Loading...
5. Non-conforming use permit recreational beachlot for Minnewashta Heights ,ii 1 CITY OF .....6-: ,‘ i CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Action by City Administ,ator I Endorsed t/ Modified I MEMORANDUM Rejected Date " - - RZ - Date Submitted to Commission TO: Planning Commission Date Submitted to Council FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planner II e j �'� I DATE: April 28, 1992 e. I SUBJ: Minnewashta Creek Non - Confong Recreational Beachlot - . a I BACKGROUND : ' : ,. The Minnewashta Creek Subdivision was ap in1976. Although in 1979, a conditional use I was approved for a beachlot, it is still non conforming with the beachlot ordinance. There are 36 homes in the homeowners association. The beachlots 10,500 square feet in area and has 60 feet of lake frontage. The beachlot does not meet the minimum requirements of 200 feet of lake 1 frontage and the 30,000 square feet of area. The association received a conditional use permit for a portable chemical toilet in 1991 (see I attached Conditional Use Permit). At that time there was a question as to whether or not the pontoon located near the beachlot belonged to the association. The as has stated on record that the boat does not belong to the association but belongs to the adjoining property owner. An inspection of this beachlot was performed by the city in 1981. At that time it was observed I that there was no dock, or boats being moored. There was, however, 4 boats stored on land, 4 picnic tables and two grills, Tai °ore was a wit' lulling beach with no raft. Upon inspection in 1991, a swimming raft was ved on the beach. There is no motor vehicle access to the site nor boat launching. D SUMMARY The association is requesting 1981 status quo of their beachlot with no dock or boats being moored. They are seeking approval of the swimming raft. a rk PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING r1 JULY 1, 1992 I Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes, Ladd Conrad and Steve Emmings. Tim Erhart arrived during discussion of item 3. MEMBERS ABSENT: Joan Ahrens STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; and Tom Scott, City Attorney 1 PUBLIC HEARING: II NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR MINNEWASHTA HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Public Present: ( ' Name Address r �. Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive Tom & Ann Merz 3201 Dartmouth Drive Michael G. Plehal 6210 Elm Tree Avenue j Tom Huntington 6300 Dogwood Avenue Mary Onken 6221 Greenbriar Avenue Mick Saul /Sharon Carlson 6321 Dogwood Avenue Richard Nelson 6241 Elm Tree Avenue William Finlayson 6320 Fir Tree Avenue r Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Batzli: Is the dock encroaching in the dock setback area? [I Aanenson: No it's not. It's at the minimum, 10 feet. Yes. Batzli: Boats then are on the opposite side away from the setback area? I Okay. We're going to open it up to public comment now. Again, if you'd L step up to the microphone and give us your name and address, if you'd like to address the Planning Commission. Mary Jo Moore: Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive. I've been here a number of times and I guess quite honestly I don't want to be here. I I don't want to be fighting neighbors. The Heights I realize is one of the oldest established neighborhoods with a recreational beach and even though there's a setback, the docks are set like T's with lifts and to me, from the lake, it looks like they are encroaching on the property owners. The LI adjacent property owners. It also, to me appears that they've expanded substantially in the last. Whoops, I lost it. They've expanded substantially plus they've added a raft that's right out from these docks I and these boats and to me it's unsafe. I personally keep quite a distance from it but I don't know if other people coming in would keep a distance. At any rate, I think any expansion is out of the question. This is a very small lakeshore lot and I recommend or I request, my opinion is -that it II Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 2 II should not be expanded beyond '82 and I realize it's been there for a number of years. One of the first. Thank you. 1 Batzli: Thank you. Now you aren't at one of the adjacent properties but you do live on the lake? Is that correct? I Mary Jo Moore: Yes. I'm a lakeshore owner. I do have an association on each side of me however. 1 Bill Finlayson: What is her address? Batzli: I'm sorry, could you give your address again. 1 Mary 3o Moore: 3231 Dartmouth Drive. I'm in the Shores. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? II Bill Finlayson: I'm Bill Finlayson. I'm the Beach Chairman for the Minnewashta Heights Beach Association. I live in Minnewashta Heights. I 6320 Fir Tree. I have a number of, well maybe I do. These are documentation of our. I Emmings: We have it in our packet. Aanenson: I made copies of it. They have it in their packet. II Bill Finlayson: Oh good. Okay, fine. These are documentation of the past years of people who owned boats and people who had boats... Minnewashta Heights is an association of approximately 73 homes. The centerpiece of I that association is Lot 9. A well maintained lakefront property where our members can swim and boat and enjoy Lake Minnewashta. We have good relationships with our neighbors and take any concerns that they may have I seriously. Over the years we have made boat slips available to our members and we've always regulated the number of boats that can be put at the dock. We've always in the past been able to accommodate those members who would like to have boat slips but as of last year all slips have been used and we I are currently running a waiting list of one person. In 1981 the Heights had 17 people signed up for boat slips. Today we use the number 14 as our number for what we use. We haven't grown over the years. We've always II been, worked with that number or approximately thereof. And we've always tried to keep those numbers constant. I don't understand what Minnewashta Shores is feeling that they are being encroached on their property. I Mary Jo Moore: I'm speaking on my own behalf. Bill Finlayson: I understand. She mentioned a swimming raft. The I swimming raft has been there for, I don't know. Probably more than 10 years. It's always been there as far as I know. It's the same as any swimming raft on Lake Minnewashta. It's in it's proper spot anchored to I the bottom and it has reflectors all the way around the raft. That's the same as any swimming raft you'll find out there. I don't understand how that ever even came up. I believe that's all I have right now. Is there II any questions that I can answer from you people that you have? II Planning Commission Meeting II July 1, 1992 - Page 3 Batzli: Are you requesting room for 14 boats or 17? II Bill Finlayson: We are requesting room for 14 boats. In 1981 we had 17 II boats signed up. I believe the count was 6 and room for 14. We've always used the number 14 pretty much as our number that we work with. Batzli: Did you move in in 1987? II Bill Finlayson: I moved in in, let's see. Approximately 6 years ago. II What would that be? Batzli: That was just the first time your name showed up on the list of boats. That's why I asked. So you weren't around in '81 but you have been, there since '87? Bill Finlayson: Yes. II Batzli: Okay. So you're relying on these documents to tell you how many boats there were back then right? II Bill Finlayson: Yes. Which is fairly good documentation. Batzli: Okay. II Bill Finlayson: Some of those names on the list don't live there anymore. Are gone now. u Batzli: Okay. I'm sure if we have more questions, we'll speak up. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? II Tom Merz: My name is Tom Merz and I live at 3201 Dartmouth Drive. The purpose of my coming here again is, if everybody truly understands what we did for '81 and how we arrived at that baseline. And as I sat here last II week and we talked about Pleasant Acres and we talked about the baseline means the amount of boats in the water. And baseline in 1981 and the purpose of that, to go back. I don't know if anybody wants to go back but II there was a lot of reasons why we arrived at the 1981 baseline. If somebody would like me to review that, I can go on. If that's a moot issue, then we don't need to. Is anyone not familiar with how we arrived at those figures and how it was a compromise with Carver County Parks. It II was a compromise with what they called a riparian /non - riparian homeowners. It was a compromise with the outlot owners. I mean are all of you people kind of aware of how that arrived? And even you people are sitting here II asking for? Emmings: Maybe we don't. My understanding of why we're using '81 is that's the year that we first had a beachlot ordinance so that any beachlot' that was established after that date had to be under the ordinance and any other beachlot was grandfathered in at that point. That's what's been explained to us by staff. 1 Tom Merz: Okay. The reason for this whole thing, and because I've been involved in. II II Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 4 Emmings: Now when you say the reason for the whole thing. Tom Merz: The reason for the '81 baseline, okay. The reason for the '81 baseline was, at some point we had to arrive at what we called a riparian and non - riparian use of the lake. Riparian being for every 20 acres of lake there is an access for a boat, there's a non - riparian. And riparian on the homeowners, non - riparian is the non - lakeshore owners. And if you go with DNR rules and regulations, they say that the non - riparian use for a lake such as Minnewashta is 1 boat per 20 acres. Surface acres of lake. ' There's 700 acres of lake. There's 35 boats should be the non - riparian use of that lake. I mean this is part of a DNR document and that's how they establish access. With that then, all of the people in Minnewashta, so we ' had Minnewashta Heights