Loading...
7. Non-conforming use permit for Colonial Grove Beachlot 1 7 C ITYOF -- Otooril CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM ' TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ' FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner DATE: September 8, 1993 SUBJ: Non - Conforming Use Permit for Colonial Grove Recreational Beachlot At the August 23, 1993, City Council meeting the City Council moved to reconsider the Non - Conforming Use Permit for the Colonial Grove Recreational Beachlot. Attached are the minutes from the last City Council meeting as well as signed and notarized affidavits from Lotus Lake residents presented at the August 23, 1993, meeting. The 10 affidavits each attest to the writer's belief that there were only 3 boats at the beachlot in 1981. The original staff report is also attached. This report includes the affidavits from residents of Colonial Grove including original non - conforming permit. Staff has no other new information to provide the City Council at this time but stands on the information presented in the original staff report. ' Planning Director's Comment - Deliberations concerning this beachlot have been protracted and difficult. Staff has attempted to bring forward any and all information which we have on this ' proposal for your review. When the Council acted to reconsider this item, it appeared to be based on two factors. The first was questions that you had raised regarding the method you had used to evaluate this particular beachlot, as opposed to others that have already been approved. The second appeared to be that some of you had received phone calls where individuals questioned the accuracy of some of the data that had been presented by representatives for the beachlot. Staff has deliberated on this matter and concluded that we have nothing new to offer on this debate. As Kate pointed out, we received notarized affidavits from Lotus Lake residents and we ' have included them in your packet. When people have contacted us, we have indicated that we would be happy to include any additional written documentation that anybody felt was appropriate in the Council packet. Staff has also received several calls on this matter where .1 1 Colonial Grove Recreational Beachlot September 8, 1993 Page 2 1 various allocations were made. However, it is important to note that we are not in a position to verify the accuracy of allegations or verbal statements made for either side on this debate and 1 we therefore, do not feel it is appropriate for us to relate these comments at a public format. When individuals have approached us on this matter, we have indicated that in order for their concerns to be considered in the public debate, it is imperative that they either put their statement 1 in writing or be prepared to publicly deliver them to the Council at the meeting. Staff is prepared to act as an informational resource for you on this matter but otherwise believes I that all of the factual information we can provide has already been presented to you. If there is any way you believe that we can be of assistance to you in resolving this matter, we would appreciate you giving staff specific direction at the meeting. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1� 1 2C. COURT MACFARLANE. COLONIAL GROVE BEACHLOT. 1 Court MacFarlane: Good evening Mayor, City Council. My name is Court MacFarlane and I live at 3800 Leslee Curve which isn't anywhere near Lotus Lake. My lot is part of the Pleasant Acres Beachlot Association and I was a member of the Lake Study Committee that drafted the first beachlot ordinance. 'That's going on 12 to 14 years ago. And I was here at your last scheduled meeting on August 9th. I didn't have this kind of information at that time so I couldn't react to what was in it very well at that time. But I think Mr. Whitehill was so successful to confuse the issue, how many boats were or should be allowed on Colonial Grove Beachlot, to the point that you had no choice but to give in to their request. 1 There was so much confusion as to the content and intent of what went on then. Why wasn't anyone associated with the Lake Study Committee contacted for their input as a means of clarifying what was going on at the time? I kept hearing attacks on the validity of the city's 1 inventory of the then existing beachlots. That inventory was ordered by the City Council at a regular Council meeting on August of 1980. Therefore doesn't that then become part of the official city record and therefore part of the official city business. I saw the inventories at the time and being the liberal that I am, when it comes to the use of beachlots in our city, I would have certainly said something if I had seen any kind of discrepancy in the inventory from what I had personally seen on the beachlots. As a committee we toured all of the lakes in the city in a group and viewed firsthand all of the beachlots. It was also noted that these inventories were unsigned. I talked with Bob Weibel today. He was the city staff person • • assigned to work with the lake study committee and later the wetland or environmental protection committee during that period of time. It was his comment that in his experience it is not normal city practice for a staff person to sign off on reports or minutes. Not when they are part of official city business. Another point I'd like to make is that the lake study committee did not do it's work in a vacuum and that's probably my most important point. All beachlots were informed of our deliberations and recommendations. Not only of that but the lake study committee recommendations for outlots were required by City Council action also on August of 1980 to be included in the restrictive covenants and/or development contract for Colonial Grove because their restrictive covenants were silent on overnight storage of boats. If you would just follow me through a few points on the conditional use permit for Colonial Grove. In paragraph 1.03 it says because establishments from said recreational areas predates the adoption of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, said recreational area constitutes a non - conforming use. The expansion of which is prohibited. And then it goes on in paragraph 1.06. The purpose of this permit is to memorialize both those recreational uses which may be conducted by the applicant from Outlot A, and those 1 activities which would constitute an expansion of the use of said Outlot A. And then it goes on to talk about swimming and buildings, mooring buoys, airplanes...Some are allowed. 8 1 1 I City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 Some are not allowed. It was silent on dockage of boats. Overnight dockage of boats. It has always been my understanding that if a particular use is not spelled out in a conditional use permit, then that use is a non - permitted use. There may have been several boats tied up to ' their dock when inventoried but I believe none were permitted by the permit. The question of why the dock is identified in the permit as 100 foot dock can be explained in two ways. If you notice it's also written in there by hand. That dock at times of high water had to cross emergent aquatic vegetation to get to open water. Also conversely the dock in times of low water had to extend further into the lake to reach water to a depth of 4 feet which is ' permitted by the ordinance. Both reasons can explain why the number was hand written on the permit. Sometimes it's longer. Sometimes it's shorter. I think the person who went out, when they drew up that initially, no one knew how long exactly. They had to write it in ' later. A couple of other concerns I have of what occurred 2 weeks ago has to do with the documentation provided by Mr. Whitehill. One is the reference to 9 boats being permitted at their dock. As I read it, this came from their Association Minutes and not from any city ' records. I'm sure if you went back and looked at the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association Minutes you'd see references to a lot more than 8 boats which were permitted today by conditional use. Because over the years we added boats because no one was ' watching out for how many boats were down there. We were pulled back to 8 because that was what we were identified as having back in 1981. The second concern has to do with their...affidavits. I think the affidavits that are identical to one another and prepared by someone else to be somewhat suspicious. They are not spontaneous and obviously prepared by someone else who could easily steer recollections to their own. In Mr. Whitehill's own words to the Planning Commission, this is obviously prejudicial to their own point of view. 1 In a matter like this, the burden of proof should be on the requesting...and why should the City have to defend it's official records. No one challenged them at the time they were prepared. And if they did, they were heard and they were adjusted if need be. I guess what 1 I'm asking from you is that, I think you should revisit the matter in fairness and to reconsider your action of the last Council meeting. Any questions? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Does the Council have any questions? Richard. Councilman Wing: I guess I'm going to, I considered this a dead issue until tonight but after ' the meeting I did receive a phone call from a Colonial Grove resident who had stated he had signed an affidavit improperly. Under duress and it wasn't accurate. And based on that ' information, which I have tonight and I chose not to embarrass Colonial Grove with 2 weeks ago, I'm going to second Mr. Mason's motion if he chooses to reconsider this. Because I think what happened to you was fair and what happened to Pleasant Acres was accurate. What happened to this group was inaccurate and unfair and I'm going to have to ask to reconsider your's if this one should fail. 1 9 1 '. City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 �. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? 1 Councilman Senn: On what? Mayor Chmiel: On exactly what's been said. Councilman Senn: You mean on a motion or? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Well, Richard is saying basically that if Michael will bring back his motion, Richard will bring back the other motion and what's fair to one is fair to all. And what I'm entertaining is there any other discussion before there may be a second to this. Councilman Senn: Well that's what I'm missing because he was seconding a motion I never heard. Councilman Wing: No, no. Mayor Chmiel: No. No. He just stated. 1 Councilman Wing: I'm just saying that if there's an effort to reconsider this under Council Presentations, I'm going to support that based on this testimony or the testimony I've had. I have loose ends here and I have numerous comments out of the Minutes that I want the staff and City Attorney to address. I want to know what these agreements were we had with them. It has nothing to do with it. I want to know how many boats were there in '81 and I want us to stick on that line. I want us to make a determination of that and if it means recalling it, then so be it. Or there's 13 others that should be recalled and brought back because we're not being consistent. This was not a different group. I'm going to ask that directly of staff. If that's the case, then this is a different issue. Mayor Chmiel: Are you looking for information to be gathered per your request prior to 1 bringing this up for reconsideration? Councilman Senn: I'm hearing there's more information. It'd be nice if that were shared for 1 I guess one thing. Secondly, I mean if we're going to talk about reconsideration, then I think we have to look at it in the broadest sense of the word and treat everyone the same and maybe bring them all for reconsideration. Councilman Wing: I don't think that's true. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't think that's, yeah. When I made my decision at the last 1 10 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 Council meeting I found out afterwards additional information that I wish I had known beforehand so I would hope that if we do reconsider it, and I would support a motion to do that, that those people who do have additional information would come forward and share it. ' Mayor Chmiel: And if reconsideration is considered, those voting in the positive for that particular motion can bring this back on the floor. ' Councilman Mason: And it's my understanding because I was in absence, I can make that motion to reconsider, which I will be doing under Council Presentation. Councilman Wing: Before we leave Visitor Presentations, I'd just like to make another comment other than this. The people from Nez Perce are here and David Donna has made a 1 presentation and suddenly it was just silence. What's the Council's pleasure? What's our intent with this? Where are we going with his request or his suggestions? I think there was this dead silence and maybe they're waiting for the Council to say, oh! Or let's or let's not. ' Mayor Chmiel: Well basically what we've done right now is that this is under Visitor Y Y Presentation. That's a little different from the first one, being the school and what the school ' district and they wanted to get somebody on board as quickly as they can. And that was no real major decision making or changing one thing one way or the other. And normally we do ' take it into reconsideration the following meeting. But in this particular case, this is something that would have to be brought back up for further discussion by Council and then reconsideration given if it's the desired point. 1 Councilman Wing: Okay. So 2(b) would go on the next agenda? 1 Mayor Chmiel: 2(b) would go on the next agenda. Councilman Wing: Alright. And the neighborhood would be notified. Mayor Chmiel: All those affected would be notified. 1 Councilman Wing: Okay, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: And I'm not sure that, I don't know how this is going to work out but I'm 1 not sure that David Donna would be the mediator between all the neighborhoods and Mr. Beddor. That's the only thing I have. 1 Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? 1 11 1 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ashworth: I would like to suggest staff prepares a written response to the suggestion. We would put that into the next packet but I would like to know that the Council favors one way or another before we notify the entire neighborhood that we're going to be reconsidering ' or not reconsidering. So in other words, I'd like to prepare a report back to you. You said, based on this report I think you should be thinking about reconsideration so therefore we should notify everyone that we're going to be doing that. Or you say no, I don't think there's ' sufficient information here to consider reconsideration. Mayor Chmiel: From that report I think is where we have to go from. You're right. Any ' other discussions? If not, we'll move along with the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: , Mayor Chmiel: I have a request to pull item 3(c) at this time. Are there any other items that would like to be pulled? Councilwoman Dockendorf: F and G. Councilman Mason: Ditto. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I have those. 1 Councilman Senn: B, D, E and H. Councilman Wing: Well and I want to talk about A, and based on this, I'd like to move that the Consent Agenda be moved in the agenda to the final item this evening. I don't think it's right if we're going to pull every item, that we hold up the public hearings and the other people that are in the audience while we discuss the consent agenda at length. Mayor Chmiel: Well I sort of agree with that. Normally the consent agendas are given for us to review and any questions that we have can normally be answered by staff during the time period of from when we get our agendas and move accordingly. And I think it's that 1 individual's responsibility, whether it be mine or anyone else, to make sure that we follow through with that process. The reason we have a consent agenda is these items are not too discussionary and I feel oftentimes should be addressed either on Friday or Monday. And I'm not pointing directly at you Mark because I may have had one other one besides the one I have but Colleen pulled that one as well. 12 ' Form No. 10271 -- Affidavit. Fir General Use S. F BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION. MINNESOTA 1 • State of JJ. County of 1 1 State of !• JJ. 1 County of i 2itj 166 being duly sworn on oath says; that 116 ‘ hj zt 4&/I A&etzA-6 a tb2 ' (-- 44- A ( 72( � J (--n7/e)/ze*X_ .-, /917 teL Subscribed and sworn to before me ' L this ) day of c.) � j r 19M- '--- 1 _. DAVID AMU • SON , My commission expires NOTARY PUBLIC • INN My Comm. Expires Nov. 21, 1996 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Form No. 102 i t�— A[fidmnt: For Grnenl Use S. F. BUSINESS RE_OROS CORRCRATION MINNESOTA State of County of 1 • 1 1 State of Minnesota ( � ( JL L� County of Carve i W. Court MacFarlane being duly sworn on oath says; that . 1 . In the early 1980s, I was a member of the Lake Study Committee for the City of Chanhassen. This was the committee that drafted the ordinance governing the use of association owned beach lots in the city. As part of our responsibilities, we both toured all of the lakes in the city, and observed all of the beach lots then in existance. We also requested an inventory, to be prepared by city staff, of what was then placed on these beach lots and how many boats were being moored at each. This was done to determine how many boats would be permitted on these lots in the future as existing use was to be grandfathered in; new beach lots that came into existance after the adoption by the city of this ordinance were not permitted to permanently moor or dock boats of any kind. The numbers prepared by the city staff at that time were correct, as all members of the committee had the opportunity to review them and challenge them if they deemed them to be incorrect. 1 1 1 1 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9 da y � of to 19 93 V(/ 1 1 My commission expires litly SUSAN M. AC013130N - w 111301EP1N COUNTY Ousilski Ripka th. 1 .1 1 1 1 Form No. 1O271/2— Affidavit: For General Use S. F. BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION. MINNESOTA State of Minnesota ' Georgptre M. Sncin 1 County of. Carver 1 j JI. 1 1 1 State of Minnesota II. I County of Carver ( l _ \ being duly sworn on oath says; that i There were never more than three (3) boats moored overnight at the beachlot of Colonial Grove in 1981. 1 1 Subscribed and sworn to before me 1 this 5th day of August 19 93 (-71/1.44 - - -- ' / 1 RE 1 HIRTZINGER 14 NOT PUBLIC.MINNESOTi# Q CARVER COUNTY ornmss r' � C �'f� 10, t9101 1 1 1 1 1. • 1 Form No. 1027 Affidavit: For General Use S. F BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION MINNESOTA I State of Ninrbsot• ' Harvey L. Parker 1 J. County of Carver ` 1 1 State of Minnesota 1 //..) / County of C arver 1 4,,_,,,.,, ails .p. 1 being duly sworn on oath says; that There were never more than three (3) boats ored overnight at the beachlot of Colonial Grove in 1981. 1- 1 1 Subscribed and sworn to before me 1 this t day of Jkly S 1 19 72,_ . -- 1 NNW 1UeuC. 7 .. g M 1 y commission expir COUNTY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Form No. 10271/2—Affidavit: For General Use S F BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION. MINNESOTA 1 State of LE County of 4 1 • 1 . State of 1 J 4.4 County of A 11 11 1 4 1 being duly sworn on oath says; tha t y� ,, _ 7v .-*/ .� - ' LI "1 je,"4 /;4 69-11-64: 01- Y jr -et-eA A + )c/ , . 1 I Subscribed and sworn to before me this , day of 1 1- ,1{ 19 f G� — 1 0 1 - -- � o . D� My commission expires � ' MINNESOTA `�` My Comm. Expires Nov. 21, 19911 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Form No. 1O27 Affidavit: For General Use S. F BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION MINNESOTA 1 State of I 1 IL County o 1 t 014— k14.1d— 4046/ 74 jpi i fi-dt PyLe91 4 . ro ANL4 it. # Olt _Jr" �. / // / Aii / d4 ✓ 1 }/t l / M� 1� � DAD Cis' -2h . P -� i - WJs - 1 State of t 1 County of 1 40<- Air rile /% 4, _/y being duly sworn on oath says; that 1 1 1 Subscribed and sworn to before me 1 V� ll t this day of �- a ci' t 19 - J 1 _ _ _ _ , .. AMUNDSON t 1 ";' NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA My commission expires L - . IN COUNTY My Comm. Expires Nov. 21, 1998 1 1 1 1 1 1 41 Form No. 1027 — Affidavit: For General Use. S. F BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION. MINNESOTA State of JJ. County of 1 1 1 State of ,i)'Jio9zl4t JJ ` County of r being duly sworn on oath says; that To the best of my knowledge, I recall no more than 3 boats moored overnight at one time at Colonial Groves beachlot dock in 1981. I resided across the bay facing this lot from 1980 until present. 1 1 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9 727 day of ( 19 7- 7.17 r,,d., JEAN M. TIMP q !( NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA G ' 3 � / � ° t ; CARVER COUNTY J 7 My Comm Expires Seyt 1996 My commission expires 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 Form No. 1027 Affidavit: For General Use S. F BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION. MINNESOTA Minnesota 1 State of t Hennepin ' II. Robert L Sathre County of 1 • 1 1 State of Minnesot i If. County of Hennepin e:: being duly sworn on oath says; that Linda L Sathre 1 To the best of my knowledge, I have never noticed more than three boats moored overnight (at one time) at the small dock belonging to Colonial Grove on Lotus . Lake in Chanhassen, Minnesota. 1 1 Subscribed and sworn to before me 1 - 7 1 , i� this day of Arc-- 1_ 1 ".• -... BRYAN D. RONNING 114 !t Notary Publk•Minnesota Hennepin Cool 1 My commission expires 4.r--/f5r.- Comm. Exp. 6 2595 _ t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Form No. 10271/2— Affidavit: For General Use. S. F. BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION. MINNESOTA 1 State of + Jr. County of 1 1 1 State of " Ai ( JJ. q � 1 County of /-1.e... v-,.. t,�,Pd`� -, ` e.!/ c J u e4_.e / 09: 11 being duly sworn on oath says; that 1 _ t ( 0 ` / cc 1 :_, ( )LC PA. 4. "2 Li 1 4 J (‘(i, . llL - 6.4_ C. � cl l� 7 C f r)/.-)2, ' \ 9 cc■ , :.,, ,./A.i., (2— C ', c . , --,,,,.. - .:__("i c_ b4 b., ..,-, ,...... L ■-1 1 3 r ( G77 4 . l � i i t -1 I/ � � 1 / , 7 I ` R ` ` C -� LLJi , C �' t .� t Uc ^� "1'1 Subscri ed and sworn o before me i 1 this ay of i7 Gl _ Ll n.. ,...o (i°'i E .�.. t ii iMp lir �� NOTARY PUBIIGMINNESOTA JASON A KRAUSE 1 My co • ission expires ` i� ' .1 .1. '" � CARVER COUNTY My Comrtussion Fxpros Oct. E, 1696 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Form No. 1027 Affidavit: For General Use. S. F BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION. MINNESOTA State of I, if. County of ) 1 J Jt �'Q' V �n -� 1_L.. .1 ` _ it �4( �.1 . 