The URL can be used to link to this page

1988 05 31C~tNf~SSENCITYC(XA~IL SP~IAL ~TING 31, 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCI~ERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson COUNCILMEMBER ARRIVING LATE: Councilman Horn arrived during the last item of discussion. STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Barbara Dacy a~ Larry Brown OLD ASSUMPTI(~] SEMINARY DISCUSSION. Mayor Hamilton: I'll just move ahead with one item I had and that is the old Assunption Seminary. It's ~n brought to our attention a few times that there is a problem with the Assumption S~ninary. Scott Harr has been talking with the owners ar~ trying to work with then ar~ he's done an excellent job of trying to keep on top of this project. I've gotten so many ccu~laints about that property that last week I went down there with Jim Chaffee. Walked the whole property and let me tell you, that's a scary place to be in. It's just awful. You can't believe how bad that place is. We spent a lot of time Friday ar~ today talking about it trying to figure out what we're going to do to resolve this issue. I think what we need to do, what I would like to ~ us do tonight is pass a resolution saying that the seminary property in total is a public health hazard ar~ a safety hazard so that will give Scott the anmunition he needs ar~ a little more clout to move ahead with the owners, and Roger also, to get additional things done with the s~minary. Board it up. Close it up. Torn down. Burned down. I don't care what we do with it but it's got to be changed. I found about ten 55 gallon drums stored behir~] one of the buildings. There is something in ~ leaking and it's going right into the creek. There's hundreds of tires out there. The place is supposed to be totally secure ar~ we had ~ board up all the doors and windows so you couldn't get into it. I had never ~ there and within about two minutes I was in. The door was wide open so it's not very secure. Once I got in I wasn't so happy I was in there. In the basenent level there are huge walk-in coolers like you ~ in a grocery store or in a big apartment building but the door is still on. We have some very, very serious problems there and I think our staff can probably take care of tb~ doors so we don' t have the problem of scmebody being put in there. I know that Scott will be contacting Roger to find out how do we move ahead to secure the property. Tnere are a total of about six buildings there and two of them are being occupied. I would like us to even pursue the possibility of telling the owners that the buildings that are being inhabitated can not be until they get the others cleaned up. There are certainly a lot of hazards for the people living there because they have children and the whole property is just unsafe. I'd like to see us pass a resolution saying that it's a health ar~ a public safety hazard. Perhaps Roger could draft wording for that so we could send that to the owners. Councilman Geving: Let's go ahead with the resolution. I noticed it was up for sale. It's up for sale ar~ will that have an impact on tt~ sale? If w~ declare 226 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 it as a safety hazard. Of course, I don't know what the people were doing with it anyway. Mayor Hamilton: It would seem to me that anybody who would c~me in here to purchase that property, we should tell th~m that until such time as it's cleaned up, the building taken down and the debris r~moved, that they're just going to have to do that or the City wouldn't be satisfied. Councilman Geving: ~ne houses that are occupied, I drove by yesterday, and it seems like I remember that we had almost declared it uninhabitable at the time because we were concerned about water pollution I believe. Contamination possibly frcm the well. I don't recall that specifically but it se~ns like the homes that are being occupied were almost unfit because of the wells. I have no problem with that. It looks like we should do scmething because the windows are all broken out. It's a shabby looking place. Mayor Hamilton: It's such a beautiful setting. A beautiful area. It's a shame that it's gotten to this point. Councilman Geving: Tnere have to be some of us who remember what it looked like when the S~ninarians were there. Mayor Hamilton: There are big trees that have been cut down in the area. ~e should try to eliminate that. There are some huge, huge trees out there. I don't remember if they're oaks or poplars but those things are this big around. They're huge. It's just a beautiful piece of property whe~ you get behir~ the s~inary. A creek running past the s~m~inary behind it's all w~)oded. It's just gorgeous. To have a mess like that, it's a shame. Councilman Johnson: Did you see what w~s in the drums? Mayor Hamilton: No I didn't even want to touch them, to be honest with you. They've ben there for a while and one of them had tar running down it. Tnat was down by the barn and it was leaking out. All I know is one of them was leaking out. Councilman Johnson: We should get the MPCA site investigation to go out there in~ediately. If you saw semething ccming out of the drums that were there, that's enough for them to respond and they will go out and look and call the homeowner a~d everything. Mayor Hamilton: ~nat was the direction we gave to Scott. To talk to the MPCA. Councilman Geving: Tcm, do you know who owns that property? Mayor Hamilton: ~nere are five attorneys who are attempting to sell it. They realize that they've got a white elephant and they have a million dollar pricetag on it. There's no way it's worth near that. Councilman Geving: You're interested in directing Roger to go ahead with the resolution. Roger Knutson: I'll just draft a resolution for your next meeting. City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 227 Mayor Hami 1 ton: We could have it on our consen%~ Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution declaring the the Old Assumption F,a~i~ as a public health hazard and a public safety hazard to be available for the next City Council meeting. In the meantime, directing staff to move ahead to proceed to do whatever they can to close it down. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. PARTIAL VACATI(~ OF WEST 64TH STI~RRT. Mayor Hamilton: We've gone over this a nurser of time. I guess Barb, has anything changed since last week that you want to bring to our attention? Barbara Dacy: It's my understanding from the Reed's that Roger ~ has signed a petition agreeing to the vacation. Councilman Johnson: So now w~'re at a three-fifth's vote. Roger Knutson: Last time there was a concern that two people owned th~ property. Have they both signed.? Mayor Hamilton: Gary, your brother is owner with you, is that correct? Roger Knutson: Now you both signed the petition? Mayor Hamilton: Including your wife so there's three of you. Jan Reed: We haven't actually signed it. Roger Knutson: If they sign it and if they own a majority of the land abutting the road to be vacated, then it is... Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could examine the document and tell us what r~s to be done. Roger Knutson: I guess know someone ~s to sign it. Barbara Dacy: They are signing our standard application. You should probably write on there we're going to vacate 64th Street. Roger Knutson: Frcm point to point. Councilman Boyt: It's a little sketchy isn't it? Roger Knutson: Yes. Why don' t I draw scmething up right here. Councilman Johnson: Of course his brother's not here. Mayor Hamilton: Barbara, could you review what the curr~t plan is at this point in time? Barbara Dacy: The Council at last Fmnday's meeting was talking about one of the . City Council ~L=eting - May 31, 1988 culLde- sac options and what would have to happen is 64th Street would be vacated fran the southwest corner of the HSZ site to TH 41. So this area would be vacated. Then either cul-de-sacs here or into the Reed property. At the last meeting the Reed's and HSZ appeared to have agreement to build a cul-de-sac into their property. Is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: Do you agree with that Gary? Gary Reed: Yes. ~ney've given us a written agreement that is putting the cul-de-sac into our property, that compensate... He would like scme area for ponding on our property. Barb, that hasn't been approved? Barbara Dacy: The planning issue is really not part of the Council's review .tonight. The main issue is whether or not 64th Street should be vacated or what aligr~ment it is. Other related ponding issues or drainage issues have to be addressed at another time. Gary Reed: If you'd like to see, I drew up an option of coming in off of TH 41 and some of the reasons why it doesn't seem to be working out. Bill was concerned that we looked that over as an option... Councilman Boyt: I'd like one, thank you. Gary Reed: This would be coming in off of TH 41 coming down to here... Without Ben Gowen's cooperation for the...it comes real close to the house right here...so that's one of the reasons. Councilman Geving: How many units are there? Gary Reed: As far as lots go. With the West 64th Street cul-de-sac I get one more lot plus I don't use all this lar~ on the road here. So this is not quite as efficient as what I consider the land use to be. So that's another reason that it doesn't really work out for me. The other reason is HSZ won't put in the other cul-de-sac. On this plan... Then we would probably have to stub the sewer in across the eassment from West 64th Street. Sewer and water is not available up here by the highway and that would be another additional cost. To get the sewer from West 64th Street to seven lots, in this area here... I guess my conclusion was t_hat this cption worked for me. A little better land use. I cc~e up with approximately a 260 foot from West 64th Street to the end of the cul-de-sac here. Anything you wanted to ask? Councilman Boyt: What's the length of the whole cul-de-sac? Councilman Johnson: From Orchard. Gary Reed: I suspect it would be close to 1,000 feet. Councilman Johnson: Where are you with the drainage issue? Gary Reed: We're trying to nail that down. We have put in the holding pond for their property and the main drainage caming off of TH 41 from the school is channeled through our property. It's ~ a probl~ with us and it would go into the holding pond and is this correct now, the runoff is going to go underground to the park? City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Councilman Johnson: How does it affect the 8 lots you're proposing? Gary Reed: I haven't nailed down the ponding site with th~n. Possibly put it up in this area here with this sharp angle...t/~ drainage c(xnes into my property now. At that point now there's a natural...and from there goes underground. There's another possibilty but I'm not sure... Councilman Johnson: So you're not fighting the ponding at this point? Councilman Johnson: You're just trying, you agreed in principle to allow the~ to pond on your property for their area and it looks like... Gary Reed: I agreed to a pond of not more than 10,000 square feet. ~t smaller than a minimun sized lot should be sufficient I imagine. Larry Brown: Just a point of clarification, if West 64th Street is vacated and Mr. Reed comes in for a plat, he will be responsible as well for on site ponding to maintain a predevelofanent runoff rate. Therefore there will be a pond somewhere on his property. Gary Reed: Just for the blacktopping? The ~ater running off the blacktop? Larry Brown: And the houses that potentially would be there. Councilman Johnson: His pond could be the same pond? Larry Brown: Correct. If it were sized appropriately, yes. Gary Bsed: Like I say, the major drainage comes off the school parking lot and they have no on site ponding at all. I feel that they should be responsible for their blacktop and should provide on site ponding for their runoff because it c~mes down really fast through there. They've got a spot next to the highway there. They've got plenty of land. They're going to channel their runoff into... Mayor Hamilton: Doesn't any of that go to the park? Gary Reed: Scme of it does go into that pond to the north... Mayor Hamilton: Underneath that driveway? Gary Reed: Where that pond is now...if that culvert ever opened up, you would have a problem there with our lake. Mayor Hamilton: Anything else Gary? Is that it? Bill, do you have any additional questions? Councilman Boyt: I appreciate the answers I got. Barbara, I had a question for you. The current limit on cul-de-sacs ar~ how that affects this? Barbara Dacy: There's is no specific limit identified in the subdivision 21.2 City Council Meeting - May 31~ 1988 ordinance other than length that's appropriate for the development and intensity which tbs cul-de-sac serves. The cul-de-sac that goes into the Reed property is approximately 900 feet from Orchard Lane. Typically staff has used a 1,000 foot rule of thumb in the urban area. There are different issues that we look at. Gary Reed: Tne density is not too great on that cul-de-sac. The lots there are over 60 feet. Councilman Boyt: You've agreed to maintain the walkway from the end of 64th Street out to TH 417 Gary Reed: I have agreed to make a walkway through my property. councilman Boyt: There's a road through there right now and I thought one of the considerations was that you were going to allow a path width to remain. Gary Reed: A road eassment you mean? Barbara Dacy: As a condition of the vacation, if the Council wishes to reserve a trail eas~nent in that vacated area, they have the power to do that. Councilman Boyt: In talking to the neighbors that day, it was my understanding that there was concern that there be scme way for t_he kids to continue to cross that property to the school so I think we should maintain a trail eas~nent on 64th. My concern with this, as I have expressed right along, is I don't know how to deal with long cul-de-sacs. I would like to see the City council wrestle with this issue in the future. I think that we need to work at it with the Public Safety people and come up with what we are going to do with long cul-de-sacs. There is pressure all the time it seems to allow them yet I think we all know that they test the limits of our ability to provide public safety protection for the people in the comnunity. I don't know that now is the time to fight that issue. I think the developer and the Reeds have worked at this for quite a while and if the neighbors don't substantially object to this plan, I gather that they don't from the conversation that I had with them, I can support it. Councilman Geving: I like to know now if we have narrowed the potential . . cul-de-sacs to the three that are shown on the sketch that you've provided. Now we can rule out 2 for sure. That's certainly not to be considered. At least in my view and apparently you have now ruled out number 1, is that correct? I guess I'm most concerned about the cc~nents from citizens who are now using 64th everyday to get to work from TH 41. Do we have any live petitions? Do ~ have any recent co~nents that have come in in terms of memorandums? Letters from people? Barbara Dacy: I have not received any at my office. I know some people are here. Councilman Geving: Again, like I said, my major concern was those people who do live to the west who are now traveliDg east to get to TH 41. Their co~nents regarding our action tonight and what their alternative will be if we do vacate 64th. Whether this is a substantial number of people who would object to that or whether there's a substantial number of people now will accept this cul-de-sac arrang~nent and if they want to use TH 41 they'll have to go out onto City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 TH 7 to get to TH 41. I'd like to hear from th0se~ Mayor Hamilton: I'll get to you in just a minute. Councilman Geving: I'd like to hear that in our discussio~ before w~ vote. Whether or not there are people representing the area to the w~st or anybody that lives on Oriole Lane that would want to speak to this issue. I guess my only feelings is if there is substantial agr~t among those people that this would not be an ur~ue hardship, they could live with this, I would vote accordingly to vacate the property. I think what I saw tonight in Mr. Reed's alternatives and what he's going to do with his property, you're going to develop there obviously and we have to move ahead with the HSZ develoIm~nt and I don't want to hold it up any longer. I'm pleased we're at this point. Councilman Johnson: I met with the citizens too. I still have, even though I had a _m~cting with the neighborhood, the only one part I have probl~ with even though I'm in general favor of it, is euergency access and our fire trucks are going to have to use TH 7. Fortunately our prime responder is going to be coming from Minnewashta so it's going to be coming down TH 7 anyway but you're secor~ary response would be coming frcm the main station or again, the call for extra help from Shorewood and Excelsior, etc. would be coming down TH 7. Seeing the primary use may be actually TH 7 now anyway and conditioned upon the fact that the deceleration lane to go into the HSZ property is going to extend all the way back to Orchard Lane to act as an acceleration lane ar~ be a much safer entrance onto TH 7 than they presently have onto TH 7. I'm not sure ~hether that lane's going to extend all the way to TH 41 or not. I don't think it will. It would be nice if it went all the way to TH 41 and then you wouldn't have to get on TH 7 at all. Generally I would like to see it connected through...there because of the c~ercial going on, it's going to be residential traffic. If it went all the way through we could, again be looking at tt~ front part of this property being built cc~mercial and when we would have o0~mercial on this residential street again. I don't particularly want to see that happen so weighing everything I'm leaning towards this option and they want to sit in there and fight it out and negotiate for this easenent. I agree with Dale, I'd like to hear from citizens that are here tonight. ~he~r they agree with my analysis or not. . - Mayor Hamilton: I have just a couple of c~m~nts. I too have been concerned about the residents to the west. However, the previous developers of this area had always tied the shopping center in with the traffic going to the w~st to get into the center, as I recall, from Oriole. Now we've eliminated that. I guess that's what the residents ~anted and now I'd be surprised if we heard the~ say t~ didn't want that. I think I'm conce~ that they're satisfied with their access, f~trance and egress onto TH 7 is going to be adequate for them and I'm pleased that the Reed's have reached agreement with the developer that's going to satisfy their ~s and accumplish ~hat they ~mnt to do. Perhaps sooner than they want to do it but nevertheless get it done when they want to do something. Seeing how that's the case I'm all in favor of this. Gene Conner, 2521 Orchard Lane: I would like to restate, just to make sure that it doesn't drop through the cracks because sometimes things se~m to do that, that any vacation of 64th Street be absolutely tied to a left turn lane being cx~pleted before vacation on TH 7. 232 City Council Meeting - May 31~ 1988 Bob Wagner, 2511 Orchard Lane: I too go TH 41, turn south and go to the great city of Chaska to work every morning and on behalf of the neighbors and having sat through a lot of meetings, I really feel this is probably the optimum solution. Fr~n the standpoint of talking about the longer cul-de-sac and energency exit, one of the alternatives that had been discussed was an exit back up into the shopping center. Well, when you really get down to reality with that, that would be in the southwest corner where you've got a 20 foot berm, privacy overrides this in my opinion. An emergency exit...but I really believe this is probably the best solution for the neighborhood in spite of sc~e minor consequences if I have to go up to TH 7, which is two blocks out of my way. Resident: I live to the west on Minnewashta and I guess I'm a little surprised, I hadn't heard about this prior to about two weeks ago. I guess there was some discussion to the east of us but in our area it wasn't discussed until one of the neighbors stopped over and told me about it. But I came over here to work everyday in Chan in my office and two things I'm wondering about. One is the entrance onto TH 7 certain hours of the day is very difficult to get on. The second thing, if that park is developed behind us, is that traffic going to be forced onto TH 7 without relief or not? Is that a consideration? Mayor Hamilton: From Herman Field? Resident: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Tney would use TH 7 also. We don't anticipate heavy useage of the park though. It's more of a passive use than it is an active use. Resident: Is there any type of an entrance lane? I heard discussion about deceleration and entrance into the Minnewashta area off of TH 7 but what about from Minnewashta onto TH 7 during rush hour traffic? Mayor Hamilton: There's a right turn lane out. Resident: Tnere will be? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Councilman Geving: To follow up on Jay's comnent, in terms of the construction on TH 7, does anybody have any knowledge when that will take place? Building a left turn lane? Barbara Dacy: ~nat's post year 2000. Councilman Geving: Post year 2000? Barbara Dacy: The center lane that was identified in the TH 7 study report... John Uban: The highway department has already gone out and measured. There's enough room to stripe a left turn lane in there today so it's a matter of getting it on their schedule for striping. Barbara Dacy: I though you were talking about the center left turn lane all the way down TH 7. City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Councilman Geving: No, just on Orchard~ John Uban: And that is, I guess as soon as it's approved and we go ahead with this, we just contact MnDot and say go ahead with that ar~ whatever their schedule is. Councilman Geving: What is your comment relating to what Mr. Conner's proposed here in terms of timing? John Uban: That w~uld be fine. In fact we w~uld go out and paint it ourselves if we were given permission to do so. Mayor Hamilton: I thought that's what you had said previously. Councilman Johnson: I don't think MnDot has to wait for us to approve this. MnDot can go out there ~ put that lane in there today because it's ~ed today. Gene Conner: With no little irritation I'd like to ask, if it's not'yours, it's tt~ highway department, if there's rocm there now why the hell didn't tl~y do it a long time ago? There's been a lot of bitching about that. Mayor Hamilton: I think you should know we've worked with ~Dot over the years in attempting to improve TH 7. They don't seem to inclined to w~rk with us. We have had many requests ar~ studies and they know tt~ traffic is bad ar~ they won't do anything to help us improve the situation. Mayor Hamilton: I'm goirg to move partial vacation of 64th Street usirg Option #3 into the R~ed property with conditions as outlined by the staff with the fourth condition that the left turn lane be put on TH 7 prior to doing this if it can possibly be ~lished. Rs~ain urger construction. Whe~r it's through your company's efforts or MnDot's. Also, that we reserve a trail easeuent on the vacated 64th Street so there can be some access for kids to get to the school. Barbara Dacy: On the motion, if you're going to cul-de-sac it then conditions 1 and 2 of the staff report will not apply but condition 3 would. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, so we have 1, 2 and 3. Councilman Geving: I'll secor~t the motion. Roger Knutson: One question. It's going to cost money to cul-de-sac it. Mayor Hamilton: The developer has agreed with the Reeds to accomplish that. A written agresme~t. R~ger Knutson: ~nat should be reflected in the develolmnent contract to make sure... Mayor Hamilton: As the City develops the develolmment contract that should be a part of that. Just so the Reeds are aware of it ar~ you guys are aware of it, that the agreement ~s to be signed by both parties and included. 234 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Councilman Geving: It doesn't have anything to do with the vacation. It's a separate issue. Councilman Johnson: You've got to cul-de-sac the end of the street. Roger Knutson: The fact that you're vacating it is causing an expense to incur. Now's the best time to make sure everyone knows who's paying for it. Mayor Hamilton: in writing. That's what Mr. Reed had said. That they have agreed to that Roger Knutson: Tne vacation is contingent upon them signing a develofm~_nt contract with us. Mayor Hamilton: ~nat would be a fourth condition. Councilman Boyt: I would like to ask that we modify the trail easement. I think it should hem ore than an easement. Tnere's a roadway there now. I think the trail should be there and done. It's a very minor cost to pave that trail. There are going to be people, children who are going to want to use that. Gene Conner: A lot of them ride bikes. Mayor Hamilton: Do you see any problem with that? Okay. We're modifying the third which was that there be a trail easement. Not just a trail easement but that a trail be constructed from the portion of West 64th that's being vacated to ~H 41. Roger Knutson: At who' s expense? Mayor Hamilton: The developer's. Councilman Johnson: Who maintains it? Mayor Hamilton: The City. Councilman Johnson: I need a review of exactly what w~'re voting on. 1 and 2 are out? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Approval of the vacation of 64th Street with the recommendations are, number 3 becomes 1. 2 is that the left turn lane off of TH 7 be ccmpleted as quickly as possible as soon as the construction starts. Whether it's by the developer or by MnDot. Councilman Johnson: Prior to vacation. Mayor Hamilton: 3 is that the trail be constructed through the property. And 4 was as Roger had stated. Roger Knutson: The condition be put in the development and that the development contract be executed before vacation actually takes place. 10 City Council Meeting - May 311 1988 235 Mayor Hamilton: That a signed agreement between the Reeds and the developer be signed so everybody kno~s who's paying it. Councilman Johnson: The trail being built? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Roger Knutson: The develoim~nt contract requires scmeone to do something. We also require an escrow or letter of credit to make sure it gets ~lished. Councilman Boyt: Now we ~ to understand what we're getting. We are talking about a city trail. Right? It's 8 feet wide. That's our standard. Just so there's no confusion. That's our typical trail. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman (k:ving seconded to approve t?~ partial vacation of West 64th Street conditioned upon the following: 1. Tb~ City Attorney's Office shall prepare an analysis of all steps to be accomplished prior to filing the vacation resolution including driveway relocation expenses, reconstructio~ and relocation plans, filing of appropriate letters of credit or escrow amounts, and retaining necessary drainage ar~ utility easements and any other item, s de~med necessary by the City Attorney's Office. ~nis will be brought back for Council approval. 2. A left turn lane off of TH 7 be completed prior to the vacation of 64th Street. C~mpleted either by ~k~Dot or the developer. 3. An 8 foot trail be constructed by the developer from the vacated portion of 64th Street to TH 41. 4. Vacation of 64th Street is contingent upon a develo~ent contract being signed ar~ that the develola~ent contract spells out that the developer is responsible for the expense of constructing the cul-de-sac and construction of the trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution 88-48 ZONING ORDINANCE ~ TO AMEND S~CTIC~ 20-263 (6 & 7) GF THE CITY CO[~ TO ~ THE LOT DEPTH REQUI~ FOR INSTALLATION (~F A DOCK AND ONE CANOE RANK/ Barbara Dacy: Two issues, one issue is the lot depth requirement for a beachlot in order to have a dock. The secor~ issue is the canoe rack issue. Currently as written you have to have a dock in order to have a canoe rack. So the Planning C(mmission acted to rec~m~ that the Council amend the ordinance to keep the 100 foot lot depth requirement for a dock but added a phrase that said, inclusive of street right-of-~mys. Ar~ as to the canoe rack issue, they made the language on page 7 in the staff report, r~ing that there be no more than 7 racks per beachlot. Those are the tw~ issues. Councilman Johnson: Did they c~me up with the ma~ber 7? 11 236 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: There was some rationale for that. Barbara, maybe you could pass that on. Barbara Dacy: The number 7 as a maximum was based on, staff looked at all of the recreational beachlots in the City and looked at the maximun number of lots that would be allowed under the 1,000 foot perimeter and that worked out to be about 45 lots. If you assume that each rack has 6 slips per rack, that way 7 x 6 was 42 so that was a recommended maximum on the canoe racks. Councilman Johnson: Do you know what the maximun is right now? Barbara Dacy: On canoe racks? Councilman Johnson: On canoe racks. What beachlot has 7. Barbara Dacy: ~nere is no language now which says that. Councilman Johnson: 7 is just an ungodly number of canoe racks I think. Mayor Hamilton: Wny? CounciLman Johnson: Tnat's a lot of canoes. I don't think everybody in a develo~mnent owns a canoe. Mayor Hamilton: One of the things I think we need to keep in mind is everybody has a right to use the lake. If you use it with a canoe, how are you hurting it? That would be, I would think, the ultimate use. We would want everybody to use a canoe or a sailboat on the lake. If you say well, we're going to limit canoe racks we'll restrict people from canoeing. I don't care if you put 100 canoes down there. What would happen to Lake Harriett and Lake Calhoun if they said you can only have 2 canoe racks? Councilman Johnson: I think you haven't even included that. I'm saying 7 is too many. I'm not saying 1. I never said 1. I think l's too little. Mayor Hamilton: What's wrong with 10 is what I'm saying? I'm saying, what difference does it make the number you have. You want to encourage the people to use the lake and using a canoe is the best way to use the lake I think. Councilman Johnson: I don't think we should put an unreasonable number down. If you look at a 30,000 square foot beachlot, which c(xnes out to have maybe 10,000 square feet of useable area, put 7 canoe racks on there, the beachlot's going to be aesthetically terrible. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe instead of saying 7 it should be the number of canoes because you can stack canoes in such like they do in the city so you hardly know they're there and there are more than six on a rack. Councilman Johnson: I think the number should be, is decided upon on the site plan and how it will be visually in that and how many households there are. If you get a group that has 42 homes ar~ they've got an area where they can hide the canoe racks to where they don't become a visual disturbance, there should be some number. I think 4, 4 is one more than we've got at any other place. If I 12 City Council ~eting - May 31, 1988 was going to put a max on it. I think that 4 is more than every other house ownirg a canoe and wantirg it at the lake. A lot of people want a canoe at home. Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Pierce, did you have anything you wanted to present to us this evening? RDbert Pierce: I think you've pretty much seen the plans for it down there but I did draw up a little bit of a plan here showirg the lake useage as I see it. I 'm just trying to show why I'm doing this. I guess by showing you this, just visualize a little bit the idea. The reason I think there should be an amendment is one, I don't think that the ordinance as it stands is taking into effect the parcels on this portion of the lake and as hard as everybody has wnrked on it, s~metimes there are areas that can be overlooked. We have enough here, breaking into 15M foot plus frontages, just saying that the possibility of each one of these h~mes, three h~mes, just w~re inclusive of these lots. We could have three docks and nine boats. Again, I think that's even a very reasonable request but I think ~hat we're doing here with the way we're trying to use it is to minimize the impact of power boats on the lake, which I believe was your ntm~r one concern. Be able to set the tone for a really top quality develoIm~ent by using tl~ lake to a lesser degree that everybody w~)uld be happy with and just start this area of develoIx~ent. There's a lot more to cc~e ar~ I think the way we're going about it, I think it's really a go~d way to use tl~ lake. A good way for the City of ~ssen to have a high quality home and it's a good way for me to market to produce a top quality develo[mlent. Mayor Hamilton: There used to be a dock in here. ~ere w~uld the dock be if you were going to put it? Bobert Pierce: up in here and I would c~me out this way. Councilman Geving: Where would you put the canoe racks? Robert Pierce: I'm open to any suggestions but they could be put out in this area here behind some of the trees s(~nething... I was down there this weeker~, I think you could almost hide 2~ to 3~ canoes down there and people would be hard pressed to even find ~. Councilman Geving: If you had the ability to put in any n~nber of canoe racks, how many would you want? In your develoimment how many? Three? Rabert Pierce: Yes. Councilman Geving: So you ~ three racks? Robert Pierce: I would like to see one per buildable lot. answered. ~nat may not have Councilman Geving: The problem is, I recognize that we have to have some kind of basis when we do s~mething like this. ~ basis for devising the...that we've got a basis and we say if you've got so many lots, virtually every lot can have a canoe. I know fully well that not every home is going to have a canoe. Maybe 5~%. 