and all of the different organizations came up with an agreement. Is let's try to maintain this use. We had number one was Carver County Parks came in. Carver County Parks came in and they wanted a total of about, they were asking for, let's say they could have gone up to 60 -70 boats. We maintained and agreed that to, if Carver County would restrict themselves to their 15 and 25, 40 boats, that then we would go back to all of the existing, what we called outlots and we would freeze them at the 1981 baseline. We would then, by that control there was no more access to Lake Minnewashta. So that established it. We had a DNR regulation of somewheres around 40 boats. By the time we had, the park ' came in at 45 boats and by the time we had the 3 or 4 different acres, we were up to almost 90 boats. So we were 2 times let's say the DNR regulation for a, what they call a non - riparian use of the lake. And the purpose of this was for all of us, we saw Carver County Park as something that would be our biggest ally or our biggest enemy and how would we control that. Well they agreed to those type of guidelines so long as we would maintain the rest of the lake through no more access to it. Through ' maintaining what outlots that we had with what we called a grandfather clause. So that's how we arrived at the 1981 baseline and that was the purpose of this thing. So when we talk about expansions, you wonder why. I I mean I have no reason to come here but to say that when we allow last time, we went from the Pleasant Acres. They went from 6 to 10 boats so I say well we go up 40%. Excuse me. My mouth is a little dry. We go up 40% so what happens then is theoretically in my mind we come back to Carver County ' that all of a sudden is our biggest ally and they're going to say well you're increasing all of these outlots. All of this other access to the lake. Therefore we want to take our access and bring it up 40 -50%. 5o we can have another 30 -40 boats on there. Well I think that defeats what all of us are here for and that's my primary purpose is to maintain the quality of the lake we've got and we've done that through this 1981 baseline. And ' as you allow increases to this, you're opening up something that we're all going to. I mean we who have kind of agreed to maintain that lake will find something that in the future we're going to overuse that lake so. That's my purpose. The second reason, if you ask my opinion on that lot, to drive down that lake and to look at one, what is it, 50 foot? I think it's 50 foot and you see 14 or 15 boats or 17, whatever's on that and you see all of the adjoining homes that have 2 boats, I mean that's not right. Why should people have to drive on that lake and look at that type of a congestion on an outiot? They have access for maintaining their 1981 baseline through coming the park just like anybody else. I think. 1 Planning Commission Meeting I July 1, 1992 - Page 5 II Emmings: How does this help us know what they had in 81? That's our problem you understand. If we know what they had in 1981, we'll leave it II there. The problem is documentation of that. Tom Merz: Yeah. So the burden that we agreed last time, the burden of proof. We had documentation that says, I don't know whether there's 14. If , there are 14 boats and they're not asking for an increase, I have no problem with that. If there's 13 boats and they're asking, and we have the documentation that says there's 14 boats, I mean it's up to other people toll prove. The burden of proof is on them to prove that they have 17 or 18 boats. Whatever they're asking for. So all I'm asking you is to maintain that '81 baseline for those specific reasons. It's an overall plan of 1 controlling the lake. Anything else? Batzli: Let me ask you one question. Is this baseline agreement with the Park, is it in writing somewhere? Is it, I mean who came up with this? 1 Tom Merz: There's a guy by the name of Mike Litticoat and through his other people from the Park. I mean I served on when Naegele sold the park ii to Carver County and then Carver County had, what they tried to do was develop this park. 5o we had a park development committee for the next 6, 7, 8 years. And finally in about 1981, the agreement was just with, they started out with 15 boats and that little mini and then they asked for an II increase. When Naegele sold the property to them, the condition on the property sale was that they would only have 15 boats of 15 horsepower or less access to that lake. Minnewashta, the Park came back. This was about '65. Maybe in about '75 they said that they wanted to increase this useage and so at that point it was stalled until about 1981 and then it seemed to be an agreement that we would all live by. Well, if you talk to Carver II County, that's an agreement they're willing to abide by and I think that for the rest of us, once we break those guidelines rules, on what basis can we hold them to their agreement? So the man you would contact is Mike Litticoat. You talk about Carver County Parks, we don't have any more than!' an agreement with. We have a conditional use permit with the City of Chanhassen. Carver County and City of Chanhassen have a conditional use permit and in that conditional use permit there's a total of 35. 