4 41.041( 1i. i ! O i . • State of IL County of being duly sworn on oath says; that 1 1 1 Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of A 19 q t y � DAVID AMUN • SON s,'. , NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA My commission expires C . • -.• -• `t;) My Comm. Expires Nov. 21. 1 1 1 C ITY OF it.11 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 September 2, 1993 1 1 Dear Property Owner: At the August 23, 1993, meeting, the City Council moved to reconsider the conditions of the Colonial Grove recreational beachlot non - conforming use permit. The Council's decision was based upon their belief that additional information concerning the request would be available. ' This item will be reheard at the City Council meeting on Monday, September 13, 1993. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sinc rely, 00404 Paul Krauss, AICP Planning Director PK: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Charles and D. Bohlig Roger and E. Andersen Elwood and G. Mc Cary I g g �'Y 5200 Ridge Road 106 Sandy Hook Road 108 Sandy Hook Road 1 Edina, MN 55346 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Steven and M. Posnick Henry and S. Neils Thomas and A. Behr I 7010 Dakota Avenue 7012 Dakota Avenue 7014 Dakota Avenue South Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Evan Niefeld Robert and M. Heer James and J. Carlson I 7016 Dakota Circle 7018 Dakota Circle 7020 Dakota Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 James and G. Wildermuth Walter and J. Thatcher Leon and I. Erhard 7022 Dakota Circle 7024 Dakota Avenue South 7004 Cheyenne Trail 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Robyn and B. Moschet James and M. Connelly Stephen e an d S. Damlo 7006 Cheyenne Trail 7008 Cheyenne Trail 7012 Cheyenne Trail 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Nicholas and C. Vassallo Larry and E. Crawford Cliff and D. Whitehill 1 7018 Cheyenne Trail 107 Sandy Hook Road 7001 Dakota Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Richard and S. Erickson Michael and L. Marra James and V. Meriwether 7003 Dakota Avenue 7007 Dakota Avenue 7011 Dakota Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Brent Paulsen Kenneth and A. Block Helen Montgomery 7013 Dakota Avenue 7015 Dakota Avenue 7017 Dakota Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Jeffrey Zappa and L. Donnay Leonard and S. Adler Donald and J. Leivermann 7002 Cheyenne Trail 210 Sandy Hook Road 7003 Cheyenne Trail I Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 George C. Smith Charles and K. Hirt Barbara Burke I 7005 Cheyenne Trail 7007 Cheyenne Trail 7009 Cheyenne Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 'Robert and S. Midness Thomas and M. Palmby William and M. Spliethoff 112 Sandy Hook Road 114 Sandy Hook Road 113 Sandy Hook Road 'Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 'John and M. Kern Nancy Engasser Dennis and T. Flaherty 109 Sandy Hook Road 7000 Dakota Avenue 7004 Dakota Trail 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Carol Bloomberg Robert and A. Pfankuch Stephen and S. Frost ▪ 7008 Dakota Avenue 100 Sandy Hook Road 80 Sandy Hook Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 . 1 R.C. Heer Thomas and D. Jamieson Willard and L. Lewis 1 50 Sandy Hook Road 30 Sandy Hook Road 20 Sandy Hook Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Allen and K. Sorbo Edward and P. Bennett James and J. Lee ▪ 61 Shady Hook Road 7017 Sandy Hook Circle 7015 Sandy Hook Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 . 1 Lee and C. Edgerley Virginia Hudson Craig and E. Sawicki 7013 Sandy Hook Circle 7007 Sandy Hook Circle 7005 Sandy Hook Circle I Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Gordon and J. Hampson F. Craig and P. Blechta Edward and S. Robbins 7003 Sandy Hook Circle 7003 Sandy Hook Road 7022 Sandy Hook Circle • Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas and P. Peterson Henry and L. Walton Christopher Engel 1 7020 Sandy Hook Circle 7018 Sandy Hook Circle 7016 Sandy Hook Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 James and K. Andrews Philip and P. Mosley Ronald and J. Carlson 1 7014 Sandy Hook Cirlce 7012 Sandy Hook Circle 7010 Sandy Hook Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Erik and N. Saiveson David and L. Wessell John and J. Rowe 7011 Cheyenne Trail 7017 Cheyenne Trail 7019 Cheyenne Trail I Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 • 1 Donald and B. Brettin Stephen and C. Turner Kenneth and N. Sherman 7021 Cheyenne Trail 7023 Cheyenne Trail 7025 Cheyenne Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 James and C. Erny Bryan and J. Price Bloomberg Companies, Inc. 1 7008 Sandy Hook Circle 7006 Sandy Hook Circle 545 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Paul and J. Heins Teresa Braff Lotus Lake Betterment Assn. 1 308 Lombardy Lane 7000 Sandy Hook Circle 105 Sandy Hook Road Minnetonka, MN 55343 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "PETER THIELEN I•SiCHAEL CLARK ALAN W. LENHART 665 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 695 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 6575 PLEASANT VIEW WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 I ELWOOD MCCARY JOHN S KERN ELWOOD MCCARY 108 SANDY HOOK ROAD 109 SANDY HOOK ROAD 108 SANDY HOOK ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 ROBERT B MIDNESS ROBERT MIDNESS WILLIAM SPLIETHOFF 1 112 SANDY HOOK ROAD 112 SANDY HOOK ROAD 113 SANDY HOOK ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 T OM PALMBY JOHN LUCE GARY OKEEFE 114 SANDY HOOK ROAD 7632 SO SHORE DRIVE 7636 SO SHORE DR "CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II THOMAS DEVINE ROLAND POTTER MARK SENN PO BOX 714 7644 SO SHORE DR 7160 WILLOW VIEW COVE "CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F ANK_KK RVERS I.LLVIN KURVERS DOUG MACLEAN II 7Z20 KURVERS POINT ROAD 7240 KURVERS POINT ROAD 7280 KURVERS POINT ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DANNY VATLAND GERALD STRAND FRANK CAMPAGNA II 7290 KURVERS POINT RO 18909 KINGWOOD TERRACE 7320 KURVERS POINT ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 THOMAS BOERBOOM MARY KURVERS ESTATE RONALD HAINES 7539 PAULSON DR MELVIN KURVERS 7340 KURVERS POINT RO II EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55346 7240 CHAN ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II CHAR ES APPLEGATE MARY KURVERS ESTATE MARY KURVERS ESTATE L A MELVIN KURVERS MELVIN KURVERS 5901 FAIRWOOD LANE 7240 CHAN ROAD 7240 CHAN ROAD MINNETONKA, MN 55345 II CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SUSAN APPLEGATE MARY KURVERS ESTATE SEYMOUR RESNIK II 7360 KURVERS POINT RO MELVIN KURVERS 7370 KURVERS POINT RO CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 7240 CHAN ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 '_ CHARLES PETERSON WM PICKELL BARIE FRITZ II 708 LAKE POINT 716 LAKE POINT 724 LAKE POINT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II TERRY VOGT GERALD HEINTZ GREG HEDLUND II 732 LAKE POINT 740 LAKE POINT 748 LAKE POINT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II GREG HEDLUND ALAN FOX DORIS S LARSON 748 LAKE POINT 7300 LAREDO DR 7301 LAREDO DR II CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STUART BAIRD ROBERT SATHRE RANDY SMITH II 7303 LAREDO DR 365 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 429 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II DONN ANDRUS TODD ADAMS ROBERT L POST II 449 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 469 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 489 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II II " JOHN MELBY rUBERT SATHRE RON HARVIEUX 40 HILL STREET 365 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 6605 HORSESHOE CURVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II JOHN DANIELSON RAYMOND BROZOVICH THOMAS GILMAN I 6607 HORSESHOE CURVE 6609 HORSESHOE CURVE 6613 HORSESHOE CURVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II PAULA J STEUERNAGEL JAMES KEIPER RICHARD PECK 11 6614 HORSESHOE CURVE 6615 HORSESHOE CURVE 6690 HORSESHOE LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II ROBERT STEVENS ROBERT HANSON LADD R CONRAD 8046 ERIE SPUR 6620 HORSESHOE CURVE 6625 HORSESHOE CURVE "CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 " MICHAEL LYNCH HAROLD DAHL PHILIP ISAACSON 6630 HORSESHOE CURVE 6631 HORSESHOE CURVE 6633 HORSESHOE CURVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II I JOSEPH G TERSTEEG STEVEN DECATUR FRANK KUZMA 6640 HORSESHOE CURVE 6645 HORSESHOE CURVE 6651 HORSESHOE CURVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 11 EVELYN ALBINSON TOM HAU TIMOTHY JOHNSON 116661 HORSESHOE CURVE 4401 HUNTERS RIDGE ROAD 6663 HORSESHOE CURVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 I/ JOHN CUNNINGHAM DAVID KOPISCHKE TERRY ROSEN 6665 HORSESHOE CURVE 6675 HORSESHOE CURVE 6677 HORSESHOE CURVE "CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II JEFF KVILHAUG JOHN RYAN ALEX HARTMANN 6681 HORSESHOE CURVE 6685 HORSESHOE CURVE 6687 HORSESHOE CURVE "CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 " SANDRA OLSON CHARLES C. HURD KEITH OBERMEYER 6691 HORSESHOE CURVE 6695 HORSESHOE CURVE 6697 HORSESHOE CURVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 r 11 MARGARET WASSON nJBERT HEER cJVIND FENGER 1 7016 DAKOTA CIRCLE 7018 DAKOTA CIRCLE 7501 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II ROBERT AMICK MELVIN VOLLMER GEORGE T. SOUKUP 581 FOX HILL DR 6440 FOX PATH 6441 FOX PATH II CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II TOM HUBERTY MICHAEL HAYDOCK KEITH M. HOFFMAN 6450 FOX PATH 6460 FOX PATH 6470 FOX PATH I CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GREGORY CRAY MR. GREGORY CRAY WILLIAM KIRKVOLD II 200 FRONTIER COURT 201 FRONTIER COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 PETER J DAHL ROBERT UECKER ROLF G. ENGSTROM . II 220 FRONTIER COURT 7199 FRONTIER TRAIL 7201 FRONTIER TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II PAT PAVELKO SHIRLEY NAVRATIL ARLIS BOVY II 7203 FRONTIER TRAIL 7337 FRONTIER TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II EDWARD JORDAN ROBERT H HORSTMAN GEORGE PRIEDITIS II 7341 FRONTIER TRAIL 7343 FRONTIER TRAIL 7401 FRONTIER TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II LORNA TARNOWSKI MIKE JONIKAS ROBERT SOMERS 7405 FRONTIER TRAIL 7407 FRONTIER TRAIL 7409 FRONTIER TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II TOM HAROLD ROGER KARJALAHTI DIANE NEEDHAM II 7411 FRONTIER TRAIL 7413 FRONTIER TRAIL 7415 FRONTIER TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II CHARLIE SCHWARTZ RICHARD POWERS JOHN SEGNER 1 7417 FRONTIER TRAIL 20 HILL STREET 30 HILL STREET CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II 1 I L A RRY KOCH 1rIOMAS JONES ANN HOGAN /M IMMERMAN 471 BIGHORN DR 480 BIGHORN DR 7365 HOWARD LANE #324 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55346 II MARK J PETERKA DON MEHL LEONARD KISKIS I 10036 PURGATORY ROAD 490 BIGHORN DR 491 BIGHORN DR EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II DEAN STANTON GUY SWANSON PHYLLIS POPE , 510 BIGHORN DRIVE 610 CARVER BEACH ROAD 620 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 'JOHN HAGEDORN JOHN LANG CONSTANCE CERVILLA 630 CARVER BEACH ROAD 640 CARVER BEACH ROAD 650 CARVER BEACH ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 i MEL KURVERS HENRY SOSIN FRED OELSCHLAGER 7300 CHAN ROAD 7400 CHAN ROAD 7410 CHAN ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 I CAROLYN WETTERLIN IRVING RAYMOND TIMOTHY MCHUGH 7420 CHAN ROAD 7440 CHAN ROAD 7450 CHAN ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II FOWLER PROPERTIES BRUCE FOWLER HARVEY PARKER 11 6553 NEEDHAM LANE 6553 NEEDHAM LANE 7480 CHAN ROAD AUSTIN, TX 78739 AUSTIN, TX 78739 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEFF BORNS LOUIS TESLER GREGORY LINDSLEY 7490 CHAN ROAD 7500 CHAN ROAD 7510 CHAN ROAD II CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II MARK ENGASSER DENNIS FLAHERTY CAROLYN BLOOMBERG 7000 DAKOTA 7004 DAKOTA 7008 DAKOTA "CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 I STEVEN POSNICK HENRY NEILS THOMAS BEHR 3400 DAKOTA AVENUE 7012 DAKOTA 7014 DAKOTA CIRCLE ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II II 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 address is 3900 Minnewashta Court. We were very interested in this walkout lot but it was very narrow in the front, only 44 feet. We then learned that the owner of this lot also owned the unused driveway on the northerly edge. At one time this would have been given access to Lot 1, which now has other access. We then entered into agreement to purchase this lot along with the unused driveway along this northerly edge. We know have warranty deed for the same. Our plans are to complete. The plans are complete and the contractor ready to begin building our new home which extends a few feet over into this anticipated driveway. We then learned the City would not give us a building permit because of the right -of -way which the City has on this anticipated driveway. It is our opinion that the City should vacate this easement, or right -of -way to us because the City has little, or no value in retaining this easement. What future would the City have in retaining it? If you will grant us this request, the development of this property, our new home, may proceed for which we will be grateful. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Is there anyone else? Do you have a question Richard? Councilman Wing: I'd move we close the public hearing. Mayor Chmiel: A motion to close the public hearing. Is there a second? 1 Councilman Senn: Sure. Second. Councilman Wing coved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Wing: I would move we approve this vacation of Lot 1, Lot 3, Block 3, Minnewashta Highlands as requested. File No. 93 -4. Councilman Senn: Second. Resolution #93-70: Councilman Wing coved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council approve the vacation of drainage and utility easements as dedicated on the recorded plat of Minnewashta Highlands lying 5 feet on either side of the north line of Lot 3, Block 1, and lies easterly of the 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement over Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block 1 along Minnewashta Court, as dedicated on said plat. And lies westerly of the 5 foot drainage and utility easements as dedicated on said plat, over the easterly 5 feet of said Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 at its northerly and southerly extension. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR COLONIAL GROVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. Rate Aanenson: Colonial Grove was approved in 1956. In 1981 they were granted a non - conforming use permit from the City. At that time it was not specifically spelled out, the boats should be docked overnight. Staff informed the applicants as part of the process. I mean the Association as part of the process of all non - conforming beachlots to go through, that they would need to come in and get a permit based on the fact that a survey in 1981 showed 3 boats docked overnight. This went to the Planning Commission twice. The first time it went there was an error made by staff so the applicants did request to go back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Whitehill, who is representing the Association, has provided 5 affidavits stating that they believe that the number of boats at the dock were 8 in 1981. I've attached in your packet the affidavits and also from the Planning Commission a letter from the Lotus Lake Association petition stating what they believe to be the level 9 1 i City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 II of use. In addition there's Minutes from when the plat was approved. The second phase with the beachlot that stated that if they were to have boats or canoe racks of the like, they would have to come back and get a conditional II use permit. That's where the staff came up with the interpretation that it was maybe not the intent to have boats docked overnight. The Planning Commission did on their Wednesday, July 21st meeting recommend that 3 boats be docked overnight. Again the Association's requesting, based on what they II believe the level of use to be is 8 boats to be docked overnight. That's all I had. Mayor Chmiel: Alright, thank you. Is there anyone here representing the II Colonial Grove? Yes Roger. Roger Knutson: Maybe I could give my short introductory speech... This is our, I believe 14th recreational beachlot that the City has dealt with in this process of registering a non - conforming beachlot. Just so we're clear on what II the ordinance requires. The ordinance requires the City Council to decide what was there in 1981. That's all. Not whether that use is appropriate. Not whether there should be more or less than there was in 1981. Not whether taxes are going up or down. Not whether there's trash there or other problems II there. Just one issue. One issue only. What was there in 1981. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. II Cliff Whitehill: Good evening Mr. Mayor and Councilmen. My name is Cliff Whitehill, 7001 Dakota Avenue in Colonial Grove. I think the City Attorney has stated succinctly and accurately what the issue is before you and that is, what was the use of the dock in that particular outlot in 1981. There will be II a lot of statements tonight about what the use should be today or what it shouldn't be today or why it should be this or that or something else. In 1981, because I was very much a part of the formation of the Association and participated in the drafting of the request for the non - conforming use permit, II it was not the practice of the city at that time to specify the number of boats to be moored, and moored is a very important word and that's the word that is commonly used. As to the number of boats that could be moored at a dock that was authorized for the outlot. Clearly the non - conforming use II permit specified that there would be allowed a 100 foot dock. And in the memorandum of the City to the Council this evening there are a number of statements and sentences there that do need clarification. First, what was addressed? For instance on page 2 of the memorandum that you received. It 1 did state that under item 4, "no boats are to be moored ". Unfortunately that is incorrect. That is not what the permit specifies nor what the Minutes addressed at that time. What was specified was that there were no mooring buoys to be added to the use of the outlot in addition to the 100 foot dock. II It did not say anything about the number of boats to be moored. The Minutes of the Council at that particular time did address, and was very specific as to uses that were not permitted and the uses that were not permitted was that no overnight parking or overnight storage, not the word moored, storage of boats were to be allowed on the outlot. Again, not addressing the question of II the number of boats to be moored or moored overnight on the dock. When we received our use permit I specifically inquired of staff at that time as to the number of boats that would be allowed and the answer back, and which has been the consistent answer back, well whatever a 100 foot dock can normally II accommodate. That is what is to be allowed. And that's why the issue before you is what was the number of boats that were being stored or allowed in 1981. The survey that was taken shortly after the granting of the use permit, which is an unsigned survey, was for a particular moment in time. Nobody knows II whether or not that early June '81 survey indicated that there were other boats that were at the dock that were out at the lake at the time. That was 1 10 II II City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 early in the summer. Nobody knew whether everybody had put their boat in. Most people don't even put it in by that time of June, etc and staff has said that the, again staff, quoting from your memorandum has always stated that this survey is based on one day during the summer of 1981 and may not be a true representation of the level of use of the beachlot. You have been furnished with affidavits of 5 individuals who were all residents of Colonial Grove in 1981. Were concerned with the building of the dock, the use of the dock and other matters associated with the use of that particular parcel. One thing that the survey clearly indicated of course is that the outlot has always been maintained in excellent condition. It's the pride of the neighborhood and certainly I think should be a pride of Chanhassen. And there has never been one complaint of anyone that we're aware of, or certainly from the City to the Association, as to the maintenance and upkeep of the outlot. You'll probably also hear from the Lotus Lake Association people that were really not familiar with the useage of the lot in 1981, about what they think may or may not have been the use of the dock and the number of boats. Even in the Planning Commission they indicated an aerial survey taken more or less at the same time was "inconclusive ". Although the issue as again stated by the City Attorney is not how many boats should be allowed today under•today's useage. I think you know, obviously you probably should have that somewhere in the back of your mind, and that is that limiting the number of boats to 3 is counter productive. First of all it will just cause additional congestion at the ramp. The people who have boats in the Addition are going to use those boats and so all you're going to do is irritate a number of people that have to drive down TH 101, clog up the ramp which is already overused in any event, and just cause them to put their boats in and out rather than having the number of boats that was in 1981 being utilized at the dock. Over the years the Association has faced the issue that can the dock accommodate everyone who wants to use it and what we have decided is that in such events that the number of spaces will simply be either drawn by lot or allocated. You get the first half of the summer and the other person gets the second half of the summer. So we have faced the issue of how we deal with 8 docks or the ability to moor 8 boats at the dock. At the Planning Commission also there was a statement that when people bought their property in Colonial Grove they asked about them. I mean it's always been advertised as one of the favorable attributes of our Addition. That there is an outlot that allows the mooring of boats of course and the tennis courts and other things that go with it. And one of the comments was, well you may have been told that by your real estate agent but you have the duty to inquire at City Hall what was the appropriate, correct and allowed useage. Well, what would one have been told had they inquired? They would have been told exactly what's happened and that is, well the number of boats that are down there, presumably that's what's allowed. If the use permit did not allow boats to be moored overnight, then the Association has been in non - compliance since 1981 in spite of so called three surveys. Now that's just impossible that the City would have had notice of non - compliance for 12 years. Never notified anyone of non - compliance. What happened was simply this. That as stated, in the late summer and fall of last year, where it was omitted from these use permits specifically as to the 11 number of boats to be moored at these docks the City is now, appropriately, attempting to clarify the record and also specify as to the number of boats that can be moored at these particular docks. We were told that that was just a matter of clarification. We're not applying for a new use permit. We already have that. What was asked for is that we simply clarify for the city the number of boats that were moored at the dock in 1981 and that number would be the appropriate number that would be approved for today's useage. We could, a 100 foot dock, it's a T dock, could actually accommodate more boats than that. Well we've said, we'll just have to live with what we had back then and so we're, whether you call it grandfathering or just in conformity what was granted at the time, is simply the request of the Association. 