Loading...
1977 11 02 e e e PUBLIC HEARING MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOVEMBER 2, 1977 Mal MacAlpine called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Dick Dutcher, Les Bridger, Roman Roos, Hud Hollenback, Walter Thompson, and Jerry Neher. The following interested persons were present: Joan Wegler Bockoven, 7010 Ches-Mar Drive virginia Harris, Courthouse, Chaska Ralph and Carol Kant, 3820 Lone Cedar Circle Marcia Will, 325 George Street, Excelsior Art Ehalt, Route #1, Waconia Jerome Aretz, Courthouse, Chaska William Dilks, Chaska Gary McEnelly, 6241 Elm Tree Chris Leiding, 6331 Dogwood Alan Leiding, 6331 Dogwood Carleton Wallgren, Watertown Bill Stelten, Young America Randy Herman, 6560 Ches-Mar Drive Roger Oas, 7301 Dogwood Pat Boyle, 502 Del Rio Drive Allen Hasse, Cologne Fran Callahan Archie Collins, Excelsior Wm. Jonkunz, Eden prairie Carol A. Schmidt, Camp Tanadoona Arnold Weimerskirch, 2831 Sandpiper Trail Ben Gowen, 6440 Hazeltine Blvd. Russell Larson, 7301 Laredo Drive Joe Neaton, Courthouse, Chaska The City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County Herald. Notices were mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the property and to all homeowners associations around Lake Minnewashta. The property is located on the northeast corner of Lake Minnewashta and is approximately 400 acres in size. Approximately 50 acres is on the east side of Highway 41 south of Minnetonka West Junior High School. The conditional use permit will outline the scope of the operation of the park. Pat Murphy, Carver County Public Works Director, gave the presentation. He explained the background of the park and described the activities proposed in the park as setforth in the Carver County Master Plan. Ben Gowen - Why is that piece of ground on the south, on the ease side so essential to the park? Pat Murphy -Historically the school district, particularly the Minnetonka School District and the junior high, have been interested in this area because of its resources for major education. That same kind of thing could be used on a broader basis in public ownership. They pointed the types of uses it could be used for in terms of nature demonstration. Chanhassen's trail plan shows a connection from this area generally down to the area of Lake Ann Park then down towards Lake Riley, Bluff Creek, etc., down to the river. This becomes a Public Hearing November 2, 1977 -2- natural trail corridor. There was an interest in terms of trying to tie some additional active play area in with what's already available at Minnetonka West Junior High. It does have some rather unique features. Some of the plantings in terms of the way they are arranged and type o~ vegetation that there is, is very good for formalized educational programs. Arnold Weimerskirch - Where are the boundaries in the area west of the Herman property? Are the boundaries only in the marshy area? Pat Murphy - Yes. It tends to protect this inland. Arnold Weimerskirch - It follows the contour of the lake. Pat Murphy - The line that is shown on here doesn't follow the contour of the lake. It probably catches a little corner of what's presently wooded. It could deviate slightly. The intention is just to control the marshy area. Arnold Weimerskirch - It is not your intent to take any residences. Pat Murphy - No. We definitely wouldn't. It doesn't include any residences, the way it's drawn. It is not our intent to buy any developed or even reasonably developable property on that point. Gary McEnelly - What is the anticipated staff to police this park? Pat Murphy - There will be nobody there for the next five years. We will probably turn the small dwelling on the Herman property into a residence for a park employee but he wouldn't necessarily be working here all the time. Our plan for this park is to develop it as we get regional dollars to develop it. We are assuming that will be five years off. Gary McEnelly - I am talking about a developed park. Pat Murphy - There would be at least one resident employee there and in terms of how many more are needed, it depends. I am sure for many,4It many years a lot of our maintenance work will be done by roving from one central location. I am sure there would be one person there all the time and of course there would be more than that there during the busy times in the summer. Gary McEnelly - What is to prevent people from coming from other accesses onto the lake and bring in boats and traffic so that you end up with 100 boats there, for instance on week ends? Pat Murphy - The only thing that would prevent it is the general lay of the land tends to preclude that. The only places that we are going to touch on that lake shore is the swimming beach and just an area large enough to launch boats. Most of the other area tends to get marshy and mucky. Gary McEnelly - The whole point all the way around it is sand beach. Pat Murphy - The only thing that will prevent that from happening is the pOlicing by park employees or the sheriff. When you consider the amount of shoreline we would have in here, this is really about the only area it could happen. I am not saying it won't. It