The URL can be used to link to this page

7b. Lotus Lake dock, CUP 1 , 4-1. . C I T Y O F P.C. DATE: 9-20-89 7b C.C. DATE: 10-9-8 \• „.,&,,, ,,,,..., _ SSA CASE NO: 84-8 VARIANCE 1 84-8 CUP Prepared by: Olsen:k i _____________,__,_,... r- STAFF REPORT 1 , 1 PROPQSAL: Variance to the conditions for a recreational beachlot and an amendment to a conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot. Actscr, by +v =I,;rni^isti 1 Z Er , ✓ rte__ V .f_,Eft,:_ ILOCATION: Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates 4�1.:9._._, 1 12 APPLICANT: Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association_ /a /11_.w__ Q /.q 6800 Brule Circle IIChanhassen, MN 55317 4 1 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family 1 ACREAGE: 92, 700 square feet DENSITY: N/A 1 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- PUD; wetlands and Fox Hollow 1 S- RSF; single family � E- RSF; single family I Q W- Lotus Lake 1 W WATER AND SEWER: IPHYSICAL CHARAC. : I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential 11 -sm.-Neriscmatiminow 4-:_IL trIal.,,,i Aft 741111 v 7114 A RI 4p Nv__ 4qr R i itr Ass Irm- \,\ . ., - 4: .' .4 Via'.'''"''li!ri4T1.4Z1:.1 9 W i #44h Ag ., likaZgli 0 11 IM -40 Mres-, \„._\ 4, . im r*/_,,, . . 44 v :j mo . ,. 41W ' rats --. se 111.1:---.: ., ir ail;A - !Mt* AM/6 VI •Nalifirert *%44 i* 4' i>vliffr 4 la ' 111: Q laikuusai . - -•", v# ii : Fo. 44.0. .;L, ErMINI �■.I�f. �� I ' I COURT °W,1,; *.• • // 4355":, ...i iiiminclImin. •.41.: //-inn -� milieu II �, - � H AO INUIMme� � '� 1 A ' _ ila f -' ' 4O CA ro / 'e-i our rrLJ:1( h *t'.1. rit 0 F RAC �� ► v„ ......,,, , , , .. e.s. 3- J..' 11111 WA 1.1.1”. /1■14 w=i0i " ti- "'V ' . ■fiei, 4L im a a litlipTep.44ft 17.7."..arril R - ,,\ ....-:-,, ___,,,,, oR r - - • - - ((dim --=--..-,_<:.-/ ;it._ 13 :.,', ::.14“:4"ale' 4% arrniAVN '''-nei. 0:00■ tigPtlatt' l' 4 111 .:83 if P.:4;It ' d hi III Iii I 0 '0140 al i fli 1 wjz pateS r4:4"4: 1 P",so J0'4% 1 t Mitirlalra\\\ e "0 NI . - • inti".-":441 :74 I-.04 -4:444.„... it tt -7 41m1 -1. . „A )) i(:I�•rewol� 000 I. ett . ,,40 ann •"3 HA DOW M ERE�-�� m e#44111" R 4 -'=-n on • Air!. ISM C .Osi er<< 4. ref*'© 1� .. !Li j/� RS - . �,E: �.� �'A. LI a 1�'�i LAKE \©mks-,............ ....,,:,, ,7MM11111. � WAVY" :_-1-"°-�J >�. �.�t �"jai �� ..1101V 417,..t.t .,:' -.4111. ICI k a„lin vahrrikit tic,- - „ It - , 0 si-iii-ems,4 .1.10.--- oxi, R4 < o:, 511111fr 4,7n- .0401 ) ====440_ .-- *RAI.� IRAv , .. :� . 1 ■1 �'I ..Nr :isitrn■ -I \�Imisi 2 . . ._ _ _.__ EN, _ _____Or , ■n inr L'12 so a -- 4 Ni j....mow iiu►,11 .1°1:it`I::111 �'' A EMS' . . 11111 1111111 ' A .. sor .1 IR' 111- /P■,-7/P : ,,,, i BG fre if 11.1i • de 1.1, „Alio It P • - LIAL.1 :: mrij -- 11 al ': - .......... ....:100 Mir r tit . A__:f.--------11"-- 111---'11FMIlia3 7:?4,11111.31•Ikili Mal _.„.. .......ra illitv,, . 1, D-- .... ..._..,..,44/riliii_.-- ii is la_ tx :.,,a torar . -.,-, ..,_...............- - • e5-1,1w midiet. : cr 167 iiii:i w 4 v • 1 Lotus Lake Homeowners Association September 20, 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ' Section 20-263 provides specific minimum standards for a recreational beachlot as a conditional use. Section 20-263 ( 2) states that "no structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house, camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle or shelter ' shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational beachlot" (Attachment #1) . ' The ordinance defines a deck as a structure and the Building Department confirmed that it should have received a building per- mit. ' BACKGROUND The Lotus Lake Estates subdivision was approved by the City ' Council on January 5 , 1979 (Attachment #2) . The City Council approved a conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot on July 21, 1980, and approved an amended permit on August 31, 1981 (Attachment #3 ) . On November 19 , 1984, the City Council approved another amendment to the conditional use permit authorizing the installation of four sailboat moorings (Attachment #4 ) . ' In December, 1985, the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association filed suit against the city to allow additional docking and overnight storage of boats . On June 16 , 1986 , the City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment to allow additional docks and over- night storage of boats on a recreational beachlot and amended the ' Lotus Lake Estates conditional use permit. The amended con- ditional use permit allowed the following uses : 1 . One sand blanket swim area. 2 . A pedestrian -walkway. 3 . Four boat racks. 4 . Three docks with no more than 9 watercraft being stored ' a overnight. 5 . One 10 foot by 10 foot swimming raft. 6 . One conversation pit fire hole. 7 . Four sailboat moorings . In the spring of 1989, staff was contacted by a representative of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. The Homeowners 11 Association was interested in constructing a deck on the Lotus Lake Estates recreational beachlot. Staff explained that the Zoning Ordinance specifically did not permit structures on recreational beachlots and that it was not a permitted use as part of their existing conditional use permit. Staff further explained that a variance to the conditions of the ordinance and an amendment to their existing conditional use permit would be necessary. Staff was not further contacted by the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. r Lotus Lake Homeowners Association September 20, 1989 1 Page 3 During the summer of 1989 , staff was viewing sites with some residents from Lotus Lake and noticed that the Lotus Lake Estates recreational beachlot had constructed the proposed deck on the beachlot. Staff contacted the homeowners association to state that the deck was in violation of the ordinance and in violation of their conditional use permit. Staff informed the homeowners association that they must make an application for the deck or ' that the City would have to refer the matter to the City Attorney' s office and code enforcement division. The homeowners association contacted staff and proceeded with the application process . ANALYSIS Currently the Lotus Lake Estates recreational beachlot is allowed to have one sand blanket swim area, a pedestrian walkway, four boat racks, three docks with no more than nine boats docked over- 11 night, one 10 ' x 10 ' swimming raft, one conversation pit fire hold, and four sailboat moorings. The Lotus Lake Estates recreational beachlot conditional use permit also prohibits , except for alterations previously described, any structure, pier, boatrack, mooring, buoy or swimming platform. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain the existing , deck on the Lotus Lake Estates recreational beachlot. The deck is 12 ' x 14 ' and is located on the sand beach approximately 56 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Lotus Lake. Since spe- cific conditions of the zoning ordinance and the conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot state that a structure is not permitted, a variance to the conditions of the Zoning Ordinance and an amendment to the conditional use permit must be received in order for the deck to be maintained on the recreational beachlot. In addition, the deck is within the 75 ft. setback of the shoreland as required by the Shoreland Ordinance and a variance to the setback must be approved by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals . A hardship must be proven for a variance to the zoning ordinance ' to be granted. variance to the ordinance. A hardship exists when the strict enforcement of the ordinance does not allow use of the property. Since the existing recreational beachlot has several uses approved for the site, it would be difficult for the applicant to prove hardship if the deck is not permitted to remain on the beachlot. Staff does not feel that a deck on a recreational beachlot is necessarily an inappropriate use, but cannot recom- mend a variance be granted to the zoning ordinance. If the Planning Commission and City Council feel that a deck is an appropriate use for a recreational beachlot, then the proper way to allow it is to amend the zoning ordinance. It would not be proper to grant a variance to the conditions of the zoning ordi- nance since a hardship does not exist. 1 Lotus Lake Homeowners Association 1 September 20, 1989 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny the request ' for a variance to the conditions of the zoning ordinance for a recreational beachlot. Should the Planning Commission and City Council feel that a deck is an appropriate use for a recreational beachlot, then they should direct staff to proceed with a zoning ordinance amendment to permit decks/structures on recreational beachlots. If the zoning ordinance is amended, the applicant could then apply to amend their conditional use permit. It should be understood that the applicant will still have to receive a variance to the ' shoreland ordinance which requires proof of a hardship. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ' The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request for the variance to the conditions of the recreational beachlot. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending the City Council deny the request for a variance to the conditions of the zoning ordinance for a recreational beachlot. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Excerpt from City Code. 2 . City Council minutes dated January 5 , 1979 . 3 . City Council minutes dated July 21, 1980. 4 . City Council minutes dated November 19 , 1984. 5 . Current conditional use permit for recreational beachlot. 6 . Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated July 24 , 1989 . 7 . Application. 8. Site plan. 9 . Planning Commission minutes dated September 20 , 1989 . 1 1 1 1 ZONING e::: § 20-263 d. One (1) percolation test per drainfield site where the land slope is between , thirteen(13)and twenty-five(25)percent. (2) Areas where the land slope exceeds twenty-five(25)percent shall not be considered as a potential soil treatment site. (3) The sewage treatment system must be in conformance with chapter 19, article 1V. (4) School and day care uses accessory to the church use are not permitted unless approved by the city council. (Ord.No. 80, Art.V, § 9(5-9-1(7)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-260. Private stables. The following applies to private stables: (1) Stables shall comply with chapter 5, article III. (2) Stables must be located a minimum of two hundred(200)feet from wetland areas. (Ord.No. 80,Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(8)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-261. State-licensed day care centers. The following applies to state-licensed day care centers: (1) The site shall have loading and drop off points designed to avoid interfering and pedestrian movements. ng with (2) Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual and noise impacts on adjoining residential areas. (3) Each center shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(9)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-262. Hospitals and health care facilities. The following applies to hospitals and health care facilities: (1) The site shall have direct access to collector or arterial streets, as defined in the comprehensive plan. (2) Emergency vehicle access shall not be adjacent to or located across a street from any residential use. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(10)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-263. Recreational beach lots. The following minimum standards apply to recreational beach lots conditional use in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed in the permit: (1) Recreational beach lots shall have at least two hundred(200) feet of lake frontage. 1175 I 1 § 20-263 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE ' (2) No structure,portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house,camper, trailer, tent, recrea- tional vehicle or shelter shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational (e-- beach lot. I (3) No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini-bikes, all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles shall be driven upon or parked upon any recreational beach lot. I (4) No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight camping. (5) Boat launches are prohibited. I (6) No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If Irecreational beach lot is allowed more than one (1) dock, however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats may be stored over- Inight on any recreational beach lot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than one (1) rack shall be allowed per dock. No more than six(6)watercraft may be stored on a rack. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is I ` permissible at any time other than overnight. ((7 ) No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at least two hundred(200)feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least a one hundred-foot depth. I ; No more than one (1) dock may be erected on a recreational beach lot 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 beach lot. I (8) No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet or the minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of four(4) feet. The width (but not the length)of the I cross-bar of any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in the computation of length described in the preceding sentence. The cross-bar of any such dock shall not measure in excess of twenty-five (25) feet in length. 1 (9) No dock shall encroach upon any dock set-back zone, provided, however, that the of any two (2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one (1) common dock within I the dock setback zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the common dock is the only dock on the two(2) lakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this chapter. I (10) No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational beach lut unless it has at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. No more than one (1)sail boat mooring shall be allowed for every two hundred(200) feet of lake frontage. I (11) A recreational beach lot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for of which it is a part. For purposes of this ara or the p graph, the followi ng terms �" 1 1176 )uncil Meeting August 31`1981 - d CJuncilwoman Swenson moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilman -orn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, II _,uncil:::en Coving and Horn. Hearing closed at 9:00 p.m. s ',ORTH SERVICE AREA SEWER AND WATER REASSESSMENT: Councilman Geving moved to set a II ci: --ocia1 Council meeting for September 8, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. and direct staff to provide Whatever answers are needed to the questions asked in the correspondence received :onight. Motion seconded by Acting Mayor Neveaux. The following voted in favor: .oe& .ctin, `savor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. i ':otion carried. ',EW HORIZON HOMES: Frank Kurvers asked why the disturbed lands in Chaparral have not : en seeded. The Engineer will check into this and take appropriate steps, if needed. 1:� ',ORTIIWEST LOTUS LAKE ROAD SYSTEMS: Homeowners in the area were present to discuss onnecting various roads within those areas presently being considered for development. a ':o action was taken. It FRONT YARD VARIA\CE REQUEST, 7616 FRONTIER TRAIL: Mr. Coulter is requesting an eight foot front yard variance in order to construct a detached double garage. The Board Adjustments and Appeals recommends approved. „�� .ouncilwoman Swenson moved to approve the front yard setback variance request, Planning ,r --Ise 81-6. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting "lyor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. s ' tion carried. c NDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST, LOTUS LAKE ESTATES BEACH LOT: The Lotus L. Ke r:states Homeowners Association is requesting an amendment to their conditional 'se permit for the following changes: 1. Five, 30 foot seasonal docks. Each dock to contain eight boat slips. =. Two additional canoe/small sailboat racks storing six watercraft each. L Fen .sailboat mooring buoys for sailboats. !`- n . he 10' .: 10' swimming raft of wood construction with flotation. Conversation pit - fire hole, three feet in diameter with a six foot apron of brick •- or masonary construction. any residents of Lotus Lake Estates as well as residents around Lotus Lake were present. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 12, 1981, as recommended approval of the amendment to be modified as by the recommendation of the Lake Study Crmnittee in memo of June 24, 1981 as follows: a` Only one dock should be permitted (not to exceed fifty feet in length, unless necessary to reach a water depth of four feet) . 2. Two additional canoe racks should be permitted allowing a maximum of four racks. I No sailboat mooring buoys or overnight docking of boats should be permitted ( including on-land boat storage) . '. 10' 10' swimming raft should be permitted if it is located in water having { i minimum depth of seven feet, is not more than one-hundred feet from the nearest d# .Ike shoreline, and projects a minimum of one foot but not more than five feet hove the lake surface. ff 5. Me proposed conversation pit should not be so constructed as to be of a permanent i nature (i.e. using brick or masonry material) . 1.,>�sne i 1;:an (,eving moved to deny the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowner's Association I 'T»hication for an amendment to their present conditional use permit as applied for in their hone 10, 1981, unsigned letter and referencing all illustrations and all °.1r, rials relating to the ecology of Lotus Lake as presented in the Council Agenda. I '•utien seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor "eveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. ..14 DkgA - I T 11(//rw-- Council Meeting Aug410 31, 1981 -14- Councilwoman Swenson moved to accept the Planning Commission recommendations of August 12, 1981, page 8, with modifications as follows: 1. One dock should be permitted (not to exceed 50 feet in length, unless necessar; to reach a water depth of four feet) . Said dock may have the configuration of 40 feet with a ten foot platform at the end. Said dock to be located in the position of the southerly most shown dock. 2. Two additional canoe/small sailboat racks should be permitted allowing a maximum of four racks. 1 3. No sailboat mooring buoys or over night docking of boats should be permitted (including on-land boat storage except as in #2 above) . 4. A 10' x 10' swimming raft should be permitted if it is located in water having I a minimum depth of seven feet, is not more than 100 feet from the nearest lake shoreline, and projects a minimum of one foot but not more than five feet above the lake surface. The corners to be reflectorized. __ II 5. A conversation pit - fire hole, three feet in diameter with a six foot apron erected of brick or masonry material placed on the landward side of the walkway and no further north than the northerly lot line of Lot 32. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Councilwoman I Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Acting Mayor Neveaux voted no. Motion failed. II Councilwoman Swenson moved to accept the Planning Commission recommendations of August 12, 1981, page 8, with modifications as follows: 1. One dock should be permitted (not to exceed 50 feet in length, unless necessary I to reach a water depth of four feet) . Said dock may have the configuration of 40 feet with a ten foot platform at the end. Said dock to be located in the position of the southerly most shown dock. The overnight docking of four 16 ' non-motorized rowboats will be allowed. A II 2. Two additional canoe/small sailboat racks should be permitted allowing a + maximum of four racks. 3. No sailboat mooring buoys or overnight docking of boats should be permitted rA I (including on-land boat storage except as in #2 above) . 4. A 10' x 10' swimming raft should be permitted if it is located in water having a minimum depth of seven feet, is not more than 100 feet from the nearest lake shoreline, and projects a minimum of one foot but not more than five feet I above the lake surface. The corners to be reflectorized. A conversation pit - fire hole, three feet in diameter with a six foot apron erected of brick or masonry material placed on the landward side of the walkway and no further north than the northerly lot line of Lot 32. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. IIMotion carried. Acting Mayor Neveaux noted that the Council considered a moratorium for the consideration of motorized boat usage on homeowners and beach lot proposals for I this application and future applications but that no official decision was taken. A review of the matter will be prepared by the City Attorney and submitted to the Council by September 14 at which time consideration of scheduling a public hearing Iwill be held. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, PARK II, INSTANT WEB: Frank Beddor was present. The City Planner presented the Planning Report. Since the Planning Commission L II meeting the applicant has agreed to delete the lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 as the Planning Commission did not recommend for a direct egress from , ' proposed Lot 2 onto County Road 17. The Planning Commission has recommended t II approval of the request for C-2 zoning for Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 3. However, a new public hearing will have to be held to approve this zoning as the initial hearing was held for P-3 zoning. 11 ' Council Meeting Nove;(- 19, 1984 ,C -5- 1 kk Councilman Gevina - Other than changing the names of the streets, I don't have any other questions. 1 Barb Dacv - It is a fairly large subdivision and in case of an emergency it would be best to differentiate between the street names. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the preliminary plat for 20 lot single family resi- dential subdivision, JCB Partnership, Planning Case 84-7. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE, WAREHOUSING AND COLD STORAGE AS CONDITIONAL USES IN C-3 CCMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICTS: Councilman Horn moved approval of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow outdoor storage, warehousing and cold storage as conditional uses in the C-3 Commercial Service District, Planning Case 84-5. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CHANHASSEN ESTATES SEWER PROBLEM: Don Ashworth - It did hit over a weekend and we do not pay for stand-by time so we have to look to, hopefully, finding someone at home. We had a little more problem I with this one in terms of getting someone out there. I think it was maybe a half hour before we got somebody there. The problem is corrected. It was a back up of a sewer line. There were two homes on Dakota Avenue. The claim has been submitted to our insurance carrier. The adjuster was supposed to be out there today. He did not II make it today. He will be out there tomorrow morning. They have been notified that if the City is a fault that our insurance coverage does cover that. If am confident that it was a main line back-up. It does not happen very often but when it does happen it is a real problem. PROPOSED LOTUS LAKE ESTATES EEACHLDT IMPROVE NTS: Mayor Hamilton - Two parts to it, variance request to install one additional dock and to allow the overnight storage of 10 watercraft, and conditional use permit ..request to allow certain recreational beachlot improvements. This request goes back a ways, I am not going to go all the way back to 1978. I don't think that's II necessary. However, I will go back to August 20th when the Council considered this item and that evening there was a request for four items made. One was an addi- tional dock on the northern portion of the outlot. Another was for four sailboat moorings and that was approved. The third one was for the overnight storage of ten motorized boats and the fourth one was the continuation of the walkway along the north portion of their outlot and that was already allowed. There was a motion made .that evening to deny items 1 and 3, the additional dock and the overnight storage of II boats. Final action to be delayed until the City Attorney submitted findings and decisions as what came out of all the discussion that ensued that evening. The City Council received those findings and decisions, we made some comments about them. II The Council did not take -final action and still has not taken final action on those findings and decisions. We delayed action on them so that the City Manager and myself could meet with the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association and see if we couldn't find a suitable solution to the problem. One that would satisfy both sides. What we have before us this evening is a proposal that the homeowners and myself and the City Manager have agreed upon. The options that we have before us this evening it seems to me, I am sure I'll be corrected, but this is the way I see II it, we can have a motion to deny that anything is going to happen this evening really, that following discussions on the 20th meant denial. There was a motion to deny on the 20th and if the Council feels that that motion was in fact to deny and II not to continue this item any further, that is one thing that we have to decide. If 07701050106Pfir 471 Council Meeting November 1 (( 84 -ti- the Council feels that way then there needs to be a motion accepting the findings of II fact. If the Council agrees that no final action has been taken, a motion to that affect should also be expressed. The proposal before us can be interpreted as a new proposal since it asks for five motorized boats at the existing dock and a new dock II at the north end of their outlot. We can discuss that and vote on it right now at this meeting this evening. We can return that to the Planning Commission and ask for their input. Last time they reviewed this item they chose to send it directly IIto the Council because they didn't want to deal with it and felt the Council should deal with it and I suspect that may be the case again. Also, this evening, if 1) which I had mentioned, if the motion to deny was in fact in the Council's opinion the final decision, if that's accepted then six months must pass prior to a new pro- I posal being submitted which in my estimation would be February 18th meeting at the earliest, at which time there would be a public hearing and we would review this item again. As I see it, those are our options. That's what has happened since IAugust 20th. The Council at this time needs to decide what we would like to do this evening. ICouncilman Horn - One clarification on the Planning Commission action, it was my recollection that they had voted on it and requested denial unanimously. Mike Thompson - As I recall, we denied it. IIBarb Dacv - It's in the last part of your attachments. IICouncilwoman Watson - The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the petition August 8th. The Commission voted unanimously to deny the Lotus Lake Estates Recreational Beachlot improvements in a motion by J. Thompson and seconded by Albee. IICouncilman Gevinor - I would like to ask at this time since we don't have the legal services tonight, I am a little disturbed that we don't have our legal counsel because I think this is a very important issue but I think we need to ask ourselves Iand clarify before we proceed with this, whether or not we are following all of the recommended procedures that we deal with as a City Council and that we will not violate any procedure by concluding with this issue and I would like to at this time ask Don Ashworth for that opinion. IIMayor Hamilton - It's up to the Council to decide whether or not we felt that motion mane by Pat Swenson on August 20th was in fact a motion to deny. If that's Iwhat the Council felt our action was, then there is nothing to deal with. Don Ashworth - That is Roger's opinion. Recognizing that that question would cane IIup I did pose that exact question to Roger. I had him go back through those minutes twice. He is slightly disappointed with how that was actilM ly worded in the minutes from the standpoint that the finding of fact recommendation came from the City Attorney. He had anticipated that you may end up in a court case with this par- ' ticular item from one side or the other and that the City would be best served by placing those findings into a written form. If the Council determines that the action was final on August 20th then those findings of fact really mean nothing from ISeptember 10th. In other words it was his intent in making that recommendation that the Council's position be known but in fact the action of denial would be based on the findings of fact rather than having your vote occur first then you cane along later and decide why it was you voted that way. He has a problem with that. His I opinion is that it is your decision as to was it your intent on August 20th to see this item closed out that evening or was it your intent to go to September 10th. Mayor Hamilton and I have talked on this item so he was aware of Roger's comments , Iand Tom had again suggested that your first vote on this item be, what was your intent and however you answer that you will be following your procedures. In other II „' council Meeting Novem; _ 19 19, 1984 _�_ 11 words, if your intent was not to see it go any further, then your procedures would be simply that item would be done and we would have no other business here this II evening except to agree to the findings of fact. Again, you would be making those findings in a retrospect manner. If, on the other side your decision is that is was not your intent to close it out that evening, then all options that were open to you 11 on August 20th are still open to you tonight. - Councilman Gevina - You indicated Mr. Mayor, that if that were true this would go back to the Planning Commission? II Mayor Hamilton - If, in fact, we decide that our decision on August 20th was final, then they could re-apply on February 18th to the Planning Commission. What the II Council need to have clearly in mind is hopefully you know what your intent was on August 20th. You voted for the motion which read: "Councilwoman Swenson moved to deny the request for the variance 84-8, items 1 and 3, on the basis of the fact that II they are not in conformity with the existing ordinance and there is no basis for variance in the criteria setforth and based on the discussion this evening. The City Attorney will prepare findings of fact and set out the reasons for the denial.” II The thing that is missing out of there is the discussion that followed the motion which my recollection was that it would remain open and if you recall Peter even brought that point up that the whole item would be concluded until the findings of fact were presented and it would not be closed. I want each of you to comment on II whether you thought it was final or not. Councilman Horn - We always tell people things are not final in a sense. We act on II eacn motion but we always have methods of bringing subjects up again. We have a six month waiting period and they come again for consideration to see if there are new facts involved. I felt the proposal that we were dealing with that evening which was for the ten boats, the extra dock, the sailboats and whatever, it was closed that , evening by this motion. That was certainly my intent and understanding that this criteria of findings was exactly what the City Attorney had recommended to more solidly document our reason for denial of the petition. I Councilwoman Watson - I guess basically I agree with Clark in that we voted on that ten float proposal that was turned down unanimously and the continuation seemed to be for those findings that Roger felt we should have in order to back up our decision at that time. I guess, I agree with that and at the same feel that I guess the six months is written in granite I suppose and it has to proceed in that manner. Is that true? I do see this as a new proposal. I don't know if it necessarily has to I wait the six months to go back to the Planning Commission. Councilman Horn - Can't that be waived by a vote of the Council? I Councilman Geving The vote I made on August 20th I felt was a clear and final decision to deny the request for that particular proposal. We always handle one proposal at a time and I think that it would be unfair to our citizens not to give II them the right to comment in a public forum on a new proposal. I think it should go back through the Planning Commission and through the procedures that we have established for these kinds of things. I know it takes time but I think that's the II way this should be handled. My decision on August 20th was a firm denial. t Mayor Hamilton - Based on what my recollection was of all the discussion that ensued after the motion was made it was that the action of that evening was not final and that we were going to, after we received the attorney's comments, review it again and be certain that that was exactly what we wanted to do and then when we did review tnose comments we didn't take action again at that time because we felt that perhaps if we talked to the homeowners group that we could reach a mutual understanding, something that could be discussed again. 