13 238 City Council Meeting - May 31; 1988 Robert Pierce: My quess is you're probably very right" Councilman Geving: I think a rationale is more important in the long term. Robert Pierce: It's no so much that I believe that everyone is going to have a canoe down there. I don't believe that that will probably happen but what I'm trying to do here is say, you have the opportunity to use the lake and that gives value to the person. Whether they're going to use it or not, that's their perogative but it allows us to develop a nicer area. I really do think also, I was out on the lake this Memorial Day weekend. I think too, if you have people canoeing and windsurfers, I think in that area, I enjoy seeing then out there for one but I also think that that type of useage will probably, if there's a lot of canoeing, a lot of windsurfing and that type of useage of the lake, I think it also curtails the high s~ boats. Not to say that there might not be some that would abuse it but as a rule I think people are somewhat courteous of each other's ues of the lake and stay clear. I just think it's an excellent way to use the lake and to impact it as little as possible. Barbara Dacy: Just one clarification. I know that the Council is getting involved in discussion about the number of racks but I just want to remind the Council that the way that it's written now, in order to have any canoe racks you have to have a dock first and I think at minimum it really should be amended to say that canoe racks are a permitted use on a beachlot with or without a dock. The number is kind of... Mayor Hamilton: Did you folks have a question? Jeff Bros: I don't live on Lake Minnewashta but both our families do and we've been very concerned with past activities by the Council. It seems like every time s~nebody is going to develop s~nething near or on Lake Minnewashta, these ordinances have been changed to suit whoever's going to develop. My mother lives on Minnewashta Parkway. There is an access three lots north of her's. There's not supposed to be any boats there. There are power boats anchored off of that beach. We have a hard time believing that anybody's going to be able to develop anything on the lake and not want power boats to be there. Now we' re not against power boats, we both have them and we're both avid skiers. We' re both avid sailers and sailboards. We're using the lake as much as we possibly can. We' re greedy about it but you start by saying you want canoe racks. I can't believe you can have more than five homes in an area to develop that sc~nebody's going to have a power boat and sumebody's going to have a sailboat and they're going to want to keep that down on the beach becomes nobody on the west side of the lake is going to drive all the way over to the park and launch their boat everytime they want to use it. We're concerned that it's going to be abused like it's being abused now, the ordinance. We're scared that everytime scmebody wants to develop on Lake Minnewashta, the ordinance is going to get changed to fit them. Mrs. Bros: Is there 100 feet on the section where you're planning on putting the dock? Mayor Hamilton: That would include the road. Robert Pierce: What you're looking at there too, if we were just taking lot width into consideration, we have more than ample for lot width. Tnis is the 14 City Council Mseting - May 31~ 1988 type of useage. We're looking for three overnight slips. Gne boat for those three front lots. There are actually four but three that directly face. One overnight sforage and the canoe racks for the develoim~nt for each landowner. We feel that is an extr~ely light useage. Jeff Bros: I think you're being unreasonably light in your useage. I don't think anybody's goirg to buy a ~ with lake rights ar~ not have a boat. I mean it hasn't happened yet. Nobody's going to pay any price that you want for a lake useage lot ar~ now own a boat, and not just a canoe. Mayor Hamilton: We have other developments in the co, inanity that are very similar to this one. What we have told ~ is they can start out with three boats, the same as what Mr. Pierce is asking for. We told the developer it was up to him to decide who was goirg to have use of tt~ three slips that were available to them. We are totally out of it. F~wever they handle it is up to them. We have never heard a cc~plaint and people are still living there so somehow they've handled that within their neighborhood and their association. That' s fine with us. That's their probl~. That's the problem Mr. Pierce will have to w~rk out. Mrs. Bros: They can have 3 boats and 1 canoe (~ that strip of property? Have you been out there and ~ it? Mayor Hamilton: I certainly have. I've walked the ~hole thing. It's a very big piece of property. 3~,~0 square feet. Jeff Bros: How about sailboats? Councilman Geving: Sailboats are a p~mitted use. Jeff Bros: Anchored out. Mayor Hamilton: What's the number of those? Councilman Johnson: Three. Barbara Dacy: allowed. Three sailboat moorings. Three sailboat moorings shall also be Jeff Bros: What about sailboats on the beach like w~'ve got at the other c~non area? Are they allowed? Barbara Dacy: Canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and s~all sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. Jeff Bros: It's being abused right now on the lake. Mayor Hamilton: We have to rely on people like yourselves to call it to our attention. We don't have lake patrols going around ar~ looking at every beachlot. If people don't inform us, they don't in all cases go on. We ~ to rely on people who live near by or use the lake to let us know about it. Jeff Bros: Could you please go over with me again, since I'm not c~mpletely 15 Council ~e~ing - May 31, 1988 clear on it. Why can't this go through right now? What's restricting this from going through now? Is it size or what has to be amended? Barbara Dacy: ~ne lot depth. Mayor Hamilton: The Planning Cc~mission reviewed this and suggested that the lot depth be changed to include the road right-of-way in the depth measurement. In this particular case that w~uld give the developer the 100 feet so he would be allowed to put a dock in. Mrs. Bros: And what is it without it? What's the depth without the right-of- Barbara Dacy: Between 40 and 80 feet. Robert Pierce: In spots 115 but you're talking, the way the City has interpretted it is they want, I believe 100 feet across the boat and I believe on the very northern edge I believe we have about 115 feet and on the very southern boundary we have about 80 and it gets narrower down to the slope inbet~n so there is an area of a lot less. We have the equivalent square feet in excess of two buildable sites square footage wise and what the ordinance is stating right now, without any change, there's 9 acres roughly. There's 550 feet of lakeshore and right now you could not put one home on 9 acres and put a dock. That's how the ordinance says and I think that's not what the City or anybody with a home for something like that. Jeff Bros: We're concerned because obviously you bought this parcel of land knowing that these lots were not buildable in this way. Did not meet the requirements. Robert Pierce: When I first started the process, no and that's why I came through the Council. As I started to get into it, I had sc~e contingencies on the purchase agreement. I started to get into it and saw there were some problems. I started to go through the process to see what I was up against and I felt that I had a lot of encouragement to continue. It was down a different road at that particular time but I think for the city staff write an ordinance amendment is, as I understand it, certainly protects everyone in the best possible way. Mrs. Bros: So your dock, you're proposing putting that out there is where you have the 100 feet deep? Is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: Right. On the northern end. You've got to remsmber, when we adopt ordinances we can't anticipate every possible scenario that's going to cc~e before us so I would certainly hope that this Council and future Councils could be open to change at any time. We can't anticipate every possible change that's going to happen in the world at the time the ordinance is adopted. Mrs. Bros: But you do have ordinances set up for reasons. Mayor Hamilton: That's true but they also can be changed for a reason. Jeff Bros: This is our biggest concern is everytime somebody is ccming in, it seems like everytime someone is coming in to propose sc~ething to be able to 16 City Council M~eting -May 31, 1988 gain access to the lake, which again we're open to if it's done in a correct manner. It seems like everytime it's done the ordinance gets changed. My mother could not build the house she wanted on her lot because she could not get a variance for how sl~ wanted it on her lot but now this ar~ change it around so ~y else can develop more lar~ and it just doesn' t weigh out for us. That' s why we raise concern. Councilman Boyt: A comment to staff. I think this is the beginning of the process ar~ not the end of the process. I think we're making a mistake if we don't continue to clean up the beachlot ordinance rather than take it one blow at a time. We' re going to take a good hard look at it. There are some parts I'd particularly like to direct staff to word. Sc~e of the~ are related to this issue. O~e of th~n is, I think we need to very seriously look at the size of the beachlot in terms of the number of people that are going to be using it. I think that we need a different minim~u actually. That may be impacted by tl~ number of boats. In reading the Planning Ccumission Minutes, they talked about the inequities of someone who wants to put a beachlot in for 10 houses versus s~meone who wants to put a beachlot in for 45 houses and how our minimu~ star~ard is the same either way. I think that we already have a reasonable minimun that we should contemplate looking at and that is, when we ask for park dedication we work on 75 people per acre. 75 people per acre would mean that basically 40 households would not work with our existing minimum. We would require a bigger minimu~ for 40 households. I think the reason we ~ to look at that is because the issue we're dealing with here is concentration of people. Although I wasn't here when they originally wrote the ordinance, my assumption would be that they tried to come to s~ne sort of grips with how many people can we put on 30,000 square feet or bigger? The gentleman tonight has a bigger lot to deal with and he finds himself handicapped by our ordinance because I think depth was an att~ 'to wrestle with this same issue of concentration of people use. I think the second issue is separation from neighbors so we ought to have scme way when we deal with beachlots of saying, is there an appropriate separation from neighbors. Now clearly in this beachlot we've got a great separation from the neighbors. ~he lot's big e~>ugh to certainly handle park use of I believe it was, did you say 157 2~? How many houses? Councilman Johnson: 15. Councilman Boyt: The lot is certainly big enough to handle park use of people from 15 households if we assu~e the typical average of around 2.8 people per house. So from the standpoint of the logic of can this piece of property support a beachlot, I think we've agreed all along that it can, or at least I have felt that it probably could. It's a matter of how can we approach it and retain our ability to protect the lake from the people arour~ it and the concentration of use. I am in agr~---~ment with the Planning Ccemission that the easy way out for this particular situation is to include the permanent roadway. I happen to feel that that is a stop gap measure and we're missing the boat if we don't take this opportunity to go back ar~ look at the whole issue itself. Then distance aside, I think that point 2 under the beachlot ordinance that does not allow beachlot owners to maintain a Satellite needs to be corrected. It implies that those people are not responsible enough, can not sign a contract with the same service the City signs a contract with and I don't think the City is any better qualified to maintain a Satellite than the people who own beachlots arz] we're making a real mistake when we encourage people to make some other provisions and don't allow them to use the best available equi[az~nt. To 17 