Loading...
06-20 PC Minutes 5-16-06 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 forward, I will close the public meeting and I’ll bring the issue back before the commissioners for discussion. No discussion. Okay. Then I would be open to a motion. Keefe: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit 06-17 subject to conditions 1 through 5. McDonald: Do I have a second? Papke: Second. Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit 06-17 subject to the following conditions: 1. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420) at a ratio of 2:1. 2. The applicant shall provide plans for the mitigation of the additional 0.32 acres of wetland to city staff for review and approval prior to wetland impacts occurring. 3. All exposed soils from temporary haul routes, exposed slopes above the normal water level (NWL) and adjacent areas to the project shall be temporarily stabilized and seeded within the 7, 14 and 21 day time frames, depending upon slopes. Any concentrated flow areas shall receive temporary protection. 4. Erosion control blanket shall be used in concentrated flow areas and for slopes of 3:1. All remain areas shall be mulched and seeded to control erosion. 5. The applicant shall apply for 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 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSOCIATION BEACHLOT: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ADDITION OF A SECOND DOCK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF LOTUS LAKE OFF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD (OUTLOT B, REICHERT’S ADDITION), PLANNING CASE 06-20. Public Present: Name Address Sam & Laurie Curnow 650 Pleasant View Road David & Valerie Rossbach 670 Pleasant View Road Amy & Jahn Dyvik 610 Pleasant View Road 48 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Sean & Melinda Fitzgerald 630 Pleasant View Road Beth Bitney 6645 Horseshoe Curve Curt Schwieso 6681 Horseshoe Curve Marianne McCord 6440 Fox Path David Sanford 6440 Fox Path John Hammett 6697 Horseshoe Curve David Wanek 70 Hunters Court Steve Wanek 6619 Horseshoe Curve Kathy Pavelko 7203 Frontier Trail Martin Immerman 491 Bighorn Drive Pat Pavelko 7203 Frontier Trail Steve Donen 7341 Frontier Trail Greg Fletcher 7616 South Shore Drive Mary Borns 7199 Frontier Trail Gary M. & Peg Schelitzche 680 Pleasant View Road Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Thank you for the report staff. Questions. Dan, you want to start? Keefe: I’ve got a couple questions. In regards to the, what is it 27,000 square feet that’s currently there, and that’s above the OHW? Haak: Correct. Keefe: I mean you know when I drove by it, I mean I’m just curious to know where it’s dry. Is it just dry down by the, because when I drove by it looked like a lot of, it was still, it was pretty wet down there. …been wet a lot lately so I’m just kind of curious if these two docks, this additional dock was put in, is it fairly, well it looks like from the picture it’s a fairly sort of dry, cleaned out area. Haak: Right. In the staff report it shows the area that’s maintained by the association, and again north of this, it is forested and predominantly wetland also. And yes, it is wet. As a matter of fact in the research it appears that there may have been some alteration in this area to get it to this condition, which may have been the reason for the original condition of no additional alteration to the lot. But that was prior to any wetland ordinances so that is not something that we have control over at this point. Keefe: Right, and what is the area that we’re looking at here? I mean is this the full extent of the area that may have been filled or may. Haak: I believe it’s pretty close but the applicant would be able to speak to that much better. Keefe: Alright. Then a question in regards to docks and Lotus Lake. Are there limitations on the slip size or size of boats or anything along those lines that you’re, so in other words, if an 49 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 additional dock was allowed, is there limitation in terms of the size of the boat that could be put in there? I mean is there a limit associated with a lake issue more than a. Haak: No. Currently there are no limitations on motor size or anything of that nature on actually any of the lakes except Lake Ann, to my understanding. Except for the limitations that come with limited public access and those sorts of things. We do have several lakes that don’t have actual public accesses so that does limit the boat traffic, but Lotus Lake does not have any horsepower restrictions or anything like that. Keefe: Yeah, and it may be just a function of practicality and the size of the lake but you know, you’re seeing on a lot of lakes the size of the boats get bigger and they get faster and potentially more destructive I guess with the larger motor and the larger wake, but there aren’t any limits on this that you’re aware of? Haak: No. Keefe: Okay, thank you. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: My question is regarding the parking for this. On page 7 there’s a photograph, and actually I’m very familiar with the road since I drive it quite often. And when there’s, if they add another dock, are people planning on driving from their properties down to it? Are they just going to walk over there? What’s the intent there because I know when there’s cars parked on either side of the road, it’s hard to get one car inbetween the two. That’s probably my biggest concern here above the other things. Haak: That’s something certainly that you can address to the applicant. In the application they indicated that the residents are all located within 500 feet of this lot so they would be walking and I believe in something that I read, and I can’t put my finger on it just now, that there is some on street parking for some of the residences in that area. But that’s not related to the beachlot and that’s again, that’s the statement of the applicant and staff is, continues to be concerned about parking and traffic flow in this area. Larson: Okay. And the other thing, going back to the picture you just had up, so would this new dock be, yes that one. Would it be to the right of the tree? Is that where they’re proposing to have that, based on this picture? Haak: And again, I think the applicant would be better prepared to speak on that. It’s really not clear from the couple drawings that I have exactly where those would be. Actually here’s the proposal, so again, if you compared the, just going again off what the applicant submitted, this is the existing condition. This is the proposed condition. So in my estimation it looks like they’re leaving the southern dock in place and they would be adding one more dock to the north. 