11 IICouncil Meeting November 14' 984 I -8- II Mayor Hamilton - It wasn't my intent to make it final. I still don't think it's final. Peter Beck - I remember that August 20th meeting, I asked, is this final, should I r I even ootner to cane back at the next meeting and I remember real clearly saying, we haven't adopted our findings yet, you should probably be here and then- I came and detected that both from my clients and from the Council that there might be some I flexibility and some roan to resolve this without everyone having to incur a whole lot more expense. We did meet with the Mayor and the Mayor made a proposal which I don't really think is a new proposal. Everything in it is contained in, it's a reduction of what we had. There is nothing new. It's just a reduction of what we I did have, offered by the Mayor as a way to resolve this without any further cost or expense to the City of the people from Lotus Lake Estates. That's how we have been proceeding until today and I still think it's a good suggestion, a reasonable one, a II good way to resolve this without having any party required to bear any more expenses or invest any more time. IIMayor Hamilton - I need a motion, based on what I am hearing the Council members say, to make this official, that the Council is in fact adopting the findings and decisions. ICouncilman Horn - Were those ever modified. There were same questions about those. Don Ashworth - You made notifications to those. ICouncilman Horn - I don't think we ever got a final version of those. Mayor Hamilton - Regardless, what I am hearing the Council say is that the minutes I or August 20th are approved then the findings should be approved to make the action final. I_ IIDon Ashworth - The Council did not vote on the conditional use amendment for the four moorings. It was approved as a variance. You did not review it as a City Council because it went to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals but as a part of Iamending the conditional use permit your motion should be amending the conditional use permit to allow for four moorings and to adopt the findings and decision as sub- mitted to the City Council on September 10th and as modified that evening and that - should pick up any changes that you did make that we have not incorporated. ICouncilman Horn - Some of those as I recall are just questions. I think Dale had a few Questions about where the comprehensive plan was addressed. We didn't get a Iresponse back from Roger, at least I don't recall that we did. I think we need a final version of the findings and intent from Roger based on the input before we can approve them. I II Councilwoman Watson - I can't remember exactly what the questions where from that time. ICouncilman Horn - I think the only part that is open is the approval of the findings of intent. Mayor Hamilton - The decision portion, you agree with. ICoun_cilman Horn - Yes. I yCouncilman GavinQ - I don't think you are going to g g get a better version of that September 10th findings and decisions. I i Council Meeting Nove .,fr 19, 1984 • -9- II Mayor Hamilton - The evening that we discussed this I still feel that item #8 was II the center or our discussion because we really hadn't discussed water quality as part of that whole discussion. If we just deleted that whole section it probably would answer most of the questions that came up, Don Ashworth - Realize the issue at this point is really I decision was that it was closed off and apfinal decision was made on August gutn, if the then you really can't be adopting findings of fact on September 10th as to why you I voted the way you did. The necessity to finalize this really is not there. y you ' Councilman Horn - I guess I don't understand the original purpose. Don Ashworth - The original intent, it' I a matter of how the motion was worded and staff's ability to convey what the attorney was recommending. He was recommending that you not take final action that night. You established the point that you wished to see included in a findings of fact document and have that presented back so then your final decision would be based on a document. It doesn't change the vote and it doesn't change the minutes as a valid representation of what it was you ill did. Councilwoman Watson - Regardless of these facts and findings in September, the vote took place in August and I didn't see that waiting for these made the vote non- existant. Mayor Hamilton - We don't need to vote on the findings and decision and to one vote the Council has said that they agree that the vote that they took one August 20th was final. iCouncilwoman Watson - Where is ther l more quickly than six months because alnydoarlcwance for the process to begin on this II don't think that discussion changed the votes or made that svote�on thettendboats and stuff null and void but I do remember the discussion. I do remember II saying that he was going to talk to them. I can remember all these t things and so I have a little trouble with six months and all that business about starting that part of the procedure again because we did have that discussion. It should go back II procedurally but not necessarily wait six months. Barb Dacv - Under the variance provisions in the Zoning Ordinance it says, no appli- cation for a variance which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted II for a period of six months from the date of such order or denial except on grounds of new evidence or proof of change of conditions found to be valid by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. If the board finds that there are new grounds of evidence II or a change of conditions, then the case could be reheard before that six month period. Councilwoman Watson - They could begin the process again ri ht now by canin Board of Adjustments and Appeals for that finding, g y 9 to the Councilman Gevina - I would propose that that be done with the waiver of the fee for II the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. I think that's appropriate. IBarb Dacv - That same clause is in the conditional use provision as well. Mayor Hamilton - The Board of Adjustments and Appeals will meet in two weeks, 7. 11 • C Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded that this item be tabled ' until the July 7, 1986 Regular City Council meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded 1 to approve the bills dated June 16, 1986, check numbers 023757 through 023869 in the amount of $1,859,271.77 including the 11 bills as shown on page 15 of the Accounts Payable dated June 16, 1986 in the total amount of ' $94,591.65, and check numbers 026646 through 026752 in the amount of $204,625.05. All Council memebers voted in favor and motion carried. Beachlots: a. First Reading of an Amendment to Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance No. ' 47 to Amend Section 6.04, Section 7.04 and Section 14.04 (Recreational Beachlots) , City of Chanhassen. b. First Reading of an Amendment to Section 3.04 of Water Surface Usage Ordinance No. 73. c. Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Allow a Total of 3 Docks to be Constructed on Outlot B and to Allow Overnight Storage on these Docks of a Total of 9 Watercraft without Restrictions as to Whether said Watercraft are Motorized or Non-motorized Don Ashworth: When the Planning Commission reviewed this item, there appeared to be a great deal of emphasis placed on the fact that the lawsuit and that was really the reason that this item was coming back to the City Council. I disagree with that position. This issue is being considered on its merits. The lawsuit potentially did hasten that process, but is really ' not the reason for such. The City Staff is responsible to process and review applications that come before the City. In that process we look at the reasonableness of an ordinance and its consistency of enforcement. The ' reasonableness of an ordinance is very subjective. The best example would be the City Council has a lot of discretion in terms of establishing a new ordinance that would require a 50 foot setback. A developer can come in and question the reasonableness of that type of ordinance. He could Icontend that you were depriving him of his ability to develop. His ability to sustain that position really would not be very good. In adopting the ordinance, especially one that represents a leading edge, one which there is not a great deal of other communities that have similar type of ordinance. You always chance questions as to the reasonableness of this new ordinance. The beachlot ordinance and water surface usage ordinance really represented that type of an ordinance. They represented a leading edge and the question as to could we defend or is this ordinance reasonable, could only be answered by continuously monitoring the ordinance itself. Looking at it in terms of development proposals that came before the City. From its very beginnings, and I go back to the Derek Development proposal, you have 10 riparian lots and some of the initial questions were one of should the developer be allowed to have a beachlot, should there be [7-7 6 1 :_ .: A. Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 II 17 riparian rights associated with that? The Council looked to trying to establish a protection of the spawning area that existed in that area. In II doing that, looked for mechanisms to have some give and take and to be able to allow the developer potentially the right to share docks or share usage and still preserve that area that was the spawning area. That really became a kind of first test of the reasonableness of the ordinance. Since II that point in time you've had questions associated with the Will Thompson development, Red Cedar Cove, Sunnyslope has been back in front of you asking for consideration under the beachlot ordinance and Lotus Lake II Estates has been in several times as well. In each instance, the parties have questioned the reasonableness of the ordinance. That reasonableness can be determined in a court of law but typically the question of reasonableness will come back and be answered by the City Council themselves. The second issue is really one of consistency of enforcement. In the Plocher-Geske variance that was approved, really questioned again the reasonableness of the ordinance and our ability to consistently enforce II it. The issue before the Council was one of a developer attempting to develop a piece of property where he had the right to develop 10 single family lots. As part of that process he could have put in 10 docks each II having five boats. In total you would have been looking at 50 boats and instead the developer presented to this Council the position that the City of Chanhassen needed and could use condominium type of housing, that he could live with and in fact would be willing to reduce the total dockage II rights from 50 to 15. Under the current ordinance the Council could not do that. The Council made a decision to provide a variance to that developer T as part of that process. That variance has created in fact, back to the II ordinance itself because again, the two tests become one of reasonableness and consistency of enforcement. The issue of the ordinance amendments that you have in front of you are the same ordinance amendments that were introduced by Councilwoman Swenson at that point in time, one year ago. I II do not again believe that they in any way are related to the Lotus Lake Estates lawsuit. They were hasten by Lotus Lake Estates. There is no question they were hasten by Lotus Lake Estates but they were not presented II at the same time. At the time Plocker-Geske arose, the ordinance amendment again of Councilwoman Swenson was presented. The issue presented at the Planning Commission was one of what makes you think that if you change your II ordinance at this point in time that you won't have another change or that this is any different than where we were 2-3 years ago. I will go back to the same two positions and those are reasonableness and consistency of ` enforcement. If the City Council believes that the amendments before you II are reasonable and that you can consistently apply those in cases in the future, the ordinance will remain intact, be enforceable and be law of the City. At this point I would like Barbara to go through the specific II amendments. Barbara Dacy: First I will discuss the amendment to the recreational II beachlot ordinance. Just to remind everyone, as everybody knows a recreational beachlot is a conditional use in a residential district in the zoning ordinance of the City. After this I will talk about the proposed } amendment to the water surface usage ordinance. That ordinance is not part I 1 of the zoning ordinance but is a general ordinance of the city. I will just highlight the major changes between existing beachlot ordinance and II 7 II IIChanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 the proposed ordinance. The first one is in regards to the first section. [- II Originally under the existing ordinance chemical toilets are permitted subject to them being located 75 feet back from the ordinary high. The proposed ordinance those facilities are prohibited. What remains the same in this section is the prohibition against any t II ro g Y Ype of structure. Secondly, while the proposed ordinance continues to maintain existing restrictions to probibit launching over the beachlot, the proposed ordinance does allow overnight storage of watercraft at docks to number no I more than three motorized or non-motorized watercraft per dock. The proposed ordinance also allows up to four sailboat moorings, the storage of canoes, windsurfer, sailboards and other small sailboats overnight if they I are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. The third change between existing and the proposed ordinance is in regards to the size of the beachlot. The existing four dock, right now you have to have II 100 feet by 100 feet for a beachlot. The proposed ordinance regulates the number of docks by requiring that it have at least 200 feet of lake frontage, 100 feet in depth plus 30,000 square feet in area. Additional dockage can only be granted for another 200 feet of lake frontage and Ianother 20,000 square feet in area. You have to have both lake frontage and the lot area requirements in order to have the docks. The ordinance II does restrict the total number of docks per beachlot to a total of three. Another difference in the ordinance is that the ordinance does specifically regulate sailboat moorings. No more than one sailboat mooring is allowed within 200 feet and each additional mooring has to have an additional 200 feet of lake frontage. It should be noted that the proposed changes to the II beachlot ordinance does not effect existing beachlots. Your packets stamped for informational purposes, analyzed existing beachlots to see - how the proposed regulations would effect those if they all came under the II proposed standards. Only three beachlots would be allowed to have docks. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendments wanting to convey to the City Council that the existing ordinance should be II maintained. The water surface usage ordinance proposed amendment is simply to reduce the amount of boats stored at a dock where private riparian lot from five Iboats to three boats. The Planning Commission action on this particular item was to recommend approval to the Council. At this point I would like to refer the Council to Councilwoman Swenson's concerns regarding the II . consistency between the two proposed ordinances. Basically the concerns are that while existing beachlots are grandfathered, the proposed reduction in the number of boats in the water surface usage ordinance, the existing I boats are not grandfathered. Secondly, the proposed beachlot ordinance does not limit the number of additional watercrafts such as canoes, sailboards and small sailboats. While the water surface usage ordinance simply says three watercraft period. Third, the water surface usage II ordinance is conflicting with the beachlot ordinance in concern to the ownership of the lot. At this point if Council would like I could talk about the conditional use permit amendment request or would you like to Idiscuss the ordinances at this point. Mayor Hamilton: We will take the ordinances first. I think what I would L'INP. IIlike to do at this time is ask if there are any citizen comments dealing 8 II • C ' � 1 Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 II with the amendment to the ordinance. I Margie Gargalotty: 7413 Frontier Trail. You said not to give any new evidence so I won't but I would like to present to the Council a petition that was circulated among Chanhassen residents and on here are 290 II signatures of people who would like the Council to uphold the current ordinance with no changes. Councilman Horn: I got a call today from Mr. Dave Prillaman and we II discussed this issue. He asked me to pass onto the Council that he would like his named removed from the petition opposing this ordinance. I Henry Sosin: I live at 7400 Chanhassen Road. I would like to ask a couple of questions and make a couple of points and I would like Mr. Ashworth and Mr. Knutson to pay special attention because I would like to hear an answer. II One, the point you bring up about reasonableness and enforcability. They intrigue me. The definition of reasonableness first of all, how you come about that. I would think that one of the laws from one of the state II agencies, namely the DNR might be considered as one judge of reasonableness. They assume that for safety purposes alone, that the number of boats on a lake should be restricted at any one time to one power boat II Po per 10 acres of water. They assume that the people who live on the lake get 50% of that and therefore when they put in a boat launch, such as you know they are doing here now, they take the number of one boat per 20 acres, which is 50% of the usable capacity of the lake and they assume that is a reasonable II figure. What you are doing by changing this ordinance and allowing essentially in this particular one spot with reference to one lake at least, this change in ordinance would allow nine additional watercrafts, I motorized plus other boats by the way, onto the lake which would account for 75% of the "off-lake" usage of the lake surface. Any more than that, according to the DNR, promotes an unsafe situation. The argument is that if you add all of these extra boats, then it is almost like adding another 11 portion of usage to the lake and I wonder if that is reasonable. The other thing I would like to mention is what you said was consistency of enforcability. I would like you maybe to expand on that or maybe Roger II can explain that to me. Just because the Council thinks something is reasonable doesn't seem to mean that it is enforcable or that they would . enforce it. We have had laws on the books, there have been persistent violations of those particular laws and regulations which to this date II continue. Assuming that these laws which are not up for change are reasonable and enforcable, they haven't been enforced. The point being is that the Council doesn't seem to enforce the rules or the law and it is II maybe not up to the Council to do that, City Staff whatever. Enforcability is determined in a court of law. At least that is my understanding of it. What I would like to ask, and maybe I can get an II answer to this, is it seems in its current form the ordinance says that for all the reasons that the ordinance was written, it was written this way and we are limiting usage of the lake to riparian owners except for all the II 4 usage that is allowed through normal access. That is a principal of the t law and that to me seems defensible. What I don't understand is your presumption that making 200 feet plus 100 foot depth plus 30,000 square feet is reasonable and defensible. If I were in the position of owning a II 9 11 I ... _ J_ , � � J Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 beachlot or having a lot that had 175 feet or 190 feet and you passed this law, then you tell me that now the Council is comfortable with this and this is defensible, you tell me how that is anymore defensible- than our current law because I think it is less defensible because that is being ' arbitrary. You have no basis upon which to say 200 by 100 by 30,000 square feet has any scientific merit. Where is the merit of that argument? I would like that answer if possible. 1 Councilwoman Swenson: Henry, if I might respond to your DNR comment. It is my understanding that when the DNR establishes that 20 acres as you say, they take 50% of the people that are using it and they include all of the lakeshore, not just the riparian rights. Our regulations are based on the premises of 75 foot lots. With the riparian rights for instance, with 1,000 feet on riparian rights, they would allow 13 docks depending on the 11 DNR which allows four boats par dock without additional permits so that would be a potential 52 watercraft. Now when a beachlot is processed this triggers what they call a PUD count which takes one boat for each of that 75 feet then they add 50%. So in the case of 1,000 feet, the DNR would allow 20 boats. This is their regulations so they do take into consideration PUD's in that form. Just clarification. Don Ashworth: The question of reasonableness is a decision of a City Council. Other cities typically define reasonableness of an ordinance to mean one of the ability of existing beachlots, in this case or whatever the use happens to be, to conform to the existing ordinance or the ordinance that is proposed to be passed, and reasonableness in terms of your ability to require new developments to comply with that same ordinance. Again that is typically a test used in other communities. The question on consistency of enforcement, the Lotus Lake Homeowners have made Staff aware of various violations during the past 2-3 year period of time. I think that we have responded to each of those. I think there has to be a recognition that the Court process and the ability to enforce an issue is very difficult. It can take a period of time. The one noted by the homeowners is Mr. Harrison Winters. That has been in court several times. The Court just 1 made a ruling in the last two weeks in favor of Mr. Winters. In light of that, the other one noted which is Mr. Gordon Talk really becomes very questionable for the City to continue to pursue recognizing his number of years on the lake and that he is a victim of polio. The other violations that are referred to, I'm not sure what they are. I know there has been some questions on Outlot 12. Outlot 12 has existed since the City was incorporated. I know of nothing they are doing there today that was not 11 done there 50 years ago. If there are other violations, Mr. Sosin, I guess I would like to know of them. Tom Merz: I live on Lake Minnewashta. Rather than go through my list of the many things that you have heard before, I would hope that all of us are here to, our primary concern is that 10 years ago we started out to preserve the lakes and the natural resources that we have. For that we implemented that Lake Study. We had a findings and we spent a lot of time on it. At that point we had certain guidelines that we were all willing to follow. Less than three years ago with the implementation of the DNR and their public access to the lake, we again in my mind in reading these books 10 • Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 T, that we all site laws, we have gone over that and gone over that. At this point, we are not maintaining the lakes that we all moved out here for. The clarity is gone from 10 feet to 7 feet, the wildlife is disappearing and we are not maintaining what we've got and I guess I'm up here to say we've got to stop someplace. We are abusing our lakes at this point, why 11 should be allow any more abuse. Henry Sosin: Can I have an answer to the 200 feet question? Mayor Hamilton: That was one of the items I wanted to discuss dealing with 11 this amendment. I had some questions about that also and I intend to bring it up when the Council discusses this, we will get into that. I was uncomfortable with that same issue and that was one of the points I wanted to bring up so perhaps in our discussions here, that will answer your question. I have some comments that I would like to make prior to the Council's discussion of this issue. There are a few statements that I am going to read to you. Based on comments made by residents and Commission members, there seems to be a need for clarification of some questions. The City Council has responsibility of maintaining and directing growth and development in this community for all interested persons. That includes residents and non- residents alike. All ordinances are open to challenge at any time. It's not a this year, not next year arrangement. It is anticipated that at the time of passage, ordinances will stand the test of time. Unfortunately situations arise that can diminish the legality or usefulness of a particular ordinance. When that occurs, the ordinance will be reviewed and changes made, if necessary. The Council has a responsibility to be fair and impartial to everyone. The residents, future residents, commercial organizations and employees of commercial organizations, visitors and guests. Chanhassen is not an island or a community that is suddenly stopping development. I refer to this as "I have mine now don't let anyone else in" syndrome. Some residents have suggested that the Council knuckles under to pressure or to developers. We have an obligation on this Council to listen to each and every request made. TO consider an issue, if it is requested every year and to review that every year it is requested. This Council continually examines questions and dissects all proposals brought before us. In my opinion there are very few errors made in our , decision making process. Unfortunately, in today's society experts can be hired to give an opinion on anything and if you don't like what the first expert said, hire another, who for a price will also be an expert. Most of these experts are attorneys, in my opinion, looking for something to do. I heard a story the other day that I actually thought was humorous. The fellow said that he understands that experimental laboratories are going to start using attorneys in their experiments rather than white mice for two reasons, because there are more of them and because you don't become quite as attached to them. The City of Chanhassen has assembled a team of professionals to advise the Council on technical matters. Outside consultants are also used to advise the Staff and Council when necessary. One of the major factors in building a team is trust and confidence in their abilities. I have a great deal of trust and confidence in the entire staff of the City of Chanhassen. The Council and Staff goes out of its way to 11 11 I ;� .i Cam. IIChanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 solicit input from the community. Most of the time input is constructive [- II and useful and is greatly appreciated. At no time has an issue ever been ramrodded through or acted upon without input from all commissions and the public. Everyone has an opportunity to submit some sense of information I about why or why not a project should or should not be acceptable. This proposed ordinance amendment before us tonight is no different. All information is looked at in an objective, unbiased perspective, one will 11 and that there is very little, if any, net change to the use of the lakes and fair treatment to all residents in the future will occur. I would like to now have the Council make their comments and questions about the amendment to the recreational beachlot ordinance 47. IICouncilman Horn: I think some of the comments Tom made really go a long way for what happened in my thought process in reviewing this. I have been II involved in this since the inception as part of the first lake study committee that was appointed and I understand what we set out to do with this ordinance and know a lot of the reasoning behind it. I didn't follow II the committee all the way through but I did follow their recommendations. I think one of the real issues to me that really had any question when we originally had done, was the comparison of saying a piece of property with 900 feet of lakeshore doesn't at least have the same amount of rights as II one who has maybe 50 feet of lakeshore. Believe me, I am one of the most emotional advocates of saving lakes and saving trees and those things, I would say of anyone of the Council, but I have a little trouble with that II when it came to reasonableness and I had a little trouble when I equated that with what we were trying to do, which was to keep down the density on the lake to a reasonable level. To the issue of when these ideas originated, the night Pat brought up her proposals to the Council which was prior to I any lawsuit that we had and was prior to the approval of the property on Lake Minnewashta, I was willing to go along with that and listen to those arguments as long as we would apply that equitably to the proposal that was II before us and also to reduce the number of boats per dock to three. I felt this was a reasonable compromise. I think if we take all of the docks on the lake that now could have five boats and put three boats on them, we are going to decrease the amount of density on the lake and that will II compensate to a great degree in allowing other docks for large property owners. I think, first of all, I don't favor the the idea of outlots. I tend to favor riparian lakeshore owners not so much for the idea of II ° crowding in this case, but for the idea of maintaining the lake. As we toured the lakes we saw many inconsistencies on how well people maintained their properties. There was a lot of inconsistencies in the riparian II lakeshore owners but there was an even greater inconsistency in outlot . owners. My concern with outlots at that time was that some type of a community ownership doesn't seem to bring about the sense of pride that an individual owner does, but there are exceptions to every rule. The Sunrise IIbeach outlot situation is very well done. It is immaculately kept. If we had all outlots like that, I couldn't question it but I feel that what we II have come to this evening, is a reasonable compromise because of the density issue. I tend to feel that new residents, new developers have some rights to lake use also. I'm not sure that I followed Henry's comments completely L-A but it seemed to me like we were talking about using up a quota with the IInumber of uses we had. If we were to look at that, it would appear to me 12 II a Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 II that a lot of the small lots along any of our lakes, would use up this quota much faster than what three docks is going to do for us so I don't II feel we can shut the new developers and the new home builders out of the uses that other people get priviledged to. For that reason I have changed my original concept of what I felt was reasonable on this and feel that if II we do have the restrictions of 200 feet or whatever a reasonable criteria is, so that we don't have the 25 foot outlot with 100 homes on it that we will adequately control their use. II Councilwoman Swenson: I think that Don and you and Clark have covered pretty well my feelings on the subject also and I think it was important, I thank you Henry for giving me an opportunity to mention the alternative II were we without an ordinance in remote possibility that we might be forced into one with 20 watercraft which would be 7 more than the current amended ordinance would allow and 40 less than would be permitted under riparian II ownership. By no means do I mean to imply that I disapprove of riparian ownership. Being a lakeshore owner myself, I do confess to being as sensitive to the condition of our lakes as anybody else which may or may II not make it more difficult for me to come to some of these decisions. Sometimes these decisions are personally difficult because it costs relationships with people you admire and respect but in the capacity of an elected official one has to override these things. I think that perhaps II the time to make the recommendations would be after everybody has their comments done so I will pass with that. IICouncilman Geving: My comments are that I don't know of a single issue in the last four years that we have spent more time on then docks, the number of docks, the number of boats per dock and the whole issue of the recreational beachlot ordinance along with the water usage. During the II last 10 days I suspect I have received as many phone calls as the rest of the Council, but it is interesting that as I tallied up the scores, I had almost equal number of fors and against on this whole issue. There are as ' many people that wanted to amend the ordinance as to leave it alone. I think that for anyone to suggest that at any time this Council has ever been intimidated or an attempt to influence the Council by developers, if II you have that feeling it is totally false because it just doesn't happen. If you look deep enough you will usually find that the people that are behind the developers are the people who are trying to market their land. They are the farmers, the local citizens and they are the ones, not the II developers who are intimidating or attempting to put pressure on whoever, to market that land, so it isn't an outside influence. it