Loading...
1983 06 13 I I I SPECIAL CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 1983 PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSEO PUBLIC BOAT ACCESS ON THE NORTH SlOE OF LOTUS LAKE Acting Mayor Geving called the hearing to order with the following members present: Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. Mayor Hamilton was absent. The following interested persons were present: Candy Takkunen, Lotus Lake Task Force Mel Kurvers, Lotus Lake Task Force Nadean Collver, 6686 Hopi Road Jack Ernst, 6735 Nez Perce Drive Earl and Judith Miller, 7417 Frontier Trail Robert and Rosean Amick, 581 Fox Hill Drive Alan Fox, 7300 Laredo Drive Candace Peterson, 6891 Navajo Drive Roger Byrne, 6724 Lotus Trail Alex and Helen Hartmann, 6687 Horseshoe Curve C. Peter Linsmayer, 7421 Frontier Trail Les Ellesson, 7410 Frontier Trail Marilyn Holter, 7201 Frontier Trail Mary Palmer, 7337 Frontier Trail Rick Murray, 15 Choctaw Circle Bob Ools, 7407 Frontier Trail Tom Seifert, 600 Pleasant View Road John vonWalter, 510 Pleasant View Road Raymond Schuyt, 51 Choctaw Circle Tom Schoenecker, 2820 Sandpiper Trail Henry and Georgette Sosin, 7400 Chanhassen Road Fred Albrecht, 6575 Pleasant View Way Myrna and Frank Kurvers, 7220 Chanhassen Road Mrs. Gordon Tock, 6640 Lotus Trail Greg Cray, 320 Pleasant View Road Tim Rashleger, 31 Choctaw Circle Ladd Conrad, 6625 Horseshoe Curve Ken Erickson, 7203 Frontier Trail Bill Kirkvold, 7423 Frontier Trail Acting Mayor Geving - The purpose of the public hearing is to approve or deny the amendment of the Lotus Lake Park Conditional Use Permit to either include or exclude a boat access on the north end of Lotus Lake. Tonight's procedure will be this, I would like to have the Task Force Committee make their report. They have been meeting since approximately May 2nd. Then I would like to have the City Manager, Don Ashworth, make his report and we will open the hearing for public comment. You will have an opportunity to speak. We will close the hearing and then the City Council will discuss the entire issue. Don Ashworth - I will give the summary report both staff wise and from the committee. The City, approximately five years ago, sought a grant applica- tion for a park on the north end of Lotus Lake. That encompassed approxi- mately 27 acres and was seen as a potential boat access site. There was no requirement, as part of the grant application that carried out the acquisi- tion of that park, for the City to put in a boat access. It was envisioned as a potential. We had not gone through any of the studies to identify potential problems, etc. The park was obtained primarily to insure that we would have a neighborhood park up on the north end of Lotus Lake as that developed. The City, approximately two years ago, made a secondary grant application for a boat access. We did receive that grant approval. We Council Meeting June 13, 1983 -2- were not restricted solely applying those monies to this north site although the grant application was made considering this northerly site. For the past two years there have been a number of groups who have been I working on the issue of boat access and where it should reasonably occur. The Park and Recreation Commission carried out a number of meetings. They did a lot of work in trying to accumulate data as to where the boat access should reasonably go. The Lake Study Committee was very involved in looking at a number of sites around the lake as far as potential boat access. We had a number of citizen groups, including the Lotus Lake Homeowners Assn. who did a tremendous amount of work in terms of potential sites and more specifically, trying to identify what type of problems may occur. The City Council, approximately two months ago, determined that a task force should be selected to compile all of the information that had been received and put together by the various groups. The Carver Beach neighborhood has a quasi-public access that has been used for a number of years by, primarily the neighborhood. It has been a problem for that neighborhood and for the City for a good 10/15 year period of time. Various times it had been chained off because of problems that were occuring in that neighborhood. It's very difficult to get to that boat access through the Carver Beach area. They are very narrow roads. There is not reasonable parking but that is a quasi-public boat access. The primary site was the park site that I spoke of earlier. The Park and Recreation Commission had prepared a concept plan for the development of that parcel. They were not considering developing the northerly portion. That should most reasonably be sold or otherwise used for private develop- ment. It was not necessary to have that five acres to meet park demands I for that north corner of the community. Proposed uses in there included softball fields, tennis, hockey, and primarily a nature area. It also showed a public access. Because of the nature of this area it is a wetland area. It serves as a wetland and assures that run-off from this area is filtered out. It became an area of significant concern. The other site reviewed by the study committee is the ONR site. The ONR has developed a plan and they would be able to put a boat access in at this site. This site lies south of Lotus Lake Estates and north of Colonial Grove, right off Highway 101. There would be reasonable area in here for parking. One real problem is that this is a wetland area in here. The extent of environmental problems associated with this site is not as severe as on the north site. The last site reviewed by the committee is the Bloomberg property on the south end of the lake. This is a total of 27 acres. Only a part of the site would be used for boat access. The developer did approach the City. He is interested in selling that