11 1 1 1 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 II Nothing more. Nothing less. The last thing is that a number of other people II will speak as to whether or not the affidavits that were given are the best and most appropriate evidence. Well, to me there just can't be other than a photo taken, here are sworn, signed affidavits of people that were residents at the time. Were intimately associated with the use of the outlot and the dock. Were always interested in the ongoings of the Association and the well being of the Association. That's the best proof that's available to you. There's no aerial survey that indicates any differently. The surveys, the one survey that was taken by the city in '81, as I said, was early in the summer contemporaneous with the time that the use permit was granted. The other two I indications of a survey have no attached, even the basic information that the '81 survey has. It's just a list in two other years as to the number of boats in that year. Nobody knows what time of day. When during the year. Any such survey was taken because there's no background information on it. It could II have been taken literally at any time. So again, in conclusion and in summary, the Association is simply asking for comfirmation by the Council that in 1981 8 boats were moored at that dock which is an appropriate number of boats for a 100 foot dock and that our use permit be clarified to that extent. II Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue at this time? 1 Jeff Kvichaug: You'll have to excuse me. I get a little nervous at these things so if my voice cracks or. Mayor Chmiel: Just think you're sitting at your coffee table and we're sitting there with you. Jeff Kvichaug: Okay. I'm a resident of Lotus Lake. I was also present at I the Planning Commission meeting and my name is Jeff Kvichaug. I reside at 6681 Horseshoe Curve. I'm not as eloquent or as silver tongued as Mr. Whitehill but as a resident I believe I have some information that conflicts a little bit with some of the information Mr. Whitehill has presented. My goal tonight is just to present this information and clarify certain statements II that may have been made to date. I agree the key issue here is the number of boats that were moored overnight in 1981. The issue is not deeded access. The issue is not real estate values. The issue is not the maintenance and upkeep of the common area and the issue is not the use or overuse of the I public access. The issue is the number of boats that were there in 1981. When this matter first came up and I became aware of it, I took the opportunity to discuss this matter with various members of the City staff. Past and current board members of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. II Various residents on the lake. The DNR. The Ag Extension Service. Certain past city staff members and selected County officials as well. While I'm sympathetic to the concerns of the Colonial Grove residents, I feel that certain information that's been presented is inaccurate. I have been a Lotus 1 Lake user for 6 years. Most recently I've been a homeowner on the lake. I've enjoyed the access to the lake, both from a trailer boating perspective through the public access and as a homeowner. I can certainly understand why they're upset about the possibility of being limited in their mooring rights. II But certain information is not consistent with that of my research or our research. Number one, the number of boats that were docked at that dock in 1981, Mr. Whitehill made reference to some information that a Lotus Lake Homeowners Association had presented. I believe you probably have a copy of II this letter but I'm presenting another one for the record. That's a letter that was signed by the past and current Board members of the Homeowners Association that were very active at that time and were also residents on the lake. I believe in your packet of information there should also be a note 1 12 1 II 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 f that there were going to be several affidavits submitted. That because of time constraints we couldn't get into your packet before the meeting tonight. I have a total of 8 affidavits regarding the use of the boats from homeowners on Lotus Lake as of 1981. There were some questions made at the Planning Commission whether our letter was sufficient evidence or whether their affidavits should take precedence. As a result we followed up to make sure that they're weighed equally, or had equal value. There's also been several questions about the accuracy of the 1981 survey. And specifically Mr. Whitehill has referred to it as an unsigned survey and that nobody knows about the boats under use at the time of the survey. I took the opportunity to talk to several of the people involved in the lake study committee which the City Council appointed in 1981 specifically to address the beachlot ordinance that was proposed in that year and the water surface useage ordinance proposed in that year. The lake study committee was commissioned or charged with the responsibility to work with city staff to, for one thing survey the number of boats moored at common areas in 1981 for all the various lakes in Chanhassen. The city staff was responsible for conducting this survey and the individual that was responsible for it was a person by the name of Scott Martin. I don't believe anybody with Colonial Grove took the opportunity to talk to Scott Martin and I spoke with him today. Scott Martin served from 1981 to 1984 as the Community Development Director for the City of Chanhassen, and as such he is responsible for supervise the city planning department, as I understand it. He also was personally involved or personally performed a survey. He indicated to me that the surveys were performed on weekdays when there was little or no useage for all the various Chanhassen lakes. It was performed once during 1981 for each lake. But it was clear to him as a member of the city staff that this survey would be used as a benchmark and I'm going to quote him as closely as I can here. And he said therefore it was done, and I quote, the accuracy and integrity of a reasonable person. Now certainly that doesn't mean that 3 is the exact number but it does mean that his count was done when there was very little or no useage and it was as reasonable and accurate as possible. Further, the original conditional use permit does not specifically allow mooring rights. In fact there are certain Minutes or notes that indicate another application process would be required for mooring rights. For your information we also talked to the County to determine the number of houses that were even built at that point in time, as it has expanded significantly since then. According to our research there was a total of 28 houses that were built in that Association in 1981, 10 of which were lakeshore properties, meaning a total of 18 non- lakeshore properties resided in 1981. Finally there's been some comments tonight, or in the Planning Commission meeting about deeded access and the rights that that conveys. Deeded access does not necessarily mean that you have deeded mooring rights and again, as Mr. Whitehill stated, mooring is a very important term here. What deeded access right means is that you have deeded rights to use the lake. With this, whether there's 3 boats allowed or whether there's 8 boats allowed, no one is taking that right away. It will be less convenient, I agree. But the right to use the lake ie not infringed or limited. In fact they can all use it and all use the dock but only 3 can be moored overnight under the proposal as accepted by or recommended by the Planning Commission. In conclusion, there's been no unequivicable data presented by Colonial Grove. There's been conflicting affidavits presented which I sympathize with the Council and the Mayor to have to sort through. The City survey, as inaccurate as it may be presented to be, I believe is the most accurate information we have from that point in time and that supports 3. The city Planning Commission recommends the approval of 3 mooring rights. The city staff that conducted the surveys, they conducted it with reasonable accuracy and the variance between 3 and 8 seems too large to reconcile for a reasonable person. And finally, limited mooring rights does not mean limited use. As a final note, I have one further affidavit and it's from a person who was involved in the lake 13 1 1 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1 study committee, and specifically charged with conducting a survey of the number of boats moored at the various common areas and it discusses the charge of whether the accounts were correct or accurate and deals directly with the accuracy. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this? Chuck Hirt: My name is Chuck Hirt, 7007 Cheyenne Trail. I have been a resident of Colonial Grove since 1971. I am one of the parties that signed an affidavit and had a boat on there in 1981. There's a couple things I want to ' address. I don't quite understand the survey idea that if someone goes down to the lake one time during a summer and sees 2 boats, that that's the survey for the entire summer. I mean there can be 10 boats down there at one time. There could be no boats. Yesterday we had 2 boats. The day before we had 4 boats down there so that I don't quite understand. The Lotus Lake Homeowners Association survey, it's kind of interesting. I was trying to rack my brain and think 12 years back exactly who was on the dock. I know I have about 6 names and I can't remember the others, and it's interesting that the Lotus ' Lake Homeowners Association in 1981, 12 years ago, can remember how many boats were on our dock. I was there all the time and I can't remember exactly every person that was there, and they can remember 12 years ago that we just had 3 docks there. That's pretty hard for me to believe. The other thing I want to address, he mentioned how the Planning Commission had approved the 3 boats. I wouldn't say it was an overwhelming vote. It was 4 to 2 and one of the things I remember specifically, and I don't know how the person was that was standing there but it was the first person that talked and I wanted to say something ' after he talked but the public hearing was closed but the first thing he uttered almost, well in all fairness and he went on to talk about 3 boats. This has nothing to do with fairness and the City Attorney spoke exactly about it. It has to do with how many boats were there in '81. Not what is fair. If that person was voting on the idea of what is fair and 3 boats is fair because others got 3 boats, that makes no sense whatsoever. So I wouldn't call the Planning Commission vote a very conclusive vote as far as overwhelmingly approving 3 boats. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Chris Engel: Mr. Mayor, my name is Chris Engel. I'm presently the Acting President of Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake. I have been in that position for the last 3 1/2 years and simply the points I would like to make, an emphasis of Mr. Whitehill's comments surround, I would ask that the Council try to separate, if they will, our particular permit from the others that you've dealt with in the past. The point that needs to be made, quite honestly is ' that our Association, if you will, was one of the only associations at the time that the ordinance was developed, that was I guess approximately 2 years ago that had a non - conforming beachlot permit from 1981. Our position is quite clear, and I think we've made that position clear that we felt all along that we have a permit that's withstanding. Quite honestly I have acted over the last 2 1/2 years when Jo Ann Olsen was still involved with the city, I approached the Planning Commission at the initial meetings where I was asked to show up as the President with our permit in hand. And in fact at that point talked specifically with Jo Ann and I said, do I even need to be at this meeting. we in fact do have a permit and is it valid. She said yes, and I'm quite surprised you have one because I don't know of any other Association in all of Chanhassen that has one. Well I thank the founders of our Association for getting that piece of information and I guess I would ask that we not be lumped in with the other associations that you've dealt with in the past that have in fact asked for a new permit based on what they've used in the past or asked for more boats or were at 16 and we're now down to 8. We in fact are t 14 1 1 T 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 asking for what we had in 1981 when we had a permit. A very valid permit. And at that point, for whatever reason, there was no specification to the number of boats but only to the length of the dock. 100 feet. I think there is an implication that if you're going to have a 100 foot dock, that you're going to put boats on it. I've been involved in the Association since 1986 and Mr. Whitehill also makes a very valid point. I've also worked on the dock in coordinating parking places. If I'm not mistaken in 1986 they did a survey. I have had a boat at the dock since 1986 and we had 7 or 8 boats on the dock in 1986 yet the survey says that we had 3. Again, I have to emphasize from the survey's point of view, what is the validity of the survey when they're not even signed. There's no testiment as to who did it. What time of day. Where in fact does the information come? We have 5 affidavits that in fact specify that we have the 8 boats. Have had the 8 boats since 1981 parked at our dock and we had asked that the surveys be upstanding, be thrown out and actually the affidavits be the upstanding evidence in this case. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Okay, seeing none, I'll bring this back to Council and come up with some kind of conclusion here, hopefully. I might add this is not one of the best things we enjoy doing, believe me. Makes you sometimes sit up here and think you're God and we're not. &:t to come up with a conclusion. I must say that we have been rather consistent in all of our decisions that we have done, specifically going back to what was there in 1981 and there's a lot of arguments on both sides of the aisle on that particular issue. But with that I'd like to start with Mark. Do you have anything you'd like to add? Councilman Senn: I started out I guess real, we've got this thing kind of torn on it primarily because of all the, I guess other ones that we've had through with it. The more and more I looked into it though I really started to think that this was really a lot different than the ones, at least that I've seen since I've been on the Council. Most of the ones I've seen at least since I've been on the Council have been very ill defined. No permits. No rules, no nothing in place. No deeds reciting what is or what the rules are or aren't. In fact I think most of them I've seen come into Council we've had two sets of people in the same neighborhood arguing over what was and what wasn't. I think after really looking through all the history on this, again I think this one is different. I think in 1981 before this ordinance was put in place, this neighborhood in effect did have a permit. I've looked very closely at the permit and the closest thing that I can see that relates to boats is no mooring buoys shall be placed upon Outlot A. There is not any more specific reference than that that I can find. Something that even resembles an issue of a boat. Likewise look very specifically back at the Planning Commission Minutes from 1980 and those Minutes I think have kind of a key word in it and that is where it talks about, it says here Mr. Merz stated that the Covenants appear to be in order although they do not specifically talk about overnight parking, overnight storage of boats or erecting structures. However it was explained that any, and I'll underline this word chances requesting any of the above would be required to go, or to undergo a public hearing for conditional use permit. And what really starts to tear me at that point is you have a neighborhood here who thinks they have a valid permit and you know the right to put 8 or 10 or whatever number of boats there was down there, and the reason they need to come into the city is if there's a change. And they've never changed so I mean I think they've been operating down there on that basis for all these years and maybe we've been kind of derelict or neglectful of our duties but if we haven't called them on it for 12 years, I think it's kind of hard now to come back after 12 years and say, you've been doing a no no for 12 years. Especially when you look back at this type of wording in the document. To me if there was a problem we should have 15 1 i 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 • been enforcing it a long time ago. Not now in 1993. I look back and I say, I think the documents could have been a lot tighter. I think they probably should have been a lot tighter. I look at all the Minutes and again the issue of the number of boats I don't ever see referenced anywhere. I live on Lotus Lake now. I happen to feel the lake's kind of a natural resource for the community. I'd like to see as many people in the community who want to use it, use it. I'm going to have to say, I've even used Lotus Lake I think most of my life. As well as Christmas Lake and I can't remember exactly what was down there in 1981, even though I probably used the lake frequently then. I remember there were a number of spots around the lake that had a fair number of boats docked there but that's the best I can remember. I think, I talked with the neighborhood and I talked with the Association and in fact, you know basically they have records at least going back to 1986 showing the people and the use up to that level. At the same time I guess I wish they would have kept better records further back but I guess I wish the City did too. So I guess anyway I look at it, I keep coming back to a not so clear answer and I think in this particular case given the agreements, given the language and I think the key point here is given the agreement. I walk away and I think if we don't, how would I say this. I get bothered by the fact that I don't think the neighborhood association really has to be here. I get bothered by the fact that I think they have an agreement dated in 1981 with the City which doesn't specify a number of boats. I think they could very clearly be taking 11 a position far more, be counter productive than the one they are taking. It seems to me that if the neighborhood is willing to agree to 8 boats, I think given the documentation, given the circumstances, I think we ought to agree to the 8 boats and run to the bank with it so to speak because it seems to me we're getting a good limitation that we don't have now. And I think that the contention could be made that we don't. So I think we ought to go with that. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Colleen. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: In the 5 or 6 of these, 4 or 5, I don't recall, that we've dealt with this year, we've always tried to be consistent with our prior decisions. However, in looking at this one it is different because there is a non - conforming permit and basically it just doesn't deal with the issue. I'm going to go with the 8, not because of Mr. Whitehill's issue of mooring or storage. I think that's just semantics and does absolutely not address permits. Not because there's 100 foot dock, because the City survey says it was 35 feet. But more because we have been, we have tried to be fairly ' liberal with these with the understanding people's rights to use the lake. Somewhat because the validity of the city survey is in question and they have been in all of these. We've relied on them when there was a lack of evidence to the contrary but I think in this case there is evidence to the contrary. Because you did have a permit and you were acting under the understanding that your permit was valid and that you did have the right to store as many boats I believe as you thought would fit. When you get to the affidavits, that's a tough issue. You like to think that people, when they sign a sworn affidavit, they you know, memories get twisted, etc but I do believe that at Colonial Grove Association members probably do have a little bit better memory of it, albeit it's probably a little bit biased. But for those reasons and for the ones that Mark iterated, I believe 8 is fair. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Richard. Councilman Wing: Can you address this permit issue? You know we're talking about they had a non - conforming permit and it doesn't address numbers of boats. What does any of this got to do with the '81 useage? 