is generally local. The main thing about this particular issue tonight is that I think 1 we have studied it fairly, we have had public hearings on this issue, we have had input from literally hundreds of people and we have spent a lot of time on it and even though we were party to the original ordinance, we are a dynamic community and changes do take place. There are at any one time, II 500-700 building permits issued and available in the City of Chanhassen right now. Houses are being built all over the lakes and the lakes are a big issue with Chanhassen because I know how many people live out there. II Approximately 15% of all our citizens live on lakes and because of that, they are very sensitive to what is happening around them. Changes are taking place and as the ordinances that we put into effect need to be II 13 II IIChanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 changed because of some reason, whatever that might be, we have to take [— 1 another look at the issue. On this particular case, I feel that as long as we are consistent and we try to be fair and we try to make every attempt to be deliberate in our sound decision making process, we are going to come up with a good solution tonight. Another thing is that we can't hurt the existing homeowners. If we are fair to those people and grandfather those people in where necessary, I think we will have accomplished that objective. I am very much in favor of reducing the density of boat traffic on our lakes. I have been attempting to get to this point for some time. This may surprise a lot of you but we have been considering this particular amendment very early this spring. It is nothing new. We have talked about II it for the last six months and we have had several large meetings, lengthly meetings. This isn't something that we just arrived at so the issue of reducing the boats from five to three on a dock, I have gotten many good comments on that and that seems to be one issue that people are in favor IIof. As far as violations are concerned and the enforcement of those violations that are brought to our attention. I think it is a citizen's duty to bring those violations to our attention. We have 24 square miles II in this City Henry, and it is very difficult at any one time to catch everybody who is doing something wrong, but you as citizens have a responsibility. When you see a violation taking place and you know it is a II violation, report it to City Hall and it will be carried out swiftly. That is how I feel about answering that particular question. We can't be all places at all times. In terms of the ordinance itselves, I am very much in II favor of the way we are moving here on this particular issue. I think the beachlot ordinance has to be amended. We probably don't like beachlots but they are a fact of life. If we can eliminate and at least attempt to come up with some standards as proposed by Councilwoman Swenson, I don't know I where her criteria came from but I believe it is reasonable and I believe we can enforce that. At least we will have a standard. We didn't have a standard before so I think that will work. Again, if we can grandfather those people in tonight that are existing riparian homeowners on the lakes II and take care of the other issues, I think this will be fine for the community. II Councilwoman Watson: I feel like everyone else. Most of the comments have been made. I will just repeat one that we take great pride in that regardless of whether there is a public hearing held here, everyone gets to II talk. There is always an opportunity to speak here even though these are not public hearings and I think that is something we all take a great deal of pride in. The other comment I have to make is I'm not opposed to the amendment, more my opposition is to the timing. The action that some feel 1 percipitated the change of the ordinance involved the variance process. The variance process is used in conjunction with other ordinances and doesn't necessarily compromise the ordinance. ,, Mayor Hamilton: I have two issues that I would like to have the Council discuss. One is when I was reviewing this change that has to do with what II Dr. Sosin said earlier, I was looking at 200 feet and 30,000 square feet of land and I thought that if we are going to be fair with the ordinance, that isn't necessarily being fair to everyone because you can have a 100 foot II lot on the lake, we may allow 100 lot now. Consequently, I thought it 6 14 II Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 might be a good idea to at least consider having a scale of some kind so if you reduce 200 down to 100 by 10 foot increments or whatever increment you want, I just took 10 feet, for each 10 feet that you reduce the frontage on the lake, you increase the square footage of land space by an increment. Whether that is 2,000, 5,000 or 10,000. Again, it would have to be an arbitary number that would need to be selected and see how that would work once it is put into place. I worked out two ways. One using going down in 10 foot increments on frontage on the lake having 100 foot setbacks though, and then going up in 10,000 foot increments so when you get down to 100 foot frontage on the lake, you would need to have 130,000, that is if you go up 10,000 square feet for each 10 feet of frontage you go down, that would give you 130,000 square feet of land space to have your outlot. Now 11 it you went up in 5,000 square foot increments, you would have 100 feet on the lake and 80,000 square feet of space. It is a question I discussed with Barb and Don this afternoon and we just kicked it around some and thought it was an interesting concept and to me we need to have something like this to make it fair to everyone so we aren't just saying 200 is the only size you can have and you can have something smaller than that but you have to meet the rest of the criteria. Councilman Geving: Using your example then Tom, if you had the 200 feet what would you come up to. Councilwoman Swenson: At 200 feet you would have 30,000. Councilman Geving: So you would have the basic 30 and there is no problem there. Moving down then, 100 would give you 80. Mayor Hamilton: In applying that ratio to the outlots that are in existence, the only outlot that does effect would be Frontier Trail. They have 180 feet of lake frontage and 105,000 square feet of space. The rest of them don't have the square footage required or they don't have the frontage required but again it is an arbitrary number that would be ' selected and I'm not sure how you would select that number. It could be 1,000, 2,000, 5,000, 10,000. Let's say you had 150 feet of lakeshore, you would then be required to have 55,000 square feet. ' Councilman Geving: That is exactly what the Sunrise Hills would fit into. Mayor Hamilton: That is grandfathered. I Councilman Geving: That type of thing. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, right. Councilman Geving: Do we have any idea at this time, how many of these potential beachlots we have? Where there are large acreages of land next to a lake. I'm talking about future. Councilwoman Swenson: Since there is only one and that will be 1 grandfathered in, doesn't this become a fundamental requirement of future beachlots? We're not really effecting anybody who is already existing so 15 I . ; Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 I actually the 200 isn't any more arbitrary than the 100 was before or the 4 ' feet per dwelling or anything like that. Would that be correct? Councilman Geving: I guess there is really no answer to the question. Councilwoman Watson: It will all be on the decision we make. Councilman Horn: My response to that would be that typically the area that you have to use on a lake is dependent on the shoreline, not how much area is behind the shoreline. That is why I don't really feel that is really relevant to what the purpose of the ordinance is, which is density of the ' lake surface itself. Lake foot frontage is relevant to that overall usable size but the amount of area is not. Councilmen Geving: I'm thinking of developments Clark, in terms of those developments that might come to us in the future with beachlots permissions. I can think of 2 or 3 right off the top of my head. ' Councilman Horn: I understand what you're saying but what I'm saying is the purpose of the ordinance was not to promote development. The purpose of the ordinance was to keep the lake from becoming overcrowded. Councilwoman Swenson: If I may, I think there were also considerations given to the surrounding area and adjacent property owners and as a result of that I think, for instance you can't take something that is 150 feet and 1 100 feet deep or 200 or 50 or whatever it happens to be. I think the square footage of the lot is pertinent in that there is more expanse for people and not as much immediate effect on the adjacent property owners I which is why the 20,000 feet was important and the 200 satisfied that the lake usage to 20,000 hopefully satisfied 30,000, satisfied the area which could be used without hopefully effecting riparian adjacent property owners. I have no argument with what you are saying, I just wonder whether it would be effective inasmuch as we don't have anybody that is going to be... 1 Mayor Hamilton: I was thinking more of the future. If another one comes in I thought there should be guidelines to deal with. The other question I had in dealing with this issue was the area of the lake. For instance, and Pat has brought this point up before but I will bring it up again, Lake St. Joe, we will use that as an example, small lake. If a person were to purchase the whole lake or half the lake, the property around it and decide to put docks in there and rent boats out or something. They could do that with this ordinance so I was merely thinking of that and thinking perhaps somehow we should try to tie in the acreage of the lake. Again I don't know exactly how you do that but it is something that I think we need to consider in light of the different size lakes we have. Councilman Horn: If lakes were perfectly round, that would take care of ' itself in just the number of people who could build around it but because of the odd shapes that some of them have, you might run into something like that. That is why we run into the crowding problem on Lotus Lake for instance, is because of the shape. Theortically a small lake would allow a 16 1 . . 7,, Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 II small number of boats just with the strict front footages. That is why I think the front footage is a reasonable method to use when we establish a II criteria. Mayor Hamilton: Roger is using a scale any more reasonable or is something II in your opinion would be better. Roger Knutson: I think that really is a judgment call for you to make. I would be comfortable frankly with either one is fine. Maybe Barb could ' help us. Are you going to have any situations where you would have 100 feet of lakeshore and 140,000 square feet, are you going to get plans like that? I Barb Dacy: Here is an overhead of Lotus Lake. Vacant properties, the Kerber area on the east side, the Moulton ro p petty on the west side may II redevelop and so on. The remaining frontage along Lotus Lake is either in riparian ownership or Carver Beach lot and this is Fox Chase so there could be two potential areas on that lake for some type of subdivision request that may request a beachlot. On Lake Minnewashta it is a different II situation in that on the east side you have the regional park obviously occupying that area and then there are obviously a number of existing beachlots. Vacant areas that stand out in my mind right now are this area ' on the west side of Minnewashta Parkway, south of Pleasant Acres. These property descriptions are tied across Minnewashta Parkway. As a matter of T fact, we did have an inquiry on this piece a couple of months ago that the II{ Planning Commission considered a beachlot request on it on an informal i basis. The depth of these areas is 100 to 150 feet. I don't know what the area is but as you move south down toward the beach ro p petty becomes less deep or shorter and shorter so that possibility of a beachlot in this area II is remote. Other vacant areas on Minnewashta would be southeast corner of Minnewashta Parkway and TH 7. The remainder of the lake appears to be in riparian ownership unless some of these lots down in here would be developed. Councilman Geving: I think you are forgetting one area. I recognize 2 or 3 spots there but I think Lake Riley on the south side has tremendous II potential for future growth. . Councilwoman Swenson: There are 130 acres for sale right now. I Councilman Geving: That is the only other big area that I can think of. Mayor Hamilton: There is the Gagne property. I think he has about 800 II feet. Barbara Dacy: Yes, I'm sorry I neglected to make a transparency of that I lake but this piece. .. Councilman Geving: That's okay but that is the only one that I can think II of. II 17 II A IIChanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 II Councilman Horn: I think developers with 200 feet, they always have the option of putting single family homes with riparian lakeshore. This isn't taking away use of their property. In fact if you hear all their arguments they will tell you that is greater intensification of the lake. ICouncilwoman Swenson: What we are talking about are, I have the opinion that when we discussed this at other meetings that we have been talking II about the 200 feet and the 30,000 or then the additional 200 feet with the additional 20,000 as all being a solid, contiguous piece of property not broken up by a road. I don't think any of us want to see a narrow strip along the lake taken by 100 feet by 100 feet. Let's say 10,000 square foot II lot and then have the other 30,000 feet on the other side of the road. This defeats the purpose all together. I Henry Sosin: I would like to point out a couple of things. Pat, when you were talking about the number of boats and the length of the shore and that sort of thing. You seemed to dwell on the 9 boats. The 9 boats on the II docks. You didn't count the four sailboats and you didn't count the 30 canoes and other sailcraft and as we all know, usage by one boat per family is far different that usage by three boats per family so that when you make the assumption, as example the only one I know the numbers on is Lotus Lake II Estates, if this were to go through, you're not talking about nine boats and you were telling me the DNR would allow 20, you are talking about maybe 40 boats when you count all of them. ICouncilwoman Swenson: These are 20 slips though Henry and an unlimited amount of storage on land for the DNR. They don't control the number of boats and canoes. IIHenry Sosin: But Council does or has in the past. II Councilwoman Swenson: What I mean to say really is the fact that the 20 boats would be 20 slips so we would have in this particular one that you are talking about. Incidentally one of the recommended changes that I have II is one sailboat mooring per dock, not four sailboat moorings so future developments there would be a limit of 12 boats in the water in storage. Henry Sosin: Stored in the water but utilization.. . Councilwoman Swenson: One rack with a limit of six canoes or small sailboats per dock so you have three of those. These things are already II there and if we are going to refer to Lotus Lake, Lotus Lake which is what we are all familiar with, the only thing we would be adding there Henry, are the two additional dock and the motorized, and there are already four II boats allowed so we would be allowing five more boats. They already have the sailboat moorings so the only thing we are doing is saying they can have nine watercraft and they can be motorized. II Henry Sosin: I'm not talking about the differences. I'm talking about utilization and numbers. You are talking about in that particular spot 40 watercraft in that area. That seems a lot more than what riparian owners IIcurrently use now. Riparian owners, they may store more than one 18 II _L i Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 I watercraft but they only use one at a time. Utilization is far different. Councilwoman Swenson: This is, I think subjective but I understand what II you are saying. Henry Sosin: Can I point out one other thing. You are talking about II future lots and I think you should make sure that this doesn't happen and I don't know what language you are going to need to do this but I could readily visualize if I were a developer and I had a lot that stretched from II here to here and whatever you are talking about is the minimum number of feet required for a dock. I could take this portion or any portion, whatever it is, as long as this linear footage meets