Loading...
PC 2005 02 01 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 1, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Rich Slagle, Kurt Papke, Steve Lillehaug, Dan Keefe, Debra Larson and Jerry McDonald STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; and Don Asleson, Natural Resources Technician OATH OF OFFICE. Chairman Sacchet administered the Oath of Office to Debra Larson. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 75-2 TO ELIMINATE THE HORSEPOWER RESTRICTION AT BOAT ACCESS #1 LOCATED IN LAKE MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK, APPLICANT CARVER COUNTY PARKS, PLANNING CASE #04-37. Public Present: Name Address James Johnson 2762 Piper Ridge Lane, Excelsior Scott A. Smith Carver County PW Engineer Martin Walsh Carver County Park Kurt Papke 1131 Homestead Lane Hud Hollenback 6330 Elm Tree, Excelsior Arnold W. Hed 3860 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska Karen & Gary Peterson 3632 Hickory Lane Judy Berland 6900 Minnewashta Parkway B.J. Greer 2771 Piper Ridge Lane, Excelsior Dean Barta 3637 Red Cedar Point Road Commissioner Papke excused himself from the commission due to a personal conflict of interest. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Why don’t we start on this side. Do you have any questions? Jerry. McDonald: At this time I have no questions. Sacchet: Dan? Keefe: No. Sacchet: No questions? Larson: No. Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 Sacchet: I do have a few questions. Real quick. Now staff report on page 4 states that staff agrees with slow wake zone surface wake surface zoning since it’s considered, no that’s not the one. Hang on. It says that Minne Bay is considered environmentally sensitive. Right? So it’s your opinion that by having the no wake zone that’s sufficiently accommodated? Metzer: Well basically we’re basing our opinion off of what the DNR has told us. Speaking with 4 different members, none have any issues. The only one really making any statements other than no comment, or no issues with it was Daryl Ellison, Fisheries Supervisor. Just stated that there’s some vegetation in little Minne and he also noted that it’s good bass habitat but he stated that the no wake restrictions are sufficient for that. Sacchet: Are sufficient. Because I looked at the findings and it says while it will not be detrimental or damaged to safety comfort, general welfare, it will not be hazardous or disturbing to the environment. It will not result in any destruction or damage of natural, scenic or historic features. It will be aesthetically compatible, and I was just wondering, I mean if we have this really sensitive environmental piece there, why would we want to have bigger motors on it? Al-Jaff: If you have the no wake, that basically will mitigate any or at least lessen environmental impacts. Sacchet: Lessen, okay. Alright. Any word from our environmental people over there? Haak: I can certainly speak to that. I guess my comment would be limited to the facts that the planners have already stated which is really the slow no wake ordinance is going to be quite effective and possibly even more enforceable in Little Minne Bay. If that’s something that let’s say, I’ve seen other lake associations maybe pay a little bit to Carver County for additional patrols or things like that. If the County is aware that that is in existence and potentially you know that’s just really a communication bridge that has to be gapped, or to span in order to make sure that the enforcement on that is adequate. Sacchet: Now help me out. It’s already no wake. Haak: Correct. Sacchet: Right, so that is not, would not be a new thing. Haak: Right. The argument presently. Sacchet: We’re trusting that the people with the big motors will respect it too at this point, is what it boils down to. Haak: From what I understand, which is really what we’re trusting them to do right now is police themselves with the 10 horsepower limit. Sacchet: Because we’re not really policing the size of the motor in the first place. Haak: And Carver County can speak a little bit more eloquently to that I believe because they actually manage that park entrance but it’s my understanding that yes, it’s difficult if not impossible to police that 10 horsepower limit already. Sacchet: Okay, thanks Lori. Haak: Yep. 2 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 Sacchet: Well unless there are any other more questions, which it seems there aren’t, I would like to invite the applicant. Do we have an applicant here? To come forward. If you want to add to what staff presented. Marty Walsh: Sure, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. Sacchet: Do you want to state your name. Marty Walsh: Yes, Marty Walsh with Carver County Parks and again, thank you for the opportunity to be before you here tonight. The issue with regards to horsepower restrictions at Lake Minnewashta Park is one of kind of convenience. I shouldn’t say convenience but more of a customer service orientation if you will for the park. Folks when they come to the park area and they have a boat, they are looking for a place to park. Whether it’s a 10 horsepower or more, they just want to park their boat. And they’ll park and that’s what they do at any one of our park accesses until such point as we’re full, and then we have them wait outside the park until we have an available spot for them. But with regards to the horsepower restriction, one of the flaws of the overall thought about restricting the horsepower limit just to the 10 boat stalls. It says nothing about the other boats that may come through the other access or property owners that are actually coming into Little Minne from another direction, so while it addresses what might be going out through the 10 horsepower, which if you take a look at the number of boats on the lake, that particular access makes probably about 5% or fewer of the boats that might be on the lake at any one given time. To concentrate that sort of emphasis on just that access there is probably not the best way to do it and a no wake zone is much more again enforceable and that applies to everyone that’s in that area, whether they come from inside the park or outside the park boundaries. So from our perspective it just gets, it’s a bit redundant in terms of the enforcement that’s needed for there, and frankly we can’t enforce it. It’s very difficult for us to do that. Again while we can count the numbers of boats that go into the site, we have a very difficult time in ascertaining what horsepower somebody has at any one given moment and once you get past the gatehouse, we don’t know which boat access they went to. So trying to come up with a system to police that is tough, and it’s probably very poor in terms of cost effectiveness and time would be better spent regulating water surface rules rather than trying to enforce a rule that applies essentially 10 boats that park at any one time and not looking at the bigger picture if you will. The other 200 or 300 watercraft that might be in the area. So I guess I’d leave it at that and if there’s more questions… Sacchet: Let’s see if we have some questions for you. Any questions for the applicant? Jerry, go ahead. McDonald: I have a question. Well let me ask you, what was the original intent of the 10 horsepower? Was that to keep the wakes down and it was felt that the 10 horsepower would do that? Was that the purpose of it? Marty Walsh: Well I think there’s some other folks here in the audience here that can probably address that because I know that they are part of that original committee. What I have on record is what the city has provided and my understanding of it was to provide what they felt was I think kind of more environmental sensitive approach to boats going out on the lake there but again, you’re looking at the 10, small as it might be there, and anybody from anywhere else again whether it’s the other public boat access or private property can access Little Minne with a large boat. There’s nothing that prevents a larger boat from accessing Little Minne from another direction. McDonald: Well I guess the thing I’m trying to get at is, that with the no wake rule, does that in effect nullify a horsepower as long as you stay with no wake then what difference does it make? 3 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 Marty Walsh: That’s essentially what our belief is, is that that is a much more restrictive control because you could have somebody that has a 10 horsepower motor and be you know a little bit ruthless in how they’re operating their watercraft, so the restriction of the no wake zone I think takes care of that issue. You could have a very small boat, essentially buzzing the shoreline within whatever, a few feet of the shore and causing much more environmental damage as to somebody that’s essentially putt putting out until they get to the main body of water. McDonald: And then kind of a follow-up on that. One of the things that I read in here is that, it may require dredging of the, what the inlet. What’s the purpose of that? Is that to accommodate the higher horsepower boats or is that just, it will have to be done anyway because of cycles? As I read in here that there are times when that channel kind of dries up anyway. Marty Walsh: Yeah, dredging is an issue. I don’t know that we would plan for 50 or 100 year lack of water events, or drought events. That’s something that I don’t know that we would plan for that. The last time it was this low I think was around 35 and you may not want watercraft on that body of water when conditions are like that so I don’t know that we’d want to plan for the 50 or 100 year event. Certainly it’d be a lot of infrastructure for something that would only get used you know periodically or sporadically at best. McDonald: Okay. And if it did come down to dredging, is that something that at that point is part of a license? You’ll have to go back to the DNR? Marty Walsh: That would have your permit activity and my understanding of that is, it begins with at least a conversation with the DNR but ultimately ends up over the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. If it is an operation that’s going to go forward, then I think the City of Chanhassen is ultimately needs to be a part of that particular operation. McDonald: Okay. That’s all the questions I have. Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions? Go ahead. Slagle: I was going to wait but I will ask it now. If I can ask, on the boat launches, the two I believe that are public, is there signage that states the no wake zone? Marty Walsh: Within the Little Minne area, yes there is signage there but it’s avoid area that says no wake zone. That carries it all the way out to the main body of water. Slagle: Okay. Okay. That’s it. Larson: I have one. Sacchet: Debra, go ahead. Larson: Brief question. Currently there’s two launches, and I was reading that eventually the other one they would like to close that and so then the Little Minne Bay would be the only one. Is that going to cause more boats, obviously it will cause more boats to use the other one. Would they typically use the Little Minne Bay one anyhow because of wind and other things that can adversely affect? Marty Walsh: You bring up a very good point, and the master plan is really kind of a different topic but we can go down this road here. Here back in 2000 it started with a master plan update for Lake Minnewashta Regional Park, and just a little bit how that works is Carver County is an implementing 4 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 agency of the regional park system. Minnewashta if you will is like a state park within the metropolitan area. We receive funding from the Metropolitan Council for ongoing operations and maintenance and acquisition and development funds, and the County’s role in that is to plan the park area. Here in 2000 we went through that plan and updated the master plan. There was a number of changes that were brought about for a public process. A number of public meetings. A number of either letters or agency meetings with the DNR, City of Chanhassen, Metropolitan Council and so forth. Ultimately that plan to the Metropolitan Council was approved. As part of that plan there is a boat access that would combine the two facilities maintaining the existing 35 stalls that have been approved as a part of the original CUP. And a reason why that was looked at is because it is kind of a duplication of facilities and in our master plan, one of the ways in which we can control or have better monitoring of that new boat launch facility is to provide a visitor center. Visitor contact station which would overlook that particular facility and provides us with greater control, whereas right now the problem is once you get past the gate house, we can’t, we don’t have that control. There were a number of factors and a great deal of debate about the merits of combining the boat accesses if you will. One was a duplication of facilities. Why do we have two? One was why are we bringing all this traffic further into the park? If you don’t need to bring all that traffic into the park, why do that? Another aspect was with regards to the depth of water and the access at #1. The one that’s currently 10 horsepower is deeper. Boats will more frequently use that, particularly during times of low water conditions. The other access, and I have an aerial photo here if you’d like. You can pull that up and you’ll see the very nature of that and how shallow that is. The other problem with access #2 is that although we’d like to have a different design there, the access actually angles out almost parallel to the shoreline, so any sort of expansion or dredging in that kind of way is a more extensive project. It doesn’t really go out at an 90° angle to the shoreline if you will. There is cat tails and so forth on the one side and then again it’s very shallow on that edge of the shoreline. So in terms of where do we provide boat access into the future, those were a number of things that were discussed. How do we again minimize some of our infrastructure if you will in terms of boat accesses, and then ultimately that site is converted to a different use which we have a demand for which is new camping. Larson: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Any questions? A few questions. Right now is this actually posted to 10 horsepower? Marty Walsh: Yes it is. There’s a sign at the entrance to the boating facility. Sacchet: That goes to show how close I look at it. Now you say it can’t really be enforced. You haven’t really done anything to enforce it much. I mean it’s not draining your resources is it. Marty Walsh: With regards to enforcement, the sheriff’s department comes to the park on a periodic basis to go through there and that’s our enforcement control. We don’t have park rangers. And when a boat is off the trailer it’s pretty difficult for the enforcement officer to determine what the horsepower is, so you literally have to catch them either going in, or coming out to see what the horsepower is for the boat. Now you can make some assumptions on a trailer that has 2 wheels or tandem wheels, that it’s bigger than 10 horse. But in terms of all practicality, in terms of what we get for law enforcement, their time is better spent, and this is from a, what I think is public perspective, looking at what’s going on in terms of surface water use where you have folks that are not obeying what they should be in terms of surface water. Speed. Recklessness. Those sorts of things and other activities that are within the park rather than monitoring essentially the 10 horsepower limit while there’s a no wake zone in place. Sacchet: So what do you envision can be done to monitor and enforce the no wake? I mean that’s out on the water. If the sheriff drives in the parking lot, he never even sees it. 5 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 Marty Walsh: Right. What continues to be, and we do have is lake patrol. And I would encourage, and we still work very closely with the sheriff’s department to continue to monitor the lake use. We’ve had I would say reasonable service from them regarding lake activity so if there’s been infringements, I know that they’ve been called and dispatched to the park in a hurry and they come flying through our gate and they’re out in the water in a matter of minutes. Sacchet: Because you see what I’m struggling with is on one hand, I understand it’s not really enforceable. It’s more environmental than substantial, but on the other hand it is a gesture that helps protect that sensitive place. So, and obviously if I’m understanding correctly the rights of a boater, he can go anywhere on the surface so if they go in on the other side with the biggest boat, they can still go through Minne Bay. But to force them, that they have to go through there eventually, but that’s not the topic tonight with the boat launch, but the restriction is like a discouraging element, which seems to be in line with the sensitivity of the Minne Bay. So I’m putting it in that context more than what’s not enforceable. Why we’ve never really enforced it much but it still, it’s a deterrent that is in line with the sensitivity of the natural environment there. Can you respond to that that type of view a little bit? Marty Walsh: You know again I would say that what the DNR has commented in terms of the no wake zone provides that protection. Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, okay. That’s a good enough answer. Anything else you want to add? Marty Walsh: Again if there’s a need for more comments or questions. Sacchet: We’ll be certainly, welcome you up if you have more questions. Thank you. Now this is a public hearing. I’d like to invite anybody who would like to address this item to come forward. If you state your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say to this item in front of us. Arne Hed: Hi Rich. My name is Arne Hed. I live at 3860 Lone Cedar Lane on Lake Minnewashta. And I’ve been a resident there 45 years and I was one of the, I was the Chairman of the lake study commission at the time that this double access was developed. Access was developed and it was one of the high points of my service to the community. We were able to be a win/win/win with, I talked to Mike Markel. I said you won’t believe where I’m going tonight. Mike Markel was the DNR man and we were able to satisfy the residents of the lake that we didn’t have to have, take the money to buy a new access. If you recall Leach’s Resort was closed. It was a vacated alley. We found out that Hennepin County gave the money to Carver County to establish a park, a regional park. So we were using Hennepin County funds to build the roads and the lake access. And there’s two accesses. One was for the people that are more, do I dare say sensitive. Idealistic. Have a love for the nature and environment. We were going to protect the spawning grounds for the bass and pan fish in Little Minnewashta. That was a goal and objective. We would have canoes, sailboats, kayaks and so forth that could be unloaded there. The speed boats would go to another place apart from Little Minnewashta, which has worked beautifully and at the time I was commissioner, head of the commission I got calls from Lotus, Lake Ann, Lake Susan, Lake Riley. People take their lakes seriously around here. In fact you take a look at Lake Minnewashta and if you’re familiar with Dakota Indian language, that means clean water and we damn better believe that we’re going to keep that lake clean. I mean that is important to us. We paid a big price to live there. People are paying a bigger price today, but my wife says it’s time we get out. The red squirrels are taking over. And they have 200 horsepower motors. We had our grandchildren over and my wife immediately called the Carver County shore patrol to get out and they did ticket our neighbors going 60, 70, 80 miles an hour around Red Cedar Point. They were ticketed and they will be ticketed again but we should consider having 10 miles per hour in 100 feet from the shoreline. At least 100 feet. The lake is very, the topography is so up and down. It’s 130 feet deep just north of Red Cedar Point. 