11. Zoning Ordinance Beachlot Depth Requirements 1 r
& ITY O F C C• DATE: Jan. 17, 199Qr
.-
I \ CHANHASSEN C.C. DATE: Feb. 12, 1990
1/4. �. . CASE NO: 89-8 ZOA
I - ,Prepared by: Olsen/v
I --
STAFF REPORT ,
I PROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section
20-263 (7 and 13) Concerning Conditions for
a Dock on a Recreational Beachlot
I ii Action by City Administrate
Endorscdl. ._.es
4 IAoditia
I 0 LOCATION: Rep4
pit
� — '.
Date Submitted to Cc" niss►ot
l
IAPPLICANT: DEtc ....;. tc Ccnncit
PI:eir
,
PRESENT ZONING: •
IACREAGE: ,
IDENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N-
1 - S-
Q _
E
W-
11 '' WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARAC. :
II2000 LAND USE PLAN:
i
ZOA for Recreational Beachlots
December 6, 1989
Page 2
11 BACKGROUND
On April 6, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed a zoning ordi-
nance amendment to Section 20-263 (7) of the City Code pertaining
to the lot depth requirement for installation of a dock on a
recreational beachlot (Attachment #1) . Staff had recommended
that the ordinance be amended to read that "no dock shall be per-
mitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at least 200 feet
of lake frontage and the lot has at least 100 feet of lot depth
' WHERE THE DOCK IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED" . The intent of the
amendment was to allow docks on recreational beachlots that meet
or exceed the lot area and lake frontage requirement but have a
portion of the lot that is narrow, resulting in less than a 100
foot mean depth. The amendment would instead have required a 100
foot depth where the dock is located to provide a larger area
where the more intensive use of the recreational beachlot will
exist.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of a zoning ordi-
nance amendment as follows: "No dock shall be permitted on a
recreational beachlot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake
frontage and the lot has at least a 100 foot depth measured per-
' pendicular landward from the ordinary high water mark to the
first intersecting lot line inclusive of the street
right-of-way."
The City Council reviewed the proposed zoning ordinance amendment
on April 25, 1988 (Attachment #2) . After much discussion of the
subject, the City Council did not approve the proposed zoning
ordinance amendment.
On November 6, 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
reviewed an appeal to staff' s interpretation of the recreational
beachlot ordinance by Robert Pierce (Attachment #3) . The appeal
was to staff' s interpretation of the 100 foot depth requirement
for recreational beachlots to have a dock. The zoning ordinance
' states that no dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach-
lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the lot
has at least a 100 foot depth. Staff originally interpreted this
statement to mean that the recreational beachlot must have a lot
depth of 100 foot which is defined by the definition section of
the zoning ordinance as a "mean depth" . The applicant's appeal
to staff' s interpretation was that they did not feel that the way
the recreational beachlot ordinance was written required a mean
lot depth to be provided for a dock on a recreational beachlot.
Upon further review of the ordinance, staff agreed that it could
i be interpreted differently since it states that the recreational
beachlot must have a depth of 100 feet and not a "lot" depth of
100 feet. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the appeal to
staff' s interpretation and further recommended that the ordinance
be amended to clarify the intent of the ordinance.
I
ZOA for Recreational Beachlots 11
December 6, 1989
Page 3
11
The Board of Adjustments unanimously recommended approval of the
appeal to staff' s interpretation. The Board of Adjustments felt
that the application meets the requirements as currently in the
ordinance for a dock on a recreational beachlot. City Council
members Jay Johnson and Bill Boyt requested an appeal to the
decision of the Board at the November 6, 1989, City Council
meeting (Attachment #4) . The City Council felt the ordinance
should be amended prior to acting on the appeal. The appeal to
the Board of Adjustment' s decision will be heard by the City
Council at the same time as the zoning ordinance amendment.
On December 6, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code to modify the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance clarifying lot depth require-
ments. After much discussion, it was recommended to table action
until a new amendment could be provided clarifying the intent of
the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance and providing means for buf-
fering activities on a recreational beachlot from surrounding
properties (Attachment #5) . 1
ANALYSIS
Planning Commissioner Steven D. Emmings has submitted proposed ,
amendments to the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance (Attachment
#6) . Commissioner Emmings proposed changes to the Code which
would require buffering of activities on a recreational beachlot
from surrounding properties and other uses on the same lake and
provides wordage which provides an intent of the conditions for
a recreational beachlot. The amendments are proposed as follows:
( 7) No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beachlot
unless the beachlot meets the following conditions:
( a) Shoreline of at least 200 ft. per dock, and
(b) Area of at least 30,000 square feet for the first
dock and an additional 20,000 square feet for each
additional dock, and
(c) A sufficient buffer to insulate neighboring prop- I
erty owners and other lakeshore owners from beach-
lot activities (see paragraph 13 below) .
The maximum number of docks for any beachlot is three
( 3) .
(13) Based upon experience, it is recognized by the City I
that the use of lakeshore by multiple parties is an
intensive use of lakeshore that may present conflicts
with neighboring uses of lakeshore or the use of other
JI
lakeshore on the same lake. Further, beachlots generate
I
ZOA for Recreational Beachlots
December 6, 1989
Page 4
11 complaints because they are not maintained to the same
standards as single family lakeshore lots. All beach-
lots shall have a buffer sufficient to insulate other
property owners from beachlot activities. This buffer
may consist of topography, streets, vegetation, distance
(width or depth) , or other features or combinations of
features which, in the opinion of the City, serve the
purpose of providing a buffer for beachlot activities.
To insure appropriate buffering, the City may require
conditions to insulate beachlot activities including,
but not limited to:
(a) Increased side or front yard setbacks for beach
areas, docks, racks or other allowed recreational
equipment or activities;
(b) Hours of use; .
(c) Planting and maintenance of trees and shrubs;
( d) Erection of fences;
(e) Standards of maintenance including mowing and trim-
ming; painting and upkeep of racks, docks and other
equipment; disposal of trash or debris, etc. ;
( f) Increased width, depth or area requirements based
N upon the intensity of use proposed or the number of
dwellings having rights of access.
11 The City reserves the right to impose the following con-
ditions even after approval of the recreational beachlot if
the City finds it necessary based upon conflicts with other
less intensive uses of neighboring or lakeshore properties
(with the exception that the City may not require the beach-
lot to be larger after it is approved) .
Staff is recommending placing part of (13) , as proposed by
Commissioner Emmings, at the beginning of the standards for a
recreational beachlot to serve as an intent statement. Staff has
reworded a portion of ( 7) , has removed (7) (c) , and has also changed
the last sentence in (13) .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following
motion:
11 "The Planning Commission recommends amending Section 20-263
of the Chanhassen City Code by adding:
I
11
} 1
ZOA for Recreational Beachlots
December 6, 1990
Page 5
Section 20-263. Intent. Based upon experience, it is
recognized by the City that the use of lakeshore by multiple If
parties is an intensive use of lakeshore that may present
conflicts with neighborhing uses of lakeshore or the use of
other lakeshore on the same lake. Further, beachlots
generate complaints because they are not maintianed to the
same standards as single family lakeshore lots. Therefore,
the City requires the following conditions for recreational
beachlots:
and by amending Section 20-263(7) as follows:
The maximum number of docks on a recreational beachlot is
three (3) . No dock shall be permitted on any recreational
beachlot unless the beachlot meets the following conditions: I
(a) Shoreline of at least 200 feet per dock, and
(b) Area of at least 30,000 square feet for the first dock
and additional 20,000 square feet for each additional
dock.
and by amending Section 20-263(13) as follows:
All recreational beachlots shall have a buffer sufficient to
insulate other property owners from beachlot activiites.
This buffer may consist of topography, streets, vegetation,
distance (width or depth) , or other features or combinations
of features which provide a buffer. To insure appropriate
buffering, the City may impose conditions to insulate beach-
lot activiites including, but not limited to:
(a) Increased side or front yard setbacks for beach areas,
docks, racks or other allowed recreational equipment or
activities; I,
(b) Hours of use;
(c) Planting of trees and shrubs; ,
(d) Erection of fences;
(e) Standards of maintenance including mowing and trimming; I
painting and upkeep of racks, docks and other equipment;
disposal of trash and debris; ,
(f) Increased width, depth or area requirements based upon
the intensity of the use proposed or the number of
dwellings having rights of access. I
To the extent feasible, the City may impose such conditions
even after approval of the beachlot if the city finds it
necessary based upon conflicts with the use of other property.
I
ZOA for Recreational Beachlots
December 6, 1989
Page 6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
iOn January 17, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the amendment to modify the recreational beachlot ordinance to
clarify lot depth requirements. The Commission approved what was
proposed in the Planning Commission recommendation and changed
the intent statement to add "use of lakeshore by multiple parties
may be an intensive use of the lake that may present conflicts",
and to change the line that says "further, beachlots may generate
complaints because they are not maintained". The Commission also
changed the last paragraph to read "to the extent feasible, the
' City may impose conditions even after approval of the beachlot,
if the City finds it necessary based upon conflicts with the use
of the property or failure to maintain property and equipment" .
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
'. "The City Council approves the amendment to modify the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance to clarify lot depth requirements
as shown on Attachment #7."
' ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission minutes dated April 6, 1988.
2. City Council minutes dated April 25, 1988.
3. Board of Adjustments minutes dated November 6, 1989.
4. City Council minutes dated November 6, 1989.
5. Planning Commission minutes dated December 6, 1989.
6. Memo from Commissioner Emmings.
7. Proposed Ordinance Amendment.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 43 1
C
Jack Brambilla: We did send a copy of the Exhibit A which is the whole II
plot is listed there.
Emmings: That's not a site plan. I
Jack Brambilla : I guess we have to go with what we had initially on the
site plan. '
Dacy: As represented in Attachment #2 is what you will be basing your
approval on. i
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-4 as shown on the site
plan stamped "Received March 16, 1988" for outdoor display of
merchandise, specifically landscape products, on property located at 608
Flying Cloud Drive and subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with fire code as to the use and location of the fuel
storage tanks.
2. The appropriate sign permits must be obtained prior to installation.
- 3. Display areas shall not encroach on the 25 foot front setback. I
4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable sewer and sewage
disposal code and provide the City with the proper septic tank
pumping contracts once every three years starting on the effective
date of this conditional use permit.
5. The applicant shall prepare with the city staff an appropriate I
driveway access plan.
6. Display of merchandise is restricted to the area indicated on the
site plan stamped "Received March 16, 1988". The display area is
limited within the area designated by the fence and TH 212.
All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and motion carried. 1
Erhart: I'm opposed for the reasons stated.
Emmings: Traffic considerations? I
Erhart: Safety. II
PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 (6 &
7) OF THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH I
REQUIREMENT FOR A DOCK AND THE ONE CANOE RACK/DOCK REQUIREMENT, ROBERT
/ PIERCE. .
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
IApril 6, 1988 - Page 44
C.
11 Public Present :
Name Address
IIBernie Hanson 4125 Thomas Avenue, Minnetonka
Larry Wenzel 6900 Minnewashta Parkway
IIRobert Pierce Applicant _
Emmings: Again, as a preliminary matter on this one, just as on the
II first one, I 've got to ask staff if notice went out to all the lakeshore
owners pursuant to the ordinance?
II Dacy: Notice went out to all of the homeowners associations with
recreational beachlots but not the individual riparian owners.
II Emmings: Then I 'm going to recommend that we do the same thing with this
one that we did with the first one. There are people who probably would
come tonight to speak about this . I think they should go ahead and make
their comments known and then we should hold open a public hearing and
11 continue it until notice can be given because it is a zoning ordinance
amendment that requires notice to all the property owners abutting the
lake pursuant to Section 20-43.
Ir. Erhart: Are you sure? In what you're looking at, requires us to, when
dealing with a specific property proposal, it requires that we notify
everyone on that particular lake.
IIEmmings: This is under Division Two, Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
II Erhart: Then we have to notify everyone on all lakes because the zoning
ordinance deals with all lakes.
I/ Headla : It's got to be more than just the lakes. It has to be
published.
Erhart: Did you publish notification?
IIDacy: We did the public hearing ad and we prioritize the homeowners
association with the beachlots .
IIEmmings: It makes sense with the conditional use permit section. Does
it make sense to have it here under the Zoning Ordinance Amendments?
II Does having this provision, which is in here?
Dacy: I really think it's a judgment call on the issue. If you want to
table it for us to contact everybody, that's up to the Commission.
11 Emmings: Let me explain. I live on Lake Minnewashta. I look directly
r at this property just like I look right across at Red Cedar Cove. I
I
I didn't know Red Cedar Cove was going in until it went in. My neighbors
and I thought gee, it's amazing they can do something like that without
saying anything to any of us who are directly affected by the project.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 45
This is 500 feet of the lakeshore on our lake. It' s right over there to
the right where we all look and I got no notice. If I hadn't been on the
Commission, I'd never would have known this was going on and I know my
neighbors didn't either. I
Erhart: But we're not dealing with Red Cedar Cove.
Emmings: I 'm aware of that but we're dealing with this piece of property II
that's closer to me than Red Cedar Cove.
Dacy: I do know that the applicant is here. Maybe we could do the same II
thing that we did on Sunny Slope.
Emmings: That's what I 'm proposing but now I 'm questioning whether this
makes sense on zoning ordinance amendments. It's here in the ordinance
but I'm not sure that it makes a lot of sense. It' s one thing if we're
talking about a zoning ordinance amendment generally but here we' re doing
it really at the instance of a particular developer for a particular
piece of property. Even though it would wind up changing the ordinance il
for all future beachlots, this is coming in from a person who wants to do
a specific thing to a specific piece of property and I think at least the II
lakeshore owners on that lake ought to be here if they want to be.
Besides, that's what the ordinance says. I guess what I would like to do
4 is literally read the ordinance. Go ahead and do everything we can do
tonight. Handle it the same way we did the first one and hold the public
hearing open . I think there are people who would want to come.
Erhart: I 'm not arguing, I agree but what do you want to do? Invite
every lakeshore owner?
Emmings: Here's what they've done. They've given notice to the
homeowners association, for example Minnewashta Heights probably has one II
and the ordinance requires them to do that and they did it but they did
not do another thing the ordinance requires and that's to give every
property owner abutting the lake on which the development is going to
occur, that same notice. I 'm not in any homeowners association.
Minnewashta Lows has no homeowners association.
Elison: So you're saying every lakeowner? I
Emmings: The ordinance says that.
Erhart: On what?
Emmings: Under public hearing for amendments to the zoning ordinance, it II
says is a development is proposed adjacent to a lake or will affect the
useage of the lake, the applicant shall provide the City with a list of
property owners abutting the lake at the time of the application. The
City shall provide mailed notice to the lake homeowners as in compliance II
with the procedures above, which specify the procedures for notifying
homeowners associations .
Erhart: I didn't hear zoning ordinance.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 46
ql
Emmings: Yes, the whole section in one zoning ordinance amendments.
That's what the whole section is.
Batzli : Can I propose that we do table it but we allow the people who
have shown up to speak in public hearing, ask the City Attorney to give
us an interpretation on what exactly is required and then go through with
the appropriate notification procedure?
Emmings: That's fine if you think that's appropriate. I don't know that
it needs interpretation but if you feel like it does. Well, let's go
ahead. Is there a staff report?
Dacy: I have nothing more to add unless you did want me to go through
it.
Robert Pierce: I guess I 'm not quite following where we' re at with this
process. This is the third time, which has cost thousands to me, that
the notices have been out to the wrong people and it's getting somewhat
tiresome. I guess, where are we going from here with that. Is the City
11 Attorney, is that what's going to happen?
Emmings: I don't know what the City Attorney is going to say. What I 'm
I( saying is there's a provision in our ordinance which says that everybody
who lives on the lake gets notice of this meeting so they can have input
if they want to. They didn' t get it.
Robert Pierce: Is that Lake Minnewashta?
Emmings: Yes.
Robert Pierce: Okay, so that's the only lake we're concerned with. Is
that a month away now?
Dacy: No, two weeks. Can I say one thing? We just took the interpreta-
tion that it was a zoning ordinance amendment that would affect all lakes
and that's why again, we just notified the homeowners associations. In
the case of Sunny Slope, we made a mistake. We should have notified
everybody on Lake Riley. In this case, we felt that a homeowners
associations with beachlots would be directly affected. You have brought
up another side of that concern that we did not look at so that's why.
Robert Pierce: What's done is done. I just want to know to eliminate
maybe a problem in the future so we can get it to the next point. At any
11 rate, let me just go through a little bit of what we're planning here.
I 've gone to quite a few meetings so I might get somewhat directly to the
high points. We' re asking for one dock with three overnight storage
facilities . The slips would belong to Lots 3, 4 and 5 of the dock. They
would go with those lots. We're also asking for a canoe rack. One canoe
space for. lots in there and there are 15 lots and each one would be
allowed just one. We're putting the dock on the widest side of the
parcel towards the north. We' re leaving basically intact all the trees.
We've had them located and we've designed our path down to the lake
I
Planning Commission Meeting
11
April 6, 1988 - Page 47
I/
ir
around the trees in order to leave as much as possible. The beach area in "
it's natural state. We are having a sand blanket. We shorten it down
from our original proposal considerably. On either end, to the north and
to the south, we're leaving quite an area, basically untouched other than 11
to clean up the area. It gives a lot of a buffer zone to any adjoining
properties.
Emmings: I don't mean to interrupt but I just have a thought that the
way down the slope, there was a lot of talk last time you were here about II
whether it was a ramp or stairs. What is that?
Robert Pierce: I guess at this point it doesn't really matter to us.
We'll work with staff or whoever might have recommendations. It's just
not a big concern. I think personally the tiered steps may look a little
nicer. That would just be my feelings on that but we' re willing to look II
at it. I think you're pretty familiar, we have 550 feet of lakeshore
roughly and we' re about 115 feet on the north side and about 80, it's
slightly narrower in the middle. We've moved from the original proposal 11
that we looked at, most everything towards the north. The dilemma we're II
having here, the docks allow us to start on our development with a far,
far higher caliber of home. If we are able to go ahead with that and
market it at this point, we're going to be looking at homes probably from II
the $200,000.00 to $400,000.00 range. You can't market that with the
docks and the beach, we're going to be reducing, in my feelings, about
�. $100,000.00 per parcel for the finished product. I think it's
advantageous for all concerned, including the City, to have this area
start out in a nice fashion. There's a lot of land in the future that
the City Planners have brought to your attention. Everyone is probably 11
going to be opening up here over the next, who knows how long. It might
be soon, it might be a while but I believe this area is one of the areas
that starts off, the flavor will probably carry through onto the other
parcels. I think for the City, for tax reasons, this would be a very
good idea . Also, it's just the same useage as far as overnight storage,
as I'm sure you're all aware of, one dock with three boats is the same
what one single family can have. We're trying to work with the City and
bring our request into line. To step on as few toes and do it in a nice II
way that we can for everyone concerned. I think as a whole, we're on
very good relationship with people around us. I think we can maintain
that. r
Larry Wenzel : I live just south of that area. I guess I 'm a little
confused as to what we're doing with this not only just on our lake but
all the lakes. Apparently the change is to a requirement which is 100
foot depth by 200 feet in lakeshore to come within the conditional use
variety for this type of piece of property. That's a lot of land. It
seems to me that the overlapping program here is that anybody to utilize II
that as beachiot has got to be within 1,000 feet of either that beachiot
or waterline, I don't know which. If you look at that in relation to the
size lots, probably 7 families could utilize 20,000 square feet. Now, on
our particular lake right there, we had a public access that was utilized
by the general public and we would have 10 to 20 to 30 cars parked on the
street illegally. Nobody did anything about them. Couldn't get anybody II
to tag them, move them. They did finally put up signs but that doesn' t
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 48
114r
11 mean anything . They would unload before dawn and pick up late at night.
Screeching tires and the whole thing. We've got another access just down
on Little Joe that's about another half a block with the access is a
driveway. The quantity of people who can use is unlimited. Then you
come to the othe side of the coin and you say, if you're a landowner or
developer or you're a group of people and you want to utilize it for
people that are owners within the area, you have to have all this 'space.
It doesn't seem to fit. Something's missing here. We do have
recreational beachlots on the lake. They are much less impact than a
public access. The only reason the public access on our side of the lake
was closed is that the park went in on the far side and as soon as you
started to charge on the far side, you put boulders in so they'd have to
go there to unload. That dramatically dropped the useage of the lake but
something 's not fitting right.
Emmings: What would you like to see the City do on this issue?
Larry Wenzel : I don't think that you can take an overall scale of square
footage or lineal footage and apply it to every condition on every lake
because they're not all the same. The conditions are different. The
population on the lake is all different and I don't know that you can
just put in a straight ordinance that fits everybody like that. It
doesn't make sense especially when you've got public accesses and public
accesses in some cases are adjacent or very close to what they want to do
with the beachlot. Everybody has their own position but this isn' t
fitting right for some reason . I have no objection to the beachlot the
way Pierce is laying his out because right there, we've got others and
they're more satisfactory than the public access , as far as the
landowners that are there or the neighbors. That's not a problem but
when you start talking about something that's all of a sudden is 200 feet
by 100 feet or 20,000 square feet and you only get limited amount of
spaces for utilization, that doesn' t necessarily make sense either. If
you go half a block away and use the public access and run your boat into
everybody's shore and beach it because they can' t kick you off anyway
from the lake. It just doesn't make sense. We're so restrictive on the
guy that owns the property but we're not restrictive in the sense of what
we do with the public access or the utilization of the lake. That's kind
of where I 'm coming from.
Emmings: And you're expressing support for this plan?
Larry Wenzel: I think this plan in this particular area, which affects
me, is great. This might not fit, but I don' t think for instance if
you're going to say that he's got to have 20,000 square feet, which
I think you're thinking about the ordinance changing to be, and I'm not
sure what that is.
Emmings: Right now that is the ordinance. It's 200 feet of lakeshore
with a 100 foot depth. All the way along it is the way right now we' re
interpretting it but we' re going to try and clear that up.
Larry Wenzel: In some places you've got roads that come down and shorten
that down.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 49
Emmings: I think they looked at that and this is the only place where
we've got that situation isn't it?
Dacy: On the west side of Lake Minnewashta. I
Larry Wenzel: So then that gets amended in that sense or what?
Dacy: What's being proposed is that the ordinance language is proposed 11
to be amended so that you only have to have 100 feet of lot depth where
the dock is going to be located. As long as you meet the area I
requirement and as long as you meet the lake frontage requirement, if you
have 100 feet of lot depth where the dock is located, that's the
proposal.
Larry Wenzel : What if you don' t have 100 foot anywhere in the section? I
Dacy: Then you would have to receive a variance.
Conrad: Then basically we don' t want a beachlot there.
Emmings: Do you own land between the road and the lake? I
Larry Wenzel : Yes. Sure.
Emmings: And how much frontage do you have?
Larry Wenzel : 240 feet and it's 10.5 acres total but I 'm already into
two front lots. It's plotted that way now but that doesn't necessary
mean that at one point or another , I've got no benefit going either way
if I develop because lots on the front that have their own lake property
in relation to a series of lots all sharing, I 'm not sure how that value II
would be accepted. The value of the lot exclusive or jointly but it just
seems that all of a sudden we' ve got a situation where there' s a road
that cuts in like that. That road has been there, my house has been
there since 1850 and the road was there and all of a sudden things are
changing and it just doesn't seem right that the ordinance. It doesn't
seem right that these ordinances become so restrictive but it' s isolated. 11
You can go just a short way away and you've got public accesses where
there are no restrictions. That just doesn't make a whole heck of a lot
of sense.
Emmings: Do you have any other comments on this item? 1
Larry Wenzel: No. I 'd rather see $400,000.00 houses than I would
$200,000.00 houses because that helps everybody. If that's the type of II
thing that creates it, I 'm all for it.
Conrad moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted II
in favor and the public hearing was closed.
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 50
14r
Erhart: Specifically the current ordinance does require that it all has
to be 100 feet so if this thing was 1,000 feet long and there was one
spot in that 1,000 feet that wasn't 100 feet wide, you couldn't put a
dock in?
Dacy: Right.
Erhart: That seems a little silly doesn't it? I think it sounds like a
reasonable thing to do. Did you want to discuss the canoe thing too?
Emmings: Give any comments you've got so he gets the benefit.
Erhart: Okay, we're not going to vote on this tonight then?
Emmings: No, we're going to table it.
Erhart: You're suggesting that the number of canoe racks simply be left
to the judgmental decision at the time the conditional use permit comes
in, is that correct?
1 Dacy: That's correct.
Erhart: That's all I've got.
Conrad : I have no problem with changing the amendment. I think that's
fine. I do think that for canoes, I agree with the concept, I don' t know
why we had limitations on canoes before. I think if we want a million
canoes on a property, that's fine with me if that's the way they choose
to decorate their beachlot. However , as part of the staff report, it
said instead staff recommends that canoe racks be a permitted use in
recreational beachlots . The number of canoes to be determined as a part
of the conditional use permit review. I guess we need some guidelines
and therefore I 'm kind of happy we' re tabling this because here
somebody's going to come in with canoe racks that dot the shoreline and
I 'm not sure what those guidelines could be Barbara. I started thinking
what they are. I think philosophically I don't know that we need to
limit the number . Yet on the other hand, to say it' s going to be a
conditional use and we' re going to review it, we should have something
that's going to guide that review. Otherwise I don' t want to see it
because philosophically I'd say we could have a million canoes so I don't
really want to see this unless we have some standards to apply to
different situations like the gentleman was describing. I think staff
should do a little bit of analysis on the canoe aspect.
1 Emmings: That brings up another issue too. We call these canoe racks
but they store watercraft. They don' t just store canoes and I don't
know, it looks like you can put sailboards on them, small sailboats, all
kinds of things and I don't know if we want to get into that but that
could be another issue. Maybe you want to tie the number of spots to
store something on a thing that looks like a canoe rack to the number of
houses?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 51 1
Wildermuth : Didn' t you say that somewhere Barbara? Didn' t you try to r
equate the number of residents in the beachiot association with the
number of available racks?
Dacy: That would be one idea because that is being proposed by the
applicant. That's fine. I think maybe in the term canoe racks, maybe we
should change that language regarding to that section to be storage of
non-motorized watercraft because Mr. Chairman, you're right, it's canoes.
It's sailboats and sailboards.
Emmings: What about a 15 foot aluminum boat, rowboat? I
Dacy: That's fine.
