Loading...
1992 08 05CHANH~SSEN F~_~NNI~ COHHXSSXON REGULAR HEETING AU~JST 5, 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. I~=HB~RS PR~T: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings, Brian Batzli and ~oan ~hrens HEJ~BERS ~d~SENT: Tim Erhart and 3elf Farmakes ST/~FF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician PUBLIC HE~RIN~: CONOITIO~ USE PE~IT FOR A PORTABLE CH[HI'C~ TOILET ON ~ ECR~TION/[ BEACHLOT FOR MINNEkka~HTA HEIGHTS HO~EOMNERS ~5SOCZRTZON, Public Pre~ent: Name Bill Hickey 6301 Elm Tree Avenue Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Bill Hickey: Good evening my name is Bill Hickey and I'm the Vice President of the Hinnewashta Homeowners Association. ! really don't have anything to add other than what the staff report contains, i'm here primarily to answer any questions or concerns that the Commission might have regarding this particular application. I Would note that ! spoke with Tom Huntington who is the President of our Association and he has spoken with both of the neighbors to the adjoining land to our beachlot. Both of whom voice no concern about the portable toilet use at that site. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else from the public like to comment on this conditional use permit? Ledvina moved, Eaaings seconded to close the public hearing. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as cloaed. Batzli: Ladd, do you have any questions? Conrad: There are no, are there any homeowners here in the Association on either side of the outlot? Batzli: Nope. Conrad: Paul, your comment, I wasn't quite sure on the fencing. The fencing you recommended, you don't know that it should be up? I guess I'm not sure. Krauss: ! didn't get a chance to...defer to your judgment, but we had assumed that that was illustrative of additional fencing... Planning Commission Heettng Rugust 5, 1992 - Page 2 Conrad= What kind of fencing is that? Krauss= I believe it's redwood. Yeah, and that's true. Ne do have some photographs of the approximate location. Conrad= Okay. What's the renewability on these portable toilets? Is it forever? Until there's a problem? Krauss= With annual licenses. Conrad= It is an annual? Batzli= Rn annual. That's what our ordinance. We put in our ordinance. Conrad= But we won't see that? Batzli= Right. Krauss= Rs long as it's in compliance with the conditions, it's an administrative approval. Conrad= Okay. I don't'have any more questions. Ledvina= Let's see then. One of the conditions is that c[lmbing vine shall be planted along the base of the portable chemical toilet's wooden framework. So you're recommending that this be omitted? Krauss= Yeah. If there's an acceptance that additional fencing isn't required, that's not necessary. Ledvina= Nell I guess I wouldn't have a problem with omitting that item seeing that there is a opaque fence surrounding this thing and the neighbors don't have concerns with the way [t exists right now. Is that right? They have no concerns, the neighbors as to how it's sitt£ng there rtght now? Bill Hickey= That's correct. Ledvina= Okay. Batzli= Hatt, can I interrupt for Just a second? What happens if for examp[e since the fence really isn"t a part of this application anymore and we take the part out about the climbing vine, what happens if they remove that fence and put in something else? · Krauss: They're required by the conditions in the ordinance relative to chemical toilets to have it screened. Batzlt: But we put in some of the conditions into our CUP but we haven't put all of the conditions in there. Why did we choose some of them? You know we put in the Hemorial Day to Labor Day prohibition. We put in annual basis to renew the license. Why didn't we put those other things in there? Planning Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page 3 Krauss'- We probably ought to or have .a 'catch all that says compliance with conditions contained in the ordinance. Batzli: I 'm sorry Matt, go ahead. Ledvina: Okay. Well I guess then if I'm reading the staff's opinion of this recommendation, then number 5 would be omitted. Islthat correct? Krau88: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. No other items. Batzli: Okay. Steve. Emmtngs: How long, you've had a chemical toilet down there in years past haven't you? Bill Hickey: Ne did not last year but the year before there was one. Emmings: I guess, you know I live Just 3 or 4 houses, 4 or 5 houses I guess west of this thing and I've never seen it and it sure has never been a problem of any kind. It looks like an appropriate thing to me. Batzli: Okay, 3can. Do you have any other questions? Ahrens: No. As long as the conditions are complied with. I don't have any problems with it. Batzli: Okay. ! don't have anything else other than I would like to see, yeah. Steve was pointing out that in condition 4 we do have a location restriction that if they moved it but I guess I'd like to see compliance with the ordinance or some kind of thing in there, t think that would. Ahrens= That should be standard for all. Batzli: Yeah, I agree because otherwise I don't like putting in Some of the conditions and not others because then it looks like we're doing something different than what the ordinance would require. Having said that, is there a motion? Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit #92-1 to allow a portable chemical toilet on Minnewashta Heights' Homeowners Association Recreational Beachlot. It will be conditioned by their compliance with all of-the conditions in the ordinance and the specific conditions as set forth in the staff report. Batzli: Numbers 1 thru 4. Earnings: 1 thru 4. Ahrens: Second · Planning Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page 4 Emmin~s motored, Rhre~ ~econded that the Plannin~ Commission recommend approval of Conditio~al thse Permit ~)2-1 to a11o~ a portable chemical toilet on MInne~asht~ Heights Homeowners ~esoctatlon Recreation~l BeachlOt with the condition that It comply with all conditions in the ordinance and the follo~in~ s~eciflc condltton~: 1. The applicant applies for a license from the city on an annual basis prior to installation of the portable chemical toilet. 2. The portable chemical toilet shall only be permitted from Memorial Day to Labor Day and shall be removed from the beachlot during the rest of the year. 3. The beachlot shall be maintained in good condition in a manner consistent with previous approvals and current ordinance requirements. 4. The portable chemical toilet shall be located'in accordance with the application/plans received by the City on June 26, 1992. Rll votsd in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HERRING: NON-CONFORMING U~E P~RMIT FOR R RE~REATION/~. BEACHLOT FOR LAKEVIEW HILLS ~PRRT _MENTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Public Pr®~ent: Del & Nancy Smith Norbert Lickteig E. Kottke John Bushey Ray Luis 9051 Lake Riley 9111 Lake Riley Blvd. 9221 Lake Riley 81vd. 9000 Riley Lake Road 9071 Lake Riley Blvd. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this' item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Batzli: Would the'applicant like to be heard at this time on this application? Anyone from the public like to speak-on this particular application? For or against. John Bushey: My name's John Bushey. I live at 9000 Riley Lake Road in Eden Prairie on the chart there and immediately to the east of the beachlot as indicated. I guess I'd like to comment on the uses as they exiet now. I'm in a pretty good position to observe at all hours, and I get a chance to observe at all hours. As staff has indicated, it's.a Unsecured and unsupervised beachlot with a lot of I guess you'd have rambunkish action carrying on at all hours of the night. I can't comment on what the status of the dock was in '81. I've lived there since-'85. But there have been a number of delapidated docks since then. Different ones built by, as I discovered last night, the most recent one was built by a tenant. That's not necessarily provided by the Association or the apartments' owner. Planning Commission Heating August 5, [992 - Page 5 guess I'd like to urge the consideration of a permanent gate or. some kind of control of the beachiot with regard to access for trailered vehicles and use of the beachlot and the dock by non-apartment personnel. If you drive by, it's a totally open area to Lake Riley Blvd. on that side of the city line. And the fact that it's uncontrolled, it is used regularly by people when the Eden Prairie city park parking lot iS full. The other issue is the use of the boats that have been used there in the past have been relatively delapidated also and occasionally swamped and just left on the beach, even though there was no permit for docking. They have been tied up and beached and full of water and I.guess Just to look through the parking lot there, some of the same owners of the cars that are up on blocks in the parking lot in the apartment building may indicate the quality of the boats that are being left there. It's a bit of an eyesore and I don't believe that that's going to change in the future Just by the fact that you have to have city approval to put some docks and parking and storage, of boats on trailers. Boats are stored there now without approval. I guess approval, I'm not sure what it's going to do to improve any situation that's there now. I guess that's about all I have to say. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this application? Ray Luis: My name is Ray Luis. I live at, my wife and I live at 9071 Lake Riley Blvd.. ! prepared a letter for the Commission. I'll just briefly read the letter. My wife and I live at 9071 Lake,Riley Blvd., across the north bay from Lakeview Hills beachlot. I wish to express my concern about the abuses of the beachlot priviledges and the effect'on our community. I think the city beachlot ordinances are intended to provide reasonable lake access for residents, their families and accompanied guests. The most bothersome abuse is the noisy and rowdy parties which frequently occur in the spring and summertime. On several occasions in recent months we have endured yelling voices, music played so loud that I can hear it in my house 1/3 of a mile away with the windows closed at 2:00 a.m.. As I drove by the beachlot during one of these parties, there was perhaps 20 vehicles parked in and around the beachlot area. I wonder how-many of the party goers were residents of Lakeview Hills. If so, I think the parking lot near ~he building should be used. I'm also concerned about control and use of the launch ramp. The boat launch ramp on the beachlot. Lake Riley is a. treasured public domain asset enjoyed by many people each year. Extensive time, energy and expense by the community, city and at state levels have gone into preserving all of it's recreational uses. Apparently we are at war with menaces of Eurasian Milfoil and nutrient runoff problems. It presents the presence of an uncontrolled launch ramp results in additional risks of further weed infestation and erosion.. I suggest that there is no reason to have two boat launch ramps on a 300 acre lake. Recommendation. If the Lake Riley Hills Homeowners Association consider wild parties to continue to be important, an enclosed party room facility should be provided. This is commonly accepted and provided by many apartment complexes. Control of beachlot noise should be mandatory to maintain beachlot priviledges. The boat launch ramp should be Closed unless Lake View Hills can demonstrate effective control of it's use and protection of the lake. It's really not much of a problem to uss the public launch ramp a little ways down the road. All the rest of the residents use it. In all other respects the Lakeview Hills residents should retain all other Planning Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page 6 priviledges enjoyed by other beachlot users and allowed under current ordinances. Batzli= Thank you. Could you do one thing for me? Could you show me on the map where the other launch is that you're speaking of? Aanenson: I think it's in Eden Prairie. Batzli= Is it in Eden Prairie? Okay. So it doesn't show up on there. Krauss: It's off the map. Batzli: Okay. Did you have other comments? Ray Luis: No. Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Del Smith: My name is Del Smith and I'm at 9051 Lake-Riley Blvd. and I guess I'd just reiterate what John and Ray have said. It would be appropriate I think to have some kind of a curfew.' Eden Prairie does have a park across the lake and there is a curfew and that is watched fairly regularly and controlled both by the, I think they have a park ranger and both the police are through there. We have had a lot of problems. Late night. This 12:00 to 2:00 kind of 'business where there are fairly good sized parties there. The other concern as far as controlling that area is, there is a new development that's going to be started that's adjacent to. the apartments and I guess I'd like to have y,ou address some kind of. control. Concern there is that those people may also be down there using that that aren't necessarily residents of the Lakeview Hills Apartments. So I think that whole issue of control and who's_ really using it might-be an issue. Batzli: Has the noise problem been a recurring theme over the years or? Del Smith: We've only been there for a year. We've only lived where we are for a year. I can't answer that. Maybe Ray or John can. Batzli: I think you indicated you had lived there since '85. Has this been a problem? John Bushey: Yes, it has been a recurring problem. This year seems particularly bad with parties going... Another issue that has come up is boats. I can't say with 100~ certainty they're coming from the beachlot but I would bet something on it. Running wild with yelling and screaming out on the lake at.,.at the same times as the parties are going on so... So that may be a safety issue as well as... Del Smith: I guess ! just have a question too. There is a dock there now. Are we talking about an additional dock or you're Just approving what dock is there currently? Batzli: I think we're looking at the existing 30 foot dock. Planning Commission Meeting August 5, i992 - Page 7 Aanenson: Yes. Batzli: So that would not be in addition to that. Del Smith: Okay, thank you. Batzli: Is there anyone else who wouId like to address the Commission? Norb Lickteig: Good evening· My name is Norb Licktetg and I live at 911i Lake Riley Blvd. with my wife. I Just think that ali of us on the lake want everybody to enjoy the lake and we don't care if they have picnic tables down there and bar-be-ques and all the TeSt Of it. All we want is some responsibility. If they are going to use the lake, they use it in a responsible manner. If they're going to use that lakeshore property, they use it in a responsible manner and leave at a responsible time. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Is there anyone from the applicant in attendance at all? Okay. Conrad moved, Emmin~s seconded to clo~e the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was clo~ed.. Batzli: Joan, do you want to start? Ahrens: Is each apartment in the apartment complex belong to the association? Is that how that works? Aa ne nsc n: Yes. Ahrens: And so there's a group of people who are moving in and out of apartments all the time who are trying to make the decisions for the beachlot and make the decisions for the association. Nobody's here tonight obviously. Aanenson: No but there is a management person who filled out the application · Ahrens: Is that an on-site management, caretaker? Aanenson: It's my understanding they're not on site. Ahrens: Pardon me? Aanenson: They're not on site. That's my understanding. Ahrens: They're just there during the day or how does that work? Aanenson: They're not in the building. They just own the apartments or manage the apartments. They're off site. Leasing or 'whatever. Ahrens: Oh, it's like a management company? Aanenson: Right. Planning Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page 8 Ahrens: Have you Iooked at the Association By-Iaws or anything? I mean is there anything in there that reguIates control of the beachIot? It sounds to me like it's totally unregulated. It's just-kind of like a swimming pool in an apartment complex. Aanenson: Unfortunately because when this was built in 1960's, there-just wasn't anything put together at that time. It's really run pretty loose. Ahrens: If a complaint is made to the Association, who takes care of the complaint? The management company. Have any of you people ever complained to the management company or the association? John 8ushey: If you look on the sign going into the apartments, it says professionally managed by the blank corporation. It's Just a big painted out area. I don't even know who owns it or manages it. Ahrens: By the blank corporation? John 8ushey: It's Just painted over. Del