1992 05 06CHANHASSEN PLPd~NI~ COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETIN~
NAY 6, 1992
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd ¢on~ad, Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmtngs,
Brian Batzli, 3elf Farmakes and Joan Ahrens
ST~FF PRE~ENT: Kate Aanenson, Planner II; Sharmin A1-3aff, Planner !; and
Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician
B/~CKGROUNO HF_MORANDUH REG/~RDZNG RECREATiONaL BE/~{_OT NON-C~ORH~NI~ .USE
P~RHTTS,
Batzli: Did you want to say anything on this?
Aanenson: Yeah. I'd just like to make sure we're all clear on the process
that we're going through here. I mean this is for the benefit of the
audience too but as you recall, we went through whether or not we should go
with the 1981 or 1991 inventory and the Council back in February 24th
adopted the 1981 status is what we should go back as a beachlot. So what
we're trying to do here tonight is determine what was in place and was
grandfathered in 1981. Now not all of the things in a beachlot can be
corrected. Making them non-conforming. We can't go back and increase the
acreage or the frontage or those sorts of.things so what we're trying to
look at here and what we've highlighted for you is the things that we can
try to bring back to what was it was like iN 1981. Mostly that falls in
the category of the boats and the length of the dock, but also includes
some other things like swimming rafts. We tried to highlight those in the
memo. In addition, the concern came up that the ordinance does say that
you've got one year to come into compliance. Now we've asked people to try
to come through this process but to be fair because we won't be able to get
through all the process maybe until the end of August. That really the
ordinance does say you've got one year to come into compliance so we felt
it would be fair that even though we've taking them through the process
now, that they become effective February '24th of 1993. So they'd all be
consistent whether they go through first or last. So if everybody's Clear
with the process, that's the route we'll be taking.
Conrad: Can we impose additional conditions?
Aanenson: I think the intent is to go back to try to establish what they
were grandfathered in with. Some of them have conditional, uses on them
like have come in for separate conditional uses like a portable toilet or
something like that. Under those circumstances, I would think you could do
that.
Batzli: Do you want to reask your question?
Conrad: I'm thinking about how to pull the lots more into conformity or
more under the intent of the ordinance. Maybe not into the letter of the
law but at least trying to assume that ~hich would mean issues like
buffering.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 2
Batzli: So if for example there's a dispute as to whether there was 2 or 4
boats, just by way of example, and you decided to go to'4 boats, would you
need additional buffering as a condition?
Conrad: Something like that.
Aanenson: It sounds like a question for the attorney. I'm not sure.
We're looking at grandfathering. If we're moving outside of that arena to
go into looking at a separate conditional use, because we're trying to
create a non-conforming permit. I'm not really sure on that. I guess we
.would make a recommendation to the City Council and we can make that
determination at that point.
Batzli: Okay. Having said that, we'll move along to the first public
hearing.
pUeL~C HEARING:
NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FO~ R R~CREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR MINNEWASHTA CREEK
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Public Present:
Mary Jo Moore
Dana Johnson
Ken Hannemann
Billie Windschitl
Terry Thompson
3231 Dartmouth Drive
Minne. washta Parkway
6580 Joshua Circle
Minnewashta Creek Association
Minnewashta'Creek Association
Aanenson: I'd just like to make a couple points of clarification on this.
There was some misunderstanding between t'he Homeowners Association and the
staff. There is a pontoon boat being moored on the site. We kept asking
who it belongs to because the adjoining property owner, Mr. Johnson is
concerned because it appears that it's really on his property. We kept
asking the association, is it their boat? No, it's not their boat. Well
they were misunderstanding what they were saying. Yes, it belongs to
someone in the association but it's not the association's boat. So .there
is a pontoon boat out there,
Farmakes: Did that person live?
Aanenson: In the association, yes.
Farmakes: They belong to the association but do they live there?
Aanenson: Yes. Yes he does. $o the application'that you have before you
shows no. They're requesting no boats because they felt like that's what
they had in 1981. But the gentleman here that has the.boat is requesting
that he be able to maintain that boat.
Batzli: You're getting ahead of me a little bit. Let's back up. The way
we will conduct the hearings is I 'will first ask for a staff report. If
there are any issues that need further explanation and then I will request
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 3
that the Association representative address us if they so desire at that
time. We'd like to hear your suggestions or comments regarding why you
believe, if for example you're asking f. or something that's in addition to
what we think was in our 1981-baseline. We'd like you to be able to
present those things and be fairly heard but I would ask that you be brief
and try to limit your comments to S minutes if at all possible and then if
there's someone else that feels they have something in addition to and not
just state what we've just heard, I'd be happy to hear them as well. If
that sounds reasonable. So Kate, if you want to go ahead now.
Aanenson: Okay. I'm sorry about that. Okay Just so there is a boat on
there that they are asking for. I didn't show that in the report, and they
hadn't requested it either. They did come back last summer, excuse me in
1991 to ask for a conditional use for a portable toilet. They do want to
maintain that conditional use status. They are asking for the swimming
raft which they didn't have in place in 1981 either. If you look at the
sheet where we've shown the permit kind of crossing what we're showing that
we recommending. We've shown what they are requesting and then we've left
kind of blanks for the issues that you really need to determine. Those
being the number of picnic tables, the campfire grills, the swimming beach
and the swimming raft. Again, just for some clarification.
Batzli: Under the ordinance, what are the numbers that would be allowed
for picnic tables, grills, campfires?
Aanenson: We don't have a problem with 4. There's no 'restriction on that.
I just want to make one point too. I'm not sure if it's clear on the cover
that their covenants, which I have included in here stated, which they came
back to the City in 1979, stated that there would be no structures erected
or maintained upon the property. No docks, piers, boat racks, or canoe
racks will be constructed or erected or'maintained upon the beachlot. That
was part of their original covenants.
Batzli: Would the Association representative like to address us at this
time?
Ken Hannemann: Sure.
Batzli: If you could give us your name please.
Ken Hannemann: My name is Ken Hannemann and i'm the co-president of the
Association. I live at 6580 Joshua Circle. Basically what I've done, I
filled out the request form and basically.what we've asked for is the raft
and the portable chemical toilet that we received a conditional use permit
last year. There is an issue regarding the number of boats moored and the
inventory that was transmitted to us in 1981. We have two homeowners here
tonight who have been residing in our association since 1979 and 1980 and
contend that they were grandfathered into and have the right to moor a boat
down at the beachlot. One being a-pontoon boat, which would be very
difficult to move back and forth, in and out of the water. The other just
a normal boat. It's their contention that they have been in the
Association prior to the baseline and were led to believe that they could
moor boating out in the water. We're not allowed to have a dock of course
so mooring was the only option for them at the time. They are here-to
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 4
speak directly at that issue-and I've kind of just summarized the
circumstances here.
Batzli: Is it the Association's request that you get two boats or are
these individuals not acting through the Association?
Ken Hannemann: I would say it's the Association's request. I don"t think
we have a problem with the boats being there. It's an issue with the
adjoining properties and so forth.
Emmings: Is your Association asking that the boats that are 'moored be
moored in front of the beachlot or continue to be moored in front of other
neighboring properties?
Ken Hannemann: Well that's a good question because our beachlot is only 60
feet.
Emmings: And you have a swimming beach, is that right?
Ken Hannemann: Right.
Emmings: $o are you asking that the boats be moored in front of the
beachlot or directly out from the beachlot?
Ken Hannemann: Yeah.
Emmings: That's what the Association wants? You want them moored in your
swimming area?
Ken Hannemann: Well, they're right on the property line now so it still
affords us swimming area off to the side.
Emmings: Okay, just wondered.
Ken Hannemann: $o you may have an issue with the easements and so forth.
We haven't had a problem in'the past with the pontoon being moored-probably
right on or a little bit over the property lines.
Emmings: You understand that there is a setback from the property line of
feet?
Ken Hannemann: Right. And if t'hat setback were to be imposed, in essense
the pontoon would have to sit right in the middle of the lot. And if
that's the case, then I guess we couldn't live with that as the
Association. Because it would have to sit almost right in the middle of
the beachlot so swimmers would have to go around.
Emmings: That's why I'm asking the question and' I guess I'm clear then on
what, does the Association want the pontoon and/or the'other boat to be out
there but on the property line or over the-property line in front of other
other neighboring property?
Ken Hannemann:
an issue.
I would say as close on the property line. Which could be
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 5
Emmings: Could be.
Ken Hannemann: We do have the two homeowners here· that are contending that
they be accepted and be inventoried in this 1981 inventory so I would
invite them to come up and address the Commission at this time.
Billie Windschitl: My name is 8illie Windschitl and I'Ve live in
Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Association since 1979 and we've·had our boat
moored in the water in front of our beachlot. Well actually we had it a
little off the boundaries of our beachlot because there was an older women
that lived next door to us in·this old house and she passed away last year
and that's when the new homeowners came. But I heard somebody mention the
name 3ohnson. Now to my knowledge Mr. 3ohnson doesn't own that property
but I don't know. Mr. Lurid does. Mr. Ken Lurid and Terry and, Mr.
Thompson and Brian and I, we've had our boats out there for 12 years and
it's never been a problem.
8atzli: Do you have the pontoon boat?
Billie Windschitl: No. I have the regular boat.
8atzli: Okay. Sorry.
Billie Windschitl: It's regular. It's like a 16 foot.
Batzli: Is this moored on the opposite side of the property then than the
pontoon boat?
Billie Windschitl: No, it's like righC past the pontoon boat. And they're
not close to, they're nowhere near the swimming area. As far as safety
goes, we never ever start our boats anywhere near the swimming area. Only
past the swimming raft that's been out there since about 1985. Because
nobody would swim out there. In other words, we wouldn,t start our motor
in the swimming area. I mean I don't know what to say. We've always had
our boat there before, let's see it must have been a year before the 1981
paper so.
·
Emmings: Could I ask you ma'am? Is the 16 foot boat, is it a runabout or
what kind of a boat is it?
Billie Windschitl: It's like a ski boat. It's a Starcraft.
Emmings: And when you say it's moored out there. How is it kept in one
place? Is it on a lift?
Billie Windschitl: No. It just has a anchor.
Emmings: Is it moored to a buoy?
Billie Windschitl: It's anchored in front and in the back.
Emmings: Is it in front of the neighboring property?
8illie Windschitl: It was in front of the neighboring property.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page $
Emmings: Last year?
Billie Windschitl: Yes.
Emmings: Every year?
Billie Windschitl: Every year when that older woman lived there because it
never bothered her. She never came out of her house.
Emmin~s: And what would you ask us to do about that? Are you asking us,
do you want to keep parking your boat .in front of the neighboring property?
Billie Windschitl: No.
Emmings: What do you want to do?
Billie Windschitl: I just want to leave it 'in the water so that we can use
it everyday.
Emmings: $o then you want it in front of the beachlot?
Billie Windschitl: Right.
Emmings: And you understand there's a 10 foot setback.
Billie Windschitl: Is it from the beach?
Emmings: From the extended lot lines. You extend the lot lines into the
water. There's a setback on each side I think of 10 feet.
Billie Windschitl: So it has to be 10 feet in front the edge of the lot
line?
Emmings: Well that's what the ordinance says.
8illie Windschitl: Or lO feet from the beach?
Emmings: No. In from the lot line'
8illie Windschitl: It's a 70 foot.
Emmings: Well regardless of the width, you want it then in the area in
front of the beachlot?
Billie Windschitl: Right. And you know we've never had a problem with it
and I don't know, for us to take our boat in and.out every single night, it
isn't going to make a lot of sense. And if nobody's complaining, I don't
understand the problem. Why the problem even came up.
Emmings: I think you can see the problem is that the neighbor doesn't want
it in front of his house. And the Association doesn't want it in .front of
the beachlot.
Planning Commission Meeting
Hay 6, 1992 - Page 7
Billie Windschitl: No, they didn't say that.
·
Ken Hannemann: If it has to be in the middle, then we really couldn't..
8illie Windschitl: But if you were out far enough, would it make any
difference? That's why I mean. I don't think they want it in the swimming
area but'it's far enough out that you have to swim to it to get to it.
Yeah, the pontoon's on a lift.
Emmings. Okay, thanks.
Batzli: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission?
The pontoon boat owner for example.
Terry Thompson: No.
Batzli: No? Okay. Anyone else like to address the Commission?
Dana Johnson: My name is Dana Johnson. I've just acquired the property
next to these people. Back in 1991 they came to one of the Planning
Commission's, just like this tonight, and they objected to me about having
two docks on my property. Me and Ken Lurid and so we did get set back to
have just one dock and the reason was because of the boat traffic. These
people are asking for now to put a pontoon boat and motorboat out in front.
At the same time they did limit it. Tom Krueger, that represented the
Minnewashta Creek Recreational Beachlot, fought me, just limiting me to one
dock on my property. Okay. And limiting-my boat space also. $o, and then
the other thing too was that the ordinance says you have to be 10 feet from
the lot line. Number 3, the question is why didn't they put on the
application, on the beachlot application, why didn't they put that they
were requesting a boat and a pontoon at the same time?' Now instead of
coming here and applying for it now. I guess I wasn't-even aware of it.
I just happened to come tonight just to check it out. Let's see. And
number three, there's nothing written in the ordinance in Minnewashta 8each
saying that there is, that they.can moor a boat there at this time. To my
knowledge, as Kathryn said earlier, that it's outlawed in their ordinance
and so forth. $o those are some of the things I did want to address. At
this time there is a boat and a pontoon boat out there. At this time.
Batzli: Did you buy the property' last summer?
Dana 3ohnson: I bought it about 2 weeks ago.
officially own it now.
I closed on it.
$o I
Batzli: Do you object to them having the boats there or do you object to
them being in front of your lot?
Dana Johnson: Nell I guess since they're Objecting, the whole Minnewashta
Creek Recreational Beachlot was represented here last year stating that
I can only have one dock on my property. Ken Lund also is buying the other
half of the property which is-going to be located near to them. He can't
make it here tonight so I guess I'm representing us both because it's still
in my name totally. $o I guess legally I can speak for the whole thing. I
guess like I said earlier, just because they took and limited my boat
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 8
access, I guess I have to object to their boat on-the property. I'm giving
you Ken Lund's feelings also on this due to the fact that he doesn't want
it on his side of the property either.
Batzli: Okay. I think the answer was.
Farmakes: That's the oppqsing lot on the opposite side?
Dana 3ohnson: I'm sorry.
Farmakes: You're talking about Ken Lund. Ken owns the one lot or?
Dana 3ohnson: I own it all right now but I have split the lot. Okay. Ken
Lund will be owning on their side of the association.
Emmings: Ken Lund is immediately north of the beachlot and he's then the
next lot to the north.
Dana Johnson: Right.
Batzli: Not to belabor this point. Nhen I asked the question I think you
ended up, it started out that you were'objecting to the'both boats but then
you ended up by saying that you don't want it on your lot.
Dana Johnson: Well my lot legally is the whole thing right now.
Batzlt:. Correct. Correct. But you don't want it in.front of Mr. [und's
lot?
Dana 3ohnson: That's correct. I'm speaking for Mr. Lund.
Batzli: Do you really object to the fact that they have two boats if they
kept them in front of their beachlot?
Billie Windschilt: Remember, we're not Tom Krueger and we didn't know
anything about.
Terry Thompson: I have to apologize for Tom Krueger. I didn't know
anything like that went on. I swear to Sod. When did this happen?
Batzli: You guys can discuss this after. 5xcuse me.
Terry Thompson: We're neighbors. I don't want to start fighting with my
neighbors.
Dana Johnson: No, I don't either.
Conrad: I don't even know if it's an issue between you. It's not an issue
between the two parties. There are regulations as to how many docks so
it's not like the beachlot, your beachlot would have said you can't have
two docks. There are ordinances that say that so don't feel like that was
the situation.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 9
Dana Johnson: My question is, I'm speaking for Ken Lund tonight and he
wanted me to express those feelings. That he does object to the boat.
Batzli: Okay. Thank you.
Mary 30 Moore: I'm Mary 30 Moore. I live on Dartmouth Drive inbetween two
beachlots. One conforming, one non-conformin9 and I 9uess I object to any
expansion of the non-conforming beachlot. ! don't think a swimming dock
and, a raft is fine for the swimming beach-but I don't think it's conducive
with motorboats. Just for a safety factor if nothing else. And Z don't
think this Council can rule whether a boat can be moored in front of
somebody else's property. And the Association's already said they won't
accept it on their beach so I think the boat issue should be just closed
right now. And I do object to any expansion beyond the '81 numbers.
8atzli: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission?
Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed.
Ahrens: Is the Association objecting having the boats in the beachlot
area?
Ken Hannemann: I don't think so as long as it doesn't interfere with the
swimming. However, the lot being 60 feet wide, Ne can put restrictions...
Terry's pontoon and it could be kind of difficult to achieve. Unless we
put it out further. On the lake.
Ahrens: Where's the pontoon boat located?
Terry Thompson: Right on the property line.
Ken Hannemann: Right on Mr. Johnson's Property line and our's right now.
Ahrens: $o there may be some problems with the Association if you can't
find this up.
Ken Hannemann: If they kept it in the middle we probably would have
problems. If they could keep it where it is or even a little bit further .
back, that shouldn't be an issue. A lot of the children in the Association.
are smaller and swim in the shallow water. And to my knowledge no one else
in the Association has formally complained to me while I've been the
co-president that Terry and Billie's boats were causing a problem. Or in
years past.
Emmings: But they've never been parked in front of the beachlot right?
Billie Windschilt: Yes. Oh absolutely.
Emmings: Oh, okay. But that's on the lot line.
Terry Thompson: That's on the lot line and mine's been there for 12 years
on the lot line.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 10
Ahrens: But if you move that pontoon boat in 10 feet, that would be the
swimming area?
Ken Hannemann: Yes...
Terry Thompson: Is there an ordinance...from being moved out? ..
Ahrens: Past the raft?
Conrad: Not one of our's but the DNR might'have. You can't be a hazard.
If you're a hazard to boat traffic.
Ken Hannemann: If the raft is out beyond where the pontoon would be, is
there a restriction on how far out it can go?
Ahrens: There may be because the DNR has restrictions on that.
Ken Hannemann: Because in year's past we did put the raft out...further
down the shore from our's.
Aanenson: It could become an obstacle if it's out too far and the DNR
would have to make an interpretation. That'd be the instruction.
Farmakes: I have a question on the Minutes. -Page 44 of the City Council
meeting. July 8, 1991. The top. You're the current president of
Minnewashta Creek Association?
Ken Hannemann: Myself and Joan Ska'llman are co-presidents...
Farmakes: Well this is her comment here. She's talking about, if we have
a conflict with the owner of the boat mainly because they sold the property
in 1978. They're talking about a pontoon boat. Is that the pontoon boat
that we're talking about here? You're the owner?
Terry Thompson: Yes.
Farmakes: Where do you presently live? Do you live in the development?
Terry Thompson: Right across the street. First house in 'the development.
Right across the street. I walk across 'the street and get on the boat.
Farmakes: Okay, but you live in the development, correct?