land. Basically, what it would involve would be a swap of land. Approximately eight acres in this area for the five acre parcel in the north. The recommendation of the study committee is that the City should not pur- sue the boat access at the northerly site at this time but instead should concentrate in attempting to put in a boat access at the southerly site. I Tonight's public hearing is solely to give a go ahead or not on the north parcel. If the City wishes to pursue an alternate site, whether it be the ONR site or the Bloomberg site, a new public hearing would be required to present the details associated with this alternate site. Again, the recom- I I I Council Meeting June 13, 1983 -3- mendation of the task force is that the Council should deny issuing a con- ditional use permit for a boat access for the northerly parcel and that the City should pursue a boat access on the southerly parcel. The second part of that recommendation was that if the City fails to be able to get a boat access into this site, that the next site to look at would be the ONR site. Acting Mayor Geving - I think the third alternative is a very important one because if we fail to agree on either the north or the south sites, we then would do nothing. We would lose the $100,000 grant and at that point we would not have a public access. Candy Takkunen - At the fourth of our five meetings, we were looking all of these three alternatives, rather than closing the door and saying right now, these are the three alternatives, is there any possibility that there is any other land on Lotus Lake that might be suitable for a boat access and because it appeared in the paper that prior to that or that it was Mr. Bloomberg's idea that this be used as a boat access, I guess I really felt it was necessary that we correct that. On a Tuesday night meeting it was our idea that he be approached. We thought there was no possibility of this ever occuring and it is not the fact that he approached us first. I think it you look in your packet, the amount of dollars that it would take to mitigate the kind of problems that you have going through the wetlands in the northerly site, that the kind of dollars that are necessary are so enormous that it makes the amount of LAWCON Funds look like a drop in the bucket. Therefore, it would be silly to take those funds and have to add an enormous amount to them in order to mitigate all the problems. Not having known anything about boat accesses prior to this, it is a foregone conclusion that there will be a boat access on Lotus Lake. If we don't put it there, the DNR will put it there and I have a problem with that. That boat access will have parking spaces for 12 car/trailer spaces. The ONR site would require dredging which is something that is not the best use of the lake. Acting Mayor Geving - The task force that was formed on May 2nd had a for- mable task. Their job was basically to come up with alternatives for the Council to decide upon tonight. Their basic task was to go through the amount of documentation that had been taken on this issue since 1976, and it's very extensive, boil it all down, look at the sites and give us a firm recommendation. They have done that. This is a very important issue for the City of Chanhassen and, of course, for the people who live on the lake. At this point I would like to open it up for discussion by those people who wish to speak. Please limit your discussion to new information. The City Manager gave you quite a bit of information and background on what the recommendations of the task force are so try not to repeat those. Give us new information if you will. Raymond Schuyt - I would like to know, what is the ONR site. It wasn't quite clear, to me as a new comer, whether the DNR could actually put another site there, whether Chanhassen does do it or not. 00 we get two boat sites? Don Ashworth - The ONR purchased the parcel approximately three to four years ago. It lies just south of Lotus Lake Estates. It's basically the creek. They purchased this property primarily for a rough fish control area. They have made it clear that if the City does not put a boat access onto Lotus Lake in a place that we choose and that we control that they will. One of the facts considered by the City is that if we do this we Council Meeting June 13, 1983 -4- will potentially have greater control over any boat access than if they do it. Raymond Schuyt - Ooes it include, if I look at my property, I recently did I a survey-on-hOw far my property goes and it's almost in the creek. That doesn't leave enough room on the north side of the creek so that to me that means the boat access will be on the south side, right? Acting Mayor Geving - That's the way I understand it. Raymond Schuyt - In other words, I am looking at 101 which is a through road which connects 5 and 7, a lot of people use that, so what you have if they have their boat access there it will be, I think, a dangerous situation for people coming with their boats and trailers. If nothing happens, ONR will still pursue? Acting Mayor Geving - The word that we have is that DNR would put in a launching facility because they want to get in to do rough fish control. Candy Takkunen - If we don't give them any other alternative, then they have what they consider their alternative and that's their property. They only require that we have one boat access and that it accomodate 12 car/trailer spaces. Tom Schoenecker - I am representing the Park and Recreation Commission. I would like to give a little background on the Lotus Lake Park area. The reason that land was purchased is two-fold. At the time it was purchased, the Park and Recreation Commission was given the task of finding a site for I a boat access and at the same time we knew we had to find some property up in that area for park and recreation