65 feet deep in 6 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 Minnewashta Bay. Now as a matter of history, Lake Minnewashta was 3 lakes in the 1930’s and for some of the produce farmers around Chanhassen, it was a life saver because Red Cedar Point went all the way across to Camp Tanadoona. There was the big lake, little Minnewashta and Washta Bay. Those were 3 different lakes and you could launch in any one of those 3 lakes. Later on there were 3 resorts on the lake, as you probably would know from your history. And again I repeat that it’s clean water in Dakota language. It’s clean water is what Minnewashta means. Minnetonka means big water. And of course you know what Chanhassen means. Sugar maple. And so we’re an environmental city and I’m not, I didn’t major in environmental science but my daughter Sonja did and got the largest scholarship ever given out of the Chaska High School for Environmental Science. Went to Lawrence University. In fact I would have liked to have her here tonight. She would fight for this community, as most people do. I was doing a project for Excelsior Chamber of Commerce. I said, where the regional park is now. I said that belongs to Excelsior as a trading area. I said if that’s built correctly with a good developer, you’d probably have 2,000 to 3,000 people living in that area. To a person they all said, with every generation they said this is Excelsior. You’re not going to force all these people into our community. They said we can live without that extra business. This was their Chamber of Commerce. And we’ve got to have the same loyalty to our community in Chanhassen as they have to the Excelsior and Lake Minnetonka area. And if you want to rattle some questions at me, I’ll shoot back at you. And I also spent 30 years as a consultant… Sacchet: What, let’s try to focus exactly in terms of the issue in front of us. Is this horsepower restriction with the access to Minne Bay. That’s really the issue right now. Arne Hed: My position on that is that, like they’ve got snowmobiles and for some people they’re a real headache. You’ve got these Skidoo’s. Seadoo’s. If you control the horsepower, you control the size of the motor. I mean the, I’m sorry. Control the speed if you take the major part of Washta Bay and the big lake and you say the speed limit is 45 miles per hour, then who needs a 200 horsepower motor? Merz over at Minnewashta Heights came to me when I was Chairman. He said that he was a lake property owner. He paid bigger taxes than anybody else. He should be allowed to have any motor of any size as he wants. He says you can control the size of the motors for the people coming in to the park, but not me. He says I’ve got a cigar boat and I want to go. I said, 200 horsepower you’ve got on that speed boat, I said you can go from Highway 7 to Highway 5 in less than 2 minutes. I mean it’s insane. I should add this. Merz’s brother, they’re the Merz Construction Company. They’re in our neighborhood and he took it upon himself to go out and put in a waterski course, right out in front of our picture windows and I said what is that? What are all those buoys doing out there? He said that’s a waterski course. So I was right down here and I said, waterskiing is fine. Our whole family waterskis and I’d encourage anyone that wants to waterski, go ahead and waterski. It’s not that popular a sport anymore, but at that time it was th and I said, if we have a 4 of July celebration in Chanhassen, you get a 72 hour permit. I’m not against that. You get a 72 hour permit and put in your course and take it out again. That’s the last we saw of the course. Sacchet: So do I take it that you are in favor of restricting speed limits? Arne Hed: Oh yes. And that is within the law. I talked to Mike Markel who is the DNR man and we had a long conversation this afternoon. Sacchet: And in terms of Minne Bay and that particular issue in front of us, does that translate that you would see a purpose in restriction of the motor size or not? Arne Hed: Well if you restrict the motor size, then if you’re going to reduce the speed essentially. Sacchet: So you see it hand in hand. 7 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 Arne Hed: Yeah, they go hand in hand. Sacchet: Excellent. Well appreciate all your feedback and context. It’s wonderful to get the insight into the history and I want to thank you for that. McDonald: Mr. Chairman? Sacchet: Do you have a question for him? Yes, go ahead Jerry. McDonald: Can I ask you a question? Okay, I understand a correlation between horsepower and speed, but what’s the correlation between horsepower and no wake zone? Doesn’t the same effect happen? Arne Hed: No, you’ve got a speed limit in the no wake zone. Currently it’s for snowmobiles as I understand is 10 miles per hour. In lakes in the Carver County it’s 45 miles per hour on the big part of the lake. If there is no wake zone, but if you’re within a certain distance to the property owner’s shoreline, you cannot go more than 10 miles an hour. And I’ll say that our neighbors, and their kids, they’re teenagers. And I might say that you can relay it to the Carver County Police that they can raid that house any time they want to and they’ll probably find drugs. They’ve egged our house. I mean they’re in detention half the time and they’re in alternative schools and when they came in and our grand children were diving off our raft, they came in at 60 miles an hour into their dock. I mean they, reckless. They did get tickets because we can get very irate as a family if we see the abuse. Rich will go along with that. McDonald: It sounds as though the current systems that are in place work. Arne Hed: Yes, if you compare it to snowmobiling. The high power boats in the summer, beautiful day and a few drinks or drugs and you’ve got people that are out of control. And if the water patrol, and Rich Slagle’s buddy from college ran the resort on Lake Minnewashta for several years. Our son Allen and in fact they’re going to have a bass contest out on Rice’s Resort on Lake Minnewashta because it’s known as a good bass lake, as is Waconia. And if they’re interested in having a bass fishing contest and you lose that…I guess you can’t do it at this particular time but at that time they could. There’s some giant bass in that lake. McDonald: Okay, well where I’m still confused is, are you in favor of if we go with the no wake zone. Allow larger horsepower motors to go on Little Minne Bay, does that accomplish what is in place or are you not in favor of increasing the horsepower? Arne Hed: Personally I’m not in favor of increasing the horsepower. I can get along nicely with 65-85 horsepower. There’s no big problem there. But the 200 horsepower, 300 horsepower, cigar boats. And if you take a look, and I was talking to Mike Markel with the DNR this afternoon. He said that the DNR’s got reconstruction jobs on Minnetonka boat launches because they’re coming in with their semi’s and they’re backing in with their yachts on top of these semi’s. And the tonnage, it just breaks down the access. And we don’t want that. There’s a certain element that loves the lifestyle of Lake Minnetonka. There’s another lifestyle that’s Minnewashta and it’s a rather placid, peaceful. McDonald: Okay, well then what your concern is, is someone bringing in these larger boats which is a weight problem coming in and tearing up the. Arne Hed: Oh no, it’s the environment. Again Minnewashta means clean water. If you break up the bottom of the lake with the big motors and you’re racing and they’re doing all of the tricks that they’re 8 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 doing on the lake with big motors, you’re going to lose that water. In fact the Minneapolis paper had the Minnewashta as one of the most fishable lakes in the Twin Cities area, and it’s the cleanest lake, according to the DNR between the Iowa border and Grand Rapids. I always thought it was Christmas Lake, but this particular article in the Sports section said Minnewashta was the cleanest lake, and if we don’t keep it clean, if we don’t, if we let go of the barriers that we put in place, it’s going to get worst. You find when the ice goes out in the spring there will be the beer bottles and whiskey bottles and broken glass and so forth coming in. We’ve done it for 44 years, cleaning the beach and so forth and picking this stuff up. People that have abused, not only fish houses and snowmobiles. They’re as guilty too. There’s bad people in all these areas. Sacchet: Well appreciate all your input. Thank you very much for speaking up. Yes, next. Want to give us your name and address for the record please. Yeah. Sacchet: And you can move the microphone in front of you. There you go. Hud Hollenback: I live in Minnewashta Heights. I’m going to ramble for just a couple minutes and then if you have any questions, I’ll be glad to answer them. Our family moved up here in 1971 from Texas and we were fortunate enough to land, end up in Minnewashta Heights. And of course we all fell in love with the lake. It was a little different in those days but I bought an 8 foot boat with a 6 horsepower motor, and I lived on the lake. I think I probably know the lake better than anybody here. For years I lived on the lake. Days. Nights. Whenever. I knew most bass by name. I knew where they lived. Caught the same ones over and over and over again. One day I think, I forget just when it was. Like ’74-75. Clifford French came over and spoke to the Chan council I guess, and anyway I was there. And he had heard that the Ches Mar Farm was going to go up for sale. And he was making a pitch to Chan that this has to be a park. He said, Hennepin County would like to make a park. We are ready to buy the land and make a park. Well that scared the daylights out of me. I went back and we talked in the neighborhood. Nobody wanted a park. Nobody. In fact I applied, and ended up sitting on the commission in order to fight the park. The more I studied and the more meetings we had, which were tremendous number. All the time. We were meeting in meetings, when I wasn’t fishing I was meeting. I began to feel heck, maybe this would be a park. It’d be a lot better than looking across the lake and seeing townhouses and the shoreline completely changed. So it wasn’t too long before I was promoting a park. But we, when we started talking as a commission, we got to negotiate with these folks. We didn’t want this. This would be okay. We didn’t want that. This would be alright. Little Minne was a big part of the discussion because it is pristine. It is unique. Not another body of water, anything like it around here. So we were very hard on what we were going to allow in Little Minne. My mouth is drying up. That’s why there were no motors, nothing but canoes, kayaks, whatever allowed. And everybody was happy. Then in, I think it was what, ’84. Whenever. It was decided to put motors in there and to put the boats at the other dock. Landing. So it’s evolving. All I want to say is there’s no way that we should allow bigger motors in Little Minne. What we should do is eliminate all boats landing in Little Minne. Move them over to where the rest of them are. Then there won’t be any problem in policing. There won’t be any problem in tearing up the water. It would solve all the problems of you know having two places. It would just solve the problems. It’d probably return to the same state it used to be. So that’s where I’m coming from. Any questions? Sacchet: Thank you very much? Do we have questions? I think you expressed yourself very clearly. Larson: Actually I do. When I was reading the report, towards the end of the report they mentioned that boats are designed quite differently now than they were when the original plan allowed to have motor boats put in there and that they’re made much more environmentally sensitive or, they don’t seem to tear 9 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 up the lakes as badly as maybe some of the older style boats, based on how the bottoms are made. How the engines are designed. And so would you still have an issue with this if in fact, you know even though the boat motor sizes are going to be bigger, or allowed larger, the impact of these newer boats isn’t going to be like it was with some of the older style boats. Hud Hollenback: Well that’s quite possible. I just see if we close number 2 and move everything eventually, I know it’s a…discussion now but move everything over to Little Minne, to land in, to launch and land 35 boats at a time, and that given space. It doesn’t matter how the boats are made or the motor’s made. It’s, there’s not going to be a place to even stack them. I mean it’s, I can imagine at the end of the day 10 or 15 boats waiting to be pulled out in Little Minne. We’re going to be side by side. It’s just, it’s not practical. And it would just destroy the nicest part of the lake. Sacchet: Thank you for making such a clear statement. Hud Hollenback: Alright. Sacchet: Yes, anybody else want to come forward? This is your turn. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say. Gary Peterson: Gary Peterson up on Hickory Road on 36, on top of the hill on Red Cedar Point. And I guess our place has been in the family since 1922 so I guess I…but basically this is really the only place left on the lake where people can put in things like pontoon boats, things like that because it’s the only access to the lake that has reasonable backing capacity. You mentioned the thing that the other landing is totally not perpendicular to the shoreline. I attempted to put in a couple boats there. Last year could not even get them in there, and I’m not talking huge boats like discussed. Actually the boats today by the way that you’re talking about that these people are putting in today are in the ballpark of 345 to 455 horsepower. They’re not 200 horsepower motors anymore. That does not affect the fact that this is really the only place that exists on the lake where people that live on the lake can put in their boats. We’re not talking about putting in 35 boats at a time. We don’t show up there on a Sunday afternoon to put this boat in or a Sunday morning. We sneak in there on a Tuesday afternoon when nobody else is there, just because we don’t like to stand in line or sit in line with all those types of things that go along, but the horsepower does not really any affect to what we’ve got there. It’s just really the only place we can go to drop a boat down, back it in. My pontoon boat, I’m not trying to put a wake out behind my pontoon boat but it still has enough power to push that thing through that operations out there. Now the environmental portion of this thing, this is basically a mud hole back there. Rest of the lake is pretty much sand bottom, and this is very soft shore. We’re talking about just basically, you know when I was a kid, we didn’t, we did not fish crappies back there because you couldn’t eat them. They were too muddy. They tasted too bad. So that’s the kind of environment we’re dealing with. When boats do come through there, they move the…around but at the time when the boat, park was actually open, it was all full of seaweed and things like that and a lot of lily pads. They’re no longer there today just because of any boat that’s going through there has wiped those out. I think that taking a no wake zone is really the way to operate that thing so people can use the thing for the lake and you know, we’re talking, we’re not talking even 10 miles an hour. I’d guess probably with the no wake zone, coming out of there well below 5 miles an hour. Something like that. If you’re going to go 10 miles an hour, you’re going to get at wake. 10 horsepower motor can put a wake up depending on the boat that you’re talking about. The fact that people get out, away from the shore. Go down the middle of the operation. It’s a very calm area. And there’s still lots of lily pads when you go out and head out into the back end of the thing but you know, I really don’t say that I think that horsepower’s really the issue. I think the horsepower thing’s got to go I mean. Most the people on the lake have no way to get their boats out if they you know follow by that law that sat there. It was the only place you could even get in there with a pontoon boat trailer at the end of the year. 10 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 Keefe: Is it your opinion that people follow the no wake zone when they’re back in there? Yeah. And you as a resident. Gary Peterson: I’ve been going in there since 1965. Probably something like that. Keefe: As a resident of the lake, do you ever go back into Minne Bay when you’re just out boating? And let me follow-up with that saying, do you have a larger motor than 10 horsepower and do you drive back in it, to Minne Bay? Occasionally. Gary Peterson: Yeah, I don’t think, I don’t have a motor less, that’s that small. Keefe: Yeah, so I mean if somebody answers yeah. You’ve driven back in there and so you’re one of the people who drive back in there as well and. Gary Peterson: And I mean even a jet ski today is in the ballpark of 130-40 horsepower. You know, our pontoon boat is 35 horsepower. And we go back there and fish for sunfish typically. I don’t think there’s a lot of bass fishing back there today. I mean you can catch 10 bass off our dock. I don’t know why you’d go out across the lake to go look for 10 bass over there. Sacchet: Alright. Thank you very much. Anybody else wants to address this item? Please come forward. State your name and address and let us know where you stand with this. James Johnson: My name is James Johnson. I live on Minnewashta Bay actually. I can see the dock from my deck when I’m outside. I would strongly oppose lifting the boat motor restriction to over 10 horsepower because I do see people not abide by the wake zone. No wake zone. And I do see people launch boats from there that are much larger than 10 horsepower. So my fear of restricting or lifting the ban would mean that there are more people coming into that area with larger motors and not abiding by the 10 miles per hour, or the no wake zone. So I would certainly oppose lifting the ban. Sacchet: Okay. Thank you for expressing yourself. Anybody else wants to address this item. This is your turn. Please state your name and address. Dean Barta: My name is Dean Barta. I live at 3837 Red Cedar Point Road. I also live on Lake Minnewashta and I don’t know, I’ve got a couple questions and then a comment. I know 2-3, maybe it was 3-4 years ago there was some discussion about dropping that restriction, and I’m sorry I’m late so maybe I missed that discussion but at that time the discussion was to get rid of the 10 horsepower restriction but in kind of a trade for that they were going to put a 10 horsepower restriction or close the other ramp that’s on the big lake. That was part of the discussion. And when I saw this come up, that they were looking at or there was discussion again of the 10 horsepower restriction, there was no discussion of the other ramp. Having a power boat or a speed boat, a ski boat on Lake Minnewashta, I understand there’s a lot of people that don’t like to use the ramp that’s on the main part of the lake because it’s very shallow and I’ve talked to a lot of people that live there, I know a lot of guys that live there and stuff and people that bring their boats in for the day who have ruined props and, it’s a very shallow landing. Right, and I understand that. I think my concern is when I, or the question I have is, has anybody looked at the impact if we take, if we get rid of the restriction of the back landing, the one that’s in question. How many more larger boats is that going to bring into a lake that’s pretty crowded already on a given summer day? Because now you’d be opening up how many more parking spaces to larger boats. And what I’ve noticed on the lake, it’s not you know the fishing boats nowadays aren’t the 10 horsepower. You know it’s the 150 horse, 21 foot Lund’s and it’s the big wake boats and things like that and so, you know fundamentally, how much more traffic can you allow on a lake that is pretty over 11 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 crowded already on any given summer day. The other thing is, is that I go back there a lot and I do take my son back there. We catch a lot of sunfish and bass back in there. It’s a beautiful area back in there and full of lily pads in the spring and in the summer, and I question also the environmental impact or what’s going to happen to, you know there’s a lot of nesting birds back there. There’s a lot of things that you start putting big boats up and down that channel and I know most people would abide by the wakes but just the fact of having a bigger boat throws of a lot bigger wake. Right? That’s just a fundamental something, that happens. So I would just ask that we suggest that we take a look at what’s another alternative. If that other ramp isn’t, a lot of people with bigger boats don’t like to use that, why don’t we make that a horsepower restricted ramp then. At least start to limit the number of potential parking spots for larger boats on the lake. So comments, suggestions. That’s my opinion. Sacchet: Thank you very much sir. Who else would like to address this item? Kurt Papke: Good evening. A little odd to be on this side of the microphone. My name is Kurt Papke and I live at 1131 Homestead Lane in Chanhassen. And I’m the sitting Chair of the Carver County Park Commission, as well as being a Planning Commission member, but you have to ignore that for the moment. I just wanted to comment on a couple things that were touched on tonight but I don’t think were fully explored. One of them’s the enforcement of which boats get to go in and use the two different boat launches. Imagine yourself, you’re a 16 year old Chaska High School student who’s working for minimum wage in the gate house and you’re counting boats coming in and boats going out, and you’re not too sure how many of which are in which landing and now somebody comes in with