16 1 ' 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Y 9 9 Roger Knutson: That non- conformin use permit they received, they received prior to the enactment of the 1981, 1981 or '82 recreational beachlot ordinance. The current ordinance was not in effect... Under what basis it was issued, the City in fact was looking, we don't know. But it's relevant to the extent it documents what was there in 1981, and only to that extent. Obviously the Planning Commission and Council at that time looked at the issue . and said, here's what you've got. We're registering your non - conforming use but for whatever reason they didn't mention boats. Well when the 1981 ordinance regulating recreational beachlots was passed, that became a very important issue because it limited the number of boats you could have. So what you do, you have the non - conforming use permit that tells you, answers quite a few questions but you have a big blank as far as that permit goes. As far as how many boats were there in 1981. From looking at it, you can't tell whether there was one boat. I can't anyway, 1 boat there or 100 boats by looking at that document. So you have to look at people's memories or whatever other evidence they can come up with as to what was there in 1981. Again, it comes back to the same issue. With the agreement or not agreement, what was there in '81. Councilman Wing: That's why I lost my compatrients point here where they're talking about this being different than the others. I'm granting that they had a non - conforming use permit and I'm going to say allowed the use of boats. I don't have an issue with that so let's go back to the number of boats that was there in 1981, because there is nothing different. They had permission.to use boats. So I have 5 affidavits here that say they had 8 and I have 5 over here that said they had 3. And those people aren't just up on Horseshoe Curve, or any one group. They're scattered around the lake. In fact one of them is real close to the Association. In fact one of them that was signed by, I'm not going to get into that. I guess I have information where the "- affidavits aren't totally accurate, at least coming from Colonial Grove. Considering a neighbor that was concerned about his signature on this and the fact that he wasn't comfortable with it. So we get back to what was there. The Planning Commission went over this twice. Not once and in both times the majority of that group voted 3 boats. And two of those votes were over the . issue of affidavits. They did not have offsetting affidavits at that time so I'm not going to rely on that issue. So I'm trying to decide here,in fairness to all these other 13 we've done, what was there in 1981. That's all I care about. It's irrelevant of property values or whether there was a permit or non - conforming permit or whether you had boat use or not. Obviously you had boats there so I'm going to grant you that. I'm trying to be fair here with the other 13 and decide what was there. During the summer of 1981 the affidavits claim that there was 8. Other affidavits claimed it was never more than 3. And what compells me to favor those is the fact that the Association,. Lotus Lake Homeowners Association in fact had a complaint that year reporting a violation of the subdivision. Well, even if I assume they had the right to have those boats there, it still claims that there were 3 boats that were in question, and 2 or 3 boats continued to be present at various times that summer. No one has come forward tonight, or at any Planning Commission meeting and justified any more than 3, and there's all sorts of documentation here saying there was 2 or 3 boats there so I won't question that. But other than the affidavits from this side, which are offset by this side, who both seem to be real familiar with the lake. All were there in 1981. Some of them again are neighbors. 3 boats comes up. 2 to 3 boats so it seems to me the Planning Commission allowing 3 boats was somewhat of a compromise and I think was reasonably fair. And I cannot find any documentation for more than that number of boats. I also get concerned that by permitting any boats there with the 25 foot beachlot, and then applying our dock setback ordinance which takes 10 feet off each side automatically for all neighbors, that leaves 10 from 20 that leaves 5 feet to work with for a dock. Well that's access for swimming 17 , 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1 and other issues but when you start adding boat lifts and docks to that, now you're in the dock setback zone and we have not allowed anyone else to have 11 that violation. But in this case, to impose that ordinance we'd in fact take your use away so that's not going to work. The other issue I wanted to ask about was this dock length. There's mention of a 100 foot dock but yet all these surveys talk 35 feet. '81, '86 right on through. Why are we approving I 100 foot dock if they've never had more than 35? Haven't they lost that right? Roger Knutson: I believe they say they have 100 foot dock there now. Councilman Wing: Is that correct? Resident: Yeah. Councilman Wing: The permit says 100 foot dock. What's there is 35. And what's the actual use this summer? What have you noted this summer as the actual use? I haven't checked it. Kate Aanenson: I haven't checked it this summer. Councilman Wing: Okay. So I guess I'm going to support the Planning 11 Commission's recommendation because I think they listened to this through two meetings and I think that the 3 boats was a reasonable compromise. It doesn't issue, argue the issue of permits or boats. It only tries to address what was there in '83 and the, or '81 and the preponderance of the, sitting here as a jury member of the covenants says that there was no more than 3 boats. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. A lot of pros and cons to the issues. We're debating this right now and some of the things that I have said at other association meetings that we've had here is that that buyer beware situation. When homes were being sold by real estate people, it often times enhances a position by them to say you have boat right ability and utilization of that property. And some of it's true. I look at it from the standpoint of the Association's the pull together these specific lots was the intent I think ' really behind it as a swimming beach. Period. And it has grown from that part a little more and a little more and a little more. I know under my own circumstance when I bought my home, I was told that we had rights to Lake Ann with a park that we had and it was told that was an association park. Well, I didn't do as I should have done, is gone to City Hall to find out if that was really true. But I was told it was and I believed the real estate agent. And after finding out the city owns that piece of land. It is not an association piece. It's owned by the City and I even had the City pull out the affidavit 1 showing that they were really the owners, and they were. Going back to, and just a little side step of the story which pertained to me, myself. In going back to what I'm looking at now. In some of the permit issued, that has been issued, and with also a condition of a permit for two canoe racks to be on that parcel. I still am leaning toward the position of Planning Commission's decision as to the 3 boats. And I know if it goes to a vote here it's going to be a 2 to 2 tie and we're lacking one individual as well. But I have also thought there is some difference in what has transpired here as opposed to some of the others. From a consistent standpoint as to how we have concluded some of our decisions. I think that I'm still leaning towards the 3 boats and also the 2 canoe racks that were on that parcel at that time. Even though it indicates that it's 100 feet, of the permit that was issued, by everything that I see here and Dick has mentioned this already, it's a reiteration of it. Is that there has been in 1981, one seasonal dock 35 feet. In 1986, 35 feet and in 1991, 35 feet. 11 18 1 If City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 f Residents: No, that's not true... Mayor Chmiel: What's the length of the dock that's out there right now? Is it 100 feet now? Cliff Whitehill: I think the aerial survey will... Mayor Chmiel: So there seems to be some kind of discrepancy within it. But I think that all the things back and forth has been held and discussed and I still see that, well let me just hold my vote until I make my decision. And I've thought about this long and hard and I've looked at all the pros and cons • to the issues as I've said before. But I still think that there are some, and it's sort of amazing. 3 to 8 is quite a difference from what there was to what other people are saying as well. And it depends upon what day you're really looking at. I think you brought that up before. What day it was. So with that I would ask for a motion in regard to this, both Lotus Lake Recreational Beachlot. Councilman Senn: I have a question first Don I'd like to ask, if I could. Mayor Chmiel: And I was going to say, we're going to have discussion with it as well. Go ahead. Councilman Senn: For the attorney. I look at this and we have an agreement, it seems to me, with the Association dated 1981 before the ordinance okay. Picking one of the things that the agreement is very specific about, which is the length of the dock being 100 feet okay. This document's then recorded. Okay, through that Association's documents with each property, okay. How can the city simply pass a new ordinance and say it's changing that dock length? Changing that agreement and not even inform the people that they're doing, specifically. I'm not talking about general public notice. I'm talking about an agreement here. Not a general ordinance. I mean it seems to me at that point the burden of proof so to speak is on the city somehow. If it's going to change an agreement it negotiated and signed, it needs to specifically go back and either renegotiate it, reopen it or do something, especially when it's recorded against the properties. And I take that issue and I just follow it through and I say, hey this is one of the poorest things I've ever seen. I mean I can't help the fact that it's poor but I keep coming back to that nagging question that says to me, you know geez. Now can we mess with this agreement? Roger Knutson: I think this agreement, and I was not around in 1981 when this was done so I wasn't here. I have no personal knowledge of how they reached these conclusions. I don't even know why they had it. There was no recreational beachlot ordinance at that time. There was a recreation ordinance of some sort. After this thing was passed, the current ordinance, the current version of the ordinance came into play. This is excellent evidence of what people thought was there in 1981. I think obviously you'll decide what weigh that should get. The boat issue wasn't addressed as far as I can tell. Why it wasn't addressed, it's a preety obvious issue, why it wasn't, I don't know. I think when the new ordinance went into effect in 1981 it created new rules. This helps you to decide what the baseline is and what was there except for the one issue, which you saw tonight. The number of boats that can be there overnight on the docks. From the discussion it obviously was something that was on people's minds. It was discussed for a moment at least in the Planning Commission meeting back then. They didn't tell us what the answer is. I think obviously that's your task under our new ordinance is to fill in that blank. How many boats were there. 19 1 I i 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 11 Councilman Senn: Okay, well. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Wing: I want to ask Mark how we've violated this agreement. The agreement doesn't address the number of boats. It didn't say they could have 20 or 5 or 3 or none. What have we done to violate this agreement? Other than trying to enforce the ordinance that came in in 1981, which we've done pretty consistently. And that was done. ' Councilman Senn: Well if you enforce the ordinance Dick, as it came in in 1981, you're in violation of this agreement because according to that they're only allowed to have a 35 foot dock. It's right here in black and white. Yet we have an agreement...separate the issues here and likewise this agreement is I silent on the number of boats. Which means they aren't bound by our ordinance as far as I'm concerned. They have an agreement here with us that doesn't bind them. Councilman Wing: So they can have any number of boats they want to. Councilman Senn: But to me they're coming in and saying, we'll settle on 8. To me that's a heck of a compromise. Like I said before, we ought to grab it 11 and run because I think there's some real open ended, I mean legal issues here. Lf one attorney can stand on one side and tell us for sure this is what the Court's going to decide, but I've never heard somebody do that yet. I mean that sounds wonderful but this is one of those ones to me that seems like it's real ripe for litigation and somebody's going to go in and split the baby. And the agreement just has a big hole in it and I don't think that's something we blame on the neighborhood. I think at this point we have to say hey, we made a mistake. Okay. So let's swallow our mistake. Let's agree to I something that the neighborhood seems to be willing to go with and let's get out of the deal without getting into a buncy of litigation and everything else. That's the way I look at it. Roger Knutson: I mean after the fact I think we certainly have the right to enact ordinances regulating the number of boats that can come in. For example, if they had no boats there in 1981...and they come in 3 years later and say, you can't have any. You have the right, subsequent Councils have the right to make changes from what prior Councils have done. To enact new ' ordinances. Making things more restrictive. Councilman Senn: We can't change written agreements with people. I mean I want to make that clear. At least that's everything I've ever understood. We can change ordinances but we can't change agreements. Contracts. Roger Knutson: It depends on what you mean by, if you want to get into... ' Councilman Senn: I'm just asking the question. Roger Knutson: That's not 100% true. Planned Unit Development Agreement, signed off by both sides, simple example. It's a zoning document. Can subsequent Councils change that, yes. By amending the zoning. Absolutely. Councilman Senn: Interesting. ' Councilman Wing: We could go back on the history of this thing. Why it started in the first place and the abuses that occurred that created this lake study committee in 1980, 1979 - 1980 -1981. Then we could get into why we had to go to the permit process to begin with and that was battle after battle. 20 1 11` - 1 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1 There are court cases that have been lost for tens of thousands of dollars over one boat on Lake Minnewashta. We went to this permit process, and to say the public wasn't advised. There were public hearings back then and this group was included as much as any other group. And lake owners were included. This ordinance was enacted after heavy public input and I can assure you it was heavy public input because everybody wanted their little piece. In 1991 we had to face the issue that these, some of the beachlots, and even lake owners themselves, were just taking whatever they wanted to do and running with it and we were forced into a permit process out of outright battles. The number of complaints got so high the City Council had to react. So we're going through the permit process. And then after heavy public input, and numerous public hearings where these chambers were filled with lake owners, non lake owners, interested parties, we as a Council and Planning Commission unanimously agreed to go with the 1981 boat counts. Non - conforming. Conforming. Written this. Written that. I think that that ordinance superseded those, is that not correct, when we decided to go with the 1981 boat count under that ordinance. • Roger Knutson: What we basically said is that in 1981 when the ordinance was, the recreational beachlot ordinance was enacted, if you didn't meet those standards as of that date, you were non - conforming and as a non - conforming use you did not have the right to expand. So what we decided to do a couple of years ago, we had constant complaints, is to register what you had there in 1981. So when someone comes in and says over this recreational beachlot they're doing so and so and that's expansion, they shouldn't be doing that. We can look at our files and say, oh. They're okay or they're not okay and then we can go after them or say there's no issue. Councilman Wing: So I don't have any interest in taking away their boats, nor taking away their use. I just don't feel it's fair for me to sit here after 13 of these where we have impacted associations, and do anything other than what was there in 1981 and it does not affect their agreement, written or verbal or handshake or anything else. It's simply we have an ordinance in . 1981 that counted boats. Now if they can show that they had 10 boats, Minnewashta Heights came in and had an incredible number of boats documented. We couldn't argue with it. Got it hands down but anyone else that didn't have full documentation, we went with these counts because it's the best we could do and the burden of proof is not on us. I'll disagree with that. The burden of proof is the people coming in and the burden of proof presented to me, and the only reason I went with 3 boats versus 8 is that the burden of proof was 3. And I'm not going to belabor and argue this point. We can go all night on this. I think maybe we should just call it. I'd love to compromise on this. Maybe split it but we can't do that. That is not the question, or I would certainly suggest we do that. Maybe come to grips on this issue. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And yet in my opinion it's not as cut and dried as that. I mean we've been very consistent with the prior ones and we've said I'm sorry people. I know your real estate agent told you this and I've upheld those decisions but in this one it's my opinion that it is different because they've been given a document from the city stating the use. And I think they have more of a footing to stand on. So I can't be so cut and dried on this and I would like to compromise if we could, because I think if any case, this is one to do it on. Councilman Senn: Well whether they go 3 or 8, it's not going to be the end of the world and history isn't even going to note this but I guess I have to know, they're different and they have an agreement. How many boats did that agreement allow them? 1 21 1 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, it didn't allow any but it did infer that they could have as many boats as would fit on a 100 foot dock. Roger Knutson: To just point out on that. Then subsequent to this permit being issue, an ordinance was enacted which limited the number of boats that they could have. The basic concept is that you can't, this City Council, and no other City Council, can contract away your zoning powers. I mean if for an example, and I'll make an absurb example. They said you could build a glue factory on here and this was all signed up. And the next day or the next year the Council changed it's mind to rezone the property, they couldn't do it unless they'd already started building it regardless of what that document said. 1 Resident: We already had the dock. Mayor Chmiel: Please, hold it down. Thank you. Councilman Senn: But we do, let me understand. I guess one quick question and that is, we do have a non - conforming use permit on this property now, correct? Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Roger Knutson: Yes, but it's non - conforming use permit under the existing ordinance. Councilman Senn: I understand. I understand. Okay, but in every other respect it pretty much deals with or meets the issues of the ordinance, okay? I mean I guess what I'd like to do is just simply, I guess to get it off center. I'd like to move that we amend the existing non - conforming use permit with the neighborhood's agreement to enter an additional item and clarification that no more than 8 boats would be allowed at the dock. Docked or moored or whatever the best legal terminology is. Roger Knutson: Tied up to the dock. Councilman Senn: Tied to the dock. Overnight, right? Is that the way to do ' it? Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? I'll call a question. Would you like to make, who would like to make a motion? on Ashworth: Was there a second on the motion? Roger Knutson: No. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought Mark did. Councilman Senn: Just did. 11 Mayor Chmiel: No, it's not a motion as yet. You have some clarifications? Roger Knutson: I thought Mark just. Councilman Senn: I just moved. Mayor Chmiel: No, no, no. Yeah, you moved that but there was other discussions that were still on. And you are making. I asked for a motion to 22 1 r City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 be made. I called for that now so if you'd like to reiterate that, you may do so. 1 Councilman Senn: Whatever I just said, right. Mayor Chmiel: You amend the non - conforming. Councilman Senn: I'd like to move that we amend the non - conforming use permit beachlot for Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake 2nd Addition, with concurrence of the neighborhood to include an additional provision which limits the number of boats to be tied to the dock overnight to be 8. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? If not I'll call the question. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Non- Conforming Use Permit for Colonial Grove Homeowners Association Recreational Beachlot with an amendment to their agreement which limits the number of boats which can be tied to the dock overnight to eight (8). All voted in favor, except Councilman Wing who was silent, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilman Wing: Can I get one clarification item? What about our dock setback ordinance that we've been so rigid on? It would appear to me that this dock and these boats can't possibly comply with that. We've granted them li the authority to operate the site, is that correct? Roger Knutson: Since they, you said it very well. If the existing dock can comply, we require compliance but in this situation since it would not be possible to comply without taking out the dock, we cannot require compliance. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, does that clarify your question? Councilman Wing: Yes sir. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good. Councilman Senn: What was the vote? 1 Mayor Chmiel: It was vote 3 with a no vote which would mean it's a yes vote. Thank you. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 4.47 ACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 7500 FRONTIER TRAIL, LOTUS LAKE WOODS, LEANNA FORCIER AND =BERT V. FORCIER. Sharmin Al -Jaff: This is a very simple subdivision. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 4.47 acres into 7 single family lots. Currently there is an existing single family home on the site. This residence will be either demolished or used for practice by the Fire Department. 3 of the parcels will be serviced by an extension of Del Rio Drive. It will be cul-de-saced. The other 4 parcels will be serviced off of Frontier Trail. There will be ponds built up to NURP standards. Those ponds will not only service the subdivision. However, it will also help retain the water from the surrounding area before it flushes out into Lotus Lake. So it will definitely improve the quality of Lotus Lake. The site is heavily wooded. It is a fairly young forest and staff requested a preservation easement over what is highlighted right now in red. And the applicant has shown this preservation easement on the plan. The 23 1 1 1 Li- C ITYOF i i 1 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 II MEMORANDUM Action by 0111 AMMON ft TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Endors ed. 7)14 Modified FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner O` Rejected DetP gS - 3 Date Submitted to Commission 1 DATE: July 12, 1993 pate S to C o u ncil SUBJ: Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Recreational Bachlot F -- G.