Loading...
2b Finding of Fact for Schmid's Acres HOA for Non-conforming Use Permit (? b C ITYOF CHANHASSEN ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 Make by Chy AdrelnFstreto& V 1 I1odt1e t 1 MEMORANDUM P ed — 3 Deb Submitted to Commission TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager bate Submitted to Council FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner - 12- -9) 1 DATE: July 7, 1993 SUBJ: Findings of Fact and Decision for Schmid's Acres Homeowners Association for a Non - conforming Use Permit 1 Attached is the Findings of Fact and Decision prepared by the City Attorney as requested by the City Council at their June 28, 1993, meeting. Approval is recommended. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Is to 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER C RMF FELL , K NUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , PAR R Jul 6,3 14:26 No . UO3 F' . 02 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA 1 IN RE: Application of Schmid's Acres FINDINGS OF FACT Homeowners Association for a AND DECISION Non - conforming Use Permit 1 On June 28, 1993, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Schmid's Acres Homeowners Association for a non - conforming use permit for a 1 recreational beach lot. The applicant was present. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Planning Commission considered the application for a non -- conforming use permit at public hearings on March 17, 1993, and on June 2, 1993, and has forwarded its recommendation to the City 1 Council. 2. The Schmid's Acres Homeowners Association recreational beach lot is a non - conforming use under the City's zoning ordinance. Deviations from current ordinance requirements include: Subject,Property Boning Ordinance Minimum Lake Frontage 50 feet 200 feet Minimum Parcel Size for a Dock 13,000 sq. ft. 30,000 sq. ft. 1 d 3. Section 20 79 of the Chanhassen City Code requires al l non - conforming recreational beach lots to receive a non - conforming use permit or to cease and desist. The purpose of the permit is to establish the level of use on or before January 18, 1982, which is when the beach lot became non - conforming as a result of zoning 1 ordinance amendments. Non - conforming uses may not be expanded. 3. The following levels of use existed on or before January 1 18, 1982: Motor Vehicle Access No Off- street Parking No 1 Boat Launch No Buildings No Seasonal Dock 1 at 45' ' Canoe Racks Boats on Land 1 (6 canoes on rack) No 1 6822 o7r06io3 CAMPBELL, alUT SON , SCOTT 8,, FUCHS , P . R Jul 6 , 93 14:26 No . UU.S P . Uti 1 Boats on Dock No 1 Boats Moored No Swimming Beach Allowed by Ordinance Marker Buoys None Swimming Raft None 1 DECISION 1. A non - conforming beach lot permit shall be issued for the 1 Schmid's Acres Homeowners Association beach lot with the levels of use as set forth in Finding No. 3 above. 2. The Homeowners Association is encouraged to install a gate and post hours of use. 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: 1 Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor ATTEST: 1 Don Ashworth, City Manager 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6822 6/93 2 I City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 II ensure its compatibility with surrounding uses and the greater Chanhassen Central Business District. b. Permitted Uses II The permitted uses in this zone are limited to the light industrial /office or less intensive uses than the existing use. The uses shall be limited to I those as defined herein. If there is a question as to the whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. II 1. Light Manufacturing* 2. Retail ** 3. Newspaper and small printing offices I 4. Veterinary Clinic 5. Animal Hospital 6. Offices II * Light manufacturing is subject to the following limitations: - no visible emissions of smoke I - no noise emissions exceeding the MnPCA standards measured at the property line - no outdoor storage I - no overnight parking of semi trailers or inoperable vehicles - all parking must be accommodated on -site in a concealed location behind the building II ** Retail uses are subject to the following limitations: - signage consistent with approved sign package II - retail uses must be consistent with the site's restricted parking All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR SCHMID'S ACRES BEACHLOT. Public Present: II Name Address I Gary Carlson Tom Owens 3831 West 62nd Street 1230 So. 6th St, #1512, Minneapolis Ken Our 4830 Westgate Road, Minnetonka II Craig Miller 6450 Minnewashta Parkway Brad Solheim Roger Knutson: I think the Council's gone through this process numerous times II but just to say what the process is about. What this item has to do with is registering a non - conforming use. The issue is only one. Is what was the level of use in 1981? Other issues such as ownership, right of access, boat II violations, was the level of use in '81 appropriate, what does the property look II 26 II City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1 like today. None of those issues are issues. There's only one issue. What was there in '81. Councilman Senn: Don? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Senn: You know I've had a number of phone calls on this and stuff and I guess I'm going to do something that isn't normal for us to do but I would really like to see us just simply pass a motion tonight tabling this and telling the neighborhood to go back and get something decided amongst themselves in terms of what they want to do. And then come in and propose something to use on some kind of a basis that we know they're all living with it. I mean I don't see us, we're not going to get anywhere if we're going to try to mediate between the parties here and I don't know, I'm not even sure that the '81 question is answerable and I think there's plenty of room in this thing for a compromise and I would really like to see the people involved get together and figure out some form of compromise that they can all live with and then be coming back into us when there's something we can do about it so to speak. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there's a lot of questions that remain unanswered and we can't give all the answers to this. No matter what final decision we come up with. I think there's some legality questions and if those legality questions are there, that's a court decision to come up with to say who has property rights where and how much the property rights are. Secondly, as you've mentioned, the beachlot was done, a survey of that beachlot was done in '81 and as staff has indicated, that there has been some items on there. That there was one dock 45 feet in length and one boat on shore and that dock increased over the period of time. It was 30 and then it went to 45, if I remember reading what's in here. And those are some of the things that I think, what we can do is basically address those and what I would like to ask, once we get staff report and it's up to Council whether they might want to table this. I think we have to move ahead on it. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other but I think we should move ahead on it to come up with the conclusions as to what's here and I think we've all read this and probably gone through it word for word, and knowing what was done within the Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting. And I also read some things in the administrative section which gave me a little more insight on this under Visitor Presentation from January 25th of '93 as well. Where things were discussed. Who has what and why they have it and indicated that information. So I will leave it to Council. If their decision, you want to proceed or if you want to table. There is a motion on the floor to table. Councilman Senn: And if I could just clarify. Part of the reason that I think that it almost becomes important that we do is, as you look at this and you look at all the issues, I mean not an indifference or whatever but I mean to me they aren't legal issues. To me you have to apply common sense rules here. And to me this is very easily solveable issue apply common sense rules. And if everybody would just screen out there it seems to me the work force is simply to answer these questions in a legal context which I don't think...best situation. And that's why I'd really like to kind of give it back to them and say come on, one more chance. Let's go do it and see if you can do it and if you can't, then we'll do it for you but I don't know. 27 1 II City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 I Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think the issue that Roger put forth is basically what was the use in 1981, and that's what the ordinance covers and even though common sense can enter into it. That's the issue. II Councilman Wing: I don't understand what we're, I'm losing track of what we're doing here tonight. I don't care if the neighbors get along or not. Our issue, after Planning Commission looked at this is to merely determine what the '81 I useage was and allow the permit. We have to be consistent and we have to be reliable on this issue because we're already done what, 8, 9, 10, 12 other ones where we've cut back boats. We've enforced the '81 ordinance. We're not going I to not enforce the '81 ordinance here. Whatever information we have to justify that decision and I think Planning Commission has been extremely generous here. It's our decision to make. I'm not going to table this so the neighbors can get along. We haven't had neighbors get along on any one of these and we could I table every one and it's not a neighbor issue. It's our issue to enforce the '81 ordinance which was long ago decided to do and I'm not about to change paths. But there's a motion. II Councilman Senn: We've got so many affidavits both way on this, I don't know. I think that makes it a little unique. I don't know. I Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, and I agree that's the way it should be done but unfortunately that's not the way the ordinance is written and unfortunately I think part of the reason we're here tonight is because the neighbors can't get II along. Councilman Wing: That's why we're permitting these is because the neighbors I consistently can't get along and something had to be done. This permit is going to say here's the law and let's not talk about it anymore. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? If II not, it dies for lack of second. We'll go through the process. One of the things I'm going to request is that if there's something new that can be added to the information that you're going to provide this evening, we'd like that I information. If not, believe we've gone over this. We have read what's here and from what I saw, it took probably about 2 hours plus at the Planning Commission meeting. I hope I don't carry that for 2 hours here and I'd like I each of you to, whoever's going to approach it after staff's report, to come forward with any additional new information that you may have in regard to this proposal. So with that, Paul are you going to do this? II Paul Krauss: Yes Mr. Mayor. I'll be very brief. The beachiot's origins go back some 80 odd years. In 1914 it was originally acquired as a property right of an older subdivision. It does not meet the minimum standards of today's II beachlots by any way, shape or form but then again, many of those non - conforming uses don't. The survey, the original 1981 survey shows that there was one dock 45 foot in length, 1 boat