The URL can be used to link to this page

7.5 Non-Conforming Use Permit, Minnewashta Shore Beachlot • 0 7,,C C ITYOF III li toir, ii) cHANBILssEN I ... 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 I AMA 69 CO Administrator irks. ✓ � wPt MEMORANDUM ti- --Rte TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Dat6 Submitted to Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner 1 _2.6 II.-- 1 DATE: October 22, 1992 . SUBJ: Minnewashta Shores Non-Confoping Recreational Beachlot k \ , y BACKGROUND The Minnewashta Shores Subdivision was ' platted in 1957. There are 22 homeowners in the association. The beachlot is 2 acres in size and has approximately 450 feet of shoreline. When I this subdivision was created, the lot with the beachiot had a different configuration. The shoreline originally was consistent with Lots I and G. in 1977 the beachlot was dredged to I create a cove. The beachlot is now,:a'cove with multiple as opposed to .a common dock. These piers are 24 to 32 feet in length depending on the depth of the water. This beachlot does meet the square footage requirements of 30,000 square feet but not the 200 feet of frontage for 1 each dock.." : _ There is a structure T the thorethat _ e attiZ - i -_ s' of a canoe rack or a boat launch I at this s beachlo :N - There � e -, _ �g aces," vailabl�,� � f ,. beachlot was done by staff in 1981. The inventory noted that there were 12 boats at the dock, - fildialWthere appeared to be room for 20. Thisnvery also noted that 10 docks (piers) were,,ted at the site. The I inventory done by staff did not identify idenlify,whether orAo4,theboatslotifted or on land were motorized or non - motorized. There is not a swimming eac at: us beachlot. I 0 The association is requesting approval of e ` docks (piers) with the use of 18 boats to be moored and 7 boats to be stored on land. Staff is concerned that the total number of boats at this beachlot is 25. This would be the largest number of boats at any recreational beachlot in the I city. Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission make a determination as to whether or not the boats on land should be motorized or non - motorized, or limited horse power on the engines. 1 eit t t41 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Don Ashworth October 22, 1992 Page 2 The Association has provided staff with documentation as to the number of boats approved in 1 the summer of 1981. They have provided documentation showing who paid for the dock rights. In addition, they have provided staff with letters from those residents who had paid for dock space but did not have their boats in the water. Staff noted that there were 12 boats at the beachlot, and the letters from the residents account for 6 more boats, for a total of 18 boats. SUMMARY The Association is requesting approval (9) (piers) with docking for 18 boats and 4 g PP roval of nine �) docks (P approval for 7 boats on land. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On September 2, 1992, the Planning Commission held the public hearing for the Minnewashta Shores Recreational Beachlot. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the permit for the beachlot allowing 4 off street parking, 9 piers, allowing for 18 boats to be docked and 7 non - motorized boats on land. ATTACHMENTS 1. Subdivision Map U 2. Non - Conforming Beachlot Application 3. 1981 Beachlot Inventory 4. Associations Documentation 1 4. Notice of Hearing with Mailing Names 1 1 1 1 1 • NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT 1 ASSOCIATION P.C. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST RECOMMEND ACTION 1 Association Minnewashta Estates Shores 1 Lake Minnewashta Number of Homes 22 Size, square feet 87,120 sq. ft. I Shoreline 450 feet Motor Vehicle Access yes yes Off-Street Parking 4 4 I Boat Launch no 1 Buildings not requested Picnic Tables not requested I Grills/Campfires not requested Seasonal Dock 9 piers 9 piers Diagram 1 Canoe Racks not requested Boats on Land 7 7 non-motorized Boats at Dock 18 18 Boats Moored not requested 1 Swimming Beach no 1 Marker Buoys Swimming Raft yes I Miscellaneous 1 * Items requested by the Association for determination. I 5c ; /c; / 2DV' S�,..4 y e ye/5/ /957 v fi r, . M n ne�vas ham- ae+ V 0,, A- t hereby certify that i n < er`1e� 1;' + sions of Chapter 508, Minnes( Sh ores >~, e 0 01 5ti amended, I have surveyed the �►- � i�� o s«. s��rs rs wA ‘ Ng ,,„ ,.' � ^ „c of land in the County of Cart H A sofffs:sow r t ow i t : -- �T0 2 ;. ,— �`f %`�= That part of Section :o. ” • ' �� Range 23 West of the Fifth Pr as follows: Beginning at a . ,' b *It __„ North line of said Section 5, v.4% > links west of the Northeast c ,i Wi 8 = � , said point of beginning beinc �aN �� i of Section 32, Township 117 t W - , -- west along the North line of ° _ of 135 feet to a Judicial Lar C z :• �M * angle South 1645 75 feet to f x Z of �` continuing South along said r ',.�`' - ordina "y high water mark of of- °' A £' � an easterly and northerly dir t ; Z a �. _ a � high water mark of said lake I _ _ line bearing South 25° East 1 (/ V. ... thence North 25° West to a Jt 1 s 3 J N , 621.72 feet South 25° -East fr bra ��, said last named Judicial Lan( , i • k° �- . � _ of the center l i n e of Lake Si , ' t Leke Lots; thence continuing a h I ' K � :.� � t , o: to the point of be i nn i n 1 `fr o " ` ' + � .: :: <; 6 �¢ The East 250 feet of n .. I,+ ; " . ,�. ,! tract of land, lying south of • i, ,�. .;•�•'••` _ . ... / line of State Trunk Highway t .t . .... _ :,;� , s / 5, Township 116 North, Range *° .x . : / cipat eridian, desribed as i . °` ' `_ `r ` "'` ' ':: Judici Landmark i the Nort II � ° ^ ': "' `` / distant 807.54 feet west of t " ° ' Section 5 said point of b egi ' /so.i •IS e ms • �o ;` west of the Southeast corner Range 23; thence west along t G action 5 to Judicial L3ndn .. ., . - _ , ' ,z ° . ' ' / 4, South if corner of above menti .„ .., �� . � s ,. . , Ar Q, South along a line hereinafte I II j Q. and which line forms a Southe " 411 v V 1l,, the North line of said Sectio P ?� ' *7i / feet to a Judicial landmark i 1 k ; County Road known as State Ai "' easterly along the Southerly �' — r =z ,.