__ S 1 BACKGROUND I This item appeared before the Planning Commission on June 2, 1993. The Association has asked that the Planning Commission reconsider this issue for the following reasons: no one 1 representing the association was at the meeting; Mr. Whitehill, who is representing the Association, stated that he did not receive his packet until the Thursday after the Planning Commission meeting; and finally, staff was in error stating the association was requesting nine 1 (9) boats. The association is in fact requesting eight (8) boats. In light of these concerns, staff concurs that this item should be revisited by the Planning I Commission. The process that the City Council set out for the non - conforming use permit is that the Association have a representative who submits the application and keeps the Association informed of the meeting. To ensure communication between the Association and the city, staff I has notified the entire Colonial Grove Association of the Planning Commission meeting. I At the June 2, 1993, meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of three (3) boats to be stored at the dock overnight. This recommendation was made based on the information that was given in the 1981 survey of the beachlot. Again, staff has always stated that this survey is I based on one day during the summer of 1981 and may not be a true representation of the level of use for the beachlot. Staff has requested that the associations supply any documentation that can provide better information as to the level of use during the summer of 1981. I Mr. Whitehill has supplied staff with five (5) affidavits. These affidavits state that the person is familiar with the dock and the number of boats that were moored at the dock during the I summer of 1981 and for most years subsequent. They believe, to the best of their knowledge, that the number of boats in the summer of 1981 at the dock was eight (8) and in subsequent years, the number of boats generally ranged from seven to nine. 1 Is to, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Planning Commission 1 July 12, 1993 Page 2 Colonial Grove was first approved in 1956. Additional phases were approved in 1979 and 1980. There are approximately 73 homes in both additions of Colonial Grove. A non - conforming use • permit for the Lotus Lake Betterment Association (the Colonial Grove beachlot) was approved ' by the city in June of 1981. This non - conforming use permit gives the terms and conditions for the level of use for the beachlot (please see attached non - conforming use permit). The non-conforming permit issued in 1981 omits the use of boats being docked overnight. gP g g Staff's interpretation of the permit is that no boats are allowed to be docked overnight. The association is stating that they have been grandfathered the right to dock boats overnight. The non - conforming use permit was amended in 1984 to allow for 2 canoes rack to be located at the beachlot. The only issue staff is asking the consideration or interpretation of is the number of 1 boats that can be docked overnight. In 1981 when staff surveyed this beachlot, it was noted that there were 3 boats at the dock and 3 boats on land. The association has included the minutes from an association meeting in April of 1984 that states the number of boats approved was nine. The inventory by staff in 1986 showed 3 speed boats at the dock as well as 3 jet skis on the dock. The non - conforming use permit specifically addresses the following: 1. A one hundred foot dock; 2. Permits swimming, tennis and picnicking; 3. No buildings can be erected; 4. No boats are to be moored; 5. No airplanes are to be moored; 6. No swimming platform is permitted; 7. Camping and motor vehicle parking is prohibited. 1 Minutes from the Planning Commission and the City Council meetings regarding the intent of the non - conforming use permit regarding boats to be docked overnight is inconclusive. The Planning Commission minutes state that a conditional use permit would be required to dock boats overnight. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On Wednesday July 21, 1993, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Colonial ' Grove Non - Conforming Beachlot. The Planning Commission heard from members of the Colonial Grove Association and lake area residents. A petition from the Lotus Lake Homeowners was submitted. These petitioners support the survey presenting by the Lake Study in 1981. The Planning Commission recommended 3 boats to be docked overnight. 1 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission July 12, 1993 Page 3 I SUMMARY 1 The association is requesting the approval of eight (8) boats to be docked overnight at the beachiot. 1 ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Cliff Whitehill dated March 2, 1993. 1 2. Five (5) Affidavits. 3. Non - Conforming Use Permit. 4. Conditional Use Permit #84 -2. 1 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated June 2, 1993. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I A / J • � ie , t , -0 A t.1Ji I � r 40 .a' `� ( ,�: ;. :flip ri nd •a� /� �\ � I 4. 11. ‘. t i . I, Oleg Atrge 4 , ; M id a 1'� ■ yiE.,911., .11 t.1 .7 �► , rfill ��.. asp.'. 0 , . R N:„' :• - ✓1 �i AO.- _ � �— .; �.•. ttoa al= ► ► • � ��A, . � .._ ; � S.. � �/ ., "1; i � � \ a j :,y i 0y 11 1, a• � � l i 1 � s y 4'y "1• aIt-V b� j; x Imo . •., n r I _ v k l. - • . ' a IT •i i V 1 I \ / . •�y� 1 /, .. 1 i z nou � - ' \i, l=A* j . _ / ��,- .j r,` ■,� • ' \ - �itN. , 1 !1u ■I ~ 1 0 1∎ �i i■ ■ 1 r"� r �� /--- -8`Tn� .I�2 • __... -� Ah ` :�0 Blum C� ■mir= 1. -��:r 21,` _ = 4 a �i O , ∎ 4 % % -- `� , aiis ` 1 1/41r,ruillit' r r: i ii • .. ft ; :min �\\ L� 1 h _ = C � � :Mimi #1, s 4 Et? h t n■ a ,Y,.-p fr., Aviilloonoto ... , 11 " ..• ♦ ♦ I, l ■ ii te • e p ' +• I& 4 -*- < ( 6 1 ''1S 1 1 \ k M ' � '� / /���~ rM ►� ('te - a ` �� / , / t ' , 1� �■ 1 a j ° II _� �e� ,� - �i� • ��,�!:T �= N OF J \ _ ': •L�1�(. NM ' - '4 ' //111 - 111 IIIT�L rii1 � _ I_•_i /f�R(�fi• -- � • _ � s %I•�r:C.. + 1 1 OF I, !AI i ll D pRAIRII 1 \ •a-& P1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I • 0 19... \ '' ,..,,,,, ;2 0 - . ' �� \ \ r N O u W ' O 1 1+ ■ iN ss .. — ' , . :-_ . .!'i m - g . " 4 . 0 , ' .. - Ps. a i .,_ 0 . _ ... .(..., , ... .. . _ cr., iiiii ,,,,,, .„,................... . .. ., 0 , „ 0. ��� • Op d 9 I - N O{ i ay 11 , / ���� 2 d m 1`, t its I, I 1. . i p. _Vit .... , > -31.1143.A-11060 �1 0 ,, n o • r N � II O O fu 0 ____.----- -0- 4 . r w N rn . s `• ,.i m Az �' 2i N 1A0‘1 % s poi m allir P 7147:11:. r • : o • ' n a0� 'O fi A i • o Xi i dal 0 I= r. RI lip C A N N f t• : x� d s o B R E m d L � • . A Q • �d 1p w ti •I Io so ' ` b w 1. g �n o- N 0. - -- -... ... 101 ... =_ - ... 35, 12 g P1 g •• CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE II 11 RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 1 Colonial Grove 44 homes I Lotus Lake 2 acres 1 25' of shoreline Motor Vehicle Access yes yes yes II Off- Street Parking yes yes yes Boat Launch no no no I Permanent Buildings no no no Setbacks II Temporary Buildings no no no Portable Restroom no no no II Picnic Tables no no 1 Grills /Campfires no no no I Seasonal Docks 1 35' 1 35' 1 35' Approximate Length II Canoe Racks no 1 6 1 6 spaces spaces Boats on Land 3 7 9 II Boats Moored no no no Boats Docked 3 . 3 4 II Swimming Beach yes no no Marker Bouys no no no II Swimming Raft no no no Comments: well tennis II maint. court sandy basketba beach 11 the II tennis entire court lot fenced II II II • - - 12 II RECREATIONAL BEACH LOT SURVEY EXISTING CONDITIONS II Date: ._ 'Z , ,i1), Name of Home Owners Association: atS\AA4 6. Number of wxllin Units: T` il g its: Lake: tA4 . 1 Approximate Size of Beach Lot: ■ Q. ( i'' Width of Lot at Shoreline: t II Motor Vehicle Access: Yes: No: Off - Street Parking Area: Yes: ✓ No: II Approx. Size of Parking Area: 15 et tw,, II Boat Launch: Yes: No: Permanent Buildings: 14.0A 1 Setback from Lake: "'-- -- Temporary Buildings: M6AQ I Portable Restrooms: Yes: No: V II Picnic Tables: (NOAQ Grills /Campfire Sites: NW. 1 Permanent Docks: :L Approximate Length: 35- I Seasonal Docks: NAM/. II Approximate Length: Canoe Racks: fv II (# of spaces) # of Boats Stored on Land: 3 li # of Boats Moored at Buoys: WW2_ # of Boats Moored at Docks: 3 II II II W S imming Beach: Yes: No: Marker Buoys: Yes: No: V Swimming Raft: Yes: No: Approximate Size: Comments: lea DAlA I A ` 0 I tit k „..d.,4 • �eQC 11 A- tk. • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -A-Hod men-I # 1 I 1 GENERAL MILLS, INC. • EXECUTIVE OFFICES Number One General Mills Boulevard • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 ( C.L. WHITEHILL 1 1 March 2, 1993 senior Vice President General Counsel and Secretary Tel (612) 540 - 3862 Fax (612) 540 -3778 Kathryn R. Aanenson Senior Planner 1 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive I Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Aanenson: 1 This letter is m reply to yours of September 18, 1992, as well as the subsequent discussions that we have had on the subject of the Non- 1 Conforming Use Permit, Beach Lot - Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake and Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition dated the 15th day of June, 1981. Accordingly, please accept this letter as a request to the City of Chanhassen 1 for an amendment or expansion of Section 2.11 of the referenced Non - Conforming Use Permit to read as follows: I 2.11 Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for (a) the existing "T" dock of 100 feet at which not more than eight pleasure boats may be I moored; (b) two canoe racks, each designed to hold six canoes; (c) t the existing chain link boundary fence; and (d) the existing fence on three sides of the tennis courts; no other structure shall be I t t constructed or erected on Outlot A or in the waters abutting Outlot A. ( The preceding request for the amendment or modification to the referenced 1 ( ( Non - Conforming Use Permit is made on the basis that the present use of the dock, the canoe racks, and fences are all in accordance with the existing use I and structures which have been on this outlot for approximately the past 10 years or, as to the canoe racks, is covered by a subsequent Conditional Use Permit. 1 I Meiling Address. P. 0. Box 1113, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 1 1 1 Kathryn R. Aanenson March 2, 1993 Page 2 1 C C ' Attached hereto as further support of t he reque amendment C modification are (1) an excerpt from prev minutes of sted the Lot e L ake 4 Betterment Association noting nine in divi d ua l boats to be moore en a the or "common dock," and (2) the letter of the City of Chanhassen dated April 23, 1984 approving the two canoe racks. 1 Your attention to this matter will be sincerely appreciated. If it is recommended that representatives from the Colonial Grove Addition appear at any public hearings on this matter, we will be most pleased to be present. Yours truly, 4 1 CLW /do 1 [ 1 1 1 1 1 GENERAL MILLS, INC. • EXECUTIVE OFFICES Number One General Mills Boulevard • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 June 24, 1993 C.L. WHITEHILL Senior Vice President , l General Counsel and Secretary 111 Tel (612) 540 -3862 t Kathryn R. Aanenson FAX (612) 540 -4480 C Senior Planner t t 4 City of Chanhassen Q 690 Coulter Drive �- 4 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Aanenson: Under cover of this letter are four Affidavits concerning the use of the Beach Lot at Lotus Lake during 1981 and thereafter. The Affidavits, including my own, are from persons who served as President of the Association and therefore are completely familiar with the background and history of the use of the Lot and the intent of the Use Permit granted by the City in 1981. I • It will be appreciated if you will add this letter and the attached Affidavits 1 - together with my letter of March 2, 1993 for a rehearing by the Planning Commission. It is clear from the minutes of the meeting on June 2, 1993 that substantive misinformation was received by the Planning Commission, which obviously was prejudicial to their determination. Hopefully, with these Affidavits and by personal discussion at the next meeting of the Planning Commission we can achieve the intent of the application for clarification of the 1981 Use Permit. In this regard, I would appreciate adequate ade uate advance notice when this C. 4 matter will again be on the agenda of the Planning Commission. C r t Yours truly, g gr( CLW /do 1. 3 ``iTV y r Mailing Acdress P. O. Boa 1113, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 1 1 1 GENERAL MILLS, INC. • EXECUTIVE OFFICES i Number One General Mills Boulevard • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 CI • ( C.L. WHITEH1LL l Senior Vice President D t General Counsel and Secretary ® I July 2, 1993 Tel (612) 540 -3862 0 ( Fax (612) 540 -3778 1 L . of C!- II I Kathryn R. Aanenson 1 ©(' Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Dear Ms. Aanenson: Further to my letter of June 24, 1993, enclosed please find a fifth 1 Affidavit concerning the Lotus Lake Beach Lot. Hope you have a most pleasant 4th. I Yours truly, 1 4 - t --- 2, ,z , /,, ,• . z . c -: .--,....._________,/ I CLW /do 1 Enclosure '_ Cr C(_ a( 1 r ( Ri_t eti t 1 1 I Mailing Address.P 0. Box 1113, Minneapolis,Minnesota 55440 1 1 1 AFFIDAVIT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION , AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN The undersigned person gives the following affidavit in support of the request to the City of Chanhassen for a clarification, amendment or expansion of Section 2.11 of a Non - Conforming Use Permit, Beach Lot in Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake and Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition dated the 15th day 111 of June, 1981, as follows : 2.11 Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for (a) the existing "T" dock of 1 100 feet at which not more than eight pleasure boats may be moored; (b) two canoe racks, each designed to hold six canoes; (c) the existing chain link , boundary fence; and (d) the existing fence on three sides of the tennis courts; no other structure shall be constructed or erected on Outlot A or in the waters abutting Outlot A. - 1. The undersigned is presently and was a resident of Colonial Grove in 1 the year 1981 and a member of the Association formed to govern and manage the use of the said Beach Lot. 111 2. In particular, the undersigned was familiar with the dock extending into Lotus Lake from the Beach Lot and the number of motor boats that were moored at the dock during 1981 and for most of the subsequent years until today's date. To the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief, in 1981 the number of motor boats moored at the dock was eight, and in subsequent years the number 1 of such boats generally ranged from seven to nine. This number of boats is consistent with the length of the dock, such dock being "T" shape in configuration, and thereby when the lake was at its normal level such dock was and is easily able to accommodate seven to nine such motor boats. 2. The being familiar with the practices and membership P of the Association, asserts that it would be extremely difficult to allocate and administer mooring spaces for less than eight motor boats among the residents of Colonial Grove and Colonial Grove additions who do not have a lot fronting on Lotus Lake. 1 1 1 3. The undersigned states that the dock is maintained in a safe and good appearance, and further that the undersigned does not know of any complaint during and since 1981 as to any resident of Colonial Grove, nor of any other resident on Lotus Lake, as to the maintenance, operation or any other matter relating to the said dock or any other use of the subject Beach Lot. 0 ' 1 Signatur 1 Address: 105 Saal�y Wm!, GNArIN R,53Ed hd 55311 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AF'F'IDAVIT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 The undersigned person gives the following affidavit in support of the 1 request to the City of Chanhassen for a clarification, amendment or expansion of Section 2.11 of a Non - Conforming Use Permit, Beach Lot in Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake and Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition dated the 15th day of June, 1981, as follows : 2.11 Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for (a) the existing "T" dock of 100 feet at which not more than eight pleasure boats may be moored; (b) two canoe racks, each designed to hold six canoes; (c) the existing chain link 111 boundary fence; and (d) the existing fence on three sides of the tennis courts; no other structure shall be constructed or erected on Outlot A or in the waters abutting Outlot A. 1. The undersigned is presently and was a resident of Colonial Grove in the year 1981 and a member of the Association formed to govern and manage the use of the said Beach Lot. 2. In particular, the undersigned was familiar with the dock extending into Lotus Lake from the Beach Lot and the number of motor boats that were 1 moored at the dock during 1981 and for most of the subsequent years until today's date. To the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief, in 1981 the number of motor boats moored at the dock was eight, and in subsequent years the number of such boats generally ranged from seven to nine. This number of boats is consistent with the length of the dock, such dock being "T" shape in configuraticn, and thereby when the lake was at its normal level such dock was and is easily able to accommodate seven to nine such motor boats. The undersigned, bin miliar 2. being familiar with the practices and membership of the Association, asserts that it would be extremely difficult to allocate and administer mooring spaces for less than eight motor boats among the residents of Colonial Grove and Colonial Grove additions who do not have a lot fronting on Lotus Lake. 1 • 1 1 1 1 3. The undersigned states that the dock is maintained in a safe and good appearance, and further that the undersigned does not know of any complaint during and since 1981 as to any resident of Colonial Grove, nor of any other resident on Lotus Lake, as to the maintenance, operation or any other matter relating to the said dock or any other use of the subject Beach Lot. G% ignature Address: P., 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AI'uDAVIT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN The undersigned person gives the following affidavit in support of the request to the City of Chanhassen for a clarification, amendment or expansion of Section 2.11 of a Non - Conforming Use Permit, Beach Lot in Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake and Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition dated the 15th day of June, 1981, as follows : 2.11 Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for (a) the existing "T" dock of 1 100 feet at which not more than eight pleasure boats may be moored; (b) two canoe racks, each designed to hold six canoes; (c) the existing chain link 1 boundary fence; and (d) the existing fence on three sides of the tennis courts; no other structure shall be constructed or erected on Outlot A or in the waters abutting Outlot A. 1 • 1. The undersigned is presently and was a resident of Colonial Grove in the year 1981 and a member of the Association formed to govern and manage the use of the said Beach Lot. 2. In articular, the undersigned was familiar with the dock extending P � g e g into Lotus Lake from the Beach Lot and the number of motor boats that were moored at the dock during 1981 and for most of the subsequent years until today's date. To the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief, in 1981 the number of motor boats moored at the dock was eight, and in subsequent years the number 1 of such boats generally ranged from seven to nine. This number of boats is consistent with the length of the dock, such dock being "T" shape in configuration, and thereby when the lake was at its normal level such dock was and is easily able to accommodate seven to nine such motor boats. 2. The undersigned, being familiar with the practices and membership of the Association, asserts that it would be extremely difficult to allocate and administer mooring spaces for less than eight motor boats among the residents of 1 Colonial Grove and Colonial Grove additions who do not have a lot fronting on Lotus Lake. 1 1 1 1 , . 1 3. The undersigned states that the dock is maintained in a safe and good appearance, and further that the undersigned does not know of any complaint 1 during and since 1981 as to any resident of Colonial Grove, nor of any other resident on Lotus Lake, as to the maintenance, operation or any other matter I relating to the said dock or any other use of the subject Beach Lot. 1 .1- ) 2_5 1 , / A. 1 Signature 1 Address: 7p e_ 1 a,....,,, i 174 "3/ 7 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 AFFIDAVIT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 The undersigned person gives the following affidavit in support of the I request to the City of Chanhassen for a clarification, amendment or expansion of Section 2.11 of a Non - Conforming Use Permit, Beach Lot in Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake and Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition dated the 15th day I of June, 1981, as follows : 2.11 Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for (a) the existing "T" dock of 1 100 feet at which not more than eight pleasure boats may be moored; (b) two canoe racks, each designed to hold six canoes; (c) the existing chain link 1 boundary fence; and (d) the existing fence on three sides of the tennis courts; no other structure shall be constructed or erected on Outlot A or in the waters abutting Outlot A. 1- 1. The undersigned is presently and was a resident of Colonial Grove in 1 the year 1981 and a member of the Association formed to govern and manage the use of the said Beach Lot. 1 2. In particular, the undersigned was familiar with the dock extending into Lotus Lake from the Beach Lot and the number of motor boats that were moored at the dock during 1981 and for most of the subsequent years until today's date. To the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief, in 1981 the number of motor boats moored at the dock was eight, and in subsequent years the number 1 of such boats generally ranged from seven to nine. This number of boats is consistent with the length of the dock, such dock being "T" shape in configuration, I and thereby when the lake was at its normal level such dock was and is easily able to accommodate seven to nine such motor boats. 