your requirement and I put my outlot back here in some kind of wetland that I can't touch anyway, get my required square footage and have four docks down here or x number of docks down here. You were talking about a road not be acceptable. I would II suggest that is not acceptable either. Georgette Sosin: As all of you on the Council know, I live at 7400 Chanhassen Road and I swore I wouldn't speak tonight. However, I do want II to respond to a few comments that were made to set the record straight which is why I'm here tonight to be counted really. First of all, this new amendment to your ordinance was brought up for the first time to my II knowledge at an August meeting of last year to which I was present. It was voted down by I think all but two voted against it. To my knowledge there has not been a public meeting about this other than the public hearing which took place several weeks ago in front of Planning Commission and I'm II sure all of you studied your notes very diligently and you knew that it was roundly defeated by all of the Planning Commissioners who felt that the ordinance was excellent as it stood. You read all of our comments I'm II sure. There are a few points that you made that I think should be in the record as being corrected. We, as a group, were the ones who wanted the reduction of boats from five to three. We as riparian owners recognize the problems of crowding on the lake and even though it effects a number of people in our own group who are going to have to give up some boats, are willing and wanting to do that so I think some recognition of that fact should be made at least for your records. I also understand the position II that you are all in and I understand the tone of the evening and I think that might account for your group making the statement that we don't make mistakes. I think everybody makes mistakes. I Mayor Hamilton: I don't think any of us said we don't make mistakes. Georgette Sosin: Well, that we try not to, I appreciate that and I know II that all of you work very hard and that you study very hard and you try to responsive to everyone. I think this is an unusual situation this evening. Tom Merz: One last thing and I guess to only follow what Georgette said is II that we do have a Planning Commission, we do have a study and as I heard you Clark and Pat, the four of your, if I understood, for the change in II T this beachlot and I wonder what kind of study or information you four can have that can be so different than these other two committees. What type of knowledge or research could be possibly be done that we have two groups II 19 II J Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 ' would be pertinent to the subject. Councilman Geving: Don't we have that now? ' Councilwoman Swenson: It is not specifically stated. Councilwoman Watson: We have used that discretion but it is not stated. Councilwoman Swenson: It has not been stated and I would like to make it quite clear. ' Mayor Hamilton: Since this is the first meeting, that could be a condition for Attorney's review and adoption for the second reading. ' Ladd Conrad: Just two quick points. First one, Dale, as far as your comments. The Planning Commission has been pretty aware of the lake issues and there hasn't been much turnover until the last couple of months so we are really pretty convinced of the validity of the current ordinance. The recent two weeks ago when we looked at it, there was no new information and there were three new Planning Commission members. My other point that I think is real relevant and I think Clark has brought it up, as far as ' reviewing the ordinance that you have in front of you, the best control on lake usage is lakeshore and Clark made that point. Whether it be riparian owners or whatever. Lakeshore does control the use. It does promote safety 1 and therefore I guess, pay real good attention I think Tom, to your particular interest of a pie shaped type of development on the lake. I don't think that serves the lake whereas lakeshore itself is a barrier or ' it does tend to promote the safety in the things we are interested in. Thank you. Mayor Hamilton: Did I suggest a pie shape arrangement? I don't think I did. Ladd Conrad: You suggested an area which really goes back off the lake and ' I don't believe that is a valid use when you do have lakeshore which is a better way of controlling the use on the water. Councilwoman Swenson: I have a real problem here with passing this without ` the amendment for 73. Inasmuch as they are, at the present time as you know, inconsistent and the fact that they are open. Councilman Horn: Your recommendation is correct then if we pass it. Councilwoman Swenson: If we accept these. 11 Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to accept the amendment to the Recreational Beachlot 47-AB as amended by Councilwoman Swenson's recomendations and concerns listed in the letter to the Council of June 10, 1986 which states: No recreational beachlot shall be used for the purpose of overnight storage of more than three (3) motorized or non- ; motorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more �'-- than one dock, however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up 21 �. ( ' • Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 ' that are amicably against this and you people are for it. It is all the same. We are using the same criteria. I don't understand it. Mayor Hamilton: Probably the Council discussed this issue, as Pat said, a couple years ago. I have been one of those who wanted to discuss it and probably was I who asked to have it on the agenda because I thought the ordinance was unfair to the city. I have not been in favor of not allowing overnight storage on the lakes. The Council has discussed it perhaps more than the Planning Commission has. I don't know if we had any information that the Planning Cmmission did not have. Everything that we have had should have been passed on to the Planning Commission. I think it was simply a matter of this body has been more in favor of change to the ordinance at this time rather than the Planning Commission. Councilman Geving: I think too Tom, that this body has been together for the last four years and we put this ordinance together. I think the Planning Commission has turned over somewhat during that time and there are probably some new commission members that are not as familiar as we are with this subject. I do know that all the information, all the notes and data we have was given to them so Tom, I can only respond the same way that I think we were quite a bit more familiar with this issue than the Planning Commission. ' Jack Melby: 40 Hill Street. I would like to know if you think that the ordinance with these changes is as defensible or more defensible than the old ordinance. Roger Knutson: As you know I am in an awkward position but I think Mr. Ashworth summarized things. It involves reasonableness and consistency of enforcement. Looking forward, I think what you have in front of you would be enforceable ordinance consistently applied. Mayor Hamilton: He said looking at the ordinance we have in front of us, he thought would be enforceable in a consistent manner. Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to add one condition be made to the ' ordinance and I would like the Council to consider it. In view of the fact that one of the reasons that this entire beachlot ordinance was initiated in the first place was because there are certain lots, the Derek property was one, when dockage would interfer with the wetland area which since that time we haven't discussed or initiated in the past the wetlands ordinance specifically identifying (a) and (b) but we all know that have certain shoreline that is so classified specifically which is still habitat for wildlife and so forth. I would like to have as a stipulation in the beachlot ordinance, not just as part of the conditional use but the Council must approve the placement, docks, bouys and I suppose diving ramps would be important also and also the racks because in that way we can monitor and protect the wetland area. Since we do have the clause in the ordinance that allows a clustering of docks, there is no great necessity for three docks. If they are allowed three, they can have one or two if this will better protect the wetland ordinance. Therefore I would like to add Council approval is required in the placing of docks, bouys and whatever 20 • Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 to one (1) sailboat mooring shall be allowed per dock. Canoes, [- J windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot provided they are stored on a specifically designed rack having no more than six (6) such watercraft, per rack, per dock. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight. Overnight docking, mooring and storage is further restricted to the owner/occupants and renter/occupants of dwellings within ' the Homeowners Association. Simulataneously to accept the water surface usage ordinance amendment No. 73-A with the recommendations as stipulated in my letter to the Council dated June 10, 1986 which states: Except for privately owned commercial resorts and commercial boat landings established ' prior to the adoption of this ordinance, no person shall dock overnight more than three (3) watercraft. Overnight docking, mooring and storage is restricted to the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of the lake site home to which the dock, storage or mooring site is an accessory use. I would like the stipulation be included that the Council approve placement of docks, bouys and so forth be included. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Watson who opposed. Motion carried. Roger Knutson: Just so I have it clear in my minutes. I have added to the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance the following: the City Council may ' regulate the placement of docks, if allowed, bouys, diving ramps and boat racks. I will place that into the recreational beachlot ordinance. Now is there any other change? 1 Councilwoman Swenson: Do you have the stipulated changes in the amendment of June 10, 1986. Why don't I give you my copy. The one for the beachlot ordinance will replace item (e) and the one for the water surface usage is ' Section 3.04 of the Zoning Ordinance No. 73. Roger Knutson: 'Those are the three changes then? I have the two changes you mentioned here in the letter of June 10, 1986 and the one change you said earlier this evening. Councilwoman Swenson: That is correct. Mayor Hamilton: We now have the Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Allow Total of 3 Docks to be Constructed on Outlot B and to Allow Overnight ' STorage on these Docks of a Total of 9 Watercraft without Restrictions as to Whether said Watercraft are Motorized or Non-Motorized. Does Council want to discuss this item. Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to review this approval location in this contract requiring the Council approval of the location of the docks, etc. Roger Knutson: That is what Barb recommended be approved, the site P lan they bring in. ' Councilman Geving: No, we want to see the physical site on the lake by a Staff member and maybe even some photos that would prove to us that they are not into an area where there is a habitat problem. 22 A Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986 Roger Knutson: You are going to approve a site plan. How you get there... Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Allow a Total of 3 Docks to be Constructed on Outlot B and to Allow Overnight Storage on these docks of a Total of 9 Watercraft without Restrictions as to Whether said Watercraft are Motorized or Non-motorized with the following conditions: 1. Submission of a revised site plan indicating the proposed location 1 of the two additional docks. 2. Compliance with requirements of the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance. All voted in favor except Councilwanan Watson who opposed. Notion carried. Councilwoman Swenson: That the previous contract of the Conditional Use Permit is still effective as regards to limitations of the four sailboats and racks? ' Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilwoman Swenson: Everything else is as stated. ' Roger Knutson: It is noted that this will have to be continued upon your approval before the next meeting is before us. I Dacy: Mr. Mayor did your motion include the two conditions in the Staff Report also? Mayor Hamilton: Yes it did. Request for Water Obstacle Permit, Minnewashta Water Ski Club, Dana Johnson. Dacy: The water surface usage ordinance requires that the Council issue a permit for a water ski slalom course. This particular request though is put before the Council for in excess of 72 hours which is allowed only in • the ordinance. The attached materials that you have in your packet includes a letter from the applicant as well as petition from the property owners along South Shore Drive and Ironwood in favor of the proposed application. Use of this ski slalom course would begin immediately and is proposed to last until the end of September. Use of the course would occur on weekday mornings and the primary users would be the parents and by the Sheriff's office as well as the Public Safety Director and their comments are attached. It should be noted that they submitted an original application in 1984 but have since changed the location of the ski slalom course in reaction to the Sheriff's office comments and those comments have now been resolved. On the second page of the memo, the ordinance lists five standards which the Council can use as a basis for approval or denial. 4 Approval would require at least 3/5 majority vote. Should the Council approve the applicaton we are recommending implementation of two 23 , • , CITY OF cHANHAssEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937-1900 July 24 , 1989 Mr. Nicholas Gassman Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association 6800 Brule Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Dear Mr. Gassman: It has come to my attention that a deck has been constructed on the ' Lotus Lake Estates Recreational Beachlot. I was contacted this spring by residents from Lotus Lake Estates questioning whether or not a deck could be located on the recreational beachlot. I explained at that time that it would require a variance to the shoreland ordinance, a ' building permit and an amendment to the conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot. No effort was made to obtain any of these required permits prior to the construction of the deck. The deck on Ithe recreational beachlot is in violation of the following: 1. The 75 foot setback of the Shoreland Ordinance. 2 . Requirement to receive a building permit. 3 . Violation of the conditional use permit for the recreational 1 beachlot. You are required to aoply for a variance to the 75 foot setback, apply 1 for a building permit and apply for an amendment to the conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot. Application for the variance, conditional use permit amendment and building permit must be ' made by September 11 , 1989 . If the city does not receive an applica- tion by that time or hear from the association, it will be necessary for this office to refer the matter to our City Attorney' s Office and the Code Enforcement Division. ' Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ' Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner cc: Don Ashworth Scott Harr Roger Knutson I 11 August 28, 1989 1 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive ' P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Jo Ann: ' On behalf of Lotus Lake Homeowners Association, I am submitting to you a formal request for a variance to our existing Conditional Use Permit. I am enclosing the following: -Site plan including names and legal description of lots within 500 feet of the deck. ' -Names, addresses (in label form) of all current Lotus Lake Homeowners in our Association. -Proposed wording for the variance to the existing Conditional Use Permit. -Land Development Application ' -Check for $150 for Conditional Use Permit. Please let me know if there is anything else required. I will be happy to provide it for you. Thank you Jo Ann for your help and assistance. Sincerely, Nic D. Gassman 6800 Brule Circle Chanhassen, MN Phone: 934-8408 or 829-7600 I I 1 . LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION I CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II . (612) 937-1900 • .. APPLICANT: Lotus Lake Estates OWNER: • II H • omeowners Association ADDRESS ADDRESS TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 829-7600 Code __. Zip Code TELEPHONE 934-8408 REQUEST: . II Zoning District e Chan K Change Planned Unit Development IIZoning Appeal Sketch Plan Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment _ Subdivision L. Land Use Plan Amendment Platting I X Conditional Use Permit Amendment Metes and Sounds Site Plan Review Street/Easement Vacation II Wetlands Permit IPROJECT NAME Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Beach Deck PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION OUTLOT B - Neighborhood Rec Area IREQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION, OUTLOT B - same PRESENT ZONING OUTLOT B - Lotus Lake Estates REQUESTED ZONING same • USES PROPOSED same SIZE OF PROPERTY same LOCATION OUTLOT B Lotus Lake Estates REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Variance for existing Conditional Use Permit II ILEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal i g if necessary) 1 II , .a...,aiLliii . ..... _ I August 26, 1989 Proposed Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association is proposing to the City of Chanhassen an addition to the existing Conditional Use Permit for the Beachlot — Lotus Lake Estates (Outlot B) . The addition is to Section 2. 