on shore. There were no boats docked...beachlot. That's the best available information we had and we've been using it throughout II but wherever applicants can provide more accurate information, we've generally accepted that since we acknowledge that we're not in a position to verify the survey that's now 12 years old and nobody that did that survey works for the I city. The Association requested continued use of the dock with 1 or 2 boats being docked, 1 canoe rack, 2 boats stored on land and continued use of parking II 28 II City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1 at the beachiot. This item was heard several times by the Planning Commission because of problems with notifying all of the applicants. The ONR also exercised some jurisdiction because if you've been out there, the creek outlet for Minnewashta basically is this beachiot. It's adjacent to the high ground. II There are a lot of issues that I would deem exterraneous that have been raised from time to time and I'm sure you'll hear them again tonight. There's some basic disputes over who has rights to the property. We've never thought that that was something the City was in a position to regulate or administrate one II way or the other. The only purpose in doing this was to define what level of useage should be... The Planning Commission ultimately recommended that the Association have one dock, no boats docked overnight, one boat on land and one II canoe rack. They also raised some questions about security and although it's not...consider this is something that we can't require because all you are doing is trying to establish the level of useage. What we've done in the past is II recommended that fencing and signage be placed on the beachiot as a good will gesture. We have requested that on other beachlots and that was done here as well. With that Mr. Mayor I'll turn it back over to you and hopefully answer questions as they come up. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Paul. Councilman Senn: Don, could we ask a couple questions first before we go? II Mayor Chmiel: You bet. Councilman Mason: Yeah I was just, I read through this very thoroughly. I was II down at the site today and I guess I'm wondering a little bit if we need to go through the repetition of the presentations again. I do hope that any II information that is shared, I mean quite honestly I could make a motion on it right now but I don't want to cut people off either. Mayor Chmiel: What I'd like to do is to give probably about 10 minutes for each II side to come forward with any new information that they have and whoever would like to start, they have that opportunity at this time. Councilman Senn: Can I ask Paul a question first, just real quick? II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. II Councilman Senn: Paul, under the Planning Commission recommendation that's in here okay, you have motor vehicle access yet no off street parking. Can you II give me a little better definition there as to what, what does that mean? Does that mean that motor vehicle access is to launch boats? I mean what does this mean? Paul Krauss: Yeah, that I found intriguing when I read through that this II afternoon as well. Apparently the Planning Commission originally when they first looked at this did consider allowing some parking on site as has been II maintained by some that it's gone on for some time. When they ultimately did approve it, they said no parking on site but that people should have the ability to drop off people. Drop off a canoe or whatever, which meant vehicular access but the parking's not supposed to be there. II 29 1 II City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 Councilman Senn: So does that mean that they can go all the way down? Paul Krauss: Presumeably. Once you're across the curb, it's a straight shot right down there. Councilman Senn: But I mean that goes a lot way to defining what this is going to look like. I mean is it going to be a street? Is it going to be a nice ' landscaped area for everybody's enjoyment? I mean that particular issue to me goes a long way in defining what this thing's going to look like. Yet there is public accesses on the lakes so that's why I'm asking. Paul Krauss: Yeah, I'm sorry. I really can't define that for you any better. I was not at the Planning Commission meeting. I don't recall that that came up ' specifically. It's all hard packed dirt once you're out there. There really is nothing to stop it from going any further to the lake. Clearly it's not, it wouldn't meet our design specifications for a parking lot and a driveway. The lot's only 50 feet wide at it's widest anyway. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? If not, who'd like the floor first? ' (The microphone at the podium was not working properly and therefore not picking up all of the discussion by the speakers.) Gary Carlson gave his presentation to the Council and then stated he had pictures if the Council would like to see them. Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe you can just pass them through. Okay, thank you. ' Tom Owens: Ladies and gentlemen, lawyers are known for long winded oratory. Your comments at the beginning of this hearing took the wind right out of my sails. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to look to your guidance as to what to do with this because the rules of the game here were established by the City, specifically by the City Council and establishing...passing the 1982 ordinance and then coming back a year ago and requiring every beachlot to come to the city ' and obtain a permit for a legal non - conforming uses. In an ideal world everything would be simple and straight forward and there'd be 1 or 2 facts to go over and we could all go home. But the facts here are not simple. There are ' not 1, 2, 3 or 4 of them. Let me give you an example. If you're...with the Planning Director's statement about the 1981 survey, and Mr. Krauss has not been involved in this very much. Kate Aanenson has...at the staff level. The description of the 1981 survey is incorrect. There was not a dock in the 1981 survey. It's in your packet and it is also in the materials that have been circulated previously. June 4th of 1981 someone on the city staff went to this reservation at Schmid's Acres Tract and did a page and a half survey of the then ' existing uses. There was no dock. There was also no dock that was 45 feet in length. I've just given you what I thought...summary of our key points with 1 1/2 pages. It's not something that we can get through in 10 minutes so what I'd ' like to do is run through and ask you what you'd like to hear tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Let me, can I interrupt you for just a moment. Tom Owens: Yes sir. ' 30 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 II Mayor Chmiel: In looking at the recreational beachlot inventory, which is in II the packet, it shows 1981, approximate length it says no. In 1986 it shows it at 36 feet in length and in 1991 it shows it at 45 feet in length. Just to clarify some of the statements that you had made previously. II Tom Owens: ...is incorrect. Mayor Chmiel: Right, but there is also clarification on this chart that shows II it. Tom Owens: Yeah, and it clarifies that there was no dock in 1981. II Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Tom Owens: And that, as I understand it, is what this proceeding is about. What II it was in 1981. Now my client has gone through the trouble of assembling a couple dozen aerial photos which are not, we proposed to show you three from II 1980, '81 and '82. Set up the projector, show them to you and for all of us to huddle around and look at those is going to take a couple of a minutes. But it seems to me that the City has set up this proceeding as one in which you are acting basically as a court of law. The ordinance calls for satisfactory proof II of legal non - conforming use in 1982 or before and I just don't know of any other way around this than for the City Council to listen to the testimony and to consider the physical evidence. Things like aerial photographs. Things like II the turn around ability on that site and to weigh these in light city ordinances. Councilman Wing: Can I just interrupt here Don? II Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. I was going to. Councilman Wing: Some of us were at the Planning Commission. We've read II the Minutes and heard the testimony and these pictures show that the tree root was cut out that was there for 4 years and there's been small boats launched but II not with trailers and cars and so on and so forth. Can your client Mr. Durr, can you live with the Planning Commission recommendation that's in our packet? Which allows for a dock and a canoe rack. Tom Owens: No. Our preference is, Mr. Durr can certainly give...change one II part of their recommendation to you and that's to eliminate the motor vehicle access. That's point number 3, the second page of my summary outline. II Councilman Wing: Well okay. My intent of a motion would be to go along with the Planning Commission recommendations. No vehicle access. No parking. And II we somehow have to come up with a gate and a sign so that we have privacy for the neighbors and hours restricted, which would mean there would be a small dock and a canoe rack. No overnight boat storage. No parking. No vehicle access. There's no curb there. There's a curb. There's no driveway there now anyway. II It's a curb. Someone in the audience made a statement. II 31 II 11 II City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 II Paul Krauss: That's basically true. I mean depending on what you decide, an entrance would be saw cut or just the curb would be left. Councilman Wing: But we can be real hard nosed and we could listen to testimony I and go on and on. On the other hand we can tend to compromise because of the differences of opinions here so we could go with your recommendation of absolutely nothing or go along with the other party of absolutely everything or I go along with Planning Commission recommendation. The understanding that there'd be no parking or vehicle access and request the gate and sign be up and I'd be happy to make that motion at this time. II Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor first of all. Let me get a second and then we can have discussion. There is a motion on the floor. Is there a second? II Councilman Mason: I'd like to hear that motion again. I Councilman Wing: The motion takes the Planning Commission recommendations from their June 2nd meeting which specifically has a canoe rack, dock. Let me get on here. The Planning Commission recommends that the Association have one dock, no boats docked overnight. One boat on land and one canoe rack. I would also II specify also that there be no parking or vehicle access and that we request a gate and the proper signage be placed specifying private and hours. II Paul Krauss: Could I ask for a clarification of Councilman Wing? Motor vehicle access. The presence of cars onto and off the property. The Planning Commission recommended that you allow that but no parking. Are you then saying I no access, no parking? Councilman Wing: Yeah, because there's going to be no boat launching so there's no need for cars to go down there as I see it, and why drive down there if you I can't park there so we might as well, and then the gate would be placed to stop public access which has been a problem, which can be documented if me want to go on here. And then the issue of the snowmobiles and so on