Emmings: As long as it doesn't have a motor on it, they could go on I
there too right?
Conrad: That I get real interested in because that's a whole different ,1
animal we're talking about.
Batzli : Isn' t the distinction made by the people that license watercraft "'
in the State of Minnesota? Whether you need numbers on the side or
whether you just need like the sailboat and sticker on the side?
': Wildermuth: They all need numbers. I
Batzli : No, they just need the sticker on the side.
Conrad: Yes, your sailboats and canoes just need stickers.
Batzli : You might look into that as being able to make some sort of
distinction based on the State's definition of that. The recommended
language for the amendment to the dock section, I would strongly
recommend that you don't include the language where the dock is proposed 11
to be located but actually where it is located. i am assuming you want
the dock to be located at the 100 foot depth, correct?
Dacy: Yes . I
Batzli : So you don't want that to be where the dock is proposed to be
but where it actually is located. My second comment would be that I
would prefer that there be some, taking Tim's comment, that if you had
1,000 feet of lakeshore and only one foot didn't have the 100 foot depth,
change around to have 999 feet of it as 2 feet deep and you've got 1 foot
of it that extends back 8 billion feet so you get the required square 11
footage. I'd like to see that there be some minimum amount having the
100 foot depths still. At least as a minimum. For instance, how much
land has to be on either side of the dock? I
Emmings: The setback? The side setback?
Batzli : Do you know what that is?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 52
114r
Dacy: There is a "dock setback" but I can't recall what that is right
off the top of my head.
Batzli : Since it's being tabled, I guess I 'd look at something like that
and I assume it's going to be 10 feet or 15 feet and double that so that
you have a minimum 100 foot depth of 20 or 30 feet. If you look at it
and you don't like it, I'll still probably recommend something like that
next time.
Wildermuth: I think that's a good idea. I think Brian's comment is a
very good one. I think maybe the distinction and the criteria for a
canoe rack ought to be something along the guidelines that he was talking
about with the number requirements or just the sticker requirement. That
might be the way to describe that.
Headla : I like what Pierce has proposed . I certainly support it. I
think the 200 foot and the 100 foot dimensions are purely arbitrary. I
think it' s ludicrous that you should try to stop one fellow because he
doesn't have 100 feet. You automatically stop him from getting a
beachlot. I have yet to hear any rationale, whatsoever, what's so magic
about 100 feet? Why is 100 feet better than 50 feet? Why isn't it 200
feet or 300 feet deep? Until I hear that logic, you're cutting off
somebody. Pierce has to screw around with us for how long just because
we're using an arbitrary number of feet on the depth. I think that' s
unacceptable. This isn' t a day where we just arbitrarily put any number
and say, that' s good, let' s fly with it. I think we really got to take a
look at it. If you want to tie square foot per person per lot, I think
' that has some value. I hear a lot of opinions on this but damn it, why
doesn't somebody go to somebody like Pleasant Acres and look at it.
They've got a big area , how much of it is really used? They've got a
road down there and they probably use 30 to 40 feet of it and they've got
a volleyball court, they have a catamaran, a boat there, two satellites,
that's the area that they really use.
Emmings: Two satellites?
Headla: 30 or 40 feet from the lake.
Emmings: Have they been there all the time because those are not
permitted on beachlots.
11 Headla: That' s another thing, they should permit them. It's ridiculous
we don't have them.
' Emmings: If I didn' t know better I 'd think you owned land between the
road and the lake too Dave. You sound like those guys.
Headla : The requirement of no cars, I think that's an excellent
requirement and that's got to stay. That's going to stop a lot of people
from using it.
Emmings: The only comment I 've got is I think he's got a very nice plan
here. I like Brian's comment that the dock setback, at least the area of
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 53 1
47
the dock setback and maybe double ought to be the minimum area that has II
to be 100 feet. That's something that we should look at. This plan I
think fits this property very well . I think it would be ridiculous to
wind up with a result here where we denied all the people living right II
across the road from that shoreline, the ability to get down to the lake.
I think it's a very minimal impact on the lake. I look at this. I 'm
directly affected by it and it doesn't bother me at all . I think it's a II
good plan.
Conrad: It's a great use of a beachlot. It's a classic for what you want
to do. I
Emmings: The problem with the beachlot thing to me is, if everybody
could bring in a plan and say, this is what we want to do, I think we II wouldn't have any trouble saying yes, this one's good and that one's bad
but we wind up with more litigation over beachlots probably than any
other issue for the simple reason that it' s just impossible to try and
define a set of standards that we can apply. That's an objective set of
standards that we can carry from one beachlot to the next. That's the
problem. We're all bending over backwards trying to get this one
approved because it makes sense and we're going to do everything we can, II
I think is what I hear and is the way I feel about it, to get this one
approved. Unfortunately we can' t write a standard like that. We' ll
approve it if we like it and we won't if we don't. 1
Robert Pierce: The only thing is I am anxious in the economic climate to
start marketing them and I 've been a little hesitant to do that. It's
very hard to market them saying we're going to have a dock here. I'm in
the process that looks good. People say, well call me back later. I
guess that's where I 'm coming from and maybe we're closer here.
Conrad moved, Erhart seconded to table action on the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to amend Section 20-263 (6 & 7) of the Recreational Beachlot
Ordinance until the proper notification has been done. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
11
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT II
AND LOCATED ON LOT 5 AND PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 1, FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT
PARK (JUST WEST OF MGM BUILDING) FOR BERNIE HANSON FOR THE FOLLOWING USES
TO BE LOCATED IN A 19,048 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING:
A. SMALL VEHICLE SALES
B. OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE FOR SALE
C. SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE
D. AUTOMOTICE SERVICE CENTER
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 4
Batzli. moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
denial of Conditional Use Permit #84-6 for a recreational beachlot on Lot
37 of Shore Acres. All voted in favor and motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 (6 & 7) OF THE
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR A
DOCK AND THE ONE CANOE RACK/DOCK REQUIREMENT, ROBERT PIERCE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Robert Pierce Applicant
Richard and Ann Zweig 3601 Ironwood Road
Annalee Hanson 6400 Greenbriar Avenue
' Zoe Bros
Mary Jo Moore 6631 Minnewashta Parkway
3231 Dartmouth Drive
Ray Roettger 3221, Dartmouth Drive -
Mr. and Mrs. Larry Wenzel 6900 Minnewashta Parkway
Stephen C. Slag _ Lake Susan
Steve Burke 340 Deerfoot Trail
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report.
Zoe Bros: I 'm curious to know, someone has claimed that there is 50 feet
of property there. Depth. I live just a bit north of this property.
I'm contesting the fact that there's no land there. That there isn't any
beach area .
Emmings: I think the map that was presented to us showed a 100 feet on
the north end from between the lake and the road. I don't know whether
it's there or not but that' s what they showed us. I assume she' s talking
about Stratford Ridge. What end wasn't there a 100 feet?
Dacy: According to the half section maps that we have, this distance
from here to here is 100 feet. The property owner is here also.
Robert Pierce: I might just say that the survey that we had done are
done by Schoell and Madsen who are a very reputable firm. They shoot the
elevations, the water levels, they know the mean water level and shoot
all that. I would be willing to say that their data is correct, probably
' within inches.
Dacy: It is not 100 feet all the way down. In one certain area it' s a
100 feet and then it tapers down.
Zoe Bros: How do you propose to get to this property? To this beach?
Robert Pierce: What we have here is a walkway. We're planning on
putting a walkway, either steps or a slope down using timbers and we've
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 5
designed it in such a way that we eliminate the need for removing any
trees. We've put a lot of thought into trying to leave the bank and the II
area along the beach there about as natural as possible and to work our
walkway around the trees. Our intent is to pretty much leave the
vegetation intact. Basically bring in a sand blanket because it shows on II
the plan, I don't know if you can see but stretching from about here down
to here. Cleaning it up and just making it look nice and leaving the
majority of the front in it's natural state. We have roughly 550 feet
there and we' re only using approximatley 100 or plus feet.
Zoe Bros: For 15 families? I
Robert Pierce: Yes.
Zoe Bros: Well , I really dispute Schoell and Madsen. I was there today II
and there's no 100 feet.
Richard Zweig: We live on the north side of Lake Minnewashta. I haven't II
been down there and measured. I drive by there fairly regularly but the
question that I would ask, and I 'm not necessarily going to doubt the
survey but what I will say is that measured 100 feet from where the slope
goes down and then goes out to the lake or are we maybe talking 100 feet
up to the road because there's a big difference there. You've got a hill
sloping away, you might be talking 25 feet out before you actually get to
the base of that hill and then towards the lake so that would be my
question. What does 100 feet really mean?
Robert Pierce: I would assume that it's taken from the right-of-way from II
Minnewashta Parkway.
Richard Zweig: I think that's probably where you don' t see the 100 feet
and I don't know that I would either if I went over there. I don't know
what that amount would be, I'd have to go and measure it but that makes a
very small area then. You' re not going to cut a bank straight down and
out. I
Zoe Bros: Most of it is straight up and down.
Robert Pierce: You might say that the right-of-way that is given to ,
Minnewashta, which the measurements have probably been taken off of, is
much wider than that. The asphalt that you see there.
Zoe Bros: I don' t know what you're saying.
Richard Zweig: For further widening of the road, is that what you' re
saying?
Robert Pierce: No. When you dedicate a city road, not correct me if I 'm
wrong, it's 50 normally but I 'm not sure, Minnewashta might be 60 foot
right-of-way?
Dacy: It' s 66 feet wide, the right-of-way is. The 100 distance is a
horizontal distance measured on the map. You' re absolutely correct. A
I
1 1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 6
significant part of that distance is a sloped area. That 's not in
dispute. We use the horizontal distance just as we measure lot width or
lot depth and that's part of the issue that the Commission will discuss.
Richard Zweig: I see that as a real problem if you're going to start
giving variances. If that variance was flat land , now you might be
talking one game but if you see that piece of property, you'll know
exactly what she's talking about. There isn' t very much that' s down in
the slope.
11 Conrad: Let me just jump in a little bit. The reason we have a depth
requirement, there are two reasons. One, we want room for people to use
it. We're concerned with safety. If you put a bunch of people on 12
feet of depth, there are some problems. That's one of the reasons. The
other reasons we do want it buffered from any neighbors. We want
beachlots buffered so that you're not abutting a house and affecting
them. In this particular case, and we' re looking at the general issue,
you're obviously very interested in the specific and I understand that,
we have to be real concerned with what this ordinance says in general
because other folks will want to take advantage of whatever we do. In
11 this particular case however, because you have the buffer of the street,
we're really not impacting the immediate neighbors so that issue in my
mind is not there. The issue that is there in my mind is there really
enough room for people to be on that beachlot? Is there enough room to
satisfy their particular needs and uses of that? I think that' s key.
That's important here but it's also important that we make sure that our
ordinance considers that aspect of use. We just want there to be enough
' area for it to be an active area if there' s a beachlot. Anyway, I just
wanted to jump in on that thought.
' Ray Roettger : . . .has an excellent point. We come here and I think we
may be against something just because we look at the piece of property so
I think what could happen is it should be defined very well for us.
These people maybe are used to looked at this stuff . Are you talking
about the road right-of-way that Schoell and Madsen submitted. . .?
Robert Pierce: To be very honest, I couldn' t answer that question.
Ray Roettger: You should know that is exactly what you're talking about.
The others, you drawing lines, as Barb confirmed, a horizontal line goes
from Point A to Point B but if that line is at a diagonal, you can have
100 feet and end up really with 100 feet along the property line and end
up with 10 foot of depth. The ordinance, is it 100 feet along the
property line or is it 100 feet of depth perpendicular to the this
particular line?
Conrad: Barbara, are you comfortable that when we say 100 feet, it's
obviously perpendicular to something. Do you feel we have that control?
Do we think we know the specifications well enough?
Dacy: The ordinance even states that the beachlot has to be 200 feet in
width along the lake frontage and the depth shall be measured 100 feet
back from the perpendicular line along the edge of the lake. Typically
1
1 1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 7 I
how you would measure it, if this is the shoreline, we' ll measure 200
feet this way and 100 feet deep.
Zoe Bros: Are you talking the edge of the water or the high water mark? II
Dacy: The ordinary high water mark as established by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.
Zoe Bros: Because we have low water right now.
Dacy: Right, when they submit a survey they' ll indicate where that
elevation is. In the case of Lake Minnewashta I think it' s elevation
945 so we look for that elevation and take our distances from that.
Ray Roettger: You see my point. The property line there is running at II
quite an angle to that road and I 'm just saying if that 100 foot is taken
at an angle.
Conrad: No, it would be perpendicular to the water . Barbara, maybe you II
better help. I guess I can't interpret what the ordinance says.
Dacy: If this is the property lines here, you can measure perpendicular II
to here. That's how you can measure it. If there's a dispute as to
whether or not this is 100 feet or whatever, I determined that 100 feet
oased on measuring from the half section map. The issue is, and not only II
in this case but in any other case that might occur , is the Commission
and City Council satisfied with the 100 feet in depth? If you 're not,
then you have the option to change it. ,
Conrad: But for this gentleman, what you just said, we' re not really
concerned with the lot line. We' re not running it parallel to the lot
line. We're running it perpendicular to the high water mark. That's what
I understand Barbara to be telling us, right? So that should satisfy
your concern.
Ray Roettger : No, they're really not the same question. We' re not just
talking about this property but we're talking about. . .and we' re talking
about changing the ordinance. I think how that is defined, the depth,
if you could get the condition in there. . . I think there's a lot of
variation there. A lot of variation in depth.
Conrad: How would you respond to that? Do you still feel that the way
we measure that, how many feet is adequate Barbara?
Dacy: It's up to the Commission. That's the way we've been measuring
it. If you want to further define it in the ordinance, that's fine.
Robert Pierce: I feel like there is more than ample road down there for I
15 families. I think when you're looking at 15 families using it the
likelihood on any given day that you have 15 families on that is really
would be very unusual. If it happens it would probably be on the 4th of
July and even then, I doubt you would have all 15 families down there.
There' s a lot of room on that frontage. People who would be using it
I
I - i
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 8
wouldn't all be concentrated in one area either . They'd be moving
around. I think it will be a really nice frontage.
Richard Zweig: How many docks are you looking to build?
Robert Pierce: We're looking for right now, one dock with three slips
that will be for Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Block 1. The ones that face on
11 Minnewashta Parkway. That's the same useage for a dock that you would
have allowed by a single family home. You can have one dock with three
boats on it. We're asking for one dock with three boats. Three boats
for overnight storage. We have roughly a development of around 9 acres.
We feel that's a real light use of the beach. The useage of the lake
uown, the canoe racks, that type of useage that would be very easily
handled on the lake.
Richard Zweig: How many canoe racks and how many canoes?
Robert Pierce: What we' re looking for is one canoe rack, which is what
we had requested, one canoe rack per lot which would be 15 canoes or
maybe 15 sailboats or something like that. Sailboards.
11 Richard Zweig: But they would definitely be non-motorized. They could
not have a motor put on them.
Robert Pierce: That's the way I understand it.
Richard Zweig: There wouldn' t be a rowboat on the rack and somebody
' brings a 25 horse motor down and things like that?
Robert Pierce: That' s what I understand . Also, I think that if I
understood it before that these are racks are designed to fit certain
sizes of watercraft.
Richard Zweig: The regulation is such that it is non-motorized. That's
what I want perfectly clear in my mind.
Conrad: That's right.
Steve Slaq: I have some property on Lake Susan. The question i have is,
what about the. . .
Robert Pierce: No building.
Steve Slaq: Because there is a qualification on a 75 foot setback.
Steve Burke: Are we discussing the recreational beachlot ordinance
amendment or discussing his particular one?
1 Conrad: Well, his particular one is bringing the amendment to the
forefront.. We are talking the amendment .
' Steve Burke: Okay, because most of the discussion is not germain to your
ordinance.
11
a 1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 9
Conrad: We' re using it as a case study to make sure that we can modify II
the amendment properly.
Steve Burke: Let me ask a question then. As you know, I'm with Sunny
Slope, why don't you leave the ordinance exactly the way it stands and
require them, this developer to come in with a variance request and let
the City Council determine whether or not they wish to allow a variance
to the 100 foot depth then it's not your decision, it's the Council
decision. The other part of your amendment is to change the canoe rack
and give the discretion to the City Council. Now when we made the
provision we were told, I was wondering, this recreational beachlot seems II
to be amended every time a new developer comes in and instead of asking
that developer to come in with variances, I 'm just wondering what is
moving the Council to consider amending the whole ordinance rather than
requiring just a variance application and then letting the Council react II
to that.
Conrad: I' ll try to answer that. Variances are really tough to handle. II
We prefer not to have variances because they're hard to document the
why's and the wherefore's . If you grant a variance to one, then pretty
soon everybody is there looking for a similiar type variance and you
really do need some good rationale to document that variance and the
reasons you granted that. When we see, as a Planning Commission, a case
where the ordinance can be revised because in concept the original
ordinance may not have been perfect and we can see some modifications to I
it so we don ' t have to go through a variance process, we'd much prefer
that. As long as the intent of the ordinance is being upheld, we' re
going to modify that ordinance so that it can incorporate uniquenesses. II There are a lot of numbers in ordinances and we find that they tend to be
arbitrary in many cases but we do have some standards, we do have an
intent of the ordinance that we're trying to uphold and if we can make
sure that that intent is still being upheld, we can see, like in this
particular case, where in my personal opinion, the intent of the
ordinance is being upheld. We are protecting the neighbors. We are
protecting the people that are using the land. There is plenty of land, II
when we talk about this, there is plenty of land for a recreational
beachlot. It's a classic case of a good beachlot. It's what beachlots
are intended to serve and in this case, the ordinance had some numbers in II
it that may be didn't ever consider this type of situation. i think in
my mind, I'm setting a precedent if we, as a group, decide to change it,
we're setting a precedent that I 'd feel real comfortable that we could
carry forth and have future developments come in and be acceptable under II
this particular change.
Steve Burke: I don' t disagree with your statement that that particular
beachlot is, I think is probably a good one. I 'm not contending that
it's bad but it seems to me that that one is a classic for granting a
variance in that you've got the road and you can't make the lot any
deeper than what it is without realigning the road so if your variance,
through the process you can say the reason it was necessary to grant a
variance for this one was we couldn't realign the road. But when you
have a developer that comes in and buys a whole bunch, if you change the II
ordinance and if your intent is to have depth to beachlots and you have a
i
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 10
developer coming in and buying a large tract of land and placing his
road, now you're allowing him to have a narrower beachlot by just
changing the ordinance and he can realign his road wherever he wants it
to be on undeveloped property whereas this developer, it would seem to me
that he should get a variance. If you' re addressing that particular
one, if you don't change your ordinance, you're going to have to come in
with a variance and I would say that the City Council is probably going
to look favorably on it because they' re probably not going to require the
developer to realign the road because he can realign it on his property
but he can't. . .
' Conrad: You make a good argument.
Steve Burke: My statement was, what you're looking at in your beachlot
11 ordinance and if you're allowing it to become narrower and narrower, from
my perspective, from Sunny Slope, the ordinance was established in 1982
was one thing and we've been trying to work and we' re still trying and
everytime we turn around it seems that the City Council , for every
developer that comes in, is willing to modify, the Vern Gagne property
and you said they aren' t putting very many people within 1,000 square
feet so let's make a rural and urban beachlot and you expanded and
11 liberalized your language. Now another developer comes in and it seems
to me that a variance would handle this much better and you' re ready to,
it seems from our perspective, at a drop of the hat, a new developer
comes in, sure we' ll change it for you. I don' t know if this is the
impetus for the City to consider a change to the ordinance, I would
recommend that the City Council not change the oridinance but ask the
developer to come in with a variance because I think the City Council
looks very favorably, . . .to meet the intent of the beachlot ordinance and
there's a real hardship.
Zoe Bros : I still maintain that there isn' t 100 feet there.
Steve Burke: The question is not whether or not there' s 100 feet.
Zoe Bros: He keeps on saying this is a good example, it' s not.
Steve Burke: But they're not ruling on his development.
' Conrad: We're making a statement that 100 feet should be there, where
the dock is placed. That's what we' re looking at. If there isn't 100
11 feet, their application would not be accepted. We' re not ruling on their
application. We're looking at the ordinance in general.
Larry Wenzel : I kind of agree with the gentleman that this particular
' instance, the fact that because of the road and the fact that the square
footage, even if he only had 50 feet, still is way in excess of the
ordinance as far as the number of square foot per house. It doesn't seem
to me that other than the fact, probably roughly four properties in which
there is going to be somebody, at least 100 feet away, as a buffer comes
into play in this particular instance because people don' t, from a
practical standpoint, the use from the beach, they don' t sit 100 feet
away from the water. They're up high and if you went to the beach and
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 11 1
you can only get within 100 feet you wouldn' t go there anyway so that
doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I guess, I had some other questions
that may not necessarily in relation to this particular property but the
ordinance. . .and that is with lake property and the way it meanders, when II
you're working with a depth and then you come along and say well , the
dock is going to be at the deepest point of that lot at 100 feet and the
way lots are joined, it seems to me that what you're pushing is for docks II
to be put in a specific position on a lot line where therefore you get a
concentration of docks from property to property more so than spreading
them out. The other thing is as those things, and I don't think that
that's necessarily a good practical thing to have happen from a II utilization standpoint. The other thing is, if you're allocating where
that dock goes from the depth of the property in relation to where the
landowner or the people would want it in relation to what the beachfloor
is, the floor on the bottom of the lake, you might have to put your dock
up in an area that was marshy where you don't have a proper beach with
respect to x number of feet over where you've got a bottom that 's
beautiful so that doesn't make a lot of sense. The next thing is that,
if you've got the beachlot and there are x amount of dock spaces for
boats and I don't know the law today but it seems to me that property
will come into the water 10 feet from the existing water mark so that if II
the water drops, the landowner can still go out 10 feet if the water
rises. You still have access to the lake. You can' t lose your access to
the lake. Then enters another situation as to whatever that is , 5 feet
or 10 feet, whatever turns from private property to public water .
Whatever the state laws and who controls the mooring of boats if they're
properly identified and requested in public waters? So if you say you
can only have two boats on this property, why wouldn't five people moor
their boats in public waters because you're restricting their normal
dockage? Just by putting it in public waters, you have basically no
control . That would create even a greater problem, it would seem to me, I
as far as the water useage of getting in and out. Especially if you're
in a restricted area . You could have a particular beachlot that would
have the 100 foot depth and 200 foot width and x number of people using
it according to the ordinance of 4 foot per home and the square footage
rate. All of a sudden you have x number of boats moored out in open
water in front of that piece of property and now you've got another
problem. '
Conrad: How do we regulate the rights for mooring Barbara?
Dacy: The ordinance regulates overnight storage. It says that no more t
than three boats can be stored overnight at the dock. At any lake there
is a public, I shouldn't say any lake in Chanhassen but at Lake
Minnewashta, at Lotus Lake there is a public access. People can launch
their boats through that public access and yes, outside of the beachlot,
maybe 100 feet on the lake, you could have 5 or 6 boats there skiing,
fishing or whatever. The ordinance regulates overnight storage. The
ordinance also regulates the number of sailboat moorings that can be
located off of a beachlot. The term overnight is defined from a period
from 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. in the morning. The lake is public water and
people can operate their boats, if they' re licensed by the Carver County
Boat Patrol enforces the license as well as DNR so the key for the
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 12
' beachlot ordinance is the overnight storage at the dock.
Larry Wenzel: You still haven't answered, who controls the public
waters.
Dacy: The DNR and Carver County Boat Patrol .
Larry Wenzel: I guess the question is, what is the rule on. . .
Conrad: If you didn't own lakeshore, you could not moor your boat in the
I lake.
Dacy: And conversely, if you were a member of his subdivision and wanted
to use the lake, you would go to the Lake Minnewashta area, you can boat
around the entire lake. You could come to that beachlot dock. Play on
the beachlot but if he was not authorized to store that boat overnight,
you'd have to take it back out through the boat access .
Larry Wenzel : Okay but how do they handle on Calhoun for instance?
Batzli : That's Hennepin County Sheriff that patrols Lake Calhoun.
Larry Wenzel: Who has the actual control over the P ublic water and
that 's what I don ' t understand .
' Conrad: The DNR does.
' Larry Wenzel : Okay, what is their ruling as far as mooring a boat in
public water? Do you have to be a landowner to moor you boat in public
water? I don' t think you do. I think as long as the boat is properly
identified as far as traffic hitting it, especially at night with the
reflectors, it can be moored .
Batzli : I don' t believe that' s right . I won ' t disagree with you because
I don't know that's a fact but I 'm under the impression that there are
definite rules about where and when you can moor various objects and I
think that you can not just go moor a boat in public waters. I would
wager small sums of money that you can' t do that.
Conrad: I 'm sure you can't but what's your point? We're not really
talking about mooring boats tonight. Is this relevant to anything?
Larry Wenzel : I 'm worried about if you regulate too constrictively what
people can store on the property. . .
IConrad: We' re generalizing tonight. We're not restricting. We' re
opening it up.
' Batzli : Your point though is that if we restrict it too far, they will
merely moor their boats off-shore and you believe have created a
different problem.
Larry Wenzel : Sure, why wouldn't they and now you've got a different
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 13
problem which is a bigger problem than the one you started with. I don' t ,
know what the rules are.
Dacy: The City also has a water surface useage ordinance which applies
to this lake. I can provide a copy of that to you. That has not been an
issue during previous ordinance amendments .
Conrad: The moorings on a beachlot, we do have restrictions on how many II
boats can be moored. Now I'm going to say this tongue in cheek a little
bit but the DNR, I assume that ordinance has been reviewed and the State
finds it satisfactory so we are controlling the number of moorings on a
beachlot. However, there have been recent cases when we found that maybe ,
in the wetlands case where we didn' t have authority.
Headla: I think that's the key thing there. We didn't have authority
and I really question on the moorings.
Conrad: Interesting to follow up, however I don't want to get hung up on II
that one issue tonight. I think we' re looking at some other things. I
think we will follow up your comments because they're of interest and I
think we' ll direct staff to help us struggle through that at some point
in the future. Barbara, can you do that?
Mary Jo Moore: I would recommend if you' re going to make any adjustments
in the ordinance, that the 100 foot depth be useable land at a maximum I
elevation. The property that has brought this before the Council is not
100 feet of useable land. It's not even 80 feet. There's a very steep
embankment with very little flat ground. I think there should be an
elevation requirement.