Terry Thompson: Yep.
Farmakes: Okay. Because I construed this to mean that you no longer lived
in the development.
Ken Hannemann: This is in error. That's what-Kate talked about earl'let
that she was under the...
Aanenson: We called the Association and asked if this boat belonged to the
Association and they kept telling us no. It wasn't until today that they
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 11
said, oh it belongs to someone in the Association but not the Association.
It was a misunderstanding.
Farmakes: Okay, so you're a card carrying member of the Ninnewashta Creek
Association right? I don't know. It would seem to me the solution would
be to move it out as far as you could, I know this is very difficult for
riparian rights because the problem i's that it's a confusing issue. There
are overlapping jurisdictions. Not only, I called somebody at the State
DNR, Department of Waters today trying to figure out what this is
because I've heard so many different definitions of where the jurisdictions
fall. The comment they made was, it's depending on the lake but in this
particular case, there are overlapping jurisdictions here. The fact of
what it says on your deed means nothing. The City or the State still has
jurisdiction in the matter and it's overlapping. What they go with is the
lead, the most restrictive of the Covenants. So I noticed that there's
less argument with this and yours than some of the others but I guess my
heart kind of goes out to the people who purchase things that they believe
were right in the past. A lot of this problem has to do with the people
who are selling you the property. They basically were selling you Tights
that you didn't have the right to sell you. Buyer beware. Unfortunately
the City also has an obligation to maintain some sense as people buy a 60
foot lot and they want to put 20 boats in it. It's not conducive to safety
or good relations with your neighbors. I would hope on this thing, it
seems to'me that this is a reasonable, if you can move that out, or that
boat out farther, that this would solve this problem. What they presently
have on here compared to what they had in 1981 seems to be...
Erhart: The way I understand this is that the boat, up until a'year oF two
ago, really parked, was somebody's boat parked in front of somebody else's
lot. Up until a year ago you had really no relationship to this beachlot.
Only the last year was it in front of the beach. So the precedent there is
only a year or two. The pontoon boat however you're saying has been parked
as part of this beachlot for 12 years?
Terry Thompson: 12 yeats. Her's has too.
Erhart: It was parked in front of private, somebody else's property.
Billie Windschilt: No. I said it was parked right on the property line.
Terry Thompson: The old woman that lived there, she never used the lake or
even come out of her house. Ne moved it over a little bit on front of her
house but she didn't ever complain or nothing. And the pontoon's been out
there for 12 years. .On a lift. On the property line.
Erhart: Okay, and you're both members o'~ the Association?
Terry Thompson: Right.
Erhart: Well I tell you the problem with this whole thing is, we're going.
to have to all sit here and say, we're going to have to develop some
philosophy about what we're going to'do with these things. How many have
we got coming in this summer?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 12
Aanenson: 12.
Erhart: And then the problem is, if you don't do that, we can be
inconsistent from one to the next.
Batzli: We're developing a philosophy as we speak right now.
Erhart: Okay, can we pass it on then? Let it develop some more.
Batzli: Sure. Ladd, go ahead.
Conrad: I Just got to repeat some, and we're going to repeat, a lot of
stuff but the boats have been there for 12 years. Both boats.-
Terry Thompson: Both boats.
Aanenson: That's what they're saying.
Terry Thompson: And they have been.
Conrad: But we don't have an inventory? When we did it.
Aanenson: Whoever did the inventory back in 1981 didn't appear to be any
boats.
Terry Thompson: I can get affidavits swearing that they've been there.
Roy Leech, he launches and pulls my boat out every spring and fall .. He's
got a pontoon trailer. I mean I didn't come here to lie to you. It's been
there for 12 years.
Aanenson: And maybe it was because it was on the property line of the
neighbor's property.
Conrad: You're going to have to bear with us because we are going to be
watching 12 different groups come and we're trying to be consistent and so
far we are not quite sure how we're going to do that. We're scrambling a
little bit here.
Ken Hannemann: We're the first one?
Conrad: You're the first one.-We thought you were going to be the easy
one. At least I did. Kate. There was a public notice sent. It was
published in the paper. Notice sent to Who?
Aanenson: On this one?
Conrad: Yeah.
Aanenson: Everyone on Lake Min~ewashta add then the Homeowners
Association.
Conrad: Everybody on the lake?
Aanenson: Yes.
Planning Commission Heeting
Hay 6, 1992 - Page 13
Conrad: Every resident?
Emmtngs: I didn't get one. I live on the lake and I didn't get one. I
knew it was coming up however, because I got my packet but .I didn't get
one.
Batzli: But it was everyone on the lake plus the-entire homeowners
association should have gotten on.
Ken Hannemann: I got a copy and I forwarded it.
Batzli: You sent to every house within the?-
Aanenson: No, the president..
Batzli: 3ust the president? Okay.
Conrad: And that's okay for homeowners associations. I think that makes
sense. But lakeshore, I'm real concerned about the neighbors on either
side. We know we have one here but I don't know who else. I've got to be
real careful. The swimming raft, in my mind, as long as the neighbors
aren't protesting that raft, I don't see a problem with it. So I guess
philosophically and I'm going to try to tell you some opinions here. I'm
going to do a couple things. I'm going to try for myself sink everything
into the current standard but also use 1981 as a guideline. If I can. And
some things will be in concert with what I hear neighbors saying. If
they're complaining about something, I'm going to be real sensitive to that
so that the raft, I don't see a problem with because I haven't heard the
neighbors complaining a great deal about that. Which talks about
intensification of use. And I'm not hearing that that's a problem. But
I'm assuming Kate that neighbors got the notice.. So some people did but
anyway, so the raft is okay. I guess the boats moored ' If there were 2
boats there in 1981, and we have an affidavit sworn to the fact that there
were. And because it's less than what our ordinance would allow. Even
though that wouldn't be a beachlot today but it is less than what our
ordinance would allow today, I would feel comfortable with the 2 boats.
But the 2 boats have got to be in front of the beachlot and can't, have to
consider the 10 foot setback. That's real important. The neighbors have
to have that space. Especially, that's real critical so I think ho~ this
gets worded later on, it's going to be a beachlot. It's going to be your
Association that has to straight this out and I'd rather have you
straighten it out than us.
Billie Wtndschilt: We have a neighbor on the other side that's...a'nd I
don't think he would have a problem if we put the b6ats...
Conrad: What we don't know, doesn't hurt us. If that's.comfortable for
him, that's your relationship. We'd rather have your relationship. The
ordinance is there to protect Your neighbor and if he feels comfortable or
if they feel comfortable that you're doing that, that's between the two of
you. Those are my comments.
Dana 3ohnson: I just have a question here. How could the other neighbors
comment when it was never really on the application in the first place?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1792 - Page 14
When they applied.
Batzli-' That's why, I'd just like to say that what we're going to do here.
tonight is make a recommendation. We've had the public hearing. The
neighbor, all the neighbors will, it will go in front of the City Council,
and Dick?
Richard Wing: I happen to represent that neighbor. He had called me...
Emmings: This is now the lot south of the beachlot?
Richard Wing: That's correct. Chick Anding did call me specifically and
I'm Richard Wing. City Council. And I realize this is a hardy issue and
you're going to have some difficult decisions and I'm hoping that the
decisions will be made here because we don't want to deal with them. We
don't have the time and we'll be there for days on end if you can't resolve
these. At any rate, in regards to Hr. Anding. He did call me. He said he
had heard a rumor that they had asked for docks and so 'on and so forth.
Apparently having to do with some Hinutes from an annual meeting. I did
call Kate and specifically ask what the permit Nas. She stated it was as
status quo. No boats. No docks. I just referred that 'information to him.
At that point he saw no reason to pursue this. He is concerned and he does
care. About that issue. And if there were requests for docks or boats, he
would clearly be here tonight. That's my opinion and ! can't speak for
him.
Conrad: The issue is on the applicant it said no boats because of their
misunderstanding of what, who owns the boat.
Richard Wing: The application, because it stated no boats. He was
comfortable that it was status quo and it took no action on his part.
Ahrens: Dick, did he say he objects to the pontoon? The pontoon is right
next to his property.
Richard Wing: No. No. The pontoon boat is on Mr. 3oh'nson's property.
Terry Thompson: It's not on MT. 3ohnson's property. It's on the property
line.
Richard Wing: Well, alright. It's on t~e property line. However, the
moored boat was on Mr. 3ohnson's property and that was an issue because
that's what prompted the recent City 'ordinance update. And I frankly, as
long as I 'm here, am concerned because we put a lot of time and effort into
the restructuring of the, it's not the beachlot ordinance but the lake
useage ordinance. And a couple things came out of that that are in effect
at this time. Number one is that you have to moor the boat in front of
your house if you own property. As it was before, in theory you could own
it anywhere you want to. City ordinance now requires that you moor the
boat in front of your property specifically. There is no leeway.. Also,
and I don't think staff has informed you of this adequately because these
ordinances are in effect and I'm very sensitive about this dock setback
zone. I don't think that's gotten enough issue tonight. If it comes to
the Council, I'm going to enforce the dock setback zone and it has to be
Planning Commission Heeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 15
part of every permit that comes in. Whether it's my home or anybody else's
home or a recreational beachlot. And that says, the dock setback. No
boat, portion thereof, raft, moored boat, boatlift can be in the dock
setback zone. That's to protect the neighbor from neighbor. It protects
the creek owners from Mr. 3ohnson throwing out his boat or pontoon or dock
straight out his property line and cutting off their lake useage. Or on
the other side. In theory Mr. Andin~ and Mr. 3obnson could put docks
straight out their property lines and cut this beach off altogether.
That's not fair and reasonable, nor is it fair to them to 'tncringe on their
property. So the dock setback had unanimous support of the City Council.
Emmings: And that's the 10 feet that you're 'talking about?
Richard Wing: That's the 10 feet. $o I believe that the permit, and staff
should be making that clear. And I think I've made it clear and I think
the Council's made it clear that we support the dock setback and the
permits are going to require dock setbacks.
Farmakes: What about the issue on the. report from the Director. It talks
aobut the setback but it also says that there's a'limit as to who can dock
in front of the property. It says here that you're changing that to
eliminate that.
..
Richard Wing: Okay, a non-riparian lot is different than a riparian lot.
The.riparian lot has to be owner or blood relative to have a boat. 'So I
can have a boat or a blood relative. Now on the Associations, that's
irrelevant.
Farmakes: Unless there's a differentiation between the term moorage and
dockage. Did the city make a differentiation between .that?
Aanenson: Yes.
Richard Wing: Clearly. A moored boat cannot in it's mooring be within the
dock setback zone.
Farmakes: The DNR says anything that confines a boat is a mooring.
Whether it's a dock or something you tie it up to a tree.
Richard Wing: Well, because of this problem and the fact that the boat was
physically on Mr. Johnson's property, this is one that percipitated i't.
There was a couple on Lotus I believe also. Or Minnewashta Heights that
just clearly put boat lifts 10-20 feet over in the neighbor's property and
finally someone had to draw the line. There had to be a game play that was
fair for everybody. I keep within my property'lines. Everyone is expected
to do the same. 3ust the fact that they have 60 homes On a 40 foot lot
such as Minnewashta Heights doesn't justify they take over the side
properties. $o I'll just put that out and again, I believe that staff
ought to represent those ordinances.
Aanenson: Can I make a clarification on that? And I know Dick has
concerns about that. I did speak to Ro~er on this. First of all, it
wasn't addressed in this specific instance because they weren't asking.
The application came in with no boats, okay. $o we didn't address it.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 16
Secondly, I asked Roger Knutson, City Attorney, how does grandfathering
apply to this? Well, if they were in a certain area and they had their
dock in place and it exceeded what our dock ordinance has placed, they
would still have the same grandfather rights whether it met the dock
setback zone or not. SO that comes into play. So it wasn't addressed on
this specific one because my understanding was, and it wasn't clear until
this afternoon, that those boats belonged to someone in the Association.
And the application came in with none. We called people last week and they
still told us, no. They're not association boats. So we were very
confused.
Farmakes: So if the other lot owner agrees to them moving their boats over
in front of and mooring?
Aanenson: No.
Farmakes: That does not come under, that would not be allowed uhder the
ordinance?
Emmings: Right.
Btllie Windschilt: What about if we just keep within our own area? We
discussed that. I didn't know anything about the setbacks.
Farmakes: I don't know that, the setback that I got from the DNR today was
4 feet so I don't know how that plays into navigational hazards. Or if
they'll give you a variance on that.
Batzli: Ladd, were you complete?
Conrad: I'm done.
Dana Johnson: I'd just like to make one more comment on this.
.
Batzli: Excuse me sir. Please. Let's complete and you'll get another
opportunity, believe me.
Ledvina: Okay. I guess one thing, if we do act on this this evening, we
would have to. or I feel the need for the approval for the action on this
to include a condition which would require affidavits from the two boat
owners that the 1981 survey was in error.
Terry Thompson: 1986 was too.
Ledvina: Okay. Well, if we can go to that point and because our baseline
is the 1981 survey and I think we need to stick to that. As it relates to
the boats that had been-moored since 1981 or sooner, I think that would be
acceptable and then also as stated here, the setback ~equirements.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Steve.
Emmings: Well, I don't if this is as difficult as we're making it. Maybe
it is but I guess Just my feeling.on this is, number one. .It's obvious
that boats that are there can't be parked in front of somebody else's
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 17
property no matter what else you do. And they can't be within 10 feet of
the lot line either. And now it seems to me the boats are in the swimming
beach and I think that's a real serious problem but ! think it's an
association problem. I don't see anything in the, whether those boats
would have been grandfathe~ed in as far as the city ordinance is concerned,
had they been parked in front of the beachlot since !979, I'don't know, but
I don't think it matters because those aren't the 'facts. Then I look at
the conditional use permit for the beachlot that the City of'Chanhassen is
a party to and I don't see anything in there that allows any boats in front
of the beachlot. So I don't know what, they can't be grandfathered in with
respect to the covenants that set up the association and the beachlot.
don't think.
Erhart: Steve, is this the '79 document that you're looking at?
Emmings: Yeah. So I don't really, I guess the application we got from the-
homeowners association does not ask that we approve any boats.
Terry Thompson: I didn't know we had to get an approvement for a boat in
the lake. I didn't know.
Emmings: Now wait. I've got the floor. The homeowners association has
not asked us to approve any boats. I want to know from the homeowners
association if they're asking for boats now, with this application.
Because we've got to act on this application tonight.
Ken Hannemann: And as the co-president, I would say we should have changed
that to reflect two boats. I filled it out wrong I guess you could say
because I just pretty much reiterated the inventory in 1981 figuring that
we weren't going to be allowed two boats...or be able-to moor boats because
the inventory showed zero. Therefore, we would be...
Emmings: Now are you speaking on behalf on the association and saying that
you want us to approve two boats in front of your beachlot?
Ken Hannemann: Yes.
Emmings: Okay. Well the swimming raft, ! guess I'd say in general to what
Ladd and Tim have brought up in terms of having some kind of consistent
approach to these things would be real nice but I think we're going to find
out they're all very individual and 'we're going to have to very much go on
a case by case basis. I don't think we're going to be able to .develop a
consistent philosophy that we're going to be able to apply to each-
beachlot. With that in mind, an item like the swimming raft, since it's a
swimming beach, seems like a very-reasonable thing to me to have out there
and I 'd support it. In fact, Ii'd support it even if the neighbors
complained about it. Just because it seems reasonable to me.. I think
having boats within that swimming beach with the raft and knowing how kids
like to play around objects'like a raft Or a boat, ii: it's parked there, I
think it's incredibly dangerous and would be a foolish thing for the
homeowners association to do at best. $o I'd be, on those grounds, I would
not be in favor of their being any boats. First of' all because the
conditional use permit in 1979, which was in. place at or before these
people started putting their boats out there, doesn't provide for any ,
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 18
boats. That would be my primary ground for that. And number two, I think
it's dangerous and unreasonable. I think it's too bad but I also don't
think they can have their boats in front of somebody' else's property and
they can say they're on the lot line but when I'm out on the lake, and I
looked at those last summer, they weren't on the lot lines. They were in
front of the neighboring property, at least in my eye. And that seemed
real clear to me. And it may be that the woman who lived there before
didn't complain but I think that's completely irrelevant. So I guess,
bottom line here. I think that what they've requested is all very
reasonable. I would not approve the change for 2 boats.
Batzli: Let me ask this question. Given the fact that we have at least
one neighbor who did not come tonight because it's not on the application.
Seeing as how we really don't know where they would intend to moor 'the
boats in relation to the swimming beach. The issue is we don't really know
where they would put them. We didn'.t know in advance they were going to
have them. Staff didn't have a chance to look at it or even contemplate
it. Does it make sense basically to-give this back to them and say,
reapply with what you really want at this point? so we can look.at it and
actually consider whether we want to give them boats or not. Because it
seems to me that at this point say yes or no to the boats. I don't know.
It seems obvious to me they can't put them on the neighbor's but I don't
know where they would go in front of their beachlot or whether it would
even be feasible. And it seems to me that I think the beachlot association
really should consider and maybe, I mean he said that yes. He wants this
to be part of their application but I don't believe they came in here
understanding that there's a 10 foot setback that we're going to put the
boats into and do they really want the boats if they're going to impinge on
their beach. Because I think I heard the president at least partially say
at one point, gee. Maybe we wouldn't want it then if that's where they had
to go. So what my recommendation would be, is to.basically give this back'
to the association and say, this is where, if we give the boats or even
consider the boats, they're going to have to go 10 feet in. And do you
really want the boats and come back with a complete application with
everything in there that you really want. Because I don't believe that
it's fair to have told at least one netghbo~ that don't bother coming.
There's nothing in here and then we're going to stick him with 2 boats
potentially along his lot line. Even they're only within 10 feet. I think
he should be given an opportunity to speak on that issue.
Conrad: Do you want him to speak here or in front of the City Council?
8atzli: Well, that's the issue. Do we want to look at it? Is there
anything else for us to add? And if we decide that we want to act on it
tonight, then I would propose at least one or two things.- That we look at.
At least have some sort of system in regards to this after going through
this once.
Farmakes: Are there other areas that they should be looking into with
regards to safety of the issue of storing these boats within the lot line?
Such as other jurisdiction?
Aanenson: Yeah, we'll check on that. How far they can be out.
Planning Commission Heeting
Hay 6, 1992 - Page 19
Erhart: I might suggest that we do, someone enter.tain a motion to pass it
with the boats. Anybody who wants to table it or vote against it can vote
nay. You could vote against it, whether you want to table it or you want
to vote it down, your mind wouldn't change whether or not they brought it
back. And then if it's voted down, then we can'vote then' again to table it
or to recommend no boats. That way we have the opportunity to pass it
along here tonight. Do you understand what I'm saying Steve?
Batzli: $o you're basically saying that what Dick told us that he wants
the decisions made here so they don't have to have a lot of new people
coming up in front of them is meaningless and we just should pass it on?
Erhart: It's possible here that a'majority would say, they're not going to
vote for the boats whether or not they come' back. Change their
application. I can tell you, it's not going to change my mind. It's
possible that we could finish it here tonight. If we vote on it that way.