and so forth. There's I a trail that clearly needs to be blocked off from public access because they're used to having it. The parties and the vandalism haven't been Schmids Acres people I'm sure. It's been the public coming in there and so I think I considering that we now have neighbors on either side of this very narrow parcel, we now have a responsibility to either enforce this at '81 levels or be a little more compromising and fair and go along with the Planning Commission's recommendation which I think is a good one, which again, gate it. Sign. No I vehicle access. No parking. One dock and one canoe rack. The overnight boat, I'd leave that to. I Councilman Senn: And Dick the, you know if we're really going to kind of put columns together and say here's '81 and here's the Planning Commission's recommendation. I mean you're talking about altering that as the motor vehicle access goes, and don't get me wrong because I agree with you 100%. I think the I motor vehicle access should be taken away. I think the boat launching should be no but I think they should be able to walk a canoe down there or a boat that they can carry down there and launch it so I don't know if that needs I clarification or not. I'd really much rather see you eliminate the motor vehicle access and allow 1 or 2 boats at the dock and eliminate the boat on II 32 II City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1 land. I think that's to me what causes eyesores and growths and I mean usually more problems than a couple of boats not on a regular basis but I mean you know, to me it gets back to common sense again. If you haven't, what's wrong with letting them kind of utilize their dock to pull in and keep it for a weekend if they get that worked out or whatever. Councilman Wing: That's the issue on almost all of these and that would be very inconsistent if we did that. They had no boats. Councilman Senn: Oh I see what you mean. Well, but also on the survey they did have motor vehicle access and they did have a boat on land. What I'm saying is do a trade off. Get rid of the boat on land and allow, I'd rather see it at the dock then sitting on land. That's my own bias from living on the lake and what you see. What happens when the people leave them on land. Councilman Wing: The more issue here is boat counts on the lake and the overnight storage and that tends to be the biggest problem for the neighbors sometimes too. And with their narrow area boats on the dock and they're not going to have any swimming. So I'm going to stay with no overnight dockage and storage of boats. That would be the one. Roger Knutson: Mayor? I would suggest under the circumstances, a motion should be to direct myself to prepare Findings of Fact to bring back to your next Consent Agenda consistent with the way that you decide. We'd have it all written up in one package. ' Mayor Chmiel: Good idea. Councilman Mason: I'll second the motion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion with Council? Councilman Mason: Yeah. A quick point. The thing about crossing the street there. Walking a couple of blocks. I live 6 blocks from Lotus Lake and we regularly walk down there. Now no, it's not as busy. However, my children were there today as I was looking around and they were very careful and looked both ways and there wasn't a problem. Councilman Wing: Well there are signs going in and there's a trail going in. You know it exists. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay, counsler. ' Brad Solheim, an attorney representing Gary Carlson and Schmid's Acres Tract made a comment regarding the Findings of Fact. ' Councilman Wing: Were you on the site prior to the bulldozing of the shoreline? Brad Solheim: I was not... , Councilman Wing: Well I'm saying, the last month. You couldn't have been on the site in the last month and tell me with a 4 wheel drive you could have gotten a boat in there and that tree limb, that tree root has grown across there 33 , 1 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 for years, if not decades. That didn't just occur and this access was just bulldozed in there. So the use since 1981, I mean we can challenge these things because there's pictures. I mean we were at the Planning Commission. There's pictures. We can show '79, '80, '81, '82, there wasn't a dock at all. I mean should we get into that tonight or should we stick with the motion ?...I happen to live there and I disagree with what you're saying. I'm not going to disqualify myself. Or these other neighbors that have lived there for 25 years ' who would like to challenge you also. Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Carlson, Mr. Carlson, you're out of order. And I don't normally like to do this but Mr. Wing is a Councilman, whether he lives on the lake or wherever. He still has an opinion which he can do. Gary Carlson made a comment from the audience. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, this is cut and dry enough that I'd be happy to bow out of this. Brad Solheim made a statement at this point. Councilman Mason: I'd like to make one quick comment and then planning on calling the question. I saw some before and after pictures today of the offending root across that and if one believes in those photographs, that root was removed this year. I know enough about trees to know that that was not a 2 year old root. I would in no way ever take a car, unless it was a 4 wheel drive vehicle, over that root. Mysteriously this root disappeared and that troubles me a whole lot so I think obviously some altering was done on the shoreline and I guess I would even question the legality of some of that but that's neither here nor there. I seconded a motion and I support it and I guess I'd like to call a question. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Question is called. All those in favor to allow, Richard do you want to reword what you had before. I have it here but I want to make sure that it's exactly as what you indicated. Councilman Mason: Now does this include then the Facts of Finding? Mayor Chmiel: Including the Findings of Facts, correct. Roger Knutson: What you're doing is directing me to prepare Findings that incorporate whatever you're going to say. You won't officially do anything ' until your next meeting other than direct me to prepare Findings of Fact. Councilman Mason: Okay, good enough. Councilman Wing: I'm going to just go without the recommendation. The Council then the motion will be, approval with the dock, with clarification of the dock setback zone ordinance be included in the final of facts so that the 10 foot ' setback is maintained. The dock. The canoe rack. No parking. No vehicle access. Recommendation that a gate be installed. And a sign specifying private property and hours of use. And I'm going to leave it at that. I'm ' going to delete the, I'm going to go along with the canoe rack and I'm not including the boat on shore, although I'm willing to take that as a friendly ' 34 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 1 amendment. If you want to keep it to one boat on shore. That would be a rowboat or whatever. Then I'll stay with the. Councilman Senn: He said it was a canoe earlier anyway so now you've got it in the canoe rack. Councilman Wing: Alright. I'll stay with the canoe rack then. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And no other boats? Councilman Mason: Well they do have a boat on land there. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, they do have one boat on land. Councilman Senn: Yeah, but they had no canoe rack so. ' Councilman Wing: They had no canoe rack. • Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, they had no canoe rack. Councilman Wing: Okay. Then I'll go along with the Planning Commission's recommendation with clarifying. The Planning Commission recommended that the Association have one dock, no boats docked overnight, one boat on land and one canoe rack. I'll go along with that. Also requiring then that there be no parking, no vehicle access and the gate and the sign. Is that clear Paul? Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact consistent with approval of the Non - Conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot at Schmids Acre Tract allowing one dock, no boats docked overnight, one boat on land and one canoe rack. Also requiring that there be no parking, no vehicle access, a gate installed and signage stating private property and hours of use. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Wing: May I make just one clarifying comment. These issues have been emotional and they've been a real problem. Consistently. I was very active and involved in the process through 1981 and the lake useage study in 1983 and subsequent opening of the park. Whether this has been Lake Riley or Lotus Lake or Lake Minnewashta, I have strongly supported the 1981 ordinance and we've been pretty flexible. More than I think we should have been. We've cut a lot of people back. We've done some real, we've impacted some neighborhoods and we haven't made a lot of friends on this but my fervored opinion has been the same level whether it's been on my lake or any other lake. And I haven't changed my opinion or direction. I simply want to enforce the '81 ordinance and I think we've been pretty fair and generous considering the documentation that's been presented here. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Counselor? , Tom Owens: May I ask for a clarification on two points. One is the canoe rack and it's intended use. My home is near Lake of the Isles and you have a canoe rack there for 20 or so canoes...number of canoes on the rack to 2. The second is, the length of the dock. We were prepared tonight to show aerial photos 35 ' City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993 demonstrating that the dock was 30 foot out. It was a very short length. Two or three dock lengths...that the length be limited to 25 feet. Councilman Senn: How about 6 canoes and 45 feet. Mayor Chmiel: I don't have any problem with that. Councilman Senn: Okay, let's do that. Councilman Wing: I tell you, when we talk height though, 4 considering that ' you're in a neighborhood here. 4 is boom boom. 6 is getting high. Councilman Senn: Well 6 is, I mean all canoe racks are generally double sided so I mean it's 3 on each side. You're not talking more than 6 feet really. ' Mayor Chmiel: No. That's about it. The ones that we have at the Park and Rec. Councilman Mason: I can't get upset over 6 canoes. Don Ashworth: Clarification then is 6 canoes. ' Mayor Chmiel: As he said with canoe racks, a total number of 6 canoes contained on the rack. Councilman Wing: And what is the existing today as it is? Sitting there right now. ' Paul Krauss: 45. Councilman Wing: The existing dock today I can accept without any problem, including the T's, as long as it meets the dock setback requirements. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. ' PROPOSED CITY CODE AMENDMENT, SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES, FIRST READING. Mayor Chmiel: We're going to table the next item which is the sexually orientated business ordinance and the reason we're going to table that is to put it over to the Planning Commission. They've not had an opportunity to review this. Paul Krauss: No, they did. Mayor Chmiel: Huh? Paul Krauss: They did. Roger Knutson: They did? I thought they didn't. ' Mayor Chmiel: Well, I've been misinformed here. Yeah, I thought that they had done this. Councilman Senn: It was a long time ago. 1992 if I remember reading right. ' 36