50 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Larson: Okay. And then one more thing in regard to the, what did you call it now? The high water. Is that where your main concern comes in or is it because the lot size is smaller than what the precedent, I mean not the precedent but the, I’m brain dead. Haak: The standard in the code? Larson: Yes. Haak: Yeah, there’s several things. Beachlots by nature, there’s really a sorted past of beachlots in this city. They’re an intensely used piece of property for multiple residents, and so that in and of itself has some special concerns which I believe really began this whole beachlot ordinance. Actually what I’ve been told was quite a battle and there are concerns when you have multiple use, people using a small piece of area. So in addition to the traffic concerns, it’s also just the precedent that this would set for other associations. Staff does anticipate that there would be a number of additional variances that would be requested should this application be approved. Larson: It’s hard to really tell from here. I’m sure this picture was taken before weeds and all that growth. Is it relatively clear on this end? Because the aerial shots that you have, it looks real weedy. Which I’m assuming those are at different times of the year. Haak: Yes. These shots are taken once vegetation starts growing. Actually from other exploration that we’ve done in this north bay of Lotus Lake, it does appear to be very open early on in the year and then boy, it must be late June or July that it really, that the vegetation really starts to emerge. So at this time really you wouldn’t be able to see any of this that’s out there. Larson: But based on this picture that you’ve got up, where are the sailboat moorings? Haak: Actually there aren’t sailboat moorings on this particular beachlot. Larson: Oh, I thought there was moorings. Haak: No. Just, well there are on other beachlots but not this one. Larson: Okay. Alright. Thank you. McDonald: Kurt. Papke: Two questions. First one, is there a spot on this beachlot where one of the property owners could pull their boat up on the beach to have lunch or something like that, other than a dock? I’m just looking at their ability to use the beachlot and their boat without adding a dock. Haak: City code does allow for docking other than overnight of any number of watercraft on any dock. So you can have, if you wanted to sandwich 6 boats on one dock during the day, this could happen. It’s just the overnight storage. Papke: Okay. So we could put more than 3 on the dock during the day. 51 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Haak: Correct. Papke: But let’s say you know there’s more than 6 homeowners in the area here. Could somebody also pull their boat up on the shore and go have lunch or something like that, if there wasn’t space? I’m just, just to understand how the beachlot is laid out here and the water levels and all that kind of stuff. Haak: I believe the original conditional use permit speaks at least to the launching of boats. I don’t believe. Papke: You couldn’t launch here but let’s say you put your boat in in the morning at you know the boat launch on the south side and then, you know could I stop during the day and have lunch by pulling my boat up on the beach, is kind of the bottom line. Haak: And again that’s a good question for the applicant. If there’s actually enough area to do that currently. Papke: Okay, so you’re not certain yourself whether it occurs? Haak: No. Papke: Okay. The other question has to do with the, the findings of fact here and some of the findings. Question number 2 speaks to the fit of this with the comprehensive plan but you better than anyone else in Chanhassen obviously knows. We have an existing surface water management plan and we have a new one that we’re in the process of revising. From your perspective as the person who’s responsible for the creation and compliance to our surface water management plan, how does this fit in with what you’re trying to accomplish on Lotus Lake? Haak: That’s a difficult question to answer because issues like this are not explicitly addressed. However, based on. Papke: What are we trying to do with Lotus Lake then? Haak: Right, and the answer is, improve the water quality. The current water quality of Lotus Lake has put it on the impaired waters list for basically the federal government, and the State of Minnesota as well as the City of Chanhassen are, and the watershed districts actually that encompass the lake, or watershed district rather, are responsible for addressing those limitations and that listing in relatively short order. And it’s listed for excess nutrients, which is basically phosphorus and that can be tied to the sediment levels in the lake. So I would say it’s not, again it’s not one of the explicit things in that plan, but it does go counter to that. Papke: It’s not explicit but from your perspective it’s Lotus Lake is impaired and it’s one of the city’s goals to try to improve the water quality and so the Planning Commission should be guided to things, to taking actions that improve the water quality, not make things go the other way. 52 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Haak: That’s correct. Papke: Does that sum it up? McDonald: Okay. The question I have for you is, how many associations are on Lotus Lake that we could potentially be dealing with? Haak: Where’s Steve? How many is it? Steve Donen: I don’t know but there’s 340 homes that are getting access to the lake… Papke: How many of those are on there? Steve Donen: 114 homes. Haak: And I think that’s about right. There’s about 114 homes. Steve Donen: …more people coming out on their boats. Haak: And the number of the beachlots, I’m thinking it’s probably about a half a dozen. McDonald: Okay. But as far as associations themselves, and I understand about the individuals but are there any other associations that deal with where we group a number of these. Haak; Oh absolutely, and that’s what I’m saying. There’s about a half a dozen. McDonald: About a half a dozen total associations around the lake. Haak: Correct. Aanenson: And to that Mr. Chair, just to clarify. The reason the beachlot ordinance came about, when you go back to Minnewashta at the time that those subdivisions were put in place in the mid 1940’s, 50’s, what they did is provide a small fire lane and when the regional park came in place, the city at that time decided that they needed to cap and decided a reasonable amount of square footage for a beachlot. Because some of those associations had up to 100 homeowners. Now it’s not reasonable to say that all those homeowners should get a boat, so they developed a beachlot ordinance. So we have non-conforming situations and that’s some of the ambiguity, so you have to compare apples to oranges. There were non-conforming situations that the City made a determination through a public hearing process to decide what was the appropriate level of use when they came into play. Some of us were here. Some of us weren’t, so that was determined, so they’re not all equal. Then with the beachlot association, there’s a lot of ones that came in meeting the current standards which we’re addressing today. The 30,000 square feet for the first dock. 20,000 for the additional, and then they can have other things such as sanitary facilities, those sort of things. There’s additional things that they can ask for, so those standards have been in place for a number of years. So there’s two different types of permits out there and 53 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 it gets a little hard to compare when some people have very narrow ones, but the control point is, is that it’s not to have everybody in an association keep their boat on a dock overnight. That’s the control point. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Other question I’ve got is, I’d like to address the issue about traffic on Pleasant View. This particular beachlot does not have access for a car, is that right? There is no pull off or road going down into the beachlot itself, is there? Haak: No, there’s not. There’s a gravel path I believe but… McDonald: Okay, it’s more of a pedestrian path. Haak: Correct. McDonald: Where are the cars coming from? Why are people parking here? Haak: And that’s a good question. Again staff has just heard that concern voiced by several residents and perhaps the applicants can speak to it a little bit better. But at this time, you know certainly the beachlot isn’t in use currently since this application has been submitted, so staff really hasn’t had an opportunity to evaluate that during the summer months. McDonald: Okay. And then because this is a substandard road I guess within the city, what are the ordinances as far as parking? What’s allowed? There is no shoulder on this road. It’s pretty much the road and then you either go off into the lake or you’re in somebody’s garage or house. What’s the ordinance? What do we enforce? Haak: I don’t believe it’s posted no parking. I believe that’s been requested and discussed on several occasions but there’s currently no restriction. McDonald: Okay, so parking would be allowed. It’s just. Aanenson: Well let’s back up. It is a conditional use. You can attach any conditions that you believe are appropriate to mitigate any impacts. So if you chose to allow it, then you can attach any conditions you chose to put no parking. That would be in my opinion a reasonable condition too. McDonald: Okay. Other than that I have no further questions for you. Thank you very much staff. Is there an applicant present to present, yes. Please come up and give us your name and address and. Jahn Dyvik: Thank you. Hello. My name’s Jahn Dyvik. I live at 610 Pleasant View Road and I’m a member of the Near Mountain Lake Association. I’m representing the group this evening. We have some of the other members back here. Dave Rossbach at 670 Pleasant View. Sam and Laurie Curnow at 650. Gary and Peg Schelitzche at 680. And Sean and Melinda Fitzgerald at 630. And then my wife Amy and I at 610. If you look at the first, this one. That photo there on the cover shows our recreational beachlot, known as Outlot B from the lake side, so that extends 54 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 all the way from the left side of the picture there to the right side, just beyond the boat. And it’s about 600 feet of lakeshore. I believe it’s the second longest shoreline beachlot after Lotus Lake Estates, if I’m not mistaken. Our association was formed in 1978. It’s one of the oldest, if not the oldest association on Lotus Lake. Most our members have been around for quite a while so we have an average member of about 16 years. So we have a long, it’s been around for a while and we have a long standing record of good stewardship towards the lakeshore and the neighborhood. In fact we’ve been very conservation minded towards the lakeshore and water quality and wildlife during that time. Of that 600 feet of the Outlot B length, we mow a section of about 100 feet of length on the southern end of that outlot. And then of that 100 feet we mow out to the water edge for about 30 feet, so one thing I was going to point out was there’s this lakescaping for wildlife and water quality that the DNR puts out and as I was reading it a few weeks ago, I was thinking boy. We’re doing this kind of thing. We’ve been doing this kind of thing for 30 years. So all the issues that address water quality and wildlife preservation, are things that we’ve been conscience of. For example, not using fertilizers on the grass and minimizing the lawn area, and they’re especially big on maintaining extensive buffer zones along the lakeshore to keep that natural vegetation and not removing aquatic vegetation and so forth. This is our plat from 1978 showing not only Outlot B but the 8 home sites, 1 through 8 shown there. And it also shows the existing location of the dock that we have with our prior conditional use permit. Now that Outlot B, prior to being formed into that recreational beachlot was actually extensions of Lots 6, 7 and 8, so they had beachlots that looked like this. At the time they were pulled out like Outlot B, C and D, and they were tied with 6, 7 and 8…combining those into one recreational beachlot for the whole association. Which I guess they felt was a better idea than having each of those outlots have their own individual dock. They combined that recreational, or combined that land into one recreational beachlot. And you can see Pleasant View Road between that outlot and our home sites. This is a side lot view of the Outlot B. You can see where, you were asking about the vegetation. You can see where we have a dock. Those are lily pads that you see on either side there but where we have the dock we don’t have that natural vegetation. But you can see that’s heavily wooded and that natural vegetation along the shoreline and also in the water. This next slide is from the Carver County GIS web site. It shows the designated flood plain based on FEMA’s shape file data and you’ll see that our lot doesn’t fall in that flood plain. And then just wanted the wetland area…and you can see there, the brown area is the designated wetland. It’s kind of, it hits about the northern 150 feet of the shoreline, but it doesn’t affect the southern part of the lot. So our request is to, for a conditional use permit that will allow us to have two very simple 50 foot straight docks. Seasonal docks on the southern end of Outlot B. Each to have 4 boat spaces. We don’t believe this is going to increase boat traffic on the lake because it’s simply to provide overnight moorings that we’re already using on the lake. This is the proposed dock. You saw this already. Lori showed this to you. And again this sketch here shows the 1978 survey and if you look at this compared to the 2005 survey you see that it’s significantly smaller and I’ll get into this in a moment but it appears that we’re losing land probably because of settling of the land of the lot, which changes your survey reference lines. I’ll get into that viewpoint in a moment. As was stated, the requirement is by city code to have 200 feet per dock and 30,000 square feet for the first dock, and 20,000 for the second. We’re asking for a variance on that land area requirement. We believe that those requirements, the one that really should be the driver should be the length of the lakeshore, because that’s what really determines the dock density on the lake. For example for our 600 feet of lakeshore with 2 docks it would be 1 dock per 300 feet, which is still much lower than typical 55 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 densities on residential lots or other recreational beachlots. Another point is that the length of the shoreline is pretty constant. That doesn’t change. It’s about 600 feet, but the land area does change it, as in our case, especially if your survey reference line changes because of settling. Also our land area calculations are sensitive because we have a very long lot that’s laying along the shoreline. If you have a short shoreline and a deep lot, then any changes, you know…doesn’t affect areas that much but because we have that very shoreline dominant lot, any small changes do affect the area calculation. And it’s a little piece of land so that we’ve been very susceptible to, you know to varying and in our case shrinking land area. Now we’ve never added fill to this lot. Had we done that, we could have maintained that elevation and the area but we haven’t done that because we wanted to respect the natural state of it, but at the same time we don’t want to be penalized for that. Here’s an example of land area calculations. Currently on this Carver County GIS web site, it lists Outlot B as having 57,000 square feet. 1.3 acres. And as Lori mentioned the, on record with Chanhassen they have, since about 1985 they’ve had 4,000 to 6,000 square feet and that’s from that 1978 survey which probably had an elevation at the time of 895.9 feet. And then the survey we had last year was 38,350 square feet. That was to the edge of the ice and that was a surveyor actually contacted DNR and it was by their guidance to use the edge of the ice as that reference. Now but he also did the calculation based on the ordinary high water line, and that’s where that 27,000 square feet comes from. But if you look at those two different