a car full of kids and they want to take their kids skiing and now they have to drive down this long gravel road to get to the boat launch, and you let them in. Okay. So you can see the dilemma. It’s not easy for a 16 year old high school student to do that control situation. They have no visibility at all of the boat launch. They’re dealing with people with a car full of kids who want to go skiing and they’re going to go where they will. Another aspect of that in terms of the enforcement possibilities, you may or may not be aware that a little over a month ago the Carver County Board voted as a part of their latest budget to cut funding for lifeguards at Lake Minnewashta Beach. Okay. So we don’t even have the funds right now to put lifeguards on the beach, so to provide additional services for enforcement here would be a bit of a stretch. Okay. The last point, and this one you have to be careful how you cope with it because you can’t always, you can’t make decisions on the basis of consequences. But one of the issues we have here, there’s a set of cascading dependencies that come out of this decision. Okay. If you deny this request we now, we cannot consolidate the two boat ramps and if we cannot consolidate the two boat ramps, we can now cannot re-use the space that’s currently allocated to boat launch #2 for the, how many Girl Scouts do we have come and camp every summer? Over 500 kids that we would like to provide as part of the master plan more space for those 500 kids. So just be aware that you know there’s a set of consequences of your decisions tonight. Now you can’t, you’re making an environmental decision. You can’t make your decision on the basis solely of well, you know those are the consequences and too bad. But you just should be aware and conscience of that when you make that decision that there’s things, other things will not happen as a result and I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that. And that’s all I had. Any questions for me? Keefe: Can you clarify a little bit on the dependency again, or just re-state that. If we are, if we remove the restriction, then that would allow consolidation. If we leave the restriction in place. Kurt Papke: You cannot consolidate. You must leave boat launch #2 open then to accommodate the existing large horsepower boats that are being launched there. Keefe: Okay. 12 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 Kurt Papke: Okay. And so then you don’t have the plan for re-use. Now this was all, there was an entire master plan that was worked out with public hearings, just like this 2 years ago to approve that master plan. And we have an interesting dilemma here where the City of Chanhassen and the Planning Commission is kind of holding that whole master plan hostage as a result of this one decision which, you know that has to happen. You have to do the right thing for the environment and for the City of Chanhassen but you just… Keefe: Let me ask you this. If the restriction is removed, does the County need to come back to the City to consolidate the ramps? Marty Walsh: Mr. Chair, members. As a matter of fact they would in terms of a building permit or construction permit for the park area, we would have to come back for approval on that. Keefe: But that’s just to construct the expansion of the ramp. Marty Walsh: That’s correct. During that process there’d be a number of reviews and contacts here with the City of Chanhassen along with the DNR with regards to the suitability and so forth of that site for that, but we’ve gone through that at least preliminarily at this point with the DNR and again staff people and other agency folks and again at this point everybody feels with regards to agency staff and the Carver County Park Commission that this is a workable plan. I would like to just make one comment, and I know we have some members here that have been in the audience, or have been on the lake for a number of years. In terms of kind of the greatest threat in terms of change to the lake, I don’t believe that is the park because we are limited to the 35 stalls that we have at this point with a conditional use permit. What has changed over time is horsepower size, and that will continue to probably change on the lake with a great deal of frequency with regards to new homeowners either moving in or people upgrading their present boat for a larger boat. Also there will be still new lots that will be added to this lake. Since the 1974, I hesitate to guess but I know that it’s probably closer to 100 or more homes that have been located on the lake so the biggest change to the lake with regards to the horsepower, I will be just in the nature of things. People upgrading. Replacing their boats, and a few new lots being constructed on the lake. Keefe: So conditional use permit limits you to 35 parking stalls between the two, right? And if you were to consolidate you would still be limited to 35 parking stalls at the single entrance? Marty Walsh: That’s correct. Audience: And there is 20 acres. Sacchet: Jerry. McDonald: I’ve got a question. Are these the only, is this the only public access on this lake? Marty Walsh: Yes, it is the only public access. McDonald: Okay. Slagle: Just so I’m clear, is there a speed limit on the lake? Marty Walsh: I would defer that to the City of Chanhassen. To my knowledge, Carver County does not regulate the surface use of water bodies but I’ll defer that question. Sacchet: Does staff know the answer? 13 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 Lillehaug: It’s 50 miles an hour. Haak: Yes there is. It’s actually I believe it’s 40 sunrise to sunset. 40 or 45 and I think it’s, and I’m speculating but I know they exist on all city lakes. Probably 15 sunset to sunrise is my guess, and again I may run over to the code and double check that but. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: Weight restrictions. We talked about that. The 100, is it 100 yards? 100 feet? Marty Walsh: I’ll have to look at the exact what it is but I want to say it’s 100 to 200 feet and I think the City of Chanhassen has that ordinance. Haak: It’d be in the same ordinance. Slagle: And Lori as you’re looking my question is, does that apply around the entire lake? Haak: Yes. Slagle: Fairly, is there a sign on the outer entrance, if you were on the lake and wanted to go into Little Minne, is there a sign that says no horsepower’s above 10 allowed in this bay? Marty Walsh: No, there is no signage of that nature. Sacchet: That’s not possible on the state statute. I think that the water is accessible anywhere by anybody, isn’t that the state? Marty Walsh: It’s public property underneath the water level itself. I don’t know that I can address your question directly but to the fact that it is public property underneath the surface water and it’s managed by the Department of Natural Resources. Slagle: But let’s keep in mind though that there are bodies of water in our city that we limit motors. I know in our lake cabin up north there’s an area of the lake that no go. It’s trolling motors or canoes or what not so what I’m saying is that I don’t think that’s 100% correct in the sense that you could I believe make this bay a non-motorized or under 10 limit. I don’t know that for sure but I think so. So with all that said, here’s my question to you. Is there another location other than 1 and 2 for the launch because you’re, we’ve heard that launch 2 is shallow. Gentleman mentioned it’s hard to get pontoons but yet we are picking what I estimate to be probably the most sensitive area of the lake to have the boat launch. Would there be a third alternative when you go to consolidate that would make more sense than Little Minne? Marty Walsh: Again we did look at that sort of an option with regards to when we went through the master plan. And with the idea that you can do anything. You can put the boat access someplace, but not without causing more damage than what there is right now. In terms of environmental impacts. Slagle: Damage on the water or on the land? Marty Walsh: Both. Most of the area that is encompassed by the park is surrounded by cattail, wetland type vegetation and for us to disturb another area, which was something that we looked at and the overall master plan placed a great deal of emphasis, in fact the over riding principle on that was the environment. 14 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 In fact to the extent that we could, we removed or will remove certain infrastructure pieces from that. From the park as it continues to develop. So we don’t see the park becoming I guess more heavily developed than what it is. Slagle: Okay, let me throw this out and I have to be honest with you, during the course of this I’ve just been going back and forth but I’ve been there. I’ve been on the big lake and personal opinion but I want you to respond to it is, I think that bay is probably as close to quote unquote, Northern Minnesota feel as you get and when you go out into the big area where the #2 launch is, I mean that’s sort of like big lake. Lots of boats. And I guess I’m just surprised in the entire peninsula that goes to the north, I mean even going down towards the public beach where you’ve got roads, parking lots, buildings, that that would be the best spot to consolidate two launches. That’s all I guess I’m struggling with is I’m not sure of that but, can you respond to that? Marty Walsh: Again I would state that we did take a look very closely at the boat launch issue and there are with anything that we were doing in the park, pros and cons to it but when we, at the end of the day weighed a safe boat access out of the wind, a deeper water access, the ability for people to access the lake and launch their watercraft, at the end of the day that balancing act said boat access #1 is where it should go. Sacchet: Dan, go ahead. Keefe: I have one more question. Just in regards to, and this may be a DNR question. I don’t know, maybe…in regards to any spawning that goes on on that lake. Does that bay support spawning grounds or do we know or? Metzer: Daryl Ellison the Area Supervisor for Fisheries, he did also mention which it did not at the end of the report though he said it’s good as bass habitat. That’s all he said. It’s good bass habitat. Keefe: He didn’t say anything about particularly spawning, Metzer: Those were his exact words. Arne Hed: He said that, DNR told me the…he’s the head of Fisheries. We could invite him out to your next meeting. Mike Markel, who was the DNR man at the time I worked with him, he said that it’s really up to the