Smith: I think calls have been made in the past by residents...to the police department. John Bushey: I have called the police. Del Smith: I don't think we have any idea who to call. John Bushey: Particularly at 2:00 in the morning. Ahrens: Do the police show up? John Bushey: Yeah. Well, the music stops. satzii: It sounds like it's a weekly hang-out from looking at the call sheet here to the police. Aanenson: That was just the last 2 months ! put in there. Batzli: Yeah, but it's every week it looks like. Every couple dave. Ahrens: .eli my question is, even if a gate is put up there, I mean gates don't keep people out if they want to use a beachlot bad enough. If they want to have parties there and abuse their priviledges. I guess because there's such a lack of control here. that I'have a real problem even addressing these other issues. I mean who's going to monitor the use even if a gate goes up. And I understand, I think Mr. Bushey brought up the ' problem with boat storage on the property. Are you saying that there's more storage on the property than what? John Bushey: There's not room. Ahrens: They're saying that there's 7 boats on land? Planning Commission Meeting Rugust 5, i992 - Page 9 John Bushey: I can't say how many there are right now. There have been boats parked on trailers in past years and there are canoes there now. Ahrens: More than 7? John Bushey: I didn't count. Ahrens: What's your guess? John 8ushey: My guess is it's 7 or less right now. Ahrens: Okay, so that's not a problem? John Bushey: No. Ahrens: It's just that the number of people using the beachlot and that it's unsupervised because nobody really has a vested interest in what's going on there. I don't know how anybody would supervise this i~ there's no on site management. Certainly the tenants aren't going to do it. Short of the police department putting an off duty police person'there all the time. I mean there doesn't seem to me to be any realistic way to monitor the situation. Is the dock dangerous? I mean is it in disrepair? Put up by a tenant? Whoever feels like it. Whoever has a little extra money that year puts it up. , - Aanenson: I wasn't aware of that. John Bushey: ! Just discovered that in discussing it with a resident who was fishing on the dock. There was some kind...built it last year and he'S since moved out. There's a very high turn over-rate. Ahrens: I guess since I don't see how, staff is recommending that the beachlot have better controls. That there be some supervision. That the' partying cease. I don't see how that can be done. I can't go along with approval of this. There's just too many. Batzli: Speak to us Paul. Can we yank their beachlot? Krauss: Well to the extent that, we were .Just talking about that. Maybe we ought to clarify. I mean some of the aspects of this with the City Attorney. It's clear that there's a right to have boats there under the assumption that they had some boats before. But going, beyond that and asking them to chain the property and establish .clear identification of who's in control and who's a responsible party. Keeping the thing neat and clean. Those are additional conditions that sure-would be nice to be able to impose. Ahrens: Can we do that? Can we demand that they post a sign with the name of a person and a phone number to call if there are complaints? Batzli: Well more than that even. I mean this right now is a nuisance. A public nuisance to the people on the lake. And at some point they may' have this right to use the beachlot but at some point the police power of the Planning Commission Meeting August 5, i992 - Page lO city has to, we have to be able to say something about a pubtic nuisance. And clear that's what this is right now as it's currently existing. Aanenson: I think we need to separate the two issues and maybe we should ask for a table and get Roger's opinion on that because there is the grandfathering issue and then there's the nuisance problem and they do blend together but I think we need to figure out how we can resolve that. · Batzli: Well I clearly don't want to approve this.given the fact that the applicant didn't show up and there's a lot of concern. Aanenson: So maybe tabling would be the best. 8atzli: Is there a motion to table? Emmings: Well yeah, I couldn't agree more. They're not being responsible running the beachlot. They're not even showing up here tonight. I think it may be two issues but it's all one problem. $o the other thing I'd like to know is, when we give approval for 7 boats and all they've got is 6 canoes, that's saying. I know that's '91 they've got 6 canoes but I don't want to give approval for boats if all they've got is canoes and that's all they had back then. That's a real difference to me. But I agree, this ought to be tabled and we ought to find out from the city Attorney'what we can bring to bear to force these people to be responsible for their beachlot. Ahrens: And if we can't pull their beachlot permit, I mean what are we doing anyway? Emmings: Well we can't because they're grandfathered in. Krauss: I think the issue here is the ability to impose additional conditions. Batzli: But at some point, if they don't follow those conditions, what do you do? Krauss: What's the recourse, correct. Batzli: Yeah. Matt, did you? Ledvina: Yeah, I had a couple of questions. You know the whole, basis for our decisions in the past has been the 1981 baseline survey and I'm just wondering why was this site missed with the survey at that time? I mean was it just over looked? Aanenson: I have no idea. People were just hoping it would go away. I don't know. Emmings: maybe. I think the person who did the survey was afraid to go down there Ledvina: If we don't have that survey, you know we've looked at documentation. Detailed documentation. Ledgers and things like that from Planning Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page l[ the homeowners association and what we have' for documentation here seems pretty scant in that we've got a photo that says, this was 1977. Sincerely, Leo Gangiehoff. Is he here today? No. I think that, have you verified that this information is accurate with other people? That yes this was? Aanenson: Yep. Ledvina: Okay, so that was the use as of 1977. Were there 7 boats at that time and how was 7 boats determined? Was that Just what they said? ~anenson = Ahrens: Yeah. .. ...7 boats there, I think there was just a dock there. Ledvina: Well 7 boats on land. Emmings: That's what they're asking for. Ahrens: Right. They didn't say that that it existed. Ledvina: Yeah, at the time. Emm£ngs: The application says that. Ledvina: At the time. They're asking for Continuation of the use from the point at 1981 so when the ordinance came into effect. So if there were 7 boats at that time, that should be documented as well. I think 7 boats on land. Let's see. Would it be possible to put a curfew in terms of no personnel or no individuals allowed on this property after i0:00 a.m.? Something like that. Or 10:00 p.m.. Krauss: Matt, that fails into those questions we have to raise with the City Attorney. There's a good reason to be skeptical over what was there in 1981 too. I mean we don't have the same level of information that you've seen on other ones. Nor the variety of people that can attest to it. .. Emmtngs: What do we, who's burden is it?. Ours or their's? Aanenson: Their 's. Emmings: Okay. And if we don't believe them? Aanenson: We didn't inventory it either so. Emmings: Maybe the best thing to go by is what they have now. Huh? 8atzli: Well, it's clearly going to change much more so than a normal beachlot if in fact there was a turnover in the apartments. There's not going to be the same number of boats year in and year out. I mean 'it's going to change every year. 'Conrad: Was the dock put out every year? It was not, okay. Planning Commission Heet[ng August 5, 1992- Page 12 Aanenson= Non-conforming would fail in then if ~e can document that. You have to put it out every year to maintain non-conforming. Krauss: We'll put it together for you and bring it back. 8atzl i: Conr ad: Ladd, do you have anything to ask before we table this Ladd? Are there boats on trailers stored there right no~'? John Bushey: I don't recall if. there are boats on trailers right now. There have been. Conrad: There have been. 'Primarily canoes right now? What kind of boats? John Bushey: There have been motorboats on trailers... Conrad: My comment is, when I came in here was, they can have some of the things that they're asking for but they-have to be closed do~n. They just have to. You can't have an access that doesn't have-control. 