Conrad: But remember the 100 feet is really a buffer . It' s a buffer and
right now you've got a hill and a road as a buffer so in this particular
case.. .
Mary Jo Moore: It's not a buffer , it' s whether they can actually use
that land for a recreational beachlot which means a swimming beach,
canoes.
Conrad: You're right. They have hundreds of feet on the lake where in 11
this particular case where they can use it.
Mary Jo Moore: You have to pin down that number too. I
Conrad: It's something we have to resolve in our minds. Even 50 feet,
how wide is this room? 50 feet? 60 feet? Is that enough to put 12 ,
families? You' ll never get 12 families down there at one time but, by
chance if they did go, is that enough room? More than likely.
Mary Jo Moore: If it was useable land. 1
Conrad: Let's say they only have 50 feet down there but I guess that's
something we have to resolve up here. I
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 20, 1988 - Page 14
Mary Jo Moore: . . .instance where we have this measurement of land , I am
next to an outlot, on this lot they've got 60 feet of lakeshore. However ,
the land is at an angle and 60 feet is out into the water . Actual
' lakeshore is 30 feet. Now it depends on what measurements you use right?
If you' re going to take Schoell and Madsen' s with 60 feet of lakeshore,
let's go out here. . . As far as a canoe rack goes, I think that should
definitely be restricted to the number of families that are using the lot
as opposed to how many docks you can have. . .
Mrs. Wenzel : You're looking at this on a square footage basis and 400
' square feet for each of the 15 houses, he could have a strip 12 feet wide
by his 550 feet long and it would still be adequate for those 15 houses.
It's still that much square footage.
1 Conrad: And your point is?
Mrs. Wenzel : My point is that it doesn' t make, if you' re going to make
it 100 feet wide, then it could be less length. He has 550 feet in
length and it could be 12 feet wide by the 550 and that would meet the
requirements for 15,000 square feet.
' Zoe Bros: Last spring there would not have been any property there at
all.
' Robert Pierce: I guess I 'd have to totally disagree. Every time I 've
been down there and I have gone down there, I 've taken my kids down and
there used to be a dock there and there hasn' t been for a period of time
' since they moved out and it's been used and all I can say is, on this
particular project and maybe some of the other projects coming along that
way, I don' t believe that when they made the ordinance that they were
able to look at every type of useage. We've worked very hard to watch
the impact on the neighbors, the impact on the lake and feel that we're
doing a good job and our request is extremely reasonable.
' Ray Roettger: I live on the north shore of Lake Minnewashta and I know
exactly what she' s talking about because it ' s a piece of property that's
defined by Schoell and Madsen Engineers. It was surveyed in 1960 or
thereabouts. There is no more land there. It was surveyed, stakes
pounded in, dredged and it has it down something like 35 feet. I 'm kind
of, with my engineering background and I've done some surveying, Barb's
defined the horizontal marks but I can make you a sketch on that board
and I think you' ll see what the problem is that I 'm talking about. If
you took a piece of property like this and there's a road there and you
took an exaggerated deal like this and the property just happens was laid
' out someway and you met these requirements but this dimension here is 10
feet. If this dimension becomes long enough or this dimension, depending
on how you measure it, along the shore, you can get a very minimum
dimension here and I think that' s what your ordinance should take a look
at. What the minimum depth is perpendicular to this surface.
Conrad: Staff is telling us that that' s how they do it. That' s what
I heard our staff say. Staff is not saying we do that. Staff is saying
we measure it perpendicularly from. . .
I
-
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 15 '
Ray Roettger: Can you tell us then what that minimum dimension is?
Conrad: That's what we're looking at tonight.
Headla: That really isn't pertinent now. We' re talking about the
ordinance, not approving that particular one.
Ray Roettger: But that should be put into the ordinance though.
Conrad: There are some good points being brought up and I appreciate
them all . Anything else?
Richard Zweig: What are we amending this to? If you're talking about
amending this thing, I agree with this gentleman over here. I don' t
think you should ever change the ordinance and that there should be a
variance but what is it being amended to?
Conrad: The beachlot ordinance. I
Richard Zweig: From what to what? What size?
Conrad: Right now we're looking at two things. We' re saying the minimum
requirement depth wise is 100 feet all the way through the beachlot. The
recommendation or the thought that we' re reviewing is, it doesn' t have to
be 100 feet all the way through. Only at the dock. That's what we' re
looking at.
Richard Zweig: So in other words, the amendment is up to the Council ,
it's up to the Planning Commission to decide whether or not the 100 feet
is necessary. You' re not going down to 75 or you're not going down to,
it's on a case by case basis? ,
Conrad: No. There are a lot of situations, if we change it, the 100
feet is an absolute. It's easy to measure. It's easy to look at. We
can always tell . If we change it, there are other situations where one
end of the beachlot could be 10 feet and where the dock is it could be
100 feet and that's the only -place where we have 100 feet and we may not II
have a good beachlot. That's the situation that we'd have to consider
that might roll in. I'm very confident that this particular ordinance as
we're looking at it and the changes to the language would, this
particular request that we' re not looking at tonight but as an example,
I'm comfortable that this request is not abusing the ordinance and any
change that we' re looking at wouldn' t have an impact. However, in the
future is what we're looking at. We've got to be real comfortable that
we're not changing the language where we get a different set of
circumstances that we didn't anticipate. And maybe, as some people have
brought up, maybe the variance in this case might be the way to fly.
Mary Jo Moore: My understanding was that a variance request was put
through on this property and everything was approved but the dock.
Dacy: That's correct. The applicant filed a variance. The City
Attorney' s opinion was that the City should not consider a variance for
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 20, 1988 - Page 16
that particular case. The applicant consequently filed the zoning
ordinance amendment application.
' Mary Jo Moore: So in this case, his variance was approved except for the
dockage?
Dacy: No, no variance was approved. His conditional use permit to allow
a recreational beachlot was without a dock.
' Mary Jo Moore: Okay, so then because the dock was denied he comes
through on a request to change the ordinance so he doesn't need a permit
to get the variance?
' Conrad : He'd like to have a dock and we' re just taking a look at the
ordinance to see if that ordinance was too hard and didn't consider all
the circumstances . We' re looking at this one but we' re really looking at
' the ordinance. He's obviously interested in changing it so he doesn' t
need a variance and we' re obviously not proned to having variances. We
really don't like variances because they' re hard to defend and we want to
I make sure that if we change this ordinance that it' s in the right
direction.
Mary Jo Moore: But I don' t think it should be self serving .
' Conrad: It's not. We' re not doing it for him. We' re smart enough to
know we' re doing it for whoever comes in and applies and that' s why we' re
looking at it right now. We' re looking at it to see if our intent of the
ordinance is being upheld and will be upheld in future beachlots that are
applied for .
' Ann Zweig: All I want to say is what happened to the residential lots
that have been denied docks then? There are also those on the north side
and west side.
Conrad : It has nothing to do with beachlots. We' re looking only at
beachlots.
Ann Zweig: This is a beachlot. Residental neighborhood group, 15
families that have a beachlot. Is that what we're looking at?
' Conrad: If they have been denied and we changed the ordinance, they can
come back in and apply.
' Richard Zweig: Don't change the ordinance.
Ann Zweig: Then we get lots of docks.
' Conrad: No. I think you're wrong on that. The ordinance is very
restrictive and you don't get lots of docks. You simply don't get lots
of docks. You may get one and if they have enough frontage you may get
' two. What is it Barbara, after every 200 feet, for every 200 feet
additional you may be a dock? And that' s less dockage than most
residential people have on the lake. That's less dockage so you're not
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting 11 April 20, 1988 - Page 17
getting lots of docks . I don' t want you to think that we' re out here
granting docks willy nilly. It's quite restrictive.
Batzli : How many beachlots are there anyway? i
Conrad: On all lakes?
Batzli : On the lakes that they're concerned about. How many beachlots
are there on your lake?
Dacy: There' s at least 5 or 6. '
Batzli : Do we know if we change the ordinance how it would affect those
beachlots?
Dacy: The existing beachlots would be grandfathered in as they are now.
Batzli : I know but if they were denied a dock before under the old rules '
and if the rules are relaxed under the new ordinance, would there be any
additional docks? ,
Dacy: There has not been any other recreational beachlot request on Lake
Minnewashta since I 've been here so I don't know what ones they' re
referring to that's been denied. '
Richard Zweig: There are some there without docks . There are some there
without docks right now and that's why when you relax the ordinance,
rather than keep the ordinance, I'm don' t know why, I 'm not a city
planner and I don't know why you don' t give variances but it seems to me
that you would keep a rule sound rather than amending that and then go II for a variance. I don' t have a problem with this plan. That' s not what
I 'm having a problem with. I 'm satisfied here but I don't like the idea
of amending an ordinance rather than doing a variance because there are
some beachlots, I know one in particular and I know the people who do
this, that' s on the northwest shore and they have no dock now and I 'm
sure they've got enough, I was going to maybe they've got 200 feet, I
don't know, but if the ordinance is changed, they may just come in and II say we had a beachlot before but now we want a dock with 2 or 3 boats. I
think that' s a real problem.
Conrad: And why would that be a problem? '
Richard Zweig: Because there are no boats there now and they were not
authorized to have any before. I just don't understand. I think the
rule that' s up here is great that's set up now and I think that if he's
granted a variance, I can see where that makes sense but why amend what' s
already there, which is very good and leave it that way and then have him
file for a variance on that? Like you say, I don't see a problem with
that. There' s all kinds of square footage there. He' s only asking for
three boats. Why is the City wanting to do that? I 'm at a loss. Like I
say, I'm not a city planner but I don' t understand. I
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 20, 1988 - Page 18
' Ann Zweig: What would be the language of the ordinance? What are you
changing it to?
' Conrad : We don't know. That's what we' re trying to decide. The concept
would be, we maintain the 100 feet but only where the dock is placed,
with or without some other comments. The current language says you have
to have 100 feet throughout the beachlot. We're considering having that
100 feet be maintained only where the dock is placed so the rest of the
beachlot could go down to less footage and depth.
Ray Roettger : Sir , I'm going to have to insist on that location of that
dock at a 100 foot depth, you can force someone to put a dock in the
worse possible location on that piece of property. I don' t think the
' dock really would be significant as to where that depth would occur.
Would it not be better to go to some minimum depth anywhere on the
property?
Conrad : Here's what you have for a beachlot ordinance. You have 200
frontage feet. You've got to have the 200 feet and you have to have
30,000 total square feet.
' Dacy: 30,000 for the first dock and 20,000 for the second dock plus 200
feet of additional lake frontage.
' Conrad : So you have those restrictions . That ' s giving us some kind of
control. Just generally, the 30, 000 is a good tool to use. Whether that
100 feet is a good tool is really. That 30,000 talks to me about buffers
' and enough size. The 100 feet doesn't say much other than it 's an
absolute rule and there are exceptions to that. 98 feet, 94 feet . Geez,
but we've got the 30,000 in there, we've got enough feet. There is
' enough square footage with ct: r parts of this ordinance to protect the
citizens so I 'm really comfortable that there are those elements there.
We're just debating whether that 100 foot is an absolute and whether we
should change it or whether we should communicate that we don't want to
change it and recommend a variance in this case because there aren' t that
many other alternatives and I don't know what we' re going to do.
Anything else that's new? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Wildermuth: Before you close the hearing I think maybe you shouldn' t
explain what the undesirability connected with variances is and the
' problems that the City has?
Conrad : I tried to do that before.
' Wildermuth: They seem to have a lot of interest in variances and
handling this situation with variances.
Conrad: Let's close the public hearing and I ' ll mention that Jim. I ' ll
go through it again and maybe Barbara can help.
Batzli. moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 19 ,
Conrad: Basically,
y, in terms of going through this again, and Barbara
help me if you can because I 'm not that astute on all the ramifications
of variances but basically our Attorney says variances are tough to deal I
with. When you grant a variance you set a precedent and you really have
to document why you set that precedent really precisely. Really
precisely and many times that's not easy. Many times you use general
language to document that and most of the time, when you grant that
variance you have a lot of other people coming in and and taking
advantage of that same variance that you just granted because you haven' t
totally documented that and Barbara help me out. I 'm sure if we had the
City Attorney here he'd be killing me on this one. The other thing is,
you try to make ordinances as good as you can. You grant a variance it
means hey, who cares about the ordinance, it must be lousy and we used to I
have many variances in the old Chanhassen days 3-4 years ago and it meant
that the ordinances meant nothing. What we' re trying to do now is make
sure that the ordinance means something. We can stand behind them. We
can tell people that they mean something and they mean something for a
real good reason. That's why we' re looking at changing the ordinance
tonight is saying hey, does it make sense to change that ordinance and
that's what we're doing. We' re trying to make the ordinances the valid
ones that rule the City and you really don' t like to rule the city by
variances. You really don' t because it's real difficult. It's costly.
As taxpayers you spend legal fees, Attorney fees supporting it . It' s not I
only the one issue, it's the next five issues that come up and typically
they break down that ordinance. Therefore, our direction here on the
Planning Commission is to make sure that the ordinance is right in the
first place. There are times when variances make sense and they are
appropriate but we choose to make sure that the ordinances are right.
Batzli : There's a second aspect as well. I think he spoke mostly of the II
precedence and the policy. There' s also a city ordinance as to when you
can find a variance which has strict guidelines as well so you' re not
only looking at it from a precedent standpoint but you' re also looking at 1
meeting specifications on the ordinance to grant the variance in the
first place.
Emmings: With the 30,000 square foot area, minimum requirement and 200
feet of shoreline, if you've got only the 200 feet you've got to have an
average depth of 150 feet already so that does afford another protection.
Just the area and width requirement gives you some protection right
there. I've got some real uncomfortable feelings about this for two
reasons. I guess the horns of the dilemma for me are, I feel like we're
reacting to one proposal and we' re changing the ordinance to let in one
project here and I don't like that. That feels like spot zoning. It
feels like a bad thing to do. On the other hand, I like his proposal . I
think it's appropriate. I have no problem with what he's proposing to do •
and I live on that lake and look at that shore too. Before I came here
tonight I had resolved in my own mind that there's nothing wrong with our
ordinance and that this matter should be handled through a variance. I
think that the comments of the gentleman from Sunny Slope are well taken. II
I think he said everything that I thought of and then some. We did see a II
survey done by staff as to what properties are left in the city which
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 20
could become beachlots and the only ones that would require a depth
variance are along that shore of Lake Minnewashta and it' s Dave' s
property, these folks back here have some property and this one and I
' don't know, there might be a couple of others. The reason they don' t
have the depth is because of the road which makes it to me a very clear
cut case for granting a variance because it's a thing that's there that' s
imposed on them. It's not something they imposed on themselves . I don' t
think that granting a variance in this case would set a dangerous
precedent for those other cases where there's potential for beachlots and
I don't see any reason to dispense with the 100 foot minimum requirement.
' The other thing about this one is that even if we approve these
amendments, he's still going to need a variance because he's going to
need a variance under Section 13that Barbara brought to our attention
' tonight. We're looking at amending two sections that would get our
ordinance in shape for him to be allowed to do whatever he wants to do
but he's still going to run afoul with Number 13 isn't he?
' Dacy: If the Planning Commission and Council wanted to change the
ordinance to reduce the lot depth, they would also have to amend number
13 as well . .
Emmings: I know but all that ' s been proposed tonight, all that' s been
proposed so far is the amendment of two sections and we really have to
amend three. Otherwise he' s still going to have to apply for the
variance.
Dacy: Yes and I would follow that by saying that because we are under
lawsuit from the Sunny Slope Homeowners Association and because the City
Attorney looked at this case and felt and went through the criteria and
said no, a variance would not be justified and said that the Council
' should amend the ordinance rather than granting variances. That' s why we
went back and initiated this application.
Emmings: My own personal opinion on this , my position on this matter is
this. They should leave the ordinance alone. There's nothing wrong with
it. I want him to get what he wants and I think he should be granted a
variance for the dock. I don't think it creates any kind of a bad
precedent or anything else. The only other specific comment I have is
just probably a lot more trivial, is that I think in the section of the
ordinance that's number 6 that we' re looking at amending, there' s a
sentence that starts, I think we ought to get canoe racks out of there.
In a couple of sentences it talks about racks and then in another
sentence it talks about canoe racks but we' re really talking about
storing a lot of different kinds of watercraft on these racks. Calling
them canoe racks I think just adds confusion to this. I think there's a
sentence that begins with the word canoes and it' s about the sixth line
down and I think what we ought to do is say that starting there it should
read , non-motorized watercraft such as, and then just pick up the
sentence where it starts, canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small
sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they're
stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose and then just take
the word canoe out of the next sentence so it would just say, the number
of racks shall be determined as part of the conditional use permit
11
.:.:iseJ II
City Council Meeting ' ay 31; 1988
Mayor Hamilton: That a signed agreement between the Reeds and the developer be
signed so everybody knows who's paying it.
Councilman Johnson: The trail being built?
Mayor Hamilton: Right.
Roger Knutson: The development contract requires someone to do something. We
also require an escrow or letter of credit to make sure it gets accomplished.
. Councilman Boyt: Now we need to understand what we're getting. We are talking
; about a city trail. Right? It's 8 feet wide. That's our standard. Just so
there's no confusion. That's our typical trail. ,
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the partial vacation
of West 64th Street conditioned upon the following: ,
11. The City Attorney's Office shall prepare an analysis of all steps to be
accomplished prior to filing the vacation resolution including driveway
relocation expenses, reconstruction and relocation plans, filing of
appropriate letters of credit or escrow amounts, and retaining necessary
drainage and utility easements and any other items deemed necessary by the
City Attorney's Office. This will be brought back for Council approval.
2. A left turn lane off of TH 7 be completed prior to the vacation of 64th
1 Street. Completed either by MnDot or the developer. I
3. An 8 foot trail be constructed by the developer from the vacated portion of
64th Street to TH 41. '
4. Vacation of 64th Street is contingent upon a development contract being
signed and that the development contract spells out that the developer is
responsible for the expense of constructing the cul-de-sac and construction
of the trail.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution 88-48 '
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263• (6 & 7) OF THE CITY CODE TO
AMEND THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF A DOCK AND ONE CANOE RANK/ ,,
DOCK REQUIREMENT.
Barbara Dacy: Two issues, one issue is the lot depth requirement for a
beachlot in order to have a dock. The second issue is the canoe rack issue.
Currently as written you have to have a dock in order to have a canoe rack. So
the Planning Commission acted to recommend that the Council amend the ordinance
to keep the 100 foot lot depth requirement for a dock but added a phrase that
said, inclusive of street right-of-ways. And as to the canoe rack issue, they
made the language on page 7 in the staff report, recommending that there be no
more than 7 racks per beachlot. Those are the two issues.
Councilman Johnson: Did they come up with the number 7? 1
11 1
4 1_ .
236
City Council Meeting - Mai ,1, 1988
1
Mayor Hamilton: There was same rationale for that. Barbara, maybe you could
' pass that on.
[-
Barbara Dacy: The number 7 as a maximum was based on, staff looked at all of
the recreational beachlots in the City and looked at the maximum number of lots
that would be allowed under the 1,000 foot perimeter and that worked out to be -
about 45 lots. If you assume that each rack has 6 slips per rack, that way 7 x
6 was 42 so that was a recommended maximum on the canoe racks.
Councilman Johnson: Co you know what the maximum is right now?
' Barbara Dacy: On canoe racks?
Councilman Johnson: On canoe racks. What beachlot has 7.
Barbara Dacy: There is no language now which says that.
Councilman Johnson: 7 is just an ungodly number of canoe racks I think.
Mayor Hamilton: 4by?
Councilman Johnson: That's a lot of canoes. I don't think everybody in a
development owns a canoe.
Mayor Hamilton: One of the things I think we need to keep in mind is everybody
has a right to use the lake. If you use it with a canoe, how are you hurting
it? That would be, I would think, the ultimate use. Wye would want everybody to
use a canoe or a sailboat on the lake. If you say well, we're going to limit
1 canoe racks we'll restrict people from canoeing. I don't care if you put 100
canoes down there. What would happen to Lake Harriett and Lake Calhoun if they
said you can only have 2 canoe racks?
Councilman Johnson: I think you haven't even included that. I'm saying 7 is
too many. I'm not saying 1. I never said 1. I think l's too little.
Mayor Hamilton: What's wrong with 10 is what I'm saying? I'm saying, what
difference does it make the number you have. You want to encourage the people
to use the lake and using a canoe is the best way to use the lake I think.
' Councilman Johnson: I don't think we should put an unreasonable number down.
If you look at a 30,000 square foot beachlot, which canes out to have maybe
10,000 square feet of useable area, put 7 canoe racks on there, the beachlot's
' going to be aesthetically terrible.
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe instead of saying 7 it should be the number of canoes
1 because you can stack canoes in such like they do in the city so you hardly know
they're there and there are more than six on a rack.
Councilman Johnson: I think the number should be, is decided upon on the site
plan and how it will be visually in that and how many households there are. If
you get a group that has 42 hares and they've got an area where they can hide
[::
the canoe racks to where they don't became a visual disturbance, there should be
sane number. I think 4, 4 is one more than we've got at any other place. If I
11 12
%� `7
1 City Council Meeting - may 31, 1988
II
was going to put a max on it. I think that 4 is more than every other house
owning a canoe and wanting it at the lake. A lot of people want a canoe at
I-
IIhome.
Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Pierce, did you have anything you wanted to present to us
this evening? - _ I
Robert Pierce: I think you've pretty much seen the plans for it down there but
I did draw up a little bit of a plan here showing the lake useage as I see it. II I'm just trying to show why I'm doing this. I guess by showing you this, just
visualize a little bit the idea. The reason I think there should be an
amendment is one, I don't_ think that the ordinance as it stands is taking into
effect the parcels on this portion of the lake and as hard as everybody has
II
'worked on it, sometimes there are areas that can be overlooked. We have enough
- here, breaking into 150 foot plus frontages, just saying that the possibility of
each one of these homes, three homes, just ware inclusive of these lots. We
I
could have three docks and nine boats. again, -I think that's even a very
;reasonable request but I think what we're doing here with the way we're trying
to use it is to minimize the impact of power boats on the lake, which I believe
was your number one concern. Be able to set the tone for a really top quality II
development by using the lake to a lesser degree that everybody would be happy
with and just start this area of development. - There's a lot more to cane and I
think the way we're going about it, I think it's really a good way to use the
II
'lake. A good way for the City of Chanhassen to have a high quality home and
it's a good way for me to market to produce a top quality development.
Mayor Hamilton: There used to be a dock in here.- Where would the dock be if you I
were going to put it? - - "
Robert Pierce: Up in here and I would come out this way. - I
Councilman Geving: Where would you put the canoe racks?
Robert Pierce: I'm open to any suggestions but they could be put out in this II
area here behind some of the trees something... I was down there this weekend,
I think you could almost hide 20 to 30 canoes down there and people would be
II
hard pressed to even find them. - ' - -
Councilman Geving: If you had the ability to put in any number of canoe racks,
how many would you want? - In your development how many? Three? I
Robert Pierce: Yes. - - � _ -. -
Councilman Geving: So you need three racks? 1
Robert Pierce: I would like to see one per buildable lot. That may not have II
answered.Councilman Geving: The problem is, I recognize that we have to have some kind
of basis when we do something like this. Some basis for devising the...that
I
we've got a basis and we say if you've got so many lots, virtually every lot can
have a canoe. I know fully well that not every home is going to have a canoe.
Maybe 50%. 1
13 1
11 238
' City Council Meeting - Mai ,,1, 1988 1
IIRobert Pierce: MY qu ess is you're probably very right.
II Councilman Geving: I think a rationale is more important in the long term.
[-
Robert Pierce: It's no so much that I believe that everyone is going to have a
I canoe down there. I don't believe that that will probably happen but what I'm
trying to do here is say, you have the opportunity to use the lake and that _
gives value to the person. Whether they're going to use it or not, that's their
I perogative but it allows us to develop a nicer area. I really do think also, I
was out on the lake this Memorial Day weekend. I think too, if you have people
canoeing and windsurfers, I think in that area, I enjoy seeing than out there
for one but I also think that that type of useage will probably, if there's a
I lot of canoeing, a lot of windsurfing and that type of useage of the lake, I
think it also curtails the high speed boats. Not to say that there might not be
sane that would abuse it but as a rule I think people are somewhat courteous of
1 each other's•ues of the lake and stay clear. I just think it's an excellent way
to use the lake and to impact it as little as possible.
Barbara Dacy: Just one clarification. I know that the Council is getting
II involved in discussion about the number of racks but I just want to remind the
Council that the way that it's written now, in order to have any canoe racks you
have to have a dock first and I think at minimum it really should be amended to
I say that canoe racks are a permitted use on a beachlot with or without a dock.
The number is kind of...
IIMayor Hamilton: Did you folks have a question?
Jeff Bros: I don't live on Lake Minnewashta but both our families do and we've
been very concerned with past activities by the Council. It seems like every
I . time somebody is going to develop something near or on Lake Minnewashta, these
ordinances have been changed to suit whoever's going to develop. My mother
lives on Minnewashta Parkway. There is an access three lots north of her's.
II There's not supposed to be any boats there. There are power boats anchored off
of that beach. We have a hard time believing that anybody's going to be able to
develop anything on the lake and not want power boats to be there. Now we're
not against power boats, we both have than and we're both avid skiers. We're
Iboth avid sailers and sailboards. We're using the lake as much as we possibly
can. We're greedy about it but you start by saying you-want canoe racks.' I ti
can't believe you can have more than five homes in an area to develop that
I somebody's going to have a power boat and somebody's going to have a sailboat
and they're going to want to keep that down on the beach becomes nobody on the
west side of the lake is going to drive all the way over to the park and launch
I their boat everytime they want to use it. We're concerned that it's going to be
abused like it's being abused now, the ordinance. We're scared that everytime
somebody wants to develop on Lake Minnewashta, the ordinance is going to get
changed to fit them.
IIMrs. Bros: Is there 100 feet on the section where you're planning on putting
the dock?
IIMayor Hamilton: That would include the road.
6
II Robert Pierce: What you're looking at there too, if we were just taking lot
width into consideration, we have more than ample for lot width. This is the
II14
2PC) ii
.
II
City Council Meeting - day 31, 1988
II
type of useage. We're looking for three overnight slips. One boat for
P those
three front lots. There are actually four but three that directly face. One
overnight storage and the canoe racks for the development for each landowner.