$o if someone make a motion to vote it with the boats in. If that fails,
then we can deal with the tabling and it's possible that we could finish
this tonight. You understand what I'm saying?
Emmings: I agree with Tim.
Batzli: Is that, do people want to see it come back or no? Do you want to
see it come back? 3can does.
Farmakes: I'm concerned about the safety issue. I'm wondering what
they're going to do if it comes down between boats going in there or them
using the beach. I realize that's probably an issue to handle' internally
by themselves but I'd like to know what the guidelines are regarding that
anyway.
Batzli: But see, I would like to see for.example how big their raft is
going to be. Where they're going to put it and how big the boats are and
where they fit in relation to the raft. I don't see any of that.
Farmakes: They're talking 69 feet.
Batzli: I don't see any of that. I don't know if it's safe or not. So I
don't know that I can vote yes or no on the boats. I think that they were
there in 1981 and if that's what we're going to use as our baseline, then
maybe I'll say yes. They may be entitled to some boats. 8ut maybe I don't
want them to have a raft, even though it's not as intense of a use because
maybe I don't want kids swimming out there and encouraged to swim out there
to the boats.
Erhart: I have a question. Is it Council's intent that we ignore the '79
contract?
%
Emmings: Yeah. How he'd get around the '79 thing?
Erhart: With the reading that we're supposed to try to find what was there
in 1981, yeah. Probably boats were there in 1951 but are we supposed to
completely ignore the '79 contract?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 20
Batzli: I don't know. My understanding was we look at the '81 baseline
and we use that.
Emmings: But I think this case is a little different in that there's' an
agreement to which the City is a party from 1979 talking about how that'
property is going to be used.
Batzli: Well, that to me is another reason to bring it back and basically
say to our City Attorney, you know. Do we look at this document and ignore
the '$1 baseline under the Statute? Under our ordinance.
Emmings: That certainly didn't invalidate this agreement. That ordinance.
..
Terry Thompson: On the safety issue, we do not start our boats until we're
out past. As a matter of fact, there's water skiers that go right by our
swimming raft... There's people that come right by there. When we push
our boats out, we're way out past in deep water before we start them.
Batzli: Well see, we don't have control over .either the boats that come by
right now and what we're trying to do is we're trying to avoid putting you
know.
Terry Thompson: This boat's been there for 12 years. We haven't had a
problem. We're real safety conscious.
Batzli: But if we approve it, we will most likely require you to' move it
closer in to the center of your lot and that may be aggravating the
situation. We don't have all the information in front of us to be quite
honest. We were all surprised at the last minute that suddenly there's
boats in this equation and none of us knew that.
Conrad: I think we should table this because...unknown and i'd like the
homeowners {o make sure they're in agreement. Ail of them and we need some
guidance from the Attorney in terms of what this, you know the '81 versus
the '79 conditional use permit. I don't know how to treat that.
Batzli: I don't know either.
Conrad: There are enough things there that make it worth while. It would
go up muddy and I'd prefer to have it coming back very clean.
Batzli: Would anyone like to second that motion?
Farmakes: Second.
Batzli: Any discussion? All in favor of tabling this application and
requesting that the Homeowners Association renew the application and
republish and send it to the attorney.
Emmings: Little discussion?
Batzli: Yeah.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 21
Emmings: I'd like to see, I think it's very important for the President of
the homeowners association to find out what all of those families with all
those children want to do in terms of having 2 boats parked in what's going
to be a 50 foot, or 40 foot area in front of the beach. Because you're here
representing them tonight and I know that but I don't know if they knew
that was a possibility. $o it would be nice to. know what they think about
that.
Conrad: Staff should be working in terms of what the DNR allows in terms
of moorings. How far out. Safety issues. We need that. The homeowners
or beachlot owners, you need to know that information so you should be
wot'king with our staff too.
Emmings: I don't think there's anybody up here who wants to See you lose
something that you've had for 12 years, and I mean that sincerely. Even
though right now I'd vote against you having your boats, that's not an easy
thing to do and I don't think anybody wants to do it. And if there is some
way to accommodate it, and for us to accommodate that historical use,
that's fine. But I don't see what it is right now personally.
Batzli: Okay. I did promise this gentleman. Did you have something
that's still pertinent at this point?
Dana 3ohnson: You pretty much covered it all. My question Was, the 1979
covenants and you've addressed that.
8atzli: Yes, we will address that.
Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to table action on the Non-Conforming Use
Permit for a Recreational 8eachlot for Minnewashta Creek Homeowners
association for further clarification. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
Batzli: Please work with staff on resubmitting your application if you
will. As far as the plan of attacking these, I think Ladd had an excellent
idea and Matt as well. I think that if we're going to take a look at
modifying our 1981 baseline based on the evidence .presented, I think we
would like some sort of evidence. Either by way of an affidavit,
photographs, whatever. Something in writing. Something that we can take a
look at and I would also like us to focus on whether it is an
intensification which intrudes on the neighbors. Ladd kind of brought it
up you know. The raft is fairly innocuous. Suddenly you start puttin~ 'in
boats. Intensifying it. It's intruding more on the neighbors and I think
at least those two steps we need to take a look at as we're going through
these applications. Unfortunately I think we're going to.develop other
factors as we go through these.
Ahrens: I think too if we're going to ask for affidavits, we should ask
for affidavits from adjoining landowners rather than anybodQ out there who
may be interested, if possible.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, lg92 - Page 22
PUBLIC EARIN6:
NON-C0NFORMIN~ USE P[RHIT FOR A R[CR[ATIOHAL BEACH~OT FOR TR(X,.L$ GLEN
HONEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Public Present:
Name
Mary Jo Moore
3ohn P. Metz
Terry 3ohnson
David & Mary Ann Tester
Bernie Schneider
Ivan Underdahl
Ann Cathcart
3231 Dartmouth Drive
3900 Lone Cedar
3898 Lone Cedar Circle
3897 Lone Cedar'Lane
7501 West 77th Street
7502 West 77th Street
3895 Lone Cedar Circle
Aanenson: I'll just make a couple quick comments. Thank you. The Trolls
Glen Homeowners 1st Addition and Cedar Crest Association has been in
existence since 1979. There's 12 home6wners in this association. There
was an inspection done on this beachlot in 1981 but based on a legal action
brought by John Metz and Terry Johnson, there is depositions on this one
documenting what was in place in 1981. Just for historical perspective,
there was a complaint to investigate these beachlots back in June of 1991
but because we are going through, this beachlot process, that has been put
off until this time to go through the non-conforming process. The
Association is seeking approval of 2 boats be docked and 2 boats to be
moored. Again some of the concerns that we have is that the dock, again
the ordinance says 50 foot. They've shown that they've always had a 64
foot length dock. They're also requesting a canoe rack. As I mentioned
the two boats docked and the two boats moored and-they do have a swimming
beach.
Batzli: Would the homeowners association representative like to address
the commission?
Ann Cathcart: My name is Ann Cathcart and I live at 3895 Lone Cedar. I'm
the President of the association. I think this is going to be the easiest
case. I might mention something. I'm glad to be here, listening .to that
first case because I think one of the problems is the non-conforming
recreational beachlot application that we got. The directions said please
provide all requested data consistent with what existed in the summer of
1981. So we put down what was there in 1981. But then with what we
wanted, along with what was physically there is what we put. But to
clarify i.t, the application'really is the letter. That-is pretty self
explanatory in what we want as far as the request. The non-conforming
recreational beachlot permit. BecauSe I can go down th'is and somewhat-see
the confusion. There really wasn't a place to request the picnic table,
although we would like to have a picnic table. We have had a picnic table
since way before 1986. You see what I'm getting at?
Aanenson: I can explain. The ordinance doesn't address picnic tables. The
beachlot ordinance. What we've done, we just want to document that there
is a picnic table in case someone in the future complains that they've got
a picnic table, we've identified that it's there and that's the intent.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 23
The beachlot ordinance doesn't say whether or not you can have a picnic
table. But we just want to document if it's there or not if someone
complains.
Emmings: What about her comment tha6 on the application that they fiii
out, they're supposed to fill out the status quo of 1981.
Aanenson: What they felt they had in 1981 and I've spoken to numerous
people on this. When they've called to ask about it, that was the
direction from the Council. --
Emmings: I know that but don't they get, do they also get a form that
says, what are you asking for or is this all you're asking? Do you ask
them if they want. On the sheet where it says what they're asking for in
their permit, it says picnic tables not requested. Well she didn't even
know she had to request'them. But she might have. Are we giving her that
opportunity?
Aanenson: Yeah. Under 16, that's why some people have put those
underneath structures. Other structures that are there.
Emmings: But that's as of 1981. I think What She's saying is, they've had
a picnic table there for a long time. Didn't know it was something she had
to ask for or write down.
Ann Cathcart: Another explanation. We had two boats in the water. The
only reason we're going through all of this is because our Minutes
specified that we'd have 4 boats since before the ordinance came in. And
there weren't enough boats because the neighborhood wasn't built up. $o Ne
only had 2 boats. We weren't just going to invent or just'plop 2 more -
boats in because we had specified in the Minutes and the Association had
ruled to have 4 boats. But there was only a need for 2'so there were 2 .
there. But they were planning throughout the development of the
association to have 4 boats. $o what I did in my letter, that was the
application processed with the letter and we had our special meeting. We
voted to have 4 boats. That would be our special request and as you can
see in the second paragraph, we requested and it says, I did this on my new
computer so I don't know how to underline or italics or anything. $o we
request a permit for mooring 4 boats on a non-conforming beachlot.
Batzli: Which letter are you?
Ann Cathcart: The letter, it's on the back of the recreational beachlot
inventory. Yeah, docking. So then on .the association request, all of a
sudden here it says boats at dock, 2. Boats moored, 2 but we have had and-
have always planned to have a 64 foot dock. We have 2 boat lifts with
boats and then 2 boats just tied onto the-dock. Two small fishing boats.
That's what we intended. So in the letter, how can you specify all that?
So we just let you know you can really get complicated when you get to the
nitty gritty. Because when we got this, of course we had question marks.
And another thing that's very interesting that could complicate things. In
their recreational beachlot inventory in 1981, it shows blank as if it
didn't exist. But it shows bur beach was 3,000 square feet and 60 feet of
shoreline and it's actually almost 70. $0 maybe we can get into that later
.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 24
because we had a neighbor that, and maybe when they inventoried this, they
didn't think there were any, I don'~ know what happened but there, our
neighbor was 10 feet in on the association lot so there was a dock on the
lot and his 2 boats. So in effect, actually in 1981 we had 2 docks and 4
boats on our lot. And we have pictures to prove that and ! suppose if it
ever went to the Supreme Court, we'd get subpeonas and affidavits and all
that so it's very complicated.
Farmakes: It's non-conforming.
Ann Cathcart: No, it's non-conforming.
Farmakes: Your 70.
Ann Cathcart: It's non-conforming but if you go by the, this is based on
interpretation because it's so strict and whatever was physically in the
water, we could probably prove that we had 2 docks and 4 boats.
Emmings: One of which belonged to.
Ann Cathcart: The neighbor who planted a tree on the association beach.
Who had his dock over and had his two boats there.
Batzli: Do you have any other comments on the?
Ann Cathcart: No, except the fact that we would 'like our 4 boats that were
specified in the Minutes of the meeting in 1981 and that, these are page
numbered. I think Kate, she did a beautiful job in putting this'together.
40 pages. I counted but our Minutes.
Ahrens: Are their 1981 Minutes in here?
Ann Cathcart: Yeah. 1981. 1981 Board of Directors meeting. 6-6-81 and
it is underlined at the bottom. ~4e've been an association.
Ahrens: Where does it say that there's 4 boats in the water?
Emmings: There are 4 boat places.
Farmakes: Two boat lifts, two power boats.
Ann Cathcart: A maximum of 4 boats mooring. $o that's been a stipulation,
a ruling for all these years and it did happen that we bought our property
in 1985. Moved in 1987 so our boat was there as you can see with all the
affidavits and depositions and everything that it says also. 19 pages of
that. Our boat was in in 1987. The 14 foot fishing boat.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission?
John Metz: I'm John Metz. I live at 3900 Lone Cedar. I am a member of
Trolls Glen Homeowners Association. I am also an adjacent property owner..
I own a piece of property that is not a part of Trolls Glen. So I'm going
to come before the commission from a relatively unique perspective. $o
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 25
what my words are, with the association. I'm also speaking, so I wear two
hats so to speak.
Emmings: Tell us which one you have on.
John Metz: I don't know. It's going to be, number one. If you've read all
the documents that I had submitted, applaud you. tt must have been awful
reading. If you haven't, I at least hope that you got through the first 5
pages. I'm going to make this real short because I've been here before and
I think my stances are well known but I do want to point out a few things.
It's well document irregardless of what the surveys say by sworn testimony
and all the documentation here, what did exist in 1982. And it's to my
understanding of what the City Council's 1982 baseline directs us to
conform to. It isn't the intended use but it's actually the physical use
of what was there in 1982. I'd like you to refer to Exhibit 2 which is'
really the survey of our outlot, and I'll make my remaining comments.
Aanenson: Are you referring to this document?
John Metz: No, it's in the cover. Yeah, .in that document but it should be
in the $ page cover letter that you should have had and it just is actual,
physical.
Aanenson: I didn't make copies of this. I talked to Mr. Beisel and
basically everything that we put i-n here is kind of a summary of this.
John Metz: Alright. All I need to know is do you have a current copy of
the plat? I have one here I can show you. It should be underneath your
own exhibit. I want you to refer to the plat. You should have a copy of
it. Of the survey and it shows that the width of the property is indeed 69
feet at the registered high water mark. It also shows and it's quite
important that you see that the property is only 27 foot in depth-at the
water line to the back of the property line on one side and that's the
greater amount. The other amount is less than 23 feet. Most important
before this commission is the fact that the property lines are not
parallel. They actually run towards the triangle shape. And in my
business, I happen to do a little bit of. surveying so-! managed, Mr.
Johnson and myself, my neighbor, found the existing survey stakes down
there and I set up a transit over these and extended the property lines so
that I could accurately place my dock and not encroach within the '10 foot
setback. To make a long story short, at 80 feet out, give-or take an error
of a couple feet, I'll allow the fact that we have 35 feet of useable space
between the property lines as they're extended 80 feet away from the
shoreline. That given along with the summertime request that we know it
was there in 1982, I am here to ask this'commission recommend to the
Council that we maintain the 1902 baseline. There were only 2 boats there.
It's very difficult to maintain the '1982 baseline cenforming with the dock
setback ordinance the way it is to work within the 35 feet. The summertime
useage is complicated enough. Then we can go to the wintertime storage
problems on this piece of property. With the docks, the boat lifts and
everything there, it's almost impossible to egress o'r go across this piece
of property without (a) going on the lake, or (b) trespassing on somebody
else's property that's not a member of the association. $o like I say, I'm
a member of the homeowners association and I wear that hat. From that
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 26
position I must say that we had a 4 to 3 vote on the application to go to
boats. It's been long argued and well documented within our Minutes of my
opposition to number one, any boats. But more than-2 boats and I won't get
into that and bore this commission'with all the facts. I've got oodles of-
documentation for it. There is really a bigger issue here. It's not just
Trolls Glen and we do have a right here as lake owners and non-lake owners
and citizens of this city to make sure that the precedent set by this is
number one. And if we deviate from the '82 baseline, and I understand
that you're going to take into consideration all the existing and
extenuating circumstances and certainly there are in this case. But the
hard facts of the matter is that this lot is so non-conforming that it has
a hard time maintaining the use of the 2 boats that are presently there,
much less expanding it's use to 4 boats. And that the term of mooring is
really quite upsetting to me because I don't know how we could possibly
moor boats out there. I mean it's hard enough to dock them much less put
·
some moor out there. I do think that it's bigger than Trolls Glen. I
think it affects all of Chanhassen and from my position I've spent an awful
lot of time and energy not to go into the legal end of it but it's been a
time consuming situation. I feel strongly about and it's not just Lake
Minnewashta. Lotus Lake and all the lakes in this city and it's not just
the people that live here right now. It's the people-that may live here 10
and 15 years from now that may have a slightly different view of what we
perceive. I don't think the Council in 1982 was certainly all that'maliGn
to come up with those ordinances that they do and I do think that this
commission, in all honesty, should adhere to that. That was a long battle
back in 1982. I know Mr. Conrad was involved in them. I know a l'ot of
people have had an awful lot of input into what went down into creating
that ordinance and it's unfortunate that the 1992 Council is going to have
to Get, step to the plate and bat and enforce it. It's as simple as that.
We can turn our heads and walk away from the issue or we can take it on and
I'm afraid that's what you're charged with. I really ask that you, I have
no objections to two boats. That's what was there in 1982. 8y the way,
the surveys that were dons were flawed for some reason. I was there, when
the 1982 survey was done. Scott Hart maybe. It was Scott somebody did
this survey and I just happened to be standing there and it was about a
week before all the, our docks went in but I do agree that in 1981 or the
late summer thereof, that there was a 64 foot dock and 2 boats there.
And I do believe that the documents are accurate. I think we've all been
under sworn testimony to it. I don't think the fact that there's some
alleging that there was another dock there. If it was, it was placed there
in error by one of the neighbors. I wouldn't bet on that but I thank you
for your time and I respectfully ask that you reject this thing and Go with
2 boats. That's what was there. We can live with it but more than .that is
definitely unacceptable to me. Thank you very much.
8atzli: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission? Go ~head.
Mary 3o Moore: Living between two associations.
8atzli: Can you Give you name again.
Mary Jo Moore: Excuse me. Mary Jo Moore, Dartmouth Drive. Lake
Minnewashta and I do live between two associations. I'm a member of One
conforming association. In 1980 I bought off shore and was a member of
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 27
Minnewashta Shores. The meetings for 1981 we discussed in detail your
proposed or the city's proposed ordinance on the lake useage. At that
time Minnewashta Shores, their covenants authorized 20 boat slips and they
have a large piece of property. We at the time had 16 and we discussed in
length that the city's going to come through and do an audit. Shall we put
in our 20 boats? Does anybody else want a boat and a dock? We authorized
one more dock on a temporary basis which brought us to 17 of our covenanted
20. And we agreed to live by that but we kept track of what the city was
doing and their proposed lake useage. I think every association should.
At that time I didn't have a boat but I made sure I had my dock. Never did
·
get a boat in on that association so I think it is something that was
thought through by associations that were apprised of what was going on.
And I think the Council and the Planning Commission did a thorough 3ob in
1981. There is documented evidence of the number of boats in all these
associations and to start changing them now, I don't think is fair to the
associations that did abide by the ordinance. I again will state my
objection to any expansion beyond the 1981 ~umber.
8atzli: Okay, thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission?
Ann Cathcart: .Can I say one other thing?
Batzli: Let me, if no one else is going to speak, then you can. Yes sir.
David Tester:
first.
I've lived in the Trolls Glen neighborhood. I was one of the
Batzli: Can you give us your name please.