15 and ' 25, 40 boats. That's all they're allowed to use and they control that through the trailer accesses that they have in the park. Batzli: Who is this Litticome person? 1 Tom Merz: Litticoat is the head of Park and Recreation for this District. I mean for the Carver County. He is the head man for Carver County Parks. II Emmings: As part of that effort, were there any surveys done on the lake to see what the, you know how many boats were at what places on the lake and particularly in the beachlots? II Tom Merz: I think only it was Chanhassen's, when you, somebody went out and made a count of the boats at that time. I don't think there was II anything more sophisticated than that. And it was boats in the water and last time you went with, the way I interpretted what you did last time was you took the 12 boats in the water and you took the 5 boats, or 5 and 5 is II 10. So you gave them a total of 10 boats. Well, in essence those boats II Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 6 that weren't in the water were not part of that '81 baseline. And I don't n t know what Minnewashta Heights has here. But that's what I know. That's what we fought so hard for and that's the purpose of this whole thing is to, there's a purpose of it. There's a plan and if you check with Carver County and if you check with the City of Chanhassen, they have a conditional use permit or a permit. Whatever it's called, with Carver County Parks and that spells out the amount of boat access. That spells out that we have closed all other private access. Private or public access to Lake Minnewashta and all of the access comes through the park. Does that make sense? Batzli: No. It's interesting information that I haven't heard before. Emmings: Are you aware of these agreements or documents? Krauss: I've had occasion to work with Mike on a number of, well a number of instances. In fact he's been down here before you on occasion for park expansion projects. And Mike did explain to me that there is a CUP between the Park Board and the City. It does limit their, there's 2 boat landings. They're limited in size and I think they're also limited to the size of the motors that can be put in on each one. And it was under those guidelines that the City authorized the Park to go forward. I'm not aware of any recipient agreement that binds the City to anything. It's a CUP and there may have been some understandings but as Mike explained it to me, it was a CUP for the Park to build their facility. Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Tom Huntington: Hi. I'm Tom Huntington. The President of the Minnewashta Beach Area. Actually the Association. Just one comment to bring us back on focus that we're talking Minnewashta Heights here. We're not talking expansion. We're talking 14. Not the 17 that we had documented in 1981 of actual people that were on the lake and had their boats in our area. And I just wanted to be clear and reiterate the fact that it is based on the ruling that the way I understand it, from what I've read, is that we are to go back on the 1981 number of boat counts that were on the area at that time. And we have documentation to back that up if need be or actually people that we can contact if that has to be done. Any questions? Conrad: Yeah. Our inventory pretty much tracks those docked when we did it and that's a point in time. 6 in '81. 6 in '86. 7 in '91. Tom Huntington: Is there something where you? Conrad: ...saying there were 14 boats. Tom Huntington: Well actually 17 as of 1981. Conrad: Those were assignments. Were there boats on the water? Tom Huntington: Actually I am newer to the neighborhood. I've been in the neighborhood for 5 years. I couldn't actually say myself but what I understand. 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 9 Emmings: If the City went down and counted today, they'd see no boat. They'd see a spot. There's a lift. There's kind of a lift that looks like it's seen better days sitting in that spot but there wouldn't be a boat but there'd be a space. Conrad: I don't have a problem. I think that's real clear. You see a lift. Emmings: I don't know if it's always so clear. And if it was clear in '81. Conrad: Did they have boat lifts? Emmings: I think so. Mike Plehal: That's all I have. Emmings: Alright, thank you. Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission? el Rich Nelson: Yes, my name is Rich Nelson. I live at 6241 Elm Tree Avenue with my wife Nannette and we like Mike just moved in recently. Much more recently than he did. March of 1992. And again, I guess our big decision in moving into the area was the access to the lake and when you see on the map that you have there, the boat lift. Or I guess the spot that I'm assigned, my boat is not down there today. I have a boat. It's in my garage and I'm in the process of looking for a boat lift to keep the boat down there safely and securely. I've been out on the lake here probably 3 n or 4 times this season and it's very enjoyable out there. It's not crowded. I mean from what I've seen. Being out there Saturday and Sunday, prime time use. There is absolutely no problems with congestion or excess 1i traffic out there. 