II
We feel that is an extremely light useage.
Jeff Bros: I think you're being unreasonably light in your useage. I don't -. II think anybody's going to buy a home with lake rights and not have a boat. I
mean it hasn't happened yet. Nobody's going to pay any price that you want for
a lake useage lot and now own a boat, and not just a canoe.
Mayor Hamilton: We have other developments in the community that are very II
similar to this one. What we have told them is they can start out with three
boats, the same as what Mr. Pierce is asking for. We told the developer it was
II
up to him to decide who was going to have use of the three slips that were
available to them. We are totally out of it. However they handle it is up to
than. We have never heard a complaint and people are still living there so
somehow they've handled that within their neighborhood and their association. II
That's fine with us.
That's their problem. That's the problem Mr. Pierce will have to work out.
Mrs. Bros: They can have 3 boats and 1 canoe on that strip of property? Have II
you been out there and seen it?
Mayor Hamilton: I certainly have. I've walked the whole thing. It's a very big I
piece of property. 30,000 square feet.
Jeff Bros: How about sailboats?
II
Councilman Geving: Sailboats are a permitted use.
Jeff Bros: Anchored out. II
Mayor Hamilton: What's the number of those?
Councilman Johnson: Three. I
Barbara Dacy: Three sailboat moorings. Three sailboat moorings shall also be '
allowed.
Jeff Bros: What about sailboats on the beach like we've got at the other common
II
area? Are they allowed?
Barbara Dacy: Canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and snail sailboats may be
stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks II
specifically designed for that purpose.
Jeff Bros: It's being abused right now on the lake. I
Mayor Hamilton: We have to rely on people like yourselves to call it to our
attention. We don't have lake patrols going around and looking at every
II
beachlot. If people don't inform us, they don't in all cases go on. We need to
rely on people who live near by or use the lake to let us know about it.
Jeff Bros: Could you please go over with me again, since I'm not completely I
15 I
W
Czty Council Meeting - Ma. 1, 1988
clear on it. Why can't this go through right now? What's restricting this from
going through now? Is it size or what has to be amended?
Barbara Dacy: The lot depth.
Mayor Hamilton: The Planning Commission reviewed this and suggested that the lot
depth be changed to include the road right-of-way in the depth measurement. In -
this particular case that would give the developer the 100 feet so he would be
allowed to put a dock in.
Mrs. Bros: And what is it without it? What's the depth without the right-of-
way?
Barbara Dacy: Between 40 and 80 feet.
Robert Pierce: In spots 115 but you're talking, the way the City has
' interpretted 'it is they want, I believe 100 feet across the boat and I believe
on the very northern edge I believe we have about 115 feet and on the very
southern boundary we have about 80 and it gets narrower down to the slope
inbetween so there is an area of a lot less. We have the equivalent square feet
in excess of two buildable sites square footage wise and what the ordinance is
stating right now, without any change, there's 9 acres roughly. There's 550
' feet of lakeshore and right now you could not put one home on 9 acres and put a
dock. That's how the ordinance says and I think that's not what the City or
anybody with a home for something like that.
' Jeff Bros: We're concerned because obviously you bought this parcel of land
knowing that these lots were not buildable in this way. Did not meet the
requirements.
Robert Pierce: When I first started the process, no and that's why I came
through the Council. As I started to get into it, I had sane contingencies on
the purchase agreement. I started to get into it and saw there were some
' problems. I started to go through the process to see what I was up against and
I felt that I had a lot of encouragement to continue. It was down a different
road at that particular time but I think for the city staff write an ordinance
amendment is, as I understand it, certainly protects everyone in the best
possible way.
Mrs. Bros: So your dock, you're proposing putting that out there is where you
have the 100 feet deep? Is that correct?
Mayor Hamilton: Right. On the northern end. You've got to remember, when we
1 adopt ordinances we can't anticipate every possible scenario that's going to
cone before us so I would certainly hope that this Council and future Councils
could be open to change at any time. We can't anticipate every possible change
that's going to happen in the world at the time the ordinance is adopted.
Mrs. Bros: But you do have ordinances set up for reasons.
IMayor Hamilton: That's true but they also can be changed for a reason.
Jeff Bros: This is our biggest concern is everytime somebody is coming in, it
IIseems like everytime someone is coming in to propose something to be able to
16
City Council Meeting - r,ay 31, 1988
1
gain access to the lake, which again we're open to if it's done in a correct
manner. It seems like everytime it's done the ordinance gets changed. My II mother could not build the house she wanted on her lot because she could not get
a variance for how she wanted it on her lot but now this and change it around so
somebody else can develop more land and it just doesn't weigh out for us.
That's why we raise concern. - - - - __ I
- Councilman Boyt: A comment to staff. I think this is the beginning of the
process and not the end of the process. I think we're making a mistake if we
II
don't continue to clean up the beachlot ordinance rather than take it one blow
at a time. We're going to take a good hard look at it. There are sane parts
I'd particularly like to direct staff to. Same of than are related to this
issue. One of than is, I think we need to very seriously look at the size of
the beachlot in terms of the number of people that are going to be using it. I
. .-think that we need a different minimum actually.- That may be impacted by the
number of boats. -In reading the Planning Commission Minutes, they talked about
II
the inequities of someone who wants to put a beachlot in for 10 houses versus
someone who wants to put. a beachlot in for 45 houses and how are minimum
standard is the same either way. -I think that we already have a reasonable
minimum that we should contemplate looking at and that is, when we ask for park
dedication we work on 75 people per acre. 75 people per acre would mean that
basically 40 households would not work with our existing minimum. We would
require a bigger minimum for 40 households. I think the reason we need to look
II
at that is because the issue we're dealing with here is concentration of people.
Although I wasn't here when they originally wrote the ordinance, my assumption
would be that they tried to cane to some sort of grips with how many people can II we put on 30,000 square feet or bigger? The gentleman tonight has a bigger lot
to deal with and he finds himself handicapped by our ordinance because I think
depth was an attempt to wrestle with this same issue of concentration of people II use. I think the second issue is separation from neighbors so we ought to have
sane way when we deal with beachlots of saying, is there an appropriate
separation from neighbors. Now clearly in this beachlot we've got a great
separation from the neighbors. The lot's big enough to certainly handle park
use of I believe it was, did you say 15? 20? How many houses? .
Councilman Johnson: 15.
-
C
I
ouncilman Boyt: The lot is certainly big enough to handle park use of people
from 15 households if we assume the typical average of around 2.8 people per
house. So from the standpoint of the logic of can this piece of property
II
support a beachlot, I think we've agreed all along that it can, or at least I
have felt that it probably could. It's a matter of how can we approach it and
retain our ability to protect the lake from the people around it and the
II
concentration of use. I am in agreement with the Planning Commission that the
easy way out for this particular situation is to include the permanent roadway.
I happen to feel that that is a stop gap measure and we're missing the boat if
II
we don't take this opportunity to go back and look at the whole issue itself.
Then distance aside, I think that point 2 under the beachlot ordinance that does
not allow beachlot owners to maintain a Satellite needs to be corrected. It
implies that those people are not responsible enough, can not sign a contract
II
with the same service the City signs a contract with and I don't think the City
is any better qualified to maintain a Satellite than the people who own
beachlots and we're making a real mistake when we encourage people to make same
other provisions and don't allow them to use the best available equipment. TO
17 1
I 'City Council Meeting - May :, 1988
the canoe racks. It's real interesting as I look at this issue Tam because I
agree with you that it makes sense for people to be able to have a canoe. My
[-
I concern is, in having used and lived around city lakes for a good bit of my
life, Lake Harriet. I may be wrong but they don't, in my memory, have 7 canoe
racks and they service thousands of people who enter a drawing and if you're
lucky you get a canoe. I think the problem I have with it is the screening
issue. Now you mentioned in this particular situation the canoe racks are easy -
to screen. On the other hand, the drawback to a screening issue is how do you
protect your canoe? If you can't see it and once somebody's down there, it
' would be very easy for then to vandalize the canoes. Especially is a situation
where you're going to have a relatively small number of people using that
beachlot. I agree that limiting the canoe racks, one canoe rack for a 30,000
square foot beachlot is overkill. I'm concerned that 7 canoe racks is
conceivably too many and I'm interested in the comments from the rest of the
Council but the issue of putting canoes and other items on the lake, I guess I
don't have Mr. Pierce's confidence, having just spent a good bit of the weekend
II out on Lotus Lake. I don't think people watch out for canoes or sailboats. But
on the other hand I don't think we have the right to deny reasonable access
either.
IICouncilman Geving: I'll keep my comment quite brief. I think that we always
have to be consistent in how we're dealing with developers and their perspective
II developments. In doing that we have to also be fair. We've invested a great
deal of money, we have a vision. We can see the market and how it could be
marketed best particularly on lake lots that have some amenity and we shouldn't
deny than unless it's absolutely essential to maintain the consistency that
II I mentioned. I'm not really in favor of amending the provisions for adjusting
our ordinances for each of potential developments that may came along.
Developments are all different and we have to have requirements. One thing that
I has to stand however is our ordinance. It was built...with a great deal of
thought and the people spent a lot of time looking at the issues and they should
stand, for the most part, being successful a good deal of the time but it can be
changed and that's why we have an amendment process and the variance process.
I In this particular development I'm not really in favor of changing the
ordinance. I'm not in favor of it for the same reason that I mentioned, a
matter of consistency. I change this ordinance now and amend it, tomorrow or
' next week, next year another developer will come in with something slightly
different with a little bit different twist but essentially they are same. They
want to amend the ordinance. In terms of the canoe area side, I really feel
strongly that if you have a development of 15 homeowners who can see the lake,
you can smell the lake and you bought your home to take advantage of that
amenity, to buy that to own lake property, it's kind of nice to be able to have
a canoe. At least a canoe if you don't have a motorized boat. But to be able
I to go to down to the lake and utilize it. For that reason I think we should
build into our ordinance some provision where we have a recreational beachlot
where every homeowner should have at least the ability to buy a canoe to use the
' lake so I agree with the staff proposal here to break that apart from the dock
issue. I think we can provide the homeowners with canoe potential without
having a dock. That's really about all I have to say Tom. I think I've said it
11 all. I'm not in favor of amending the ordinance.
Councilman Johnson: I agree with Bill on all of his comments on looking at the [::
whole ordinance here. I also want to look at useable land. You've got a 30%
IIgrade on the beachlot and you've got a swamp along the front of the 30% grade or
1 18
c2' 4-?
City Council Meeting - ay 31, 1988 } '
20% grade on the back end of it. Sure you might have 50,000 or 60,000 square
feet of beachlot but how much of it is really useable and where are those people
going to concentrate. Are they going to concentrate on the beach which in this
case happens to be right on the edge. The beachiot issue, he's already got the
beachiot approved. He's got a reasonable use for that land. As a beachlot, I
almost laugh, I was talking to somebody on the phone today who did laugh when I
told than exactly what was going on here as far as, gee we're going to include
the road right-of-way. If you really look at that and start looking and say, in
order to make this fit we're going to include the city property in what we can
tell the people they can use. On the surface it looks pretty arbitrary. Now
what I do believe, if the purpose of the 100 foot was separation again, that an
ordinance change saying that at the point that the dock will be at, for 100 foot
makes same sense to me but to include road right-of-way in the 100 foot doesn't
make any sense at all. It's just ludicrous to me. Canoe racks, I can go two
different ways. One is enough canoe racks holding 6 canoes each to handle 50%
of the population. Mn this case he's got 15 people, that would be two canoe
racks so he'd actually be able to do 12. That's kind of a complex way to look
at it but this gives, I'd say at least half the people or just put an absolute
maximum, I'd put that at 4 right now because I don't think anybody's ever
requested 7. I know that Mr. Pierce is requesting 2 in this case. I do believe
canoe racks should be separate issues from the dock. It doesn't make sense.
Maybe sailboat moorings should be based on length of the property also versus
just arbitrarily 3 sailboat moorings. He's got 550 feet of property that he can 11 put 3 sailboats on where somebody else can put 3 on 200 foot of property.
That's interesting there. That's not on here either but I think the entire
ordinance does stand to be looked at again to see if it is still reasonable. I'm
still not 100% sure of the basis of a 100 foot. I have a feeling the 100 foot 11 depth is for separation purposes. If it includes road right-of-way in it, you
don't separate anybody because the road is still within 100 foot. I would much
rather see than say 100 foot at the point of the dock, in which case I would
have been halfway inclined to vote for this. As is, I'm not at all. I would
vote for 4 canoe racks and maximum of 50% of the houses. A canoe is one thing
you can carry down to the beach too. I wouldn't want to keep it at the same 11 lake.
Mayor Hamilton: Even if you have a canoe rack you can do that. I guess Bill
points out sane good points. We do need to have same work done on our ordinance
il
and certainly the people who did the work on the last one, put it together, did c
the best job they could at that time but times change and things change. Life
changes and everything is always in a state of flex so we have to try to keep
current with everything that's going on around us. To ignore and turn down a
person's request to change an ordinance seems ludicrous to me. Since times
change and if at the time the past ordinance was being developed we looked at
Mr. Lawson's property and said heck, this is going to be requested to be a
beachlot someday, we ought to take it into consideration, it probably would
already have been accomplished but who can know how a property's going to
develop who's going to request what. So I feel very bad that the comments I'm
hearing that same people aren't willing to change ordinances on a sound request.
I do also feel and agree with Councilman Boyt that we should look at the entire
ordinance and probably do a significant changing of the ordinance. Redrafting
of it. Separating the canoes and docks makes a lot of sense and perhaps coming
up with sane more concrete reasons why we are attaching numbers that we are
attaching but that isn't going to help Mr. Pierce at this time in his
development. We're all in agreement in separating docks from canoe racks will I
19 1
1 Z44
• City Council Meeting - Ma_ 31, 1988
0 help same. I think if you are familiar with the property, if you go out and
look at it, you can see the nice piece of property that it is. It has 115 feet
[-
I of depth not including the street right-of-way at one end. You could put a dock
in there for only 3 boats, I think there is more than adequate room and depth
and length and to deny it, I would-think that Mr. Pierce would have an awfully
I good case in court and I'd be inclined to back him up. I think it's an
II unfortunate thing that we're doing to a developer to a nice development and when_
you look at a piece of property that is being proposed for one dock, 3 boats is
not a very intense use and could handle that use very easily.
IICouncilman Boyt: I think that if you look at the piece of property and then you
go along Lake Minnewashta and look at where the other docks are. Where the
house is separated by the road. Now have we had any reported trouble?
II Barbara Dacy: On the west side of Lake Minnewashta no.
I Councilman Boyt: And we're looking at something when we talk about impact on
the lake, there's quite a bit of frontage there. When we talk about impact on
Chanhassen as a whole recognizing that maybe this is some way to, it's easy to
I think of it as a way of just penalizing the developer but it penalizes all of
us. Instead of him having houses that are a quarter of a million dollars and
paying, I don't know, $7,000.00 to $8,000.00 in taxes a year, it helps us all to
bring taxes down. We're saying to him, you can't do it. As you said, hones
I with lake rights are very expensive homes right now and what we're doing, we're
taking a lot that, forget the road. Nobody can get within 100 feet of there
living wise. Of where the dock is going to be. We've got plenty of square
II footage. This is a situation that cries out for some kind of a reasonable
solution that doesn't overwhelm our ordinance for future consideration. I would _
like to see us state to this fellow and to others that are going to be in very
II similar situations, this is a fairly low impact. It's a chance to develop the
city. Yes, it helps the developer but that's minor. It's what does it do for
us? I think we ought to pass this. I'm not comfortable with the canoe racks
II situation and maybe we ought to hang on to a part of that for when we review the
whole ordinance but you guys, there's something about this that says it
shouldn't be turned down.
II Mayor Hamilton: I guess to make a comment that we're just doing something for a
developer whether it's Mr. Pierce or somebody else, what if somebody who had t
been on the committee who developed the first ordinance came in here and said,
I've been studying the ordinance that we passed several years ago and I feel
IIthat it's deficient. We've missed something in here and brought up a similar
case like this without even having Mr. Pierce here. Would we then say, well
you're just a citizen. We're not going to listen to you just because you were
I on the committee that passed this thing. That's what you're saying now. You
don't want to do this because you don't want to change something for a specific
developer but if somebody came in here and said I think we missed something in
II our ordinance. I think it should be changed. Does that make a difference?
Let's be fair about it.
Councilman Geving: Has any member ever done that?
Mayor Hamilton: I'm making a scenario. You know I am. I'm making a scenario.
6
IICouncilman Geving: Well, you are but you might be making an unfair scenario.
20
City Council Meeting - .ay 31, 1988
r II
-You might be talking about people who don't exist. I don't know of any member
that would came in here and say to review this ordinance.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm just making a scenario. I can't say it's going to happen or II
not happen. I'm just saying what if. It's a what if situation. What if's
' happen every day. -. - - • -
Councilman Johnson: I think one of biggest I
my ggest problems on this one is not only
- how it's done where it looks like it's, it's including road right-of-way, it is
so obviously pointing at this one piece of property. There is only one piece of
II
property in the City of Chanhassen, according to what I was told, that this will
really affect because the other pieces of property along Minnewashta are too
shall. They're going to be thrown away because they're less than 30,000 square
II
foot anyway. When we make this, it's going to, future people are going to look
- at it and say obviously this ordinance was revised specifically to allow this
one thing'in. If the purpose of 100 foot is separation, we should say 100 feet
at the dock. If there's a different purpose for -the 100 foot, then we should
II
have, street right-of-way just doesn't do it. • •-
Mayor Hamilton: Without the street right-of-way you have 115 feet at the dock.
II
'Councilman Johnson: Right. "
Robert Pierce: I thought that the separation too was to keep the beachlots away 11
from single family hone dwellings and the closest to this particular dock,
roughly we're looking at about 180 feet to the lot line then you take the
setback. There's probably 200 feet to the closest house. _ As it is right now,
the property to the north, I don't know how many acres it is and there's a house II
on it and the lady is an elderly person. She can't put her dock in anymore
because she hasn't had it in for the last couple years. -There's something II drastically wrong with the ordinance.
Councilman Johnson: She can't put a dock in?
Robert Pierce: No, she can not put a dock in.
Councilman Geving: Why can't she?- - : . .. - - _
Robert Pierce: Because she is elderly and has not-had a dock. If we would have
- had a dock on our property, if the Lawson's would have-stayed there, we wouldn't
be arguing about a dock-because it would have been grandfathered in: - At any II
-`point that there's not-a dock put in, for reason, you lose your rights
_ to the lake. - - . __
Mayor Hamilton: For how long a period of time Barbara? Is it a seasonal thin II g
if you take the dock out? When do you lose your rights to put your dock back
II
Barbara Dacy: I'm not familiar with the case that you're talking about.
Mayor Hamilton: If you had a dock in on your property continuously and you I
Lcontinued to put it in there, those that were grandfathered in when the
ordinance was passed remain to be grandfathered in. However, if you take it out
and leave it out fora period of. I
21 I
iAY
II . • City Council Meeting - May ., 1988 , }
Barbara Dacy: The ordinance section says it's a non-conforming use.
' Mayor Hamilton: Is it one year Roger? Do you recall?
Roger Knutson: I'm double checking.
Mayor Hamilton: Because the Lawson's had a dock on that property last year at
this time.
' Councilman Johnson: But once you subdivide and you change this not to an
individual homeowner's lot but a recreational beachlot, it's under a completely
different ordinance and you're no longer grandfathered in at all. Even if he
had a dock there last year.
Robert Pierce: What I'm saying is, the neighbors themselves, she's going to be
moving out to a home and I will guarantee you that the person who buys that
houes will not bother to call the City and ask if he can have a dock. It
wouldn't even cross my mind and they can not put a dock in under your ordinance
period and they probably have. 200, maybe 300 feet of lakeshore and multiple
acres and your ordinance states, it's the green house to the north of the
property, they can not do it. According to your ordinance. It's just beyond
comprehension to me. The idea that the dock on this size parcel, it's just
' beyond...
Councilman Johnson: ...can't he put it back in? I'm not familiar with that
ordinance. This is getting a little off the subject but it still is docks. A
' riparian homeowner can not put a dock in if they weren't grandfathered
previously in?
' Roger Knutson: Does she own a home there?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: She lives there. .
Roger Knutson: She's not under the recreational beachlot ordinance now.
Robert Pierce: We have a home but we can't put a dock in there.
' Roger Knutson: You don't have a home there now?
Robert Pierce: We burnt it down because it was abandoned.
Roger Knutson: A recreational beachlot is one thing. A dock, an accessory to
a single family home is something else. If you can have a single family home
there, you can have a dock.
' Robert Pierce: I don't believe that's right. That's not what I was told when I
came to the City.
Roger Knutson: It's an accessory use.
Robert Pierce: Even if it doesn't conform?
I
22
2'4.7 il
• • - City Council Meeting - y 31, 1988 i
II
ir '
Roger Knutson: It's a non-conforming use.
Mayor Hamilton: Roger, perhaps you could make comment on this beachlot. I guess 1
I'd appreciate your input at this point.
Roger Knutson: Everyone who has carne in contact with it, that -I've been aware I
of and I'm not saying, it's certainly been a controversial ordinance for you.
Whether that makes it good, bad or indifferent, I'll let you decide but it has
generated a lot of heat, a lot of discussion as to whether it's appropriate. I
II
think what you're talking about is all the other lots...and how many people are
' using it. That kind of examination which...
Mayor Hamilton: Should this particular case be tested? I know what you do about I
' it. What would your view be? I think it's quite important that we know that.
`Roger Knutson: The standards of whether, in regards to the City Council acted I
;arbitrarily and capriously and that's a matter of opinion. Your opinion would
be that it is. Other people would say that it's not. I guess that would be up
to the court to decide. This is not a great place to do an analysis... The
II
first day you hired me Tom, remember you told me one thing. Whatever you do
always win. Remember that?
,Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think you'd have a hard time on this one. 1
1. ;Jeff Bros: I'd just like to speak. We're not concerned about having a dock if
`they want to have a dock where the property meets the 100 foot setback but I 11 certainly think that is being one-sided and showing a certain amount of
unfairness to the rest of the homeowners and property owners on the lake to
include the street and the roadway right-of-way to make roan for his dock. I
think that's being just ridiculous. II
Mayor Hamilton: He has 115 feet without the roadway.
Jeff Bros: At that one point. If he wants to put the dock in where it's 115
feet, that's fine but for the City Council to change the ordinance for this
instance to include the street as his property to make room for a dock, I think
that's being very selfish and I think it's showing favoritism... I think it's
being abusive to the homeowners on the lake who are paying the $7,000.00.
Anywhere from $5,000.00 to $8,000.00 a year in property taxes. Who had to get
II
variances to put houses that they wish to build on their lots that they paid a
premium price for, to be able to arbitrarily change it to include now the
street. Somebody else comes in, they get the other side of the street. I don't
understand how you can show this kind of favoritism.
II
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think there's any favoritism being shown. It's the
recommendation from the Planning Commission that the street right-of-way be
II
used. I don't know why they recommended that but it. Whether it was
specifically directed at Mr. Pierce's development. It would be used for
anybody's development, not just Mr. Pierce's so it's not for just one person. I
Jeff Bros: I think they're going to want to add another two car garage to my
mother's house.
II
23 1
22M
City Council Meeting - May , 1988
' Councilman Boyt: As we look at this, one of the reasons that the road
right-of-way becomes attractive is that it's so limited. It makes a change to
' the ordinance but it's very narrow in it's impact. You may think of that as a
liability. It's actually a strength in that it doesn't open the ordinance up to
other abuse. Let's take the possibility of having a dock built where the lot's
a 100 feet deep. Now what we've done is we've given somebody out there the
' opportunity to construct a beachlot that looks like this. Sure, we'll give you -
100 feet but then along the two sides we're going to have it be about 5 feet
deep. There are probably worse case scenarios with every event and I think what
was appealing to the Planning Commission is that this was so narrow in focus
that it would actually apply to only a couple of potential beachlots. I don't
know quite what your issue was a year or two ago or whenever this came in. I
think you raise the question of is the City going to be fair to everyone? It's
awfully hard. I think the City is going to try to be but clearly you don't
think the City has been. When we change an ordinance we certainly have to be
careful that we create a situation that we think is going to have as little as
possible impact. I don't think this has a lot of impact. It has a lot of
impact on our ability to get some tax money to this town. I guess I can't say
anymore.
IICouncilman Geving: I'd like to see that we take that canoe one separately.
The whole issue of the canoes.
IICouncilman Boyt: What's your magic number going to be?
Councilman Geving: I have several suggestions. It could be based on the
Inumber of lots in the development with a maximum number of four.
Mayor Hamilton: I suggested that there wouldn't be any number established but
Ieach request would be evaluated during a conditional use permit approval.
Councilman Geving: I like that idea. Here he's got three.
I Councilman Johnson: With guidelines written in, here's the normal guidelines.
We can put guideline whatever and say our guideline is canoes for 50% of the
households and some situations might warrent more. Some situations might
warrant less.
Councilman Boyt: We can do that- but I don't think that makes sense. We've got
to fight the issue out as clear as we can tonight such that I don't have any
Itrouble separating the canoes from the other issue but I think if we say we're
going to let this just float with whatever the situation is at the time, as soon
as we make our first decision about it, we set the precedent then that, let's
I suppose the first person comes in and they want 12 canoes because they are going
to have 12 houses. You approve that. The next guy has got 40 houses and wants
40 canoe racks, we're going to be in, I think a difficult position. Anyway, I
would argue that why not put it out there like Dale said with four racks max and
I look at the whole ordinance.
Mayor Hamilton: But we can review them when they came in for a conditional
II use...just because you allow 15 here doesn't mean that you have to allow 40 for
the next one.
1
i24
.
City Council Meeting - ,-,ay 31, 1988
r- 1
Councilman Boyt: I think that we have to make our decision based on some fact
and I think this will open it up to, it just makes the whole ordinance harder to
resolve each time if we don't have a clear statement. I
Councilman Johnson: I would like to see us say a maximum of 50% of the
households. Canoe racks able to hold 50% of the households or a total maximum
of four. -
Mayor Hamilton: That means he gets to build another rack. I
Councilman Geving: No, four. Four would give him 24.
-Councilman Johnson: He's got 15 households so 50% would be 7-7 1/2 so it's I
over 6 so he gets 2. You can't build a rack with only one. He gets 2 racks
-• - with that. _ - -
Councilman Geving: I guess I would go the other way. Recommend that every lot I
have the possibility of getting a canoe.
