 years. And the one that I used before that was similar without the bench on the end of i And the same access. The small little gravel ramp. And it's really not gravel. Just sort of gravel gives way to the sandy beach so any large weighted boat you'd definitely be down there with a 4 wheel drive to pull it out. You could maybe launch it but, so it's just maily for our light recreational use. But your permitting doesn't allow us that for light bo launching so we don't want to be illegal if Dale's daughter takes her canoe down there and puts it in. You're launching and have a neighbor on either side say well you're out of permit. We simply want to continue it as a recreational beachlot. I had my 35th birthday in '81 and I know I was do there with over 10 cars. I have no other comments other than to request time to answer fully any of Mr. Ken Durr's questions that he may raise. Although I can definitely tell you that none of our people that are here supporting our continued recreational use have ever met Mr. Durr. Or know what he cooks like. But based on our recreational, continued use of the I lot, somehow he happened to be there when they were pouring the curb and although the plans and specifications that were approved by the Chanhassen City Council showed, and I checked those plans at the engineer when they ' were being drawn up. At Engelhardt and Associates when those plans were being drawn up and before they were approved by the City Council. I checked those plans and they showed a curb cut onto our access but somehow Mr. Durr happened to be there and talk to the people that were installing it and he said, no, no. There's no curb cuts in here. Just put that full' 6 inch high curb right on by. I've talked to the City Attorney and he informed me that they were going to, the City, at it's expense was going put that curb back in correctly as it was shown on the original plans and specifications. And that's what Dale Collins daughter was testifying to. That she, most women will not drive up over a 6 inch high curb which is required on Minnewashta Parkway in order to handle the amount of water thl comes down on the roadway. So they had to go with a 6 inch high curb rather than a normal surmountable curb that you've recommended in most of your developing. In most of your homesite developments. , Batzli: Let me ask this question, since you raised the issue. You have an undeveloped gravel /dirt road. With the amount of water that you've just admitted runs down the street, how do you handle the erosion down through 11 your recreational beachlot? Gary Carlson: That's a very good question. In the engineering layout of I Minnewashta Meadows they replaced the culvert which there was a culvert under our driveway and that culvert is in place. And normally you wouldn't put a culvert unless there was a driveway but the engineers put that culvert in so they recognized the driveway. We're so close to the edge ofl the creek that there's only the 8 or 9 foot wide gravel drive that we have and then it falls right into the creek so we don't have any large amounts of water running across our little road. But that's a good question but I it's well handled. The City has a permanent easement and they use our access to get to it._ To maintain their sewer line that runs along. We have a manhole right half gn our property and half on Ken Durr's property. Ancil that manhole has been'erviced in the past from our drive. From our acces The city trucks'drive in there and clean it out or whatever they do. "4 II Planning Commission Meeting II June 2, 1993 - Page 18 I Batzli: Dave. Are you familiar with the curb cut he's talking about? Is there a way to handle any runoff so you don't get erosion through there if you take the curb out? II Hempel: Right. If we were to put in a curb cut for the driveway, we would put a slight ramp into the end of the curb to maintain the drainage past the driveway and keep it on the street and collect it in catch basins. II Batzli: Where did the storm sewer go to right there? I Hempel: The storm sewers all go to pre- treatment pond. Batzli: That one does go to a pre - treatment pond? II Hempel: That's correct. Now. Prior they did not. Harberts: Is there some reason Dave why you wouldn't want to put in a curb II cut? Hempel: We have a number of curb cuts up and down Minnewashta Parkway. 1 Harberts: I was just wondering if that particular area. Hempel: No. I'm not familiar with any problems. II Harberts: Is that a city expense or is that the Association's expense? I Hempel: Well the project is partially being assessed back to the benefitting homeowners. If we had to go back in and do it, no. There would be an expense to the city to have it replaced into the curb cut. II Aanenson: Can I get some clarification. Since this permitting process hadn't gone through yet, we decided to wait and take the curb out and have to put it back in. Wait until you give your and take the curb out if I that's necessary. It makes a lot of sense, and we've told Mr. Carlson that. It's an easy change order to go in and cut the curb out. We didn't want to take it out now and then if it goes back in, because it hadn't gone I through the permitting process. And if you grant them access, there's no problem to go ahead and make a change order and the engineers are aware of that. It's just to make sure that we don't replace it. 1 Batzli: Okay. Do you have anything else? Gary Carlson: No. If you don't have any other questions? II Batzli: Yeah, we will probably after. Gary Carlson: Sure. I'll be available for your response. I Batzli: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? II Tom Owens: My name is Tom Owens. I'm counsel for Ken Durr. You have some materials that we've prepared and submitted last week as well as some II II Planning Commission Meeting II June 2, 1993 - Page 19 additional materials from tonight. Ken is here tonight and would like toll make a few comments and he also has some slides that he would like to sho of aerial photos. If we could take a second and set that up now, I think that's going to be some very compelling evidence that he spent a lot of II time and money putting together. Batzli: Okay. And Mr. Durr lives where in relation to this beachlot? Tom Owens: He lives in the city of Minnetonka. In fact why don't, Ken, 1 maybe you'd like to your comments and I'll see if I can get the projector set up here. II Mancino: Can you show us on the, Kate's map what property you own? Tom Owens: Mr. Durr owns Lot 1 of Schmid's Acres Tract as well as some I additional land to the east. And northeast. Ken Durr: My name is Ken Durr. I live at 4830 Westgate Road, Minnetonka I'd like to just respond to a couple of things that were commented on. T curb cut was not just a spur of the moment thing that occurred as the curbs were being put in. One year ago in May I talked to the engineering II department of the city telling them that we were possibly planning development of our property. That we did not want the curb cuts as shown on our property. There were two curb cuts shown along Minnewashta Parkway to serve my property. And until we would know the plan for development o the property, we did not want that cut, or those cuts put in and then hav to be removed and cuts put into a different location. I talked to your engineering department. They referred me to Engelhardt, the consulting I engineers on the project and they said, whatever you want done, let them know. It was not only regarding curb cuts. We addressed slopes to the curb. They had very gentle slopes going back 20 and 30 feet into the property which would destroy a lot of vegetation. Upon meeting with them" they concurred that they would put in steeper slopes as we developed the property. We would put in a stone retaining walls to allow the shrubbery and plantings to come out more to the edge of the property for a more aesthetically appealing situation. So this curb situation was initiated JI year ago in May. Not just in the last few weeks. Batzli: Just for everybody here. I appreciate you clarifying the record on the curb cuts. It's not really an item that's in front of us. I aske the question only because I was concerned that if they took it out, there might be erosion. But that has very little bearing on what we're trying 11 decide tonight so, let's see if we can avoid talking about curb cuts. Ken Durr: Okay. I've owned property on the north shore of Lake Minnewashta for 18 years. I purchased the first of three parcels, a 7 acil tract in 1975 and in 1979 I purchased the adjacent parcel, Schmid's Acres Tract, Lot 1. And that is the lot on which the 50 foot reservation is in question. I was in the last year I purchased the, what was referred to a the Smith Greenhouse property so we put together 3 parcels there containi about 19 or 20 acres. The reservation under discussion falls within the legal description for Lot 1, Schmid's Acre Tracts. It lies within the , southerly border of my property. County Records show that I have been paying taxes every year for 14 years on the land within the 50 foot II Planning Commission Meeting II June 2, 1993 - Page 20 II reservation, ever since I purchased that property. As had all previous owners since 1914. In addition, the square footage of the reservation is calculated in the total square footage of Lot 1 for the purpose of assessing sewer and water units against Lot 1. In 1992 the taxes on Lot 1, II the smallest of the three parcels I owned there was $7,840.00. Taxes on all three in '92 totalled $31,078.00. The acquisition and holding of these parcels has been very costly but part of a long range plan to develop a 1 quality residential community on these 19 or 20 acres. However the use and misuse of 50 feet of my property is very concerning. If I were to develop a plan for my property and request this body for a beachlot approval, I'm II sure I would be directed to a section of the City Code addressing the beachlot ordinance. It's a very stringent ordinance and I don't want to read it all but I would like to just read 5 of the 17 points. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited to cars, trucks, I motorcycles, motorized minibikes, all terrain vehicles, or snowmobiles shall be driven upon or parked on any recreational beachlot. Number 5 is boat launches are prohibited. 7, no dock shall be permitted on any I recreational beachlot unless it meets the following conditions. Shoreline of at least 200 feet and area at least 30,000 square feet. Item 11. A beachlot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for the subdivision for which it is a part. At least 80% of the dwelling units I with rights of access to any recreational beachlot, shall be located within 1,000 feet of the beachlot. And finally, item 13. All recreational beachlots shall have a buffer sufficient to insulate other property owners I from beachlot activities. Now, these are very stringent, and I've only cited 5 of 17, very stringent regulations that are put upon a person who is going to develop a piece of property and attempt to establish a beachlot I today. And well it just seems strange I guess to me why a riparian owner who has been paying taxes on property for over 14 years is required to meet these very stringent requirements that there would even be a consideration of the very lenient intensive use of a 50 foot portion of my property by I non - riparian property owners. From 1975 to 1985, until our house was extensively vandalized. I'm speaking about the center property. The home that was on that property. It was extensively vandalized and ultimately we I had it burned down by the fire department. But my family spent a lot of time during those 10 years enjoying the property on the lake. Sundays were special times when families, friends of our's with children would join us I for recreational swimming, boating and waterskiing on the lake and quite often in the evening my wife and I would use the boat and go for a spin around the lake. Since 1985 I have still been on the property at least one day during the week and most weekends. Now during all of this time, since II my purchase in 1975 we observed very little use, and the vast majority of the time no use of the 50 foot reservation. There was no boat launching, no canoe racks and only occasionally a vehicle or people. Aerial photos I will show that there's no dock at most of this time. The only aerial photos, and I've done an extensive search with many different agencies. The only time that we can find docks showing on aerial photos is 1991, 1992. The few times that I observed a vehicle or persons on the property and II inquired of them where they were from, no one ever said they were from Schmid's Acre Tracts, and I guess that was proof here tonight when Mr. Carlson said that no one here knew me. No one would even recognize me. I And that probably is the case because these people that I would ask whether they had a right to be on this property, most of them would say they thought it was a public access. But no one ever said they were from II 11 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 21 1 Schmid's Acre Tracts. The misuse of the property at night I assume is al by people other than from Schmid's Acre Tracts. The loud parties, littering of beer bottles, beer cans, wine and whiskey bottles have been Q constant problem. Late into the night and early morning hours it has been anything but peaceful and quiet possession of property for myself and oth� owners in the area. For 10, let's see 9 years I guess. From 1979 to 198 I had a tenant in the property on Lot 1, Schmid's Acre Tracts. An attorney, Brian Peterson. And he told me that he would call the police 41 to 5 times every summer to break up loud parties in the early morning hours, and that he only called on occasion. He didn't call every time there was a loud party. The litter on the 50 foot strip and into the gra on the north has been intense. Some have used the property for repairing automobiles, draining oil. You'll find drained oil, oil filters, muffler all kinds of debris on there. Even at this point there is a lot of debris thrown into the grass on the north side of the reservation and every year"' I've picked up several large bags, garbage bags or lawn bags of garbage o the property. Prohibiting motor vehicles on this 50 foot reservation would solve all these problems of misuse. It would solve the partying. It wou solve the noise and the litter I believe. It is the access by vehicles that bring the problems. If I were to develop a 200 foot wide riparian beachlot, I would have to adhere to all the things that are in that code. And it's inequitable I feel to allow this useage on a 50 foot portion of property by non-riparian users. The proposed use of the 50 feet of my property would impose a hardship for myself and surrounding properties in that we would not enjoy the peaceful and quiet possession of our properties. This has been a problem for too long a time and I respectful. request a denial of the beachlot application. Batzli: Let me ask a question. Mr. Ourr, how do you explain what I see 11 kind of an inconsistency between your discussion that it's an intense and intrusive use versus your argument that there's been no use there. Is what you're referring to is that the unauthorized uses are the intense and intrusive uses? And let's assume for a minute that the only use that did go on there, there was some way to monitor it. The fact that you've never seen anyone from Schmid's Acres using that, you wouldn't at that time cal it an intrusive use would you? Or an intense use? Ken Durr: I guess it would be intrusive. Whether that would be intensiv I think what I'm referring to is