5o I just wanted to point that out as well. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Mary Onken: Hi. I'm Mary Onken. I live at 6221 Greenbriar. We moved up here about 7 years ago and I also was very attracted by the lake lot. I fi have some secretary notes from a long time ago, starting about 1974 and they talk about, about 10 years before your ordinance that talked about how this space was filling up even then. So I think the 14 boats has been a long standing thing for us. We haven't expanded. I agree with your need to regulate the lake. In the little time that we've been here, about the last 7 years, I've seen changes. There's quite a bit of building around the lake and I can see where these homeowners associations can put an awful lot of access to the lake. I think the park is a very fair way to regulate them number of people coming in. I think we pretty well all agree in the Minnewashta Heights group that we just want to maintain our status quo. What we have. We're not looking for expansion. We want to be good neighbors. We want to see the lake regulated in a way that will keep it in very good shape. Shifting to another subject a little bit. I know it isn't the object of tonight's deal but I've-seen a difference in the water quality. My nephew also did some studies when he went to college to look into the different ways to save lakes. I wonder if the commission would II Planning Commission Meeting 11 July 1, 1992 - Page 10 1 also, or whether your Planning Commission would look into ways that the sewer water and the waste water or storm sewer water could be cleaned up before it comes into the lake. Right now I think it just pretty much goes right in. Batzli: We are actually in the process of, we have a task force, the Surface Water Quality Task Force. Right now I think they're devoting a I substantial amount of time to plotting the lakes that we have and the quality and trying to put some projects togethers. If you do want to follow up on that, I encourage you to talk to Paul in our Planning 1 Department. It's been a very active group and we're moving ahead and I think we're actually leading a lot of the communities in the State as far as putting something like this together and getting going on it. 1 Mary Onken: I think that's great. So I think we support your, what you're trying to do and we don't want to expand. We want to stay where we are. Thank you. 1 Conrad: What do you have in your book on 1981? Anything that we should know that we don't know? 1 Mary Onken: Oh I don't know. I was reading this and I had to guess what years you would be focusing on initially. So I think even back, I think it was in '74 they talked about 14 boat slips. Space for 14 boats. 1 Conrad: Anything that you could show in there that says that can give us more information on actual use? II Emmings: In '81. Conrad: Be real persuasive. II Mary Onken: I'm sorry, but I don't have that. I think looking at the number of boats that are in the slips is kind of akin to looking at my 1 garage and my driveway and trying to figure out how any cars I have. On any given day maybe 4 of us will be done and there won't be any cars at home. And on another day, the whole works might be there so counting the II number of boats at a particular time I think is kind of a strange way to arrive at how many boats were there. • Farmakes: Do you pay for your assignment? 1 Mary Onken: Sorry. 1 Farmakes: Do you pay the Association for your assignment? Mary Onken: For my boat slip? Yes, we started voluntarily additional II assessments for the boat slips and we have a dues for the association of which most of that association dues goes for insurance. Farmakes: Do you keep records of those payments? 1 Bill Finlayson: Yes. For 3 years now we've collected for boat slips. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 11 Farmakes: Okay, but not for '81? , Bill Finlayson: No. But we have a Treasurer who would keep track of that. Batzli: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else like to address the , Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Ladd, why don't we start at your end. ' Conrad: Are the neighbors to this beachlot, are they part of the Association? ' Bill Finlayson: All lakeshore people are part of it. Conrad: They are? Anybody here? 1 Bill Finlayson: Do you have a map on this? Those homes are. Conrad: Anybody here that lives next door? We haven't heard any problems II with the swimming beach? The issue goes back. I think everything that I see is fine except for the number of boats and I guess I still haven't bee persuaded. I'll wait for maybe some other input from the