'I mean the miifoil stand alone. It's ludicrous so I guess my only comment, yet I think they do have some rights and I'm not disputing that. I-f they were here I 'd be telling them that but they do have some rights to use the lake but right now it's real abusive and it can't be, my Perspective is, that site can't be used for launching until there's control. Period. And ! don't know what leverage we have-but it's just like Paul, I would be following this up real quickly. It's one of those things that geez, I can't believe this is really happening. Emmings: This is like Lowell Carlson. Conrad: There are some parallels but it's just like, I can't believe that there's no control on it. That's terrible. , Earnings: But when people are .required, or non-conforming beachlots .are required to get a license. Is that right? Aanenson: Permit. Emmings: Permit? Aanenson-' Or cease and desist within one year of adoption of the ordinance so if they don't have a permit by February, it's like 26th, 27th of 1993, then they don't have a beachlot license anymore. Emmings: What if we denied an application? What would be the effect? Krauss: Well, I mean without having Roger here, the basis for denial that I see is that there's not verifiable' or acceptable verifiable evidence that there was anything there in 1981. 8atzli: Well I think it would be difficult to deny that there was a beachlot. The issue is more of, what was on the beachlot. Planning Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page i3 Ahrens: But there have been other beachlots that can't document... We've approved those. Emmings: We've had something on most of them haven't we? We've had our own survey and we've had what they said. Con,ad: -You know they'~e asking fo~ 6 or 7 canoes ~hich is nothing. Yeah, that's in my mind, those are not issues. If they want 6 or 7 canoes, fine. The Issue is access. Batzli: .Access and supervision. Conrad: And supervision and they're not asking for that so I don't know how we tackle but that's a huge issue. - . Batzli: Okay, is there a motion to table? E~aelngs moved, Ahren~ seconded 1:o table the Non-Conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Lakevie~ Hills ~partment~ for further clartftcatton from the City Attorney. A11 voted tn favor and the motion carried. Batzli: This Non-conforming Use Permit is tabled and it's tabled pending staff's approaching the City Attorney to determine what conditions we can place on this application for access and supervisio, to the beachlot. Anything else? Conrad: And can we get that back in here in 2 weeks? Oh we have a flooded agenda in 2 wee ks. Krauss: Well I think this is something that we can, we'll try. We will notify the neighbors of when it"s on. Batzli: Thank you very much for coming in. pUBLIC HE~RING: .WETL~E) ALTERATION PERMIT FOR'ALTERATION WITHIN 200 FEET OF'A WETL~D LOCATED AT 7201 JUNIPER AVENUE. GREG D~TTILO.- Public Present: Dorothy Downing Sam Potts Greg Datillo Tom & Kathy Paradise 7200 Juniper Road 3628 Hickory Road 7201 Juniper Avenue 3755 Red Cedar Point. Road.. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman 8atzli called the public hearing to order. Greg Oatillo: I'm Greg Datillo. I think Kate did a great Job in presenting it. The only question I have is, on the erosion part. If the Planning Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page 14 part that would cause a problem for-any wetland to get destroyed from the erosion. You know there's really only going to be like one spot, like right over there. If I could just put tt up there Instead of putting tt around the whole area. I don't know if Kate, I'm sorry, I can't. · . Batzli: We have our engineering expert here. Hempel: Staff's concern I guess would be to the adjacent property owners. It is a low point of the neighborhood. I think the wetland or the area that you're filling is right up to the common property line. That would be of concern of any potential property damage on your neighbors from runoff. Greg Oatillo: That's fine but you know the area where it's real high on the, okay thank. I mean that Batzli: Okay so, he can work it out then with City Engineering or staff as far as which portions he would have to place the erosion control around? Hempel: That'd be acceptable. ' Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Did you have any other questions? Greg Datillo: Yeah, no. She did a great Job. Thank you. Batzli: If we have questions, we'll let you know. Anyone el~e like to comment on this application? Dorothy Downing: We are the adjacent property owners and we're fine with it as long as everything is, I'd rather have it level as long as everything is going down to the wetland. So I don't know tf the swale line would need to go inbetween the two properties? Aanenson: Yeah, it would go right in here. Hempel: It' would follow the common property line.basically down towards the wetland. Dorothy Downing: Okay. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to comment on the application? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to cloae the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed. Batzli: Ladd, do you want to lead off? Conrad: Kate, the purpose of this is, the particular function of this wetland is what? Based on our inventory. Aanenson: It's just a 'holding pond before it goes into the lake. Conrad.' It i~ a holding pond for the lake? Planning'Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page 15 Krauss: If we could also clarify something too. I think you're aware that there's a new wetlands ordinance that's in the development stage. On Monday night the subcommittee, Swamp subcommittee working on it completed it. It's going to come to the whole Swamp Board on next Wednesday-and it's going to come to you in September. One of the things that is contained in that ordinance is an elimination of this 200 foot but not impacting the wetland standard. Where we trick the wetland alta.ration permit. Here you have a clear example of an activity that's of no direct bearing to the wetland. One which engineering could well have handled administratively and we could have taken care of that in a grading permit. Yet because of how the ordinance is set up right now, we've had to run Mr. Datillo through this and it takes an extra few months. So you won't be seeing many of these in the future if that ordinance gets approved the way it's drafted right now. Batzli: Is that next Thursday? Krauss: Thursday? Batzli: I thought it was the 13th. Aanenson: Thursday. Krauss: Thursday. Batzli: The 13th. Next week from tomorrow right? 13th. You ~ere going to show up on the wrong night weren't you? Conrad: Okay, anyway. The function is filtration and we're not affecting that? Okay. Batzli: Okay, Matt? Ledvina: I guess I don't have anything to add beyond the recommendations from staff. Emmings: Will this be a buildable area .once it's filled?- Aanenson: The lot? Emmings: Yeah. Ranenson: ...the lot? Greg Datillo: I have water and sewer to the site but... Emmings: My only question is, if this is a buildable area, would you be putting any different conditions on it based on that use as opposed to use as a playground? Greg Datillo: No. Currently... Emmings: No, I'm asking the staff. Planning Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page 16 ~anenson: No. A'$ a matter of fact, if he came in for a building permit on it now, we'd be doing the same process. Emmtngs: Okay. You wouldn't look at it any differently? Then I'm fine. 8atzli: Joan. Matt, were you done? Ledv ina: Yes. Batzli: Okay, Joan. Rhrens: Is this going to be a public park? Greg Datillo: No. Can I talk? Batzli: Yeah, go ahead. Greg Datillo: M~ profession is insurance. So for liability, I can't put Datillo's Park on there. In other words, right.now I put a basketball court across the street and that's already in there 2 years ago. Rnd as long as I kind of, you know I have kids so it's their friends that come over and 50~ of the time my kids aren't even over there but right now kids are playing. Rnd my liability, I do have a million dollar liability policy and you know, for liability purposes I would never name it'Datillo's Park or anything like that. Right now'it's'got a swtngset over there. I mean there are things already over there. It's just that I don't have a ballfield... I'm not putting anything in writing that it's a park. Ahrens: You're not going to have the same kinds of parties that they have over on Lake Riley? Greg Datillo: Maybe my kids. Batzli: But this is your private property then and you Just let kids come and play on it? Greg Datillo: Yes. That's right. Exactly. Emmings: You let them come and trespass on it. ~hrens: I don't have any questions. Batzll: Okay. I don't have a proble as long as the neighbors concerns are taken care of that whatever needs to be done so that there's nO runoff or that we're diverting water onto their property is taken care of. .Is there a motion? Conrad: I recommend approval of the Wetland ~lteration Permit #92-8 as shown on the plans dated July 1st with the conditions in the staff report. Batzli: Is there a second? Emmings: Second. Planning Commission Heating August 5, 1992 - Page 17 Batzli: is there discussion? Conrad moved, Emm[ng~ seconded that the Planning Commie[on recommend approva! of ~etland Alteration Permit #92-8 a~ aho~n on the plane dated 3u[y 1, 1992 with the following cond[tion~= 1. A grading permit shat1 be obtained f~om the City of Chanhassen. 