9. Dock setback Zoning Ordinance Amendment 1 CITYOF /o .
1 -1‘1, CHANHASSEN
1
0 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM Action by City Administrotoy
Endorsed.. ✓ D t&) Pc
1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Modified
Rejecter
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner Date 4 - (0 3
Date Submitted to Commissbf
1 DATE: March 25, 1993 Date Submitted to Could
—1 l
1 SUBJ: Dock Setback Zoning Ordinance Amendment
1 BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission reviewed this issue on their agenda on August 5, 1992. This item
I was tabled because staff felt the proposed amendment needed some modifications before the
Planning Commission could make a recommendation to the City Council. This item was
discussed by the Planning Commission again on March 17, 1993. At that meeting, the
1 Commission recommended adoption of the proposed amendment.
PROPOSAL
I As the city has gone through the non - conforming recreational beachlot process, there has been
a lot of confusion as to what the dock setback zone means. The definitions section of Chapters
1 6 and 20 of the City Code states that dock setback zone means:
I "That portion of any lake lying within one hundred (100) feet of the ordinary high
watermark and which is bounded by the extended side lot lines of any lakeshore site, and
by a line inside of and running parallel to and ten (10) feet distant from extended side lot
I lines of any lakeshore site, as measured at right angles to the extended side lot lines."
Much of the confusion raised during the public hearings was how far the lot lines extend out into
I the water, and are the lines extended or do they run at right angles. Failure to run the lines at
right angles produces overlaps in dock setback areas as illustrated on an attached map. This
stems from extensions of angles of property lines on shore. The City Attorney has recommended
I new language to state that the lot lines would be extended at right angles a distance of 100 feet
into a lake. Staff feels that this would be much easier to interpret and enforce violations of the
recently adopted 10 foot dock setback zone.
1
"
t «f PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1
1 Don Ashworth
March 25, 1993
Page 2
1
In addition, there are circumstances where the 10 foot setback may not be achieved. These
1 exemptions from the standards would be in situations where there is a common dock between
property lines, and where there is a wetland. The city has requested that in order to minimize
the impact to the wetland, the dock setback may be less than 10 feet. The purpose of the setback
zone is to allow boats to get to and from the dock without crossing the adjoining property.
Power boat lifts which secure boats to the dock should be exempted from the dock setback zone
because they are not an extension of the dock.
' The Chanhassen City Code
y addresses structures in the lake. Chapter 6 of the City Code, Boats
1 and Waterways, allows for variances to be given by the City Council where "it is shown that by
reason of topography, soil conditions or other physical characteristics of the lakeshore site, strict
compliance with the dock requirements could cause an exceptional or undue hardship to the
' enjoyment of the use of the lakeshore site; provided, that a variance may be granted only if the
variance does not adversely affect purpose and intent of this chapter."
The Code also states that docks shall not obstruct the navigation of any lake, obstruct use of
access to any other dock, mooring or other structure authorized, and present a potential safety
hazard. Finally the structures section states that no dock shall encroach upon any dock setback
t zone, except that the owners of any two (2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one (1) common
dock within the dock setback zone.
' In summary, the proposed amendment will change how the extended lot lines are determined,
adds an exemption to the setback zone for wetland alteration permits, and allows boat lifts to
extend into the setback zone.
' RECOMMENDATION
1 Staff would recommend the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Sections 20 -1, 6 -1
and 6 -22 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning dock setbacks and be amended as shown on
the attached proposed ordinance.
' ATTACHMENTS
1 1. Zoning ordinance amendment.
2. City Code Chapter 6 Boats and Waterways.
1 3. Map illustrating setbacks.
4. Planning Commission minutes dated March 17, 1993.
1
1
1
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 AND CHAPTER 6
OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING DOCK SETBACKS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 20 -1 and Section 6 -1 of the Chanhassen City Code are amended by
amending the definition of "dock setback zone" to read as follows: 1
DOCK
SETBACK ZONE: Dock setback zone means the area inside and running parallel to and ten
(10) feet from the extended lot lines of a lot abutting a lake. "Extended
lot lines" means an extension of the side lot lines 100 feet into a lake from
and at a right angle to a line drawn between the intersection of each side
lot line and the ordinary high water mark. If the extended lot lines of
adjoining lots overlap, then the common extended lot line between the lots
shall be at an angle which equally divides the area of overlap.
1
Exemptions from dock setback:
1. A wetland alteration P ermit issued by the city stipulating the location of
a dock.
2. A P ower boat lift attached to a dock, where the dock meets the dock
setback zone.
Section 2. Section 6 -22 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding subparagraph
(c) to read as follows:
(c) On or before June 1, 1993, all docks not already conforming to dock
setback requirements must come into compliance with dock setback requirements.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
1
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of
, 1993.
ATTEST:
1
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 1
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1993.)