Councilman Boyt: How are we going to make that decision at the time? '
Councilman Geving: Base it on the number of lots that are being proposed in
the development and you -condition it. Make a condition that if in the judgment
of the Council that particlar recreational beachlot won't hold as many as there
are for that particular development, you'd say let's cut it down_to 2 rather
than 4 but the maximum would be 4. '
Councilman Boyt: When you get into those situations then we create an area
where Jeff could say you're not fair. I think we open ourselves up to that.
Why don't we just come to grips with it. If we want 1 canoe per, then let's
see if that passes.
Councilman Geving: There's nothing wrong with it. That's a good place to II start. At least you've got a basis for your intention and then you're not going
with 50% or 75% or whatever.
Councilman Johnson: I would like to see 1 per with a max. 1
t
Mayor Hamilton: We've already put a maximum of 1,000 feet so you've limited the
number of homes that could use the outlot. _..- _ I
Councilman Johnson: Until you start putting like this PUD that they have up,
what's that one call with all the condos?
Barbara Dacy: Red Cedar Cove. -
Councilman Boyt: What about 1 per with up to 4 as a place where we can start. 1
We can leave the whole ordinance out and figure out what the reasonable logic is
here. If it comes out that 1 per household up to whatever.
Barbara Dacy: That's the way the proposed language is written now. One per
household. The Planning Commission recommended 7. If you want to change it to
4, that's fine too.
25 1
II 250
City Council Meeting - Ma_ 31, 1988
' Councilman Johnson: I'll move
that. One per with a maximum of four.
Councilman Geving: I'll second that.
Mayor Hamilton: I think it's being near sighted.
' Councilman Geving: It still gives you 24 though Tan. -
Mayor Hamilton: I don't care. Still the useage you want to have on the lake if
you want to clean up your lakes, and not allow people to use then unless they...
I don't know that we're ever going to get to a maximum of 42 or whatever.
Councilman Geving: A practical maximum number of users is probably close to
half. If you tood 42 homeowners, my guess is that no more than 15 or so would
have canoes.
Mayor Hamilton: But we're kind of limiting it for the people who do.
Councilman Geving: I'm just taking it from a practical standpoint of knowing
how many people live on a lake and what kind of boats they have.
Councilman Boyt: If we go back to 1 per household but provide sane sort of
provision so that people don't. Suppose I had 2 canoes, there's an open spot on
the rack so I store my canoe down there. I don't know, are we after a place for
people to store their canoes or a place where people are going to use it? If we
had someway of preventing...
Mayor Hamilton: You're park of the Sunrise Hill's Association right?
' Councilman Boyt: Right.
Mayor Hamilton: They have two racks.
' Councilman Boyt: Two racks and I don't know, 45 hares.
Mayor Hamilton: I've never heard anybody complain about that. Those who don't
' have it on the beach probably don't even have a canoe.
Councilman Boyt: Oh yes. What happens and maybe this wouldn't happen if there
were more racks, but what happens is if one of those spots becomes open and it's
open for a few weeks, if somebody has a notion, they'll move their canoe off
their rack at home and put it up there. Get it out of the yard. That's not all
bad. It kind of cleans the neighborhood up. There's a whole lot to this issue
and I guess if we could strike something, I just have difficulty looking out on
this lot, it's fairly narrow or any other lot and seeing 7 canoe racks. It's a
forest.
IIMayor Hamilton: There aren't going to be 7 here. You've of to k
mind. 9 keep that in
ICouncilman Boyt: Well, as I've said all along, the thought of having everybody
who is a part of the beachlot who wants a canoe or sailboat to be able to have
it makes a lot of sense. '
11 26
/ r
City Council Meeting - ly 31, 1988
Barbara Dacy: But the motion was for a maximum of four.
Mayor Hamilton: I still don't have see the problem with having a maximum of 7 as
long as you can control that within your conditional use. You're saying if in
the future some, and I don't think we're ever going to have that situation, but
if something came in and they had a huge outlot and wanted to have 7 canoe racks
on this huge outlot. The potential is there but Mr. Pierce doesn't want 7. -
Councilman Geving: How did you arrive at 7? - .-
Barbara Dacy: That was based on existing examples of largest subdivision in an
urban area was Lotus Lake Estates which had 44 lots so if you say 1 per lot, 6
on a rack would be 7. _ '
Mayor Hamilton: They can have how many right now? - -
Barbara Dacy: Canoe racks? I
Mayor Hamilton: Yes.
Barbara Dacy: No more than 3.
Councilman Geving: Let me ask you, how about the Kurver's property that's
being developed? They had a recreational beachlot.
Barbara Dacy: They received approval for two docks and I believe it was 3
canoe racks also. There were 36 lots.
Councilman Johnson: Seven just seems to be too high.
Councilman Boyt: It seems like the thing we're saying to somebody, if you have I
a beachlot you can put up a canoe rack. We're taking that away from the dock
issue so that's a good point.
Mayor Hamilton: I kind of agree with Tom. I think I'd rather go back to the 7.
There is that practical possibility. There's nothing wrong with a 7 as a
maximum.
Councilman Boyt: Once we go there we can't come back down.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to do 4 right now and then like Bill says, '
- -- there's a lot of issues to look at with the beachlot and we might want to put a
- -beachlot group back together, look at the whole thing including the numbers
instead of sitting here tonight and figuring it out. -We've got a reasonable
compromise here between the 1 and 7 that will fit every application we know in
the City. There's nobody asking for anything near the number we're proposing.
It should be kind of non- controversial. ,
Councilman Boyt: I sense that 4 will pass. Let's take a vote on 4.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded the first reading of Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-263 (6) to read as follows:
27 I
II 252
City Council Meeting - May ii, 1988
11
No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or
[-
II overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft
per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more than one (1) dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sailboat
II moorings shall also be allowed. Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes,
windsurfers, sailboards and shall sailboats may be stored overnight on any
recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that
II purpose. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number
of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one (1) rack
slip per lot served by the beachlot; however, in no case shall there be more
than four (4) racks per beachlot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is
IIpermissible at any time other than overnight.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: This will be separated from ran the need to have a dock, correct?
ICouncilman Johnson: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: Just the canoe rack issue here and we're not tying it to docks
IIor anything else.
II (Councilman Horn arrived at this point in the meeting.)
Mayor Hamilton: We are wrestling with the issue right now of the dock to be
allowed on Mr. Pierce's outlot and have the use of three motorized boats for
1 overnight storage. We have just voted favorably to change our ordinance allow,
the first reading, to allow four canoe racks, a maximum of four canoe racks per
beachlot, six canoes per rack as a maximum. That brings you up to whatever
II happened. We seem to be fairly split on the issue of Mr. Pierce's use of his
property to put a dock on and to allow him to have three boats. He has 115 feet
of depth on his lot without the use of the road right-of-way...
ICouncilman Horn: He still needs a variance though?
Councilman Boyt: %bat he's proposing is to change the ordinance.
ICouncilman Horn: The proposed location would include the...?
Mayor Hamilton: That's the Planning Commission's proposal to us. There seems to
II be sane disagreement on whether or not you want to continue with that or came up
with something different.
II Councilman Johnson: My disagreement Clark is that including road right-of-way
appears that we're changing our ordinance specifically for this project and I
II believe that we can draw our position anyplace that we try, buy your property
and go for it and get your ordinance changed to where you can get what you want.
These guys they'll come up with some creative ways to do this. Include road
right-of-way. If the purpose of the 100 foot was for separation, he's got 100
I foot where the dock is, then that makes sense to change the ordinance to meet '
the purpose of the 100 feet. Include road right-of-way into that to meet the
confines of the ordinance to me seems fairly arbitrary. I have a problem with
II28
.. . _
//
r n
' - Cit Council Meetin 1 r.��•
Y g - iy 3l, 1988
II
Irthat. I don't think with 500 feet or whatever of lake front here with one dock
will have a huge impact on Lake Minnewashta. I will be more than willing to go
the other way. I'm not moved much by the argument that we're going to get all
these huge taxes. We don't get that much taxes by the time the County and
everybody else takes our their whack but that helps all of us too I guess.
These are going to be some fairly good sized homes. Even without the rights to
II
have a boat on this dock, I don't suspect you're going to put $60,000.00 homes
on those four lots without a boat there. They may not be $250,000.00 homes. It
might just be $200,000.00 homes but to me that's not a huge difference. I'm not
II
going to vote for changing our beachlot ordinance on the fact that this change
f will generate more tax revenues to the City.
` Councilman Horn: That's the argument? I
' Councilman Johnson: That was one argument that we had earlier was that geez,
look at what this would do for generating money but I don't like the road
II
'right-of-way part. That's my argument against it is including road right-of-way
in measuring your setback and this is essentially a setback type of thing to me.
' It's kind of silly. II
Councilman Horn: It's unique to this property though?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I
t
Barbara Dacy: It will affect one other property on the west side of
IL Minnewashta also. I
Councilman Johnson: What would you say, 100 foot at the point of the dock.
How many properties would that affect do you think?
II
Barbara Dacy: The Planning Cannission struggled with that because how wide of
an area do you have that 100 feet? Do you keep it at 20, 30 or 40? And they
felt uncomfortable that that was being just as arbitrary as anything else so we
II
wanted to try to establish a consistent means of creating a guideline in the _
ordinance to avoid a situation like this, as Mr. Hoyt pointed out. Yes, they
looked at the map and saw that there was one other property, the Ziegler's south
II
of the Lawson property on the west side of Lake Minnewashta that this would
affect but separation was a big issue. The rationale being that that road
right-of-way does serve a purpose as a buffer and the Planning Commission
chairman really explained that they felt that that should be included as part of II
the buffer between a beachlot and a group of single family homes. Also, it
provided an easy mechanise to enforce the ordinance because again, look at that
area. He's got maybe 30 feet of the beachlot being 115 feet deep. Is that
II
really what you're trying to separate from adjacent single family homes?
Councilman Johnson: The other one would be a 100 foot depth with an average II lot depth of the entire length of the lot of 75 feet, 90 feet or something to
where that, obviously that type of "T" shape, your average lot depth is going to
be way low or flag lots or sane wording there.
Barbara Dacy: Again, it still doesn't affect those beachlots that do not have II
road right-of-way. You still have to have 100 feet of lot depth no matter what
in this case so they felt that you're acheiving both objectives. You're setting
II
an established minimum with or without the road right-of-way.
29 1
■ 254
City Council Meeting - May -, 1988 '
1
Councilman Johnson: What about the people who, they want to add a two car
[-
II garage in the front of their house but they're too close to the road
right-of-way to do it and they say we'll just include the road right-of-way in
our setback. They did it for the beachlots.
' Councilman Boyt: Whole different issue. - - -
Councilman Johnson: Similar.
Councilman Boyt: No. Much different issue. When we talk about a ara a and in
9 g
putting traffic on the road, we've got a safety issue. What we're talking about
here isn't a safety issue, it's a concentration of useage.
Councilman Johnson: We're putting pedestrians across it.
Councilman Horn: Can you distinguish, in your November 12th memorandum you
said you couldn't differeniate between lot depth and lot size. Can you do that
now in terms of intent of ordinance with what the Planning Commission
' recommended? Cr do you think, the impression I'm getting here is that the
Planning Commission feels that their proposal meets the intent of the ordinance.
I don't think there is anything that meets the intent of the lot size. You
' looked at this in terms of depth... If you look at it in terms of if we allow
the road right-of-way as they would get the total area, there seems to be lots
that would change their compliance based on the area.
Barbara Dacy: The Commission's intent was not to include the road right-of-way
as a part of the lot area.
Councilman Horn: So how do we differeniate that in terms of arbitrary and
capricous?
Barbara Dacy: The difference being is that the Commission was looking at this.
Councilman Horn: So it was intent of the ordinance? -
IIBarbara Dacy: I don't know.
Councilman Horn: That's the question to the Attorney.
Roger Knutson: You're changing the ordinance.
Councilman Horn: As I got your issue the question could go backwards. Why
would you change the ordinance for depth without changing it for lot size?
What would be your rationale?
' Roger Knutson: Do we think that the ordinance is fine. It helps you...in the
depth part of the ordinance shall we change? Are we talking about changing the
depth as a buffering and by including the road we accomplish the buffering.
' Councilman Horn: You could argue that lot area is a buffer.
Councilman Johnson: Now we could use the lot area, the 66 foot of road
right-of-way to get some of these below 30,000 square feet up to 30,000.
30
r 255
City Council Meeting - ray 31, 1988 ,
II
Irl Barbara Dacy: No.
Councilman Johnson: That's the next request. They'll use the exact same logic
to get it.
Councilman Boyt: It's a different issue. - I
Mayor Hamilton: Do you have another question Clark?
Councilman Horn: No. I'm still trying to sort out how that's a different II
issue. In my mind I can't differentiate that.
Barbara Dacy: If clarification of the intent needs to be solved, we can easily II
add a sentence that says, however, road right-of-way shall not be used in the
calculation of lot area for the beachlot. That can be added. Roger assessment
II
of the distance and the depth issues is exactly right there. For whatever
reason in 1982 100 feet was set as a minimum lot depth, so what they were
looking at is well, we do have narrow stretches between Minnewashta Parkway and
Lake Minnewashta and the Commission felt that including the road right-of-way as
I
far as that lot depth calculation was, was appropriate.
Mayor Hamilton: Anything else Clark? I
Councilman Horn: I'm still having trouble with it. I can't differentiate
between 30 and...
Barbara Dacy: The other criteria for area is that you have enough area for I
canoe racks and play areas, swimming beaches, volleyball nets and so on. So
supposedly the ordinance already says 30,000 square feet and then 20,000 square I
feet for any additional dock so there's a relationship there between docks and
useage.
Councilman Horn: So one is strictly related to a dock issue and the other is
related to...?
Barbara Dacy: I guess, yes. I
4
Mayor Hamilton: There were some comments made by same of the Council members
that they were relunctant to change the ordinance for a specific developer. I
II
guess I still ask the question, we're not going to change it for a specific
developer, what if the staff, another what if, what if the staff had looked at
the ordinance and said look, ...and brought this same issue before us to change?
Would we be sitting here,...in mind to deny it or would you...? That's II
certainly an issue for me because I know the...just to use it can make a
difference.
Councilman Horn: I agree with you Tom on that. I think obviously when you II
get new uses and new circumstances that came in, that's usually what the problem
is. Take a look at the ordinance see if it still makes sense. I don't have... I
Mayor Hamilton: I'm going to make a motion to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment
for a recreational beachlot to allow. How do you want to do this? Section
20-263.
II
31 1
qRy Council Meeting - Ma. 1, 1988
Barbara Dacy: It's on Page 7. 20-263(7) .
[-
1 Mayor Hamilton: To adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission as
outlined on page 7. Do you want me to read it? Is there a second to the
motion?
' Councilman Hoyt: I'll second it. -
Mayor Hamilton: Is there further discussion?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I'd like the City Attorney to look at something. In
the existing ordinance it states no dock shall be permitted on a recreational
' beachlot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the lot has at
least a 100 foot depth. In our definitions, in our Zoning Ordinance
definitions, we never define actually, we define the lot depth but here we did
' not say 100 foot of lot depth. We just said 100 foot of depth at this point in
this ordinance. Can there be an argument that he does not need lot depth or
have we used it every place else in the ordinance? What I'm trying to say is,
is this even necessary in this case?
Roger Knutson: It's a good point and I think it is somewhat ambiguous but from
my understanding is that they're talking about lot average and he did not have
' 100 foot average lot depth.
Mayor Hamilton: The ordinance amendment would clarify that where it says 100
feet depth measured perpendicular landward from the the ordinary high water mark
' to the first intersecting lot line inclusive of the street right-of-way. It's
more specific than what's in there currently.
' Roger Knutson: I suggest so we're all very clear that usually the word lot
depth, actually lot depth is defined in the ordinance and what the means is an
average depth.
Councilman Johnson: Lot depth is defined. Here we're just saying depth. He's
got 100 foot depth laying perpendicular from the ordinary high water mark to the
first intersecting lot line period. He's got that right now without including
' the street right-of-way. With the street right-of-way he has 180 feet of-lot
depth at this point. There's no need to include the street right-of-way here in
this case, the way they defined it.
Barbara Dacy: He doesn't have an average lot depth of 100 feet. He has a
point in the lot that's 100 feet.
IICouncilman Johnson: It doesn't say average lot depth.
Barbara Dacy: That's defined.
IRoger Knutson: That lot depth is an average.
Councilman Horn: So if you cut in, pulled in the sides of the lot, take out
the area that don't comply to pull it under the mean, could he come out with a
lot that we would? [:7
32
1
( 257
City Council Meeting - .y 31, 1988 il
Councilman Boyt: He'd lose square footage. II
II-
• Councilman Horn: Would he lose it in the square footage then? I
Councilman Boyt: I think so. He's only got 40,000 square feet.
Barbara Dacy: No, he's got 31,500. v ` I
: Councilman Boyt: Then he definitely can't.
Councilman Horn: When we originally changed this ordinance, the argument was I
brought forth that we should not be more restrictive on a beachlot than what a
;private individual could do if he had riparian rights on a beachlot. That time II;the argument made sense to me that we should use that in making the decision to
'change because that argument was sound. I don't think that requirement in true
din this case. I don't think we have a buildable lot and I don't think there's
any way that this mean average thing will work out to where it would comply. II
1Barbara Dacy: When he first applied, our interpretation was that the ordinance
,was saying that you had to have a consistent depth of 100 feet all the way I
throughout the beachiot. That's what we required every other application to
do. If he had a spot that had 100 feet so I agree with you kind of. It's
ambiguous and there is an advantage to amending that to clarify how we measure
'lot depth.
II
1[.. ;Mayor Hamilton: Since we're arbitrary on everything else, we can be arbitrary on
the width be at the 100 foot depth to give you a minimum. I would think we're II arbitrary. You pick 100 feet out of the air. There's no reason why 100 foot is
so.
Councilman Johnson: As I go through the Zoning Ordinance, every place else in II
the Zoning Ordinance that talks about depth of the lot, it says lot depth. This
one point it says depth. I
Roger Knutson: The easiest explanation for that is that often the Zoning
Ordinance, you're looking at was drafted by the Planning staff of a consulting
planner. The recreational beachlot was drafted by a committee and I think the
II
difference is the style that we're talking about. A slight language variation
are a result of that rather any intention on the part of the draftsman to draw
attention. i
Councilman Johnson: If the people who drafted this were thinking that they
were looking at an average lot depth at the time or they were just looking for
100 foot at any point.
II
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance
II
Amendment to amend Section 20-263(7) of the City Code to read as follows:
No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at least two
II
hundred (200) feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least one hundred (100)
feet depth measured perpendicular landward from the ordinary high water mark to
the first intersecting lot line inclusive of the street right-of-way. No more
than one (1) dock may be erected on a recreational beachiot every two hundred I
33
II
•
'?may Council Meeting - Ma_ 1, 1988
(200) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty thousand (30,000) square feet
of land is required for the first dock and an additional twenty thousand
(20,000) square feet is required for each additional dock. No more than three
II
[-
(3) docks, however, shall be erected on a recreational beachlot.
Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Boyt voted in favor of the motion. Councilman
' Horn, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition to the motion-
and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Robert Pierce: Can I say something?
Mayor Hamilton: Sure.
Robert Pierce: I guess at this point, you put this into a, I was encouraged by
your Planning Commission. I've been encouraged here and there. You leave me no
' choice but to start legal action. We will get more use on that lake than what
we asked for. I don't fight unless I'm pushed in a corner. I don't ask for
unreasonable things...but I guess as far as I'm concerned, the people around
your lake has lost. The City has lost. The whole tone of that whole area out
' there is going to be $100,000.00 less per home. We will come back and maybe do
something there with the lake frontage but I can't believe it. You throw the
baby out with the bath water and you're losing all the way around. We'll be
back and we'll get it. I just can not understand. Thank you.
II Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
' Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
I
34
1
ITY OF P.C. DATE: April 6, 1988,
`• cHANHAssEN C.C. DATE: April 25, 198
y
CASE NO: 88-3 ZOA
Prepared by: Olsen/v II
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-263
( 6 & 7) of the City Code to Amend the Lot Depth
imm Requirement for Installation of a Dock and One
Z Canoe Rack/Dock Requirement.
Q
0
'� LOCATION:
.^.
1^
Q.i
Y. APPLICANT: Pierce Construction
3915 Farmhill Circle
Mound, MN 55364
11
PRESENT ZONING: I
ACREAGE:
DENSITY: Art.:- t., , _ _ I
ADJACENT ZONING i'-''j- --A, ___ __
AND LAND USE: N- Ai ac'rr.�---- I
S- Rejects.- -- _
QE- �E---._ ._
W- &D et-A to G '+ 411-
QDiets s.:.-ice t. 'R._
WATER AND SEWER: �_.�_ ?- , `
W
tm. 5-.73-ST
PHYSICAL CHARAC. :
II
1990 LAND USE PLAN:
II
I
Stratford Ridge ZOA
April 6, 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
' Section 20-263 (7 ) of the City Code requires at least 200 feet of
lake frontage for a recreational beachlot and requires at least
30,000 square feet and 100 feet of depth for any recreational
' beachlot to have a dock (Attachment #1) .
Section 20-263 ( 6) of the City Code permits only one canoe rack
per dock (Attachment #2) .
BACKGROUND
' On February 22, 1988, the City Council reviewed a conditional use
permit for a recreational beachlot as a part of the Stratford
Ridge subdivision (Attachment #3) . The property proposed for the
recreational beachlot is long and narrow with less than 100 feet
' mean depth. The applicant received approval for a recreational
beachlot but was not permitted a dock since it did not have the
required 100 foot depth. The applicant had also requested three
canoe racks with 15 slips. Since the recreational beachlot was
not permitted a dock, the canoe racks were not permitted either.
' The Planning Commission and City Council commented that the
variance was not justified but that the applicant should pursue a
zoning ordinance amendment (Attachments #3 and #4) . It was com-
mented that the proposed site had adequate area and lake frontage
I ( 31,000 s .f. and 550 feet) to support a dock and related activi-
ties and that review of the Zoning Ordinance would be appropriate.
' ANALYSIS
The applicant has applied for a zoning ordinance amendment to
' permit a dock on a recreational beachlot without a mean depth of
100 feet and to permit more than one canoe rack per dock.
Dock
' The Zoning Ordinance requires a mean depth of 100 feet for a
recreational beachlot to have a dock. The intent of the 100 feet
' of lot depth requirement for a dock was to maintain adequate area
for the intensity of use related to a dock. Staff reviewed
existing parcels around the city' s lakes which could be applied
for conditional use permits for recreational beachlots
' (Attachment #5) . The majority of the remaining parcels will be
able to provide the required 100 feet of lot depth. Only along
Minnewashta Parkway does the potential exist for recreational
' beachlots without 100 feet of lot depth. This is a result of the
location of Minnewashta Parkway near Lake Minnewashta.
Staff feels the 100 feet of lot depth is important to maintain in
the proximity of the dock because this usually is the area of
I
1
Stratford Ridge ZOA
April 6, 1988
Page 3
higher use. To accommodate the sites that do not have the mean I
depth of 100 feet but have enough lot area and lake frontage to
support a dock, staff recommends that the following language be
included in the Recreational Beachlot Regulations: 1
Section 20-263 (7 ) - No dock shall be permitted on any
recreational beachlot unless it has 200 feet of lake frontage
and the lot has at least 100 feet of lot depth where the dock
is proposed to be located.
The above language would permit docks on recreational beachlots ,
that meet or exceed the lot area and lake frontage requirements
yet have a portion of the lot that is very narrow resulting in
less than 100 feet mean depth. As a part of the conditional use
permit process a site plan will be approved which will ensure
that the dock is located where there is 100 feet of depth.
RECOMMENDATION - Dock I
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion: I
"The Planning Commission recommends amending Section 20-263 (7) of
the City Code to read as follows: ,
No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless
it has at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage and
the lot has at least one hundred (100) feet of lot depth
where the dock is proposed to be located. No more than one
(1) dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot every two
hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty
thousand (30,000) square feet of land is required for the
first dock and an additional twenty thousand (20,000) square
feet is required for each additional dock. No more than
three (3) docks, however, shall be erected on a recreational
beachlot."
Canoe_Racks I
The Zoning Ordinance currently ties the number of canoe racks
permitted with the the number of docks permitted on a
recreational beachlot. The code states that no more than one
canoe rack shall be allowed per dock. Staff feels the number of
canoe racks permitted should not be dictated by the number of
docks permitted on a recreational beachlot. There may be
situations where a canoe rack is appropriate where a dock is not
permitted or more than one canoe rack is acceptable.
The number of lots which have use of the recreational beachlot
normally dictate the number of canoe racks (slips) that are
requested. The applicants typically request a number of canoe '
I
1
Stratford Ridge ZOA
' April 6, 1988
Page 4
rack slips equal to the number of lots proposed (six watercraft
are permitted per canoe rack) . Therefore, it is difficult to
regulate a maximum number of canoe racks for all recreational
beachlots. Instead, staff recommends that canoe racks be a per-
mitted use on a recreational beachlot and the number of canoe
racks be determined as part of the conditional use permit review.
' This would permit each site to be reviewed separately to deter-
mine the appropriate number of canoe racks.
RECOMMENDATION
"The Planning Commission recommends amending the fifth sentence
of Section 20-263 ( 6) of the City Code to read as follows:
No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of over-
night storage or overnight mooring of more than three (3)
motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a
recreational beachlot is allowed more than one (1) dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to
three ( 3 ) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes,
' windsurfers, sailboards, and small sailboats may be stored
overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on
racks specifically designed for that purpose. The number of
canoe racks shall be determined as part of the conditional
use permit process. No more than six ( 6) watercraft may be
stored on a rack. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes
is permissible at any time other than overnight."
' PLANNING_COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 6, 1988
' The Planning Commission tabled action on this item until lot
owners of all lakes within the city were notified. The notifica-
tions for this public hearing were mailed on April 11, 1988.
' Staff has received a number of phone calls regarding this item,
the majority of which are to clarify that the ordinance change
does not affect individual lot owners their ability to install a
dock.