242 City Council Meeting - May 31~ 1988 the canoe racks. It's real interesting as I look at this issue T~m because I agree with you that it makes sense for people to be able to have a canoe. My concern is, in having used and lived around city lakes for a good bit of my life, Lake Harriet. I may be wrong but they don't, in my m~ory, have 7 canoe racks and they service thousands of people who enter a drawing and if you're lucky you get a canoe. I think the problem I have with it is the screening issue. Now you mentioned in this particular situation the canoe racks are easy to screen. On the other hand, the drawback to a screening issue is how do you protect your canoe? If you can't see it and once sc~ebody's down there, it would be very easy for th~ to vandalize the canoes. Especially is a situation where you're going to have a relatively small number of people using that beachlot. I agree that limiting the canoe racks, one canoe rack for a 30,000 square foot beachlot is overkill. I'm concerned that 7 canoe racks is conceivably too many and I 'm interested in the co~menta from the rest of the Council but the issue of putting canoes and other items on the lake, I guess I don't have Mr. Pierce's confidence, having just spent a good bit of the weekend out on Lotus Lake. I don't think people watch out for canoes or sailboats. But on the other hand I don't think w~ have the right to deny reasonable access either. Councilman Geving: I'll keep my ~t quite brief. I think that w~ always have to be consistent in how we're dealing with developers and their perspective develo~ents. In doing that we have to also be fair. We've invested a great deal of money, w~ have a vision. We can see the market and how it could be marketed best particularly on lake lots that have some amenity and we shouldn't deny th~ unless it's absolutely essential to maintain the consistency that I mentioned. I'm not really in favor of amending the provisions for adjusting our ordinances for each of potential developments that may ccme along. Developments are all different and we have to have requirements. One thing that has to stand however is our ordinance. It was built...with a great deal of thought and the people spent a lot of time looking at the issues and they should stand, for the most part, being successful a good deal of the time but it can be changed and that's why we have an amendment process and the variance process. In this particular develo~m~ent I'm not really in favor of changing the ordinance. I'm not in favor of it for the same reason that I mentioned, a matter of consistency. I change this ordinance now and amend it, tomorrow or next week, next year another developer will c(x~e in with something slightly different with a little bit different twist but essentially they are same. They want to amend the ordinance. In terms of the canoe area side, I really feel strongly that if you have a development of 15 homeowners who can see the lake, you can smell the lake and you bought your hcme to take advantage of that amenity, to buy that to own lake property, it's kind of nice to be able to have a canoe. At least a canoe if you don't have a motorized boat. But to be able to go to down to the lake and utilize it. For that reason I think we should build into our ordinance some provision where we have a recreational beachlot where every homeowner should have at least the ability to buy a canoe to use the lake so I agree with the staff proposal here to break that apart from the dock issue. I think we can provide the hca=owners with canoe potential without having a dock. That's really about all I have to say Tom. I think I've said it all. I'm not in favor of amending the ordinance. Councilman Johnson: I agree with Bill on all of his co~men~ on looking at the whole ordinance here. I also want to look at useable land. You've got a 30% grade on the beachlot and you've got a swamp along the front of the 30% grade or 18 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 20% grade on the back end of it. Sure you might have 50,000 or 60,000 square feet of beachlot but how much of it is really useable and where are those people going to concentrate. Are they going to concentrate on the beach which in this case happens to be right on the edge. The beachlot issue, be's already got the beachlot approved. He's got a reasonable use for that land. As a beachlot, I almost laugh, I was talking to sc~eb~ on the phor~ today who did laugh when I told ~ exactly what was going on here as far as, gee we're going to include the road right-of-way. If you really look at that a~t start looking ar~ say, in order to make this fit we're going to include the city property in what we can tell tt~ people they can use. On the surface it looks pretty arbitrary. Now what I do believe, if the purpose of the 1~ foot was separation again, that an ordinance change sayirg that at the point that the dock will be at, for 10~ foot makes s~me sense to me but to include road right-of-way in the 10~ foot doesn' t make any sense at all. It's just ludicrous to me. Canoe racks, I can go tw~ different ways. One is enough canoe racks holding 6 canoes each to handle 5~% of tt~ population. In this case he's got 15 people, that w~uld be tw~ canoe racks so he'd actually be able to do 12. That's kind of a complex way to look at it but this gives, I'd say at least half the people or just put an absolute maximin, I'd put that at 4 right now because I don't think anybody's ever requested 7. I know that Mr. Pieroe is requesting 2 in this case. I do believe canoe racks should be separate issues from the dock. It doesn't make sense. Maybe sailboat moorings should be based on length of the property also versus just arbitrarily 3 sailboat moorings. He's got 55~ feet of property that he can put 3 sailboats on where scmebody else can put 3 on 2~ foot of property. That's interesting there. That's not on here either but I think the entire ordinance does stand to be looked at again to see if it is still reasonable. I'm still not 100% sure of the basis of a 1~ foot. I have a feeling the 100 foot depth is for separation purposes. If it includes road right-of-way in it, you don't separate anybody because the road is still within 1~ foot. I would much rather see them say 1~ foot at the point of the dock, in which case I would have been halfway inclined to vote for this. As is, I'm not at all. I would vote for 4 canoe racks and maximu~ of 5~% of the houses. A canoe is one thing you can carry down to the beach too. I wouldn't want to keep it at the same lake. Mayor Hamilton: Even if you have a canoe rack you can do that. I guess Bill points out s~me good points. We do need to have some work done on our ordinance and certainly the people who did the w~rk on the last one, put it together, did the best job they could at that time but times charge ~ things charge. Life changes and everything is always in a state of flex so we have to try to k~ep current with everything that's going on around us. To ignore and turn down a person's request to change an ordinance =cms ludicrous to me. Since times change and if at the time the past ordinance was being developed we looked at Mr. Lawson's property and said beck, this is going to be requested to be a beachlot s~mm~ay, we ought to take it into consideration, it probably w~uld already have been accomplished but who can know how a property's going to develop who's going to request what. ' So I feel very bad that the co~ents I 'm hearing that some people aren't willing to change ordinances on a sound request. I do also feel and agree with Councilman Boyt that we should look at the entire ordinance and probably do a significant changing of the ordinance. Redrafting of it. Separating the canoes and docks makes a lot of sense and perhaps coming up with s~me more concrete reasons why we are attaching nt~bers that we are attaching but that isn't going to help Mr. Pierce at this time in his development. We're all in agreemsmt in separatir~ docks from canoe racks will 19 ~i~y Council ~eting - May 31, 1988 help Somel I think if you are familiar with the property, if you go out and look at it, you can see the nice piece of property that it is. It has 115 feet of depth not including the street right-of-way at one end. You could put a dock in there for only 3 boats, I think there is more than adequate room and depth and length and to deny it, I would think that Mr. Pierce would have an awfully good case in court and I'd be inclined to back him up. I think it's an unfortunate thing that we're doing to a developer to a nice develo~ent and when you look at a piece of property that is being proposed for one dock, 3 boats is not a very intense use and could handle that use very easily. Councilman Boyt: I think that if you look at the piece of property and then you go along Lake Minnewashta and look at where the other docks are. Where the house is separated by the road. Now have we had any reported trouble? Barbara Dacy: On the west side of Lake Minnewashta, no. Councilman Boyt: Ar~ we're looking at s~mething when w~ talk about impact on the lake, there's quite a bit of frontage there. When we talk about impact on Chanhassen as a whole it's easy to think of it as a way of just penalizing the developer but it penalizes all of us. Instead of him having houses that are a quarter of a million dollars and paying, I don't know, $7,000.00 to $8,000.00 in taxes a year, it helps us all to bring taxes down. We're saying to him, you can't do it. As you said, homes with lake rights are very expensive homes right now and what we're doing, we're taking a lot that, forget the road. Nobody can get within 100 feet of there living wise. Of where the dock is going to be. We've got plenty of square footage. This is a situation that cries out for some kind of a reasonable solution that doesn't overwhelm our ordinance for future consideration. I would like to see us state to this fellow and to others that are going to be in very similar situations, this is fairly low impact. It's a chance to develop the city. Yes, it helps the developer but that's minor. It's what does it do for us? I think we ought to pass this. I 'm not comfortable with the canoe racks situation and maybe we ought to hang on to a part of that for when we review the whole ordinance but you guys, there's something about this that says it shouldn't be turned down. Mayor Hamilton: I guess to make a comment that we're just doing something for a developer whether it's Mr. Pierce or somebody else, what if scme/x~y who had bc~n on the committee who developed the first ordinance came in here and said, I've been studying the ordinance that we passed several years ago and I feel that it's deficient. We've missed s(x~ething in here and brought up a similar case like this without even having Mr. Pierce here. Would we then say, well you're just a citizen. We're not going to listen to you just because you were on the committee that passed this thing. ~nat's what you're saying now. You don't want to do this because you don't want to change sc~ething for a specific developer but if somebody came in here and said I think we missed something in our ordinance. I think it should be changed. Does that make a difference? Let's be fair about it. Councilman Geving: Has any m~er ever done that? Mayor Hamilton: I'm making a scenario. You know I am. I'm making a scenario. Councilman ~eving: well, you are but you might be making an unfair scenario. 