04 entitled "Certain Site Alterations Authorized" : h. One 12 ' x 14' Recreational Deck, to be located in the ' manner depicted on the modified site plan (Exhibit A) . The recreational deck will be constructed above grade 11 and without permanent footings to minimize the environmental impact . 1 1 i i 1 I I CITY OF CHANHASSEN RESTATED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BEACHLOT - LOTUS LAKE ESTATES This restated conditional use permit and agreement made ' and entered into this 7th day of July, 1986 , by Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association (hereinafter the "Association" ) , and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( hereinafter referred to as the "City" ) ; WITNESSETH: That the City, in exercise of its powers pursuant to M.S. §462 . 357, and other applicable state law, and §14 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, hereby grants to the Association herein a restated conditional use permit to maintain and operate a private neighborhood association recreational area 1 upon Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates , Carver County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Subject -Property" ) , subject to the following terms and conditions , all of which shall be strictly complied ' with as being necessary for the protection of the public interest. SECTION 1. RECITALS. 1 .01. Prior Platting of Lotus Lake Estates . BT Land Company (hereinafter "BT" ) has previously platted tract of land ' in the City as Lotus Lake Estates , consisting of 44 residential lots and 3 outlots . ' 1 . 02 . Outlot B. In connection with the platting of said Lotus Lake Estates , BT entered into a development contract with the City of Chanhassen, dated January 5 , 1979 , wherein BT agreed to organize a homeowners association for the purpose of owning and operating the Subject Property for the benefit of the owners of properties lying within said plat. Section 28 of said develop- ment contract provided that BT suffer no alterations of the ' Subject Property except after first having obtained a permit from the City setting forth a plan for the alteration and development of the Subject Property. Said Section 28 also provides that, for purposes of said development contract, said permit would be deemed to be a conditional use permit and that the application process and pro- cedure would be as set forth in Section 23 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, which sets forth the application procedure for actual conditional use permits . ' 1 . 03 . Homeowners Association. BT incorporated the Association for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining certain common properties including the Subject Property for the benefit ' of the owners of lots in the plat of Lotus Lake Estates . I 11 1 .04. March 10 , 1981 Conditional Use Permit. Upon appli- 'cation of BT, the Chanhassen City Council on July 21 , 1980 , approved the issuance of a permit for the alteration of the Subject Property. Said permit, entitled "Conditional Use Permit Beachlot - Lotus Lake Estates" , was executed by BT and the Association on March 10 , 1981. 1 . 05 . June 1 , 1981 Application for Amendment of Permit. On June 1, 1981, the Association, with the knowledge and consent of BT, filed with the City an application for amendment of the March 10 , 1981 Conditional Use Permit, requesting City approval of further development of the Subject Property. I 1 .06. City Council Approval. On August 12 , 1981, the City' s Planning Commission held a public hearing on said June 1, 1981, application and approved issuance of a revised permit authorizing further development of the Subject Property. 1 . 07. April 22 , 1982 Conditional Use Permit. The above described March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit was superceded by the Conditional Use Permit executed on April 22 , 1982 . 1 . 08 . July 18 , 1984 Application for Amendment of Permit. On July 18 , 1984 , the Association filed with the City an appli- cation for amendment of the Restated Conditional Use Permit requesting City approval of further development of the Subject Property. 1 . 09 . City Council Approval. On August 8 , 1984 , the ' City' s Planning Commission held a public hearing on said July 18, 1984 application. On August 20 , 1984 , the City' s Board of Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing and approved a variance to allow four sailboat moorings . The City Council, by its motion of November 19 , 1984 , approved issuance of a revised permit authorizing the installation of said moorings. 1 .10. May, 1986 Application for Amendment of Permit. The City of Chanhassen initiated a Conditional Use Permit Amendment application requesting further development of the Subject Property. 1 .11. City Council Approval. On May 28 , 1986 , the City' s Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment appli- cation. On July 7, 1986 , the City Council approved the issuance of a revised permit authorizing further development of the Subject Property. ' SECTION 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS. 2 . 01. Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal to the Association, and is not assignable or transferable, except upon the written consent of the City. -2- . I 1 • 2 . 02. Rights Under This Permit Not Expandable to Other ' 'Owners. This permit is issued for the benefit of the owners of the 44 lots in Lotus Lake Estates . The Association agrees that the use and enjoyment of the Subject Property shall be limited to ' the owners of lots in Lotus Lake Estates . The use and enjoyment of the Subject Property may not extend to persons other than such owners. The term "owners" as utilized in this §2 . 02 shall mean ' and refer to any natural person who is either (a) the record owner of fee simple interest, or (b) the recorder owner of a contract for deed vendee' s interest, or (c) the holder of any possessory leasehold interest, in the whole of any lot in Lotus Lake Estates , including authorized guests and family members of any such persons. ' 2 .03 . Description of Property Subject To This Permit. • The premises subject to the within conditional use permit are described as follows: Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County, Minnesota. 2 .04. Certain Site Alterations Authorized. The ' Association is hereby authorized to install the following improvements on the Subject Property: a. One sand blanket swim area, as shown on the revised plan, Exhibit A, dated June 25 , 1986 , said swim area to be marked with a minimum of three anchored "swim area" buoys that are in accordance with the Uniform Waterway ' Marking System; said buoys to be anchored a reasonable distance from shore; and b. a pedestrian walkway connecting Choctaw Circle with the ' sand blanket swim area; said walkway to consist of wood chips installed on a sand base with boardwalk steps on the steep slope area of the walkway; and ' c . four boat racks to be located on land with a storage capacity of either six canoes or six small sail boats ' per rack; and d. Three docks, not to exceed the greater of fifty ( 50 ) feet in length or that number of lineal feet necessary to reach a water depth of four ( 4 ) feet; at the option of the Association, the final ten ( 10) feet of any dock may consist of a ten foot by ten foot ( 10 ' x 10 ' ) square platform; and e. One ten foot b ten foot swimmine raft, to be located in ' water having a minimum depth of seven ( 7) feet, not more than one hundred ( 100 ) feet from the nearest lake shore- line; said raft shall project a minimum of one ( 1 ) .•foot but not more than five ( 5 ) feet above the lake surface, and the corner of said raft shall be reflectorized; and -3- f. One conversation pit-fire hole, three ( 3 ) feet in diameter with a six ( 6) foot apron constructed of brick or masonry material, to be located landward of the walk- way and no further north than the northerly line of Lot 32 , Block 1 , Lotus Lake Estates , extended northwesterly; and g. Four sailboat moorings, to be located in the manner , depicted on the site plan stamped "Received June 25 , 1986" . Except as provided in this permit, no portion of the , Subject Property may be developed, altered, or disturbed in any way. x . 05 . Trees. In carrying out the above described altera- ' tions, the Association agrees to use every effort to keep tree loss at an absolute minimum. 2 . 06 . Reserved. 2 .07. Erosion Control. The Association, at its expense, shall provide temporary dams, earthwork or such other devices and practices , including seeding of graded areas , as shall be needed, in the judgement of the City Engineers, to prevent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and roads within and outside the Subject Property during all phases of construction. BT and the Association shall keep all public streets free of all dirt and debris resulting from construction upon the Subject Property. 2 . 08 . Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for the alterations described in Section 2 .04 above, no structure, pier, boat rack, mooring buoy, or swimming platform shall be constructed, erected, or maintained on the Subject Property or in the waters abutting the Subject Property. I 2 .09 . Camping Prohibited. No owner, as defined in Section 2 .02 hereinabove, or other person shall camp overnight on the Subject Property. 2 .10 . Motor Vehicle Parking and Boat Storage. No watercraft shall be parked or stored overnight or on a permanent basis on the Subject Property, except as follows : a. not more than twenty-four canoes or small sail boats may be so stored overnight in the four boat racks described in Section 2 .04 of this permit; and b. not more than nine boats, motorized or non-motorized, , may be docked overnight at the docks described in Section 2 .04 of this permit. c . not more than four sailboats at the mooring describe.4 in Section 2 . 04 (g) of this permit. 1 -4- 11 I , .. Except for construction equipment necessary for the exe- cution of the plan and as necessary for the maintenance of the Subject Property, no motor vehicle shall be driven upon or parked upon the Subject Property. IINo boat trailer shall be allowed upon the Subject Property. Nothing in the preceding three sentences shall be U deemed to prohibit the launching of any watercraft from the Subject Property if accomplished without the assistance of any motor vehicle or trailer or wheeled dolly upon the Subject II Property. SECTION 3 . MUNICIPAL DISCLAIMERS. I3 .01. No Liability to Suppliers of Labor or Material. It is understood and agreed that the City, the City Council and the U agents and employees of the City shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the Association, its contractors , or subcontractors , materialmen, laborers, or to any other person, firm or corporation whomsoever, for any debt, claim, demand, I damages , actions or causes of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this permit and agreement or the performance and completion of the work and I improvements hereunder and the Association will save the City, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City harmless from any and all claims, damages, demands , actions or I causes of action arising therefrom and the costs, disbursements , and expenses of defending the same. 3 .02 . Written Work Orders. The Association shall do no I work nor furnish materials, whether covered or not covered by the plan, for which reimbursement is expected from the City unless a written order for such work or materials is received from the I City. Any such work or materials which may be done or furnished by the Association without such written order first being given shall be at its own risk, cost and expense, and the Association hereby agrees that without such written order, it will make no I claim for compensation for work or materials so done or fur- nished. SECTION 4 . MISCELLANEOUS. I 4 . 01 . Severability. In the event any provisions of this permit shall be held invalid, illegal , or unenforceable by any court or competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invali- date or render unenforceable any other provision hereof , and the I remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. I 4 . 02. Execution of Counterparts. This permit may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts , each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but -one and the same instrument. I -5- II 4 .03 . Headings. Headings at the beginning of sections and paragraphs hereof are for convenience of reference, and shall not be considered a part of the text of this contract, and shall not influence its construction. 4 . 04. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Association shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has acquired fee title to the Subject Property. ' 4 .05 . Notices. All notices, certificates and other com- munications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, with property address as indicated below. The City and the Association, by written notice given by one to the other, may designate any address or addresses, to which notices, certificates or other communications to them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this permit. Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties, all notices , cer- tificates, and communications to each of them shall be addressed as follows: To the City: City of Chanhassen ' City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attn: City Manger To the Association: Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Assoc. Attn: President P.O. Box 63 Chanhassen, MN 55317 4 .06 . Owners to be Notified of This Permit. The Association shall furnish each owner, as that term is defined in Section 2 .02 above, with a copy of this permit within thirty ( 30 ) days of the signing of this permit and shall furnish each future owner, as that term is defined in Section 2 .02 above, with a copy of this permit, within thirty ( 30 ) days of any such owner' s initial occupancy of any residential structure in Lotus Lake Estates . 4 .07 . Term of This Permit. This permit shall expire on 1 July 21, 2010 . SECTION 5. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. , 5 .01. Reimbursement of Costs. The Association shall reimbure the City for all costs, including reasonable engi- neering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by the City in connection with all matters relating to the admi- nistration and enforcement of the within permit and the perfor- mance thereby by the Association. Such reimbursement shall be made within fourteen (14 ) days of the date of mailing of the,. City' s notice of costs as provided in Section 4 .05 above. -6- This reimbursement obligation of the Association under this sec- tion shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term of this permit. I5 .02 . Remedies Upon Default. a. Assessments. In the event the Association shall default I in the performance of any of the covenants and agreements herein contained, and such default shall not have been cured within ten (10 ) days after receipt the II Association of written notice thereof, the City, if it so elects, may cause any of the improvements described in the plan to be constructed and installed or may take action to cure such default and may cause the entire Icost thereof, including all reasonable engineering, legal and administrative expense incurred by the City, to be recovered. as special assessment under M.S. Chapter I 429, in which case the Association agrees to pay the entire amount of the assessment roll pertaining to any such improvement within thirty (30 ) days after its adop- t tion . The Association further agrees that in the event of its failure to pay in full any such special assessment within the time prescribed herein, the City shall have a specific lien on the Subject Property for I any amount so unpaid, and the city shall have the right to foreclose said lien in the manner prescribed for the foreclosure of mechanic' s lien under the laws of the II State of Minnesota. In the event of an emergency, as determined by the City Engineers, the notice require- ments to the Association shall be and hereby are waived II in their entirety, and the Association shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City in remedying the conditions creating the emergency. lb. Legal Proceedings. In addition to the foregoing, the City may institute any proper action or proceeding at law or at equity to prevent violations of the within I property, to restrain or abate violations of the within permit, or to prevent use or occupancy of the Subject Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed on the S day of NOVelitbF1. /`/ . IILOTUS LAKE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION I By 21. (i 'WJ Its / ASP; IN II And n-e4 t- 7(//� 4i1 Its !