No preview available
CAS-20_NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSOCIATION BEACHLOTo (� - 2-0 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 I 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: Wedand replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Mirmesota 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 11 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: REOUEST FOR A VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ADDITION OF A SECOND DOCK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST SUDE 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 a-] Planning Commission Meeting —May 16,2006 Sean & Melinda Fitzgerald Beth Bitney Curt Schwieso Marianne McCord David Sanford John Hammett David Wanek Steve Wanek Kathy Pavelko 630 Pleasant View Road 6645 Horseshoe Curve 6681 Horseshoe Curve 6440 Fox Path 6440 Fox Path 6697 Horseshoe Curve 70 Hunters Court 6619 Horseshoe Curve 7203 Frontier Trail Martin finmerman 491 Bighorn Drive Pat Pavelko 7203 Frontier Trail Steve Donen 7341 Frontier Trail Greg Fletcher 7616 South Shore Drive Mary Boms 7199 Frontier Trail Gary M. & Peg Schelitzche 680 Pleasant View Road Lori Haak presented the staff report on this itera. 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. 1,; it just dry down by the, because when I drove by it looked like a lot of, it was still, it was pretty wertdownthere. ...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 @"woof 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 oV 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? Wbat'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 beacblots 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. VVhich 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. Ahight. 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. 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 ftirtber 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 narne'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 Oudot 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, I 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 beacblot was actually extensions of Lots 6, 7 and 8, so they had beachlots; that looked like this. At the time they were pulled out Re 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 oudot 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 fily 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 die 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 I 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. Soifyouwereto extrapolate that fin-ther 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. 'Mere'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. Tbree 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. Tbat'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 M1 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 beacblot, 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 beacblot 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? U'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: Ahight. 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 I through 5 get access, boat access to the property9 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. Tlirough 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 I 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 I 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 rairnp 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 I 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? MOO Planning Commission Meeting —May 16,2006 McDonald: It would have been last summer. Jahn Dyvik: I believe there was a wetland there and conservation casement 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. 10yearresident. 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. Idon'tknowof 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 Plamiing 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 I 001/o 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, wejust.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 cityl 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 DTive. 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 fi-orn 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 Ulf, 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: hi 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 swimmingjust 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 ffli 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. lie 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 stafFs 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 I 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: 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 MIISUTES: 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 ZI 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MIN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952,227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227 1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227,1125 Fax: 952.227 1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: June 12, 2006 UNT, SUBJ: Near Mountain Lake Association Beachlot Planning Case 06-20 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) amendment to allow an additional dock for a total of 2 docks with 6 docked boats (currently there is one dock with three slips). A variance is needed as part of the CUP amendment to allow the installation of second dock without the minimum required lot area (50,000 square feet) necessary for a second dock. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval of Conditional Use Permits and Variances require a simple majority vote of City Council. PLANNING CONEMSSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 16, 2006 to review the CUP amendment and variances from the minimum required lot area and maximum allowed boats per dock with the installation of the second dock. The primary concerns of the public and the Planning Commission with regard to this application included: • Setting a precedent for more variances for overnight docking rights on beachlots; • Increased boat traffic on Lotus Lake; • Decreased safety on Lotus Lake due to increased boat ft-affic; • Hardship was not demonstrated; and • The owners currently have reasonable use of the beachlot. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 to deny the proposed CUP and variances. The Planning Commission minutes are item 1 a of the June 12, 2006 City Council agenda. Following the May 16, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the Near Mountain Lake Association amended its application to remove the request for four boats per dock (Attachment 1). Therefore, the request before the City Council is for a Conditional Use Permit with one variance. E The City of Chanhassen e A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a chaning downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks, A great place to live, work, and play. Todd Gerhardt Near Mountain Lake Association Beachlot CUP June 12, 2006 Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit and Variance as specified beginning on page 14 of the staff report dated May 16,2006. ATTACHMENTS 1. Email from J. Dyvik requesting amending variance application (with elimination of second variance request for 4 slips per dock), dated May 20, 2006. 2. Ixtrer extending 60 -day review deadline, dated May 22,2006. 3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 16,2006. g:\plan\2006 pinning cases\06-20 near mouniain lake �sociafion\execufive sununary.dw Haak, Lori From: j d [dyvikja@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:55 PM To: Haak, Lori Subject: RE: Near Mountain Presentation Hi Lori, Just wanted to let you know that we would like to take our variance request to the city council meeting on June 12. We would like to amend the application, however, to be for a second dock with three boats on it. We will drop the part that asked for 4 boats per dock. This way, we are only needing one variance. I will be revising my powerpoint presentation and email you a copy prior to the meeting, like we did last time, if that's ok with you. There were some points I forgot to make last time that I want to include. And I'll also drop some things out. Let me know if you need anything more from me. Thanks, Jahn --- "Haak, Lori,, <lhaak@ci,chanhassen.mn.us> wrote: > Jahn, > Yes, we got the check. Thank you. • I don't believe it's written anywhere. • interpretation of the definition. But • back to you. > Lori • ----- Original message ----- • From: j d [mailto:dyvikja@yahoo.com] • Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:06 AM • To: Haak, Lori • Subject: RE: Near Mountain Presentation > Thanks Lori, > That's helpful. I think it's our I will check into it and get > By the way, I assume you got our check yesterday? > One more question. • Is it stated somewhere that the city employs the OHW as the lot line • on the water side? > Jahn > --- "Haak, Lori" <lhaak@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> wrote: > > Jahn, 1 Building Inspections Re: Planning Case #06-20 — Near Mountain CUP and Variances Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering May 22, 2006 Cfff OF CIMSEN 7700 Market Boulevard Near Mountain Lake Association PO Box 147 c/o Jahn Dyvik, Association Representative Chanhassen, MN 55317 610 Pleasant View Road Administration Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone� 952.227.1100 an additional 60 days to complete the development review for the project, which Fax: 952.227.1110 would extend the review period to August 10, 2006. Building Inspections Re: Planning Case #06-20 — Near Mountain CUP and Variances Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Dear Mr.Dyvik: Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Because the application for the above Conditional Use Permit and Variances was finance submitted a day earlier than required, the city will be unable to complete the Phone: 952227,1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 development review process within 60 days of the original submittal (submitted April 13, 2006). We are therefore notifying you that the city will be taking up to Park & Recreation an additional 60 days to complete the development review for the project, which Phone: 952.227.1120 Farc 952.227.1110 would extend the review period to August 10, 2006. Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard The project has been scheduled for review by the City Council on June 12, 2006. Phone: 952.227.1400 If you have any questions, pleasefeel free to contact me at 952.227.1135. Fax: 952.227,1404 Planning & Sincerely, Natural Resources Phone. 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 CrrY OF CHANHASSEN Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.13DO Fax: 952.227.1310 n *HaV' Water Resources Coordinator Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassefl.mn.us The City of Chanhassen - A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. -4� STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Variance LOCATION: Outlot B, Reichert's Addition APPLICANT: Near Mountain Lake Association Jahn Dyvik, Association Representative 610 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) AREA: 27,000 square feet (at OHW) DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for CUP amendment to allow an additional dock for and a total of 9 6 docked boats. I Igninase-9 A A variance is needed as part of the CUP amendment to allow the installation of second dock without the minimum required lot area (50,000 square feet) necessary for a second dock An d- -Rd-d-i ti offl-A-1 d- eeked bee" above the 3 p OF deek maxinwin as stated- in Gha—a-h—amen CRd-e See. 20 :166-(6). Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet and all owners of property abutting Lotus Lake. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAIUNG: The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use permits, based on whether or not the proposal meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable conditional use permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Near Mountain CUP Amendment/ Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 2 of 15 SUNEMLA,RY OF PROPOSAL The City of Chanhassen received an application from Near Mountain Lake Association on April 13, 2006 requesting a Conditional Use Permit amendment with varianees a variance from the minimum required lot areawad- maffiimi—m; -Alloi ad beats per- dock with thp inq*R11FItieff of the seeend do& Currently one dock with three boats docked is allowed at the beach lot. The Near Mountain Lake Association Beach Lot has over 500 feet of shoreline and approximately 27,000 square feet of area above the OHW according to the survey dated March 1, 2005 that was submitted as part of the application. City Code requires recreational beach lots have at least 200 feet of shoreline per dock. In addition to the shoreline requirement, the beach lot must have 30,000 square feet of lot area for the first dock and 20,000 square feet for each additional dock. To meet the square footage requirements for the second dock, the Near Mountain Lake Association must apply for a variance from the 20,000 square foot requirement for the second dock. A variance in the amount of 23,000 square feet of lot area is needed to satisfy the requirements of City Code. Additionally, a vaAanee for mem than 3 beats per dask M119t he ObtAi"Ad to inquill mefe' 3 boats per do as allowed by City Code. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS (7) The maximum number of docks on a recreational beach lot is three. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless the beach meets the following conditions: a. Shoreline of at least 200 feet per dock; and b. Area of at least 30,000 square feet for the first dock and additional 20,000 square feet for each additional dock. Section 20-614. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Churches. (2) Reserved. (3) Recreational beach lots. (4) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. Near Mountain CUP Amendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 3 of 15 (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5.4),12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4),2-12-90; Ord. No. 259, § 12, 11-12-96) State law references: Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. BACKGROUND The Near Mountain Lake Association is located in the northern part of Louts Lake on Outlot B, Reichert's Addition. Membership in the association is limited to 8 homes (Lots 1-8, Reichert's Addition, platted in 1978). in the development contract for Reichert's Addition, Oudot B was designated "open area" and I dock structure was permitted within the southern 235 feet of the outlot. This allowed for the preservation of trees and wetland areas in the northern portion of the outiot. In the staff report for the 1987 CUP, it was determined that the association had 46,000 square feet which limited the beach lot to one dock to maintain compliance with the zoning ordinance. The applicant applied for the CUP amendment and variance on April 13, 2006. The current Conditional Use Permit (CUP 87-13) was issued in August 1987 (Attachment 4). The 1987 CUP placed the following conditions on the Outlot B, Reichert's Addition beach lot: I . Compliance with 5-9-11 of the Zoning Ordinance 2. No alteration to the existing site shall be permitted. There shall be no use of chemical kill or dredging in the wetland without an additional wettand alteration permit DNR and City Council approval. 3. The recreational beachlot is limited to the installation of I Dock and I Canoe Rack. 4. The beachlot shall be maintained by the Near Mountain Lake Association. 5. A "slow -no wake buoy shall be installed and maintained by the homeowners association. 6. There shall be no launching of motorized boats or boats that require a trailer from the beachlot. Near Mountain CUP Amendmend Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 4 of 15 ANALYSIS CUPAmendment The original 1987 CUP limited Near Mountain Lake Association to one dock with 3 boat slips to maintain compliance with zoning ordinances. Additional analysis on the proposed CUP amendment is included in the findings below. Variances The applicant is requesting a variance ftom the required 50,000 square feet lot area requirement for the installation of a second dock. The area of the recreational beach lot (currently 27,000 square fed at the OHW of 896.3) is less than was indicated for the 1987 CUP (which employed a lot area of 46,000 square feet). This may be the result of settling of the land and/or erosion of shoreline. However, either lot area measurement necessitates a variance for a second dock. According to the March 1, 2005 survey submitted by the applicant, the magnitude of this variance request is 23,000 square feet in lot area. Other Beach Lots In the application, the Near Mountain Lake Association cites four precedents for exceptions from City Code regarding beach lots. These include: 1. The Lotus Lake Betterment Association/Colomal Grove beach lot; 2. The Lotus Lake Estates beach lot; 3. The Kurver's Point beach lot; and 4. The Fox Chase Dock. Below please find an explanation of the approved conditions for each of the four cited precedents. 1. Colonial Grove Beach Lot: The Colonial Grove Beach Lot was granted a nonconforming use permit in 1981 (Attachment 5). The nonconforming use permit recognized the right of the association to maintain one dock, but did not indicate the number of boats that would be allowed to moor overnight. Consequently, in 1993, the City issued a Findings of Fact and Decision (Attachment 6) that found that there were never more than three boats moored overnight at the dock in 1981 and therefore decided that the Colonial Grove Beach Lot nonconforming use permit should be amended to allow the overnight storage of a maximum of three boats. This does not set a precedent for this application. The applicant has indicated that Us association typically has approximately 6 boats moored at the dock. This does not app -on -r -to he eRnSktant v4th the appr-eved wfieenfeFmingwe peffilit. -Affly pet"al,,ielatioft,A,ilibein,.,estigatedsepat;atel)-. City staff investigated this complaint on May 24, 2006 and found 4 boats moored at the dock. Since it could not be determined if the boats were moored overnight, a letter stating that no more than 3 boats are to be moored overnight on the dock was sent to the association on May 25, 2006. 2. Lotus Lake Estates Beach Lot: The Lotus Lake Estates Beach Lot has received several conditional use permits. The most recent permit was a restated conditional use permit dated July 7, 1986 (Attachment 7). The restated CUP allows three docks with up to three boats per dock, as well as four sailboat moonngs. However, the restated CUP was the result of what was apparently long Near Mountain CUP Amendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 5 of 15 and involved legal proceedings between the City and the homeowners association. Consequently, the results of the final CUP were negotiated and are not necessarily in compliance with City Code for beach lots. This does not set a precedent for this application. 3. Kurveirs Point Beach Lot: The Kurvers Point Beach Lot received a conditional use permit in 1987 (Attachment 8). The permit conditioned adherence to all conditions required by the City Code in place at that time regarding recreational beach lots (Attachment 9). This does not set a precedent for this application. The applicant has indicated that this association has 10 boat slips. sepaFately. City staff investigated this complaint on May 24,2006 and found 3 boats moored at the two docks. This is in compliance with the conditional use permit. 4. Fox Chase Dock: The dock in the Fox Chase neighborhood is not located on a recreational beach lot but rather is located on private property, with each property owner with a boat slip having an easement for access to the dock. The dock with seven slips was allowed as part of legal proceedings between the developer and the City. The seven slips correspond to the number of lots that would have had dock rights on individual parcels. However, because there is a large wetland complex along the shoreline in this location, it was in the City's best interest to consolidate the dock rights onto a single dock, thus minimizing the wetland impacts that would have occurred with seven individual docks extending across the wetland. This does not set a precedent for this application. F04DINGS: RECREATIONAL BEACH LOT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The application includes a request to amend the current conditional use permit for the recreational beach lot to allow a change to an approved conditional use. The applicant is also requesting vefignsag a variance for the installation of a second dock structure and additional beat slips for- a total of4. The total beach lot area for Near Mountain Lake Association is 27,000 square feet. City code requires 50,000 square feet of beach lot area for 2 docks. The applicant is requesting approval for 9 6 boats on 2 docks. City code allows a maximum 3 watercraft per dock structure. Section 20-232, General Issuance Standards — Conditional Use Permit 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city. Findin : The beach lot does provide a recreational amenity, however the area on Pleasant View Road is currently a substandard road with poor sightlines which will reduce public safety if beach lot use is intensified. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Findine: The beach lot will not be consistent with the citys comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance unless variances from the required lot area for the second dock and the number of Near Mountain CUP Amendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 6 of 15 boats allowed per dock are obtained. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Finding: The applicant has provided a diagram of the proposed second dock structure north of the existing structure. The dock as illustrated will extend 50 feet into Lotus Lake and be no longer than the existing dock. Information regarding dock materials should be submitted for review. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Findin : There are several beach lots on Lotus Lake. The proposed CUP amendment will impact the existing neighborhoods with increased boat traffic and/or decreased public sa&ty on Pleasant View Road, a current substandard street, from intensified beach lot usage. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Findin : The association will be required to maintain the beach lot. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Findin : The beach lot is not anticipated to have any excessive requirements for public facilities and services. It is not certain whether the beach lot will be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, finnes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. Findin : The association must keep the beach lot maintained and regulate activities on the beach lot. The area of the beach lot will interfere with traffic if additional cars park along Pleasant View Road, decreasing the ability for traffic to travel Pleasant View Road. Increased boat traffic from the beach lot may increase the amount of noise emitted from the beach lot. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property, which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: Applicant has stated that all members are within 500 feet of the beach lot; however, intensified use with increased boats and a second dock raises concerns for parking and traffic flow. Pleasant View Road at 26 feet wide with poor sightlines is a substandard Near Mountain CUP Amendment/ Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 7 of 15 street. The current standard road width for public residential streets is 31 feet. The area of the beach lot will interfere with traffic if additional cars park along Pleasant View Road, decreasing the ability for traffic to travel Pleasant View Road. Plet M 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Findin : The conditional use amendments will not result in the loss of any features. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Findin : If property maintained the beach lot will remain compatible with the surrounding uses. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Findin : It is not certain whether the CUP amendment will depreciate the surrounding property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Findin : The CUP amendment, as proposed, will not meet the standards prescribed for beach lots provided in City Code, as outlined below. Section 20-266 Recreational Beach Lots: Recreational beach lots shall have at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage for each dock. Near Mountain CUP Amendment/ Vatiance Planning Case #06-20 May 16,2006 Page 8 of 15 Findin : The proposed beach lot has over 500 feet of lake frontage. 2. Except as specifically provided herein, no structure, ice fishing house, camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle, shelters (except gazebos) shall be erected, maintained, or stored upon any recreational beach lot. For the purpose of this section, a gazebo shall be defined as, "a freestanding roofed structure which is open on all sides." Finding: No structures (except as authorized by the beach lot ordinance) are proposed. 3. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini -bikes, all -terrain vehicles or snowmobiles shall be driven upon or parked upon any recreational beach lot. Findine: No vehicle access is provided. 4. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight camping. Findin : No camping shall be permitted. 5. Boat launches are prohibited. Findin : No boat launching shall be permitted. 6. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one (1) dock, however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3). Sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Nonmotorized. watercraft such as canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one (1) rack slip per lot served by the beach lot; however, in no case shall there be more than four (4) racks per beach lot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight. Findin : The applisant is seek4ng a rahange in A -A -allai*tAdd num-ba-F of begats C*RFR A w-ee (3) eaffently to a total of 8 boats on thR 2 doelcq The recreational beach lot ordinance indicates that the maximum amount of boats docked cannot exceed 3 per dock (Sec.20- 266 (6)). Boats may be clustered if additional dock structures are allowed. The applicant does not meet the requirements for a second dock structure and would be limited to 3 docked boats. 7. The maximum number of docks on a recreational beach lot is three (3). No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless the beach meets the following conditions: a. Shoreline of at least two hundred (200) feet per dock, and Near Mountain CUP Amendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 9 of 15 b. Area of at least thirty thousand (30,000) square feet for the first dock and additional twenty thousand (20,000) square feet for each additional dock. Fin : The beach lot has over 500 feet of frontage and an area of 27,000 square feet as determined by a survey submitted by the applicant. This is 23,000 square feet short of the required 50,000 square feet for a second dock structure. A variance is required if the second dock is to be installed at the beach lot. 8. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet or the minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of four (4) feet. The width (but not the length) of the cross -bar of any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in the computation of length described in the preceding sentence. The cross -bar of any such dock shall not measure in excess of twenty-five (25) feet in length. Findin : The applicant needs to provide details about the proposed dock. The applicant should also contact the DNR regarding any state approvals that may be required for common docking areas. 9. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided, however, that the owner of any two (2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one (1) common dock within the dock setback zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the common dock is the only dock on the two (2) lakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this chapter. Findin : The illustration with the current proposed location and extent of the dock submitted by the applicant illustrates that the proposed second dock structure (northern dock) would be outside the dock setback zone. 10. No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. No more than one (1) sail boat mooring shall be allowed for every two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. Findin : No sailboat moorings are proposed. 11. A recreational beach lot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for the subdivision of which it is a part. For purposes of this paragraph, the following terms shall mean those beach lots which are located either within (urban) or outside (rural) the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in the comprehensive plan. a. Urban recreational beach lot: At least eighty (80) percent of the dwelling units, which have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational beach lot, shall be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of the recreational beach lot. b. Rural recreational beach lot: A maximum of fifty (50) dwelling units (including riparian lots) shall be permitted appurtenant rights of access to the recreational beach lot. Upon extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service boundary into the rural area, the urban recreational beach lot standards will apply. Near Mountain CUP Amendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 10 of 15 Findine: All of the dwelling units are located within 1,000 feet of the beach lot. 12. All recreational beach lots, including any recreational beach lots established prior to February 19, 1987 may be used for swimming beach purposes, but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with marker buoys which conform to the United States Coast Guard standards. FTm : No swimming beach is proposed. 13. All recreational beach lots shall have a buffer sufficient to insulate other property owners from beach lot activities. This buffer may consist of topography, streets, vegetation, distance (width or depth), or other features or combinations of features which provide a buffer. To insure appropriate buffering, the city may impose conditions to insulate beach lot activities including, but not limited to: a. Increased side or front yard setbacks for beach areas, docks, racks or other allowed recreational equipment or activities; b. Hours of use; c. Planting and maintenance of trees and shrubs; d. Erection of fences; e. Standards of maintenance including mowing and trimming; painting and upkeep of racks, docks and other equipment; disposal of trash and debris; f. Increased width, depth or area requirements based upon the intensity of the use proposed or the number of dwellings having rights of access. Findin : Existing vegetation will be preserved according to the applicant. Lot width will also provide distance to act as buffer between the beach lot and other properties. 14. To the extent feasible, the city may impose such conditions even after approval of the beach lot if the city finds it necessary. Findin : At the present time, no additional conditions are imposed. 15. Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft, where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach lot. Finding: The applicant shall mcorporate a clause in the covenants for the homeowner's association to require that watercraft stored, moored or docked ovemight shall be owned by the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes in the association if the condition does not ah-eady exist. 16. The placement of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks, and other structures shall be indicated on a site plan approved by the city council. Findin : The applicant has submitted a diagram of proposed Conditional Use Near Mountain CUP Amendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page I I of 15 Amendments. The 2 docks and 9 boats have been illustrated on Figure 2 of Attachment 2. 17. Portable chemical toilets may be allowed as a condition of approval of a recreational beach lot. The maintenance and use of chemical toilets on some beach lots may be unsuitable because they cannot be adequately screened from residential neighbors or lake users. Any use of chemical toilets on recreation beach lots shall be subject to the following: a. The minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark shall be seventy-five (75) feet. Side and front yard setbacks shall be maximized to achieve maximum screening from adjacent lots and the lake. b. It may only be used Memorial Day to Labor Day and shall be removed from the lot during the rest of the year. c. It shall be securely anchored to the ground to prevent tipping. d. It shall be screened from the lake and residential property with landscaping. c. It shall be serviced at least weekly. f. Only models designed to minimize the potential for spilling may be used. g. Receipt of an annual license from the city's planning department. The license shall be issued unless the conditions of approval of this ordinance have been violated. All license applications shall be accompanied by the following information: I . Name, address, and phone number of applicants. 2. Site plan showing proposed location of chemical toilets. 3. Name, address, and phone number of chemical toilet supplier. 4. Plan for commercially maintaining the chemical toilet, including a copy of any agreement for maintenance, and the name, address, and phone number of person responsible for maintenance. 5. A written description of how the applicant intends to screen the portable chemical toilet from all views into the property, including views from the lake. Findin : No portable chemical toilets are proposed. 18. No watercraft or boat lift shall be kept, moored, docked, or stored in the dock setback zone. Findin : The applicant should include a clause in the covenants for the homeowner's association to require that no watercraft of boat lift shall be located within the dock setback zone. 19. Gazebos may be permitted on recreational beach lots subject to city council approval and the following standards: a. Minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark shall be seventy-five (75) feet. b. No gazebo shall be closer to any lot line than the minimum required yard setback for the zoning district in which the structure is located. c. Maximum size of the structure shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) square feet. d. Maximum height shall not exceed twenty (20) feet. Near Mountain CUP Amendment/ Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16,2006 Page 12 of 15 e. Gazebos shall make use of appropriate materials, colors, and architectural and landscape forms to create a unified, high-quality design concept for the lot which is compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures. f Gazebos shall be properly maintained. Structures which are rotted, unsafe, deteriorated or defaced shall be repainted, repaired, removed, or replaced by the homeowners or beach lot association. g. The following improvements are prohibited in gazebos; screening used to completely enclose a wall, water and sewer service, fireplaces, and electricity. Findin : No gazebos are proposed. FINDINGS: VARUNCE #1 — Second Dock The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance for a second dock unless they find the following facts: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods preexisting standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Findin : The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. There are no comparable properties within 500 feet. There are other recreational beach lots on Lotus Lake that exist within single family residential zoning which are governed by nonconforming use permits or existing conditional use permits. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Findin : The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are generally applicable to beach lots. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Findin : The improvements increase the value of the property. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Since its creation, the beach lot has never had the area necessary for a second dock structure. Therefore, the hardship is self-created. 5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Near Mountain CUP Amendment/ Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 13 of 15 Findin : The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare due to intensified use of the beach lot. 6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or decrease visibility or site distances, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare from increased parking associated with intensified use on the beach lot. Pleasant View Road as it currently exists is a sub -standard street at 26 feet in width with poor sightlines. A standard residential street is 31 feet wide with I I foot wide travel lanes. A parked vehicle typically takes up 8 feet of the road width which creates a problem with traffic flow on the substandard street. W""NO II Wiffiam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . .............. ......... ... ....... ... . ......... k* Ot .......... . . ~'' IN INTO— 0"', ..... . ........ . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ..... T- . . ........ ... "MIMMMUMEMN . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . ............ ....... — - -------- . .................. L ............. En ........... . ....... Near Mountain CUP Amendment/ Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 14 of 15 5. That the gmating of the vafie—neev,411 not be detFimeatal to the publie welfafe or ir��eus to other land or imprevemeats in the neighbefhood in whieh the pamel of land is loeated. ElftAiEgs The gFantifig of a be d-eh-im-ef" to the publie vfflifare dup to intensified use of the beaGh let-. 6. That the pr-epaged va—riation mill et impair an ade"ate supply of light and air- to adja - ----- a pFope4y or- substantially inefease the eoageStiOR Of thO PUM6 SlffttS 9F door-easeAsibility of site distanses, of: ifiereases the dangef of fka, oF endaagw the publie safety or substantial! difninish er impair pr-operty values within the neighbor-hmd �Ejpq!gg; The gFaming of avaria-mve A.A.411 be d-efir-im-er" to the publie welfare 40M incFe -4th intensified use on dhe bearb IF -it. Pleasaw View Road as it eaffePA15 exists is a wA --m-d-A-Fd- 94-e& at ;26 feet iR i.A.4-h poor sioWines. A standaW residential 9#eet is 31 feet wide with 41 fe@4 wide tmel lanes. A paFlEed Nvhiele b-pieally takes up 9 feet Of the Fead mxidth Miieh efeates a pmblem_ i*iuh t -may flew on the substandard stFeet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commiss City Council adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commiss City Council denies the request for a Conditional Use Permit amendment and Variances for the lot area requirement necessary for the second dock and th ffwabef efbeat slips-�bascd on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: I . The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. I 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. Ifthegolvariansasar- this variance is approved, other recreational beach lots in Chanhassen will likely seek variances from lot areaand beat fifni restrictions." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application w/attachments. 3. Affidavit of Mailing. 4. Conditional Use Permit #87-13 for Near Mountain Lake Association. 5. Nonconforming Use Permit for Colonial Grove Beach Lot, dated June 15, 1981. 6. Findings of Fact and Decision for Colonial Grove Beach Lot, dated September 13, 1993. 7. Conditional Use Permit for Lotus Lake Estates Beach Lot, dated July 7, 1986. 8. Conditional Use Permit for Kurvers Point Beach Lot, dated July 20,1987. 9. City Code Article V, Section 9 (11) as of July 20, 1987. 10. Email from A. Fauske, dated May 3, 2006. Near Mountain CUP Amendment/ Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 15 of 15 11. Email from J. Whiteman, dated April 28, 2006. 12. Letter from J. & J. Thiclen dated May 7, 2006. 13. Letter from T. and J. Meier, dated May 10, 2006. 14. Email from J. Nicolay, dated May 11, 2006. 15. Email from B. and D. Bitney, dated May 15,2006. 16. Email from L. Conrad, dated May 15,2006. 17. Email from C. Vassallo, dated May 16, 2006. 18. Email from S. Conrad, dated May 16,2006. g:\plan\2006 planning ca�\06-20 near motintain lake �iation\cc staff reportAm CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECONEWENDATION Application of Near Mountain Lake Association request for Conditional Use Permit amendment; Variance for additional dock without required beachlot area; and Variance from maximum number of watercraft per dock structure — Planning Case 06-20. On May 16, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application Near Mountain Lake Association for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Variance from lot area requirement for a second dock structure and variance from maximum allowed boats per dock. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Residential Single Family, RSF. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Outlot B, Reichert's Addition. 4. Recreational Beachlot Conditional Use Permit a. The beach lot does provide a recreational amenity, however the area on Pleasant View Road which is currently a substandard road with poor sightlines which will reduce public safety if beach lot use is intensified. b. The beach lot will not be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance unless variances from the required lot area for the second dock and the number of boats allowed per dock are obtained. c. There are several beach lots on Lotus Lake. The proposed CUP amendment will impact the existing neighborhoods with increased boat traffic and/or decreased public safety on Pleasant View Road a current substandard street from intensified beach lot usage. d. Pleasant View Road is 26 feet wide with poor sightlines and is a substandard street. The current standard road width for public residential streets is 31 feet. The area of the beach lot will interfere with traffic if additional cars were to park along Pleasant View Road decreasing the ability for traffic to travel Pleasant View Road. e. The recreational beach lot ordinance indicates that the maximum amount of boats docked cannot exceed 3 per dock (Sec.20-266 (6)). Boats may be clustered if additional dock structures are allowed. The applicant does not meet the requirements for a second dock structure and would be limited to 3 docked boats. Ile beach lot has over 500 feet of frontage and an area of 27,000 square feet as determined by a survey submitted by the applicant. This is 23,000 square feet short of the required 50,000 square feet for a second dock structure. A variance is required if the second dock is to be installed at the beach lot. 5. Variance (Second Dock). a. The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. There are no comparable properties within 500 feet. There are other recreational beach lots on Lotus Lake that exist within single family residential zoning which are governed by nonconforming use permits or existing conditional use permits. b. The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are generally applicable to beach lots. c. Since its creation, the beach lot has never had the area necessary for a second dock structure. Therefore, the hardship is self-created. d. The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare due to intensified use of the beach lot including increased parking and substandard street width. 6. Variance (Four Boat Slips per dock). a. The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. There are no comparable properties within 500 feet. There are other recreational beach lots on Lotus Lake that exist within single family residential zoning which are governed by nonconforming use permits or existing conditional use permits. No beach lots on Lotus Lake with Conditional Use Permits are permitted to have more than 3 slips per dock. b. The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are generally applicable to beach lots. c. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship because the number of slips per dock allowed by code has not changed since the original conditional use permit was granted in 1981. d. The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare due to intensified use of the beach lot including increased parking and substandard street width. RECONMIENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the Conditional Use Amendment with Variances for Near Mountain Lake Association. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16'b day of May, 2006. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION M. Its Chairman Name E�j Email: Planning Case No. �'V —,a( � CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 CITY OF CHANHASSrtN Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 RECEIVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APR 1 3 2006 CHAMA&%W R_pMl" oppr Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) '+�S Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) V/ Vahance(VAR) -2n� Weiland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUPISPRIVACNARIWAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tiq format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECTNAMEi N&A0. moo4iAttJ LAKt- AS&oCiA—,t,--Z - A8jL-AfA-,7wA(- GEAc44 LaT LOCATION: A CAD5 -S LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 610 ?LR-A-'-.A^�—. V#E.LZ Ab. 9 , AE-ICHEA7'S Abbi-no TOTALACREAGE 0. WETLANDS PRESENT YES V/ No PRESENT ZONING: Su3GI-L F-Am(Ll 12, &S I b efJ "1 #9 L, REQUESTED ZONING: SAt-iP PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Aja.�ibEW—nAQ Lou -s bbAlgrr� REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: S Ao4 f;, REASON FOR REQUEST:—,SLF— A-rrw,4-tat� This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or dearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc, with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with 1:1 -he study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. -'r( 01 uAk. JAttM blv'i (< 4114166 AnQure of Appl'capl Date �—�k 9V V// V/0 6 6ujnefure of Fee �*w Date GA�NV�s%DevelGpmnt Review Apph�bon.DOC Rev. 12M $CANNED Apfi114,2006 Near Mountain Lake Association Dock Variance Request Near Mountain Lake Association owns Outlot B of Reichert's Addition. The Association members consist of Lots 1-8, Reichert's addition along Pleasant View Road on the east side of the northern tip of Lotus Lake (figure 1). We are one of the oldest if not the oldest lake association on Lotus Lake. We have long standing membership with an average time of home ownership for our current members of approximately 16 years. We have always been good stewards of the lake and shoreline. We, the Near Mountain Lake Association, are requesting a variance to allow a second seasonal, 50 foot dock on the southern portion of our Association's recreational beach lot (Outlot B) on Lotus Lake as shown in figure 2. Further, we request 4 boat slips per dock for a total of 8 slips. Currently, a single 50 foot seasonal dock is used for 3 boats on the southern portion of the lot. Under See. 20-266 of the Chanhassen City Code: "(7) The maximum number of docks on a recreational beach lot is three. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless the beach meets the following conditions: a. Shoreline of at least 200 feet per dock; and b. Area of at least 30,000 square feet for the first dock and additional 20,000 square feet for each additional dock." Outlot B has 600 feet of shoreline and an area of 46000 square feet according to City of Chanhassen records. This is likely based on a survey from the early 1980's (figure 2). A more recent survey was conducted in 2005 which shows the area to be 38350 square feet (figure 3). We believe the reduction in area may be a result of settling. We have never added fill to the northern two thirds of Outlot B where it appears we have lost land area (compare figures 2 and 3). Had we added fill over the years, we may have maintained the earlier size, however we have chosen to respect the natural state of the land. We have enough shoreline to support 2 and even 3 docks, however we are short of the required 50000 square feet for 2 docks. We are asking for a variance that will permit the use of a second dock in spite of the square foot shortage. The southern portion of shoreline where the current dock is used and where we propose to locate the second dock is not in a designated wetland area. Only the northern 150 feet of shoreline on Outlot B is wetland according to the National Wetland Inventory. Precedents: We believe exceptions from city code regarding shoreline use have been granted for other Lotus Lake associations. Some examples are: 1. The Lotus Lake Betterment Association (Sandy Hook) has a recreational lot of unknown area with a shoreline of 25 feet (figure 4). They are well short of the 200 foot SCANNED shoreline requirement but have a permit for a 100 foot dock with no stated boat limit. Typically, they have approximately 6 boats moored at the dock. 2. Lotus Lake Estates Association (Choctaw) has a large beachlot of 92700 square feet and 900 feet of shoreline (figure 5). They have a permit for three docks which falls within the city code requirements, but the permit also allows them to have 4 sailboat moorings. This exceeds the city code sec; 20-266 which states, "Up to three sailboat moorings shall be allowed." 