Planning Commissioners. It's a mighty small lot and it's just a mighty small lot. I think it is a little bit at risk in terms of safety but if we haven't heard any problems. The neighbors aren't complaining, then I'm fine with II that at this point. I think the staff has recommended marker buoys and I think that has to be done. The only other issue other than, in terms of what the association is requesting, is boats. And I guess I'm still not, 1 haven't been moved from the 6 in the inventory but maybe somebody on the commissioner can sell me. I think the other ones, what we're trying to do is be real fair in terms of the beachiots that are coming in. Trying to somehow make some sense out of what we're doing and the last thing we want II to do is really take away some rights that you've got. We hate that. We're not comfortable. Yet on the other hand, as you've heard Tom Merz talk about the other thing we're trying to do is merge the needs of the II lake. Not necessarily the riparian owners but the needs of the lake and the safety issues and there are a number of boats that can be on the lake without making it a hazard. And that's really true. It is 20 acres per boat. Minnewashta probably has more boats allocated to it than are safe conditions. Part of that is the problem of the park. But it's also a problem of beachiots too...and also a problem with homeowners. But anyway, that's right now, I think everything's okay other than the number of boats.' I guess somebody has to, I haven't seen anything to move me. I think if the homeowners showed me a picture or somebody showed me something in 1981, I think I could. Obviously the dock can take 14 boats. It's built to fit II but I haven't seen the use yet that can sway me. Batzli: So you would recommend 6? Conrad: Right now that's what I'm thinking until I hear the rest of you. II Planning Commission Meeting I I July 1, 1992 - Page 12 II Batzli: Matt? Ledvina: I understand the arguments as it relates to boats being out of the water and boats being out on the lake and the intention for the I homeowners association for the number of boats. That seems to be, they've done a good job of saying that out. And I think if that, if they can indeed prove that they intended to have 14 boats, and those boats in use on that lot, I think that would be a reasonable number to allow. I'm a little bit concerned about the documentation that's been submitted to us. You know they appear to be older diagrams and such but there's really no I authors identified and I think this is the documentation that's provided really swaps me in terms of going with the 14 boats but, and it seems to be certainly legitimate but I would like to see the names of the individuals that were involved in preparing the lists. II Bill Finlayson: If you'd like to see originals. II Ledvina: Well, would you happen to know the individual that for example, determined the 1981 assignments and wrote the list? I mean is that readily available? II Bill Finlayson: There were various Beach Chairmans. You'll notice documentation...there's diagrams so people took various amounts of effort depending on who those individuals were over the years. Some just...notes I and some did more than that. But they're all authentic and I have the originals and the names that appear on, many of those names don't live in the neighborhood. II Conrad: Do you have By -Laws? Bill Finlayson: Yes. II Conrad: Anything that relates to the dock assignments in the By -Laws? II Bill Finlayson: Actually it hasn't been a very big problem in the past, so it hasn't been a very big priority. But recently in recent years now, at our last meeting we had asked for a committee to draw up just what you're II asking for. More stringent rules because it hasn't been a problem before so it just hasn't gotten done. Now it has to be done... We don't have rules per se. We will probably next year. I Ledvina: Well it's a difficult issue and the other items of the inventory and the requests, I don't have any problem with. Again the real issue is the number of boats that are requested here and I am leaning toward I allowing the 14 that you have currently documented here but I am open to other discussion. That's it for me. II Batzli: Okay. Steve. Emmings: Like I say, I'm a little bit, I personally experience this beachlot every day so I think I'm being objective about it but I want I everybody to know that I do. My house is tipped at such an angle that I actually look a little bit to the east so I look straight out the end of my house. I can see this a few lots over. Frankly, it bothers me less II Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 13 than I might have thought it does. It's a very small piece of land. I I think they do a very good job of keeping up the shore area. It's way too small for the number of boats that are on it. There's, anybody who'd say anything else is, well. It's ridiculous. But nevertheless, that's not what we're here to decide. Now you get, you have to have 200 feet of Lakeshore and 