20 City Council Meeting - May 31~ 1988 You might be talking about people who don't exist. I don't know of any m~mber that would ccme in here and say to review this ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: I'm just making a scenario. I can't say it's going to happen or not happen. I'm just saying what if. It's a what if situation. What if's happen every day. Councilman Johnson: I think one of my biggest problems on this one is not only how it's done where it looks like it's, it's including road right-of-way, it is so obviously pointing at this one piece of property. ]here is only one piece of property in the City of Chanhassen, according to what I was told, that this will really affect because the other pieces of property along Minnewashta are too small. They're going to be thrown away because they're less than 3~,~00 square · foot anyway. ~hen we make this, it's going to, future people are going to look at it ar~ say obviously this ordinance was revised specifically to allow this one thing in. If the purpose of 100 foot is separation, we should say 100 feet at the dock. If there's a different purpose for the 100 foot, the~ we sb&)uld have, street right-of-way just doesn't do it. Mayor Hamilton: Without the street right-of-way you have 115 feet at the dock. Councilman Johnson: Right. Robert Pierce: I thought that the separation too was to keep the beachlots away fr~m single family h~me dwellings ar~ the closest to this particular dock, roughly we' re looking at about 180 feet to the lot-line then you take the setback. There's probably 200 feet to the closest house. As it is right now, the property to the north, I don' t know how many acres it is and there's a house on it and the lady is an elderly person. She can't put her dock in anymore because she hasn't had it in for the last couple years. ~here's scmething drastically wrong with the ordinance. Councilman Johnson: She can't put a dock in? Robert Pierce: No, she can not put a dock in. Councilman Geving: Why can't she? Robert Pierce: Because she is elderly and has not had a dock. If we would have had a dock on our property, if the Lawson's would have stayed there, we wouldn't be arguing about a dock because it would have been grandfathered in. At any point that there's not a dock put in, for whatever reason, you lose your rights to the lake. Mayor Hamilton: For how long a period of time Barbara? Is it a seasonal thing if you take the dock out? When do you lose your rights to put your dock back in? Barbara Dacy: I'm not familiar with the case that you're talking about. Mayor Hamilton: If you had a dock in on your property continuously and you continued to put it in there, those that w~re grandfathered in ~ the ordinance was passed renain to be grandfathered in. ~er, if you take it out and' leave it out for a period of. 21 City Council Meeting - May 31~ 1988 Barbara Dacy: The ordinance section says it's a non-conforming use. Mayor Hamilton: Is it one year Roger? Do you recall? Roger Knutson: I 'm double checking. Mayor Hamilton: Because the Lawson's had a dock on that property last year at this time. Councilman Johnson: But once you subdivide and you change this not to an individual h~meowner's lot but a recreational beachlot, it's under a cc~oletely different ordinance and you're no longer grandfathered in at all. Even if he had a dock there last year. Robert Pierce: What I 'm saying is, the neighbors themselves, she' s going to be moving out to a h~me and I will guarantee you that the person who buys that houes will not bother to call the City and ask if he can have a dock. It wouldn't even cross my mind and they can not put a dock in under your ordinance period and they probably have. 200, maybe 300 feet of lakeshore and multiple acres and your ordinance states, it's the green house to the north of the property, they can not do it. According to your ordinance. It's just beyond c~npreh~sion to me. The idea that the dock on this size parcel, it's just beyond... Councilman Johnson: ...can't he put it back in? I'm not familiar with that ordinance. This is getting a little off the subject but it still is docks. A riparian homeowner can not put a dock in if they weren't grandfathered previously in? Roger Knutson: Does she own a home there? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Councilman Johnson: She lives there. Roger Knutson: She's not under the recreational beachlot ordinance now. Robert Pierce: We have a home but we can't put a dock in there. Roger Knutson: You don't have a hc~e there now? Robert Pierce: We burnt it down because it was abandoned. Roger Knutson: A recreational beachlot is one thing. A dock, an accessory to a single family home is something else. If you can have a single family hcm~e there, you can have a dock. Robert Pierce: I don't believe that's right. Tnat's not what I was told when I came to the City. Roger Knutson: It' s an accessory use. Robert Pierce: Even if it doesn't conform? 22 City Council Meeting - May 31~ 1988 Roger Knutson: It' s a non-conforming use ~ Mayor Hamilton: Roger, perhaps you could make comment on this beachlot. I guess I'd appreciate your input at this point. Roger Knutson: Everyone who has ccme in contact with it, that I've been aware of and I'm not saying, it's certainly ~ a controversial ordinance for you. Whether that makes it good, bad or indifferent, I'll let you decide but it has generated a lot of heat, a lot of discussion as to whether it's appropriate. I think what you're talking about is all the other lots...and how many people are using it. That kind of examination which... Mayor Hamilton: Should this particular case be tested? I know what you do about it. What would your view be? I think it's quite important that w~ know that. Roger Knutson: The standards of whether, in regards to the City Oouncil acted arbitrarily and capriously and that's a matter of opinion. Your opinion would be that it is. Other people would say that it's not. I guess that would be up to the court to decide. This is not a great place to do an analysis... The first day you hired me T~n, remsmber you told me one thing. Whatever you do always win. B~aaber that? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think you'd have a hard t/me on this one. Jeff Bros: I'd just like to speak. We're not concerned about having a dock if they ~ant to have a dock ~ahere the property meets the 1~ foot setback but I certainly think that is being one-sided ar~ showing a certain amount of unfairness to the rest of the hcmeo~rs and property owners on the lake to include the street and the roadway right-of-way to make room for his dock. I think that' s being just ridiculous. Mayor Hamilton: He has 115 feet without the roadway. Jeff Bros: At that one point. If he wants to put the dock in ~ere it's 115 feet, that's fine but for the City Oouncil to change the ordinance for this instance to include the street as his property to make room for a dock, I think that's being very selfish and I think it's showing favoritism.;. I think it's being abusive to the b~meowners on the lake who are paying the $7,~.~. Anywhere from $5,000. ~ to $8, ~00. ~0 a year in property taxes. Who had to get variances to put houses that they wish to build on their lots that they paid a promiu~ price for, to be able to arbitrarily change it to include now the street. Somebody else c~mes in, they get the other side of the street. I don' t understand how you can show this kind of favoritism. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think there's any favoritism being shown. It's the recommendation from the Planning Ccumission that the street right-of-way be used. I don't know why they reco~xnended that but it. Whether it was specifically directed at Mr. Pierce's development. It would be used for anybody's develoIanent, not just Mr. Pierce's so it's not for just one person. Jeff Bros: I think they're going to want to add another t%D car garage to my mother ' s house. 23 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Councilman Boyt: As we look at this, one of the reasons that the road right-of-way becomes attractive is that it's so limited. It makes a change to the ordinance but it's very narrow in it's impact. You may think of that as a liability.' It's actually a strength in that it doesn't open the ordinance up to other abuse. Let's take the possibility of having a dock built where the lot's a 100 feet deep. Now what we've done is we've given somebody out there the opportunity to construct a beachlot that looks like this. Sure, we'll give you 100 feet but then along the two sides we're going to have it be about 5 feet deep. There are probably worse case scenarios with every event and I think what was appealing to the Planning Ccm%~ission is that this was so narrow in focus that it would actually apply to only a couple of potential beachlots. I don't know quite what your issue was a year or two ago or whenever this came in. I think you raise the question of is the City going to be fair to everyone? It's awfully hard. I think the City is going to try to be but clearly you don't think the City has been. When we change an ordinance we certainly have to be careful that we create a situation that we think is going to have as little impact as possible. I don't think this has a lot of impact. It has a lot of impact on our ability to get some tax money to 'this town. I guess I can't say anymore. Councilman Geving: I'd like to see that we take that canoe one separately. The whole issue of the canoes. Councilman Boyt: What's your magic number going to be? Councilman Geving: I have several suggestions. It could be based on the number of lots in the develo~x~ent with a maximum number of four. Mayor Hamilton: I suggested that there wouldn't be any number established but each request would be evaluated during a conditional use permit approval. Councilman Geving: I like that idea. Here he's got three. Councilman Johnson: With guidelines written in, here's the normal guidelines. We can put guideline whatever and say our guideline is canoes for 50% of the households and some situations might warrent more. Sc~e situations might warrant less. Councilman Boyt: We can do that but I don't think that makes sense. We've got to fight the issue out as clear as we can tonight such that I don't have any trouble separating the canoes from the other issue but I think if we say we're going to let this just float with whatever the situation is at the time, as soon as we make our first decision about it, we set the precedent then that, let's suppose the first person comes in and they want 12 canoes because they are going to have 12 houses. You approve that. Tne next guy has got 40 houses and wants 40 canoe racks, we're going to be in, I think a difficult position. Anyway, I would argue that why not put it out there like Dale said with four racks max and look at the whole ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: But we can review them when they come in for a conditional use...just because you allow 15 here doesn't mean that you have to allow 40 for the next one. 24 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Councilman Boyt: I think that we have to make our decision based on some fact and I think this will open it up to, it just makes the whole ordinance harder to resolve each time if we don't have a clear statement. Councilman Johnson: I would like to see us say a maxhmz~ of 5~% of the households. Canoe racks able to hold 50% of the households or a total maxim%~ of four. Mayor Hanilton: That means he gets to build another rack. Councilman Gevirg: No, four. Four would give him 24. Councilman Johnson: He's got 15 households so 50% would be 7-7 1/2 so it's over 6 so he gets 2. You can't build a rack with only one. He gets 2 racks with that. Councilman Geving: I guess I would go the other way. Recc~me~d that every lot have