purposes. In purchasing this piece of property and knowing we could apply for these funds we felt we had two things. We had the boat access and we had funds to help develop the land, put the road in and open it up at least for further development in the future. Our prime thought on that piece of land is that we want it for recreational purposes. We aren't really fixed on having the boat access there. However, we are fixed in getting a boat access because we do need the LAWCON funds to develop that property. Last Tuesday, the Park and Recreation Commission had the opportunity to visit and walk the Bloomberg property. I did talk to Mike Lynch about it and they had a meeting after that and they had a number of pros regarding the Bloomberg property. Number 1 is you could put a boat access in there and it would have very little impact on the wetland portion of the lake. It would probably be the least expensive and one of the better places to put a boat access. Number two, it would give us a piece of property at that end of the city to deve- lop toward further park and recreation purposes. We don It have property down there now. We are going to need it sometime in the future. The only objection they could think of was how is it going to affect us getting the LAWCON funds because we need those monies to develop that property. I got this packet of material on Saturday and it's quite extensive going through all that but in reading that I am assuming that if we do develop a boat access and we could get the Bloomberg property it would not affect our LAWCON funds. We still would have those funds. I Acting Mayor Geving - I would like to have Oon glve us a review on that because that was the very first question that we were concerned with. That is to make sure that whatever happened, the impetus for building this boat I I I Council Meeting June 13, 1983 -5- access was to secure the funds. We wouldn't be able to do it without the LAWCON funds at any site on the lake. Don Ashworth - The City made an application. We received that grant. It was $113,000. That was solely for a boat access. Those monies can and would be used to develop a boat access somewhere else. Any monies remaining could be used up in this area but basically, the previous grant application did not really include any grading for this site. In a review, the costs of this access through this wetland area to put in a clay barrier as being recommended by some of the experts would be up to $200,000 all by itself. I anticipate that most of the money, the $113,000, would be used to construct a road into the Bloomberg property, a turn around, parking areas, etc. It would not affect in any way the $277,000 that we received to purchase the site initially. We had that money to spend. Acting Mayor Geving - The only thing they were concerned about is that the five acres that were being proposed on the north end of the lake was equal value to the eight acres that Mr. Bloomberg would swap with us. That's the only thing that wanted to make sure because their feeling was that they had invested $10,000 per acre in the land which we got through our grant, so they would be looking at $50,000 from us if we didn't utilize that swap and it didn't come out equal. They have told us that they would accept that as long as the dollars matched up and they were not shorted on their $10,000 an acre. Tom Schoenecker - Could I make one last statement regarding the last meeting notes that the task force had. They came up with three recommen- dations. Number one was to try to develop the Bloomberg property. We are for that. Number two to allow DNR to develop theirs. The third recommen- dation is really the one that I am primarily concerned with. The third recommendation is to do nothing and then lose the LAWCON funds. I think that our group would be against that recommendation. Nadean Collver - I was wondering if we swap lots with Mr. Bloomberg, we won It be sure that he won It put a dock on the lake. Acting Mayor Geving - He can't. Oon Ashworth - On the Bloomberg property, we could limit it to the 12 or 13 boat/trailer spaces that are required as a minimum. Again, if it's to go on the ONR site, if they can put 30 of them in there, that's potentially what they might do. Nadean Collver - We have got a boat landing that1s so small in Carver Beach, can we still use that? Acting Mayor Geving - I would prefer not to bring that up at this time. I cannot address your question. It1s a very good one and I understand your problem but we are going to have to decide tonight whether or not we are going to have a boat access and where it's going to be placed if we do. Then sometime later, maybe in July or August, we are going to address the Carver Beach lake lot frontage and the whole bit and the access to the lake and at that time we will make that decision. I can assure you of one thing that if we do develop a public boat access on Lotus Lake, it will be the only one. At least that's my opinion. I have no idea how the other Council members feel about this. Council Meeting June 13, 1983 -6- Myrna Kurvers - I wasn't so much interested in the Carver Beach landing but I was wondering what was going to happen, if we were going to have two parks on the land and what other lakes in Chanhassen could support two I parks. It was my understanding that the ONR really felt that the size of the lake only merited only a limited number of dock space and I was won- dering what the City's feeling was. Acting Mayor Geving - First of all we heard from the Park and Recreation Commission, they were pleased in either event that we would have a park on both the north end and south end of Lotus Lake and we already have a park on the west end in Carver Beach. Myrna Kurvers - My question was what other lakes does the City have more than one park on the lake. Acting