3. Kurver's Point Association has two docks with a total of 10 slips. They have 56000 square feet with 460 feet of shoreline (figure 6). This is sufficient for 2 docks, but the code states, "(6) No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three motorized or nomnotorized watercraft per dock." 4. Fox Chase/Lotus Lake Dock and Trail Association has one large permanent dock on the lot of 732 Lake Point. This dock has 7 slips for the 7 homes along the DNR protected wetland on the northwest shoreline (figure 7). Again, die number of boat slips exceeds that allowed by the city code. These are 4 associations that have been granted dock usage beyond the requirements of the city code. There may be other examples as well. We believe that our request for 2 simple straight docks, 50 feet in length that will allow 4 boat slips per dock for a total of 8 boat slips meets the general conditions for a variance sec 20-58: I ) We are asking for reasonable use as other associations have been granted. 2) Recreational beach lot requirements suggest a variance is needed. 3) We are making this request only for enjoyment of the lake. 4) Our hardship is not self-created 5) Variance will not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to other land. The shoreline will remain natural and undisturbed. No water orshore vegetation will be disturbed. 6) a. street congestion will not be increased. Outlot B is within 500 feet of all home lots (walking distance). b. visibility is not affected c. fire danger is not increased d. public safety is not diminished e. neighboring property values are not impaired We will continue to be good stewards of the lake and the shoreline. We will continue to preserve the northern two-thirds of Outl6t B and it's shoreline in its undisturbed natural state (figure 8). Respectfully submitted, Near Mountain Lake Association SCANNED oe z 0 w > .w LLI 20 4. 0 0 Z, 10 ,x MOE m Z�-. R 0 . flz-� W4 w Vo cr 0 a ioiino --a 1011110 z lip, oe z 0 w > .w LLI 20 4. 0 0 Z, 10 ,x MOE m Z�-. R 0 . flz-� W4 w Vo cr 0 Z' I o .*. el IM -N 2 SCANNED I IN lip, Z' I o .*. el IM -N 2 SCANNED I IN cr lf7 40 t� Lij WA I cs E At ST S lklb. 0- 0 lelo > '10A/ 4 SCANNED 91 w LL 354" 301 -40 39(13 3HL 01 AS :FOGC'gV NnOINOO MHO 3KL 01 -AS T-OOO'LZ - Y3NV 3NV-1 snioi SCANNED m LL Print Data/Map Page I of I Ft&( -)RE- q SCANNED http://156.99.124.167/website/parcel search/printdatamap.asp?PID=252400320 4/14/2006 Print Data/Map Page I of I F*o4, SCANNED hftp://] 56.99.124.167/website/parcel_search/printdatamap. asp? PID=2 54200461 4/11/2006 Print Data/Map Page I of I FI& A P, �6 SCANNED http://156.99.124.167/wcbsite/parcel search/printdatamap.asp?PID=253920320 4/11/2006 Print Data/Map PID# 252700160 Page I of I I �gc.d ".J..'. fted Ted Property Address: Taxpayer Information: us 732 LAKE PT TERRY D & DEBRA L VOGT CHANHASSEN,MN 732 LAYF PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 cum C" PAN [Parcel Properties LAn FF�;Wfftlsd Year Bunt: 1988 Homestead: Y Residential Footprint Sq Ft-. 2434 Pass School District: 0276 Color jPareel Location =ip�l .: 116 =1001 Range: 023 �11 FOX CHASE F—ayable Year 2007 FLast Sale Information FILE E:tt: I.rkett VV:Ioe Land: $530600 it .1 E M.r . I &a t. M:,kt Value Building: S509300 Eat Mae Map Created: 4-11-2006 FE.tMarktValuo Total: $1039900 ICARVER COUNTY GIS DISCLAIMER: This map was mated using Ca�er County's Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various City, County, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be I used as a reference. Carver County is not responsible for my inaccuracies contained hmin- f--(GrjixE- 1 http://156.99.124.167/website/parcel_search/printdatamap.asp?PID=252700160 SCANNED 4/11/2006 Print Data/Map Page I of I SCAN -4 ED http://156.99.124.167/website/parcel_searclVprintdatamap.asp?PID=2573001 10 4/14/2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) 1, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on May 4, 2006, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Near Mountain Lake Association Recreational Beachlot Conditional Use Permit and Variance — Planning Case 06-20 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. 4�' Kar An J. Engv dt, Del ouy Clerk Subscribed and swom to before me this '�' day of 2006. M14 Notary Pl��. KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota My C,,ftnim Egilm JM 31,2010 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council hambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a Variance and Conditional Use Permit for the Proposal: addition of a second dock — Planning Case 06-20. Applicant: Near Mountain Lake Association Property Northeast side of Lotus Lake off Pleasant View Road (Outlot B, Location: Reichert's Addition). A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/i)lan/06-20.htm]. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Lori Haak by email at lhaak@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952- Questions & 227-1135. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the I Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, aff in or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezorings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota state statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete, Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersontrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available to review the project with any interested persons). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included In the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agen a. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Variance and Conditional Use Permit for the Proposal: addition of a second dock — Planning Case 06-20. Applicant: Near Mountain Lake Association Property Northeast side of Lotus Lake off Pleasant View Road (Clutlot B, Locatiom Reichert's Addition). A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1 Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2'. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/sery/plan/­06-20.htmi. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Lori Haak by email at Ihaak@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952 - Questions & 227-1135. Ii you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations. Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 5oo feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, aff irm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercialfindustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spolkesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council lfyouwlshtohave something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. — !Akelulls This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a sumey and is not intended to be used w me, This mea is a compilation Of records. information and data ocated in various cry, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the was Mom, and is to be used for reference puToees only. The City does not mmart that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are emar free, and the City does not represent that the CIS Data can be used for navigatioraij. twl,mg or my other Purpose requiring 1,tacting meastinerniint of distance or direction or praosion in Me depiction of geographic features. N emom or discrapancies are found please contact 952-�7-1107. The Preceding deciainnern; pro,,idedl bursuant to Minnesota Statutes OW.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and Me user of this map ackn.Wedges that the City shall not be liable far any damages, and eVressly mives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and hold harmless the City from any and all claim brought by User, its employees; or agents, or third pardes ,ihich anse but of the user's accesi; or use of data pmided. Lakeluis, This mad, is rainier a legally recorded map no, a survey and,s M intended to be used w one. This Map is a connivilation of records, information and data located in vanous city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding Me area an., and is to he used for isfenance purposes only, The City does not warrant that Me Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepary this map are error free, and the City does not represent that fine GIS Data can be used! far navigational, tnooldng of any other purpose requiring exachno measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If mors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The Phei�edjng disclaimer is Promoted! pursuant to Minnesola Statutes §465.03, Subc. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acluioMedges Mat the City shall nor the liable for any damages, and evressly mives all diums, and agrees to defend, indammity, and hdd harmess the City from my and all claims bropOt by User. its employees; or agents, or Mind parties m,ch area out of the users access; or use of data provided ALAN & ANNABEL FOX ALAN & LINDA K KRAMER ALFRED A & SUSAN K HENDERSON 7300 LAREDO DR 531 INDIAN HILL RD 7330 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9608 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9533 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7521 ANDREW H & KATRINA E CLEMENS 6691 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 ANN HOGAN & 481 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9298 ARLIS A BOVY 7339 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9796 BLAIR PETER ENTENMANN & 7407 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9722 BRIAN H &JEANNE M BATZLI 100 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9580 CARMELA V RICHARDS 7320 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7521 CHARLES C & JANET C HURD 6695 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 CHRISTOPHER & TRACEY RUST 7500 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8576 ANDREW J & LINDA M HOFMEISTER 6653 MERRY PL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4607 ANNE F JONES 480 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8801 BARBARA L HEDLUND 10014 INDIGO DR EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347-1206 BRACE D HELGESON 7820 TERREY PINE CT EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347-1126 BRUCE A & JODI L NORD 551 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9533 CARVER BEACH PROPERTIES 332 2ND ST EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-1806 CHARLES F LEINBERGER JR & 6655 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 CHRISTOPHER K LARUS & 7018 DAKOTA Cl R CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9581 ANN DANIELSON 6607 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 ANTHONY G & SALLY A HEARD 510 PLEASANTVIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9437 BEVERLY H THOMAS 745 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9509 BRIAN C & KRISTEN L APPLEGATE 7350 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7521 CARL B FITZSIMMONS & 7480 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9503 CATHERINE S HISCOX 7500 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7903 CHARLES R &JUDY L PETERSON 708 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9284 CHRISTOPHER S PELLETIER & 6420 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9277 CONSTANCE M CERVILLA CRAIG N HANSEN & CURT R & SHELLY A SCHWIESO 650 CARVER BEACH RD 6430 FOX PATH 6681 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-2101 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9277 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 CURTIS G & CHERI L ANDERSON DANIEL A & MARILYN DANIEL L ROBBINS & 500 PLEASANT VIEW RD BOECKERMANN 6375 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9437 104 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9580 DANNY J & BRENDA L VATLAND 7290 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7518 DAVID E & CAROLYN M WETTERLIN 7420 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9503 DAVID M & LAURIE C SUSLA 7409 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9722 DAVID W & BEVERLY J KOPISCHKE 6675 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 DENNIS J & TONIE FLAHERTY 7004 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9583 DORIS A ROCKWELL 6677 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 DOUGLAS J & LANA HABERMAN 520 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9437 ERNEST F PIVEC 5060 MEADVILLE ST EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8788 DAVID A & PATRICIA L PREVES 106 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9580 DAVID FRANKLIN LABADIE & 489 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9576 DAVID 0 & RACHEL A [GEL 501 BIG WOODS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4504 DEAN T & SUSAN L STANTON 500 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8805 DENNIS ZHU & 716 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9284 DOUGLAS H & JEANNE E MACLEAN 7280 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7518 EILEEN T KELLY 740 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-92134 FRANCIS J HOFMEISTER & 7645 GIBRALTER TER APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-6123 DAVID B SANFORD & 6440 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9277 DAVID M & JOANNA POINAR 7303 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9608 DAVID R & VALERIE L ROSSBACH 670 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9509 DENNIS C & JANIS I FISHER 7501 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7903 DONALD N & CAROL J MEHL 490 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MIN 55317-8801 DOUGLAS J & ELIZABETH K BITNEY 6645 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 EMILY H JOHNSON 335 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9524 FRANK W JR & MARGARET M HETMAN 7014 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9582 FRANKLIN J & MYRNA A KURVERS FREDERIC OELSCHLAGER ETAL FRONTIER TRAIL ASSN 7220 KURVERS POINT RD 7410 CHANHASSEN RD 201 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7518 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9503 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9728 GARY J SCHNEIDER & GARY M SCHELITZCHE GEORGE J & DIANNE H PRIEDITIS 640 PLEASANT VIEW RD 680 PLEASANT VIEW RD 7401 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9509 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9722 GREG & MARIA LINDSLEY 500 BIG WOODS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4504 HENRY & SANDRA NEILS 7012 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9583 JAMES K MCCLEARY 6661 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 JANICE L ANDRUS 449 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9576 JOHN & BEVERLY RYAN 6685 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 JOHN M & SANDRA L CUNNINGHAM 6665 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 JOHN R & CAROL W HAMMETT 6697 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 JON ALAN LANG 640 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9428 GREGORY DEAN CRAY 200 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9728 HERBERT N & CAROLYN BLOOMBERG 7008 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9583 JAMES R & KATHRYN A DREESEN 6379 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 JAY H & SHELLEY H STROHMAIER 80 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9312 JOHN C LEE 7337 FRONTIER TRIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9796 JOHN P & JANE THIELEN 665 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9509 JOHN T & RUTH E SCHEVENIUS 570 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9437 JOSEPH J & CHRISTINE K STONE 6370 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-9109 HAROLD G & KATHRYN M DAHL 6631 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 JAHN A DYVIK 610 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327 JAMES T & DIANE S LESTOR 429 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9576 JEFFREY W & MARY L BORNS 7199 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9605 JOHN E NICOLAY JR 608 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327 JOHN P & SUZANNE D BOHN 6377 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 JOHN W SCHNEIDER JR 6340 SUMMIT CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9138 JOSEPH M & MARGERY M PFANKUCH 6611 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 KALLEY T YANTA KEITH M & MARY BETH HOFFMAN KENTON D KELLY 365 PLEASANT VIEW RD 6470 FOX PATH 6539 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9524 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9279 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9247 KEVIN & LINDA SHARKEY KEVIN A & LEANNE M BENSON KURVERS POINT HOMEOWNER 6900 ROLLING ACRES RD ASSN 620 PLEASANT VIEW RD 7240 CHANHASSEN RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9681 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9503 LADD R & SUSAN M CONRAD LARRY A & JULIE M KOCH LARRY P MON 6625 HORSESHOE CRV 471 BIGHORN DR 4909 PAYTON CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9298 EDINA, MN 55435-1544 LINDAWILKES LORNA G TARNOWSKI LOTUS LAKE BETTERMENT ASSN 7632 SOUTH SHORE DR 7405 FRONTIER TRL 105 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9400 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9722 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9580 LOTUS LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSN LOWELL A & NANCY W JOBE LUC[ M HARTERT PO BOX 63 109 SANDY HOOK RD 6371 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0063 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9580 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 MARK C & NANCY A ENGASSER MARK LOREN OLSON & MARK 0 & SUZANNE SENN 7000 DAKOTA 536 PLEASANT VIEW RD 7160 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9583 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7514 MARY J SILL MATHEW P ARENS & MATTHEW T & LISA A KOEPPEN 6385 OXBOW BND 7644 SOUTH SHORE DR 5410 GROVE ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9400 EDINA, MN 55436-2210 MELVIN &JACQUELINE D KURVERS MICHAEL & DEBRA HAYDOCK MICHAEL & KATHRYN SCHWARTZ 7240 KURVERS POINT RD 6460 FOX PATH 469 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7518 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9279 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9576 MICHAEL A & CYNTHIA A COLSON MICHAEL A & JANET A STANZAK MICHAEL CARR & 6373 OXBOW BND 724 LAKE PT 6369 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9284 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 MICHAEL R & JODY SCHEPERS MICHELE M KOPFMANN & NANCY A ENGASSER 540 PLEASANT VIEW RD 7415 FRONTIER TRL 7000 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9437 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9722 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9583 NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSN INC NEIL & BARBARA GOODWIN NICHOLAS J VASSALLO & 610 PLEASANT VIEW RD 7310 KURVERS POINT RD 6669 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7521 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 PAT H FITZSIMMONS & PATRICIA A PAULS PATRICK F & KATHRYN A PAVELKO 7400 CHANHASSEN RD 11010 OREGON CRV 7203 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9503 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438-2806 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9605 PAUL F & LISA T HUBER 6663 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 PAUL L & DESTINI MOLITOR 748 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9284 PETER J & KATHERINE S DAHL 220 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9728 RICHARD J & EUNICE M PETERS 7301 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9608 ROBERT FLYNN & 40 HILL ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9586 ROBERT M & ANETTE R BARNHART 6330 SUMMIT CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9138 ROLF G ENGSTROM & 7201 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9605 SAMUEL G & LAURIE J CURNOW 650 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9509 PAUL G & KELLEY E KOSMIDES 7636 SOUTH SHORE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9400 PAUL T EIDSNESS & 4395 TRILLIUM LN W MOUND, MN 55364-7713 PHILIP 0 & LUDMILLA J ISAACSON 6633 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 ROBERT B & SUE MIDNESS 112 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9580 ROBERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN 7343 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9796 ROBERT P BIRDWELL & 7016 DAKOTA C I R CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9581 RONALD C & SHAWN P HAINES 7340 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7521 SCOTT & JULIE MAEYAERT 7506 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7903 PAUL J & KARI J ROMPORTL 7417 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9722 PETER A MOSCATELLI 102 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9580 RAYMOND P & ALICIA L BROZOVICH 6609 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 ROBERT F & DIANA L DAVIS 6387 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 ROBERT IAN AMICK 581 FOX HILL DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9538 ROGER & MARJORIE L KARJALAHTI 7413 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9722 RONALD E HARVIEUX & 6605 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 SCOTT J & DENISE B SMITH 30 HILL ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9586 SEAN & MELINDA FITZGERALD SEYMOUR S RESNIK STATE OF MINNESOTA -DNR 630 PLEASANT VIEW RD 7370 KURVERS POINT RD 500 LAFAYETTE RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7521 ST PAUL, MN 55155-4030 STEPHEN J & JEANNIE L WANEK STEVEN A & BETH A MCAULEY STEVEN A & CAROL K DONEN 6615 HORSESHOE CRV 20 HILL ST 7341 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9586 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9796 STEVEN F & PATRICIA L STAMY 491 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9298 STEVEN T JENKS 7490 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9503 SUSAN R APPLEGATE 7360 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7521 THOMAS & MARILYN PALMBY 114 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9580 THOMAS M & NANCY S SEIFERT 600 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327 THOMAS V & DARLEEN TURCOTTE 108 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MIN 55317-9580 TIMOTHY C SAMUELSON & 6381 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 STEVEN M & MONICA M POSNICK 7010 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-9583 STEVEN T MESTITZ & 7200 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7514 T MICHAEL MILLER & 6350 SUMMIT CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9138 THOMAS A & JUDY R MEIER 695 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN. MIN 55317-9509 THOMAS M & SUSAN J HUBERTY 6450 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MIA 55317-9277 THOMAS W & PAMELA C DEVINE PO BOX 714 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0714 TIMOTHY J & DIANE A MCHUGH 7450 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MIN 55317-9503 STEVEN M GULLICKSON & 6613 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 SUNRISE HILLS 7340 LONGVIEW CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9797 TERRY ID & DEBRA L VOGT 732 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9284 THOMAS F III & KAREN M CONBOY 6383 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 THOMAS R & AMY B EDSTROM 10 HILL ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9586 THOMAS W HAROLD 7411 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9722 TODD L & PATRICIA A FROSTAID 561 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9533 TODD R MAGILL & WILLIAM & IVY KIRKVOLD WILLIAM & MARJORIE SPLIETHOFF 20433 CHERYL DR 201 FRONTIER CT 4041 GULF SHORE BLVD N #312 TORRANCE, CA 90503-1815 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9728 NAPLES, FL 34103-3422 Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet + Riparian) Near Mountain Lake Association Beachlot Outlot B, Reichert's Addition Planning Case No. 06-20 City of Chanhassen Subject CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 0�13 aup 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for: A recreational beachlot 2. Property. The permit is for the following described property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: I Outlot B, Reichert's Addition 3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Article 5-9-11 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. No alteration to the existing site shall be permitted. There shall be no use of chemical kill or dredging in the wetland without an additional wetland alteration permit, DNR and City Council approval. 3. The recreational beachlot is limited to the installation of 1 dock and 1 canoe rack. 4. The beachlot shall be maintained by the Near Mountain Lake Association. 5. A "slow - no wake" buoy shall be installed and maintained -by- the homeowners association. 6. There shall be no launching of motorized boats or boats that require a trailer from the beachlot. 4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing under any of the following circumstances: material change of condition of the neighborhood where the use is located; violation of the terms of the permit. 5. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated:—August 3, 1987 CITY OF CHANHASSEN By-, I�9'Wayor 21 By: a. �p STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The f nstrument was acknowledged before me this Qge day of n=�—' 19_L7, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and Don AshMorth, City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. C-�IAX-Z,v� NotAry Puvc 1, �"N J. ENGFLP�IARIDT E SOTA .4 M1 .y pU,.3LIC . UNNESOTA OUNTY %r,�CFI C ,2" —ont �x� e '91 Rev.CMM/9-Z3-80 CITY OF CRANHASSEN ONTXC_7= AT LOTUS LAKE AND AT LOTUS LAKE SECOND ADDITION This permit and agreement, made and entered into this day of 7k_,ve� , 19VI , by and between Bloomberg Z!ompanies Incorporated, and To-tus Ea—ke Betterment Association, Inc., (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Applicant), and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the City); WITNESSETH: That the City, in exercise of its powers pursuant to M.S. Chapter 412 & 462, and the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, hereby grants to the Applicant herein a non -conforming use permit to maintain and operate a private neighborhood association recreational area upon Outlot A, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition, Carver County, Minnesota (hereinafter Outlot A), subject to the following terms and conditions, all of which shall be strictly complied with as being necessary for the protection of the public interest: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01 Prio tin Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake. Prior JOEto the ado ojatfi� ghanfhassen Zoning Ordinance Fordinance 47 adopted February 8, 1972), the plat of Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake (hereinafter the First Addition) was filed with the Carver County Minnesota Registrar of Titles. Said plat included two outlots designated thereon as Outlots 1 and 2. 1.02 Prior Usa! of utlot 1- Said Outlot 1 included frontage iia 2 _ 2 on Lotus Lake, a has'since the time of platting of the First Addition, been continuously used by the residents of the First Addition as a lake access, boat launching area, swimming beach, tennis and recreation area; and as such constitutes a "recreational area" operated by a residential neighborhood association for which a conditional use permit is required under section 7.04 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 1.03 Status of Outlot 1 as a Non -Conforming Use. Because the establishment of said recreational area pre -dates the adoption of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, said recreational area constitutes a non -conforming use, the expansion of which is prohibitied by section 20 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, unless a conditional use permit has been obtained first from the City for such expansion. 1.04 Plat� nAn3 yRf Th Bloomberg, as the owner tF 1: Second Addition. of Outlots 1 a First Addition, has made application to the City for the approval of the plat of Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition (hereinafter the Second Addition). By said plat, Outlots 1 and 2 in the First Addition are divided, so as to create 31 new lots and one new outlot, designated as Outlot A. Said Outlot A encompasses that portion of the First Addition which has been and is now being utilized as the aforementioned recreational area. Bloomberg means Bloomberg Companies Incorporated. 1.05 Conveyance of Outlot A to Association. Bloomberg, as the owner of Outlot A, has informed tne UJ�_tythat it has incorporated the Lotus Lake Betterment Association, Inc. (hereinafter the Association) as non-profit corporation to which Bloomberg will convey ownership of Outlot A. Bloomberg has informed the City that neither it nor the Association will make any alteration of said Outlot A, and that said Outlot A will be made available the residents of the First Addition, and the Second Addition, and to the residents of so-called John C. Lovetang tract (more particularly described in the documents filed in the office of the Carver County Recorder at Book 83, page 23, and Book 84, page 215). 1.06 Purpose of This Permit. The within permit has been drafted for the purpose of memorializing both those recreational uses which may be conducted by the Applicant upon Outlot A in the absence of the issuance of a conditional use permit and those activities which would constitute an expansion of the use of said Outlot A, and thus, require the Applicant to seek a conditional use permit from the City prior to any such expansion. Section 2. Special Conditions. 2.01 Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal to the Applicant and to the Association, and is not assignable or transferable except upon the written consent of the City. 2.02 Release of Bloomberg. The City, upon written request, shall release Blo-omberg from its obligations hereunder upon receipt of documentation which demonstrates a) the proper incorporation of the Association pursuant to Chapter 317 of Minnesota Statutes, and b) the conveyance of title to the Subject Property in fee simple to the Association for the benefit of all owners of lots in the First Addition, the Second Addition, and the above described John C. Lovetang tract. No such release shall be given until such documentation has been approved by the City Attorney as to legal sufficiency. No such release as to Bloomberg shall have the effect of releasing the Association from its obligations, covenants, and agreements hereunder. 2.03 RiittIs211�d r !his Permit NotoEx?g2dgbl: to Other Owners. s sui �! fo f -one This permit d r the benerit rs of the torty lots in the First Addition, the thirty-one lots in the Second Addition, and the one homesite in the above described John C. Lovetang tract. The Applicant agrees that the use and enjoyment of Outlot A shall be limited to said owners. The use and enjoyment Of Outlot A may not extend to persons other than such owners. The term "owners" as utilized in this §2.03 shall mean and refer to any natural person who is either a) the record owner of a fee simple interest, or b) the record owner of a contract for deed vendee's interest, or c) the holder of any possessory leasehold -2- Rev.CMM/9/23-80 interest, in the whole of any such lot or tract, including authorized guests and family members of any such persons. In the event that the above described First Addition lots, Second Addition lots, or John C. Lovetang tract are further divided subsequent to the date of this permit, the Association shall not extend usage rights to the owners of the resultant parcels unless a conditional use permit for a recreational area shall have been first obtained from the City Council. 2.04 Desc i fw��o,��rity �j��ct to This Permit. The JtF lin lorly premises sUS—JEcitptEPEde coilforminq use pei7mit are described as follows: Outlot A, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County, Minnesota. 2.05 No Alteration of Outlot A. No portion of Outlot A shall be developed, altered, or disturbed in any way, except after first having obtained a conditional use permit from the Chanhassen City Council for any such development, alteration, or disturbance. F r th� purposes of this permit, normal maintenance of the existing 00ve-04vd--td foot dock and the existing tennis court and other i�x—isting improvements, normal maintenance and routine mowing of existing improved lawn areas on Outlot A shall not be deemed to be an alteration requiring issuance of a City permit. 2.06 Swi MiRg �!nd ptcnicing. Outlot A may be used for tennis, swimming purpoNs and pi nicing purposes by "owners" as that term is defined in section 2.03 above. 2.07 Buildings. No buildings, ice fishing houses, tool sheds, or tents may be erected or stored upon Outlot A. 2.08 Mooring Buoys. No mooring buoys shall be placed upon Outlot A O�rin the waters adjacent to Outlot A. 2.09 Airplanes. No airplane or seaplane shall be driven upon, taxied upon, or parked upon Outlot A. No seaplane shall be moored in the waters adjacent to Outlot A. 2.10 swimmAE eglaatI2 M n� hE s, Neither the Applicant nor any owner as hereinaFoie a 11 erect or maintain any swimming or diving platform on Outlot A or within the waters adjacent to Outlot A. 2.11 Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for the construction of a chain link boundaFy—fence not exceeding rive meet in height, no structure may be constructed or erected upon Outlot A. No docks, piers, boat racks, or canoe racks shall be constructed or erected upon Outlot A or in the waters abutting Outlot A. 2.12 Camping Prohibited. No owner, as defined hereinabove, or other person shall camp overnight on Outlot A. -3- 2.13 Motor Vehicle Parking. No motor vehicle or trailer shall be parked or stored overnight or on a permanent basis on Outlot A. Section 3. Miscellaneous. 3.01 SeveEabi - In the event any provisions of this permit shall be h -e -l -T- iii;�iij lld� illegal, or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 3.02 Execution of Counterparts. This permit may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. 3.03 Headings. Headings at the beginning of sections and paragraphs hereoF-are for convenience of reference, and shall not be considered a part of the test of this permit, and shall not influence its construction. 3.04 Proof of Title. Upon request, the Association shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has acquired fee title to Outlot A. 3.05 Notices. All notices, certificates and other communications hereunder hall be sufficiently gi.ven and shall be deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, with proper address as indicated below. The City and the Applicant, by written notice given by one to the other, may designate any address or addresses to which notices, certificates or other communications to them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this permit. Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties, all notices, certificates, and communications to each of them shall be addressed as follows: To the City: City of Chanhassen City Hall 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attn: City Manager To Bloomberg: Bloomberg Companies Incorporated 551 West 78th St Chanhassen, MN 55317 To the Associa- tion: Lotus Lake Betterment Association, Inc. c/o Bloomberg Companies Incorporated 551 West 78th St Chanhassen, MN 55317 3.06 owners to be Notified of This Permit. The Association shall furnish each of its members with a copy of this permit within thirty (30) days of any such member's initial membership in the Association. -4- 3.07 Term of This Permit. This permit snall be perpetual. Section 4. Enforcement Provisions. 4.01 Reimbursement of Costs. The Applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs, including reasonable engineering, legal, planning and administrative Eqoenses incurred by the City in connection with all matters relating to the administration and enforcement of the within permit and the performance thereby by the Applicant. Such reimbursement shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of the City's notice of costs as provided in S3.05 above. The Applicant's reimbursement obligation under this section shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term of this permit. 4.02 legal P goce��qings. The City may institute any proper action or proc�e3 14 at law or at equity to prevent violations of the within permit or to restrain or abate violations of the within permit. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed on this day of aLtAc--- 19.61 . BLOOMBERG COMPANIES INCORPORATED LOTUS LAKE BETTERMENT ASSOCIATION, INC By its And its - By Z1 a ef�' its And its I j - N CITY OF_C ANHASSE By 1—t—s mayor ATTEST: City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) 0 01 )ss 0 �i COUNTY OF U �� , ! z 0 ZK6 0 on this IS!�� day of �4 C& 19,31 .0 U before me, a notarT p�blic, within and for said County, pei:sonally appeared t(e43-�+ Fi. and w, AA i(o3fri! z X 4-W to me personally known, who, befin eich by me duly sworn did say U �Ull U that they are respectively the and U, L-A 0 0 of Bloomberg Companies Incorporated, and that said instrument was zi Zi signed in behalf of �ai� corporation by authority it its Board of Directors, and said 94-�f Aj. Atmoj-.� and vi - vU acknowledged said insErumenE to be the xree act and sata corporation. Ao-lk-It-c- /7 Fc-� Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF GA-OXG-n- ) On this <'- day of -11� � G-- I 19t) , before me, a notary public, within and for said county, personally appeared and I., - �u I !h"Z to me per y ing eacri by me orn, did say sona kaI�Wc� be dM that they are respectively the and of Lotus Lake Betterment Association, Inc., and that sTJ!Ln tf:rtm—en-t was signed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and said �AJIL�� �J,�-UQJ and tu- 6U. nAt 4�� acknowledged said instrument to be free act and deed of said corporation. 0 AnA � -0- -1 LEANNA M. FORC;ER CARVER COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA) 1��NIYNOTARY PUBLIC-MINNCSOTA MY CC.MM SSION EXPI�. FEB. 18. 1988 ss COUNTY OF On this 16-11 day of 19 before me, a notary public within Ahd for said county, personally appeared Tom Hamilton and Donald W. Ashworth, to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are 'respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its City Council, and said Tom Hamilton and Donald W. Ashworth acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. A otary Public . . ..... KAREN J. �LHARDT NOTARY P :.I NESOTA Ty PEP OFF F:0,06*�— a M. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA IN RE: Application ofColonial Gr FINDINGS OF FACT Homeowners AssoMnCMTT Mf Du AND DECISION Won -Conforming Use Permit On September 13, 1993, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to reconsider the Application of the colonial Grove Homeowners Association for a Non -Conforming Use Permit for the Colonial Grove Recreational Beachlot. Specifically, the Application, submitted pursuant to Section 20- 79 of the City of Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, is to amend the existing permit by establishing a baseline use of Colonial Grove's dock for purposes of mooring boats overnight. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed non -conforming use preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from the Colonial Grove Homeowners Association, the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association, Inc., and all other interested persons wishing to speak. Based on the hearings conducted and the evidence received, the City Council now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the property is currently zoned R-1. 2. On June 15, 1981, the City of Chanhassen granted to Bloomberg Companies Incorporated and Lotus Lake Betterman Association, Inc., a non -conforming use permit to maintain and operate a private neighborhood association recreational area, hereinafter referred to as Colonial Grove Recreational Beachlot. Said non -conforming use permit neither expressly nor impliedly refers to the number of boats which were moored at the beachlot overnight in 1981 or the amount which would be permitted in the future. 3. On February 24, 1992, the Chanhassen City Council amended Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning non- conforming beachlots. The amendment to Section 20-79 requires non -conforming recreational beachlots to apply for a permit. Said permits are issued upon receipt of satisfactory proof concerning the nature and extent of the legal non-conforminq use. 4. Due to the pre-existing permit obtained by the Colonial Grove Recreational Beachlot in 1981, the only issue which is considered in the current application is the nature and extent of the proposed non -conforming use of the Colonial Grove Recreational Beachlot dock for overnight mooring of boats. 8TR 5. The survey which was taken by the City Lake Study Committee in 1981 and indicates that there were never more than three boats moored overnight at the dock. This evidence provides the most accurate benchmark and serves as satisfactory proof that no more than three boats were moored overnight in 1981. The accuracy of the survey is supported by the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association, Inc. letter dated July 20, 1993 and signed by past and current Board members. Further proof is provided by the eight affidavits of Georgette Sosin, Harvey Parker, John Wanielson, Raymond Brizorra, Leann Hanreiux, Linda Sathre, Mary Jean Totino and Alisha Srozovich, all of which state that there were never more than three boats moored overnight at the dock in 1981. The Applicant's presentation of five affidavits of Colonial Grove occupants in support of their position that there were eight boats which used the dock for overnight mooring in 1981 is not satisfactory proof. The recollection of these five residents is overcome by the evidence that there was never more than three boats moored overnight in 1981. Based on the foregoing, the City Council of Chanhassen makes the following: DECISION 1. The non -conforming use of the Colonial Grove Recreational Beachlot for overnight mooring of boats did not exceed three (3) boats in 1981. The non -conforming use permit shall be amended to describe the allowed use of the Colonial Grove Recreational Beachlot dock for the overnight storage of a Maximum of three (3) boats. Ad t d by the Chanhassen City council this 13 day of 1993. CIT SSEN By: ?Dn_aAt1!d= J. mi ayor ATTEST' ;U QLO_�_ n Ashworth, C�y Manager 8777 CPA= CITY OF CHANHASSEN RESTATED CONDITTOMAI-LIg LA BEACHLOT-i'LOTUS LAK�E� This restated conditional use permit and agreement made and entered into this 7th day of July, 1986, by Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association (hereinafter the "Association"), and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City"); WITNESSETH: That the City, in exercise of its powers pursuant to M.S. §462.357, and other applicable state law, and §14 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, hereby grants to the Association herein a restated conditional use permit to maintain and operate a private neighborhood association recreational area upon Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, Carver County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Subject Property"), subject to the following terms and conditions, all'of which shall be strictly complied with as being necessary for the protection of the public interest. SECTION 1. RECITALS. 1.01. Prior Platting of Lotus Lake Estates. BT Land Company (hereinafter "BT") has previously platted tract of land in the City as Lotus Lake Estates, consisting of 44 residential lots and 3 outlots. 1.02. Outlot B. In connection with the platting of said Lotti—sLake Estates, BT entered into a development contract with the City of Chanhassen, dated January 5, 1979, wherein BT agreed to organize a homeowners association for the purpose of owning and operating the Subject Property for the benefit of the owners of properties lying within said plat. Section 28 of said develop- ment contract provided that BT suffer no alterations of the Subject Property except after first having obtained a permit from the City setting forth a plan for the alteration and development of the Subject Property. Said Section 28 also provides that, for purposes of said development contract, said permit would be deemed to be a conditional use permit and that the application process and pro- cedure would be as set forth in Section 23 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, which sets forth the application procedure for actual conditional use permits. 1.03. Homeowners Association. BT incorporated the Asso—ciation for—the purpose of acquiring and maintaining certain common properties including the Subject Property for the benefit of the owners of lots in the plat of Lotus Lake Estates. 1.04. March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit. Upon appli- cation of BT, the Chanhassen City Council on July 21, 1980, approved the issuance of a permit for the alteration of the Subject Property. Said permit, entitled �'Conditional Use Permit Beachlot - Lotus Lake Estates", was executed by BT and the Association on March 10, 1981. 1.05. June 1, 1981 Application for Amendment of Permit. On Ju—ne 1, 1981-, the Association, with the knowledge and consent of BT, filed with the City an application for amendment of the March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit, requesting City approval of further development of the Subject Property. l.o6. City Council Approval. on August 12, 1981, the City7"-s—Plann in—gCommi ss ion held a public hearing on said June 1, 1981, application and approved issuance of a revised permit authorizing further development of the Subject Property. 1.07. April 22, 1982 Conditional Use Permit. The above described March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit was superceded by the Conditional Use Permit executed on April 22, 1982. 1.08. July 18, 1984 Application for Amendment of Permit. On July 18, 19 , the Association filed with the City an appli- cation for amendment of the Restated Conditional Use Permit requesting City approval of further development of the Subject Property. 1.09. City Council Approval. On August 8, 1984, the CitiT-i—Plannin—gCommission held a public hearing on said July 18, 1984 application. On August 20, 1984, the City's Board of Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing and approved a variance to allow four sailboat moorings. The City Council, by its motion of November 19, 1984, approved issuance of a revised permit authorizing the installation of said moorings. 1.10. May, 1986 Application for Amendment of Permit. The Citi —of Chanha—ssen initiated a Conditional Use Permit Amendment application requesting further development of the Subject Property. 1.11. City Council Approval. On May 28, 1986, the City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment appli- cation. On July 7, 1986, the City Council approved the issuance of a revised permit authorizing further development of the Subject Property. SECTION 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS. 2.01. Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal to t—heAssocia n, and is not assignable or transferable, except upon the written consent of the City. -2- 2.02. Rights Under This Permit Not Expandable to Other Owners. This permit is issued for the benefit of the owners of the 44 lots in Lotus Lake Estates. The Association agrees that the use and enjoyment of the Subject Property shall be limited to the owners of lots in Lotus Lake Estates. The use and enjoyment of the Subject Property may not extend to persons other than such owners. The term "owners" as utilized in this §2.02 shall mean and refer to any natural person who is either (a) the record owner of fee simple interest, or (b) the recorder owner of a contract for deed vendee's interest, or (c) the holder of any possessory leasehold interest, in the whole of any lot in Lotus Lake Estates, including authorized guests and family members of any such persons. 2.03. Description of Property Subject To This Permit. The premises subject to the within conditional use permit are described as follows: Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County, Minnesota. 2.04. Certain Site Alterations Authorized. The ASso�c_iation is—hereby authorized to install the following improvements on the Subject Property: a. One sand blanket swim area, as shown on the revised plan, Exhibit A, dated June 25, 1986, said swim area to be marked with a minimum of three anchored "swim area" buoys that are in accordance with the Uniform Waterway Marking System; said buoys to be anchored a reasonable distance from shore; and b. a pedestrian walkway connecting Choctaw Circle with the sand blanket swim area; said walkway to consist of wood chips installed on a sand base with boardwalk steps on the steep slope area of the walkway; and C. four boat racks to be located on land with a storage capacity of eiEher six canoes or six small sail boats per rack; and d. Three docks, not to exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet Tn —1ength or that number of lineal feet necessary to reach a water depth of four (4) feet; at the option of the Association, the final ten (10) feet of any dock may consist of a ten foot by ten foot (101 x 101) square platform; and e. One ten — oot by ten foot swimming raft, to be located in water having a minimum depth of seven (7) feet, not more than one hundred (100) feet from the nearest lake shore- line; said raft shall project a minimum of one (1) foot but not more than five (5) feet above the lake surface, and the corner of said raft shall be reflectorized; and -3- One conversation pit -fire hole, three (3) feet in diameter with a six (6) foot apron constructed of brick or masonry material, to be located landward of the walk- way and no further north than the northerly line of Lot 32, Block 1, Lotus Lake Estates, extended northwesterly; and 9- Four sailboat moorings, to be located in the manner depicted on the site plan stamped "Received June 25, 1986". Except as provided in this permit, no portion of the Subject Property may be developed, altered, or disturbed in any way. ".05. Trees. In carrying out the above described altera- tion's,the Association agrees to use every effort to keep tree loss at an absolute minimum. 