§ 6-4 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(3) The size and configuration and depth of the body of water for which the permit is
requested;
(4) The number of competing water obstacles which willke in place pursuant to permits
already then issued; and
(5) Any ot„er factors reasonably related to the effect of the applicant's proposed use on
the maintenance of public health and safety upon the city's lakes.
(e) If a permit is granted, the permit shall specify the dates or the period of time for which
it is granted. The granting of permits may be subject to such conditions as the city council
deems necessary to protect the safety of users of the lake. Any violation of the terms and
' conditions of any such permit is a violation of this chapter. No permit shall be issued for a
period in excess of one (1) year, provided, however, that no permit for any slalom course shall
be issued for a period in excess of seventy -two (72) hours.
(f) If any water obstacle is located in any lake pursuant to a permit and is thereafter
found to be a hazard or obstruction to the safe use of the lake by others, such permit may be
revoked. Notice of revocation shall be given to the permit holder by the city orally or in
' writing. If the permit holder cannot be found, it shall be sufficient notice of revocation if
written notice thereof is delivered to the address of the permit holder as set forth in the
application Upon notice of revocation, the permit holder shall remove the water obstacle
within a seven-day period which shall be specified in the notice of revocation. lithe applicant
does not remove the water obstacle, it may be removed by the city at the expense of the owner.
1 The failure of the applicant to remove the water obstacle upon receipt of the notice of
revocation of the permit and in accordance with such notice is a violation of this chapter. In
the case of an emergency presenting an immediate hazard to the public safety, as determined
' by the city manager, the notice period to the applicant shall be waived in its entirety and the
applicant shall reimburse the city for any expense incurred by the city in remedying the
condition creating the emergency.
' (Ord. No. 73, § 6, 7-11-83)
Secs. 6-5 -6-20. Reserved.
ARTICLE II. STRUCTURES'
Sec. 6-21. Exemption.
This article does not apply to any lakeshore property owned or leased by the city.
(Ord. No. 73, § 3.13, 7- 11 -83)
Sec. 6-22. Nonconforming docks.
(a) Permanent docks existing on July 11, 1983, and which do not comply with the
structure limitations set forth in this article shall be deemed to be nonconforming uses.
• ,
'Cross reference— Buildings and building regulations, Ch. 7.
330
1
BOATS AND WATERWAYS § 6 -24
Seasonal docks utilized by privately -owned commercial resorts or commercial boat landings
prior to July 11, 1983, and which do not comply with the structure limitations set forth in this
article shall also be deemed to be nonconforming uses.
(b) No nonconforming dock shall be enlarged or altered or increased, or occupy a greater
area than that occupied by such dock on September 7, 1983, or on the effective date of or any
amendment to this article. A nonconforming dock shall not be moved to any other part of the
lakeshore site upon which the same is erected unless it is relocated in such a manner as to
conform to the dock set -back zone requirements of this chapter. Any nonconforming dock
which is partially or totally destroyed by any.cause may be restored to its former use and
physical dimensions, if the restoration is completed within one (1) year of its partial or total
destruction. Maintenance and necessary structural repairs of a nonconforming dock are
permitted provided that any such maintenance or repairs do not extend, enlarge or intensify
such dock.
(Ord. No. 73, § 8, 7- 11 -83)
Sec. 6-23. Variances.
(a) The city council may grant a variance from the dock requirements of this article 1
where it is shown that by reason of topography, soil conditions or other physical characteris-
tics of the lakeshore site, strict compliance with the dock requirements could cause an
exceptional or undue hardship to the enjoyment of the use of the lakeshore site; provided, that
a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect purpose and intent of
this chapter.
(b) Application for a variance shall be made to the city upon a form furnished by the city.
The applicant shall furnish the information required by the form. A nonrefundable applica-
tion fee shall be paid to the city when the application is filed. The application may be referred
1
to such outside consultants, engineers or attorneys as the city manager deems necessary to
study the application and make recommendation to the city council and the cost of any such
referral shall be borne by the applicant.
1
(c) Upon filing of an application for a variance hereunder, the city manager shall set a
time and place for a hearing before the city council on such application. Notice of such hearing
shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the date of the hearing to each owner of
property situated wholly or partially within three hundred (300) feet of the Lakeshore site to
which the variance application applies, utilizing the mailing list provided by the applicant
and such other records as may be available to the city manager. Failure to give mailed notice
to individual property owners or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings,
provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this section has been made.
(d) No variance shall be granted by the city council without the affirmative vote of at
least four - fifths of the full council.
(Ord. No. 73, § 9, 7-11-83)
Sec. 6-24. Location restrictions. 1
No dock, mooring or other structure shall be so located as to: 1
(1) Obstruct the navigation of any lake;
331
1
1 § 6.24 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
r
' (2) Obstruct reasonable use or access to any other dock, mooring or other structure
authorized under this chapter;
' (3) Present a potential safety hazard; or
(4) Be detrimental to significant fish and wildlife habitat or protected vegetation.