cases, and on that 2005 survey, there’s a difference in elevation. The ordinary high water line is 896.3 feet. The edge of the ice at the time was 895.8 feet, so 6 inches difference and it made a difference of 11,350 square feet, just from 6 inches in elevation it changed. So if you were to extrapolate that further and say okay, let’s take Lotus Lake’s average elevation of 895.4, you can say that well I can extrapolate the land area to 47,000 square feet, and I’m not proposing that we’re trying to claim that. I’m just making the point that it’s really hard for this kind of lot to determine what the area really is. Now here’s a chart showing the 10 years of Lotus Lake level and then the red line there is the ordinary high water mark and in 10 years there’s 5 instances where we actually were at that ordinary high water line. Due to the general conditions of the variance, these are in the application. There’s 6 points, or 6 general conditions that we need to meet for variance, and our response to those was simply that we want to have reasonable use of the lot. And you know reasonable use is kind of a subjective term but we don’t think it’s unreasonable with the amount of shoreline that we have to request a second dock. A point or two was just simply that we recognize that a variance is needed in this case. Three was, we’re only looking for enjoyment of the lake. The purpose is not based on desire to increase property values. We’ve been around for a long time and you know we’re not looking for artificial increases in property value. It’s simply for enjoyment of the lake. Our hardship is not self created, and again there’s no self created hardship. That’s another subjective term but we believe that it’s not. And then especially of point 5 and 6. We don’t believe that there’s any detriment to the public welfare. We’re going to continue to maintain our shoreline in it’s natural state and as far as street congestion is concerned, we believe there’s no impact there at all, and I’ll get into that in a moment. As far as other non-conforming shoreline uses, I guess it doesn’t really matter in this case. This is Lotus Lake Betterment Association, and they have a 100 foot dock and 25 feet of lakeshore, and it doesn’t really matter how many boats they have on there but according to Section 20-266, you need 200 feet and they have 25 feet. So we were just looking at, if there were other non-conforming uses that were approved by the city, and we believe that this is one of those. With Lotus Lake Estates, as was mentioned earlier, they have 3 docks. They do have enough shoreline and area to grant them that. However they have 4 56 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 moorings, sailboat moorings and according to city code you can only have 3, so again they were granted a non-conforming use. And then as was cited also, the Fox Chase, even though they don’t have a beachlot, they do have an association that shares a permanent 7 slip dock, and that’s right across the lake from us. So again a non-conforming use of docks on the lake. Parking and traffic. As was stated, we all live within 500 feet of the beachlot so we always walk over there. We don’t park there. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour on Pleasant View Road. The entries to the beachlot lies along a straight section of road. Pleasant View Road’s pretty windy, and there are a number of limited sight line sections but this is not one of them. There’s about 800 feet of unobstructed sight line along that stretch of Pleasant View. And cars never park on the west side, which is the lake side of the road, as was shown in the example from the staff report. On a very rare occasion they might park on the east side, but that’s more because they don’t want to negotiate the steep driveway for my residence at 610 Pleasant View Road so it’s usually when visitors come they want to park down there. It really doesn’t have anything to do with Outlot B so, my point here is that parking in the street is almost never due to Outlot B activities. And then lastly we have support from the neighbors. John Nicolay at 608 Pleasant View. He borders the south border of Outlot B. He says that he supports it. He doesn’t believe there’s going to be any impact on the lake and traffic and so forth. Tom and Judy Meier. They’re on the north end, sort of on the north end of Lotus Lake. Not too far from the north end of our south lot. They say that they support the proposal. And then Pete and Jane Field, and they’ve been around for a long time. They’re 665 Pleasant View and they, they’ve seen, actually they were around when this development was built and they cite in their letter here that we’ve taken, we’ve been exemplary in the care of our shoreline and lake and don’t have a problem with this proposal. So in summary we’re asking for a second dock. We have 600 feet of lakeshore which far exceeds code requirement. We have a long history of preserving and protecting the lakeshore. We’ve been practicing lakescaping practices for quite a while. 85% of our outlot is maintained in it’s natural state. 95% of the shoreline is preserved in a buffer zone. We don’t believe parking or traffic flow is impacted, and we don’t believe boat traffic is impacted, as we’re just looking for overnight mooring. And finally that the surrounding neighbors support our request. McDonald: Questions? Dan. Keefe: Yeah, I’ve got a question. How does your association, it’s 8 homes right? Jahn Dyvik: Yes. Keefe: How do you manage the parking of boats today at the one dock that’s there? Jahn Dyvik: We have 3 boats at the dock. Currently there’s an association document that gives those 3 boats the rights to those spots to the 3 houses that are directly across from the recreational beachlot. Keefe: So it’s 6, 7 and 8, is that right? Jahn Dyvik: 6, 7 and 8. Keefe: So they have the right to park their boat there. It’s not a shared. 57 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Jahn Dyvik: Not the way it is currently. Keefe: And it’s an overnight? It’s a permanent situation for them? Jahn Dyvik: Well it can be changed. There’s a period of time that that association document is good for, and then after that it can be changed or it can be continued on in that form by vote. Keefe: Alright. And I’m just considering the question on how, you know if, say you stay with one dock and 3 boats, how would everybody get an opportunity to, I mean what do the other owners do if those 3 choose to have boats on there? How does 1 through 5 get access, boat access to the property? To the beachlot, or do they? Jahn Dyvik: Well currently they don’t have overnight mooring. They can have boats there during the day and then they take them out. Keefe: Okay. And there’s capacity at the dock, even with the 3 boats? That are parked there overnight. Jahn Dyvik: Yeah, you can stick an outboard boat. That’s happened at times when we’ve had a fourth fishing boat or as someone asked earlier, sometimes we have boats pulled up on shore you know when you’re just going to be there for the day and then… Keefe: Okay. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: Well, okay so there’s 4 additional lots that currently can’t use it? Is that right? Jahn Dyvik: There’s 5. Larson: There’s 5 additional lots. So have you guys all worked it out between all of you, even if we did put in one more dock, it still doesn’t give everybody overnight. Jahn Dyvik: Well we’re asking for 2 docks with 4 spaces per dock. Larson: But the first one doesn’t hold 4? Jahn Dyvik: It holds 3. Larson: It holds 3 but you want to be able to add a fourth? Jahn Dyvik: Change that to 4, yeah. Larson: And you wouldn’t change the size? It would just be. 58 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Jahn Dyvik: No, they’re 50 foot docks and the requirement on that is they can’t exceed 50 feet or, they can be 50 feet or to 4 foot depth. In our case 50 feet is at about 4 feet. Larson: Okay. You know, one of the concerns or the questions maybe I have is okay we’ve had, you’ve shown us the 10 year ordinary high water level. It’s decreasing on the property, or should I say it’s the lot is going away. And over 10 years, or since 1978, which is more than 10 years, looks like a big chunk of land is disappearing. What’s going to happen in the future if we were to go ahead and okay this, which you know I’m all for people having boat access. I use the lake myself. I understand your concerns but if the shoreline is going away, that increases the problem that we have as far as the restrictions that we’re being held to. So you know, what do we do about that? You know what I mean? The lot’s getting smaller. You want to add more capacity to that lot as far as back space. I don’t know how you know we can get around that. Jahn Dyvik: Yeah but we’re doing what we can to protect that shoreline as you can see by the natural buffer zone there. Larson; Well I understand that. Jahn Dyvik: There might be other factors going on. Who knows the hydraulics of the lake might be changing when there’s development going on. I don’t know but I don’t know how to answer that question. Do some sort of restoration effort. Larson: Well yeah, that’s kind of what I’m wondering if the city’s open to something like that or I’ll ask them but that’s a concern for me. Jahn Dyvik: It was asked earlier about how wet it is down there. In April, this past April I did hear was the second wettest April on record and yeah, there’s water down there now. Normally that is a dry area. Through there. Where the sign is currently posted. Larson: And I guess the one other thing that you had mentioned, is that people don’t park on the lake side. Well I drive that road probably twice a day anyway. In the summer time there’s sometimes cars on both sides of the road in that little stretch so. Jahn Dyvik: Yeah, whenever I’ve had visitors up to my house, I always tell them to park on the east side of the road. There were some instances where they parked on both and then, in fact I think the sheriff one time said you know… Larson: Well I respect that they weren’t residents but. Jahn Dyvik: Yeah, but we do encourage everybody to park on the east side when they’re, when they know… Larson: Is it allowed on both sides right now? To park. Aanenson: Yes. 59 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Larson: You can park legally on both sides? Aanenson: Yes. Jahn Dyvik: Yeah, there are no no parking signs. Larson: I mean you know, I guess it’s, that’s not such a huge issue because it does make people drive slower and I think that’s good. It’s the kind of road that you want everybody to drive slow anyway. Jahn Dyvik: There’s a lot of pedestrians and runners. Larson: Yeah. Jahn Dyvik: And if you would want to institute no parking on one side, I mean that would be. Larson: Well you know, I don’t know if that’s the concern so much as the fact that the lot’s disappearing. But that’s really all I have at this point. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Kurt. No questions? I have a couple of questions. You are not the first ones that have come before the council that I’ve been here asking for access on Lotus Lake. And one of the things before with Fox Run I believe, they were looking to add docks. One of the big complaints I heard about the area was the fact that this was going to add impact to the area. Extra traffic. Extra boats, and they were only looking at mooring 1 boat. You’re asking to more actually an additional 5 boats. You say there’s no impact upon the lake. I’m confused. How can there not be impact when before there’s 1 boat and all I hear is the impact to the area. Jahn Dyvik: Well we, many of us already have boats and they just trailer them so these are boats that are being used on the lake and they just go through the process of launching them at the ramp and all this does is allow us overnight mooring. McDonald: But the issue was the mooring, and again that’s what this individual wanted, and the problem was the impact at that end of the lake where you’re at, and a lot of it is because of the, I guess it’s the lilies and those things that grow in that area. There was quite a bit of, as I understand you have to cut the lilies out to create channels. Jahn Dyvik: We don’t cut our lilies. McDonald: Okay, you all don’t but just above you, the people up there have to you know clear channels. I’m just, you know what I’m wrestling with is, I cannot understand how before the biggest reason for not allowing 1 boat and 1 slip is the impact on the area, and now there is no impact on the area but adding 5 boats. Jahn Dyvik: Are you referring to the request last summer? 60 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 McDonald: It would have been last summer. Jahn Dyvik: I believe there was a wetland there and conservation easement in that case. McDonald: That was true. That was one of the reasons it was finally you know voted down. It’s the reason I voted against it but I’m just telling you the reasons we heard were impact upon the lake. And that seems to be a big thing with people that live up on the lake is the impact of additional boats and additional people up on the lake. And what you’re asking us to do is to add additional people and access. I understand that these boats come and go anyway, but now what we’re doing is we’re going to cluster all these boats at night at a particular end of the lake and that was one of the big objections before as to why we shouldn’t be allowing anything up at that area. And I just don’t see anything within your proposal that addresses that issue. Jahn Dyvik: Yeah, I don’t know what, how to answer that. McDonald: Okay. Jahn Dyvik: It’s our opinion that the impact would be minimal. McDonald: Then the issue of Pleasant View Road. I am perplexed because I have been down there quite a few times. There are no roads from Pleasant View Road down. So why does this particular area become such a bottleneck? Is it because of people that are going on the boats that are parking there and then going down to the dock or? Jahn Dyvik: No, as I said, almost all of the parking there is due to visitors at my house, and that’s not very often even that but occasionally. I have a hard drive for them to negotiate. McDonald: Well that’s all the questions I have. Do you have anything else you wanted to address to the council? Then at this point I would open up the meeting to the public and anyone wishing to come forward, please address the commissioners and state your name and address. Come on up. John Hammett: Thank you council members. I’m John Hammett. I live at 6697 Horseshoe Curve. 10 year resident. My family and I drive Pleasant View Road several times a day, particularly past the property in question. My concern is the parking on there. I don’t know of the number of visitors at certain houses but over the last couple of summers I’ve noticed often congestion in that area. Parking on one side of the road and on both sides of the road. And I’m concerned about that for safety. I see this is adding impact to that. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to make a statement to the commission? Steve Wanek: Good evening. McDonald: Good evening. 