2.06. Reserved. 2.07. Erosion Control. The Association, at its expense, shall provide Temporary dams, earthwork or such other devices and practices, including seeding of graded areas, as shall be needed, in the judgement of the City Engineers, to prevent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and roads within and outside the Subject Property during all phases of construction. BT and the Association shall keep all public streets free of all dirt and debris resulting from construction upon the Subject Property. 2.08. Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for the alte—rations described in Section 2.04 above, no structure, pier, boat rack, mooring buoy, or swimming platform shall be constructed, erected, or maintained on the Subject Property or in the waters abutting the Subject Property. 2.09. Camping Prohibited. No owner, as defined in Sect�ion 2.02 h—ereinabove, or other person shall camp overnight on the Subject Property. 2.10. Motor Vehicle Parking and Boat Storage. No watercraft shall be parked or stored overnight or on a permanent basis on the Subject Property, except as follows: a. not more than twenty-four canoes or small sail boats may be so stored overnight in the four boat racks described in Section 2.04 of this permit; and b. not more than nine boats, motorized or non -motorized, may be docked overnight at the docks described in Section 2.04 of this permit. C. not more than four sailboats at the mooring described in Section 2.04(g) of this permit. -4- Except for construction equipment necessary for the exe- cution of the plan and as necessary for the maintenance of the Subject Property, no motor vehicle shall be driven upon or parked upon the Subject Property. No boat trailer shall be allowed upon the Subject Property. Nothing in the preceding three sentences shall be deemed to prohibit the launching of any watercraft from the Subject Property if accomplished without the assistance of any motor vehicle or trailer or wheeled dolly upon the Subject Property. SECTION 3. MUNICIPAL DISCLAIMERS. 3.01. No Liability to Suppliers of Labor or Material. It is u7nd—erstood and agreed that the City, the City Council and the agents and employees of the City shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the Association, its contractors, or subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, or to any other person, firm or corporation whomsoever, for any debt, claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this permit and agreement or the performance and completion of the work and improvements hereunder and the Association will save the City, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City harmless from any and all claims, damages, demands, actions or causes of action arising therefrom and the costs, disbursements, and expenses of defending the same. 3.02. Written Work Orders. The Association shall do no worIC nor furnish materials, whether covered or not covered by the plan, for which reimbursement is expected from the City unless a written order for such work or materials is received from the City. Any such work or materials which may be done or furnished by the Association without such written order first being given shall be at its own risk, cost and expense, and the Association hereby agrees that without such written order, it will make no claim for compensation for work or materials so done or fur- nished. SECTION 4. MISCELLANEOUS. 4.01. Severability. In the event any provisions of this perrJFtshall held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any court or competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invali- date or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 4.02. Execution of Counterparts. This permit may be simu-1taneously—executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. -5- 4.03. Headings. Headings at the beginning of sections and paragraphs hereof are for convenience of reference, and shall not be considered a part of the text of this contract, and shall not influence its construction. 4.04. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Association shall —furnish e City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has acquired fee title to the Subject Property. 4.05. Notices. All notices, certificates and other com- muni'�ations hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, with property address as indicated below. The City and the Association, by written notice given by one to the other, may designate any address or addresses, to which notices, certificates or other communications to them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this permit. Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties, all notices, cer- tificates, and communications to each of them shall be addressed as follows: To the City: City of Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attn: City Manger To the Association: Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Assoc. Attn: President P.O. Box 63 Chanhassen, MN 55317 4.06. Owners to be Notified of This Permit. The Asso�c­iation sh'E-1-1 furnish each owner, as that term is defined in Section 2.02 above, with a copy of this permit within thirty (30) days of the signing of this permit and shall furnish each future owner, as that term is defined in Section 2.02 above, with a copy of this permit, within thirty (30) days of any such owner's initial occupancy of any residential structure in Lotus Lake Estates. 4.07. Term of This Permit. This permit shall expire on July 21, 2010. SECTION 5. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. 5.01. Reimbursement of Costs. The Association shall reimbure the City for all costs, including reasonable engi- neering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by the City in connection with all matters relating to the admi- nistration and enforcement of the within permit and the perfor- mance thereby by the Association. Such reimbursement shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of the City's notice of costs as provided in Section 4.05 above. This reimbursement obligation of the Association under this sec- tion shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term of this permit. 5.02. Remedies UDon Default. a. Assessments. In the event the Association shall default in the performance of any of the covenants and agreements herein contained, and such default shall not have been cured within ten (10) days after receipt the Association of written notice thereof, the City, if it so elects, may cause any of the improvements described in the plan to be constructed and installed or may take action to cure such default and may cause the entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engineering, legal and administrative expense incurred by the City, to be recovered as special assessment under M.S. Chapter 429, in which case the Association agrees to pay the entire amount of the assessment roll pertaining to any such improvement within thirty (30) days after its adop- tion. The Association further agrees that in the event of its failure to pay in full any such special assessment within the time prescribed herein, the City shall have a specific lien on the Subject Property for any amount so unpaid, and the city shall have the right to foreclose said lien in the manner prescribed for the foreclosure of mechanic's lien under the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event of an emergency, as determined by the City Engineers, the notice require- ments to the Association shall be and hereby are waived in their entirety, and the Association shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City in remedying the conditions creating the emergency. b- �almProceedin s. In addition to the foregoing, the .ty ay�.� instItute any proper action or proceeding at law or at equity to prevent violations of the within property, to restrain or abate violations of the within permit, or to prevent use or occupancy of the Subject Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties her to have caused these presents to be executed on the -S' day of A;VJ/E1kbJFK /?M LOTUS LAKE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION By Q "�r_4k Its V !7�� And Its -7- CITY OF CHANHASSEN BVyZ2 le�, It Mao Attest /2 City Clerk/Ma7n-ager STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF On this fe-, day of I ea4xv' , before me, a notary Public, within and for sai nty, personally appeared (ScW4 A. 1,Jete-1, and Terjf4jce, vl� , to me pers6nally know, who, being each by me duly sworn did s—ay that they are respectively the President an Vice -President of Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said authority of its Board of Directors, and said GY1 ol and v —1 acknowledged to—be the fr;ee a a,,nd deed of said corporation. --- ------- RICK D. MURRAV BLIC Mood"M NOTARY PU �Zcl - ZT CARVER COUNTY Notary Public f Ell my commsmon Expimin A". - 14. 91"MM STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) On this iM day of A2,�� -, 19SG, before me, a notary public, within and for the county, personally appeared Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth, to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respec- tively the Mayor and the City Manager of the municipal cor- poration named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the municipal corporate seal of said municipality, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council and said Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation. & EN J. EN AM KAR,7GQELHARIDT ��ary(�Public NOTARY PUBUC MINNESOTA i C C AFt:VEFnt COUNTY VW If _ . S_91 'qqftr.VF MY �"M lo-I"i 8- cn 0 z m m in 0-4 m W C11.5 X C-.) rri < C'3 co m 0C003 rrl rn ty I - �1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA +2NDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for: A Recreational Beachlot 2. Propert . The permit is for the following described property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: Outlot E 3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans stamped "Received June 4', 1987". 2. Adherence to all conditions as required by Article V, Section 9 (11), Standards for recreational beachlots. 3. The beachlot shall be maintained by a homeowners association or an organization consisting of the subdivision residents. 4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing under any of the following circumstances: material change of condition of the neighborhood where the use is located; violation of the terms of the permit. 5. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated:— July 20, 1987 Ca C), STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) Page Z 0i G�— pages The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this da 19&, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayc;r ' anofDoV�shworth, City Man—ager of the City of Chanhassen, n a Minnesota m n1cipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. VV q � N E NC E�L, T OT��;,y PUBLIC - DTA E �%, � 1 -Not ry —ic C�ARVL-R C my �T.'4u.m 'Sit. h.n i,sv, wmn .. to eounim, . munai street, wi dcl1med in the Comprehersive plan; B. Emergency vehicle access shall not t Ment to or lunged aCToU a street from my residentia! L Il. Recreational beach lots provided the following minimum standards arc met in addition W such other conditions as may be prescribed I in the permit: Rmmationg beach lots shall have at [tag 200 fed of lake Ism niage. No structure, Protable chemical mile, ice fishing house, :mZ trailff, mot, mCm2tional vehicle or shelter shall be C. N7 d. rn� intained or gored upon my recreational beach lot. t, trailer, morcir vehicle, including but not limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized nimi-bile, all -terrain vc. hicle or SnOwumbill 'hall be driven upon or parked upon my recreational beach lot. D. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight caroping. E. Boat Launches we prohibited * - No recreadonal beach lot shall be used for purposes of ovet- night storage or overnight incurring of mom than three (3) motorized of nors-inctorized watercraft per dock. If a recres- tiong beach lot is allowed more than one dock, however, the allowed number of boatu may be clustered. Up to three (3) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed. Canon, windsoners boards, and small sail boats may be gored overnight on , nil my recreational beach lot if they am stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No mom than me (1) nick shall be allowed Per dock. No more than six (6) watercraft may be gored on a nick. Docking of other watercraft or aplaom is pdmissi- ble as my t e Other than overnight. G. No dock shag be Permitted Its MY recreniorial beach In, unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the lot has at ]Cast a 100 foot depth. No more than one dock my be crecred on a recreational beach III for every 200 feet of lake frontage. In addition, 30,000 square feel of land is required for the first dock and an additional 20,000 square fed it required for each addi- tional dock. No more than three (3) docks. however, shag be erected 00 a recreational beach lot. H. No mCremorsid beach lot dock hall exceed six (6) feet in width, and us, such dock shall exceed the greater of he following lengths: (a) fifty (50) feet or, (b) the minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of four (4) feet. The width (but not die length) of the cross -bar of my "T" or "L" shaped dock shag be included in the computation of length described in the Preceding sentence. The cross -ba, of my such dock shall not measure in "ea of twerty-ft, (25) fed in length. I. No dock shall encroach upon my dock set -back zone, provid� ed, however, thin the Owners Of MY two abutting lakeshore Simi May CCCI me common dock within the dock set -back zone appurtenant W the abutting lakmhm sites, if the common dock is the Only dock on the two lakeshom sims and if the dock other- wise conforms with the Provisions If this Ordinance. 1. No nil boat mounting shall be Permitted on MY recreational beach lot unless it has at least 200 feel of lake frontage. No - more than One Sail boat morning shall be allowed for every 2DO fed.of lake frontage. X. At least eighty Percent (80114) of the dwelling units. which have appurtenant rights Of access to my recreational beach lot, hall be located within at least one thousand (1.000) feet of the m,n- tional beach lot. L. All recreations] beach lots. including my recreational beach 100 established prior to the effective date of this Ordinmm may be used for swimming beach purposes. but only if swimming areas am Clearly delineated with market buoys which conform to United States Coast Guard nandards- M. Each mernitional beach lot,hafl have a width, measured both 0 the Ordinary high water mark and a a point one hundred (100) feet Landward from the ordinary high water mark, of not ICU than four (4) lineal tea for each dwelling unit which has appurtenant rights of access 10 the recreational beach lot ac- cming to the Owners or occupmu of that dwelling unit under applicable niles of the homeowner association or residential housing developers. N. Overnight dockcing, mooring, and storage of watercraft, where allowed, is restricted W watercraft owned by the wner/ocm- Paim Of mWer/occupant or homes which have appurtenant right Of 800da W the recreational beach lot. 0 The Placement ofdockl. buoys, diving ramps, boat racks, and other struciures shag be indicated on a site plan approved by the city council. 13. Elecuical substations subject W the following conditiom: A. The substation most be served by a collector or major arterial sued as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. B. The substation will not have sanitary facilities and will not be used for habitation. C. The substitution wag be located on at least: five (5) mr, of property. D. A six (6) foot high security fence surrotaid the substigion. E. A landscaping plan be Whinmed for City approval. F. Substinjor, shall be a minimum of 500 feet from single family residences. SECTION 10. "BN" NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT 5-10-1 INTENT. Lifflitcd low intensity neighborhood mud and service establishments W meet claily needs of residents. 5-10-2 The following ,, M, permitted in a "BN" district: I- Convenience ..r, B_ SECTION 11. d' BH"HIGHWAY -0 BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT 5-11-1 INTENT. Highway Oriented 'Crcial development ramided W as it. building profile. 5-11-2 The following uses am permitted iii a "BH" district: 1. Financial institutions 2. I= food regaumm 3. Automotive Stmoe stations 4. Standard restaurants 5. Motels and hotels 6. offices 7. Retail shops a. Miniature golf 9. Sure licensed day rare =tire, 10. Car -uh 11. Convenience store with or without gas pumps 12. Personal service establishment 13. Liquor stores 14. Health services 15. Utility services 16. Shopping center 17. Private clubs and lodges 18. Community center 19. Funeral homes 5-11-3 The following we permitted mcnmry use, in a "BH" district: 1. Signs 2. Puking lots 5-11-4 The following me conditional uses in a "BH" district: I. Outdoor display of machandisc for sal, 2. Supersnarkets 3. Small vehicle sales 4. Screened outdoor storage 5-11-5 Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "BH" District subject 0 additional requirernents. exceptions and modifications set forth in this Ordinance. 1. Minimum District Area in Acres- ten (10). (May be waived by con- ditional usd Person if expansion of existing district.) 2. Minimum Lot Arm: 20,000 square feet. 3. Minimum Lot Frontage: 100 fccl (except LOU fronting on a cid-de- sac shall have a minimum 60 four frontage in all districts). 4. Minimum Lot Depth: 150 feel. 5. Setbacks. Off-gred Puking areas shall comply with all yard m- quirements of this Section, except that no rear Yard parking setback shall be required for IOU directly abutting railroad trackage; mil, no side yard shag be required when adjoining commercial uses establish joint Off4tred parking facilities. U provided in Section 7-1-7, =cqx that no puking areas shall be Permitted in any required side street side yard. Minimum rear yard shall be 50 ten for IOU directly abutting my Residential District. Side sued side yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet. A. Front yard: 25 fed. B. Rear yard: 20 feet. C. Side yard: 10 fiet. 6. Maximum Lot Coverage: 65% 7. Maximum Height: A. Principal Structure: two stories B. Accessory Structure: one gory. SECTION 12. d'CBD" CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 5-12-1 INTENT. Downtown business timclopmerit supporting a strong mrand business district while enhancing the overall characiff of the communi- tY in conformance with downtown redevelopment p1m. goals and objectives. 5-12-2 The following uses M, permitted in a ,CBD,, district: 1. Bowling center 2, Retail shops 3. Offices 4. Standard restaurants 5. Liquor stores 6. Entertainment 7. Convention and conference facilities a. Financial institutions 9. Health care facilities 10. Hotels 11. Specialty retail (including but not limited to jewelry, book, sta- tionery. bible, camera, pets. arts and crafu, sporting goods) 12. Supermarkets 13. Sure licensed day carc center as pan of shopping =tire, 14. Personal service establishindsts 15. Shopping center 16. Health and temewits, clubs .17. Fast food restaurants as pan of shopping center Ia. Utility services 19. Personal services 20. Apparel sales 21. Ban; and tavenas 22. Clubs and lodges 23. Convenience stores without am pumps 24. Cultural facilities 25. Department got" 26. Home furnishings 27. Newspaper offices 28. Multiple family dwellings, including senior citizen housing 29. Print shops 30. Community center 31. Hardware goods 5-12-3 The following we permitted accessory uses in a "CBD" district: 26. East food 27. Aularnoti, 28. commum 29. Senior cgi 5-M3 The following 1. Parking k 2. Signs 5-13-4 The following 1. Outdoor, 2. Truck, aut mks and 3. Equipmess 4. Scremed c 5. Major aut. 5-13-5 Lot Requireng shall be obsd,, exceptions ad 1. Minimum 2. Minim=, sac, shall h, 3. Minim= 4. Maximum 5. Setbacks. quirements; shall be mt, no side ya, establish jo 7-1-7, excep side stred � directly alm be a minim A. Emig B. Rear y C. Side y. 6. Maximum I A. Princif B. Access SECTION 14. -BF" 5-14-1 INTENT. Acc, 5-14-2 The folowing to 1. Automotive 2. Tmck/Tmg 3. Utility servi, 4. Outdoor dis 5. Cold gomg, 5-14-3 The following a 1. Puking Lou 2. Signs 5-144 Lot Requiremers sluill be obsenea exceptions and, I . Minimum L 2. Minfirium L, W shall ha, 3. Mininturs, Lt 4. Maximum L 5. Setbacks. 0, quircindats I shall be requ no side yard establish joir 7.1-7, except side sized sit directly abort be a minimu A. Front yz B. Rear yat C. Side yar 6. Maximum H A. Principa B. Accenin SECTION 15. "OP- C 5-15-1 INTENT. Pubb, business and ad, 5-15-2 The following I, 1. Schools 2. Churches 3. Public buUdi 4. Post office S. Fire nation 6. Library 7. Museum 9. Health serm 9. Nursing how. 10. Community. 11. Public recrea 12. Utility servic 13. Professional, 14. Funeral hons 5-15-3 The following ar 1. Parking lots 2. Signs, 5-154 The following ar 1. Adaptive re, private busin, 5-15-5 Lm won. ded, do r- ! larmaided in an dido,, famody and multi -family dwdfinV junk, sund, often son, ". fr. sual model Immy yoused woreamor Que, in an "It -11" home, injured ware in an, "It -11" diande I fr. wed ad slow, weday In's '"Of=1 load nandualm owerms, "imorom, -6-1 ar (Oft in his Oidimered,. den lenter M dwam, unit for j.,rimul, dwelfint not for and neuld-fanal,, her dwolls. unit few __,m,,y w,,,md, 'a do . MA,r - sh" la, 11. in winds .1 be, I- ino-fiesuffl, d Win,; we anal muldeds family 35% for. yers. se. mrso dures, socit nw. dain: new an."Is rion, )�SIP( RMDENTTI&L DISM� ad hadderf-end) naideandal surandurne st. ander. dowelliog units por aw, somme, an an, --R-2'- room. edly danimlle and muld-farrity deadliness wake may him, yoned, thent andown's - W red -R-12 'and - re an - R 12" diderior- from atiorn or surneen 0, offio, and mond humar, osdda� -Flic fondant, raddided, "R 12' Dintio subw 10 additional re- d ar, find, in ons D,,. M dwells. for 4a dromer. edhon. *dlft deady for to-doodde and, hmhi_faa.� an "welied, don, I- Oan-band, abodid,se o, now on.-I-awsseebassix'soressawma, C I -ed, danditured, as an and an same, sam, "O"we, Be: 33% 1: draw .6./Q w. .: dow am,/I, fit. R MNDMONAL U� IN ANT) RIISMENTIAL DIMI�, oulditiod by 3-2-3. dic IbUon,mg amended, W day, jorded be,ow. enlistment marlong laws Plus dow it) additional rood, be Providw; dom me nooldrod, in addition ad th, 1=1 dr. Ow dr, proome be on stannoth. with lbe inatit be " readjohnow with sound hard, and 'wed andeaddly thounis a pub, normal ren - T braidn"Paboarewilhordat" saidersom, Systems handes add Italm, Ara,man, he an deassommearess, wait "now o,andem no dreard des - interior dow ad he . mmmum of 200 1"; fr.. wileme, as wel., bodies, ands, aw as haaa 2 or Prom, 1. othl-of-yo ..'se family oeidomet, dauddidurt, - rejawor or he 'embrow, him anden armorial as "m mom he --so moment by omet boardst, - dsm W 'nomed -m1m no, none theady' be I'mrse I . ow, . to or 6 Wow, or', bwe do __ � G. Lipla d- theall W shieddlod; yound "I � monces H. No reolden,arialory,mons. 2. Shoppin, rander, L '01jeouldby O.Niotoldhibiandleadw I I lailassamet A. TM sior mill be treated ons . rolleand, or surcriat rimmare, an 14. (DOOOdourri, drnue� sanleall" shot in the courn,orchiondiw Plan or somand do died youresed, 5-I(b3 'fhe f.Udwwd; - himintated wbcam,, was, dean, ea,. I I L t & last ded In, amided without condurnin, traffe, through ressadna- real 1. Protein, Idea 2. t7a, width (wants successor, to moureddi ned,,,a made, most heart bisuit 5) for fords" moferry, loodo 3. Share nes small, C Parkid, a. died be so laws 25 J. fr.. sawas " 5-143-4 `f1ve followiti, was row he . mra,: c Illeammay. recturcummord polumery sured 31) fine. 1. comodand, and. ads " 'djuse, emission D. No .1 doin 10 ineored, of on do, IS ad be dooded with im� 2. Adummotive servire yeations I it � owns solion and the bernmeaddir is ad lia muni Imalsomed 3. Dfi,,i. bodies Industry, aniturademod assets, �Mt H`T11,,,r. li,ass. in toorforproaram won Article Vill. C Temporary duddod, display a diewidemeadc fee saide E. (1bumbeas oubmic line MUSA loan mordst fervently thy, follystant S. Standard taoseireard, liellannoses,, for neons, 6. W and boadifis. retableashodem. bowlesses, de, 1) Lecomor of two (2) draddifield! sion. 5-111 Im R,---. jord Sintharls. "fhe following �u. Information. I Dearourna, 2) Two (2) odil hunin, ord wilt draindodd evor for It sedrad of anall the observed in a "BW Diserict yabscc� ad seltheressit 3. four (4) mil drings, exceptions and moulefsentions .1 forth ad this Ondimence. pt 5. l2riamme- 3) No pecroolation ands for drainfidell a. whom dn� land eloser I . boosted. Deforices Arms W Awn: share, (3). Iffeis obtain., imer, 6. Apsawl .1 in laderovered wo road 12%. be, wimmid if expeem- of insissimill districe. 7. 1'eandal . 4) One (1) pearnothationt beent M doi so, wlmonr� nor anal 2. headed- Len Art,o 15� N. Art. - a Floakin reand dean, 6 loweed 13% and 251. 3. Nflationnessen ILiot IF .. ral 71 Intel (ectrops In. for. .1 on It esal� 9. Spand"i 3) Awas server or bured dolor e,,coed, Mar shelf ad, be, ow- se, an" haw a minimum W fewes, fromeo Or 4 districts.) dessidery. bit - ablismad ad st vential -0 oramnim, ail, 4. helimmum L. Delos: 110 Ind. 10. Same- mob 6) � worhe, onown, 'awn dr. be, to ounifid. with 5. Juldeaddrourat lot dowerep, hishading A senjoures and aved surfaw 11. lFieseral W. Onfinionce N-11. shall be 65%. 12. Fundencied it Senjund jused ",don ow ., to the rhmoh me ter, 6. Sedlows. Off -atter, xisking jundan iliall comply wish a joint in- 13. Newspaper . doddered . '"now"I be, Ass, cl, (7susnerl. monards, of this Simon.. neons, in. do . yeol junforeet anneals, 14. liyi-ey col 1. lonmary Stablas aW the notuirial for loas comedy abnorm, radoom aW, aded, is. laliedinton, A. Compkew, with Amesc Ordindium, blo. M; mal do side yand sousts be resturreel when adjoining comers"'n" "' 16. videriedery B. �b�m����a��umof�f�fromw� rouldish joint off sow asking Indian, so moirded in Sectors 17. Ardideread hin 7-1-7. jowr that, - prarldin, am. added by, sommored an adaynodandol It. 0111me I. Slide Liverearcl Day Care, Covers side own aide years. Minimum wer yard omilt bw M fast for lons 19. Illeakle or, A. Site sball Inew Rosso, suded drup off swrods designed to a,OW dinshody seloutoy, way, Roodomial Dismiss. Sarin nown side yearde dead hilrouse haormin, wide fr. sual Pedestrian arownscrose; be a musimum of M into. �,xmmark� It. find., J., . shmil d, treated and den,jacill its A. Front yard: 35 fit. n. Horm red, woule miti,os, wourd sured monder tonsmares do isliciningooklear- B. Rcar ard: " fr. Combat cam tial -; judi C. Sale yool: 15 has. Usility sai C. SW obtain so appassible wande, cutim, and city thoundes. 7� Madmidded Hd,h,: IS. lEms and en 10. Hosporm; - Health Car, Facilities A. Principal Strusessi one story. M. Fam Food r A. St. 04 haw dr -t a- ad reflection Or essential I., yed B. Account, Structurs: . sunry. V. flosseadersday- delinal sur ose Curn"youve Plan; SEUION 11. "BIR" M�HWAY AND BUSIONM SIERVIM DITTItl� tDommusenti., B� Protestant, h,,k ace. dealt sion, be adjactern us or lessmard S-1, Sooner ded, -. . tow fr.. sen, Onsicksminal ... badial profile. 'flec, folaserin, r It. itinswerimmed betch aude troubled the linticrivion, Maintain standards 5-11-2 following useas aw jecounded ve a "BH" district: 1. lasseldres, lo'. - sma on addition to win theser coadditeards ad in, as I'mandoul institutions � ft. as ho, 'criam: 2. Fred ford! monument 5­1� lIbe foliation, A. stownrionsel low, 1. ana haw to lasnat M son of take 3. Araturnob- swrions .6. 1. Chad. do 4. Sunderland restaurants L Theci. B. No .... notable crowded miles. im fishin, Ideme, 5. afteed, and brands .M, tressee. old, .1.1..W widely OF shrine IW be 6. OfFess, 7. Road mome 3. Equipardso wood, moinumeraml de yonol uNo my moreattional boarth or. a. Nfirideturs, if 4. Slowed! . C No hood. undo, mmor whirls, including but not limited W 9. Stan, loomed day cam reards, S. Major wo 5_13,5 ILeet Requaremar, day, ,as. yourddes, mounrearal nod -bike, 01come - 10. � senior years or inuall he do-, .;wd or parkal .;,oe my U. �wrwd, .. wish or nuffind, M N� sawasseass and beadir 6; D. :2. prom. -kne andabldhosom 1. latitudes. L E. IsA, hord,lato ary, roinflined. 3. �u,O`d L ItEadizentan L F. No recommitted Inewt lot shall be amid few Probjewas Of own- 14. Honor ."M A" W .i,M ruman, or ijumeratill incorairty; of ... thaded or. (3) 15. Utility so,ices 3. 1,11amentan L noweirived Or fro-ribourroand winc.'aft M dealt. If . - ;6. Shopping win a. livissidamuce, , ficarial listener for as alloweel ... tiond may d -k. howley. she lin-hu dolor ansent Were 1. Swatter. 0 Upently-O)ood 'evestancentr boder hicarin,y son seled, be stioned. (�Isecaa, ifteumfors. sand 19. F -al hornes 1 �j � following not posernmal accession, unco in a "BH" diddlo: alsell W M, bodiddy. add andell and breader onday or andoned d"onallid der my 1. Siono reasididayead, its hanwitorded band, 1. ff th, ton moned ned snake rowflually, 2. Persia, In. establish, 7.1-7, slanizaril im don pummae� No in= them . (1) oack small bi 5-114 � following are oundidonal does ve * "ISH" dismiss: cowa afflow-IM dink, Nomewthein sas 1. Outdoor display of mcwhandiner for andle, dir.1, athen, Own rdrk� Dram. itforho sitooraft or wasplation 6 Persuaded 2. Sui,ormark. lictionmems, ble . yer, . whar does ciwmjdd� 3. Studio -hatilke W. A. F. G. No dock sholl the pormyeal da my recreational hisich lot undeent 4. Survencel W. dcoal a. R. a has ant 1. M I. of lalue instant, and jhj� 1. had ad 1. a IM fruit rands. No mom dow nine do� duty he inerrant on 5-11.5 ILce Rquirements and Swack, Tbe following momentum "wromenry C_ Sale a reeressioned beacti lot for wer, M few of like frontier. In shall he obarowel In a '1111" Manno subjent W additional radjusionessom hanxissom I widathem, y),bein .- fcxr of band 6 holumed for me fair dw, cacondismis and modification, aso roweld in .6 Doddrady- 1 in Arms: rem, (10), rds, ber, waiwas to ords, A. Pd� R. Adenear ad, so m,jdm, W." days fear is control for cauch satin , Mummum District Area downed aders, same if sandemand of money shadn" SjWTI0K 11 1 himself dcok� No more died three 0) docks, lacrearler. stam be 2, Sommoud 1. : W."30 naday, ors. bl" �. Ands, cradood on . r-rdoomed beaddh lot. 3� Minimum L. Fdmd1: Ind bra Irwin lers' hod"dol on - us"de an H. No recreational harth lot dock duall wind six (6) fare as andher, sess staff haw a minimum W insist immense in U dindessid) 5-14�2 IfIne falmob, ad no such dock diall earned day foreshow of than 1011knowark 4. Mound. Lot Dennis: 150 few 1. (a) fifty (50) in, or. (b) he minummom ornighl4m, 3. Soldeck, Offrocia, Wking junday shoull derePlo with -8 land 2. Trackanatil, destuna, necessary so rearin a ager north of four (4) into. 'fler oad,mon. I ,,, Swum, most dead rdl morkin, satback 3. Undwas-,, war, our .. me im,o) Or or roo,d-bed of my,,r' or -L- doed] he "uned for loo, showed, &..I., nolound become: a. 1. Oned. dig� shmad dock dal be indsided or dre oribleareandis Of do or 1.rd sh" ba m� ealider Wood, cess-froull . S. 'Dold yessomp, dowbrej in me procedure amonce. The cooaa400 f -Y youls antabirdi bit, off -son, paread, ftiollidess, na X.,dW or Studom 3.14�3 7I]ba nearness - docIr sball .. m. in rended Of twoull-l'i'm CIV) fees in 7-1.7, rioelot thout . WkW .. mall be permitted in my remand 1. Passed, join, lenjoh. side tow did, joi Misfirmum war yeand maill be 5W) fort fee kno 2 Sears 1. No dook shus!] socroach upm, ., rook arj�jsck none n,rid- droody burting; sur, Rediderfird Dean. Side, . under lardle added j�m ,umoney ed, hader-sr. then ft counters of my two built., ok.b.. he a memmurn of n lead. andl be otmenown, men my saw our rundown dook wood the dwk wr�jaaek hour A. From inard: IS to. rection. mal a,mon. to de, almondrall lakedum, sio., if day -- dualk B. it., N: M fnee. I. lahadeareas 1 4 s, only ,,, on ,, bad histration dies arof side, docic other- C. Sale yesol: 10 for. 2. Minavers t wix defilement with ran pr-asimn, Of in. 0,duruyoa� 6. Mainumme Lot, �nrjajee: 0% . jamil he J. No =1 hotel morning sh" be permitted on any rweadjured 7. Madermin Hat,bl: 3. adjusted- I hemin W driess ft hiss a, learn 2M feel of lake from"t, No A. Principal Shaduars: Own yourko 4. m�. I andre dond due, .0 bods, drimporm, suall by adirmad for way B. AccetworyStraced�:dderardlY. 5. Ssoincirs. C Ina of Late fromme. I K. At leasy cadjor woral (ladies) of - derelfidell -WW whish how SE�Ksbl IL "CBD" �Al, BUSINESS DISTItH7 Nonstudents W be, red .,of. .,h. of . so -1 normlioead beare Ins, diall "2-1 �. Downtown buddems de-latnown, u.,xermi, yourat didayed mi, b, loodud within at loss, des, thoundal (110011 fesso or ft jecones- hadowas courece, while enharrong or .111itil Innesoo Of I. reaternorm - ", wablish in bound beachr les. q in confolorturnor with downtown rdrwinjusionst Plan, landay add 7-1-7, I. All re-cational Inoue area. isecludint, my noredrumad beach oncii-i ads, .. I had ombiondol mom, ad der"Ifinctow dear of floo thousands may _,2 � ,,wer, does an, counted CBD' deddiel; dearectly idea be don, few samersom yeasch endorses. but only if 1. Emalt, wroso , . morom monsiderejearly, ralludymed won ..it. h..11whashoureform L Flood hons A. Frodel to Unmaycl Stan. C. Gody, shardi.mr. 3. Off. a. liver, M, 4. Standard onjustoomes C. Sider ad th, drove., hills .1. dome shand se - Point dol limid"of 5. Lamr somea 1. hiLacheasues I (IM) fra, landward fr.. hire ordinary load, -.11 mark, Of -1 6. Eadwainfland� A. Photon ing thatin four (4) brand! fees few radon dwomill on. whichr had 7. �vjddjmir and orefincrion, facilities, 3. Assume ,,'uncionds, nadir, of screas an the tronaddrood bem, W ses. I. Findeassal handou.". crum" to the owmers of occupied or don, dwiffirs, un. maker 9. Hands day, resudine's MMON 15. applicable julne; of dre houreandownsto �d-- de ormarmaW M Now, �15_1 lN`fEiNT. ]Fad, Warrant dwk,p­,. If. Specialty om, or derat breaded in juvory, book. yon. N. (),milb, docking. druddermill. add annalle a wayeteraft. 'ahera tionnery, bilis, reunion, ow. asse and urafte, whourldrai lamods') �15­2 7f1he ficalleaing njdwoj� re wookodo to jusercraft danded by the 12. Summons. 1. Salsoolle L pum in remeoloortmeary .(.. whorls New main I, Some inadjused day csjr� retire, . per, a demes,44, dradn" liam a nows so dow wdood boadi len� 14 1'roscreud wrom warmaddidements 3. ]eelair The, P. -t mFdw, Insento.damationross. Issemourk, and 15. SherwOons, water as, lasse, offire, ..o rouctures,lovell he outdated! do .,,. dam mmind-d by 16. Realm ared musedn"m 0"I's S. less make, he Car cddaddl� 11, F. fords wandmond an hatur & sholossal derno & L_" ,,wOual u,"Ounder, subjeen do 0. f.lon.in, sondolond; Is UW,, dervany 7. M. in s'e-Onad se -wee 2. H -M so Asleson, Don From: Haak, Lori Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:37 PM To: Asleson, Don Subject: FW: Near Mountain Lake Association beach lot From: Fauske, Alyson Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:32 PM To: Haak, Lori Cc: Oehme, Paul Subject: Near Mountain Lake Association beach lot There is no parking lot provided or proposed for this beach lot. In the past, vehicles park on both sides of Pleasantview Road, a bituminous street with no curb or gutter. The width varies, but is approximately 26 feet wide. The City's current standard for a public residential street is 31 feet wide. Travel lanes should be minimum 11 feet wide. A parked vehicle typically takes up 8 feet. Staff is concerned that to further intensify the use of the site would increase the amount of on -street parking on a substandard street that has poor sightlines. Page I of I Haak, Lori From: Whiteman, Jeremy [Jeremy.Whiteman@adc.com] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 12:27 PM To: Haak, Lori Subject: Planning Case No.: 06-20 Lori: In regards to Planning Case No.: 06-20 which is the Near Mountain Lake Association Beach Lot's request to add a second dock, I am wondering where the people who use the dock will park. That is an awful stretch of Pleasant View and it is already dangerous when there are one or two cars parked on the street. It a second dock is added, what provisions are being put into place to ensure safe parking? Thanks, Jeremy Whiteman 5/8/2006 RECEIVED Planning case 06-20 MAy 0 9 2006 5/7/06 CITY OF CHANHASSU� Chanhassen Planning commission 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 We have lived on Lotus Lake for nearly 28 years. During those years many changes have occurred with the growth of the city and the property around the lake. We remember when the houses of the Near Mountain Association were constructed. We have seen other associations form and have seen their impact on the lake. The families in the Near Mountain Association are exemplary in the care and use of the lake. The beach is well cared for. There have been no incidents that we are aware of where noise or litter caused a problem. It seems unfair for the owners not to be allowed one boat. Since the shore is not sand, a dock would seem the best solution. Since the water near that part of the shore is heavily weed -infested, additional dock space will not interfere with recreational use of the lake. We believe that the request should be approved so that each owner can dock one boat. J. eter & Jane A Thielen 665 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen 952-474-1597 Near Mountain Lake Association Beachlot Planning Case #06-20 Public Comment Received After May 9, 2006 May 16, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Attached: 1. Thomas and Judy Meier — May 10, 2006 2. John Nicolay — May 11, 2006 3. Beth and Doug Bitney — May 15, 2006 4. Ladd Conrad — May 15, 2006 5. Christa Vassallo — May 16, 2006 6. Susan Conrad — May 16, 2006 Thomas & Judy Meier 695 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 May 7, 2006 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RECEIVED MAY 10 2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RE: Request for a Variance and Conditional Use Permit for the addition of a second dock — Planning Case 06-20. We would like to inform the Planning Comn-tission that we are in favor of this proposal. Thank you, Thomas Meier Judy Meier Page I of I Haak, Lori From: John Nicolay [John.Nicolay@udip.com) Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:11 AM To: Jahn Dyvik Subject: Re: Dock To Whom It May Concern: I have no problem with, and can support, the request being made for an additional dock (for a total of two) on Outlot B, Reichert's Addition, which is expected to accommodate 3-4 more water craft. The level of traffic on the lake is not going to be, in anyway, impacted by 3-4 more boats. Sincerely, John Nicolay 6o8 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317-8327 952-474-0157 5/11/2006 Page I of 3 Haak, Lori From: Bitney, Beth [bbftney@carlson.com] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:22 PM To: Haak, Lori Cc: doug.bitney@bestbuy.com; dougbitney@mchsi.com Subject: Lotus Lake Dock Request - Planning Case 06-20 - Neighbor Comments - Bitney - 6645 Horseshoe Curve May 15, 2006 Chanhassen Planning Commission Chanhassen, Mnnesota RE: Request for Variance and Conditional Use Permit for the addition of a second dock — Planning Case 06-20. Dear Commissioners, I am concerned about the proposed variance for a couple of reasons; a) Safety on already busy Pleasant View Road... because it is reasonably expected to aggravate an existing problem with parking and b) granting a second dock would appear to be outside of the norm for an association, thereby setting a potential precedent for other associations. Safinq Concerns on Pleasant View Road - The variance application dated April 14th states "6) a. Street congestions will not be increased I believe that there will be an increase as during boating season. This road already has cars parked along the street during boating season and additional docks will increase this in some amount. The narrow and tight road already receives high car traffic as well as excessive speed by some, but it should also be noted that this road is used by many bikers, ninners and walkers. The number of parked cars will cause increased congestion on the road and problems for all users of the road. In addition, there is a potential access issue for emergency vehicles. Precedent seui g variance: I see nothing in the proposal that establishes why a second dock is now tmly necessary and am concerned that granting a variance on this lot will establish a precedent for all association docks. How will the council be able to turn down other non -qualifying docks if this one is approved? The established code should be adhered to in this situation. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Beth and Doug Bitney 6645 Horseshoe Curve 763.212.6346 (Beth) 612.291.8164 (Doug) 5/15/2006 Page 2 of 3 00. PC DATE: May 16, 2006 w CC DATE: June 12,2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN REVIEW DEADLINE: June 11,2006 CASE #: 06-20 BY: LH, DA STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Variance LOCATION: Outlot B, Reichert's Addition APPLICANT: Near Mountain Lake Association Jahn Dyvik, Association Representative 610 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MIN 55317 dt/:t PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential- Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4u/Acre) AREA: 27,000 square feet (at OHW) DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for CUP amendment to allow an additional dock and a total of 8 docked boats. Variances are needed as part of the CUP amendment to allow the installation of second dock without the minimum required lot area (50,000 square feet) necessary for a second dock and additional docked boats above the 3 per dock maximum as stated in Chanhassen Code Sec. 20-266 (6). Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet and all owners of property abutting Lotus Lake. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use permits, based on whether or not the proposal meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable conditional use permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation 5/15/2006 Page 3 of 3 from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Beth Bitney Carlson Finance I Carlson Hotels Worldwide Planning and Performance Reporting Phone. 763.212.6346 E -mad: bhitney�acarlsonxom 5/15/2006 2nd dock Page I of I Haak, Lori From: Ladd Conrad iladd@mtmad.com] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 1:57 PM To: Haak, Lori Subject: 2nd dock Hi Lori I couldn't find the staffs recommendation for this beach lot on Lotus so I'll offer my thoughts anyway on granting a variance. The 50000 foot requirement necessary before a second dock would be considered is still valid in that it doesn't allow a beach association to put any more pressure on an overused lake then what a single riparian lot owner would do. Please don't let this set a president for beach lots that would now only have to meet a 27000 requirement. Thanks Ladd Conrad 5/15/2006 Page 1 of I Haak, Lori From: Christa Vassallo [cvassallo@mchsi.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 11:05 AM To: Haak, Lori Subject: Near Mountain Outlot variance Dear Planning Commission, Planning Case 06-20 I live on Horseshoe Curve and travel on Pleasant View Road multiple times during the day and I have very strong concerns already about the traffic in that particular section of the road. The parked vehicles associated with that outlot have started to park on the road (often both sides) and makes that part of the road very dangerous to traverse. This issue is even more difficult during the evening hours. I would be very concerned with the prospect of more vehicles parking on the road. The applicant states that parking would not be an issue because homeowners live within 500 feet of the lot, but I would say parking is already an issue for that outlot having only the one dock. I also have very strong concerns about placing another dock with boats close to a wetland portion of the lake. That particular part of Pleasant View carries watershed from the Summit (driving you are always aware of the water cascading across the road during wet times) and the wetlands are crucial to assisting filtering the water that flows into Lotus Lake. I would object to inviting more constant boating activity to that portion of the lake, we need to preserve what protection to the lake quality we have that exists. I also fear granting this exception would bring forth additional variance requests for outlots that would want to enjoy the same benefits that may possibly be granted to Near Mountain Outlot. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, Christa Vassallo 5/16/2006 Haak, Lori From: Susan Conrad [susan@mtmad.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:43 PM To: Haak, Lori Subject: Re: Outlot B For Planning Commission: My concern for Lotus Lake is environmental. Having been one of the authors of the original Wetland Ordinance for the City of Chanhassen I feel it necessary to weigh in on one major issue involving the request for variance on Outlot B at Lotus Lake. The proximity this proposed dock is to the critical wetland located there would have a negative impact on the water quality in the lake. As motorized watercraft take off from docks they cause vegetative mass in wetlands to gradually break up and eventually diminish. This particular wetland acts as a filter to a very steep terrain across the road. It has to protect the lake not only from the greater velocity of particulate matter running off these adjacent properties but also from the runoff from Pleasant View Road. Fertilizers, pesticides and other toxic materials can flow freely into the lake, wetlands slow the movement of water that can erode shoreline and harm the water quality. The hills above this property make this wetland more critical than most around the lake. In 1987 the City required the owners of this beachlot to put out and maintain a buoy signifying no wake in the area. This proves what my previously stated concerns are. Regarding the items listed as exceptions in the request letter, it is obvious that this homeowners, association has noted violations at other beachlots. On behalf of the Lotus Lake Homeowners, Association, I request that the City does indeed follow-up on enforcing the regulations at all beachlots as a result of these noted abuses. The staff review of the request is excellent and I (personally) support each point. Thank you, Susan Conrad 1 Page I of I Haak, Lori From: Ron Harvieux [ronharvieux@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:19 AM To: Haak, Lori Subject: CUP Proposal/Lotus Lake Hi Lori -- we have been out of town for the past couple of months, and were surprised at the proposal for additional dockage at "Outlot B" on Lotus Lake. We believe this is an irresponsible proposal that will only put more pressure on the fragile condition of the lake at that site. The tact that any dockage is allowed in that area is concerning, but I guess "what is done, is done" I only hope we do not compound the potential damage to the lake, the quality of water usage and enjoyment, and (yes) the property values for all current lake home owners by a further negative influence on the Lake's ecosystem. Thank you for your consideration and concern. Ron Harvieux 6605 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen 5/30/2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 06-20 NOTICEISHEREBYGIVENthat the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public heanng on Tuesday, May 16,2006, at 7:00 P.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a 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(Ouflotll,Reichert'sAddition) Applicant: Near Mountain Law� Association. A Plan showing the location of the Proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.cballhaaaen.mn.us/serv/ plan/06-20.bW oratGityHaU during regularbusinesshours. All interested persons am invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Lon Husk, Water Resources Coordinator Email: lhaakAxi.chaphassen.ron.us Phone: 952-227- 1135 (Published in theChanhassenVWager on Thursday, May 4, 2006; No. 4662) 0 (C -0 C) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) Them newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 33 IA.02, 33 IA.07, and other applicable laws, as =ended. (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.4 �46�1 was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of die newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abodefghijklinnopqrstuvwxyz Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and swom before me on this _Y�day of 2006 Notary Public RATE INFORMATION CWEN M. RADUENZ NoTtARY PLIBLIC - MINNHOTA My Commasm Expes Jan. 31,2010 Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space .... $40.00 per column inch Mammurn rate allowed by law for the above matter ... ........................... $40.