City and the County to establish the weight and the speed limits and things that would control population of boat, people’s behavior on the lake. That the DNR has dropped out of it. It’s no longer interested in surface waters of any lakes, except out state. Their position there changed. Sacchet: Alright. The public hearing is still open. Did you want to add anything else at this point? Marty Walsh: Again I guess again we at the park commission for Carver County has taken a look at this quite extensively and really feel that this is a non-discriminating policy, the no wake zone does protect the environment there. And in terms of long term operation for a park area and servicing the customer, we believe this is… Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else want to address this issue before we close the public hearing? Yes, I still see some hands there. Dean Barta: Couple thoughts and comments again. First of all, I represent kind of a newly formed, there’s probably 20 or 30 of us now of a Minnewashta Homeowners Lake Association right. A lot of people, we’ve gotten together every year and we worked with the DNR and tried to control some of the 15 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 milfoil out on the lake and there’s something happening on Lake Minnewashta where the lake is what I’ll call turning a little bit. Right. A lot of the first generation, second generation people that grew up on the lake are retiring or selling. A lot of younger people coming on and re-doing homes. And there’s a real movement towards making sure that that lake is as clean and as good 20 years from now as it is today. Right. And I would suggest that maybe there is some other alternatives here, right. I would agree with you that the north side of the lake is pristine and that’s just a beautiful park that you go through there and if, one thing that I heard tonight, if there’s only going to be 35 parking spots, or the most the boats coming in is 35 either way, that’s a great thing. But maybe we could tap into some of the resources from the homeowners lake association right and is there a possibility on the, I think it’s called lift 1 which is the lift on the big lake, the shallow lift, right. Can that be dredged? Right. Can we make that just deeper right in the lift area because it’s just, it’s just in that small area where people put the boats in and that just needs to be made a little deeper, right. And then we could completely shut down the second one back in the pristine area and make that a complete no wake zone or 10 horse, or something because it is a neat area back in there, right. So I think there is some other opportunities maybe we could all discuss, look at that could be a win/win here. To make the first boat lift, you know dredge it out, make it deeper. Something like that. Okay. Sacchet: Thank you. I saw another hand. Hud Hollenback: One more thing, I apologize for my voice. I’m taking medication for my back and my mouth goes dry. I second what he said. I have another problem and maybe I’m just getting to be a hard head. I have a problem with the no wake solving the problem. I don’t think it’s going to. I’m sorry. I travel Highway 7 all the time and I put it on cruise at 50 and there’s not a car that doesn’t pass me. I mean they can’t read 50. They’re doing 55 and 60, and this, when I’ve been on the lakes, people’s idea of no wake varies, so it’s not going to be boats slowly crawling through Little Minne. And it won’t be policed, so no wake is not the solution. Keefe: I’ve got one question. You know in a previous hearing when we were talking about another issue, somebody had talked about the history of Lake Minnewashta and that it was, it’s actually a much cleaner lake today than it was even 20 years ago, and I’d like to get your comment in regards to that because one of the things that I think my understanding of it is, it’s actually, it’s been actually pretty well managed in terms of it’s clarity. Hud Hollenback: They’ve done a heck of a job. They have. Keefe: Would you agree with that? Hud Hollenback: I’m just trying to not to have it, what we’re looking at though is a clip. I mean what was over here… The park is going to be over here. It’s completely different from what we negotiated. But no, they deserve a lot of credit. Sacchet: I saw a hand in the back, if you want to still speak up as well. B.J. Greer: B.J. Greer. I live at 2771 Piper Ridge. I don’t live directly on the lake. I live across the street. I spend a lot of time on Little Minne, kayaking and canoeing and I for one can tell you that the no wake rules have been breached quite often. One thing that concerns me is closing that second boat launch and funneling everything back through that kind of pristine area. I agree with some points that were brought up. Possibly finding a third or fixing that first boat launch. In the past I’ve also owned a boat and I’ve been guilty of putting a over 10 horsepower boat in on that launch. One for being ignorant of the sign which was pointed out to me by the Carver County Sheriff, but I also at that point would launch my boat at the other landing and there were times that I had to actually park up by the picnic area up on top of 16 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 the hill because there were so many boats down there so I understand the 16 year old and counting people coming in and out. That would be pretty difficult and not all of them go to either landing. So I guess I would just like to go on the record as being against raising that 10 horsepower limit because I’m a little concerned with funneling more traffic through that area and like I said before, being a canoeist and kayaker, you do tend to feel the waves coming through when someone is not following the rules and that’s all. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Lillehaug: I have a question for you. Sacchet: Yeah, go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: I got a ticket by parking out by that area that you said you parked. Did you get a ticket? I did. B.J. Greer: I didn’t get a ticket. I did get parking at the first landing. And I had the ticket sitting on my car and believe me, you can tell if someone’s boat trailer is over 10 horsepower just by looking at it. It’s pretty easy and there are quite a few big boats that do in that way, and I understand your point about getting your pontoon boat in. I don’t think it’s the owners on the lake that are the ones that concern me as much as just a lot of additional larger horsepower traffic coming in there and that lake does get fairly busy sometimes. Nothing to the aspects of Lake Minnetonka, which I’ve boated on too but, so I don’t know. Any other questions or? Thank you. Sacchet: Okay, thank you very much. Alright, last chance. Anybody else wants to address this item. Seeing nobody, I’m closing the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioner for discussion and comments. Who wants to start? Rich? Slagle: I can start. I am, as I mentioned, went back and forth but after some due diligence and thinking of this I would have to say that I am against raising it. But I throw out the caveat that I don’t think, and I don’t want to be critical of the process that went through, that you looked at your alternative sources for a boat launch, but when I look at, I guess it would be, I don’t know if we have a page number but the map of the park. And if I look at that, I could make a common sense decision that would cut off that bay because I’ve been there many times in that bay. It is very, very nice and to think that you would have potentially 20 boats at 7:00 trying to come in. I have a boat. They’ll be turning around. They’ll be backing up. I mean that bay will not be the same bay as it is today. It seems to me that if there’s issues about wind, which I didn’t ask you how important the wind was, but I’m going to take that it seems to be somewhat important, again on a scale of 1 to 10, wind, I don’t know if wind is over rules the environmental impact of that bay. And I would go as far as asking the City to look into how we restrict in that bay, not just outgoing but going in, because I certainly don’t think it makes sense to restrict the boat horsepower for someone launching but then someone on the lake can go in there with a 40 and claim they didn’t know anything about it. Or 100 or 200, so I’m against it and would just ask that they look for other alternatives. Sacchet: Jerry, you want to make a comment? No? McDonald: No comments. Sacchet: Dan? Keefe: Yeah, where I come down on this and I’m somewhat torn but I think I’m leaning towards approval of this and really for the following reasons. You know if 95% of the traffic, and I’m not sure if 17 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 that’s a right statement or not but a good chunk of the traffic, boat traffic in that bay comes from off the lake, then the 10 horsepower isn’t really going to regulate that piece of it. The no wake would regulate that piece of it. And the quality of the lake, the Lake Minnewashta, at least with my understand is really been maintained at a very high level. Actually an improving level over at least a certain period of time. I’m not exactly sure what that period of time is, and I think that the people involved in managing that lake have done a good job and I think the, a lot of the residents have spoken to that and I’m not sure that it is their intention in terms of moving these to, consolidating these two boat ramps to actually deteriorate the quality of the lake. I think they’ve taken that into consideration in regards to the recommendation. Additionally we’re talking about 35 spaces of which a portion right now are split to one ramp or the other. You’re going to consolidate those into one incrementally in terms of the number of additional boats going through that. There’s going to be an increase. I’m not convinced that a good portion of those won’t pay attention to the no wake. I think they probably will. I actually think the number of boats going through there is going to be fairly minimal that are going to violate that. Violate that 10 horsepower given the fact that there’s only 35 spaces for 35 boats available in the park so I think I’m leaning for this one. Larson: I don’t think I have any comments. Sacchet: No comments Debra. Steve. Lillehaug: Well, I think we need to keep two things separate here. Consolidating and re-arranging is not the issue. I mean I know they’re related but it’s not the issue with this application. Speed limit on the lake is not the issue with this application