David Tester: I'm sorry. David Tester. I'm a dentist in Chanhassen. I've
been practicing here for 22 years and I feel good about it. I like
Chanhassen but the original beachlot, Trolls Glen beachlot is unique
because there are homeowners that have frontaQe and homeowners that-don't
have frontage. Now 3ohn Metz is a homeowner without frontage really but he
bouQht an adjacent lot so he has frontage that's actually a part, it's
adjacent to the beachlot to the west which isn't part of our total
neighborhood. Actually I don't think he's doing this in his best interest
because his house is in Trolls Glen and he doesn't want a marina in front
of his house and I can understand the people that live-on the lake viewing
a marina. This is something that they're concerned of but presently I
think there's 12 homeowners and there's 4 boats presently there. That were
for the past 5 or 6 years so 4 isn't an expanded useage as far as I'm
concerned. There's 2 fishing boats and there's 2 boats that are on lifts.
They're considered speed boats or motor boats but I would venture to say on
any given day or weekend, there's not more than one party on that
particular lot other than on July 4th when there's a fireworks. One of the
adjacent neighbors does have that. So this isn't a problem of over useage.
I'm just thinkinQ as the community expands, we're maybe going to have to
give a little more leeway to certain parties and we're goinQ to have make
some accommodations. I don't see a danger factor because there's not that
kind of traffic on that beachlot. This particular beachlot had mooring in
the covenants. The other one that proceeded us, had no mooring rights at
all. This is part and parcel of that. And even thouQh it's non-conforming
conforming is something that's an item that can change. A beachlot's size
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 28
and conformity, the lot size may vary down the years. These are things
that are always going to change but at the present rate, the useage that
that lot gets is minimal. And as far as a'safety factor, I personally
don't see one. I think the adjacent property owners that do have lakeshore
are concerned about a marina but we've, in good faith tried to not see that
that happens and we don't want a bunch of boats do~n there. We realize
that it will only hold a certain number of boats safely and I feel-that 4
boats is well within the realm of operability. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission?
Terry 3ohnson: Good evening. My name is Terry Johnson and I live at 3898
Lone Cedar. I abut .the association that we're talk'lng about on the south
side. My first point is that I would beg to differ with Mr. Tester who was
just here. To the fact that the lot is not overused and there's not that
many boats down there. He lives across the lake and from his house I don't
believe he can see the lake. I live right on the lake. I'm there every
day. I office out of my house. I.probably, I spend a good portion of the
day at my house officing out of there. And I see the action that goes on
there. It seems to me, in my opinion, that there's a considerable amount
of action down there which is fine. I like to see the people coming and
going but it seems like there's a lot of people down there. In fact, I
believe it was in January we just enacted some covenants that regulated the
amount of use at the lot and regulated the amount of hours that we.use the
lot just because of the fact that there was so much usea~e down there and
there was people that were friends of people that lived in the association
that would come down there with permission of the owner or of the lot that
belonged to the association or not. So one of the ithings that we enacted
in the covenants was that the owner of the lot that's part of the -
association would have to be with that particular party whenever they're
down there. Whether it's their friends or relatives or so on or so forth.
So my feeling is that I don't want to see this expanded beyond the 2 boats
that are grandfathered in there from the 1981 baseline. This is similar to
the other association that you saw previous to us in that this is onl.y 60
some feet of shoreline which is well below what the city would allow for a
beachlot out there now and they would allow no boats on it. $o my feeling
is that it's fine to grandfather the 2 boats that are there now or for 2
people to trade off using boats there but to not expand that. And if I
could just approach you, I'd like to show you this lot and the position of
my house and how this lot sits. It's really kind of unique. Different
from the one that you just saw. Is that okay? This is the lake out here.
This is my lot here. 'This is 3ohn Metz' lot. This is the association lot
that comes in this circle here and down. I believe this is about 15 feet.
There are steps here and this is actually... $o the other point I wanted
to make is that from the shoreline where the lake is, right now. the water
level is right now which is, I don't know if it's the-high water point or
not. The back of the lot, this is my lot back here. .And I'm surrounded by
the association. Anyway, from this point here to where the lake is is
about 30 feet. I just got the tape measurer and marked it off. And these
lot lines here that John was explaining to you, they angle in. Maybe it's
hard to tell from this drawing but they.angle in and we, he's got some kind
of scope that he uses in his business. I don't know what it's called but
anyway, he was down there and set this thing up and we ran it out
approximate distance of the docks. I believe it was about 70 feet or so.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 29
We put some posts... We're starting to set up our. docks. The association
set up part of their dock tonight and I put mine in about a week ago.
Anyway, we want to conform to this 10 foot setback. And as you get out to
the end of where these docks would be, there's only 35 feet of space that
they would have between my lot and 3ohn's lot, which is next to it. He's
got the lot here. My feeling is it really wouldn't accommodate_ more 'than
one lift and a boat and it may be difficult for them to put any more than
one boat out there actually. But' I said that my feeling is fine, there's
one power boat. Possibly one fishing boat is my feeling on it. But
anyway, the other point that I wanted to make. When you saw this...is that
by allowing any more boats out there on any more lifts, right now they use
2 lifts out there and the one dock. With the way that the weather's been
around here lately, there's abobt 9 months of winter and 3 months of
summer.. Well anyway, in the winter months, they've got their dock and the
lifts up on this association lot which you can see there is rather narrow.
And it encompasses the whole association property there .at the beach. And
really for them to get down and to use his property, the other 8 or 9
months of the year when we're not using the lake or when the lake isn't
open, people have got to walk arou.nd my property pretty much to get'on
there. I don't mind it. I don't mind my neighbors coming on my property.
I don't mind that their picnic table's been on my property. The only thing
I'd ask is they bring an extra beer when they come over there .... very
unique. I think it's a little bit different than the association that you
just saw up here previous to us and I think it's a little bit more unique
than the ones that you're going to see here in the future in that it is so
narrow. So my feeling is that it shouldn't be any more non-conforming than
it already is. 2 boats to me is fine. I don't think it's fair to expand
it to 4 boats. The other point I wanted to make was, you mentioned about a
raft out at the other association lot. I've got a raft that I put out
there that I invited the neighborhood to use and they have used and I hope
will continue to use my raft. I'm happy to have anybody in my neighborhood
use it. As you expand this particular lot here and as I said, it's '35 feet
narrow out at about 70 or 80 feet. With boats coming and going and like I
say, I'm there a lot. I office out of my house. I'm in sales. The people
using the beach and swimming from 3ohn's beach as you look at that lot.
He's on the north side and myself on the south and people using the
association's swimming out to my raft, with the boats coming and going,' my
feeling is it just isn't safe. I guess with that I really don't have
anything else to say unless you have any questions of me.
Emmings: I Just have one. When you moved, when did you move into your
property?
Terry 3ohnson:
moved i n.
I've been there about 6 years so it was about '85 when I
Emmings: And when you moved in, I see in your a~fidavit that when you
moved in there was a 64 foot dock there and three boats. Is that right?
Terry 3ohnson: No. When I moved in there was a dock that, 64 feet. I'm
not sure of the amount of feet on it. That hasn't been expanded to my
knowledge since I've lived there 'but there was only 2 boats 'there. Two.
power boats were there. In fact, I think there's depositions to that ~:act
that.
Planning Commission Heeting
Hay 6, 1992 - Page 30
Emmings: Okay, I'm looking at your affidavit. The materials that says
from my personal observation, 0utlot B has been put to the foll~wing uses
during the summers of the years set forth. It says 1986. One 64 foot
dock, an additional section of dock and third power boat.
Terry 3ohnson: Then it was misprinted.
Emmings: This is wrong?
Terry 3ohnson: Yeah.
Emmings: Your affidavit is wrong?
Terry 3ohnson: Yeah. Somebody must have written it wrong. ! may have
signed it... There's never been 3 power boats there since I've lived
there. When ! first moved there, there was 2 power boats and then it was
about 2 years later that a fishing boat was put out there with a lift. In
fact the guy, I swapped him his canoe for my lift. There was a lift that
came along with my lot so they put that over there and then there Nas 3
lifts on the association lot. Then he sold it because he moved the next
year and got more money than the canoe Nas North and I'm still upset about
that. But regardless, then there Nas 3ust the tNo power boats again.
believe it was for a year or two.until the Firms moved in and then they
brought a fishing boat doNn there and then again it was 3 boats, 2 power
boats and a fishing boat. Then it was'I believe 2 years ago'that Dan
Hudson moved in and added the other fishing boat. So.for the past 2 years
it's been 2 speed boats and 2 fishing boats, 2 lifts. --
Farmakes: Are the fishing boats left ~t the dock or are they brought up on
land?
Terry 3ohnson: I'd say both. I think for the most part Dan Hudson would
bring his up on shore. The other fishing boat was tied onto the dock and
then the two speed boats were set on either side of the dock. $o really it
limited the swimming area and I think that's been one of the bone of
contentions for some of the people in the association. The fact that there
really wasn't any room for swimming there and it was really pretty narrow
for them to have to come out. Especially now with the setback, it's going
to make it real difficult for them. I don't have. a problem with them
coming over to my side or the setback to swim on my side but still, it's
going to be really narrow. I put my dock on the north side of my lot using
the setback now this year so that I can make my beach a little bit bigger.
I've only got 85 feet of lakeshore.
Farmakes: What about boat storage?
Terry 3ohnson: Pardon me?
Farmakes: Boat storage.
Terry $ohnson: They don't leave their boats.
Farmakes: ...boat storage that was made? Pulling it on the property.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 31
Terry Johnson: The problem that I had was the lifts. Because of the fact
that this property is so narrow down there at the lake. It.'s a big steep
hill in fact. I maybe should have explained that to you when ! showed you
the drawing. There's a big steep hill that comes down and it's real narrow
down there. And with the lifts there and these two-docks, they come apart
so they sit side by side and then there's two lifts 'down there. There
really isn't any room for anybody to use this property in the wintertime or
the winter months, which like I said amounts to about 8 or 9 months out of
the year.
Batzli: Are there boats stored down there?
Terry Johnson: Right now?
Batzli: Are any boats stored down there over the winter months?
Terry 3ohnson: No. Not to my kn~ledge. There was a canoe rack there.
We took it out. It happened to be on my property. In fact right now the
sidewalk going to the association lot, part of it.sits on my'property and
I've asked for someday in my life that that would be moved.
Farmakes: So if there were 2 boats moored or docked on a dock, the 64 feet
or whatever, how many watercraft were stored on land there in addition to
the 2 boats?
Terry 3ohnson: Are you talking about .last year in 1981 or what time frame
are you talking about?
Farmakes: Give me both.
Terry Johnson: Okay, in 1981 I didn't live there but from information that
I have from the affidavits, there was no boats stored on the shore. There
were 2 lifts out at the end of the dock and they were power boats that were
out there. Since then,' really to my knowledge there's been no boats on the
shoreline until the last couple years. One of the individuals that has a
fishing boat would bring his boat: up and just leave it on the shore there
and there would be one boat, and this .is the last couple years now. There
would be one boat, fishing boat on the dock. The 2 speed boats at the end
and then the one fishing boat was pulled up on the shore.
Farmakes: So they were stored there overnight then?
Terry 3ohnson: Periodically', yes.
Batzli: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission? You can
have like 2 minutes of rebuttal here.
Ann Cathcart: I'm Ann Cathcart again. We've been living this nightmare
for about 2 years but I want to close by saying, the attorney for the
association in our final memorandum' to the court and affidavit said, this
is what the plaintiffs alleged in the lawsuit. There is in essence, a
state of anarchy with respect to use of the outlot. We do not know what
plaintiffs are talking about. This is a quiet beach with a few boats. The
association manages the lot and the members use the outlot in a normal
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 32
manner. Personally we feel that the plaintiffs have brought this suit to
harrass us and retaliate against other members because they have failed to
get their way. And from the very beginning we have had other meetings.
John MeTz has offered to buy the association lot. They didn't pay their
dues. The lawsuit, since they are also. defendants in the case, until we
met their demands. They offered to, if we met their demands of 2 boats and
they offered to pay their fees. So what I want to show you again, this is
also in the memorandum that Kate made up. This is a picture of last year
in 1991. This is out little dock. Two boats at the end on boat lifts.
Two fishing boats tied to the dock'on.either side. Plenty of room. Can
you find it? Also down at the bottom, you can see Terry's pontoon. This
is Terry Johnson's pontoon. He did not do the 10 foot setback last year.
So when he set back this year, his boat will be out of the picture so you
can see there's plenty of room. There's plenty of room to float on rafts
and innertubes. We think what should be grandfathered in. is what was in
the Minutes of 1981. Thank you.
'Batzli: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission? I'll ask
for brevity.
Ivan Underdahl: Well I hope I can grant it. My name is Ivan Underdahl. I
live at 7502 West 77th Street and a member of the Trolls Glen Homeowners
Association. I guess I would like to start out by saying, I agree with
some of the things that John MeTz has said and that Terry Johnson have said
but not necessarily with all. As far as the storage over the winter
season, I don't think this beachlot' is much of any different than the
adjoining property lots. Their own lots. That's where they store their
equipment too and I don't think anybody i's restricted from getting down
from the upper bank, down the steps and out to the lake. There's plenty of
room. I don't know what kind of equipment or such would try to get through
there that wouldn't be able to get through there. And I don't think it's
really a crossroad traffic area in the wintertime. In fact I don't know
who really uses that association outlot in the Winter at' all. It might be
the neighbors on either side wanting to. get back and forth to their own
properties but even so, they can do that without problem too as far as I
see it. This is, we're not complaining I guess you might say about this 10
foot setback. We understand that. That may not have been fully re~arded
in years past but I think now we are aware of it and I know 3ohn has set up
the transit and laid out the lines and I don't dispute the accuracy of
those findings. I guess I wasn't sure what he stated as far as the width
between those stakes out there at the 80 foot distance.
John MeTz: Ivan, it's kind of hard to see on that little plat but there's
an angle...straight to the lake line. The one severely goes in and the
other one is just a few degrees but...80 feet, they narrow to 60 at the
lake lot. Now it's 35 feet plus or minus a foot 80 feet out... To the
best of my knowledge, that's accurate.
Ivan Underdahl: Alright, it's about .69 feet at the high water mark and as
he says, then going out to a distance of 80 feet, there's a 35 foot width.
That's the angulation. I think also, I don't know if it's the DNR or
cities or whatever. Can make exceptions when properties are restricted in
such a way that they are very limited in our access to the lake. And as
far as going out 80 feet, we don't ~o out-that far. OUT dock is 64 feet
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 33
long and that's as far out as anything 'goes. And I know the term mooring
and docking has been used perhaps interchangeably here' but I don't think
there has ever been any intent on the part of out association to moor
boats, if you're just referring to having a stake or a buoy or such out on
the lake for mooring. We're talking about docking boats. And in the past
2 years there have been 4 boats I would say docked at this 64 foot dock
and I don't feel it's been a problem. And I guess I understood from the
Council that as far as going through this permit process, it was probably
to be or the 1981 baseline was sort of the .starting point for the
negotiating and if there were differences, they should be worked upon and
that the applicants would be given the benefit of the doubt. And I guess I
would like to pursue that aspect. I think our asking for 4 boats is not
unreasonable. And with respect to, well the matter was raised about
perhaps another dock' and boat also being on the property. I'have some
pictures here that I would like to have you see and if I can come for.~ard,
I'll show you.
Batzli: Sure.
Ivan Underdahl: I'll point out a couple things.
on the back, that's the original, as to when...
Here I have, I:ve written
Emmings: It doesn't say anything on this one.
Ivan Underdahl: No but it's a reprint of the one I took out of my album on
which I wrote it was taken in the fall of 1981.
Emmings: Okay. So this represents fall of 19817
Ivan Underdahl: That's ri.ght.
Emmings: Okay, we'l'l pass that around.
Ivan Underdahl: Then if you just place this card o~er it,.. Hold it just
like that and notice the figures I have there. I measured the width of
those boat lifts...and there's a 23 foot span from the outer edge of one to
the outer edge of the other. And this was at a time when we did not pay
attention to the 10 foot setback. This is Tight up at the end of' John
MeTz' property line. In fact it may have been on his a little bit so I'm
showing that if you take another 23 feet further to the right, it goes of~
the picture and that other boat...in there. And here's another angle...
Batzli: Well thank you very much. Do you need your picture back?
Ivan Underdahl: I'll get my picture back...
Batzli: I'll lose it. If you're going to give it to us, give it to Kate.
Mr. Underdahl, are you finished?
Ivan Underdahl: Unless you have any other questions.
8atzli: We may. We still need to get through the ~ublic hearing. Is
there anyone else who hasn't spoken that would like to address the
Commission? Okay, please be brief and please limit yourself to.new, issues.
Planning Commission Heating
Hay 6, 1992 - Page 34
Bernie Schneider: I'm Bernie Schneider. I live at 7501 West 77th in
Trolls Glen. I think that the Planning Commission should consider the 1975
City Council granting; us, Trolls Glen residents moorin(; rights. That's in
our covenant and I wish that the Planning Commission would request the City
Attorney to give a ruling as to whether our covenants supersede the
ordinance amendment. We were advised 'that, in a court of law, our
covenants would prevail. That's all I have to say.
Batzli: Thank you. Any more comments? Is this something new? Okay, I'll
give you about 30 seconds.
Terry 3ohnson: I'll make it quick. 3elf had asked about where the boats
are moored. I've got a picture here that shows the boat up on the,. this
was last summer, where he stored bis, the other fishing boat and the two
lifts.
Batzli: You guys want to see where it was last summer? If there's no more
public comment, do I have a motion to close, the public hearing?
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public bearing was closed.
Erhart: What are we deciding? Did we decide if there was ever 4 boats
there?
Aanenson: There wasn't a survey done in 1981. All we presented you is
their affidavits stating what was in place. Staff didn't do a survey in
1981. '
..
Batzli: ! don't believe that even the association would, well unless you
count that separate dock who was a neighbor, who was either accidentally or
intentionally docked there but the association itself, as an association,
did not have 4 boats on the property at that time.. Is that a fair
statement?
Resident: Yep.
Erhart: Okay, and what was, 1975 was when they were granted with the.
beachlot. What did we have, no definition of what they could use it for?
Aanenson: When the beachlot was in place?
Erhart: When the development was done. We didn't at the time regulate how
many boats? We bad no ordinance? Was 1981 the first ordinance?
Aanenson: Yes.
Erhart: Okay. And so we had no covenant. There was no covenant With the
city and the beachlot owners before 19517 There's no legal?
Aanenson: They have a covenant, yes.
Erhart: Between themselves.
Planning Commission Heeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 35
Aanenson: As part of the subdivision, yes.
Erbart: And that doesn't reference bow many boats' or anything?
Aanenson: No. It just says boats shall be moored in the common area. As
designated by the association. That's what they're saying. Their intent
was always 4.
Erhart: Then in 1981 we came out with our first beachlot ordinance?
Aanenson: Correct.
Erhart: At that time it was non-conforming at that point?
Aanenson: Right. What we did, and let's go back to the grandfathering.