30,000 square feet to get one dock with 3 boats you know so you can see that proportionately you're way over. I've always thought that it crowded the neighbors a lot and I think that's very unfair to the direct" neighbors but you know, the neighbors on each side aren't here tonight. When they've got a chance to say their piece, they aren't here and that's, ..if you don't speak up, sometimes you can't get heard. I think they've II adjusted this year somewhat and I think it's less of a problem this year than it has been in past years but to me it does not appear that they're back inside the setback but it may just be deceiving when you try to eyeball it. It's congested over there. The thing that bothers me the most about it is the light they have out there all night long. If they've got one of these big, bright lights out there and that's probably important maybe for safety and the use of it but that impacts me and I don't like it but, I don't even see that on here as an issue. I don't know if that was there in '81. As far as the swimming raft goes, I know that's been there as long as, I've been out there since '82 and I know that swimming raft has" been there at least as long as I have been. So we come right down to the nitty gritty here which is the number of boats. If I had to bet, I'd say that there are more boats now than when I was first out there in '82. It just looks like it but I never counted them back then so I don't know either. So when I look at the documentary evidence that we have, which I think is all we've really got to go by, I see the list of 1981 assignments and that's 17. And then when you look back in the history, in 1979 it shows 12 and '78 it shows, I'm not sure what it shows. It shows 11 I think!! with spaces for 15. In '77 it shows 12 boats. But as you look back here, and back in '76 there's a total of 14 and the dock is always basically in ' the same configuration. So if I decide on it based on this information that we have in front of us, I don't know any other way to go but with the 14. Even our own surveys, when they say 6 with room for 14, that suggests to me that same dock configuration was there. How could they count the, how could you count a space without, you know what I mean? You're not making up those spaces. Those docks are out there with the main dock with the arms coming off it. Even that suggests to me that it's a 14 boat dock Conrad: Is intent good enough for you? Emmings: No, but I know when I look down here at 7 in '91, there is no, absolutely no question in my mind. There are the same number of boats there this year as there were last year. I realty looked at it last year because I knew this was coming so I looked at it more closely. I didn't count the boats but I looked at it more closely. And I'd say if anything, II right now when I was out there today, there were fewer boats than there were last year. At the peak. And you know that boats aren't there all the!' time. So that makes me suspect that the numbers. So I don't know. I'd like to see it restricted to 3 boats. If I had my way, I'd say they can, you have 3 boats and that's it but we clearly don't have that power. We've got to try and get at the number that was there and we've got to try and make sure that we've got a fair number and we've got to make sure that it doesn't ever expand any more. And based on all of the stuff that they've 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 14 shown us out of their records, I'd go along with the 14 boats. I don't like it but I'd go along with it. Batzli: Anything about marker buoys? Emmings: Um, well sure. I don't really have any way to judge whether it makes it safer or not to have the buoys. If our staff thinks that it's ' important for safety purposes, I certainly wouldn't contest that. Batzli: Jeff. 1 Farmakes: I would go along with staff recommendations on this. Back up the buoys. It seems to me that for anyone who has, went through the expense of putting out dockage, it's quite expensive. And if the City ' documented that there are 14 spaces there for dockage, the fact that there only happened to be 6 boats there at the time. I guess, maybe they were out on the lake or maybe they were in the shop or something. I'm willing ' to believe them. That that's what they had there and it made the intent of the '81 ordinance. Or '82, if it was enacted. in January of '82. But that's in line with that and I don't think we have anything to say one way or the other that that's now what was there that's conclusive. 5o that ' being the case, I'm willing to take their word for it. Batzli: Okay. Well, I remember being at this beachlot back in '78 thru, well '76 thru about '80. I had a good friend in the neighborhood and I remember going down there. There were a lot of boats back then. I never counted them. I remember swimming to the raft. I mean all this stuff was there. Whether the boats were physically in the water at the time this thing was counted, I guess I kind of take Jeff's approach that, I can't imagine that peopled in't have. You know people that had slips maybe pulled their boats in and out occasionally. I guess I'm not going to guess ' that. I believe that there were probably more than 6 boats from my recollection on those docks so I'm going to go with the 14 that they're requesting. I think it's reasonable. The only thing I would like, I would like staff to double check this angle on the park. Make sure there's nothing in writing regarding this or some other survey. Aanenson: The conditional use permit? Batzli: Yeah. And I'd like to see the marker buoys out. Anybody have a motion? I'd love to hear it. Conrad: You were there in '78? Emmings: '76. Batzli: Well yeah, throughout school with friends. College. ' Conrad: And do you feel the staff inventory was not? Batzli: I seem to remember more boats than 6 but I couldn't say for sure how many that were there. Conrad: If there are 14 boats, where does the swimming beach go? 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 15 Bill Finlayson: The boats stay on the west side of the dock. The swimming' beach is on the east side of the dock so they don't infringe on each other. They don't take away, the boat people do not take away any rights of the swimming beach. The majority of the lot... 1 Conrad: 50 feet. Okay, so you've separated boats from swimmers. Bill Finlayson: 60 feet. , Emmings: The dock runs down the middle and the boats are all on the west and the swimming is on the east from my observations. 1 Conrad: But basically the boat access is over...neighboring property owners. You really couldn't have boats on your own 50 feet but as long as the swimming beach is separate. Okay. The homeowners aren't here complaining. Emmings: I'm going to move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Minnewashta Heights Non- Conforming recreational beachiot with basically everything that our report says that the Minnewashta Heights Association has requested with the addition of or with these following II changes. That the boats at the dock would be 14 and that if marker buoys will enhance the safety of the swimming beach, that they be installed. Who's made that determination? Aanenson: Well the concern was the raft is way out beyond the length of the dock. Quite a ways out there. Actually the length of the swimming beach is probably only 8 to 10 feet at the most so it'd be a linear II swimming beach on the way out to the raft. Just when you get out to the raft there's not a conflict with the boats coming in. So I think it's appropriate to say that we will check to make sure if it will enhance it or not. Emmings: Okay. Conrad: So the buoys would have to surround the raft? How would the markers? Aanenson: That's what we'd have to look at. Bill Finlayson: Marker buoys, will staff, if marker buoys are required, I will you diagram for us...? Batzli: Is there a second to Steve's motion? Ledvina: Second. Batzli: Is there any discussion? 1 Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot Permit for Minnewashta Heights with one seasonal dock, 150 feet in-length, 2 canoe racks, 14 boats' docked, swimming beach and a swimming raft, which staff will look at to see 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 1, 1992 - Page 16 ' if marker buoys will enhance the safety of the swimming raft. All voted in favor except Ladd Conrad who didn't vote and the motion carried. ' Batzli: And when will it go to the City Council? Krauss: The 27th. Batzli: July 27th this issue will go before the City Council and I encourage you to follow the issue up. As I indicated, we recommend. They make the final decision. Thank you all for coming in. PUBLIC HEARING: ' INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTHWORK /MINING OF A GRAVEL PIT. LOCATED NORTH OF HWY. 212 AND EAST OF THE CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY, MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE. (Tim Ehart arrived to the meeting during discussion of this item and Steve Emmings left the meeting during discussion of this item.) Public Present: Name Address Dave Johnson 821 Creekwood (Left written comment) Richard Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail Dennis & Catherine Bartholow 9841 Deerbrook Lane II Emily Pischleder 185 Pioneer Trail Tom Dalyonrod 8280 West Lake Court Jeffrey Michell 9961 Deerbrook Drive Gerald Bertsch 8556 Irwin Road, Bloomington Rick Sathre Sathre - Berquist, Consultant Engineers Tom Zwiers Moon Valley Aggregate 1 David Johnson had to leave the meeting early and left this written statement to be included into the record. TO: Chanhassen City Council FROM: David Johnson 1 821 Creekwood Re: Moon Valley Gravel Site. ' Ladies /Gentlemen: Due to time constraints I am unable to be present to present concerns over the further mining of the Moon Valley site. As an occupation I am a realtor. I am keenly interested in how one I area of a development can affect other areas of development. Unless extreme caution is used in upfront agreements, the end result can be and most often is unacceptable. 1