period. It’s not. And a few points that I want to make, it doesn’t matter if you swap the restriction from access 1 to 2 because they’re going to be consolidated so other suggestions to swap it in my mind, that’s not a solution because we’re looking at consolidating. At this point it’s my opinion that lifting the ban won’t increase and intensify the use of the bay. I use Lake Minnewashta quite a bit and I didn’t even realize, and I’m pretty cognizant of the rules of the lakes, and for one I didn’t know there was a speed limit that was something less than 50 miles an hour, so if it is, I would really ask staff to work with the County and make that better known because I didn’t know it and I use that lake all the time. Number two, my boat doesn’t do any more damage to that bay than a 10 horsepower boat does, and I have a 200 horsepower engine and I put a lot of merit that that new motor doesn’t do any more damage. Access 2, as has been indicated, is very non-functional. And then I would also add that because of it’s being non-functional, that the boats coming in and out of there actually create quite a bit of damage in itself and it hurts the environment alone right there. Does it compare to the damage or increase damage if we have 35 more boats or 25 more in Minne Bay? I don’t have a good judge of that but there is damage being done at access 2 because of it’s non-functioning. Issues are in the lake with speeds like you indicated, I don’t think, there might be a disobedience of the no wake zone in Minne Bay but again, I don’t think the horsepower is the issue there. And the last thing is, my opinion is the no wake zone is the answer and it’s not the horsepower restriction so I do support this. Do I support the modifications like have been suggested? I don’t know. I haven’t seen a plan. I’ve heard it proposed but at this time considering lifting the 10 horsepower, I support that. Sacchet: Well my comment I probably can summarize in two words. I’m a kayaker. Do I need to say more? Larson: So am I and I think it’s fun on waves. Sacchet: And it’s my prime kayaking place. Minne Bay because I live very close to Minne Bay. I absolutely love that place. It’s a very pristine place. If it would be up to me I would push for no motors in Minne Bay. So coming from that vantage point I have a very hard time lifting any restriction in this area, whether it’s connected to any other issues or not. I don’t have a problem with the waves, as you say it can be fun. But I do have an issue with the impact it has on the environment, even now with the 10 18 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 parking spots for boats, there are times where there are 3, 4, 5 boats stacking up and to envision that that’s going to be multiplying, I mean as a kayaker I have an issue when there are 2, 3, 4 boats stacking up. So without considering the potential where this is going to go with the comprehensive plan, and yes I did attend your, some of your presentations. The one at Bluff Creek I think it was, and did express my views as a kayaker there as well. I don’t know whether you might remember. I certainly do, so being a kayaker and an environmentalist I oppose really lifting any restriction that has a further impact on the environment. And I do question these 4 findings in the staff report where it says it will not be detrimental or damage the safety, comfortable, general welfare of the neighborhood which is 4(a) of the findings. 4(d) of the findings, will not be hazardous or disturbing to the existing of planned neighborhood uses. I think it’s very disturbing to a kayaker. Finding (i). Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of natural, scenic or historic features of any significance. I think it does impact it. I mean once you’re going to have multiple power boats stacking up, or in this case what’s in front of us, boats with more motors, it will be aesthetically compatible which is Finding (j). I don’t think it’s aesthetically compatible with the pristine nature of that particular bay to have bigger motors. To have more motors. That’s just my humble opinion as a kayaker. And I’m actually surprised how much support I’m getting here tonight so I want to thank you for that. That’s my comment. It was longer than I expected. So with that I’m willing to take a motion. Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to Conditional Use Permit #75-2, Section 6.04, Lake Access based on the Findings of Fact with the following condition, number 1. Sacchet: We have that motion. Second? McDonald: Second. Sacchet: We have a motion. We have a second. Lillehaug moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to Conditional Use Permit #75-2, Section 6.04, Lake Access based on the Findings of Fact with the following condition: 1. Carver County Parks shall contact the Department of Natural Resources before proceeding with drudging of Little Minne Bay channel. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. (Kurt Papke did not vote due to a conflict of interest.) Sacchet: We have 2 nays and 4 yea’s. Is that correct? Alright, motion carries. Goes to City Council on th February 28 I believe. th Metzer: It’s the 28. th Sacchet: The 28. That’s accurate, okay. Thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL .11 ACRES OF TYPE 3 AND .01 ACRES OF TYPE 2 WETLAND FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT OF TURN LANES AND SIGNAL CONSTRUCTION LOCATED AT THE TH 101 AND CSAH 14 (PIONEER TRAIL) INTERSECTION. APPLICANT CARVER COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-07. 19 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Lori. Questions from staff. Slagle: I just have one quick one. Can I ask why we’re not requesting a mitigation be done in the city? Haak: That wasn’t the proposal. We’re considering the proposal here and it’s really a matter of course. The amount of right-of-way that is acquired at this site is very minimal and it, staff just felt that it was probably more appropriate to take that off site and make it a larger part of the larger bank. When you’re talking about creating .12 acres is about 5,000 square feet so you’re looking at a mitigation area of about 10,000 square feet and if you’re looking at trying to you know integrate a wetland, there’s a lot of management of vegetation and things like that that goes into the mitigation. And so in these larger BWSR mitigated projects, you get a much better created wetland and so while the City of Chanhassen may lose .12 acres of wetland, the overall benefit regionally is greater. Slagle: Okay. Last question then. Do we bank those credits if you will? The City. In other words, if this one, let’s just say we credit it to the City. 2 weeks later we get another one. 6 months, I mean do we have the potential to bank and then utilize those credits? Haak: The City does have several wetland banks created within the city. We use those primarily for our own road and trail projects. So the area, one of the most visible examples of one of the city’s banks is just north of Lyman Boulevard, east of Powers. There’s a wetland there that is full of basically dead trees and that was a wetland bank. A mitigation or basically an area that the City got credit for, so in this whole banking deal, we end up doing pretty well but we do get to use those for other projects like trails and things like that. Sacchet: Any other questions? Papke: Yeah, I don’t know if this is for staff or for the applicant, but on the middle of page 3. And under the wetland impact statement, the last sentence there you say that the side slopes or the shoulder on the north side of Pioneer Trail has been made steeper from a typical 6:1 slope to a steeper 4:1 slope to reduce the footprint. How big is the grade change and where is the location specifically of that slope? Haak: I can take a shot at that and Scott from Carver County can jump in if he has anything to add. I guess I should have put this up earlier. These are the two areas of impact shown in green. The turn lanes and such are shown here in yellow. I guess this is probably the best way to look at, this is some of the cross sections for Pioneer Trail in approximately the area of the wetland fill, and we’re looking at about, or Steve’s saying 17-18 feet which is just about well actually, yes. That’s just about right in that area. And this is the area that we were talking about. There’s 4:1 proposed here where typically the City, Assistant City Engineer has advised me that that’s typically a 6:1 for safety reasons, and so that has been reduced to 4:1 for that. Papke: Is that slope present on both locations or the eastern most component or which of those two have that new slope? Haak: Both of them are very similar. They all have the 4:1 if that’s what the question is, yes. Sacchet: Any other questions from staff? We will have, ask the applicant up in just a second. Let’s finish with staff first if you don’t mind. Do we know, I have one staff question if nobody else has. Yeah, Jerry go ahead. 20 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 McDonald: One thing, one of the things I read in the report is that this is being done for safety reasons because of the traffic and the volume that’s going on at that intersection. How bad of a problem do we actually have there at this time? Haak: At the risk of being, submitting subjective evidence, my parents actually live on Pioneer Trail on this area. Just west of this intersection and on a typical morning the traffic backs up between half and three-quarters of a mile west of the intersection and in the evening it’s actually about a mile east of the intersection toward Eden Prairie. It’s a very, very widely used road and there are significant back-up’s, both east and west bound. The north/south back-up’s are not nearly as significant but those trips on Pioneer Trail are very significant. McDonald: Okay, two more questions dealing with I guess the volume. Where does the new 212 intersect with all this and what affect will that have on this road? Haak: I believe the applicant can probably speak to that in greater detail. It’s approximately a mile to a mile and a quarter west where it intersects Pioneer Trail and I’m trying to look at the map behind you there. I’m guessing it’s about a mile and a quarter to a mile and a half north on 101. So it’s not within the stacking distance. McDonald: And then one more question that would deal with the comprehensive plan. What are our plans for that area as far as housing in the future? What’s it planned on being zoned? Haak: I’d have to look at the map behind you there. I know