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $11.51 per column inch 111CANNED 60 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of Near Mountain Lake Association request for Conditional Use Permit amendment; Variance for additional dock without required beachlot area; and Variance from maximum number of watercraft per dock structure — Planning Case 06-20. On May 16, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application Near Mountain Lake Association for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Variance from lot area requirement for a second dock structure and variance from maximum allowed boats per dock. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Residential Single Family, RSF. 2. The property is guided in the I -and Use Plan for Residential — Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Outlot B, Reichert's Addition. 4. Recreational Beachlot Conditional Use Permit a. The beach lot does provide a recreational amenity, however the area on Pleasant View Road which is currently a substandard road with poor sightlines which will reduce public safety if beach lot use is intensified. b. The beach lot will not be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance unless variances from the required lot area for the second dock and the number of boats allowed per dock are obtained. c. There are several beach lots on Lotus Lake. The proposed CUP amendment will impact the existing neighborhoods with increased boat traffic and/or decreased public safety on Pleasant View Road a current substandard street from intensified beach lot usage. d. Pleasant View Road is 26 feet wide with poor sightfines and is a substandard street. The current standard road width for public residential streets is 31 feet. The area of the beach SCANNED lot will interfere with traffic if additional cars were to park along Pleasant View Road decreasing the ability for traffic to travel Pleasant View Road. e. The recreational beach lot ordinance indicates that the maximum amount of boats docked cannot exceed 3 per dock (Sec.20-266 (6)). Boats may be clustered if additional dock structures are allowed. The applicant does not meet the requirements for a second dock structure and would be limited to 3 docked boats. f. The beach lot has over 500 feet of frontage and an area of 27,000 square feet as determined by a survey submitted by the applicant. This is 23,000 square feet short of the required 50,000 square feet for a second dock structure. A variance is required if the second dock is to be instafled at the beach lot. 5. Variance (Second Dock). a. The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. There are no comparable properties within 500 feet. There are other recreational beach lots on Lotus Lake that exist within single family residential zoning which are governed by nonconforming use permits or existing conditional use permits. b. The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are generally applicable to beach lots. c. Since its creation, the beach lot has never had the area necessary for a second dock structure. Therefore, the hardship is self-created. d. The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare due to intensified use of the beach lot including increased parking and substandard street width. 6. Variance (Four Boat Slips per dock). a. The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. There are no comparable properties within 500 feet. There are other recreational beach lots on Lotus Lake that exist within single family residential zoning which are governed by nonconforming use permits or existing conditional use permits. No beach lots on Lotus Lake with Conditional Use Permits are permitted to have more than 3 slips per dock. b. The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are generally applicable to beach lots. c. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship because the number of slips per dock allowed by code has not changed since the original conditional use permit was granted in 1981. 2 -0 d. The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare due to intensified use of the beach lot including increased parking and substandard street width. RECOMAWNDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the Conditional Use Amendment with Variances for Near Mountain Lake Association. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16th day of May, 2006. CH 10 0(,o —,;�O V City Council Meeting — June 12, 2006 NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSOCIATION BEACHLOT. OUTLOT B, REICHERT'S ADDITION: REOUEST FOR A VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERNUT FOR THE ADDITION OF A SECOND DOCK Public Present: Name Address Jahn & Amy Dyvik 610 Pleasant View Road Steve Wanek 6613 Horseshoe Curve Kate Aanenson: The Near Mountain Lake beachlot association is located on Pleasant View. The area shown in orange. The homes that are associated with that beachlot are the gray shaded area. The 8 homes. The Planning Comrndssion ... they voted 4-0 to deny the conditional use at their last meeting, which was then the 10h. Their reason for the denial was setting the precedent for more variances. And while that came from testimony from other associations that were notified at the meeting. Increased boat traffic. Decreased safety on Lotus Lake due to increased boat traffic. They felt the hardship was not demonstrated, and they believe that owners in the beachlot association had reasonable use of this property. So with that, existing condition out there today is, this is the size of the beachlot. These are the homes that are associated. Currently there is a dock right here to provide for 3 slips. So on page 2 of the staff report, the Near Mountain Association has over 500 feet of shoreline and approximately 27,000 square feet above the OHW. A survey ... difference of opinion on the square foot area but again anybody aggrieved with that interpretation can go through this process too, but we believe that regardless of that, it's still under the 50,000 square feet. Again the City code requires the 200 feet of shoreline per dock. In addition to the shoreline requirement, they must have a 30,000 square feet plus for another dock, which they are requesting, and additional 20,000 square feet to get you to the 50. Therefore it does not meet that. So what they're asking for again is a variance and conditional use. ne applicable regulations for the beachlot requires the standards on the beachlot which I'll just reiterate for the 20,000, or excuse me, 200 feet of ... that 30,000 plus the 20,000 square foot of area. ...there is 8 homes for the Reichert's Addition that was platted in 1978, and the staff report for 1978, the CUP it was determined that the association had 46,000. What seems to be in question is if that area, obviously there's different times that the OHW and again a difference of opinion on how that OHW was determined. But again that aside, they're still under the 50,000 square foot area. The applicant applied for the CUP, the CUP amendment. It was given a conditional use in '87, in August and that's attached as one of the conditions for the beachlot. So within that, I'm on page 3 of the staff report. The conditions were that as part of the zoning ordinance that no alteration of the existing site be permitted, which if you look at the pictures on the beachlot, that were shown, included in your packet, there is area undisturbed. That they get one dock and one canoe rack. Again the one dock does permit the 3 boats. ne original application when they wanted an additional dock included, 4 boats per dock. They've reduced that now in their request just to the 3, so there'd be a total of 6. Again there's some other conditions there regarding the beachlot itself. Again the analysis would then be that the original CUP did allow for the 3. That's consistent based on area and frontage consistent with the zoning ordinance, and in reviewing that, the variance request, the staff felt that that didn't meet, or had recommended no, as did the Planning Commission concur. There are some other beachlots that 52 SCANNED City Council Meeting — June 12, 2006 were cited by the applicant and they're... I can go through all those, just for brevity, I'll just say this. As the person who processed all those beachlots as one of my first assignments here, they're all over the map as far as how they were used. How they applied for ... A lot of these beachlots were non -conforming. Some were put in place, as they came in for development... which you're kind of comparing apples to oranges and some of them were fire lanes that were given non -conforming rights. Some of them actually had conditional use permits, and as I indicated, some of them were actually given through the development contracts, certain rights so it's kind of hard to compare them all equally across. If you have specific questions, I'd be happy to answer those. We've addressed the... So what you're looking at tonight is actually 3 requests, and I'm on page 5 of the staff report. The first one is the conditional, the first request is for the general issuance standards for the conditional use permit itself We provided the findings of fact to why we believe it doesn't meet the conditions for the beachlot itself. The second request is for the beachlot standards. Again which we believe they don't meet and are recommending against that. And then the third request would be for the second dock. Again that would be for the variance for the conditional use. Again the staff is recommending against the variance for the second dock. So with that, the other request has been eliminated and that was for the 4 boats. They struck that out from the staff report. So with that ... for the two docks and this is the area that's, the rest of this area is kind of left undisturbed so this would be where they would like to put the two docks. Again the staffs opinion, as stated kind of in the cover of the memo that ... to the Planning Commission summarized is because we have so many different types of beachlots that are out there, they would all be asking for something. Some have boat launches that are non -conforming that they were granted. ...always trying to eliminate too so they're just kind of all over the map as far as that goes. So with that, we are, as did the Planning Commission recommending denial of the request with the findings of fact and the motion as stated on page 14 of your staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.7 Councilman Lundquist: Kate, how many, approximately how many houses are, households are served by that one dock? Kate Aanenson: Eight. Councilman Lundquist: Eight. And then compare it to, I don't know, pick one of the other ones like the comparable ones that were in the staff, or not comparable ones. The other ones in the staff report. The Colonial Grove, Lotus Lake, Kurvers Point. Kate Aanenson: So you're asking how many homes are in those? Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. Like if you picked Colonial Grove, Lotus Lake Estates or Kurvers Point. Kate Aanenson: ... to some on Minnewashta that have 80 and they only have one dock so, again it's kind of all over the map as far as what's permitted. And some have no. 53 City Council Meeting — June 12, 2006 Councilman Lundquist: But users specifically on Lotus Lake, if you take Kurvers Point and Lotus Lake Estates. Kate Aanenson: They would have more than 8. Councilman Lundquist: Like a lot more or? Kate Aanenson: Quite a bit more. Yeah. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. More than 20? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I would think so. Councilman Lundquist: Or somewhere in that neighborhood? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah. Even the subdivision ... is larger too. Councilman Lundquist: And then do we have on lengths of docks, do we have ordinances or restrictions on how far away from the shore you can be? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and that's, you know there's criteria for both and that's in a separate chapter of the city code but what it says is you can't impede the navigable water and when you get in certain areas of the lake, because of the shape of the frontage and vegetation, that becomes a problem where sometimes docks go into each other and we've had situations regarding that before. We've had to mediate that. The ordinance, the boats in waterway ordinance does regulate that you're supposed to come out parallel from your's. It also talks about you can get to a depth of 4 feet, however long that takes. There's certain areas of the city that people have docks out 120 feet to get to a depth of 4 feet. So again it's really variable depending on the location. You can see up at the end of this bay, when you come up in this bay, that we've got some pretty long docks. There's some shallow water which was a concern before when we looked at some requests ... just couldn't get to a depth that would work. So that's kind of another complicating issue too. Trying to find how you can make those work. So we did propose it here. It's not intruding. If you're moving down this way is where it becomes more difficult. Councilman Lundquist: I was just thinking a longer dock out there gives them a spot to temporarily hook up for the day or you know potentially add maybe a... Kate Aanenson: And we've used that application before where we've given conditional uses on beachlots that do meet the criteria. What we've done, in working with the DNIR, instead of the impact of 3 docks, we've worked with the DNR. If they meet all the requirements of the lot area, they can have one dock with 6 boats on it. We've done that before too. If it meets the criteria. First it has to do that. The area and upshoreland. Councilman Lundquist: Sure. 6f, 1 City Council Meeting — June 12, 2006 Roger Knutson: Mayor, I don't know, is the council familiar with the registration process we went through on recreational beachlots a number of years ago? Mayor Furlong: Perhaps you could give us a summary. Roger Knutson: Yes I can. It was quite a process. The City was having constant issues on virtually, I won't say all but many, many recreational beachlots in the community. As to what they could have and what they couldn't have. What their grandfather rights were and what they weren't. How long they had docks there. How long would they have just met everything else there. So when the council decided, I'll call it a current standard for what was needed for recreational beachlots, it went through a registration process where it gave a window of time for every recreational beachlot was inventoried. Every one came in and they registered their non- conforming beachlots. So it was a complete record of everything that was there and we basically drew a line in the sand and said alright, you meet the ordinance. You were here before this ordinance and we will acknowledge what you have and you can keep it. But henceforth these are the rules. Because we had constant issues about over crowding of lakes and did someone put out a new dock. How long has that dock bee there? What's fair? What's right? And so this process, I believe must have taken well over a year or two. And we went through it and documented it as well as we could and I think for the most part we had concurrence with all the recreational beachlot owners as to what they had. Not every one of them but there's general agreement that this is it. From now on anyone that comes in has to meet the new requirements. Mayor Furlong: When did that process take place? Kate Aanenson: I believe '91-92. But let me just, before that beachlot ordinance, I believe it was passed in, a few years before that, and there was given, there was a conditional use put in place but what happened is all the ones that were non -conforming were never documented for their level, and that's what caused a lot of angst. So to be clear, there was some that did have conditional uses. Or shortly after we passed the beachlot ordinance that came in to that process so there was still some out there that, and some that were given development contract rights, and those are a little tougher too. Roger Knutson: Yeah, a lot of them come from various different situations and from points of time. We looked at aerial photographs of various years and we documented it as well as we could and it was, for the people doing it, it was a very difficult, painful process because there was a lot of emotion attached whenever you're talking about docks and boats and lakes. We go through it and that's when the line was drawn. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point? Kate Aanenson: Can I just, I did receive one other e-mail that I passed out to you. Mayor Furlong: Which was from Ron Harvieux? Kate Aanenson: Correct. 55 A k City Council Meeting — June 12, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Any other questions for staff?. If not, is there a representative from the applicant here this evening that would like to address the council? Good evening. Jahn Dyvik: Good evening. Mr. Mayor and Council members, my name is Jahn Dyvik. I'm at 610 Pleasant View Road. I'm a member of the Near Mountain Lake Association, and I just gave you the complete packet so I'm just going to hit a few of the slides that I want to highlight. This is our Outlot B that we call, well refer to Outlot B, and it's 600 feet of lakeshore. As you can see there's about, well maybe you can't see so clearly there but the southern 30 feet of it or so is mowed out to the lakeshore. The rest of the 550 feet or so of the lakeshore there is maintained as a natural buffer zone. If you go to slide number 3. Staff showed this already. I just want to point out, there's an inset on the lower right showing the pre -1978 plat where Outlot B was actually an extension of Lots 6, 7 and 8, and then Reichert decided to merge those into Outlot B as a recreational beachlot and I just point that out now because I'm going to say something about that in a moment. And by the way on those slides the north is to the left. If you go to, let's try slide number 6. This again was just shown by staff but it showed the request. We have a current existing dock with 3 boat slips on it. At the Planning Commission meeting, as was stated, we were asking for 2 docks with 4 boat slips on each. That really required 2 variances so we backed off on that and amended that. We're just simply asking for the 1 extra, I second dock with 3 boat slips on it. And to answer the question that was asked before, the requirements on length of dock is 50 feet or as long as you need to go to get to 4 feet of depth, whichever is shorter, and where we are here, those docks, our current dock is 50 feet. That is about 4 to 5 feet deep at the end of the dock, and so the second dock would be no longer than that. As was stated, we need for a second dock, we need a total of 400 feet of shoreline, and 50,000 square feet of area. We certainly meet the requirement for shoreline length. We have 600 feet, as you can see there on the slide number 8. And the question is how much area do we have? And here, this is another interpretation. If we have 50,000 square feet, there would be no need for a variance. We would just be able to operate under a conditional use permit and have 2 docks. So what is our, we have 3 reference points. In the lower left part of that slide it shows the Carver County GIS system. That's their satellite view that they're showing of our outlot. They have us listed as 57,000 square feet, so when this process started we thought we had 50,000. You know that met the minimum requirement for area. We also had that 1978 survey that was mentioned, and that shows us as having 46,000 square feet. We recently had a survey done in March of 2005 and when that survey came back, and you can see that in the lower right side, the ordinary high water line kind of meanders through the lot there, and based on that reference, it shows 27,000 square feet. But they also did measurements at the edge of the ice at the time, which gave us an area of 38,350 square feet. And then we extrapolated that, because using the edge of the ice at that time was high. Bgher than the average, and if we look at what the average level would be, it would give us 47,000 square feet. And you see those numbers change pretty drastically and the reason is, we have a very flat, low lying lot. If you go to the next slide, you'll see that the ordinary high water line, level is 896.3 feet, and that's where we got the 27,000 square feet measured in our survey. The edge of the ice measurement that they did at that same time was 895.8 elevation and that was 38,350 square feet so you see there's a difference there of half a foot, of 6 inches made a difference of 11,350 square feet. So if we extrapolate that further, to the average water level of 895.4, then we would calculate 47,430 square feet, which is closer to that 1978 survey that we have. And one thing that I wished I known at the Planning Commission meeting was that there 61i City Council Meeting — June 12, 2006 is no city documented policy or procedure to use the ordinary high water level for calculating area. There is one reference in the city code that talks about using it but that's in Section 20-480 which is titled Zoning and Water Supplies/Sanitary Provisions and it's specifically for single, duplex, triplex and quad residential lots and it's referring to sewers and sanitary provisions, but nowhere else in the city code does it talk about what reference to use for calculating area. And actually I spoke with the DNR, to Julie Eckman as well because the city often uses the ordinary high water mark because the DNR uses that as a reference for certain determining setbacks for structures and things like that. But in this kind of issue with a seasonal dock, it's going to be sitting within the DNR area and then it's not restricted by those setbacks obviously because it has tobeoutinthewater. And the DNR has no jurisdiction over that, and they said that they have no set policy on how they would calculate their. On the next slide is just showing the ordinary high water level. There's a chart of the last 10 years of water level of Lotus Lake, and if you look at the ordinary high water level for 10 years, that's been reached a total of 5 or 6 instances. But if you, over those 10 years that, the level was that high or higher for less than 3% of the time. So out of 10 years for 3 months, it was at the ordinary high water level, so we don't think that's a reasonable reference to use when computing area when the purpose is of a seasonal dock. And especially because it is just a matter of interpretation and that the city and staff has chosen. Mayor Furlong: On that issue if I could Mr. Dyvik. What would you recommend would be the appropriate measure to determine the area? Jahn Dyvik: We contend that for the purpose of the dock, that the average water level would be a reasonable value to use, and that average water level, as I showed here gives us, you know sets our area at 47,000 square feet. Now granted, we're still below the 50,000 that we need, but I think one of the reasons, well two of the reasons why the Planning Commission denied us I think is because we were asking for 4 spots per dock. You know so there was two variances, but also because they believe that we were so far off the requirement, the 50,000 square feet because they were seeing the 27,000 square foot number based on the ordinary high water level. Kate Aanenson: Can I just clarify how we interpreted that? The city ordinance is, when we do a lot, any subdivision, riparian lot, we have to determine the OHW to make sure that it's enough area above the OHW. That would be the same computation we would use on a beachlot, and those standards are in the city code of how to determine. While it's not clearly stated in the beachlot, it's clearly stated in a lot configuration. This is zoned single family residential. It'd be the same configuration that we would use to determine the OHW. And that's our interpretation and I think we disagree on that point, but that would be our interpretation. Jahn Dyvik: Well and again in the city code there's only the one reference to using the ordinary high water level for area of calculation and that's only regarding residential lots for sanitary provisions. Nowhere else, there are plenty of other references to area calculations but none of those arr... Kate Aanenson: It's not referenced in the sanitary. We can clarify that for you. It's how you configure your lot area so 1. 57 City Council Meeting — June 12, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I was interrupting just to get your recommendation on where you thought it should be, since you're raising the issue. JahnDyvik: And then I just wanted to show a couple more slides. Another approach that has been discussed is to return the outlot to it's original arrangement of being extensions of Outlot, or of Lots 6, 7 and 8, and that would then allow us to in theory put a dock on each of those lots for a total of 3 docks. We'd prefer not to go that route. We think a better solution is to just limit it to 2 docks. But that's something that we have discussed. Just to summarize, then we have more than enough shoreline length, and in fact we think that that should really be the driving requirement because the shoreline is what determines dock density along your shore. I mean with 600 feet of shoreline, we have 1, of the 2 docks, we have 1 dock per 300 feet of shoreline, and that's far lower density than in residential lots on Lotus Lake. Based on our average water level calculation, we're within 6% of the required area. And then the other point there in the summary is just that we were practicing DNTR recommended landscaping procedures for 30 years. Maintaining our natural state of the lot and a buffer zone. Almost 95% of it is preserved that way. There was a question of parking that came up. We really don't see that as an issue because we all live within 500 feet of the outlot and we walk over there. As far as boat traffic, this is simply just providing overnight mooring for boats that are already using, so we're not looking to increase the boat traffic. At the Planning Commission meeting we would have been increasing the number of slips by 5 because we were going 4 and 4. Now we're just keeping it at 3 on our existing dock, and then 3 additional docks so we've reduced the request from 5 to 3 additional docks. And then we have letters from surrounding neighbors on Lotus Lake, on either side of our outlot that are in support of this. We have in particular John Nicolay, Tom and Judy Meier, and Pete and Jane Thielen, and those are in the staff report I believe. Mayor Furlong: Okay, alright. Very good, thank you. Appreciate that. Appreciate the handout. It's easier to follow. Any questions for the applicant at this point? No? Okay, very good. Thank you. Any follow up questions for staff or any reaction? You asked a little bit about their recommendation in terms of the, not that you calculate area. Any other thoughts or comments from staff or? Kate Aanenson: No. I'll let the City Attorney but that's how we calculate area above the OHW. Mayor Furlong: So is that the method we'd use if this was a subdivision for a riparian lot? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Mayor Furlong: We'd use ordinary high water mark? Kate Aanenson: And that's on our syllabus ... subdivision. Roger Knutson: Our definition, we have definition of lot area and it means the area of the horizontal plane bounded by the front side or rear lot lines, but not including any area occupied by water of lakes or rivers or by street right-of-ways. W City Council Meeting — June 12, 2006 Kate Aanenson: And also if you go to the shoreland ... it gives you for single family. How to calculate above the OHW, which is what we would to determine, if it met the minimum requirements in the lot. Roger Knutson: I think that's the correct way to calculate it but in this case it's legally it doesn't make any difference. They need a variance. By anyone's calculation. Mayor Furlong: I guess the question is, if we don't determine some elevation onto which to calculate the area in a period of a drought, we could be inundated with dock requests for recreational beachlots. If we went to water level. Average over what period. I guess that's. That's the natural flow. If you don't pick one, then you've got to. Kate Aanenson: Right. That's why we use the OHW, right. To be consistent because it does, when we try to use the ordinary high water mark, which is designated on our lakes. And that's kind of tested over time. It's not, while water level changes. The OHW should be consistent. Mayor Furlong: Okay. It's interesting a few weeks ago we were talking about high water levels on the lake and now we're talking about low water levels. So, other questions for staff or questions of clarification? Councilman Lundquist: The one slide Roger or Kate, on separating Outlot B back into it's extension of 6, 7 and 8. What's the process for that? Possibilities of that. Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. They certainly can apply for anything they choose to apply for. My first initial reaction anyway is they'd have to go through a replatting process to combine those outlots with the other lots. And they could certainly apply for that, if they chose to do that, and that would be judged against our ordinances at the time. I haven't done the analysis as to whether. Kate Aanenson: I haven't either. Roger Knutson: How it works but it certainly is a possibility. I won't say yes. Just does it meet your ordinance requirements making a new plat. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? If not then, let's open up council discussion. On the request here. Thoughts and comments. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I never like turning down reasonable people. However, you know lake lots and docks are possibly one of the things that are one of the most heated and talked about items in front of us. I bet you if we talk about the number of times that we've talked about those things, it's a pretty high percentage. You know so I think what that says is that we have to be consistent and part of what I look at this, and is what Roger keeps telling us is there a hardship, and I can't see a hardship in this case. By not having a dock. It's kind of the luck of the draw that the homes that they bought and built and/or moved into don't have but one dock, so it's a self created hardship. So I can't support it. �U City Council Meeting — June 12, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any thoughts? Councilwoman Tjomhom: I think it's interest that when docks and lake issues come up, we have more people here than Truth in Taxation hearings. 1 think Councilman Peterson's right. It's a passionate issue and people do love their lakes and enjoy their summers on the lakes, but I have to agree that ... always have to remain consistent with this issue because there are several people that come in I think during the year wanting more dockage or wanting, usually more dockage I guess and I think I would just ... because we do to stay consistent with our ordinances... Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Little bit tom mostly because you know living on a lake certainly you want to have as much access and as much use of that as you can. So when I first read through this, you know a couple of things went through my mind like you know adding extra feet onto the dock or an extra or something to find that compromise. The fact that we have other associations on Lotus Lake that have considerably more houses or members to dock spaces available is one important thing for me. Again the only thing we're talking about here is the overnight mooring of boats. Kate Aanenson: That's right. Councilman Lundquist: Because during the day they can all 8 be on the dock out there so I mean given that it's not always the most convenient thing to do to put your boat in and out every day, there is ability to use the dock there. Just not moored overnight, so and the fact that I think there's potential, possibility, if they were really serious about that, split some things up as well and that, but I think the overwhelming thing is the fact that we have other associations out there that have more homes with less slips per house ratios is probably what's going to sway me to leave it at that, and stay with what was guided in for the you know, as Roger stated, the things that we've gone back to in the past and where do we go and I would have been in favor of probably of extending that dock and giving one more space in there for a total of 4 but it sounds like that's a long drawn out process as well and would go against that ordinance too, so at this time I'd be in favor of ... request and keeping the current situation there with the 3 slips as is. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. My thoughts I think are similar. I think Councilman Lundquist just stated my thoughts with regard to the condition of whether or not they have reasonable use. What's a reasonable expectation for a beachlot, and to me I think that reasonable expectation is that it would have a dock. That there would be a few of the properties that are associated or have, or their association owns that beachlot, would be able to moor boats overnight. But there would be no expectation that all of the homes within that association necessarily do that, unless of course there were simply 3 homes and they had I dock, or if they met the criteria for however many docks there were and it worked out with the number of homes. This is a challenging one in part because I think it's clear that these homeowners have been good stewards of our lakeshore, which is something that as a city we want all our residents to do. The request on it's surface, can we add, increase the, our ability to enjoy the lake that we see out of our front window and front door every day? That's a very reasonable request. I think the issue is, do they meet the standards necessary and first is do they meet the ordinance requirements? If they did, DE City Council Meeting — June 12, 2006 we probably wouldn't be talking about it tonight under any measure, even under the recommended measure, a variance is still required and then based upon the need for a variance, is there a hardship and are they enjoying reasonable use? And I think Councilman Lundquist spoke to the reasonable use and Councilman Peterson spoke to the hardship, and I have to concur with them. I don't see it here. Are there other alternatives? ff they're within our ordinances, then that would be available to any property owner as well. But I think here, I don't see a justification for granting the variance. Consistent I think the Planning Commission did a good job of questioning and articulating the reasons for it's, you'd like to be able to allow people to do the things they want to do and to enjoy the lake. Lakes are an asset and they're for recreation use but I think there are reasonable limitations that we as a city place on that access, and that's what this is. It's an access limitation and so for that reason, I would also support denying it at this time for those reasons I should say. I fail to see the hardship and I think they have a reasonable use of the property at this time. Any other thoughts or comments on this? If there are none, there is a motion, recommended motion in the staff report on which we can, which speaks to the findings of fact, as well as other conditions. It is on page 14 of the staff report. 447 of the electronic report. Is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve, to support staff position denying the request for variance subject to the findings of fact as submitted by staff. Mayor Furlong: Within the staff report and the following motion in the staff report? 1 through 4? Councilman Peterson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council denies the request for a Conditional Use Permit amendment and variances for the lot area requirement necessary for the second dock, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 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 this variance is approved, other recreational beachlots in Chanhassen will likely seek variances from lot area restrictions. 61 City Council Meeting — June 12, 2006 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: I have one item. I'd like to publicly thank Justin Miller for four outstanding years of service with the City of Chanhassen. This is kind of a bittersweet week for us. This is Justin's last week with the city. He's going to be moving on to be the administrator at Falcon Heights. That's over by the Fairgrounds for those people that have never been to Falcon Heights. Councilman Peterson: ... fairgrounds. Todd Gerhardt: I think it is the fairgrounds. Councilman Lundquist: Do they have homestead, market value homestead credit? Todd Gerhardt: They'll probably get some. Probably a little fiscal disparities and everything so. He's going to a city with lots of money. Roger will continue to see him every other Monday though because Roger represents Falcon Heights so, I told Roger to do everything he could do to not help Justin but. No, Justin's done a great job for this city. Accomplished a lot of things you know both on the economic development side, personnel and lots of newsletter items. The Mayor's letter is just great. It's a team effort, right? So he's going to be missed. I remember four years ago interviewing oh probably 10 or 12 people and we could have gone in a variety of different directions but Justin just stood out among those people and I think we were really lucky to get him so, thank you. Councilman Lundquist: I bet it was that power tie that he had on that day. Todd Gerhardt: It was. That and I made him sit in a restaurant for an hour and not use the bathroom after drinking two large sodas too. But we wish him the best and we told him we know what Falcon Height's phone number is so when we have certain questions, we'll give him a call. Thank you. Councilman Lundquist: Being the cynical one, I have to add the only, among the miles of accomplishments that Justin's made, the only thing he hasn't licked is this cable TV system. Todd Gerhardt: But Craig will probably call him every once in a while and remind him... Councilman Lundquist: No, congratulations Justin. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely, and on behalf of this council and former council members that have worked with you, thank you. We appreciate your professionalism and always your willingness to help us any way that we ask questions and Lord knows we need help so, but you were always 62 MY OF CWNSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone. 952227.1100 Fax: 952227.1110 June 13, 2006 Near Mountain Lake Association c/o Jahn Dyvik, Association Representative 610 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Building Inspections Re: Planning Case #06-20 — Near Mountain CUP and Variances Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Dear Mr.Dyvik: Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 On June 12, 2006, the Chanhassen City Council voted to deny the Near Finance Phone: 952,227.1140 Mountain Lake Association's requests for a Conditional Use Permit and Fat 952.227.1110 Variance for an additional dock based on the findings set forth in the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Park & Recreation Phone: 952227.1120 Fa)c 952.227,1110 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 952.227.1135. Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Sincerely, Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 CrrY OF CHANHASSEN Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Lori Haak Public Works 1591 Park Road Water Resources Coordinator Phore. 952.227,13DO Far 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fa)c 952.227.1110 Web Site www.d.chanhassenmaus The City of Chanhassen * A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gieat place to live, work, and play CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of Near Mountain Lake Association request for Conditional Use Permit amendment; Variance for additional dock without required beachlot area; and Variance from maximum number of watercraft per dock structure — Planning Case 06-20. On May 16, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application Near Mountain Lake Association for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Variance from lot area requirement for a second dock structure and variance from maximum allowed boats per dock. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. ne property is currently zoned Residential Single Family, RSF. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential —Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: OutlotB, Reichert's Addition. 4. Recreational Beachlot Conditional Use Permit a. The beach lot does provide a recreational amenity, however the area on Pleasant View Road which is currently a substandard road with poor sightlines which will reduce public safety if beach lot use is intensified. b. The beach lot will not be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance unless variances from the required lot area for the second dock and the number of boats allowed per dock are obtained. c. There are several beach lots on Lotus Lake. The proposed CUP amendment will impact the existing neighborhoods with increased boat traffic and/or decreased public safety on Pleasant View Road a current substandard street from intensified beach lot usage. d. Pleasant View Road is 26 feet wide with poor sightlines and is a substandard street. The current standard road width for public residential streets is 31 feet. The area of the beach lot will interfere with traffic if additional cars were to park along Pleasant View Road decreasing the ability for traffic to travel Pleasant View Road, e. The recreational beach lot ordinance indicates that the maximum amount of boats docked cannot exceed 3 per dock (Sec.20-266 (6)). Boats may be clustered if additional dock structures are allowed. The applicant does not meet the requirements for a second dock structure and would be limited to 3 docked boats. f. The beach lot has over 500 feet of frontage and an area of 27,000 square feet as determined by a survey submitted by the applicant. This is 23,000 square feet short of the required 50,000 square feet for a second dock structure. A variance is required if the second dock is to be installed at the beach lot. 5. Variance (Second Dock). a. The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. There are no comparable properties within 500 feet. There are other recreational beach lots on Lotus Lake that exist within single family residential zoning which are governed by nonconforming use permits or existing conditional use permits. b. The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are generally applicable to beach lots. c. Since its creation, the beach lot has never had the area necessary for a second dock structure. Therefore, the hardship is self-created. d. The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare due to intensified use of the beach lot including increased parking and substandard street width. 6. Variance (Four Boat Slips per dock). a. The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. There are no comparable properties within 500 feet. There are other recreational beach lots on Lotus Lake that exist within single family residential zoning which are governed by nonconforming use permits or existing conditional use pennits. No beach lots on Lotus Lake with Conditional Use Permits are permitted to have more than 3 slips per dock. b. The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are generally applicable to beach lots. c. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship because the number of slips per dock allowed by code has not changed since the original conditional use permit was granted in 1981. 2 d. The granting of a variance will be detrimental to die public welfare due to intensified use of the beach lot including increased parldng and substandard street width. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Corrunission recommends that the City Council deny the Conditional Use Amendment with Variances for Near Mountain Lake Association. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 10h day of May, 2006. RN 3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND W�NNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOWIENDATION Application of Near Mountain Lake Association request for Conditional Use Permit amendment; Variance for additional dock without required beachlot area; and Variance from maximum number of watercraft per dock structure — Planning Case 06-20. On May 16, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application Near Mountain Lake Association for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Variance from lot area requirement for a second dock structure and variance from maximum allowed boats per dock. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Residential Single Family, RSF. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density. 3. Ile legal description of the property is: Outlot B, Reichert's Addition. 4. Recreational Beachlot Conditional Use Permit a. The beach lot does provide a recreational amenity, however the area on Pleasant View Road which is currently a substandard road with poor sightlines which will reduce public safety if beach lot use is intensified. b. The beach lot will not be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance unless variances from the required lot area for the second dock and the number of boats allowed per dock are obtained. c. There are several beach lots on Lotus Lake. The proposed CUP amendment will impact the existing neighborhoods with increased boat traffic and/or decreased public safety on Pleasant View Road a current substandard street from intensified beach lot usage. d. Pleasant View Road is 26 feet wide with poor sightlines and is a substandard street. The current standard road width for public residential streets is 31 feet. The area of the beach lot will interfere with traffic if additional cars were to park along Pleasant View Road decreasing the ability for traffic to travel Pleasant View Road. e. The recreational beach lot ordinance indicates that the maximum amount of boats docked cannot exceed 3 per dock (Sec.20-266 (6)). Boats may be clustered if additional dock structures are allowed. The applicant does not meet the requirements for a second dock structure and would be limited to 3 docked boats. f. The beach lot has over 500 feet of frontage and an area of 27,000 square feet as determined by a survey submitted by the applicant. This is 23,000 square feet short of the required 50,000 square feet for a second dock structure. A variance is required if the second dock is to be installed at the beach lot. 5. Variance (Second Dock). a. The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. There are no comparable properties within 500 feet. There are other recreational beach lots on Lotus Lake that exist within single family residential zoning which are governed by nonconforming use permits or existing conditional use permits. b. The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are generally applicable to beach lots. c. Since its creation, the beach lot has never had the area necessary for a second dock structure. Therefore, the hardship is self-created. d. The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare due to intensified use of the beach lot including increased parking and substandard street width. 6. Variance (Four Boat Slips per dock). a. The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. There are no comparable properties within 500 feet. There are other recreational beach lots on Lotus Lake that exist within single family residential zoning which are governed by nonconforming use permits or existing conditional use permits. No beach lots on Lotus Lake with Conditional Use Permits are permitted to have more than 3 slips per dock. b. The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are generally applicable to beach lots. c. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship because the number of slips per dock allowed by code has not changed since the original conditional use pennit was granted in 1981. VA d. The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare due to intensified use of the beach lot including increased parking and substandard street width. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the Conditional Use Amendment with Variances for Near Mountain Lake Association. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 10h day of May, 2006. [a): F.W I: GVRJ 91 2S W RION I ON I 10 IM Near Mountain Lake Association Variance Request City Council Meeting June 12, 2006 Outlot B Background Formed in 1978, we are one of the oldest associations on Lotus Lake. We have an average membership of 16 years. We have a long standing record of good stewardship towards the lakeshore and neighborhood. We are very conservation minded towards lakeshore, water quality and wildlife. 95% of Outlot B's 600 foot shoreline is maintained as a natural undisturbed buffer zone (aquatic and terrestrial vegetation). We have been practicing lakeshore stewardship for 30 years that has now become DNR recommended "lakescaping" standards. 