Mayor Gevi~ - Lake Ann to a certain extend because we do own a good share of the eastern side of the lake including Lake Ann Park and a portion next to Greenwood Shores. I would say there are two park sites there now. I suspect Minnewashta has, of course, the regional park and we also have a launching facility on the west side. There are two also on Lake Minnewashta that I am aware of. Myrna Kurvers - The number of parking spaces for boats that the City recommends. Acting Mayor Geving - There is a minimum by the granting of the LAWCON grant. Oon indicated that if the ONR were to put in their own facility we would have no control whatsoever. There could be any number that could go in there and launch boats from the ONR site. The City would lose control. Myrna Kurvers - My understanding was that the City would be open to more spaces than the ONR. I Acting Mayor Geving - No. That's one of the reasons why we are anxious to have control of the lake through this public access. We would actually have less than the ONR. Myrna Kurvers - 00 you have an approximate number? Acting Mayor Geving - No. Councilwoman Swenson - The regulation is one boat for each 20 acres and I would be very much surprised if the ONR did not stay with that also. That is their basic guideline. Oon Ashworth - The ONR has stated that they would they developed the site. My only point there was you don It know what may happen at a future date. requirement to take and go through this type of a only put in twelve if the City doesn1t own it, There would be no process. Acting Mayor Geving - It seems to me that if the ONR had such a location we would have no control over when people could use the site. Whether it be 5:00 in the morning or 12:00 at night whereas we might have some control. Fred Albrecht - Are there going to be hours on that park? I Acting Mayor Geving - The City park does have hours. It has worked out well at Lake Ann and any place else where we have had a City facility just to protect it from vandalism. I I I Council Meeting June 13, 1983 -7- Georgette Sosin - I would like to address this idea about the DNR. We have had many converations with them. The DNR has control over every site that is approved by them. There is no difference in the number or boats or the hours. They would have the say no matter where that site is. I think that we are under a misapprehension if you feel that the City is going to have more control over our own site than over their site. The actual fact is that for them to approve of the hours, it would have to be the same as anyone using it on the lake no matter whether it's on City owned land or whether it's on their own land. That, I think, is a very important thing to remember. I would also like to mention that the ONR site and I am not speaking for one or the other here, the ONR site really is not in the wetlands area. There is some emergent vegetation there but it is not on the map as part of the wetlands. Another point that I would like to make about comparison here is that the dredging amount which would occur in the ONR site as opposed to the Lotus Lake site, is very different. There would be 50 feet of dredging in the DNR site as opposed to 250 feet in the Lotus Lake Park site. . Henry Sosin - I would like to make two additional points. You are talking about LAWCON funds which are federal monies that the City has got for construction of a boat access and you are talking about losing LAWCON funds if the City doesn't create their own boat access versus allowing the ONR to exercise their right to build their access on their site. The City really as I understand it, if all of the LAWCON funds were to be used to build the boat access, would not lose anything by not utilizing because if that were true, the City decided not to build the City access and to suggest to the ONR that the ONR go ahead and build their own, the DNR would use state funds. Now, obviously those LAWCON funds are federal tax money and you might say we will get a few more dollars back in Chanhassen if we use federal tax money but in reality on the City property there would be no added expen- diture because the ONR foots the bill for building their own access. They would build the access, the ramps, the road, the parking lot for 12 cars and trailers the same way the City would use LAWCON funds to build their own. So I don't think that is a big bug-a-boo or it should be a big bug-a- boo. I realize the discussion tonight is limited to yes or no, boat access in the northern park and I would like to just state that the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association, through their board, has unanimously voted that if they have one say whatsoever, that it not be placed in the northerly site in that park for two major reasons, one are the environmental concerns in terms of the destruction of the wetland which is there and the second major problem is that if it's built in conjunction with a large park, such as what is going in on the north side where there are approximately 300 more parking spaces available, the possibility of overutilization of the boat launch and having too many boats on the lake at one time making it very unsafe for everyone is a very real problem. Ric Murray - We own the site adjacent to the park site and I would like to ask has there been any time schedule placed on that? If we put a boat access in there, does it speed it up in any way or does it slow it down in any way versus whether Mr. Bloomberg ends up with the north portion there. Don Ashworth - The land was purchased so that the City would have park lands when Near Mountain development occurred and when your own occurred. The City does not have any immediate plans to improve this property. There really is not the need for it until some of that housing does occur nor do we really have the money. In