The Commission's comments as to the first issue of consideration,
the lot depth requirement, ranged from having no minimum require-
ment of lot depth to establishing some type of standard either
for the entire beachlot or for just the area where the docks are
to be located. There is a need to have some type of minimum
' standard. As the ordinance requires a minimum lot depth for a
single family lot or creates a minimum setback, the intent of
that provision is to provide some separation between adjacent
buildings, streets or uses to prevent overcrowding of the land
and safe access. In the case of recreational beachlots, some of
them are located directly adjacent to major streets, others are
located within the subdivision. The beachlot activity, as any
other use, should have some type of minimum separation. The
problem is how to establish that standard.
1
1
Stratford Ridge ZOA
April 6, 1988
Page 5
In existing cases, the lot depth issue has not been a problem.
I
The majority of the beachlots are at least 100 feet in depth.
Most of the issues pertaining to the older beachlots were lot
width and area. For future beachlot requests, the lot depth
I
issue would arise only in the area where the Stratford Ridge sub-
division is proposed between Minnewashta Parkway and Lake
Minnewashta. Other potential beachlot requests are located in
I
areas where there is not a road in the immediate vicinity of the
lake. In the Lake Minnewashta area, the lakeshore varies to as
small as 25 feet and to as deep as 200 feet.
The Planning Commission also suggested that the dock setback zone I
of 10 feet be doubled or tripled so that the area where the dock
is to be located is at least 20 to 30 feet wide and 100 feet in
I
depth. In the Lake Minnewashta area, the following properties
could not survive even a minimal amount of area for the 100 foot
lot depth: the Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla properties (see
Attachment #7) . -Reducing the lot depth to 75 feet would still
prevent the Wenzel and Ziegler property from meeting this
requirement. The Wenzel and Ziegler property at its narrowest
point is approximately 40 feet. At its widest point it is about
80 feet with an average depth of 50 feet. The Headla property is
about 80 feet deep. The Wenzel and Headla properties have
approximately 250 feet of lake frontage and the Ziegler property
approximately 450 feet. Both these properties cannot meet the II
lot area test also. It is questionable then whether these sites
would be considered as beachlots.
Potential language that the Planning Commission could use is as 1
follows:
No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless I
it has at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage and
the lot contains at least one hundred (100) feet of lot depth
for at least thirty (30) feet of width where the dock is to
be located.
The Commission can reduce the 100 foot lot depth requirement. It
I
is recommended that at minimum 50 feet be maintained in order to
provide a picnic area, sand blanket, storage of canoe racks, and
allowing other park activities. The 30 feet of lot width recom-
mended for the area where the dock is to be located is based on
twice the dock setback from a lot line (10 feet) plus 6 feet in
width for a typical dock. II As to the number of canoe racks, the Commission wanted to
establish some type of standard either a maximum number of racks
or a maximum number of slips per rack. Some beachlots could con-
tain Iat least 30 to 40 single family lots (for example, Kurvers
Point subdivision on the east side of Lotus Lake) . One slip per
II
II
I
' Stratford Ridge ZOA
April 6 , 1988
Page 6
home would mean that if a rack contained 6 slips for storage,
that anywhere from 5 to 6 racks could be located on a beachlot.
The largest number of lots permitted within 1000 feet of a beach-
lot would be approximately 40. Seven racks at six/rack would
allow storage of 42 boats.
It was also suggested that distinction for the type of boats to
be stored on racks would be the ones that are licensed by the
state. Canoes and sailboats do need to be licensed by the state
as well as small row boats. Inflatable rafts do require a
license. The intent of the rack is to be able to store the non-
motorized watercraft in a neat and safe fashion. Further, the
intent of the ordinance is to permit overnight storage of these
types of boats and to provide guidance as to the number of racks
stored on the property. Therefore, based on the Commission's
discussion, the following is recommended to be included as part
of Section 20-263 ( 6) :
"No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of over-
night storage or overnight mooring of more than three (3)
motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a
recreational beachlot is allowed more than one (1) dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to
three (3) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes,
windsurfers, sailboards, and small sailboats may be stored
overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on
racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than
six ( 6) watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number of
racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to
permit one (1) slip per lot served by the beachlot; however,
in no case shall there be more than seven (7) racks per
beachlot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is per-
missible at any time other than overnight."
NOTE: Remember that the racks do pose a visual impact, but if
properly designed, the site plan during conditional use permit
review can address this issue.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended the ordinance be amended as
follows:
Section 20$63(6)
"No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight
storage or overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or
nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is
allowed more than one (1) dock, however, the allowed number of
boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sailboat moorings shall
also be allowed. Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes, wind-
surfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight
I
BOA Minutes
November 6, 1989
Page 2
ordinance is written today. The ordinance states that a
recreational beachlot must have a 100 foot depth and again, that
they do have a 100 foot depth and that she recommends approval of.
the 100 foot depth interpretation.
Dimler moved, seconded by Johnson to approve the interpretation
of the 100 foot depth for recreational beachlots as stated in the
zoning ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Watson moved, seconded by Dimler to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 ) __
r
III Mayor Chmiel: 'lb negotiate with the school district to see if something can be
resolved with it and I don't see any reason, they have specific rules and
regulations and those rules and regulations are not cast in concrete either. I
think they'd have to show due cause as to why, just what Don said because if
I there's a vehicle in there and they can't make that turn, if there's someway
they can make that within those cul-de-sacs. They're large enough. More
specifically that one, you're not going to have cars parked on it.
II
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Hoyt seconded to direct staff to meet with the
I Minnetonka School District to see if a resolution can be worked out for a school
bus to turn around in Curry Farms. A11 voted in favor and the motion carried.
II APPEAL INTERPRETATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT of 100 FOOT LOT DEPTH FOR
A DOCK ON A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT, OUTLOT A, STRATFORD RIDGE, ROBERT PIERCE.
II Jo Ann Olsen: The Board of Adjustments approved the appeal to the
interpretation of the ordinance. It was unanimous approval and it can be
discussed.
I Mayor Chmiel: It can be discussed by Council but having unanimous approval the
action is to review that.
I Councilman Workman: So we'll look to amend the ordinance? There wasn't a
variance?
IJo Ann Olsen: No variance.
Councilman Workman: So they can build a dock now?
I Jo Ann Olsen: They were given an appeal to that decision, correct and also as
part of this, then we will process an ordinance amendment to clarify exactly
what the intent is. They agreed that the way the ordinance is written right
I now, it's not clear that they have to have that lot depth. They do have a 100
foot depth as it is stated so they meet the ordinance.
II Councilwoman Dimler: It was my understanding that Council would have input onto
the clarification?
Jo Ann Olsen: Correct.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any discussion?
I Councilman Johnson: I'd like to have the Minutes because I was just getting
back from the airport so I wasn't able to'get here to hear it. I'd like to have
the minutes as quickly as possible. There's a timeframe upon which, I forget
how many days it is before it can be appealed but I'd like to see the minutes
1 first.
Jo Ann Olsen: The ordinance states by either the owner or somebody within 500
Ifeet. I don't know what the past policy has been.
Councilman Johnson: There's something else in there because we can do it too.
II
31
City Council Meeting - Now 'ler 6, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Any citizen can do it.
Councilman Johnson: Any citizen can do it and that's how we've done it in the
past is a member of the council saying we're also a citizen and we are appealing
it.
Mayor Ctmiel: Don, you're shaking your head yes. '
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilman Workman: We don't have the minutes though do we?
Councilman Johnson: No, it just happened at 7:00 tonight. I
Councilman Boyt: They don't take minutes.
Jo Ann Olsen: I write then down. They're not verbatim. I
Councilman Boyt: I would like to see this appealed. As a citizen I %bold
challenge that decision. Minutes or no minutes, I think it's a decision that
bears investigation by the Council as a whole. And personally, I think it's the
wrong way to go about changing an ordinance. If we want to change an ordinance,
we ought to put it through a public hearing and change it. We shouldn't have
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals writing ordinance changes for us. All you
have to do is read the minutes from the first time the Council made this
discussion to see that Barbara Dacy, Roger Knutson and virtually, well that was
the staff that spoke on it at the time, made it real clear how they were
defining that lot depth issue. So to cane back now and say that the City
Attorney and the senior planner did it wrong is and given that was a Council
action, not a Board action, I think the Council ought to review it. If we're
going to change the ordinance, let's change the ordinance. Torn the thing down.
Change the ordinance and do it right. •
Councilwoman Dimler: Well Bill, you're right. The City Council is the only one 1
that can change the ordinance but what the Board can do is act on the
interpretation and that's what we did tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Tian?
Councilman Workman: I don't have any comments.
Mayor Ctmiel: The only thing I went back to Jo Ann was your letter of November
12th of 1987 and in there you indicated, the question was if the Commission
wants to be able to permit the applicant to have a dock on a recreational
beachlot and how can they do it. The Board oy Adjustment and Appeals has the
ability to grant a variance. The better approach would be to amend the
ordinance. I think I agree, we should probably have the public hearing to amend
the ordinance and go fran there.
Jo Ann Olsen: That will still be done. that the Board did tonight was the way
the ordinance is written today, that it still can be interpretted differently.
And they agreed that it was not interpretted correctly.
11
32
City Council Meeting - vember 6, 1989 ^ -- - '
1
' Councilman Boyt: I think that it's amusing that an appointed board can say
that, officially say that the City Council's decision was wrong and that's what
they're saying.
Mawr Chmiel: Everyone has an opinion.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, we didn't say the opinion was wrong. The
' interpretation, the way it was written, it was left open to a different
interpretation. Maybe Elliott could you address that please because you're the
one that gave us that direction.
Elliott Knetsch: I think what the question was, the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals is the• proper board to look at an interpretation of the ordinance that
has been made. Interpretation was made that since the ordinance did not
specifically say lot depth, it was somewhat vague or ambiguous and the applicant
did appeal that interpretation. So the ball was in the court of the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals and they looked at it and because it does not
specifically say lot depth, they felt that since the lot is 100 feet at same
point and at a point close to where the proposed dock would be, that that does
meet the way the ordinance is written. They were not trying to say what the
original intent of the City Council was and I don't think it's their job to say
what the original intent was. They were looking at how the ordinance reads.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's right and now we can, like you say, the Council can
decide the new wording but at this particular time, the way it's worded, the
interpretation could be different from the intent of the former Council.
Councilman Boyt: I'm sorry I got upset about it. There will be plenty of
opportunity to discuss it so.
•
Elliott Knetsch: Certainly it's within your rights as a citizen and a council
' member to bring up the Board of Adjustments and Appeals decision for review by
Council.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well I think the Council does have to handle the new
ordinance wording. That was not the intent of the Board to do that. We didn't
try to do that. What we were doing was interpreting the loopholes so to speak
' that the present wording leaves.
Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Beck, it looks like you want to say something.
' Peter Beck: The only thing I wanted to say was...the Council basn't .ever been
presented with this issue before tonight. They haven't decided... During the
discussions, the last time Mr. Pierce requested a variance and everyone kind of
' agreed the document made sense but they preferred it be allowed by means of an
ordinance a± lent instead so then he requested the ordinance amendment and
there got to be different versions of it. Because there were different versions
' of it, the prior City Council didn't adopt any of than and the result was no
dock. During that discussion on that ordinance amendment, Councilmember Johnson
pointed out that he probably complied but that issue wasn't before the Council
so they didn't really decide on it. All we really did this time was say
I Councilmenber Johnson has a point. Let's present that issue to the City and the
only way we can do that is through the Board to decide if the lot complies and
then the dock can go ahead in with the conditional use permit. It hasn't been
33
City Council Meeting - Nove"-er 6, 1989 r MII
to the Council before. If the Council wants to take it up, by all means they
can. We can do it tonight or any other time.
Mawr Chmiel: What is total lot size?
Peter Beck: It's over 31,000 square feet and 550 some feet of frontage on the
lake. The general consensus I think of all the public bodies has been the dock
isn't, the only question has been how to put it there and really the right
answer was an ordinance amendmment but the prior Council just couldn't get 4
votes for one particular version of the ordinance. We just present this as one
way, fairly simple way to resolve Mr. Pierce's problem so he can go ahead and
sell those lots because the haneowners...and then we couldn't agree more that
the Council should take that opportunity after that to clear up that language in
the ordinance.
Councilwoman Dimler: Does that clarify?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Are we going to have a motion? I
Councilman Workman: I'm not sure I know what Bill's getting at other than the
ordinance, doing something against an ordinance. Do you feel there's something
wrong with this dock?
Councilman Boyt: Well, I think what we're doing here is we're talking about,
we're setting precedent in terms of how we're going to write this, rewrite the
ordinance. And I think rather than set precedence on this one issue, we should
not do that. We should go through a public hearing. lit should give people a
chance who want it, to have input on this and then we should resolve it in a
reasonable fashion. All you have to do is read the Minutes from May 31, 1988 to
see that apparently there's been quite a reversal in the part of our Council's
thinking about what we meant here because Roger Knutson very clearly says, it's
my understanding that they're talking about lot average and he did not have a
100 foot average lot depth. Councilman Johnson says, it doesn't say average lot
depth. Barbara Dacy, that's defined. Roger Knutson, the lot depth is an
average. Now for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to turn around and say
well, they- didn't get it right. I think that's a big decision.
Councilwoman Dimler: Jo Ann, would you address that please? ,
Jo Ann Olsen: As far as the lot depth, it doesn't under the regulations for the
recreational beachlot does not state lot depth.
Councilman Johnson: It just says depth.
Councilman Boyt: I understand that and I don't dispute that. ,
Jo Ann Olsen: I know but that's where the discrepancy lies. I'm the one who
wrote the first report, the variance report and that's how we did define it and
interpret it. I guess you read lot depth or 100 foot depth, when you really
look at it, it doesn't say that.
Councilman Boyt: There's another issue somewhat related to what we're going to
do with the ordinance. I think that a case could be made that this is not a
buildable lot as it sits so it doesn't have, when we came around to discussing
34 1
1
City Council Meeting - Dvember 6, 1989 -- • •
Ithis for an ordinance change, I would suggest that we do not want to create a
situation in which a recreational beachlot is entitled to water rights that
wouldn't be there if that was a private home. And so, I think the issue is more
I complicated than we want to plow into as a Council and make a binding decision
tonight on. And if we overturn, if we go along with the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals, then we have in fact given these people the right to put their dock in
' and said you're grandfathered and then when we look at the ordinance itself, we
no longer have an opportunity to control this.
Councilwoman Dimler: Would you explain why that's not a buildable lot?
Councilman Boyt: It doesn't have the depth.
I - Councilwoman Dimler: For a beachlot?
Councilman Boyt: I'm talking about, can somebody put a private home on that
lot?
Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers. Before Mr. Pierce purchased the
property and subdivided it, this property was part of a larger lot that had the
right to a dock and it had a dock and boats and that's exactly why we limited
our request to only what the property would be allowed if it was still in a
single lot which is the 1 dock and 3 boats. He'd like to have 4 boats because
he's got 4 waterfront or Lake Minnewashta Parkway front lots but I told him
let's keep it at the 3 boats because that's what it always was allowed as a
single family property. Now standing alone, just the portion that is the
beachlot, is you're right, is not buildable as a single family lot because it
'' doesn't have, it couldn't meet setbacks and a number of things wedged between
the parkway and the lake but when it was part of the bigger single family
property that went back to the west of Minnewashta Parkway, it was allowed and
did have a dock.
Councilman Boyt: But as I recall, that dock was removed an8 wasn't replaced
until, it doesn't have a dock now.
Peter Beck: It does not have a dock now, that's right.
Councilman Boyt: And when it was subdivided, it wasn't created as one lot on
two sides of the road, reasonably enough. The ironic thing Mr. Mayor is that
May 31, 1988 I argued for giving Mr. Pierce his dock. I'm just saying now that
' I think the way to do it, as you've indicated, is to change the ordinance and I
don't think given that we're talking about almost 2 years, well a year and a
half later, that the couple of months it's going to take to rewrite the
ordinance is going to be that critical. I'd rather see us do it that way. I
guess I'm through debating.
Councilwoman Dimler: But I think the fact remains that they're here before us
now and we're acting on the ordinance as it's written now. That's all we could
do.
11111 Mayor Ctmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Workman: This dock isn't a permanent dock? It's not going to be
built now right? It's a permanent dock but it won't be built until next spring?
35
city Council Meeting - Nover'eer 6, 1989 _
Peter Beck: It will be a seasonal dock just like any other dock in the
community.
Mayor Chm►iel: Not a boardwalk? •
Peter Beck: No, no. It's not a concrete pylon, no. It will be just a regular -
like any other homeowners dock with roam for 3 boats on it. ..
•
Elliott Rnetsch: Before they put in the dock, they would need to came in for a
conditional use permit and you can see the proposal in more detail at that time.
- Peter Beck: It's not a matter of that it would go in this season of course but I
the subdivision is developing now and has purchase agreements on a couple lots
and they depend on whether there's a dock or not. What kind of a spec house he
builds on the third lot depends on whether there's a dock or not. That's part
of the reason but really the main reason we went this route is because we tried
-everything else. We tried the variance. It was denied because he should get an
ordinance amendment. We tried the ordinance amendment and Council just didn't
click on a version that they liked so really there wasn't much else to do except --- II
to look at what the ordinance said and as staff and the Board said, when you
read it, it appears to allow a dock on a lot like this so that's why we went
this route.
Councilman Boyt: When was the ordinance amendment discussed by the City
Council? I
Peter Beck: That was that May 31 meeting that you were reading to the Minutes?
I'll get my notes.
Councilman Johnson: It's where we argued to get the right wording in there.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. What we did pass there, I knew we passed scything, was I
canoe racks and then discussed at great length this issue about lot depth. I
didn't sense that we turned anything down there. I just throught we passed part
of it. ,
Peter Beck: The ordinance was not amended as recommended by the staff and the
Planning Commission that would allow a dock. That part of the ordinance
amendment was not adopted so the dock still wasn't allowed and still isn't
unless this appeal is upheld.
Councilman Boyt: I guess I don't see in here, the ordinance where there was '
even a suggestion about lot depth in the proposed ordinance.
Peter Beck: There wasn't. It dealt with it in a different way. I'm trying to
remember. I think the staff recommended one approach and I can't remember
exactly what it was but the Planning Commission cane up with a different
approach and I believe that was to include the right-of-way in the lot depth and
the Council had both of these suggestions and, well you can read the Minutes
yourself but the end result was that none of than were adopted that would allow
a dock on this particular beachlot. But in the meantime, nobody had ever really
said that would it be inappropriate to have a dock in this situation. It just
never got to a solution that implemented it.
36
•
I
11 City Ckxricil Meeting - ''umber 6, 1989 _ .
r
y-
11111 Councilman Workman: Peter, can you guys be patient until we got our ordinance
wiencied with the intent that that's the direction we're heading in?
I Peter Beck: You know, you'd have to talk to Bob about that. He's been that
route before but be it with a different Council but it takes 4 votes and I think
it will be easier for the Council to consider it and discuss it without carrying
I the baggage of this particular project along with it. I just think you would
find it an easier task to deal with it on a more city wide scale than in
reference to this particular project.
IICouncilman Johnson: Jo Ann, who was public noticed on this variance?
Jo Ann Olsen: It was in the paper and then all the property owners.
ICouncilman Johnson: There was a Lake Minnewashta Homeowners Association? I
mean they're the ones that were in here yelling about the dock in the first
il place. Were those people, was Jeff Bros informed?
Il Jo Ann Olsen: It was all the same list as before.
IICouncilman Johnson: Did you give us a list in here of who?
Jo Am Olsen: No. It's not in the report.
ICouncilman Johnson: Because I'm surprised that they weren't here. Were they
here for the appeal?
IIJo Am Olsen: No. They were sent a notice. No, they weren't.
Councilman Johnson: Well what exactly was decided by the Board?
IIJo Am Olsen: They agreed that the interpretation using the lot depth
definition was incorrect and that the way it's written could mean that the
recreational beachlot had to have 100 feet in depth and it does have 100 feet in
Idepth.
Councilman Johnson: So they agreed with what I said a year and a half ago but
IIthe rest of the Council didn't agree with me?
Jo Am Olsen: Yeah. That wasn't being discussed at that time. They weren't
Idiscussing the appeal of the interpretation, which is what they did tonight.
Councilman Johnson: Who made the first interpretation?
II 'Jo Am Olsen: Staff did.
4
Councilman Johnson: But than the Council affirmed that when we told him he
II couldn't put in his dock? Now he has to cane before us for a conditional use
permit?
IJo Ann Olsen: Ha would still have to do that.
Mawr Ctmiel: Sure.
II
37
City Council Meeting - Nover-`-ar 6, 1989 ,,
Al
Cbuncilman Johnson: How long does that take?
Jo Ann Olsen: A couple months.
•
Councilman Johnson: So we've got a couple months to change•the ordinance one
way or another. When he canes before us with a conditional use permit, the
ordinance could be different one way or the other. So the time's there?
Peter Beck: But in the meantime if we get into this log jam on the ordinance,
at least he could proceed.
Qxmcilman Johnson: He can advertise his property any way he wants to advertise ,
his property but he does not have a conditional use permit for a dock. If he
wants to advertise his property as having dock rights, you might want to do
that. But when it comes the time he gets his conditional use permit, he better
be ready or the ordinance might be firmed up to say average lot depth at that
point in time and he won't get his conditional use permit. That's a
possibility. Then again, I argued the other way last year. But I'm pointing
out the possibilities. I'm pointing out the possibilities. I'm not pointing
out what I'm going to vote for because I probaby made it pretty clear what I
thought the purpose of the 100 foot was last year. I
Peter Beck: And I think really we are proceeding because it did appear that all
the public bodies didn't think the dock was unreasonable. The real hang-up was
how do you accomplish it. The Planning Commission has recommended it a couple
times. The Board of Adjustments and the City Council discussion, it wasn't
really an issue that they didn't think a dock should be on this 31,000 square
foot beachlot. It was only, how do you amend the ordinance to accomplish that
and it didn't agree on an amendment.
C uncilman Johnson: I think what really happened was we never got around to
really getting at that issue. The issue just kind of.
Peter Beck: The 100 feet?
Councilman Johnson: The 100 feet issue.
Peter Beck: Absolutely. That's why we brought it up tonight. You brought it
up but it wasn't really decided.
Councilman Johnson: At that point it wasn't. They didn't want to talk about
the racks and not the...
•
Peter Beck: That's why we brought this request to focus people on that as a
clean way to resolve this particular piece of property and recognizing you would
probably want to go ahead...
Councilman Johnson: If you looked at the development pressure that was on staff
at that time, the amount of work they were doing and our consistent 1:00 in the
morning meetings that we were having, you can tell why something like lot depth
change on this ordinance slipped through the perverbial crack. I think that's
probably enough for this issue. We can go on and if anybody wants to appeal it,
they've got their 5 or 10 days, whatever it is to appeal it.
l
38
IICity Council Meeting - mSvember 6, 1989
R-
' Councilman Boyt: I intend to appeal it. I already have indicated my intention
II to do that.
Elliott Knetsch: It's 10 days. Filed with the zoning adminstrator.
ICouncilman Boyt: Can I borrow a piece of paper and I'll make it easy.
Elliott Knetsch: It doesn't say written notice so.
1 Councilman Johnson: So the zoning adminstrator is here tonight and Bill has
said he's doing it so it's filed with the zoning adminstrator. That will be put
on a future council agenda.
1 Councilman Workman: So we don't have anything to do? No motion?
IIMayor C oriel: I don't see any.
Councilman Boyt: If you guys want to vote on this, you're welcome to vote on it
tonight.
1 Councilman Johnson: I'd rather wait.
I Councilman Boyt: But I'm just saying that I want the Council to vote on it
and I'd really like the Council to do an ordinance amendment process. I think
we've got the couple months to do that.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: We're going to do the ordinance amendment if possible.
Councilman Boyt: Well we should turn this down and do it through an ordinance
1 amendment.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think there was any affect on this because he still
1 has to come in for a conditional use permit.
Councilman Boyt: Can't turn it down Jay.
1 Councilman Johnson: idly not?
Councilman Boyt: If we agree with the appeal, he's got the right to a dock and
II we can tell him maybe something about the conditions of putting it in but we're
not in a position to turn it down.
1 Councilman Johnson: Okay. .
Councilman Boyt: Okay? We support the Staff and Council's previous position
and deny the appeal. Now we consider a zoning ordinance. We change the zoning
Iordinance.
Councilwoman Dimler: But this staff had a different position this time Bill.
1 Councilman Boyt: Sure. I read the report.
IICouncilwoman Dimler: They were in support of approval.
1 39
1 .
City Council Meeting - Nove►her 6, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm looking at either entertaining a motion or go on your
intervention portion for the 10 days and appeal that accordingly.
Councilwanan Dimler: You mean uphold the position of the board now and Bill can
still appeal.
Mayor Ctmiel: If you uphold the position of the Board. '
Councilwanan Dimler: He can still appeal it.
Don Ashworth: No. '
Councilman Boyt: I don't think so.
Councilman Johnson: Once the Council votes on it, he can't appeal it.
Councilwanan Dimler: I thought you said any citizen has 10 days to cane in. II
Councilman Johnson: That's because the Council's been doing it wrong for a --
number of years. I argued this point 2 years ago with the prior Council. We
cannot hear the appeal the night of the Board's decision. We have to wait to
the next Council meeting as far as I'm concerned. We should not be affirming or
denying the Board's position at the same night that the Board hears it because
that's the way it was done when we were a township and it's always been the way
it's been done. That was another interpretation of the ordinance that when I
came on the Council I said I didn't agree with the interpretation. I think that
we should get the Board's Minutes before we decide. I'm not going to decide on
what the Board said when I wasn't there and I don't have the Minutes of the
meeting or anything. I have nothing in front of me to confirm or deny. How can
I do that? Was I there to listen to you? No, I was on an airplane.
Councilwoman Dimler: You're not going to get verbatim Minutes anyway.
Councilman Johnson: I'm going to get same kind of Minutes. The official
Minutes.
Councilwoman Dimler: But I will tell you what the motion was if you want to
know what it was.
Councilman Johnson: No. I want the official Minutes approved by you as a
member of the Board. You approve your Minutes every time. Then I'll hear this. I
•
Councilor znan Dimler: Elliott, what do we do?
Councilman Johnson: What's the hurry? • ,
. Elliott Rnetsch: Briefly I think, to summarize what your options are, number 1,
you could tonight vote to affirm, reverse or modify the Board of Appeals
decision now that an appeal has been filed. Oar, you could wait to a subsequent
Council meeting to have a hearing on the appeal at which time you will vote to
affirm, reverse or modify the Board's decision.