What we did is we tried to take a picture in time of what they had in place
and that's what they're grandfathered with and that's what, when we were
asked back in 1991 on the complaint to go back and say you were not in
compliance with the grandfathering, the attorney did say we could enforce
what they had in place in 1981. So that issue was raised as far as can we
enforce what they have in their covenants. The new ordinance can supersede
what they had in place in 1981.
Erhart: Okay, the ordinance on the lO foot setback now for: dock and
mooring. Did you find that the extended lot, is it an 'extended straight
lot line or is it perpendicular to the shore?
Aanenson: Somewhere they're all supposed to meet in the middle o4 the
lake.
Erhart: So perpendicular to the shore. $o this 35 feet is irrelevant.
Aanenson: Again, I know Dick was concerned about this but in speaking with
Roger, this comes back to the grandfathering issue. Okay? If that's the
way the dock was built in ~981 and they continued to put the dock in place
the same way since 1981, they can have the dock the same way. If they had
moved the dock.
Erhart: No the point is, the argument is where is this lot line out in the
water? And this gentleman over here contends that it comes to a point
that's approximately 120 feet from the shore and you're saying that they
all end up at the same point out in the middle.
Aanenson: They all end up, they meet eventually in the middle of the lake.
I don't know.
Erhart: Some point. All at the same point in the middle of the lake.
Aanenson: No, no, no.
Erhart: Well, not at the same point but at a point perpendicular to the
general shore in the area.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 36.
Conrad= They don't follow the lot line. -They're perpendicular'. I don't
think they follow the lot line.
Ahrens: It depends on different...
Emmings: I thought you extended the lot line.
Conrad: No. You go at a right angle to the lakeshore.
Batzli: Dick, do you know the answer to that?
Richard Wing: The Attorney discussed that. He said there was an issue
with the angle of a curved bay but you basically...imaginery point just
right in with the shoreline...because we're only worried about the first
few feet. Because a raft's out in 8 feet of water. The concern about how
can we do it. I'm kind of losing my thought here...We could have it
surveyed officially. That part then goes' perpendicular to the shoreline or
right angle to the shoreline out...so there wasn't any angle there...
Erhart: It's only reasonable to have it perpendicular to the shoreline
instead of using it at some angle. That's the only questions I had.
Batzli: Ladd. Let's add another criteria to our list of going through
those and those are that we concentrate on the little blank lines on the
action that we have to take. I think it's on the page you're looking at
there Ladd.
Conrad: Since the standard for a dock length is 50 feet and they've had
64. I guess if they've never deviated from 64, that's what they can have.
I guess I'm still, I'm comfortable at what was there in 1981 and would be
persuaded by the City Attorney if they said-the covenants or, but I don't
believe the City Attorney would say that we're bound by covenants entered
into with themselves. Prior to 1981 beachlots had no rights for dockage.
$o I'm not persuaded that anything prior to 1981 really is going to
influence me.
Erhart: You mean no rights or no regulations?
Conrad: They have no rights. Literally prior to 1981.
Ahrens: But the document that Kate just read said they did have the right.
Conrad: Prior to '81, before the beachlot ordinance went in, literally'
there was nothing governing what could happen. It therefore meant there
were no-, my interpretation 3oan is that there were no rights to have boats.
They were used but prior to 1981 there weren't. That's my understanding.
Anyway, I'm comfortable at the two boat limit. Based on 1981 data that
we've seen.
Batzli:
The canoe rack?
Conrad= I don't know.
Batzli: I'll let you think about that one. Matt?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 37
Ledvina: I don't have any comments at this point.
Batzli: Would you defer on the,2 boat/4 boat issue completely or you just
haven't made up your mind?
Ledvina: Well, it seems to me that there's some, the affidavits are
conflicting as it relates to the number of boats that were docked and
moored at this site. Am I mistaken in that?
Emmings: I don't think so. I don't think anybody says there were more
than 2 boats there in 1951.
Ledvina: Okay.
Ivan Underdahl: Didn't I just show you pictures of 3 boats? You didn't
see that?
Batzli: Yes.
Emmings: But that was the neighbor's boat right?
Ivan Underdahl: No, he was a member of the Association~ It was on the
recreational outlot. 1981. I thought you just saw it.
Batzli: How that particular boat has been characterised, and I don't want
to debate the point right now but it's our understanding that that was not
an association dock. It happened to be the next door neighbor who had
placed his dock temporarily on the Association lot. Or boat. One of the
two. And so it wasn't and it has been considered up until now, when you
showed us those photographs, that it was, it hasn't been suggested to us
that that was an association boat on the beachlot property. So that's what
we're saying. I understand your point.
Ledvina: Well I guess my feeling is that the situation as it existed, the
physical situation as it existed in 1981 would take precedence so I would,
I feel that 2 boats would be allowable.
Batzli: Okay, Steve.
Emmings: Well on the dock, certainly I think the 64 foot dock should .be
continued. I've got a question now. As I understand the request of the
Association's, they're asking for 2 boats at the.dock and 2 boats moored
and I don't know what that means.
Ivan Underdahl: No. No. That form is such that it's got to be based upon
the 1981 and it didn't talk about new...
Emmings: I'm not talking about the application.
Ann Cathcart: You want to see it just like the picture in 1981...
Emmings: Okay. Who's speaking for the Association? [et'.s Qet, are you
ma'am?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 38
Ann Cathcart: Yes.
Emmings: Okay. On the information that we. have on the sheet in front of
us, it says you're asking, for 2 boats moored and 2 boats docked and that's
what your letter says I think.
Ann Cathcart: Our letter says we want 4 boats docked. 4 boats. Therefore
it is time we request a permit for mooring 4 boats.
Emmings: Alright. I have to change my report.
Ann Cathcart: And based on...really what we physically...
Emmings: No, I know the argument. I just want to be clear on what you're
asking for. Alright. MX position on this is that going, again. I'm
pushing for a case by case deal here, and not getting too tied to the
physical inventory. The Statutue or the ordinance that we passed says that
we've got to look at the use as it existed on or before January 18, 1982.
So we're basically, we're not just looking at 1981. We're looking-at the
uses that existed on or before 3anuary 18, 1982. Now it's pretty clear to
me that they had 2 boats in 1981, and-if you want to get real picky and go
with that, we don't actually have an inventory but that's bee~ proven in
other proceedings. So we know there wePe 2 boats there. 8ut I'm persuaded
by the fact that in 1975 there were covenants approved by the City that
said that these folks could have boats at their beachlot and that was a
matter to be determined by them. We've got Minutes from a meeting in June
of 1981 where they said we're going to have 4 boats-out here. Right then
they had only 2 but they planned for 4 and I don't think that ought to be
ignored because again, I don't think it's unreasonable. I might think it
was unreasonable if I was looking right at it but that's a little
different. I just don't think it's an unreasonable use of the property and
I don't think we should ignore the fact that they planned for 4 boats. So
given that, I would say go with the 4 boats on this one. Again, if we're
going to go strictly by the physical inventory, they don-'t get a canoe rack
because they didn't have one in 1981. 8ut that seems like a real
reasonable use for a neighborhood for folks who have a beachlot and want to
use the lake. I can't see that some canoes are going to bother anybody
very much. So because it's ~easonable, I think it should be granted.
8atzli: Jeff.
Farmakes: We haven't talked too much about this boat storage issue. What
I'm trying to do, it's a confusing issue. I think everybody will agree.
We're talking about requests that you moor 2 boats, that you dock 2 boats
and that you would store some boats on the shore. You're shaking your head
back and forth but the difference between 1986 and 1981 differs quite a bit
from the affidavits that I'm hearing.
Ann Cathcart: We always...taken up.
Farmakes: Taken up? Is that removed or Stored on the property overnight?
Ann Cathcart: Stored in somebody's garage. Are you talking about the
winter?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 39
Farmakes: Winter or overnight. Just boats stored on the property out of
the water that are on the property.
Ann Cathcart: No. No. Terry.i .on the beach...little kids could get in
easier and than jumping in off the dock...
Farmakes: There's disagreement obviously.
Terry 3ohnson: You saw the picture. Jeff if you're addressing me.. You
saw the picture and I can tell you that that individual's boat on numerous
times...summer, it was on the shore.
Ann Cathcart: Maybe 3 times Terry. Maybe 3.
8atzli: Excuse me. Excuse me. Let's get, 3elf. Please.
Farmakes: I don't mean to lose track with this but the issue of the 2
boats, I think if that's what was there in 1981, that that's the position
the City should take. The issue of boat storage and so on, I am not,' it
doesn't seem like it's that big a lot to be storing boats on there.
Batzli: Excuse me. Jeff, please address your comments t'o me and not the
participants.
Farmakes: Okay. I'm not, after reading this, there seems to be a lawsuit
involved here. There seems to be bad feelings between the two groups but I
see this as just an issue of individuals asking the city to enforce aD
ordinance that they had in 1981. And I don't see that as unreasonable.
The City has been lax in enforcing the ordinance and I have looked at your
comments on your letters from the homeowners association. Lakeshore
association and you're ignoring simple issues in riparian law. You're
looking at it solely from your direction and 'what's on your deed and .the
issue of covenants from within your own association while you're ignoring
the overlapping jurisdiction of the city and of the State in regards to
riparian law. And it seems to me that if you're going to g'et involved in
this and you're going to spend $13,000.00 with a lawyer, then .you should
have had some education in regards to that because your letter obviously is
showing that you're not understanding riparian law..-Even though it's on
your deed, and I checked with the State on this today. Even though it's-on
your deed and you've had it on your deed, doesn't mean you can use it. And
that's an important point. What you're ignoring here is the-obligation of
the fact that you've been not in compliance with the city zoning ordinance
which the city is entitled lawfully to have for the past decade' You're
having another adjacent homeowner asking that the ordinance be enforced and
it's not unreasonable. I'll leave it at that. I think that there should
be 2 boats there and this lot is even, it seems to me able to handle less
than the previous one.
8atzli: Thank you. 3can.
Ahrens: I'm going to go along with the applicant's request fOr the same
reasons articulated by Steve.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 40
Batzli: Okay. What I'm looking at is a'little bit different than Steve
but yet I would go back to my, at 'least proposed way of looking at these
and that is, I think we've got a lot of testimony. I don't know that there
are a lot of conflicting opinions on it. I think we've seen photographs
from Mr. Underdahl and that boats were on the beach at that time that he
took the picture. We've seen a lot of this. -But what I'm going to look at
is the ordinance that talks about what' is the use, and this may sound like
I'm about to split the baby but clearly there was 3 boats on that lot prior
to 1982 and so I don't believe we're intensifying the use by giving them 3
boats. 4 boats is intensifying the use. The question of whether that's
reasonable or not, I don't know. I grew up on a lake and once you have 3-
boats, is 4 an intensification? I don't really know but I'm not going to
make that decision to say that it's not. $o I would actually split the
baby and go with 3. The 64 foot dock is fine. I think the canoe racks
would not intensify the use. It sounds like they've been there before.
Didn't sound to me like the neighbors had a problem with the canoe racks in
and of themselves. That's where I'd go on it. As far as procedure on
these Kate, what do you need from us? Do you need a motion?
Aanenson: Yeah, with your recommendation for those blanks. What you want
to pass on.
Batzli: Okay. I would entertain a motion from a~yone or if somebody wants
to discuss it further prior to making a motion.
3ohn Metz: Mr. Chairman, may I ask just one thing? I think there's been a
little bit of miscommunication. My attorney had a memorandum. An $ page
memorandum that apparently none of you have ever seen and it should
strictly clarify what this vote should be. Before you take the question of
the vote may be misunderstood it's intention but the big packet of
documentation which you have there was not for general distribution but
only for it to be available .... 8 page memorandum there that clearly
delineates all these questions and I think it would be unfair for you not
to at least maybe publicly read it. Not myself but somebody read it prior
to you taking the vote.
Batzli: Well what I'm going to do is I'm' going to have this placed in the
Minutes so it will be entered. It will be part of the record and so it
will be available for the Council. If in fact what we determine is not,
and I apologize for not having that in front of us. I don't know that at
this point we can take a long enough recess to read it and I apologize that
to the extent but you can make it part of the record. It will be part of
the record and to the extent that, and I guess I would encourage the
Council to take a look at it to the extent that what we determine tonight
is adverse to what your attorney has written here. Is that? That's what
we can do.
3chh Metz: ...8 pages takes all the speculation out of it.
Emmings: No it doesn't because I write memorandums for a living and I'll
take either side of any'question and produce an 8 page memoranda or 20. $o
that tells one half the story and they probably have a memoranda from their
attorney that addresses the other side of the question. So it really
wouldn't do us any good to read half of it.
Planning Commission Heeting
Hay 6, 1992 - Page 41
3ohn Metz: Then I'll ask to make it part of the record if you can address
it.
Batzli: It will be. And again, I apologize for not having that in front
of us. I don't know, we can't do anything with that at th%s point.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, would you explain why you feel that 3 was
documented?
Batzli: I'm looking at the evidence that Mr. Underdahl presented. That
there was a third boat on the property being used so there was a bee on
that property of 3 boats. The Statute looks at what was the use prior to
January of 1982. It appears that there were was a use of 3 boats.
Conrad: The third boat was at that dock?
Batzli: Well, no. It was on the property line from his calculations. It
was within the property line being stored somehow on a lift, moored,
whatever at the property. I mean it's a matter of interpretation Ladd.
We're each looking at the evidence. We're each weighing, you're looking at
it's probative value trying to decide what is the correct answer here. I'm
looking at it. I'm saying it looks to me like there was 3 boats. That was
the use. I don't think I'm intensifying it anymore than what existed at
that time. I don't know that there was, that that boat existed.
Erhart: How do you know the guy just wasn't swimming on it.
Conrad: Yeah you know. There's a dock and there are 2 boats on the dock
that is owned by the recreational beachlot. I don't know how you can even
guess where that other boat is.
Batzli: I'm taking Mr. Underdahl's calculations at their face value. Now,
you don't have to take those. I mean you can...
Conrad: No, I think use is important to me and that's what I'm concerned
with. I'm also concerned with the fact that this is a 3,000 square foot
lot.
Ann Cathcart: No, it's 5,000. That's the whole point.
Conrad: But let me, I'll just say another thing and I understand your
point but typically today, unless you had 20,000 feet, you.wouldn't. So
your 'not even 25~ of what we would grant as a beachlot today. Not even 25~
so that's why I'm a little bit more sensitive to the neighbors on this one
because it's a very small beachlot and it's tiny and to be honest, 10 years
ago, 12 years ago it was this type of thing that started making us develop
a beachlot ordinance. And what I want to do is protect as many rights as
you have yet enforce some of the intent or at least project some of the
intent. We're trying to protect neighbors and also trying to protect the
lake a little bit. But I go back, I want to make sure. Brian, I think I
could justify, I could go with 3 boats simply because a riparian. I always
use what a riparian lot owner could get because that's how that developer
could have developed that lot. And that has a tendency to protect the lake
in terms of use. In terms of how some dangerous safety issues but also
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 42
just simply from preserving and ~rotecting the lake. So I use that as a
guideline so I think in my mind we could go that route and say they
deserved what the riparian, typical riparian lot might get. On the other
hand, I'm not convinced that, I go back to what I saw for 1981' and I see 2
boats. I think on a small property like this, it's just teeny. In
anybody's standards I think the 2 boats seems more reasonable than the 3.
I was curious where you got the 3 Brian and I thank you for that. I will
make a motion. We'll see where this one goes. I make'a motion that the'
non-conforming recreational beachlot permit from Trolls Glen be approved
with the exception of a total of 2 boats be allowed.
Batzli: Is there a second to the motion?
Erhart: I'll seco nd it.
Batzli: Discussion.
Farmakes: I'd like to clarify one thing. Is that moored or docked?
Conrad: I don't care.
Batzli: Steve, any discussion?
Emmings: No. All I can do is repeat myself. Do you want me to do that?
Batzli: No.
Conrad moved, Erhart seconded that the-Planning Commission recommend to
approve the Non-Conforming Use Permit for the Recreational Beachlot for
Trolls Glen Homeowners Association with the 64 foot dock, 1 canoe rack, 2
boats docked or moored, and a swimming beach. Conrad, Erhart, Ledvina and
Farmakes voted in favor. Batzli, Emmings and Rhrens voted in opposition.
The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3.
Batzli: Would you like to state your objections?
Ahrens: I have a real problem. You know we're dealing with a situation
where there's a 1975 covenant approved by the City telling this association
that they can set up, they can have mooring rights on the lake and that the
association can control it and make up their own rules and then we come
along and say, we were only kidding. You can't really do that. I Just
don't see how we'can.
Erhart: If someone owned the lot in 1975, how many boats could they have
at their dock?
Ahrens: We didn't set that forth.
Erhart: No, but now we do right?
: Ahrens: Yeah.
Erhart: So the same argument would say that somebody owned a house on the
lake in 1975, that we can't regulate.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 43
Ahrens: Right, but we're saying that in 1981, we're going to take the
numbers you had in 1981. That association has Minutes from their meeting
authorizing them to use 4 boats.
Emmings: You already won Tim.. She's just stating her position.
Erhart: I know.
Batzli: ' Anything else Joan?
Ahrens: And that was their use in 1981 and I think that's what we should
go with instead of making something up out of the blue.
Erhart: I'm trying to understand this Steve too. This is very confusing.
Batzli: Steve. do you have anything?
Emmings: I think this case is different again because we have a document
here that shows what they were proposing to do. I think it's reasonable.
I think we're running a ri~k here of getting way too strict and legalistic'.
Oh, the picture shows 2 boats, so it's 2 boats.-Now in some cases those 2
boats might be reasonable and for some of the reasons Ladd outlined, that
might be reasonable on this lot. but it Just, I have a little different
opinion there. I think 4 boats is okay on this lot and that's what I would
grant. That's all.
Batzli: My sentiment is not that I don't care as much what their intent
was. I think we can regulate and like Tim said, but I at least take the
evidence that they were able to present at it's face value and what they
were telling us so that's why I would give them 3. Other than that, I
agree with the motion. It's the number of boats that's the issue. Okay,
this will go onto City Council when?
Aanenson: May 18th.
Batzli: May lath so please follow the issue to the City Council. They
will make the final determination. Thank you for coming in.
PUBLIC HE~RING:
ZONING ORDINaNC~ aMENDMENT TO ~ CHaPTeR 20 OF THE CITY CODE pERTaINING
TO MTNTNGi aND EARTH I~(~.
Sharmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order.- There was no one present wishing to
speak on this item.
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close-the public hearing, all voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Any discussion? Anyone have any comments? Is there a motion?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 44
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
approve an amendment to Section 20-1351 of the Chanhassen City code and
repeal Sections 20-1352 through 20-1384. All Voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
PUBLTC HEARING:
~NTERIM USE PERMIT FOR GRADING/EXCAV/~T~ON LOC(~TED ~T LOT 5, VINE-LAND
ADDITION, FORTIER .-AND AssocIATES'.
Public Present:
Name Address
Daryl Fortier
Jim & Mary Stassen
408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley
Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road
Sharmin Al-Jarl presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Satzli
called the public hearing to order.