that sewer and water are not planned to be extended there until 2020 I believe. And I believe it’s guided residential. McDonald: That’s it. Haak: Sharmeen, am I correct on that? Al-Jaff: Yes you are. It is guided residential. Sacchet: I have one question, unless there’s anybody else has a question. About the thing with the conservation easement aspect. You, I had a question about that already and you added this little kind of cryptic thing to condition 1. If not addressed in the condemnation hearings, then we have to actually… conservation easement thing. Does it mean that the intent is to get through condemnation land that is not under the conservation easement? Is that, do I understand that that way or? Haak: No, the purpose of the condemnation is to get that to release that parcel from private ownership and the easements that are over it. So the County and the State, actually the State is the one going through the condemnation proceeds. Sacchet: So through the condemnation, the conservation easement would be released… Haak: Released. Sacchet: Okay. And this is not something that would require any mitigation of any sorts? Haak: No. I’ve discussed it among staff and really the, it’s one of those things where you have, you know we have the difficult job of looking at trees versus roads and the trees, or roads versus wetlands. Those types of questions, which I know you’re intimately familiar. But in this instance it really is you know a traffic issue and you know, basically the City Forester has indicated that certainly she understands 21 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 why the property owner is seeking to go through condemnation on this piece because it is a nice piece of property but really the benefits outweigh the costs at this point. Sacchet: Now which part is actually being condemned, can you show us on the map please? Haak: Well I’m not exactly certain. Scott, do you know anything additional about that? Sacchet: Or we can wait for the applicant to address that if that’s easier Lori. Haak: Actually I’ve got, I just wanted to confirm it with him. Because between a couple versions of the plan, the current right-of-way for Pioneer Trail follows this dotted orange line, if you can see that, and then comes down the side here. And basically the expansion will be this area. So it’s about, where’s my scale. About I’d say 30, maybe 35 feet by well, this is 50 feet. Papke: Just to make sure I’m oriented correctly here. This is the northeastern corner? Haak: Actually it’s the southwest. The arrows here. Papke: Oh southwest. Okay. Sacchet: Alright, yep. That answers the question. Thank you very much Lori. With that I’d like to invite the applicant to come forward and give us your view of this please. If you can state your name. Scott Smith: My name is Scott Smith. I’m a Highway Design Engineer for Carver County. Presently I’m more involved with just the application for BWSR and with the City itself. The actual design is being done by MnDot and their transportation department. But I guess if you have any questions I can try to answer some of those. Some of the design questions might have to be with MnDot if necessary I guess, but I’ll try to answer some questions if I can. Sacchet: Alright, do we have questions of the applicant? Kurt. Papke: Do you have a rough idea of the amount of fill that’s going to be brought in to put into that wetland? Scott Smith: I was hoping this most recent plan, if you look at the title sheet it said there was supposed to be some tabulation for quantities. I did not see that particular quantity. What we have been given as part of that was just the square area which was approximately 5,400 square feet. And that equals that approximate .12 acres of wetland. And as far as the actual fill quantity, I can’t. They didn’t actually give me a number for that. Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions? Jerry. McDonald: Yeah, I’ve got a question for you. When you do this upgrade to this intersection and this road and everything at this point, and part of what I read is you’ll be putting stop lights and traffic signals. How long will that last before you’ve exceeded the capacity. Scott Smith: Boy I, not being a traffic engineer myself and not doing the signals and so forth, I don’t feel qualified to answer that particular question as far as longevity. But yeah, there will be a breakdown point but right now they’ve gone through the warrant studies and it’s shown that it’s currently necessary to put the signal system in. To manage the people and the volume of traffic. 22 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 McDonald: Okay, you haven’t seen any kind of projections or anything like that? Scott Smith: No I haven’t. No. McDonald: Okay. Sacchet: Any other questions? No? Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing. If anybody wants to speak up. Now is your time. Seeing nobody, I close the public hearing and bring it back to commission for comments, discussion. Steve? Lillehaug: This is an ideal MnDot project. Everything is in perfect order and I support it 100 percent. Sacchet: Thank you. Kurt. Papke: This is a must do. My only concern is I live just west of this intersection about a mile. I go through this intersection twice a day, and personally experience the pain and agony. Just to make the other commissioners aware, almost on a daily basis what happens is someone westbound in the evening will use the shoulder as a right turn lane currently and the Carver County Sheriff loves to sit there and pluck these people up and give them tickets for using the shoulder as a right turn lane. So if we don’t put this in, people will just continue to use it as one. I don’t think there’s any choice in the matter. The only concern I have with this, and hence the reason for my question about the grade change here is on a couple of occasions I’ve seen cars dive off that intersection into the wetland. Okay. What happens is the cars come past Halla, over the top of the hill, down to the 4 way stop. They don’t see the stop. It’s foggy or something like that. They go right through the stop sign. If somebody else is coming the other way, they veer away from that car and they dive down in there. Okay. And so is there any kind of a, I don’t know if there’s any, I should have asked this question before but I don’t know if there’s any kind of a guardrail or anything like that going in there to prevent people in the future from you know potentially very serious injury. Haak: I can’t speak directly to the guardrail. I don’t believe there’s one proposed. I haven’t seen it on the plans, but the existing slope is shown on this drawing as this bottom line, so actually that slope is being extended in conjunction with the additional lanes, so you’re actually going to have a more gradual slope in that area. Papke: Softer landings. Haak: Little more warning perhaps. Scott Smith: Part of the, if you, boy it’s tough to see that unless you zoom in but there’s actually 4:1 slopes out to what’s called a clear zone, approximately 30 feet out or so. Or 20 feet from the edge of the roadway, and after that it’s a 3 to 1 and yes, it does create a softer landing. Actually an area that actually is supposedly maneuverable by a car or vehicle. Papke: Alright. I’d also like to point out to the other commissioners that the eastern most wetland is the one that’s currently being mowed regularly by the owner so I’m not sure there’s any tremendous you know environmental impact being imposed by filling that in. Scott Smith: The only other thing I would like to add is, I’ve been told that there’s quite a drainage issue over in this area, and this particular plan will help address that. 23 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 Larson: All I can say is it’s long overdue. I’ve lived here 20 years and I’ve dealt with that intersection and it’s long over due. Sacchet: Any comments this side of the crowd? Jerry, any comment? McDonald: Well I guess the only thing I would say is yes, I’m familiar with that intersection and I stay away from it. There are other ways to get to Shakopee and Chaska and I make sure I go those ways. I agree that that’s very dangerous on 101 as you come, it’s kind of up the hill. Down the slope and yeah, those stop signs suddenly appear out of nowhere if you’re not familiar with the road, so yeah I would hope that this, from a safety standpoint. A lot of my questions. I’m just wondering. Are you going to be back here in the near future wanting to fill in more land? It doesn’t sound as though you will, that this should hold us until at least the plan, our comprehensive plan begins to make this intersection unworkable again, so I guess I’m in favor of it. Sacchet: Well all I can say ditto. Do we want to make a motion? Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #05-07 subject to conditions 1 through 7 with one modification to condition number 1. That we prefix condition number with the words, if not addressed in the condemnation hearings. Keefe: 1 through 9. Papke: 1 through 9, I’m sorry. I can’t count. Lillehaug: Second. Sacchet: We have a motion. We have a second. Papke moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #05-07, subject to the following conditions: If not addressed in the condemnation proceedings, 1. the applicant shall request the City grant a conservation easement release prior to clearing and grubbing the site. 2. The applicant shall work with the property owners to obtain additional right-of-way prior to proceeding with the project. 3. All wetland impacts shall be mitigated through the BWSR Road Replacement Program in accordance with State law. 4. Proposed erosion control shall be developed in accordance with the City’s Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type II silt fence shall be used adjacent to the existing wetlands. Silt fence shall be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland. 5. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the limits of tree removal. 6. Erosion control blankets shall be installed in all areas with a steep slope of 3:1 and an elevation drop of eight feet or greater. 24 Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005 7. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 8. Street cleaning or soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit) and comply with their conditions of approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe noted the summary and verbatim minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 18, 2005 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 25