1 Type I erosion control shall be installed between the existing wetland area and the entire fill area, and shall be removed once the vegetation has been re-established. 3. A swale shall be created between the area of fill and the wetland edge at approximately the 960.0 contour to maintain the existing neighborhood drainage pattern. Staff shall inspect the final grade prior to seeding. 4. Clean up debris. All voted In favor and the .orion carried. pUBL::[:C HEialR]:NEi = ..u~r_ LiM~ iM..TER~T:I'ON PERI. lIT FOR CHEY~ TR~]:L ~ I-I4Y 101. C:[TY OF Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: So Dave, speak to us about this sedimentation catching dealybob. That's a technical term guys. Hempel: This is what was employed at Lundgren's development up at Trapper's Pass where there was Just simply no area to build a sedimentation pond due to the terrain. The sediment basins were'recommended on behalf of the Watershed and staff. They do help from a water quality standpoint by removing the larger sediments that wash through the pipe and so forth. It's not as desireable as a sedimentation basin or a NURP pond which removes.a lot mote of the nutrients and so forth but this is much better than what is currently transpiring out there right now with an open ditch section and it's been continually eroding into the wetland. So the improvements that we're proposing here will definitely help from a water quality standpoint, as well as a traffic safety standpoint with turning movements on TH 101 and Cheyenne. Batzli: $o this will improve the current sedimentation problem that's running into the pond but it otherwise won't improve the water quality other than to catch the large sedimentation currently going in there throug the existing culvert kind of thing? Whatever's there now. Hempel: That's correct, yes. Batzll: Okay. Is there anything that we could do that would improve the water quality or potential for spills off the roadway or something? Is there something we could be doing that we're not? Planning Commission Heeting Rugust 5, 1992 - Page Hempel: A sedimentation basin or NURP pond would be a little bit more beneficial than what we're proposing but also would require mitigation of the wetland and DNR approval and possible Army Corps of Engineer approval also. Aanenson-' Can I just speak to that a little bit? When we .first 'looked at this issue, we were concerned because there is drainage and utility easements all around this entire wetland area. And basically the wetland goes beyond the edges of all the drainage and utilities so there's not, in this area if we did go in there and do some work, there's not a lot of area to mitigate. Ne'd have to take th'e mitigation elsewhere and that was part of the concern ! guess. That's why we originally thought about the sedimentation basin may do a better Job. In looking at it, there's nowhere to mitigate so we felt this was the best alternative. '. Batzli: But really the fact that the'road has gone through or what-have you has probably eliminated the natural whatever you'd call it of the nutrients and other things in the water and currently, all this is going to do is take the particals out. The big chunks. But it's not going to do any other filtering that would normally be done prior to entering this type of a wetland. Aanenson= Nell, there's two drainage that goes in there. One from the Eden Prairie side. Storm water and then one that runs through the ditch. So those two are the ones that we're trying to trap. You're right. The ones that are running off the road, the sheet flow. Batzli: Yeah. Aanenson= You're right. Ne probably wouldn't be catching those. Hempel= This is a rather small area actually contributing to the storm drainage system here. A ditch a few hundred feet each side of the culvert. And a little bit of the backyards on the Eden Prairie side. So it's not a very large area that we're talking about contributing to the ~etland' The' wetland is essentially pretty much a dry wetland and it's very heavily cattailed and so forth. To do the filtering through the cattails. Batzli: Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission on this wetland alteration permit? Aanenson: I was going to say. We did receive phone calls from some of the residents that were concerned about impact to the wetland and whether or not there was a need for the right in turn lane. I guess they were concerned we were going to be taking out some of the wetlands. I spoke to quite a few of them so I don~t know if we answered their questions. Batzli: Okay. 'The record shows there's no one else in the room. Aanenson= I was expecting quite a few people here actually. Batzli= Nell, there's no one else in the room that wishes to address the Commission. Okay. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Planning Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page 19 Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to clo~e'the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed. Batzii: Joan, do you have any comments? Ahrens: Dave, essentially you're saying that it's just too much of a hassle for the City to put the sedimentation pond or NURP pond in because you'd have to go through the DNR and possibly the Army Corps. Batzli: But then there might be mitigation as well required somewhere else. Aanenson: But there's no where to pick up the mitigation. Yeah, we can't pick up the mitigation on site. The wetlands gone beyond the easements. We'd have to take it off site. Batzli: So you're going to have a net loss. You'd have a net loss so you'd have to take your mitigation to another wetland and enlarge it or do something else somewhere else, so yeah. Ahrens: So what? Batzli: Well yeah. Is it a hassle, is that your question? Ahrens: Thanks for restating my question. Batzli: I'm sorry. I didn't understand it. Anyway Dave... Hempel: Not necessarily expense. The project is being funded by MnDot's checkbook if you will so the whole issue though I guess is, are we from a water quality standpoint maybe enhancing or improving that somewhat but on the other hand, actually constructing a pond in the wetland areas. Is that an equal trade off, I guess. You've got the natural wetland right now. Going in and actually dredging it to create a NURP pond. It's a balancing act I guess. Kate. Aanenson: I was just going to add that if'we did mitigate it on site, because we've gone beyond that boundaries, there'd be impacts to increasing that wetland itself and what it would do to those homeowners. They'd obviously lose less of their backyard and that was an issue too because it is a large wetland as far as how much it encroaches into the property owners and I'm not sure, at this point if they want a larger wetland or less backyard. Ahrens: In the long run, what's better for the wetland? Aanenson: As far as the quality of the wetland, it's not that great of a quality wetland right, now. Batzli: We could make it better. Aanenson: We could. We always can. Ahrens: Yeah. Anybody want to answer that question? Planning Commission Meeting Rugust 5, 1992 - Page 20 Aanenson= Nell we are right now. Ne feel'like with the ~ump catch basins, that we are improving it from what it is right now. Rhrens= But of all the alternatives that are available to you, what is the best alternative in the long run? Hempel: I guess that would be the