• �� ..4 " ' 4: toe J landmark 30 fee a•• �' i i said "Line A "; thence South p • II _ so t• " ' `� s and the extension thereof a d ,-.4.- \ \ Judicial landmark; thence eas 'gy fa sa IS p line of said Section 5 e dist ''�� s z Judicial landmark; thence sou p ;� � �y sion of said "Line A" 408 fee i Ni, .. \ \ thence continuing South paral said "Line A" to the ordinary Jr^ j� Minnewashte; thence east alon ,;f�' ,► :r / mark of said lake to its into 0 'n•= S"'0 lo southerly from the point of b 1 ��- `� � , - ; s ' , t �-�� to the North l i n e of s a i d Sec ! ; )'/ said right angle line to a Ju — South from the point of begin L feet to the point of beginnir A '� . That the survey shown hereon ■ ( • ter, J / . - -_,\...._ 1- - .., itu-, ' -',. - - - - s. tt -N , '� r 43 - �� :: ,. ,'-' i i, i \ , / ._____ : 4 ." . ' , I) t , . ,,.._ _,-„' , : 7 -4, - i4' , ; •- '''' \\ IN ''''.. 1..4:y ''`" - - li , .,i.. , . r i - , 21 . ' ' 111* .' , '-'''''..1‹.--N-: ------='t. ... --'-'441:1tAIP .4- -' 4'. '''' - — 7 '''':;I''.7- -..4 ' ''... ..$ 1' s\ 1 ,. 1 . t 1 , P .' .- ' ''.- - - -7 -..... - ''. . - , - .2 i r'r ' . • • . Nik X Y „... ; ' ..' ' ' ' ' f' .- :L. . .., . -____„,.._.... . g . v ' ‘ 4 . ■ I -% 4 .,,t,....._-_4101„: :0 ,...,... 7 .... , 117 -: "Mai 1.-' - a „ • , liw AVIO .6N '4,,,,. -* ' t ;. , 1. - , _— - </ c‹ _.,,, . : , - . .,.. ,,,- -.,.•,- .. _ ' n '_ A �� t - 1 tv.\\s.... , 1 + ys x i "It . ° s. 1 ..' * , x / WP” it . IA 3 • , , lit i *. ,, . .., , „ , .4. if - - . _ . ..., , r ,- , , •■ . ( i f„ ,,,,.... , f . i , • .,..:7,, air It :4 b '''s 4 ' rea ; ' ' ,._ “ r )1,... '. - . 7 - ‘?,.. Itekiii lit. ''' • , , ' ,, •,..., 3 N, i k i - / ' i I t•fiitt . 11 itP ' 411k • se • s ® -� - Se f' �. lIl 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NON - CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT APPLICATION 11 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: ft'J I /vtJr I,{J 1 t{ f hkwg C l,o /„ �L t CONTACT PERSON: 717=74rtO Gt ^ n (; n (L ADDRESS: C CSR el (pLslbe ‘"3/ TELEPHONE (Day time) £ 1 7 f ( / . 7 TELEPHONE (Evening) : '-t7Y —/(e l Please provide all requested data consistent with what existed in the summer of 1981. 1. Number of homes in the Homeowners Association -,. / 2. Length of shoreland (feet) � �' 3. Total area of Beachiot (in square feet) • /3 4. Number of docks /0 -3 6. Length of dock (s) , / v vl Or'1 Ce»1d 2't 7. Number of bo .ts docked L - 8. Number of anoe' rack 9. Number of boats stored on canoe racks 10. Number of boats moored, i.e. canoes, paddle boats, sailboats. ' 11. Number of boats on land 0.4 7 S-1kL6-Aur( er\ krd 12. Swimming beach Yes No Buoys Yes No ' 13. Swimming Raft Yes `/ No 1� 14. Boat Launch Yes No 15. Motor vehicle access Yes X No 1 Number of parking spaces Li 16. Structures, including portable chemical toilets: 1 M (& 1 1 1 II RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 Minnewashta Estates Shores 1 22 homes Lake Minnewashta 1 3 acres 450' of shoreline 1 Motor Vehicle Access yes yes yes Off - Street Parking yes 4 yes 4 yes 4 1 car car car Boat Launch no no no II Permanent Buildings no no no Setbacks II Temporary Buildings no no no Portable Restroom no no no II Picnic Tables no no no Grills /Campfires no no no Seasonal Docks 10 10 8 II Approximate Length II Canoe Racks no no no Boats on Land 7 3 0 II Boats Moored no no no Boats Docked 12 11 10 Swimming Beach no no no Marker Bouys no no no II Swimming Raft yes yes no Comments: II II 1 1 1 2 1 RECREATIONAL BEACH LOT SURVEY EXISTING CONDITIONS Date: 601 4,1 Name of Home Owners Association: MiA41414AILIttk &VW Number of Dwelling Units: 22 Lake: (Vlit IkAALUMN4k Approximate Size of Beach Lot: 7A -- 3 041111 " II Width of Lot at Shoreline: 450 t. Motor Vehicle Access: Yes:V No: I Off - Street Parking Area: Yes: V No: Approx. Size of Parking Area: A Boat Launch: Yes: No: 1 II Permanent Buildings: N Approx. Setback from Lake: 1 Temporary Buildings: M Portable Restrooms: Yes: No: Picnic Tables: AoAt II Grills /Campfire Sites: M649- Permanent Docks: II Approximate Length: z Seasonal Docks: Z Approximate imate Len th : 4 PP 9 • II Canoe Racks: Mtl►K (# of spaces) II # of Boats Stored on Land: # of Boats Moored at Buoys: WV 11 # of Boats Moored at Docks: 12, -- KANNVi W J . 1 1 Swimming Beach: Yes: No: 1 Marker Buoys: Yes: No: Swimming Raft: Yes: V No: 1 I( l . Approximate Size: � 2 t2 Comments: ��' tft4h~` quit rEvik coccattioAtalA .1 aural:At astoiN . >it I • 1_11 • .4.1 Ci" k .■■1 ettri4;4 tft bk AI. ikk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Minnewashta Shores, Inc. 6341 Cypress Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 August 27, 1992 1 Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Kate: Enclosed is documentation supporting the association's request uest for 18 boat slips on nine PP g docks. The association's secretary/treasurer researched our papers and produced these materials. She explains their contents in a 2 -page memo marked "Memo" and has marked the pertinent parts in yellow marker. In the payment structure, 1 -boat and 2 -boat users are dock users. We assess no additional charge for boats placed on the land boat /canoe storage structure. ' Also enclosed are signed statements from current and past homeowners in the association who had a boat(s) docked at our marina but whose boat(s) were not present for the June 4, 1981 count. All of these people still live at the addresses used in the statements or documented in the payment records, except the one marked with a non - Chanhassen address. Again, all of the boats mentioned were tied to docks, not kept on the land boat /canoe storage structure. 