the possibility of getting a canoe. Councilman Boyt: How are we going to make that decision at the time? Councilman Geving: Base it on the number of lots that are being proposed in the development and you condition it. F~ke a condition that if in the judgment of the Council that particlar recreational beachlot won't hold as many as there are for that particular develol~ent, you'd say let's cut it down to 2 rather than 4 but the maximum would be 4. Councilman Boyt: When you get into those situations the~ we create an area where Jeff could say you're not fair. I think we open ourselves up to that. Why don't we just come to grips with it. If we want 1 canoe per., then let's see if that passes. Councilman Geving: There's nothing wrong with it. ~hat's a good place to start. At least you've got a basis for your intention ar~ then you're not going with 50% or 75% or whatever. Councilman Johnson: I would like to see 1 per with a max. Mayor Hamilton: We've already put a maximu~ of 1,~ feet so you've limite~ ntm~ber of bx~es that could use the outlot. Councilman Johnson: until you start putting like this PUD that they have up, what's that one call with all the condos? Barbara Dacy: Red Cedar Cove. Councilman Boyt: What about 1 per with up to 4 as a place where we can start. We can leave the whole ordinance out ar~ figure out what the reasonable logic is here. If it c~mes out that 1 per household up to whatever. Barbara Dacy: That's the way the proposed language is written now. One per household. The Planning Cc~mission recommended 7. If you want to change it to 4, that's fine too. 25 City Council Meeting - May 31~ 1988 Councilman Johnson: I'll move that. Cne per with a maximum of four. Councilman Geving: I ' 11 second that. Mayor Hamilton: I think it's being near sighted. Councilman Geving: It still gives you 24 though Tc~. Mayor Hamilton: I don't care. Still the useage you want to have on the lake if you want to clean up your lakes, and not allow people to use th~n unless they... I don't know that we're ever going to get to amaximum of 42 or whatever. Councilman Geving: A practical maximum number of users is probably close to half. If you tood 42 homeowners, my guess is that no more than 15 or so would have canoes. Mayor Hamilton: But we're kind of limiting it for the people who do. Councilman Geving: I'm just taking it from a practical standpoint of knowing how many people live on a lake and what kind of boats they have. Councilman Boyt: If we go back to 1 per household but provide some sort of provision so that people don't. Suppose I had 2 canoes, there's an open spot on the rack so I store my canoe down there. I don't know, are we after a place for people to store their canoes or a place where people are going to use it? If we had scmeway of preventing... Mayor Hamilton: You're parg of the Sunrise Hill's Association right? Councilman Bolt: Right. Mayor Hamilton: They have two racks. Councilman Boyt: T~o racks and I don't know, 45 homes. Mayor Hamilton: I've never heard anybody complain about that. Those who don't have it on the beach probably don't even have a canoe. Councilman Boyt: Ch yes. What happens andmaybe this wouldn't happen if there were more racks, but what happens is if one of those spots becomes open and it's open for a few w~eks, if scmebodyhas a notion, they'll move their canoe off their rack at home and put it up there. Get it out of the yard. That's not all bad. It kind of cleans the neighborhood up. There's a whole lot to this issue and I guess if we could strike something, I just have difficulty looking out on this lot, it's fairly narrow or any other lot and seeing 7 canoe racks. It's a forest. Mayor Hamilton: There aren't going to be 7 here. You've got to keep that in mind. Councilman Bolt: Well, as I've said all along, the thought ofhaving everybody who is a part of the beachlot who wants a canoe or sailboat to be able to have it makes a lot of sense. 26 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 Barbara Dacy: But the motion was for a maximum of fourl Mayor Hamilton: I still don't have see the problem with having a maximm~ of 7 as long as you can control that within your conditional use. You're saying if in the future some, and I don't think we're ever going to have that situation, but if something came in and they had a huge outlot ar~ wanted to have 7 canoe racks on this huge outlot. The potential is there but Mr. Pierce doesn't want 7. Councilman Geving: How did you arrive at 7? Barbara Dacy: That was based on existing examples of largest subdivision in an urban area was Lotus Lake Estates which had 44 lots so if you say 1 per lot, 6 on a rack would be 7. Mayor Hamilton: They can have how many right noW? Barbara Dacy: Canoe racks? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Barbara Dacy: No more than 3. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you, how about the K~rver's property that's being developed? They had a recreational beachlot. Barbara Dacy: They received approval for tw~ docks and I believe it was 3 canoe racks also. There were 36 lots. Councilman Johnson: Seven just se~ms to be too high. Councilman Boyt: It se~ms like the thing we're saying to smm3~ody, if you have a beachlot you can put up a canoe rack. We' re taking that away from the dock issue so that's a good point. Mayor Hamilton: I kind of agree with Tc~. I think I'd rather go back to the 7. There is that practical possibility. There's nothing wrong with a 7 as a maxim~u. Councilman Boyt: Once we go there we can't c~me back down. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to do 4 right now ar~ ~ like Bill says, there's a lot of issues to look at with the beachlot and we might ~nt to put a beachlot group back together, look at the whole thing including the numbers instead of sitting here tonight and figuring it out. We've got a reasonable c~mpr~mise here between the 1 and 7 that will fit every application we know in the City. There's nobody asking for anything near the ntmg~er we're proposing. It should be kind of non- controversial. Councilman Boyt: I sense that 4 will pass. Let's take a vote on 4. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded the first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to ~mm~d Section 28-263 (6) to read as follows: 27 City Council Meeting - May 31, 1988 No recreational beachlot 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 beachlot 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. No~otorized watercraft such as canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot 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 beachlot; however, in no case shall there be more than four (4) racks per beachlot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: This will be separated frcm the need to have a dock, correct? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Just the canoe rack issue here and we're not tying it to docks or anything else. (Councilman Horn arrived at this point in the meeting.) Mayor Hamilton: We are wrestling with the issue right now of the dock to be allowed on Mr. Pierce's outlot and have the use of three motorized boats for overnight storage. We have just voted favorably to change our ordinance allow, the first reading, to allow four canoe racks, a maximum of four canoe racks per beachlot, six canoes per rack as a maximum. That brings you up to whatever happened. We seem to be fairly split on the issue of Mr. Pierce's use of his property to put a dock on and to allow him to have three boats. He has 115 feet of depth on his lot without the use of the road right-of-way... Councilman Horn: He still needs a variance though? Councilman Boyt: What he's proposing is to change the ordinance. Councilman Horn: The proposed location would include the...? Mayor Hamilton: That's the Planning Cc~mission's proposal to us. There se~m~ to be some disagreement on whether or not you want to continue with that or c~me up with something different. Councilman Johnson: My disagreement Clark is that including road right-of-way appears that we're changing our ordinance specifically for this project and I believe that we can draw our position anyplace that we try, buy your property and go for it and get your ordinance changed to where you can get what you want. These guys they'll come up with some creative ways to do this. Include road right-of-way. If the purpose of the 100 foot was for separation, he's got 100 foot where the dock is, then that makes sense to change the ordinance to meet the purpose of the 100 feet. Include road right-of-way into that to meet the confines of the ordinance to me seems fairly arbitrary. I have a problem with 28 City Council Meeting - May 31~ 1988 2:.'5© that. I don' t think with 500 feet or whatever of lake front here with one dock will have a huge impact on Lake Minnewashta. I will be more than willing to go the other way. I'm not moved much by the argument that we're going to get all these huge taxes. We don' t get that much taxes by the time the County and everybody else takes our their whack but that helps all of us too I guess. These are going to be scme fairly good sized homes. Eve~ without the rights to have a boat on this dock, I don't suspect you're going to put $6~,0~.00 homes on those four lots without a boat there. They may not be $250,000.00 homes. It might just be $200,000.00 homes but to me that's not a huge difference. I'm not going to vote for changing our beachlot ordi~ on the fact that this change will generate more tax revenues to the City. Councilman Horn: That's the a~t? Councilman Johnson: That was one argument that we had earlier was that geez, look at what this would do for generating money but I don't like the road right-of-way part. ~hat's my argunent against it is including road right-of-way in measuring your setback and this is essentially a setback type of thing to me. It's kited of silly. Councilman Horn: It's unique to this 'property though? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Barbara Dacy: It will affect one other property on the w~st side of Minnewashta also. Councilman Johnson: What would you say, 100 foot at the point of the dock. How many properties would that affect do you think? Barbara Dacy: The Planning Ccumi~ion struggled with that because how wide of an area do you have that 100 feet? Do you keep it at 20, 30 or 4~? Ar~ they felt ~ortable that that was being just as arbitrary as anything else so we wanted to try to establish a consistent means of creating a guideline in the ordinance to avoid a situation like this, as Mr. Boyt pointed out. Yes, they looked at the map and saw that there was one other property, the Ziegler's south of the Lawson property on the w~st side of Lake Minnewashta that this would affect but separation was a big issue. The rationale being that that road right-of-way does serve a purpose as a buffer and the Planning (k~mission chairman really explained that they felt that that should be included as part of the buffer between a beachlot and a group of single family h~mes. Also, it provided an easy mechani~n to enforce the ordinance because again, look at that area. He's got maybe 30 feet of the beachlot being 115 feet deep. Is that really what you' re trying to separate from adjacent single family hemes? Councilman Johnson: The other one would be a 100 foot depth with an average lot depth of the entire length of the lot of 75 feet, 90 feet or sc~ething to where that, obviously that type of "T" shape, your average lot depth is going to be way low or flag lots or some wording there. Barbara Dacy: ;~ain, it still doesn't affect those beachlots that do not have road right-of-way. You still have to have 100 feet of lot depth no matter what in this case so they felt that you're acheiving hoth objectives. You're setting an established minimum with or without the road right-of-way. 29 City Council Meeting - May 31~ 1988 Councilman Johnson: What about the people who, they want to add a two car garage in the front of their house but they're too close to the road right-of-way to do it and they say we'll just include the road right-of-way in our setback. They did it for the beachlots. Councilman Boyt: Whole different issue. Councilman Johnson: Similar. Councilman Boyt: No. Much different issue. When we talk about a garage and in putting traffic on the road, we've got a safety issue. What we're talking about here isn't a safety issue, it's a concentration of useage. Councilman Johnson: We're putting pedestrians across it. Councilman Horn: Can you distinguish, in your Nov~m~ber 12th msmorandum you said you couldn't differeniate between lot depth and lot size. Can you do that now in terms of intent of ordinance with what the Planning Cc~xnission reconxnended? Or do you think, the impression I'm getting here is that the Planning Cc~mission feels that their proposal meets the intent of the ordinance. I don't think there is anything that meets the intent of the lot size. You looked at this in terms of depth... If you look at it in terms of if we allow the road right-of-way as they would get the total area, there seems to be lots that would change their compliance based on the area. Barbara Dacy: THe Commission's intent was not to include the road right-of-way as a part of the lot area. Councilman Horn: capricous? So how do we differeniate that in terms of arbitrary and Barbara Dacy: Councilman Horn: ~ne difference being is that the Cc~mission was looking at this. So it was intent of the ordinance? Barbara Dacy: I don' t know. Councilman Horn: That's the question to the Attorney. Roger Knutson: You're changing the ordinance. Councilman Horn: As I got your issue the question could go backwards. Why would you change the ordinance for depth without changing it for lot size? What would be your rationale? Roger Knutson: Do we think that the ordinance is fine. It helps you...in the depth part of the ordinance shall we change? Are we talking about changing the depth as a buffering and by including the road we accomplish the buffering. Councilman Horn: You could argue that lot area is a buffer. Councilman Johnson: Now we could use the lot area, the 66 foot of road right-of-way to get scme of these below 30,000 square feet up to 30,000. 3~ City Council Meeting - May 31~ 1988 255 Barbara Dacy: No. Councilman Johnson: to get it. That's the next request. ~hey'll use the exact same logic Councilman Boyt: It's a different issue. Mayor Hamilton: Do you have another question Clark? Councilman Horn: No. I'm still trying to sort out how that's a different issue. In my mind I can't differentiate that. Barbara Dacy: If clarification of the intent ~s to be solved, we can easily add a sentence that says, however, road right-of-way shall not be used in the calculation of lot area for the beachlot, g~at can be added. Roger assessu~m~t of the distance and the depth issues is exactly right there. For whatever reason in 1982 1~ feet was set as a minimun lot depth, so what they w~re looking at is well, we do have narrow stretches bet%~ Minnewashta Parkway and Lake Minnewashta and the Cc~mission felt that including the road right-of-way as far as that lot depth calculation was, was appropriate. Mayor Hamilton: Anything else Clark? Councilman Horn: I'm still having trouble with it. I can't differentiate between 30 ar~... Barbara Dacy: Tree other criteria for area is that you have enough area for canoe racks and play areas, swimming, beaches, volleyball nets ar~ so on. So supposedly the ordinance already says 3~,~ square feet and then 2~,~0 square feet for any additional dock so there's a relationship there between docks and useage. Councilman Horn: related to...? So one is strictly related to a dock issue and the other is Barbara Dacy: I guess, yes. Mayor Hamilton: There were s~me c(m~nts made by some of the Council m~bers that they were relunctant to charge the ordinance for a specific developer. I guess I still ask the question, re not going to change it for a specific developer, what if the staff, another what if, what if the staff had looked at the ordinance and said look, ...and brought this same issue before us to change? Would we be sitting here,...in mind to deny it or would you...? That's certainly an issue for me because I know the...just to use it can make a difference. Councilman Horn: I agree with you Tom on that. I think obviously when you get new uses ar~ new circumstances that come in, that's usually what the probl~ is. Take a look at the ordinance see if it still makes sense. I don't have... Mayor Hamilton: I'm going to make a motion to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment for a recreational beachlot to allow. How do you ~nt to do this? Section 20-263. 31 Barbara Dacy: It's on Page 7. 20-263(7). Mayor Hamilton: To adopt the recommendation of the Planning Cc~mission as outlined on page 7. Do you want me to read it? Is there a second to the motion? Councilman Boyt: I ' 11 second it. Mayor Hamilton: Is there further discussion? Councilman Johnson: Yes. I'd like the City Attorney to look at something. In the existing ordinance it states no dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least a 100 foot depth. In our definitions, in our Zoning Ordinance definitions, we never define actually, we define the lot depth but here we did not say 100 foot of lot depth. We just said 100 foot of depth at this point in this ordinance. Can there be an argument that he does not need lot depth or have we used it every place else in the ordinance? What I'm trying to say is, is this even necessary in this case? Roger Knutson: It's a good point and I think it is somewhat ambiguous but from my understanding is that they're talking about lot average and he did not have 100 foot average lot depth. Mayor Hamilton: The ordinance amendment would clarify that where it says 100 feet depth measured perpendicular landward frcm the the ordinary high water mark to the first intersecting lot line inclusive of the street right-of-way. It's more specific than what's in there currently. Roger Knutson: I suggest so we're all very clear that usually the word lot depth, actually lot depth is defined in the ordinance and what the means is an average depth. Councilman Johnson: Lot depth is defined. Here we're just saying depth. He's got 100 foot depth laying perpendicular from the ordinary high water mark to the first intersecting lot line period. He's got that right now without including the street right-of-way. With the street right-of-way he has 180 feet of lot depth at this point. There's no need to include the street right-of-way here in this case, the way they defined it. Barbara Dacy: He doesn't have an average lot depth of 100 feet. He has a point in the lot that's 100 feet. Councilman Johnson: It doesn't say average lot depth. Barbara Dacy: That's defined. R~ger Knutson: That lot depth is an average. Councilman Horn: So if you cut in, pulled in the sides of the lot, take out the area that don't comply to pull it under the mean, could he come out with a lot that we would? 32 City Council Meeting -May 31, 1988 257 Councilman Boyt: He'd lose square footage~ Councilman Horn: Would he lose it in the square footage then? Councilman Boyt: I think so. He' s only got 40,000 square feet. Barbara Dacy: No, he's got 31,500. Councilman Boyt: Then he definitely can't. Councilman Horn: ~en we originally changed this ordinance, the argument was brought forth that we should not be more restrictive on a beachlot than what a private individual could do if he had riparian rights on a beachlot. That time the argument made sense to me that we should use that in making the decision to change because that arglm~ent was sound. I don't think that requirement in true in this case. I don't think we have a buildable lot and I don't think there's any way that this mean average thing will w~rk out to where it w~uld cc~ply. Barbara Dacy: When he first applied, our interpretation was that the ordinance was saying that you had to have a consistent depth of 100 feet all the way throughout the beachlot. That's what'we required' every other application to do. If he had a spot that had 100 feet so I agree with you kind of. It's ambiguous and there is an advantage to amec~ing that to clarify how we measure lot depth. Mayor Hamilton: Since we're arbitrary on everything else, we can he arbitrary on the width be at the 100 foot depth to give you a minim%~. I w~uld think we're arbitrary. You pick 100 feet out of the air. There's no reason why 100 foot is so. Councilman Johnson: As I go through the Zoning Ordinance, every place else in the Zoning Ordinance that talks about depth of the lot, it says lot depth. This one point it says depth. Rsger Knutson: The easiest explanation for that is that often the Zoning Ordinance, you're looking at was drafted by the Planning staff of a consulting planner. The recreational beachlot was drafted by a cc~ttee and I think the difference is the style that we're talking about. A slight language variation are a result of that rather any intention on the part of the draftsman to draw attention. Councilman Johnson: If the people who drafted this w~re thinking that they were looking at an average lot depth at the time or they were just looking for 100 foot at any point. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance ~me~t to amend Section 20-263(7) of the City Code to read as follows: No dock shall he permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at least tw~ hundred (200) feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least one hundred (100) feet depth measured perpendicular landward frc~ the ordinary high water mark to t/~ first intersecting lot line inclusive of the street right-of-way. No more than one (1) dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot every t~ hundred 33 ~ ~y Council Meeting - May 31~ 1988 (200) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of lar~ is required for the first dock and an additional twenty thousar~ (20,000) square feet is required for each additional dock. No more than three (3) docks, however, shall be erected on a recreational beachlot. Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Boyt voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Horn, Councilman (]eving and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition to the motion and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Robert Pierce: Can I say scmething? Mayor Hamilton: Sure. Robert Pierce: I guess at this point, you put this into a, I was encouraged by your Planning Coamission. I've been encouraged here and there. You leave me no choice but to start legal action. We will get more use on that lake than what w~ asked for. I don't fight unless I'm pushed in a corner. I don't ask for unreasonable things...but I guess as far as I 'm concerned, the people around your lake has lost. The City has lost. The whole tone of that whole area out there is going to be $100,000.00 less per h~m~e. We will come back and maybe do something there with the lake frontage but I can't believe it. You throw the baby out with the bath water and you're losing all the way around. We'll be back and we'll get it. I just can not understand. Thank you. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.. Su~mitt~ by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 34