Daryl Fortier: First, I'm Daryl Fortier representing Frank Beddor, Jr. He
is purchasing the property from Mr. Owens. We're in agreement, I'm in
agreement with the staff report. All 16 conditions of 1~. The only one I
would like to discuss is point number. 10 which says there shall be an
emergency overflow swale constructed to the southwesterly portion of the
site to drain across Peaceful Lane. This would, for a swale to work as you
all understand. This allows water to pass over the surface of the ground.
The surface of the ground at that point is controlled'by the elevation of
Peaceful Lane which is about 1005. Our 100 year storm is at about 995.5.
For us to get a swale to go up another 5 feet would require us to have
eight 100 year floods. Eight 100 year rains in a row. That is
concurrently before the water would get that high.
Emmings: What's your point?
Daryl Fortier: My point is we don't think that's a viable idea. We think
that it's a good idea for lots that work but it won't apply to this lot. I
think a more reasonable way of controlling an overflow situation here is to
provide a second pipe which would be normally set at the 100 year elevation
such as if the first pipe to outlet the pond ever did become obstructed,
that as the water rose to the 100 year elevation, it woul~ then flood into
this other overflow pipe and allow us a secondary means of draining the
lot. It's just a detail to work out with engineering.
Emmings: The engineer is nodding. You've already won.
Daryl Fortier: Okay. That's the sole issue.
Batzli: This is a public hearing. Would anyone else like to make. a
comment on this issue?
Mary Stassen: My name is Mary Stassen and-Jim and I live at the corner of
Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road right across from the construction
work that they'll be doing. Back in last year's, meetings When this whole
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 45
thing came up, before any construction activity was going to begin over on
that development, the road was to be straighten out and I guess that's what
my concern is. That I haven't heard anything about that and right now,
because that used to be where all the traffic, where Powers Blvd. went
through, it's 125 feet across that entrance right there.
Emmings: My recollection of that, and maybe I'm wrong. My recollection is
that before, is it Nez Perce, got connected to Peaceful Lane, that's'when
that intersection was supposed to be straighten out. Remember?
Batzli: Dave, let's.
Hempel: If I could clarify. Yes. Partially correct there.- What the City
was really partaking and which actually they have ordered a feasibility
report to be prepared for the actual extension of Nez Perce through the
Peaceful Hills Drive I guess it's called onto Pleasant View Road. At that
time we would address the proper intersection at Peaceful Hills.
Batzli: What kind of timeframe?
Hempel: City Council approved authorization of the feasibility study for
the extension of Nez Perce Drive on March 13, 1992. We have a consultant
working on it and we have a tentative date of I believe June 22nd. Well
that's a City Council date but one of the Planning Commission meetings in
June. Probably the later one in June.
Emmings: And is the consultant looking at fixing that corner that they
live on?
Hempel: That's correct.
Emmings: So that's part of the project.
Hempel: It will be a total package. Actually there may be two options...
Batzli: Okay. Do you have any more questions?
Mary Stassen: Well we're Just concerned about, having that 125 feet, you
can pull in a dump truck and turn a complete circle in that amount of
space. We're basically like 35 feet from Peaceful Lane and that corner
cuts at such an angle that we can hardly get out of our driveway and people
can come around at a pretty fast speed so we're really very concerned about
this and I don't know where, the construction traffic is going to be
accessing into the land but it also would be nice if that traffic could be
moved perhaps down Peaceful Lane or maybe even access in off of Pleasant
View Road instead of right across from our driveway. Or right across from
our house.
Emmings: How will they be getting in and out to the construction site?
Hempel: I'll defer that question maybe to Mr. Fortier to address. The
actual access point.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 46
Daryl Fortier: We haven't selected an access point but it occurs to me
that it would seem reasonable as part of the traffic management plan to put
up a barricade so that you see the barricade on Pleasant View Road that
would preclude traffic from hugging th~ road next to the.Stassen's
driveway. Instead of sweeping a close curve, this would preclude them from
going there and it would force them to take more of a. 90 degree turn so it
would temporarily close down the throat of Peaceful Lane. Since there's
only 4 residents who use that, it seems to me to be a reasonable interim
solution.
Emmings: Do you put up the barricade or does the City?
Daryl Fortier: We can have that put up as part of the project.
Emmings: $o we could make it a condition here that you put up a barricade
to keep traffic on the south end of that away from the Stassen's property
and that would be alright?
Daryl Fortier: That's acceptable.
Mary Stassen: Do you know Daryl where they would go on...? At what point?
Daryl Fortier: I have a good feeling that they're going to go onto the
land just about straight across from your driveway. That's where it
doesn't have any rise to it and it's pretty flat. There's a couple trees
they have to move there. $o they're going to relocate two trees and '
because that's flat-and that's where they have to scrape out organics.
They'll come in with some backhoes first at that location and once they get
the backhoes in there, since that's where they have to do the work, that
soil will be messed up and I expect that's where we'll be coming in. There
is a requirement that we construct a 50 foot long gravel patch so that the
mud will be taken off the equipment as it goes in and out of the site.
Especially the trucks that are hauling dirt. So we'll try to keep the
streets as clean as we can.
Jim Stassen: ...dirt in there, you were coming in o~f of'Pleasant...
little bit further down. Is that possible that exit could be used?
Daryl Fortier: If I could have the overhead projecter back on I can show
you what the difficulty is there. Mr. Owens had brought fill in right
about this location. Brought it across the Troendle property and put it
down here. We have to scrape out organics up in this area...
(There was a tape change at 'this point in the discussion.)
Batzli: Any other comments?
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ahrens: My questions have been answered. I don't have anything else on
this. I would go along with the staff repor, t.
Farmakes: Go along with the staff recommendation.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 47
Emmings: Same.
Ledvina: The condition number 4 indicates that the applicant shall provide
storm water runoff calculations for ordinary high water. I'm sorry, yes.
That's right. Ordinary high water level, 160 year' flood elevation and pipe
hydraulics prepared and signed by a professional engineer; I'd like the
additional text added, registered in the State of Minnesota. Professional
Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.'
Emmings: What's the point of'that because I don't understand it?
Ledvina: Well, generally you want individuals that are working,.
professional engineers that are working on pro3ects here to be registered
in this state as opposed to Alabama or. It's standard terminology when
you're speaking of signatures' of professional engineers.
8atzli: Anything else Matt?
Ledvina; No, that's it.
Batzli: Okay, Ladd. Tim.
Batzli: I think it looks good. I would like to see an addition, if
possible about the barrier being put up to make them go wide and avoid
their property so they don't hug that' corner. Would anyone like to make a
motion?
Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim
Use Permit #92-3 with the conditions in the staff report. 3 will be
modified according to what Sharmin told us before. Saying Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District. 4 will have the change language, professional engineer
be registered in the Minnesota. Number 10 will be changed. I don't know
what went on there between our engineer and Daryl but 10 will be changed to
conform to what they agreed to here. 11, there was an addition. If the
feasibility study for the extension of Nez Perce Drive. 18, there be a new
18. Yeah, there'd be a new condition 18 that would say that during the
construction period, the applicant shall locate and maintain a barricade on
the west side of Peaceful Lane at it's intersection with Pleasant View.
The purpose of the barricade shall be to keep construction vehicles from
interfering with the Stassen's use of their driveway. I have a note from
our leader. Give me one minute to read it. What?
Batzli: In accordance with the plans.
Emmings: In accordance with the plans dated ~pril 6, 1992. Stamped
Received April 6, 1992.
Batzli: I'll second it.
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Interim Use Permit #92-3 in accordance with the plans stamped
"Received April 6, 1992" and with the followtn~ conditions:
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 -.Page 48
·
The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit in the
amount of $7,000. to cover any road damage, maintenance of erosion-
control measures and site restoration.
·
The applicant shall submit $238.50 grading permit fee as required by
the Uniform Building Code· The applicant shall also be responsible
for reimbursing the city for all inspection and attorney fees
associated with processing add enforcing tbs permit· The inspection
fee shall be computed at a rate of $30· per hour·
3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
·
The applicant shall provide storm runoff calculations for the ordinary
high water level, 100 year flood elevation and pipe hydraulics
prepared and signed by a professional engineer registered in the State
of Minnesota.
·
The applicant shall supply the City with a mylar as-built survey
prepared by a professional engineer upon completion of excavation to
verify the grading plan has been performed in compliance with the
proposed plan.
·
A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which w~ll be respread on
the site as soon as the excavation is completed. Topsoiling and disk
mulch seeding shall be implemented immediately following the
completion of excavated areas.
·
Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed MnPCA and
EPA regulations. If the city determines that there is a problem
warranting such test shall be paid for by the applicant.
8. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday thru
Saturday and prohibited on national holidays. If the City Engineer
determines that traffic conflicts result due to rush hour traffic
flows, the hours of operation will be appropriately restricted-.
·
The city will work with the County Sheriff to coordinate speed and
weight checks· If trucks are violating traffic laws,.staff will
require that the operation be shut down and will ask the City Council
to revoke the permit.
10.
The applicant and the City Engineering staff will get together to'
determine how to control the emergency overflow situation in the
southwestly portion of the site draining over Peaceful Lane.
11.
The applicant shall incorporate any modifications to the site grading'
and/or storm sewer improvements' as a result of the approved
feasibility study for the extension'of Nez Perce Drive.
12.
The applicant shall be responsible for adjustment of all sanitary
sewer and water service stubs along Pleasant View Road and Peaceful
Lane.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 49
The applicant shall Convey to the city a drainage easement over the
proposed pond. The easement limits shall be confined to the 100 year
flood elevation.
14. The applicant shall be responsible for any and all road damage.
sustained from the truck hauling and construction activities.
. -
15. The applicant shall cosntruct and maintain a gravel construction
access to the site. Access to the site shall be restricted to this
access point only.
16.
The applicant shall convey to the city a drainage easement over the
proposed pond. The easement limits shall be confined-to the 100 year
flood elevation.
17. The landscaping shall be discussed with staff. The applicant shall
submit landscaping plans for staff review and approval.
18. During the construction period, the applicant shall locate and
maintain a barricade on the west side of Peaceful Lane at it's
intersection with Pleasant Vie~. The purpose of the barricade shall
be to keep construction vehicles from interfering with the Stassen's
use of their driveway.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR GRADING/~XCAVAT~ON [,OCAT£D AT- LOT 7., PAR~ ONE 3RD
ADDITION. FORTIER AND ASSOGIAT~S,
Sharmin Al-Jarl presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order.
Daryl Fortier: I'll keep this one very short. I'm DarYl Fortier
representing Frank 8eddor. We're in agreement with the conditions and the
addendums or amendments that Sharmin is recommending. The only point I
would clarify for those who like to use professional engineers registered
in Minnesota is that the person who prepares a survey is a licensed
surveyor. Not an engineer.
Erhart: Licensed in the State of Minnesota though.
Daryl Fortier: But he is a surveyor.
Emmings: But the last one was a different thing altogether. 'That was
hydraulics.
Hempel: We were talking about storm sewer.
8atzli: Thank God we got that cleared up. Okay. This is a public
hearing. Does anyone have any comments in regards to this application?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 50
Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearin~. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing Nas closed.
Batzli: I'm going to call on you first Steve. Do you have any comments?
Emmings: No.
Batzli: No comments? You like it? Okay. Ladd· Okay.
Farmakes: I go along with staff recommendations.
Ahrens: Me too.
Batzli: Okay· I have nothing to add other than thank you very much for
being patient to stick around for our lengthy other hearings· Is there a
motion?
Ledvina: I recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following
motion. The approval of the Interim Use Permit #92-2 with the conditions,
14 conditions identified by staff. Modifying condition 5 to read, the
applicant shall supply the City with a mylar as-built survey prepared by a
professional surveyor registered in the State of Minnesota upon completion
of excavation to verify the grading plan has been performed in compliance
with the proposed plan.
Erhart: I'll second that.
Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Interim Use Permit #92-2 with the folIowing conditions:
The applicant shall provide the city with a letter of credit in the
amount of $2,500. to cover any road damage, maintenance of erosion
control measures, site restoration and driveway construction.
·
The applicant shall submit $153.00 grading permit fee as required by
the Uniform Building Code and pay for all city staff and attorney time
used to monitor and inspect the operation, lhe inspection fee shall
be computed at a rate of $30. Per hour.
3. The applicant shall obtain and-comply with all permit requirements of
the RiIey-Pur@atory-BIuff Creek Watershed District.
4. The applicant shall revise the proposed grading plan to ensure the
northerly 20 feet of the site remain undisturbed as outlined in the
Preservation Easement Agreement.
·
The applicant shall supply the city with a mylar as-built survey.
prepared by a professional surveyor registered in the State of
Minnesota upon completion of excavation to verify the grading plan bas
been performed in compliance with the proposed plan·
A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be respread on
the site as soon as the excavation is completed. Topsoiling and disk
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 51
mulch seeding shall be implemented immediately following the
completion of excavated areas.
·
Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed
MnPCA and EPA regulations. If the city determines that there is a
problem, warranting such tests shall be paid for by the applicant.
.
Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday and prohibited on national holidays. If the City
Engineer determines that traffic conflicts result due to rush hour
traffic flows, the hours of operation will be appropriately
restricted·
·
The city will work with the County Sheriff to coordinate speed and
weight checks. If trucks are violating traffic laws, staff will
require that the operation be shut down and will ask the City 'Council
to revoke the permit.
10.
Prior to starting grading activities, all trees designated for
preservation shall be protected by a snow fence for staff's review and
approval·
All slopes 3:1 or greater shall be stabilized with erosion control
blanket specifically adjacent to the driveway entrance.
12.
The applicant shall construct and maintain a gravel construction
access during the grading operation and paved with temporary
bituminous surface upon completion of site grading until the site
develops.
13.
14.
The applicant shall demonstrate and employ measures to control erosion
from the proposed driveway·
.
The applicant shall enter into a grading permit and provide the
necessary security to guarantee compliance of the condition of
approval. All work shall be completed by October 15, 1992.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARIN~:
WET~AND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY ROAD 17 AND TH~
MITIGATION OF AN .ADDITIONAL 0.05 ACRES OF WETLAND APONG J. AKE ~IVE, CITY OF
CHANHASSEN.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman'Batzli
called the public hearing to order·
Batzli: The record should show that there's ho one but Dick Wing in the
crowd and it doesn't look to me like he's going to speak on this issue.
Conrad moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, [992 - Page 52
Batzli: The public hearing is closed. Comments. Suggestions. Joan.
Ahrens: Is muck the same as topsoil?
Aanenson: It's a landscape term.
Ahrens: Is that a term of ours?
Aanenson: Yes. Trade term.
Ahrens: I don't have any more questions.
Batzli: Jeff. Steve. Ladd, anything?
Conrad: No. I like it. I like how the city handled this.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Tim. I don't have any questions other than to
just ask the general question of, if we constructed this within the last
couple of years, why the heck didn't we know there was going to be curb and
gutter going in there? Why do we have to do it now, just.out of idle
curiousity?
Aanenson: Dave may speak to why that segment was left out'of the original
-.
improvements.
Batzli: Was this just kind of an oversight the first time we did this?
Hempel: I think the scope of the project back then was not realized.
Future expansion of Powers wasn't looked at to be all honest.
8atzli: Yeah, okay. Is there a motion?
Ledvina: I would like to make a motion recommending that the Planning
Commission approve the Wetland Alteration Permit ~92-5 as shown on the
plans dated April 6, 1992 with the 3 staff conditions.
Conrad: Second.
Ledvtna moved. Conrad seconded that. the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Netland Alteration Permit #92-5 as shown on the plans dated
April 6, 1992 with the following, conditions=
1. The wetland mitigation area shall be 0.1 acres.
2. Type III erosion control shall be installed between the existing
wetland area and all disturbed areas and shall be removed once the
vegetation has been re;established.
3. All disturbed areas shall be spread with topsoil/muck from the project
to revegetate the area with native vegetation.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6. 1992 - Page 53
aPPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting date ApriI i5, 1992 with the foIIowing comment.
Batzli: I have one question on the Minutes personally here' Was the
approval last week of the lots in the rural district 15,.000 square feet?
Aanenson: The minimum.
Batzli: Minimum.
Aanenson: Yes.
Batzli: Because we had talked about a larger size and it didn't seem to me
that got much attention at all. In the presentation that staff had decided
to put it at 15 and the Commission didn't discuss that either.
Aanenson: I think the feeling was that it was consistent with our regular
RSF zone.
CITY COUNCIL UPi)ATE.
~anenson: There's a couple things I'd like to talk about. One is that the
City Council discussed the Highway 5 corridor study and we did get a
proposal. Based on that, what we'd like to do is establish a committee
similar to what we have for the storm water management committee so we're
asking for 2 people from the Planning Commission to represent the Highway $
corridor study. As Paul outlined in here, we'll probably be meeting in the
next 30 to 45 days so we'd like 2 people from the' Planning Commission to be
on that committee.
Batzli: Don't we already have people who are involved in the Highway 5
corridor study?
Ahrens: I thought so.
8atzli: Who were those people?
Emmings: I can't remember.
Erhart: It wasn't me. I'm on the wetlands.
Farmakes: I'll do it again.
Emmings: I was there. I really don't think right now in my.life I've got
time to do any more. I'm sorry, or I'would.
Farmakes: I don't have time either but I'll do it again.
Batzli: Okay, would anyone else like to do it? We've got one. We've got
Jeff. Would you guys like to do it?
Conrad: No.
Batzli: No? Matt?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, l gq2 - Page 54
Ledvina: What are the times involved?
Earnings: What would be the requirements? What are we talking about for
time?
Aanenson: We intended to have something in place in 6 months so with the
storm water management we've been meeting once a-month.
Emmings: Okay, I'll do that.
Batzli: Okay, we have our two bodies. Volunteers.
Aanenson: I also was going to tell you that on the Timberwood, the Stone
Creek subdivision. That the Council decided not to make that connection
through Timberwood so it will be two.
Batzli: They decided not to?
Ahrens: Why?
Batzli: What was their rationale?
-.
Aanenson: They were two distinct neighborhoods and they needed to remain
distinct neighborhoods.
Ahrens: Aren't the suburbs great.
Conrad: What did you just say?
Batzli: They did not connect that road th'rough Timberwood.
Conrad: They didn't?
Ahrens: That's not logical to me.
Ledvina: Did they leave two entrances onto Galpin?'
Aanenson: Well they recommended that we try to get two entrances and I'm
trying to set the meeting now with the county Engineer to see if we can get
two entrances off of Salpin. But if we can't, then we'll just leave it
that way.
Bat-zli: What they'd do with the park?
Aanenson: The park will go on the northern portion. That will include
part of the bluff and it will have a ballfield, a play area and a sliding
hill. And it will be approximately 8.7 acres.
Batzli: They're going to take the ravine.
Aanenson: Yeah. It will include the bluff. They met back with the Parks
Commission. I think they're really proactive and they worked. They came
back with two alternates. One, showing where they wanted. A little bit
less acreage. And then back up in the area that we, the Planning
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 55
Commission kind of felt strongly about and so they worked out and it was
really good that the Parks Commission.