can only be restricted by signs, by having somebody there often enough to shoo people away. Gary McEnelly - How was the determination made that Lake Minnewashta can withstand that much more traffic and that much more use? Pat Murphy - I think the determination was made that generally it can't and that's why the plan is restricted to 30 boats being off of this park at anyone time. The premise being is that this park cannot solve problems on Lake Minnewashta. The best it can do is not ~ contribute to problems on Lake Minnewashta.Problems on the lake WI" surface itself or the number of boats on the lake at a time or how they are used gets into lake surface zoning or other types of controls. e e e Public Hearing November 2, 1977 -3- By limiting the number of boats that can go off through this park at anyone time essentially says we are not going to contribute to the problem. Gary McEnelly - In other words there was not a specific study made of the existing lake use. Dick Dutcher - When this park was first proposed, the City of Chanhassen tried to find out what possible alternative uses could be placed on the property and balance the use of a park as opposed to for example residential. There have been specific proposals for that property, i.e. the Ches-Mar property by the Naegele interests. The city in concert with the county attempted to project what the potential population for that acreage would be and that in conjunction with several boat surveys that were made, projections were made as to the relative effect of water usage of the lake that would be occasioned by residential development on this property as opposed to the park itself. I can't cite specific figures tonight but they are available. Gary McEnelly - I recall that study and I also recall the point being made that the land is now zoned agricultural and the same question would have to be answered if it were to be rezoned into residential property and the same type of considerations would have to be made at that time. Dick Dutcher - True, except that a major portion, as I understand the entire Herman property and a sizable ch'-lnk of the Ches-Mar property has trunk sewer service to it now and presently has. an 9-!:)sessment. I am sure you can appreciate that anyone that ownes that property is not going to keep it. The city can't reasonably preclude development of the property if there is trunk sewer to it. Gary McEnelly - I think the park as it is laid out there is beautiful. It's just my opinion that the lake just can't stand any more usage. Ralph Kant - There is a certain amount of emphasis in that overall park for educational usage and I was just wondering with the Arboretum only a mile or two away if that isn't kind of redundent and possibly unnecessary activity for park land. Pat Murphy - The Arboretum gave us a letter supporting the inclusion of Parcels C and D because they see things within that parcel of land that they would like to be able to utilize themselves that they don't have on their facility. They are vitally interested in this piece because they see some species and things in there that they don't have. Would you explain the camping area. Is that over night camping? Pat Murphy - Yes, it's over night camping in a very limited scale. We are looking at space available for 20 tent sites. Gary McEnelly - What is the total maximum anticipated capacity of the active area at full capacity? Pat Murphy - About 2,000 people. That's controlled by the size of the parking lot. When the parking lot is full the park is full. We are closing the gates. The city Planner read the proposed conditional use permit and explained the conditions. Will snowmobiles be allowed? Bruce pankonin - The county presently does not allow motorized vehicles on any of their property. Les Bridger moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1977 -4- Dick. Dutcher and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 8:35 p.m. SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 2, 1977 e Mal MacAlpine called the meeting to order with the following members present: Jerry Neher, Roman Roos, Hud Hollenback, Les Bridger, Dick Dutcher, and Walter Thompson. MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK: Pat Murphy, on behalf of the Carver County Board, expressed some of their concerns with the proposed conditional use permit. Section 4.04 Land Stewardship Program. The southwest and central portions of the Ches-Mar property are currently rented and under cultivation. The County Board would like to continue the rental. The County Board would like Section 4.04 to be revised as follows: "The land stewardship program will consist principally of gradually phasing the cultivated land and turf establishment on Parcel E (Ches-Mar property), establishing a tree nursery, beginning prairie establishment on a portion of Parcel B (Herman property), providing necessary access control in terms of gate and fencing, controlling noxious weeds, and to the extent feasible, controlling dutch elm disease." The land rental would help defray some of the stewardship expenses and would fall in the 1978 to 1982 time frame. Section 5.01. Advisory Committee. The County Board recommended that the Advisory Committee be established when or no later than when detailed development plans would be prepared. Detailed plans would e not be prepared for three or four more years. If an Advisory Committee was formed now and no meetings were called or nothing starts the committee members would lose interest. The Advisory Committee has two roles; reviewing the development plans and in reviewing and recommending in operations of the park. Members commented on this proposal. Jerry Neher - I have no problems with it. My basic problem is with the primitive boat access. I think that could be a problem. Dick Dutcher - I am wondering whether the county would entertain the notion that the Carver County Park Commission's representative on this Advisory Committee be the one from District 1 since this is the area that that individual would have a direct responsibility for. Hud Hollenback - I think at the time when the county assumes control of the land, they have a responsibility and who is to say what it might be. It may be a bunch of teenagers going over there and playing hours, or whatever, long before the formal plans are drawn. I don't see it as the City's duty to police it and worry about it. Dick Dutcher - That property right now has the same kind of protection that we are anticipating that it would have in the future. The policing would be, whether it's by contract or directly from the county, would still have the same kind of supervision and policing it has right now. If it's a problem now then I would anticipate it would be a problem then. If there is development which encourages people to come on the property then the situation has changed and ~ I think there is an obligation on the county's part to increase .. that kind of patrolling, that kind of protection but until such time as they actually do make a physical change on the property I don't see that it being any different than it is today. I don't have any proglems with it based on their past track record. I think they are re$pon$iye to these kind$ of thin~$ and there ha$ been an interest e e e Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1977 -5- to try to resolve those kind of issues. Roman Roos - I am somewhat concerned about the effectiveness of the Advisory Committee so that we have an on-going review. There is nothing set up in this section that says, are the terms staggered or anything of this nature, so we have an on-going type relationship. I don't know how we would word this. I think it is essential. Les Bridger - I would say there should be a body that can be approached should the occasion arise and a problem exists. If such a body does not exist this may create some problems. I think that's the intent of this Advisory Committee. Pat Murphy - The purpose of the Advisory Committee, as I see it, is to help develop the details of the park and then when it is an operational park,make sure that it continues to work the way it was supposed to. Walter Thompson - It seems to me that we have the machinery here for a committee that can be called together at any particular time if it's necessary. What is going to be so pressing that you can't take a week or a month or two months. We are taking six months now on trying to approve some of our things. I see the machinery there and I can see it available if and when needed but I don't think we have to go out and look for these extracurricular activities. If they occur and it requires an advisory body why then let's establish it. Dick Dutcher - I have had a working experience with the County Park Commission and I have seen that they are responsive to these kind of concerns and I think the suggestion that has been made that they will take care of those interim problems until such time as an' on-going and continuing need for an Advisory Committee is formed is adequate. Section 6.04. Size of fishing motors. Pat Murphy - The idea is to clearly define in our minds what we mean by the difference between fishing and power boating, water skiing. We have ten horsepower in our Master Plan. If you want to stick with ten horsepower I don't think we are in a great position to argue with you. Our purpose for bringing it out is that I would expect that we will find enough fisherman that have boats of 12, 15, 17 horsepower and over the period of a year we will start collectively hearing complaints about that and it's just a means of anticipating. Dick Dutcher - Even if we left the ten horsepower restriction in that the policy of allowing perhaps boats which were marginal, i.e. the 15 or whatever, whether there would be a problem with allowing that kind of thing provided there were no abuses. If there were abuses then the City has a lever that they can use. Russell Larson - I envision that there will be a horsepower limitation on Lake Minnewashta at some point in time and that horsepower limitation may be extended to the park. Section 8.03. City Costs. The County Board feels that they should not have to pay any charges to the City relating to this conditional use permit. Pat Murphy - If I were to suggest anything in here, if it could be closed a little bit because it is very open ended, I can see the possibility of us getting bills every once in a while from the City, I would like to do is to get this thing limited to the costs incurred to the City for other than salaried staff in the preparation and consideration and not go on to the future. Dick Dutcher moved to pass the conditional use permit on to the Council as written with the recommendations as suggested by the Planning Commission. Motion seconded by Les Bridger and unanimously approved. Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1977 -6- RECONSIDERATION - REICHERT'S CONSERVATION EASEMENT: Bruce Thompson, Attorney, were present. Commission the attached letters dated October 20 and 21, 1977, Bob Reichert and members discussed from Mr. Reichert. e Les Bridger moved to reconsider the Planning Commission's action of May 25, 1977. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson. The following voted in favor: Walter Thompson and Les Bridger. Mal MacAlpine abstained. Dick Dutcher, Roman Roos, Jerry Neher, and Hud Hollenback voted no. Motion defeated. COMMUNITY FACILITIES STUDY COMMITTEE: Pat Boyle, Garv Eastburn, Nick Waritz, Les Bridger, and Paul O'Dell, Community Facilities Study Committee, were present. Discussion was held on future community facilities in the City, i.e. renovation of old St. Hubert's Church for a library, new city offices, public works garage, police facilities, plus an up coming referendum. It was generally felt that the Hanus property would not be suitable for city officer, garage, and library because of the limited parking and extensive renovation required. A site along proposed MSAS 101 was discussed. No action was taken. Roman Roos moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager e e ,~,~",,-..t'<.,.~,.. ,.1'_ ,-~ : '!-.' , " ~ :;,:t,.~ ~;.(;.;:~~,~ .li, 'e e e ~ki1 /1 LAW OF"F"ICE$ uOH NSON, THOMPSON, t<LAVItRKAMP & uAMES' .... P~O"'~..'ON""L ......oe.....T.ON ..ICH~"'1) W. ~OHNSON 8AUCE ,.. THOMPSON PAUL,"'. KLAVt:AK....MP 8AUCE eo .JAMES ..IC.......RD .J. KEEN....N R.D.ESTES AOGlER ..... .JOHNSON .JOHN D. P....R5INEN DON....LD P. NORWICH RICH....RD MASSOPUST. JR. JAMES WM. RUSTAD JOSEPH ....LEXANDER RICHARD S. GOODMAN R08ERT A. LEVY P....TRICK J. McLAUGHLIN .-... ,: ,-.' " 4444 IDS ce:NTER eo SOUTH EIG HTH ST~~.EET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 0840.2 TELEPHONE (812)338-4546 October '0. 1977 Mr. Robert Reichert 640 Pleasantview Road Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 Re: Reichert's Addition, Village of Chanhassen Dear Mr. Reichert: I have examined the document which is captioned "Per- petual Conservation Easement" and have the following comments regarding same. .. According to the agreement you would convey to the city a right in your property benefitting other property owned by the city which is not adjacent or contiguous to your parcel of land. The stated purpose of the easement is to preserve the economic and recreational values of the city's land. However, there is no obligation on the city whatsoever to preserve the values of your land. If you entered into such an agreement, the city could develop its land into parks, playgrounds, boat landings and docks, which could adversely affect your parcel of land if the city's theory of preventing unrestrained development and urbanization of the lands abutting the waters of Lotus Lake has any validity. The present council members of the Village of Chanhassen cannot bind what future councils might do with the city's land, so you absolutely have no protection whatsoever as to future development unless the city is willing to enter into a similar agreement recordable in form whereby they agree not to develop any lands that they presently own or hereafter acquire on Lotus Lake. In addition, an ordinance should be passed prior to your giving of such an easement which requires all owners of undeveloped lands on Lotus Lake to enter into a similar agreement. The agreement as drawn is arbitrary and capricious in that it singles out your property, and your property alone, as I understand it for imposi' f, such restrictions. ' '\2 56';- ~'It- <9 ~" 1 ~~ ;J'~(\'J \ Cj1 ~,-"). ~'" ' ~\'l~O ': "'." ~CG~ of : ~" r,,', a:" '\J\\"':" \-, ,f}", 't;,,';~'Oo\' L..1.,. ~' 't>\.\-\P> ;-;-,. "c_, c~p.. "A\~~' t'.......'f),' c (-' '". '1) (~" . ,.\~I' C'<?; Oem \.h \.... ~1;~'r', ;: )~", ~~l.> , \;': ~:~;{";~:.:. ;~ (." ~\tJ' -...... :-'.\f ~.~ '"r' ~:(' e e e Mr. Robert Reichert November 1, 1977 Page 2 Obviously the easement as drawn is nothing more than a condemnation of your property without payment. You would continue to own the land and have to pay taxes on same. If you let the taxes go by default and the city acquires the property, the easement would likely be extinguished if the agreement was signed in its present form. If the city desires to deal with all owners of undeveloped land on Lotus Lake fairly, it would seem to me that your suggestion that a deed be placed in escrow, to the outlots only, would be an indication of good faith on your part in attempting to work with the city to accomplish their desired goals. On the other hand, if the city refuses to proceed in this fashion and demands a signing of the Perpetual Conser- vation Easement as consideration for their signing the plat, I would recommend an immediate mandamus action against the city be commenced as it is an obvious attempt to condemn your property, depriving you of the use of same, leaving you with title to same and the requirement to pay taxes in perpetuity. If you have any further please advise. regarding same, ~, BFT/nk e e ." . . ..' October 21, 1977 e Mr. Bruce Pankonin City Planner City of Chanhassen 8710 Laredo Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Bruce: Please place my application for plat approval before the Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 1977. At your request I am providing the "written correspondence outlining the basis" for considering my request. This letter includes the "suggested safeguards"as weH as a review of the possible tools which might be used to accomplish the desired goals. e FIRST let me say that I feel that the "Perpetual Conservation Easement" is an extremely dangerous "tool" to use in an effort..." to preserve the natural environmental values of the shoreland and to prevent deterioration of it's scenic qualities and further to prevent erosion and destruction of marsh land vegetation and to prevent the loss of fish and wildlife habitat areas.11 A more desirable method would be to control the use of lakeshore by Enforceable Ordinances. There are apparent legal problems intrinsic to the "domin- ant and servient" interests which would plague the private property owners and the City in the future. (See Legal Opin- ion, Exhibit A). As pointed out in Mr. Gustafson's letter dated September 23, 1977, "at the time the plat was approved, on June 6, 1977, no Ordinance then existed in the City of Chanhassen providing for a uniform set of rules protecting the City's shoreland areas, such an Ordinance was adopted on July 18, 1977. Said Ordinance applies to all shoreland area in the City of Chanhassen and serves to provide for a uniform method of regulating the development and/or preservation of said shoreland areas within the City." e According to the City Attorney's report dated October 6, 1977, lilt should be kept in mind that the City's shoreland ordinance, Ordinance 65, is only an interim ordinance, which was adopted pending the development of a mere comprehensive shoreland ordinance." It seems inconsistent that a Perpetual Easement is necessary to rectify an interim problem. " ".1)3. K/ /,. .& oP- "G'l..~... . : ',:; , . . \' SECOND e e THIRD e FOURTH e . -2- e There has been another IItoolll mentioned which might effectively be used. This method was discussed in the May 6, 1977 Planning Report. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (Exhibit B). liThe Planner recommends the Planning Commission find the, rezoning petition to be positively consistent with the spirit and intent of the City's Plan for land use, utilities and transportation. Further, the Planner recommends the planning commission act favorably on the proposed sub- division conditioned upon the filing of restrictive cov- enants as amended by this planning report.1I The recorded Covenants would also put the individual pro- perty owners on notice that there are DNR regulations and ordinances affecting this land. The City Attorney.s letter of October 6, 1977, indicated concern that IIOrdinance 65 will not appear on all Attorney.s examination of Title.1I The Covenants could emphasize the fact that ordinances and DNR regulations do exist. These Restrictive Covenants have been amended accordingly. This appears to be a proper alternative. There is always the possibility of the City acquiring the land along Lotus Lake by negotiations or by condem- nation. The proposed Perpetual easement is a form of condemnation. The Attorney.s opinion, from Johnson, Thompson, Klaverkamp & James, should be considered before entering into any negotiations for easements or takings. (Exhibit B) It is my opinion that Ownership or complete control by the City is undesirable since the adjacent property owners would not have the necessary "pride of ownershipll to keep the areas clean and free from public trash. Public access is also contrary to the "Spirit and intentll of what we have been trying to accomp 1 ish. Private ownership appears to be the IIHighest and Best Use II of this land. It seems inconsistent to deprive private property owners the right to use Lotus Lake while encouraging others to IIMuck it up": All lakeshore should be controlled with equal protection. Private property rights should also be preserved. The same restrictions metered-out to private lakeshore (for the protection of the natural environment) should be applied to City owned lakeshore. Another alternative was discussed with the Planner and men- tioned only briefly at the October 12, Planning Commission meeting. i-~. . e ~ 3 e e FOURTH (Continued) It was suggested that the proposed Reichert Plat be "split" with just the buildable lots approved for platting at this time. We don't believe that this is the answer but we are willing to reopen this discussion if the Planner on the Planning Commission feels that this suggestion