' (Ord. No. 73, § 3.01, 7.11 -83)
Sec. 6.25. Construction and maintenance generally.
` Docks, moorings and other structures may be constructed of such materials and in such a
manner as the owner determines, provided that they shall be so built and maintained that
' they do not constitute a hazard to the public using the waters of the lake and they shall be
maintained in a workmanlike manner.
(Ord. No. 73, § 3.07, 7-11-83)
Sec. 6-26. Docks.
1 (a) No dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width and no dock shall exceed the greater of the
following lengths:
(1) Fifty (50) feet; or
1 (2) The minimum straight -line distance necessary to reach a water depth of four (4) feet.
1 (b) The width (but not the length) of the cross -bar of any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be
included in the computation of length described in the preceding sentence. The cross-bar of
any such dock shall not measure in excess of twenty -five (25) feet in length. No dock shall
encroach upon any dock set -back zone; provided, however, that the owners of any two (2)
abutting Lakeshore sites may erect one (1) common dock within the dock set -back zone
appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the dock is the only dock on the two (2)
1 la'-:eshore sites and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this chapter. No
more than one (1) dock shall be permitted on any Lakeshore site.
1 (c) No person shall store fuel upon any dock.
(d) No oscillating, rotating, flashing or moving sign or light may be used on any dock.
' (e) No advertising signs shall be displayed from any dock.
(Ord. No. 73, §§ 3.02, 3.03, 3.09, 3.10, 7- 11 -83)
•
Sec. 6-27. Mooring, docking, etc., of watercraft.
(a) Except for privately -owned commercial resorts or commercial boat Landings estab-
lished prior to July 11. 1983, no person shall moor overnight, dock overnight, or store
overnight more than three (3) watercraft on any lakeshore site or upon the waters of any lake.
Docking of watercraft at any Lakeshore site or storage of watercraft upon any Lakeshore site is
permissible however at any time other than overnight.
332
1
1
\ / .
\ 1
�.,\.
' ,
,.....
1 . .
\ , r 1
. .4 ;
,�/ 1 1
Az 1,Nct._
1
____
1
Li
L __
1
3�� 1 r
-
__ _- - 1
0 -1-.
f
,..,...,,_
- �+ , - f .."-----,. .
II
1 1 1, ■IIIINA \ .
f
EL
■
C)
i c ' .
- - - - ell \
1
,=_.• .■N \ =i __ 1
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 68
1. The applicant shall receive and meet the conditions of the following
approvals:
' a. Preliminary and Final Plat approval combining Lots 3, 4 and 5,
Burdick park into one lot with appropriate easements.
' b. Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the land use designation
from commercial to industrial.
' c. Site Plan approval for the building expansion.
d. Rezoning approval from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit
1 Development.
2. The site plan shall have to maintain the proposed concept plan, with
' the proposal being an expansion of the existing building for use by
the existing use, light manufacturing. A higher intensity industrial
use will not be permitted at this site.
3. The expansion of the building shall match and enhance the
architectural design of the existing building.
' 4. There shall be no outdoor storage permitted.
5. All rooftop equipment shall be screened.
6. The hard cover surface of the site (the three lots) shall not exceed
70 %.
' 7. Prior to rezoning and development, the applicant shall purchase the
property in question from the HRA.
8. Transit planning shall be incorporated into this development.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO DEFINE DOCK SETBACK ZONES.
' Public Present:
Name Address
Jeff Kvichang 6681 Horseshoe Curve
(The following people signed the public hearing sheet but had left by this
point in the meeting.)
' Randy & Rayma Smith 429 Pleasant View
Greg & Barb Hedlund 748 Lake Point
Donald & Beverly Hanson 8516 Great Plains Blvd.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 69
we want ?
Batzli: Do t to tackle the dock setback.
Aanenson: I've had a lot of phone calls on this. Everybody on all the I
lakes in the city.
Batzli: And we have one person. And we made him stay here until
midnight.
Aanenson: I took at least 50 phone calls on this. If I notice it again,
we have to notify everybody on the lakes again and go through that whole
process, what happens? I'd really prefer.
Batzli: Commissioners, are you up for one more? I hate to do this.
Scott: Just as long as it isn't a filibuster.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli II
called the public hearing to order.
Farmakes: How does this conform to the DNR criteria for lot extensions II
beyond the high water mark?
Aanenson: Well in this instance, as far as the 100 foot. '
Farmakes: But the angle of the property lines as they extend into the
lake. How does that?
Aanenson: There's no jurisdiction there.