9 No fertilizers • Minimal lawn area • Extensive buffer zones (natural vegetation along shoreline) • No removal of aquatic vegetation co 0 IOU" AOIAAO *IV (D *R D 0 . Ck w 0 Co OV .0 I x 4) E 4) # x"'t ol 0,20 0 44 m 0 m r 0 wa It I. 1 4.0 Joe 00 0 *r RO I ; egg Jt if 7 rak .1-04 Wetland ai The Natic Carver County Geographic Information Systems Ok N - Ijl 0 dM. L-1 I., lot't5 - < 000* Proposed Dopk Existing Dock Water I kfWWA wafer oJeWOOMI, 0`60 ss -Ape;i Zi,*11U, 0 z0lt'v "."0' A*JOUrCO. oil /029 Adjui OUMOTS Request: F-1 Near Mountain Lake Association requests a Conditional Use Permit allowing two basic 50 ft seasonal docks to be located on the southern end of Outlot B. Each dock would support three boat spaces. City Requirements Sec. 20-266 of Chanhassen City Code "(7) The maximum number of docks on a recreational beach lot is three. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless the beach meets the following Conditions: a. Shoreline of at least 200 feet per dock: and b. Area of at least 30,000 square feet for the first dock and additional 20,000 square feet for each additional dock." Near Mountain Lake Association requests variance on land area requirement. _0 Cf) 0 0 co 0 I,. - ,a �: I , 1� I 1� lei. I 4- 0 0) W ,a �: I , 1� I tol� . E a) LO cn co 0 0 U 0 4- 0 0) W 0 > U) LO (D C) 07 C)7 C)7 U) U) V) 0 0 CD 0 U') CY) 0 (Y) IZI- IS— 00 r�— N CY) tol� . E a) LO cn co 0 0 U 0 Outlot B Land Area 2005 Reference Area (sq ft) Elevation (ft) 896.3 279000 OHWL Measured 2005 895.8 38�350 Water level March 2005 Measured 2005 895.4 47,430 Average water level Computed 2005 There is no city documented policy or procedure stating that OHW line be used for calculating shoreland area for seasonal dock requirement. e DNR also states that in the matter of a seasonal dock they have no set policy for calculating land area. $97 OHW=896.3 ft S".25 10 Year History of Lotus Lake Levels Lotus - 10096698 8".75 094 1996 1"7 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Shoreline length and area We believe that the driving requirement should be length of lakeshore as this is what determines dock "density". With 600 feet of lakeshore, our dock density for two docks would be one per 300 feet, a much lower density than current residential lots and recreational beach lots on Lotus Lake. Land area calculations are especially sensitive to change with a long shoreline -dominant lot like Outlot B. Outlot B is a low flat piece of land that is susceptible to small changes in water elevation. 0 Six inches variation in water level results in change of 11,350 sq ft of area. Computed area based on average water level is 47,430 sq ft which is within 6% of the requirement. N Lot 6 Extension Lot 7 Extension P - So Lot 8 Extension ; V Alternative approach: Terminate recreational beachlot status and deed land back to lots 6, 7, and 8. Each lot could then support one dock. Parking and Traffic Flow Owners live within 500 feet of beach lot and always walk over to it. We don't park in the street. Speed limit is 25 mph. Entry to beach lot lies along an 800 foot straight section of Pleasant View Road where sightlines are not obstructed. Cars never park on the lake side (west) of the road. On the very rare occasion that cars park on the east side of the street, it is for visitors of 610 Pleasant View who don't like to negotiate the steep driveway. These circumstances are not related to Outlot B. Parking in street is almost never due to Outlot B activities. Parking and traffic flow will not be impacted by this request. Summary The Near Mountain Lake Association requests a second dock for Outlot B. We have 600 feet of shoreline, far exceeding the code requirement. Based on average water level, we are within 6% of the required area. We have a long history of preserving and protecting the lake and the land. - Lakescaping practices have long been a part of our conservation philosophy. 0 95% of Outlot B shoreline is preserved as a natural buffer zone. Parking and traffic flow will not be impacted. 9 All residents live within 500 feet of Outlot B. Boat traffic will not be impacted. - Docks simply provide overnight mooring. Surrounding neighbors (those closest to Outlot B) support our request. a ioiino --3 10111no L 00 o a, 12 Yo o "Oo o 4 01, we 0 cow oz w 3:�o ta �ow T-4 Lit C—�t 2p 4,b Page I of I Haak, Lori From: Ron Harvieux [ronharvieux@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:19 AM To: Haak, Lori Subject: CUP Proposal/Lotus Lake Hi Lori -- we have been out of town for the past couple of months, and were surprised at the proposal for additional dockage at "Outlot B" on Lotus Lake. We believe this is an irresponsible proposal that will only put more pressure on the fragile condition of the lake at that site. The fact that any dockage is allowed in that area is concerning, but I guess "what is done, is done" I only hope we do not compound the potential damage to the lake, the quality of water usage and enjoyment, and (yes) the property values for all current lake home owners by a further negative influence on the Lake's ecosystem. Thank you for your consideration and concern. Ron Harvieux 6605 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen 5/31/2006 T 'T� i'17 jtAr *0 4J, If le 'do 06 OI� ail, PtOU MOIA lueseOld �co I, A bl� El z 4� IN go 41 16! - co IOX 49 9 le 5 Location Map Near Mountain Lake Association Beachlot Outlot B, Reichert's Addition Planning Case No. 06-20 City of Chanhassen 1101. M "Em W-421 OMAN, z -A 41 .4v Y .e., 6' - 4, D UJ P C-) z 0 ILL. 00 L.LJ 0 W w Or 0 0 F- LA- LL - V) V) -H -H t go U) w PC) - 06 0'0 96 9�- 0 C17Y OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR -L 3 2006 C4A*IASM PLANNING DEPT L Lot 6 ot 6 Extension If tVp Lot 8 Mon Extem. Lot 7 Extension Alternative approach: Terminate recreational beachlot status and deed land back to lots 6, 7, and 8. Each lot could then support one dock. Page 1 of I Haak, Lori From: Ron Harvieux [ronharvieux@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 30,2006 10:19 AM To: Haak, Lori Subject: CUP Proposal/Lotus Lake Hi Lori -- we have been out of town for the past couple of months, and were surprised at the proposal for additional dockage at "Outlot B" on Lotus Lake. We believe this is an irresponsible proposal that will only put more pressure on the fragile condition of the lake at that site. The fact that any dockage is allowed in that area is concerning, but I guess "what is done, is done" I only hope we do not compound the potential damage to the lake, the quality of water usage and enjoyment, and (yes) the property values for all current lake home owners by a further negative influence on the Lake's ecosystem. Thank you for your consideration and concern. Ron Harvieux 6605 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen 5/31/2006 Print Data/Map Pa -e I of I 6, f�-- 4 http://I56.99.124.167/website/parcel_search/printdatamap.asp?PID�252400320 4/14/2006 PID# 252400320 right car,ni in� I �g�nd 11'arcel Information Property Address: NOT ON FILE I orm n, rA 1TWSer KFBE`l�F I.IENT ASSN 1105 SANDY HOOK RD IaW Teri us 10 ssi = 16"Sys ICHANHASSEN, NIN 55317 IParcel Properties Cw Coursi, ones CIS Act": 1.06 Lasso Homestead: N ISchool email, District: 0276 11"arcel Location cow 2142 Section: 01 Lot: Tovinship: 116 Range: 023 I Block: Plattrame: COLONIAL GROVE AT LOTUS I LK 2ND IPayable Year 2007 [Last Sale Information Last Sale NOT ON FILE E F I '.'or Land: SO :t: r :'V.'. ,1,1:rkeV:t F �I-rkel Value Building: $0 F,I [Est. Alsis Cmated: 4-14-2006 s, Mleurket Value Total: $0 CARVER COUNTY CIS DISCLAIMER: This map asi created using Carver County's Geographic information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from �arious City, County, State, and Fedcradeffices. rhis map is not asur%e)cd or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Carver County is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. 6, f�-- 4 http://I56.99.124.167/website/parcel_search/printdatamap.asp?PID�252400320 4/14/2006 P'fint Data/Map Pagc I of I F *A�, 5 http://156.99.124.167/website/parcel searclVprintdatamap.asp?PID=254200461 4/11/2006 Print Data/Map Page I of I F 16AP. -(b http://l 56.99.124.167/website/parccl_search/printdatamap.asp?PID--253920320 4/11/2006 Print Data/Map Pagc I of I Fl&.JA.E- 1 http://l56.99.124.167/websitelparcei—search/printdatamap.asp?PID=252700160 4/11/2006 , Print Data/Map Page I of I http://l56.99.124.167/website/parcel—search/printdatamap.asp?PID=2573001I0 4/14/2006 Page I of I Haak, Lori From: Ron Harvieux [ronharvieux@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:19 AM To: Haak, Lori Subject: CUP Proposal/Lotus Lake Hi Lori -- we have been out of town for the past couple of months, and were surprised at the proposal for additional dockage at "Outlot B" on Lotus Lake. We believe this is an irresponsible proposal that will only put more pressure on the fragile condition of the lake at that site. The fact that any dockage is allowed in that area is concerning, but I guess "what is done, is done" I only hope we do not compound the potential damage to the lake, the quality of water usage and enjoyment, and (yes) the property values for all current lake home owners by a further negative influence on the Lake's ecosystem. Thank you for your consideration and concern. Ron Harvieux 6605 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen 5/31/2006 -7f A)CA;e— MOU KJ T4 I'A� Z A -w -r- Assor, J41\ qawtmt4 67�7 VA beaC-ND�S a,,A c -e Vic) la�"DA oroofe-S 4d'i t Aj. evx VV'e Abp% -es t—tf s ee- YNAtwi- re,?ves�� vA-*�c^,*,�ces "47 j ves�. t 6 -T� a� Is /a"q C� 0 1 S�4 AA ort- aos �s /0 f, j ee- V/� tAl;ote.#*� �v it sslot -ice/ le OL �pq fe 5e^,re-e. /J� & ricwtoz use- v� 20 SXf�t4y Sba� Ar-ceas A" LIS"e C-94 7Ar- 4� , 5, Dwl wk ft�m C &tt. aec�(' zl\,Dvt ZWL 44o-47 vfkq.-?5 14 6je,(;eAi ce . . . 2-0 - Q, A5e� M Lz�js I -s M4 jas�- S CA.Pegt IA J; V- k -t- lo,,S a- vA 6 IV/e4-sL) le 704z74- d-kAC414 S�Dee 1,-'7e- cjy-/. y it tA -717? 4�1 0 AI nreak SSje-� 1� oe- p 13yo IL) Se4i-s beo��Ivfs �� 4 twe-1,71� 0 - (f ) ri ly e,2 V�> r PIVP. ?/ojpose�/ ,s(4 ce be -, �s A 7�-a� l4r-s offo5f 42.z)pl . St (S 4� A^ ck.14 4 - A4 6�--ID yo, vt 405jszba-cA (a 7V pjf, &K) Rd, Aszor- 4-ve 6 ob I V -r /JL �e -S /a Ae - //X Oe C -A -re /4"t, d - 4ve4 �/ 1pllecl co jIJ- & L/ t koWl 3 Ai4ol- to-�e le,(Jel 7 41 4 "7' V5--� elze&l� - 1le in. U,�� 4�e,; 0". I)fdp'-7L Ak keS 0 R fice OL) ln,�Ieso? . !�470 Joe oot I�ewe, ks swe oe;5 e 55 F� :5j�tg �yw4. A)o pfectdeA4. <�3/m(4Aize- �OL 4� 761(-o? C�) t 740 S"L P -5 eij A> ro /i z)tttf' 20 600d:s el �D�- 5 v-^ e opi 41�1. 1-e 4,,,-,e W" .5d jlecede�. kl4y poolelko 72,-63 ee- 5oli r. e M�//s Mal, A A 5 Is I)kC. Lvoz�s 4e fk%oc- 4&5. 4fL well /Vo-� 5ul'e /Ir. 'Oece 4-.," W/ �qt, � A l,'*Ie ov eoll lo tv P, - �pee #-*-x issot sy tit, y 4,11 .-13 �5^ will L/rtfZ�c- .6, cY-7e. Av� 6��e k"e si 11�5, 01 LA)/ L4-�Oy Ac�- de,4. Jzco4� LA �;sue - A�vqe, wl 54J� �,,Y4 A-dskp bock - -k ly xeot, lead. J. -L cbmue.6%;47ce- N) Xe- A s. 5s are 141-e "Y(day (� Ai�44rj-ll- —M� Iv4- 15 A 0 4- gri,e-o ce OL./ V :. el Si 04 kj"IL4) PO4 is' sq) W 4e: / 4it L*4emohba dec VS.&L" pk-I woo, C,4 -1 5e 5 4;ve) PO c. e� dZ 4 -)f !P4754 "/c 0' Co -) 9 c e s. 4 Xt ie a4v / 4 r 5k-�t�Xj . \4- fe& Lot e Vse-. d) ,�,Yj (7 149L 07 Jm: C14Y P#4*kC�iorl WCL"ay"� Vv�e--5 e),,ler- OX& �z y C)'O Atc e L�� "0 ),16 W. /)�-Ve417 Y J94"ar's 4y. �IA P344'. 44- WO%//C( /n� q�d ',I Y. Acc �c� C/ /v A k .-eSZ1vea( q55oc. -S N-vtot e ,s jewWApmA#? aceoss la -Le * ve 5 7�) -P/D K 14 Ap STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Variance� LOCATION: Outlot B, Reichert's Addition APPLICANT: Near Mountain Lake Association Jahn Dyvik, Association Representative 610 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 O&J PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) AREA: 27,000 square feet (at OHW) DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for CUP amendment to allow an additional dock and a total of 8 docked boats. Variances are needed as part of the CUP amendment to allow the instaHation of second dock without the minimum required lot area (50,000 square feet) necessary for a second dock and additional docked boats above the 3 per dock maximurn as stated in Chanhassen Code Sec. 20-266 (6). Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet and all owners of property abutting Lotus Lake. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use permits, based on whether or not the proposal meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable conditional use permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Location Map Near Mountain Lake Association Beachlot Outlot B, Reichert's Addition Planning Case No. 06-20 City of Chanhassen S'VIP, ell; Subject Property Lotus Lake Near Mountain CUP Amendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16,2006 Page 2 of 15 SUAFAARY OF PROPOSAL T"�Tbe City of Chanhassen received an application from Near Mountain Lake Association on April 13, 2006 requesting a Conditional Use Permit amendment with variances from the minimum required lot area and maximum allowed boats per dock with the installation of the second dock. Currently one dock with three boats docked is allowed at the beach lot. The Near Mountain Lake Association Beach Lot has over 500 feet of shoreline and approximately 27,000 square feet of area above the OHW according to the survey dated March 1, 2005 that was submitted as part of the application. City Code requires recreational beach lots have at least 200 feet of shoreline per dock. In addition to the shoreline requirement, the beach lot must have 30,000 square feet of lot area for the first dock and 20,000 square feet for each additional dock. To meet the square footage requirements for the second dock, the Near Mountain Lake Association must apply for a variance from the 20,000 square foot requirement for the second dock. A variance in the amount of 23,000 square feet of lot area is needed to satisfy the requirements of City Code. Additionally, a variance for more than 3 boats per dock must be obtained to install more than 3 boats per dock as allowed by City Code. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Section 20-266. Recreational beach lots. (6) No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one dock; however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Nomnotorized watercraft such as canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than six watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one rack slip per lot served by the beach lot; however, in no case shall there be more than four racks per beach lot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight. (7) The maximum number of docks on a recreational beach lot is three. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless the beach meets the following conditions: a. Shoreline of at least 200 feet per dock; and b. Area of at least 30,000 square feet for the first dock and additional 20,000 square feet for each additional dock. Section 20-614. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Churches. (2) Reserved. (3) Recreational beach lots. (4) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. Near Mountain CUP Amendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 3 of 15 (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5.4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 259, § 12, 11-12-96) State law references: Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. BACKGROUND The Near Mountain Lake Association is located in the northern part of Louts Lake on Outlot B, Reichert's Addition. Membership in the association is limited to 8 homes (Lots 1-8, Reichert's Addition, platted in 1978). In the development contract for Reichert's Addition, Outlot B was designated "open area7' and I dock structure was permitted within the southern 235 feet of the outlot. This allowed for the preservation of trees and wedand areas in the northern portion of the outlot. In the staff report for the 1987 CUP, it was determined that the association had 46,000 square feet which limited die beach lot to one dock to maintain compliance with the zoning ordinance. The applicant applied for the CUP amendment and variance on April 13, 2006. The current Conditional Use Permit (CUP 87-13) was issued in August 1987 (Attachment 4). The 1987 CUP placed the following conditions on the Outlot B, Reichert's Addition beach lot: I . Compliance with 5-9-11 of the Zoning Ordinance 2. No alteration to the existing site shall be permitted. There shall be no use of chemical IdIl or dredging in the wetland without an additional wetland alteration permit, DNR and City Council approval. 3. The recreational beachlot is limited to the installation of I Dock and I Canoe Rack. 4. The beachlot shall be maintained by the Near Mountain Lake Association. 5. A "slow -no wake buoy shall be installed and maintained by the homeowners association. 6. There shall be no launching of motorized boats or boats that require a trailer from the beachlot. Near Mountain CUP Amen&nentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16,2006 Page 4 of 15 ANALYSIS CUPAmendment The original 1987 CUP limited Near Mountain Lake Association to one dock with 3 boat slips to maintain compliance with zoning ordinances. Additional analysis on the proposed CUP amendment is included in the findings below. VarianceN The applicant is requesting a variance from the required 50,000 square feet lot area requirement for the installation of a second dock. The area of the recreational beach lot (currently 27,000 square feet at the OHW of 896.3) is less than was indicated for the 1987 CUP (which employed a lot area of 46,000 square feet). This may be the result of settling of the land and/or erosion of shoreline. However, either lot area measurement necessitates a variance for a second dock. According to the March 1, 2005 survey submitted by the applicant, the magnitude of this variance request is 23,000 square feet in lot area. The applicant is also requesting a variance for 8 boat slips instead of the maximum of 6 boat slips permitted by City Code on beach lots meeting the shoreline and area requirements for 2 docks. The magnitude of this variance request is 2 additional boat slips. (her Beach Lots I tl n the application, the Near Mountain Lake Association cites four precedents for exceptions from City Code regarding beach lots. These include: 1. The Lotus Lake Betterment Association/Colonial Grove beach lot; 2. The Lotus Lake Estates beach lot; 3. The Kurver's Point bbeach lot; and 4. The Fox Chase Dock. Below please find an explanation of the approved . conditions for each of the four cited precedents. 1. Colonial Grove Beach Lot: The Colonial Grove Beach Lot was granted a nonconforming use permit in 1981 (Attachment 5). The nonconforrifing use permit recognized the right of the association to maintain one dock, but did not indicate the number of boats that would be allowed to moor overnight. Consequently, in 1993, the City issued a Findings of Fact and Decision (Attachment 6) that found that there were never more than three boats moored overnight at the dock in 1981 and therefore decided that the Colonial Grove Beach Lot nonconforming use permit should be amended to allow the overnight storage of a maximum of three boats. This does not set a precedent for this application. The applicant has indicated that this association typically has approximately 6 boats moored at the dock. This does not appear to be consistent with the approved nonconforming use permit. Any potential violation will be investigated separately. 2. Lotus Lake Estates Beach Lot: The Lotus Lake Estates Beach Lot has received several conditional use permits. The most recent pernfit was a restated conditional use permit dated July 7, 1986 (Attachment 7). The restated CUP allows three docks with up to three boats per dock, as well as four sailboat moorings. However, the restated CUP was the result of what was apparently long and involved legal proceedings between the City and the homeowners association. Consequently, the results of the final CUP were negotiated and am not necessarily in compliance with City Code for beach lots. This does not set a precedent for this application. Near MouWain CUP Amendnientl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16,2006 Page 5 of 15 3. Kurvers Point Beach Lot: The Kurvers Point Beach Lot received a conditional use permit in 1987 (Attachment 8). The permit conditioned adherence to all conditions required by the City Code in place at that time regarding recreational beach lots (Attachment 9). This does not set a precedent for this application. The applicant has indicated that this association has 10 boat slips. This does not appear to be consistent with the approved conditional use pennit. Any potential violation will be investigated separately. 4. Fox Chase Dock: The dock in the Fox Chase neighborhood is not located on a recreational beach lot, but rather is located on private property, with each property owner with a boat slip having an easement for access to the dock. The dock with seven slips was allowed as part of legal proceedings between the developer and the City. The seven slips correspond to the number of lots that would have had dock rights on individual parcels. However, because there is a large wetland complex along the shoreline in this location, it was in the City's best interest to consolidate the dock rights onto a single dock, thus minimizing the wetland impacts that would have occurred with seven individual docks extending across the wetland. This does not set a precedent for this application. FINDINGS: RECREATIONAL BEACH LOT CONDITIONAL USE PERNUT The application includes a request to amend the current conditional use permit for the recreational beach lot to allow a change to an approved conditional use. The applicant is also requesting variances for the installation of a second dock structure and additional boat slips for a total of 8. The total beach lot area for Near Mountain Lake Association is 27,000 square feet. City code requires 50,000 square feet of beach lot area for 2 docks. The applicant is requesting approval for 8 boats on 2 docks. City code allows a maximum 3 watercraft per dock structure. Section 20-232, General ][ssuance Standards — Conditional Use Permit 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city. Findin : The beach lot does provide a recreational amenity, however the area on Pleasant View Road is currently a substandard road with poor sightlines which will reduce public safety if beach lot use is intensified. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Findin : The beach lot will not be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance unless variances from the required lot area for the second dock and the number of boats allowed per dock are obtained. I Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the Near Mountain CUP Amendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16,2006 Page 6 of 15 essential character of that area. Finding: The applicant has provided a diagram of the proposed second dock structure north of the existing structure. The dock as illustrated will extend 50 feet into Lotus Lake and be no longer than the existing dock. Information regarding dock materials should be submitted for review. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Findine: There are several beach lots on Lotus Lake. The proposed CUP amendment will impact the existing neighborhoods with increased boat traffic and/or decreased public safety on Pleasant View Road, a current substandard street, from intensified beach lot usage. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Findin : 'Me association will be required to maintain the beach lot. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Findin : The beach lot is not anticipated to have any excessive requirements for public facilities and services. It is not certain whether the beach lot will be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. Findin : The association must keep the beach lot maintained and regulate activities on the beach lot. The area of the beach lot will interfere with traffic if additional cars park along Pleasant View Road, decreasing the ability for traffic to travel Pleasant View Road. Increased boat traffic from the beach lot may increase the amount of noise emitted from the beach lot. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property, which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: Applicant has stated that all members are within 500 feet of the beach lot; however, intensified use with increased boats and a second dock raises concerns for parking and traffic flow. Pleasant View Road at 26 feet wide with poor sightlines is a substandard street. The current standard road width for public residential streets is 31 feet. The area of the beach lot will interfere with traffic if additional cars park along Pleasant View Road, decreasing the ability for traffic to travel Pleasant View Road. Near Mountain CUP Amendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16,2006 Page 7 of 15 Plet mo 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Findin : The conditional use amendments will not result in the loss of any features. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Findin : If properly maintained the beach lot will remain compatible with the surrounding Uses. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Findin : It is not certain whether the CUP amendment will depreciate the surrounding property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Findin : The CUP amendment, as proposed, will not meet the standards prescribed for beach lots provided in City Code, as outlined below. Section 20-266 Recreational Beach Lots: Recreational beach lots shall have at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage for each dock. Findin : The proposed beach lot has over 500 feet of lake frontage. Near Mountain CUP Amen&nentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 8 of 15 2. Except as specifically provided herein, no structure, ice fishing house, camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle, shelters (except gazebos) shall be erected, maintained, or stored upon any recreational beach lot. For the purpose of this section, a gazebo shall be defined as, "a freestanding roofed structure which is open on all sides." Finding: No structures (except as authorized by the beach lot ordinance) are proposed. 3. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini -bikes, all -terrain vehicles or snowmobiles shall be driven upon or parked upon any recreational beach lot. Finding: No vehicle access is provided. 4. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight camping. Finding: No camping shall be permitted. 5. Boat launches are prohibited. Findine: No boat launching shall be perniitted. 6. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one (1) dock, however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3). Sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Nomnotorized watercraft such as canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one (1) rack slip per lot served by the beach lot; however, in no case shall there be more than four (4) racks per beach lot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight. Findin : The applicant is seeking a change in the allowed number of boats from three (3) currently to a total of, 8 boats on the 2 docks. The recreational beach lot ordinance indicates that the maximum amount of boats docked cannot exceed 3 per dock (Sec.20- 266 (6)). Boats may be clustered if additional dock structures are allowed. The applicant does not meet the requirements for a second dock structure and would be limited to 3 docked boats. 7. The maximum number of docks on a recreational beach lot is three (3). No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless the beach meets the following conditions: a. Shoreline of at least two hundred (200) feet per dock, and b. Area of at least thirty thousand (30,000) square feet for the first dock and additional twenty thousand (20,000) square feet for each additional dock. Near Mountain CUP Amen&nent/ Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16,2006 Page 9 of 15 Findin : The beach lot has over 500 feet of frontage and an area of 27,000 square feet as determined by a survey submitted by the applicant. This is 23,000 square feet short of the required 50,000 square feet for a second dock structure. A variance is required if the second dock is to be installed at the beach lot. 8. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet or the minimum straigbt-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of four (4) feet. The width (but not the length) of the cross -bar of any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in the computation of length described in the preceding sentence. The cross -bar of any such dock shall not measure in excess of twenty-five (25) feet in length. Findin : The applicant needs to provide details about the proposed dock. The applicant should also contact the DNR regarding any state approvals that may be required for common docking areas. 9. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided, however, that the owner of any two (2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one (1) common dock within the dock setback zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the common dock is the only dock on the two (2) lakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this chapter. Findin : The illustration with the current proposed location and extent of the dock submitted by the applicant illustrates that the proposed second dock structure (northern dock) would be outside the dock setback zone. 10. No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. No more than one (1) sail boat mooring shall be allowed for every two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. Findine: No sailboat moorings are proposed. 11. A recreational beach lot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for the subdivision of which it is a part. For purposes of this paragraph, the following terms shall mean those beach lots which are located either within (urban) or outside (rural) the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in the comprehensive plan. a. Urban recreational beach lot: At least eighty (80) percent of the dwelling units, which have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational beach lot, shall be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of the recreational beach lot. b. Rural recreational beach lot: A maximum of fifty (50) dwelling units (including riparian lots) shall be permitted appurtenant rights of access to the recreational beach lot. Upon extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service boundary into the rural area, the urban recreational beach lot standards will apply. 7 ­� Near Mountain CUP Amen&nentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16,2006 Page 10 of 15 Finding: All of the dwelling units are located within 1,000 feet of the beach lot. 12. All recreational beach lots, including any recreational beach lots established prior to February 19, 1987 may be used for swimming beach purposes, but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with marker buoys which conform to the United States Coast Guard standards. Finding: No swimming beach is proposed. 13. All recreational beach lots shall have a buffer sufficient to insulate other property owners from beach lot activities. This buffer may consist of topography, streets, vegetation, distance (width or depth), or other features or combinations of features which provide a buffer. To insure appropriate buffering, the city may impose conditions to insulate beach lot activities including, but not limited to: a. Increased side or front yard setbacks for beach areas, docks, racks or other allowed recreational equipment or activities; b. Hours of use; c. Planting and maintenance of trees and shrubs; d. Erection of fences; e. Standards of maintenance including mowing and trimming; painting and upkeep of racks, docks and other equipment; disposal of trash and debris; f. Increased width, depth or area requirements based upon the intensity of the use proposed or the number of dwellings having rights of access. Findin : Existing vegetation will be preserved according to the applicant. Lot width will also provide distance to act as buffer between the beach lot and other properties. 14. To the extent feasible, the city may impose such conditions even after approval of the beach lot if the city finds it necessary. Finding: At the present time, no additional conditions are imposed. 15. Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft, where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach lot. Flinding: The applicant shall incorporate a clause in the covenants for the homeowner's association to require that watercraft stored, moored or docked overnight shall be owned by the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes in the association if the condition does not already exist. 16. The placement of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks, and other structures shall be indicated on a site plan approved by the city council. Findin : The applicant has submitted a diagram of proposed Conditional Use Near Mountain CUP Amendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16,2006 Page 11 of 15 Amendments. The 2 docks and 8 boats have been illustrated on Figure 2 of Attachment 2. 17. Portable chemical toilets may be allowed as a condition of approval of a recreational beach lot. The maintenance and use of chemical toilets on some beach lots may be unsuitable because they cannot be adequately screened from residential neighbors or lake users. Any use of chemical toilets on recreation beach lots shall be subject to the following: a. The minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark shall be seventy-five (75) feet. Side and front yard setbacks shall be maximized to achieve maximum screening from adjacent lots and the lake. b. It may only be used Memorial Day to Labor Day and shall be removed from the lot during the rest of the year. c. It shall be securely anchored to the ground to prevent tipping. d. It shall be screened from the lake and residential property with landscaping. e. It shaH be serviced at least weekly. f. Only models designed to mininriize the potential for spilling may be used. g. Receipt of an annual license from the city's planning department. The license shall be issued unless the conditions of approval of this ordinance have been violated. All license applications shall be accompanied by the following information: I . Name, address, and phone number of applicants. 2. Site plan showing proposed location of chemical toilets. 3. Name, address, and phone number of chemical toilet supplier. 4. Plan for commercially maintaining the chemical toilet, including a copy of any agreement for maintenance, and the name, address, and phone number of person responsible for maintenance. 5. A written description of how the applicant intends to screen the portable chemical toilet from all views into the property, including views from the lake. Findin : No portable chemical toilets are proposed. 18. No watercraft or boat lift shall be kept, moored, docked, or stored in the dock setback zone. Findin : The applicant should include a clause in the covenants for the homeowner's association to require that no watercraft of boat lift shall be located within the dock setback zone. 19. Gazebos may be permitted on recreational beach lots subject to city council approval and the following standards: a. Minimum setback from the ordinary high watermark shall be seventy-five (75) feet. b. No gazebo shall be closer to any lot line than the minimum required yard setback for the zoning district in which the structure is located. c. Maximum size of the structure shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) square feet. d. Maximum height shall not exceed twenty (20) feet. Near Mountain CUP Amendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16,2006 Page 12 of 15 e. Gazebos shall make use of appropriate materials, colors, and architectural and landscape forms to create a unified, high-quality design concept for the lot which is compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures. f. Gazebos shall be properly maintained. Structures which are rotted, unsafe, deteriorated or defaced shall be repainted, repaired, removed, or replaced by the homeowners or beach lot association. 9. The following improvements are prohibited in gazebos; screening used to completely enclose a wall, water and sewer service, fireplaces, and electricity. Finding: No gazebos are proposed. FINDINGS: VARUNCE #1 — Second Dock The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance for a second dock unless they find the following facts: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods preexisting standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. There are no comparable properfies within 500 feet. There are other recreational beach lots on Lotus Lake that exist within single family residential zoning which are governed by nonconforming use permits or existing conditional use permits. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Findin : The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are generally applicable to beach lots. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income Potential of the parcel of land. Findin : The improvements increase the value of the property. 4. That the afleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Findin : Since its creation, the beach lot has never had the area necessary for a second dock structure. Therefore, the hardship is self-created. 5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Near Mountain CUP Arnerubnent/ Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16,2006 Page 13 of 15 Finding: The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare due to intensified use of the beach lot. 6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or decrease visibility or site distances, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Findin : The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare from increased parking associated with intensified use on the beach lot. Pleasant View Road as it currently exists is a sub -standard street at 26 feet in width with poor sightlines. A standard residential street is 31 feet wide with I I foot wide travel lanes. A parked vehicle typically takes up 8 feet of the road width which creates a problem with traffic flow on the substandard street. FINDINGS: VARLANCE #2 — Four Boat SHys Per Dock The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance for four (4) boat slips per dock unless they find the following facts: I . That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods preexisting standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Findine: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. There are no comparable properties within 500 feet. There are other recreational beach lots on Lotus Lake that exist within single family residential zoning which are governed by nonconforming use permits or existing conditional use permits. No beach lots on Lotus Lake with Conditional Use Permits are permitted to have more than 3 slips per dock. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Findin : The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are generally applicable to beach lots. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: ne improvements increase the value of the property. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship because the number of slips per dock allowed by code has not changed since the original CUP was granted in 198 1. Near Mountain CUP Amendment/ Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 14 of 15 5. That the E'IWI .6 0 e v ance not men LO die pubuc welime or injuiiuus Lu other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Finding: The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare due to intensified use of the beach lot. 6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or decrease visibility or site distances, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. FjR4LnZ: The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare from increased parking associated with intensified use on the beach lot. Pleasant View Road as it currently exists is a sub -standard street at 26 feet in width with poor sightlines. A standard residential street is 31 feet wide with 11 foot wide travel lanes. A parked vehicle typically takes up 8 feet of t1jejoad width which creates a prob i em with traffic flow on the substandard street S*W recto-veA dLilt' 44o^& c&n,��ft, whI&A Yw eta."ea LAW t-ke OhI3 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "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 beach lots in Chanhassen will likely seek variances from lot area and boat limit restrictions." ATTACHMENTS I . Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application w/attachments. 3. Affidavit of Mailing. 4. Conditional Use Permit #87-13 for Near Mountain Lake Association. 5. Nonconforming Use Permit for Colonial Grove Beach Lot, dated June 15, 198 1. 6. Findings of Fact and Decision for Colonial Grove Beach Lot, dated September 13, 1993. 7. Conditional Use Permit for Lotus Lake Estates Beach Lot, dated July 7, 1986. 8. Conditional Use Permit for Kurvers Point Beach Lot, dated July 20,1987. 9. City Code Article V, Section 9 (11) as of July 20, 1987. 10. Emai I from A. Fauske, dated May 3, 2006. Near Mountain CUP Amendment/ Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 15 of 15 11. Email from J. Whiteman, dated April 28, 2006. 12. Letter from J. & J. Thielen dated May 7, 2006. gAplan\2006 planning casm\06-20 n� mauntain lake association\n= mountain cup—vatimmdoc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard – P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 – (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Planning Case No. CITY OF CHANHASSFj4 RECEIVED APR 1 3 2o06 CHANHASSPRi ot Applicant Name and Address: Owner Name and Address: NA4AhWA)-r4,.A 1.,4KC_ ASj0r4A-roJ & I a P a* S. A ri —, Ve 9 N C,14A HASSf�� mA 575317 Contact: JlAi4/4 bY,/tK Contact: Phone:6i7_202-73% Fax:763572 4t92'(f Phone: Fax: Email: 1>YVtj4jA Cq� yAt4vo. cDA., Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment --)/— Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 42S Interim Use Permit (lUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-WaylEasements (VAC) V/ Variance (VAR) -zcc Weiland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign - $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $49 CU�_E PRIVACNARfWAP/Metes & Bounds 5r Mir $45 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $_ 07 6 (L' cr�_'*k Joe, An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital cop in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: NEAP, hcP0-AJ1AoJ LAKIE- AELAEA-mtjAL CEAql LOT LOCATION: ACA,-�.Ss F -Pot -t 6to �L-r--ASA^s—, Vir=� A -b - LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 0UrL(-->T 9 j A E i r—t4EAT-'.s 4bbrrtoAJ TOTALACREAGE /.06A(tZE�>-085- 0 0. 29 AcAF-s - Zoos - WETLANDS PRESENT YES V/ NO PRESENTZONING: SjtJGIL REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: AE�ibfW—nAl, Lc>L^s bb09t-nf REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: S A#%, E,� REASON FOR REQUEST --SEF— A-nz-AQ-feZ� This application must be completed in full and be typewntten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your applicabon. A determination of completeness of the applicabon shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of applirafion deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making applirabon for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complyingwith all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. l0 JAi-tM 41iq166 gn ure f Ap I of A'p Date ure of VFeeer Date Gl�PLAN\f0ms0eveloprnent Review Appli�bon.DOC Rev. 12/05 SCANNED April 14, 2006 Near Mountain Lake Association Dock Variance Request Near Mountain Lake Association owns Outlot B of Reichert's Addition. The Association members consist of Lots 1-8, Reichert's addition along Pleasant View Road on the east side of the northern tip of Lotus Lake (figure 1). We are one of the oldest if not the oldest lake association on Lotus Lake. We have long standing membership with an average time of home ownership for our current members of approximately 16 years. We have always been good stewards of the lake and shoreline. We, the Near Mountain Lake Association, are requesting a variance to allow a second seasonal, 50 foot dock on the southern portion of our Association's recreational beach lot (Outlot B) on Lotus Lake as shown in figure 2. Further, we request 4 boat slips per dock for a total of 8 slips. Currently, a single 50 foot seasonal dock is used for 3 boats on the southern portion of the lot. Under See. 20-266 of the Chanhassen City Code: "(7) The maximum munber of docks on a recreational beach lot is three. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless the beach meets the following conditions: a. Shoreline of at least 200 feet per dock; and b. Area of at least 30,000 square feet for the first dock and additional 20,000 square feet for each additional dock." Outlot B has 600 feet of shoreline and an area of 46000 square feet according to City of Chanhassen records. This is likely based on a survey from the early 1980's (figure 2). A more recent survey was conducted in 2005 which shows the area to be 38350 square feet (figure 3). We believe the reduction in area may be a result of settling. We have never added fill to the northern two thirds of Outlot B where it appears we have lost land area (compare figures 2 and 3). Had we added fill over the years, we may have maintained the earlier size, however we have chosen to respect the natural state of the land. We have enough shoreline to support 2 and even 3 docks, however we are short of the required 50000 square feet for 2 docks. We are asking for a variance that will permit the use of a second dock in spite of the square foot shortage. The southern portion of shoreline where the current dock is used and where we propose to locate the second dock is not in a designated wctland area. Only the northern 150 feet of shoreline on Outlot B is wetland according to the National Wetland inventory, Precedents: We believe exceptions from city code regarding shoreline use have been granted for other Lotus Lake associations. Some examples are: 1. The Lotus Lake Betterment Association (Sandy Hook) has a recreational lot of unknown area with a shoreline of 25 feet (figure 4). They are well short of the 200 foot SCANNEO shoreline requirement but have a permit for a 100 foot dock with no stated boat limit. Typically, they have approximately 6 boats moored at the dock. 2. Lotus Lake Estates Association (Choctaw) has a large beachlot of 92700 square feet and 900 feet of shoreline (figure 5). They have a permit for three docks which falls within the city code requirements, but the permit also allows them to have 4 sailboat moorings. This exceeds the city code see 20-266 which states, "Up to three sailboat moorings shall be allowed." 3. Kurver's Point Association has two docks with a total of 10 slips. They have 56000 square feet with 460 feet of shoreline (figure 6). This is sufficient for 2 docks, but the code states, "(6) No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three motorized or nomnotorized watercraft per dock." 4. Fox Chase/Lotus Lake Dock and Trail Association has one large permanent dock on the lot of 732 Lake Point. This dock has 7 slips for the 7 homes along the DNR protected wetland on the northwest shoreline (figure 7). Again, the number of boat slips exceeds that allowed by the city code. These are 4 associations that have been granted dock usage beyond the requirements of the city code. There may be other examples as well. We believe that our request for 2 simple straight docks, 50 feet in length that will allow 4 boat slips per dock for a total of 8 boat slips meets the general conditions for a variance see 20-58: 1) We are asking for reasonable use as other associations have been granted. 2) Recreational beach lot requirements suggest a variance is needed. 3) We are making this request only for enjoyment of the take. 4) Our hardship is not self-created 5) Variance will not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to other land. The shoreline will remain natural and undisturbed. No water orshore vegetation will be disturbed. 6) a. street congestion will not be increased. Oudot B is within 500 feet of all home lots (walking distance). b. visibility is not affected c. fire danger is not increased d. public safety is not diminished e. neighboring property values are not impaired We will continue to be good stewards of the lake and the shoreline. We will continue to preserve the northern two-thirds of Outl6t B and it's shoreline in its undisturbed natural state (figure 8). Respectfully submitted, Near Mountain Lake Association SCANNED 1011no 0 --3 ioiin WIT vk� 'il Mzv "all Ol lu Q4. mo < zo w % ------- --- 4 Z _J LLI a, go 39,0 1 Nil w 0ow Z W7 Z� M'U 4 W?o 11CANNED Ld 1141 AD t� U3 se v; C.A '61 -61 �P! 7' OD 61 *2 Ikeo 1> r/ 4 w / �U0,850to Y:Z-L— 0 SCANNED R LU [is Print Data/Map Page I of I a3mmvn r LOTUS LAKE NL T. P, -n I LAM, AREA = 27,000± SF TO THE OHW CONTOUR 38,350± SF TO THE EDGE OF ICE Print Data/Map Page I of I F I&og+, 5 SCANNED http://156.99.124.167/website/parcel search/printdatamap.asp?PB3--254200461 4/11/2006 Print Data/Map Page I of I Print Data/Map Page I of I F( &,Jke- � SCANNED httD:H156.99.124.167/websitc/l)arcel search/l)rintdatamap.aSI3?PID=252700160 4/11/2006 Print Data/Map Page I of I FIGO(ZE- 9 SCANNED http://156.99.124.167/website/parcel searclVprintdatamap.asp?PID=257300110 4/14/2006 CITY OF CHANRASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) 1, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on May 4, 2006, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Near Mountain Lake Association Recreational Beachlot Conditional Use Permit and Variance – Planning Case 06-20 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage ftilly prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. -A -4 �-X A4 IaL Kar lerk /n J. Eng t, De6u y C' Subscribed and swom to before me this day of 10,/ 2006. Notary P"Z�—, Kim T m Sl W SS UF U T.ta NotaryPubfic- inn My C�MmMjm Expim Jw 31, 2010 IWA�� Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a Variance and Conditional Use Permit for the addition of a second dock — Planning Case 06-20. Applicant: Near Mountain Lake Association Property Northeast side of Lotus Lake off Pleasant View Road (Outlot B, 11 Location: Reicherrs Addition). A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/sery/plan/06-20.