61 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Steve Wanek: I’m Steve Wanek. I live at 6615 Horseshoe Curve and I guess I have a couple of issues with this proposal. The first one is mainly the variance issue and the extension of variances. This proposal suggests not only more docks with a 3 boat limit, but it goes up to 8. And it’s predicated somewhat on the fact that there are other associations which have been granted variances, or at least are abusing their right to use their property within the ordinance. My suggestion is, because most of these associations have many homes hooked to them, that this group is asking for a variance based on other variances, or at least violations. The next group will come in and ask for more dock space as well because there are many more homes connected to these associations than there are boats on the lake now by quite a magnitude. I don’t know the exact numbers but it’s very high. If you grant this, I believe that you’ll see more cases asking for variances and possibly legal battles. That’s up to you as far as the legal side. I think the other issue is the practicality of this. I’m going to get very far into that. These people get to use their land the way they see fit but if two straight docks in a relatively shallow area as that is there, and that’s one reason why their land comes and goes because the grade is shallow in there. If you put two 20 foot boats or two 15’s, which most people don’t have. I don’t. On those docks. You’re going to consume 30 to 40 running feet which will put you within 10 feet of the shore so, that’s going to be very shallow in there, and I believe there will be more requests if you grant boats possibility there, you’ll get more requests to lengthen the docks to go out beyond the 4 foot, or you know either to have the docks longer than 50 feet, which is what they’re suggesting at this point. Or to widen them so the boats can maneuver in that area. But the basic issue here is boat traffic and the number of boats on that lake. And so those are my main concerns there. Furthermore, I guess, and I didn’t research this very closely yet but in looking at the aerial photos, I noticed that this land has no taxes on it and I’m very curious about that and I’ve got to research that a little more. But it possibly is done another way. The little bit came up about valuations. I found that very interesting because at least by my records there’s no taxes paid on this property. I’ll see about that at another date, and that may not be an appropriate issue to bring up before this committee. McDonald: I’m afraid we have no taxing powers so no, it’s not. Anyone else wish to come forward? Steve Donen: Steve Donen, 7341 Frontier Trail. First of all I guess I’d like to point out that I bought a house on the lake as a… The reason I did is because I like to go, I go down there at 2:00 in the afternoon, 4:00 in the evening, 8:00 at night. Jump in the boat. Spin around the lake and come back. I wouldn’t do that probably if I had to launch it. I surely wouldn’t do it very often. I also know I didn’t buy a house on the lake that didn’t have a dock because I didn’t want anybody to use it more than that. So having overnight mooring increases the use of this lake. Don’t let that fool you. It will. Okay? Absolutely. So lake association discussion here. Back in 2003 the lake association got together, a homeowners on the lake association got together and voted on what the three biggest issues were on the lake. Actually they…to the three top ones were lake quality, water quality. Second one was boat safety. Third one was boat access. The 2 out of 3 are boat access and lake usage. Were the biggest issues of homeowners on the lake. For that reason this is adding 5 more boats to the lake. It’s adding full use of 5 more boats to the lake. It’s an issue for this lake. I guess the other points have been brought up a number of times now. The lake association, there’s many other ones. Six of them altogether I guess you said today. I could see them all walking in saying, adding a couple more boats. Access is here. I 62 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 want to have a couple more. I was wrong earlier. There are 340 access houses that can either through association or direct access can get access so I’m sure that if I was one of those other guys who bought a house who didn’t have lake access, boy I sure would like to have it. I might come up here and ask you guys also. So 340 more people might come traipsing in as Steve said earlier, and I’m sure others will too. To ask this question. Now I do feel for everybody who doesn’t have access to the lake. I do. I understand that but when I bought my house I knew that answer. Okay. I knew that my house did not have access, if my…and I made a decision to buy the house based on it. Okay. I’m just looking through my notes here. Couple comments on what people can do with their boats if they want during the day. Many people come on the lake and will set their boats, they actually will have their lunch on their boat. Many people will put a little anchor out 3 feet from the shore and let the boat sit there and walk on the shore if they want, so if there was a concern about the lake access, or people being able to use their shorelines during the day, there’s multiple ways of doing that. I was going to read something here from the intent of recreational beachlots are in the Section 20-266 for you guys. The intent of this ordinance, and this is a little bit for Debbie. Based on experience it is recognized by the city that the use of lakeshore by multiple parties may be intensive use of lakeshore. May be an intensive use of the lakeshore and may present conflicts but may bring uses of the lakeshore or the use of other lakeshore on the same lake or the lake itself. Further, beachlots may generate complaints if they are not maintained to the same standards as single family lakeshore lots. There so for the city requires these conditions. This issue of adding more boats to the lake is not only to the immediate area. This is an issue for the whole lake, and they recognized this when they set these issues in the square footage, the length of the lake, so on and so forth. So it’s a, the ordinance is designed… Now I will say, I want to compliment you guys. It’s a pleasure that you’re practicing proper shoreline control, okay. It’s spectacular…so I’ll throw in a little bit of positive for you. That we appreciate it so, that’s all I have. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and address the commission? Mary Borns: I’m Mary Borns from 7199 Frontier Trail, and I also feel that by expanding the use from 3 to 8, which is 100% of the lots that are at this association is going to create major problems for the other 340 association owning lots on the lake. I think it would be hard to deny them, and I personally know that 2 of the lots, Sunrise Hills and Frontier Trail are not even allowed to have night mooring. That they cannot tie up to the dock throughout the evening hours. So I think that this association is very fortunate in having 3 spots and I would hope that if somebody’s on vacation they would give up their spot to someone else. It’s only a 246 acre lake and I think that if the DNR proposed to add an additional 5 spots, room for 5 boats and trailers in the parking lot, I think that we would see a lot of opposition to that also. I think that if, safety’s been a major concern for years and we are patrolled every day. Most summers we’re patrolled every day for an hour or two during the afternoon, including weekends, but weekdays also, and it’s because of the safety concern and I think that if even one person is hurt or killed in a boating accident, that it won’t be worth it to the amount of improvement to their lakeshore lots, or to their homes with the association and even the amount of tax dollars that are generated by that. I don’t see that we can put a value on the life of adding the additional traffic to the lake. McDonald: Thank you. 63 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 Dave Rossbach: My name’s Dave Rossbach. I live at 670 Pleasant View Road. I’m in this association. Been there since ’83. Long time. Seen a lot of changes in the city since then. We’ve got 600 feet of lakeshore. 