Farmakes: The DNR has no jurisdiction there? '
Aanenson: Below the ordinary high water mark? As far as the dock going
out the 100 foot, that's in compliance with this. The jurisdiction going '
100 feet. Above the ordinary high water mark is our jurisdiction. I
guess I'm not really clear what you're.
Farmakes: If the angle of the property continues, in other words, that II
property line, does it continue beyond out into the water.
Aanenson: 100 feet. That's all they care about. They don't care how well
measure it. That's really based on the complaints that we've had of
people that have descending lots, pie shaped lots. The people that have
lots that are increasing in size, pinching off the neighbors. It's reall
just to make a good neighbor policy for the city. That's where that came
from. It's driven by us. The DNR really doesn't care how we.
Farmakes: This isn't conflicting with their's? '
Aanenson: No. No. What we're trying to do is make a good neighbor
policy is really what it's about. And we really want to get this in placci
before we get into the summer months and boating. Before people put thei
docks out. Another reason why we wanted to get it forward on the agenda.
By the time it gets through Council and we can have it adopted, people
putting their docks out this spring will be able to comply with this.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 70
Farmakes: Is this going to be enforced on a complaint basis?
Aanenson: Yeah. We've never, to my knowledge, the City hasn't gone out,
although I volunteered, to go out and boat each lake. To make sure
they're all in compliance. To go out and actually take a transit and go
' out and try to survey these, it's pretty difficult but we do try to do
them on a complaint basis. I had 2 or 3 of them last summer where I went
out and checked. And again, we just try to work with the neighbors to be
' a good neighbor kind of a policy.
Batzli: Explain to me on the one where you extended the lot line then on
the little inlet there. Why the person gets, no to the left. Yeah. Why
that person gets such a narrow line and the other guy has such a big line.
Aanenson: Well if you do that at a right angle like this, the... The
same with this one here. Actually this lot goes all the way around...
Batzli: Okay but, if you draw the line straight from the house to the
north, you get that small pie shape. Shouldn't the actual line then be,
so there's an area of overlap on that particular case.
Aanenson: Yeah. What it does is split the difference between the
' overlap.
Batzli: Yeah but it doesn't look like you split it at all in that case.
Aanenson: I didn't show...
Batzli: What I'm saying is that particular lot, if this is the result,
that particular lot is getting the raw deal compared to the guy to the
north.
' Aanenson: Yeah.
Batzli: Well, it looks to me like those, if this is what happens, then I
don't like it. If the dock setback is a little bit less of an angle,
then I agree with what you're doing.
Aanenson: See this...
Batzli: I know. I'm just saying, this doesn't go far enough if that's
the result. Because if the guy to the north can put his boat closer than
he should to the person to the south from just a fairness aspect. We
haven't gone far enough then.
Aanenson: Yeah, there are a few instances. I tried to find some that
' have real anomolies on the lake. There are a few instances that are even
more severe than that. Where people have very narrow frontages and
they're in a...or something like that.
' Batzli: Okay.
Jeff Kvichang: You still can't block access.
Planning Commission Meeting II
March 17, 1993 - Page 71
Aanenson: No, you still can't block access.
Batzli: You can make it very uncomfortable.
1
Aanenson: And enjoying the other person's right when they're using their
beach property and swimming and you're cutting back and forth to get to I
your dock.
Batzli: My father's situation, which has absolutely nothing to do with
this because he's in Tonka Bay. In years when the water is up they put a
sailboat with a big keel so that you have to kind of wind your way betwee
his dock and the sailboat. And so you just pray for water that year.
Anyway, this is a public hearing. Would you like to comment on this?
I
Jeff Kvichang: Just pass it. It makes sense to me.
Batzli: He stayed the whole time to say pass it. It makes sense to me. II
This is a dedicated Chanhassen resident. Can we have your name for the
record.
Jeff Kvichang: Jeff Kvichang, 6681 Horseshoe Curve. I
Batzli: Thank you. Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
1
(Ladd Conrad had left the meeting at this point and was not present for
the voting on the remaining items.)
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted i
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Diane, any comments?
Harberts: No.
II
Batzli: Okay, let's do it. Our one public comment, let's pass it. And
how many negative phone calls did you receive?
Aanenson: No, I just had a lot of questions and interpretting it and they
wanted a crack at it because they want to make sure that they're in
compliance in the summer.
I
Batzli: Okay, do I have a motion?
Scott: I move that we close.
II
Batzli: How about a motion that we recommend approval of the dock setback
zoning ordinance amendment in accordance with the staff report dated Marc
8, 1993.
Scott: I'll move.
II
Mancino: I'll second.
Batzli: Any discussion?
II
II Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 72
I
Scott
moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the proposed amendment to Sections 20 -1, 6 -1 and 6 -22 of the
I Chanhassen City Code concerning dock setbacks as presented by staff. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated March 3, 1993 as submitted.
1 Scott moved, Harberts seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:13 a.m..
1 Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
1 Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1