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Lori Haak Questions & by email at fhaak@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952 - Comments: 227-1135. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Prwedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commencialAindustrial. • Minnesota State statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting • A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresentative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested persons). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application YdII be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included In the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a Variance and Conditional Use Permit for the addition of a second dock — Planning Case 06-20. Applicant Near Mountain Lake Association Property Northeast side of Lotus Lake off Pleasant View Road (Cutlot B, Location: Reichert's Addition). A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/i)lan/06-20.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Lori Haak Questions & by email at Ihaak*ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952 - Comments: 227-1135. If you choose to submit written comments, It Is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Prmedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commissionr City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council, The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Pezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except razonings and land use amendments from residential to commercialAndustrial, • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the prccess should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spolkespersontrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city, Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to rev!: lh: project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are t an no any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. This mas is rather a legaity, mcomad Map, nor a my and is not intended to be used or one. Tthis Map is a wroPilation of records. information and dam formed in various city, county. Mate and federal Wires and other sources regarding the We. shchin. and is 1. ber used for reference purposes only. Phe City does not ,moant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this Map we effor her, and the Chy does not moresent MW the GIS Data can be used for nwitgational. t=Wng or my other purpose requiring exacting mrasurenhent of distance or direction or precision in Me depiction of geographic features, If wrom or discrepancies am found please contact 952-227-1107. �e preceding declaimer is prwiled pursuant to Minnesom Statubas §466.03, Subil. 21 (2()()()), and Me uMir of this map sclunoWedges that the City shall no be liable for my damages, and eirpressly vinwies all claims, and agrees to defrod, indemnify. and hold harriers the City Imm my and all claims brought by User. Me emcloyeas or agents or third parties i,ituch sow on of Me usses arccer or use of data pron,ided. 1,11,ii,luliie This rapt is neither a legally recomed Map nor a surmy and is nor intended to be used as we This map is a completion Of mcoms, information and data located! in vanws city, county, state and fetleral offices and other sourci, regarcing Me ipea shuriin. andu; to be used! for mfe,ence purposes will, The City does not ismem that the Geographic Intoornation System GIS) Data wait to pre,pare this map are Mror tom, will the City does not represto thin the GIS Data can pe used for na�gwioral, tiertmig Or my other pumc,ce mcfuiring exacting Measurement of distance or director or prermon in the deptcton of geographic teatums. It boom or discrepancies we found please, contact 952-227-1107. The Preceding dWarroar is proinded cuisuant to Minnesota Statutes, §4611.03. SuW. 21 (2000), and the uwir of this Malp that Me C4ty shot not be liable for my damages and eVresely wani all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold hamess Me City hour any and all dauns bmght by U.I. its employees, or agents. or flum! parties �iclh arm out of Mis users access or rise 04 data pmided. ALAN & ANNABEL FOX ALAN & LINDA K KRAMER ALFRED A & SUSAN K HENDERSON 7300 LAREDO DR 531 INDIAN HILL RD 7330 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9608 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9533 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7521 ANDREW H & KATRINA E CLEMENS 6691 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 ANN HOGAN & 481 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9298 ARLIS A BOVY 7339 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9796 BLAIR PETER ENTENMANN & 7407 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9722 BRIAN H &JEANNE M BATZLI 100 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9580 CARMELA V RICHARDS 7320 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7521 CHARLES C & JANET C HURD 6695 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 CHRISTOPHER & TRACEY RUST 7500 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8576 ANDREW J & LINDA M HOFMEISTER 6653 MERRY PL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4607 ANNE F JONES 480 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8801 BARBARA L HEDLUND 10014 INDIGO DR EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347-1206 BRACE D HELGESON 7820 TERREY PINE CT EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347-1126 BRUCE A & JODI L NORD 551 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9533 CARVER BEACH PROPERTIES 332 2ND ST EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-1806 CHARLES F LEINBERGER JR & 6655 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 CHRISTOPHER K LARUS & 7018 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9581 ANN DANIELSON 6607 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 ANTHONY G & SALLY A HEARD 510 PLEASANTVIEW RD CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-9437 BEVERLY H THOMAS 745 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9509 BRIAN C & KRISTEN L APPLEGATE 7350 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7521 CARL B FITZSIMMONS & 7480 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9503 CATHERINE S HISCOX 7500 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7903 CHARLES R & JUDY L PETERSON 708 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9284 CHRISTOPHER S PELLETIER & 6420 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9277 CONSTANCE M CERVILLA CRAIG N HANSEN & CURT R & SHELLY A SCHWIESO 650 CARVER BEACH RD 6430 FOX PATH 6681 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-2101 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9277 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 6URTIS G & CHERI L ANDERSON DANIEL A & MARILYN BOECKERMANN DANIEL L ROBBINS & 500 PLEASANT VIEW RD 6375 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9437 104 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9580 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 DANNY J & BRENDA L VATLAND 7290 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7518 DAVID E & CAROLYN M WETTERLIN 7420 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9503 DAVID M & LAURIE C SUSLA 7409 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9722 DAVID W & BEVERLY J KOPISCHKE 6675 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 DENNIS J & TONIE FLAHERTY 7004 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9583 DORIS A ROCKWELL 6677 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 DOUGLAS J & LANA HABERMAN 520 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9437 ERNEST F PIVEC 5060 MEADVILLE ST EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8788 DAVID A & PATRICIA L PREVES 106 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MIN 55317-9580 DAVID FRANKLIN LABADIE & 489 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9576 DAVID 0 & RACHEL A [GEL 501 BIG WOODS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4504 DEAN T & SUSAN L STANTON 500 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8805 DENNIS ZHU & 716 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9284 DOUGLAS H & JEANNE E MACLEAN 7280 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7518 EILEEN T KELLY 740 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9284 FRANCIS J HOFMEISTER & 7645 GIBRALTER TER APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-6123 DAVID B SANFORD & 6440 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9277 DAVID M &JOANNA POINAR 7303 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9608 DAVID R & VALERIE L ROSSBACH 670 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9509 DENNIS C & JANIS I FISHER 7501 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7903 DONALD N & CAROL J MEHL 490 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8801 DOUGLAS J & ELIZABETH K BITNEY 6645 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 EMILY H JOHNSON 335 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9524 FRANK W JR & MARGARET M HETMAN 7014 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN, MIN 55317-9582 FRANKLIN J & MYRNA A KURVERS FREDERIC OELSCHLAGER ETAL FRONTIER TRAIL ASSN 7220 KURVERS POINT RD 7410 CHANHASSEN RD 201 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7518 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9503 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9728 3ARY J SCHNEIDER & GARY M SCHELITZCHE GEORGE J & DIANNE H PRIEDITIS 340 PLEASANT VIEW RD 680 PLEASANT VIEW RD 7401 FRONTIER TRL ��HANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9509 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9722 3REG & MARIA LINDSLEY 500 BIG WOODS BLVD 'HANHASSEN, MN 55317-4504 HENRY & SANDRA NEILS 7012 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9583 JAMES K MCCLEARY 6661 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 JANICE L ANDRUS 449 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9576 JOHN & BEVERLY RYAN 6685 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 JOHN M & SANDRA L CUNNINGHAM 6665 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 JOHN R & CAROL W HAMMETT 6697 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 JON ALAN LANG 640 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9428 GREGORY DEAN CRAY 200 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9728 HERBERT N & CAROLYN BLOOMBERG 7008 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9583 JAMES R & KATHRYN A DREESEN 6379 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 JAY H & SHELLEY H STROHMAIER 80 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9312 JOHN C LEE 7337 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9796 JOHN P & JANE THIELEN 665 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9509 JOHN T & RUTH E SCHEVENIUS 570 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9437 JOSEPH J & CHRISTINE K STONE 6370 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9109 HAROLD G & KATHRYN M DAHL 6631 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 JAHN A DYVIK 610 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327 JAMES T & DIANE S LESTOR 429 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9576 JEFFREY W & MARY L BORNS 7199 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9605 JOHN E NICOLAY JR 608 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327 JOHN P & SUZANNE D BOHN 6377 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-9128 JOHN W SCHNEIDER JR 6340 SUMMIT CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9138 JOSEPH M & MARGERY M PFANKUCH 6611 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 KALLEY T YANTA KEITH M & MARY BETH HOFFMAN KENTON D KELLY 365 PLEASANT VIEW RD 6470 FOX PATH 6539 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9524 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9279 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9247 kEVIN & LINDA SHARKEY KEVIN A & LEANNE M BENSON KURVERS POINT HOMEOWNER 6900 ROLLING ACRES RD 620 PLEASANT VIEW RD ASSN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9681 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327 7240 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9503 LADD R & SUSAN M CONRAD LARRY A & JULIE M KOCH LARRY P MON 6625 HORSESHOE CRV 471 BIGHORN DR 4909 PAYTON CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9298 EDINA, MN 55435-1544 LINDA WILKES LORNA G TARNOWSKI LOTUS LAKE BETTERMENT ASSN 7632 SOUTH SHORE DR 7405 FRONTIER TRL 105 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9400 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9722 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9580 LOTUS LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSN LOWELL A & NANCY W JOBE LUCI M HARTERT PO BOX 63 109 SANDY HOOK RD 6371 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0063 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9580 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 MARK C & NANCY A ENGASSER MARK LOREN OLSON & MARK 0 & SUZANNE SENN 7000 DAKOTA 536 PLEASANT VIEW RD 7160 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9583 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7514 MARY J SILL MATHEW P ARENS & MATTHEW T & LISA A KOEPPEN 6385 OXBOW BND 7644 SOUTH SHORE DR 5410 GROVE ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9400 EDINA, MN 55436-2210 MELVIN & JACQUELINE D KURVERS MICHAEL & DEBRA HAYDOCK MICHAEL & KATHRYN SCHWARTZ 7240 KURVERS POINT RD 6460 FOX PATH 469 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7518 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9279 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9576 MICHAEL A & CYNTHIA A COLSON MICHAEL A & JANET A STANZAK MICHAEL CARR & 6373 OXBOW BND 724 LAKE PT 6369 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9284 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 MICHAEL R & JODY SCHEPERS MICHELE M KOPFMANN & NANCY A ENGASSER 540 PLEASANT VIEW RD 7415 FRONTIER TRL 7000 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9437 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9722 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9583 NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSN INC NEIL & BARBARA GOODWIN NICHOLAS J VASSALLO & 610 PLEASANT VIEW RD 7310 KURVERS POINT RD 6669 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7521 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 PAT H FITZSIMMONS & PATRICIA A PAULS PATRICK F & KATHRYN A PAVELKO 7400 CHANHASSEN RD 11010 OREGON CRV 7203 FRONTIER TFIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9503 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438-2806 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9605 PAUL F & LISA T HUBER 6663 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 PAUL L & DESTINI MOLITOR 748 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-9284 PETER J & KATHERINE S DAHL 220 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9728 RICHARD J & EUNICE M PETERS 7301 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9608 ROBERT FLYNN & 40 HILL ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9586 ROBERT M & ANETTE R BARNHART 6330 SUMMIT CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9138 ROLF G ENGSTROM & 7201 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9605 SAMUEL G & LAURIE J CURNOW 650 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9509 PAUL G & KELLEY E KOSMIDES 7636 SOUTH SHORE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9400 PAUL T EIDSNESS & 4395 TRILLIUM LN W MOUND, MN 55364-7713 PHILIP 0 & LUDMILLA J ISAACSON 6633 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 ROBERT B & SUE MIDNESS 112 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9580 ROBERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN 7343 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9796 ROBERT P BIRDWELL & 7016 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9581 RONALD C & SHAWN P HAINES 7340 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7521 SCOTT & JULIE MAEYAERT 7506 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7903 PAUL J & KARI J ROMPORTL 7417 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9722 PETER A MOSCATELLI 102 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9580 RAYMOND P & ALICIA L BROZOVICH 6609 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 ROBERT F & DIANA L DAVIS 6387 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 ROBERT IAN AMICK 581 FOX HILL DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9538 ROGER & MARJORIE L KARJALAHTI 7413 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9722 RONALD E HARVIEUX & 6605 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 SCOTT J & DENISE B SMITH 30 HILL ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9586 SEAN & MELINDA FITZGERALD SEYMOUR S RESNIK STATE OF MINNESOTA -DNR 630 PLEASANT VIEW RD 7370 KURVERS POINT RD 500 LAFAYETTE RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7521 ST PAUL, MN 55155-4030 STEPHEN J & JEANNIE L WANEK STEVEN A & BETH A MCAULEY STEVEN A & CAROL K DONEN 6615 HORSESHOE CRV 20 HILL ST 7341 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9586 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9796 STEVEN F & PATRICIA L STAMY 491 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9298 STEVEN T JENKS 7490 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9503 SUSAN R APPLEGATE 7360 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7521 THOMAS & MARILYN PALMBY 114 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9580 THOMAS M & NANCY S SEIFERT 600 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327 THOMAS V & DARLEEN TURCOTTE 108 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9580 TIMOTHY C SAMUELSON & 6381 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 STEVEN M & MONICA M POSNICK 7010 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9583 STEVEN T MESTITZ & 7200 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7514 T MICHAEL MILLER & 6350 SUMMIT CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9138 THOMAS A & JUDY R MEIER 695 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9509 THOMAS M & SUSAN J HUBERTY 6450 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9277 THOMAS W & PAMELA C DEVINE PO BOX 714 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-0714 TIMOTHY J & DIANE A MCHUGH 7450 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9503 STEVEN M GULLICKSON & 6613 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526 SUNRISE HILLS 7340 LONGVIEW CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9797 TERRY D & DEBRA L VOGT 732 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9284 THOMAS F III & KAREN M CONBOY 6383 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 THOMAS R & AMY B EDSTROM 10 HILL ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9586 THOMAS W HAROLD 7411 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9722 TODD L & PATRICIA A FROSTAD 561 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9533 TODD R MAGILL & WILLIAM & IVY KIRKVOLD WILLIAM & MARJORIE SPLIETHOFF 20433 CHERYL DR 201 FRONTIER CT 4041 GULF SHORE BLVD N #312 TORRANCE, CA 90503-1815 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9728 NAPLES, FL 34103-3422 3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 0ap CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for: A recreational beachlot 2. Property. The permit is for the following described property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: I Outlot B, Reichert's Addition 3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Article 5-9-11 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. No alteration to the existing site shall be permitted. There shall be no use of chemical kill or dredging in the wetland without an additional wetland alteration permit, DNR and City Council approval. 3. The recreational beachlot is limited to the installation of 1 dock and 1 canoe rack. 4. The beachlot shall be maintained by the Near Mountain Lake Association. 5. A " slow - no wake" buoy shall be installed and maintained. by the homeowners association. 6. There shall be no launching of motorized boats or boats that require a trailer from the beachlot. 4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing under any of the following circumstances: material change of condition of the neighborhood where the use is located; violation of the terms of the permit. 5. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated:—August 3, 1987 CITY OF CHANHASSEN i, ' L By -. Ilt!�rWayor �2YL By: 11 (a �–p STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The famoing, instrument was acknowledged before me this -44( of e4 C day 19F7, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and Don AshMorth, City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. NotAry Puh(lhc UF i ENGELHAROT _ I _E'SOTA PljbLIC - MWNESOTA �P 4�1:mF 0 N TY .. rq %r,,�4CFt COUNTY e.pires 1�1r-91 Rev.CMM/9-Z3-80 CITY OF CHANHASSEN LOTUS LAKE AT LOTUS LAKE SECOND ADDITION This permit and agreement, made and entered into this day of —9—i4we- —, 19 91 , by and between Bloomberg Companies Incorporated, and Lotus Lake Betterment Association, Inc., (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Applicant), and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the City); WITNESSETH: That the City, in exercise of its powers pursuant to M.S. Chapter 412 & 462, and the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, hereby grants to the Applicant herein a non -conforming use permit to maintain and operate a private neighborhood association recreational area upon Outlot A, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition, Carver County, Minnesota (hereinafter Outlot A), subject to the following terms and conditions, all of which shall be strictly complied with as being necessary for the protection of the public interest: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01 Prior Platting of Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake. Prior to the adoption of the Chanhassen Zoning ordinanc-e--To—rdinance 47 adopted February 8, 1972), the plat of Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake (hereinafter the First Addition) was filed with the Carver County Minnesota Registrar of Titles. Said plat included two outlots designated thereon as Outlots 1 and 2. 1.02 Prior Usage of Outlot 1. Said Outlot 1 included frontage on Lotus Lake, and has,since the time of platting of the First Addition, been continuously used by the residents of the First Addition as a lake access, boat launching area, swimming beach, tennis and recreation area; and as such constitutes a "recreational area" operated by a residential neighborhood association for which a conditional use permit is required under section 7.04 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 1.03 Status of Outlot 1 as a Non-Conforminq Use estaoiisnment of the Chanhas constitutes a prohibitied by of said recreational area pre -dates the Because the adoption sen Zoning Ordinance, said recreational area non -conforming use, the expansion of which is section 20 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, unless a conditional use permit has been obtained first from the City for such expansion. 1.04 Platting of The Second Addition. Bloomberg, as the owner of Outlots nd 2 in the First Addition, has made application to the City for the approval of the plat of Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition (hereinafter the Second Addition). By said plat, Outlots 1 and 2 in the First Addition are divided, so as to create 31 new lots and one new outiot, designated as Outlot A. Said Outlot A encompasses that portion of the First Addition which has been and is now being utilized as the aforementioned recreational area. Bloomberg means Bloomberg Companies Incorporated. 1.05 ConvF tjgce,,of,2 Bloomberg, as altlot A to Association. the owner of 0 informed thij city that it has incorporated the Lotus Lake Betterment Association, Inc. (hereinafter the Association) as non-profit corporation to which Bloomberg will convey ownership of Outlot A. Bloomberg has informed the City that neither it nor the Association will make any alteration of said Outlot A, and that said Outlot A will be made available the residents of the First Addition, and the Second Addition, and to the residents of so-called John C. Lovetang tract (more particularly described in the documents filed in the office of the Carver County Recorder at Book 83, page 23, and Book 84, page 215). 1.06 Purpose of This Permit. The within permit has been drafted for the purpose of memorializing both those recreational uses which may be conducted by the Applicant upon Outlot A in the absence of the issuance of a conditional use permit and those activities which would constitute an expansion of the use of said Outlot A, and thus, require the Applicant to seek a conditional use permit from the City prior to any such expansion. Section 2. Special Conditions. 2.01 Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal to the Applicant and to the Association, and is not assignable or transferable except upon the written consent of the City. 2.02 Release of Bloomberg. The City, upon written request, shall release fflo-omberg from its obligations hereunder upon receipt of documentation which demonstrates a) the proper incorporation of the Association pursuant to Chapter 317 of Minnesota Statutes, and b) the conveyance of title to the Subject Property in fee simple to the Association for the benefit of all owners of lots in the First Addition, the Second Addition, and the above described John C. Lovetang tract. No such release shall be given until such documentation has been approved by the City Attorney as to legal sufficiency. No such release as to Bloomberg shall have the effect of releasing the Association from its obligations, covenants, and agreements hereunder. 2.03 Lli!l�tys2&djr This Permit Not Expandable to other owners. t is sui� -one This permi d for the benerit of the owners Ot the forty lots in the First Addition, the thirty-one lots in the Second Addition, and the one homesite in the above described John C. Lovetang tract. The Applicant agrees that the use and enjoyment of Outlot A shall be limited to said owners. The use and enjoyment of Outlot A may not extend to persons other than such owners. The term "owners" as utilized in this §2.03 shall mean and refer to any natural person who is either a) the record owner of a fee simple interest, or b) the record owner of a contract for deed vendee's interest, or c) the holder of any possessory leasehold -2- Rev.CMM/9/23-80 interest, in the whole of any such lot or tract, including authorized guests and family members of any such persons. In the event that the above described First Addition lots, Second Addition lots, or John C. Lovetang tract are further divided subsequent to the date of this permit, the Association shall not extend usage rights to the owners of the resultant parcels unless a conditional use permit for a recreational area shall have been first obtained from the City Council. 2.04 Description of P premises subject to the wi described as follows: ect to This Permit. The formina use vermit are Outlot A, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County, Minnesota. 2.05 No Alteration of Outlot A. No portion of Outlot A shall be developed, altered, or di—sturbed in any way, except after first having obtained a conditional use permit from the Chanhassen City Council for any such development, alteration, or disturbance. For th p�Vposes of this permit, normal maintenance of the existing e>,v e 4NJ-4d foot dock and the existing tennis court and other i�'x—isting improvements, normal maintenance and routine mowing of existing improved lawn areas on Outlot A shall not be deemed to be an alteration requiring issuance of a City permit. 2.06 Swi 9 a mi2 ndpPicnicing. Outlot A may be used for tennis, swimming pu—rpoNs a Id i6nicing purposes by "owners" as that term is defined in section 2.03 above. 2.07 Buildings. No buildings, ice fishing houses, tool sheds, or tents may be erected or stored upon Outlot A. 2.08 Mooring Buoys. No mooring buoys shall be placed upon Outlot A or in the wati�rs adjacent to Outlot A. 2.09 Airplanes. No airplane or seaplane shall be driven upon, taxied upon, or parked upon Outlot A. No seaplane shall be moored in the waters adjacent to Outlot A. 2.10 Swimming Platforms. Neither the Applicant nor any owner as hereina e defined sha erect or maintain any swimming or diving platform on Outlot A or within the waters adjacent to Outlot A. 2.11 Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for the construction of a chain El`nk boundary fence not exceeding five feet in height, no structure may be constructed or erected upon Outlot A. No docks, piers, boat racks, or canoe racks shall be constructed or erected upon Outlot A or in the waters abutting Outlot A. 2.12 Campi Pghib6i� No owner, as defined hereinabove, or 1111 al,,� Fnight on Outlot A. other person shall ad. -3- 2.13 Motor Vehicle Parking. No motor vehicle or trailer shall be parked or stored overnight or on a permanent basis on Outlot A. Section 3. Miscellaneous. 3.01 Seve.Ea i t�- In the event any provisions of this permit shall be held v�ijja illegal, or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 3.02 Execution of Counterparts. This permit may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. 3.03 Headings. Headings at the beginning of sections and paragraphs heT—eof are for convenience of reference, and shall not be considered a part of the test of this permit, and shall not influence its construction. 3.04 Proof of Title. Upon request, the Association shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has acquired fee title to Outlot A. 3.05 Notices. All notices, certificates and other communications hereunder sharl—be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, with proper address as indicated below. The City and the Applicant, by written notice given by one to the other, may designate any address or addresses to which notices, certificates or other communications to them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this permit. Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties, all notices, certificates, and communications to each of them shall be addressed as follows: To the City: City of Chanhassen City Hall 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attn: City Manager To Bloomberg: Bloomberg Companies Incorporated 551 West 78th St Chanhassen, MN 55317 To the Associa- tion: Lotus Lake Betterment Association, Inc. c/o Bloomberg Companies Incorporated 551 West 78th St Chanhassen, MN 55317 3.06 Owners to be Notified of This Permit. The Association shall furnish each of its members with a copy of this permit within thirty (30) days of any such member's initial membership in the Association. -4- 0 M z L, 0 U Z z U 3.07 Term of This Permit. This permit snall be perpetual. Section 4, Enforcement Provisions. 4.01 Reimbursement of Costs. The Applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs, including reasonable engineering, legal, planning and administrative Expenses incurred by the City in connection with all matters relating to the administration and enforcement of the within permit and the performance thereby by the Applicant. Such reimbursement shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of the City's notice of costs as provided in S3.05 above. The Applicant's reimbursement obligation under this section shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term of this permit. 4.02 Legal P�o e2 iL,2s. The City may institute any proper �edjg 4 action or proc Ig at law or at equity to prevent violations of the within permit or to restrain or abate violations of the within permit. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed on this day of acc�,c-7- 1961 . BLOOMBERG COMPANIES INCORPORATED By its And its STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF LOTUS LAKE BETTERMENT ASSOCIATION, INC By Zia zc�t And its V. 15� CITY OF_C ANHASSEN By its Mayor ATTEST f: City Manager on this IS!-,- day of �4 &L Aj c-- , 19.15 1 , before me, a notar�­public, within and for sa , personally appeared pv- ur,6111��"15 and w, A4 ito3frif to me personally known, who, befincl each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the rr Cj 4 and U, Ll V�e 5;�C4— of Bloomberg Companies Incorporated, and tTa-t said instrument was signed in behalf of said corporation by authority it its Board of Directors, and said 4tx�f A). and L4j. vk - P& -/& acknowledged said in'�'trument to be the xree act ana a ed o0tald corporation. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF QA -0 -VC --P— ) On this j< IT - day of T -L, " G— I 19ti , before me, a notary public, within and for said county, personally appeared and '.'- A" I W te, I to me pertMi'a—'Tc1sy IU91,'r!9� b ing each by me dM orn, did say that they are respectively the ds,',4.q and 0- & Q� s 1'd—�4 of Lotus Lake Betterment Association, Inc., and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and said L 11L -AiP and tu - 6u . k4 acknowledged said instrument to be free act and deed of said corporation. �,O- � QW�ublic L LEANNA M. FO`iC'ER V U N EANNA M. FORCIER C AR R 'Y STATE OF MINNESOTA) CARVER COUNTY NOTARY PUBLIC. M I NNESOTA ss r4yCCMM1S510.N9XP1REs FEB.18.1938 COUNTY OF On this 16-111, day of OA��- 1 198/ 1 before me, a notary public within Abd for said county, personally appeared Tan Hamilton and Donald W. Ashworth, to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are 'respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its City Council, and said Tom Hamilton and Donald W. Ashworth acknowledged said instrvment to be the free act and deed of said corporation. otary Public KAREN J. �LHA7RDT 1.-4 NOTARY P G - t, -INESOTA y f - .�r - c., COUNTY C(3-6�- /Jor-1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA -IN RE: Application of rolonial Gr FINDINGS OF FACT eHomeowners AssbMRMU,,-�00 Non -Conforming use Permit a AND DECISION on September 13, 1993, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to reconsider the Application of the colonial Grove Homeowners Association for a Non -Conforming Use Permit for the Colonial Grove Recreational Beachlot. Specifically, the Application, submitted pursuant to Section 20- 79 of the City of Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, is to amend the existing permit by establishing a baseline use of Colonial Grove's dock for purposes of mooring boats overnight. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed non -conforming use preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from the Colonial Grove Homeowners Association, the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association, Inc., and all other interested persons wishing to speak. Based on the hearings conducted and the evidence received, the City Council now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the property is currently zoned R-1. 2. On June 15, 1981, the City of Chanhassen granted to Bloomberg companies Incorporated and Lotus Lake Betterman Association, Inc., a non -conforming use permit to maintain and operate a private neighborhood association recreational area, hereinafter referred to as Colonial Grove Recreational Beachlot. Said non -conforming use permit neither expressly nor impliedly refers to the number of boats which were moored at the beachlot overnight in 1981 or the amount which would be permitted in the future. 3. on February 24, 1992, the Chanhassen city council amended Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning non- conforming beachlots. The amendment to Section 20-79 requires non -conforming recreational beachlots to apply for a permit. Said permits are issued upon receipt of satisfactory proof concerning the nature and extent of the legal non -conforming use. 4. Due to the pre-existing permit obtained by the Colonial Grove Recreational Beachlot in 1981, the only issue which is considered in the current application is the nature and extent of the proposed non -conforming use of the Colonial Grove Recreational Beachlot dock for overnight mooring of boats. 8777 5. The survey which was taken by the City Lake Study Committee in 1981 and indicates that there were never more than three boats moored overnight at the dock. This evidence provides the most accurate benchmark and serves as satisfactory proof that no more than three boats were moored overnight in 1981. The accuracy of the survey is supported by the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association, Inc. letter dated July 20, 1993 and signed by past and current Board members. Further proof is provided by the eight affidavits of Georgette Sosin, Harvey Parker, John Wanielson, Raymond Brizorra, Leann Hanreiux, Linda Sathre, Mary Jean Totino and Alisha Srozovich, all of which state that there were never more than three boats moored overnight at the dock in 1981. The Applicant's presentation of five affidavits of Colonial Grove occupants in support of their position that there were eight boats which used the dock for overnight mooring in 1981 is not satisfactory proof. The recollection of these five residents is overcome by the evidence that there was never more than three boats moored overnight in 1981. Based on the foregoing, the City Council of Chanhassen makes the following: DECISION 1. The non -conforming use of the Colonial Grove Recreational Beachlot for overnight mooring of boats did not exceed three (3) boats in 1981. The non-conforminq use permit shall be amended to describe the allowed use of the Colonial Grove Recreational Beachlot dock for the overnight storage of a maximum of three (3) boats. AAd t d by the Chanhassen City Council this 13 day of d=, 1993. CITY�?O ,..SSEN By D6nald J. i ayor ST, ATTE ;�a Don Ashworth,,Gi�ty Manager 8777 -2- w, V - 1-1. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RESTATED CONDITipoo�!*qF ERMIT* BEACHLOT CLOTUS LAK T This restated conditional use permit and agreement made and entered into this 7th day of July, 1986, by Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association (hereinafter the "Association"), and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City"); WITNESSETH: That the City, in exercise of its powers pursuant to M.S. §462.357, and other applicable state law, and §14 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, hereby grants to the Association herein a restated conditional use permit to maintain and operate a private neighborhood association recreational area upon Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, Carver County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Subject Property"), subject to the following terms and conditions, all -of which shall be strictly complied with as being necessary for the protection of the public interest. SECTION 1. 1 -01 - Company (he in the City lots and 3 RECITALS. !V2 P124tIng of Lot reinaMe�r has prev ,as Lotus Lake Estates, outlots. us Laxe tstates. BT Land iously platted tract of land consisting of 44 residential 1.02. OUtlot B. In connection with the platting of said L0tU_SLake Estates, BT entered into a development contract with the City of Chanhassen, dated January 5, 1979, wherein BT agreed to organize a homeowners association for the purpose of owning and operating the Subject Property for the benefit of the owners of properties lying within said plat. Section 28 of said develop- ment contract provided that BT suffer no alterations of the Subject Property except after first having obtained a permit from the City setting forth a plan for the alteration and development of the Subject Property. Said Section 28 also provides that, for purposes of said development contract, said permit would be deemed to be a conditional use permit and that the application process and pro- cedure would be as set forth in Section 23 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, which sets forth the application procedure for actual conditional use permits. 1.03. Homeowners Association. BT incorporated the Ass6—ciation for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining certain common properties including the Subject Property for the benefit of the owners of lots in the plat of Lotus Lake Estates. 1 1.04. March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit. Upon appli- cation of BT, the Chanhassen City Council on July 21, 1980, approved the issuance of a permit forthe alteration of the Subject Property. Said permit, entitled '"Conditional Use Permit Beachlot - Lotus Lake Estates", was executed by BT and the Association on March 10, 1981. 1.05. June 1, 1981 Application for Amendment of Permit. On J�une 1, 1981-, the Association, with the knowledge and consent of BT, filed with the City an application for amendment of the March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit, requesting City approval of further development of the Subject Property. 1.06. Cit CT il LDproval. On August 12, 1981, the Citj�s Planning CL_MHS2R� held a public hearing on said June 1, 1981, application and approved issuance of a revised permit authorizing further development of the Subject Property. 1.07. April 22, 1982 Conditional Use Permit. The above described March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit was superceded by the Conditional Use Permit executed on April 22, 1982. 1.08. July 18, 1984 Application for Amen On July 18, 19'�4, the Association filed with the cation for amendment of the Restated Conditional requesting City approval of further development Property. !nt of Permit City an appli- Use Permit of the Subject 1.09. City Council Approval. On August 8, 1984, the CityTs—Planning Commission held a public hearing on said July 18, 1984 application. On August 20, 1984, the City's Board of Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing and approved a variance to allow four sailboat moorings. The City Council, by its motion of November 19, 1984, approved issuance of a revised permit authorizing the installation of said moorings. 1.10. May, 1986 Application for Amendment of Permit. The CitY7of Chanha—ssen initiated a Conditional Use Permit Amendment application requesting further development of the Subject Property. 1.11. City Council Approval. On May 28, 1986, the City's Plan�ning Commi—ssion held a public hearing on the amendment appli- cation. On July 7, 1986, the City Council approved the issuance of a revised permit authorizing further development of the Subject Property. SECTION 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS. 2.01. Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal to the Associa on, and is not assignable or transferable, except upon the written consent of the City. -2- 2.02. Ri2h r This Permit N r,�I�� Y:dy; Owners. This pe t siied for the blif���f the 44 lots in Lotus Lake Estates. The Association agrees that the use and enjoyment of the Subject Property shall be limited to the owners of lots in Lotus Lake Estates. The use and enjoyment of the Subject Property may not extend to persons other than such owners. The term "owners" as utilized in this §2.02 shall mean and refer to any natural person who is either (a) the record owner of fee simple interest, or (b) the recorder owner of a contract for deed vendee's interest, or (c) the holder of any possessory leasehold interest, in the whole of any lot in Lotus Lake Estates, including authorized guests and family members of any such persons. 2.03 : Description of Property Subject To This Permit. The premises subject to the within conditional use permit are described as follows: Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County, Minnesota. 2.04. Certain Site Alterations Authorized. The Ass6c—iation is hereby authorized to install the following improvements on the Subject Property: a. One sand blanket swim area, as shown on the revised �lan, 'Exhibit A,- Uted June 25, 1986, said swim area to be marked with a minimum of three anchored "swim area" buoys that are in accordance with the Uniform Waterway Marking System; said buoys to be anchored a reasonable distance from shore; and b. a pedest ian walkway connecting Choctaw Circle with the sand blanket swim area; said walkway to consist of wood chips installed on a sand base with boardwalk steps on the steep slope area of the walkway; and C. four boat racks to be located on land with a storage capacity of either six canoes or six small sail boats per rack; and d. Three docks, not to exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet Tn _Iength or that number of lineal feet necessary to reach a water depth of four (4) feet; at the option of the Association, the final ten (10) feet of any dock may consist of a ten foot by ten foot (10, x 10') square platform; and e. One ten foot by ten foot swimming raft, to be located in water having a minimum depth of seven (7) feet, not more than one hundred (100) feet from the nearest lake shore- line; said raft shall project a minimum of one (1) foot but not more than five (5) feet above the lake surface, and the corner of said raft shall be reflectorized; and -3- f. One conversation pit -fire hole, three (3) feet in diameter with a six (6) foot apron constructed of brick or masonry material, to be located landward of the walk- way and no further north than the northerly line of Lot 32, Block 1, Lotus Lake Estates, extended northwesterly; and 9- Four sailboat moorings, to be located in the manner depicted on the site plan stamped "Received June 25, 1986". Except as provided in this permit, no portion of the Subject Property may be developed, altered, or disturbed in any way. ').05. Trees. In carrying out the above described altera- tion's,the Association agrees to use every effort to keep tree loss at an absolute minimum. 2.06. Reserved. 2.07. Erosion Control. The Association, at its expense, shalT -provide _�_emporary dams, earthwork or such other devices and practices, including seeding of graded areas, as shall be needed, in the judgement of the City Engineers, to prevent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and roads within and outside the Subject Property during all phases of construction. BT and the Association shall keep all public streets free of all dirt and debris resulting from construction upon the Subject Property. 2.08. Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for the alte ations described in Section 2.04 above, no structure, pier, boat rack, mooring buoy, or swimming platform shall be constructed, erected, or maintained on the Subject Property or in the waters abutting the Subject Property. 2.09. Cam2inq Prohibited. No owner, as defined in Section 2.02 hereinabove, or other person shall camp overnight on the Subject Property. 2.10. Motor Vehicle Parking and Boat Storage. No watercraft shall be parked or stored overnight or on a permanent basis on the Subject Property, except as follows: a. not more than twenty-four canoes or small sail boats may be so stored overnight in the four boat racks described in Section 2.04 of this permit; and b. not more than nine boats, motorized or non -motorized, may be docked overnight at the docks described in Section 2.04 of this permit. c. not more than four sailboats at the mooring described in Section 2.04(g) of this permit. -4- Except for construction equipment necessary for the exe- cution of the plan and as necessary for the maintenance of the Subject Property, no motor vehicle shall be driven upon or parked upon the Subject Property. No boat trailer shall be allowed upon the Subject Property. Nothing in the preceding three sentences shall be deemed to prohibit the launching of any watercraft from the Subject Property if accomplished without the assistance of any motor vehicle or trailer or wheeled dolly upon the Subject Property. SECTION 3. MUNICIPAL DISCLAIMERS. 3.01. No Liability to Suppliers of Labor or Material. It is u7n—derstood 'ii -n -d- agreed that the City, the City Council and the agents and employees of the City shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the Association, its contractors, or subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, or to any other person, firm or corporation whomsoever, for any debt, claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this permit and agreement or the performance and completion of the work and improvements hereunder and the Association will save the City, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City harmless from any and all claims, damages, demands, actions or causes of action arising therefrom and the costs, disbursements, and expenses of defending the same. 3.02. Written Work Orders. The Association shall do no work —nor furni_�_h materials, whether covered or not covered by the Plan, for which reimbursement is expected from the City unless a written order for such work or materials is received from the City. Any such work or materials which may be done or furnished by the Association without such written order first being given shall be at its own risk, cost and expense, and the Association hereby agrees that without such written order, it will make no claim for compensation for work or materials so done or fur- nished. SECTION 4. MISCELLANEOUS. 