has merit. We have previously discussed the differences between the Ordinance 65 and the "Perpetual Conservation Easementll (See Exhibit C) and find that many of the Condit.ions overlap. PROPOSAL In light of the various suggestions and anticipating the need for 'time, in order to set-out ".the development of a more comprehensive shoreland ordinance", it is my proposal to deed the outlots to the City of Chanhassen (similar to a Mortgage Deed) and have it recorded. The Deed and a signed Release could be escrowed at the Chanhassen State Bank for a period of one year or 18 months pending lithe development of a more comprehensive shoreland ordinance." e In this way I would be showing "good faith" toward accomplishing our mutual goal. It would have to be understood that during that time the City would place simiJar restrictions on all undeveloped lakeshore and would abide by the "Spirit and Intent" of this action. The escrow agreement could be worked out between the City Attorney and Bruce Thompson of Johnson, Thompson, Klaverkamp & James, Attorneys. Thank you for your consideration. cc: Don Ashworth, City Manager John Neveaux, City Councilman Bruce Johnson, Attorney e ~f;" . ~ i /~ :\" ,\'i ~ - e e DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EASEMENT & ORDINANCE This is a summary of the difference ~etween the proposed "Perpetual Conservation Easement" and the new Shoreland Manage- ment Ordinance No. 65, which was reportedly adopted on July 18, 1977. No. 1 The easement restricts the outlots to "No buildings, roads, driveways, signs, billboards, docks or structures of any kind, whether on, in, or above the ground---" and none of the above will be allowed,to remain. The New Ordinance, which incorporates the DNR, Regulations 82, 83 and 84, allow for control by the city with provisions for permits in case of "reasonable" need. The existing docks could remain. Permanent docks could be approved by permit. Dredging or filling could be accomplished by permi~. e No.2 IINo soil, sand or ___II could be placed on these outlots under the proposed easement. Whereas the DNR Regulations provide for some possibilities by permit. If there ever becomes a need to dredge or fill or to remove debris from the lake because of drought, flood or storms (such as we had in 1965) there would be no way that this could be accomplished under the easement where under Ordinance No,. 65 a permit could be taken out for "reason- ablell cause. No. 3 "No marsh land vegetation located on the servient estate or in pub 1 i c wa te rs s ha 11 be des t royed or removed". The re might be a need to remove undesirable or noxious weeds in the future. The DNR Regulations provide for these controls by permit whereas the proposed easement actually ties the owners hands. No. 4 "No loam, peat, gravel, 'soi l,! sand, rock, or other materials or substances sh~ll be excavated---". This section would prevent the owner of the~e lands from gardening or planting on these lots. The future use of these lots for any purpose other than to "look at them" seems tQ be intendeq. The Ordinance which was adopted in e July, 1977, would not disallow use but wouJd control use. No. 5 IINo motorized boats or motorized wateircraft shall be launched into the waters of Lotus lake from this prpperty". This seems to be much more restrictive than the DN~ provIsions. Even though part of this land ,abuts a "spawningbFfd",the 5;tate does not expect land owners to be excluded from us i"9 the!lake. The DNR represen- tatives have indicated the following: .ff:;lr; , tD..;. ",. e e e .. e e " r .. Control speed of power boats in spawning beds No fishing during May 15 - July 15 Not allowed to drag anchor Property owners can "motor in" at slow speeds . Shore owners have reparian rights (including access) The DNR representatives indicated that they plan to reevaluate the need for this spawning bed. There are other areas around Lotus Lake which have also been posted (or may be posted 1n the future). In 1997 the lake was stocked with 200,000 walleye pike. In 1974 the Fish & Wildlife Department acc~mp1ished a test netting which produced the following results: (1) No Northern Pike un No Bass The conclusion was made, that the 1970 winter kill contributed to the loss of bluegill and bass. There appears to be a need to seine out the carp which infest this area and restocking should follow. A study by the Fish and Wildlife Depar~ment will be made soon. Their recommendations should be taken into consideration by the city. The zoning and planning ordinances allow flexibility. The easements do not. ' No.6 Same as No.5. No.7 Is th e C hanhas sen. f 0 11 ow t his intent of all private property owners and the city of We hope all future zoning laws and planning ordinances course. In summary it appears that Ordinance No. 65 covers many of the same ideas as the proposed "Perpetual Conservation Easement". The main difference is that Ordinance No. 65 allows for the flex- ibility of change. Variances or permits under this ordinance are possible in situations where "reasonable or warranted" reasons for change are submitted. An easement in-perpetuity, on the other hand, is too restrictive.