1 The statements bring to 18 the boats that should have been included in the census on June 4, 1981. We are unable to account for the remaining two boats on the second temporary dock noted in the city's survey, and do not include them in our non - conforming use permit request. in erely 4,9 can K. Wood resident 1 1 1 1 2 1V 4 , 70 3 ATTACHMENTS: Minnewashta Shores Corp - Special Meeting Minutes February 27, 1977 and March 1, 1977 Minutes of Minnewashta Shores, Inc. Meeting June 26, 1977 The above attachments are submitted as evidence of the original plans that all members of the association who did not have direct lake frontage properties (off -shore owners) be entitled to a dock and boatslip at the common park lot. Plans were made and approved for dredging the lake area, adding fill to the park lot and the installation of eight permanent dock structures. The eight docks provided space for the sixteen off -shore owners to moor boats. As evidenced by these minutes, each off -shore owner was assessed $493.75 for the cost of the marina development. Further, the property deed for each off -shore owner was amended to include a covenant for the dock space and marina. A diagram of the boat slip locations is included as an attachment to the March 1, 1977, minutes. This boat slip assignment is still in effect today. ATTACHMENT: Undated letter to MEMBERS OF MINNEWASHTA SHORES ASSOCIATION from Doug Johnson, then President of the Association. Although this letter is undated, its references throughout to the 1981 budget and the Lake Study Commission's first draft of the lakeshore ordinance, puts the date of this letter somewhere between March 1981 and July 1981. This letter addresses the equity of charges for the maintenance of 1 the park and marina. There are numerous financial charts which lists "16 boat users" and the respective additional costs per boat user. 1 However, of the 16 boat users, two of these users had 2 boats each, making a total of 18 boats. These two extra boats were moored at a 1 ninth dock which was approved by the members during the 1981 meeting of the association. i We have been unable to locate the minutes of this 1981 meeting, however, the following attachment provides evidence of the existance of this ninth dock. 1 1 ce ATTACHMENT: Minutes of Minnewashta Shores Annual Meeting held on April 18, 1992. This document is submitted as evidence of the ninth dock which was installed by off -shore owners Oppegaard and Johnson. The minutes 1 state that this dock was approved "as was done in 1981" for a one - year term to be voted on annually. 1 ATTACHMENT: DUES PAYMENT LOG FOR THE YEARS 1980 THROUGH 1992: 1 This document is submitted to show the payments made by the members of Minnewashta Shores. As evidenced, the off -shore 1 owners paid extra dues for the marina and boat slips. 1981 dues were: 1 4 Active on -shore members $30 General Fund (Lots F,G,I & L, and M) 14 Off -Shore (1 boat) $34 General Fund (Lots A,B,C,D,E,K,P,Q, $27 Marina Fund S,T,U,V,W, and X) 2 Off -Shore (2 boats each) $34 General Fund 1 (Lots J and R) $54 Marina Fund 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 August 25, 1992 1 1 In 1981 my family resided at 6340 Cypress Drive and we were members of the Minnewashta Shores Homeowners Association. We kept a boat at the association's marina that year. On June 4 of 1981 our boat was still in our yard and not place at the marina until 1 after June 4. _ _<64` � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 August 25, 1992 Jean Wood President, Minnewashta Shores Association 1 Dear Jean, I understand that on June 4, 1981, a count was taken of the boats tied to docks at the Minnewashta Shores Marina, and that the count taken at that time affects the number of boats allowed under current negotiations. I would like the June 4, 1981 report to make note of the fact that our two boats were not yet in the water at that early date, because that summer our family's priority was 11 with my mother's recovery from surgery. It should be noted that our boats were in use by late June. Thank you for taking our circumstance into account. i Mary Oppegaard 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 August 25, 1992 In 1981 my family famil resided at 6300 Cypress Drive and we were members of the Minnewashta Shores Homeowners Association. We kept a boat at the association's marina that 1 year. On June 4 of 1981 our boat was still in our yard as it is my custom not to launch the boat at the Minnewashta marina until the end of June. , A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 August 24, 1992 1 In 1981 my family resided at 6331 Cypress Drive and were members of the Minnewashta Shores Homeowners Association. We maintained two boats at the association's marina that year. On June 4 of 1981, one boat was in the water, but the other was not launched until after that date. ./ / LP L(,,j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . N MO IMO al INN MN MS all MI MS MN — it an INS NM NM all OR NM rA A .t , \ : • • 1 c, j-. . ..., ,:. - . .-, ,...., , K ,.) V- N, i - - - _., 1/4 1 (.,) I 1 4 - ) L el'Ol'e -i lw * 6 - ' 1 ' 4D u 'i o w0 1 70 0 s j , ) M /NNEWASHTA ,� ._ HE/GHTS PARK L - p § O O o M O In M on M 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ` �� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ST. s of ■ a ■ u m ar gy .� Wednesday, September 2, 1992 l7. :_ �� Ci ∎ , r s 7:30 P.M. A ; ,�_ 11 ■ sr Ct { 4i - - 1 City Hall Council Chambers a 0� r 1.! :` r. , 690 Coulter Drive i _ , � 1 , c2 2 1 Project: Non - Conforming Use Permit _ �' 1 For Recreational Beachlot _ - -- - ---:----- - - -- -- . Applicant: Minnewashta Shores ( ... z I Homeowners Association f t `: 1 \-i i.... Location: North Shore of Lake �`"�� 1 Minnewashta ( 1 LAKE � , (r I Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The Minnewashta Shores Homeowners Association is applying for a non- conforming use permit for their recreational beachlot. 1 What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this 1 project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. I 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. 1 Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you I wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937 -1900. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. I Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 20, 1992. 1 1 ESTATE F AHRENS 1 S MINNEWASHTA HOA HERBERT Ph'l;FFER RT 1 BOX 284 CIO LOIS GOEDE 2850 TANAGERS BROWERVILLE MN 56438 2851 TANAGERS EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PER & E JACOBSON GENE FURY STEPHEN ORTLIP 1 2840 TANAGERS 2821 WASHTA BAY ROAD 14880 30TH ST SW EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WATERTOWN MN 55388 I HARRY NIEMELA DONALD ANDERSON WAYNE HOLZER 1 2841 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2851 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2911 WASHTA BAY ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 NORMAN CASPERSON ALLAN TOLLEFSON GLENN COPPERSMITH 2921 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2931 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2941 WASHTA BAY ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 JOSEPH BOYER CURRENT RESIDENT SUSAN FIEDLER 3630 VIRGINIA AVE 3111 DARTMOUTH DR 3121 DARTMOUTH DR I WAYZATA MN 55391 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS MERZ JAMES GINTHER STEPHEN MARTIN 3201 DARTMOUTH DR 3131 DARTMOUTH DR 3211 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 RAYMOND ROETTGER M MOORE/K HALL WARREN HANSON 1 3221 DARTMOUTH DR 3231 DARTMOUTH DR 3241 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 CURRENT RESIDENT WILLIAM NAEGELE CURRENT RESIDENT 6341 CYPRESS DR 4300 BAKER ROAD 3311 SHORE DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MINNETONKA MN 55343 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 r BARBARA WINTHEISER FLORENCE BISCHOFF WILLIAM MCDANIEL 3321 SHORE DRIVE 3331 SHORE DRIVE 3341 SHORE DRIVE 1 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 F DENTON WHITE HENRY ARNESON LAWRENCE SHINNICK 3351 SHORE DRIVE 3401 SHORE DRIVE 3411 SHORE DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 I M POSTHUMUS & E TUSSEY JOHN MCKELLIP CURRENT RESIDENT I 3421 SHORE DRIVE 3431 SHORE DIVE 3441 SHORE DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 'MORRIS MULLIN RED CEDAR COVE INC WENDELL SCHOTT 3451 SHORE DRIVE C/O D C PRILLMAN 7034 RED CEDAR COVE 'EXCELSIOR MN 55331 7064 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 k URETHA SMITH CURRENT RESIDENT RALPH KARCZEWSKI 044 RED CEDAR COVE 7048 RED CEDAR COVE 7054 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WAR REN RIETZ DAVID PRILLAMAN CURRENT RESIDENT 1058 RED CEDAR COVE 7064 RED CEDAR COVE 7068 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT STEVEN EMMINGS 1 074 RED CEDAR COVE 7078 RED CEDAR COVE 6350 GREENBRIAR XCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 tICHARD HANSON ROBERT HEBEISEN I R CHARD ZWEIG 400 GREENBRIAR 3607 IRONWOOD ROAD 3601 IRONWOOD ROAD XCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 I URRENT RESIDENT FRANCIS FABER RICHARD WING 6331 CYPRESS DRIVE 3471 SHORE DRIVE 3481 SHORE DRIVE 1 XCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LLIAM TURNER DAVE HOELKE THOMAS WRIGHT 501 SHORE DRIVE 3621 IRONWOOD ROAD 3611 IRONWOOD ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 ICHAEL MORGAN L 0 PARSONS CURRENT RESIDENT 734 HICKORY 3732 HICKORY 3724 HICKORY XCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 MARVIN YORK ALFRED SMITH GREGORY BOHER 11 716 HICKORY 3714 HICKORY 3706 HICKORY XCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 GARY PETERSON JAMES MOORE SAMUEL POTTS 1769 20TH AVE NW 3630 HICKORY 3628 HICKORY NEW BRIGHTON MN 55112 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ERIC BAUER STEVEN KEUSEMAN KATHLEEN LOCKHART I 3624 RED CEDAR POINT 3622 RED CEDAR POINT 8549 IRWIN ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55437 1 EDWIN SEIM RICHARD SCHLENER THADDEUS SCHWABA 1 292 CHARLES DRIVE 200 COMMERCE CIR S 3603 RED CEDAR POINT SAN LUIS OBISPO CA MINNEAPOLIS MN 55432 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 93401 1 J D KNIGHT WYNN BINGER PAUL LARSON 485 PILLSBURY BLDG 2950 DEAN PKWY #1503 3609 RED CEDAR POINT 608 2ND AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55416 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 1 LUMIR PROSHEK EMIL SOUBA BIRATA DUNDURS 5704 DEWEY HILL DR 14025 VALE COURT 3627 RED CEDAR POINT 1 EDINA MN 55435 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LINDA JOHNSON CHARLES ANDING HELEN ANDING 3629 RED CEDAR POINT 3631 SOUTH CEDAR 1708 E 57TH STREET I EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55417 CHESTER LOBITZ LARRY VANDERLINDE ANDREW JENSEN 1 3637 SOUTH CEDAR 211 CHESTNUT BOX 277 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHASKA MN 55318 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 DAVID HEMPLE FRANK BOYCE CLIFFORD PEDERSEN 3707 SOUTH CEDAR 3711 SOUTH CEDAR 3713 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 I RICHARD ANDING BASIL BASTAIN CURRENT RESIDENT , 3715 SOUTH CEDAR 3719 SOUTH CEDAR 3725 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 KENNETH SMITH ROBERT C OSBORNE WALTER SCHWATZ 3837 RED CEDAR POINT 3815 RED CEDAR POINT 3888 FOREST RIDGE CIR 1 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHAKSA MN 55318 1 JEROME AHLMAN JOEL ANDERSON JOHN PETERJOHN 1 3896 LONE CEDAR 3894 LONE CEDAR 3892 LONE CEDAR CHAKSA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 1 CURRENT RESIDENT TERRANCE JOHNSON EDWARD OATHOUT 3890 LONE CEDAR 3898 LONE CEDAR 3940 HAWTHORNE CIR 1 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 GEOFFREY SCHIEFELBEIN STATE/MINNESOTA IN TRUST JOHN MERZ/DAVID TESTER 3920 HAWTHORNE CIR C/O CARVER CO AUDITOR 3897 LONE CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 600 EAST 4TH STREET CHASKA MN 55318 1 CHASKA MN 55318 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 24 PUBLIC HEARING: 1 NON- CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR MINNEWASHTA SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Public Present: Name Address ' Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive Jean Wood 6341 Cypress Pamela W. Iilies 6221 Cypress Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order. ' Jean Wood: My name is Jean Wood and I live at 6341 Cypress Drive. On your map it's marked Dartmouth but it is nonetheless, we call it Cypress' Kate has stated very clearly our request. Where we do have some historical points I think to point out is on the 7 boats that sit on the boat rack which is located at the head of our marina. You really can't see it but it's a series of posts. About 30 feet long and like I said, II there's room for probably, or as the City noted, 7 boats. We have no history in our Minutes as far as whether they were motorized or not motorized to be quite frank so I approached the Chair. The Chairman of the committee who oversaw the dredging and the building of the boat rack' about what was the history about that running from the installation in '77 thru '81. He said that there have been over the years small boats, including small boats with motors and he identified them as being motors' no larger than 15 horsepower. He said that most motored boats only stayed there for a few days and the motors are taken away, simply becaus we have had three incidents, and I can't tell you when these incidents were, of motors being stolen from the rack. And so basically they stay down there only for a few hours or a couple of days. It's not a storage rack for motorized for the entire season. That's not our tradition. Al so what we would ask is that in your recommendation that you do give us some leeway or some flexibility for small 15 hp motors to be down there. Are there any other questions about the plan or the history? I had to delve into this in great detail so I know all kinds of things now. Batzli: You're bursting to tell us? Jean Wood: No. No. ' Batzli: Okay, does anybody have any questions? This is a public 11 hearing. We may have some questions for you a little later. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Mary Jo Moore: Mary Jo Moore, Dartmouth Drive, Excelsior. I'm on the II lake. I have lakeshore property but I am a member of this association. Have been on and off for the 12 years since 1980. We have definitely researched and proved that there 18 boats in 1981. This is one association that has not grown. I've been here many times with others II that have expanded on their dockage and their boats. It's a very maintained property. It's 2 or 3 acres,. as Kate pointed out. I'm in a ' 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 25 11 little bit of a bad position here because in 1981 I was secretary - treasurer of the association and I happen to be this year also. However, I disagree with the association on the boats that are on the head of the marina. There were no motorized boats there. I kept a non - motorized rowboat and a canoe there and my recollection was that there was one other non - motorized boat there at the time. So I wouldn't want to see that expanded because if you put a 15 hp, I mean you could wind up with some pretty large fishing boats and that sort of stuff and it would grow too much. So I'm in kind of a bad position, on this one guys but my recollection, and I was secretary- treasurer at the time, was that there were no motorized boats there. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? ' Pamela Iilies: Pamela Illies, 6221 Cypress Drive. I'm also an homeowners association member. My husband and I have lived at that I address since August of 1980. My recollection of the time in question, 1980 -1981 up until present date is that the site at the head of the marina which is being called a storage area, is really more a temporary pull your boat up on here to do minor repairs. Leave it for the day while you go home and have lunch and go back out to go fishing. I have at various times in the 12 years I've lived there seen small motorized boats that have been pulled up in that area. Whether they've been pulled up there and left for a longer period of time than a day or two, I can't say. ' Batzli: Could you point one thing out for me before you sit down? Can you show on the map where the raft is normally located? Pamela Illies: Yeah, the raft is right here. Batzli: Okay, that's for the non - motorized boats. ' Pamela Illies: It's about 30 feet. Batzli: Okay. How about the swimming raft? Pamela Illies: The swimming raft? Batzli: Yeah. ' Pamela Iilies: The swimming raft is normally set on the side here I believe. Isn't that pulled over on the side here and then it's for ' storage and then it's brought up to approximately this location. Batzli: Right out in front of the mouth of the. ' Pamela Illies: Right, that's correct. Mary Jo Moore: There hasn't been a swimming raft in, well there was one in '81 but there hasn't been there since. There really isn't any swimming... 11 Planning Commission Meeting 1 September 2, 1992 - Page 26 Pamela Illies: Yeah, the swimming raft is a portable raft and I don't { think it's even in existence at this point. Batzli: You've requested one in this application though. 1 Pamela Illies: We'd like to be able to put it out again. Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Is there a 11 motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: We don't have our Lake Minnewashta person here. Jeff, go ahead, Farmakes: I guess I'm a fairly, do you have an explanation as to why the inventory differs so much from the request? For instance, boats moored .II It says no, no, no. And these ladies are saying that there are boats moored there. Aanenson: No, moored would be if they're anchored out into the water. I Farmakes: Okay, boats docked. Aanenson: That's how we're interpretting that. Farmakes: Okay, so boats docked. There's 10 and then there's 18. I'm sorry, I'm on the wrong line. Are you comfortable with the that you had with 12 in '81? They obviously differ here so what? Aanenson: The evidence of the letters that they provided to say that II other people that have, that's provided for you to make that interpretation but from what I've read, it seems like it's legit. I mean obviously who did the inventory. 1 Farmakes: There might have been 6 boats out on the lake. Aanenson: Exactly. The person that did the inventory made a note that II there was space for 20, whatever that means but it seemed like there was a capability of having that many boats on the water at that time. Farmakes: The number I have on my sheet.here now says 9, on seasonal docks. Or excuse me, 8. There are 9 you say? Aanenson: That's how many they would like, yes. ' Farmakes: Okay, so is that, you hadinore docks and you hadn't put them out that year or what is the? Jean Wood: No. According to the inventory...showed 10. What we're jus claiming is 9 and what we're saying is that the 10th dock is not put out Farmakes: So right now currently there's 9, not 8 correct? It says 8 in my packet here. - 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 27 11 Batzli: As of June, 1991. Our survey showed that there was 8. Aanenson: In 1991 or '81? Batzli: '91, correct. ' Mary Jo Moore: There was one dock that was temporary, voted on by the association on an annual basis. Jean Wood. That was not put in. And it was not put in. Mary Jo Moore: It was in in '81 but not in this year. Farmakes: Is it common to have a swimming raft when you don't have a swimming beach? Pamela Illies: If you want swimming you have to have either a raft or a ' beach, you know. Farmakes: But I mean the issue is, do you promote swimming there? Pamela Illies: No. No. Farmakes: So the purpose of a swimming raft is, if you don't promote swimming is what? Mary Jo Moore: The raft hasn't been there for 10 years actually. ' Farmakes: It shows that the raft's been there since '81. I was just curious to know because you don't have a swimming beach listed there. ' Pamela Illies: The raft was there in the early 1980's because there were families with teenage children. That situation no longer exists. Families with children have younger children now. We'd like permission for a swimming raft so that in 5 or 6 years when my daughter is a teenager, if they want to put a swimming raft out there so our kids are not going...to swim, we'd like the capability of putting it out there. So we would just petition the City Council to not tell us we can't have one...to be able to put it out again when we have children that would like to use it. Farmakes: We're not really discussing that here. Whether you can or can't. What we're discussing here is what you had in '81 and that it's not expanded and we're trying to be consistent with all the. Jean Wood: Correct, we had it in '81. ' Pamela Illies: We had it. Farmakes: That's what I said. I was just curious to know what you had planned there because there was no beach. I guess I would support the issue of limiting boats on the storage so that's not abused. Maybe clarify that. Other than that I don't see where they're being 1 Planning Commission Meeting II September 2, 1992 - Page 28 inconsistent on what they had. ...marina and this is not what we have z been seeing from some of the other applicants. I have no other comments. Batzli: Matt. 1 Ledvina: I had a question for the association there. How many peirs or docks are there right now out? As of this date. 1 Jean Wood: As of this day we have 7 out. Ledvina: 7 as of today. II Jean Wood: 7 as of today. Ledvina: Okay, because I may have miscounted but I took a drive by therl today and I believe I counted 6. 4 on one side and 2 on the other side. Is that correct? II Pamela Illies: My raft is there. It's laying on the side and hasn't been put out there. Ledvina: Okay. Will it put out this year? II Pamela Illies: Pardon? 1 Ledvina: Will that be put out this year? Pamela Illies: Not this year it won't, no. 1 Batzli: I thought I was late. Pamela Illies: There was a change because of the weather last year and II lot of docks poles being actually destroyed by ice so every association member, at our last meeting, chose to change the type of dock and we had to actually destroy our...docks and purchase new docks for the area. An ! it took a few of us a little bit longer to get our financial act together. Ledvina: Okay, what's the minimum number of docks that have been put ouI in this location? Jean Wood: Minimum? II Ledvina: Yeah. II Jean Wood: Minimum number? Ledvina: Right. II Jean Wood: I guess what's out now which would be. Ledvina: The 6 docks. II Jean Wood: 6. I miscounted. 6. II II Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 29 Ledvina: Okay. I guess I talked to Kate about this issue a little bit and I guess it's my understanding that what we're trying to do is verify our grandfathering conditions and as it relates to grandfathering, if the use is decreased or if that use has ceased and as a grandfathering status, that they're not allowed to go back to an increased level. So do you want to comment on that a little bit Kate? ' Aanenson: Well, I think the gest of that is correct. I think this is an anomaly again because of the number of piers. Normally most of the beachlots would put it out every, their one dock every year. But that's ' the way we interpret it. If it goes beyond a year and they haven't put their dock in, then the grandfathering right would go. We haven't even established a level of use yet on this one so I don't know. I didn't go out and inventory it this year. I can guarantee you next year after we've got all these permits in place, staff is going to go out every year. Maybe it needs to be over the 4th of July weekend if that's the ' peak of the summer and determine whether or not they're in compliance and we're going to do that. But I'm not sure, we haven't even approved the level of use yet at this beachlot to say whether or not they're, I think that's a question for Roger Knutson to see if he feels that's something we want to look at and say 6, if that's what you're getting to. Ledvina: Right. It's generally 2 boats per dock, is that correct? Jean Wood: Correct. ' Ledvina: Okay, and you're saying that in all of the years there were at least 8, is that correct? Jean Wood: At least 8 docks out? Ledvina: Right. ' Jean Wood: Normally at least 8 docks out and a 9th was out in the early 1980's. And this past year, as we have changed our docks over, like she said, some got bought a little later and are not in yet. Ledvina: So will those docks go in this year? Pamela Iilies: They may not go in this year. They're planning to do it ' next year for sure. I mean ours is purchased and it's laying there. It's a shared dock situation so the other householder, we said we'll buy it, you put it in. He didn't put it in yet. ' Jean Wood: He also underwent triple by -pass surgery. It's an older couple. Ledvina: Well this is kind of a tough issue because there's, we've heard many or a lot of testimony about the use of, the overuse of Lake Minnewashta and the number of boats on the lake and such and if we can ' support, if this grandfathering situation is such that now we've decreased the use to 6 docks, maybe that represents the prudent limitation that we should take on this particular lake. I don't know. I guess I don't really have a strong feeling on it at this point but I i Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 30 II II think we should look at that as a commission and see if that's a viable ( thing that we should do as part of the provisions for grandfathering, so. I just wanted to raise that issue. Otherwise, the other items that were requested, I guess I would support that the storage area be for 1 non - motorized use boats only and other than that, no other comments on the application. Batzli: By non - motorized you mean you have to take the motor off it II before you store it? Ledvina: Right. 1 Batzli: Okay. Ladd. Conrad: I agree with 18 boats and 7 non - motorized. And Matt, you know II buy some of what you're saying. I don't know that we've applied it to any other beachlot. Therefore, I'm not picking up on what you're saying There's some logic there but we really haven't used it. If we use that ' same logic. We haven't used the boats per dock logic on anything we've done. We're not using boats per riparian lot. There's a lot of things we're not using which should be used because that regulates intensity. II That's the point of the ordinance but in this exercise, we're not using it. We're establishing 1981 and therefore, I don't know where to go with your comments. 1 Ledvina: Well, it's just that let's say they had kind of, and let's go to the extreme situation. Let's say they had abandoned all use of the ' beachlot for 10 years and then all of a sudden this year they went out and put in 10 docks and where would we be on that issue. Conrad: All we're doing is establishing '81 level. II Batzli: The original intent was to keep the intensity from increasing over the level that it was at in the first instance when the City had II adequate records, which was '81. You raise kind of like a law school exam question. Well, what do you do about it? We haven't been doing that. We haven't been applying that. The one we looked at a couple of weeks ago where they had 20 boats or whatever it was on one dock, if you look at that from year to year, there were some boats missing from that dock each year but we didn't, the fact that they were able to trot out 15 different years of we always had at feast this many boats and up to 18. I Okay, you've got 18. Ledvina: Well they demonstrated the use every year. There was never a 1 fluctuating use that I saw. , Batzli: Well there was, in the number of boats each year. Ledvina: Well, the number of slips have essentially remained constant. I That's the way I saw it anyway but. Farmakes: Isn't the general intent of what the useage was, and that it'll not expanded. We're not requiring that everybody put their boats in by a certain date and take them off by a certain date. And that these checks" II Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 31 are done at the same interval under the same conditions so. It seems unreasonable to assume that somebody might not take their boat. Take it boating somewhere else for, or have it out on the lake when the study's ' being taken and it seems that they demonstrated here, by the City's own statement that they had 10 docks and that you figure 2 boats per dock, that's 20 boats. That's '81 so. ' Ledvina: I understand the rationale that's being discussed here but I think there's a whole concept of grandfathering. I see that when you say ' that something's grandfathered, you allow that use but then over time, you assume that will go away based on a changing situation. I think am I wrong about that? ' Batzli: Well that's fairly accurate but if you look for example at their seasonal docks, we have three different inventories here. '81, '86 and '91 and they're fairly constant. I don't think we can say that they've lost something based on one season of use that isn't done yet, and especially. Ledvina: Right, I know. I'm not saying that the season is done and ' maybe they will put those docks in and get 9 docks but I guess it's kind of a grandfathering philosophy and maybe, you're saying it doesn't apply to this situation. ' Farmakes: If you boat, you know that sometimes the boat needs repair. Sometimes it's very expensive. Sometimes you take it out for the season. Sometimes the dock needs repair. Things don't always, like I said, you ' don't put it in in May and take it out in September. Sometimes there's some variance there. As I said, I think the City's own study shows that the variance has been pretty slight. Batzli: On a philosophical level, I agree with you but I don't know that we've done that to the other applicants on this situation. And I think ' that's kind of what Ladd has.said. It was philosophically you may be right but we haven't looked at it that critically at the other ones so much as we tried to establish the maximum use that they had in '81 so ' that they couldn't exceed that. Ledvina: I guess when this whole issue was described to me, it was described as a grandfathering situation and maybe it's something different. Batzli: Well I think we all assumed that use on the lake intensified ' over time so we were going to cut them back to what they had in '81. I don't think anyone ever envisioned that the use had decreased since that time. ' Ledvina: Right. Well I agree. Batzli: Forgive us. We're getting philosopical up here a little bit. Ledvina: Okay, well again I'll take that approach but I just wanted to, it was described a little differently and if that's the way we're doing 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 32 it, then again I can reconsider and look at the request as it exists ands see that that's reasonable. Batzli: Ladd, did you have anything else? Okay. 1 Erhart: Kate how does, we have this lying boats on land on the other forms? On the other beachlots, do we have a line called boats on land. Was that on the? Aanenson: Pleasant Acres had it too. Erhart: Okay, so we allowed boats on land? Aanenson: Well, I think what you did on Pleasant Acres is you took somell of the boats away from the dock and allowed those on land to be counted because they also had a canoe rack too. So I think you combined those two. Erhart: Does the boats on land include the canoe rack generally? Aanenson: No, they've been separate. ' Erhart: They've been separate so we put provisions in that state that it cannot be motorized in the past or have we not addressed that? 1 Aanenson: Well I think the only other instance I can recall that we've done is Pleasant Acres and that they've had, I think they had 5 we allowed them. We counted that towards our total of 14. Erhart: So those could be motorized? Aanenson: Correct. But then they specifically had canoe racks and our II ordinance says those are non - motorized. Erhart: Right. I guess my feeling on these boats on land, I mean any, I if I'm wrong. Any beach you can pull up a boat on land and walk down the street and go have lunch. I'm not sure that this really, I'm not even sure it's worth talking about to be honest here. To me if there's 7 boats on land, if that's what they want, that's fine with me. Farmakes: Isn't storage considered overnight? 1 Erhart: The impression I got is that they don't really leave them there with the motors on. The motors disappear. Or am I wrong? Batzli: No, I think that's what. I think what they said though was tha Y g there were several that are kept there overnight on a continuous basis and there are others that show up and disappear as people use them for all day or a week. Erhart: Do we stop other recreational beachlot users from doing that? II Do we have anything in our code that disallows that? Not really. Batzli: I don't know if that's storage or not. Do we regulate storage?" 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 33 Aanenson: Well if it's at the beachlot. I mean yeah. I think we say that you can only have two canoe racks, you can only have so many boats at the beachlot and those are counting towards the total number of boats 1 which makes 25. And basically in 5 years from now, if they still have 25 but they have a different look that they're pulling up, how do we regulate that? I just want when I go out next year or two years from ' now. Erhart: Okay, so we're regulating total number of boats, not just number of spots on their dock for a boat? Aanenson: Well the ordinance says you can only have canoe racks. So this doesn't fall into a category so what we're trying to do is establish ' so when someone goes out there to look at this in 5 years, what was the intent of this and that's what we're trying to clarify in the permitting process. What is our intent? We're trying to make it as clear as ' possible so when we go out later we know exactly what was meant. _That's really the intent. It's not addressed in the ordinance. Erhart: Okay, 7 boats on land. Wasn't there one other one where we talked about the swimming raft being a concern about safety when it was in the line of boat traffic? Aanenson: Several. Erhart: What did we do in those? Batzli: We required buoys I think in some instances. Conrad: We permitted them. ' Erhart: We permitted them but. Aanenson: I think a lot of them are used for water skiing purposes too. Erhart: I just think we should just be consistent with what we've done. I think it is a safety issue but if we've allowed them on the other ones, then I think that's what we ought to do. Was there a requirement for buoys, do you remember? p Batzli: I thought we did. I thought we required buoys on at least. Aanenson: Well the ordinance says if you have a swimming beach, it requires it to be buoyed off. As far as the raft, that discussion has come up a lot and they're usually out past where the swimming beach is. You know they have to be, the ordinance requires that they have to be marked with reflective anyway. If it's a device in the water. So that's how it's... Erhart: Well if that's consistent, then I guess I'm pretty much, I go 11 along with what they're requesting. Batzli: Is that it? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting , September 2, 1992 - Page 34 Erhart: Yep. 1 Batzli: What is this seaplane deal? They didn't ask for anything on t seaplane. Do they need anything on a seaplane if they're going to keep it there? This '81, they had a seaplane there. Is that still there ever? No? Okay, good. I would, in this instance, approve the 9 piers. I can find my sheet. Non - motorized, 7 boats on land. I guess total . boats at the dock, 18. I would prefer, on larger bodies of lakes, raft are a little bit more regulated as far as how far out from the shore they can be. Things like that. I don't know if we regulate that so much. concern is not that the raft be marked because I don't care if people hi that with a boat. What I'm concerned about is someone swimming from the shore out to the raft that gets hit by a boat that's pulling out. And rafts unfortunately for people in their teens, having once been in my teens, are a drawing magnet to swim out there at night. If you have people coming in and out at night and you're parking your raft right out in front, it's very dangerous. You're creating a very dangerous situation and that's what we're concerned about. And I don't know that II we're going to tell you that you can't have a raft but before you say I want to keep my kids close to go swimming, you may want them to be as f away as possible, I guess is what I'm trying to tell you. So having sail that, is there a motion? Farmakes: Motorized? 1 Batzli: I would say non - motorized boats on land. Now it's going to regulate itself because they don't have a launch so I don't know why you'd park a big boat down there with a big motor. I really I guess you' know, my father's had several motors stolen over the years so I can't imagine anyone keeping their motor down there anyway. You buy the Sure Locks and they just hacksaw right through those. As long as they don't make too much racket anyway so. Is there a motion? Conrad: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommend approval of II the Minnewashta Shores Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot permit per their request allowing motor vehicle access, 4 off street parking, 9 piers, 7 non - motorized boats on land, 18 boats at dock. Batzli: Second. Any discussion? Conrad moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Minnewashta Shores Non- Conforming Recreational Beachlot permit per their request allowing motor vehicle access, 4 off street parking, 9 piers, 7 non - motorized boats on land, 18 boats at dock. All I voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: When does this go to City Council? Do we know? Do we have a II date? Aanenson: 28th. 1