600. Does anybody in here have 600 feet of lakeshore? I don’t think so. We’ve taken care of this land all this time. Having to put fill in there. I’ll bet nobody here can say that. On their lakeshore. I bet they filled it, took care of their shoreline… Back in ’87 or whenever, when this Reichert thing happen, we just barely bought my house. Or not ’87, 80, when was it? 3. Anyways. We probably would have had 3 docks down there if we’d a gotten off our butts and maybe went for it back with the rules and the regulations that the city had then. And we didn’t. We left it the way it is. We thought hey, this is great. We have one beachlot. We’re going to keep it nice. The lake level went up and down. We lost some property. Maybe we shouldn’t do that. Maybe we should have came and just filled it in. Like everybody else. Keep our shoreline. We didn’t, and now we’re asking for a measly dock. So we don’t have to haul our boats in and out all the time. I’m not one of the select few that get to put mine there. Granted I didn’t buy per se lakeshore, you know. I don’t get to put out a hockey rink or anything like that in the winter time. Put lights up. But we take care of our property. We don’t bother our neighbors. You have letters from our neighbors saying that we’re good stewards of the land. And as far as the parking on the street goes. Speed has increased on that road tremendously. We’ve complained time and time again about that. We have police, don’t we in this city? To hand out tickets for parking. If it’s an issue, they should be there to hand out tickets. If there’s no signs that say you can’t park here, we can park there. We don’t. Every one of us walk down to that lakeshore. Nobody drives there. I mean you’re 500 feet away. Why would you drive? You know yeah, occasionally if I have to take something down there and unload it, I do. I take my truck down there and I park and I unload it. Lawn mower. You know…wheelbarrow, whatever. I do. And then I go home. But that’s all I got to say. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to address the council up here? Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I’ve been a resident of Chanhassen since 1980. A member of Sunrise Hills Civic Association. We have a beachlot. Our association was founded in the 50’s. We have one dock. We don’t moor any boats. We have 55 homeowners. You can bet many of us would like to have our boats moored, but it’s not a marine. We respect the lake. You’ve heard a lot of discussion about lake quality. I won’t go over that. But I’m just going to stand here and say I’m in full support of the staff report. Many of you know I speak regularly at these meetings. There is no precedence set by any of these other associations that have deviations from what the code states. They were legally, they were legal remedies to situations. I sympathize with these homeowners but that’s the way their land was developed. With one dock. To deviate from that, it’s a variance and for a variance you need to go through all those requirements diligently and make sure that you have reasonable and returns from those variances is covered. And I challenge you to do that. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to address the commission? Greg Fletcher: Hi, good evening. I’m Greg Fletcher. I live at 7616 South Shore Drive. And I’m against the variance, mostly due to the safety. We take the kids out on the lake and it’s pretty scary pulling them on tubes on the lake when you have boats following you by you know a couple hundred yards and they’re not paying attention. A kid falls off, someone’s going to get 64 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 run over. Sitting on the lake in that hot afternoon with, if you were to stop and look around, you could probably count 20 boats on there, and that’s a lot. Adding 5 more would be significant I think. It’d be a safety issue. I agree with the staff and support their recommendations and I also feel that to establish this would open a precedent for all the other associations to request additional docks and slip space on the lake which would just compound the problem. Thanks. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to address the commission? Kathy Pavelko: I’m Kathy Pavelko. I live at 7203 Frontier Trail. I’m also a member of this Sunrise Hills Association, and I live on the lake. They’re asking for a variance and you’ll set a precedent by allowing them another one. Another dock and they say 200 feet, and they say they have 600 so what’s to stop it from coming back 2 years from now and saying well we have 600 feet. You allowed us an extra one. Now we can go with 3 because you said that that 200 was enough. Without the square footage. So you just set another precedence. They could ask for another dock. There’s too many. I mean Sunrise Hills, 55 homeowners. Why can’t they all have lakeshore property? Docking. It opens up a can of worms. Every other association can start asking for variances. McDonald: Okay. Thank you very much. Does anyone else wish to make comment? Seeing no one step forward, close the public meeting and I’ll bring the issue back before the commissioners. Start with Dan. Keefe: In looking at everything, and I don’t have first hand experience but it sure looks like this association has maintained the lake very well. Maintained their beachlot and I think everybody’s in appreciation of that. It’s my opinion that, I don’t think parking is, I drive Pleasant View all the time. I don’t think parking is an issue necessarily in relation to this particular request. I think it’s a little bit overblown in regards to the parking issue. Although I think in general parking is an issue and I think speeds are an issue on Pleasant View but I think parking’s a little bit overblown in relation to this particular request. I’m very much in sympathy with what their wants and desires are but it’s my opinion that I do think that granting 5 additional boats will increase the boat traffic and the lake use. You know other associations have many more homes that all don’t have a dedicated dock, or dedicated boat space let me put it that way. I’m a little bit troubled by, with the way the association operates. Only 3 out of the 8 residents have the ability to use their dock but I guess that’s for you guys to decide. And then it’s really a request for a variance that really in effect increases use of the lake and I think approving the hardship conditions would be difficult. I’m in agreement with staff’s report. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Debbie. Larson: Okay. First of all the presentation that we had I thought was very good. You know people that, this association has been in for what, 28 years. Most of the people that are a part of this have been around 16 years it says. They want a dock so they can park their boats at night. I understand that. That’s a convenience item and I think that’s a positive and I don’t see a problem with that since those boats, if they’re using them, are on the lake every day anyhow and probably off the lake by nightfall. So it would be something that would be convenient for them. They’ve maintained the lot. They’ve been sensitive to the conservation of it and the fact that the 65 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 lot is sinking a little bit, is not to their fault. They have kept it natural. The neighbors don’t seem to have a problem with it and as far as I’m concerned, you know the parking on the street really I guess isn’t that huge of an issue because it’s a slow street anyhow. But what I did is I’ve been listening to everything here and because I’m sort of not sure which way I wanted to go on this, I did the list. Put the line down the middle and I made a list of the up side, down side. Okay, I just listed the 4 up side prop things. The down side is, the lakeshore is declining. The second one, roadway parking. You know not a huge issue but it’s somewhat of an issue. Lake safety. That’s pretty big. I use that lake personally a lot. I use that end of the lake a lot. I’m a kayaker. I don’t have a motor boat and there are people that, when they go through the narrows at that end of the lake, they tend to go fast and I’ve seen little kids out there swimming just beyond some of the swimming areas almost get hit by boats because they’re driving like this and not watching where they’re going. Not to say that any of you would do this but if we’re adding boats to that end of the lake, I don’t remember which gentleman pointed out, you know the fact that it’s convenient. You can go down to the dock, you will be using it more. One of the things that the city is afraid of here is, the lake is impaired. It’s not in the best quality and they’re trying to improve it and adding boats to this is, not that you’re adding boats but you’re probably increasing the usage of the current boats that are on there and that is not going to necessarily help the impairment of the lake or help improve. It may not make it worst, but it’s not going to help it get better. Congestion at that end of the lake to me is a huge issue because it’s where everybody turns around, so sometimes several boats are in that end of the lake and it is a safety thing. And setting the precedent if it’s approved. It will set a precedent. There’s a couple other associations that have been able to get around it, you know like you said 55 people using one dock. You know perhaps it’s the type of thing where maybe everybody should not leave their boats overnight and just have it be a daytime use thing. I don’t know, but I’ve got 6 against and 4 positives and so I’m really afraid I’m going to have to vote against it. I’m so sorry. McDonald: Thank you Debbie. Kurt. Papke: I think we can debate quite a bit over the consequences to the environment and the safety and so on, but if I look at this strictly in terms of our, the rules that we have to follow in allowing a variance, I don’t see any way one can show that we’ve demonstrated a hardship here. I believe that they do have reasonable use of their property and so I just don’t see any justification for a variance under these circumstances. I certainly, if I was in the position of the applicants, I’d certainly want to do this as well but I just don’t see the justification for a variance. McDonald: Okay, thank you. I guess my comments aren’t, I don’t want to retread over old ground but one of the things that’s happened is that the city has been tasked with the protection of all the waterways and water within the city itself. You’re not the only lake owners that come before us and ask for things that we end up having to turn down. The city’s been asked to step in for a number of reasons. One of which was again there’s been a number of studies done. Water quality comes up as the biggest thing that the residents of Chanhassen wish that their lakes would be improved with. That’s not just Lotus Lake. That’s every lake within the city, so because of that you know rules and regulations have been put in place. You’re right. 15-20 years ago you could have put the dock in. You didn’t because you know you felt that it was not right to do so with the lake. I applaud you for doing that but that doesn’t change things just because you could of, we ought to allow you to do it now. What happened between then and now is the fact that 66 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 there are rules in place and I think as we have pointed out today, just as in the past, you have not demonstrated the hardship required for the variance. The other examples you cite are extraordinary. They were different. There were other reasons for those being granted and they were not granted easily, and there’s a reason for that. And again it comes down to control of the lake for everyone’s use. I’m not going to go over issues about water density with boats and everything. We’ve done that before and again as I said, that seems to be the number one argument that other owners of the lake always bring before us when someone else is asking for a dock so I haven’t heard anything yet that would change my opinion that putting in a dock is probably going to affect that in a negative way. The boat slips. I understand your problem but it wasn’t until you got up and actually told me that you’re not allowed the use of those overnight slips because the people of Lots 6, 7 and I guess it’s 8 are somehow deeded in, that they’re the ones that get to allow the overnight. That’s a problem that you all need to address with your association. The slips are there and they should be shared on a fair basis. If it’s because of the way the land’s developed, that’s no different than the gentleman across the way because he has a covenant on the land use that says he can’t put a dock in. It’s the same issue. Again, you haven’t gotten over that burden of showing that you really have a hardship. You have use of the property as it was intended and as it was put together for development. So I think for all those reasons, that’s again staff’s report I think you have not shown the burden that you need to show to overcome what staff has presented before us. So I also would vote against it but again it’s for the reasons as I stated and within the staff report that the burdens that are there have not been met. With that I would accept a motion. Papke: Mr. Chair, I’ll make a motion that the Planning Commission denies the request of a Conditional Use Permit and variance for the lot area requirement necessary for the second dock and the number of boat slips per dock based on the findings of fact in the staff report, and issues 1 through 4 as listed in the staff report. McDonald: Do I have a second? Keefe: Second. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission denies the request for a Conditional Use Permit amendment and Variances for the lot area requirement necessary for the second dock and the number of boat slips per dock based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 3. A revised conditional use permit with intensified use may reduce public safety due to parking on the sub-standard streets and poor sight lines. 4. If these variances are approved, other recreational beachlots in Chanhassen will likely seek variances from lot area and boat limit restrictions. 67 Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. McDonald: Okay, recommendation of staff is accepted. Our motion to add a dock is denied. You do have a right to take this up before City Council which would be your next step and at that point you may present your case to them but our recommendation to the City Council will be that they deny your request for an additional dock. Aanenson: Thank you Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure that was clearly indicated that they could be appealed so if you want to check, anybody tracking this item may want to check to see when it will be at the City Council docket because they will also open up for comments, so if you want to check with staff or the city’s web site to check the agenda. McDonald: Okay. Thank you for that. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 2, 2006 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 68