2. The undersigned, being familiar with the practices and membership I P of the Association, asserts that it would be extremely difficult to allocate and administer mooring spaces for less than eight motor boats among the residents of 1 Colonial Grove and Colonial Grove additions who do not have a lot fronting on Lotus Lake. 1 1 1 1 3. The undersigned states that the dock is maintained in a safe and g ood appearance, and further that the undersigned does not know of any complaint during and since 1981 as to any resident of Colonial Grove, nor of any other resident on Lotus Lake, as to the maintenance, operation or any other matter relating to the said dock or any other use of the subject Beach Lot. J /1/ ignature 1 Address: 1 (424f 2, N ).4°3/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ali U1)AVIT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 The undersigned person gives the following affidavit in support of the request to the City of Chanhassen for a clarification, amendment or expansion of Section 2.11 of a Non - Conforming Use Permit, Beach Lot in Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake and Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition dated the 15th day of June, 1981, as follows : 2.11 Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for (a) the existing "T" dock of 1 100 feet at which not more than eight pleasure boats may be moored; (b) two canoe racks, each designed to hold six canoes; (c) the existing chain link boundary fence; and (d) the existing fence on three sides of the tennis courts; no other structure shall be constructed or erected on Outlot A or in the waters abutting Outlot A. 1 1. The undersigned is presently and was a resident of Colonial Grove in the year 1981 and a member of the Association formed to govern and manage the use of the said Beach Lot. 2. In particular, the undersigned was familiar with the dock extending 111 P g into Lotus Lake from the Beach Lot and the number of motor boats that were moored at the dock during 1981 and for most of the subsequent years until today's 1 date. To the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief, in 1981 the number of motor boats moored at the dock was eight, and in subsequent years the number of such boats generally ranged from seven to nine. This number of boats is consistent with the length of the dock, such dock being "T" shape in configuration, and thereby when the lake was at its normal level such dock was and is easily able 1 to accommodate seven to nine such motor boats. 2. The undersigned, being familiar with the practices and membership of the Association, asserts that it would be extremely difficult to allocate and administer mooring spaces for less than eight motor boats among the residents of 1 Colonial Grove and Colonial Grove additions who do not have a lot fronting on Lotus Lake. 1 1 1 1 3. The undersigned states that the dock is maintained in a safe and good appearance, and further that the undersigned does not know of any complaint during and since 1981 as to any resident of Colonial Grove, nor of any other resident on Lotus Lake, as to the maintenance, operation or any other matter relating to the said dock or any other use of the subject Beach Lot. 111 Signature Address: ■ C hu 4\Ss. -.) , ■1 1 1 1 1 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lotof Lahe tlomeowierJ' ffOidtiO, Inc. 1 ",.............,, .,,, , I , ......... .....„ 1 The Lotus Lake Homeowners' Association incorporated in 1981 because it was actively 1 involved in City issues effecting area lakes. Among the many issues being dealt with that year was the establishment of both the Shoreline Management Ordinance and the Beachlot 1 Ordinance. Also, early in June Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners requested boat mooring and docking privileges not previously granted to beachlot groups. Their request was denied in 111 October. During the summer leading up to that decision we were very concerned with any precedence in relation to beachlots. Consequently we were keenly alert to any infractions of the mooring regulations. 1 During that summer we observed two, and sometimes three, motorized boats moored in front of Colonial Grove's outlot. When we reported this violation to the subdivisions Association board, we were informed that two boats belonged to one of their Association's I . Lakeshore owners. This particular family had a wetland area in front of their home so their sons docked the boats at the common beach to make water skiing easier. Soon after our noti- fication of this problem the boats were removed but periodically reappeared. It is possible that the same two boats did not reappear, but two or three boats continued to 1 be present at various times that summer. To the best of our knowledge, and memories, the undersigned active members of the Lotus Lake Association support the findings in the survey presented by the Lake Study Committee in 1981. 1 Respectfully submitted, azu 1...e /793 Lotus Lake Homeowners (i et. (4 " Ult*--- Os� 9 ' 1 co-. ' '' 1 d(7,,,,,:efob ,4 / f , , , A / j fr y i , t 7 1 } 7 Z ce:,"..... „I h etr\ 61.8-7)14-1-t-"jk I pp, (.1114 . 4 , dicti15*--1 • -2- • no cash reserve. In light of that, the Board is proposing that I the present dues of $50 per household be raised to $100 per household beginning with this years dues. This will better defray costs and build a budget reserve for our more high cost items in the future. Better to pay a little more now, than big assessments downline! Unpaid and Delinquent Dues. The Board has unanimously agreed that households that owe back dues or who do not pay current ones, will not be welcome to use common Association facilities. Dues statements will be forthcoming and we would ask that you please pay I in full promptly so that the Association can better serve you. Bear in mind that whether or not you use the dock or use the tennis courts, having that valuable property available to you significantly II increases the overall value of your home. Many realtors value lake access at $10,000 alone. Boats and Canoes. Chuck Hirt and Chris Engel are in charge II of scheduling the dock for boat parking. As far as we know, the following families have boats to be parked at the common dock area - Hirt, Engel, Brown, Lewis, Booth, Blechta, Heer, Sorbo, Jamieson. If anyone else owns a boat that is not listed, please contact Chuck or Chris. We would like to have an accounting of who has canoes at the dock area. Canoe owners please contact Chuck or Chris ASAP. II Dock and Tennis Court Security. It is imperative that we keep the gate area locked, especially if you are the last to leave I the area. Please try to enforce this, and if you happen to drive by at night or early evening and see the gate open, please stop and lock it. We need to protect our area! There have been cases of minor vandalism, especially around the dock. We all need to pitch in on this! Children are welcome on the dock to fish, etc. However, we II the Association assume no liability for their safety and strongly encourage life jackets r the kids. The water is only four feet deep but the muck is also four feet deep, and a child would not be able to walk to shore!! Also, please advise your kids to absolutely stay out of, and off of the boats. We've had some problems in this area in the past. , 11 We need your help in asking our neighborhood rollerbladers and bicyclers to not skate or ride on the tennis courts. We understand that the surface is ideal for skating and riding, but the wear and tear II on the courts is significant and greatly increases our maintenance costs. Please pass this along to your kids. New Board President and Board Members. Chuck Hirt is vacating his position as Association President which he has held for the last six years. We thank Chuck for his years of service to us! The I Board has appointed Chris Engel to replace him as President. Presently there is one Board position open which will be filled at the annual meeting next month. The present Board consists of the following: 11 1 Rev.CMM /9 -23 -80 Allachri rrf 4 Z 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT BEACH LOT - COLONIAL GROVE AT LOTUS LAKE AND COLONIAL GROVE AT LOTUS LAKE SECOND ADDITION This permit and agreement, made and entered into this /S day of Zru #` , 19 9) , by and between Bloomberg Companies Incorporated, and Lotus Lake Betterment Association, Inc., (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Applicant), and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the City); WITNESSETH: That the City, in exercise of its powers 1 pursuant to M.S. Chapter 412 & 462, and the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, hereby grants to the Applicant herein a non - conforming use permit to maintain and operate a private neighborhood association 11 recreational area upon Outlot A, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition, Carver County, Minnesota (hereinafter Outlot A), subject to the following terms and conditions, all of which shall be strictly complied with as being necessary for the protection of the public interest: Section 1. Recitals. 1 1.01 Prior Platting of Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake. Prior to the adoption of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 47 adopted February 8, 1972), the plat of Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake (hereinafter the First Addition) was filed with the Carver County Minnesota Registrar of Titles. Said plat included two outlots designated thereon as Outlots 1 and 2. 1.02 Prior Usage of Outlot 1. Said Outlot 1 included frontage on Lotus Lake, and has, since the time of platting of the First Addition, been continuously used by the residents of the First Addition as a lake access, boat launching area, swimming beach, tennis and recreation area; and as such constitutes a "recreational area" operated by a residential neighborhood association for which a conditional use permit is required under section 7.04 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 1.03 Status of Outlot 1 as a Non - Conforming Use. Because the establishment of said recreational area pre -dates the adoption of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, said recreational area constitutes a non - conforming use, the expansion of which is prohibitied by section 20 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, unless a conditional use permit has been obtained first from the City for such expansion. 1.04 Platting of The Second Addition. Bloomberg, as the owner of Outlots 1 and 2 in the First Addition, has made application to I/ the City for the approval of the plat of Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition (hereinafter the Second Addition). By said 1 1 plat, Outlots 1 and 2 in the First Addition are divided, so as to create 31 new lots and one new outlot, designated as Outlot A. Said Outlot A encompasses that portion of the First Addition which has been and is now being utilized as the aforementioned recreational area. Bloomberg means Bloomberg Companies Incorporated. 1.05 Conveyance of Outlot A to Association. Bloomberg, as the owner of Outlot A, has informed the City that it has incorporated the Lotus Lake Betterment Association, Inc. (hereinafter the Association) as non - profit corporation to which Bloomberg will convey ownership of Outlot A. Bloomberg has informed the City that neither it nor the Association will make any alteration of said Outlot A, and that said Outlot A will be made available the residents of the First Addition, and the Second Addition, and to the residents of so- called John C. Lovetang tract (more particularly described in the documents filed in the office of the Carver County Recorder at Book 83, page 23, and Book 84, page 215). 1.06 Purpose of This Permit. The within permit has been drafted for the purpose of memorializing both those recreational uses which may be conducted by the Applicant upon Outlot A in the absence of the issuance of a conditional use permit and those activities which would constitute an expansion of the use of said Outlot A, and thus, require the Applicant to seek a conditional use permit from the City prior to any such expansion. Section 2. Special Conditions. 2.01 Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal to the Applicant and to the Association, and is not assignable or transferable except upon the written consent of the City. 2.02 Release of Bloomberg. The City, upon written request, shall release Bloomberg from its obligations hereunder upon receipt of documentation which demonstrates a) the proper incorporation of the Association pursuant to Chapter 317 of Minnesota Statutes, and b) the conveyance of title to the Subject Property in fee simple to the Association for the benefit of all owners of lots in the First Addition, the Second Addition, and the above described John C. Lovetang tract. No such release shall be given until such documentation has been approved by the City Attorney as to legal sufficiency. No such release as to Bloomberg shall have the effect 11 of releasing the Association from its obligations, covenants, and agreements hereunder. 11 2.03 Rights Under This Permit Not Expandable to Other Owners. This permit is issued for the benefit of the owners of the forty -one lots in the First Addition, the thirty -one lots in the Second Addition, and the one homesite in the above described John C. Lovetang tract. The Applicant agrees that the use and enjoyment of Outlot A shall be limited to said owners. The use and enjoyment of Outlot A may not extend to persons other than such owners. 11 The term "owners" as utilized in this §2.03 shall mean and refer to any natural person who is either a) the record owner of a fee simple interest, or b) the record owner of a contract for deed 11 vendee's interest, or c) the holder of any possessory leasehold -2- 11 Rev.CMM /9/23 -80 interest, in the whole of any such lot or tract, including authorized guests and family members of any such persons. In the event that the above described First Addition lots, Second 11 Addition lots, or John C. Lovetang tract are further divided subsequent to the date of this permit, the Association shall not extend usage rights to the owners of the resultant parcels unless a conditional use permit for a recreational area shall have been first obtained from the City Council. 2.04 Description of Property Subject to This Permit. The 1 premises subject to the within non - conforming use permit are described as follows: Outlot A, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County, Minnesota. 2.05 No Alteration of Outlot A. No portion of Outlot A shall be developed, altered, or disturbed in any way, except after first having obtained a conditional use permit from the Chanhassen City Council for any such development, alteration, or disturbance. II For th p poses of this permit, normal maintenance of the existing ONe ,u N foot dock and the existing tennis court and other existing improvements, normal maintenance and routine mowing of existing improved lawn areas on Outlot A shall not be deemed to be an alteration requiring issuance of a City permit. 2.06 Swimming and Picnicing. Outlot A may be used for tennis, swimming purposes and picnicing purposes by "owners" as that term is defined in section 2.03 above. • 2.07 Buildings. No buildings, ice fishing houses, tool 1 sheds, or tents may be erected or stored upon Outlot A. 2.08 Mooring Buoys. No mooring buoys shall be placed upon Outlot A or in the waters adjacent to Outlot A. 2.09 Airplanes. No airplane or seaplane shall be driven upon, taxied upon, or parked upon Outlot A. No seaplane shall be moored in the waters adjacent to Outlot A. 2.10 Swimming Platforms. Neither the Applicant nor any owner 1 as hereinabove defined shall erect or maintain any swimming or diving platform on Outlot A or within the waters adjacent to Outlot A. 1 2.11 Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for the construction of a chain link boundary fence not exceeding five feet in height, no structure may be constructed or erected upon Outlot A. No docks, piers, boat racks, or canoe racks shall be constructed or erected upon Outlot A or in the waters abutting Outlot A. 2.12 Camping Prohibited. No owner, as defined hereinabove, or II other person shall camp overnight on Outlot A. -3- 11 II 2.13 Motor Vehicle Parking. No motor vehicle or trailer shall be parked or stored overnight or on a permanent basis on Outlot A. II Section 3. Miscellaneous. II 3.01 Severability. In the event any provisions of this permit shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render II unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 3.02 Execution of Counterparts. This permit may be simultaneously I/ executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. II 3.03 Headings. Headings at the beginning of sections and paragraphs hereof are for convenience of reference, and shall not II be considered a part of the test of this permit, and shall not influence its construction. 3.04 Proof of Title. Upon request, the Association shall 11 furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has acquired fee title to Outlot A. II 3.05 Notices. All notices, certificates and other communications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, with proper address as indicated below. The City and the II Applicant, by written notice given by one to the other, may designate any address or addresses to which notices, certificates or other communications to them shall be sent when required as contemplated 11 by this permit. Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties, all notices, certificates, and communications to each of them shall be addressed as follows: II To the City: City of Chanhassen City Hall 7610 Laredo Drive 11 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attn: City Manager II To Bloomberg: Bloomberg Companies Incorporated 551 West 78th St Chanhassen, MN 55317 11 • To the Associa- tion: Lotus Lake Betterment Association, Inc. c/o Bloomberg Companies Incorporated 11 551 West 78th St Chanhassen, MN 55317 II 3.06 Owners to be Notified of This Permit. The Association shall furnish each of its members with a copy of this permit within thirty (30) days of any such member's initial membership in the II Association. -4- 3.07 Term of This Permit. This permit shall be perpetual. 1 Section 4. Enforcement Provisions. 4.01 Reimbursement of Costs. The Applicant shall reimburse Il the City for all costs, including reasonable engineering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by the City in connection with all matters relating to the administration and enforcement of the within permit and the performance thereby by the Applicant. Such reimbursement shall be made within fourteen I (14) days of the date of mailing of the City's notice of costs as provided in §3.05 above. The Applicant's reimbursement obligation under this section shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term of this permit. 1 4.02 Legal Proceedings. The City may institute any proper action or proceeding at law or at equity to prevent violations of the within permit or to restrain or abate violations of the within permit. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused 1 these presents to be executed on this /5-r-- day of Jt..o,c; , 19 61 . 1 BLOOMBERG COMPANIES INCORPORATED LOTUS LAKE BETTERMENT ASSOCIATION, INC BY s..._•..►.. ■.. By J cz its its , ,ej. -,G,. t- 1 And •A And ------ A-•---,%.t._...--—____ its 1/_ r. its v/, f 1 CITY OF C ANHASSEN / / 1 By / � :%~ ` I its Mayor ATTEST: 1 ,' , �( City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) II Fo )ss w N ' COUNTY OF 0 A c 1C.r ) U Z Z b. o W On this (S day of qu�r� , 19 ( , icy before me, a notary public, within and for said County, personally a ; ; appeared t-(e..,4 -e..L+ 1Q . eiStvo„1/4 55 and w, A( • ` itc3k.e z z 2 to me personally known, who, be'inc each by me duly sworn did say Z Q Y W w " < n that they are respectively the r,e ci d1... -Cf and UI e& 16e sk '1 -' Z "- of Bloomberg Companies Incorporated, and that said instrument was f_:=€. o signed in behalf of saisi corporation by authority it its Board of - ° "' ° Directors, and said t /u. �la-er�.. -1. , and W. etc -it. ` tc>hi# 1 1 : acknowledged said instrument to be the 'ree act ana aeea or said corporation. 4-,,ti,t_A , fo U�r I Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF ofM -VGA- ) On this S - day of .i uL , 19 , before me, a notary public, within and for said county, personally II appeared (1,lue,_,, . 6_, SptlttLc -A. and G,J _ rtic . /t,t.0 rtcs>'h-e.. , to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the vr-e..stCi.,,4 and o c. R.e.st'd_ II of Lotus Lake Betterment Association, Inc., and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and said u_ki I a,,., G .rptge- N,11.j and (,v - at . ►u ✓16yr:e, acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said II corporation. ll /� 1) it nn ,Cl. /" F4-i-cks_iL Notary Public - LEANNA M. FORCIER 1 i = `'Y•s CARVER COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA) NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA ) ss MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEB. 18, 1988 II COUNTY OF ) On this /0 day of , 19 $ / , II before me, a notary public within d for said county, personally appeared Tcm Hamilton and Donald W. Ashworth, to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are II respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its City Council, and said Tom Hamilton and Donald W. Ashworth acknowledged II said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. (: 4" - m - Alr • KARENJ. = LHARDT otary Public .. I' . NOTARYt i -M NESOTA fi� 0 ^ • cF' Cr, r .'-ii".,.• Y My Co , , .ISc.Q'l = . ...1 11, 1985 1 N Pe.1.N 1 1 1 1 1 1 -6- '1 I/ 8 -13 -80 Chanhassen Planning Commission Minutes - page 4 The Plannin Commission encouraged the applicant to proceed with Planning 9 Pp P his plans and recorded no major opposition to the proposal at this time. 1 DISCUSSION, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, COLONIAL GROVE II, BLOOMBERG -- 39> COMPANIES, INC. Mr. Waibel introduced the subject item referencing the proposed Development Contract and noted that the proposal is unique in that it does have parcels in the proposed plat which are immediately II developable. Mr. Craig Mertz explained his letter of August 8, 1980, referring 1 to the Beach Lot Covenants and Restrictions. Mr. Mertz stated that the Covenants appear to be in order although they do not specifi- 11 cally talk about over -night parking, over -night storage of boats, or erecting structures; however, it was explained that any changes requesting any of the above would be required to under -go a public hearing for Conditional Use Permit. It was additionally noted that the beach lot in question has been established for some time and has been used by certain homeowners within the Colonial Grove 1st Addition. Mr. J. Thompson moved the City Council accept the Development Contract as drafted with the provision that the Lake Study Commission recommendation for Outlots be included in the Restrictive II Covenants and /or the Development Contract for Colonial Grove 2nd Addition. Motion seconded by Mr. M. Thompson. All voted aye. Motion carried. 