the proposed intensive use of the property. Batzli: But what we're here trying to do tonight is to determine the lev of use from 1981, so I don't know that it's a proposed intensive use. Wh we're actually trying to determine is how has it been used in the past, discounting these unauthorized parties or people who apparently thought i was some sort of public launch. Ken Durr: Well from my viewing the property, and being out there a great deal of the time, it had little and most of the time no use. , Batzli: So in general this is not, this particular let's call it a beachlot for argument sake. This beachlot has not received intense use other than perhaps loud parties at night by high school kids? Is that really the, I mean because you've been out there and you haven't seen i 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 22 anyone from Schmid's Acres ever using it. So it certainly doesn't sound like it's been intense, although we have people telling us that. Well, excuse me. I'm just trying to get a feel for your argument here. Is your argument that you don't like the unauthorized uses or that because of the way, and maybe your attorney will want to respond to this. Is your argument that because of the unauthorized uses, it's been an intense use and that's unacceptable. Or is your argument that for somehow the 1 recording of the access or reservation was improper and so it never was a beachlot. Or I guess there's a third way you could look at it and that is that, well the third way escaped me. But you know, what we're trying to do ' here tonight is to determine what the level of use was. Your attorney has raised a lot of arguments regarding whether it's a proper beachlot, which may be best settled between you two guys in a forum other than this, because we can't decide that. Ken Durr: Yes. Well the useage of the beachlot, I think in 1981, which seems to be the year we're looking at? .II Batzli: Yeah. Ken Durr: In my search of aerial photos, I was only able to find two for ' 1981. I believe one of them was taken in March of '81, which is early for a dock to be out, but that picture shows no dock on site. Nothing of any nature on the site. The other one was taken in July of '81 and there's no dock shown in July of '81. Scott: Excuse me Kate. On the recreational beachlot inventory, what was ' the date of the survey in 1981, 1986, whereby we show a seasonal dock in both of those years? I'd like to kind of corroborate what our city staff has found vis a vis this data here and then also there's an inconsistency between Mr., I'm sorry. The affidavit. ' Batzli: Peterson. ' Scott: Mr. Peterson wherein he swears via affidavit that a dock was installed on the reservation in either '84 or '85 and that information does not show in your aerial photo inventory. So I see some major inconsistencies inbetween this document, your affidavit and the city staff ' inventory. Aanenson: Okay. As I mentioned before, there's the '81 survey that's in your handout, there are some errors in there. One I noted was the 5 to 6 parking. The inventory was done on June 12, 1981. Tom Owens: I think it was June 4, wasn't it? Aanenson: June 12th. Oh excuse me, I got... Scott: June 4th of '81? Tom Owens: That was one of the five pieces of paper that'we handed out ' just before the meeting. It's attached to Mr. Durr's index to the aerial photos. There's a copy that we obtained yesterday from the City's ballominist historic files on beachlots. Of the survey done by City staff 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 23 June 4 of 1981 and this may help clear up the discrepancies that Ms. Aanenson has noted on the allocation. Scott: Kate. I'm trying to rectify something here. Aanenson: Yeah, it's the 4th right. Scott: We have something in our package that shows a 3 survey summary anil it states in '81 that a seasonal dock was on the property in '81, '86 and '91. And then there's another document here. Which is the one that we need to? Aanenson: You should correct the one, the '81. Where it says seasonal docks. The '81. June 4, 1981 inventory. Whoever took it from city staf at that time noted that there was not a permanent dock. Scott: Okay. So we should correct our seasonal dock in our package. Do we have a similar situation with the '86 number as well? 1 Aanenson: I don't have that in front of me. Scott: Okay. ' Batzli: Do we have the raw data for the '86 survey somewhere? Aanenson: Yes. Batzli: You may not have it in front of you but. Aanenson: Yes. I may have it in the file. I can get it quickly. Batzli: So we'll clarify that. Do you have something else? ' Scott: Yeah. Just based upon the affidavit then, there was a dock there in '84 or '85 that didn't show up in the aerial photographs. So I'm just" trying to rectify the accuracy of all this information but it seems like we've got a couple of inconsistencies here. Batzli: Good point. I see your point. ' Farmakes: I have a question. Are you disputing the 50 feet of shoreline? Ownership. Ken Durr: I'm sorry. Farmakes: Are you disputing the ownership of that 50 feet of shoreline? II .: Ken Durr: Not at all. I own it and I pay taxes on it. Tom Owens: Let me follow up a little point that was made,a few minutes ago about assessing this -curb cut to the Association. You don't have the, th City does not have the power or authority to do that. Mr. Durr's going t pay for any curb cut Lere for the benefit of these people if it goes through. It's his _p r opert, Lot 1 that's assessed for water and sewer. The ' d 1 Planning Commission Meeting II June 2, 1993 - Page 24 I Association in addition do not have a legal existence, corporate authority, mandatory membership as you'd normally have with a homeowners association and dedicated outlot. And how in an elected representative to stand before you and agree to things and negotiate. That association has, well. That I association has no interest whatsoever. Perhaps, perhaps some of the people here have an easement right. I Farmakes: Okay. Getting back to my original question, are you disputing that in Court? Tom Owens: No. II Farmakes: This is not the forum to do that. I Tom Owens: That's right. Farmakes: Are you disputing that in Court to decide whether or not they II could use the property? Tom Owens: No action has been filed. I've not been, I've not drawn up anything, no. I Mancino: So when you bought the property you said, you knew that they had an easement to use this property and that you agreed to pay all property I taxes and assessments for the property. That is an implication of when you purchased the property. I Ken Durr: When I purchased the property, the legal counsel from Dorsey - Whitney firm examined title and he noted the reservation and he said, and he talked to the city at that time. He said there would be no vehicle traffic and that was in '79. This beachlot ordinance then came into I existence in '81. I attended the meetings on that and they indicated to him and to myself that there be no intensification of usage allowed on that. Of course that was preliminary stuff that was going on at that time. I But again it was his opinion was that it would be only for the 8 individual sites. That it would not be used by more people than the original 8 lots that were within the Schmid's Acre Tracts. 1 Farmakes: You're claiming then that this predates 1981, correct? Your agreement on this property. You purchased this in '75 I believe. I Ken Durr: '79. Batzli: Okay. Do you want to show us some slides or. I Tom Owens: We would and perhaps while Ken sets that up to show you a couple of slides I could make a couple of comments as well. Commissioner Scott, I would like to follow up on what you've begun and that in fact is I the inquiry about the uses that existed in 1981. I appreciate the staff correcting that survey and in fact if you look at the survey that shows the 3 years in question. 1981 is the key year by statute. By ordinance of I this city and if you go down through the list of uses and then compare them to the requests of this so call association, what they are asking for is a very dramatic enlargement of the historic uses. If they were able to prove II Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 25 that in a particular year after that, after 1981, they used it for some of these additional purposes, that is not supposed to carry weight. And in , fact the city ordinance very specifically says that non - conforming uses, just like non - conforming structures, are not to be enlarged or expanded. So even to go from zero canoe racks to one is a simple enlargement that i not permitted. There wasn't a canoe rack then and there shouldn't be one now. And I think if we go item by item through the list of requested use , you will find that the only two uses that might arguably be permitted now and in the future would be for some limited vehicle access but without parking and swimming. Although when it comes to swimming, we have to poi out and I have to say that I have very great concern for Mr. Durr who has asked me to look into the whole insurance issue here and liability. We have an association, supposed association here that doesn't exist. Doesn II have corporate capacity. I'm sure doesn't have insurance policies. Doesn't have the right to assess members. To pay for insurance. To pay for improvements and Mr. Durr is substantially at risk for these very significant requested increases in use. Farmakes: Is your client disputing the 5 to 6 off street parking...? Tom Owens: That's, yes. Because in fact that's incorrect. At the time in 1981 the survey, the actual survey done by the city, and I've handed you copy which we obtained from the city files yesterday. That's the June 4,� 1981 survey. Just go right down through the list. Off street parking or on site parking, great big check for no. It doesn't say 5 or 6. It doesn't say 1. It says no. So that's why we have to go back to, if you II back to this inventory. This one is almost accurate for 1981. It's accurate with the exception of the seasonal dock, which Ms. Aanenson just mentioned ought to be corrected. So for uses in 1981 all you have is motil vehicle access, yes. Off street parking no. Now, according to the ordinance governing beachlots as well as the non - conforming use ordinances, I don't know how better to put it than it's illegal for the city to say, I now we'll give you some on site parking here. Farmakes: So you're disputing, let me ask this just one more time. Are you disputing, not that the cars were there but that there was any improvil space for 5 or 6 cars. You're saying that there was no improved space in 1981, correct? Tom Owens: Yes, but in addition to that we're saying there was no on sit1 parking. Farmakes: You're familiar with the property. It's been there over a period of time and there are a few people here that have been here since 1981. That's my question. The fact that, not that there wasn't any cars that happened to be parked there that day the city took the survey, but will there any improved parking area in 1981 for 5 to 6 cars? Tom Owens: No. No. Absolutely not. The survey is accurate and that call be backed up by the aerial photos which will also, none of these aerial photos which have been obtained from government agencies far and wide. In addition to, I'm showing docks only in '91 and '92, they don't show cars • parked and they don't show boats. II Planning Commission Meeting 11 June 2, 1993 - Page 26 Farmakes: This is what you're going to show us now? I Tom Owens: Well, in looking over here and seeing that we may all have to put on some special glasses to catch these but perhaps Ken you could run II through a couple of these slides and the evidence that you've put together. Batzli: Okay let me ask one question before you run these and I'm going to I try and totally destroy any probative values that these have. We have an affidavit here from an attorney who says that there was no dock until '84 or '85 and your survey, aerial photographs show that there wasn't any dock in '84 and '85. Should we believe your, what should we believe here? II Ken Durr: Well we can look at the slides and determine. I Batzli: I mean I'm trying to decide whether to throw away the affidavit or" throw away your slides. What do you want me to throw away? Tom Owens: I don't think either. No, I don't think either. I Batzli: I don't mean to make light of it but there's a problem here with some of the things we're looking at and we're trying to figure out, you I know. We've heard that he's never seen them. They've never him. I believe that they used it at some point. You may. II Tom Owens: I have no doubt that most of these people have been down there on the reservation. Batzli: The question may exist whether they have the right to use it under II the reservation language and I'm... Tom Owens: That's not for us tonight. Yes, that's not before the city. I Batzli: So the issue that I'm looking at is, what was the use and then the slides I see all a lot of zeros until recently and I see an affidavit that I says, but there was one there when your slides say there wasn't one there. And I have people that have at least been telling me that they've been putting in docks each year. So you just kind of want us to put it in a crucible and decide ourselves. 1 Tom Owens: No, I think you do have to take both of them together and I don't want to discount Brian Peterson's testimony, even though he's not I here. I suspect what he would say is that he's relying on the best of his memory that for this period of, he moved in and for the first several years that he lived there, there wasn't a dock and then lo and behold, somewhere I around 1984 -85, maybe it was '86. Maybe one year, or 2 years, they put in a dock on July 5th, after an aerial photo was taken on July 1st. I think they can be read together. We too are trying, we're searching and as you can see, Ken Durr has searched high and low for historic information. The I extent of historic information on the other side is, well something you're going to have to weigh and balance. I Farmakes: Do you believe that the city misidentified the one 45 foot dock on the property? II 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 27 Tom Owens: During the 1981 survey the city employee or contractor found no dock. , Mancino: So there is a change to the inventory here? Aanenson: Right. ' Batzli: Right. Scott: In '86? Mancino: A correction. 1 Tom Owens: In 1981. Scott: Okay, '81. '86 and '91 stand, correct? ' Tom Owens: Well in '86, to be honest, there's some, I'm not sure where that came from. I found two documents in the file. I'm sorry, I found al 1985 Planning Commission document that listed all the city beachlots and then listed whether they had a dock or not. And for Schmid's Acres it said no. 1 Scott: In '85? Tom Owens: In '85 in preparation for this '86. Then I found some notes that said, some handwritten notes that went on for about 4 pages and list each of the individual beachlots and then for Schmid's, I can only guess this was done in '85 or '86. For Schmid's Acres, the words are, changes 11 which have occurred. Added a seasonal dock. No boats on shore. "Had on canoe." "Poorly mainatined." Scott: So is there a date on that document? Tom Owens: It's undated so unfortunately we're dealing with imperfect 1 information. Scott: Well let's use perfect information. 1986, is that. Batzli: Do we have some here? I'm sorry. Go ahead, I'm sorry. , Scott: I'm just trying to get a handle on what's going on here. Let's I look at some slides. Conrad: Before we do, the point is, we're looking at '81. Aanenson: Exactly. That's why I didn't spend a lot of time. Conrad: The Mickey Mouse of '84 -'85, seriously that doesn't count. Well looking at, it may give a track record but '81 is the date. Seriously. That's what we're doing. Every beachiot we look at is '81. So I don't care what was in '91. I don't care what was in '86. I do care, '81. So I I'd love to look at slides but if they're not showing me 1981, I guess I don't have an interest. 