Councilman Johnson: You see somebody else can appeal tomorrow?
I
40
IICity Council Meeting ,ovember 6, 1989 ) - r
f
Elliott Knetsch: That's correct.
I Councilman Johnson: It doesn't make sense for us to 'affirm an opinion before
the 10 days has expired. We'll just have to do it again in 10 days.
Elliott Knetsch: I think the purpose of waiting to a subsequent meeting would
II be so that others who may feel aggrieved by the decision would have a chance to
come to the hearing and present their ideas. We already know that there is an
appeal filed so there will be Council action either affirming or reversing the
Idecision.
Counci]nan Johnson: What's the hurry?
IICouncilman Boyt: Well, let's decide something.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't see any.
ICouncilman Johnson: I move we just close the discussion and move onto item 8.
1 Mayor Chmiel: I guess we could.
Councilman Boyt: Whatever you want to do.
II Mayor Chniel: ' I'm sort of twisted inbetween here. I can understand the
position of the applicant as well. Wanting to proceed with his lots but on the
other hand, I also feel that we should review and charge the ordinance as per se
I and go through that process I think of a public hearing aspect and getting the
input from the other people within the community.
I Councilwoman Dimler: I agree 100%. My only point is that they are before us
now. The only ordinance we have right now is the one that we have interpretted.
More loosely perhaps than the intent was but that was the decision of the Board
and that was the right of the Board to make that decision. Now, when Council
I goes back, and they should have the benefit of the timing here that they're here
before us. That's my argument. When Council gets together now and we interpret
the wording any way we want to. We can change it. We can leave it the same or
I we can make it looser or whatever we do with it, they would no longer be
affected by that because the benefit of the timing that they're before us now,
that's the ordinance and the interpretation that we're using.
ICouncilman Workman: One question. Bow is that to our advantage? .
Councilwoman Dialer: It isn't. But are we always here to benefit ourselves or
I do we want to benefit our citizens?
t
Councilman Workman: I think when I say us, I mean...
ICouncilman Johnson: The citizens he's talking about.
Councilman Workman: I agree with Jay on that. I think we can wait and finish
I this up in January and then we can do it.
Councilman Johnson: See if there are any other appeals filed.
II
41
II
City Council Meeting - Nove her 6, 1989
Councilman w rkman: I'm not worried about that. I'm just saying, let's get...
- Mayor C niel: Okay, proper action for this would be?
Elliott I6ietsch: Zb schedule the appeal hearing for a subsequent council
meeting.
Mawr Chmiel: Okay. '
Councilman Boyt: I would ask that staff begin pursuing the ordinance change
along the lines of the discussion we've had tonight. Start that at the Planning
Commission at the next agenda and see if we can't make progress on this thing.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't know if staff can go ahead because they don't know
what our, my intent is not to have it uniformally 100 feet. I don't know how
everybody else feels. I mean we don't have a consensus on that.
Councilman Johnson: We can take a straw poll right now. I believe at the point I
the dock is at you should have at least 100 feet.
Councilwoman Dimler: But not uniformally throughout? I
Councilman Johnson: Or even the average.
Councilwoman Dimler: ...lots are just not that perfect. '
Councilman Johnson: No. I don't think the average should be in there. I think
at the point that the dock is at, you should have at least 100 feet at that
point.
Councilwoman Dimler: And they would meet that. They could meet that. I
" Councilman Johnson: They could meet that by putting the dock in.the proper
position. That's my opinion. '
Councilwoman Dimler: And I agree with you.
Councilman Johnson: Well that's 2. It takes 4. 3. '
Councilman Boyt: I want public input. This is one of the most contested
ordinances in our city. '
Councilman Johnson: I agree. • • •
Councilwoman Dimler: That's because we make it so. 1
Councilman Johnson: No.
Councilman Boyt: We're granting rights to a beachlot that we don't now grant to ,
a single family residential lot on a lake so I'm just saying, what we've talked
about, I think you can draft something. If nothing else, start where you ended
up last time and let's get this thing in the hopper and see what comes out.
1
42
I
- f
City Council Meeting - November 6, 1989 re-
II
III Councilman Johnson: I think we have 3 out of 5 members of the Council saying
that at the point of the dock we need 100 foot. Bring that forward to
the Planning Commission.
IMayor Orii.el: I guess that's basically where we're at.
Councilman Boyt: Sure. That's sensible.
I Councilman Johnson: So there's some kind of direction at the end of this.
I move we put the appeal on the next Council agenda.
IMayor Qmiel: Is there a second to that?
Councilman Boyt: You can't do that. I would prefer you not do that. I can
II tell you, I'm going to be out of town on the 20th. You can hold that over until
the next meeting in December or I can wait 10 days to file my appeal.
Councilman Johnson; I'm going to be out of town on the 20th too but I'm flying
Iback for the meeting.
Councilman Boyt: I'm impressed.
ICouncilman Johnson: Just because the schedule worked that way. I only have to
be there until noon.
IMayor Chmiel: I'd just like to keep this moving.
Councilman Boyt: Well I would like to keep it moving. Let's do the ordinance
II amendment. That thing in a month and a half will be up here in front of us and
we can straighten it out and get it done.
•
Jo Ann Olsen: So you don't want me to continue the appeal?
ICouncilman Boyt: Well yeah. You have to continue the appeal. I'd prefer you
to do it to the first meeting in December.
IIElliott Knetsch: The action of the Board of Adjustments is vacated pending the
outcome of this appeal. The City Council will have the final decision now.
IMayor C2miel: That's right. -
Councilman Johnson: Then I'll move that the appeal is heard the first meeting
I
in December.
•
Councilman Boyt: Second.
II
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to place the appeal hearing
I for the interpretation of Zoning Ordinance requirements of 100 foot lot depth
for a dock on a recreational beachlot until the first City Council meeting in
December. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II
I43
I.
I 1
j-•'Y: - ft. ;•o. ^7+,:, 4' :<..P. t Y.4" ..,•,. ._ r;f.3,C..'en.a•..<.. •!•<' r. 7• "t ':''
Y'`'\�:�Y�•y„-=qtr=�� ]-Ca S tYi��4 UII! 9♦ r�j��= a �'� �■ •�. ��. s ;a;l`n�iiL �4qi■3.<� 1Y, IP°°'Y ��d�i!; 1:-r��i�r/ J��' "r.,�a� � �.3
'Pt ,,r4k.:110, -, 4 Mir rallsri•
PI 0:A;Z::::4; i:' .. .- - . .., /40, .t.% Fri _� ,�- :.�i ='Cz•.1t o
tin iaiimV {; I�- Uf!ur 11.174' , „� , a<1'—mow.■ 1
Vit.If• �� A_ .,=e_.•
l,"� '..\•,.....---i i. �� r+-
: ,,-T-- _; . Et iii• ,. :
,,,o ri-g*,,a 1 0 ,go i
mim`,L.......rim......- eirielV-- 110;;•.z,6
..,:•41,,,e, ". 41111 IOW 'rilibbNUM - Ot4
Y /�/
III
-..--i--n_ni— ' : r redIllk. Li
1 I 1 i '40.\- It # - -/.11,T1-- ' I
II i 1 i "";1111%.,,,VPP"----\,, -_i .
CITY iI!tJi nil
i 4
CHANHASSEN '
BASE AMP
POr 1 a.L mil'' ...— 1 a rNlpll� l.06,5 •■I
bEFC.+-i 1-01- ,� �..or�. ��N�� lIIII����I�1� 1�' �. 5
■ _�
...._.
PIIMMID puNMSSDI ENGI EERW6 DEPT ____
N.; I .��1�7� =rim �.. Pill:7
• ..� 1
�_� . 6
I ow-
1
• f' /
—"— a 111 EK11 f 111111 .1.- 1 1111111 I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 - Page 17
think people would have good arguments that they're listed separately under
the definition of structure. I 'm moving a shed but not a building and so
tough luck.
' Emmings: Is there a definition under building?
Batzli: No. Not building by itself. Any other kind of building that you
want except building by itself.
' Conrad: Okay. Any other comments? Would it be wise to table this and
bring it back? Any rush to get this through to City Council?
Krauss : No. Jo Ann and I have been spending time trying to get things
together for the spring rush and I think holding it over a meeting is not
' going to hurt that. We don' t have real big agendas coming up so that will
be fine.
' Conrad : I think because we asked you to change enough words in enough
sections that it probably makes sense. I think if you gave us a real, I
don't think it's going to clog the next agenda. It should race through
here. Give us one final chance to take a look at it. Is there a motion to
table this?
Emmings: So moved.
' Ellson: And I 'll second it.
11 Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
amend the City Code, Division 6, Site Plan Review to revise the procedures,
expand on development standards and require financial guarantees for
' landscaping and other site improvements so staff can make the modifications
outlined by the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE TO MODIFY THE
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENTS.
' Public Present:
Name Address
Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive
Ray Roettger 3221 Dartmouth Drive
' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the item. Chairman Conrad call
the public hearing to order.
Planning Commission Meeting
1
December 6, 1989 - Page 18
Conrad: Okay, thanks Jo Ann. It is a public hearing so we' ll open it up I
for public comments.
Mary Jo Moore. Good evening. My name is Mary Jo Moore. I live at 3231
Dartmouth Drive which is lakeshore property on Lake Minnewashta. I did
submit a letter to Ursula Dimler that I asked that she pass on. Did she
pass it on?
Conrad: She didn't pass the letter on but she did call me.
Mary Jo Moore: Okay. '
Conrad: But it's good to go through what you said in your letter because I
don't think anybody else has heard it.
Mary Jo Moore: Well it was a 4 page letter. I have it in my purse if
you'd like.
Conrad: It would be real good, if it had gone to city staff they would '
have included it in our packets but because. . .
Ellson: But Ursula did contact you and give you the context? 1
Conrad: Tried to over the phone and it's not easy to do a 4 pager over the
phone. But anyway I think it's real wise that the City get a copy of your II
letter by the time this gets to City Council. Jo Ann, do you have a copy
of the letter? So make sure that she gets it.
Mary Jo Moore: That Jo Ann gets it? Okay. At any rate, the basis of the II
letter, without going through the whole 4 pages, I live between two
lakeshore associations one of which I 'm a member. I 'm considered an
onshore member. I do not use the property. I do pay dues on it for
maintenance and insurance and that sort of thing. As even a dues paying
member, I have difficulty enforcing the provisions of the association, i.e.
let's clean up the docks. They're falling down. Let's fix them. Let's •
clean up the property. You can't enforce these things. The people that
are using this lake property are not looking at it. They're going and
they're jumping in their boat and they're taking off and if they can have a '
post that's sturdy enough to tie their boat to, that's all their concerned
with. They don't clean the beach. The other association which is a 30
foot lakefront property is onto the east of me. It's inbetween Ray and me
and there's this 30 foot section of beach that is a disaster. Ray keeps
his property cleaned up. I keep my property cleaned up. This section is a II
disaster.
Emmings: Is that the Shores?
Mary Jo Moore: That's Sterling Estates is to the east of me and I have
Minnewashta Shores west of me so I'm inbetween these two, member of one.
One thing that also rather upsets me was that this Pierce property, I
wasn't aware of it. I try to follow what's going on in this city. I'm
working full time though. I can't show up every evening that something is ,
going on. I was not notified. Ray was not notified. But I did notice in
I
11 Planning Commission Met—ing
December 6, 1989 - Page 19
I
the paper that a public hearing was going to be held on November 13th. Ray
' and I showed up for the public hearing and found out that it was in fact
held on November 6th, one week earlier without any rescinding notice in the
Villager or any notice to the residents of the lake. I guess I won't get
' into the Pierce property since that isn' t the subject of this issue. I've
read through the proposal and in the analysis that has come through, we're
equating private property, the DNR regulations for private property to a
recreational beachlot that is for the benefit of how many people? In the
' Pierce case it's 15 residents. I don' t think you can take a 50 x 10 foot
piece of property that's for a private residence, who is restricted I might
add, to 3 boats. They must be in their names. I mean we have more
' regulations on the lake than these recreational beachlots. You're taking
and equating this DNR regulation to a beachlot. I don' t think, that
doesn't make sense to me because there's too many people. Another thing is
a sand beachlot is generally speaking a swimming beach area. That's not
someplace where you're going to stick a dock. It's unsafe. You have
swimmers in and out of the dock so I don' t see any correlation between this
DNR regulation and the beachlot. I also feel that the 100 foot depth, I've
been involved in this since day one. Since they started the surveys on the
lake and were investigating it. This was to preclude developers coming in,
buying there' s an awful lot of farmland around that's in many acres. They
buy it up and they stick one little lot on the lake that everybody gets to
' use and then they develop around it and it creates a mess. As is stated in
here in the analysis, the City has no control over these associations. I
as a member of one association have no impact so the developer walks away.
' He's done his bit. He' s sold his property. He goes. The residents there
then do whatever they want to do and it's the other neighboring people that
have to try to control this and it has created disaster in my instance.
' I've tried to work with neighbors regarding the Sterling Estates. Asked
them to get together and I 'm not part of their association, to work things
out. They won' t do it because they're all afraid they're going to lose
their little access so they won' t even talk to one another. What else in
' here? At any rate, I think there should be more teeth put into the
ordinance where the City does have control over the associations and their
regulations as opposed to eliminating that section entirely. Again, I
' think the 100 foot, it should be a minimum 100 foot depth at any one point.
I as a lakeshore owner, if I bought a piece of property and I was going to
build , I'm required to build back 75 feet from the ordinary high water
' mark. That doesn't mean one corner of my property has to be 75 feet back
but the rest of it can angle into the lake. It's a minimum 75 and from
that point back. With the Pierce property, we have taken city property.
The city right-of-way for the road and added that into their depth. It
' just, that is not 100 feet there and I think that it's a definite
requirement that we have to have specific minimum widths and lengths. As
far as the docks, the proposed recommended language here, you say a dock
' every 200 feet. Does that mean 200 feet, here's a dock? 200 feet here's a
dock. 200 feet here's a dock or are they altogether and how many boats can
be moored on each one of these docks? I think there's an awful lot of
' clean up would have to be done to the recommended language and again, I
don' t think 20-263 should be deleted. I think it should be expanded so the
City has more control over the association rules. And of course, as you
can probably tell , I'd just as soon eliminate beachlots altogether. That's
11 all I have to say. Thank you.
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 - Page 20 1
Ray I've about
Ra, Roettger: I ve talked abo .�t th�.s before. The name is Ray Roettger. I
live next to Mary Jo Moore. 3221 Dartmouth Drive. I think a couple of
types of property would come into mind. One would be a crescent shaped,
half moon lot that could be just like a crescent and you could say, you
could measure along the periphery of that on a curve and come up with 100
feet. I think you have to define it a little bit more. Another one would II
be kind of a triangular piece such as the outlot is between Mary Jo and
myself which tends to expand 30 feet wide and then tends to expand a little
bit. Like Joe Boyer said, there are 60 feet out there. Well , 60 feet out
in the lake someplace but people I guess don't quite mechanically •
understand how some of these things develop. Mary Jo was wrong on one
point. I really am the caretaker of that piece of property between and
I spend several days picking and pulling up purple loosestrife which had
developed but try as I may to try to get some help, they use it and walk
away. I don' t think anybody's ever picked up a beer can. The south facing
lot is going to pick up all this stuff sooner or later. They just don't do
it and I think there should be something that someone could do to say hey,
let's straighten up the docks, clean up the property, you know impose some
restrictions on them. I think any concession along that line of a
beachlot, you should have some teeth in it like Mary Jo says in case it 1
gets too bad but the property she's referring to was beautiful . They rip
rapped it. They dredged it. Put up docks. Everything's straight and then
one year they just leaned over and they've been that way for 4 or. 5 years. II
I mean it's terrible and I don't understand why they don't clean it up.
Conrad: Paul, what is the solution for a problem like that?
Olsen: Not cleaning it up?
Conrad: Yeah. Is it a nuisance? Is it a public nuisance? Call the City "
and say it's not being kept up?
Olsen: With weeds and things like that? Yeah. That's just like any other
lot. It could be. How far we'd get with that I'm not sure but we could do '
it as a nuisance.
Elison: Things like beer cans and stuff like that, that could get into the II
water and that would be some good reason. . .pull the loosestrife, that might
be a little hard to try to weasle in.
Olsen: We do with obnoxious weeds though. 1
Conrad: Is the homeowners association registered?
Olsen: I don't know if they're all registered but a lot of them don't,
we're not up to date with who's the president. A lot of times we try to
keep up with that but even a lot of the members don't know who the
president is or who to contact.
Conrad: Yeah, it's real informal.
1
Planning Commission Me.._ing
December 6, 1989 - Page 21
Mary Jo Moore: Sterling Estates, that isn' t even organized into an
association. We have deeded rights to this piece of property. . .
Batzli : So if you were to notify them, what would you do? Send a
' registered letter to every person?
Conrad: And then basically would say if nothing is done within 30 days,
the City would undertake the clean-up and charge it back to the individual .
Ray Roettger : See the danger kind of is, I'm part of the problem because
I also own part of that outlot. If I don't clean it up, but everybody just
sits back and. . .
Emmings: Let's you do it.
Ray Roettger: Cut the grass and clean it up and everything else. The real
problem is, you suddenly become the enemy of all the other people because
if you say something , then old man Joe Boyer. . .tells me I 'm selfish. You
' know, how do you handle it. It's kind of like take it away but I think by
the way, Mary Jo brought up a point when she said the depth, does it
include the right-of-way or does it not?
' Olsen: Now what we' re proposing.
Ray Roettger: So it's all part of the property.
Mary Jo Moore: The one point. . .
Ray Roettger : The 100 foot depth, is that perpendicular to the. . .
Conrad: Basically yes, except for where the dock goes.
' Olsen: These are both 100 feet, or even more than 100 feet basically. . .
' Ray Roettger: I asked a question of the dock as proposed there, it looks
like it's made to accommodate 3 boats but actually could handle 7.
Olsen: That is a whole different process. They still have to go through
the whole conditional use which is another. . .
Ray Roettger: Are they restricted to 3 boats?
' Olsen: If they have enough area, you have to have intially 30,000 and then
an additional 20,000 and then you have to add the 200 foot of lake frontage
or additional 200 feet to have more docks. Right now they are only, again
I we're not reviewing that right now but they're only proposing one dock with
3 boats.
' Mary Jo Moore: I can put up a dock on my property and I can have 10 boats
on it.
Olsen: You're limited to 5 I think.
1 •
Planning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 - Page 22
Mary Jo Moore: I mean you could potentially with 1 dock have as many boats
as you want.
Conrad: But it's restricted.
Emmings: You'd be breaking the law. You could do it but you'd be breaking"
the law.
Conrad: Absolutely. Absolutely. There is a limit and now it's escaped mel
because, is it 5 absolute?
Emmings: No, it's 3. '
Conrad: It's 3 for an individual property but for a beachlot, I think we
have granted up to geez, I don't know, 6 per dock. I
Olsen: For a recreational beachlot there's a maximum of 9 overnight boats.
Conrad: So there is an absolute. And I think that's pretty well taken
care of. We beat that one up a whole lot. I'm not real interested in
going back through it. It makes sense based on size restrictions and what
have you. It does make some kind of sense. 11
Ray Roettger: On the Pierce property, are there 10 lots or 12 lots or how
many? '
Olsen: I think there was like 15. The number has escaped me but it's more
than 10. But they have been saying just three of the lots along Lake
Minnewashta would have rights. Again, that' s something that will be
reviewed.
Ray Roettger : Can you accommodate. . .with the approval? I
Olsen: You could make that a condition of what lots they have. . .
Ray Roettger: Well , I guess that would be my suggestion you know to put a I
number.
Olsen: As far as the boats and I don't know whether we'd put a restriction I
on who could use it.
Ray Roettger: No, but the number. Is there a possibility of doing that? I
Conrad: That's a different issue than we have tonight.
Emmings: I'm not sure, we're kind of talking cross purposes here. I don't "
know if you folks understand that this is not the whole beachlot ordinance
by any means and that there are other sections of the beachlot ordinance
that regulate the number of boats and all kinds of other things. '
Mary Jo Moore: I realize that.
Emmings: I didn't know if you did. 1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
December 6, 1989 - Page 23
i
' Mary Jo Moore: But I think these measurements, when the ordinance was
adopted and passed, these measurements were considerably. . .
' Ray Roettger : Why else would they put the 100 feet in?
Conrad: For several reasons. The 100 is there to buffer it. The 100 is
a buffering mechanism and in the case that we sent to the City Council ,
' which they haven't acted on, the street became part of the buffer so we
felt pretty comfortable. Again, you've got to make sure, the key premise
here of the beachlot is to buffer the surrounding neighbors. If we feel
' that that's done, I don't care if it's, 100 is arbitrary. It could be 98.
It could be 110. It could be a driveway. It could be a hill. It could be
a street. I don' t care what. I want a buffer there so in the cases where
you have a street that acts like a buffer that keeps it from the neighbors,
' that's fine. So the 100 in my mind is just arbitrary. If there's a buffer
there, that's the bottom line so I 'm not convinced that 100 feet, I 'm
telling you where I 'm at on this but that's the rationale for the 100 was
buffering. The other part of the rationale was enough area for those
people who use it to recreate so that it wasn' t uncomfortable for them. So
the developer doesn't go out and oversell the property and say everybody
' owns it. They get there and you pack 300 people on a postage stamp. But
that's taken care of with some of the 20,000 square foot minimums and the
30. There are some other things stuck in there, the 4 foot per person
which the staff is recommending taking out. That was intended to take care
' of those issues and I may have some concerns with the staff' s perspective
on that because that doesn't solve some of the real intent of the ordinance
so I guess that' s the background to that 100 feet that I know of and it's
' the logic that makes sense to me and I want to carry that logic out in
however we modify the ordinance that we have tonight.
Ray Roettger : Yes, your ordinance is for now and in the future but that's
precisely the problem we have. With all these lots and everybody wants to
put a boat down there. Years ago we fought it.
' Conrad: The ordinance does take care of the quantity of boats. It still
is going to be a problem for you. Most of the time it becomes a problem
for the beachlot people themselves because usually if there's 20 lots, only
' 6 people or 3 people have docking rights. Then some people leave them
there overnight and then it becomes a problem of patrolling themselves so
there are some problems. Any other public comments? Is there a motion to
close the public hearing?
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
' favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: From what I see the object of this discussion tonight is simply to
alter the ordinance to make it absolutely clear what's allowed and what's
not allowed so there's nothing subjective to it. There can be no
interpretation because this is probably the single thing in this city where
everybody wants to try to fit their little lot into somehow meet the
ordinance and so apparently we've got a phrase in here that's vague. So
I
Planning Commission Mee_Ang
December 6, 1989 - Page 24
what you're trying to do is clarify it, correct?
Olsen: Correct.
Erhart: That's the purpose of this whole discussion? ,
Olsen: The whole purpose.
Erhart: And so, if you feel that this does that, without getting into a
big discussion of what any of these dimensions, whether they're right or
wrong, I'm all in support of clarifying it. I don't think you'd ever come
to a conclusion on what the right sized lots are. I'm sure this same I
argument will go on for years and years. So if that's what the purpose is,
then I would go to the recommendation that you have and the wording and
suggest that that part of the sentence where it says measured both at the
ordinary high water mark and, is really redundant I believe in that if you
have 200 foot lake frontage, obviously it's going to be at least 50 foot
wide at the high water mark. That may be an incorrect. . .
Olsen: But now with the depth of 100 feet.
Erhart: I'm not suggesting you take that out. I'm suggesting that it just II
simply read , no dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless
it's at least 200 feet lake frontage and a width at any point 100 feet
landward from the ordinary high water mark of not less than 50 feet. I
don't think you need that phrase where it says measured both at the
ordinary high water mark and at a point 100 feet in. I think it's just a
little cleaner.
Krauss : I think the only reason we did that is because at the City
Council, I forget who it was. Somebody suggested that they wanted to avoid
a situation where you had a narrow penninsula going out that met that
measurement at one point but otherwise was only 10 feet wide and should
this little pimple of property or whatever, allow them to have, to satisfy
the requirement for the dock.
Erhart: So you're saying you measured the lake frontage essentially you
follow the actual contour of the shoreline?
Olsen: Right. The way that this is written requires you to have that 50 1
feet and 100. I don't know if you take out those words how, I'm trying to
read it the way you're doing it.
Erhart: All I 'm saying, it already reads you've got to have a
9 g 200 feet t
the lake front and that's already there in the first phrase.
Olsen: We're saying you have to have a 200 foot wide piece that has a 100 II
foot depth. You could still have that 200 foot lake frontage but not
necessarily 100 foot.
Erhart: How could you have 200 foot, maybe Paul can describe that but I
was wondering how can you have a 200 foot lake frontage and not have 50
feet at the ordinary high water mark? r
I
Planning Commission Me ing
December 6, 1989 - Page 25
I
' Emmings: You can' t.
Olsen: See you're got over 500 feet of lake frontage but you don' t have a
depth of 100 feet for 50 feet for the whole thing. What we're doing is
requiring that for an area. You have a 50 foot width that has a 100 feet.
Erhart: I'm not saying you take out the 50 feet at the 100 foot in. I 'm
just saying if you remove the phrase the 50 feet at the ordinary high water
mark, you've essentially got that with the 200 feet frontage requirement.
Olsen: But I think it still needs that.
Krauss: In it's most extreme case though, you could have something that
met the frontage requirement that was only 3 feet deep or something like
that.
Erhart: That measured linearly?
' Krauss: Right. And then extends out into the water 100 feet but it' s only
2 feet wide when it gets to that point. Frankly Tim it wasn't particularly
' our issue but we were trying to anticipate what the Council directive was.
Erhart: That was the only point. Again, if this makes it unargueable,
then fine. I think it's just fine.
' Emmings: I think the language is real confusing. I think I understand
what they're saying but I think the language is real confusing. I'm not
sure that right off the bat that the ordinance needs to be changed but if
we try to work with it, I 'd like to propose a couple of alternatives maybe
just for discussion if nothing else. I think what really makes this
confusing is when you say at a point 100 feet landward you've got to have a
width of 50 feet. You can' t have a width at a point. I think that really
screws you up so I think one thing you could do there would be to say, I'd
be inclined to write this as follows. I would say no dock shall be
permitted on any recreational beachlot unless it has at least 200 feet of
lake frontage and a minimum of 30,000 square feet in area. I'd start
there. Pulling that up from down below. Period. Then I'd say in
addition, there must be an area 50 feet in width at the high water mark and
50 feet in width along a line 100 feet landward of the high water mark.