1 Mr. J. Thompson moved that staff document an inventory of structures on the beach lot in order to determine any intensifi- cation of usage brought on by Colonial Grove 2nd Addition. Motion was seconded by Mr. M. Thompson. All voted aye. Motion carried. DISCUSSION, OVERLAY ZONING CONCEPT FOR DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. Mr. Waibel had informed the Planning Commission that Bather- 1 Ringrose- Wolsfeld (BRW) has submitted a proposal for a work plan to accomplish the subject item and that a similar approach should ultimately be carried out. LAKE ANN BARN PROPOSAL 1 In discussion, the Planning Commission discussed the placement of a pole barn in Lake Ann Park and had no objections to such. 1 1 11 Council Meeting September 22, 1980 - 3 - REVIEW PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PUBLIC IMPROVERS, CHRISTMAS ACRES: Dale Hamilton, Suburban Engineering, and Brack Ward were present requesting that the Council delete the requirement of looping the watermain through Christmas Acres because of the cost involved (approx. $16,000). Councilman Geving moved to deny the request and that the Council reaffirm the position that there will be a looped watermain from Pleasant View Road through Christmas Acres back to Pleasant View Road as prescribed in the development contract. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Swenson. NO negative votes. Motion carried. DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT APPROVAL, COLONIAL GROVE SECOND ADDITION: Bill NCRostie was present to discuss proposed changes in the development contract. RESOLUTION #80 -36: Councilman Pearson moved the adoption of a resolution approving the development contract for Colonial Grove Second Addition as submitted in the September 22, 1980, Council Agenda with three amendments. 1. Page 3. That the amortization period for the 1980 special assessments be eight years. 2. Page 4a. That Option #1 on the letter of credit expiration date be selected. 3. The developer may apply for letter of credit reductions on a semiannually basis 11 as reductions in the unpaid principal balance on the 1980 project assessments occur. Resolution seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Swenson. NO negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Pearson moved to approve the non - conforming use permit for Beach Lot - Colonial Grove at Lotus and Lake and Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition as submitted in the September 22, 1980, Council Agenda with the addition of tennis court 11 in section 1, subsection 1.02. Motion seconded by Councilman Geeing. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Swenson. NO negative votes. Motion carried. SATELLITE FIRE STATION: The Miller's have presented a counter offer of 1.1 acres, instead of 1.5, for an amount of $27,500. The Council directed staff to present $27,500 for 1.5 acres. BILLS: Councilman Swenson moved to approve the bills dated September 22, 1980. Checks #12008 through #12088 in the amount of $692,874.51 and checks #15628 through #15730 in the amount of $227,925.02. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. I EIDE FILL SITE: Mr. Eide is not happy with the job that was done in taking fill out of his property at Lyman Blvd. and Lake Riley Blvd. Staff was instructed to meet with Mr. Eide and explain that the design for the reconstruction was drawn by the DNR. 11 Staff, DNR, and Department of the Army have inspected the site and have approved it. MERLE VOLK PROPERTY: Mr. Volk will appear before the Planning Commission to ask if they would entertain sane sort of zoning amendment for his property on Galpin Blvd. Councilman Pearson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 12:00. l Don Ashworth City Manager 11 CITY OF .z 11 , Li A titi A ti 1 11 . t i IN Attall mcr+ • \i `�_ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 '"�'7 ±'= (612) 937 -1900 i April 23, 1984 K - = ; -r r( tr MAf; -.i 19,, 1 Mr. Charles Hirt, President CITY c Qf h ,w Lotus Lake Betterment Association - 7007 Cheyenne Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Hirt: 1 This is to formally notify you that the City Council at its meeting on April 16, 1984 acted to approve the Beach Lot Conditional Use Permit for the construction of two canoe racks on II outlot A, Colonial Grove Second Addition, as presented in planning case 84 -2 CUP. Attached for your information is the copy of the draft Conditional Use Permit. The actual Conditional II Use Permit will be delivered to you as soon as it is signed by the Mayor and City Manager. I have verified with the Carver County Recorders Office that on II April 4, 1984, outlot A of Colonial Grove Second Addition was conveyed to the Lotus Lake Betterment Association from Bloomberg Companies, Inc. I/ • Should you have any quettions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. 1 Sincerely, 44 ' . . . Bob Waibel • . City Planner 1 cc: Don Ashworth Scott Martin • 1 1 1 1 t 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT • 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for: The construction of two canoe racks having a storage capacity of six canoes each, to be located as shown on the plans in Planning Case 84 -2CUP. 2. Property. The permit is for the following described property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: Outlot A, Colonial Grove Second Addition. 3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the ' following conditions: 1.) That the applicant constructs the canoe racks in compliance with the plans submitted in Planning Case 84 -2CUP. 4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing under any of the following cir- cumstances: material change of condition of the neighborhood where the use is located; violation of the terms of the permit. 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 5. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. 1 Dated: CITY OF CHANHASSEN By: Its Mayor By: Its Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and Don Ashworth, City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public 1 1 11 11 1 1 1 City of Chanhassen Carver and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota In the matter of Chanhassen Planning Case •84-2 Conditional g Use Permit Owner: Lotus Lake Betterment Assoc. pplicant: Charles Hirt, President Street Address: P.I.N.: Legal Description: Outlot A, Colonial Grove Second Addition Purpose: To construct two canoe racks having a capacity of 6 canoes on Outlot A. p y oes Zoning District: R -1 Single Family Residence District The above entitled matter was heard before the Planning Commission on March 28, 1984 and up for final action before the Chanhassen City Council on April 16, 1984 • The City Council ordered that a conditional use permit krot) be granted based upon the documentation contained in Planning File 84 -2 Conditional Use Permit . 1 1 1 11 State of Minnesota) )ss Carver County I � City Planner for the City of Chanhassen, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing with the original record thereof, and have found the same to be a correct and true summary thereof. Witness my hand and official seal of Chanhassen, Minnesota, this 11 day of 19 Chanhassen City Planner NOTE: • 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 2 Cliff Whitehill: Good evening. My name is Cliff Whitehill. I live at I 7001 Dakota Avenue, which is in the Colonial Grove Addition. And I was one of the incorporaters and founders of the Lotus Lake Betterment Association which is the Association that has ownership of the beach outlot, as well al to make sure that the maintenance and care of that facility is well maintained. This goes back to a little, even before 1981. Before 1981 that outlot was being utilized as a docking area for some boats. I, as a I matter of fact, built the first dock myself which was 45 foot in length. And then when the city started requesting that these uses be under a use permit, we applied in 1981 for the various useage of the outlot which was as a docking area as well as the tennis courts. There were some Minutes I preceeding that in 1980. And the letter that you have addressed to you from Kate Aanenson is incorrect in another manner and that is on the last, or the second page there before summary. It says the Planning Commission 'l Minutes state that the conditional use permit would be required to dock boats overnight. If you'll look at those Minutes, it does not say that. The issue then was brought up as to whether the outlot would be used to store boats and we all the difference between the useage of the word store versus the use of the word dock boats at a dock. And that's certainly correct when the use permit was issued, it did not allow for any boats to be stored on that. After the permit, shortly after the permit was issued' we were a little concerned that while the 100 foot dock that we had requested had been allowed, and the other matters that are specified in the permit, it didn't say anything about the number of boats. And I called ani was assured that that was no problem. The practice wasn't to govern the number of boats. It was to govern the length of the dock and whatever boats fit at the dock would be automatically allowed. So that's where we went forward from for years and years. As a matter of fact the survey tha, was done slightly after or around the time of the use permit showing 3 boats being docked at the dock that was, nobody ever said anything .about that. Nobody questioned whether 1 boat, 3 boats, or any limited number of boats should be docked. And then it was only until late last fall that thil association was contacted by the staff saying that there appeared to be a gap in the understanding of the use permit and would we please apply for a' appropriate adjustment or amendment or clarification of our conditional us permit and I again then expressed some reservation about well, you know this has all been decided before. Why do we have to come back and was tol that this is just a matter of clarification and all we had to do was demonstrate the number of boats that were there in 1981 after the dock was built and the matter would simply adjust to that number. Unfortunately, due to some mailing mix -up and what have you though, I had written the request as we stated for 8 boats to be specifically allowed at the dock foil overnight docking. This went on for several months. I'm sure your agenda was busy and at the last minute I didn't get the notice so neither I nor anybody else from the Association had sufficient notice to be here. And therefore the reason that we asked for a re- hearing on the matter since that you had only granted 3 boats at a dock, which is certainly capable of handling more boats. The last is that you know a limitation of 3 boats, or no boats, doesn't really keep any boats off the lake. As a matter of II fact, it causes a worse problem for the city than allowing the number of boats that we've customarily had down there and if you know, there are so 70 odd houses in the neighborhood so even allocating 8 or 9 spaces, is a real task of draw your lottery and we try to solve everybody. I remember one year we had to go to double allocation so that some people got to use 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 3 11 the docking facility the first half of the summer. If that'd been this summer, that'd been a disaster. And some people got to use it the second half but we've always managed to work out our own problems. If you take the number of docking spaces away, the people have the boats in the neighborhood and all they're going to do is have the irritation of driving down and further congesting the public dock. Either by their trailer, by useage of it, etc. The same boats are going to be on the lake. Maybe you discourage them once or twice from not using it because they don't want to drag the boat down to the public ramp, but I doubt that. If somebody wants to use the boat, and we're that close, you know within less than a mile of the ramp, the people are going to do it. So the boats are going to be on the lake one way or the other and certainly causing less problems. Less congestion at the ramp, highway, etc. for storage of the trailers down 11 there and allowing other people to have useage of that I think is a much better way of resolving the problem. Lastly the Association, as I mentioned in my letter, we have never received one verbal or written complaint about the useage of the dock or any other matter associated with the outlot. I think any of you who may have visited that would find that area kept in immaculate shape and I mean immaculate. It's mowed. It's manicured. The tennis courts are kept in excellent shape. The driveway's in good shape and the dock's in good shape. I mean it is a real asset to the neighborhood and I think an asset to the city of Chanhassen. I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have. Batzli: We may have some at a later time. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission on this issue? Ken Sherman: My name is Ken Sherman. I live at 7025 Cheyenne Trail and I've been living there for 3 years. There are several people here, along with I, who I think have been moved into the neighborhood during that I period of time and when we bought our homes we were told by previous owners and real estate agents that boats were docked at the dock. We were never given a limitation to the number of boats and it was understood that I would say anywhere from 5 to 8 boats could be there. During the 3 years I've lived in Chanhassen, I've enjoyed it. There's always been an understanding that that was part of what I bought when I purchased my home. And I fail to understand why anybody would feel that they could, and.I am in the real estate business. The commercial real estate business. I own property in downtown Minneapolis. I've come across this in my own business and if there is something that in inherent in an agreement, whether it be in property, we are bound to live with it. I don't understand why anybody would want to change that understanding that we bought our homes thinking that this is something that was valid. Batzli: Thank you. Betsy LePlatt: My name is Betsy LePlatt. My address is 7012 Cheyenne Trail. We just bought our house several months ago and moved into the neighborhood because we had moved from a lake and believed that we could put a boat at the dock when we purchased a boat. If we lose that, I don't I/ know what we're going to do. I guess move to lakefront somewhere else. Thanks. Harberts: Can I ask a question of Betsy? Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 6 Estates Homeowners requested boat mooring and docking priviledges not previously granted to beachlot groups. Their request was denied in October. During the summer leading up to that decision. We are very concerned with any precedence in relation to beachlots. Consequently, we II were keenly alert to any infractions of the mooring regulations. During that summer we observed 2 and sometimes 3 motorized boats moored in front of Colonial Grove's outlot. When we reported this violation to the subdivision's Association Board, we were informed that 2 boats belonged toi one of their association's lakeshore owner's. This particular family had a wetland area in front of their home so the sons docked their boats at the common beach to make water skiing easier. Soon after our notification of this problem, the boats were removed but periodically reappeared. It is possible that the same 2 boats did not reappear but 2 or 3 boats continued to be present at various times that summer. To the best of our knowledge II and memories, the undersigned active members of the Lotus Lake Association support the findings in the survey presented by the Lake Study Committee in 1981. That is the testimony or the letter from the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association Board members and active members at that point in time. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? 1 Cliff Whitehill: I'd like to... Batzli: Would you like to offer some rebuttal to this? 1• Cliff Whitehill: Yes. Batzli: Go ahead sir. Cliff Whitehill: As to the survey that was supposedly done in 1981, that II has little, if any weight. It doesn't state the time of day. It's not signed by anybody. We don't even know who did it. We can't even question the individual who did it. It's a totally unsworn, unsubstantiated survey" at some particular point in time. There could have been 6 boats roaming around the lake and 3 at the dock. As to this particular letter, I was not furnished in advance so we don't have a chance but to check the names here" We are dealing with the issue as to what was the use in 1981. We have 5 sworn affidavits that have been presented to you as to what that use was. People who were active in the Association at that time in 1981. Am I to understand by the gentleman who presented this letter that every person whil signed this was a resident and active in the Association in 1981? Jeff Kvichaug: Yes. That is correct. 1 Cliff Whitehill: Well we can check the Minutes and it's simply not in keeping with what was sworn to at the time. What was the use. I built th first dock. Had the second dock built. Have always had a boat down there Am more than familiar with what the useage was and as I said, in subsequen years we even had to allocate at time, Minutes from our meetings. They weren't always kept but showed well over 9 people using the dock. And agaill no issue has ever been raised by anyone other than recently asking for, that we clarify the use permit. And as we were informed in 1981 after the permit was issued, that if the particular act, i.e. the mooring of the Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 7 boats was not a prohibited act under the permit and there are enumerated prohibited acts that cannot be done on the lot, then certainly the dock could be used for mooring of the boats in the ordinary sense. Not just during the day, and by the way that's even another issue and clarification. I mean how can you know, no boats can ever come to the dock? Is that what we're saying? Three overnight. At what time overnight? Does it end automatically at sundown? I mean there's a whole series of issues that were never intended to arise. I mean the dock was built for 100 foot length and if only 2 or 3 boats, we could have saved ourselves a lot of money by not extending the dock out that far. So everything fits together as far as the evidence and the affidavits. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Carol Edgerley: Hi. My name is Carol Edgerley. I live at 7013 Sandy Hook Circle in Colonial Grove. I have a couple of questions here. I'm a little confused. First of all, in 1981 I don't think quite a few of these houses were even built. So why are you trying to establish how many boats there were back in 1981 as a precedent when if the association had a permit to dock boats there, that you didn't have any specific number on there, the amount of houses in that group has grown quite a bit since then. So you're going to try and only keep this back to as many as even might have been there in '81 anyway? Secondly, I'd like to ask this gentleman where Horseshoe Curve is and why the hell are we bugging him. Batzli: Horseshoe Curve is on Lotus Lake. Carol Edgerley: Where? Batzli: Where? • Carol Edgerley: Yeah, where. Where on Lotus Lake? Where is he in relation to? Batzli: It's on the northern part of Lotus Lake off of Pleasant View. Carol Edgerley: So what's in this for him? Batzli: I'm sure people around the lake are concerned about access and intensification of use. Carol Edgerley: So why put in public access a couple of years ago if you're going to worry about us putting 8 boats at a dock? Are you going to go down and count the amount of boats down there at the public access? Is he down there all the time counting the amount of boats at the public access? I Batzli: No. I'm sure all these questions are rhetorical. I don't know. Carol Edgerley: Well, I'm just saying. Why pick on us for heaven's sake. We can only, if we stacked them this to this we can only put 8 boats at our dock. It's not as if we're going to suddenly have 50 come down there and we can't even put boats in there. You have to drive around and bring them 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 8 around so it's really only...night. So I really don't see the gentleman's II problem or his objections frankly. Batzli: Okay. Well thank you for your comments. Would anyone else like II to address the commission? Chuck Hirt: My name is Chuck Hirt, 7007 Cheyenne Trail. I've lived in till neighborhood since '71. I'm one of the ones that signed one of the affidavits. We did have 8 -9 boats there at that time in '81- '82 -'80 area. One of the comments I guess I have, if you do allow no boats or 3 boats or whatever it's certainly, we pay high enough taxes in that neighborhood. II I hope that everyone in the neighborhood will hire an attorney and see if we can get our property values reduced and also reduce our taxes. That would be a benefit I guess from this but we did have that many boats at II that time. Richard Heer: My name is Richard Heer. I live at 50 Sandy Hook Road. I've had a boat since 1981 and lately I've kept it more at the dock but II back then I used the dock occasionally. I would occasionally keep it overnight and I can recall 8 to 9 boats being used back in '81. I've lived there since 1979 -80. 