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 28 Tom Owens: And Mr. Conrad then, you can imagine as a lawyer that the kind ' of belt and suspenders approach here is that just in case someone should think that, incorrectly of course, that there was a dock in 1981, then we would like to be able to demonstrate that that use was discontinued and the ' period of time for discontinuance is, well it's a year under the ordinance and state law, I think that would be deemed to be a summer for purposes of a dock. So if they don't put out a dock for one year, if they put it in in '81 and then skip any year after that, the dock's out. And I'm sure that's ' come before this city many, many times before. Non - conforming uses and structures. So we don't want to keep you unnecessarily late. The format of the aerial photos is such that they're in a slide form, although Ken ' does have a few. Well, are there any from the 1980's that are actually blown up? ' Ken Durr: Well here's one for '81. It's got a date... (There were a number of conversations going on at one time at this point.) I Batzli: I think they're hopefully going to show us the, I'd be interested in seeing the '80, '81 and '82 slides just to see what we can see from it and I don't really want to see all the. 1 Conrad: And then I guess I'd like to ask staff, does a discontinuance of a use in this situation mean they don't have, we have not interpretted it ' that way. Aanenson: Not on docks because there's sometimes extenuating circumstances. ' Scott: Lake water levels. ' Aanenson: Yeah. A cold summer. We had that circumstance on some of the beachlots that we've heard before. Farmakes: If that's the case, half of Minnetonka a few years ago would not 1 be able to put their docks back out in the water. Tom Owens: Right, and Mr. Batzli's a lawyer and perhaps I could point out. The case that I, the one case that I cited very briefly in my letter goes to exactly that point and it puts on the applicant for the non - conforming use permit the burden to demonstrate and it's okay to demonstrate that the 1 use had to be discontinued because of, basically acts of God. So we've had no proof or evidence like that. Batzli: Okay. Can you tell us what we're looking at here briefly? Is this a '80 slide? What is this one? Tom Owens: This is '81. And this is the north shore of the lake. This ' was the rental house that Brian Peterson. This is his area right in here. This is the reservation here. This is the house adjacent to it that has been torn down that Dana Johnson has gotten approved for a lot. So that 50 ' foot reservation is right here. Scott: Is there a dock on there that we can see? Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 29 1 Ken Durr: Oh yes, many of them. All of these are docks? All these are docks. This dock is about 90 feet long. That's my dock. This is the will the water, you can see that shaded... Scott: - Is there a date on this slide? I noticed on this one there's a date. ' Ken Durr: There's a date only of July, '81. This was from the Agricultural ASC Desk. Tom Owens: Soil Conservation Service. Ken Durr: All they did was designate the month. They did not designate I the day... (There were a number of conversations going on at one time at this point. II Batzli: I assume your other slides show similar things. That there's a lack of a structure that looks like a dock when you have zero's. Tom Owens: That is correct. Batzli: Do you have any other evidence regarding a dock or no dock in '811 that you can present? Ken Durr: Not here, no. I would have photographs and home movies that II have that shoreline but. Batzli: Okay. Can you show us the slide of July, 1986? Number 27 I thi it is. I think our survey showed that there was a dock there and I was curious to know if the slide showed it. Scott: Kate, what's the date on the '86? 1 Aanenson: I don't have a copy of that in the file. I'm sorry. Harberts: It's interesting in July of '84 there's 75 docks and the one I that Brian is requesting, number 27, there's only 63 docks. Mancino: Say that again? ' Harberts: July of '84 shows 75 docks, according to this inventory. And July of '86, 2 years, we show a decrease of docks. ' Conrad: Who's data is this do you know? Harberts: Well this is,from the ASC's office... Batzli: I'd like to get back on track here and focus our efforts so that it's clear on the record what's happening. I appreciate the fact that everyone's looking at these slides for the first time. Thank you for showing those to us. :Do you have anything else you'd like to? u S i .� y 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 30 Tom Owens: I've got just a couple of more comments and then we'll be happy ' to, well actually I think there are a couple of witnesses who want to make a brief statement and then we'll be happy to answer questions. Regarding specific uses. We've addressed the issue of docks as best we possibly can ' based on Ken's personal testimony, aerial photos, the affidavit of the resident next door and I don't know how much better we can do than that and I think we've been very, very, very specific and to the point. The issue of on site parking is an especially troubling one. As we've already ' pointed out, there was no off street or on site parking according to the 1981 survey. There are also no cars evident parked on the site in any of the aerial photos. I should also point out that the parking area proposed ' by the applicant, it seems to me is going to require paving under the, well it's going to require a development of the site and paving under the city code. And if I could point you to Section 20 -118 of the Chanhassen City Code, it says that all parking, loading and driveway areas shall be surfaced with asphalt, concrete or equivalent material approved by the city. Well once we've done that we've, as they say, paved paradise and put up the parking lot. The other thing we've done by then is we're running afoul of rules of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District which has jurisdiction over the outlet creek and which has very significant limitations on development of sites of half an acre or greater within it's ' jurisdiction. It's pretty obvious, or I certainly think it would be from the applicant's photograph that this would be a terrific eyesore and an inappropriate use of the property and you're still left with a probability ' or likelihood that there's going to be backing onto Minnewashta Parkway. The last point that I'd like to make is that the permit really shouldn't be issued based on the conduct of users of the reservation and the so called owners association here. They have failed now for 11 years to comply with the most simple requirement set out in the beachlot ordinance and that's for a swimming beach and it says that if you're going to be swimming out there, you have to put out marker buoys that comply with certain ' requirements. Those have never been set out. There's never been anyone in charge down there. There's never been anyone responsible for maintenance or clean up. For insurance. For monitoring the place. For being a person or persons to talk to or be responsible. You've also heard about the pattern of misuse by non - residents which is very difficult to control given this unlimited access that's...all these association members supposedly would attempt. And frankly that the question, will use has ' continued right up to this week and one of the last photographs we'd like to show you is the before and after of the grading activity that was done by the applicant this week on the site. We don't have extra copies but the applicant cut either a boat launch or an access or something a foot or two out of the shoreline this week. We've got the before and after photographs and I should be better with words as a lawyer so that I could be a nicer guy about this but, frankly that action appears to me to be in very clear violation of state law, rules of the DNR, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the city for grading and dredging activities within 75 feet of the lake. And Ken, perhaps you can show the before and after when the gash was cut and if you have walked this site in the last day or two you'll see that a Bobcat was taken to the roadway to just cut it a little bit cleaner so they could get those cars out there and take the pictures that you wanted to see. That they've presented to you anyway. That's the end of my comments. I think there are a couple of other witnesses who want to comment as well. 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 31 i Harberts: I have a question. Mr. Durr. You had made comment that during the period of time that you'd go out there and you had noted the, I guess I the garbage. Had you ever, you had also noted that your tenant had contacted the police with regard to parties. Have you yourself placed any complaints to the city or to the potential owners or easement holders wit regard to complaints along those lines? You yourself. Ken Durr: Only talking to people on the property who were using it. Harberts: How long did you live out in that area? Ken Durr: I actually did not live there as my principle residence but we spent our weekends and four families from our church spent weekends there ' and our family spent a lot of time there...purchased in 1975 thru '85 at which time... Harberts: Have you ever, you talked also about the fact that you were paying taxes as well as, now investigating what liability you may be at risk at since you are the owner. Have you researched that issue before II hand? Has it ever been an issue or what prompted you now to start lookin at the liability issue and things like that? ...use or if you're talking about misuse? Ken Durr: Well, it's been a concern right along and I do have insurance coverage. But the way things are today, no matter how much insurance you have, you still...and I don't like that exposure. And I don't feel I II should be exposed to that kind of exposure on my own property by misuse. Farmakes: You mentioned before that there were a reduced number of residents that had use under covenants of your purchase agreement for that` reservation...What was that in regards to? Ken Durr: The 8 lots...When we purchased the property it was zoned.. .for the private use of the heirs of whoever the original platter or...and the advice that I received at that time was not to be too concerned about that because there were only 8 lots. And the comment made to me was that in checking with the city, that they said there could never be more use than that... Tom Owens: And that's of course a pretty critical issue that's before thl city and in fact if you take a look at your maps and you go from the plat map showing the 8 original lots, the current half section map showing Lot 3 and 4 split into 16 new lots, you have to look into the future and look at the other lots that aren't subdivided and wonder what's going to be happening next. And at the time of the 1981 survey, the number there is 8 users or property owners. Today it's supposedly 25 or so. I think there" might be 1 or 2 people in the audience wanted to make a comment. Batzli: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Dana Johnson: My name is Dana Johnson. I live at 50 West Pleasant Lane in Tonka Bay and I own the property south next to Schmid's Tract, or reservation there. First of all I want to oppose the Schmid's tract 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 June 2, 1993 - Page 32 recreational and agree with Ken Durr. I've been involved with my property ' for approximately 3 years now and I've been eyeing that property for the last 5 years. I lived over in Minnewashta Heights for the last 12 years, since 1979 and I'm an avid boater and waterskier and I've never seen, I've never seen more than 2 cars there on that lot in the last 12 years or 15 years I've been going over there. Some of my concerns are, you know I guess obviously the concerns that Ken expressed also but the maintenance of ' the recreational beachlot. Now in the last 3 years I've spent a lot of time, almost every other day over there fooling around with my lot. Just doing things that you do when you're getting ready to build a home. And in those last 3 years, I really haven't ever seen the grass mowed over there. ' I've never seen the creek cleaned up except when I do it, and I do it all the time. And the kids, you know obviously you know I don't think the Schmid's Tract people are abusing it at all. I do think there are people coming in there. Like for instance this, here's some pictures that I just took on 5/30 of '93 and it just shows you car batteries in the creek. Oil cans. Beer cans. Things to that effect. You know it hasn't been maintained and that's a big concern of mine and my, because I have two kids too. And there's glass bottles in there. All sorts of different things that I cleaned out of that creek at time to time. Also you know, I look at the parking area too and there's no other areas on the lake with 50 feet of t parking that has, that can park cars there. An example, probably the best example of that would be Minnewashta Heights. They have similar, they have 60 feet of, and that's where I used to live over there. And they have 60 ' feet over there and they're not allowed to park cars down there overnight or have a parking area, and they have a paved parking lot, parking ramp all the way down to there. Plus, when you take in consideration of the creek, they do have 50 feet of lakeshore. 50 feet of property but about 25 feet ' of it is non - useable due to the fact that there's a creek there...before too when I have seen them, just the other day I did and they were drinking and partying down there making a lot of noise. You know another point is I see people again from all over the area stopping there with their cars. Using it as a swimming area. I even know of one person in Tonka Bay that goes down there, the last 3 years and swims with his dog down there. Takes ' his dog swimming. My big concern too is like with Mr. Owens said, is that the development there is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. Just like the whole area has grown in the last 5 years. And there's 25 families there now. How many more families can get there? I feel like the Schmid ' tract area has been abused by other people that do not live there and I just feel like there isn't any accountability there at this time. Again, there's no association members. There's no people that are collecting dues ' or anything, so thank you. Batzli: Thank you. ' Farmakes: I have one question of Mr. Carlson. Did the association have a permit from the DNR to modify the shoreline? Gary Carlson: The shoreline is such that I could have done it with a...and you can't have a beach and have children climb over an ice heave. All of the property owners, including Mr. Johnson, have gone through tremendous ' beach changes and all of the owners along the whole western edge of that lake have changed that beachlot from what it was when we first bought it 23 years ago. There were just lily pads up the shore...and brush growing... 