sedimentation basin. FrOm a water quality standpoint. For nutrient removal. Rhrens: ...bigger hassle. Hempel: It's the expense and time delays. We are on kind of a time constraint here. MnDot, we applied for this project last ~ugust and it's taken until now basically to get through the hoops from MnDot. To get this project in their books and so forth and if we-delay it beyond the construction season this year, we could possibly lose the funding mechanism for this project. Rhrens'- Batzl i = Okay. I have no other comments. Thank you Joan. Ahrens: Unless you have a question for me to ask. Batzli: Yeah, would you ask them if it's. Steve. Emmings: I'd Just resort to general principles here and that is, I give the City' anything they want as long as it doesn't involve a special assessment on my property. ~hrens: I suppose you get a cheaper water and sewer bill. Emmings: If it works out that way, that's fine with me. Batzli: Matt? Ledvina: Looking at the staff recommendations, they were considering the installation of a sedimentation basin, is that correct? So we should modify those? Aanenson: Yes · Ledvina: Okay. So should we substitute the word catch basin where it says sedimentation pond? Would that be appropriate? Okay. Hempel: I was going to suggest that we just maybe modify it, condition number one to read, all filling should be .limited to the 918 contour. The project shall implement a sump catch basin to improve water quality in the wetland. Just strike, except for the extension of storm sewer pipe and sedimentation pond. Ledv ina: O kay. Planning Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page 21 Batzli: Did you want to say something Kate? You really looked like you did. Ledvina: Okay, then for condition number 3. It says, there shall be no filling or dredging permitted within the Class A wetland except for sedimentation pond or do we say, except for the catch basin construction. 'Aanenson: I don't think it's applicable anymore. Ledvina: It's not applicable at this point? Okay, so strike condition 3...and that would be it. The catch basin now, obviously you're catching sediments and what is the capacity for that? Do you have an anticipated schedule for cleaning and are there similar type structures? Is there equipment for cleaning? Hempel: Yes. The City does have a VacAll truck that will have to, staff will have to monitor as the sediments accumulate. We do have -a number of these type of catch basins in the city now so it will require an annual cleaning. Ledvina: Annual cleaning? Do you think there's enough capacity in that for an annual basis? Hempel: We periodically will check them and see if there's house construction nearby or some other kind of construction which will increase the amount of sediments washing into them but typically it's on an annual basis. Batzli: Ladd. Conrad: Dave, how much water is draining from Eden Prairie into this area? Hempel: I would say probably a couple hundred feet in each direction on the culvert, backyards east of TH 101. Conrad: This wetland used to be a lot bigger. The house...basically built into the wetland. And I think the wetland has deteriorated in quality in terms of what it can do. It's such a Pretty wetland. $o on the one hand, it's probably an area that's, 200 feet? See this one really is balancing act. On the one hand I start and I say, hey well the developer basically built, put more houses in there than maybe...built right into the wetland. Yet we don't have a whole lot of drainage going through this. I don't know, I guess I'm going to have.to go with the staff report on this. It is a balancing act. I guess in this case I'd go with the staff recommendation. Batzli: In general principle Ladd, do you agree with the notion that because of hassle or because of expense or something else, we shouldn't do what's best for the wetland here? Conrad: Well you know, we are improving it. I think Dave's right. Things, we could improve it more and that's the'issue. We are making it a little bit better. And so from a philosophy standpoint, I can go with that. If I thought that spending x number,-I'don't care where the money's Planning Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page 22 coming from really...if it makes good economic sense, and if Dave's done the limited drainage that they think it can...I'm not Sure that I would spend a tremendous amount of money...It's just sort of a gut reaction as to how much money is being spent and how much it would cost to do. I- certainly don't feel that the City should get by with anything but I think our standard has always been, do we improve it? Is this situation being improved and we are meeting that standard and I guess I don't feel that we need to push it beyond that. A little bit of me is saying primarily because I know how this area was developed a couple years ago and basically a lot of the wetlands...and I don't know. That 'was probably more damaging than anything else. Batzli: Would you like to see staff at least be able to-provide some idea to City Council as to what would be the significance' of making it much better? How much money does it cost? At least in terms of around tens of thousands of dollars or hundreds of dollars. If it costs $200.00 more to do this and 6 more weeks, than I say do it. If it costs $50,000.00 more and it can't get done in 3 years, then I say let's improve 'it a little bit. But we don't know that and that's what I have trouble with. Anyway, that's what I have to say. Is there a motion? Ledvtna: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-10 to allow construction within 200 feet of a Class A wetland and the installation of a right turn lane adjacent to a Class A wetland with the following conditions: Condition 1. Ail filling shall be limited to the 918 contour. The project shall implement a catch basin to mitigate the water quality concerns with the associated wetland. Number 2. That Type II erosion control be in place around the construction boundaries of the wetland. Batzli: Is there a second? Emmings: I'll second it. Batzli: Okay, discussion. Would anyone like to see added to that motion a direction to staff to look into the costs or other, further ways that water quality might be improved into the wetland? Conrad: Yeah, I would like to do that Brian. I don't know how to word. The motion is to approve it as worded but to also have staff. The motion reads to approve it per the staff report. And you would suggest that that also. advises the Council on the cost for an alternative. Ledvina: Should I amend the motion then? Conrad: Dave, what kind of exercise do we get you playing when we ask you to do that? Hempel: It would just take some rough calculations on the area of excavation. Conrad: Are you talking about an hours worth of your time? Planning Commission Meeting Rugust 5, 1992 - Page 23 Hempel: Couple hours. Couple phone calls. Maybe consult the City's storm water consultant on it too and see what their input is to the improvements or the sedimentation pond would be significant. Conrad: I'd like yOU to do that. Yeah. Ahrens: It's kind of ironic the City, you know we have this pond committee and we have a lot of lip service for preservation of wetlands and we're going through all this effort to identify wetlands and then we have this wetland and maybe it's not the highest quality wetland. Maybe it's not the biggest wetland. Maybe it's not the greatest wetland in the city but just because the City's the applicant, and the City comes in and says the timing. Because the timing is short, we need to get this project moving and we may lose the funds. And this seems to be the most, easiest way to get it done at this point because we don't have to spend as much money mitigating someplace else. And it seems ironic that we push this along like this when Dave himself said this is not the best solution for this wetland. What are we looking at? The immediate solution or a solution lO years, 20 years down the line. Aanenson'- First of all, we're not in the wetland. We're within 200 feet. That's the reason why we're here. We're not in the wetland. Ahrens: But it's impacting the wetland. Aanenson: No we're not. The catch basin's outside the wetland. The reason we're here is because we're within 200 feet. We're outside the contours of the wetland. What we're saying is., as long as we're next to it, we'd like to improve it. Okay, that's why. Originally we thought we could put the sedimentation then we realized we're in the