4.01. Severability. In the event any provisions of this peruCiE_shall 6—eheld invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any court or competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invali- date or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. . 4.02. Execution of Counterparts. This permit may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. -5- 4.03. ' Headings. Headings at the beginning of sections and paragraph reof are for convenience of reference, and shall not be considered a part of the text of this contract, and shall not influence its construction. 4.04. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Association shall—furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has acquired fee title to the Subject Property. 4.05. Notices. All notices, certificates and other com- munications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when mailed by certified mail, re ' turn receipt requested, postage prepaid, with property address as indicated below. The City and the Association, by written notice given by one to the other, may designate any address or addresses, to which notices, certificates or other communications to them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this permit. Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties, all notices, cer- tificates, and communications to each of them shall be addressed as follows: To the City: City of Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attn: City Manger To the Association: Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Assoc. Attn: President P.O. Box 63 Chanhassen, MN 55317 4.06. Owners to be Notified of This Permit. The Ass6c_iation sh 11 furnish each owner, as that term is defined in Section 2.02 above, with a copy of this permit within thirty (30) days of the signing of this permit and shall furnish each future owner, as that term is defined in Section 2.02 above, with a copy of this permit, within thirty (30) days of any such owner's initial occupancy of any residential structure in Lotus Lake Estates. 4.07. Term of This Permit. This permit shall expire on July 21, 2010. SECTION 5. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. 5.01. Reimbursement of Costs. The Association shall reimSure the City for �allcosts, including reasonable engi- neering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by the City in connection with all matters relating to the admi- nistration and enforcement of the within permit and the perfor- mance thereby by the Association. Such reimbursement shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of the City's notice of costs as provided in Section 4.05 above. -6- 'This reimbursement obligation of the Association under this sec- tion shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term of this permit. 5-02. Remedi s Upon Default. a. Assessments. In the event the Association shall default Tn —the performance of any of the covenants and agreements herein containedt and such default shall not have been cured within ten (10) days after receipt the Association of written notice thereof, the City, if it so elects, may cause any of the improvements described in the plan to be constructed and installed or may take action to cure such default and may cause the entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engineering, legal and administrative expense incurred by the City, to be recovered as special assessment under M.S. Chapter 429, in which case the Association agrees to pay the entire amount of the assessment roll pertaining to any such improvement within thirty (30) days after its adop- tion. The Association further agrees that in the event of its failure to pay in full any such special assessment within the time prescribed herein, the City shall have a specific lien on the Subject Property for any amount so unpaid, and the city shall have the right to foreclose said lien in the manner prescribed for the foreclosure of mechanic's lien under the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event of an emergency, as determined by the City Engineers, the notice require- ments to the Association shall be and hereby are waived in their entirety, and the Association shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City in remedying the conditions creating the emergency. b. L��qal Progeedings. In addition to the foregoing, the City may institute any proper action or proceeding at law or at equity to prevent violations of the within property, to restrain or abate violations of the within permit, or to prevent use or occupancy of the Subject Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties her to have caused these presents to be executed on the —5- day of X17VE1kbFK LOTUS LAKE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 1_7 And Irs -7- m �rm_ff�m _F CITY OF CHANHASSEN B�y �2 1,e� _ IZ� It Ma or Attest STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF On this day of I emUth4,� — I before me, a notary public, within and for sa4 nty, personally appeared LjrX t�- tJeje-it and Tere4qce- v�'- to me pers6nally know, who, being each by me duly sworn did s—ay that they are respectively the President an Vice -President of Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said authority of its Board of Directors, and said and ereaco . 7 V acknowle aid instrument to be the fre d deed of sa corporation. IMP RICK D. MURRAV N T 13 Cj M OTARY PU :T A BLIC C V OU Y IN U U a L Y:::I� CARVER COUNTY Public VWMV Comwjww ExP"s AM 14- 1"2 0 opt* STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) On this day of 1996, before me, a notary public, within and for the county, person'�illy appeared Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth, to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respec- tively the Mayor and the City manager of the municipal cor- Poration named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the municipal corporate seal of said municipality, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council and said Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation. KAREN J. ENGELHARDT aryfPublic NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNrsoTA CARVER COUNTY My munb3lon wpim 10-16-91 Z3* C -D M cl cm,�- (Do m a: C3,) (3 C� C/3 rn z cn E; I � m C: z m M co A 0 w CD 0 0 EXHIBIT A CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA *�NDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for: A Recreational Beachlot 2. Propert . The permit is for the following described property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: Outlot E 3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans stamped "Received June 4, 1987" 2. Adherence to all conditions ari required by Article V, Section 9 (11), Standards for recreational beachlots. 3. The beachlot shall be maintained by a homeowners association or an organization consisting of the subdivision residents. 4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing under any of the following circumstances: material change of condition of the neighborhood where the use is located; violation of the terms of the permit. 5. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated:—July 20, 1987 C E E STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) page �/ of �c;"-- pages The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1�m day 0' 0' , 19Sf, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor , and Do Ashworth, City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota m nicipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. V--W:jN J� E�N�GEL` DT -)T KOTA�ly PUBM - )TA C' EMY C�A R V rn c. Not ry p i —kc� MY �1�t�mm 'Sit. than have 0i. w. W U."., Or utcrial sc,ca, ai 4dwed to the comprehensive plan; B. Emergency vehicle 20au shall not t scent to or located across a stmet fmm any residential H. Recreational beach lots provided the following minimum standards we raft in addition to mch Ither Wriditions as may be prescribed in the permit: A. Recreational beach Im shall have at Lan 200 fed of Lake i frontage' No. Stsuatim, Protable chemical toilet, ice fishing house, dumper, trader. tent, recreational vehicle or shelter shall be erected, maintained or stored upon my recreational beach lot. C. No boat, trailer, motor vchicle. including but not limited to cars, trucks. motorcycles, motorized mini -bike, all-termin ve- hicle mr snomobile shall be driven upon or parked upon my recreational beach lot, D. No maradon,,I beach Iot shall be used for over -night camping. F-� Bm launches we Prohibited. - : � �; - .F. N . I macational beach lot shall be used I or purp,xim; of oves- nigh storage or overnight mwring of more than three (3) motorized Or 11011,,notorized wateraaft par dock. If a recircm- tional beach to, is allowed more than one dock, however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) no boat moorings shall also I, allowed. Cum. windsurfers, mil boards, and mail sail boats may be storal overnight on my recreational beach lot if they am stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than me (1) rack shall be allowed per dock. No more than six (6) wwfferaft may be stored on a nick. Docking Of Other watercraft or scaplams, is perunissi- ble a my time Otha than overnight. G. No dock shall be Permitted Oa my recreational batch lot urdess it as st least 200 feet of lake fromage and the lot has a last * 100 foot depth. No more than one dock my be erected on * recreational beach ]at for "cry 20D feet of lake frontage. In addition, 30.000 square fed of land is required for the first dock and an additional 20,ODO square tea it required for each addi- tional dock. No mor, than three (3) docks, however. shall be aided on a rareatiorial beach lot. H. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feel in width, and no such dock shall exceed the gircater of the following lengdU: (a) fifty (50) feet Or, (b) the minimum, straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of four (4) fat. The w t ut not the length) of the cross -bar of my "T" or "J." shap dock shall be included in the computation of length described in the Preceding sentence. The am -bar of my such dock shall nort mastic in CXOVU If twenty-five (25) fed in length. 1. No dock shall encroach upon my dock set -back zonc, provid- ed, however, that the owners of any two abutting lakeshore Sims may CTA One common dock within the dock ser -back zw, al)[mmenant to the abutting lakeshom sites, if the commors dock is the Only dock On the two lakeshore sites and if the dock other- wise conforms with the provisiom; of this Ordinance, J. No sail boat mooning shall be permitted on my amdoa,] beach lot unless it has At least 20D fed of lake frontage. No more than one safl boat morning shall be allowed for every 2DO feet.of lake frontage. K. At least eighty percent (80%) Of th c dwelling units, which ban appurreasou rights Of wasS W my mantional beach lot, shall be located within at last me thousand (1,000) feet of the team. tional beach lot. L. AD maeational beach IOU, biclu�urg any recreational beach JOB established Prim to the effective due of Otis Ordinance may be used for swimming beach purposes, but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with market buoys which conform to United Surta Coast Guand standards. M. Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point one hundred (100) feet landwud from the ordinary high water mark, of not less than few (4) lineal fees for each dwelling unit which has appurtenant rights Of seem to the reemadonal beach lot ac. Ming to the owners or I=Pmts of that dwelling unit under applicable calm Of Elie homeowner association or residential housing developers. N. Overnight docking, raccoring, and storage of watercraft, where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the owner/occu. Pant Of onter/OMPant of homm which have appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach lot. 0 The placement of dwks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks. and other structures; shall be indicated on a site Plan approved by the City Council. 13. Electrical substations subjeer in the following conditions: A. The substmon must be served by a collector or major merial stred as designated in the Comprehensive plan. B. The substation will not have sanitary facilitim and will not be used for habitation. C. The substitution will be located on at least five (5) acres of property. D. A six (6) four high security faice surround the substation. B. A landscaping plan be submitted for City approval. F. Substattons, shall be a minimum of 5W feet from single family residences. SECTION 10. "BN" NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT 5-10-1 INTENT. Limit'd low intensity neighborhood retail and service establishments W med daily needs of residents. 5-10-2 The following tests we permitted in a "Bbl" district: I r- ... �__ ____ ­­­ . - - A -0" go SECTION 11. '-Bn-- HIGHWAy -'3 BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT 5-11-1 INTENT. Highway oriented Metal development restricted as a law building profile. 5-11-2 The following uses a, Permitted ii� a "Bit" district - 1. Financial institutions 2. Fast food restaurant 3. Automotive service stations 4. Standard restaurants 5. Motels and hotels 6. Offices 7. Retail shops 8. Miniature golf 9. State licensed day am center 10. car wash 11. Convenience, gore with or without gas pumps 12. Personal service establishmeat 13. Liquor stores 14. Health services 15. Utility services 16. Shopping center 17. Private clubs and lodges 18. Corturnmuty center 19. Funeral homes 5-11-3 The following are permitted accessory uses in a "BH" district: 1. Signs, 2. Puking to" 5-114 The following me conditional uses in a "13H" district: L Outdoor display of "Chandic for sale 2. Supermarkets 3. Small vehicle sales 4. Samned outdoor storage 5-11-5 Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "Bit " District subject to additional requirements. exceptions and modifications set forth in this Ordinance. 1. Minimum District Area in Acres: ten (10). (May be waived by an- ditional ula' Permit if expansion of existing diusict.) 2. Minimum Lot Arm: 20,OW square feet. 3. Minimum Lot Frontage: 100 led (except IOU fronting on a col -d, sac shall have a minimum 60 foot frontage, in all districts). 4. Minimurn Lot Depth: 150 fees. 5. Setbacks. OffAmet parking amas shall comply with all yard m- quircments of this Section, except that no rear yard parking setback shag be required for lots directly abutting railroad trackage; and. no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial uses establish joint Gff�Wat parking facilities. W Provided in Section 7-1-7. except that w parking ama; shall be permitted in any required side street side Yard. Minimum rear yard shall be 50 feet for Im directly abutting my Residential District. Side shrect side yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, A. Front yard: 25 feet. B. Rear yard: ZD feet. C. Side yard: 10 feet. 6. Maximum Lot Coverage: 6"s 7. Maximum Height: A. Principal Suracrum: two stories B. Amessory Structurs: one story. SECTION 12. -CBD" CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 5-12-1 INTENT. Downtown business development supporting a strong actual business district while enhancing the OVendl character of the communi- ty in conformance with downtown redevelopment plan, goals and objectives. 5-12-2 The following uses are permitted in a "COD" diwict; I . Bowling center 2. Retail shops 3. Offices 4. Standard restaurants 5. Liquor stores 6. Entertainment. 7. Convention and conference facilities 8. Financial ingfitudons 9. Health care facilities 10. Hotels It. Specialty retail (including but not limited to jewelry, book, g,_ tioncry. bible. curds, pcU, ams and crafts, sporting goods) 12. Supermarkets 13. State licensed day am center as pan of shopping center 14. Personal service establishments IS. Shopping center 16. Hmith and recreation clubs .17. I= food restaurants w; pact of shopping center 19. Utility services 19. Personal services 20. Apparel sales 21. Bass and tavans 22. Clubs and lodges 23. Convenience notes without gas pumps 24. Cultural facilifies 25. Department storm 26. Home furnishings 27. Newspaper officm 28. Multiple family dwellings, including senior citizen housing 29. Print shops 30. Community center 31. Hardware goods 5-12-3 The following we permitted accmatury suit, in a "CBD" distrid- 26. Fast f,,d 27. Automod- 29. CImimmi 29. Senior cid 5-13-3 The following 1. Puking k 2. Signs 5-13 4 The following 1. Outdoor , 2. Track, sort sales and 3. Equipmen 4. Screened , 5. Major aut, 5-13-5 W Requircint shaff be cbserv, exceptiow, and 1. Minim= 2. minimum 1 sac shall h. 3. Minimum 4. Maximum 5. Setbacks. quirements, shall be = no side ya, establish jo 7-1.7, mcep side somet ! diruxly, abu be a minim A. Front - B. Rear y C. Side its 6. Maximum I A. Princir B. Accests, SECTION 14. -BF - 5 -14-1 INTENT. Am, 34TVzoes. 5-14-2 The folowing au 1. Automotive 2. Tmck/T=B 3. Utility savi. 4. Outdoor dis S. Cold storag, 5-14-3 The following a L Puking lots 2. Signs 5-14-4 Lot Requirement shall be observed exceptions and t I . Minimum L 2. Minimum, L, me shall list, 3. Minim= L, 4. Maximum L 5. Setbacks. 0: quirdmatis 0 shall be mqu no side yard establish joir 7-1-7, except side street sk directly abuts be a minimu. A. Front yt 0. Bar you C. Side your 6. Maximum H. A. Princips B. Acessism SECTION 15. "Or' C 5-15-1 INTENT. Publi, business and ack 5-15-2 The following m- 1. Schools 2. Churches 3. Public builds 4. Post office 5. Fire station 6. Library 7. Museum S. Health servic 9. Nursing how 10. Community. 11. Public mcrea 12. Utility servic� 13. Professional, 14. Fundal hom 5-15-3 The following ar 1. Puking lots 2. Sigm, 5-15-4 The following ar 1. Adaptive reu private busin, D. ..... - -, ari-'�Iurd usiderecial d�eJespernew ., , reassidgers Ili. res. per accure. andraided in as 'R4" district oily sual sawki-pireffy clatelbrid suk, and oppars sparce - effice add couriel howast led ..' wris in a durcer. weral card in an "R-11"clarrig: fr- � to . pregards or Itaks. 'ribe furlongs, greentere creddiscrogres ad we feel M dardind undis for tworamay -drug saw for anormouggessuress and swids,"wile cintellign war for t-r-riturd, grogridard,re- - - cal -de 1. aleall be m fees in awas at An For use-fturril, shorman"; ar mand corriple lassaily projoess. W11% 6. ressaingavall fee . sure/. 5 for. Nsill!"If �11)]EbFTIAIL D�I,f rearni-frowly residential astruessures se st orling dider per ascre- gureard Is an I -R-2-- discriess LY shodlinds and sculd-fardly drociamin Is, and! spent sprow d ancressury sures as an "R 12" eldrustrI .1 urge us ard classes. wo as"en . Sixtran pregraddy Mee and scold bardere R-12" District minjoes to arldwidlead candificaderres I focus in gre reards, an Per da"drour for Me,froards, da�elj.dpu eral war for noach-sem and grcdsrfaerr� durglards war fra rar-cuready durelficuld'er- "s- nbad � so rare In Ics. as las 1we-linsile risoffinfore and mardeirdir Insurer p-sess mup river steduard, fors. - dwy115 fod� CONDITIONAL um; IN sold MMENTIAL DI!iYIHCfS ewdeed by 3-2-3. the forl sunglasses I wers listed beirrour lingrandend And. goal id- We""'diragralearger be pr-idlescj� - dress resse gropligge in ardifica an dan be onow wearded; less soners, for -or; and )c resured for conars thren 7 crager:wlse days trawas in vids Is eare Inagessurre as cougaidwase way luent bal and of argaud' thrown . public larsectry pred, " cou"grucce with Ordiessure Ncr� rds. wen, Sycers, ulm and palms Arrodeenter in couggirsoce won Hoge Ggli, No sued do " ourrours, greg; and "'wourd -F M press front wed.of sw mor: a-- arell . turessuld .. bead start . "'onarrearionsid-orwrt'sod "k lawary lid, " feel atel ." - ondessrs". returns osbrong� 'burs: austral ars ound awn I rear grandort: newly ne'resed by lm% runs, 0-1 be lorn. �-!! I'.- I -*rIca. . ru so a .'. Utility -rces H. No drdsgI spralser sprommus. 1. Clas SbAnow. crourr rdif-darmoe Prilars� club, -4 nordlinj L Jillmimminut 2. 1 had A. Crecrounity courr 4ei, fnnr"� identified in use cm-prosdandeste press or located to It. f -H`3 'fibe f'H"" are Proground sagereassure Ingiullonrusins .,4;& Oftninants It can be provulard wirings toodurrins traffic throurryin ressided- 1. Parker, in. minumminaut send curgeregumnigns; allusins. r 1 Car waso annalle.) � grescom a= be scis barele 50 ficet Imes all propscity Innes; 3� Struds silwoult" a- r1unignign C. Parking areads grall Isr ang bacce M feel firogy wera arad 5-l" Irse Forn-ce, are roustworad gran its ma didcdu propereir and m real. I . Con-muce got. w. W parents D. L Ardow-c -1 -4. parrius is. read dreogragrad. 4 ary ber Witably lardscapedl 3. Dzi,r- banks stdrefirs. swareginted Issaings. in cortfor- aftin Ardick Vill. 4. Tern,,., towcor dipplay of -� for rak lE- churcher causide tire MUS;A lisse mug provide the rrlloa�ixrjr 5. Sturd.rd rest.wards for 'esmen: 6. facal awl bicakfast ratablishurberts 1) Located of ono a) ditirinli'le! used. 5-10,5 I.ca Redws-ews; add SgIbitch. Tire fallouts, tommanne L Dan . ser 3. 2) T.. Q) .0 begi., no esclu chatinclield 61, for . legal of shad] be ot-od drost - BIN' Deartur subjus' so suchustrosel 'est-grecres. 4. In 1. (4) sod be-,, eargessionser asoll roodeficanco, .1 fordi un Isid Occuutroc, S. 3) He pacconwas ses. for derearseld uses where: she larred! derner: I . Idirringuser Disernit Area ito Acres: throw 0). Her reccrtment gray 6. Apparel .1 6 bectureed - and 12%. bre watiosel if caparneran of existim dawn". 7. Peremoreal ar 4) One (1) procuration seat M datiefield use urbere the land 2. Itfinsiddermad Lon Aorg� 15.000 ressarr fors- 2. musawas and slope 6 butworst 13% surs! 25%. 3. Mirantuden Lgi Frontage: 75 feel (seereeppir lws� fignting on a rusde- 9. Specials, Is 5) Arrms winter One land go, taceed, Mgr �Ibatt nor lat a- an stud here . swasudgers W frosser forressure in a districs,) demands, Issily . sidereal ary a potential suil negrearrat rise. 4. stinarms. Lear Depth: 150 feel. 10. sessaii at 6) Tlg� sawase arearreard, systeres rounds be In ondr-ons- wrill 5. Madmarts. lot rooest inductor. a struct-ter and! peogil surf. U. Ferearrad Ing Declined. 30 -fit, grall bg 63%. 12. Figaressial it 7) !idscel ;d daYgse ung ." to the shturch we nor 6. !itrutcls. Offs. reark., -a sual cresply assh .9 yard! re- 11 AN introduced dealers appingwal by On: City Council. spuresenews of Use !iccfion, exrein One cas war yard! parrk� mrstracin 14. Fol clul S. Psi�ta Stables; gram be reguired fee In. directly about., rafflowel tarkare; and. 15. I'kicsists" I A. Courpligraws wfth Hearre Curvature Pi.. m; stradi no side yard shill be reguireel when adjohning crantroacial user 16, Veterinary escablish juice Wworess parkin. fartiliti., ar provided in Sectwet 17. Arderad b- 7-1-7. anderes shre - parkat - shal] be pre'recusel in M reiresseed Is. Offs"" 9� Since [wersented Day Cor Centere aide arred sale ygurd� Marnmersurs reer yard gall be M fress fee age 19. Has" excer A. Site drall bet learrat " drop off youggs defidned! to scrod &.1, alustrandi arly Iscriderwal Itimers. Sole . adds radial dddd1 ". Idlearks imiterfurbals with traffic and pedestrians ..'gnest bc st regrommunts of 221 rwd� 21. Suparearrack, R. Owd. ph, - drusl IN located and defillocti ur A. Foods yard: 35 feet. n. Honda am rshiclindfirdaerverundagal moincimpagurcers.dittinins oluders- B. Rem, sawl: 30 fort. n. Gaining wer: dial .: strand C. Said yard: 35 per. U. Dean, grout C. Shall obtain all applicable state. worry. sand city How. 7. Magermseas Hessjlw� 15. Earn; and as 10. mcgpwdl� - Health Caurc Farecitifirds A. Principal Struccurs: true sury. I. food , A. St. grad Mw direct . ed corlbecrou . surstrud went, as R. A-ryr Scructurs: wat sterry. Ardamercers delicert in the courprecluessiore Plar; SEC'flON 11. "Bil" HIGHWAY AND BUSINM RRVICIM DIMLICT n �drrrgut' d E"wer"ars' -hick" . thrill our be givarrid on or leargandel �11-1 relsortlow m. �;eagr causer a d. fresurs sury, cessidentiad use Insiders jy,dfllar� 54�3 The Follargiss, , 1. Recredweral beach kres socruled! the foll.aint, mininguartatandragn 5-11-2 Irlse forearms ... suar pergailled! as "BH" rest 1. Pralsion. In. are re. in salkiwers by eards wher coundificas . dr, be pregicribest 1. F.Mramberings 2. Sipar to the permil; 2. 1. food ryslassaw M� Ifie fragrant, A. Recreattional reacts 1. albrall hase .1, Inner m I. of take 3. Aseencencei- sem- d. L Oused. & frencesur. 4. Standard resegraw. Trials. ardest B. Ner .... prestabla cl. and toiled, mar fintrial laresse. 5. Mosh and heard sudlearroular cardsper, trader. ound, owelfirds"! leboda - shelter inall be 6. OfFiced 7. Agail shoss, 3. Issurnmemem, sureseared. - sidured] up. any recogroural Incerb set. 4. C. NO bear. craider, congs, -back. weltselinds low am lidderad to S. mudare. If S. maj., and's , tracics, mworreseless, nerywrided rnaxm�k, "Icrosen 11� 9. S., I.curessed day race -let �U`S I.A Regenerates hacl� or awarnotba da" be drocto spent or passed upon may ic� 30. Car uggs 11. Courvermurce sure �nlr - wabord W purn, mall recervancrad besen * D. Nocresearlsonalturredo insturna becturedi reasurressaidergearderespins. IL Inegrand service casuflAslunce, L E. Iseng, burcires - prechiturd. 13- Liquor doem F, No fiessual beach is" "JIL be read for sporposes or 14. Headda sellers uncillsollinin .I'm verseve or -crouggs grearrie, of ... thand dwand (3) 15. LAID, servirgs 3. L mrsigues! or reswarocrurccl wasurressfil per doses. If. I& Shoppins; 4. a sector ingods lon n ad�otrdy ... thas swe does. he-.,. the 17. Freirns. darns read Indista J. "unds"I" 0 adisrsorti courber or b-sts carest In chavereed. Up by durn (3) sail It. Curresond, carecon" boat crearrions dinall adoc be arrested. Carears. svirdsturfers, dul 19. Indeveral lawnwas 5-11-3 � fallowness - presented! and in "IM" disturics: 'reall W recon rxsgrleyasw� bsaudx� and -a sail bown on, Iner strarell consurnitild, - ans, 1. Sidery resurldism so, regragracral b'sch I. ff they nor ground an 'raleas specifically 2. Fackim, lues 7-1" retained for trat purposere. NO swery sluen one (1) rack dead be sudent 1. Outdoor drusirters, of ruserchrurdise for rsdlc� riderst, ager 2. Superwsarkerg be . mmurts, ble an any tirce offirr than ocernight. G. No corcle grall lye pervairred - andy' .-trall bracts structures - 3. Senall �,Iwl. srl� A. Fugg , khna�=fwoflakeffmi�c���hmwi�t 4. !icscewdl weadonsur surgure a. R., a IM ficad dring. No a- clarm - drost wa, be screcessedl - 5-11-5 I -n Reetwerneres and !igbacirs. Hae follouirs, minister- rentwe"W" "M " C- Seat a cand basen an 1., -12`0 sees . sure trwsadc� I. grall be olum-sol us st Dreakest -bit. In awkward rear-, - r �tarpgcwr and nnoblicaticurt . fords un now Oureadn"o' I mirwrins. District Area in Access. a. (w), rawor be Wald ber A. PA, B. Assonant nor - additional 2),00d K.- fr. m,oltwerel for eault addl- . ditiwal trag ifessessurring %�Mbi 14 --ti I parents 2, Minimusen Let Aress: M." alware ree" conesm 'ecogrionsual beards les. 3. Iturunron 1. Freudians: UK) leart (1 -car" ern hon"In- cag� M. No recreational bandely lia does gual eround six P feel M uirl rac� 11 wow st sainnower M fore foroware Eff a direaked). S -la -z Hur fe'sn'" as aring - surris docir drall escocul she isent. of flia putionaried 1. Mendws. Lor Derth7 ISO frgr� 1. �g�s: (2) firse (") feel or, (b) she rescue. 'barliflu'les" 5. Setbacks, Off-strearst parking .1 strall croadeply agh .1 Year ne- 2. Tomitarmila disource sureaterears, W ready a vater cleggin of frover (4) feel. ne "L" speressures. of dres ,crignes, rageresing ring and news und intended strubands 3� usuarromm wrddr turd res use andirbyrd, son grans-ints, of an, "r'or 'jusurt be ropoided for less didend, assume understand trialls.re; and. 4. Cepulcuse dis, shalpal clock chaM be arrested in thre registration of leallsor .. sale suej grat be reeptionel uh- adywriAll regraget - 5� Coldrawars describeel in stclarecreding sent-Thugermsbarcsfirstrancirs estabbsh loins offuress parrica, Uredder, as ponglid es !itwors , 5-1&3 be Forgandist st clock did .. enessure in earear of sagwY-fise (23) feel 1- 7-1-7, excrust that W preltions swear ended yar Presented as My orgers"al 1. Parisian, east lrwrsth� ude grog side yarer. mirringuen rears yand do" be " fear for areas 2 Srunds 1. NO dock shall regergartin upon -1 green ser-ou"It sons, ragout- directly ratings; At liewdegand Digurre. Sena den pards AO 5-14-4 Ess Radburemanam er,' nowesser, rad dre our_ of and, two abortion Database be . municureen of 15 lost- pard carry street . comencon doc& urkhed dbc� deals gr4bacJs ad- A. Ferrous sawl: Mt.. asseeppes. smal upplywo. . the gnscrear: Inkethers. wares, if the -on docir B Ressur fraud: M feet. 1. Infings. L ed dr. cants drels to the �sy Languages area and 4 the dock wrer- C. Side yard; 10 fwsl� 2. �. L wine conferees wit, du prostate. of this Onsirrosser. 6. Mantinnum Les Currents: 61% smadmalles J. No end boat me-snif 5had be precessinced a any recocaticard 7. Murder- Hright: 3. idivenswumm L bracir 1. runlew it bas .1 1-- 200 reer of race fr--'... No A. Principal Sscarsters: cars dogreler 4. Masuareass I a- clan or, sad tow .., duall ta all'-seL for 'dY B. A., Siescours: . er-M S. !icbseks. C fees of Lake frontage. IL At least rights proctor (upai) of use dradilinis unds. arbacin han SE�ION IL "CBD" � BUSINEM DISTRICT grandregreamen, appurressaw trusts of swereas W MY brands lar, Wall 5-12-1 IINT�. Denswarrad barrace" de"ciapersed gripporgirs sureade carrad stran bg ads be located -flum at Inger cone durgand"d (I.M fear or Our rage.- bourreas drawler at Ink enh arecirds tire 0- an chargeres' u r use rogranced- gicke par astablish In, stand bends bt. sy in conforagamen war downtown oureseLopearreart pan. Swiss and L- All recournorall Nach loss, incluchad surs, recreational beach objectives. 7-1-7. green sale . , 5 G-2 -f,c followers and - precturgus! in CBD" rwuwI: d-* allasse bar weredi for swimmung breacto purposes, but only ff efirguirIt 1. iscrahn, regrour kneansimenn . rdu� crearlY delawastut �nlr rearker burrigultudy codrs- L Resail strips A. person so Culbert Surner Coas' Ows"d wanduch. 3. Officess B. Itandr, M. Ends recreworad brach 101 shall base - width- tattersall bod's 4. Standard rescustandend C. 2ilde, as the -drwr, Ings, -ter enark andil at is points one Iscardred 5� Laid- ... 6. mandingeng I (11) lew And.rod fr.. the wdi., hirth wall, ..,k..f ew 6. liclortairsommul A- Priack Ing inces tow (4) lincull feel for tacIn du�clwrrs end whics ban 7, Conversion add conferesure facilities B. Assume sendarrourard firrrs� of --- - the orr-torral bescit Los .- S. Finsideria werwrwas �Gr- ,,dw, .,he _._ or _up-. or ffi. wrlilturs -A water 9- Health wor facchdres SEC7HGN 31. apsynecable cases or the ncenc-ner ardwssricro or residersted] 10. Horch 5-1�j INTENT. m housing dcoclw-s� It. !iPaccally Mind (incladicis but we fignited or j -dor. book. dus- N. �crrilyhl docksgir. recrown. -d sswatte of --torralt graces tior,. buck. carcurs. seer, - and cradirs, segrearel foods) "�2 lilre follassublit aricwed. is rewrxted w walescraft owned by she owner/cocts 12. Suppareargrearda 3. !idnesult parg or recost/coccepand of . wbacto base arrearger-t card 13. Sager litwourecorl day care center ans Par a stargems carease 2. ClItanclang .' - . 'he 'econericuod bruch kgr� 14, Personal sslac egabludoweres 3. presidia II 0. T. placernow.1' d -k,. wrol, dwuntrournim, .1 raceI is. Slaonsarri -ter 4. P. ofillese S. Fing sending .1cer uorcur- r1wi . urd"Ical on . rese plans pirou'rul by tire Cry C-ead. .1, 1 -hat and --.on Or. m I. local reswurstang - pars a darepturis wang 41, Ultrust su�rar- -I.- . -1 foro-do. conditions: M Color 7. Mountain Asieson, Don From: Haak, Lori Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:37 PM To: Asleson, Don Subject: FW: Near Mountain Lake Association beach lot From: Fauske, AJyson Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:32 PM To: Haak, Lon Cc: Oehnne, Paul Subject: Near Mountain Lake Association beach lot There is no parking lot provided or proposed for this beach lot. In the past, vehicles park on both sides of Pleasantview Road, a bituminous street with no curb or gutter. The width varies, but is approximately 26 feet wide. The Citys current standard for a public residential street is 31 feet wide. Travel lanes should be minimum 11 feet wide. A parked vehicle typically takes up 8 feet. Staff is concerned that to further intensify the use of the site would increase the amount of on -street parking on a substandard street that has poor sightlines. Page I of I Haak, Lori From: Whiteman, Jeremy [Jeremy.Whiteman@adc.com] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 12:27 PM To: Haak, Lori Subject: Planning Case No.: 06-20 Lori: In regards to Planning Case No.: 06-20 which is the Near Mountain Lake Association Beach Lot's request to add a second dock, I am wondering where the people who use the dock will park. That is an awful stretch of Pleasant View and it is already dangerous when there are one or two cars parked on the street. It a second dock is added, what provisions are being put into place to ensure safe parking? Thanks, Jeremy Whiteman 5/8/2006 Planning case 06-20 5/7/06 Chanhassen Planning commission 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 MAy 0 9 2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN We have lived on Lotus Lake for nearly 28 years. During those years many changes have occurred with the growth of the city and the property around the lake. We remember when the houses of the Near Mountain Association were constructed. We have seen other associations form and have seen their impact on the lake. The families in the Near Mountain Association are exemplary in the care and use of the lake. The beach is well cared for. There have been no incidents that we are aware of where noise or litter caused a problem. It seems unfair for the owners not to be allowed one boat. Since the shore is not sand, a dock would seem the best solution. Since the water near that part of the shore is heavily weed -infested, additional dock space will not interfere with recreational use of the lake. We believe that the request should be approved so that each owner can dock one boat. OEM . eter & Jane A Thielen 665 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen 952-474-1597 CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: May 16,2006 51 CC DATE: June 12, 2006 F REVIEW DEADLINE: June 11, 2006 CASE#: 06-20 BY: LH, DA PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Variance LOCATION: Outlot B, Reichert's Addition APPLICANT: Near Mountain Lake Association Jahn Dyvik, Association Representative 610 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) AREA: 27,000 square feet (at OffW) DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for CUP amendment to allow an additional dock and a total of 8 docked boats. Variances are needed as part of the CUP amendment to allow the installation of second dock without the minimum required lot area (50,000 square feet) necessary for a second dock and additional docked boats above the 3 per dock maximurn as stated in Chanhassen Code Sec. 20-266 (6). Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet and all owners of property abutting Lotus Lake. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKENG: The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use permits, based on whether or not the proposal meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable conditional use permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. 7ILT Location Map Near Mountain Lake Association Beachlot Outlot B, Reichert's Addition Planning Case No. 06-20 City of Chanhassen Lots 1 -8 Reichert's Addition Pleasmt View Read 2 3 4 O.bOW e 7 Subject Property Lotus Lake Near Mountain CUP Amendmend Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 2 of 15 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The City of Chanhassen received an application from Near Mountain Lake Association on April 13, 2006 requesting a Conditional Use Permit amendment with variances from the minimum required lot area and maximum allowed boats per dock with the installation of the second dock. Currently one dock with three boats docked is allowed at the beach lot. The Near Mountain Lake Association Beach Lot has over 500 feet of shoreline and approximately 27,000 square feet of area above the OHW according to the survey dated March 1, 2005 that was submitted as part of the application. City Code requires recreational beach lots have at least 200 feet of shoreline per dock. In addition to the shoreline requirement, the beach lot must have 30,000 square feet of lot area for the first dock and 20,000 square feet for each additional dock. To meet the square footage requirements for the second dock, the Near Mountain Lake Association must apply for a variance from the 20,000 square foot requirement for the second dock. A variance in the amount of 23,000 square feet of lot area is needed to satisfy the requirements of City Code. Additionally, a variance for more than 3 boats per dock must be obtained to install more than 3 boats per dock as allowed by City Code. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Section 20-266. Recreational beach lots. (6) No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one dock; however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Nomnotorized watercraft such as canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than six watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one rack slip per lot served by the beach lot; however, in no case shall there be more than four racks per beach lot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight. (7) The maximum number of docks on a recreational beach lot is three. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless the beach meets the following conditions: a. Shoreline of at least 200 feet per dock; and b. Area of at least 30,000 square feet for the first dock and additional 20,000 square feet for each additional dock. Section 20-614. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Churches. (2) Reserved. (3) Recreational beach lots. (4) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. Near Mountain CUP Amendment/ Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 3 of 15 (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5.4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 259, § 12, 11-12-96) State law references: Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. BACKGROUND The Near Mountain Lake Association is located in the northern part of Louts Lake on Outlot 13, Reichert's Addition. Membership in the association is limited to 8 homes (Lots 1-8, Reichert's Addition, platted in 1978). In the development contract for Reichert's Addition, Outlot B was designated "open area7' and I dock structure was permitted within the southern 23 5 feet of the outlot. This allowed for the preservation of trees and wetland areas in the northern portion of the outlot. In the staff report for the 1987 CUP, it was determined that the association had 46,000 square feet which limited the beach lot to one dock to maintain compliance with the zoning ordinance. The applicant applied for the CUP amendment and variance on April 13, 2006. The current Conditional Use Permit (CUP 87-13) was issued in August 1987 (Attachment 4). The 1987 CUP placed the following conditions on the Outlot B, Reichert's Addition beach lot: I . Compliance with 5-9-11 of the Zoning Ordinance 2. No alteration to the existing site shall be permitted. There shall be no use of chemical kill or dredging in the wetland without an additional wetland alteration permit, DNR and City Council approval. 3. The recreational beachlot is limited to the installation of I Dock and I Canoe Rack. 4. The beachlot shall be maintained by the Near Mountain Lake Association. 5. A "slow -no wake buoy shall be installed and maintained by the homeowners association. 6. There shall be no launching of motorized boats or boats that require a trailer from the beachlot. Near Mountain Lake Association Beach Lot — May 9, 2006 Near Mountain CUP Aniendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 4 of 15 ANALYSIS CUPAmen&nent The original 1987 CUP limited Near Mountain Lake Association to one dock with 3 boat slips to maintain compliance with zoning ordinances. Additional analysis on the proposed CUP amendment is included in the findings below. Variances The applicant is requesting a variance from the required 50,000 square feet lot area requirement for the installation of a second dock. The area of the recreational beach lot (currently 27,000 square feet at the OHW of 896.3) is less than was indicated for the 1987 CUP (which employed a lot area of 46,000 square feet). This may be the result of settling of the land and/or erosion of shoreline. However, either lot area measurement necessitates a variance for a second dock. According to the March 1, 2005 survey submitted by the applicant, the magnitude of this variance request is 23,000 square feet in lot area. The applicant is also requesting a variance for 8 boat slips instead of the maximum of 6 boat slips permitted by City Code on beach lots meeting the shoreline and area requirements for 2 docks. The magnitude of this variance request is 2 additional boat slips. Other Beach Lots In the application, the Near Mountain Lake Association cites four precedents for exceptions from City Code regarding beach lots. These include: 1. The Lotus Lake Betterment Association/Colonial Grove beach lot; 2. The Lotus Lake Estates beach lot; 3. The Kurver's Point beach lot; and 4. The Fox Chase Dock. Below please find an explanation of the approved conditions for each of the four cited precedents. 1. Colonial Grove Beach Let: The Colonial Grove Beach Lot was granted a nonconforming use permit in 1981 (Attachment 5). The nonconfon-ning use permit recognized the right of the association to maintain one dock, but did not indicate the number of boats that would be allowed to moor overnight. Consequently, in 1993, the City issued a Findings of Fact and Decision (Attachment 6) that found that there were never more than three boats moored overnight at the dock in 1981 and therefore decided that the Colonial Grove Beach Lot nonconforming use permit should be amended to allow the overnight storage of a maximum of three boats. This does not set a precedent for this application, The applicant has indicated that this association typically has approximately 6 boats moored at the dock. This does not appear to be consistent with the approved nonconforming use permit. Any potential violation will be investigated separately. 2. Lotus Lake Estates Beach Lot: The Lotus Lake Estates Beach Lot has received several conditional use permits. The most recent permit was a restated conditional use permit dated July 7, 1986 (Attachment 7). The restated CUP allows three docks with up to three boats per dock, as well as four sailboat moorings. However, the restated CUP was the result of what was apparently long and involved legal proceedings between the City and the homeowners association. Consequently, the results of the final CUP were negotiated and are not necessarily in compliance with City Code for beach lots. This does not set a precedent for this application. Near Mountain CUP Amendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 5 of 15 3. Kurvers Point Beach Lot: The Kurvers Point Beach Lot received a conditional use permit in 1987 (Attachment 8). The permit conditioned adherence to all conditions required by the City Code in place at that time regarding recreational beach lots (Attachment 9). This does not set a precedent for this application. The applicant has indicated that this association has 10 boat slips. This does not appear to be consistent with the approved conditional use permit. Any potential violation will be investigated separately. 4. Fox Chase Dock: The dock in the Fox Chase neighborhood is not located on a recreational beach lot, but rather is located on private property, with each property owner with a boat slip having an casement for access to the dock. The dock with seven slips was allowed as part of legal proceedings between the developer and the City. The seven slips correspond to the number of lots that would have had dock rights on individual parcels. However, because there is a large wetland complex along the shoreline in this location, it was in the City's best interest to consolidate the dock rights onto a single dock, thus minimizing the wetland impacts that would have occurred with seven individual docks extending across the wetland. This does not set a precedent for this application. FINDINGS: RECREATIONAL BEACH LOT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The application includes a request to amend the current conditional use permit for the recreational beach lot to allow a change to an approved conditional use. ne applicant is also requesting variances for the installation of a second dock structure and additional boat slips for a total of 8. The total beach lot area for Near Mountain Lake Association is 27,000 square feet. City code requires 50,000 square feet of beach lot area for 2 docks. The applicant is requesting approval for 8 boats on 2 docks. City code allows a maximum 3 watercraft per dock structure. Section 20-232, General Issuance Standards — Conditional Use Permit 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city. Findin : The beach lot does provide a recreational amenity, however the area on Pleasant View Road is currently a substandard road with poor sightlines which will reduce public safety if beach lot use is intensified. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Findine: The beach lot will not be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance unless variances from the required lot area for the second dock and the number of boats allowed per dock are obtained. I Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the Near Mountain CUP Amendment/ Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 6 of 15 essential character of that area. Findin : The applicant has provided a diagram of the proposed second dock structure north of the existing structure. The dock as illustrated will extend 50 feet into Lotus Lake and be no longer than the existing dock. Information regarding dock materials should be submitted for review. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: There are several beach lots on Lotus Lake. The proposed CUP amendment will impact the existing neighborhoods with increased boat traffic and/or decreased public safety on Pleasant View Road, a current substandard street, from intensified beach lot usage. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Findin : The association will be required to maintain the beach lot. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding: The beach lot is not anticipated to have any excessive requirements for public facilities and services. It is not certain whether the beach lot will be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. Findin : The association must keep the beach lot maintained and regulate activities on the beach lot. The area of the beach lot will interfere with traffic if additional cars park along Pleasant View Road, decreasing the ability for traffic to travel Pleasant View Road. Increased boat traffic from the beach lot may increase the amount of noise emitted from the beach lot. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property, which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Findin : Applicant has stated that all members are within 500 feet of the beach lot; however, intensified use with increased boats and a second dock raises concerns for parking and traffic flow. Pleasant View Road at 26 feet wide with poor sightlines is a substandard street. The current standard road width for public residential streets is 31 feet. The area of the beach lot will interfere with traffic if additional cars park along Pleasant View Road, decreasing the ability for traffic to travel Pleasant View Road. Near Mountain CUP Amendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 7 of 15 pie, ?006 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: The conditional use amendments will not result in the loss of any features. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Findin : If properly maintained the beach lot will remain compatible with the surrounding uses. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Findin : It is not certain whether the CUP amendment will depreciate the surrounding property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Findin : The CUP amendment, as proposed, will not meet the standards prescribed for beach lots provided in City Code, as outlined below. Section 20-266 Recreational Beach Lots: 1. Recreational beach lots shall have at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage for each dock. Findin : The proposed beach lot has over 500 feet of lake frontage. Near Mountain CUP Amendment/ Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 8 of 15 2. Except as specifically provided herein, no structure, ice fishing house, camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle, shelters (except gazebos) shall be erected, maintained, or stored upon any recreational beach lot. For the purpose of this section, a gazebo shall be defined as, "a freestanding roofed structure which is open on all sides." Findin : No structures (except as authorized by the beach lot ordinance) are proposed. 3. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini -bikes, all -terrain vehicles or snowmobiles shall be driven upon or parked upon any recreational beach lot. Findin : No vehicle access is provided. 4. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight camping. Finding: No camping shall be permitted. 5. Boat launches are prohibited. Finding: No boat launching shall be permitted. 6. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one (1) dock, however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3). Sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored on a rack. ne number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one (1) rack slip per lot served by the beach lot; however, in no case shall there be more than four (4) racks per beach lot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight. Finding: The applicant is seeking a change in the allowed number of boats from three (3) currently to a total of 8 boats on the 2 docks. The recreational beach lot ordinance indicates that the maximum amount of boats docked cannot exceed 3 per dock (Sec.20- 266 (6)). Boats may be clustered if additional dock structures are allowed. The applicant does not meet the requirements for a second dock structure and would be limited to 3 docked boats. 7. The maximum number of docks on a recreational beach lot is three (3). No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless the beach meets the following conditions: a. Shoreline of at least two hundred (200) feet per dock, and b. Area of at least thirty thousand (30,000) square feet for the first dock and additional twenty thousand (20,000) square feet for each additional dock. Near Mountain CUP Amen&nentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16,2006 Page 9 of 15 Finding: The beach lot has over 500 feet of frontage and an area of 27,000 square feet as determined by a survey submitted by the applicant. This is 23,000 square feet short of the required 50,000 square feet for a second dock structure. A variance is required if the second dock is to be installed at the beach lot. 8. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet or the minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of four (4) feet. 'Me width (but not the length) of the cross -bar of any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in the computation of length described in the preceding sentence. The cross -bar of any such dock shall not measure in excess of twenty-five (25) feet in length. Find : The applicant needs to provide details about the proposed dock. The applicant should also contact the DNR regarding any state approvals that may be required for common docking areas. 9. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided, however, that the owner of any two (2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one (1) common dock within the dock setback zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the common dock is the only dock on the two (2) lakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this chapter. Finding: The illustration with the current proposed location and extent of the dock submitted by the applicant illustrates that the proposed second dock structure (northern dock) would be outside the dock setback zone. 10. No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. No more than one (1) sail boat mooring shall be allowed for every two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. Finding: No sailboat moorings are proposed. 11. A recreational beach lot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for the subdivision of which it is a part. For purposes of this paragraph, the following terms shall mean those beach lots which are located either within (urban) or outside (rural) the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in the comprehensive plan. a. Urban recreational beach lot: At least eighty (80) percent of the dwelling units, which have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational beach lot, shall be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of the recreational beach lot. b. Rural recreational beach lot: A maximum of fifty (50) dwelling units (including riparian lots) shall be permitted appurtenant rights of access to the recreational beach lot. Upon extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service boundary into the rural area, the urban recreational beach lot standards will apply. Near Mountain CUP Amendnzentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 10 of 15 Finding: All of the dwelling units are located within 1,000 feet of the beach lot. 12. All recreational beach lots, including any recreational beach lots established prior to February 19, 1987 may be used for swimming beach purposes, but only if swininting areas are clearly delineated with marker buoys which conform to the United States Coast Guard standards. Findin : No swimming beach is proposed. 13. All recreational beach lots shall have a buffer sufficient to insulate other property owners from beach lot activities. This buffer may consist of topography, streets, vegetation, distance (width or depth), or other features or combinations of features which provide a buffer. To insure appropriate buffering, the city may impose conditions to insulate beach lot activities including, but not limited to: a. Increased side or front yard setbacks for beach areas, docks, racks or other allowed recreational equipment or activities; b. Hours of use; c. Planting and maintenance of trees and shrubs; d. Erection of fences; e. Standards of maintenance including mowing and trimming; painting and upkeep of racks, docks and other equipment; disposal of trash and debris; f. Increased width, depth or area requirements based upon the intensity of the use proposed or the number of dwellings having rights of access. Finding: Existing vegetation will be preserved according to the applicant. Lot width will also provide distance to act as buffer between the beach lot and other properties. 14. To the extent feasible, the city may impose such conditions even after approval of the beach lot if the city finds it necessary. Findin : At the present time, no additional conditions are imposed. 15. Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft, where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach lot. Finding: The applicant shall incorporate a clause in the covenants for the homeowner's association to require that watercraft stored, moored or docked overnight shall be owned by the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes in the association if the condition does not already exist. 16. The placement of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks, and other structures shall be indicated on a site plan approved by the city council. Findin : The applicant has submitted a diagram of proposed Conditional Use Near Mountain CUP Amendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 11 of 15 Amendments. The 2 docks and 8 boats have been illustrated on Figure 2 of Attachment 2. 17. Portable chemical toilets may be allowed as a condition of approval of a recreational beach lot. The maintenance and use of chemical toilets on some beach lots may be unsuitable because they cannot be adequately screened from residential neighbors or lake users. Any use of chemical toilets on recreation beach lots shall be subject to the following: a. The minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark shall be seventy-five (75) feet. Side and front yard setbacks shall be maximized to achieve maximum screening from adjacent lots and the lake. b. It may only be used Memorial Day to Labor Day and shall be removed from the lot during the rest of the year. c. It shall be securely anchored to the ground to prevent tipping. d. It shall be screened from the lake and residential property with landscaping. e. It shall be serviced at least weekly. f. Only models designed to minimize the potential for spilling may be used. g. Receipt of an annual license from the city's planning department. The license shall be issued unless the conditions of approval of this ordinance have been violated. All license applications shall be accompanied by the following information: 1 . Name, address, and phone number of applicants. 2. Site plan showing proposed location of chemical toilets. 3. Name, address, and phone number of chemical toilet supplier. 4. Plan for commercially maintaining the chemical toilet, including a copy of any agreement for maintenance, and the name, address, and phone number of person responsible for maintenance. 5. A written description of how the applicant intends to screen the portable chemical toilet from all views into the property, including views from the lake. Findin : No portable chemical toilets are proposed. 18. No watercraft or boat lift shall be kept, moored, docked, or stored in the dock setback zone. Findin : The applicant should include a clause in the covenants for the homeowner's association to require that no watercraft of boat lift shall be located within the dock setback zone. 19. Gazebos may be permitted on recreational beach lots subject to city council approval and the following standards: a. Minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark shall be seventy-five (75) feet. b. No gazebo shall be closer to any lot line than the minimum required yard setback for the zoning district in which the structure is located. c. Maximum size of the structure shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) square feet. d. Maximum height shall not exceed twenty (20) feet. Near Mountain CUP Amendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 12 of 15 e. Gazebos shall make use of appropriate materials, colors, and architectural and landscape forms to create a unified, high-quality design concept for the lot which is compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures. f. Gazebos shall be properly maintained. Structures which are rotted, unsafe, deteriorated or defaced shall be repainted, repaired, removed, or replaced by the homeowners or beach lot association. g. The following improvements are prohibited in gazebos; screening used to completely enclose a wall, water and sewer service, fireplaces, and electricity. Findin : No gazebos are proposed. FINDINGS: VARLANCE #1 — Second Dock The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance for a second dock unless they find the following facts: 1. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods preexisting standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Findine: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. There are no comparable properties within 500 feet. There are other recreational beach lots on Lotus Lake that exist within single family residential zoning which are governed by nonconforming use permits or existing conditional use permits. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are generally applicable to beach lots. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Findin : Since its creation, the beach lot has never had the area necessary for a second dock structure. Therefore, the hardship is self -created - 5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Near Mountain CUP Amendmentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 13 of 15 Finding: The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare due to intensified use of the beach lot. 6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or decrease visibility or site distances, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Findin : The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare from increased parking associated with intensified use on the beach lot. Pleasant View Road as it currently exists is a sub -standard street at 26 feet in width with poor sightlines. A standard residential street is 31 feet wide with 11 foot wide travel lanes. A parked vehicle typically takes up 8 feet of the road width which creates a problem with traffic flow on the substandard street. FINDINGS: VARIANCE #2 — Four Boat SHys Per Dock The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance for four (4) boat slips per dock unless they find the following facts: 1 . That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods preexisting standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Findin : The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. There are no comparable properties within 500 feet. There are other recreational beach lots on Lotus Lake that exist within single family residential zoning which are governed by nonconforming use permits or existing conditional use permits. No beach lots on Lotus Lake with Conditional Use Permits are permitted to have more than 3 slips per dock. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Findin : The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are generally applicable to beach lots. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship because the number of slips per dock allowed by code has not changed since the original CUP was granted in 1981. Near Mountain CUP Amendment/ Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16,2006 Page 14 of 15 5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Findin : The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare due to intensified use of the beach lot. 6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or decrease visibility or site distances, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Findin : The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare from increased parking associated with intensified use on the beach lot. Pleasant View Road as it currently exists is a sub -standard street at 26 feet in width with poor sightlines. A standard residential street is 31 feet wide with 11 foot wide travel lanes. A parked vehicle typically takes up 8 feet of the road width which creates a problem with traffic flow on the substandard street. RECOWIENDATION Staff reconunends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "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 beach lots in Chanhassen will likely seek variances from lot area and boat limit restrictions." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application w/attachments. 3. Affidavit of Mailing. 4. Conditional Use Permit #87-13 for Near Mountain Lake Association. 5. Nonconforming Use Permit for Colonial Grove Beach Lot, dated June 15, 1981. 6. Findings of Fact and Decision for Colonial Grove Beach Lot, dated September 13, 1993. 7. Conditional Use Permit for Lotus Lake Estates Beach Lot, dated July 7, 1986. 8. Conditional Use Permit for Kurvers Point Beach Lot, dated July 20,1987. 9. City Code Article V, Section 9 (11) as of July 20, 1987. 10. Email from A. Fauske, dated May 3, 2006. Near Mountain CUP Arnerubnentl Variance Planning Case #06-20 May 16, 2006 Page 15 of 15 11. Email from J. Whiteman, dated April 28, 2006. 12. Letter from J. & J. Thielen dated May 7, 2006. gAPlan\2006 planning cases\06-20 near mountain lake assmiation\nm mmntain cup—varianceAm I I I I I I I ( I ( I I t ( I I I I I I I I I C I ( I I I I I I I t I I ( I I I I I i I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SCl-10-zLGV0-GLC0* ZV4VT0LTCSS :OG aNWMNQJ 01 31113l SS3N(Maw LN3X01jjn3N1 N30NMS 01 Nt[n.L3N 90140.0so 90 T ess :3r>(ZN This crap is nafter a legally recorded map cor I sol., and is net intended W be used as me. This Map is a corriblation 0 records, infortration and data located in Yahoos coy, monly, state and federal offices and other sources regarding Me area shoarn, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does net amiricard Mid Me Geographic li,formalion Systern (GIS) Data osed to prepare this Map are error free, " the City does no represent that Me GIS Data can be used for na0gational, ImClmfli Or my other purpose recoiring inaseng namorement of distance or direction or phidSlm in Me depiction of geographic teawm. If men; or discrepancies am found please, contact 952-227-1107. The preceding clisclaimer is pirovided Wisuant to Minnesota Statutes §466 03. Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map ackmWedges that the City shall not be liable for my damages, and eVrossly waives of claim. and agreesto defend, indemnity, and hold mr-riless, the C4 fmcriny and all claim tonxight by User, ds employees or agects, or Mid parties a,hich anse W V7,ki�disi �iob data provided, 4TCSS 4 AS 0' `Sy'e-� j 10 'IAY ",16 JTY OF CHANHALS 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 wwwd.chanhassen.mn.us w , M! rJ10F& SCANNED WU S h �STAZEC��;� 2 0.3 9 —rMOT I E R a 1 3768 5 ('� io , -12�p IF) - X vev C'� D KURVERS POINT HOMEOWNER A5,UL .��HASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MIN 55317-9503 i I I I i i I I I i I I I i i I I I I I i I � I I i i I i I I I i I i I i i I I I I I 11 11 i I I I I i I I I i I I i I i Notice of Public Hearing (0 (0 - ZC5 Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later In the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a Variance and Conditional Use Permit for the addition of a second dock - Planning Case 06-20. Applicant: Near Mountain Lake Association Property Northeast side of Lotus Lake off Pleasant View Road (Outlot B, Location: Reicherrs Addition). A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the ,app;icant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.cl.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/i)lan/06-20.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Lori Haak Questions & by email at Ihaak@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952 - Comments: 227-1135. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commiss on meeting. City Review Procedure: 4Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, jkezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be nolified of the '%plfcation in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are avallalAs by request. At the Planning Commission meetmg, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonIngs; and land use amendments from residential to oommercial/industrial. Minnesota State statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an Item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. A neighborhood spolkespersordrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city, Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any Interested personM Bemuse the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be Included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included In the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. — SCANNED fit It I fill If q( I((([ It it E I I I E t(tijiltuji I E(ti(I(i(It It I I 1 11 14 . "I . 11 " PIT" -90 -OOOIPO -0/-Caw' 2t?4ipTOLTcSS :00 clallomado-A 0.1. 311GIUN11 aassmuaaw Sw ION �dZIQNMIS 01. Nt(nj.3U 90/90/so 90 T ess MIXIN ""'s MP's norner a legally "DO(rdli MaP one a wIly and is not intended 1, be oad all me. Tfls onel"s a cOr"Pileflim 01 records,, inforroatiorl and data located in vadws :dy. colrty. som, anf isoleal Offi,,as and other sol,rces reasnong tti. meal mo—, and is W be irsed! for reference Wroo,ee My. The City does not yearned ftt Me GeWraphic Infonrnation System (GIS) Data tared to popsa dill, mor am imor free, and the City does w repraoiral that One GIS Dana can be used list netygational. slating o" my O"w N"POSe ns�mrlg e=mg mallarmlent of ckstan�a or dirrociJoil or pracileon in ft dl`O�w of gwgmPNc istaltiraS 9 mis1i or dnMP8pwl:ies are foisid Please, contact 11W-�7-1107 The P�ng d'sdrame's Wwdad Wnalmt to Minnesota Stai §466.W. Subd. 21 (20DO). and Via "ear of fris niall aAr0WedS0a5 Uhat this (34y, shall not � table far any darna� and artioressly amnal all claim, and atireas W delanif. indersirty, andl hold hannirless deal Wrom my and al daim br�t by User. as maloyeas or "mrs, ffind�qk data wlirded of 2 Tess 40 ITY OF 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www.d.chanhassen.mus 01 D?I�U S POS�A�CE 311 F8013768 ff '*1 0 . 0 LORNA A TARNIRWR 7405 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9722 11111111111111111flill 11 11h 11 Ill 11 Notice of Public Hearing 04.,-210 Chanhassen Planning 3ommission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until _Lter in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: g,3quest for a Variance and Conditional Use Permit for the I abdition of a second dock – Planning Case 06-20. Applicant: I Near Mountain Lake Association Property Northeast side of Lotus Lake off Pleasant Vl�w —Road (Clutlot Location: Reichert's Addition). A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the pr9posed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/sery/plan/06-20.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Lori Haak Questions & by email at Ihaak*ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952 - Comments: 227-1135. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses. Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require P. public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in wrifing Any Interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent intonation and e r�mmendation, These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a —, �al overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Razonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciavindustdal, • Minnesota State Statute sig.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their compleAty may take several months to complete, Any person wishing to follow an Item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meefing. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission ho.ds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. It you wish to have somethino to be included In the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. —J SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN P 0 BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 05/17/2006 8:09:14 AM Receipt No. 0010915 CLERK: katie PAYEE: NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSOC INC NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSOCIATION BEACHLOT AND LOTUS LAKE RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST ------------------------------------------------------- GIS List 531.00 Total Cash Check 109 Change ----------- 531.00 0.00 531.00 ----------- 0.00 C) (a - D- 6 SCANNED City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 WyOF (952) 227-1100 awma To: Jahn Dyvik Near Mountain Lake Association 610 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ship To: Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 5/4/06 upon receipt QUANTITY I DESCRIPTION I UNITPRICE AMOUNT 177 Property Owners List within 500' of Near Mountain Lake Association $3.00 .00 I Beachlot and Lotus Lake Riparian Property Owners (177 labels) I I TOTAL DUE $531.00 NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the Addressee shown above (copy attached) and must be paid prior to the public hearing scheduled for May 16, 2006. Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #06-20. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! SCANNED 1 0 \ co o'p7-"7 ST so 0 12 Neo > 1114 0 y 71 w LA- < co o'p7-"7 ST so 0 12 Neo > 1114 0 y 71 w LA- .1 /1 ��i Tt3"-V� Weather JA� Technologies, Inc. Counted by: drr & jk TAB for Windows Sit. Code : 000010413204 Board # : Copyright 1999 Start Date: 05/03/2004 in front of 570 Pleasant View File I.D. : 570 PLEASANT Tice Total 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 9999 12: 00 05/03 01: 00 02 :00 03:00 04 :00 05: 00 06: 00 07:00 08: 00 09:00 10:00 11:00 32 a 3 4 is 9 1 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 pm 36 0 3 13 13 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01: 00 36 0 0 9 16 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02: 00 57 0 5 15 25 10 2 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 48 0 1 1 28 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 :00 57 0 3 15 19 is 5 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 05:00 60 0 1 18 26 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 45 0 1 15 20 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 :00 33 0 3 12 12 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00 33 0 2 4 19 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 09: 00 14 0 0 3 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10: 00 1 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Day Totals 460 22 110 200 97 21 1 1 12:00 05/04 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 4 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 9 0 0 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 15 0 3 2 7 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 108 0 1 19 57 21 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 148 0 3 23 83 36 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00 52 0 2 3 34 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09:00 39 0 0 7 16 14 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 40 1 4 4 20 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 34 0 1 B 20 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 p. 36 0 1 5 19 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 33 0 5 3 is 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 53 0 1 6 27 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 46 0 5 4 27 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 04:00 55 1 2 13 29 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 86 0 2 24 43 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 57 0 1 13 32 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 64 1 7 23 24 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00 33 0 1 8 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09:00 21 0 1 5 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 6 0 a 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 -nn n n A n n n 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 twL 14 Lk- -rut Qj Weather : 0 JAPAR Technologies, Inc - U 0 01: Counted by: drr & ik TAS for Wi.dos Site Code : 000010473204 Board # 0 Copyright 1999 Start Date: 05/03/2004 in front of 570 Pleasant VieW 04:00 File I.D. : 570 PLEASANT 0 05:00 Direction 1 K2qe 1 2 06:00 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 11 76 07 1z:uu 0 un/ua 0 0 0 U U U 0 01: 00 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 02: 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 03:00 0 4 0 0 0 1 3 0 04:00 0 0 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 05:00 0 20 0 0 5 12 2 0 06:00 0 103 1 1 29 54 17 0 0 07 :00 138 0 2 25 86 20 0 OB;DO 0 0 51 0 1 13 27 8 0 09:00 0 35 0 4 11 12 6 1 1 10: 00 37 1 2 10 21 2 0 Grand Total 1804 5 73 391 916 356 0 SEeed 0 Statistics. 0 0 1 0 0 0 15th Percentile Speed 22 MPH 0 0 Median Speed (50th percentile): 27 MPH Average Speed - All Vehicles 28 MPH 85th Percentile Speed 32 MPH 95th Percentile Speed 34 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed 21-30 MPH Nu.ber of Vehicles in Pace 1307 Percent f Vehicles in Pace 72.42% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH 1335 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH: 73.97% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 90 0 Weather J� Technologies Inc % I Counted by: drr & jk TAS for Windo�a Site Cod. : 000010473204 Board # Copyright 1999 Start Date: 05/03/2004 in front of 530 Pleasant View File I.D. 530 PLFASANT Direction 2 P? ge 3 3, 76 Time Total 15 20 25 3G 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 30 35 9999 -12 00 0-5/03 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 30 0 1 6 16 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 pm 36 0 4 15 12 5 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 42 1 1 11 22 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 64 1 4 19 31 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 83 0 2 14 47 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 112 1 6 28 51 25 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 130 0 7 34 67 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 78 1 8 28 32 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 51 0 6 15 23 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OB:00 38 0 2 8 22 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 09:00 20 0 0 7 8 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 7 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Day Totals 693 4 41 186 335 110 13 3 1 12:00 05/04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 1 0 a 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 04:00 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 6 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 24 0 0 9 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 41 1 3 9 22 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00 31 0 0 10 14 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09:00 26 0 0 5 is 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 32 1 3 7 13 7 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 47 0 2 14 23 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 pm 45 4 0 1 27 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 50 0 1 14 28 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 53 0 1 11 22 14 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 38 a 3 18 40 13 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 142 0 4 61 64 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 125 1 5 47 56 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 82 0 4 18 43 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 67 0 5 36 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00 43 2 2 15 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09:00 31 0 2 to 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 12 0 a 4 4 3 1 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 11-00 11 0 1 1 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weather : JAMAR Technologies, Inc. Counted by: drr & ik TAB for Windows Site Code : 000010473204 Board # : Copyright 1999 Start Date: 05/03/2004 in front of 570 Pleasant View File I.D. : 570 PLEASANT �':Vu UO,Ub 4 0 0 0 4 u u u u u u V u 01:00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 04 :00 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 6 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 20 0 1 9 5 5 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 :00 38 0 3 12 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00 35 1 4 14 10 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09:00 26 0 1 11 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 10 :00 34 3 5 11 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 1816 17 92 556 847 262 32 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Speed Statistics. 15th Percentile Speed 21 MPH Median Speed (50th percentile): 26 MPH Average Speed - All Vehicles 27 MPH 85th Percentile Speed 30 MPH 95th Percentile Speed 33 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed 21-30 MPH Number of Vehicles in Pace 1403 Percent of Vehicles in Pace 17.26% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH 1151 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH: 63.38% Weather JAMAR Technologies, lnc. Consted by: drr & ik TAS for Windows Site Code : 000010473204 Board # Copyright 1999 Start Date: 05/03/2004 in front of 570 Pleasant View File I.D. : 570 PLEASANT Ti�,e Total 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 so 55 60 65 70 75 9999 12: 00 05/03 01:00 02:00 03:00 04 :00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 0 9: 00 10:00 11:00 62 0 4 10 31 14 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 pm 72 0 28 25 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01: 00 7B 1 1 20 38 10 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02: 00 121 1 9 34 56 17 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03: 00 131 0 3 21 75 26 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 :00 169 1 9 43 70 40 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05: 00 190 0 a 52 93 36 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06: 00 123 1 9 43 52 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 :00 84 0 9 27 35 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 :00 71 0 4 12 41 11 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9: 00 34 0 0 10 13 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10: 00 14 0 0 2 6 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 4 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Day Totals —T153 4 63 304 535 203 34 4 1 1 12:00 05/04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 01:00 3 0 0 a 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 5 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 :00 12 0 0 5 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05: 00 21 0 4 5 9 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 132 0 1 28 66 33 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 189 1 6 32 105 40 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00 83 0 2 13 48 is 4 1 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 09:00 65 0 0 12 34 17 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 72 2 7 11 33 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 81 0 3 22 43 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 pm 81 4 1 12 46 16 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 83 0 6 17 46 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 106 0 2 17 49 27 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 124 0 8 22 67 23 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 197 1 6 �4 93 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 211 1 7 71 99 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 139 0 5 31 75 27 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 131 1 12 59 47 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00 36 2 3 23 43 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09:00 52 0 3 15 22 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 20 0 0 5 6 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 18 0 1 5 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 Day Totals 1904 12 77 V 9 954-330 43 9 1 1 Weather Counted by: drr & jk Board # in front of 570 Pleasant View JAMAR Technologies, Inc. TAB for Windows Copyright 1999 01:00 0 4 0 1 0 2 1 0 02:00 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 5 a 0 0 1 4 0 04 :00 6 0 0 4 2 0 0 05:00 0 0 26 0 0 a 14 3 1 06:00 0 0 123 1 2 38 59 22 1 07:00 176 0 5 37 106 23 5 06:00 86 1 5 27 37 13 2 09:00 61 0 5 28 16 10 2 10:00 71 4 7 21 33 5 1 Grand Total 3620 22 165 947 1763 618 89 Speed Statistics. 15th Percentile Speed 22 MPH Median Speed (50th Percentile): 27 MPH A�erage Speed - All Vehicles 27 MPH 85th Percentile Speed 31 MPH 95th Percentile Speed 34 MPH 10 MPH Pace Speed 21-30 MPH Number of Vehicles in Pace 2710 Percent of Vehicles in Pace 74.87% Number of Vehicles > 25 MPH 2486 Percent of Vehicles > 25 MPH: 68.68% Direction 2 _ 1 46 �l 15 50 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 1 Site Code : 000010473204 Start Date: 05/03/2004 File I.D. : 570 PLEASANT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 rLrA=_ VKIN I CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Planning Case No. Applicant Name and Address Owner Name and Address: NA4AMo0,-J—,4&J 1,q/<I�. AEJOQA7,oll� 6to PGEA&AIQ V, ei�J P, N L0AA1jA&&P,f3 MA�) 57531-7 Contact: JAwA bYv'ir, Contact: Phone:61L 2oZ 7Z5( Fax: 76 3 5'72 If 174 Phone: Fax:. H v 0. C0.4-% Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is reguired prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit ([UP) Non-Gonforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning — Sign Permits — Sign Plan Review — Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) V/ Variance (VAR) Welland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign – $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPRIVAC/VARfWAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital cop in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: N&A4 tjoj,&j-rAoJ LAKE- AS&o(iii - AiEcAfAVU�JAL GEAC�i LaT LOCATION. Acit-)5S Fgot-L 6 1 o e L. —, V , P-� A -b - LEGAL DESCRIPTION C14 i -ri o,,,l TOTALACREAGE 10 0 - 29 A" F -S - Z 00S - WETLANDS PRESENT YES V/ NO PRESENT ZONING: Sl-AJGLL F-Aki(Ll A&Sib&tJ�ooqL� REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: A&.�ibk,?J—nAQ Lv%od bbd-�rrj REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: S A6 f�- REASON FOR REQUEST:—,SLL A-rrwt-fEZ� This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this applicaton, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A wTitten notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of T-rde, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. iAltr-� bi'tv) 4//4/66 gin ure of Ago Date &gnafure Or ree rner Date G \pl-ANI�s\Developinerd Review Applimfion.DOC Rev 12/05 April 14,2006 Near Mountain Lake Association Dock Variance Request Near Mountain Lake Association owns Outlot B of Reichert's Addition. The Association members consist of Lots 1-8, Reichert's addition along Pleasant View Road on the east side of the northern tip of Lotus Lake (figure 1). We are one of the oldest if not the oldest lake association on Lotus Lake. We have long standing membership with an average time of home ownership for our current members of approximately 16 years. We have always been good stewards of the lake and shoreline. We, the Near Mountain Lake Association, are requesting a variance to allow a second seasonal, 50 foot dock on the southern portion of our Association's recreational beach lot (Outlot B) on Lotus Lake as shown in figure 2. Further, we request 4 boat slips per dock for a total of 8 slips. Currently, a single 50 foot seasonal dock is used for 3 boats on the southern portion of the lot. Under Sec. 20-266 of the Chanhassen City Code: "(7) The maximum number of docks on a recreational beach lot is three. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless the beach meets die following conditions: a. Shoreline of at least 200 feet per dock; and b. Area of at least 30,000 square feet for the first dock and additional 20,000 square feet for each additional dock." Outlot B has 600 feet of shoreline and an area of 46000 square feet according to City of Chanhassen records. This is likely based on a survey from the early 1980's (figure 2). A more recent survey was conducted in 2005 which shows the area to be 38350 square feet (figure 3). We believe the reduction in area may be a result of settling. We have never added fill to the northern two thirds of Outlot B where it appears we have lost land area (compare figures 2 and 3). Had we added fill over the years, we may have maintained the earlier size, however we have chosen to respect the natural state of the land. We have enough shoreline to support 2 and even 3 docks, however we are short of the required 50000 square feet for 2 docks. We are asking for a variance that will permit the use of a second dock in spite of the square foot shortage. The southern Portion of shoreline where the current dock is used and where we propose to locate the second dock is not in a designated wetland area. Only the northern 150 feet of shoreline on Outlet B is wetland according to the National Wetland Inventory. Precedents: We believe exceptions from city code regarding shoreline use have been granted for other Lotus Lake associations. Some examples are: 1. The Lotus Lake Betterment Association (Sandy Hook) has a recreational lot of unknown area with a shoreline of 25 feet (figure 4). They arc well short of the 200 foot shoreline requirement but have a permit for a 100 foot dock with no stated boat limit. Typically, they have approximately 6 boats moored at the dock. 2. Lotus Lake Estates Association (Choctaw) has a large beachlot of 92700 square feet and 900 feet of shoreline (figure 5). They have a permit for three docks which falls within the city code requirements, but the permit also allows them to have 4 sailboat moorings. This exceeds the city code sec 20-266 which states, "Up to three sailboat moorings shall be allowed." 3. Kurver's Point Association has two docks with a total of 10 slips. They have 56000 square feet with 460 feet of shoreline (figure 6). This is sufficient for 2 docks, but the code states, "(6) No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three motorized or nomnotorized watercraft per dock." , 4. Fox Chase/Lotus Lake Dock and Trail Association has one large permanent dock on the lot of 732 Lake Point. This dock has 7 slips for the 7 homes along the DNR protected welland on the northwest shoreline (figure 7). Again, the number of boat slips exceeds that allowed by the city code. These are 4 associations that have been granted dock usage beyond the requirements of the city code. There may be other examples as well. We believe that our request for 2 simple straight docks, 50 feet in length that will allow 4 boat slips per dock for a total of 8 boat slips meets die general conditions for a variance sec 20-58: 1) We are asking for reasonable use as other associations have been granted. 2) Recreational beach lot requirements suggest a variance is needed. 3) We are making this request only for enjoyment of the lake. 4) Our hardship is not self-created 5) Variance will not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to other land. The shoreline will remain natural and undisturbed. No water or.shore vegetation will be disturbed. 6) a. street congestion will not be increased. Outlot B is within 500 feet of all home lots (walking distance). b. visibility is not affected c. fire danger is not increased d. public safety is not diminished e. neighboring property values are not impaired We will continue to be good stewards of the lake and the shoreline. We will continue to preserve the northern two-thirds of Outlot B and it's shoreline in its undisturbed natural state (figure 8). Respectfully submitted, Near Mountain Lake Association a ioiino --3 1011no 14 A� 4wo Ltj .4 q x0ow 0.0 0 Z # t C) PA Eow leo zo 3 0 z w Mk 3 vv ff, "Li (zw� ZP -1b 4wo Ltj .4 x0ow 0.0 0 Z Eow Mk 3 vv ff, "Li (zw� ZP -1b 99 M, 66 Ul OD oor- 0 0 1> 0* - 5 %V/ �1�5%1618 n- M w LL 301 JO 3003 3HI 01 --G TOGCVC�� 8nOiNO3 MHO 3HI 01 IS TOOO'LZ — V3W 3NV-1 snioi Swl Lo 'Print Data/Map Page I of I Fl&ue,r�- 4 http://156.99.124.167/website/parcel_search/printdatamap.asp?PID=252400320 4/14/2006 "Print Data/Map Page I of I F I&A� 5 http://l56.99.124.167/website/parccl—search/printdatainap.asp?PID=254200461 4/11/2006 Print Data/iN/lap Page I of I F 16siRe— .6 http://156.99.124.167/website/parcel search/printdatamap.asp?PID=253920320 4/11/2006 'Print Data/Map P1D# 252700160 rj Legend 1. ."e. lmdvjd Property Address: Ulm~ 732 LAKE PT Range: 023 CHANHASSEN, MN FOX CHASE �qyable Year 2007 jParcelilaropeiWe, Cling cissaits" CIS Acres: 0.56 Islas Homestead: Y Pozen School District: 0276 COW3,12 IParcel Location Page I of I r, pay" Infounination: LRY D & DEBRA L VOGT LAKE PT NNHASSEN, NIN 55317 Year Built: 1988 Footprint Sq Ft: 2434 Smtion: 01 Lot: 016 Township:. 116 Block: 001 Ptomaine: Range: 023 FOX CHASE �qyable Year 2007 _71Lost Sale Informado I IlLastSale NOTONFILE I Est.Matiket Value Land: $53'600 Est. Market Value Building. S509300 Map Created: 4-11-2006 Est, Market Value Total: $1039900 11 COUNTY CIS DISCLAIM ER: This map as created using Can er County's Geographic information SN stems (GlSt. it is a compilation in and data train , arious City, County. State, and Federal otTices. This map is not a sur, eN cd or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Can cr CountN is not responsible for an� inaccuracies contained licrem. r— I (T,) A, �_ � http://l 56.99.124.167/website/parcel_search/printdatamap.asp?PID=252700160 4/11/2006 "Print Data/Map Page I of I PID# 257300110 &X 15-TI.VG will Legend IiParcel Information Property Address: NOT ON FILE Taxpayer Information: NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSN INC 111011 Ted Ifillosse, 610 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Man C" R066 �Parcel Properties GIS Acres: 1.3 Homestead: N ISchool Islas patsts District: 0276 c4lat 24012 IParcel Location Section: 01 Township: 116 Range: 023 S ADDITION IPayable Year 2007 ILast Sale Information at " E:,L. Market Value Land: SO Sale NOT ON FILE [E,t. M%arket Value Building: SO rst Map Created: 4-14-2006 ----------- i Est. Market Value Total: E.L $0 CARVER COUNTY GIS DISCLAIMER: This map was created using Carver County's Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data tiorn various City, County, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. C�er County is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. http://156.99.124.167/website/parcel—searcb/Printdatamap.asp?PID=2573001 10 4/14/2006 Date: April 17,2006 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Subject: 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). Applicant: Near Mountain Lake Association Planning Case: 06-20 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on April 14, 2006. The 60 -day review period ends June 13, 2006. hi order for Lis to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on May 16,2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than May 5, 2006. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Mey-Purgatory-Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest or SprintfUnitcd) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 13. Other - 14. Other - SCA"Er) File No. 8393 Volume No. —I, Page No. 202 Cerf if icate of Title OWNER'S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE C,rtifirate No. 15025 Trwro,fer from No. 10988 Originally registered the 28th day of Deember 1953 Volume 9 POW 104 State of Minnesota,) ss. County Of Carwer. f THIS IS TO CERTIFY, THAT NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSOCIATION, INC. of the 610 Pie ... or Vies Road, City of Chanhassen County of Carver and State of Minnesota Is now the owner of an estate, to wit in fee simple of and in the following described land situated in the County of Carver and State of Minnesota. to wit, O.tlot B, REICHERT'S ADDITION, according to the plat thereof on file and of record I. the office of the Registrar of Titles. Car,ver County. Minnesota. Subject to the Fifty Per Cent (502) interest of Federal Fam Mortgage Corporation In all Mineral rights reserved by deed recorded in Book Forty-three (43) of Deeds Page Six Hundred �enty One (621). Subject to the encumbrances liens and interest noted by the memorial underwritten orendursed hereon; andsubject to the following rights or encumbranc * baisling. as provided in M. S. A. Section 508.25 namely: es go 1. Lirns, claims, or rights arising or existing under the laws or the Constitution of the United States, which this state cannot require to appear of record; 2. The lien of any realproprty tax or special assessment for which the landhasnot beensoldat thedateof there tif; a e ot title; r c f 3. Any lease for a period not exceeding them years, when there is actual occupation of the premises thereunder; 4. All rights in Public highways upon the land. 5. The right of appeal or right to appear and contest the application, as is allowed by this chapter; 6. The rights of any person in Possession under deed or contract for deed from the owner of the certificate of title, 7. Any outstanding mechanics lien rights which may exist under sections 514.01 to 514.17. Thai the aid Near M .. t -In Lake Association "W"WRiffidXX Is a Minnesota Corporation and I. under no di.ability. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seat of my office. SUNNED this 31 day of January 19 85 Lu, c (, At ) L.)J;, at 1:30 P.M NUMBER: 25626 Volume: 78 Page: 224 CERTIFICATE OF TITLE STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF CARVER TRANSFER FROM: 17493 ORIGINALLY REGISTERED: 28 day of December 1953 Volume 9 page 104 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT: JAHN A. DYVIK 610 Pleasant View Road, Chanhassen, MN 55317 is now the owner of an estate, to wit: In fee simple of and in the following described land situated in the County of Carver and State of Minnesota, to wit: Lot 8, Block 1, REICHERT'S ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof Subject to the Fifty Per Cent (50%) interest of Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation in all mineral rights served by deed recorded in Book Forty-three (43) of Deeds, Page Six Hundred Twenty-one (62 1). Subject to the encumbrances, liens and interest noted by the memorial underwritten or endorsed hereon: and subject to the rights or encumbrances subsisting as provided in M.S.508.25, namely: (1) Liens, claims, or rights arising under the laws or the Constitution of the United States, which the statutes of this state cannot require to appear of record; (2) Any real property tax or special assessment for which a sale of the land has not been had at the date of the certificate of title; (3) Any lease for a period not exceeding three years, when there is actual occupation of the premises under the lease; (4) All rights in public highways upon the land; (5) Such right of appeal or right to appear and contest the application as is allowed by law; (6) The rights of any person in possession under deed or contract for deed from the owner of the certificate of title; (7) Any outstanding mechanics lien rights which may exist under sections 514.01 to 514.17. That the said Jahn A. Dyvik is of the age of 18 years or older, is under no legal incapacity, and is single. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of my office, this 10 day of August, 1998 at 2-30 RM .00? Carl W. Hanson, Jr. Registrar of Titles In and for the County of Carver and State of SCANNED f�- r r z W C-) z o U- Uo 0 w UJ W 00 cc, LL- LL V) (A -H OIL ca C*4 In VNIT, 9�4v,.,(K r LLI U) :D 0 .j V09A CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 1 3 2006 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT SCANNED 4�' hl� Q LLI U) :D 0 .j V09A CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 1 3 2006 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 06-20 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 16, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a 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). Applicant: Near Mountain Lake Association. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/EgnL/PlaiVO6-20.htm] or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Uri Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Email: lhaak@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1135 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on May 4, 2006) GCANKM