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 33 ' Now there's homes with lawns down to the lake. Sand and all of the weeds have been poisoned out of the bay that we...I went out on my dock just thll other day, look off the dock. Instead of seeing, as I have in the past, the green weeds, perfectly green weeds, there's what's happened in Minnetonka. People poisoning the weeds and they don't allow the lake to act naturally. There's slime on every one of those. It's just getting t the weeds. Farmakes: Okay, so you didn't have a permit. 1 Gary Carlson: We didn't modify it any further than what we have through the years...It wasn't a significant change. I go down with my shovel and II put back the hemlocks...We have an offset we have to stay in from the edg of Mr. Durr's property, or the surveyed edge of our 50 feet and that we don't want to disturb. That surveyed area. Then we have an area where th • kids play in the sand...seaweed is accumulated you rake that off. Then y leave that and the...it's not a significant change. Batzli: Okay, thank you. We have someone else that wants to address the' Commission before I'm going to give you rebuttal time here. Mary Jo Moore: It's Mary Jo Moore on 3231 Dartmouth Drive. This is I obviously more complicated than the normal beachlot ordinances. I just want to go on record that I'm opposed to any further expansion than what the City did on the '81 survey. I am for any beachlot. In this case I ' wasn't aware there was a beachlot on Lake Minnewashta. I've been a resident there for 13 years. I'm aware of Dana Johnson's property, where the house that was torn down. From that point east, I always thought it was just the greenhouse property, or the Smith greenhouse. Something and l it was always very wild. In fact I never even noticed Mr. Durr's house until the fire department burned it down. So I don't believe there's been much useage of this property but I'm going to defer that to your '81 censli and ask that no expansion beyond that. Thank you. Batzli: Okay, thank you. If you'd like to address some of the points, 1 I'll give you a couple minutes but please, try to be brief. Mike Melkert: Brian, I'll keep it very short. You have to realize I didn't see some of this evidence before the hearing tonight so that I need to address it right now. Also my biggest fear is that a lot of irrelevant issues have been raised by Mr. Durr and his attorney. And my biggest fear is that this meeting is going to be closed and one of you's I going to pick up on that and it's not relevant and it's going to take control of this whole thing and the decisions going to be made on an irrelevant issue. So I just want to run down those real quickly. Mr. Durr's attorney just said to start off with that if one thing is proven tonight, it's going to be shown that Mr. Durr has spent a lot of time and money on his presentation this evening. The fact that he's affluent and has the ability to spend a lot of time and money is not relevant to this II proceeding or the fact that he can beat his less affluent neighbors to death by filing legal proceedings. What's relevant here is the Chanhassen ordinances and what was in effect in 1981. And Commissioner Conrad raise that point. That what you've looked at all the time in the past is what there was in 1981. That is the relevant issue here. The other issues th Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 34 have been raised are not relevant. The issue about the easement is not ' relevant to your proceeding. What Mr. Durr said is not correct. He's trying to get sympathy from you. That easement was put in in 1914. He had an attorney from Dorsey - Whitney examine his title. That attorney noted the easement. The property, as the attorney on your commission will tell you, is a bundle of sticks and you can split off rights to that property. He bought his property knowing that easement was there and knowing that both ' the heirs and the assigns of the property owners had a right to use that property. And they've testified to that over the years, over the past 30 years, over the past 10 years, in 1981 -91, that they were using that property. I'd further like to point out that whether or not the Watershed ' District has an interest here is not at issue in this meeting. What's at issue here is whether or not the permit's going to be granted and if something needs to be done with the Watershed District, then that can be ' addressed with the Watershed District at a later date and it's inappropriate to bring that up at this meeting. Finally, we've asked that you reconfirm your previous recommendation and also allow them to unload ' small boats at the ramp based upon the evidence and based upon the written letters that I've given to you with my letter. Because we have now submitted additional evidence on that point. Mr. Durr has not presented any evidence to contradict that. His slides and the survey represent a ' slice in time. They represent one minute in one day in 1981. We've had oral testimony here from residents that that dock was out in 1981 and that the property was being used. There were canoes down there. That there were up to 10 cars down there in 1981. That this property was being used as we are specifically asking the permit to provide right now. Mr. Durr has not disputed that with evidence and you need to understand that. And the fact that his affidavit and his aerial photogrsphs conflict prove that ' point. They prove that the dock was out there when the person that made his affidavit saw it out there that year. Made the affidavit but it wasn't out there when the aerial photograph was out there. It was just put out at ' different times and that's especially true with this piece of property because they didn't live right on the water. They put it out when they needed to use it. They had boats down there when they were using the ' boats. They didn't store them down there permanently and that's not disputed at all. That the boats were not kept down there for the entire summer. So of course somebody that goes down there for one day is not going to see everything. The final point I'd like to raise is that March ' 17th hearing, Mr. Carlson testified as to leaving boats overnight and leaving boats on the dock and at that time he found there was sufficient evidence to recommend that that be placed in the permit. I noted that he ' did not testify to that tonight. He'd be happy to do so if you'd like him to testify to the use but you've heard it already and it's already in the Minutes and I'd like to rest on the Minutes, unless someone has a question ' as to that. Batzli: I don't think so. Mike Melkert: Okay, I have nothing further. Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone elsethat would like to address the Commission? Audience: Can I make a brief statement? Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 35 ' Batzli: Is there something new that hasn't been talked about yet tonight" Audience: Well it's something... Batzli: Ah no. We're not here to talk about the easement tonight really" Okay. Is this something new? Gary Carlson: In '81, those are the years when a lot of waterskiing was II being done by our group and by the Gelisch's and the Friberg's and we a 141 of times waited until the weather was well warm to even put out a dock. We'd ski the first several times without a dock. But we did eventually g the dock out that year. I do have one suggestion. I made suggestions to Mr. Durr through the years that as he develops his property can take this 50 feet and add it to a conforming beachiot but our access was started before the city was a city. Back when it was a small village and it's bell a grandfathered pre - existing conditional use and continued in a recreational manner. The one suggestion I would have to Mr. Kenneth Durr is when he does develop the city requires certain amounts of properties f park and recreation. He can donate the 50 feet. He can also give the 50 feet anytime he desires a value on it to the Minnetonka Watershed District and you will not have to pay taxes on it any further. It was put in I Schmid's Acres that Mr. Durr now owns. There were 7 or 8 children then when Schmid divided and that's why, the Schmid that got the lakeshore, he has to pay the taxes on that. All the other Schmid's and heirs and assigns that didn't get the lakeshore, they get to use his 50 feet of paid lakeshore because he has the other 800 feet. That was under great wisdom by the Schmid's when they divided it. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Is there a motion to close the public hearincl Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Harberts: As I understand the issue before us has to deal with 1981. I'm concerned about the survey's reliability. I have to concur that it is jut a point in time. I think Mr. Durr did an excellent job investigating. Presenting the information. With Mr. Carlson, as I understand really the burden in my mind of proof was needed was to establish the recreational u of the property. I think there certainly is an issue of accountability here. I'm not too versed in you talk in the area of accountability in ter of how it's maintained. If it's good or bad but I think that the Association or whatever may want to become a little bit more structured at look at that. It's not going to get any better. I would, I'm in a positi at this point to basically reaffirm my decision that we made in March of 1993 because I feel that there has been ample information that supports that this was a recreational facility. If there was a dock, whether or no a dock, I don't know for sure but I guess I'm just going to rely on the testimony that was provided. We've got someone here from 1959 that can attest to the use of it. To me that provides me a little bit more information to base my decision on than picture in time. It certainly is confusing issue. - Batzli: So you're reaffirming what we did on March 17th, which was 10 oft street parkings, ro. launch, 45 foot seasonal dock, one canoe rack, one 1 I Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 36 I boat on land, one boat on dock? 1 Harberts: Yes. Batzli: Ladd. II Conrad: Things have changed in my mind. I find it tough to get my arms around this because the last time you were in I was not really clear on I where the association, where the people were and where the access was and where the neighbors were. I think it's a little bit clearer now. Definitely there's a recreation beachlot here with certain rights. Some things bother me and they've been brought up tonight. And some things I that just have to change. And we heard some of them. I think the accountability and the maintenance issues, to me access is the big issue. When I see a road that's been put in, it looks like a road. It's not paved I but it's a road and what we've done with other, any kind of beachlot, if there's a road going in and there's a non, basically a non resident type issue, it's uncontrolled. And that worries me a great deal about this one. I There's got to be some control. On the other hand, this is a good example I think of a low, you know what I've read into the situation. It's a low useage property, which is real good and I like that. I think it serves the neighbors and I don't think in general it's been abused by the owners of I the reservation. And I don't know that there's an association. I don't know what it is. And I don't know what we're going to do tonight because I do recognize seriously as the parcel develops and a neighborhood goes in, I I'm not comfortable with the beachlot looking the way it does today. What we try to do is protect a resident from intensive use. Make it pallatable, whether that resident comes in later or whatever. And I'm a little bit I worried about 10 cars on a 50 foot strip parking. Now if they were part, the owner was part of your association, I'd let you struggle that. You'd work that out. In other words, well. And it would be far better than any solution we'd come up with. 1 Batzli: Can I interrupt you just one second Ladd. Kate, what did we do with the apartments on the control issue? Can you refresh my memory? 1 Aanenson: Sure. That question came up is legally could we force them to put a gate up. The City Attorney's position was no. But in effect, and in being good neighbors they decided to in their own best interest to be good I neighbors with the adjoining property owners, that they would put a gate up to add to security because that was the main issue. And it was just more good neighbor kind of thing that they did secure the property. I Mancino: As we did on the Colonial Grove too. That one has a nice gate and you know right away that it's private property. 1 Aanenson: And a lot of them do have posts and I think that's something that you could recommend too. They're posted association members only. 1 Batzli: Okay. Sorry Ladd. Conrad: No, that's a valid point Brian. But we need those things I happening on this property. And maybe we legally can't do it. We can encourage it but I think it's something that is real. It's very evidentally Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 37 in need. Okay, going back through. And to tell you the truth, I'm not sure what kind of motion I'm going to make tonight or what I'm going to vote because if I don't see some things happening from the association, I , would be a lot more strick in what I'd allow happening on this land. In other words, if I don't see a gate going up, I would not vote for 10 cars or 5 or 6 cars being there ever. So I guess I'm, the more I think about 41 this, I don't know that I can come to a good solution myself tonight and recommendation. It's almost like I'd like the parties to determine what it should be. But let me tell you just some things if I were to look at it. There was motor vehicle access and I think that should be. The off stree parking, we said 10. I don't think that's appropriate for this area as i develops. I don't think I'd want 10 cars parked in my property. So I have a problem with that. Even though maybe there were 10 at a point in time," sometime, I don't think that's appropriate for a 50 foot wide strip. And don't think there's any evidence to show me that there were 10 cars so I could go back and put down any number of cars that I thought was appropriate right now. The boat launch, I don't like the boat launch. Ill don't mind it for canoe launching and when I think of fishing boats and the last time in, I think of fishing boats as 10 and 15 horsepower motors. I don't think of them as 60 horsepower motors. That's still a waterski boa to me and when I see an access that's been driven down there, that bother me and I know what you're saying in terms of grooming it for a beach. Boy, it sure looked like a boat launch to me. It looks like a launch site. Tip docks I don't have any problems with. I think that's not abuse. I think that's appropriate. I think that speaks to the intent. The intent that they've used it in the past. The canoe racks, I don't know. If it's wel designed, and usually we see where a canoe rack goes and see how it fits with the neighborhood. Well I don't see that now so I would have a tough time. Is there one there? Kate. Aanenson: No. Nancy had suggested and she mentioned to me earlier and II that was that they come in with a site plan showing how they could do that. Conrad: It's almost like we have to see it to even talk about this because I wouldn't let it, if it's not done appropriate, according to what's going to develop next to it, then I'd have to go back to the 1981 survey. It's not there. It shouldn't be there. I think, and the boats II land. I'm not sure what that is anymore. There was one there and if that's the way it is, I guess that's the way it is if it's been documented. So anyway, I think there are, I almost have to treat this a little bit will some flexibility and say that this is not the beachlot that I would like have next to my house. They have the right to have it there. I think they've kept the useage typically very low but I want, which is perfect f this type of parcel. But I don't know how to react to what's in front of � me tonight. Batzli: Fair enough. Matt. ' Ledvina: Well, things have changed from the last time we saw this. We have the city inspection report which shows there was no dock there. And when we looked at this the last time, we thought there was a dock there i 1981. In 1981, last time, or I should say the last time we looked at this, we thought there was parking use and our inspection report says there wasn't. So I don't know. I guess when we started this we were to look all Plannin g Commission Meeting ' June 2, 1993 - Page 38 the 1981 survey and this apparently says there are no docks. The ' documentation, the photos that were provided shows that there wasn't a dock. There may have well been one, or there could have been one there but I don't have proof that there was one there. So I have to say that I would ' support no docks and I would support no parking. I'm not real comfortable with coming to these conclusions so I don't know. It's difficult to look at this. ' Batzli: So the antidotal evidence and letters from the various long time residents don't sway you that there was a dock? Ledvina: Well the letters that are provided in here, I don't see anything specifically saying that there was a dock in 1981. I just reviewed them and I didn't see anything. We've heard individuals say that there was a ' dock there but again, I don't know. It's hard to evaluate. Batzli. I, well I'll get to that when it's my turn. I'm sorry, were you done Matt? ' Ledvina: Well just one other thing. I don't think the boat launch should be allowed if this thing, or with this permit. I feel that they can certainly launch canoes and fishing boats with small motors but I don't feel it's appropriate to be taking trailers and backing those trailers into the lake. If you want to carry a fishing boat off a trailer and drop it in the water, that's fine. But I think the issues as it relates to erosion with that launch, and the protection that's needed for the lake, outweigh the discussion that I heard regarding the use of that launch. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Joe. Scott: Well I'd strongly encourage gating of that facility and I think ' what we can do is that if the facility becomes a nuisance as defined, I'm sure we have tons of ordinances of that sort of thing. Because of the sensitivity of this area, I believe that that's something we should have a little bit tighter control on. But I believe that this should be gated. I ' think that would, and it's obviously something that we can't require. However, to avoid the property from being a nuisance, which I think it causes all sorts of complications with access, that's very important. I ' always have trouble with basing my decision on anything that looks a lot like a, what I call a balance sheet. A balance sheet is this is where it was at this point in time and a company can appear to be bankrupt one day ' and be flush with cash the next. So I am prepared to support the decision that we made as a Planning Commission on the 17th of March and I'll let it stand that way. Batzli: Okay. Nancy. Mancino: I support also the decisions that we made on March 17th with one ' exception, and that is. Well first, before I go to the exception. Is that I do support, I do feel that a dock was in and I trust the witness who came up and said that a dock was in in 1981. I can tell from the survey or the inventory that there was not one on June 4th and there was not one at some ' date in July of 1981. The exception that I have is with the off street parking of 10. I walked this property in March and I don't think I really 11 Planning Commission Meeting P1 g g June 2, 1993 - Page 39 1 got the scope of what 10 cars in this area would be like until I went 2 days ago and walked it And by the time that you put a canoe rack there," which I think would be good for the property. It would clean it up. All the canoes would be in one area. Instead of being chained to different trees in the area, it could all be on a canoe rack. And we also said tha they could, we could have one boat on land. By the time you get one boat on land and a canoe rack there, I don't think you can get 10 cars in ther . What I saw 2 days ago were 4 cars parked on the property and one of the cars, their two back wheels was off the land and kind of hanging over thell creek. So I'm concerned about the erosion that will happen to the creek. I would like to see the association, the applicant meet with the city and do a site plan that takes into account a dock. Specifically where the do goes. Specifically where the canoe rack goes. Specifically where the bo on the land goes. And where they will dock the boats and then have the, they look at the safety and space left for putting, for parking 10 cars and I'd like to see that plan. ' Batzli: You'd like to see this come back to us? Mancino: Yeah, I'd like to see it approved and I can't approve it in the' form that it is right now. I'm also concerned about the maintenance of the property. There is consistent mowing. That there is trash picking up every week during the summer. There is some sort of ongoing maintenance that we can put on the property. So those two things I would want to see before I would go ahead and give my okay to the property. To the easement for continual use. ' Batzli: Okay. Jeff. Farmakes: I think one of the attorney's last comments here. Concerning II ourselves with relevant items. I think a lot of what's been said here tonight is not relevant. Maybe 10% of what we discussed here is relevant to what we're doing here. There's a lot of excess baggage here. There's" an ownership issue and it's not relevant here. That's really between the two parties here and what we're here to discuss tonight is what the useage was in '81. That's all we're here to discuss. I'm willing to entertain reasonable evaluation of what that is. There's a couple of points where seems to me it's pretty murky. The City said there wasn't a dock now. That's information that's changed since my original comment. I agree wit Ladd that the information has changed here. Some of it I think is very relevant to what we've been doing with these things. I have tried to follow what the city survey was at that time, making exceptions for boats That if they had a dock that it would accommodate a couple of fishing boats, those boats were out on the lake and so on. So I tried to interpr that as to be reasonable. It seems to me that not only was this area perhaps more low intensive than we thought, but it may be changed. It's use has changed year to year and whoever happened to have a boat to put a#� the launch. In particular I think a trailerable boat. One thing I wanted to comment on here is, we haven't defined that here. Trailerable is a defined use. Trailerable boat for access means putting a trailer, or having a boat and putting it in the water. I think that's clearly define by the State as to what that is. Access is not picking up a canoe and putting it in the water. Or anything you carry. Perhaps here it plays II into the fact that the use here seems to me to be low, goes beyond Schmid Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 40 II Acres. There's no argument here that the adjacent property owner feels that it's any of the irritation uses or nuisance uses are...to Schmid's I Acres. So the gate issue seems to me that if this is maintained as a form of recreation, that the beachlot and access be restricted to those people who it's intended to be used by. That brings me to the next issue. We did I not probably discuss, because there wasn't as much objection or trying to clarify what the parking use was at the time. I took the applicant's use that 5 or 6 cars were what was in use there and there weren't any boats I there at the time. The issue would seem to me that the property was large enough for 5 to 6 cars. It's not large enough for 5 or 6 cars and trailers and it's not large enough, I feel certainly for 10 cars, even though I voted for it. With this information that we have now, I think perhaps I II should not have. I will again go back to the survey that it seems to me that there were cars parked on that site, that it should be very limited. And it also plays into the issue of, that if there isn't a gate and we allow cars there, that we'd be leading into a problem of who's there. There's Schmid's Acres people. The property adjacent to the reservation or is it the people who are driving to that access parking there and partying. One of the things though that really I found bothersome. We have been II discussing this for quite some time and I have property, lake property that I have improved. I went through the process to apply and pay to modify the lakeshore and it's a very specific process. As far as I interpret what I I have read, you are in violation of that process of what you did there. And I think also the intent of what you've done is to expand the use for trailerable access to that lake, which is in clear violation of what we're I talking about here. I think the before and after pictures is quite telling and I think the city should look at that and discuss that with the appropriate people of whether or not that's in violation of city or state law. I would not be adverse to tabling this mess, if that's what wants to I be done. Otherwise I'd be willing to vote on it too but I would not want to veer from the city's original survey here. I Batzli: So where you would differ from the March 17th recommendation was, you'd delete the off street parking completely? I Farmakes: Yes. Unless a reasonable agreement could be made here, a modification to where that would be controlled. I think the issue of controlled access was not something that we discussed. And that it was a problem. I Batzli: Seasonal dock. Did not show one in '81 so you'd delete that? I Farmakes: I would be willing to buy into that argument that there was a dock there and not put out or one the year before based on how the reservation was set up and access to the lake. 1 Batzli: Canoe racks, there wasn't one so you wouldn't allow one now? Farmakes: Based on what we've done with the other lots, we have not been II tight on whether or not they can have canoe storage on property. Batzli: And the boats on dock, was none in '81 so you'd put a 0 there? 1 Farmakes: I'd put a 0 there. Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 41 Batzli: Okay. And if it came back, what would you be looking at? Farmakes: I'd say that the issue of the access and how, whether or not II they put a gate up or whether or not they'd store cars on there. It seems to me that those are kind of an interrelated issue. And it seems to me , because it is a low use, and there is garbage and there is a nuisance factor there, that maybe they can come up with something on how to modify that. Batzli: See I come back to your first point though. Farmakes: That it's not part of the '81. Batzli: Which is it's not part of it, yeah. Farmakes: But it is, as I said before, sometimes when you look at these things there's a practical issue to look at as well. When we're defining it. In the interest of good neighbors, it seems to me there's a problem there. , Batzli: Thank you Jeff. I was sitting here racking my brain during part of this process. My father lives on Lake Minnetonka and I've put in a do every year since I was knee high to a grasshopper, and I can tell you jus about what happened every dock putting in event but I would be hard press to tell you what years some of the neighbors put their docks in and out. Or when we put our's in. Sometimes bad memories fade I suppose. Put it 11 early and it's kind of chilly but I'd have a tough time with that. And y know, I don't know how I can appreciate that some of these people are saying the dock was there, wasn't there. But when you put it in, I built" some docks in a channel, rebuilt some and I can't even begin to tell you the year other than it was probably when I was in high school or college so that's a swing of about 7 or 8 years. So I have a hard time really kind trying to figure out what people are remembering and what they're not remembering because I for the life of me can't remember it and I'm doing 1 every year it seems to me. Maybe I am. So having said that, I think that the recollection of a lot of people is that there was a dock here. It seems that there are canoes or boats or something on the property, at lea one, back in '81. So the thing that I would change, based from our last recommendation, is to eliminate the off street parking. I would allow a canoe rack. I think it's a low intensity use. I don't believe that that really what I thought we're doing here, and we may become hypertechnical over this point but to figure out what the intensity was back in '81 and make sure we're not expanding beyond it tonight. I just don't see how II allowing a rack to be built for people that may store canoes there from time to time increases the intensity. And the boats on the dock. I really haven't heard anything from the applicant that there was one there. I think what maybe he was getting to that point when he talked about he was" doing a lot of skiing bank then. But I don't know that he said he actually docked anything there. So I would view as our March 17th results except would eliminate the off street parking and the boats on the dock. Harberts: What's your basis for eliminating all of the of street parking when in fact there's,/you know we're allowing the dock because we've got II supporting testimony .. And I gathered from the same supporting testimony 1 / w Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 42 that re was off street parking. And so is it just from that practical the a f p g just P ical perspective? I'm just trying to get a basis here rather than just saying, no off street. Batzli: I didn't read from the letters, and maybe my recollection's fuzzy ' here but I didn't read from the letters that they said they drove down there, did they? ' Harberts: Well I don't know if it was primarily from the letters but from the testimony tonight and I would certainly be open to revisiting the 10 versus some other maybe a lower number but I think that the question here is is that we're basing the decision on basically testimony tonight in ' terms of what happened in '81. And so I think, I'm just wanting to make clear in my mind that we're being consistent rather than okay, we'll give you this but not that but I think the issue of what's practical, especially ' with what's going to be the potential development. Then also, I think there is a clear issue of accountability because I think from the entire Planning Commission as well as from the city, we want to make sure that ' we're good neighbors. We've got an issue of what's not perceived as a good neighbor so I think that accountability issue's there but I think, you know from my perspective right now is, what's the, how do you support zero street parking in terms of the rationale based on the rest of your decision 1 here? Batzli: My decision was based on the fact that, as I recall, the only ' thing that was said about the parking was if his family or his wife's family came for the weekend, they might park down there. 4th of July or something. 1 Scott: Wouldn't it also depend too if the date of our survey was a Wednesday when there's nobody there versus on a weekend, and we don't really know when that. We have the June 4th for the '81 survey. Can you ' figure out which day of the week. If it's a Wednesday, I think that's significant. If it's a weekend. Aanenson: I'm sure it wasn't a weekend. Batzli: What I'm getting at here is that. 1 Scott: Okay, so it was 'during the week, because business hours. Aanenson: Right. 