one way it may have speeded it up in that it would have required this road construction for the boat access. Council Meeting June 13, 1983 -8- Ric Murray - Would Mr. Bloomberg have any requirement for the development or-that? I Don Ashworth - We did not discuss what we may look to there. The original discussion occurred in terms of potentially the City purchasing that eight acres. It was really the City that approached him in terms of saying that we had this portion of the property that we would not need as far as park purposes and would he consider that. Acting Mayor Geving - As early as 1978 the City platted that area for sale. We never intended to do anything but develop that for single family housing. Ric Murray - There are $50,000 or $60,000 worth of specials. Acting Mayor Gev~ - Yes, we have a considerable investment in that area. Ric Murray - It would be nice if the rest of the taxpayers did not have to pay for that. Acting Mayor Geving - That's another subject. Oon Ashworth - That was one of the reasons that we did consider that because there are individual sewer and water stubs into that property and from a park standpoint this lower acreage had far less of a cost on a unit basis. Ric Murray - One last question, it's about the Bloomberg site, is there any I dredging required on the Bloomberg site? Don Ashworth - The ONR visited the site along with state planning, their initial look at the property was that that would be no dredging required. We did not go through the measurement technique. Ric Murray - It seems to me if we are looking at that much dredging on north or the ONR site that the Bloomberg site is a viable alternative. You have got $113,000 to use and I think to best serve the City and the com- munity would be to put it where it would do the most. Are there any set hours for public boat launching? I am just wondering if you are going to set the hours in the park and somebody wants to come in there to use the boat access, what are you going to do? Councilman Horn - That was one of the problems with this proposal is that it would have-extended the park hours for normal park use much longer than what the City would have wanted. Candy Takkunen - Sixteen or 18 hours but you set the hours that it is open. Mrs. Tock - I have been hearing about this Bloomberg property. I have been hearing-about the north end and the south end. Now what I am concerned about is where is the original state opening? There is a map but some way I or another it has disappeared from the courthouse. We did have it at one time but in our process of moving I have misplaced it. Acting Mayor Geving - I think things have changed a lot in the years just since I have here. I have seen a lot more development around the lakes. I I I Council Meeting June 13, 1983 -9- You are seeing things that because of time and change are going to change the density of the lake, the look of the lake and how we react to it. I don't know if there was an original access to the lake and quite frankly I really don It care. ~ Krey - I personally don It care whether that site is developed for a boat launch or not but I do look for some sort of a site for boat launching because I would like access to the lake. If the DNR developes a site rather than Chanhassen, what time frame would they be looking at? Acting Mayor Geving - That's a very speculative question because they would react to whatever our decision is tonight and without knowing what our decision is going to be I can It tell you how the DNR might react tomorrow morning. If we do nothing then I can assure you the DNR is going to do something and quite frankly it could be next year. Candy Takkunen - Con Leckler from the DNR said that she thought three or four years. Marilyn Holter - President of Sunrise Hills. At this time I would like to say I am representing 58 families and we definitely support the position of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association which is not to approve the north boat access. David Blackowiak - I live at 335 Pleasant View Road. If that boat access does not go through, does that park not go through? Acting Mayor Geving - I can assure you that at some time when we get enough money 40gether we are going to develop that north Lotus Lake park and put in ball diamonds and a tennis court and whatever else has been sketched on that plan. It's going to happen. It may take the development of Near Mountain. It may take Ric Murray or someone else to develop their land. There are literally hundreds of units to be developed in that area. David Blackowiak - I am also representing Mr. Lundquist and he is the per- son that owns the property across Pleasant View Road. Pollution control, with the people going through there, how is that going to be handled and taken care of with all the traffic. He is not developing his land right away. Three years ago, because of the woods back there, there has been a lot of kids back there, a lot of destruction, a lot of dumping and we also had some waste dumped back there and that is another concern that we have. If the boat access does go through, which I don't want, but if it does go through, more boats can park there that causes more people bringing more bottles and more people will be going by that woods and more people will be cutting down and destroying his property and they are doing that right now and we are trying to control that. It's kind of hard because there is not enough police force and enough people to watch around it because it's not developed and we don't want it developed because of the nature that is there. Acting Mayor Geving - We are trying to do the best we can to police that area now. Councilman Horn - Your position is though you would oppose a boat access at that site. David Blackowiak - I would not oppose the boat access. Council Meeting June 13, 