1 Batzli: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission? Harold Dahl: My name is Harold Dahl. I live also on Horseshoe Curve. Thal map, it's difficult to see but Horseshoe Curve and my property is on the northwest corner of the bay that we're dealing with here in terms of issue The dock is directly across the lake from me. I spoke at the last meeting' that was held on June 2nd. I believe I reiterated my primary concern is setting a precedent for other outlots on the lake. It's my understanding that there are 6 or possibly 7 other outlots which could be impacted by II modification of your previous decision. I'm particularly concerned becausll of the size of the lake frontage on this particular outiot. It's my understanding it's only approximately 50 feet. And I'm also concerned because of the evidence that's being presented in support of their request, I sympathize with the Colonial Grove residents. I'm sure that many of these members have become accustomed, at least in recent years, to docking many boats on their dock. Now they're being forced to comply with a law II change which rolls back their useage to 1981 levels. And if I was a membe of that group, I would certainly argue against the change as being unfair, particularly for the members that have joined the association in the last few years who may have come in with expectations about a given number of slips and their continued useage over time. Unfortunately, this is a situation we're dealing with. It is divisive but we need to have this � commission conclude on it and then move on. It's my belief that the key issue here is measuring the useage in 1981. I think there's been a lot of evidence given by members of the association but that issue has not really been addressed with substantiation to meet my criteria I guess, and I'd like to hand out something to the members. I have a few extra...Again, thill key issue here is measuring the useage in 1981. In my mind there is a hierarchy of evidence of data which may be available to support the useage levels in 1981. Obviously these are ranked in order of preference. Obviously if there was a non- conforming use permit that governed this issue, we wouldn't be here tonight. Secondly, some contemperaneous record 11 1 II Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 9 II would be good evidence in support of the useage that might have occurred in 1981. I've listed three possible examples. One is a survey which was conducted. Second is a dated photograph. I'm aware of some photographs I that have ben taken periodically by the Ag Extension Service. I would also consider a contemporaneous record to be notes and memorandum that were taken at the time. Thirdly, as a next level I would consider witness il testimony. Particularly from unrelated third parties. And lastly I would consider witness testimony from interested parties. If I go down this list and I'm talking in terms of the precedent that we're setting here for other outlots, I don't think there is a non - conforming use permit that covers the II useage of, that allows the dockage of boats in 1981. I have seen the document and reviewed it. It's my understanding that a non- conforming use permit is silent on dock of boats. And there's other language in that II permit that suggests that absent of affirmative language on that issue, boat dockage should not be allowed. In terms of the next piece, contemperaneous record, I'm aware of a survey that was conducted by an independent party that suggested there were 3 boats docked in 1981. II Further, this survey is supported by members of the lake homeowners association, many of which were active about this issue during the timeframe. We have researched Ag photos. We found an Ag photo that covered the area. Unfortunately the clarity of the picture was such that I you could not determine with any sort of certainty how many boats were docked at the dock. You can tell there's a dock there. That's about it. II That photograph suggested the number of houses that were present in 1981 was very small. And thirdly, I'm aware of no notes or memorandums that were done contemporaneously that would support their position. The next level of testimony, the next level of evidence would be witness testimony II and I'm unaware of any unrelated third party testimony to support their useage. Finally, we have witness testimony from interested parties but it is in conflict. Obviously we're dealing about an issue that's 12 years old. We're trying to determine useage in 1981. In 1981, that's a long time ago. Obviously 3 and 4 are subject to differing degrees. 3 and 4 on my list. Witness testimony of unrelated parties and interested parties are subject to different degrees of memory loss interpretation. I think memory loss can be mitigated by the degree to which you are involved in the issue and the extent to which you can use contemporaneous records to refresh your memory. In my recollection, events 12 years ago is 1981 is the year.I 11 should have graduated from college had I gone through straight through. That's about the extent of my memory. If I go down this list, this hierarchy of evidence that's been presented to support their useage, I have II to conclude there is no non - conforming use permit. Secondly, I'd have to conclude that the only contemporaneous record is a survey which is supported by the recollections of members of the lake homeowners association. I'm unaware of any dated photograph. I'm unaware of any 11 notes or memorandums and the witness testimony's in conflict. Both parties that have offered testimony in terms of witness are, in my mind, interested parties. However, I believe the credibility of the homeowners association I is slightly higher because I think in my view they're a little bit less interested than those who live in the association that we're talking about. My hope is that the commission reaffirms their earlier decision, ends this II discussion and moves on. Thank you. Batzli• Thank you for your comments. II I I Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 10 Debbie Engel: My name is Debbie Engel. I live at 7016 Sandy Hook Circle." I'd like to address a question to the gentleman that was just up here. In his hierarchy and he said that the homeowners, lake homeowners did the survey, or initiated the survey or whatever and he said they're not as interested in this as Colonial Grove homeowners, which is us. I really II question that. I think in this hierarchy they are very much as interested and in the fact that it's the homeowner's on the lake that received first II notice of this meeting and we did not also shows that they have a very vested interest in this and it shows the bias in a lot of this proceedings. And the way it has been dealt with with the city. Batzli: Thank you for your comment. I'd like to make one point and that is that we have made it a policy that we communicate with one person of the Association and to the extent those of you did not receive notice, we apologize for that. Go ahead sir. Debbie Engel: I'm sorry, I have to address that. My husband is the President of the Homeowners Association and I will swear,•we did not receive any notice. At all. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Ed Bennett: My name is Ed Bennett. I live at 7017 Sandy Hook Circle in Colonial Grove and I'm not a boat owner and I've been a resident there since 1987 and I just think as you're evaluating this, I think you should, we ask you to take into consideration the fairness of what you're asking us and I think the arguments all to the contrary that the gentleman has presented about surveys that were done, that could have been done, who knows at what time of day. Some aerial photographs that are eluded to tha who knows when they could have been taken. In my mind there's a lot of spacious subjective guesses of things that might have been but there's no 11 substantiation there and if that's the case that we're building this around, is some rather extremely limited data from questionable sources, I suggest that the founding fathers of our association, Cliff and the other people who have testified and my own personal observations from the useage � of that since we've been there, which doesn't go back to 1981. And the number of people who are affected by this certainly seems to be that what we have put forward as a reasonable level of useage and what we think was 11 and has been testified as in the past a reasonable level of useage is certainly a reasonable point for you and the Council to recommend and I think to draw it back at 3 slips something like 70 houses is almost like 11 saying there's no useage of that. So that would be my comments. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Someone new. Betsy LePlatt: I just have another question. I'm wondering if possibly the useage of this dock would be considered grandfathered in since it has been existing since before a lot of the homes that are along Lotus Lake no and the other associations and why make an old association conform to something you might do for a new association? Thank you. 1 Batzli: Is there anyone else that hasn't addressed the Commission that would like to address the Commission? Okay. Is this something new? 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 11 Rob Moschet: Yeah, just a follow -up question. Are there other outlots that are being looked at now? Are there other outlots that are subject to a permit such as we have? Aanenson: We've done 14 of them. You're the last one. There are numerous, there's two other associations on the Lotus Lake that do not have overnight docking rights. Frontier Trail Association and Sunrise Hills. And they have a dock and they cannot dock overnight. Rob Moschet: And this is set out in their permit? Aanenson: Correct. They're not allowed. Rob Moschet: Okay, and it's not set out in our permit. Aanenson: They didn't have a permit at all. All non - conforming beachlots were required by the city, the city passed an ordinance last year to require all non - conforming beachlots to get a permit specifying the level of use. Rob Moschet: Okay. And we already had the permit. Aanenson: Except it does not specify the level of use. That's the only thing we're looking at. The level of use for overnight docking of boats. Rob Moschet: Okay. I would echo the comments of the person right before me that this does amount, in my opinion, to analogous situation of being grandfathered in and I would support that argument too. Batzli: Thank you. Is there any other public comment? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: I think that what we're doing here tonight is kind of indicative as to why there was an ordinance created in 1981. You get a group of many homeowners, neighbors who are living next to each other in associations. The disagreements on these issues on these non - conforming lots. This wasn't changed. It has been in effect. This ordinance has been in effect since '81. The issue, the problem is here tonight. In 1981 there might have been 5 people in here discussing this issue. There's now a roomful of people and as we get larger and larger, the continual pressure on these lots increases. We have a 25 foot lot here. I have tried to be very equitable on how we've treated these lots. This is the last one I believe here. Many of the concerns have come up over and over again on these issues. One of the issues that has come up over and over again is individuals have purchased property unfortunately, listening to people who are selling it to them with the understanding that whatever they say is true. And as it is in many cases, it's up to the buyer to investigate whether or not it is true. Deeded access has a long established use in I/ this community. Minnetonka. The lakes around here. Because you have deeded access doesn't mean necessarily that you can get on the lake. It is up to the home buyer to do their homework and really look at how lakeshore 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 12 is governed. It is multi- jurisdictional and homeowner associations do not" have that governing right. It's state agencies. It's watershed and it is local municipalities who make these decisions. And they do so in the best interest of their citizens. All of their citizens. This is a difficult issue, particularly with people who do not have an understanding of what II they purchased. And I don't need to go over again, Brian defined what the issue is here. It's an expansion of use from '81 and the criteria that we're using to define that use has been I believe consistent in how the burden of proof that we put out and evaluation I think has also been consistent. I don't see anything here that would lead me to expand that use. And I'm not going to say that we've got 10 people lined up that said" it's so and we've got 5 people who lined up and said it's so. I don't see any photographs. I don't see any compelling evidence that would make me change my mind on this issue of how I voted. Brian. 1 Batzli: So you'd stick with 3? Farmakes: I'd stick with 3. 11 Batzli: Joe. Scott: I'm thinking along the same lines that Jeff is. Is that the issue" is not access. That's not really the question and I think those of you who think that whatever is recommended here and whatever is decided at the Cit. Council level, you still have access to the lake. And a lot of times, I know if I were in a situation and I had either a riparian lot, not on the lake or one that wasn't and it was my understanding that I would be able t put a boat on the lake, and I felt that was being taken away, that would upset me. That is not being taken away. The issue is how many boats at the dock overnight. Whatever overnight happens to be. So it's important that that's clear. Okay. From a standpoint of the use, I'm comfortable 11 with the decision that we made last time around and I don't have any further comments. Batzli: Okay, Matt. 11 Ledvina: Well I think there is some information. I don't feel that the homeowners association had an opportunity to present their case, which I II now see in front of me. I see 4 signed affidavits as to the level of use at that time and I think these affidavits in my mind provide substantial evidence for the level of use at that time. We've, on many of the other II beachlots we consider the possibility that boats would be out on the lake II at a given instance and we've allowed more boats than the boats that were indicated on the survey. So I think given this additional information, I would support a proposal for 8 boats. Batzli: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I think as the people here tonight think that we're making 11 arbitrary decisions, you should have heard us in the other 13 or 14 lots that we've looked at. I saw this having more documentation than any other one. Documentation from the standpoint of Minutes. Documentation from th� standpoint of consistency of inventory, where we didn't have that in other outlots. The other thing is, I was on the Planning Commission in '81 and • 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 13 I remember this issue. I forget a lot of things. I do remember this issue. I remember the permit. The non- conforming use permit and the process and I remember very well that the intent was you don't get boats until you come back and ask for them. That permit in '81 was granted sanctioning certain things but certain things were left out and I think the Minutes that I read and Mike Thompson who made some comments and actually asked for an inventory of the lake at that time, there really was a clear pattern and there was some consistency of all of this. And I felt pretty comfortable with the decision that we made last time. In talking about reasonableness, it's too bad you haven't been here for all of our Minutes and meetings and what have you. You might understand a little bit more of our rationale. I think we've been trying to be fairly liberal. Trying to be reasonable. If you know what current beachlots, non - conforming beachlots. If you know what beachiot requirements are today, and you see that you have 25 and your neighbors have 1,000 feet of land right next to you, and they can only have I think 9 boats, then I'm not sure that 8 boats is reasonable on 25 feet. But that's not the issue tonight. But I know a lot of people talked about reasonableness. How can you do this and so I wanted to address that a little bit. Reasonable is what we're looking at. Reasonable is what we're trying to be but then when you compare to what we've seen and what people with outlots, beachlots can get today, you'll find that actually you're being treated fairly well. But going back, what was the use in '81? There was a non - conforming permit there? I was here. I helped draft it. It's probably got loopholes that Cliff could knock the pants off it if he took it to Court but again, I knew the intent and the intent was, there were no boats until they came back in with a change. That's why the first time through I said that the non - conforming permit was being interpretted properly by staff. Batzli: Do you go with 3? 0? 8? Conrad: I voted for the non - conforming which said that they were not granted at that time until they came in. Batzli: Okay. Diane. Harberts: At the June 2nd meeting I voted for no overnight boats. Based on the discussion, the comments from the gentleman from the association that was there since 1981, and I appreciate you coming in. I'm prepared to go with the vote that did pass off 3 boats overnight. I think Jeff made the comment earlier. Recently buying a home in Chanhassen I know what it is to go to City Hall. I was up there a couple of hours. We don't live on the lake. We enjoy Lotus Lake. Numerous times when we go down there, the lot's full and we just go find some other lake. But I think what we try to do is be consistent with our process and it's been real interesting with it but the burden has been on the owners because as Ladd commented, we've got 3 years of inventories and as I recall, this is the first beachiot where we have that and that inventory for those 3 years in '81, '86 and '91 indicated 3 for 2 of the years and 4 for the third year. So at this point I'd support the 3 boats overnight. Batzli: Okay. I guess my comments are that I think we decided by a slim margin last time 3 because of the survey that had been done back in '81. It was probably we decided that because we didn't have any real evidence 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 21, 1993 - Page 14 that there was more than that. I'm kind of going to side with Matt here II and say that the evidence that I have in front of us is at least as good a some of the other evidence which we've seen where we've been fairly liberal. I don't think it's an intensification of use to park them overnight, as I've said in the Minutes from last time as opposed to bringing them in or bringing them out, if that's what's going to happen. don't think the survey's a final arbitor of the number here. We all recognize the limitation of going out there at one isolated moment in time so I would go with 8 boats on the dock and say we fulfilled our charter of determining the level of use in 1981. And I guess the contract, you know x don't know what the intent is and Ladd's interpretation is certainly helpful because he was here. But it clearly, it doesn't say that they can't do it and it seems like they've been doing it. I guess I would say they've grown accustomed to the priviledge if you will. Anyway, I would entertain a motion. Cliff Whitehill: Before the motion Mr. Chairman. I know the hearing is closed but unfortunately it has been opened again because•Mr. Conrad has acted not as a Councilmember but has given testimony about what happened Hi 1981, which was totally different than acting as to the evidence that was presented to him. So I think some clarification is necessary. There is not one iota of evidence that after the use permit was granted in 1981 th, anyone asked anyone to return and request further clarification of that permit as to the number of boats that were moored there. As to the survey there's only really one survey which is unsigned, undated as to time. We can't even question the person who did that survey. I think Kate corrects set the basis of the hearing tonight. It's not a question of what might be fair or reasonable today if we were applying for a non - conforming use permit for that outlot. The sole question before the commission is what was the use of that lot in 1981. We presented 5 sworn affidavits of people who were residents. They were very closely part of the association. It' a sworn affidavit. The counter letter is from people who didn't even liv in the area. The neighborhood so the evidence is just overwhelming as to the only issue that's before the Commission and that is what was the use in 1981. And I'd like to have you think about it in that respect. Not beforl you take your final vote. Not to what might be fair and reasonable under today's circumstances because that simply is not the issue. Thank you. Batzli: I don't know that Mr. Conrad acted improperly and so to the extenl I let you address the Commission, that's not why I let you address the Commission but thank you for your comment. Is there a motion? Scott: I move that the decision as made by the Planning Commission on Jun 2nd for 3, approving the dockage of 3 boats overnight stand. Batzli: Is there a second? 1 Farmakes: I'll second it. Batzli: Let me just explain the motion for those of you who didn't hear it. The motion has just been made that we maintain our decision which we reached at our last, the last time that we considered this issue and keep II the number of boats docked at 3. Is there any discussion? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 July 21, 1993 - Page 15 Harberts: Comment. I would encourage that based on the information that we received that seem to be conflicting each other. We've got a petition in a sense signed by 10 individuals. We have 5 affidavits from the other. I would just encourage them, that they insure that they follow this up to the City Council and they may want to get their ducks in a row on either side because the final decision is with the City Council. But I think the greatest decision here is what is the level of use and again I'll reiterate that with our other permit that we've previewed, we've certainly taken, been consistent with looking at the survey information that's been on hand. The fact that we've got two additional surveys makes it more conclusive to me in terms of what I believe the level of useage to be. Scott: Yeah also too, just to let you know the DNR has got aerial surveys. The Ag Department has got aerial surveys and then there's some other things and once again, we make recommendations to the City Council so follow the issue. But if you can determine other compelling evidence to support your position, it needs to be presented at the Council. Batzli: I would just say that I think that we've been evidence that the survey is wrong regardless of which side you listen to, probably. And so I don't like to look at the survey in this instance because on one hand we have lakeshore owners saying that there were 1 or 2 or 0 and on the other hand we have evidence that says there was 8. So I would prefer not to look at the survey in this instance and chaulk it up as, at that particular ,. moment there might have been 3 but that probably wasn't the number that was there on a more consistent basis. That would be my rationale for wanting to vote 8 on this issue. Is there any other discussion? Scott moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve 3 boats be allowed to be docked overnight at the Colonial Grove Recreational Beachlot. All voted in favor, except Batzli and Ledvina who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Batzli: Thanks very much for coming in. When will this go to City Council Kate? Aanenson: August 9th. Batzli: August 9th. Cliff Whitehill: I would ask everybody to be there. Also, get an estimate on what the decrease in your property value is going to be. Thank you. (The Planning Commission took a short recess to let the room clear.) 1 1 1 1 1