1 Scott: And how can we determine, and it seems like since the useage was relatively low, it was primarily used on the weekends. 1 Batzli: That's the wonderful thing about this is that reasonable minds can differ but what I heard was that, his use was that he was using it as a parking lot when family came over and not in really connection necessarily ' with the beachlot and not by residents or potential users of that beachlot. He's using it as a family parking lot. He's not, it's not the people that are coming from the houses that have the right to use it. It's his family and his wife's family which to me is not a proper use to establish that there was a use by the people that could use it on the property. That's 1 Planning Commission Meeting II June 2, 1993 - Page 43 II why I'm saying there was no use, because it wasn't a proper use. Now, if he wants to convince the Council, fine. He can enter more evidence. I'm sure the City Council will let him but that's where I made my decision wa� that the use that he was talking about was his family's use and not the people that had title to use that lot. So okay. And he said that, I think I ran down through it and I would entertain a motion. I've heard a coupl11 people say they want to see this back. I don't really want to see it bac I think that both sides have presented a lot of evidence. They gave it a good shot. Both sides. I didn't feel like there was, there may be a II feeling that it's kind of somebody trying to beat up on you but I think they did their homework, and as did you. You got a lot of the people with a lot of memories out and I appreciate both sides efforts in that regard. But I don't think that seeing a site plan would help me decide this issue What I'm trying to look at is what evidence did they present regarding th use in 1981 and it should, we're trying to determine that intensity and I think we can do that tonight. II Harberts: Before a motion is made I'd like to just maybe get some reaction if a possible motion was made in which, you know if it was moved on to till Council but with the direction to develop, and I'll use the word site pia Maybe a written understanding or something, in terms of having staff work with them to determine what practical for any, if any off street parking and then I guess the question of accountability because I. ' Batzli: Well the thing that concerns me most about this is what Ladd brought up and that is, we may not be able to force them to put a gate up" but it sounds like that's the big problem that we're seeing. Is we're seeing environmental pollution by the kids, whether they belong there or not. By throwing cans and bottles and whatever and that's got to be II controlled somehow here. Whether it's the city doing it's job better or asking all the neighbors. Basically going out and telling them, anytime you see anybody, call us and after a while the kids will get discouraged if that's the only way we can do it. It doesn't seem to me to be a big deal" to ask them to put up a gate but if they don't want to do that, maybe that's the way we have to do it. But that to me is the big issue here is to control this because it's not an intense use once you get rid of that.' Scott: Is there a, from maybe you can craft a motion and get kind of a 10 spaces, no spaces, somewhere inbetween. Would everyone support 5? I Conrad: No. Harberts: No. I would suggest that the motion include that, maybe with ' the help of staff, that the motion move forward with whatever, if any appropriate number of off street parking you know after staff has the time to review it because of the environmental impact. And if the determinatill from staff is zero, okay fine. Zero. They're the experts here. Scott: Do we want to see this again? II Harberts: I don't think we need to but. Scott: We're all prepared to vote on it? II 11 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 44 1 Harberts: I think the only issue at hand is really the off street parking. And my only drawback or hesitancy here in terms of zero is simply because we're basing the rest of the decision in terms of allowing the dock and stuff based on testimony and I feel the testimony is there but from a practical perspective, it may not be appropriate for off street and so ' that's why I'm saying move it. If the decision is to move it forward to the Council, then with the suggestion or recommendation that staff make a determination with the people involved, to insure that there is ' accountability, I think that's a practical matter. And second, to determine if and how many off street parking should be allowed. Also given the fact that we've got some future development that's going to be ' occurring in the area. Conrad: Definitions change over time and off street parking now is a whole lot different than off street parking back in '81. As you build new houses 1 next to this, it takes on a whole new. definition. And that's why when we go back to '81 and we say, what was off street parking, geez it could have been 50 real easily. I know you can probably get 50 cars parked side by side there. I have a problem with that and sanctioning that use. What we're doing is sanctioning a use for the future. Forever. I just want you to think about that. 1 Harberts: But I think Jeff's point though in terms of off street parking was valid in terms of trailers. I don't feel this is appropriate for trailers. 1 Farmakes: It would be an expansion of use... ' Harberts: But what constitutes off street parking you know back in 1981. Did that include trailers? I don't know. That's why I think. Farmakes: I don't think it said that there wasn't any boat launching. That 1 would be trailers. So the issue, the point I was trying to make is that there is an association of these people who are using a nuisance factor and parking in the area. Not launching boats but parking there and bringing ' their kegger or whatever and creating a problem. And legitimate people who are driving up there and want to go swimming. They just happened to drive out there because they don't want to walk a block or whatever it is to get ' there. My point is, if you put up a gate or I was just offering that as a solution. The problem perhaps if there was a gate, as a trade -off. Batzli: Let's not speak in hypotheticals any longer. Let's speak about this in concrete terms of a motion. Conrad: I would make a motion to approve a non - conforming recreational ' beachlot permit for Schmid's Acres Association with the following stipulations. That motor vehicle access is approved. That there is no off street parking allowed. That there is no boat launch permitted. That a seasonal dock is approved. That canoe racks are approved. That a boat on land is approved. That boats on dock are not allowed. And then I would strongly encourage the homeowners association to develop some kind of a maintenance program. That the homeowners association put up a gate that is 1 controlled by the homeowners. That a site plan be submitted to the city staff that would tell them where the different amenities of this site can 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 45 1 be located. Batzli: Is there a second? 1 Mancino: I second. Batzli: Discussion. Harberts: I'm a little uncomfortable in terms of the no off street parkill just simply in terms of basing some rationale but from a practical matter from a future perspective, I guess I have to endorse it from that perspective. I guess as I understand the applicant does have the opportunity, if they felt strongly about it, to bring it up before the Council and I think that there's avenues that if they do want off street parking, they can talk to staff and then work it out with the Council. So since this is a recommendation, I can support that. i Batzli: I thought you were going to say that we could put up a little park and ride right there. Harberts: Hey, Dial -a -Ride goes there. Scott: I would agree with that. With what Diane said and then if the II applicant wishes to lobby for things that aren't in here, they certainly can go to the Council with that. 5o I would support Commissioner Conrad's motion. 1 Batzli: Any other discussion? 30 seconds or less? Gary Carlson: Yes. The Council was about to pass this and the only reascl they sent it back to the Planning Commission, they wanted to recommend a gate and signage to prevent the people... Batzli: I think if you present evidence to the Council that the use existed in '81, where it was people who were entitled to use the beachlot and not just someone's party and you were using it for excess parking, th they may give you a few spots. Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I have one thing that I would like to add. I guess I would like the staff to evaluate the potential attrition of non- conforming use through the lack of a dock or whatever. If that's the cas so I would like the staff to evacuate the date that's been generated, the aerial photos, etc, I'd like that to bear into the discussion that goes ull to Council. Batzli: Okay. You can have 30 seconds too then. Tom Owens: Point of clarification. I believe the motion said with canoe racks. Are we going to have canoe racks or one canoe rack. Aanenson: One. Batzli: I think one. One, we'll clarify that. Thank you. Is there any, other discussion here? 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 46 Mike Melkert: Can I just make one other point? Batzli: Okay. ' Mike Melkert: I think that since we can't read the testimony back like you would be able to in some other type of proceedings, he did testify that ' there were cars down there in '81. In addition, the affidavits submitted by the other side from the attorney specifically says that there were 2 cars. He saw 2 cars parked on the property. And that's also in your record and I just wanted to point that out because that's a piece of evidence that you are considering and it's a piece of evidence that is sworn under Minnesota law. ' Batzli: Right. I would agree that this says there's 2 cars there but it doesn't say when that was. It was a maximum of 2 cars without a date attached to it. And like I said, if you can present evidence, whether it's ' antidotal or letters or affidavits yourself to the Council, they may give it to you. Our feeling is we're very concerned about it, obviously and we weren't convinced that we should, that you carried your burden on that II particular thing. That doesn't mean you can't give it a shot to the Council. Is there any other discussion? Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ' approval of a non - conforming recreational beachlot permit for Schmid's Acres Association with the following stipulations: Motor vehicle access, seasonal dock, one canoe rack and one boat on land are permitted. There will be no off street parking, boat launch or boats on the seasonal dock permitted. Also, to strongly encourage the homeowners association to develop some kind of a maintenance program, to put up a gate that is ' controlled by the association and that a site plan be submitted to the city staff that would tell where the different amenities of this site can be located. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN TO ACCOMMODATE IMPROVEMENTS TO POWERS BOULEVARD. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: So you're mitigating /no net tossing by the shaded in replacement area? Aanenson: Correct. Batzli: Okay. And are you doing all of this work in accordance with the ' newly adopted Best Management Practices deals bob. Aanenson: Yes. Mr. Hempel assures us that we are. Batzli: That's not a condition here. We normally require that of all of our applicants. Aanenson: Thank you. That should go in there. And I also failed to 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 47 i mention that, because it's less than a half acre, there's no, it would be covered under the nationwide permit. Of the Army Corps. But we should pill that condition in there that we follow the City's Best Management Practices. Batzli: Yeah. Dave, did you have anything to add? We made you wait hell the whole night. I figured you wanted to say something. Hempel: Sure. Mr. Chairman, just to piggyback on Kate's comments here. The fill of this area is necessary due to the road widening. It's actual a transition zone from a 4 lane road back into the 2 lane rural road that's on Powers Boulevard. The fill slopes out there are very steep. 2:1 slop" which are difficult to maintain. That's why the necessity of filling thi portion of the ditch of the wetland. Batzli: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Scott: Any attorneys? 1 Jim Dvorak: I guess I only have two things to say. As Kate said, my name is Jim Dvorak from Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch, consulting engineers for the Cit We do a lot of work with roadways and wetlands and we're very sensitive t� wetland impacts. Wetland fills. We do environmental assessment worksheets. We do environmental impact statements. We're well versed in the rules and regulations of the agencies that govern this type of work. I guess the only thing I can tell you is that we have made every effort t minimize the impacts to this wetland. As Dave said, there's a 2:1 slope out there. We're continuing with that 2:1 slope. That's as steep a slop as we would recommend so there's, the only thing that you can do to avoid filling the wetland is to steepen the slope up beyond the 2:1. That is something we would not recommend. Or build an expensive retaining wall. In this case, based on the minimal impact, we feel that fill out into the wetland and then replace it with mitigation area is appropriate. I guess the only other thing I want to add is there's no dock or anything associated with this fill. No boats. No docks. No parking. ' Conrad: Where were you in 1981? Mancino: When you create a new wetland, when you mitigate a wetland, do 1 you take the existing, some of the existing vegetation from the old and put it in the new so that you can have the same ecosystem? Jim Dvorak: When we construct a new basin, we typically like to, as you say, over excavate the inplace soils and then haul in the muck. What you want is that seed bank that's in that organic muck soil. So that you get something growing right away. That's fairly important to the success of establishing it as a wel.and. In this case, it's not a real kind of a canary grass type of wetland. It's not a cattail or something like that 11 this area. So I don't see that as a problem but we will be cognizant of the fact that we need to get this thing up and growing again as a wetland. Hempel: Mr. Chairman] I'd like to also point out that previously back in il 1971 I believe a sanitary sewer line was run through this same area that / � M 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 48 1 we're looking at mitigating and also filling. So there has been previous impact to this 20 some years ago. II Batzli: Did the City get a permit for that? I Hempel: I don't believe there were such rules back then. Aanenson: I think what we struggled with too is that this is a ditch section of that wetland and whether or not it even classified. We went out I and had it re- surveyed to even determine whether or not it was part of this wetland because really it functioned as a ditch for a number of years, but it does have wetland characteristic so we went ahead and classified it as I part of the wetland. Batzli: This is one of the ones surveyed by the SWMP committee? II Aanenson: The wetland itself, yes. But this ditch section, yeah. Batzli: Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? I And let the record show, since we don't have it on tape, if you've got a new tape in, that there's no one else in the crowd here. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? 1 Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1 Batzli: Jeff. Farmakes: I have no further comments...if you could take a look at that I sales office that we approved adjacent to this. It's starting to look like a last chance gas station. I think they're not complying or conforming to what their original agreement was. I Batzli: Skirts and things like that? Harberts: Yeah, and a deck. I Farmakes: They have 3 or 4 signs sitting up there. A couple of them are empty and I don't know what they've got. I Ledvina: Just to expand on that. There is erosion that's taking place off of the north side of that. It's by- passing the erosion fencing so if we could let the... Looking at the condition, the construction boundaries, in I the first condition. It says Type III erosion around the construction boundaries and when I look at the map and it should actually says, construction limits and I really can't determine where the heck that goes and I think that refers to the road. I'd like to clarify condition 1 too. I To relate to, it's a little bit ambiguous but it's construction boundaries for the wetland, fill area and replacement area. Just to reiterate the need to use that in the replacement area and then that's it. I Conrad: Pass. Harberts: Pass. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 49 1 Batzli: Do we normally, I mean we normally have a map that we're looking at and we approve it in accordance with map or plans dated whatever. Are' we looking at Attachment #1 here? Aanenson: That really is the best map. Otherwise it's on the big construction drawings and this is much more detailed as far as. 1 Batzli: Do we have a. Aanenson: This is more accurate than the construction plans really. 1 Batzli: This one that we're looking at is more accurate? Hempel: This one is actually a reduction of another site plan that was prepared by the developer of the Oaks actually went out with the survey crew and topo the edge of the wetland and also the trees that are there all provided this drawing for us. Aanenson: As you recall, remember I said originally I though it was a ditch section. There was concern about the trees and that so we actually' resurveyed this specific area so this really is the best detailed map. Batzli: I guess what I would suggest then is whoever makes the motion tha we recommend approval of the permit in accordance with the staff report a attachment included. That's my comment. Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ' Wetland Alteration Permit #93 -3 with the staff conditions. Modifying condition 1 to read, Type III erosion control shall be place around the construction boundaries for the road and for the wetland alteration and replacement areas. Number 2 to stand as is in the staff report. Add a condition number 3. All activity shall be conducted according to the City of Chanhassen Best Management Practices Handbook. And condition number 4 That the construction be conducted in compliance with Attachment #1 of th staff report. Batzli: Is there a second? 1 Conrad: Second. Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #93 -3 with the following conditions: 1. Type III erosion control shall be place around the construction 1 boundaries for the road and for the wetland alteration and replacement areas. 2. Wetland replacement shall occur concurrently with the filling of the wetland. 3. All activity shall be conducted according to the City of Chanhassen I Best Management Practices Handbook. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 50 4. That the construction be conducted in compliance with Attachment #1 of the staff report. 1 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' Batzli: It will probably be on, will this be on the consent agenda the next meeting? Aanenson: If we can get Minutes. ' Hempel: We'd certainly like to get it on for the 14th. ' Batzli: Thank you very much for coming in Dave and the consultant. Let's talk about our draft memo under Open Discussion. We didn't have any Minutes, right? This time, for some reason. Aanenson: Nann's been on jury duty so she's backlogged. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: 1 Batzli: Okay. Report from the Director. The only thing that I thought was really interesting was they did revoke the conditional use permit. Conrad: Yeah, I'm just amazed. ' Aanenson: Mr. Lindbery, yes. Mancino: Why is that amazing? ' Batzli: I didn't think they'd do it. Conrad: I didn't think they'd do it. 1 Mancino: I was at the meeting. Batzli: But I thought, especially the amazing one was the, well. ' Aanenson: Nez Perce. ' Batzli: The stuff about the Kirchman's presentation of evidence. Anyway, so they voted unanimously. Anything else we should know about? ' Aanenson: I'm not sure if Paul put, oh he did put a letter in here that we're having a meeting next Thursday with the neighborhoods regarding that pedestrian bridge and if you're interested, you're welcome to come to that meeting. Batzli: The auto related use ordinance. What's going to happen on that briefly? 1 Aanenson: We're looking at putting that on the agenda. You'll probably be seeing that the first meeting in July. We're still not exactly sure what tactic. We'll probably come with a couple of different approaches for you to respond to. To get recommendations for City Council. 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 51 1 Batzli: Okay. And thank you on our ongoing list for putting number 17 ' back on there. Discussion. The thing I wanted to talk about was Matt's draft here and the question is, whether want to talk about it tonight or what we want to do in view of the fact that we've got 5 minutes until we're going to adjourn. 1 Ledvina: Well just some insight as far as putting this together. What I would recommend you do is review it when you have a chance and input as y feel you'd like to. Suggest language changes, that would be great. Expa issues that you feel are important. As I said, at the back end of this thing. This is just a shell and I reviewed the Minutes from our previous meeting and tried to get on as many points and I just like of whipped this together. A potential way of handling the logistics. If yo want to fax me your comments, changes, that would be great and my fax number is on the last page there. If you want to talk to me about it, that's fine. Farmakes: I got the feeling from the HRA they were wondering why we didn present these comments at the Monday meeting...Is that what you got? Ledvina: Yeah. They were cautious about the thought of us preparing a memorandum or a memo to the City Council or the HRA on this topic. I thill they're very, you know action oriented and they want to move everything forward. I tried to assure them that we're not trying to kill any deal in here. We're just trying to provide a perspective. We want to provide soli concrete, positive input if we can. I don't know. And I think they understood that after I, at first they were a little leery of our involvement and wanted to know. I Harberts: The input. Farmakes: I think they were concerned that we were going to force them til do their 15th attempt at that drawing. I think they had already spent, what is it they called it? $50,000.00... So the question was, were our comments going to be a building block for recovering stuff that they had I hashed out on Monday. Mancino: Where are they in the process right now? I Ledvina: Now they're looking at revision no. 15 or whatever. I don't know. It's really hard to say. They're talking about the size of different elements. 1 Aanenson: Aren't they having a survey done? Farmakes: I got up and talked a little bit, and you got up and talked a I little bit and I'm not sure whether or not, this letter addressed what we talked about pretty well I think. They were discussing size of areas but they hadn't determined the use for it. 1 Ledvina: Yeah. They wanted to know how large the running track was and all of this. I Harberts: Did they focus on what the use is? II I Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 52 1 Ledvina: No. II Aanenson: 'rhat's why they're going back and doing the survey. I Ledvina: There's many uses that are proposed. Farmakes: I heard two different. One was recreation center and one was a community center, all in the same packet. I Harberts: Well and that's why I'm wondering if this $50,000.00 was simply spent because they are not aware of what a good use of it is. Or what the I use should be. Like here's the money, build something and then decide what it's used for. Ledvina: And I don't know. I just want to say that I don't know if this II approach is too rudimentary or whatever, you know in terms of how I've laid it out. And if anybody else would like to suggest another outline, that's fine. Or other topic. 1 Farmakes: I'd want to consider a specific survey to scienific survey. They have yet, the criteria they use for surveying is really... 1 Scott: It depends on what you want as a result. Farmakes: Or how you paraphrase the question. To get the results that you 1 want, you ask the right questions. Scott: You're absolutely right and you can go to a marketing research firm I and say, this is the agenda. Structure the questionnaire to give us the data we want. I Farmakes: I tried to bring that up at the meeting in discussing questions and they referred it to Bill Morrish and that he had done Shorewood and a couple of the others. But the reason I agree with what you say, I think that the point is the question should not come off as, we're going to build I one what would you like to see but should we buid one. And if we do, what should it be. And again, your second paragraph that's below there addresses the issue of competing facilities or other facilities that we're I building and how we can... Harberts: Well, but are we just really kind of skirting the issues here because isn't the real issue is something will be built there versus you I know when you start, and I don't disagree at all with what you're saying but are we barking up the wrong tree by saying, look at what the existing facilities are and pedestrian things because it's my feeling that something I will be built in that spot. Period. Ledvina: Yeah, I believe that too. 1 Harberts: So bringing up these points here, I think they're all valid but I think they're just going to like breeze over this and okay. What are we going to build in here. II Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 53 Farmakes: Well the longer that you're, I haven't been on here that long and Ladd's been here a long time. ' Conrad: Some would say too long. I'd say that. Farmakes: But you can't believe the amount of groups and they all have all use and a definition of what they want and it isn't necessarily any information or relevant information to back that up. It's just they may have a more vocal organization. They may be more organized than someone else and they happen to get to the line first. And as a grouping this ki of catches me as kind of a grabbag. Well we're going to build this many square feet. Okay, who wants to come in and that's. 1 Harberts: Yeah, here's the money. This is what we're going to build. Farmakes: Because we do have a time constraint here. We have a time constraint and we have to spin money by a certain time or it goes back to the County. So it's, there's a lot of issues at play here. Conrad: So it's like free money isn't it. Farmakes: No. No, there is no such thing as free money. It's a questio ll of who's accountability is it. Scott: Also too when you look at land acquisition costs and I remember, and I can't quote Don Ashworth's comment in the Villager but it was something to the effect that this is the most expensive piece of useless property. I mean because that property is fairly useless but it's extremely expensive. I think I've heard figures of like a million bucks." And couple that with the bruhaha about purchasing 40 acres for the elementary school. We own that stuff now. There's 40 acres of which there's probably an acre or two where a facility could be constructed adjacent to the elementary school where there's probably going to be some facilities that can be shared, because usually when there's a recreationa facility, it's hours of useage probably wouldn't compete with an elementar school. So I mean logic, I think you're right. A decision has been made that this piece of property is going to be purchased for too much money a something's going to be built on there. Whereas a more logical approach could be, do we own it. There's a TIF district out at the elementary school. We own the land. Why don't we take the million bucks and throw 11 into a building and get a hockey rink or you know. 5o I mean I'm really uncomfortable with a decision has been made that it's going to be built 1 right there. Farmakes: So the question is what. What's going to be made and the issue that's flying around is $5.5 million. Well, what are we building? And that's really I think from a political standpoint, the survey is going to be the whole cart. Scott: And it is not going to be scientific. It is going to be stacked. I Farmakes: That's my problem. The last time a community center came around, it was a sale&,brochure that came out. It wasn't an informational brochure, it was a safes brochure. Now it came out, the general point of 1 • II Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 54 II it was, we're going to build this and it isn't going to cost you anything. 1 Well who's going to say no to that. Ledvina: I have a question. I don't mean to interrupt but, do you think, and I'll ask each and every one of you, do you think it's possible to gain I a consensus regarding this issue from the Planning Commission or are we... I don't know. I'm not convinced of that. I Farmakes: I just read it. I like your letter. The only thing I'd change on it would be the specific to scientific. I think that it should be statistically valid rather than off the hip or make up your own question I and answer, which the last park survey was. Mancino: Actually I think it would be good to again have a third party to make up the survey and, a marketing research team go out and even have I I focus groups come in and take people from different areas. Farmakes: I believe Morrish qualifies as a third party. I Mancino: Well, though he's been doing work for the city. He has a vest interest. I don't know, I'd like to see somebody who does marketing. 1 Farmakes: See I think it's kind of a volunteer thing. Mancino: Well they can pay for it. They have $5.2 million. 1 Batzli: Let me ask the question. Can they transfer TIF money from one district to another? 