1983 - 10- Tim Rashleger - I am adjacent to the ONR property. I think it was a pleasant surprise to find the group searching out an alternative site to the north site. Although it is about a divided vote in our community to I that site or not to use that site. I think the reason for that was a lot of people simply want a site. They want to be able to get their boat in and our of this lake and as you know our community has not had the ability to get lake access. Living over there I can tell you first hand in fishing the lake often in both those sites, I think are terribly poor site in lieu of the fact that there are so many other better choices on the lake. However, if I had to choose between one of those sites certainly I would pick that you would develop one of them even if it's the one adjacent to my property. I think in lieu of the fact that you have an alternative third site which certainly doesn't have the destruction of nature, the highway access problems, by the way the ONR property does support a great deal of wildlife, that it would be foolish to invest the kind of resources, money and the problems that you are going to develop with the lake here and the amount of silt you are going to turn up, the amount of dredging involved with both those sites, the third site option that you have here certainly, I would .think would be the one to exercize. Acting Mayor Geving - Are you speaking for the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association? Tim Rashleger - I am not, in fact I think had they been more aware and I don It know where we are missing the boat, I think our outlook would have been much different. We had chosen our site on a very close margin. Acting Mayor Geving - Would it have had something to do with the fact that I you abut the ONR site? Tim Rashleger - Certainly I am prejudiced I supposed to that but that site ~back of me is probably a better site than the one on the north side if I was to be completely honest. That north site is just a terrible site. I am concerned if you choose the ONR site or choose to do nothing that this thing is going to drag on forever and the City of Chanhassen, I believe, certainly deserves to have a site as convenient and accessible to them. I think this site has a great advantage in being closer to the City or the majority of the people than having to drive down 101 where I think you will have a lot of influence from the Eden Prairie people if you use the ONR site. The ONR site does support a great deal of wildlife and I can't believe they can go in there without destroying some of that. Candy Peterson - We have a real problem where we live during the summer and the winter. We have had people parking their boat trailers and their snowmobile trailers right in front of our driveway. I am against the north side as is my husband and some of our neighbors that we have talked with. We would like to see as little dredging done as possible. Also, limiting the amount of people that can use the lake to as few as possible. I am real concerned with safety. We have had skiiers coming right up to the beach area where there are children playing and dropping off right there. There has been lots of trash there. Sometimes almost to the point of being disgusting. There has been no pick up. The trash gets carried around and I blown around. My concern is that it not be put in the north site. I would like to different location that doesn't threaten the wetlands as much. John vonWolter - If the north site were chosen and accepted and approved ~all this dredging would have to be done, wouldn1t this have to be I I I Council Meeting June 13, 1983 - 11 - redredged periodically? Acting Mayor Geving - Yes. I think it depends on a lot of factors that we have no control over. It isn't a one time deal. Once you build it you still have to maintain it. Myrna Kurvers - Regardless of where this park will be, how does the City propose to differentiate parking spaces for boat access and the parking spaces for park? Don Ashworth - Realize the parking requirements for a boat trailer, the physical size of a trailer spot is much larger than that for just a vehicle. The lots would be built in such a way that they can solely hold just a car and the areas designated for boat trailer would be limited to 13. I would look to a gate keeper type of operation. The City would have to carry out some form of control to insure the number of vehicles, type of usage, we would be maintaining the property. Candy Takkunen - As a member of the Public Safety Commission I wouldn1t have a problem with instructing the Sheriff and his deputies to ticket, very strongly, people who were parked, it's not difficult to post the parking areas for a park that says no trailers. Tom Seifert - You have an open boat launching area now in Carver Beach and it1s free and if you are talking about limiting access, therefore, looking at charging for boat launching in the future? Candy Takkunen - I am of the understanding that charging is not looked highly upon by the ONR. Whatever site is chosen, it will be the only public access. Tom Seifert - That's what has me a little bit concerned. We have a free boat launching area now. Candy Takkunen - Except that it does not have any parking facilities. It doesn't meet the ONR's qualifications for a boat launch. Frank Kurvers - I am a little bit concerned on the Bloomberg property as far as the assessed value of that property. I understand it's 250 feet on the lake. We look at that value, that's a quarter of a million dollars. We already got the ONR site so I would like to have you consider that that's a quarter of a million dollars without houses on the property. Georgette Sosin - I just wanted to make a comment about ticketing and controlling boats. I got a chance to speak with Officer Bengson from the Water Patrol and