wetland now. Okay. But our goal was to stay out of the wetland. Not to even touch it. But we said, as long as we're next to it, what can we do because we've got two ditches running in there. What can we do to improve it. We were trying to be proactive. And our original thought was that we could do the sedimentation but then we realized wow, we haven't got any room to pick up the mitigation. This wetland. Maybe those lots shouldn't have been there. I know that we've got concern~ from some of the other neighbors that those homes didn't belong there because they impacted, the wetland.to begin with so. We thought we were being proactive. Ahrens: The City is trying to...okaY but if the City's going to go to the effort to correct mistakes made in the past, why not do the best job they can do? If it's not going to cost a whole lot more money. If it can be done in a reasonable way. Why make the effort? Krauss: We can look at that certainlY. The potential for additional costs comes about the need to mitigate 1 for 1. There's no room to do any- mitigation on this wetland which means we then wind up having to buy other land someplace else and expand a wetland on that property. Ahrens: Is that something that has to be done immediately or is that something that could be done in conjunction with another plan when you have to mitigate? Planning Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page 24 Krauss: Well we've done that in the past but. Ahrens: It doesn't mean that the City's going'to have to come up with a whole lot of money immediately out of pocket and buy other wetlands. Krauss: But we're setting up that kind of a wetland banking.program. ~4e've done it in the past. Ahrens: But it's not in place right now? Krauss: But there is a State law in place that says you have to do it now. Ahrens: You have to do it at some point right? Krauss: Or you have to post letters of credit to say that you are doing it and do it within a certain time frame. Ahrens: Well, sometimes it's maybe more beneficial to find out-ways to do it than to find out ways why you can't do it. Hempel: Let me just add also I guess, as you're aware, the wetland has been reduced in size over time with development. Development adjacent to this wetland also has reduced the amount of runoff going to the wetland and in some cases actually are pre-treating. Like Kurver's Point Addition used to drain towards this area and now it's being pre-treated and taken towards Lotus Lake so the overall drainage area contributing to'the wetland has been significantly reduced with the area development. As Kate stated, the improvements that we're proposing are cost effective. It's something better than what's out there right'now. The overall, to go that extra step, it may be feasible for us to do it. On the other hand, it may delay the project until next year and jeopardize doing nothing out there. Batzli: I don't think anybody disagrees that what you're doing is going to improve the wetland. Our Question is, have we looked at the alternatives. Can we be doing something else? I'd even love it if you'd come back and say well gee, yes. We should do this. We can't do it right now but we will phase it in and we'll try to do it next year when we can mitigate it by buying another piece of property. I'd at least like to see the City look at it in order to be fully responsive to the ~etland that we're spending so much time on in other committees. Conrad: Matt, would you amend your motion to add a point 4 that would ask staff to examine. Ledvina: Point 3. 3rd condition. Batzli: We got rid of number 3 last time. Conrad: Ah. Okay. 3rd point that would ask staff to examine the cost and feasibility and benefits to improving it with a holding basin. And staff should spend no more time than 2 hours. Is that appropriate? Ahrens: Then we're back to the same problem where we're approving this and Planning Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page 25 then adding another condition. -I mean either we have to do one or the other. Batzli: Ne have approved it and as part of the approval, staff is going to present alternatives to the City Council. I don't see a problem with that personally. We've asked staff to do things. Emmings: I think there is a problem. Batzli: ~hy's that? Emmings: First of all, I guess my position on this would be that, I agree with what Joan has said in principle, and Ladd and Brian. All of you I guess. But I don't think it ought to be applied in this case. It doesn't seem to me to be a case that requires all of this attention. And I think if you want to do what you're saying,-I don't think you should approve this because then it goes up there saying, we approve this but ~e want alternatives presented. When in fact what you're saying is, if there's a cheap alternative, you think the alternative ought to be taken a-nd not this. So I think you've got a problem there. I would approve what's here. Ahrens: I agree with what you're saying. Either we approve this or we . don't approve it. Emmings: Yeah, I agree. That's the way it's got to go. Ahrens: Although I don't agree with your first statement. Batzli: What was the first statement? That it shouldn't be done in this instance? Emmings= Yeah. Batzli: Is that the first statement? Well, I disagree with both statements but that's besides the point. Conrad: The point is, if you two decide 'you don't like it this way, you could potentially could delay the project. Ahrens: We don't know. Conrad: We don't know but' you potentially could. And the City Council's going to make their decision. Ail we're doing is saying hey staff, you've improved the situation a little bit. And in the process, in the next 2 weeks you could look into another alternative and they're going to give City Council a chance to take a look at a broader picture. Versus kicking it back to us and us kick it back to City Council. Which staff would give them two alternatives, a second alternative that might be less possible. Batzli: We've done this a billion times in my opinion that we've asked staff to look into somethi'ng and settle something. I'm convinced. Emmings: Yeah but not something that's contrary to what you're approving. Planning Commission Meeting Rugust 5, 1992 - Page 26 Batzll: No. I don't think this is contrary. What my point is, is that they have improved the wetland. I would like them to examine to see if there are other ways that would even further improve it. That doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be part of this approval process. Because I would like to see them get into the habit of excelling rather than just saying well, we've improved it a little bit right here. See that's what I think we have to do with the wetlands eventually. Emmings: If they were working in the wetland, I'd agree with you. were going to do anything in the wetland, I'd agree with you. If they Conrad: But your point is, you think this is, now I don't kno~ where you stand. Emmings: I think this is, for what's being done he're, I think they're doing enough. Batzli: No but see, I disagree from the standpoint that when you look at the non-point source pollution, you're looking.at the stuff coming down the whatever they are and that's what they're working on. That's what they're trying to get rid of. They're trying to get.the sediment coming down the dealybops on the side of the road. Whatever those are. . . Emmings: Ditches. Batzli: Thank you. ~nd you know, we're looking at the non-point source pollution. We're looking at the runoff off the streets. We.'re looking at this stuff and this is when you fix it. They shouldn't go into the wetland to fix it. That's the whole point. Emmings: But that's what you're asking them to do by building a sedimentation pond. Batzli: Well if it can help further remove the non-point source pollution, they should look at doing it because it will improve the wetland. Even by going into the wetland. Emmi rigs: 0 kay. Conrad: Call a question. Emmings: Well now wait. Batzli: Well no one ever finished it, seconded it. Emmings: No one ever seconded it and I won't. I won't change my second. Conrad: I will. Emmings: Well, is that procedurally what happens? · Satzli: If you don't withdraw your second, we vote on that motion as it stood before this amendment. So we will call a question on the motion before us which was prior to his amendment. Planning Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page 27 Ledvina: BatzIi: The originaI motion. $o we'll