1 Aanenson: No. At least that's what I've been told. Batzli: So, you know they have some money that they are going to do I something with or they will lose it and it will be interesting to see what happens here because I think we can all agree that there needs to be money spent on this site, TIF money. But whether it is a gymnasium and a pool or I buying down the land price so that something else goes in there, like we've done in other TIF areas, that's debateable. The thing that concerns me is more global here. I'm not going to talk about what I think here, for a I minute. But from the Planning Commission viewpoint. The thing that I find distressing is in the local paper we're, we as the Planning Commission are being lambasted and we've had cartoons that we're in favor of this and we're part of the problem. We've had a columnist, Jan Dunlop basically I spew all sorts of information that's completely inaccurate it appears, just by glancing over her column. And I think regardless of whether the HRA listens to us or not, or whether the City Council listens to us, we should I do this. Okay. Because they can throw it away if they want, because we're a recommending body but we're also residents of Chanhassen, and if they don't want to listen to us, they don't have to. 1 Scott: It also should be, I think it also should be submitted to the Villager for publication for commentary. I Ledvina: That's fine. II II Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 - Page 55 II Scott: Yeah, because I was disturbed by being painted in a cartoon as I being one in line where we have probably been the least consulted. And it's confusing but that's the, and that's not necessarily the'public view but people like sound bites and they like sight bites and you see a cartoll and it's all over. Batzli: What do you guys down at the end think about giving this to the Villager? I Harberts: I would support it. And I'd like to submit some comments to Matt in terms of the letter because I think it should be pointed out. In ' terms of maybe what the role of the Planning Commission is and we're residents and just be real positive. Like I say, I like the letter but I think realistically here, the deal is something's going to be done there but I think it's good to go on record because what is our role in that we II are residents. Scott: And focus in on too. Before any decisions are made, as it appear they have been about the content of this facility, that an objective thir party needs to scientifically survey a statistically significant sample of residents to assure the objective requirements for the facility. And tha has not been done. Batzli: Well, I have a problem with that just because we as a city have never done that before. We've gone out and spent a lot of money before 11 some of the parks and things that we've done and we've never had a scientific survey before. I understand that there has to be a need and the need should not be concocted by the people that are arguing for the need.' Harberts: Especially when there's been two bond referendums and it's been voted down. I Farmakes: Well we've actually spent the money, the last, I'm referring to the Park and Rec survey that was sent out regarding the community center and the trails issue. And then the one they had after that. Both of thell were extremely poor. But they did not qualify them. They said that they were not scientific surveys. They just said that these were questions, it's a questionnaire form we're sending out. So in fact, they followed ill up with a phone call and asked me comments and have me make up my own questions and answers. So for statistically comparing these comments, I think their mail out was a very small percentage of Chanhassen. And wasn' targeted to age or income so. Harberts: Well and I think our discussion. Farmakes: I question that information. II Harberts: In our discussion earlier, you know with regard to decisions wil make today or for the future. We need some of that valid information. Conrad: But you know what we're missing is some, you know I'm not sure II we're getting vision. You can ask people what do you think but there's another side. What's the vision for this community in 20 years and you really do make a decision. You've got a chance to make a decision now for II II Planning Commission Meeting g i June 2, 1993 - Page 56 something that can go together in 20 years and I don't know that residents I can make that. So I use research all the time but I always want to make sure it's used at the right time. So right now I'm not beating the drums for a community center but it is an opportunity that you wouldn't want to II lose if we felt there was that need. So what I see in Matt's memo is process. And I think that's valid but I think they will cast that, I think they will say well we're doing that. We're doing our research. So I think it's got to be real clear what we're asking for. And not a lot of words. I It can be some real, we want this. We'd recommend this and I think that's important. The other thing that I wrote down, what is it that we believe. These are the, you're more involved, you 6 are more involved than 99% of II the people. More tha 99% of the people in Chanhassen. What's your vision? Not whether you need a hockey rink or handball court but do you have a vision for a downtown resource that you want to start right now? II What is it? That's an opportunity that you can have and that's the type of thing that I'd like to pass along to the City Council. Process is absolutely essential and it seems like it's real screwed up and they've wasted some money. At this point in time I think we should talk about the I process. I'm a little bit worried about going out and asking residents, do you think we need trails. Do you think we need a hockey rink. Do you think we need a handball court. Boy I tell you, unless a focus group can I do some probing that some of the quantitative stuff doesn't bring out. But going back, my biggest concern is, what is our vision for this. Do we care about a hub. Joe said, let's put it out there, which is kind of. 1 Harberts: What kind of hub? Conrad: A hub for transit. Do we care about that? 1 Harberts: Yes we do. I Conrad: Do we care about a city that's not like a Bloomington. You know economically speaking it makes sense to put a recreation facility out by the new school but is that our vision of a community center? A place where a city of 10,000 gets together and does what they do or meets or whatever. I Is it a recreation thing or do we have a vision for a downtown that's beyond just a main street? That's the only thing I'd challenge you all on. Is there something there? You can pick and choose. Well I want a daycare I center or I want this but there's something to, let me give you an example. What's the Edina City Center called? The green, the park. U Aanenson: Edinborough. Conrad: Yeah. Do we have a vision like that? Does anybody care about something like that being in downtown Chanhassen and maybe, and that's just I an atrium type of thing but branching off from this can be private /public funded things. Is that something that we care about or is it not? I Batzli: But see I have a tough time because, I mean I didn't read this until just now when you were talking but I bought into your vision that you expressed to the HRA, Council, whatever that joint session was a month ago or whenever. But I'd also, along with Tim Erhart and several other I Planning Commission people at that time, we expressed our vision back then. And our vision was that this was going to be not a recreation facility but II 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 1993 -- Page 57 ' a gathering place and a hub and open and we didn't want a maze of tunnels" and things like that, that we're getting. And so we expressed our vision and it's been... Conrad: But see actually that's what I want Matt to write about, but I ' don't want to steer how other people want. I think there has to be the center for people. Winter time, summer, I don't care when it is. But then there are some things I don't want. I don't want, you know what I saw wall not very good. You can't get from this side to that side. You've got tunnels. You've got...it just was nothing, it was a conglomeration of sort of a best effort to appease 22 names and none of them mesh together. And it's like I want to make a statement of what I don't want in town and if a, can't do it, you know it gets back, if we can't do it right, let's not do it. Let's not waste somebody's money. Farmakes: I think it's maybe not a correct assumption to assume they hav a definitive need of what will fill up that space. They fall back on work that was done on the convention center. Where they say they have, Hoffmall has a stack this high of needs and it's, well if you get a vocal small group in to do up papers as to why you need indoor professional hockey facilities for the 300 kids that are going to play hockey, well you've go there's a force there. If you've got the rest of the 7,000 people that don't say anything, you don't have a force. And I asked the Chairman of the HRA whether or not they had seen any credible statistical information of what they should put in there. Along with the concepting that was don And the answer was no. Again, I go back to what you said is that we have time line. We have a certain amount of funds that we can spend. We want to play some cards on the development of that area. And it really worriell me that it's a grabbag of uses that will follow that. Whether or not in the long term, as you said, that they play out well. Batzli: Well, it will be interesting to see of course what happens in thl long run. My vision for what it's worth is meeting rooms, for the identified needs that I'm convinced is actually there. Meeting rooms, open space, community gathering space, open, airy, no tunnels and if they have I enough money, because I can't imagine that's going to cost $5.5 million, then buy the land and if you can identify a recreational need downtown, you can build it at a later date. Conrad: It seems so valid to subsidize development in the future but private development. We'll give you the land. Harberts: Isn't that the...of TIF. Isn't that really what the purpose o TIF is? Batzli: Oh yeah. Harberts: To create that tax base so it reduces basically property taxes" for the residents. But TIF has also been used to provide enhanced community facilities. Farmakes: It allows you some control to what comes in. ' Harberts: Well, the carrot. II Planning Commission Meeting II June 2, 1993 - Page 58 II Scott: The carrot and the club. We'll give you the money but you have to do this. Batzli: I mean why they can't go to the YMCA or somebody and give them the 1 land and give them a million dollars for the building and have them build it, better than we could ever do it. Run it better and we have no responsibility for making or losing money is beyond me. II Scott: There's one reason. Batzli: Well yeah, they lose control. 111 Scott: Exactly and all that schedulable space and facilities falls out of the jurisdiction of the city. I Batzli: But that's how it should be. And if there's still a need once you bring in a YMCA or do something like that, well then turn to the school and 1 . build a gym or pool or whatever you've got to do. Scott: But if it were a good business decision, there'd be one there now. I Farmakes: I'm waiting until we come out and we're going to build a covered baseball field. A dome. I Harberts: It's coming. Farmakes: Yeah right, for our Little League. II Mancino: I want to see a golf course in the middle of the city. Batzli: A golf course? We had a golf course subcommittee going last year. II Mancino: Whatever happened? I Batzli: Joan gave it up. They couldn't convince the Mayor so we gave up on a golf course. Conrad moved, Scott seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor I and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :20 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss II Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim II II • • II II 1 4 2 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 10, 1993 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Brian Beniek, Craig Bletcha, Dave Demmer, Dave Johnson, Eldon Berkland, Bill Bernhjelm, Don Chmiel COUNCIL PRESENT: Richard Wing 1 STAFF PRESENT: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director Bob Zydowsky, Public Safety Officer ' Sgt. Julie Boden Jim McMahon, Fire Chief Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal 1 Chairman Beniek opened the meeting at 7:00 PM. Commissioner Berkland motioned, Commissioner Bernhjelm seconded, to approve the 5/13/93 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion passed. FIRE DEPARTMENT Chief McMahon reported that May was a very active month, as is June. McMahon 1 discussed with the commission a concern for long term planning, including the possible need for a 3rd fire station (sub station). Discussion was had on the need for research. Eldon Berkland and Bill Bernhjelm volunteered to meet to research on this issue. ' As a Chanhassen Fire Department representative, Brian Beniek attended an award P P 1 ceremony at Waconia's Ridgeview Hospital sponsored by Carver County Health Services, where Richard Wing was presented with "EMS Provider Of the Year ". The Commission commended Wing for his accomplishment. 1 Commissioner Beniek informed the Commission that a drill on a hazardous material spill at McGlynn's will take place on June 21, 1993, at 6:30 PM. This drill is being coordinated by Fire Marshal Mark Littfin, and the Commission and Council are welcome to come and observe. ' SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Sgt. Boden reported that juvenile problems at Fillies seems to be gone, due to extra patrol in the area. Sgt. Boden advised the Comittission that three burglaries have occurred in Chanhassen. 1 Investigations are occurring. BUILDING DEPARTMENT: Continues to be very busy. Numerous projects and and developments are coming in daily. / 4 1 June 10, 1993 1 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT 1 Fire Marshal Mark Littfin gave a presentation on fire sprinkler systems and the current requirements in the City of Chanhassen. Discussion was had on the benefits of fire sprinklers and costs involved for permits and installation. The Public Hearing on shooting boundaries has been scheduled for July 8, 1993, at 7 PM in the Council Chambers. Public Safety Officer Bob Zydowsky was present to report to the Commission on the I increased activity in animal control. Discussion was had on the length of the 1994 contract and the need for additional staff. Commissioner Berkland motioned, Commissioner Blechta seconded, to recommend to the Council to enter into a two year contract with the animal 1 control contracting cities, and to consider a third part-time CSO if work load supports it. All voted in favor, and the motion passed. Scott Harr passed around one of the vehicle opticon units that will be installed by the end P Y of the summer. Dave Johnson Hwy 5 status: reported on the H 1) Land use alternatives to be discussed at P ) their next scheduled meeting; 2) Overpass for Hwy 101 & Hwy 5 has been approved. Director ecto Harr reported on two resignations in the Public Safety Department. Building Inspector Steve Nelson is leaving to take a position as Building Official for the City of Shorewood, and CSO Rob Nordlund is leaving to take a position as a sheriff's deputy with Hennepin County. Discussion had on the concern for the excessive traffic on Kerber Boulevard due to the 1 detour, and that the speed should be reduced. Commissioner Blechta motioned, Commissioner Johnson seconded, to request that Director Harr ask that the Engineering I reduce the speed limit on Kerber Boulevard from 40 MPH to 30 MPH on a temporary basis _ during the road closure on Powers Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion passed. Commissioner Blechta expressed concerns over the need for a walking trail along Hwy 101. I Commissioner Beniek motioned, Commissioner Bernhjelm seconded to endorse implementing a walking trail along Hwy 101, and to submit a letter to the Council I supporting this endorsement. All voted in favor and the motion passed. Commissioner Blechta will write the letter for the Commission. Commissioner Beniek motioned, Commissioner Bernhjelm seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 PM. 1 1