Ledvina: $o there's actually two areas then?
Aanenson: He came to the Parks Commission with two. Showing the two and
they discussed it and they felt that with the potential of keeping it kind
of a pristine area, that it could work and it could meet their needs by
putting the ballfield and the totlot in there so. I think 'the Parks
Commission really, they had a special meeting and did a really good job.
Farma kes: So they got rid of the passive park?
Aanenson: It had both. Passive elements and a .sliding hill, a 'play area
and a ballfield. So I think it's going to be nice.
Emmings: I think we're kind of out of touch with the City Council. YOu
know I'm thinking about over on TH 101. We thought that road ought to be
brought back out onto TH 101 and the City Council said no. Here, and
they're kind of similar issues.
Farmakes: Then there's the gateway that's going forward with removing that
nOW.
Erhart:
planning.
Tuns.
I don't know if we're out of touch.
They're making.political decisions.
I think we're recommending
That's the way the process
Emmings: Yeah. Well maybe that's it.
Batzlt:
Aanenson:
forward.
Anything else?
That was it. I-mean the rest of them are pretty-straight
Those were I think more.
OPEN DISCUSSION.
Batzli: Does Joan want to say anything about the Target?
Aanenson: I was going to say, I'did bring those plans. I thought since
you guys were at the meeting, I brought 4 copies if you want to talk about
what was happening at the meeting.
Batzli: Just so everybody knows. I don't even know if everybody knows.
There was a group discussion with some community leaders, HRA, City Council
and 3oan and I regarding the proposed Target site in town here'. There were
3 different plans presented by, what's his name?
Aanenson: Burdick? Oh, Morrish you're talking about?
Batzli: Morrish, right. And basically Target presented, not an lultimatum
but it was suggested that if they didn't get their pweferred alignment and
they didn't want to be down in the hole and they didn't want to have to
save all the trees, they were going to build it north of 78th Street there.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 56
We talked in general terms about what the key design elements were in the
city. How did the various plans fit into the centrally located park. How
did they show it off. How did they buffer things and 3can, what else did
we talk about?
Ahrens: Well we talked about the general concept plan for both the parcels
north and south of West 78th Street. I think that most people were
interested in goin9 along with a plan that established retail and office,
or was it just office north of 7$th Street adjacent to Kerber
Batzli: I think they were interested in what'is called Plan C. Plan C
seemed to tickle everybody and basically what you get with Plan C is you
get Target kind of at a jaunty angle to provide more of an expansion into
the green zone of Central Park. The buildings north would be office rather
than retail and we thought that was a better use so that you didn't have
the back side of a retail shopping center a~ainst Central Park. And so
that was a good buffer from Central Park .into this area here. On the far
end of Target, on the west end they had kind of a food court kind of a
concept where basically we're coming to the realization that we're going to
get some of these restaurants/retail uses at that end and the issue became,
how do you minimize that use? How do you make it pleasant? And' it was
suggested by Morrish and the other people that we could do this as long as
we got screening and cooperation and they could have outdoorsy kind of
things and there would be central parking so you drop off the kids and
somebody goes and gets a taco. Somebody else goes and gets the pizza. To
me it looks like a lot of asphalt between restaurant, retail and Target but
yet if you look at any of the Targets in existence, they need the asphalt
from the standpoint that they've got a lot of customers going in and out.
There were comments by Councilman Wing that Target in the past did not like
to work with people on their parking lots to make them attractive and that
from TH 5 you were basically going to see a Knollwood kind of situation
where Target was lower than the elevation of the road. There ~as a lot of
blacktop and how in the world can we possibly make this attractive if
Target won't work with us? I don't know that those concerns were
adequately addressed.
Ahrens: They weren't at all addressed.
Farmakes: Were they putting in trees on the asphalt?
Ahrens: Well, Target I guess has said that they won't go along with any Of
the buffering.
Batzli: They want to be seen. That's. their big deal.
Ahrens: They want to be seen. It's this dark area right south where it
shows Target is supposed to be all trees and Target said we don't want
trees. We want people to see us, like people wouldn't know where Target
would be located in Chanhassen. But it bothers me. Y~u.know we have
Morrish coming up with great plans. We have buffering set up around these
5 fast food restaurants along Powers Blvd.. What happens if a fast food
restaurants come in and say, we don't want the trees either? We don't want
any buffering. We want people to see us. What do we end up with then? A
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 57
huge asphalt parking lot with 5 fast food restaurants on one side and
Target on the other and no buffering?
Batzli: Well, and that's the issue and that's why I initially went to the
meeting assuming that we were going to'discuss how we could work with
Target and you know basically the developer of the site here and provide
some sort of reasonable alternative. And it sounded to me like the issue
became if they're not going to ask the HRR for financial assistance, then
they may just develop it according to our minimum standards and tough luck.
So it became, you know I didn't get a sense that there was a lot of give or
that it was kind of a, we don't do this in other communities. .Why should
we do it here kind of a mentality almost, although they weren't really,
they had one guy kind of taking copious notes but he wasn't saying
anything. I didn't really understand the power structure as far as who was
actually speaking for Target. I don~t know if you have anything to add.
Richard Wing: I went to a seminar a year ago last summer where the Target.
Vice President was there and he wound up getting booed and people left the
seminar and one lady stated, she will never tolerate shopping. They're...
you require us to put in one tree, unless there's a return on that tree, we
won't consider it. I'll lose my job if I put anything...we'll go to the
next community. They'd rather have us. They don't care about the trees. I
mean they're real cold blooded. I was stunned. -
Farmakes: They made concessions in Chicago I know. I don't know if we can
find out the history of what they did in Chicago but' they' built a stone and
glass building and for them, that's quite a, it'd be interesting to find
out the story.
Ahrens: Everybody will make concessions if they want the site bad enough.
You know what I was really shocked at that meeting, there weremaybe 25
people there. When you brought that comment up and when Don Ashworth said
that Target said they would not put any trees in,.there was no response
from anyone. They just sat there like well, okay. Well, if that's what
Target wants, then I guess we don't have any choice. They threw up their
hands it seems like.
Richard Wing: See we don't have any architectural standards or we really
don't have anything as I understand it, in the ordinance that can put the
kabosh to it. We really don't have any control of what they do. They can
put in a block building with the lighting standard we require and the sign
required, and have a Knollwood'Target without any doubt.
Erhart: How about our landscaping ordinance?
Richard Wing: Oh landscaping, sure.
Erhart: We require a lot of trees in the parking lot with our landscaping
ordinance. ~
Emmings: Haven't we adopted, do we get any mileage out of ~he fact that
we.'ve identified the corridor as something that's going to have?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 58
Richard Wing: ...not a moratorium but an overlay... We're going to create
those standards...But I thought it was clear 3can, that were they to
develop on the north side of the road, we ....
Ahrens: But I still don't understand why that's the case. I mean why
doesn't the city have any control? Something's wrong .here.
Emmings: We look at site plans on every building that comes in and we say -
you've got to put trees here and you've got to put trees'there. We don't
have much control but we certainly have some don't we?
Aanenson: We do have standards and our architectural standards and
preservation of natural sites. If we feel like we don't want to approve
the site because it's not meeting those needs, then we would deny it on
those basis. We do have those standards.
Batzli: But clearly what we're talking about though is if you look at Plan
C, there's a lot in there that they would not be required to do. They
would not have to put the retail in a nice little, curve. They could put
little outlots. Break it into 5 outlots and have 5 little free standing
fast food restaurants. They could do those kinds of things and those were
kind of the threats that this is a nice plan. It's a great concept. It
kind of maybe keeps an entrance into the older part of the city. I mean
you've got everything with the big parking lots on one end and there were
issues raised at the meeting actually of pedestrian traffic from the
downtown and should there be pedestrian traffic or are people just going to
drive their car from store to store and we can't do anything about it and
there were a lot of issues like that discussed. Unfortunately, I don't
know that there was a resolution of anything. There really wasn't.
Richard Wing: They wanted one that night too. I mean staff was...
Farmakes: The Target building though is still south of 7$th Street
correct?
Batzli: Well, if they do not get whatever it is that they're, you know I .
don't quite understand where they're at in the process but apparently they
are objecting to some of the things that.the city would like them to do.
For example, we want them to build at a certain location so that some trees
are preserved. They're saying we're not going to preserve the trees. We
want to be seen. You're making us dig down in a hole. They want to move
the building to the west from where they are currently because that moves
them upland. And we're saying wel-1 no, we want you down here. Somehow or
another, the threat came in that. someone spoke to someone on the phone in
the morning, and if they don't get what they want, they're going to' do it
on the north side and we're not going, to have any control over what they
do. I mean it's a threat. I don't know how serious they were.
-
Farmakes: Is there enough room to put that size building on the north side?
8atzli: Well they have a plan. There was some plan that was put up then
that showed it up there.
Ahrens: This plan shows the realignment of 7$th Street too right?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 59
Batzli: Yes. Yes it does. There were issues of, should they close o~f
78th Street. What Morrish was presenting really with some of these plans
was that he wants to avoid these little small, if you look'at Plan A. You
end up with a lot of these little, triangle sized lots 'and you end up with
78th Street still going through. 'And then there's a bunch of issues that
is it right out? Is it right in? And then they had a traffic consultant
there and he spoke at great length about how you could tie in the traffic
lights and what would the traffic be like at the holiday season at Target
trying to get in and out and where is the traffic going to go? Really it
seemed to me that the logical one to go with was Plan C because if you
looked at the roads in front of Target and the building on the north, their
main entrances would then offset one another directly and so traffic would
be smoother and better served with that particular plan for that reason
alone. And he had a couple stop light projections put in there and some
things like that. But the problem was, I mean we talked about all these
things. Everybody sQemed to kind of point to Plan C but then I don't
really know, it was just kind of, nothing really. Well it wasn't like
Target said, well great. We'll come in with Plan C and we'll let you see.
What's happened since the meeting?
Aanenson: It's my understanding there will be a follow up meeting.
Batzli: ...if other Planning Commission members would'like to attend the
meeting, you're certainly welcome to come and attend.
Farmakes: 3eff doesn't have time but he'll probably go.
Batzli: Anyway, that's what happened at that meeting.
Erhart: I think what's entitled the Hanson Building, is that being looked
at all at getting removed? That little industrial building down there.
I mean it's really out of place there. Right to the right of Target. Next
to Market Square. That little industrial building there.
Richard Wing: ...and I don't know why.
Erhart: I tell you what. If we're going to do the plan for the western'
part of the downtown area, I mean you've got to take that in there and we
shouldn't be putting in a plan that works around it. With all the' money we
buy and tear down apartment buildings and'everything like that. That thing
just doesn't fit there. And I see it's still on the plans here: It's
ugly. It just doesn't fit.
Batzli: It probably does fit in against the back side of Market Square~ I
don't know what fits in against the back side of Market Square. Nothing.
Conrad: Only the back side of something else.
Batzli: The back side of Target.
Conrad: That will be good planning-because the back side of Market .square
is not...
Erhart: Why don't we move the trees over here?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 60
Conrad: Dick, is there a pressure to help Target into the community? Is
there a feeling that boy, we need that tax base that they'd bring in?
Richard Wing: Well I was waiting for somebody to bring that up because I
have information on tax base. How many... The downtown businesses, they
claim it's going to triple their traffic and really improve and help
downtown Chanhassen business grow. The developers...were very pro. Then
you've got someone like me that, you know the last thing in the world...
that's the other extreme. I think if it's attractive. I think there's a
philosophical feeling of what do we want our city to really, and is it
something that draws 15 miles around and brings in ail this traffic. I
mean we're arguing stop signs right now. This is just devastating...On the
other hand, it's certainly going to stimulate business..~ I think it's
personal opinion. I think your... I'm willing to say no. !.don't want
it. It doesn't matter what it looks like. It's not what I want in my
community but I don't think I necessarily represent the majority.
Ahrens: Well I said that also and there was dead silence in the room
when I said that.
Batzli: Well, you two were really the only two that were bringing up what
I would say were negative things. The other people had like little
problems but they didn't.
Erhart: What vision do you have for that area if that's not there?
Ahrens: I just said we should have some kind of vision and we don't have
any. And is this, ! wasn't saying Target absolutely should not go there
but is this something we really want here? I mean let's think about this
before we jump into it.
Erhart: I'm not excited about it but then we have to have an alternative
vision for that area and then where do we want our Targets?
Ahrens: I absolutely believe we'should have a vision. But when we go to a
meeting and we're told that Target is going to build a'store'there and
they're going to build it to their own specifications and we have nothing
to say about it and everybody sits there, it's a little disheartening to
sit in a process like that.
Batzli: I was too busy eating my pizza to say anything. I apologize.
Erhart: The HRA is essentially the city's money machine 'and I think that's
going to be the nature of that meeting isn't it? The HRA generally looks
at things from kind of a dollars cents, budgetary point of view.
Ahrens: But there were a lot more people there than just the HRA.
Batzli: Oh yeah. There was, I didn't.'know a lot of the people that were
there but the room, it was over in the fire station and i.t was packed. I
mean there wer~ a lot of people there. Were they downtown people? I mean
I didn't know a lot of them.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 61
Richard Wing: ...downtown people. Bloomberg and their staff were
represented.
Ahrens: Actually Bill Morrish came up to me afterwards and he said, you
know that was really a good point. He said people should be thinking about
whether or not they want things like this in-their downtown. Not
necessarily automatically assuming they have to have it.
Erhart: Well, I heard the question, whatever. The way we got West 78th
Street single lane. You put that in there, I believe you have to rebuild
the whole entire West 78th Street to go to 4 lanes and it's still going to
be a mess.
Batzli: Well the traffic consultant theorized that people are~"t going to
go through the downtown to get there. Most of the traffic trips are going
to be coming from TH 5. I don't know why or how he came to that
conclusion.
Ahrens: And nobody brought up what's going to happen to Powers Blvd.. You
know the City goes to all this expense to put bike lanes and everything
else alongside Powers Blvd.. Nobody's going to use those. Traffic
going to be terrible.
Batzli: They were so impressed by this guy's chart.· He had this chart
where he had two lines and then he started drawing things about timing
signals from red to green and everybody was so kind of doing this number on
him. Trying to figure out what they were, they didn't even ask him where
the beck he got these numbers from. It was stunning.
Farmakes: The present majority of the population lives north of TH 5.
Batzli: But I don't believe that they think that their only draw is going
to be from Chanhassen because of the, you know you look at where the
Targets are already, and they must have some idea where they're going to
get the people from. But you wouldn't think it'd be coming from south
because they'd already go to Eden Prairie. There's one just.
Ahrens: The only other one is by Ridgedale.
Batzli: Well there's Southdale. There's Ridgedale. There's Knollwood.
·
So you've got these kind of circling us. Apparently we're drawing from
down in Chaska maybe and coming in on TH 5. I don't know where they think
they're getting the draw from.
Conrad: ...thinking. I worked for Target for 10 years. We did a lot of
studies. They're going to pull from the TH 101 area north. There's Just
no doubt.
Batzli: There will be'a cut off eventually where they go north to
Ridgedale from there.
Conrad: Oh absolutely but think of where that line is. 'So really you've
just got a huge population base. Right now there's the'K£Mart alternative
for those people or you drive 30 minutes the other way to Ridgedale. It
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, lg92 - Page 62
will take a terrific traffic into 78th Street. You know, just to comment.
I don't think we need Target. I think we can be, I just have no need to
have it in our downtown. But if it works, it's fine.. ' But I sure would
play it hard as we can possibly play with them and if they don't meet our
rules, say good-bye to them. But they certainly can do things without our.
Emmings: I take it you're not planning to work for Target again.
Conrad: Never again.
Batzli: See my vision of downtown will never come true because it's been
explained to me by the downtown people that they. don't put up those kinds
of buildings like they put up in Wayzata and Excelsior anymore. You know
against the street. It's not economical for them to do that. But what my
point is that I would like to see downtown be pedestrian. That's not
happening. The HRA and whoever else has ideas that we're going to be going
from place to place by car and when we do put something against the street,
we have all sorts of questions' about why we did it. Professional building
and that type of thing. So it seems to be we're getting an area that's
similar in my mind to around Southdale on Frace. Where you've got shopping
centers to the left, shopping centers to-the right. You're going through
parking lots to the buildings. It's not a walking friendly kind of
environment which is what I kind of hoped for our downtown so as you drove
through you felt like you were really in the downtown and not a strip
shopping mall of different, so I say. Well beck, we're not getting what I
envisioned anyway. Target's fine. It's just another big parking lot and a
big retail center.
Erhart: I don't know. It's not my vision. My vision was that we would
create the super store area out on TM S and TH 41. Try to attract all the,
we're going to have' Targets and we're going to have K-Marts and we're going
to have Fleet Farms. Try to attract them out in that area and do whatever
we can to make it favorable for them to go in that area.. And you try to
keep downtown to more unusual stores. I mean like'a Burger Brothers. .Now
granted they've got one on TH lO1 and TH 7-but 'the. reason they're coming
here is we've got no other place for them and as Ladd is saying, they're
going to come here and wherever they're going to go, they're going-to
attract people from all over the place. So-let's, is it possible to have a
vision where there's another spot for them? Where we can put these supe~
stores and to me 4 and 5, the road system is out there to support it. I
just think it's going to be a mess here.
Batzli: I don't think they would want to move there from the standpoint
that it's several miles further west'and it's not sewered yet. I think
they're looking.
Erhart: It's not sewered because we_decided that it's not sewered.
Batzli: Nell, it would be very expensive. I.mean if they really wanted to
go out there bad enough and they paid for the sewer but they're not going
to do that. They're going to build, I think on the site that they get the
return for their buck on and that's here because it's right away and they
don't have to pay for the improvements basically. They don't have to pay
for as much improvements.
Planning Commission Heeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 63
Erhart: Well it's a question of do we want to encourage or discourage it.
That's what this discussions about.
Batzli: No, I understand that.
Erhart: And without a vision, we aren't going to .have any influence.
Batzli: But I'm just saying, I don't'know that this doesn't fit into the'
reality of what our downtown is becoming. Now whether that fits what our
original vision was. A sleepy little country lane with a boulevard down
the middle with shops you can walk from shop to shop at, that's kind of
what I pictured.
Farmakes: But it still has to be developed yet. I mean half of it's empty
space.
Erhart: You know there's Frank's and there's stores that are more I don't
know, human nature. More humane stores that would...fill that area up
with.
Farmakes: There are parking lots in California where they require them to
have 40~ ground cover in parking lots like these types of stores. And we
just, you saw those aerial shots of Chanhassen. The.open expanses of
parking lots and it's.
Erhart: We can control thin~s like that.
Farmakes: You can still park cars there but we can make it, at least make
it look better.
Erhart: Right. We can control to the maximum building. We could specify
a maximum building size. If you want a big building, you put it on.
Ahrens: ...vision with the City Council and none of that stuff...
Erhart: I agree but I think we can control it but we've got to have a
vision. Let's establish with the City Council a vision and you can't
exclude Targets from the city. It's just like por'nography. You've got
make a place for it.