Something like that. Define that area but define it in terms of put that
as an additional. I don't think that quite does it because you want to
make sure it lines up but I think we could, if we work on it for a minute,
I think we could come up with some language. Then I'd say that you can't
have, go right on where you are. No more than 1 dock may be erected on a
recreational beachlot for each 200 feet of lake frontage and if any
additional , there shall be an area requirement of an additional 20,000
square feet for each additional dock. Put those 2 ideas together. I
think it would help clean it up but the only thing, then a second approach.
That would be my first choice. My second choice would be that we kind of
take Ladd's idea and say that we won' t allow any docks on a recreational
beachlot unless it has 200 feet of lake frontage, 30,000 square feet
minimum area and a buffer from neighboring landowners. Now the problem's
1
Planning Commission Meecing
I
December 6, 1989 - Page 26
going to be defining that buffer and we could say something like, this
buffer may consist of topography, streets, or the depth of the property
itself. So they meet this requirement, this kind of a requirement and then
that's a form of a buffer but the buffer might be other things. Then we
just have to do it on a case by case basis after that. But that might do all
better job of getting at the intent. Now this particular one, the Pierce
one, which I look at from my house, I know it when I drive by there pretty
often and it's not only buffered from. First of all, the properties behind
it are the people that are using it. From back there it's buffered not
only by the road but by topography because the land drops down so much and
really when you're up on that road, it's tough to see down there. I don' t II
find this one bit offensive. I don't find it offensive looking at it from
the lakeside either. However, Minnewashta Heights I'd have some comments
about and the Shores and Sterling Estates but that's a policing problem
that will never solve. It's just beyond hope I think and Lake Minnewashta
unfortunately is blessed with a great number of these.
Mary Jo Moore: Put a little bit more teeth in the ordinance. But I think II
the ordinance also. . .it wasn't just a buffer from the neighbors, it was to
restrict lake useage. I mean that' s one of the reasons, in fact it was
called I think a lake useage ordinance. . . .
Emmings: I don't know they thought they'd restrict lake useage by putting
in beachlots.
Mary Jo Moore: You don' t dump 20 families that aren't living on the lake I
with 20 boats into the water with a 50 foot piece of property.
Emmings: That's what a beachlot does. I
Mary Jo Moore: Yes, and that's why they put in the restrictions in passing
the ordinance to prevent. . . •
Emmings: The other thing about the beachlots on Minnewashta, they've
clearly grown. The intensity of the use has grown in the 6 years I've been
out on the lake. There are more boats on them now than there ever have
been but this stuff is just impossible to police. It's not impossible. It
just would exhaust the City's resources. But anyway, that would be the
second approach that I'd suggest. I'd do one or the other and I think it
would maybe help make more sense. I feel like the whole thing is pretty
arbitrary. I'm pretty much for, I guess if I had to make a decision
tonight, I'd say there ought to be a minimum of 100 feet along the whole
thing. There shouldn't be any point at which is less than 100 feet from
the ordinary high water mark. That would be my basic position except
when I try to apply that to this property, it doesn't make sense to me. I II
think a beachlot on this property is fine. I don't think that land has any
other use than for this and I don't think, I think the use that they're
proposing is not very intense. If it's used the way they're saying it will
be used, I don't think it's going to be a detriment to the lake so I t
guess I 'd like some flexibility in here so that when we have a proposal
like this that seems reasonable, we could approve it without applying a
hard rule that there's got to be 100 feet in depth everywhere. I know
there are properties to the south of this one that don't have all the
1
Plannin g Commission Meec:ng
December 6, 1989 - Page 27
' depth. They're also up, their elevation is up closer to the road so they
don't have the screening that this one does by topography. One is Dave
Headla and other neighbors of his to the south and I can well imagine that
once they decide to subdivide their properties, they' re going to want
beachlots down there too because it's going to make a hell of a difference
in the value of their property. Those I don't think should be approved.
Those I'd be opposed to because they're narrower along the lake. They
11 don't have the frontage and they don't have the buffer. This one I 'm not
opposed to.
11 Mary Jo Moore: If you change the ordinance so it's 100 feet to 50 feet,
then this property wouldn' t have 100 feet and I know he's got at least 200.
Emmings: No. You're misunderstanding what's here. You've got to have 200
feet on the lake.
Mary Jo Moore: . . .
Emmings: I don't know. If he does, then he's got a right to come in and
ask for a beachlot but we' re saying there's got to be 200 feet. We're not
changing that to 50 feet. We're just changing the area that has to be 100
feet deep. Of that 200 feet, only 50 feet has to be 100 feet deep. You
understand? 50 feet in width has to be 100 feet deep.
Olsen: Your second recommendation, that's something I was looking at
because that really is the intent. You just have it buffered and that
separation but then I had a difficult time because when we talk about the
buffering , we usually, we are talking about the separation of the street
but then you've got adjacent properties. I was having a hard time
defining. How are you going to buffer or define so you don' t mean this but
you mean this or do you mean this?
Conrad: Yeah, you do mean the sides too. And that's why you don't like. . .
1 Olsen: So this doesn't really apply to that.
Emmings: Maybe you have to have a sideyard setback type of thing.
Olsen: We have a dock setback. . .so if that was applied to this, then we
wouldn't, when they come through the conditional use permit, we would say
' you have to put in a fence or screening.
Conrad: But see to the north or to the northeast of that red area, what is
that Jo Ann? Just out of curiousity.
Olsen: It's another strip like this that's owned by a house. Is that
you?
Emmings: No. It's not been subdivided. It's just somebody there in the
house.
' Conrad: Based on what I would apply as the intent, I would have a real
tough time putting the dock right there right next to a private residence.
11
Planning Commission Me ing
r I
December 6, 1989 - Page 28
The long term intent is to cluster use. The short term intent however is II
the fact there is a private landowner over there and we're putting a dock
and all the useage right next to that. I find that unacceptable even
though it's better in the long run, it would be offensive to me if I were I
that resident.
Olsen: If that is the intent, then what we're doing doesn't do it. Then
we should have that other. . . I
Conrad: Yeah, I'm not sold on what we've done here.
Emmings: I guess the other thing is, if you're going to use this approach, II
do you then restrict the beach activities to that 50 foot wide area where
you've got the depth and the buffer and where do you put. Does that area,
does that mean as long as they have that area they can actually spread
their activities along the whole beachlot or put their beach on the
narrowest portion? I don' t think that's what we're intending either so I
think there's a lot of things that have to be talked about here. I
Olsen: That's where the buffering. . .
Emmings: You almost need sideyard setbacks to the 50 x 100 foot area 1
assuming you're going to stick with that concept.
Ray Roettger : May I just ask, the property adjacent to this, to the north, "
wouldn't that just be some more of the same?
Emmings: I think it is one now isn't it? Isn't that a beachlot down there II
now?
Olsen: Single ownership.
Emmings: Then it must be a little further north there's one isn't there?
Okay.
Conrad See my problem is with that, they may convert it to a beachlot.
For safety purposes, I guess I can't imagine clustering two docks and 6
boats or whatever it might be. I understand some clustering concepts to
leave some things undisturbed yet on the other hand, I guess I see some
negatives to looking to the future. I just find putting a dock that's
being used by a lot of people close to any other property not acceptable. to '
me. Even though there are some merits to it, if there's a beachlot
sometime down the road. From the standpoint of a current neighbor
resident, I couldn't do it.
Mary Jo Moore: Right now the property is. . .recreational beachlot and there II
is a swimming beach in. It's about in the middle of that property.
Emmings: Is it? I thought it was more on this end like it's shown on
here.
Mary Jo Moore: No. I think it's closer to Headla's property. More in the II
middle where the actual swimming area is. There are stairs in. . .so their
I
Planning Commission Me. i ng
December 6, 1989 - Page 29
dock is going to be away from this area that they actually have a
recreational beachlot and canoe racks with them.
Ellson: The only thing that kept going through my mind reading this, first
of all I thought it was confusing. I tried to visualize with arrows what
it would be and I had my husband look at it and what would you think it is
and both of us had totally different drawings as to what it would be. For
what it's worth, the lay people that we are, couldn't figure it out but I
remember in your analysis you said only along Lake Minnewashta Parkway does
the potential exist for the beachlots without the 100 foot.
Olsen: Lake Riley I think. . .
Ellson: This one comment just said only this Lake Minnewashta Parkway area
and so the thought is, are we writing this in case there's a crescent, in
case there's a penninsula, when we know only Lake Minnewashta' s the one
that we're really concerned about. Let' s write it towards the areas that
we know we're trying to protect. If we know there's no penninsula there,
then let's not worry about trying to cover that. Let' s go to the
potentials there after we write something and make sure yes, it would work
here. No, it wouldn' t work there. Yes, there's a natural buffer . No,
there isn't but I do like the idea of rewording it and I think Steve was on
the right track as fax as giving the intent statement. I don' t know, it's
not easy. I couldn' t figure out a better way to say it either but I figure
that' s why people of your background, you can write ordinances better than
me but I just know that I had trouble interpretting it.
Conrad: Okay. In my mind there's a confusion between allowing the dock
and requiring, right now we're focused on allowing a dock. That's why
we're rewriting this is to figure out when we can allow a dock.
Olsen: One of the conditions to have a dock, yeah.
Conrad: But it's focused around a dock and not focused around the area
that a beachlot needs. It's focused around a dock.
Olsen: You've got that area already where you have to have the 30,000
equate feet before you can even have a recreational beachlot.
Conrad: In my mind, as I went through that, I didn't know what we were
solving. I really didn't know if we were concerned with the things that I
had expressed before. The buffering of the neighbors. Still maintaining a
parcel the size that doesn't lead to overuse of that parcel. I guess Steve
mentioned one alternative and that's to redo it and to come up with some
exceptions or some philosophies. I think that's my direction or the way I
would go. There's no right number here. I'm not convinced we need to take
the 4 feet out. As arbitrary as it is, the principle is that we don't want
the parcel overused. The principle is if you've got 100 lots that could
potentially use the parcel, they have to have 400 feet. As arbitrary as
that is, it is a concept of telling me we don' t want the parcel overused.
Now if we can put that in other words, then I'm fine with it but that 4
foot says we're sensitive to use based on the number of property owners so
therefore, at this point in time, I 've got to keep it in until somebody can
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen Ordains as
follows:
Section 20-263 of the Chanhassen City Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Intent. Based upon experience, it is recognized by the City
that the use of lakeshore by multiple parties may be an intensive
use of lakeshore that may present conflicts with neighboring uses
of lakeshore or the use of other lakeshore on the same lake or
the lake itself. Further, beachlots may generate complaints if
they are not maintained to the same standards as single family
lakeshore lots. Therefore, the City requires the following con-
ditions for recreational beachlots, in addition to such other
conditions that may be prescribed in the permit.
Section 20-263 (7) is amended to read as follows:
( 7) The maximum number of docks on a recreational beachlot
is three (3) . No dock shall be permitted on any
recreational beachlot unless the beachlot meets the
following conditions:
(a) Shoreline of at least 200 feet per dock, and
(b) Area of at least 30,000 square feet for the first
dock and additional 20,000 square feet for each
additional dock.
Section 20-263 (13) is amended to read as follows:
(13) All recreational beachlots shall have a buffer sufficient
to insulate other property owners from beachlot activiites.
This buffer may consist of topography, streets, vegetation,
distance (width or depth) , or other features or combinations
of features which provide a buffer. To insure appropriate
buffering, the City may impose conditions to insulate
beachlot activiites including, but not limited to:
(a) Increased side or front yard setbacks for beach areas,
docks, racks or other allowed recreational equipment or
activities;
(b) Hours of use;
(c) Planting of trees and shrubs;
ir eel
I
I (d) Erection of fences;
(e) Standards of maintenance including mowing and trim-
ming; painting and upkeep of racks, docks and other
equipment; disposal of trash and debris;
( f) Increased width, depth or area requirements based
1 upon the intensity of the use proposed or the
number of dwellings having rights of access.
I To the extent feasible, the City may impose such conditions
even after approval of the beachiot if the city finds it
necessary based upon conflicts with the use of other property or
failure to maintain property or equipment.
ISECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
IAdopted by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen this
day of , 1990.
ICITY OF CHANHASSEN
I By:
Donald J. Chmiel , Mayor
IATTEST:
I
Don Ashworth, City Manager
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
Planning Corsmission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 41
Ellson: But we've also been going after people who were following this.
It's not like we hand picked them.
Conrad: 6 people.
Ahrens: I'm comfortable.
Conrad: Okay, we'll proceed Jo Ann.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. C hai rma n Conrad
called the public
hearing to order.
Terry Forbord: Good evening. My name is Terry Forbord. I'm Vice President
of Lundgren Bros. . In reading this document that staff sent me, which was
very gracious of them to do so, this is really the first opportunity that I
we had being that we weren't developing any properties similar to what
we're considering at this time that really was applicable to this so in
reading it and trying to get up to speed with it, I was really impressed on
how much effort everybody's put into this and reading all this and I could
certainly tell that as being stewards of the City and it's waters and it's
many fine lakes, that you had certainly agonized through a lot of this.
Being a past public official myself, I've been in exactly the same
situation on the same issue. In talking to some of the people that I see
who's names are listed in the Minutes here, I'm not sure if everybody did
know this meeting was happening tonight because nobody mentioned it to me
and I'm quite surprised just to see myself here because even in reading e`
this and talking to some of these many people over the last 30 to 60 to 90
days. These people seemed real interested in it so I kept kind of looking
at the doors all night so something, I don't know what exactly took place
but I saw it in the newspaper but the reason I saw it in the newspaper is
because I make that a habit because this is what I do for a living. But
I'm here primarily because Lundgren Bros. currently or recently has secured
the opportunity to develop a piece of land on one of the significant lakes
within your city. I can't at this time share with you where that is or
whom the seller is because I have not submitted by application to staff,
which I will be doing so shortly, and it wouldn't be fair for me to violate
that trust that I have with the seller at this time. We also are talking
to many of the other landowners within the City who own lakeshore property
or they have contacted us within the last 12 months. I'll give you a
little background of where we're going as far as real estate developers in
the 90's and how that will probably, to what degree that will probably
impact the City of Chanhassen. Lundgren Bros. has been fortunate in that
many of the things that we have done have worked out quite well from us in
our land planning and the amenities that we have included in our
subdivisions, some of which are in your community. We've certainly made
some mistakes but luckily we're doing a few things right and it's working
well for us. We do not think that we will be able to continue doing what
we have been doing and be as successful. In other words, what we're going
to have to do is we're going to have to get better at what we're doing and 1
it's really quite simple why that is true. I'm sure you all read all the
same stuff that I read on just the social and economic trends that are
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
,January 17, 1990 - Page 42
happening right before us. The demographic trends. There's going to be
fewer buyers. A majority of them are going to be in certain age groups.
They're going to have less time. They're going to have more discretionary
income and a whole slew of other things that are going to change their
housing habits in the 90's and years to come. We have, and not just us but
certainly the experts and we try to listen to them and also make our own
decisions based on their analysis, is that we are going to have to provide
' a far greater amenity value in neighborhood communities than we have been
able to in the past and precisely recreational amenities. Because people
want to recreate as close as they possibly can to home. Now we're
' fortunate in the Twin Cities area that we have such a strong park system.
Hennepin Parks Preserves, etc. and the numerous public accesses that have
been put on city lakes. We are fortunate that we have those but they also
create a problem in their own right, as you probably have had to deal with
in your own city and that's congestion in areas where those public accesses
have been developed. The trends by I guess I would say the people on the
cutting edge of real estate development in looking into the future and
trying to say, well how do we provide people with these types of things and
still stay environmentally sensitive with what we have is to try to spxead
the use of recreational areas out over possibly greater areas and keep them
more controlled rather than putting them in densely small areas. The urban
,. land institute has done numerous studies on that just within the last 5
years and recreational development throughout the United States. Certainly
the National Association of Home Builders has been directly involved in
conjunction with that former body in trying to find out how we can best do
- this well. And we have gone to numerous seminars all around the country
sponsored by them and and planning institute on how to provide the things
I that we feel people are going to want in the 1990's. That precisely some
of those things are directly related to recreational beachlots. I mean
they're not always called recreational beachlots. Every city has a
different name for it it seems like but for what we're talking about here
tonight, that certainly is the issue. My only concern in reading this, and
I'm not exactly sure if I totally understand every aspect of what is
proposed here and what went into it but I know as stewards of the city and
planning commissioners what you try to do is you try to put something
together that accomplishes a whole lot of things. It's real tough to come
up with a perfect system and oftentimes some of it is subjective because
you really don't know and numbers are pulled out of hats and say, well this
sounds like a good number and why is it a 100 feet versus 95 feet or 105
feet. You have to pick something so you pick something. My concern in
' reading this, was that sometimes by picking numbers or putting in certain
phrases, you somewhat handcuff your own abilities and you certainly
handcuff the potential for maybe nicer development. Now I know what you're
more afraid of is the negative development and you end up trying to put
some rules in to control that but if in the meantime of what that does is
that it makes it very difficult for a developer to bring in a proposal that
you may really want to see. It may make it difficult. I wasn't sure, I
didn't get a chance to read far enough into this to see if what is proposed
t here would also apply to PUD's. That was a question I had tonight for
staff. If it does apply to PUD's, it would still stymie some of the
creativity that PUD's exist for.
Conrad: It would.
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 43 1
Terry Forbord: Okay. I'll get recisely to an item in here that
P I see.
There's actually 2 or 3 sites. I'm currently working on 4 proposed
developments on significant water bodies in the western suburbs and I'm
going through these very same issues with the staffs in those communities.
Because it's as important to us as a developer who's going to have millions
of dollars invested in a recreational community, it's as important to us or "
maybe even more so that we don't screw it up. Because if it turns sour or
it's an environmental problem or it becomes a negative marketing scenario
or whatever, we have a tremendous amount to lose. And so what we're really "
trying to do is to work closely with cities and I support recreational
beachiot ordinances. Don't misunderstand me. We are all for that. We
think they need to be, you have to have some kind of constraints of what
can be done. My only fear is, will this make it impossible for me to bring "
you a development that I think you may be happy with. Now there's always
the variance that one can come in and apply for to the ordinance but in
going through this. ,
Conrad: Let me just really quickly get in, what you see in front of you
tonight really was a response to one particular change. The ordinance
previously had a 100 foot minimum lot depth. The words that you see here II
tonight are to solve that so there is some flexibility in the 100 feet. So
we haven't reviewed other basically. We haven' t really, this ordinance has
been on the books for multi years and really what's in front of us tonight. "
You're addressing a whole lot of other things that weren't issues as we
reviewed this. We took what we had before and basically the wording is to
provide some intent for this ordinance but also to provide some flexibility
so that we can follow up the intent more than the absolute numbers. What
is in here has been elimination of a couple numbers which is what concerned
you for flexibility purposes. Basically the draft tonight in front of us
gives a developer of a beachiot a little bit more flexibility so if one end ,
of the beachiot is only 90 feet, that doesn't preclude that from becoming a
beachlot. So I just wanted you to know what we're reviewing tonight. I
think you're addressing a much broader scale. We'll listen but it's not in "
our, it wasn' t in the scope of this change.
Terry Forbord: Okay, just to make sure I understand then one of the
primary concerns that I did have .in here. This 100 foot number, is an
issue in here and it's the depth I believe from the ordinary high water
mark to the lot line which could be.. .
Emmings: That's been taken out. '
Terry Forbord: Okay. I must be misunderstanding what I'm reading here and
I apologize if I am.
Enmings: That's alright.
Conrad: 100 feet was a standard before. It no longer is there. That
doesn't mean that it's not going to be there.
Ellson: After it goes to Council right? I
I
11 Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 44
i
' Conrad: Well even after I talk about it. It is the elimination of that
number. Instead we replaced it with the intent of a buffering from the
surrounding area. If you developed a property as a Lundgren Bros.
development, I think you would be concerned with buffering and distance
11 from the neighbors.
Terry Forbord: Absolutely.
' Conrad: Because it's part of your parcel. But this also talks about
buffering it from one development to the next, the neighbor on either side
' so that's what we're trying to get across here.
Terry Forbord: So the 100 foot number has been removed?
' Conrad: It's been removed.
E mings: Well , in this proposal . I think Ladd's understating the case a
' little bit. I think that what's written down here as proposed as the
change to the ordinance adds not a little flexibility but a lot of
flexibilty.
Ellson: As long as it meets our intent.
Emmings: And would provide you with broad guidelines that would allow you
to come in with, the old statute was very rigid. This one is very
flexible.
Terry Forbord: It was rigid. It was a little easier to understand what
I had to deal with and here it's kind of ambiguous but that's okay.
Conrad: And that's a problem because we haven't set a mark for you for a
' developer and that's a problem that I have with the way it's worded right
now.
' Terry Forbord: But there's some benefit to that because you still have the
final say anyway. But I do have a couple just recommendations under
Section 20-263 under intent. I would just recommend a couple that are just
' word changes because I picked them out, I just took words out of your own
paragraph and placed them in other areas but based upon experience, it
says, it is recognized by the City that the use of lakeshore by multiple
parties. Rather than say is, I would say may be because that's an awful
I assumptive to say that they are an intensive use because they necessarily
aren't. They may be. They could be. And I would just recommend that you,
it was just a thought. Furthermore, an intensive use of lakeshore that may
' be present conflicts with the neighboring uses of lakeshore or the use of
other lakeshore on the same lake. Further, beachlots generate complaints
and it says because. Basically that should say, I mean in our opinion,
further, beachlots may generate complaints because if they are not
maintained the same standards. Because what you're assuming that if you
have a beachlot, it's going to generate a complaint and that's not
necessarily true either. Just in the tours of some of the finest
1 developments anywhere in the United States and southern California and
Florida and Arizona that I 've gone to, there's not very many beaches in
I
Planning Commission Meeting
9
January 17, 1990 - Page 45
Arizona other than man made ones but you'll find that it can be just the II
converse of that.
Conrad: The good beachlots are maintained and the bad ones aren't.
Terry Forbord: And there are some single family home lots on the lake that
are absolute the pits so in just reading your own here, I'm not sure, I
don't think that's what you really meant. So I would just suggest, it's II
very well written and I think Commissioner Emmings is the one that kind of
led the charge in this and he's done really a good job. If I could just
suggest those few changes to that because I think it continues with what ,
you were really trying to say there. But if that 100 foot number has been
eliminated, I guess I was reading it out of another part of the staff
report from a previous meeting, that we wouldn't have a problem with it.
The reason we would, if you want me to get into that, there's a whole bunch,
of planning reasons why that 100 foot number could become a problem.
Because you may end up in an area, let's say that from just an ecological
reason, environmental reason, that this ended up being the best place to
put the dock but it was only 75 feet from the lot line. Well, then what do
you do? What if you had to cut down an acre of beautiful 100 year tree
stand to put the dock there because that was the only 100 foot spot so
there's a number of reasons why that number can become a, could become a
problem. That's all I have to say right now but if you have any questions
regarding anything, I'd do my best to answer them for you.
Conrad: Thank you. I think basically this ordinance, the way it's written
sounds like it's solving the key issues that you have. Other public input.
Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1
Conrad: Joan, what do you think?
Ahrens: I don't have any questions and I don't have really any remarks. III
can see that has gone on forever without me so I think that it's, I 'm in
favor of the ordinance as Steve's written it now. '
Batzli: I think this gentleman's comments regarding the intent statement
are accurate and I would prefer to tone down the intent statement to may be
an intensive use and his other suggestions. I had one question as to why II
7(c) was eliminated and my last question is, in the proposed ordinance,
attachment 7, it doesn't appear to me that the intent statement got in
there. Is that correct? i
Olsen: What's on the back of the report is what the City Attorney came
back with, his rewording. We took that ever further to make an intent
statement.
Batzli: This isn't the final one? Okay. Could you address why 7(c) was
eliminated? I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 17, 1990 - Page 46
Olsen: I think the reason that that was removed was because it was placed
elsewhere. It just wasn't, it got into Section 13. It's just saying that
it does have to have the buffer. We felt that it didn't need to be
repeated. I think it's referring to paragraph 13. 13 was actually saying
that you need the buffer. Saying the whole thing. I think it was just
repeating that.
Batzli: I guess I'd have to go back and look at the original ordinance
again but that's all I had to comment. I think it's actually a good
improvement to the ordinance.
Conrad: Annette?
Elison: I like it. I agree that we could make it a little more gentle
with the term may. I especially liked having an intent statement. i think
it's worth thinking about when we write some other sticky ones because it
will make interpretation by anybody years to come a lot easier.
Conrad: Oh biased Mr. Emmings.
Emmings: Please understand, I didn't take a lot of time because I opened
up my dictater and basically threw up and sent you what I did but. I agree
with the changes that the staff has made. All of the changes they made,
made it better. I further, I think that in that first sentence in the
intent statement it should be changed that it may be an intensive use and
the second sentence, that because could simply be changed to when. That
they generate complaints when they're not maintained and that would solve
and I think those are appropriate changes to make. The only other thing I
thought of. I thought of two things since. One would be in the very end
where it says to the extent feasible, the City may impose these conditions
even after approval of the beachlot. I question whether we could really
get away with that. I think it's important to try to. If the City finds
it necessary based upon conflicts with the use of other property, I think
I'd add there, or upon failure to maintain property and beachlot equipment
or something like that just to make it clear that failure. A conflict in
use or a failure to maintain can set off a process whereby we can go back
and try and make them adhere to some kind of a standard. The other thing I
thought of was, I know for a fact that the beachlots on the lake I live on
have expanded noticeably since I've been there. There is no baseline. I
don't know, particularly for ones that were grandfathered in, which are
probably all of them on Minnewashta, we don't know what they started with
because they shouldn't be able to expand the use of them without coming in
and getting under our ordinance. And there's no baseline there and I just
wondered if there should be in the ordinance and this is maybe a separate
issue to be taken up later. Some kind of a reporting requirement in 1990
or 1991 where they have to tell us what they have for equipment. Fill out
a form. What do you have for equipment on your beachlot. Who has boats on
your beachlot. How many boats and what kind are parked at your docks.
What sizes you've got so that we have, finally, a baseline for all of these
beachlots for the future if one looks like it's expanding. i thought maybe
instead of, I've always thought in the past that we should go around and
photograph them. If you go out real early on a Sunday morning, everything
is just sitting there and you could just photograph them and you'd have for