/cam -'A-,sa II w 1 • CITY OF CHANHASSEN I By .10,- I It'. Ma'or Attest City Clerk/Manager I STATE OF MINNESOTA) 1 ss ICOUNTY OF ) On this ��t% day of pletub-e{ , before me, a notary public, within and for saiounty, personally appeared Cc f� • CL'e(c'tt and Tc'r�c2ce. (' U'c3�(« to I me personally know, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the President an Vice-President of Lotus I Lake Estates Homeowners Association and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said authority of its Board of Directors, and said C.-[tr./ A (AJ Oc_G. and 77reiicG ✓. (21l5rrc�, , acknowledged said instrument to be the free act,a nd deed of said I corporation. 7.-- - ;;:::� RICK D. MURRAY I fee6 ti NOTARY PUBLIC—MN CARVER COUNTY t Notary Public '4. My Commission Expires Aug.14.MI STATE OF MINNESOTA) I ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) I On this ig"lA day of /Y7-c.---,-.-,..1 , 19c(:, before me, a notary public, within and for the county, personally appeared I Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth, to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respec- tively the Mayor and the City Manager of the municipal cor- poration named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal II affixed to said instrument is the municipal corporate seal of said municipality, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City I Council and said Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation. I C.—cLvS--)-f—tL! &(_,4,;tx..-t-v-t .r„ KAREN O ar ublic J.PUBLIC - MIN ENGELHARDT ? Y I NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA Ic�p: CARVER COUNTY -G` • My commission expires 10-16el -8- I OM • - • - - I - - — — — — • MI MN MI — • 4 _ Khan Buchanans Block 1 Block 2 Lot 8 Williams �`" Lot 31 Block 1 Peroutka • Block 2 Swanson Tricks Laceys Lot 9 Lot 32 Block 2 Block 2 Block 2 Lot 33 Lot 34 Lot 35 • r r • SAILBOAT MOOR. H r w BOAT DOCKS Proposed Deck...3 O SWIMMING AREA FISHING DOCK LOTUS LAKE ESTATES SITE PLAN FOR OUTLOT B CITY OF CHANHASSEN I'ECEIVED (iN 2 'i 1986 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. • 1 1 1 September 1, 1989 1 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 - Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Re: Variance for 75' Setback Ordinance Dear Jo Ann: 1 Thank you for meeting with me on Monday. I appreciated the time you took to discuss our Associations beach deck and the items I presented to you for review. Per your instruction, I am enclosing a check in the amount of $75.00 so the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association may apply for a variance to the 75' Setback Ordinance. On behalf of the entire Association, I want to assure you we will do whatever the City feels is necessary in order for the deck to be acceptable. We are grateful for your input and direction. Please let me know if there is anything else I can provide to resolve this matter. Sincerely, - Nic Gassman 1 6800 Brule Circle Chanhassen, MN Phone: 934-8408 or 829-7600 Encl 1 SEP 051989 � 1 Y OF CHAINt iASSEN id. I I I I a, 0 14i I rj __,5.(g , .L ‹ I it-4-4 41 0,-- W . 1- —3 ciii -I i" 4 -; 1 P a w� v 1 ilh 1 11111111111 4.> 6,,ti Iwo .469 1 1 1 1 4. I , . I I I W r I A x K Planning Commission Meeting II September 20, 1989 - Page 63 I Conrad : And I think when we don ' t see something on a plan, I think that ' s' a problem. We' ve been burned before many times when there' s been vacant things and there' s all sorts of expectations built in. I think staff has interpretted it differently than maybe in the past and in this particular case, you ' ve heard us say that we probably would be open to looking at that. Yet on the other hand I heard some very serious concerns that staff, didn ' t feel 78th had a good access . I think Market has some potential in my mind but I don' t think there was a mandate that said yeah, you would. I� wasn' t closed down in my mind but it certainly didn' t say that there was that great potential . certainly Clayton Johnson: I think you can understand our point . We don' t want to proceed until that' s resolved. Conrad : Absolutely and I think it' s to your benefit of course to do that .' (Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and Steve Emmings took over I chairman of the meeting . ) PUBLIC HEARING: I CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A DECK ON THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, AND LOCATED WEST OF CHOCTAW CIRCLE ALONG LOTUS LAKE, LOTUS LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. I Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Emmings : Just clarify one thing for me . Even if we change the ordinance I to allow a deck on a recreational beachlot, they still couldn' t build it without a variance because you can' t build a structure within 75 feet of the high water mark. Is that right? Olsen: They would still need a variance and they would still have to come back through and amend their conditional use permit. Emmings : Okay. Is the applicant here and do they want to present anything? Okay. y I Nick Gassman : Good evening . My name is Nick Gassman. I am the representative of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. What Jo Ann has laid out there for you is fairly true . The deck is existing . It ' s an existing structure. It' s 12 x 14. It' s above grade. It' s not a permanent structure. There' s no footings. It' s sitting on a beam arrangement . It can be moved and lifted and moved around . The deck was put there for , I don ' t know what the definition of a hardship is but it was put there for primarily three reasons . First of all we had , during the rain 2 years ago we had part of the hill wash out and it left a very eye sore where it left pulled shrubs and trees down . We filled that with exactly what the size o the deck is , 12 x 14. It' s also being used for some of the folks in our neighborhood don' t use the deck area because they' re of more of a senior level age. They want to go down there and watch kids , grand kids, etc. I Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 64 ' They want to be in the shade. This area allows for that on the deck. It allows them a solid platform. They can sit up and not be in the sand and do that . It also allows mothers better visibility because it is up higher . It' s about 3 foot above grade and it allows them again to watch their kids ' swimming and things like that in our swimming area . It ' s also aesthetically very, very pleasant. It ' s very nice. It ' s nice to have a picnic on there , etc . and not be in the sand with , if you' ve got kids. ' It' s got a railing around it. It' s perfectly safe. Guarded, etc. . It also enhances our beach property. The outlot . There ' s 44 homeowners in the association. We take great pride in trying to make the property that we have nicer , better as witnessed by our driveway. We ' ve been constantly ' every year our dues go to that front end so it' s prettier and it enhances our property which enhances our property values . Again we' re trying to, again add beauty and value " to the property that we own and are very proud 1 to own. I guess the next thing that I would ask is , you can see some positive aspects of that and we' re trying to improve rather than detract from the lake area . We' ve taken great strides of maintaining the outlot that we were given the permission to build this beach way before I was a neighbor and have come to like that we do have a conditional beach permit. All the legal things but if you could see your way clear to look at it . Realize that it' s a real asset rather than a drawback or a negative I guess ' for the outlot specifically. I refer back to what you folks have drafted as factors upon which the conditional use permit will be based on the Planning Commission and the 11 points that are on this sheet of paper here, ' I cannot honestly look at any one of you and tell you that our deck, this small 12 x 14 platform, violates any of these. If it did, I could sit here and tell you that we did and we ' d take other action but what we ' d like to do is do anything that we can as a Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners ' Association to make this right . To maintain and keep our deck. To file the necessary permits which we' ve done and Jo Ann and I have negotiated in good faith to go through the proper channels to make this happen so that ' everybody is happy and it' s a win win deal for everybody concerned. I guess at that point I ' d really ask for. your understanding and let ' s do what ' s right and fair . really iEmmings : Can you explain to us why someone from your group would call and find out that a permit was necessary and then no permit be obtained but the structure was built anyway? Nick Gassman : Well at the time, yes I can. At the time. . . ' Resident: I was the person who called . Nick Gassman : At the time that that phone call was made , I was unaware that there was any phone contact made. The neighborhood had been talking about building a deck since after_ the Lain. It was a natural . If you had a photo, you could see why. The advantages of having it, etc. . The washout and everything but when the phone call was made and Jo Ann and I have been over this , I was unaware that there was an inquiry of the procedures to do through. As a matter of fact , I have to plead even further ignorance and I hate to do that on video tape for God ' s sake but that I was unaware of the conditional , of the wording, of the verbage of the conditional use permit. I 'm the president of the homeowners Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 67 think you' re just flat up against . Basically what she said is right . Ift we' re going to allow something like this , we 'd have to go back and rewriter our ordinance and all it on every beachlot . There ' s no beachlot with a ig deck on it in town. That' s never been allowed. li II Resident : That' s an incorrect statement . Emmings : If there is, you tell her about it and we' ll go out and they' ll I are .be here just like you are . i n Resident : I have a question. When it' s denied at this level , does it now I also pass to the next level? Emmings: Yeah . We don' t make any decisions here. We make recommendations to the City Council . It just goes up to the City Council and they make th final decision and you should follow it right up there and make your case up there if they let you speak. Resident : If? Is that what you said? If they let me speak or when? Emmings: I said if because they don' t always allow public input. On the other hand , they will read the comments . Resident: This is the last public level? Olsen : It' s the last public hearing . Emmings : It ' s the last public hearing but for one , they- get a copy of our minutes. Everything that' s said here, they read before their meeting so what you' ve said here tonight t read . Send a request to be heard if you what ou want to do. they' ll y Resident : My second question. I ' ve sat here for 3 1/2 hours , almost 4. Emmings: So have I . Resident : Yes , listening to another one which was very interesting and I heard a couple of comments that struck me a little bit. One was when n, they were talking about the monuments outside the buildings. They talked about slipping an ordinance. Emmings : Who did? Resident : That Conrad talked about we would slip by an ordinance . Erhart: That was a misuse of terms. That was a poor term. A PUD by definition allows us to exchange in exchange for things we get from the developer we can negotiate on things that we allow. Slipping was a poor use of terms . Let me say one thing . it Resident : So that' s a negotiated point? Emmings : Yes . Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 68 I ' Erhart : Being the old guy on the Planning Commission and trying to understand where you ' re coming from, I 've been involved in these things for 3 years now and these beachlots . The Planning Commission 5 years ago was ' given the task of, in the first place, we have the task to write ordinances in this group. We were given the task about 5 years ago to standardize a beachlot ordinance because everybody in the city was abusing these things. ' We did that and we got public input. It went through the whole process and we established an ordinance and since that time, every 3 to 6 months another beachlot group comes in and wants to do something different. And by allowing one group to do something different, you will have thrown out all ' the work that was done that we were requested to do by the City Council 5 years ago and that's, I think you've got to understand a little sense of that is the reaction you' re "getting here tonight . And in summary, the City Council can override what, this is simply a recommendation and generally our recommendation is to stay consistent with the ordinances that we write. So I encourage you to go to the City Council and make your case. Resident : I have one last question? Do they allow sea walls on Lotus Lake? Emmings : Rip rap, something like that? Is that what you' re talking about? Resident: Yeah. Wood. Anything of that nature? Emmings : You have to get a permit from DNR. ' Olsen: You have to go through the DNR and sometimes , depending on where they' re located and the size you don ' t need a permit . Resident: So it' s a yes . Emmings : But don ' t go do it. Get a permit . ' Olsen: Come to us too. Batzli : Because it may be around a wetland or some other thing as well . ' Resident: I was asking a very general broad term. Resident : Can I ask Tim. What did you mean when you said something about cut it down to 10 x 10? Is that an option? Emmings : No . He ' s talking about at the end of your dock. I 'm cutting off ' discussion on this as I think we ' ve discussed it thoroughly and we can talk about it more later privately. We' ve got other people waiting here and it 's getting very late and the public hearing has been closed. So I 'm going to call a question this . Is there a motion on this? Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of request for a variance to the conditions of the zoning ordinance for a recreational beachlot. All voted in favor and the motion carried . 11 Planning Commission Meeting I September 20, 1989 - Page 69 Batzli : Do we have to talk about the amendment to the condition use also Jo Ann? Olsen : If that ' s something you wish for Planning staff to pursue. You car leave that up to the Council . Batzli : If I just stop my motion right there have we covered it? I Olsen: Yes you have. OFFICIAL MAPPING OF TH 212. I Paul Krause presented a brief staff report. I Emmings : This is not a public hearing . Do you have any comments you 'd like to make or just here to answer questions? i Evan Green : No, I 'm just here if you want me to answer any questions . Paul 's covered it rather well . It' s the same map you' ve had before you fo I don ' t know how long . The City Council has approved the layout and this official map is based the layouts that have been approved by the City. Emmings : What we' re looking at is over here . If you people want to go take a look. The Planning Commission looked at the layout of the official mapping of TH, 212 with Evan Green and Fred Hoisington. The map was located on the wall away from the microphones . II Batzli moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission approve the TH 212 Official Map and forward it to the City Council for public hearing and, final adoption . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Emmings: Let' s put 4 over and 5 over to our next meeting. Is that alright Ellson moved , Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11: 45 p .m. . Submitted by Paul Krauss II Director of Planning Prepared by Nann Opheim II II I