he says that there is no way that there could be any kind of control over people bringing boats and trailers into the lake and going home with their cars and trailers so I would like for you to keep in mind that even though there will be a way to limit parking to 12 spaces, those people who live near by and wish to put a boat in and go back home and walk have every right to use that site. The density and where it's located all that is very important. Councilman Horn - They can do that today. Acting Mayor Geving - And I think they do do that. I saw a person do that Sunday on Lotus Lake. Council Meeting June 13, 1983 - 1 2- Mrs. Tock - Talking about controlling with the police, they are supposed to come down at least once every 24 hours and I have yet to see, over the week end unless we call, that there is a patrol car down there. I don't know I how they could possibly patrol that lake and control it. There is entirely too many boats out there. Acting Mayor Geving - I have to say this in defense of the police patrol, you know we have in Chanhassen roughly 50 miles of streets. We have 26 square mi les of property within our boundaries and to see those patrol people down there every day or once a week, I don't know how often they get down there, but I know they do. May be the next time they drive by your house I'll have them honk the horn or something. If you would need them, they would be there. Frank Kurvers - What kind of action are you actually going to take tonight? Acting ~ayor Gevi~ - The purpose of the meeting tonight is to determine whether or not we approve or deny a boat access on the north Lotus Lake Park area and we amend the existing conditional use permit for that park. That's the action we are going to take tonight. Once we have made that decision we will go on to the next phase. Ken Erickson - I guess I understand the need on the lake for a public access and the ONR's desire to have one and insist that there will be one. I have lived on the lake for 23 years and have seen that traffic grow. I would hope you would minimize the number of parking spaces necessary. Bob Ools - I think what we are talking about in general is a regional I recreational facilities. It is not going to be limited to residents of Chanhassen and the LAWCON funds as they are currently established don't fill the full funding needs of the ramp site, that's my understanding. There is going to be a short fall and the short fall is going to come out of taxpayers money. The same would probably be true of the south site. I don It think there is any assessment yet that's been done relative to the costs to develop that particular site. Mr. Kurvers alluded to the loss of potential tax base. The gentleman from B-T Land Company alluded to some existing facilities at the north site that are in that we would like to get our money back on. From a taxpayers point of view, I am much more in favor of seeing the Oepartment of Natural Resources develop their own site using monies that are collected from a much broader neighborhood than what we have got in this community. I don't feel I should be supporting a recreational facility that is going to be used potentially as heavily by Eden Prairie or Minnetonka or other communities. Consequently I am advo- cating that we do nothing and go with the ONR site. Bill Kirkvold - Has there been any discussion of limiting the size of boats or motors that would be able to use this access and have you talked about any hours of operation? Councilman Horn - There is no way that you can limit the horsepower on one access alon~It has to be consistent across the entire lake. I Acting Mayor Geving - There are hours but only gross hours in terms of number of hours a day. Bill Lenzmeier - You say that in that park you would only let like 12 boats but you also say that anybody can put in there and take their trailer out I I I Council Meeting June 13, 1983 -13- of there so there are already going to be safety problems. Let's say another ten people put in there, leave with their trailer, when you have the 12. You have no control. The lake can be full of boats. Councilman Horn - The point is we are giving 12 additional parking spots. As far as a-person who can take their boat to the lake and drive home, you have that condition today. Councilwoman Swenson - There is a park on the east side of Lake Riley and itls essentially the same type of park that we are ta)king about and on Riley we have a restriction of 15 boats, 15 trailer site parking areas. This park is monitored over the week ends and when those 15 trailer spots are filled that launch is closed. If you live across the lake and I do have neighbors who tried to get their boat in and they won't let them in. Now, I don It know what the rules and regulations are but this is the effect of the practice there so it could be that this is something I think perhaps we should pursue. Acting Mayor Geving - I can predict that if this goes in, the homeowners in the adjacent areas would say, hay, I don It want those people to park their trailers in front of my house, I want a no parking sign placed there. If that happens then we will put in the no parking signs and we will put a stop to that. We have done it to our own people. Cutting off the ability to use Lake Lucy, Lake Ann, and certainly Lotus Lake by putting in some of those very restrictive measures but it has helped cut down on people just coming into Chanhassen from wherever and pulling up with their boat, dropping the boat off and parking it somewhere. Les Elleson - Like Bob Ools said earlier, where is the money going to come for all of this. It seems to me that the DNR spot, they will control, they will keep up every year, we don't have to keep up every year. That's less money that we will as taxpayers have to spend. We can1t even afford a police department here yet. Councilwoman Swenson moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Hearing closed at 9:10 p.m. NORTH LOTUS LAKE BOAT ACCESS: Councilwoman-swenson-- I am in favor of eliminating the boat access site from the north Lotus Lake Park. Councilman Horn - I totally support Pat's position. Councilwoman Watson - I agree. Acting Mayor Geving - I, too, feel that the damage to the very nature of that north Lotus Lake area would be extreme if we were to dredge out a lot of that material to put in a launch facility and I am not in favor of doing that. Councilwoman Swenson moved to deny the boat access at Lotus Lake Park. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilman Horn. No negative vote3. Motion carried. Council Meeting June 13, 1983 - 1 4- Councilwoman Watson moved to direct staff to begin the process of looking into the Bloomberg property and to discuss with ONR to make sure the grant illoney will be applicable based on the decision made this evening. Staff I will establish a public hearing date and prepare a financial analysis on the property including special assessment information. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONTINUATION OF BOARO OF REVIEW The City Manager stated that he had generally discussed remaining parcels to be reviewed this evening with the Mayor. Recommendations being made are believed to be consistent with the actions of June 6, 1983, i.e. value of wooded acreage, waste, tillable, homesite, lakeshore, and minimum values. Individual lots in Carver Beach were set at $500 each. Some minimum values from the June 6, 1983, meeting were changed to insure consistency with the $500 standard, i.e. some lots reviewed during the early part of the June 6, 1983, meeting were set at $100 - $200. Increasing these was necessary, again, for consistency. (Changes would result in tax bills of less than $5.00 for these separately owned and platted parcels.) Ken Erickson 25-821-0020 Councilman Horn moved to set the 1983 value at a total of $174,100. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. I Steven Holter 25-821-0010 Mr. Holter noted that his home is assessed at a Grade Level 8 while other homes in the neighborhood are at a lower grade level. Councilman Horn moved to accept the $196,690 (land $86,700, buildings $109,990) with the recommendation that the County Assessor re-evaluate the grade system used on the structure. Motion seconded by Acting Mayor Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motionc carried. Alice Hess & Ruth Honaas 25-630-0020 Acting Mayor Geving moved that no change be made in the 1983 valuation. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Nigel Chilvers 25-285-0020 Councilman Horn moved to approve the adjusted 1983 valuation of $30,000 land and $68,500 building. Motion seconded by Acting Mayor Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and I Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I I Council Meeting June 13, 1983 -15- Keith Bartz 25-013-6000 Councilman Horn moved to accept the Mayor/City Manager's recommendation of $148,100. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Louise Fenger 25-012-4800 Acting Mayor Geving moved to set the 1983 valuation at $60,000 for land and $91,400 for buildings. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Timothy Bernier 25-013-4300 Acting Mayor Geving moved to seconded by Councilman Horn. Geving, Councilwomen Swenson votes. Motion carried. make no change in the 1983 valuation. Motion The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative Chanhassen Springs Company 25-035-0100 The City Manager recommended $500 per acre. changing the pasture and woods acreages to Councilwoman Watson moved to seconded by Councilman Horn. Geving, Councilwomen Swenson votes. Motion carried. reduce the 1983 valuation by $27,500. Motion The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative Lawrence Wenzel 25-006-0200 Acting Mayor Geving moved to seconded by Councilman Horn. Geving, Councilwomen Swenson votes. Motion carried. make no change in the 1983 valuation. Motion The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative Arnold Hed 25-170-0060 The City Manager recommended the land valuation be changed to $60,000. Acting Mayor Geving moved to set the 1983 valuation at $60,000 for land and $82,500 for buildings. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. E. Jerome Carlson, et al 25-565-0010, 25-565-0020, 25-565-0030, 25-565-0040, 25-565-0050, 25-565-0060, 25-565-0090 Councilwoman Swenson to accept the County valuations for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Two. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson negative votes. Motion carried. Assessor's adjusted 1983 Block 1, and Lot 2, Block 3, Park The following voted in favor: and Watson, Councilman Horn. No Council Meeting June 13, 1983 - 16- Roger Byrne 25-160-1120 Councilman Horn moved to accept the County Assessor's adjusted 1983 I valuation of $3,800. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Glen Grenier 25-160-0580 Councilman Horn moved to accept the County Assessor's adjusted 1983 valuation. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Frank Beddor 25-002-0600 Acting Mayor Geving moved to set the 1983 valuation for the Frank Beddor property at $265,850 ($38,500 second house and $227,350 for main house and land). Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. SPECIAL MEETING: A meeting will be held June 21st, instead of June 20th. Members of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission will be present to discuss the Lake Ann/Lake Virginia Forcemain. A motion was made by Councilman Horn and seconded by Councilwoman Swenson to adjourn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, I Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Oon Ashworth City Manager I