Ahrens: Target's just like pornography.
Erhart: No, I'm not trying to compare but from a standpoint of zoning and
planning, you have to have a place for it and if you don't make a place,
then they're going to come in and say, I'm going to put it where I want it.
Batzli: Well, just to be a realist or cynical or pessimist here for a
minute. I think they're moving faster track than we can gauge what the
City Council would like us to do and pass an ordinance to try and change
something at this point.
Farmakes: Isn't south of 78th now, can't the City control what goes in
there? Isn't that a PUD?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 64
Batzli: No, it's central business -district. CBD isn't it?
Aanenson: Well, general business I believe.
Farmakes: So does the City have any jurisdiction there if the building
isn't up to?
Aanenson: Well yeah, we have the general site plan standards which I told
you have to maintain the, if we say it should be consistent with what's
there. The tree sort of thing. We can deny it based on that but then
they'd have to meet the standards of that zone.
Conrad: That zone has the least standards of anything downtown.
Farmakes: If we look at standards, can you look at them just defined that
area alone? Commercial standards-solely for the business district. .We've
hacked and talked about it, brought it up as a subject about building
standards. The problem has been how do you do it. Morrish says you can do
it but the problem is often it's so ambiguous as to what is a quality
building that it's difficult to put in an ordinance. I for one don't have
a chart in front of me telling us how to do it. It'd be great if people
say well I'd like a glass and stone building. Well how do you.put that in
an ordinance? And if you do it, how do you evenly apply it? You've got a
Target on one hand, you've got a Hardee's on the other.
Aanenson: I think that discussion kind of came up When we looked at the
bank. We looked at, are we all going to go with this brown color, remember
that discussion came up and we were trying to come up with some sort of
coloring for this area. And we do as far as what we have as standards as
far as site plans. We try to say this is the direction that we're going.
These are the materials that we're using and someone brought up, you it
came up, is this really what we want for this area? Everything to be brown
and that rustic frontier look or which direction are we going? $o that's
part of the vision I think we need to be looking at as far as the whole TH
5 corridor.
Batzli: But we're referring to the Highway 5 corridor study here. I mean
they're going to start meeting when?
Aanenson: Paul says he'd like 30 days.
Ahrens: It will all be developed by then.
Batzli: I mean they're going to submit plans in 30 days aren't they?
Aanenson: I don't think they are. I really don't think they are...
Farmakes: Is there a way to bring that within the.Highway 5 corridor
study?
Aanenson: I think it's from one end of the city to the other.
Farmakes: To give it some muscle if we don't get what we want, say fine.
Go somewhere else.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, lg92 - Page 65
Batzli: Well, it's the only thing we can do at this point. -I mean is
proceed on that because otherwise we won't have done anything.
Richard Wing: You know, if I could make a suggestion. I've only been on
the Council for a year but I'm finding from experience that this Commission
is an active commission. Myself...resident, and everybody out there...stop
going to these meetings and go to HRA. They've got the money for
development, buildings. This whole thing is HRA. It's got nothing to do
'with you, I or the. Council. It's the HRA development, building. Look at
the nightmare they got with the bowling alley. Why isn't that a priority?
Why don't we get that cleaned up? West 78th Street. That's all HRA money
and HRA rulings. I think we've got to be attending those meetings...
Batzli: That makes us feel really useful .... Matt is. Well just out of
idle curiousity, are they at least sending you the materials for the HRA?
Ledvina: No.
Batzli: Will you check on that again?
Aanenson: Yes I will.
Batzli: Because I think I got the last packet again. I thought they had
sent out two packets.
Aanenson: We should be rotating the City Council correct?
8atzli: Correct.
Aanenson: And then the HRA should always be Matt.
Batzli: Right.
Farmakes: I'll be happy to bring it up at the meeting that we go to on that
corridor thing. I think it will be a good place to rear up the ugly head
of building standards.
Conrad: Should we be considering anything in light of big stores moving
into Chanhassen?
Ahrens: Well we want them.
Batzli: Give me a for instance.
Batzli: The thing that I find real offensive.with Target coming in is.the
parking lot. And I really don't have a problem if .they move into downtown
Chan. That wasn't what I thought would happen down there but on the other
hand, the general business district was the one that I was worried, always
worried about because it was just sort of the slop area. It was the area
where it was going to be strip commercial. You put a building, parking
lot, building, parking lot. It's going to be ugly from the very beginning.
And I never had a way to get around that. Well now here comes Target and
they'll limit, it will be building and massive parking lot. So I guess,
but I've never considered what a big parking lot, how we can handle such a
Planning Commission Heeting
Hay ~, 1992 - Page 66
big parking lot in Chan. And maybe our current ordinance handles it in
terms of landscaping but I'm not sure. Richard, did you co to the
Arboretum workshop where they were talking about parking lots?
Richard Wino: The last two years I've gone.
Farmakes: That's the one referring to 40~ coverage.
Conrad: Well I even heard a bigger number than that. I thought it was 50.
Farmakes: I understood it to be 40.
Richard Wing: ...that requires 50~ shaded and ail lots to be... It's a
nightmare. The trees come up and they cut them do~n and as soon as the
trees start blocking out signs, they either cut them down or...
Farmakes: Yeah, I think the real issue on some of these bio places is
they're sophisticated use of sight line for monument signs. They get real
sophisticated...
Conrad: Is Target a stand alone unit or are they bringing other units with
them? Is it like Knollwood with Target at one end?
Aanenson: It's just Target.
Conrad: It's just the Target store?
Ahrens: That's what I understand.
Conrad: And how many square feet? Is it 70,000? 105,0003
Batzli: It's not their big store.
Conrad: Is it a smaller format store for smaller towns?
Ahrens: It's not Sreatland but it's the regular.
Batzli: Well I don't know. I was under the impression it was kind of the
Knollwood version rather than apparently Ridgedale's like bigger than Eden
Prairie. They've got like several kind of.
Conrad: Yeah they've got three...at least. I'm just curious what they're
doing.
Batzli: I don't think they told us.
Conrad: I guess it would be interesting to revisit at some of the issues
that might make it fit in or else I guess we could passively'waiting.
Actually what I'd like to do is have the Planning staff review what we
might be able to do by next meeting.. So at least we can say we take a l'ook
at it and we're comfortable.
Ahrens: We have to know what our options are.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 67
Batzli: I think this has got to be like one of the highest priorities
along with the Highway 5 corridor study.
Conrad: And I guess I don't want it getting out that'we're sort of anti.
We're just taking a look at what does a large store mean in the downtown
business area, or in Chanhassen. I absolutely don't agree. No, I do agree
that signage is critical. When you have 100,000 square foot Target store
and a similar parking lot. Bigger parking lot, sight line r~ longer is.
Access is the big deal and the store, I don't believe has to be visible
from 14 different points. It's not like boy, I sure didn't see that. It's
not. And if anybody knows what has happened in Knollwood with Target.
They've just had a lot of problems with trying to make Target look better
in the Knollwood area and the city cannot solve the problem. It's an
almost insolveable problem.
Farmakes: There's not a lot of sites where something like this could go
out here. Really as it stands right now. There just isn't. You mentioned
TH 41 and TH 5. There's one here but if you look around, there's not going
to be a lot of areas where in the foreseeable future be able to go.
Batzli: Yeah, if they waited for 212 to be built, there might be some nice
intersections.
Farmakes: Well even north of here. Basically it's a bedroom community all
the way down to TH 101. If you go north and to the east.
Batzli: Yeah, they'd have to go south. They'd have to wait.
Farmakes: Yeah. And Walmart's coming in over here. Fleet Farm already
owns property here and...try to do is pin each other in. They try to put
the store to stop the other one.
Conrad: Well they don't want to be locked out. They'll split the market
or whatever. They just don't want to be left out. That's what's
happeni
Ahrens: I would rather get a big grocery store.
Batzli: Okay. Well, so. Staff is adequately directed?
Aanenson: Yeah, I got your concerns. High priority and we Want to look at
the issues, like architectural standards and landscaping...
Batzli: Anything else? To add'to her list of things that come to mind so
you don't say well gee, why didn't you look at this next week.
Erhart: No, I think if you just go through the Minutes and.Kathy's heard
us and go through it and come back with what things we can do.
Aanenson: And where it is in the process and what they're trying to bring
US.
Batzli: Ongoing items. Adminstrative approvals. Open discussion we
probably just had. Let's hold off'on the discussion paper oh RSF until
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 68
Paul is here because it's not clear at all what his position is.
Aanenson: You felt that way too.
£rhart: I've got one issue on these ongoing discussions. I missed the
meeting with, what was it Rocks?
Aanenson: Stone Creek.
Erhart: Stone Creek development and I was surprised, I looked at that
afterwards to find out that we placed a conservation easement on trees. -
For that purpose we changed the front. In order to provide back yards now,
we changed the front yard setback to 20 feet instead of the normal 30.
Does anybody remember that?
8atzli: Yes.
Erhart: Okay. You know this is the second time now where we've applied
this, is it tree easement or?
Aanenson: Conservation easement.
Erhart: Conservation easement related to trees and I haven't even seen
what the easement statement is. And I'm concerned Ahat we've started
something here now without really thinking about what we're doing. I'm
asking that the Commission get that on an agenda and let's make sure that
we're going on a path here that we've kind of planned out because we're
starting to do some very, what I consider, I'm not sure that I'm
comfortable changing our setbacks because of some tree easements and then I
read some more things tonight about trees. There's a couple ways to look
at trees. One of them is, you can look at them, trees, we're starting to
look at trees like wetlands is my concern. Is that wetlands is something
permanent and you know, and then eventually all of a sudden trees are going
to be removed from the buildable area of the lot which is being eluded to
in some of these other documents. I think we need to really think about
what we're starting here because to me I look at tree as a renewable thing
and also we haven't had a history of individual lot owners going in and
abusing our trees. Now we're writing ordinances and I was under the
impression on these conservation easements, we were trying to protect the
city from the lot owners and after talking to Paul. Well in his mind, no.
It was really the developer and it's not clear and I think we need to
understand what direction we're setting here because weWre starting to set
some precedent. There's some things to think about and I ask that we
·
discuss it. I'm not sure that this is a good idea. Then the question is,
if we are going to do it, what can the lot owner, in my opinion is, when a
guy buys his lot, I mean that ought to be his lot and unless be proves
otherwise, we ought to leave it that way.
Batzli: Okay. That will'go on an agenda about, well. What's our agenda
look like next time?
Aanenson: Well we'll have a couple of beachlots on it.
Batzli: Do we know?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 69
Aanenson: Yeah. The beachlots and the group homes issue. The ordinance
for the group homes.
Batzli: Are we going to have 2 beachlots again?
Aanenson: Yeah. Is that too many?
Batzli: Because that takes up a lot of the meeting each time'..
Aanenson= Would you rather go with one?. I didn't think they'd go quite
that long.
Emmings: Well what are they?
Aanenson: We're doing Lotus Lake, Frontier Trail and Lotus Lake Estates.
Let me see, hold on. I've got it written down.
Batzli: I thought at least one of the two tonight was ~oin~ to be fairly
easy. I figured it was going to 'be like a half hour-20 minute kind of
deal .
Aanenson: I wrote down some of your comments that you brought up too and
we'll try to make that more clear in the next staff report.
Ahrens: Can we have a decision from Roger on how to treat those covenants?
Aanenson: He has spoken before and when we came with the Trolls Glen, that
we could ignore the covenants. Once we adopt the ordinance, if we want to
.
ignore, they can present it but what they had in place was what we're going
to consider grandfathered. Because we...got the complaint in I991, that's
the direction we were going to go but we decided to hold off.
Emmings: I think legally you can. The question is whether you want to
look at the evidence of what they had at the time. Whether the actual boat
was there or not.
Aanenson: And that's exactly why we put them through this process. We
thought it'd be more equitable. I did notice already those two so we'll
have to have the two on next time but if you'd rather just take one from
now on.
Emmings: Well we've already got one' to carry over right?
Aanenson: Well I was going to give them a little bit of time. I think
they need more than 2 weeks to try-and meet and get their thing put
together.
Batzli: How many of these total do we have?
Ranenson: 12.
Batzli: 127 Just 12 total?
Aanenson: Yes.
Planning Commission Heeting
Hay 6, 1992 - Page 70
Batzli: Once a month. Just one. Two was too many. I started drifting
off during the second one.
Aanenson: Okay. Well that was the other question t was going to raise. Do
you want affidavits before? I mean, does that help?
-.
..
8atzli: No. In retrospect, affidavits won't do any good because the guy
signed one and.he didn't even know what he signed.
Aanenson: Denied it. Yeah, that's what I was wondering.
Ahrens: He said it was wrong.
Batzli: Yeah, but it was wrong for every year though. Every single year.
What would help is to have a map of the beachlot.
Emmings: And a site plan. What's on there now. What was on there then
and what's on there now.
Aanenson: Yeah. That's going to be a rough drawing but we can do that.
8atzli: The second applicant seemed to have a point on this picnic table
thing. The issue of, if we're approving picnic tables in those things, it
looks to them like they've been hoodwinked somehow. That they didn't know
that they could even ask for it. Suddenly we're going to approve it or not
approve it.
Emmings: I don't think we should have that on there.
Aanenson: I guess the only thing we're trying to do is document so if
somebody does call and complain that there's people down there picni~ing
and they're loud and can they have that down there? Yeah, they-had it back
in 1981.
Batzli: But see if we're approving it and they don't even have the
opportunity to tell us that they want one. See because it doesn't seem to
me that on the form, it doesn't ask.. It asks what they had in 1981 but yet
it's something they can ask for now and that's not apparent to them and
that's what they're complaining about.
Aanenson: Would you like me to make that more clear before we put it on
the agenda? Call them up and make sure I explain that to them. Would that
be better or just not put it there at all?
Batzli: Well yeah but I would also, I don't know. I don't even really
want to approve a picnic table or not I guess actually. Do you guys want
to approve picnic tables.
Rest of Commission: No.
Ahrens: A barbeque grill?
8atzli: Unless it's permanent, I don't want to talk about it.
Planning Commission Heeting
Hay 6, 1992 - Page 71
Farmakes: I have one question since you brought that up again. · Why is
there no communication with the city and these beach associations? I don't
know how many of them there are but why isn't there any communication from
our level to them as to what the real situation of riparian rights are
because they just demonstrate that they have no idea what they are.
Including this $13,000.00 lawsuit. He threw it out of court because it
wasn't in his jurisdiction. It was ludicrous to. spend that kind of money
and not even understand what the situation is.
Aanenson: They've been in numerous times and they've locked onto what they
feel they have a vested right because of their covenants and that's the
only thing.
Earnings: We're not dealing with laws and regulations here. We're dealing
with people's emotions and boats.
Farmakes: I can understand that. I can understand that to the extent and
·
even if you're going to cut a deal and the difference, because the City
does bear some responsibility in the fact that you didn't enforce the law
for a decade. We didn't.
Emmings: No. 'No. Now wait a minute. You've got to stop saying we didn't
enforce the law because there was no law. The only law that applied was,
you can't expand the grandfathered use. That's the only thing that wasn't.
Farmakes: That's what I'm saying. They expanded it. It's right here.
Earnings: Okay, if that's what you mean.
Farmakes: You're going to the 4 boats. They expanded ....
Emmings: They didn't expand these to them 3elf because they have always
had that in mind that that's what they were doing there so that was, to
them that wasn't an expansion. And I'm talking about how they felt about
it. I'm not talking about.
Farmakes: What I'm saying, if you look at. simplicity, for somebody who
doesn't even know about the law. It's a fraud. They were sold a bill of
goods they thought they had.
Emmings: But a developer.
Farmakes: Correct.
Emmings: No question.
Farmakes: And just putting a hand up here for some communication for these
people. They should, they're part of the process of getting that
information down to the homeowners. And it seems to me if we're going to
have these associations and we're going to communicate with them, that's an
important part. If you're going to have a lake association, that they·
should be able to go to them for reliable information on these issues.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 6, 1992 - Page 72
Emmings: I think their concerns are more like who's going to put in the
dock this year.
Farmakes: I don't want to deaI with the subject because they're going to
have go among themselves and they're going to have to say, well we've got 4
boats out there now. Who's 2 boats are we going to have?
Batzli: Let's ask one quick hypothetical question and that is, okay we had
two semi-difficult applicants come in today. Clearly I think we do have to
look at the use and the baseline of 1981. Is there something else or some
preferred format that now that we've had to suffer through two of these
things, is there some way that, does anybody want to suggest a way to
handle these more, either efficiently or that we can at least discuss
because what I see right now is we've got 3 competing viewpoints as to how
we should even look at these anyway. Kind of a is it reasonable. What did
the city tell them. Maybe believe whatever they tell me with. kind of like
fine. See no evil, hear no evil. Or more of a this is what they've got in
19B1 according to our survey. That's what they're going to get. I mean is
there a preferred way that we want to look at this or are we just ~oing to
kind of keep on going through it.
Conrad: I thought we did a good job tonight. I really did. And yeah, you
might have heard a biased perspective from my part because it sounds like,
well the 1981 was it. I will change from 1981 if I see the right
situation. It may not be clear when I communicate but yeah.
Erhart: We were talking. We ~ould have gone 3.
Conrad: We could have done a lot of stuff but again.
Batzli: I'm just asking. But is there 'a way to do this more efficiently
because I'm open to suggestions because these are very heart felt issues
and the people have, and they want to get up and talk and they want to, the
one thing I would ask all of you is to not get into arguments with the
people. Speak of them in third persons. They are doing that and address
us because it just insites them.
Farmakes: I understand. There was information missing out of here and we
didn't address that.
Emmings: We've got one coming in, and I don't know exactly what the
numbers are. Minnewashta Heights must have, I think they have like 6 or 7
boats back in 1981 and they've got like 17 now and I guarantee you that's
going to be. You think these were hard.
Farmakes: The time that the city spent on this is very kind of ludicrous.
If you add up the amount of shoreline, you're looking at what? 230 feet.
Basically a decent lot size. One decent lot size and what 20 boats?
Ahrens: Could you limit the amount of time of discussion maybe for each '
side? A few minutes for each side or something.
Emmings: No.
Planning Commission Heeting
Hay 6, 1992 - Page 73
Batzli: I don't think I can realistically. I'm going to try and impose
the 5 minute limit on every individual but they always want to get up for
rebuttal and then we've got the sales guy who, he was smooth. He stayed up
there and one more thing. One more thing and that's fine. He's presenting
points but.
Emmings: They deserve their opportunity to.
Conrad: We're potentially taking a lot away.
Farmakes: Particularly as you go out west, things got a little loose.
Batzli: Well what I do think we should-concentrate on though is What have
they actually asked for in their permit so concentrate on the little lines
that staff gives us. What was the use and is it an intrusion on the
neighbors and at least concentrate on those points and other things you
might think are relevant but let's try to get a concensus as we go along
the line of what are we going to make a motion for so we can ge% a better
idea of what everybody's going to want to do. And with that, is there a
motion to adjourn.
Emmings moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn'the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11=20 p.m..
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim