The URL can be used to link to this page

7. Zoning Receational Beachlots 1 .,..., CITYOF 7 I .• ,, 0BANBAsoss , iii.. i , 1 ifkikihk' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I _ (612). 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Action W City rdmmIntstt -- t*v I . -- MEMORANDUM Endorsed_ Nia3iled --m- -- Planning Commission R --... - II FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planner II Dr's S.,'.. to E`.- .'_ "" DATE: January 10, 1992° - `.r �� I SUBJ: Recreational Beachlots a-10- fa.--) 1 BACKGROUND Back in September of 1991, staf : ote a memorandum to the Mayor I and City Council regarding the -ue of recreational beachlots which have been grandfathered. .ape Council directed staff to proceed with the course of actis, o..lined in the memorandum. (See 1 attached memorandum dated Sept ,, •er 1, 1991) Since that time, the City 4 ttorne has drafted an ordinance I amending the Zoning Ordinance' on non - • nforming Beachlots. Staff ,� held a meeting on Novemb�` 14, 199 with all non - conforming recreational beachlot hot „•wners asso•ations. At that meeting staff reviewed the proped ordinance -s well as provided city I documentation of the r; '41 level Hof use. (See attached memorandum dated Octo 31, 1991.) At the December , 1991, Planning Commit -ion meeting, a public hearing was 414d •^ • e. �. e amendment for non- conforming be ch o . , - everal questions were raised that: ta'ff w s x ,. . � N , 7 k , about the U proposed ordinance included, "What is the in of the ordinance ? ", "IdAhfiK an appeal process ? ", z'' ` '' 'Is there a violation or enforce fit y < ; . ?" 1 Staff met with City Attorney R. :e utson and made modifications to the proposed ordinance. In :r tion to discussing the proposed I implementation with the City Ate.- ney, an alternate ordinance was proposed. ANALYSIS ' The original intent of the non - conforming recreational beachlot ordinance was to establish a baseline documenting the allowed use I 4 No 4s7 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 11 Planning Commission January 10, 1992 Page 2 of each legal non - conforming recreational beachlot. This process would require that each recreational beachlot provide satisfactory ' proof concerning the nature and extent of the legal non - conforming use as it existed on or before January 18, 1982. This process would involve holding a public hearing on each recreational beachlot and, establishment of the baseline use would have to be ' made by the Planning Commission and the City Council. An alternative ordinance amendment has been prepared by the City ' Attorney. The intent of this ordinance is to prevent the expansion of non - conforming recreational beachlots by establishing a baseline documenting the allowed use of each legal non - conforming ' recreational beachlot. Staff has undertaken several inventories of beachlot use over the years and would use this data, along with information supplied by the homeowners associations, to make a recommendation. However, we have some questions about the accuracy ' of information from both these sources and question our ability to develop decisions that would be both fair and stand up to any legal tests that may arise. Due to these concerns, we have proposed an 1 alternate ordinance that would establish 1991 rather than 1982 as the baseline year. Staff did a field check and using video, documented all ' recreational beachlots in the summer of 1991. We feel that this provides the city with reliable information as to the extent and use of each recreational beachlot. Although this would probably have the effect of approving some beachlots with increased and theoretically illegal use, we believe it is more equitable and easier to implement. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE ' At the January 15, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended that the ordinance be approved. Staff had recommended use of the 1991 baseline for reasons outlined above. ' However, the Planning Commission supported the use of the 1982 data. They believed that use of the 1991 baseline could have the result of rewarding those few beachlots who, knowingly or ' unknowingly, illegally expanded their use since that time. In essence, they felt the city would be penalizing those associations who complied with legal constraints imposed by the ordinance. The burden of proof should be on the homeowners associations to ' give an upward departure from the 1982 inventory rather than starting with a higher figure and trying to reduce the number. ' RECOMMENDATION Staff is carrying forward the Planning Commissions recommendation but continues to support the use of the 1991 baseline. Therefore, 1 Planning Commission 1 January 10, 1992 Page 3 staff recommends that the City Council approve the first reading of 1 the ordinance utilizing the 1991 baseline. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memorandum from Paul Krauss dated September 5, 1991. 2. Memorandum from Kate Aanenson dated October 31, 1991. 3. Recreational Beachlot Inventory. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C I TY 0 F ,, CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council 1 FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: September 5, 1991 1 SUBJ: Recreational Beachlots 1 From time to time, problems have surfaced regarding enforcement of ordinance requirements on recreational beachlots. The issues that ' have arisen have not been serious with beachlots approved under the current ordinance, since both the city and the users of the beachlot have a full understanding of exactly what is allowed and what is not. The bulk of the problems that have occurred have stemmed from beachlots which pre -date the ordinance and are grandfathered. According to the ordinance, the grandfathered beachlots are intended to be restricted to uses which pre- existed the ordinance, which dates back to 1982. An inspection was made of properties at 1 that time and several years later, but unfortunately the information is less than perfect. For example, if we believe that there were three boats using a dock, we may not have been aware that one was out for repair or even on the lake at the time the 1 count was made. In addition, these non - conforming beachlots may have increased in intensity at some point since the adoption of the ordinance and staff was not made aware of this and was not in a 1 position to respond. To resolve this matter once and for all, we have worked with the Planning Commission to develop the following approach. The 1 approach is principally one of having the city adopt a new ordinance that requires that non - conforming recreational beachlots obtain a permit from the city within one year of the adoption of 1 the ordinance or all activity must cease. The purpose of the permitting requirement is to document once and for all exactly what is allowed on this beachlot and have it established in a legally 1 recordable document. In addition, staff would intend to try to turn back the clock were feasible, and limit the permitted uses to those which are legally grandfathered. The Planning Commission has supported this approach, but we wanted to bounce it off of the City • 1 • 1 Mayor and City Council September 5, 1991 Page 2 Council prior to undertaking it since it is likely to cause a good 1 deal of discussion amongst those beachlot users. What I would propose to do is hold a series of informational meetings with the beachlot representatives so that the potential ordinance could be described and we could hold discussions on what we believe to be the legal non - conformity. In addition, any information they may have to document legal non - conforming uses could be considered. After these meetings were held later in the fall, we would propose to bring the ordinance which is attached to this memo in for review and adoption and thereafter embark on the permitting process for the non - conforming beachlots. We are asking that the City Council review and comment on the desirability of proceeding with this effort. The Planning Commission strongly favors this course of action, but before proceeding we did want to give the City Council an opportunity to provide direction. In a related matter, there is an on -going dispute concerning the Trolls Glen Homeowners Association beachlot and adjoining property owners. There was a claim that activity on this beachlot exceeds the grandfathered non - conformity and the city is being asked to intervene and take action to cause the non - conformity to cease. In light of the pending proposal to undertake revisions to the ordinance, we have informed the participants that we will not proceed with the taking of any legal action until the process is completed. This position does not satisfy one of the participants in this dispute, and we have been informed that they will likely request the City Council to order staff to take action immediately. In light of the proposed ordinance amendments, we would recommend that the City Council defer action on this item, but if you direct staff otherwise, we will proceed under current ordinances. Councilman Wing has also raised some questions regarding the beachlot ordinance and water surface usage codes. He has indicated that a review of the entire policy might be appropriate, but in particular is concerned with the docking of boats in an area contained with the extended property line of riparian lots. At the present time we do not regulate or establish a boat mooring setback, but Councilman Wing has requested that the imposition of such a standard be investigated. 1 1 1 6 CITYOF 1 �j CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 3 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Planning Commission II FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planner II DATE: October 31, 1991 1 SUBJ: NonConforming Recreational Beachlots 1 On Monday, October 14, 1991, Jo Ann Olsen and I met with representatives of the homeowners of the Recreational Beachlots. There are 13 beachlots that were grandfathered in with the adoption of the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance and are now legal nonconforming uses. The purpose of the meeting was to review with each association what I information the city has regarding the amount of use for each nonconforming beachlot. The meeting also provided the staff an opportunity to review the procedures that city will be taking. The II City will be reviewing whether or not to require a nonconforming use permit for all legal nonconforming recreational beachlots. The public hearing for this ordinance will be held in front of the Planning Commission on November 20, 1991. If this ordinance is I passed, the City will then process the legal nonconforming use permits. This process will proceed until all beachlots have had public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council 1 has made a final decision. The City will, based on our best information, state what we feel I the association had in place at the time the ordinance was adopted. A nonconforming use permit will be issued following the receipt of satisfactory proof concerning the nature and extent of the legal nonconforming use. The permit shall describe the nature and extent 1 of the allowed use. The permit will also provide a basis from which the use may or may be expanded or intensified. 1 1 1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING NON - CONFORMING BEACHLOTS 1 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: ' Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding 20 -79 to read: Sec. 20-79. 79. Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlots. (a) Intent. The intent of this section is to prevent the expansion of non - conforming recreational beachlots by estab- lishing a baseline documenting the allowed use of each legal non - conforming recreational beachlot. Because the City has inadequate documentation concerning the size and extent of recreational beachlots existing on the date the recreational beachlot ordinance was passed in 1982, non - conforming rights shall be based upon the size and extent of said beachlots in the summer of 1991. (b) Within one year after the adoption of this ordinance all non - conforming recreational beachlots must receive a non- conforming use permit or the use must cease and desist. The permit shall be issued following receipt of satisfactory proof concerning the nature and extent of the legal non - conforming use as it existed during the summer of 1991. The permit shall describe the nature and extent of the allowed use. The use may not be expanded or intensified over what is described in the permit. (c) Applications for a non - conforming use permit shall be 11 filed with the Zoning Administrator on prescribed forms. A fee, as established by the City Council, shall be paid upon filing the application. The Zoning Administrator shall set a time and place for a hearing before the Planning Commission. At the hearing the 1 Commission shall hear such persons as wish to be heard. Notice of the hearing date shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the date of the hearing to all owners of property on the lake where the beachlot is located. Published notice shall also be made once at least ten (10) days before the hearing. Failure to give notice, however, shall not invalidate the proceedings. At the close of the hearing the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council. Upon consider- ation of the Planning Commission recommendation the City Council, shall then make the final decision and the non - conforming 1 r01/07/92 ('91 Baseline) ' 1 ' beachlot permit, establishing the nature and extent of the use shall then be issued. Section 2. Violation. The violation of any provision of 1 this ordinance shall be a misdemeanor punishable to the maximum extent authorized in Minnesota Statutes Section 412.231. Each day any violation continues is a separate offense. 1 Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1992. 1 ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk /Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1992.) 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING NON - CONFORMING BEACHLOTS ' THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: ' Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding 20 -79 to read: Sec. 20-79. 79. Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlots. (a) Intent. The intent of this section is to prevent the expansion of non - conforming recreational beachlots by estab- lishing a baseline documenting the allowed use of each legal non - conforming recreational beachlot. (b) Within one year after the adoption of this ordinance all non - conforming recreational beachlots must receive a non- conforming use permit or the use must cease and desist. The permit shall be issued following receipt of satisfactory proof concerning the nature and extent of the legal non - conforming use as it existed on or before January 18, 1982. The permit shall describe the nature and extent of the allowed use. The use may not be expanded or intensified over what is described in the permit. (c) Applications for a non - conforming use permit shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator on prescribed forms. A fee, as established by the City Council, shall be paid upon filing the application. The Zoning Administrator shall set a time and place for a hearing before the Planning Commission. At the hearing the Commission shall hear such persons as wish to be heard. Notice of the hearing date shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the date of the hearing to all owners of property on the lake where the beachlot is located. Published notice shall also be made once at least ten (10) days before the hearing. Failure to give notice, however, shall not invalidate the proceedings. At the close of the hearing the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council. Upon consider- ation of the Planning Commission recommendation the City Council, shall then make the final decision and the non - conforming beachlot permit, establishing the nature and extent of the use shall then be issued. Section 2. Violation. The violation of any provision of this ordinance shall be a misdemeanor punishable to the maximum r01/07/92 1 ('82 Baseline) II 1 extent authorized in Minnesota Statutes Section 412.231. Each day any violation continues is a separate offense. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1992. ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk /Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 1 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1992.) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 FEB 86 '92 14:56 FROM NSP ST /MET PUB AFF PAGE.881 1 To Chanhassen City Counvi1J. members: As a member of the Trolls Glen Homeowner's Assn. in 1 attendance at the last planning commission meeting T was dis- heartened that the commission disregarded staff's recommendation to use the 1991 non - conforming beachlot survey as the base for mooring rights of indiviva1 home- owners. ,• The covenants filed with the abstracts of title for properties in the Troll's Glen neighborhood allow for the homeowners to govern their beachaot by a dulbr elected board of officers. These covenants were adopted by the City of Chanhassen Sept 22nd 1975. According to the filed covenants mooring rights were to be established by the board of directors and reviehled on an annual basis. 1 Minutes kept by the Troll's Glen Homeowner's Assn. allowed for the mooring of 4 boats in 1981. The boat survey taken on the beachlot 1981 indicated only two boats were present on the property at that time. A land survey of the beach outlot taken in 1988 indicates-- and photographs taken by Ivan Underdahl help to Confirm that the property owner to the south of the beaczlot border was encroaching by 12 -15 feet. It seems I ps if Chuck Crompton had his boat moored from his dock on the - outlot at that time. Frontage on the Troll's Gljen lot exceeds 69 shoreline feet. We contend that the 8 :1 boat survey with regards to the Troll's Gien beachlot, was in error and we would like to be able to submit thus information as evidence when applying for moorink slips. Members of Troll's Gien Homeowner's Assn. b that severely restricting mooring rights of membors is in violation of covenants and would cause the property owners involved financial hardship without financial compensation. I would like to say in conclusion, that if Minnewashta HeiGht tir th 55 ft. of froutpge _c_ na _toor in excess of 12 boat Trolls Glen member =nk they can safel accomodate 4 -6 boats safely and comfortably. _ Post brand #ax transmittal memo 7671 # cr oases ► 3 co. co. Dept. Phone #Q,0 € i 9fc` . 73 Fax# 137. Fax# 7 _ 1 1 0e44,4441 1 1 FEB 06 '52 14 57 FROM NSP ST /MET PUB AR= PAGE .002 i CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING TROLL'S GLEN FIRST ADDITION HOMEOWNERS RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT In 1991, after a rather large cost incurred by he association in defense of a suit initiated by John Merz andlTerry Johnson in an attempt to prevent members of the associaLon from mooring boats at the beachlot, the Carver County Distridt Court dismissed the suit. In late 1991 the court saw fit to uphold the validity and authority of the Chapparal Homeowners' Association Covenants over the dispute/ controversy regarding the operation of a Day Cae Center. We consider the Trolls Glen Covenants are fully as valid. The city planning staffs' proposal to the planning commission for permit applications for non - conforming beachllots was to use a 1991 data base as the baseline for grandfathering purposes. Thu commission moved to use a controversial 1982 data base instead. Apparently, the purpose of establishing the bas line is for deter - mining what existed at the non- comforming beachlot at a given point in time (such as 1982) and that there should be no addition or expanded use allowed since that particular time - and /or in the larger picture, to prevent greater use of thle lake - albeit additional beachlots have been created /permitted and use allowed where none may have existed before. In the case of the Trolls' Glen First Addition Hjomeowners' Ass'n. Recreational Beachlot, it was not only that two Friore boats were ' added. A nearly 100 foot long, three foot wide Concrete sidewalk was poured in 1983 to provide an access walkway that would not he continually subject to washout erosion - as there is quite a drop in elevation along that stretch. Three additional heavy timbered steps were added! (also in 1983) at the footend of the stairway so as not having to jump or slide the last distance at the bottom to reach somewhalt level ground. There are now 33 straight continuous steps down the steep bank. Additional handrail was also added to correspond; with the added steps. Also in 1983 some top soil was added and somewhat landscaped to direct drainage, and sod laid at the back and along one side of the sand area so as to retard erosion due to hea runoff at times from the properties above the bank and flouting down the steps. Heavy timbers had been previously placedIto separate sand area from other ground space. In 1990, hundreds of pounds of fieldstone, along with some timber, zATere positioned as "rip -rap" to halt what had started as a washout several feet back from the water's edge. In 1987 several truckloads of sand were added to the sand area of the beachlot and to extended properties on ei her side -- II perhaps 3 or 4 adjoining lots. 1 FEB 06 '92 14 58 FROM NSP ST /MET PUB AFF PAGE. 003 p. 2 1 A canoe rack had been erected, but when a survey by Ron Krueger_ II and Associates in April of 1989 showed that a st ip of ground at the foot of the bank /hillside which we had assunied was part of il the beachiot, actually was not, and the canoe rack was largely on II that strip, the canoe rack was removed and not red- erected. The survey also revealed that our beachiot extended 110 -12 feet further to the south side than we had been considering and using as the southern boundary. If that space was not being tised by our Assoc- II iation in 1982, does that mean we can never use it - as using it would represent an expanded or added use over 192? -- just as not having used some space along the dock in 1982 estiablishes that it cannot be used since that time and although 4 boats have been nicely moored at that same dock. 1 II At face value, it would seem that the foregoing Oeasures would be II considered improvements to the property - making it safer, present- ing a better appearance, making it more useful, pleasant, and enjoyable - as well as showing concern for the a ironment through attempts at prevention or reduction of erosion, a d indirectly II might cast a favorable reflection or enhanced image upon the City of Chanhassen within whose borders the beachiot is located. On the other hand, nearly all of the foregoing cold be termed 1 additions or expansion over what existed with thel beachiot in 1982 and as proposed by grandfathering,, • should be restored to its 1982 status. It would be difficult and costly. 1 1 At the opposite of addition one might also consider removal of what was. Removed from the beachiot are the decoiative fence borders which lined the walkway and the base of the hill /bank (part II of which was not on the beachiot) and along the north boundary. The fence consisted of large square shaped woodenlposts connected by a large link looping chain and looked quite nice - installed II by the developer. However, the posts soon were rotting off, it was difficult to mow and trim along it, and the decision was made to remove it, pour a concrete sidewalk, and do without the fence borders 1 Also removed were many bags and pounds of debris gleaned from the lake bottom off the shore. Apparently a fence had been built out into the lake to prevent livestock from going past that point and II the posts and barbed wire had been left to be pushed over by ice, submerged, and eventually deteriorate in the lake Over a period of time, from the lake were removed: steel posts wooden posts, II parts of snow fence, varying lengths of barbed wire, staples, nails, large sections of sheet metal, shingles, 2x4's and other water- logged boards and lumber, a lot of rusty cans, a lot of broken glass, some plastic. Most of this was found by feeling with one's II foot and raking small section by section. Until host of this was removed it was unsafe for going barefoot in the water. 1 1 1 ** TOTAL PAGE. 003 ** 1 January 15, 1992 TROLLS -GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO: CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ' RE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING NON - CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACH LOTS FROM: TROLLS -GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Attached is documentation that states the position of the Trolls -Glen Home- owners Association regarding our position on complying with the proposed ordinance revision and to the prior ordinance passed in 1982. We have always maintained that each of the property owners in our Subdivision was granted ' rights to the Common Area (Outlot B) with the right to moor a boat at the Association dock. Although we have twelve property owners in our Subdivision, five properties abut Lake Minnewashta and have their own lakeshore. This reduces the need for mooring rights to seven property owners. In addition, ' several property owners have stated that they wish to withdraw from the Assoc- iation and they have no need for use of the Common Area. Our request is for the right to moor seven boats at the Common Area and to have the right to expand our dock to accomodate the seven boats, if the need arises. On June 6, 1981 the Board of Directors of Trolls -Glen approved the mooring of four boats at the Association dock. This approval continued to date. It should be mentioned that in 1991, four boats were moored at the Association dock. In ' addition the fifth property owner had hos boat lift abut the dock. He did allow one of the property owners to use his boat lift until such time as he would launch hos boat in Lake Minnewashta. I • We believe that in 1992 we will have the demand for five or possibly six boats to be moored at our dock. The Board of Directors will draw up an orderly plan ' for mooring boats so that it will not create a safety hazard for any member or guests using our Common Area. On your proposed ordinance, Sec. 20 -79 section (c) it states that: Notice of the hearing shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the date of the hearing to all owners of property on the lake where the beachlot is located. It has been stated that there are approximately 2,200 property owners around ' Lake Minnewashta. The cost of mailing the notice to all property owners is a considerable expense. We would like clarification on the persons or the organization that will be responsible for the cost of the mailing. We believe that publication of notice in the official newspaper would be sufficent. TROLLS -GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ANN CATHCART PRESIDENT (,1,11-pt C - ' BERNIE SCHNEIDER, SECRETARY � 9.2 / -�- -ti 1 January 15, 1992 TROLLS -GLEN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION RE: AN ORDINANCE AMMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING NON - CONFORMING BEACH LOTS TO: CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION AND CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL 1 FROM: TROLLS -GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 1ST ADDITION AND CEDAR CREST LOTS 1 AND 2 The Trolls -Glen Homeowners Association is comprised of the following property owners as members of the Association: Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, First Addition 4 members Lots 1 through 4, Block 2, First Addition 4 members Lots 1 and 2„ Block 3, First Addition 2 members Cedar Crest Lots 1 and 2 2 members Of the twelve property owners belonging to the Association, five properties ' abut Lake Minnewashta, and therefore have no need for access to Lake Minne- washta in our Common Area, OUTLOT B. Several members have asked that they be allowed to withdraw from the Association. All of the properties have homes constructed and there will be no further additions to our Association and likewise no further demand for boat mooring at the Common Area Outlot B. All of the properties have as a part of their ABSTRACT OF TITLE, rights of ingress and egress to Outlot B of the Common Area and boat mooring rights. The following is a listing of these rights, as stated in the Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of the Trolls -Glen Homeowners Association: ARTICLE IV, Section 1, Property Rights in the Common Area. Members Easement of Enjoyment. Subject to the provisions of Section 3, every member shall have a right and easement of ingress and egress over the Common Area, and an ease- ment of enjoyment in and to the Common Area, and such easement shall be appur- tenant to and shall pass with the title to every lot. 1 ARTICLE X Restrictions on Common Area. No boats shall be launched from the Common Area. No recreational vehicles shall be allowed on the Common Area at anytime. Boat mooring in the Common Area shall be moored only in the area designated for mooring by the Association. Article XI Rules Established by Association. The Association shall have the authority to promulgate reasonable rules and regulations concerning the Common Area, including but not limited to providing garbage service including containers, providing weed control, providing for additional sand for the Common Area beach, establishing hours during which the Common Area may be used, providing hours during which the Common Area may be used for public gatherings, and providing regulations concerning the mooring of boats in the Common Area. ' PAGE 2 January 15, 1992 TROLLS -GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Chanhassen Planning Commission re Ordinance Amending Chapter 20, concerning Non - Conforming Beach Lots The above warranty applies to all of the property owners of our Association. The City of Chanhassen approved the Subdivision and the Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions September 22, 1975. No restriction was placed on the number of boats to be allowed to moor at the Common Area dock. At the June 6, 1981 Board of Directors meeting of Trolls -Glen, the directors passed a resolution allowing the mooring of four boats at the Association dock. Not all of the properties in the Association had homes constructed on said lots, and therfore the four boat limitation was sufficent for the years 1981 to and including 1990. In 1991 four boats were moored at the Association dock. The fifth property owner had his boat lift abuting the dock, but he did not moor his boat at the dock. In the year 1992, we have requests for five boats to be moored at the dock and we request that the Chanhassen Planning Commission approve our request for five ' boats at this time, with the maximum permissable boats to be moored at one time be restricted to seven. Again, the right to moor a boat is part of our rights under our Warranty Deed to our property. If, in the opinion of our Board of Directors that seven boats would create a hazard, the Board of Directors will ' make a determination on the number to be allowed for each particular year and grant mooring rights either on a lottery system or a yearly rotation system. ' Our request is for the approval for seven boats to be moored at our dock, with policing to be by the Board of Directors for an orderly boat mooring arrangement. ANN CATHCART, PRESIDENT BERNIE SCHNEIDER, SECRETARY 1 1 REC ATIONAL BEACHLOT NVENTO Y 81 19 I RE I R 19 iG 191 Colonial Grove II 44 homes Lotus Lake 1 2 acres 25' of shoreline 1 Motor Vehicle Access yes yes yes Off - Street Parking yes yes yes 1 Boat Launch no no no Permanent Buildings no no no I Setbacks Temporary Buildings no no no 1 Portable Restroom no no no Picnic Tables no no 1 1 Grills /Campfires no no no Seasonal Docks 1 35' 1 35' 1 35' 1 Approximate Length Canoe Racks no 1 6 1 6 I spaces spaces Boats on Land 3 7 9 I Boats Moored no no no Boats Docked 3 3 4 I Swimming Beach yes no no Marker Bouys no no no I Swimming Raft no no no Comments: well tennis I maint. court sandy basketba beach 11 the tennis entire I court lot fenced 1 s 1 II II RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 Kellynne II 7 homes Lake Minnewashta 1 2500 sq. ft. 20' II Motor Vehicle Access no no no Off - Street Parking no no no II Boat Launch no no no Permanent Buildings no no no II Setbacks Temporary Buildings no no no -' Portable Restroom no _ no no Picnic Tables no no no Grills /Campfires no no no Seasonal Docks no no 1 II Approximate Length 60' Canoe Racks no no no 1 Boats on Land no no no Boats Moored no no no II Boats Docked no no 1 power boat II Swimming Beach no yes yes Marker Bouys no no no II Swimming Raft no no no Comments: 1 1 II RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 1 Lake View Apartments 1 170 apartments Lake Riley 1 1.8 acres 80' of shoreline ' Motor Vehicle Access , yes Off - Street Parking yes 1 Boat Launch no Permanent Buildings no Setbacks no Temporary Buildings no Portable Restroom no Picnic Tables no Grills /Campfires 1 campfire Seasonal Docks 1 1 Approximate Length 30' Canoe Racks no 1 Boats on Land 6 canoes 2 sailboats 1 fishing boat Boats Moored no Boats Docked no Swimming Beach no Marker Bouys no Swimming Raft no Comments: 1 1 RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 I Minnewashta Creek 36 Homes 1 Lake Minnewashta 10,500 Square Ft. 1 60' Width of Shoreline Motor Vehicle Access no no no 1 Off- Street Parking no no no Boat Launch no no no 1 Permanent Buildings none none none Setbacks 1 Temporary Buildings none none none Portable Restroom no no no II Picnic Tables 4 4 4 Grills /Campfires 2 2 2 II Seasonal Docks none none none Approximate Length Canoe Racks none none none _ Boats on Land 4 none 2 1 Boats Moored none none 1 Boats Docked none none none 1 Swimming Beach yes yes yes Marker Bouys no no no 1 Swimming Raft no no yes Comments: well well maint. maint. 1 1 1 1 II 1 RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 1 Minnewashta Estates Shores II 22 homes Lake Minnewashta II 3 acres 450' of shoreline I Motor Vehicle Access yes yes yes Off - Street Parking yes 4 yes 4 yes 4 II car car car Boat Launch no no no Permanent Buildings no no no 1 Setbacks Temporary Buildings no no no 1 Portable Restroom no no no Picnic Tables no no no 1 Grills /Campfires no no no Seasonal Docks 10 10 8 1 Approximate Length Canoe Racks no no no 1 Boats on Land 7 3 0 Boats Moored no no no 1 Boats Docked 12 11 10 Swimming Beach no no no 1 Marker Bouys no no no Swimming Raft yes yes no 1 Comments: I 1 1 1 II I RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 1 Minnewashta Heights 74 homes II Lake Minnewashta 7,500 sq. ft. II 50' of shoreline Motor Vehicle Access no no no ' Off - Street Parking no no no Boat Launch no no no II Permanent Buildings no no no Setbacks II Temporary Buildings no no no Portable Restroom no no no I Picnic Tables 2 2 2 benches benches benches Grills /Campfires no no no I Seasonal Docks 1 1 1 Approximate Length 1 Canoe Racks 2 space 2 space 2 space for 12 for 12 for 12 II Boats on Land no no no Boats Moored no no no I Boats Docked 6 room 6 room 7 for 14 for 14 I Swimming Beach yes yes yes Marker Bouys no no no I Swimming Raft yes yes yes Comments: 1 1 1 • 1 RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 II Minnewashta Manor 34 homes Lake Minnewashta , 30' width of shoreline I Motor Vehicle Access no no Off - Street Parking yes 1 yes 1 II space space Boat Launch no no Permanent Buildings no no 1 Setbacks Temporary Buildings no no 1 Portable Restroom no no Picnic Tables no no 1 Grills /Campfires no no Seasonal Docks yes yes II Approximate Length 40' 40' Canoe Racks no no 1 Boats on Land no no Boats Moored no no II Boats Docked 2 3 Swimming Beach no no 1 Marker Bouys no no Swimming Raft no no II Comments: limited limited access access I weedy weedy II 1 s 1 1 RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 1 Pleasant Acres 53 homes Lake Minnewashta 1 30,000 sq. ft. 150' of shoreline 1 Motor Vehicle Access yes yes yes Off - Street Parking yes yes yes 1 Boat Launch yes yes yes Permanent Buildings no no no 1 Setbacks Temporary Buildings no no no 1 Portable Restroom 1 1 1 Picnic Tables 2 2 4 1 Grills /Campfires 1 grill 1 grill 2 grills 1 1 1 gas I campfire campfire grill Seasonal Docks 2 1 for 2 1 for 2 swimming swimming I Approximate Length II PP g Canoe Racks no no no Boats on Land 6 7 0 I Boats Moored 0 0 0 Boats Docked 4 room 7 17 for 6 1 Swimming Beach yes yes yes Marker Bouys yes yes yes 1 Swimming Raft yes yes yes Comments: clean clean 1 lot lot 1 1 1 1 RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 I Schmidts 8 homes Lake Minnewashta ' 13,000 sq. ft. 50' width of shoreline Motor Vehicle Access yes yes yes Off - Street Parking no no no II Boat Launch no no no Permanent Buildings no no no II Setbacks Temporary Buildings no no no I Portable Restroom no no no Picnic Tables no no no I Grills /Campfires no no no Seasonal Docks 1 1 1 I Approximate Length 45' 45' 45' Canoe Racks no no no I Boats on Land 1 no 1 Boats Moored no no no II Boats Docked no no no Swimming Beach no no no Marker Bouys no no no Swimming Raft no no no • Comments: poorly poorly poorly maint. maint. maint. 1 1 1 1 1 1 II RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 Sunny Slope 1 12 homes Lake Riley 1 5,000 sq. ft. 50' of shoreline 1 Motor Vehicle Access no no no Off - Street Parking no no no II Boat Launch no no no Permanent Buildings no no no 1 Setbacks Temporary Buildings no no no II Portable Restroom no no no Picnic Tables no no no 1 Grills /Campfires no no no Seasonal Docks no 1 not 1 not in I in water water Approximate Length 40" 40' 1 Canoe Racks no no no Boats on Land no 2 no canoes 1 Boats Moored no no no Boats Docked no no no 1 Swimming Beach no no no Marker Bouys no no no 1 Swimming Raft- no no no Comments: not 1 devel. 1 II 1 1 1 RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 1 Frontier Trail 35 homes 1 Lotus Lake 2.5 acres II 180' of shoreline Motor Vehicle Access yes yes yes 1 Off - Street Parking yes.3 yes 3 yes 3 cars cars cars 1 Boat Launch 1 1 20' 1 20' 20'wide wide wide Permanent Buildings no no no Setbacks Temporary Buildings no no no Portable Restroom no no no Picnic Tables no no no 1 Grills /Campfires no no no Seasonal Docks no no no Approximate Length Canoe Racks no no no II Boats on Land no no no Boats Moored no no no II Boats Docked no no no Swimming Beach no yes yes Marker Bouys no no no Swimming Raft no no no Comments: undevel. long I very gravel narrow road and volley • poorly ball net II maint. access 1 1 1 1 1 RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 Sunrise Hills • 1 56 homes Lotus Lake 1 1.5 acres _ 150' of shoreline 1 Motor Vehicle Access yes yes yes Off - Street Parking 12 12 12 1 Boat Launch yes yes yes Permanent Buildings no no no 1 Setbacks Temporary Buildings no no no Portable Restroom no no yes Picnic Tables 4 5 4 1 Grills /Campfires none 2 grills 2 grills Seasonal Docks 1 1 1 Approximate Length 60' 60' 60' Canoe Racks 2 2, 1 2, 1 6 II 6spaces 6spaces spaces 1 IP each 1 8 8 spaces spaces I Boats on Land no 10 10 canoes canoes 1 Boats Moored no no no Boats Docked no no no 11 Swimming Beach yes yes yes Marker Bouys yes yes yes 1 Swimming Raft yes yes yes Comments: well well well maint. maint. maint. 1 1 1 1 1 RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 Trolls Glen 1 27 homes Lake Minnewashta 3,000 sq. ft. 60' of shoreline Motor Vehicle Access no no Off- Street Parking no no Boat Launch no no Permanent Buildings no no Setbacks Temporary Buildings no no Portable Restroom no no Picnic Tables no 1 Grills /Campfires 1 2 Seasonal Docks 1 Approximate Length 60' Canoe Racks no no Boats on Land 1 1 fishing fishing boat 2 boat canoes 1 sailboat Boats Moored no no Boats Docked 4 speed 1 power boats boat 'Swimming Beach yes yes Marker Bouys no no Swimming Raft no no Comments: volley 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 10 4. The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan acceptable to the Planning Commission and a letter of credit shall be submitted to cover the cost of material installation and one year warranty. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Emmings: This goes to City Council on February 10th. 1 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING NON- CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS AND TO RECEIVE A NON- CONFORMING USE PERMIT. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Emmings: This is not a public hearing or was there a public hearing on this before? Aanenson: You had the public hearing and the hearing was closed. Just the ' ordinance itself, the passage was tabled. Emmings: Alright and now though you're recommending this alternative ordinance and was there ever a public, is this the first time this has come before us? I missed the last meeting. Krauss: No, it was published and had a public hearing that you opened in December I think it was. Aanenson: December 4th, yes. Krauss: The alternative is a modification of the original. The public notice would be no different. We also did take great pains to notify everybody. We sent copies of both ordinances to all homeowners 11 associations. Emmings: Okay. So the only difference between the one that you're ' recommending now and the one that was on the table before is using 1991 as a baseline instead of 1982? Aanenson: Correct. Emmings: That shouldn't hurt anybody. That will make them happier than anything I assume. Krauss: We should also add Commissioner Emmings that we did make a lot of modifications to the ordinance itself based upon comments we received but that's in either alternative. Emmings: Okay. I was wondering if there were any, do you feel that you have to do the same thing for each beachlot? They're all going to have to have a baseline of the same year? Krauss: Yeah, I think equity demands that you do. ' Ahrens: What were you thinking? 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 11 Emmings: I just wondered if there were any beachlots for which you felt you had good information, whether it was from 1982, 1985 or 1988, why wouldn't we use that information? Olsen: We discussed doing that because there are a couple of cases where we do have the documentation but again Roger was saying it is difficult to II treat them differently. He just felt it would be difficult to do...choice do you have? That was one of the things that we discussed of being able toll do. Emmings: Okay. So it's just kind of out of some sense of fairness. Aanenson: Yeah, equity. Emmings: Is there anybody-that has any comments on this? Is there any discussion on this? Conrad: I do. Because I don't know what we're, as we changed that date, on the surface it seems something that we have a better grasp of so 'I understand staff's comments. Yet on the other hand, I don't know what that does. If I'm voting to allow a use that I think is real inappropriate then I'd feel real uncomfortable doing that. If on one particular day we II surveyed a beachlot that had 8 boats on it and it was appropriate for 4 or II whatever and beachlots that had come under the ordinance and met those standards over the last 10 years, or whatever the number is. I have a hard time grandfathering in something that wasn't appropriate for that lot so on one hand I like the idea of having something more substantial to document it. On the other hand, I don't know what we're doing. So before I could vote for this, I would have to know what I'm sanctioning. 1 Olsen: Well yeah. We got that documentation...the expansion of the beachlot... 1 Emmings: It's sort of my impression that the situation is what we're, we're getting a handle on it as soon as we can but what I hear them saying is we can't go back. If there was a level of use that would be inappropriate under the Statute today, and that level of use was there in 1982, there'd be nothing we could do about it. Is that right? Aanenson: Yes. 1 Emmings: But I think what Ladd is saying, if the level of use would even be appropriate under the Statutue in 1982 but since then has grown to a level that's inappropriate, it doesn't seem fair to those that have come under the Statute and complied to allow this one to come in that now has built itself up to a level that isn't appropriate. That's why I was asking, that was part of the reason I asked questions in the beginning. If there was data that showed, if we had good data for a level that was there in 1986, I'm just picking a number out of the air. I don't see why we couldn't use it because the principle again is getting your hands around it 1 as early in time as you can. Ahrens: I agree. Why do we have data on some and not on others? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 12 Aanenson: Have what? Ahrens: Why is the data incomplete from 1982? Aanenson: It's not that it's incomplete. It's just that it was field's i t checked on that one specific day and we can't guarantee that all the boats were in the slips the day that someone went out and field checked it. So the process is they come in and say this is what we say and the staff says this is what we have inventoried and then we listen to who's information is better on each one. Emmings: Why doesn't that same argument apply to 1991? Aanenson: Because we're assuming that almost all of these have increased at least a little bit so we're giving them the benefit of the doubt. Allowing them to maybe slightly increase and therefore there should be less argument. Emmings: But you sat down with all of them. Aanenson: We've met with each of the homeowners associations and passed out the information as to what we had in 1982, 1986 and 1991. Emmings: Do they agree with the numbers? They all agree with the numbers you have for 1991. Olsen: What they were going to do is send us back that form with what they...what is out there. So it'd be kind of...the data but also from what they documented they had... So it still is kind of. Aanenson: To answer your question, no they haven't commented on that. We haven't heard whether or not they agree with that information. Emmings: Do they have, when will that? Aanenson: That's the process of meeting with each individual association. Emmings: And presumable will we get to the heart of that through the application process? Aanenson: Right. After we adopt the ordinance. Amended the ordinance. Olsen: And there's only one beachlot that we do have good information on and... Emmings: That's on Trolls Glen. Olsen: Yes. And all the other ones, no. It's just one... Emmings: Let's take depositions of all of them. Olsen: But that's the only one we have good information on. The rest are... Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 15 ► Olsen: That's a case where they agree that they've expanded so...pull them back to what they were. Ahrens: Which is? Aanenson: Six. Six dock slips. Conrad: Well there are 2 or 3 in here that I just don't see acceptable. I just have a terrific difficulty in accepting that until I've heard what's going on, compared it to the land that it was being done on. I know a couple of the cases and it just doesn't seem like appropriate use of the land. 1 Emmings: Minnewashta Heights is the example of that Ladd. I don't know how wide the lot is but I think it's 25 feet of lakeshore. But I don't know that. I could be wrong. Aanenson: It's 50. Emmings: Oh is it 50? With 14 boats in front of it so I don't know. Ahrens: But they're saying that's unacceptable. That they have to go back to the original 6 that they agreed on. Emmings: The other thing we could do here I suppose is, if people are interested in the alternative ordinance that uses 1982 as the baseline, �. then we have, we go through the application process and do the negotiating on the number of boats that will be there and if we've got good information on some of them, we can stick to it and if we don't, maybe we have to compromise. The question of whether you want to start with the 1991 data or start with the 1982 data, is that a fair way to look at it? Krauss: That's basically it. But you almost need to make that decision d before we can bring anybody in here. We're asking people to apply for a permit that doesn't exist until you process the ordinance. Emmings: Right but there are two ordinances here in my packet. One uses 1991 and one uses 1982 and that's what we're talking about. .� Krauss: One thing we should also add, and it might complicate things too much, is that the Council approved an ordinance that came through the Planning Commission last fall for water surface use. Councilman Wing advocated, there was always a dock setback area. That now applies to moored boats as well so if you have an exceedingly narrow beachlot, the extended property lines of that beachlot out into the water, there can't be any dock or boat moored within that 10 foot setback on either side of the property line. Now somebody's really pushing it if they're in front of somebody else's property with a dock or overhang that area. That's another problem that they'll have to face. And that isn't related directly to this e' ordinance at all. That's a separately enforceable standard. s Emmings: And there's also limits on the length of the dock. But is there a limit on the length of a dock on a beachlot? Sure. Sure there is isn't there? Wouldn't the dock ordinance apply to a beachlot as well as any Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 16 other property on the lake? Out to 4 feet. A certain number of feet in length or out to 4 feet, whatever is necessary. Okay. So those, on narrow ones, the side yard setbacks as it were or the dock ordinance is going to limit them to some extent. Okay, you've still got the floor believe it or not. Conrad: I don't want it anymore. Just the last comment. There aren't that many problems here. There are only a couple. Emmings: Yeah, right. Matt. ' Ledvina: Nothing. Emmings: Okay, Jeff. ' Farmakes: No comments. Emmings: Joan. r Ahrens: Well to tell you the truth, I'm kind of confused as to whether there's a problem or not. I mean I really don't have any idea. Ladd seems to think there's a problem. I don't know what that's based on. I don't know how inaccurate the information is from 1982. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't have a problem going back to the 1982 standard if anybody feels more strongly about that. Feels more comfortable about that. I guess I'm ' vacilating this issue because I don't know if there's a problem or not. I don't know. ' Farmakes: Isn't there some question as to how reliable your 1982 information is? I mean that's just what you said. Somebody filled out a card and put it in a drawer somewhere. Nobody knows who and the City's ' willing to back' that up. Ahrens: But I don't know if that's for 2 of the beachlots or 3... ' Farmakes: Or is that just the problem lots? Olsen: It's all the same for all the surveys were the same for...whatever happened to be out at that time we marked down. Boats that were being moored there...so it's the same for each. All three different surveys. Ahrens: The information is the same for all three? Aanenson: I think she's saying the margin of error is probably the same. Because you did a one day check and the boats may or may not have been ' moored at the dock. Ahrens: So you're saying the 1992 information is probably •as inaccurate as the 1982? Aanenson: Except that the time lapse isn't so great so there might be more personal recordation. Like Paul's saying you can verify who had their boat ' in last summer and get them to give us a written letter or whatever. People may not have moved and that sort of thing. Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 17 Emmings: But you've also got a video tape and the video tape is going to show somebody's gone with their boat during the time the person's there, you're going to see an empty slip. Or something like that. Or a space anyway where a boat would go. But I think that's probably a little better information. Farmakes: It's based on a slip correct? Not the fact that there happens II to be a boat parked in it. Aanenson: No, it's just how many boats are there is what we counted. We II measured the docks. It's hard to tell how people are tying up their boats. The fishing boats, people just tie them up on the side of the docks. People have slips if it's a motor boat. And then there's canoe racks and sailboats and all that sort of thing too. It's hard to tell whether or not there's actually a sailboat that's being. Emmings: It looks to me like we have two ways to go on this. Or three maybe. I'd be inclined to say, if we've got data from 1982, and if that's when the grandfathering takes place, I don't know why we'd ignore it. I realize that bothers people that's come to town since and have a boat. But still just from looking at the problem and that seems, and then as we're looking at each one separately under the application process, if we feel that our information isn't good, we may have to compromise and go with, the 1986 data or even the 1991 data. But I don't know why we wouldn't start with the 1982 data. Ignoring what we have doesn't seem to accomplish much to me. But one thing we could do here was to distribute the information that we have. Show us what information we have for 1982, 1986 II and 1991. Now is that what's here? Aanenson: Yes. ' Emmings: If anybody thinks that will change the way they're thinking about, this, we could table this and look at that data for the next meeting and look at it then. My personal preference would be to take some action on this. This is one of those decisions that has a lot of political kind of overtones to it and may be better handled at the City Council on that decision but we can tell them what we think about it. The City Council, I can imagine there will be some people who for sure will want to have it at the 1991 levels because they're higher. But I don't know. Let me just ask, is there a motion? Conrad: I would make one Steve. The only motion I would make is that we use 1982 data to establish the criteria for grandfathering. Other than , that, I'm trying to figure out which. Emmings: That would be the second one of the two? , Conrad: Yeah, that would be my motion. That the ordinance be updated for non - conforming beachlots per the second example we have in our kit. Emmings: Okay, I'm going to second the motion and I guess the way I would see this working. The second is with the understanding and I don't know if you see this the same way. That we'd start with the 1982 baseline and if II we felt that, as each one of these comes. Each one of these is going to Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 18 come before us, is that right? With the application and at that time we can negotiate anything that we want to based on how sound we feel our information is. Is that right? Krauss: That's true. Just as a point of order. You technically held the ' public hearing on this in December but, and the ordinance is somewhat different but I know there are a number of people who came tonight probably wanting to comment on this. They haven't been able to yet. Emmings: Well, it's not a public hearing. Do you think it'd be appropriate? 1 Krauss: I would think from a more technical. Yeah, technically I think you've continued the public hearing. Emmings: Oh did we? Ahrens: I don't think so. ' Krauss: You closed it fully? Ahrens: Yeah. Conrad: You might want to take a few brief comments... Emmings: Let's do this. I'll open it up for public comment. I think it's a good thing to do. If people would just state their position. I think you can see what the issue is and why don't you give us, come up here and give us your name and your address. If you're a member of a beachlot, I'd like to know which one. Tell us that and then let us know what you think. Does anybody want to do that? ' Peter Warhol: My name is Peter Warhol and I live in Pleasant Acres. I guess my question is, some of these docks that are out, new properties or new developments weren't here in 1982. Does that mean they don't get ' anything? And as far as we are, we expanded and we'd like to go with the 1991. Emmings: Sure. Now when you say there are docks that weren't there in 1982. Peter Warhol: Like Stratford Ridge you know. There wasn't any houses ' there in 1982 and there wasn't any docks and now there's about 4 or 5 boats on the dock there. I'm just wondering what happens to those people. Emmings: Okay, let's just talk about that one. Stratford Ridge, do they have a beachlot? Aanenson: Yeah. ' Emmings: And they came in under the new ordinance. ' Olsen: They got a conditional use permit... They're not grandfathered in, they've got a permit. Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 19 1 Peter Warhol: And we've got 150 feet of lakeshore and we have like 16 I think, boats there. Emmings: And under the present ordinance, you'd have to have 200 feet of lakeshore and you'd get one dock and 3 boats. Peter Warhol: I mean we were grandfathered in. I don't know what the grandfathering was back in 1982 or 1986. I didn't live here then but I do have a boat down there. I'd be anxious to know what's going to happen. I mean it's a pontoon boat and it's not one that I, that you take in and out I each time. So if it isn't tied up on the dock, then it's probably not, I' not going to have it. There's a couple others that probably won't have one either. It's too big to monkey with. But I mean that's my comment. Emmings: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes sir. John Merz: My name is John Merz and I live at 3900 Cedar Lane. I am a 1 member of the Trolls Glen Homeowners Association. I also own property adjacent to my house which is on Hawthorne Circle so I have the unique position of being able to address this issue from both a riparian and a non - riparian position. I strongly urge, and I won't go into the lengthy... that I wanted to but I strongly urge the adherence to the 1982 baseline. I'm a member of the Homeowners Association and as such I have the same rights as all the members of the Association. It would be an injustice in II this case to deviate from the 1982 baseline. It's clearly documented by a lengthy court process which we endured last year and the 1982 baseline would say that we have one dock and 2 boats at that time. I happened to be present when the 1981 survey. It was done in 1981 by Scott Martin. I happened to be there when Scott did that survey. When that survey was done . on Trolls Glen there were no boats and no docks. I happened to own a boat , at the time I moved into Trolls Glen and I chose not to put one there and shortly thereafter my neighbor, Dr. Tester and I purchased the property on Hawthorne Circle. So from one perspective I would look at it in saying II that yes, I would love to have boat rights at Trolls Glen Association. I personally don't think that that'd be the case. It's far from being conforming. It's only 65 feet wide. It's got tapered property lines which, come out at a point of 200 feet from the departure of the high water mark. There's no property left because they tapered in and this particular case if we went to the 1991 baseline, would be an injustice from the standpoint of safety of use of this piece of property. Environmentally it's not only am I concerning with Lake Minnewashta but I was here in these chambers when the ordinance was passed on the park and believe that was a long and arduous discussion heated from both the lakeowners and non - lakeowners. The ' people involved with the park as to the water useage. Quite truthfully on Lake Minnewashta we have a 650 acre lake which under the DNR guidelines calls for 1 non- riparian boatslip for every 20 acres of water. Simple mathematics tells you that's down to 32 I believe and in the park presently ' we originally under the park ordinance, conditional use permit it was issued for 10 boats on the upper parking lot and 25 in the new lot. Since that time it's my understanding that that's been increased to 50. For the 1 lakeowners on Lake Minnewashta, and I wish I could address this for not just Lake Minnewashta. I wish I could address it for all lakes because it's environmentally a very important concern to all of us. I'm certain II that the condition on most of the other lakes in the city of Chanhassen is Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 20 1 similar to the Minnewashta case. The growth since 1982 has been significant. We've all seen it. We can all turn our heads and hide from it but the intent of those long and lengthy debates in these fair chambers were that we'd stop it in 1982 and it's grown beyond it's bounds. It's not. ' just for the John Merz' or the people of this generation but we as a planning committee and body have to look out beyond our own personal needs and say hey, this is for we have a beautiful little lake in Lake Minnewashta and I wish I could address the rest of them in Chanhassen but ' it's a jewel. It's a jewel in Minnesota. It's a jewel in the whole world. To go beyond what it's technical limits and capacity of holding boats but expanding these beachlots and abandoning what people in 1982 fought long and hard for, to my position would be a terrible injustice and I'll cut my comments short at that. Thank you very much for your time. Ann Cathcart: I'm Ann Cathcart. I'm the president of Trolls Glen. Live ' at 3895 Lone Cedar. We bought the lot in 1985. Built in 1986. Moved in in 1987. We bought the lot because we knew expressly that we could dock a boat. There was a dock there. There were 2 boats there. There was room ' for more boats. It was a quirk of fate that the people who owned the lot before we bought it didn't have a boat there. I think they lived in Tennesee or they lived somewhere else or they had their boat on another ,lake or something. So I look at it that way. Just fate that there wasn't a boat, 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 boats there in 1982 because all the lots weren't built even though it stated specifically in our Covenants that we had rights to more boats. It's part of our deed. It goes along with our ' property values. Mortgage companies know this value. So it's expressly indicated in our mortgages and our values and in our deed that we have the right to moor. I know for a fact that we couldn't moor a 50 -foot yatch. We ' can't have six 30 foot boats. Speed boats. We can't have 10 boats. There's not room. We have what, 69 feet of lakeshore so there is specifically only a certainly amount of room. We as an association have ' goverened ourselves I think very well over the past, well since I've lived there anyway. We've kept up the beach. We haven't had accidents. We've used our boats prudently. There are small children so safety is a great concern. I think the 1991 ruling I feel is more equitable basically ' because the lake has grown in population. It is now fairly stable, especially with the recession going on. There isn't a lot of building. The planning is done. We know what's going to be there. what's going to ' be for sale as farmland on the western side of Minnewashta Parkway has been up for sale. We know what kind of beach is going to come up there. If it would be conforming or non - conforming. This is a specific non - conforming beach and it was sanctioned by the City in 1977. The covenants were and it ' was subdivided to the point where there were 12 association members. 5 are on the lake and 7 are not. It said specifically that we do have a right to moor our boat and that is our goal. Thank you. ' Emmings: Okay, thank you. - ' Bernie Schneider: I'm Bernie Schneider. I live at 7501 West 77th Street in the Trolls Glen Addition. It has always been my understanding that when the city of Chanhassen approved tte Trolls Glen subdivision in 1975, they also approved the Declarations of Covenants and Conditions. And with that ' we were granted boating rights. Mooring rights. So whether we are grandfathered in or not, this is a right under the Abstract. That's what I Planning Commission Meeting 1 January 15, 1992 - Page 21 believe should be considered. It's admirable that John Merz is concerned about the ecology but he also has 3 boats on his dock and I think if any boats should be removed then possibly he should start thinking about cleaning up his own act. We have a letter here to the Planning Commission II stating our position and I will leave that with you so you can take this into consideration at the time we apply for the permit. But again we have 1 7 people that have need for a lake access and mooring rights. Not all of them want it but at the*same time, it's still their right to moor the boats there. I have one question also on the hearing that states that property owners on the lake be notified in writing of proposed hearing on the ordinance. Emmings: Bernie, tell me what page you're looking at? What are you looking at? Bernie Schneider: I'm looking at. Emmings: Hold it up so we can identify what you're looking at. Bernie Schneider: I don't have it with me but on the notice of the ordinance here it's stated that notice shall be mailed to all property owners on the lake and this was a considerable expense. As I understand it, there's over 2,000 property owners and if everybody has to be notified of a Trolls Glen hearing, the expense is going to be in excess of what, $400.00? $500.00? Emmings: Who does that notice? Is it required of the applicant? And is 1 it notice to everybody on the lake? Krauss: Well, what we normally do is we require the applicant to give us al list of names and addresses and we send them out. But there's only 5,000 properties in the entire city. We're not talking anywhere near that kind of number. Bernie Schneider: Well I don't know. It says property owners on the lake so I have no idea. Krauss: On that specific lake. Bernie Schneider: Yeah. A figure was tossed out that it was 2,000. Over 1 2,000. Emmings: Paul's point is that if there are 5,000 lots in the city, 2,000 1 of them are not on Lake Minnewashta. It's probably a substantial smaller number. I'm sure it is. Bernie Schneider: I should also mention that in 1981 the Trolls Glen Association passed a resolution authorizing 4 boats to be moored at the dock.' The Association dock. This resolution* was passed and so prior to your City ordinance, one year prior to the ordinance we already had authorized the 4 boats. If additional boats would be required in the future we would make provision fob that but this is on record prior to the 1982 ordinance or the amendment now. So I will leave this with the. 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 22 Emmings: Sure, just give it to staff. Thank you Bernie. Anybody else? Ivan Underdahl: Ivan Underdahl, 7502'West 77th Street. I've had a cold and have somewhat of a voice problem but I do wish to add a little something. One is I think when John Merz was up here stating that he has ' rights within the Trolls Glen Association the same as the other members, that is technically not correct because at the moment he doesn't have any • rights. He doesn't have any voting rights. He doesn't have any right to the outlot at all because of not having paid assessments that were assessed quite some time ago. He was the one who initiated the lawsuit and we encountered a lot of expense in fighting that lawsuit and succeeded in having it thrown out. So when he speaks of having those rights, he doesn't ' have them. I have lived at 7502 since 1977. The outlot wasn't really prepared for use until some years later. It was just kind of wild. Eventually it was cleared and I think from the time we put a dock there in 1981 and put boats alongside, I don't think anyone has spent any more time in keeping up that outlot than I have. We did have this rule established in 1981 and that's part of the Declaration of Covenants that was accepted and we were to regulate our own outlot so that becomes a part of our ' governing documents and to comply with that this past summer there were 5 people who had boats and would have wished to have them at the dock. I kept my boat in storage all last summer so we would abide by our own ' regulations. And I feel I probably have as much entitlement to a boat at that dock as anybody. However I relinquished by position for the other 4 people who chose to have their boats there. I personally don't feel either ' that the 1982 is a fair and equitable allotment for our association because again as Ann stated too, not all of the lots were built upon. It was everyone's understanding when they did build that they would have the right to have a boat there and that was definitely my purpose in purchasing that lot in the first place and I'm sure it was with most of the rest of them. I think we would be unfairly penalized if we were to be restricted to the 1982 allocatiori that was there at that time. Thank you. ' Emmings: Thank you. Terry Johnson: My name is Terry Johnson and I'm also part of the Trolls Glen Association. I live at 3898 Lone Cedar. I would agree that the 1982 should be the baseline. At our association we have good documentation to show that there were 2 boats at the time. I guess my point would be that ' it was non - conforming at the time for what the city thought was safe and to expand upon that to the 4 or 5 or 6 or 12 boats that the association or some of the members of the association would like to me would be very ' unfair and unsafe. To me that is the main issue is the safety of it. It's a 60 some foot lot and when you start adding 3, 4, 5 boats there and they've got water skiers coming in there and of course there's a lot more boats in there on Saturdays and Sundays, weekends and people are wanting to ' drop off their skiers on that 60 some foot lot, it's a very, very unsafe situation. I border the lot on one side and there have been numerous situations pertaining to me and my wife and my children and I know of other ' situations with other neighbors where it's been very unsafe and very hazardous. Some of them have dealt with some of the individuals that have just talked to you that managed to ignore to tell you about that. But ' I understand that they want more boats there. I understand that every association is going to want to have more boats there. Mainly even if Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 23 they're not using the boats, if they go to sell their homes it increases their value. Some people have said it's worth $40,000.00 or $50,000.00 to II the value of their home. I understand that and I hate to be the one to try to deprive them of that and I know it's a tough question that you're having to deal with. But two of the individuals that have been up here already have stated that they plan on leaving. Moving their homes as soon as this II ordinance is passed. It's telling me that they don't want this non - conforming issue expanded for their own use. It's for the sale to increase the value of their home. And I guess because of that and the fact" that it is non - conforming, it seems unfair to the rest of the property owners on the lake. Thank you. Emmings: Thank you. 1 David Tester: I'd just like to speak to the issue. Emmings: And what's your name? David Tester: David Tester. I'm in the Trolls Glen Association and I've III there since 1976. I moved in in 1977 and I was a joint owner in that lot with John but we had an uncomfortable situation in the neighborhood. There's been a lot of acrimony because of the lot but really actually the beachlot doesn't get used an awful lot. I don't think I saw water skiers down there maybe once or twice last year on the beachlot. It's not a high traffic area. The people who use it are considerate of the people around. I think it's not that we're trying to increase the value. We're trying to maintain what we have. I mean we feel like something's being taken away if we're not given this because it's really something that's subtracting. It's not that we're trying to maintain this. I know before Terry moved in, Terry moved in in 1985 but in Terry's present house Chuck Crompton was a member of the association. He was secretary of the association before he moved to Indiana and there wasn't a lot of problems there but I think recently since there's been the last lots have been built on, that's maybe II created the feeling that where's it going to stop and these people are maybe expecting more boats but we tried to govern it. I think the most boats that have been there have been 4. And if I understood your saying II before that Minnewashta Heights has 50 feet and they've got 8 or 6 slips. Well we've got 70 foot of frontage or 69.5 foot of frontage and it's always been, it hasn't been overused. I mean there's not a lot of activity down there. I just guess I would think it would be sad if we had this taken away from us because it's something that's on our title and our abstract and it's not something we want given to us. We just don't want it taken away because we feel that we were in the right. 1 Emmings: That's obviously the issue. Going back to 1982 levels is going to feel like the City is taking something away from people that they I presently have. But if you turn that around and look through it from the other end, when something is grandfathered in it's grandfathered in at the level of use at the time of the grandfathering. So to the extent that there's been expansion of the use over the level at the time of the grandfathering, you're taking something in a sense that you didn't have a right to. So like I say, you look in one end and something's being taken away. You look in the other end and you're taking something you weren't 1 entitled to and that's, for that reason it's a very, very difficult issue. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 24 I . . I don't think the City wants to take anything away. I think the comments I about, I know on Minnewashta, I don't know if it's happened on other lakes. John mentioned the fact that the DNR did a study of the lake in deciding how many boats were going to be allowed in at the Regional Park. They looked at the level of the use of the lake and said we're going to restrict 1 the number of slips because the lake can't handle more so allowing beachlots to increase is also overloading that lake in a sense. And I live on that lake too so it's particularly near and dear to my heart in a II personal sense. And I have to also say we've got a number of beachlots on our lake and even at their present level I don't think they cause problems on the lake. 1 live within 3 houses of one that's very over developed in a sense. 50 feet with 16 boats or whatever it is and it doesn't bother me. II But that's not the issue. The issue I think, well. The City has to decide whether it wants to preserve what exists today or whether it wants to go back and enforce what existed at that time of the grandfathering. And from I my part here I'm going to say we should go back to the time of the grandfathering but I can well see the City Council may feel differently about it. But anyway, is there anybody else that wants to talk. II Ivan Underdahl: When the application is made for the permit and there could he negotiating at that point but are you implying that it cannot be in negotiating above what it was in 1982? I . Emmings: No. I guess when I say that I'm thinking that if there's data . from 1982 that's very sound. That we're very comfortable with, I guess I there'd be less inclination to compromise. If we don't think that our data is good or our homeowners association could show us that it was inaccurate for some reason, then we might compromise going up. I guess from the I City's point of view it seems to me that we want to put some of the burden . on the recreational beachiot owners to get us to have an upward departure rather than starting high and trying to get people down lower. We're going to have a lot less luck with that I'm sure. But I think it should be done II on an individual basis. I think we have to look at each one of these. Ivan Underdahl: ...negotiating from a standpoint of what is equitable for that situation. Emmings: Don't know. Probably. I mean when it seems equitable, how, can I say no to that? You're putting me in a position where I'm going to say I I want to do something that's unfair. I guess you can either take a very legalistic point of view and say if 2 is what you had in 1982, that's what you get. Unless you want to come in under the new ordinance. If you have I enough land and everything else to come in under the'new ordinance, maybe you can get 3 but sure. You want to do something that's fair but I don't think, if you're going to treat everybody the same, then you've got to I approach them all the same. And it wouldn't be fair to say well, we like you better so we're going to give you more boats or you've got more land so we're going to give you more boats. I don't know that we'd want to get into that. I don't know. • 1 David Tester: I just wanted to say, you talked about Minnewashta Heights. If they had 6 slips at that point in time that they were supposed to be I using it, if they were down to have 6 and at the time it was done there's 14 boats there but now because in 1982 there's 14 boats there and there was II Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 25 supposed to be 6 slips, now because they had 14 that's okay. Is that what you're saying? Because these are your neighbors. If you go back to 6 boats to what they're supposed to have, wouldn't that create a problem? Emmings: You mean they'll burn my house down? • David Tester: You live right next to them. Emmings: No, I know. Yeah I'm putting all that out of my mind. I'm not II going to sit here, I'm sure my neighbors would hate me if I said I'm not in that neighborhood technically but I live right next door to a lot of them, I know a lot of them and they're going to hate me for saying well back to 1982 level. I have no doubt about that but that's not going to influence me. But maybe they hate me already for other reasons. Now they have another one. Is there any other public comment here on this? Okay...and I seconded it and just so we're all on the same page because I forgot, we're doing the version of the ordinance that uses an 1982 baseline. Is there any discussion on this in light of the public comment? Then I'll call a question. 1 Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission approval adopting the ordinance using the baseline document of the size and extent of the recreational beachiot in the summer of 1982. All voted in favor an motion carried. Emmings: When will this go to the City Council? 1 Aanenson: The 10th. . Emmings: So if you're interested in this, follow it on up. ' Conrad: I think just as a footnote. When these start coming in and if they come before us, we should know, and I think there's some common sense 1 that has to guide what we do but we should have a feeling for how the current ordinance would deal with a particular situation and I don't know, which means if under the current ordinance if they have x number of boats I or picnic tables or whatever. I'd like to know that. And probably the other thing is we should be looking at the site when it comes in. The idea of the beachiot ordinance is for a lot of things. It's called safety and protecting the neighbors and some real common sense type stuff. And sometimes you can have real unsafe situations on big lots and safe situations on small lots. I think we have to take a look at them and again apply some common sense stuff and I think we all hear what you're concerned' with. The people that are part of the association or the beachiot. I would be fighting for my rights too just like you but I think on our side we can apply some common sense guidelines that make it work. .In some cases' it's not going to turn out totally the way you want but I think we should be able to reach some pretty good decisions. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. Emmings: I'm very disi nciined to do this with the absence of Tim and Brian' because they both had a lot of good things to say about this but I don't 1 1 ` Trolls -Glen Homeowners Ass'n. i dock with four boats in July, 1991 -.....____..,, '44,-. ' I mo' . .�_ _ \ . ` 7 1.: F r • -,,,,_•, e ` 1 Y v a + t r ,:i:.'• ' ;1.4 ' A T : .. ra , 1 1 1 1� 1 I y WM , h. Ryas"__ r. F . , f s' 40 . 1 ' ' :I••'5� "y 4 w .4,..:.. rr;< ,ic I . s i ee . ' ' , II John Merz dock on the north side of Trolls -Glen dock and the Terry the Trolls -Glen property. July, 1991. Johnson dock and pontoon on the south side of the Trolls -Glen II property, July, 1991. • 1