call the question. Conrad: 8atzli: Ahrens: Batzli: The original motion with the 2 conditions. You have to approve the friendly amendment. What was the motion? The motion was to approve this, I~m sorry. Approval with the first 2 conditions right? Approval with first 2 conditions except it was rewritten to get rid of the sedtmentton pond. Conrad: No, don't you have to approve the motion. See I'm not going to approve that unless I know that I've got the votes for a~/ addition. Don't you have to approve the amendment first? Emmings: Technically yeah. You're supposed to vote on the'amendment first if you've got a second to the amendment. Conrad: You don't. Batzli: Well, we might. Okay. $o I'll withdraw calling the question. Your amendment was what? Give me your amendment again. Conrad: Emm i rigs: Ahrens: Geez, this may not be worth the whole time. I thought Matt had made the motion. Matt had amended. Emmtngs: Matt amended his motion. Ahrens: Can't we just start over? Come on guys. 8atzli: I tried to call a question. Nobody let me. Ledvina: Should I start over? Batzlt: No, just give me what your 'amendment was again please Ledvina: Okay. The third condition to the motion was to direct staff to evaluate the cost and the time schedules of constructing a sedimentation basin to provide additional improvement for the wetland. Batzii: Is there a second? Conrad: I second that. Ledvtna moved, Conrad seconded an amendment adding a third condition to read as follows: · Planning Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page 28 3. Direct staff to evaluate the'cost and time ech~lee of constructing a sedimentation basin to provide additional improvement for the wetland. All voted in favor of the amendment except Emmtn~ and Ahrens who and the motion carried with a vote of 3'to 2. Batzli: Okay, it passes 3 to 2. We'll vote on the Gull motion now which includes conditions i, 2 and 3. Is there any discussion first? Ledvina moved, Emminds seconded that the Planning Commt~ion recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit ~92-10 to allow construction within 200 feet of a Class A wetland and the installation of a right turn lane adjacent to a Class A wetland with the following conditions: 1. All filling shall be limited to the 918 contour. The project shall implement a catch basin to mitigate the water quality concerns with the associated wetland. 2. That Type II erosion control be in place around the construction boundaries of the ~etland. 3. Direct staff to evaluate the cost and time schedules of constructing a sedimentation basin to provide additions! improvement for the wetland. All voted in favor except Emmin~ and Ahrens who oppo~ and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Batzii: And your reasons for opposing. Emmings: I would simply approve the original motion. I don't think they should go to the time and effort of looking into a sedimentation Pond in this case. Batzl i: Okay. Joan. Ahrens: I think they should Just look into the idea of 'approving or the idea of sedimentation ponds period and forget approving this original motion. It doesn't make anything, it's contrary to approve 'this application and at the same time tell them but go ahead and find out if there's something better we should do. Do one or the other. I don't understand that reasoning. Batzli: Okay. Sounds good. ~~L OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 15, 1992 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Krauss: Weii! didn't give you the City Council update because there wasn't much on the agenda and [ was in Seattle. Aanenson: Wait a minute, I was there. Planning Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page 29 Batzli: So Kate, was there anything new at the City Council meeting we should know about? Aanenson: The beachlot on Sunny Slope was tabled. Emm i rigs: Aanenson: weeks. The beachlot? Sunny Slope. They asked to be tabled so it will be on i'n 2 Conrad: What were their reasons for that? Aanenson: Originally I think we told them the lOth...they wanted a chance to go through and see what other beach considerations for the other beachlots had been given. I can't remember what else was on. Ofl60I~ ITEMS: Batzli: Do we need to talk about that? We're probably going .to talk about that in great length in a few minutes here so let's put' that aside for the moment. ~DMINISTR/~TIVE ~PPROV~_S: Batzli: Any administrative approvals of note? Krauss: No. In terms of, well there is a note. I copied you on a letter to Halla Nursery. I think that's going to come up at the next Council meeting as well. Ongoing issues with them but there's nothing new about that. Batzli: Okay. Are we going to adjourn before we bold our work session? Krauss: Batzli: That would probably be appropriate yeah. Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? Conrad: Wait, before you do that. Under just some things that have, I wanted to bring it up for F,Jblic awareness. Over the last month I think I've had like 5 citizens call me and they've talked about some excellence of city staff. Planning staff and engineering department. I was real impressed and they were too. They really said, and these were unrelated issues and Just out of the clear blue so I Just wanted to pa~ that along to the staff and Dave left before I 'got to say that. I think it's real important that they hear those things. They wets real complimentary. Batzli: Well tell Charles and Dave for us. I wonder how much they had to give those people to come up to you and say that. Emmings: I think it was Charles and Dave that called him. Batzli: Was there anything else Ladd? You've been out on the lake with your boat out on Lotus at all? ~' Planning Commission Meeting August 5, 1992 - Page 30 Conrad: I take the risk every now and then. Batzli: Is there milfoil out there? Conrad: Quite a bit. Batzli: Is there? Emmings: Lots on Minnewashta. Batzli: Lots on Mlnnewashta too huh. Conrad: That's a whole different issue. We really have some serious concerns with access and how the spray'~ng was. done and now public was notified that 240 was put in their front yard. A whole bunch of issues like that but I've been up, we go and pull it every Saturday mornin~ and see what we can do. Batzli: Okay. Emmings: You pull it up and then. Conrad: You've got to get it by the roots so ye,i've got to, really what we're trying to do is, the Lake Association. is to just everybody go out on the weekend and take a shovel and we try to get it by the roots and take it totally out. But then.you also see, it's so easy to fragment. It's Just like whoa, I just wonder if we're helping or-hurting. Krauss: There was an article is last weekend's paper talking about, interviewin~ somebody from the DN~ on lake weed control. They pointed out that they know of only one lake in the entire state that milfoil was actually successfully eradicated on. Conrad: It will not be eradicated. Emmings: You just have to be careful to do that on a day when the wind's blowing out from shore. Conrad: Seriously, on Lotus Lake it's such a shallow lake, it literally could be a carpet. Emmings: Oh is that right? Conrad: Yeah. The whole lake could be closed down. 'The good news is, the lake's so dirty that it might be too dark to ~row. So we'll see. You don't want to yell wolf, but it could be devastating to the lake. Ahrens: Is that from over-use? Is that why it's so dirty? Conrad: Yeah, pretty much the motorboats. And the drainage. The drainage throughout the years but it's gotten worse over the last i0 years with all the development around it and I don't think any of 'the controls we put in have really done the Job. But it's still a dirty lake'and really .when yOU see like last week, you get kind o~ suspect of the DNR. There'were 35-40 Planning Commission Meeting Rugust 5, 1992 - Page 3i boats out last weekend and it really is dangerous. It's just absolutely, we came in. It was not good. And so when you've got that many power boats going around on a lake that's maybe averaging lO to 14 feet deep, you're propellers really stir up the bottom at that depth. It's just taken all the muck up and moving it around. Batzli: Don't you feel kind of silly having a 35 foot Cigarette boat out there anyway? Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn? Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to adjourn the meting. All voted tn favor and the motion carrfed. The meeting ~as adjourned at 9:07 p.m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim