The URL can be used to link to this page

9. Beachlot Ordinance, Consider Permits for Rafts i 1 . C I TY OF O i Vt IL ANHAS SEX 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council 1 FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: July 10, 1989 1 SUBJ: Beachlot Ordinance, Consider Requiring Permits for Rafts 1 This item was published as "Beachlot Ordinance, Consider Requiring Permits for Rafts" . In actuality, the item spans a far 1 greater number of issues dealing with our beachlot and water sur- face usage ordinances. During 1988, significant discussion occurred at both the Council and Park and Recreation Commission levels regarding whether numerous sections of the City Code 1 should or should not be changed. During the course of this past winter, staff and the City Attorney' s office met to decipher those concerns and to determine whether existing code addressed 1 those issues or not. Although numerous sections of the code could be changed to clarify requirements, the purpose and intent of what the City was attempting to do was totally missed during those hearings. In summary, it was the belief of this office and 1 the City Attorney that city codes do handle most of the items raised as concerns and/or that loopholes which may exist are so remote in potentially occurring as to not warrant modification. 1 The attached materials primarily represent the whole host of issues which had been presented during this past year as well as a synopsis position by the attorney and myself regarding current 1 ordinances and our ability to enforce city code. Again, the Council may wish to question either the attorney or myself as to current ordinances regarding mooring, boat storage, etc. 1 The above review did disclose, however, one primary flaw with the existing ordinance - the non-necessity to obtain a permit for a raft [ see attached highlighted section of city code] . Property 1 owners in the Carver Beach area may consider that this proposed amendment is aimed solely at them. It is not. This office con- siders that any form of structure i .e: raft, slalom course, 1 etc. , represents a potential hazard to the users of the lake. Whether the City owns the raft in Carver Beach or whether the homeowners own the raft in the Carver Beach area makes no dif- ference. An application should be submitted showing that the 1 i • 1 Mayor and City Council July 10 , 1989 Page 2 raft meets all ordinance requirements, who is responsible, who has insurance, etc. , with the final decision then being left to the City Council as to whether -the raft should be permitted or not. The best analogy is in the case of the slalom course. A slalom course was applied for on Lotus Lake and was rejected given the size and physical character of the lake. By contrast, a slalom course has been approved and continues to be operational in the Lake Minnewashta area without creating problems. In both instances, the City had the names and addresses of owners, had ' received copies of insurance coverage, and was in a position to determine whether the proposed course should be approved or denied. ' This office would recommend that the City Council place on first reading an ordinance amendment which would delete the words "or swimming raft" [ see attached] . Note: As stated in my memorandum of June 26 , 1989 , Mr. Peterjohn may be present to discuss the mooring controversy that exists between the Peterjohns and Mr. Hall. I I 1 I • 1 j CITY OF1 .s 1 � CHANHASSEN AL) 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council 1 FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager �c.(1/(4 1 DATE: June 26 , 1989 SUBJ: Boat Storage/Mooring This item is over one year old. The initial purpose of reviewing the ordinance was to clarify various sections to more properly 1 address citizen complaints and to ease administration. The item was presented to the Park and Recreation Commission who held ini- tial hearings. Those hearings were overwhelming in the number of persons attending/petitions presented. The Park and Recreation ' Commission actions were placed into proposed ordinance form and submitted to the City Council for consideration. In September of 1988, the Council generally concurred with the proposed amend- ments , but sent it back to the Park and Recreation Commission for additional public input. The Park and Recreation Commission again heard public comments during November/December, 1988. ' Again, citizen involvement was tremendous and, ironically, totally distorted the purpose and intent of the modifications. Instead of recognizing that the City already had in place the ability to control mooring, control storage of boats on shore, control 1 rafts , etc. , the tone and flavor of those meetings was that these were totally new ordinances significantly depriving citizens of rights that they had for years. The fact is that the City has 1 continuously removed illegal boats stored in the Carver Beach/ Greenwood Shores area for the past 15 years. In a similar manner, residents of the Carver Beach/Greenwood Shores area are 1 not permitted, under current ordinance, to moor boats in front of public lands. Yes , an exception does exist where a property owner living across the lake could moor his boat in the Carver Beach area and the City would have difficulty in enforcing that 1 particular instance. The fact is that no one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever passed up their legal right to moor in front of their own lot so as to be able to illegally moor 1, 000 feet 1 across the lake in front of somebody else' s . Again, it was this type of detail which was attempted to be addressed in the modified ordinance. Again, these points were totally distorted through the hearing process . 1 Mayor and City Council ' June 26 , 1989 Page 2 I would impose one simple question, "Will the minor amendments , proposed truly provide that much more benefit over current ordinance?" Since December, I have attempted to meet with staff and the City Attorney' s office to look through each of the issues presented and attempt to determine whether the amendments suggested truly provides additional protection. Some of the amendments added, i .e. necessity for a principle structure to exist before mooring would be permitted, has unknown implications . To the best of my knowledge, all beachlots since 1983 have been controlled by specific permits identifying what can be done on that beachlot, i .e. mooring, docks, canoe racks, etc. Citizens, such as Mr. Peterjohn, saw this amendment as a means by which mooring would be stopped on the beachlot adjacent to Mr. Peterjohn ( 20 ft. wide parcel owned by Mr. Hall) . In review of this particular situation, it is the City Attorney' s belief that documents in the file reflect that Mr. Hall ' s usage predates the ordinance and accordingly is a grandfathered use. This fact is further com- pounded by correspondence from City staff to the previous owner and Mr. Hall stating that he could in fact use this lot for mooring. My point is that, regardless of whether the amendment adding the principle structure is included or not, it would not solve the dispute occurring between Mr. Hall and Mr. Peterjohn. Similar parcels probably do exist and would, similarly, be grand- fathered if documentation supported such. I know of no parcels that were created after 1983 which were not a part of a specific beachlot conditional use permit. It is highly unlikely that we would consider creating new parcels without insuring that they complied with the beachlot ordinance. In essence, what has been gained through the amendment? Attached please find an opinion from Mr. Knutson where he has condensed what he considered to be the major problems and how those would be addressed under current ordinance. City staff has not placed this item onto the City Council agenda for June 26 , 1989 . This is a pre-alert to Council members of our initial position that only the section dealing with rafts ( requiring a permit for such) is being considered. By giving the Council a pre-alert as to staff' s initial position, we are hoping that the Council' s concerns with this position can be identified within the next two week period of time and specific responses researched prior to final consideration. The Council should be aware that Mr. Peterjohn will probably be , in the audience Monday evening. He is aware of the staff recom- mendation regarding how this item would be proposed to be handled. He is not aware of the most current position which gives Mr. Hall a "grandfathered status" . I have met with both Mr. Peterjohn and Mr. Hall and, in all of those meetings addi- tional facts have continued to come to light supporting one of their positions , then the other. This is an item that is truly not black and white. Each of the documents reviewed (covenants , ■ ' Mayor and City Council June 21, 1989 Page 3 development contract, beachlot ordinance/permit, and correspon- dence) have opened a new perspective on the issue and, accor- dingly, have influenced decisions both favoring and harming Mr. Peterjohn, then Mr. Hall, then Mr. Peterjohn, etc. None of the issues presented would in any way be changed if the ordinance ' amendment were placed into effect regarding the Hall/Peterjohn controversy. Mr. Knutson informs me that his current position is conclusive in that all pertinent documents appear now to have been brought forward. LAW OFFICES I GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION - TELECOPIER. DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR.- 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612) 455-2359 I 403 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH VANCE B GRANNIS MICHAEL J. MAYER VANCE B GRANNIS,JR.• 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE TIMOTHY J BERG PATRICK A. FARRELL I DAVID L. GRANNIS,III SOUTH ST PAUL,MINNESOTA 55075 ROGER N KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 DAVID L. HARMEYER •ALso WISCONSIN February 9, 1 989 I PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN Mr. Don Ashworth I Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 II Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Mooring and Storage of Watercraft II Dear Don: You asked me to respond to two questions: 1 ) Can a person II who does not own a lake shore lot or who does not have the right to use a recreational beach lot moor a boat on a lake lying wholly within the boundaries of Chanhassen? 2 ) Can a boat owner II store a boat on a lake shore lot that they don' t own without the owner' s permission? Section 6-27 (b) of the City Code prohibits the mooring of II boats by individuals who don't own a lot on the lake. The Code does not require that the boat be moored in front of your own lot. I don't, however, understand why anyone would want to moor II the boat in front of someone else' s lot. You can't store your boat on someone else ' s lot without the II owner' s permission. This is simple trespass law. If I misunderstood your questions, please let me know. V- y truly_ •urs, II GRD, GRANNIS, FARRELL KNUTSON)P.A. II �__- --J Roger N. Knutson \ II RNK: srn II II FEB 131989 CITY.OF CHANHASSEN I ii 1 CITYt OF 1 1/4\ C\ s k AL) ' e „ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I : t'` - (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM Don Ashworth, City Manager ITO: FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator,, DATE: December 29 , 1988 '5 I SUB J.• Boats and Waterways 1 As directed by the City Council, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed amendment to the Boats and I Waterways Chapter of the City Code. The Commission felt that the proposed amendment was in accordance with their concerns regarding park property and acted to recommend approval . I Additionally, they felt that the people affected by the amendment should have the ability to go through the variance process , and recommended an amendment to Section 6-23 allowing such ( see attached) . IThe Park and Recreation Commission will be discussing in further detail the possibility of providing mooring buoys off of park I property. As Section 6-21 excludes public property from the stipulations of the amendment, the Commission did not have any reason to hold up the process any further. IAttachments: A - Proposed Amendment B - PRC Minutes dated 12/13/88 I I I I I I , . 1 r CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION 1 REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 13, 1988 I Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Sue Boyt, Larry Schroers, Curt Robinson, Ed _ . • Hasek and Carol Watson 1 STAFF PRESENT: Lori. Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator; Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor; Mark Koegler, Planning Consultant and Scott Harri. il APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hasek moved , Boyt seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated November 22, 1988 as presented . All voted in favor and the motion carried. II PUBLIC HEARING: BOAT MOORING AND DOCK ORDINANCE. 1 Public Present Name Address II Lynn Hall 3980 Hawthorne Circle Fred Osleschlager 7410 Chan Road II Michael & Marie Schroeder 6600 Lotus Trail Cindy Gilman 6613 Horseshoe Curve Greg Blaufuss 7116 Utica Lane Ray Roettger 3221 Dartmouth Drive , Gerry W. Maher 7101 Utica Lane Mary J. Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive Jeff & Laura Bros 6771 Chaparral 1 Roger Byrnes 6724 Lotus Trail Mike Wegler 6630 Mohawk Drive Sietsema : This item was presented to the City Council on September 12th 1 12th. The Planning Department presented an amendment to the Water Surface Useage Ordinance which would , basically it cleared up the language in the 1 ordinance regarding mooring boats and putting out rafts in the lake. Essentially what it does, and a copy of the amendment is on the screen here, what the amendment would do is require that the boat, if you were II going to moor a boat , would have to be registered in the name of the lakeshore owner on the lakeshore site on the lake or in the name of a member of a household . Also , if moored in the waters overnight , it would have to be out directly i.n front of a home that is owned by the landowner 1 which has a house on the site . The other item on the amendment addressed swimming rafts and similarly it would require that a swimming raft would be launched out in front of the property that was owned by the lakeshore II owner with the dwelling unit on it. In Barbara Dacy' s memo, she discussed an alternative so there were a number of people that are affected by this ordinance that do not have a dwelling unit on the property or have been II mooring a boat' in a situation that is different that would be affected by this . What 'she recommended to the Council at that time is that an amendment take place that would allow a variance situation to occur so II 1 ' . ' _ I Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13 , 1988 - Page 2 Ithat a person who had been mooring in the past could 9 et a variance. Another discussion has been that people currently mooring boats and can I .,..,,it, show a history of having moored a boat in a spot could maybe be grandfathered in. What we' re discussing here tonight, because the City . z., Council looked at all of these items and they were interested in knowing I if the Park and Recreation Commission had any problems with this amendment , in looking at it strictly regarding the parkland and park use. So we brought it back to you, the Park Commission, to look at the I amendment and see how it affects our plans for parkland . This item will be going back to the City Council and I believe that some of the other issues will be addressed again at the City Council level . I Schroers: What about the raft that is currently moored out in front of Carver Beach? Would that be grandfathered in? Sietsema: According to what this amendment is , it would be- grandfathered in. Mady: But that has to be part of our discussion. IBoyt: Yes , that' s part of our discussion. I Sietsema : But it would have to go by what ' s in the current ordinance. It has to be so many feet up off the water and so big and out so deep. It has to have certain structural standards as well and be registered . Then the owner of the raft would have to be stated on the raft. Swimming rafts I left overnight in the waters on any lake must be anchored directly out from and within 100 feet of the lakeshore site upon which a dwelling unit has been constructed and owned by the owner . All swimming rafts must have I identification plaque containing the name, address and phone number of the owner so that would have to take place as well as the other stipulations that are in the current ordinance. IMady: We have really two distinct items in this ordinance being amended. One dealing with the boat mooring issue and then the second dealing with rafts, swimming rafts and docks and that kind of thing . We' re opening the I public hearing, actually open up a public discussion. Not just have a public hearing but actually a full discussion. We ask you if you do want to make a comment, present some information to the Commission, please come I up to the front to the podium. State your name and your address and make your comment. We invite your comments at this time. Lynn Hall , 3980 Hawthorne Circle: I didn ' t want to be first but I guess I ' got elected first. I kind of walked into this issue and I ' ve learned a lot about the Water Surface Useage here in Carver County, specifically on Lake Minnewashta. My position is that I 'm supporting the amendment with I one exception. I feel that my situation , where I can back up and explain or if anyone has any questions but as an overview, I 'm supporting it with the exception that I feel that my position , no other hurdle should be put in my path. That my existing non-conforming use which has been verified I and reverified'not only by the City but by the people in the community. Some actuall'Q, people that are in opposition have recognized it and it' s use. . . 3 times . I feel that the current amendment is a good amendment . I I II Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 3 know that standing here there' s a bating question as ' 9 q to why Park and Rec would be asked to mediate then what might be considered a private matter . I guess at this point my point of concern is a discriminatory nature in � ={ . which it addresses those people that are non-conforming use that it is • there. I guess I would ask that the advisement to Council would be that the amendment go forth but those that have proof of the non-conforming • use, be allowed to continue that use. I don' t know if there ' s any questions . I don' t want to repeat information that you've got, I guess it would take up time. Mady: Yes , the amendment does consider non-conforming use and this is a situation if the non-conforming use. . .for a period of one year, than it no longer exists . • Lynn Hall : My contention is simply that with a variance necessary to continue my use, that' s a hurdle that I don' t think I should have to jump at this point . Because of the legal nature of the use. I understand your II reasons for it. Mady: One thing I want to instruct to staff. On the mooring issue, my understanding was that the Council asked us to look at the mooring issue as it related to parkland. So in your situation, it' s actually private property that' s being discussed here and that probably will be better handled , will be handled at the Council level versus . . .private property. We don ' t have any jurisdiction on that. Lynn Hall : I understand . Mady: I 'm surprised that maybe the Planning Commission might be getting involved. ' Boyt : We look at boat mooring as it pertains to all of the lakes in Chanhassen and what our recommendation would be. Robinson : Is this your situation that you were before the Council on September 12th? Lynn Hall : Correct. Mike Schroeder , 6600 Lotus Trail : I guess I 'm probably the reason you' re II here. I 'm the one with the boat moored down on the parkland and had it moored there since we purchased the land in 1986 . We purchased it from Mr . . . . He also had his pontoon. I guess my point of view on this whole thing is that this ordinance seems to be pretty much directed towards me and my use. As you read the ordinance, it states all seasonal docks , moorings and other structures shall be removed from the lake before November 1st of each year. All non-conforming moorings and other structures except docks and swimming rafts , once removed may not be returned to the lake which seems to pretty much leave me out. I 'm not sure why that is. I don ' t think it' s, I don ' t know of anybody else that ' s II been mooring along in there. . . We' ve been doing it for a number of years and I think Mr. . . .also was using that . Can I answer questions? I Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13 , 1983 - Page 4 IMady: Are you actually mooring it off the shore or is the shore in front of your house? IIMike Schroeder : We' re the last house on the end of the parkland and it' s about, I don' t know, I suppose 30 feet or so from the property to the lake. We file every year with the DNR for a permit. I Boyt: But they didn' t respond to. . . , ' Mike Schroeder : No. I understand that the City wants to kaboosh that somehow. . . I don' t think anybody else on the lake has ever tried register . II Y Y d to Hasek: Your boat is moored off shore. How far off shore? I Mike Schroeder : I suppose 20 feet or something like that. Hasek: How do you get to your boat? 1 Mike Schroeder : I wear shorts . It' s fairly shallow. In referring back to the meeting of September 12th. I think that I agree with the grandfathering in the raft and the dock that ' s also down there . The I house, next house to us has a dock and he ' s had it out there for years . My impression of the meeting from September 12th was that you guys would take a look at how we could take advantage of that parkland and develop it for use. I think it was donated by the people in Carver Beach and I think 1 we have an interest in that area and developing it to the best use for the City but especially I think we should take into account the people in Carver Beach and how we would like to use that. I think there are many of I us that are interested in working with the City on improving that whole area and cleaning it up and things like that. Rocky here will speak more to the raft. Boyt: That ' s what we had thought. That Park and Rec . . . Mike Schroeder : But anyway, I think it should say except docks. . . 1 Mady: We have questions concerning boats that have been moored and the dock on private property. Those aren' t considered non-conforming uses Ibecause you' re not talking about your own property. Sietsema: The dock is a different situation because, is that Mr. Taucks? And he is a parapelgic I believe and was granted permission by the City a Inumber of years ago to have his dock. I believe has a boat out there too? Mike Schroeder : Yes he does . ISietsema : And he has had a long standing agreement with the City to be able to do that. IHasek : Based &n his condition . Sietsema: Based on his condition , right . Does that answer your question? I II 1 Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 5 1 Mike Schroeder: It is on parkland? Mady: Yes. Sietsema: It ' s also on parkland. Mady: The question is, can you have a non-conforming use when you don' t actually own the property? rK, Hasek: It' s a granted use. The question is, is it really a non-conforming use? Mady: I 'm still not sure. I think they have. . . Sietsema: I 'm not real sure on that Jim. Mike Schroeder : But it is off the parkland . The wa y rules the rul ' are, you've got to be a landowner to have any rights and I think that' s where. . . The people at Carver Beach who have always for years taken care of that area and used it. Robinson: Is this city jurisdiction only or is the DNR involved? 1 Sietsema: The DNR doesn' t really have much regulations on this. Mike Schroeder : But the DNR has to approve what you have. 1 Sietsema: Right, they have to approve our Water Surface Useage Ordinance and any amendments that we put on so they would have the last word on it but they don' t have. . . Schroers : Are you right next to the old boat access? Mike Schroeder : Yes. I 'm down at the way far at the end last ' Y ast house. Schroers : And there' s just a thin strip of parkland between your house and the lake? Mike Schroeder : That ' s right . 1 Roger Byrnes , 6724 Lotus Trail : Lori says this whole ordinance was to clarify the issue. It seems like the issue was pretty clear. They passed an ordinance that said what rafts had to be and docks and what they were. Now, I don' t know what. . .what the wording said. It doesn' t make any sense . Why do we need this ordinance? I can ' t understand it. Sietsema: One of the things that the Planning Commission wanted to clear up is that , the way the ordinance is stated right now, it says that a lakeshore owner can launch or moor a boat in public waters. That means if you own lakeshore property on Lotus Lake, you could launch a raft or moor a boat on Lake Minnewashta or Lake Riley or Lake Ann or Lake Lucy. 1 M, . r ' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 6 ' Roger Byrnes : Lake Superior or any. ' Sietsema : But being a non-lakeshore owner , you didn ' t have that right. I think that they wanted to clarify it that yes . . . Roger Byrnes : I don' t agree with that. I think it said anybody could ' launch anywhere but nobody wanted to. That ' s why nobody ever did. Only people that wanted to, was the people in Carver Beach with the raft . It didn 't say that I couldn' t launch or put a raft over on Lake Riley. ' Sietsema: What they wanted to clarify is that a lakeshore owner could moor a boat but it had to be in front of their own property. They ' couldn' t moor a boat out on. . . Roger Byrnes : That ' s what you ' re trying to say. That isn ' t what the ordinance said before. ' Sietsema: That' s what we' re trying to clarify. ' Roger Byrnes: That' s no clarification. That ' s just banning another law out to the thing. They' re not really trying to clarify anything . You' re just trying to put some more restrictions upon people who want to have rafts out there or mooring . Hasek: It ' s all a matter of how you want to straighten it out is really what their question is. The way that it ' s set right now, if you own, if ' I understand it properly, if you own land on Lotus Lake , by the ordinance it gives you the right to put a raft on Lake Minnewashta. The way it was written , the understanding , the lawful 'reading of the ordinance, that was the clarification that needs to be straighten out and the question is, how will you clarify it. What did we want to say what was the intent of what we wanted? Roger Byrnes : The way I read it, it didn ' t have any restrictions on anybody putting the raft anywhere. ' Hasek: But is that the way we want it to state? Roger Byrnes: But nobody wanted to. The only reason it even came up was because of one raft . Hasek: That ' s the situation. Roger Byrnes : But that ' s not a problem. One non-conforming person or group of people or one little thing wasn ' t creating a problem. Hasek : But you ' re a member of the city just like any of the rest of us . Why isn ' t it a problem? Sietsema: It ' s a matter of being proactive. 1 Mike Schroeder: Did you have someone. . . • Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13 , 1988 - Page 7 Roger Byrnes : Did somebody else try to put one out there? Mady: We had a problem with them. To be honest with you, we do. I Roger Byrnes : We' re the problem. Mady: You' re not the problem. The raft is a problem. Roger Byrnes : But we are the raft . Mady: . . .and you have a swimming beach down there. It's not a safe beach, what the City considers a safe beach. ' Since it' s a city park, we need to fix that. That's what we' re getting to. ' Roger Byrnes: That ' s fine but why put restrictions on. To fix something, you don' t restrict it, you just fix it. I don' t understand- your train of thought. She comes up like you ' re trying to fix a problem that ' s there II but there isn ' t a problem. Sietsema: The way the ordinance is written , there is a potential for a problem and to be proactive, we want to take care of that before we have the problem. Roger Byrnes : Yes , but the potential has been there for 30 years and it ' s I never materialized so why worry about it now? That ' s what I don' t understand . Now all of a sudden worry about it now when it may not ever occur. Let ' s have a problem and then fix it. If it ' s not wrong, don' t fix it. Mady: We have a problem in one, liability. Just because no one has been seriously injured there does not mean it won ' t happen this summer. Now I the City recognizes that what ' s happening there, we need to make sure that we don' t cause a problem. Roger Byrnes : At the Council meeting , the City Attorney said that the City is not liable. If it' s not the City' s raft, the City is not liable. The City doesn ' t own that water . The City can' t be responsible for people that are out on that water . The City doesn ' t own that raft and they can ' t be responsible for people that are on that raft. Mady: But if it' s out from a city beach you see, our understanding is that it' s out from a city beach. Roger Byrnes : But it' s not even a city beach according to you guys . ' Mady: It 's park property. When you ' re out from city property, it ' s there at the knowledge of the City so the City does have some liability in that II they have active knowledge of the situation. If it' s a problem situation, they can be liable sometimes . Boyt: We would like to make it a nice beach . We would like to make it ' nicer than it is now. We would like to clear out the poison ivy and poison oak . Put in a raft that meets all the conditions . „■ . i ' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13 , 1988 - Page 8 Roger Byrnes : That raft there met all the conditions . The raft that was ' there, in fact that was probably the only raft on the lake that met all the conditions . That met all the conditions for that ordinance that was passed. Boyt : Well , it didn' t look safe at all . Mady: It ' s not considered safe by a number of us who have been on the water and been to the raft . That raft doesn' t have a permit. Roger Byrnes: No raft on the lake has a permit. Mady: Oh yes . ' Roger Byrnes : They all have permits? Mady: I know the one on Sunrise Hills has a permit. I hemmed it on. It' s been on there for 5 years that I ' ve lived here. Roger Byrnes: The raft has to have a permit on it? Mady: Yes it does . The permit' s on it right now as a matter of fact. It' s a little steel tag. Roger Byrnes : Who gives it to you? ' Mady: The Sheriff does . ' Roger Byrnes : The Sheriff wouldn ' t give us a permit. How would you get one? ' Mady: This is the Minnesota Boating regulations . Roger Byrnes: That' s right and they say every raft and every thing in that lake is supposed to have a permit from the DNR. I ' ve been begging ' the Sheriff for a permit. He said no way. He said he won ' t let me give you one. I said forget it . How did you get one? ' Mady: Through the Sheriff. Roger Byrnes : You must have a little pull there. Mady: The State says that obtaining a permit for swimming area markers from the County Sheriff . . . ' Roger Byrnes : You ' ve updated it every year? Mady: Structures such as swim rafts , boat lifts , bouys . . . All structures placed under a permit must have the permit number painted on and you obtain your permit from the County Sheriff . It ' s here if you 'd like to read i.t. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13 , 1988 - Page 9 Roger Byrnes : I understand. I've read it and I begged the Sheriff for a permit. He wouldn' t give me one. ' Boyt : I think that' s between you and the Sheriff. Roger Byrnes: No, it' s between the Sheriff and the City who it' s for ' because the City tells the Sheriff not to give away permits and he don' t give away any permits. So there you are. What are you going to do? Have you talked to the Sheriff about issuing permits Lori? Sietsema: No. Roger Byrnes : You haven' t said one word to him to issue a permit or not II issue a permit? Sietsema : I never have, no. Roger Byrnes : Has anybody in the City to your knowledge? Sietsema: No. Roger Byrnes : Well somebody has because he said I won' t issue any permits until the City tells me they want permits issued on that lake. That' s exactly what the Sheriff told me. Sietsema: That 's the first I ' ve heard of it. ' Roger Byrnes : Well , I ' ve been hearing it for 2 years . He said the city guy won' t. He says I call down there. In fact, he was going to issue it II one time and the day he was going to issue them, he said no , I can ' t. I got a call from the City and they said don ' t issue no permits . Can' t do it. Robinson: Can we look at that Lori ? Can we look into that? t? Roger Byrnes: That was a bouy permit that time but I ' ve been trying to get a permit for the raft too . What I can ' t understand why, I had my boat laying down there. I had it down there and the kids used it. . .and let them play down there which is probably wrong . I let them play down there II anyway. . . It' s park property. It ' s not really private. They kept saying private use of public property. Now they tell me I can ' t have my raft out there but all these other rafts , everybody that lives on that lake has a raft and a dock on that lake and that seems to me, that ' s private use of public property. That lake is public. Everybody who has a raft sitting out there or a dock or a boat moored out there or a dock, a fishing dock or whatever they' ve got out there, that ' s private use of public property. I 'm public too just like them. Why can ' t I have my raft out there too? I can see if it goes off the shore, that belongs to the City, the shore because we gave it to you. I can see that but anything that , if I 've got I a mooring bouy, I keep my boat out in the water. If I 've got a swimming raft , I keep- it out in the water . Why shouldn ' t I have the same right to have my raft or my boat out there as anybody else who lives on the lake. ■ ' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13 , 1988 - Page 10 Just because people live on the lake don ' t give them any more right to that water than anybody else. If they think that way, they' re wrong . That water belongs to everybody. Now, if you want to restrict it and tell everybody, get all their boats , all their rafts , all their docks off that water , fine but if you' re going to let some, you should let everybody. ' Everybody that wants to. I realize you think that' s going to cause a big problem. You' re going to have 87 million rafts out there but it ' s not going to happen. Most people don' t want it and I think the people that do want it, should be able to have it out there. ' Boyt : That' s what we' re here to talk about tonight . I think we understand where you're coming from. I think we need to talk to the Sheriff and find out how he makes the decision and who he ' s in contact with with the City. We' ll ask Scott to do that. ' Roger Byrnes : Find out who ' s directing this guy not to issue any permits because up to this date, before this law was passed, there was no ordinance that said I shouldn' t have a permit or Lori shouldn' t have a permit or you shouldn ' t have a permit. Anybody can get a permit and the ' law hasn ' t passed yet and this guy' s been holding a permit for 2 years . Mike Wegler: My name is Mike Wegler. ,I live at 6630 Mohawk Drive. As ' far as the raft and stuff was concerned , I ' ve lived here for all my life , 35 years and since I was a kid, I ' ve always swam on that raft and learned to swim down there. I have 3 children and they swim and they use that now. To take this right away from them, this isn ' t right. This issue ' really, as far as me building a raft and stuff , we ' ve always taken care of it and we knew it needed some redoing but it was not unsafe. I ' ve been out there and been on it myself and jumped up and down. It had brand new ' plywood out to the. . .wall . It was not unsafe. It had reflectors on it. It went by every standard that was in the book as far as being conforming and it did. Like they said, it was probably one of the only ones that ' did . I think the park should look at the situation there and try to get us, work something out so we can use it. It ' s not hurting anybody. It ' s a benefit to everybody. Thank you. ' Gerry Maher: Garry Maher . I live at 7101 Utica Lane across from Greenwood Shores beach . I 'd like to give you each a copy of some information I received from calling 10 or 12 other municipalities. The ' Lake Minnetonka Water Conservation District . Also , the DNR. I 've lived there for 13 years at the present location and Chanhassen for 16 years. I am also one of the problems . I have a sailboat , Hobie Cat and a paddleboat that I ' ve kept at Greenwood Shores beach for a little over 6 ' years . That boat has not caused any problems or have I been made aware of any problems. Both the boats are licensed . When the boats were originally put in, I talked with Don Ashworth at the City to see if there ' were any problems regarding parking the boats where I did. They happen to be adjacent to public property. At that time there were no words spoken as if it would be a problem or anything else. There was also a letter on file with the City regarding the information when I was asked to remove the boats. Alo, I 'd like to make a note that I was told in several letters from- the City that I would be notified regarding this meeting . Unfortunately I haven' t been. These boats , as I said, are properly • C ,1 Park and Recreation Commission Meeting ' December 13 , 1988 - Page 11 licensed . When I first put the boats out in the water , ' substantial distance and under the circumstances, had problems with the a kids that went down at night and various other problems with parties and I things at the beach. After doing a little further investigation I found out that most other people that moored boats and the situations such as that kept them close to shore for two obvious reasons. One is that if you ' kept them close to shore, nobody wanted to swim out to it and cause any problems. The other reason being, if you worried about any of the small kids getting out onto them or causing any problems you wouldn' t have to. So consequently both those boats are moored in less than 2 1/2 to 3 feet I of water depending on the water depth conditions . i purchased both of those boats at the same time and after getting consent from Don Ashworth. Lori , I also talked to you several years ago regarding it and under the circumstances, I kept those boats there for 6 years up until last August when I was notified that I had to remove them because of an ordinance. Mary Jo Moore: I 'd like to go on record that I do approve of the proposed I amendment to the ordinance. However , I object to the conditional approval of non-conforming rafts , docks and boats. I think each one should be reviewed on an individual basis . Currently on Lake Minnewashta just down from us there is a raft that has been there all summer. I don 't know who the owner is. It sits about 3 inches above the water . It ' s color is blue. It has no reflectors. I keep thinking, somebody' s going to hit I that raft because boats can hit it. You can hardly see it in the daytime let alone at night . We' ve also had problems on 2 or 3 occasions so if we have problems , once it' s approved, they' re not a conforming use , that really hasn ' t even had a test of legality as far as the non-conforming, it gets out of hand . The Council , the Planning Commission. . . , it ' s left up to the neighbors and it does cause problems . They' re the ones who wind up controlling what is passed through the Council and by the Mayor and Planning Commission. Nobody follows through on it so I want to be on record that I do approve of this proposed ordinance amendment . Ray Roettger, 3221 Dartmouth Drive: I think I agree with Mary Jo. I happen to be on the other side of an access of Sterling Estates that really wasn' t intended to launch boats for the people living off the lake. Number one, I 'd like to state that I think everybody has a freedom to buy lakeshore property. If they want to pay the price and they want to pay the taxes . I don' t think that everybody should have the same kind of rights unless you acquire those rights. I think if you live on the lake, II you certainly should have the freedom to keep a boat there and if you don' t live on the lake, you should be able to launch boats but there is a public launch . I think that I certainly agree with Mary Jo . We' ve had quite a problem in the access road because I think I was kind hearted. A fella came down from across the road and put in a big , quite a large dock. An L shaped dock. The contractor who was working on my house being a rather wise fellow said that I would stop it right now and do something about it but I allowed it and I ' ve regretted it ever since. The trouble was that the dock went in and he put his boat in. It was a nice expensive dock but really there was very little maintenance but he did do some maintenance li.1e cut the grass . Since 1976 I have, you might say, other than those fbw years when this fellow lived there, he since sold the property. Ever since that time I have maintained it. Cut the grass . Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 12 ■ Helped with the City. Had the road repaired . We have a lot of water coming down which is another problem. It drains off of Dartmouth Drive so I all the water comes down and it has washed out and created just one heck of a mess. The City Engineer has been down there. . . .came down a couple years ago and put an underground pipe in to drain the water off of I Dartmouth Drive because the Sheriff got stuck and a school bus would go through it and it would build up and be like a foot deep. So they kind of solved that problem. A couple years ago when we had the heavy rains , everything washed out. There's a real delta built out there now. In ' spite of that , the people that have moored their boats there, there were 4 of them and they ended up being 40 foot boats. They have never been out there with a shovel or a rack or cleaned up or picked up cans . All of I that stuff I 've done. The problem with the delta and the reason I mention that is because it constricts the water flow all along the shore and everything gets trapped really on Mary Jo Moore' s property. So there has I been help. They said , one fellow said he 'd send somebody down. Well , I never saw anybody down there. They piled up the dock. They put a boat lift out there. They piled that up. . . What I 'm trying to tell you is, since 1976 it has gone from bad to worse. Now they' re fighting between I themselves , the offshore people and the City said they could put the same number of boats out there and a dock if there was one even though I had the pictures to prove it. We' ve done a lot of work, Mary Jo and I , taking I pictures. Sending older pictures that I had of the property into Barbara Dacy. We had documented it and verified it and I even had the air photos . There was no dock there but they allowed the dock and like I said, pretty soon 4 boats , big pontoon, tied a couple of those that previously got I loose. It is a hazard because it ' s an outlot and it belongs to Sterling Estates . All of us are making it liable for them or it couldn ' t happen . There' s no reality so I 'm saying , if you do not do something to restrict, I and I guess I appreciate the people' s position here, that can be handled on a situation by situation basis. Give them a permit. If they' ve had it out there for a long time, they maintain it , take care of it, issue them a permit. . .but if you project this problem of allowing anybody to dock a Iraft or a boat , they could come and put boats right along my shore can' t they? Lake Minnewashta Park, the people, they could launch a boat. They could leave it there all night . They could circle that whole park with I boats. Rafts. So you do have to have some restrictions. I think that those people that were there first or had something or want to get a permit because they want to put some in there that meets the requirements I of the law, I think you should allow them but I don ' t think you can possibly miss , you ' ll open the door . I 'm to the point where I 'm ready to sell because unless the City does something , I 'm not going to put up with it. I 'm paying the taxes so one of the people that feel deprive and they I think they can buy lakeshore. I think that getting on the lake is a right and knowing the lake but I don ' t think you can just have all the freedom of doing whatever you want. I can ' t living on the shore and I don' t think Ianybody else should. Gerry Maher : I 'd like to make just one comment more if I may briefly to I what he had to say. For those of you who may have not been familiar with what happened years ago with Christmas Lake . I can sympathize with his attitude concerning the fact that there are many people parked possibly in front of his property or near his property or in a beach area that aren ' t ■ • . , • - • ' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 13 • taking care of it. There again, he moved into the area and he knew at th time he bought a house adjacent to a e J public access , that' s part of the reason the house might have been valued at a certain reason or whatever . But under the circumstances, it's some of those attitudes that are saying, if you can afford lakeshore, you can buy it. If you don' t, then too bad. Well , unfortunately there is only so much lakeshore available at any given "' time and it' s going to be decreasing as time goes on. It ' s up to the Park and Recreation to make sure that that lakeshore is useable for all of those people that aren' t able to get to it. More importantingly, his particular attitude is what prevailed about 20 years ago. When I grew up II as a kid and used to go to Christmas Lake swimming and there was a public access and a diving platform out there and we used to go scuba diving out there. It was readily accessible and everything else. As time went on , people started to complain that number one, there was a problem with the fire road so they didn' t want to widened it. People. . .were able to say, well , we don't want to widened the road therefore we have to close off the public access . So what happened . 15 years went by with no public access 11 on Christmas Lake. It took almost an act of Congress in order to get that changed . It ' s that attitude if it prevails, will cause the same problem again. Somewhere down the line there will be no public access on Lake 11 Minnewashta . Maybe none on Lake Ann. Who' s to say that somewhere down the line Lotus Lake or any other lakes are all going to be tied up. Under the circumstances it becomes very equitable . Ray Roettger : Can I rebutt that? Number one, the property between Mrs . Moore and my property is a private outlot that gives rights to Sterling Estates. Number two, I think you can go out and talk to the fishermen and II the older couples you ' ll find that I welcome with open arms anybody that wants to park in the street, walk from my property or down that road to go to fish on the lake. In fact, I ' ve let them use my boat. It is not those II people that I 'm concerned about. I 'm concerned about the people that think they have a right and abuse it. As long as I can get down to that lake, I can park anything down there and I don ' t have to take care of it and I don' t have to pick up and I don ' t have to clean up. That' s what I 'm I talking about restricting . But for him to bring his fish house down along side of my property, why he can do it as long as he doesn ' t block my driveway. Like I said, I 've even let some older people who live down around on surrounding property, I ' ve seen them go across. . . People travel through there all the time and I ' ve let some other older people use my fishing boat so. ' Mady: Before we start repeating here , is there anyone new that would like to have a word? Cindy Gilman : I 'm Cindy Gilman . I represent Lotus Lake Association and read the amendment. I think it' s good. I think it helps clarify. I think it leaves it open for someone who wants a raft regulation to get on there. I know Sunrise Hills is not the only one with a permit on Lotus Lake . There are 4 others so there should be a way for them to get a permit to have a raft out there. We like the way it reads and I think it helps clarify. ' Thank you . II w ■ ■ /' r k Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 14 Mike Schroeder : I guess I got a little confused here on what was the purpose of this whole ordinance. I ' ve heard that it' s so people who own ' lakeshore can ' t go to another lake and have a dock. That we want to protect the people from the raft on Rocky' s area , that that' s been grandfathered in or do you have more instances of people setting up and ' mooring a boat on a different lake than what they own lakeshore on I guess . Then we have the people over here and they' re matters. All of these things seem to be, I 'm not sure it ' s clear what the City is really trying to do. It kind of seems to change as the discussion goes here. All ' I know is that at the end of the whole thing, I end up losing my mooring so for me, that' s the purpose of the whole thing and that' s where I 'm coming from. If you want to work with Carver Beach and that area and developing that area , it sounds like you have some plans to do that. I think we'd love to hear it. What are they? I thought that was a lot of the discussion for tonight was going to be. What we can do with that area ' to develop it and improve it. We' re interested in that but. . . Mady: . . .how we usually handle these things . Typically we open up the public discussion and we get all your thoughts out right away. Then once ' everybody has kind of said what they want to say and we start discussing through the panel . We' ll open up at one side and go to the other. You' ll sample what our posture is on this concerning Rocky' s raft and . . .we' ve got ' some pretty good ideas for you that we can help the whole situation. We haven ' t gotten down to that point yet but when we discuss that , you will be allowed to put your comments in at that time too but right now what we' re trying to do is get as much information out from you as we can so ' that when we start talking about it, we can also address all of those things too . There might be something that we didn ' t think about. That ' s kind of how we have handled it in the past. ' Mike Wegler : I don ' t know if you are aware of it but that land there was donated by the people of Carver Beach and stuff like this. There' s 3, 000 ' feet there and that ' s a lot of land . There hasn' t been a lot done there for many years. The useage of it has not really increased since I was a kid . There were a lot of kids down there when I lived there as there is now. . . The raft, I have a neighbor just up the hill , the raft' s been ' there for over 30 years . I don' t know if you were aware of this but that parcel of parkland down there, that 3, 000 feet that was donated. The park up on the hill where that skating rink and the ball diamond stuff is , that park down there, that was donated. Carver Beach did not belong to Chanhassen . Carver Beach was it ' s own . We could have went to Shorewood. We could have went to Chanhassen. We elected to go to Chanhassen. We ' felt that Chanhassen would do a better job working or whatever . Now we' re thinking . . . Hasek : I have a quick question for you. What was the land donated to the ' City? Why would anybody want to give 3 , 000 feet of lakeshore away? Mike Wegler : At the time we had a few homeowners paying taxes on it who ' figured it would be better to give it to Chanhassen for parkland so that everybody could use it and that it would be. . . Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13 , 1988 - Page 15 Roger Byrnes : There used to be a clubhouse where ' the ballfzelds is now. The Carver Beach Association. . .clubhouse. . .and that' s how we paid the taxes on the land . When the clubhouse was torn down. . .generate any money II so we said, let' s donate the land to the City. We gave the land to the City with the stipulation that it would always be for the people of Carver Beach and will always be for the public. That' s the way it' s supposed to be. Now we feel that they' re trying to run the people of Carver Beach off I of the land. We feel we have a right to use that land . We feel like we' re getting slighted . We gave the land to the City. At that time the Council . . .understood the situation. In fact it was the first neighborhood park Chanhassen ever had. The people in Carver Beach worked with the City. When that beach was built out there, the City said, well , we ain' t got no labor. We can' t put in a beach. Those people were saying , you guys find some labor and all the people in the neighborhood went down there and cut the trees down. They did what they had to do and they built that beach. They maintained it. When the torando went through, all the I people in Carver Beach went through there and cleared the roads and we 've been clearing dead trees out there ever since and this and that and trying to keep it up. All we ever get for effort is get out of there. It seems like all the neighbors get out of the city is , you guys . . . is get out of I there and let it be junk in there. It seems like the City has never, they' ve spent minimal . They' ve spent thousands of dollars on these other parks but their oldest park they have and they' ve shut it down to a minimal out at that park. There ' s great potential down there. It' s a nice piece of property. It' s no good for playing ball and it ' s no good for flying kites but it ' s great for fishing . It ' s great for swimming. It ' s great for boating. That' s what it should be used for . Nobody seems I to understand that. They don ' t want to . They want to just let it be full of poison ivy and dead trees and keep everybody off of there. Mike Wegler : Taking the little bit that we have, taking it away, it really burns. One thing it doesn' t do. . . Roger Byrnes : When there' s 3, 000 feet of lake on the other side of the lake looking over, it looks like you ' re looking through the north woods . I can. see why the people don' t want it to be developed . They don ' t want to fix that land up a little because they live out across the lake and they look like they' re up in the north woods because they don' t see nothing but trees and dairy cows. But if you get close to it, it looks pretty bad . . . I Mady: I think you recall last year the Park Commission toured your , last year when we talked with you then. Roger Byrnes : . . . I was down here talking to you and it seemed like you guys were really down here trying to figure out what you can do and how people can use that land . I walked over . . . I don' t know who it was but I I heard somebody, I was standing up here and somebody told the guy he had to get the hell out of there . I couldn ' t believe my ears . The Park Commission runs a guy off the park. Mady: We asked him if he was catching fish . Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13 , 1988 - Page 16 Roger Byrnes : Somebody told him he was arked illegally out of there. p g y and he had to get Mady: No , we told him he was parked illegally but we didn' t tell him to leave. We asked him if he was catching fish. ' Laura Bros : I live at 6771 Chaparral Lane but I grew up on Lake Minnewashta so I feel like I do have a vested interest. My parents still live there. My in-laws still live there and a concern that I have, there' s always a battle between lakeshore owners and non-lakeshore owners as to rights . I think the lake is public property and everyone has the right to use the lake but my concerns are that some of these outlots need to have some policing or some restrictions or some way of checking up. You may not have a problem on Lotus Lake. You may not have a problem on Lake Ann but we do have a problem on Lake Minnewashta with some of these ' outlots. One in particular just down between my parents and in-laws. It' s very small . It was small enough that it doesn ' t warrant a dock out there and yet we 've had a raft out there and 2 boats and someone even came in and put a boat lift with a pontoon boat on it in a space that ' s so narrow there isn' t hardly room for it at all . I think people, maybe they' re conditional use permits , whatever , but that needs to be looked into on an individual basis , like he said, so that you can decide, yes there' s room ' there and how it should be used so you don ' t end up with all this . The raft that' s been out there and placed so far out into the lake that it' s dangerous . People coming down in boats with skiers , you can ' t see the raft it' s out so far . And it sticks way out into the lake so if they' re going to have a raft , then maybe that needs to fall within the guidelines of where it can be placed too. So that was just a concern of mine. I agree with you on that amendment but I think it needs to be looked at carefully and have some restrictions or some way of checking up to make sure that things are being followed through on. ' Hasek: Where do your in-laws live on Minnewashta? Laura Bros : My folks live right on Minnewashta Lows and my mother-in-law lives _ on Minnewashta Parkway. Is it Minnewashta 2nd Addition that has the ' outlot there. It ' s been a real problem the last couple of summers . Thank you. Resident : Some of these people, the complaints they have, unfortunately, if they checked into it as it says in that deal from the DNR, the DNR and if you talk to the gentleman , I gave you the name that works for the City of Prior Lake. One of the reasons that they no longer , they did have some ordinance for a period of time and they no longer do and it ' s for some of these very reasons. Of the battles between non-lakeshore owners and lakeshore owners . Due to the fact that they' ve got the same kind of t problem. The guy with an outlot should be able to keep a boat there. If you can keep 5 boats , 6 boats , whatever it happens to be. The DNR has specific rules regarding that. Regarding a raft that' s too far out in the water . The water laws state that if it hinders navigation , all you have to do is get ahold of the DNR. It ' s going to be pulled out. If it ' s not licensed , it's going to be pulled out . The DNR takes care of those things. The same thing on an outlot. If somebody owns that lot , maybe t Park and Recreation Commission Meeting ' December 13 , 1988 - Page 17 they' ve given somebody permission to use it of which ' ch they re allowed to do under the Department and State regulations to have two boats on there. Whether it' s theirs or anybody eases . If it' s somebody' s property and it' s somebody elses boats, then you ought to get ahold of those people and let them know about it. A lot of these things can be taken care of under existing rules as they' ve stood for years and years and years. It' s unfortunate that people haven' t taken advantage of those and I think that' s the very reason, as the gentleman told me from Prior Lake, that they let it go back to this so they didn' t have to go through some of these things. Resident: Just as a side comment, I think it' s interesting. I happen to be a member of the Association that owns the beachlot that was just talked I about . I 've been president of the association for 2 years and we' ve never had a single complaint. In fact, we' ve had all of our neighbors over at the parties on that beach so it 'd be interesting to hear from those owners 1 to see what the problems are because the abutting property owners don' t have any problems. Mady: Any other comments? We' ll open it up for Commission discussion. ' We' ll start with Larry. Schroers : I am in favor of the amendment . I believe that as our community grows, everybody sees all the development. . .and more and more people are using our parks and our waterways and if we don ' t regulate them, it could get out of control so I like the amendment as it is. I do like the grandfather clause . I don ' t feel that we ' re going to try to take t your raft away as long as it conforms to the regulations. I 'd like to see it there. I 'm not in favor of taking away anything that currently exists as long as it' s maintained and it ' s safe and it conforms with the regulations. In regards to the improvement of the Carver Beach area , we as a Commission have discussed putting in a fishing pier , boat moorings, a trail that will run along the lake and canoe racks . I think our intent is I to continue with that effort and try to get some of these things installed . If it works out at Carver Beach , I don ' t know why it couldn' t work out at Lake Ann or anywhere else so I would like to see that happen. I also think that we need to direct staff to speak with the sheriff and find out the procedure for obtaining permits for the moorings and rafts and make sure that it' s publicized so the residents know how to go about obtaining permits . That ' s really all I have. Mady: It' s interesting , as Tom Hamilton said a number of times , the lakes , the city lakes in Chanhassen are beautiful . They supply a lot of enjoyment and tribute for their residents . They also happen to be the biggest headache for the City that could even exist because some of you. . . try to regulate that. Here again tonight , we have that again. . . hoping we can address this. Dealing with Lake Ann, Gerry mooring his two II boats , we' ve attempted a number of times in the past through the grant application process , to improve Lake Ann Park. That included a 2 store bath house . Canoe rental areas . Boat mooring slips . All this type of thing. We' re continuing to try to do that. We just haven' t been granted the money from the State and it' s our intent to do that. We have a plan . We need to address that because the ordinance as it' s drafted is going to Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13 , 1988 - Page 18 affect, we need to look a little bit harder this year and maybe more next ' year. Maybe we need to look at a specified, limit the number of permits per year . I don' t know if we' re ready to jump into the whole issue, feet first and do it all the way across the board but maybe we can start doing a little bit of testing the water so to speak and find out how it' s really ' done. What the ramifications are. The legal liability. All those things . At Carver Beach , we toured that park. This year ' s capital improvement has $3, 000. 00 in it for improving Carver Beach trailway. ' That 3, 000 foot strip of land there. What I would like to see do and one of the things I plan pushing for tonight is to have the City improve that beach. That means marking it with swimming buoys so it is a marked, safe beach. We have to do that. If the City went in with a backhoe and pulled ' all the sand out, your kids are still going to swim there so we might as well make it right. I think we need to replace the raft. I 'd like to see your raft be thrown off and I think the City should put one in. A nice, legal , properly maintained. You don' t have any responsibilities . The City does it and does it right every year that it' s there. We can do that. We have the money to do it this year . I think we should do it 1 right . Roger Byrnes : That sounds well and fine but if . . .and then 5 years from now you' re out of here and somebody else is out of here and all of a t sudden , now the City puts a raft at Carver Beach is kind of rundown, we can not put that back and we ain ' t got no money to replace it. 3 years from now, 5 years from now the kids are out of a raft again . What ' s to assure us that the City will keep it there? Mady: There are no guarantees in life unfortunately. Roger Byrnes : Well , there is with you. Mady: The raft that you have is unsafe and I ' ll tell you why I feel it ' s ' unsafe. You have a pontoon sticking out from under the wrong side. Roger Byrnes : It ' s been there for over 30 years . ' Mady: Yes. You fall off that side of the raft, you ' re going to break your back. I think we should be doing 'a better job. It ' s the City' s property and we need to have the City take care of it . We 've had these ' problems other places where individual homeowners have taken care of city property. That' s not right. We need to make sure the City is doing it . The City' s got the budget . The City' s got the staff to do it . Let ' s make ' them do it because it ' s open for everybody. It ' s a city park. It ' s the public ' s right . Cindy Gilman : Can ' t you put something in there so that the people of ' Carver Beach that actually donate the land and stuff, still can have some control if the raft does go, if the City says 5 years down the road we don ' t have the money, the raft has to go, that the owners can say fine , we' re putting one out there. Too bad. There should be something there still because they donated the land . Sure, the City can put a raft out there and take care of it and everything but something there so they still feel they' ve got a little bit of control . Otherwise , why give the City 111 - - Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 19 anything? Mady: They can always look back and somebody can take it out or put it in. Resident : That ' s why we want to protect it so after 30 years . If you put I one in and it goes , give us the right to put it back in. We' re a non- conforming use. . .we' ll put it back in. We ' ll make it to the standards and everything else. It doesn't say anything in the standards about the point stuff. We realize that was an old pontoon. We made it. We didn' t have I the money to go out and buy a nice aluminum pontoon. Mady: It ' s the City' s responsibility. You do have a liability in that raft right now if you have a problem unless we get rid of that liability. There' s no reason for you to have it. If something happens now. . . Roger Byrnes: I agree with you wholeheartedly. All I want is some kind of assurance that 5 years from now it ' s still going to be there and 10 years from now when my kids have kids and my grandkids come over. I moved into this city and I ' ve been here for 15 years and I plan on being here for the next 15 years . I ain' t one of these guys who moves in and moves out and come in here and screw things up and tell me I 've got to get my raft out and then leave. You know? Here I 'm sitting with no raft. I 'm going to be here and my grandkids are going to be here and I want that raft out there for my grandkids . Mady: I don ' t know how we can do that . We can have staff look into that . II Boyt: I have a recommendation. Mady: Okay. The other thing I want to talk about and concerns we were talking about the fishing place. There are a lot of people that use that area to fish in. It' s wonderful . It ' s a great beach area . It ' s a great fishing area. They should be allowed down there. Unfortunately, with all the no parking signs down there , they can ' t get there. I would like to see us allow parking in a designated area along the street. I don' t really even care which side of the street it is . I know you' ve mentioned that you don ' t have a problem with this' before. It doesn' t have to be many spots but at least that guy who was down here last year with a couple of other people that were fishing for sunfish and caught a couple. He ' should at least be able to be. . .and when he sees us and we' re the City coming at him to. . . That ' s what he did basically. He saw us coming and he started packing up right away. It ' s unfortunate . He shouldn' t have to II worry about that. We need to improve that situation. Roger Byrnes : I 've got a comment there too. We and Mike were looking out there and Mike works for the City. There are some places on that land where it could be cut in there with maybe 2 or 3 little trees cut down , that a few parking spaces could me made here. There. A couple here. A couple there . All the way around that whole strip. There' s some over there by the new beach. I don' t know, the other park is facing with no parking signs go up and down about weekly. Once in a while you park there and sometimes you can' t. What could be made is a couple parking spaces 1 I. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13 , 1988 - Page 20 and then some place where the road is wide enough where you can take down a couple no parking signs. I don' t think there' s a problem with that. I 'd like to see people get access to it too. Mady: Our aim is to improve the utilitization of our parks. That 's what we want to do . I think I covered by points . Hasek: I guess that I feel that if we' ve got public property on the lake ' that it should be, actually any public property whether it be just a normal park in the middle of a neighborhood or a beach such as this. Use property on the lake that' s some 3, 000 feet long , that it ought to be maintained for the citizens of Chanhassen. That' s everybody. It' s not just the people who are abutting that particular park or live in that particular neighborhood. I think that they ought to be accessible. By accessible I 'm not just talking about parking spaces . I 'm talking about ' handicap accessible because at some point in time I 'm going to qualify for that and I want to be able to drive down and use the parks and I don ' t want to have to walk 5, 000 feet to get to a park to use it. Some of this is related to another issue but nonetheless it ' s still pertinent. I also ' feel that if the City is going to allow for mooring or tackle the situation of perhaps canoe racks , rental canoe racks , that they like what is thought to be equally available to every member or every citizen of the ' City. Not just the abutting property owners . The beach was given up but it was given to the City and it sounds like it was given because it couldn' t be maintained by the Association and that ' s understandable. ' We' ve had that situation occur in another case and in my opinion we ' ve created a private park for a neighborhood and I don ' t feel very well about that at all. I would hate to see that happen to this particular park as well . I would like to see more parking spaces put in if it ' s at all possible. I think that they ought to be spread out so that the entire park can be used . Again , I think if the city is going to put a park in there, they ought to at least have the courage to take the responsibility t for keeping it clean and to maintain it . I guess just a side issue to that. You have a park. I live in an area of the City that doesn' t have a park. That' s the way it is. . . ' Robinson : I agree with the ordinance as it ' s amended . I think there has to be some restrictions on parkland or lakeshore or lake close to the park so we don ' t have 50, 000 boats out in front of the parkland . I think it' s ' also, we' ve got to let these people at Carver Beach have their swimming raft out there . I mean , that ' s ridiculous . So I think we control that by permits or a variance or something . Whether they be grandfathered in or , ' I 'm not sure if that ' s the right approach . Maybe we do it by permit or allow a variance. There are variances on everything else. There' s an exception to every rule . I think there ' s got to be some exception here. ' Boyt: I would like to see us form a committee with some of the Carver Beach neighbors to look at what can be done with the park. What they would like to see done with it. We' ve talked about putting rafts , a swimming area . We want a raft there and I think let' s work with the neighborhood and see what they want. I am interested in boat moorings being made available to the people of Chanhassen on our lakes at our parks. One possible way to do that is , there are a lot of ways to do it Park and Recreation Commission Meeting ' December 13 , 1988 - Page 21 but it' s an interest that ' s been shown in ' the community. People want to be able to leave their boats there overnight and that ' s a way to do it. I support the ordinance amendment._ I would volunteer to be on the committee ' to work with the Carver Beach owners. Sietsema: We may be able to accomplish that by having a meeting that ' s I specifically, with the entire group and invite the whole neighborhood but specifically just for that item too . Mady: That's sounds logical . ' Boyt: I think we need to take advantage of their interests. If they' re interested in even raising the roof. I don ' t think we should turn down an I interest like that in the park. Mady: I guess I don ' t look for us to form a committee. I think you can I handle it here. Especially this time of year. Our agenda usually allows for us to do that . I would hope that we ' ll work with staff to get something accomplished in that realm. We do have money available in our budget to do something . It sounds like you ' re willing to do a little bit there. We need to cover that whole park. We recognize we need to do a trail easement. There ' s poison ivy down there. There are trees falling over. That needs to be cleared out. There are ways for us to do that with both Eagle Scout projects that have been very successful to the larger beach such as Carver Beach. The beautification that was done with the parking area was an Eagle Scout project and did , in my opinion , a very nice job up there. We can utilize some of the Scouting skills to take I care of some of that. They do a nice job. They gain some recognition. Get a few points for their Eagle Scout Badge and it really works out well for all parties involved . I Hasek : What kind of action is required with this discussion? Sietsema: The City Council directed the Park and Recreation Commission to review the amendment to see that it was in compliance with what we wanted to do _ in the parks. If you' re in favor of it , you just simple need to make recommendation for approval . Boyt: We can go beyond that too and deal with boat moorings because we can go beyond this and allow boat moorings in our parks . Sietsema: This would not prohibit us from putting boat moorings in our parks . Boyt : The way it was stated , I thought it was implied from ' P m the City Council that they would like us to discuss that , the boat mooring issue . Mady: I think we need to find a little bit more information on the liability. On access. Find out how other cities have determined the numbers that they allow. Where they' re put in place. Right now the ones I that are coming up are people are putting them out near their homes. I 'm not so sure that if we did it as a park, the situation of allowing moorings or that people felt they wanted them. ' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13 , 1988 - Page 22 Boyt : You can see on the parkways , the Minneapolis parkways , they have ' designated areas for boat moorings . Mady: Minneapolis , the parks , the lakes are entirely, outside of a couple ' areas around Cedar Lake, those areas are entirely public so they have some . . situation. Resident : I have a pamphlet , actually it' s a stack of papers that ' dictates for the Park and Rec Director for the City of Minneapolis on it' s way to. . . It was used for the City of Bloomington in their new program at Normandale Lake where they' re going to put in their canoe racks , etc. and ' it was also, the same plan was used by the City of Deephaven many years ago. Mady: Thank you. A side to that also. The ordinances that we have concerning our lakes, a lot of them were drafted by the White Bear Lake ordinances . They' ve dealt with a lot of these problems prior to us . We typically steal whatever we can from other cities so if we can use something from Minneapolis , we certainly will . We can always find out what problems they' ve had and try to get around those things. A motion is in order . I ' ll make a motion that the Park and Recreation Commission ' recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to Chapter 6 of the City Ordinances and instruct staff to investigate the possibility of moorings in the city lakes and set up a meeting with the Carver Beach residents to look to improvements to the Carver Beach linear park. ' Boyt: I ' ll second it . ' Robinson: Are there any exceptions? Is that just black and white? Mady: There ' s always the ability for a variance. ' Robinson: Okay, and I ' ve seen the discussion that the City Council wanted the grandfathered in in that. Is that in the ordinance or is that a part of that? ' Sietsema : If you want to recommend that a section be written up allowing for a variance, you should include that in your motion because that' s not ' included in this amendment . Roger Byrnes : . . .because the way the ordinance is written , we ' re already ' grandfathered in. Sietsema: This is allowing a variance for mooring of boats . The rafts are grandfathered in but the moorings are not so that would require an ' amendment to Section 23 of Chapter 6 allowing for a variance. Hasek: It says right at the bottom, removal of seasonal docks and ' moorings and other structures shall be removed from the lake before November 1st of each year. All non-conforming moorings and other structures . .: Park and Recreation Commission Meeting ' December 13 , 1988 - Page 23 Sietsema: With the exception of rafts . Read on. Hasek: Except docks and swimming rafts. I apologize. Once removed may I not be returned to the lake. Non-conforming docks are regulated by Section. . . Sietsema : So the moorings would require, you either want to grandfather I those in or look at them on a case by case basis and have a variance. Mady: I guess I would like to see us , in my motion, to allow for a variance opportunity and it would not come under 6-23. That' s concerning structures . Moorings would have to come under . . . Sietsema: I believe it ' s outlined in Barbara Dacy's letter. Mady: I would like to see us allow for variances to the ordinance. ' Schroers : And will the variances allow us to address a specific situation? Mady: It would have to be in response to a specific situation. That situation would have to come in front of the Council and the Council votes on it. It takes a four-fifths vote of the Council to approve or deny. Sietsema: 6-23 is variances . Mady: Yes , but that ' s only structures . Moorings would go under number 1. II Structures are a thing . . . Sietsema: Okay, Roger would figure that out . ' Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to Chapter 6 of the City Ordinances. To instruct staff to investigate the possibility of moorings in the city lakes . To set up a meeting with the Carver Beach residents to look to improvements to the Carver Beach linear park. And to allow a variances section in the Ordinance to cover moorings. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Fred Oelschlager : I just had one question . Others brought this up a while ago but the meeting went along pretty well as far as understanding and so forth. I 'm Fred Oelschlager at 7410 Chanhassen Road . I 'm also a lifetime residnet of Lotus Lake. I 've had no problem with the raft at Carver Beach. I ' d like to see it cleaned up and so forth. I go along with them fine. I just want to hear something from, I think it ' s . . . ' Boyt : Sue . Fred Oelschlager : Sue , on the mooring of boats on park property. Can you II just explain that quickly? , Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13 , 1988 - Page 24 Boyt : I want to look into it. Fred Oelschlager: Is it the numbers you' re talking about? Boyt : We' re not talking about numbers yet. Fred Oelschlager: You ' re going to open up a real can of worms there . Boyt : That' s something that you guys will come in and talk to us about. ' Fred Oelschlager: . . .and you have a brand new public access on the lake. You open up one of the best area , and I think- that should be all that ' s necessary. I don' t even live on that end of the lake is what I 'm saying . Mady: You have 3 park areas on Lotus Lake with South Lotus Lake Park, North Lotus Lake Park and Carver Beach . Fred Oelschlager : Like Lotus Lake Estates , Sunrise Hills. They' re limited to the amount of boats that they can put on the lake basically and ' now you want to start mooring boats out in front of park property. I just want to let you know where I 'm coming from. Mady: You recognize the issue there . We' re probably going to have a fairly heated discussion when it comes to that and we recognize that . Fred Oelschlager : Alright , thank you. tRay Roettger: That boat mooring business , you 'd better really be careful . I appreciate where these guys are. They' re fine people but they better ' also be very concerned because I could take a boat and moor it right in front of your swimming raft and you wouldn ' t want that . ' Mady: Not in a public beach you can ' t. Ray Roettger : If I can ride by water over to the area that you would use. ' Resident: . . .anybody from Lotus Lake could go and park their boat here. The people don ' t do that . Ray Roettger : But once it' s written in and you get some smart attorney, that' s not kind hearted , he could really create a problem. Mady: That ' s what we' re trying to employ all the problems . We have a ' tendency, this Commission has the tendency to be very proactive and look out for the problems so they don ' t occur . We try to be fair to everyone. ' Mary Jo Moore: I 'm a little confused when you say that the non-conforming rafts that are currently there will be grandfathered in? ' Mady: As long as they' re legal. There are certain requirements and they can still . If they' ve got a raft in your situation , it ' s too low in the water , doesn ' t have a permit , even though it' s non-conforming , it ' s still illegal . 1 • Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13 , 1988 - Page 25 Mary Jo Moore : It 's non-conforming to the structure standards also. That's my conclusion. So that would go? That would not be grandfathered I in? Mady: I guess that' s a question for the City Attorney. Boyt: If it doesn' t fit our standards right now, then it could be taken out right now. We have standards set for rafts . I don ' t know who it is . The Sheriff or someone but I think notify. . . Mary Jo Moore: Of course now it' s out , the lake is frozen. Boyt: But someone needs to notify the sheriff . Mary Jo Moore: But that type of thing would not be grandfathered in? Boyt: Not if it doesn' t meet the standards set. Ray Roettger : How many are out there that can be grandfathered in? , Mady: It sounds like 4. You ' ve got one. There' s one next to you . Jerry' s got 2. I thought you said there . . . ' Ray Roettger : No, that ' s a dock. Sietsema : There ' s probably quite a few. We wouldn ' t know until they came in and asked us . Mady: Again , when we go to public hearing this thing is going to have to I be very defined out. Resident : Hasn ' t anybody come forward and said , that they' ve applied for I a permit and they' ve gone through the whole process legally. Now this issue comes up to take it away. Resident: Wasn ' t everybody ticketed? ' Mady: The attempt was made , yes . Resident : So how many people does that involve? I know about only on Lotus Lake. Mady: In some situations , the boats were removed prior to the enforcement , officer getting there so we really don' t know. Robinson : The only boats that were removed , as I understand it , were boats that were actually on land. All boats that were moored were contacted . Lori , isn ' t that correct? Sietsema: I think so. ' Robinson : There are only 4 boats . JI Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13 , 1988 - Page 26 Mady: There may be more. Things seem to always come out of the woodwork. Resident: Okay, but why can' t citizens who were here and we' re representing ourselves and we' ve come to both meetings , why can ' t there be a clause just to grandfather us in? Because we have proof that we have had it there for 2 years or longer or whatever . If you can grandfather in the raft, how come you can ' t grandfather in these? ' Mady: The raft that' s there is a non-conforming use. I 'm not sure the raft is a non-conforming use. I really don' t. Resident : It ' s been listed as a grandfathered in raft . Mady: I guess I 'd feel a lot more comfortable if Roger Knutson was here, the City Attorney and he told me whether that ' s a non-conforming use because my understanding is that a non-conforming use goes to the person who owns the property. In this situation , the City owns that property. The land. I 'm talking about the land. That ' s where non-conforming use comes to . Resident : But the raft is in the lake which is not city property. Mady: But see, that I don ' t know. That ' s what we need to find out. Hasek: It really doesn ' t matter . All we do is make recommendations and suggest a policy. The City Council is going to have to act on it and they' re really your , right there are yours . . . ' Mady: What we say doesn ' t necessarily happen. Resident : I understand that may be the case but certainly you have a ' number , there' s been an adjustment for a raft and somewhere there ' s been an adjustment for docks but there has not been an adjustment for moorings . That just isn ' t there. There' s a reason why you ' ve ignored those and I don ' t know why you ' ve omitted it . You know it ' s something that ' s going to be a problem or what? Why are you ignoring it? Hasek : I 'm just not in favor of it. ' Resident: Is that a bottom line? Hasek: Personally I 'm not in favor of it . If someone had suggested it in a motion, I would have probably voted against it myself. Resident : I appreciate your honesty and openness on that because it seems ' like. . . Hasek : I 'm more concerned about , I guess what I 'm very concerned about is the fairness to everybody in town. Just because someone has been doing something forever does not give them the right to continue to do it. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13 , 1988 - Page 27 Lynn Hall : I understand that but then the same case can ' n be made , because the raft has been there, or the dock has been there, does that mean they should be grandfathered in? You ' re making a differentiation between moorings and dock that doesn' t, the logic falls through there. Hasek: I think you' re maybe right . I Lynn Hall : I guess in my situation it ' s unique, completely in the County as far as I 'm aware of and in this particular instance I will, this property is fee simple title owned by myself. We' ve talked about public II park property and mooring boats off of that property. Right now if your recommendation lacks that grandfathering clause in, potentially with a four-fifths vote, as I spoke earlier , there' s a hurdle that I 'm going to 11 have to jump once again for a use that' s been acknowledged and verified by the City. In my situation, from a single owner and that property is valued in accordance with the use of that property so it ' s critical at this point. Your position and your recommendation, obviously you hold weight as a voting body to make a recommendation to the Council . The point is made here that the difference between those two particular items , the raft and that particular structure of a moored boat , I fail to see the difference if a craft' s in the water, one' s moored and one isn' t but it' s obviously from the standpoint that people like myself in this unique situation that grandfathering is also very important. Mady: In your situation , you ' re a non-conforming use has been established and you' re covered under the amendment. Sietsema : No . Mady: I thought it was a non-conforming use? ' Sietsema: No, he' s a mooring and not a raft though. Hasek: Would you help by just explaining exactly what your situation is? II Lynn Hall : Prior to the sale of the property, there was acknowledgement from the City as an authorization . . . Hasek: What is the property like? I mean how much shoreline do you own? Lynn Hall : There' s 20 feet of shoreline. Hasek: Is it a pie shaped piece of property? Do you own an outlot across the street? Lynn Hall : It ' s an outlot down at the end of a cul-de-sac between two properties. I Hasek: Then it' s an old fire access or something? Lynn Hall : It ' used to be the old boat landing from my understanding years 11 gone by. The asphalt that I pulled out this summer , I 'd say there was a road there at one time. It Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13 , 1988 - Page 28 i Hasek : How did that come to you for sale? ' Lynn Hall : That was included in the parcel. It' s been attached quite some time ago to the property with the house that I own . It ' s fee simple ' title. Hasek: So the owner of that house must have subdivided the property and kept that piece as an access for himself? ' Lynn Hall : It was added onto the property at some point in time. It was separate years gone by but it' s not clear. The Abstract unfortunately was lost on this property a number of years back and has been recreated . Somebody did some recreation from what the attorney says at this point . Nevertheless , the way it' s titled currently, it is fee simple. But with the current amendment, no , I am not grandfathered in so I would be stripped of a use , a non-conforming use that I have. That gets into a completely different situation again. ' Hasek: Not in terms by virtue of the fact that you only own 20 feet of shoreline instead of 100 feet and you don ' t have a residence on the property? Lynn Hall : Yes . Boyt : It was my understanding that part of the public hearing tonight is ' to discuss boat mooring and I don ' t think we ' ve done enough of that as a commission . ' Mady: I don ' t know. I guess my feelings are that we ' ve handled boat moorings. I feel sorry for you. I don' t want to open up a can of worms however in the mooring situation right now. I think the City needs to address it as a whole instead of allowing 1 or 2 moorings to take place. I think there' s a better way that would be fair to all parties . Not to discriminate. Just because somebody has been, and this is my feeling , just because one person has been doing something and this mooring issue came to us , we didn' t go to it. Lynn Hall : I understand . Mady: If there are people who have problems and it ' s going to affect you but it also affects the people who live next door to you, according to everything I ' ve read here. They have a real concern too . My opinion is , I fall on the side that I don ' t want to open a can of worms right now for just a couple of people. I 'd rather see us deal with the whole issue for the entire city. ' Lynn Hall : I 'm in agreeance in the amendment change with the exception of the grandfatheri.ng. I 'm not asking you to open a can of worms and take a public vote on who would like it and who wouldn ' t like to begin mooring their boats. The ramifications are far beyond us sitting here today. If I 'm stripped 'of a right , obviously a devaluation of my property, then we' ll be forced to take issue with that. That ' s where it comes in. I 1 ,, Park and Recreation Commission Meeting ' December 13 , 1988 - Page 29 understand what you' re saying Jim and there ' s two s ides to the coin. If one argument is the devaluation of the property value because what I think to be a decent boat , not restricting any access from either neighbor . On ' the other side of that coin is why should I have my property devaluated based on those concerns? I might add that this is a concern of one particular individual. The other neighbor has offered to let me use his II dock even but he unfortunately can ' t. Hasek: I think our charge is to look at the broader issue. I think the grandfathering will have to be argued by the individuals with the Council . II Mady: . . .handle some of these situations. It' s the councilman's job and when you get to the Council , it will be their responsibility to make that decision. Not ours. Robinson : But Jim, the agenda said boat moorings and dock ordinance. ' Mady: And we talked about it. Unfortunately, it didn' t go the way you wanted it to go. We did discuss it . I talked about it. Ed ' s talked about it. We did talk about it for maybe half an hour . . . Lynn Hall : I can understand what you' re saying but on the other hand you ' re saying that it' s an issue that you don' t want to get into because there isn ' t enough people here or whatever . They all had the same opportunity that we had to be here. Just as I had to find out, even though I should have been notified , and under the circumstances it ' s an issue that' s going to have to be dealt with sooner or later so isn' t it an issue that at this point as far as you ' ve gone with it , that isn ' t it an issue that maybe should be, as Sue said , dealt with a little bit more? Boyt: If we' re against it, we can say we don' t like the idea of boats being moored at our public beaches and lay it out flat like that. But , they can apply for a variance with the City Council. Right? That ' s what II we' re saying . Lynn Hall : So it is going to be in your minutes , that at least it ' s going to say that it has to be looked into even harder and there is going to be another meeting . At that point you ' re saying it ' s not going to be the Park and Rec but it ' s going to have to be City Council that does the next step? Mady: No . What we said is , we recommended to the Council to approve the ordinance as it stands and to look into a couple other things. One of the things we do intend to look at and have always intended to look at was the mooring issue off of city property because that' s where we get involved is really city property. I 'm not real sure why the mooring situation , specifically at Lynn' s property, came in front of us . It ' s usually handled in the planning area . It ' s not something we have gotten involved in before. Boyt : We are also dealing with , we have right now some folks who are at our public parks. We' re saying with our ordinance amendment that that will no longer take place unless they' re . . . ' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13 , 1988 - Page 30 1 Lynn Hall : Are you specifically stating public land? ' Hasek: We' re involved with public land. That ' s what I keep trying to tell you. The private sector should be the job of the Council . I ' certainly don ' t want to start getting involved with every private feud that there is on ordinances in this City. I 'm not getting paid to do that. I think if we continue just to deal with the public land in the best way we know how and trying to help the Council with that, I think ' we' re doing our job. Boyt : It says in our amendment that no watercraft shall be moored and ' we ' re talking about all watercraft. Mady: But at this point in time that' s when we ask for a variance situation would handle you. Lynn Hall : But your jurisdiction is over public. That ' s what I just heard you say. Not private and then you ' re saying overall so. ' Mady: We really don ' t have any jurisdiction at all . We ' re simply a park board that comes here and invites the public to make their comments . ' Those go into the Minutes . They go to the Council . The Council reads all of that hopefully and takes it into consideration when they make their decision because sometimes the Council doesn ' t open it up for public discussion. Sometimes they do. This is your opportunity to get your ' thoughts out. Sietsema : The includance of the whole thing about the variance only ' indicates to the Council that the Park and Recreation Commission feels that it ' s something that they should consider . It' s not really this Commission ' s area to even talk about the variance situation except where ' it applies to public land . So it ' s really an issue that ' s got to go back to City Council and they just made a comment on it so that the Council knows that they've listened to you. That they' ve discussed it. Lynn Hall : But you are also saying , and correct me if I 'm wrong, that if I get permission from another landowner to moor my boats in front of his property, if I don' t own the land, I can ' t park there? Sietsema : That ' s right . Lynn Hall : So that goes for somebody who owns land , let ' s say these two ' people right up here on Lake Minnewashta . If they want to have their son park their boat all next summer in front of their yard , or in front of their property, they can ' t do it unless they get a variance? This is the ' only city in the 7 county area that will have done that . Boyt: It says a member of the owner ' s household . Lynn Hall : So' i.t ' s a cousin? 1 Park and Recreation Commission Meeting , December 13 , 1988 - Page 31 Hasek: I don ' t know if you made all the discussions with ' th the LMCD but on Lake Minnetonka it is illegal for you, unless you are a property owner . Lynn Hall : No it isn ' t. You can have 2 boats . Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, you can have 2 boats or less. Read it. Two boats or less . Anybody can own them if you get permission. Anybody. If you have 3 boats or more, they all have to be licensed to you or your immediate family. Hasek: I guess I would differ with you on that but I don' t have the ordinance here and. . . Lynn Hall : I 'm very aware. The gentleman who' s in charge, his number ' s II right here and you can call him. Mady: Let me interrupt you right now. I don ' t believe we' te getting anyplace. We' ve made our recommendation. Before this gets to the City Council . We have other items on our agenda . We need to get to them. We' re not going to resolve this tonight. You ' ve heard our recommendation. We' ve listened to you and now we ' re rehashing and we need to move on. You have your opportunity, hopefully the City Council will bring your ideas up there . Again , if you haven ' t signed the sheet in the back of the room, please do so. ' PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW CHANGES AND PLANS FOR SIDEWALKS ALONG CARVER BEACH ROAD AND LAREDO II DRIVE. Public Present ' Name Address Ron and Ann Kleve 6770 Penamint Lane ' Jeff and Cathy Clem 1011 Carver Beach Road Jerry__ Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Joy Javurek 6780 Redwing Lane Chuck Snyder 500 Highland Drive Ray Roettger 3221 Dartmouth Drive Jeff and Anne Keeler 6771 Penamint Lane Dave Rahe 1021 Carver Beach Road Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive Jeff and Laura Bros 6771 Chaparral Wally Schwab 950 Carver Beach Road Sietsema : I ' d like to introduce Scott Harri tonight . He ' s the engineer ' that worked on the plans and he will go through the plans and specs as he ' s prepared them. Scott Harri : thank you. I 'm going to be making a presentation this way so if there' s anybody interested, I know it ' s hard to get any kind of good functional thing . My name is Scott Harri and it' s my pleasure to be here 1 , ( re- 1 „'"..,--' CITYtOF ..3 II ' L.,- i . 4' I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �' (612) 937-1900 IMEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission IFROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: December 6 , 1988 ISUBJ: Boat and Waterways Amendment 1 On September 12 , 1988 , the City Council reviewed a proposed amendment to Chapter 6 of the City Code regarding Boats and 1 Waterways to clarify City regulations . The Council tabled action and directed the Park and Recreation Commission to review this item so as to be sure it was in line with park development acti- vities (Attchment A) . 1 Attached please find a memo from Baroara Dacy (Attachment B) outlining the background and issues related to this item. The I amendment as proposed (Attachment #1) would prohibit the mooring of boats or rafts in front of park property. The Park and Recreation Commission has discussed this in the past and deter- 1 mined that overnight mooring of boats and storing personal pro- perty on park property would not be appropriate use of parklands . Section 6-30 of the amendment would allow existing rafts and docks to be allowed as non-conforming uses . IStaff feels this is a reasonable amendment to the City Code, clarifying the issues that continue to surface. It is I recommended that the mooring issue, as addressed in Point #4 of Ms . Dacy' s memo, be resolved by amending the variance section, Section 6-23 , to allow situations such as the Hall property or I others to apply for a variance so the City can evaluate each situation on a site specific basis . I 1 'i- 1 , f City Council Meeting/ September 12, 1988 Father Barry Schneider: I would , lzke to request the Council at this time to consider speed zoning the area past our school on TH 101 and the church to perhaps 15 mph. It is presently 30 and with children right on that street, and sometimes Family of Christ youth on the other side, I think 30 mph is a little high. I guess I started thinking about that because my dog got hit there last Monday night and now I'm thinking of human beings. Children and perhaps even on the other street corner by our ki.nd^ergarten. There are little children there, babies traffic coming out and they're stopping on that street. I would request the Council to consider a speed rezoning. Mayor Hamilton: You're talking about on TH 101, on West 78th Street? Father Barry Schneider: TH 101 up to Great Plains. Through there. Traffic used to slow down because there was a stop sign there. The stop sign was removed and the traffic moves much more quickly now. Mayor Hamilton: I think we can not do that since that's a state highway and the speed limit is minimum of 30 mph. I think that's correct on that but we could perhaps do a better job of signing. We'll do what we can to try and get the speed reduced but I know that the minimum speed that we can put up is 30. State law. Councilman Horn: You might be a school zone. ' Mayor Hamilton: Yes, we could get it school zoned and have additional signage to try and slow traffic down. Gary Warren: I'm meeting with MnDot on Friday so I'll bring it up. A Councilman Boyt: Would it help to have more enforcement there? Are people ' actually doing 30 mph in that zone? Mayor Hamilton: Pretty much. As I travel down there, they seem to be. Councilman Johnson: When the deputies did a survey there, they found the average speed was 31 mph. The survey was done with a marked police car which was seen well in advance so the people weren't traveling their absolutely normal speed. I saw them two blocks away. If you're going to do a radar survey, it should be kind of hidden. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps Jim, you and Gary can work on that problem. D f n PUBLIC IMMARIING HENG:RAFTS,AMFIRST ENDMENT TO READING CHAPTER 6 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING BOAT MOORINGS ' AND SW . oc .r Public Present: Name ' Address Mr. and Mr. Lynn Hall 3980 Hawthorne Circle Roger Byrne 6724 Lotus Trail Dave Peterjohn 3921 Hawthorne Circle Mr. and Mrs. Mike Schroeder 6600 Lotus Trail 5 y! j I 1 ti� d City Council Meeting - 1� Member 12, 1988 t II Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. IBarbara Dacy: This proposal is to amend the current Chapter of the City Code regarding boats and waterways. It was originally known as a water surface useage ordinance. Because of a variety of issues that have come up over the I last boating season, staff has prepared the proposed ordinance for Council consideration, inb have notified all of the Homeowner's Associations, the lake rights as well as the lot owners abutting the lakes in Chanhassen. Basically there are four changes that are being proposed. The first change is adding this I item 2 in the water surface useage ordinance regarding the ability to moor a person's boat in the lake in front of a lot in which they reside. As now II written, this under 2, does not exist. The proposed ordinance would require that you would have to have a home on the lakeshore site. Lakeshore site means a lot abutting the lake and you would have to moor the boat within 25 feet in • front of your lakeshore lot. This was as a result of a couple of issues. Number Ii, the Park and Recreation Commission considered a number of requests about mooring boats in front of park property. This change has concurrence of the Park and Rec Commission. Secondly, this provision would consistent with the II City Zoning Ordinance regarding accessory uses and principle uses. As now written, a dock is an accessory use and if you have a lakeshore setting, you would need to have a principle use or a single, family home before you could have a dock on a lake. The second change is in regards to swimming rafts. This also I was considered by the Park and Recreation Commission regarding the ability to have a swimming raft in front of park property. The way it is proposed here in Section 2, we would be adding a proposed subsection rafts must be located within 199 feet of lakeshore �o requiring Aga that swimming I� home located on the lot. property. Again, with the The third change is regarding the removal of swimming rafts and docks. One of the biggest items that the Park and Recreation Commission was the use of the Carver Beach swimming raft. Because this swirrrni.ng 1 raft has been used for a number of years by a number of people around the lake, the ordinance has been written to allow this particular raft to become a non- conforming use so this section of the ordinance allows the re-establishment of non-conforming swimming rafts and docks established in the lake. II Section 3 of the `IY�at's under proposed ordinance. Now, the fourth item that's going to be considered is this particular section does not include boat. So for example, if you do not own lakeshore property the ability to moor a I time, you would moor your boat in the lake, l petty at this point th boat next season if this ordinance is adopted.°u would not be able to moor the here in the staff report that the City Staff has Ireceived aantumberaof p ogee in I calls regarding Outlot A of Kelllyne Addition. I know both parties, Mr. Hall and Mr. Peterjohn are here to speak on that Staff is proposing is that there probably particular situation. What City Staff lakeshore property probabl are a number of these situations where I p perty is vacant and people have been mooring their boat on the lake or some type of previous mooring that maybe there should be a process incorporated into the water surface useage ordinance for the Council to review II each of these situations on an individual basis and have the ability to apply certain conditions. If that is Council's policy, then we would suggest that Section 6-22 be revised to account for that process. II Lynn Hall, 3980 Hawthorne Circle: I understand and res planning and Council have put together in regards to thesetsituationshand don't disagree with your thoughts on it with the exception that I understand, and 6 1(1/4- correct me i.f I'm misunderstanding, that owners of rafts the same as the owners of boats i.s a right situation would not be treated where essentially they'Le 6 City Council Meeting i Jeptember 12, 1988 k II 47 equal uses. The provision of allowing a variance process to be gone -through or boat moored would be available however, I understand the proper procedures here that would be necessary for the Council's four-fifths vote to approve such a move, then it would be very difficult for me to obtain any type of a variance such as that. I may propose or suggest the idea of a conditional use process thus controlling giving the City Council to maintain a level of control over I this. My situation, which planning is well aware of, I purchased a piece of property that was sold to me with the understanding that I had a legal non- conforming use and that that legal non-conforming use was verified and II documented by the City. In adopting this particular provision in the ordinances, I'd be stripped of a right that had been granted previously as a legal non-conforming use. I guess to put it quite simply, I don't feel that that's fair under these provisions. I guess I'd hate to see the City take a II position on changing this ordinance and on this matter that they consider some alternatives. If this ordinance were to be put into effect, it would essentially put my back against the wall. When I purchased the piece of II property for a reason of being able to use the lake. An establishment of a right that I'm now having taken away. You leave me no alternative but to defend my property value and the rights that were granted thereof. In further adding, II I hate to see the City put into a position where potentially they're spending the taxpayers money to settle what I think to be somewhat of a minor disagreement between a couple of neighbors. I guess in closing, I would just hope that an alternative could be sought in controlling this particular II situation and my previously established rights of non-conforming use be maintained. ij II Roger Byrne, 6724 Lotus Trail: I'm not too use to public speaking so kind bear with me. I guess I don't agree with staff and I don't see the need for f this ordinance at all. I don't see why they even brought it up in the first place. Like this gentleman said here, I think it's more neighborhood squabbles II with neighbors and stuff like that than having anything to do with any control or anything. I can't see any control problem on any of these lakes. There's a few things out there and they've been there for a long time, a lot of them and II some come and some go but the Council gave lakeshore owners the right to have 3 boats moored on their property. They can have unlimited number of small boats pulled up on shore and the public don't have any right to have anything out II there if this ordinance goes past. Now this ordinance, the water surface useage ordinance was passed in, I don't know, I think it was ' 83. That thing had been worked on for 2 or 3 years before that by citizen committees and through the Council 5 or 6 times. It had been amended and amended and finally they got it II right. The way they wanted it and that's the way it went through. Now all of a sudden they come back and say, oh no, I guess we gave somebody some rights that they shouldn't have had. We better amend it. Lon Ashworth there brings it on II himself to draft this here ordinance and put it up before the Council. They said it went through the parks committee but I don't think so. I don't think the Parks committee had anything to do with it. I think it was Don Ashworth and George.. .and that's the way it is. These people know that and it's just II discrimination against the public to use that lake just like anybody else. It's just as much our lake as it is as if you were a lakeshore owner on the property. This ordinance is wrong and I think you people know it's wrong and I think you II should vote it down. You shouldn't even consider this ordinance. We've got enough ordinances out there to stop anything you wanted to stop on the lake. You're stopping too much stuff, people can't even use it except the people that own lakeshore. They have all the rights in the world and the public has very II 7 all ,. y v_ City Council Meeting - ptember 12, 1988 ti II little on that lake. I hear talk about the raft in Carver Beach. They say, I well maybe we can get that one out of there and the City will put a raft out there. The City has 15 years to put a raft out there. We give that land to the City more than 18 years ago and you haven't done anything to that park. That park has been there. It's a mess in there. It's full of poison ivy. They talk Iabout a path through the park. It's-full of poison ivy. The poison oak. The kids can't even go in there. What little bit we have there, we've done II ourselves. Now you want to take us out of that. The public has a right to that lake just like anybody else. I think that raft should stay there and I think you should take this ordinance and, we don't need it. It should have never been drawn up. It's just plain discrimination by a few people in this town that are trying to jew everybody else out of their rights on that lake like everybody I else. I think you people know that. If you look deep in your heart, you'll figure that's the way it is out there. Like I say, I'm not very good at this but I hope I got my point across. I had some other points but I feel kind of Iblank up here. Dave Peterjohn, 3921 Hawthorne Circle: I'm Lynn Hall's neighbor and I'd like to say first that I think this is a very unfortunate situation for both Mr. Hall and myself but I think it's a situation that happened with Mr. Hall's previous homeowner that I think misrepresented the rights that Mr. Hall had in purchasing the property. Just a little background, I own a piece of property that I built I a house on that abuts up to Outlot A, which Mr. Hall and his wife own the rights to and have a house off-site of the lake. When we investigated purchasing the property several years ago, we had looked into covenants. Covenants for this I particular outlot stated very plainly that the outlot owners and the people who have rights, do not have a right to have a boat or a dock on this piece of property. When Mr. Hall purchased the property, he was completely unaware of I these particular covenants from the previous owner so I guess our feeling is, having a boat moored down there is an argument that Mr. Hall has with the previous owner. I think where the issue comes into play for us as homeowners, presently you can have up to 3 watercraft on a piece of property for a I homeowner. This particular piece of property is 20 feet wide that separates our lot with the neighbor's lot. There are two other potential buildable or questionably buildable lots that this outlot that are going to be perhaps built II upon years down the line that may have these rights as well so we're looking at potentially 9 boats that could be on a 20 foot outlot. I don't think that the intention of this ordinance would allow something like this. One of the things that I wrote to you in the letter was that currently in the Chapter 6 on the Iordinance it says, Section 2(b) , there's a dock setback ordinance. Presently from lakeshore owners, if they set their docks, they have to be 10 feet off their lot line in order not to encroach on the neighbor's property. One of my I suggestions, if we do allow boat mooring, is to have the same sort of restrictions. I'm not advocating doing that. I personally am not in favor of boat moorings but the way it stands right now, you can not have a dock within 10 feet of your lot line. I can't see why you couldn't have a boat, or you can't I also have a boat within 10 feet so that's our position. I think it's a very unfortunate situation. I feel for the Hall's position but I think that we, looking down the line on what the value of our property is going to be when we I sell our property. When the City expects property owners to pay premium taxes for the right to have boats on there, I feel that I would be against having [:: boats moored on Lake Minnewashta. IC 1 8 II City Council rleeti.nc 'September 12, 1938 I ' Mike Schroeder, 6600 Lotus Trail: I live the I �r- right off of th` parkland area at the end of the park strip and by Fox Chase. I'd like to speak against this ordinance. I agree with Rocky there. I've lived in Carver Beach for over 10 ' 2 ' years and my wife has lived there for over 20 years. A couple years ago we bought Mr. Winter's farmhouse there down along the parkland there and we talked to the DNR and we talked to the people there and we applied for a permit with II Carver County Water Patrol to moor`our boat out there. We spent the money to get the official mooring and that kind of stuff and now we find this ordinance which, in our opinion, seems to be drafted specifically towards us. I believe it is a misuse of the City Council. The City Staff. The taxpayer's II the time of all the payer's dollars and people here who had to come up here to try to stop this ordinance. There's no danger that anyone's identifying to the people down in that area of Carver Beach. It's a situation where the environment, there's been II the raft and all the other things there for many years. It seems like this ordinance is being prompted by a small group of people who want to make the lake look just like they want it to look and be just like they want it to be and the heck with the rest of the people. I think that's a misuse of the power of the II City. I do not believe this ordinance is a result of any complaints, at least that I'm aware of, of people in the Carver Beach area. I think when we have problems in the area, we try to work it out with each other and I think that's II worked for many years. I don't believe there's any citywide impact here that this ordinance is addressing. The big issue that is affecting the people of the City of Chanhassen. Laws and ordinances are designed to protect people of the I City and to protect the rights and the priviledges of individuals and I do not believe this ordinance does that. In addition, as the way the ordinance is i currently written, it seems to be specifically discriminatory towards people who Af have bouys. That has been specifically left out of the copy that I had. II - Apparently they have made special provisions for some of the process of dealing with people who have mooring bouys and I don't think that's fair to us and I think that should be changed if this ordinance is passed. ' Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. II Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask the City Attorney a question. Can a non- conforming use be sold to a new resident? II Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilman Johnson: So as long as a use is continued, the new property owner II could buy it? Roger Knutson: Non-conforming uses run with the land like a conditional use I permit, zoning, variance. Councilman Johnson: But if they skip a year, don' t put out a mooring buoy for a II year, if they have a non-conforming use that's going on, and they skip it for a year, what happens? Roger Knutson: They're out. II Co � Councilman Johnson: I don' t have a lot of problems personally with the direct IIland owners that have a house and have a boat across from our park there, our 9 II ICity Council Meeting ( • )tember 12, 1988 = _ ■ parkland on a mooring buoy out away the Park and Rec seems to be againstfis the edge of the shore. I think what I City's property on the edge of the land andpcall ethat mooring oft boats. the not sure if that is considered mooring. I've always considered mooring as to having a buoy out there and you tie it off the buoy and the boat floats free of the land. I'd like to see those people who have been doing that for so long, it I seems to me to be prejudicial to exclude that and leave the raft. The r aft's more of an eyesore than a sailboat sitting out there flittering the wind That's where I sit on this ordinance. ICouncilman Horn: I have a question of Roger There seems to be disagreement og r too. In fact, several questions. legal non-conforming use ate the�timeeitowas transferred.onA parent that there e a I covenants in existence at that time which obviously we don't deal with thbut wase that a legal non-conforming use that was transferred? deal with but was I Roger Knutson: I'm not the best as I know, the person to tell you what the facts are. As far y're violating any ordinance today so yes, they're a legal use. I Councilman Horn: Apparently there were some questions on staff's part as to whether they could or could not moor a boat. I Dacy: Mr. Hall's Attorney and Mr. Hall has stated that the previous owner, Mr. Bohling had stored a neighbors have contested that theretwas oaboat storagerthere. aAtt thisrpoint Mr. Hall is mooring his boat out in front of the outlot in conformance with the Water Surface Useage Ordinance. Councilman Horn: Did he come in for a non-conditional use permit at the time II that the ordinance was put into place? As I recall, when that ordinance was put into place, all outlots had to come in for a non-conforming use requirement and they were logged as such that they didn't intensify their use. IBarbara Dacy: They didn't come in for a conditional use permit but the City did take an inventory at that time in 1982 and identified which beachlots existed at II that time but they did not go through Planning Commission and City Council. Councilman Horn: When they took the inventory, was their a boat on the outlot? Barbara Dacy: No. I Councilman Horn: Then that As Roger said, if they don't�usedite for tthattuse, then non-conditional ruse tgoes ' away. goes Barbara Dacy: In talking with R time conducted a survey on June 1111,x1 81. Theretcould �behanCargument made that II that particular day, a particular homeowner's association did not choose out their dock or have boats out yet so what we're doing in trying toanalyze these beachlot ordinances, trying to get affidavits from homeowners to verify I exactly what existed at the time of the ordinance adoption. It's going to be difficult for the City to prove that what's on a dock out there, in this case on a one day survey. IC II10 11 . . . City Council Meeting ;eptember 12, 1988 ' :' Councilman Horn: As I understand these conditional use ' to come to it later in the contractor's yard, it's u topthei er and eq'ee fining j that to outline what is included in that. What the is goingotorbbe. How g many trucks or whatever. It would seem to me that it would be incumbant u on the homeowner to request that conditional use p is. If the City permit and define what his useage y goes out there, in fact doing him a favor and if he has a greater use on that than what the City had indicated, he should have requested that at the time that the permit was granted. The non-conditional use permit. Barbara Dacy: That's the policy we might take again. We just identified what beachlots were non-comforming in 1982 and did not have them in for a specific process. Councilman Horn: I specifically recall when that was enacted and the way it was to be been was that each use of each beachlot was to be recorded and only that use would be allowed in the future. Nothing over and above that would be allowed. Barbara Dacy: If they wanted to expand that, they would have to come back and get a conditional use permit. That's correct. Councilman Horn: The other problem I have is that I'd like to ask Roger, if we make an exception on this swimming dock, does the City have any liability because we're allowing it to be moored in a non-conforming fashion off City property? Roger Knutson: The fact that it's conforming or non-conforming to your zoning ordinance in this case, would not make it to mean more or less dangers. There's always potential when .you allow anyone to do anything that you can get sued. There's a State Statute that says when you issue permits, you should be free from liability so I guess I would not be particularly worried about any liability problems. Councilman Boyt: Who is liable? Roger Knutson: Whoever moored the boat there. Councilman Boyt: Boat or raft or whatever? Roger Knutson: Whatever. Councilman Horn: Do we have an owner? Isn' t part of the process putting an owners name and things on this type of structure? Barbara Dacy: Yes, I believe that's required. Roger Knutson: On rafts. Councilman Horn: So would this be an association raft or how would it be identified? Who would be the owner of it? Barbara Dacy: Who are you talking about? Councilman Horn: I'm talking about the raft at Carver Beach. ' 11 ..� .� ', ' City Council Meeting - (-ember 12, 1988 II II r Barbara Dacy: It would be the raft that's out there now? II Councilman Horn: And who owns that? IDon Ashworth: Mr. Bryne I believe. Roger Bryne: Everybody's. That raft has just been there for 30 years and II everybody uses it. It don't belong to anybody. Councilman Horn: That's my concern. Our Attorney told us that whoever owns it is responsible for it and we're saying nobody owns it so in that case nobody's II responsible for it. Roger Bryne: It's been working for 30 years. There's no reason it's can't work Ifor another 30 years. You're not responsible for it, why should you worry? Councilman Horn: We have more Attorneys in the world today. IRoger Bryne: If you don't own it, you're not responsible. The City is not responsible is what he said. Why worry about it? Let whoever owns it worry about it. ICouncilman Horn: Do you agree with that? Roger Knutson: If you think it's a nuisance or it could cause problems, I think I C you have perhaps an obligation to consider the public good. I'd be more worried and concerned, if it is a legitinate concern, about someone getting hurt rather than who's going to pay the bill. You're heavily insured for this sort of I thing. Roger Bryne: I don't have a problem with owning the raft. If you want to say Il own it, that's fine. I'm not ducking ownership by reason of worrying about liability. The only reason I say I don't own it is because I know everybody in Carver Beach owns that raft. Everyone in the world has the right to use that raft as far as everybody in Carver Beach is concerned. That's why you got that I petition and we got 265 names on it. I can get 500 to 600 more real easily if I wanted to do some more hiking, which I got tired of. Everybody I contacted said, yes sounds good. Why would they want to take that away? That's crazy. ICouncilman Horn: We don't want you to be liable for something that v uses either. My point is, I don't think Park and Rec was aware untilrecennttly, II at least from the Minutes I read, that that was a public beach. Is that true Lori? Lori Si.etsema: The current Park and Recreation Commission was unsure of how I that mini-beach got there. Researching the file, it was approved by a former Park and Recreation Commission. ICouncilman Horn: I think that was a surprise to a lot of us. But me that now that Park and Rec is aware of it, that's what it is, .e]shou dshavve a plan from them as to how they intend to use it and then I'd be much more comfortable if we included a raft out there. If we were goingto the City maintain it and keep it up rather than making some privateoindividualt I12 li City Council Meeting- September 12, 1988 II responsible for it. I'm uncomfortable. I don't think that's fair to him. That's all I have on this issue. II Councilman Boyt: Well, Clark once again we're going to agree. First, it's my understanding that Park and Rec did discuss this issue? Just to clear that up and that a couple of comments came `out there about the concern about whether it was in fact being treated as a public beach. Would like to see that if we're going to keep this piece of property, and I assume we are, that the City has an II obligation to make sure that it's a safe and useable piece of property. To do that, there's a couple things that I would like Park and Rec, I I can just say I'd like them to look at that issue and come back gwith basically recommendation. I personally have concern that as I read the ordinance now, II it's not possible for anybody, Minneapolis, Chanhassen, Chaska, anybody to put a raft in any lake that we've got and leave it. They have to put their. name on it, if they were conforming with the City ordinance but once they did that, we could have 100 rafts or we could have one raft. We have no control. Is that II your understanding of the ordinance? Jo Ann Olsen: You have to be a lakeshore owner to do that but... II Councilman Boyt: So it is limited? Barbara Dacy: What we're adding is that in addition to being a lakeshore owner, II you have to have a home on the property. Jo Ann Olsen: And it has to be in front of your property. II now, if you have lakeshore on Lotus, y moo The way it is right , you can actually moor on Minnewashta. Councilman Boyt: You could moor on any other lake. Once you're a lake owner, II you have this tremendous right to put it up anywhere but if you're not a lake owner, you can't? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. II Councilman Boyt: Well, I think we have 250 signatures of people that say they want to use it and if we're right to say we've got potentially more people who II would use it, then Park and Rec should certainly look at how we can make best use of this piece of property and it sounds like establishing some sort of swimming beach even though it's not very far away from one we just established. I It might be reasonable. I think that we should definitely put signs up there that this is a public beach and that we should certainly look at how we can provide parking. I understand that's going to be a bit of a problem but if it's going to be a public beach, we need to have parking and we need to have it II clearly signed that it is such. On the raft, my position would be on all rafts, that if they're not owned by the City, they have to be out in front of a person's piece of property where they can be properly supervised. I don't want II rafts that are unsupervised on our lakes. If it is the City's, then it would go without saying, I suspect, that the City would put it out in front of a piece of t_ y property. Then in terms of, I want to be certain that we're setting a situation here that isn't so specific that it just limits boats or rafts and I really should be talking about private property. That we should have no storage of private property on public property. We have a responsibility to protect public property and be sure that it has public use and private II part of that. There should be no anchoring of p property is not private property outside of areas 13 II :T City Council Meeting - ptember 12, 1988 1 _C that are owned by and directly under control of the person who has that I anchorage. However, there's an interesting point that was brought up here by I think Mr. Schroeder when I talked to him over the phone. The DNR I gather had plans to put 10 boats on Lotus Lake with public moorings. Does staff know anything about that? II Barbara Dacy: Not to my knowledge. 1 Mrs. Schroeder: When we purchased our home, this is what we were told by the DNR that there would be 10 permits issued for the west side of Lotus Lake. IIBarbara Dacy: And when did you purchase your home? Mrs. Schroeder: Two years ago. So we applied for a permit and never got a response. IBarbara Dacy: That can certainly be checked. ked. I Councilman Boyt: This opens up a process that I had never even considered and that's public mooring places on our lakes. I don't know, since we don't have a system in place to do that, it's a little bit of a scary idea to turn up and yet I I think the City should probably look at it and find out just what's going on here. Apparently the County has a right to grant these and the County accepted your application but never sent you a response? I Ill: Mrs. Schroeder: Correct. i_ Councilman Boyt: So maybe nobody wants to deal with this II we're going to, very wary of creating a situation in which�one eperson hasnaccess to mooring because they took action and nobody else has access and we now effectively limit anybody else from_ getting it. I think we should researcn the issue and maybe Park and Rec would be the logical place to do that since we're I talking about a recreational activity. No matter who owns that raft, it needs to be maintained in safe operating conditions and I think that needs to be the case for all rafts, docks and what not in public waters. They're too attractive I for other people to come, stop by and use. I'm basically in agreement with the ordinance as stated but I want to be sure that when we do it, we're not losing the public's long standing right to use that beach. That we're simply making it I a safe use of the beach and we're making it a public use of the beach and not a private homeowner's beach. That's all I've got for now. II Mayor Hamilton: There seems to be agreement, it's incredible but there is. There seems to also have been a long standing tug of way going on within the community between the people who live on the lake and the people who do not. That tug of way continues today by some who live on the lake to keep those who I do not live on the lake off the lake. I think it's really unfortunate since the lakes belong to everybody in the community. We should all have the right to use them so I think really what Bill and what Jay and Clark have been saying is that, instead of legislating it and trying to keep people off and to keep kids I out of the swimming holes they've been using for 30 years, we ought to try to work and come up with something that's useable and workable for all the residents. Something that's reasonable. I think as a part of that, the City [7.: needs to look at what lakeshore we have, and we do have quite a bit of it, and we need to sign that as city property and if we so designate it as a beach, then 1 14 City Council Meeting( September 12, 1988 , fine. We'll call it a beach. Then we need I �.—, to take the raft that's there out and put in a raft that's in good repair and can be used by everybody without •$ ; worrying about kids stepping on nails or something else happening. A board II 3 i coming off. We need to sign it so we say no diving. If you want to jump off the raft, that's fine but we need to be also sure that the water's deep enough so even jumping in, somebody's not going to become injured. We need to sign it II to say that there are no lifeguards on duty and that you're using it at your own risk, even though it is a city park. I think for the beaches, those are the kinds of things we need to look at and I agree, I think the Park and Recreation IICommission should look at all the land that the City owns and what potential use we have of that land. Is there one beach or are there 6 beaches that have potential use? As far as mooring boats, Bill mentioned the possibility of permits and that the County does issue permits. However, in the past when this II issue has come up and people have gone to the County and asked for a permit, the County has been relunctant to give a permit unless the City is willing to approve it so you're kind of chasing your tail on this issue. Nobody will issue II the permit. We've always worked closely with the County and if we felt a permit shouldn't be issued, we've told them that and they haven't issued the permit. But I think along with designating where the City property is and signing it, we also need to think of a permit process. Where can we put out mooring buoys so II people can put a sailboat out or put a canoe out. Put a fishing boat out and have a permit process that people can come 'in, get a permit to put their boat in and they can leave it there all year so people who do not live on the lake, have II an opportunity to use the lake. That entrails a whole lengthy process of looking at what can be moored at those buoys and for how long do you have it and when is your permit up and all this kind of thing but I think it's something T that we need. It's time for us to go througn this issue. It raised it's head II 4 about 6-7 years ago and now it's here again and it's time to do something - positive about it. I think a oermi.tti.ng process would be good and it's something that we need and I think it can be workable. They do it on Lake II Minnetonka and you look at how Minneapolis does it on the city's lakes. It works out very well for them. It's a little different situation. You don't have people living on the lake with lakeshore access but people use the lake I so I think there are, unless the ordinance says in effect that we can use in doing a lot of information off of, so I would charge the Park and Rec Commission and Lori to move ahead with this item and put it back on your agenda at your earliest possible convenience. With that, I guess I'd like to see us table this I until such time that we have additional information back and can take positive steps to make the corrections that are needed. Councilman Boyt: Before we reach a second to that table, I would like to see 1 you add that the Attorney be directed to reach a finding in support of this ordinance because I think we're probably going to be challenged by somebody and I'd like to know what our legal grounds are before we launch into it. II Councilman Horn: We certainly aren't setting any precedent with this. M1any other cities have ordinances like this. As a matter of fact, the beach'_ot I ordinance was structured very much after the White Bear Lake conservation district beach ordinance. White Bear Lake also has an ordinance similiar to this for other structures on the lake. In fact it does require that the I r setback, similar to a zoning ordinance, in using it. The purpose of these is to resolve neighbor disputes. That's why it was generated in White Bear Lake C because two neighbors, if the lakeshore was straight, things would be very simple but lakeshore goes like this and somebody assumes that the lot lines II 15 , City Council Meeting -( Jtember 12, 1988 IIdon't always run parallel with the lot lines on shore and that's why these ordinances were put into effect. I don't think there should be any problem I legally if we enacted something like this. Ma Y or Hamilton: Except I would like to be sure that as the Park and Rec II Commission works with the lakeshore and the property that the City owns, they may want to add to this ordinance. They may want to change some things that are proposed in here and I think they should have that latitude to look at this and see how it's going to fit in with what they're going to attempt to do. I think I for us to say this is what we want right now, might be a little premature. Let them take this and say it's something that perhaps we suprt you go along and see if you can't work some of the kinks out. bEithersadd to it Ior take away from it so it works out best for everyone. II WhitezBear Lalman usre then that we be sure that they have Mayor Hamilton: I think they should use Minneapolis, and talk to Minnetonka and see that how theher should talk to Ilakes. Y egulate moorings on their Councilman Horn: Minnetonka and White Bear Lake are both under conservation II districts. Their ordinances were very similar. The primary that, as it was structured there, was not so much a lakeownerpversus agnon-lake owner, it was mitigating a problem that came up between adjacent lake owners. That was the primary impetus. IMayor Hamilton: Fen Prairie may have informat�. lakes. on also. They have several ICouncilman Johnson: From my visits out there this saner, I've seen very few boats moored along there as far as existing moorings that this ordinance would be taking away. As far as boats being pulled up along the shore, that's II something different and that's what I would like to see taken away. I think where we stand, the hardest place we stand as far as being sued or whatever, is the people who had a house there and have had a mooring buoy out and a boat I attached to a mooring buoy all along, not sitting up on City property but actually attached to the mooring buoy. I'd like to know how many of those there are there that have been doing that over the last few years and I think that I this is a good area that we could put in a few public mooring buoys. I don' t know how much in a lottery or whatever, to get I owned a boat would like to have a place where tl could putui.t having if be a lakeshore owner. I don't own a boat though but I'd like the Park and Rec Ito look into the ability to, and this would really give us control over the public mooring of non-lake owner boats here. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what I charged them to do. II that we leave the ordinance? I would then move that we table Are agreement the Park and Rec Commission can review it and bring it back to us. item until IIMayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table action on the amendment to Chapter 6 of the City Code regarding boat moorings and swimming rafts until L: the Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed the item. All voted in favor 11(- and the motion carried. • I16 r II • • CIT'/ OF C 1.1 NallISSEN V•1/4 ' ''' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 Action by Cty Alr"fril•rtor fr,drr s� 1� MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Ds;y 1 _Z FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner DATE: September 8 , 1988 Date su�n,*tea t, louncq -ke SUBJ: Amendment to Chapter 6 of the City Code Regarding Boat Moorings and Swimming Rafts, First Reading BACKGROUND ' A number of issues concerning swimming rafts , docks and boat moorings have occurred during the past boating season on Lotus Lake and Lake Minnewashta. These various issues have lead staff to prepare an ordinance amendment co Chapter 6 of the City Code regarding Boats and Waterways (for:_terly the Water Surface Usage Ordinance #73) to clarify city regulations . ANALYSIS , The proposed ordinance is presented for Council discussion and if deemed appropriate, for adoption for first reading. The ordi- nance changes are as follows: I 1 . The ordinance amends Section 6-27 (b) to add that boats moored in the waters of any lake overnight must be moored directly out from a lakeshore site upon which a dwelling unit has been constructed. This language attempts to address two issues : a. To prohibit the mooring of boats in front of park prop- erty ( upon recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission) ; and - ' b. To be consistent with Zoning Ordinance regulations requiring a principle use of a lot ( single family home) to exist prior to establishing an accessory use (dock or mooring) . As now written, if a person owned lakeshore property but did not have a home on the property they would be able to moor their boat in the lake in front of their property. p it 1)/4'1 ea { 45 ' Mr. Don Ashworth September 8 , 1988 Page 2 I, 2 . Upon the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission, Section 6-28 (c) is proposed to be added stating ' that swimming rafts installed in the lake must be directly out from a lakeshore site upon which a dwelling unit has been constructed. Again, this was to prohibit personal swimming ' rafts to be stored in front of park property as well as lakeshore property that may be vacant at this time. 3 . A number of petitions and letters have been received from property owners in the Carver Beach area regarding the existing swimming raft. The swimming raft has been used by Carver Beach property owners and others for a number of years. In order to allow the swimming raft in the Carver Beach area to continue because of its previous long standing use, Section 6-30 of the ordinance is proposed to be amended to allow existing swimming rafts and docks to become non- conforming structures. 4 . Proposed Section 6-30 does however, prohibit the re- ' establishment of mooring a boat in front of lakeshore prop- erty that does not contain a home on the property. In drafting the ordinance, city staff felt that it would be very difficult to keep track of those persons who have been mooring their boat on a regular basis in front of vacant pro- perty. Further complicating the issue is whether or not the ability to moor would be passed to other family members or new lot owners buying lakeshore property. Staff has encoun- tered similar problems with establishing beachlot usage prior to the adoption of the beachlot ordinance. There are certain circumstances, however, that may justify a need to have a variance or permit process for a homeowner who has previously moored his boat in front of vacant lakeshore property to ' petition the Council to continue that ability to moor under certain restrictions . An example of this situation is reflected in the correspon- dence received from Lyn Hall and David and Sally Peterjohn on Hawthorne Circle. Mr. Hall owns Outlot A of the Kellyne Subdivision. Pedestrian easements were recorded against Outlot A for access to Lake Minnewashta for certain lots in the Kellyne subdivision. In fact, the city recognized this outlot as a recreational beachlot when it adopted its Recreational Beachlot Ordinance in 1982 . At that time there were no docks or boats stored on the property. Unusual in this case, however, is that the outlot is owned by an indivi- dual and not a homeowner' s association. The current ' homeowner, Mr. Lyn Hall, upon purchasing the lot from Cliff Bohlmann, had understood that a boat could be stored on the outlot. This was also confirmed by city staff. Mr. Hall 'r- consequently stored his boat on the outlot. However, when a neighbor, Mr. Peterjohn, contacted staff, we determined that Mr. Hall had to remove the boat from the property because of % y Mr. Don Ashworth September 8 , 1988 i7Page 3 the recreational beachlot rules . However, under the current Water Surface Usage Ordinance, we did allow Mr. Hall to moor his boat in front of the outlot. In order to look at this particular situation more closely, and there probably are others along lakeshore property, it is recom- mended that the variance section, Section 6-23 be amended to allow situations such as the Hall property or others to apply for a variance so that the city can evaluate each situation on a site specific basis. RECOMMENDATION The City Council should discuss each of the enumerated issues and determine whether or not an ordinance amendment would be appropriate. Clarifying the ordinance language would help enforcement procedures and assist staff in responding to homeowners concerns. Please note that the ordinance amendment will have to be approved by DNR prior to its effective date. ' ATTACHMENTS 1. 1. Proposed ordinance dated August 17, 1988 . ' 2 . Existing City Code. 3 . Letter from Lyn Hall dated July 8 , 1988 . 4 . Letter from David and Sally Peterjohn dated July 21, 1988 . 5 . Memo from Lori Sietsema dated September 7, 1988 , with Park and Recreation minutes and attachments. /C), i i 3rti t A-i Y t t" � :`t c'Ott_ ‘c 4 i w 11 I . ' ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY.CODE CONCERNING BOATS AND WATERWAYS The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: SECTION 1. Section 6-27 (b) of the City Code is amended ' in its entirety to read as follows: (b) No watercraft shall be moored, docked or stored overnight on any lakeshore site or on the waters of any lake unless: (1) Currently registered, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ' Chapter 361 in the name of the owner of a lakeshore site on the lake or in the name of a member of the owner's household; or, (2) If moored in the waters of any lake overnight it must be moored directly out from and within twenty- _ five (25) feet of a lakeshore site, upon which a ' dwelling unit has been constructed, owned by the owner of the watercraft. (3) Currently registered as a guest boat at any ' privately-owned commercial resort or commercial boat landing located on the lake. SECTION 2. Section 6-28 of the City Code is amended by adding subparagraph (c) to read: ' (c) Swimming rafts left overnight in the waters of any lake must be anchored directly out from and within one hundred (100) feet of a lakeshore site, upon which a dwelling unit has been constructed, owned by the owner of the ' swimming raft. All swimming rafts must have an identification plaque containing the name, address, and phone number of the owner. ' read as follows:SECTION 3. Section 6-30 of the City Code is amended to Removal of Seasonal Docks, Moorings, etc. All seasonal docks, moorings, and other structures shall 'C be removed from the lake before November 1 of each year. All r08/17/88 / II 1 nonconforming moorings and other structures, except docks and swimming rafts, once removed may not be returned to the lake. Nonconforming docks are further regulated by Section 6-22 of the City Code. SECTION 4 . This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this of , 1988. day CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: 1 Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Don Ashworth, City Manager ( 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2- 1 Chapter 6 tBOATS AND WATERWAYS* Art. I. In General, §§ 6-1-6-20 Art. II. Structures, §§ 6-21-6-45 Art. III. Watercraft Operating Regulations, §§ 6-46-6-55 ARTICLE I.IN GENERAL ' Sec. 6-1. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: ' Commissioner means the state commissioner of natural resources acting directly or through his authorized agents. III el) Cross bar means that portion of any "L" shaped or "T" shaped seasonal dock or perma- nent dock which is approximately parallel in alignment to the abutting shoreline or abutting ' ordinary high water mark. Diving tower means a floating or a nonfloating structure designed for diving purposes and which projects over the surface or surrounding waters by more than five(5)feet. Dock means any wharf, pier or other structure constructed or maintained, whether floating or not, including all "L's", "T's" or posts which may be a part thereof, whether affixed or adjacent to the principal structure. Dock set-back zone means that portion of any lake lying within one hundred (100) feet of the ordinary high water mark and which is bounded by the extended side lot lines of any lakeshore site,and by a line inside of and running parallel to and ten(10)feet distant from the extended side lot lines of any lakeshore site, as measured at right angles to the extended side ' lot lines. Homeowner association means any private corporation, private club, unincorporated as- sociation or nonprofit organization, which owns, leases or operates a recreational beach lot, as ' that term is defined in the zoning ordinance,for the purpose of providing access to any lake for its members, shareholders, owners and beneficiaries. ' Lake means any body of water lying wholly within the city and all parts, bays and channels thereof. ' *Cross reference—Parks and recreation, Ch. 16. State law reference—Local water and watercraft regulations authorized, M.S. § 361.26. 327 7 /1?-.7 1 § 6-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Lakeshore site means any lot,parcel or other tract of land legally subdivided and recorded in the office of the county recorder or registrar of titles and which abuts any lake. License means the authentic state document used to designate the numbers assigned a watercraft and to renew the same. Mooring means any buoy,post,boat lift,structure or device at which a watercraft may be moored which is surrounded by public waters. Motorboat means any watercraft propelled in any respect by machinery, including water- ' craft temporarily equipped with detachable motors. Operate means to navigate or otherwise use a watercraft. Ordinary high water mark means a mark delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape; the ordinary high water mark is commonly that point where natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. Overnight means any time between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. of any day. ' Owner in the case of a watercraft means a person, other than a lienholder, having the property in or title to a watercraft;the term includes a person entitled to the use or possession of such craft, subject to an interest in another person, reserved or created by agreement and securing payment or performance of any obligation. "Owner" in the case of a lakeshore site means any natural person who is either the record owner of a fee simple interest,or the record owner of a contract for deed vendee's interest, or the holder of a possessory leasehold interest, in the whole of any lakeshore site, including authorized guests, and immediate family mem- bers of such person. Permanent dock means any dock other than a seasonal dock. Seasonal dock means any dock designed and constructed so that it may be removed from a lake on a seasonal basis; all components such as supports, legs, decking and footing must be capable of removal by nonmechanized agents. Sheriff means the sheriff of Carver County, acting directly or through his authorized agents. Slow—No wake means operation of a watercraft at the slowest possible speed necessary to maintain steerage and in no case greater than five(5)miles per hour. Swimming raft means a small floating structure designed exclusively for swimming and sunbathing. Swimming area means an area immediately adjacent to the shoreline which is marked in accordance with the applicable regulations of the state department of natural resources and which is used solely for recreational swimming. Underway or in use means any watercraft in operation or use when not securely fastened 1 to a dock or other permanent mooring or at anchor. 328 • (° BOATS AND WATERWAYS § 64 ' Watercraft means any contrivance used or designed for navigation on water other than a duck boat during the duck hunting season, a rice boat during the harvest season, or a ' seaplane. Water obstacle means any ski jump, slalom course, diving tower or other structure upon the water of any lake. "Water obstacle" does not include any dock ø - rovin ' watercraft. g-raft or (Ord. No. 73, §§ 2.01, 2.03-2.12, 2.14, 2.16-2-19, 2.21-2.28, 7-11-83) ' Sec. 6-2. Exemption for law enforcement personnel. Watercraft used by resource management, emergency and enforcement personnel, when acting in the performance of their assigned duties, are exempt from the provisions of this ' chapter. (Ord. No. 73, § 13, 7-11-83) ' Sec. 6-3. Temporary event permits. A temporary exemption from this chapter may be obtained through a permit issued by ' the city council for special events, trials and races. Such temporary permits shall be in addition to, rather than in lieu of, any permit required under section 6-4. (Ord. No. 73, § 14, 7-11-83) ISec. 6-4. Permits for water obstacles.(al (a) No person shall operate or maintain any water obstacle, including but not limited to, ' any ski jump, slalom course, diving tower or other structure upon the waters of any lake, unless a permit shall have been first obtained for the same.No permit is required for any dock or swimming raft erected or maintained in compliance with the other provisions of this chapter. (b) An application for a permit shall be made to the city upon a form furnished by the ' city. The applicant shall furnish the information required by the form. A nonrefundable application fee in the amount established by resolution shall be paid to the city when the application is filed. (c) The permit shall be issued by the city upon approval by the city council by a majority vote and upon filing with the city policies evidencing the required insurance, or a certificate ' or binder of the insurer stating that such insurance is in force and in effect. Such policies of insurance,such certificates and such binders shall be in a form and content satisfactory to the city and shall be placed with financially sound and reputable insurers licensed to transact ' business in the state. (d) In reviewing an application for a permit the city council shall consider the following factors: (1) The size, configuration and manner of construction of the proposed water obstacle; (2) The level of competing watercraft traffic which can be reasonably expected during the requested duration of the requested permit; 329 • • t § 6-4 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE I C (3) The size and configuration and depth of the body of water for which the permit is requested; (4) The number of competing water obstacles which will be in place pursuant to permits already then issued; and (5) Any other factors reasonably related to the effect of the applicant's proposed use on the maintenance of public health and safety upon the city's lakes. (e) If a permit is granted,the permit shall specify the dates or the period of time for which it is granted. The granting of permits may be subject to such conditions as the city council deems necessary to protect the safety of users of the lake. Any violation of the terms and conditions of any such permit is a violation of this chapter. No permit shall be issued for a period in excess of one(1)year,provided, however,that no permit for any slalom course shall be issued for a period in excess of seventy-two(72)hours. (f) If any water obstacle is located in any lake pursuant to a permit and is thereafter found to be a hazard or obstruction to the safe use of the lake by others, such permit may be revoked. Notice of revocation shall be given to the permit holder by the city orally or in writing. If the permit holder cannot be found, it shall be sufficient notice of revocation if , written notice thereof is delivered to the address of the permit holder as set forth in the application. Upon notice of revocation, the permit holder shall remove the water obstacle within a seven-day period which shall be specified in the notice of revocation. If the applicant 411 does not remove the water obstacle, it may be removed by the city at the expense of the owner. The failure of the applicant to remove the water obstacle upon receipt of the notice of revocation of the permit and in accordance with such notice is a violation of this chapter. In the case of an emergency presenting an immediate hazard to the public safety, as determined by the city manager, the notice period to the applicant shall be waived in its entirety and the applicant shall reimburse the city for any expense incurred by the city in remedying the condition creating the emergency. (Ord. No. 73, § 6, 7-11-83) Secs. 6-5-6-20. Reserved. ARTICLE II. STRUCTURES* Sec. 6-21. Exemption. , This article does not apply to any lakeshore property owned or leased by the city. (Ord. No. 73, § 3.13, 7-11-83) ' Sec. 6-22. Nonconforming docks. (a) Permanent docks existing on July 11, 1983, and which do not comply with the ' structure limitations set forth in this article shall be deemed to be nonconforming uses. *Cross reference—Buildings and building regulations, Ch. 7. 330 • - I 0 � I(49 BOATS AND WATERWAYS § 6-24 Seasonal docks utilized by privately-owned commercial resorts or commercial boat landings prior to July 11, 1983, and which do not comply with the structure limitations set forth in this ' article shall also be deemed to be nonconforming uses. (b) No nonconforming dock shall be enlarged or altered or increased, or occupy a greater area than that occupied by such dock on September 7, 1983, or on the effective date of or any ' amendment to this article. A nonconforming dock shall not be moved to any other part of the lakeshore site upon which the same is erected unless it is relocated in such a manner as to conform to the dock set-back zone requirements of this chapter. Any nonconforming dock which is partially or totally destroyed by any cause may be restored to its former use and physical dimensions, if the restoration is completed within one (1)year of its partial or total destruction. Maintenance and necessary structural repairs of a nonconforming dock are ' permitted provided that any such maintenance or repairs do not extend, enlarge or intensify such dock. (Ord. No. 73, § 8, 7-11-83) ' Sec. 6-23. Variances. (a) The city council may grant a variance from the dock requirements of this article ' where it is shown that by reason of topography, soil conditions or other physical characteris- tics of the lakeshore site, strict compliance with the dock requirements could cause an exceptional or undue hardship to the enjoyment of the use of the lakeshore site;provided,that a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect purpose and intent of this chapter. ' (b) Application for a variance shall be made to the city upon a form furnished by the city. The applicant shall furnish the information required by the form. A nonrefundable applica- tion fee shall be paid to the city when the application is filed.The application may be referred ' to such outside consultants, engineers or attorneys as the city manager deems necessary to study the application and make recommendation to the city council and the cost of any such referral shall be borne by the applicant. ' (c) Upon filing of an application for a variance hereunder, the city manager shall set a time and place for a hearing before the city council on such application.Notice of such hearing shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the date of the hearing to each owner of ' property situated wholly or partially within three hundred (300) feet of the lakeshore site to which the variance application applies, utilizing the mailing list provided by the applicant and such other records as may be available to the city manager. Failure to give mailed notice ' to individual property owners or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this section has been made. (d) No variance shall be granted by the city council without the affirmative vote of at ' least four-fifths of the full council. (Ord. No. 73, § 9, 7-11-83) Sec. 6-24. Location restrictions. No dock, mooring or other structure shall be so located as to: (1) Obstruct the navigation of any lake; 331 • § 6-24 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (2) Obstruct reasonable use or access to any other dock, mooring or other structure authorized under this chapter; (3) Present a potential safety hazard;-or (4) Be detrimental to significant fish and wildlife habitat or protected vegetation. (Ord. No. 73, § 3.01, 7-11-83) , Sec. 6-25. Construction and maintenance generally. Docks,moorings and other structures may be constructed of such materials and in such a manner as the owner determines, provided that they shall be so built and maintained that they do not constitute a hazard to the public using the waters of the lake and they shall be maintained in a workmanlike manner. (Ord. No. 73, § 3.07, 7-11-83) Sec. 6-26. Docks. (a) No dock shall exceed six (6)feet in width and no dock shall exceed the greater of the ' following lengths: (1) Fifty(50)feet; or (2) The minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of four(4)feet. (b) The width(but not the length)of the 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 Iength. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set-back zone; provided, however, that the owners of any two (2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one (1) common dock within the dock set-back zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the dock is the only dock on the two (2) lakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this chapter. No more than one(1) dock shall be permitted on any lakeshore site. (c) No person shall store fuel upon any dock. ' (d) No oscillating, rotating, flashing or moving sign or light may be used on any dock. (e) No advertising signs shall be displayed from any dock. ' (Ord. No. 73, §§ 3.02, 3.03, 3.09, 3.10, 7-11-83) Sec. 6-27. Mooring, docking,etc., of watercraft. , (a) Except for privately-owned commercial resorts or commercial boat landings estab- lished prior to July 11, 1983, no person shall moor overnight, dock overnight, or store overnight more than three(3)watercraft on any lakeshore site or upon the waters of any lake. Docking of watercraft at any lakeshore site or storage of watercraft upon any lakeshore site is permissible however at any time other than overnight. 332 • may, BOATS AND WATERWAYS £. § 6-45 ' (b) No watercraft shall be moored, docked or stored overnight on any lakeshore site or on the waters of any lake unless the watercraft is either: ' (1) Currently registered, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes chapter 361 in the name of the owner of a lakeshore site on the lake or in the name of a member of the owner's household; or ' (2) Currently registered as a guest boat at any privately-owned commercial resort or commercial boat landing located on the lake. ' (Ord. No. 73, §§ 3.04, 3.05, 7-11-83) Sec. 6-28. Swimming rafts,ski jumps,diving taverns,etc. (a) All swimming rafts shall meet the minimum standards in this subsection. Their size shall not exceed one hundred forty-four (144) square feet. Swimming rafts shall project over the water surface not less than one (1) foot and not more than five (5) feet, measured ' vertically, above the surface of the lake. Swimming rafts shall not be located in areas with a depth of less than seven (7)feet. Swimming rafts shall be reflectorized as provided in subsec- tion(b).Their distance from the ordinary high water mark shall not exceed one hundred(100) ' feet. A•.s it. 14 tN t al tIL ••.e/ 4 (b) Swimming rafts, ski jumps, diving towers and other structures surrounded by the waters of any lake, whether floating or on posts, shall be lighted with a light visible in all directions,or have attached thereto sufficient reflectorized material so as to reflect light in all directions. The material shall be capable of retaining eighty (80) percent of its dry weather ' reflective signal strength when wet. (Ord. No. 73, §§ 3.06, 3.09, 7-11-83) ' Sec. 6-29. Fueling facilities. Installation of fueling facilities on docks, moorings and other structures shall be prohibit- ed.Any fueling facilities which were in active use prior to September 7, 1983, shall be deemed ' to be nonconforming uses. No such nonconforming fueling facility shall be enlarged or altered or increased or occupy a greater area than that occupied on September 7, 1983. Any noncon- forming fueling facility which is partially or totally destroyed by any cause, may be restored to its former use and physical dimension if said restoration is completed within one(1)year of its partial or total destruction. Maintenance and necessary structural repairs of a noncon- forming fueling facility are permitted provided that any such maintenance or repairs do not extend, enlarge or intensify such fueling facility. • (Ord. No. 73, § 3.11, 7-11-83) ' Sec. 6-30. Removal of seasonal docks, moorings, etc. All seasonal docks, moorings and other structures shall be removed from the lake before t November 1 of each year. (Ord. No. 73, § 3.12, 7-11-83) Secs. 6-31-6-45. Reserved. 333 • op. § 6-46 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE 411 ARTICLE III. WATERCRAFT OPERATING REGULATIONS Sec. 6-46. State law incorporated. ' The provisions of Minnesota Statutes chapter 361, and the rules and regulations of the state department of natural resources promulgated thereunder are hereby incorporated herein and made a part of this chapter. (Ord. No. 73, § 5.01, 7-11-83) Sec. 6-47. Towing airborne vehicles. No person shall tow any airborne vehicle with a watercraft. (Ord. No. 73, § 5.02, 7-11-83) ' Sec. 6-48. Operation near shoreline. Operation of motorized watercraft within one hundred(100)feet of any shoreline shall be limited to emerging straight out from and straight towards the shoreline, or slow—no wake operation. (Ord. No. 73, § 5.05, 7-11-83) Sec. 6-49. Slow—No wake areas. No person shall operate a watercraft in any marked slow—no wake areas in excess of slow—no wake speed. Slow—no wake areas shall be marked in accordance with the applicable regulations of the state department of natural resources. The location and boundaries of each slow—no wake area established are shown on that certain map entitled Water Surface Use Zoning Map of Chanhassen dated July 11, 1983, on file in the city hall. The map and all notations, references and data thereon are hereby incorporated by reference into this article and shall have the same force and effect as if fully set forth and described herein. (Ord. No. 73, § 5.06, 7-11-83) Sec. 6-50. Speed. No person shall operate a watercraft at a speed which exceeds the following limitations: ' (1) All lakes in marked "slow—no wake" areas, slow—no wake; (2) Lake Ann, fifteen(15) miles per hour; , (3) Lake St. Joe, fifteen(15) miles per hour; (4) Lotus Lake: a. Sunrise to sunset, forty(40)miles per hour; b. Sunset to sunrise the following day, fifteen(15) miles per hour; (5) Lake Lucy: a. Sunrise to sunset, forty(40) miles per hour; b. Sunset to sunrise the following day, fifteen (15) miles per hour; 334 1 • _ 1 I BOATS AND WATERWAYS ATERWAYS § 6-55 • (6) Lake Minnewashta: I a. Sunrise to sunset, forty(40)miles per hour; b. Sunset to sunrise the following day, fifteen(15) miles per hour; (7) Lake Susan: 1 a. Sunrise to sunset,forty(40)miles per hour; _ b. Sunset to sunrise the following day,fifteen(15) miles per hour; I (Ord. No. 73, § 5.07, 7-11-83) Sec.. 6-51. Motors. IThe operation of motorboats which are propelled by an internal combustion engine is prohibited upon Lake Ann.The operation of motorboats which are propelled by electric motors is permitted upon Lake Ann. I (Ord. No. 73, § 5.08, 7-11-83) Sec. 6-52. Direction of travel. IThe operation of motorized watercraft at speeds in excess of fifteen(15)miles per hour in other than a counter-clockwise pattern of travel is prohibited upon Lotus Lake. I (Ord. No. 73, § 5.09, 7-11-83) Sec. 6-53. Observer required for water skiers. INo person shall operate a watercraft on any lake, towing a person on water skis, aqua- plane, surfboard, saucer, or similar device, unless there is in such watercraft another person. in addition to the operator in a position to continually observe the person being towed. The Ioperator of such watercraft must watch where the watercraft is being driven at all times. The second person on board shall act as observer of.the person being towed. (Ord..No. 73, § 5.10, 7-11-83) I State Taw reference—Towing person on water skis, M.S. § 361.09. I Sec. 6-54. Tow ropes. No person shall be towed on waterskis,aquaplane,surfboard,saucer,or similar device,by a cable or other towing device longer than eighty-five (85) feet. I (Ord. No. 73, § 5.11, 7-11-83) State law reference—Towing, M.S. § 361.09. ISec. 6-55. Personal floatation devices. No person shall be towed, or shall operate a watercraft towing a person on any such I device unless the person being towed is wearing a U.S. Coast Guard approved personal floatation device. 11(15 (Ord. No. 73, § 5.12, 7-11-83) State law reference—Personal floatation devices, M.S. § 361.141. [The next page is 385] I 335 • 1 if 47 — July 8 , 1988 ' I Barbara Dacy City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Barbara: As per our conversation on 7/8/88 , you will find enclosed a copy of a letter presented to me from Marcia S. Rowland. I hope this letter will assist in the complicated affair regarding outlot A Kellynne . I again thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Lynn Hall 1 JUL 1 9 1988 ' CITY OF CHANhASSEN • �� I J� An..,..,-BRADLEY ■,\ . SOLHEIM Iif An.An..,..,- AT LAW ` 133 WE5 ..1:ST STREET WACONIA uin NE SOTA 55387 I April 2 , 1987 16121448-5535 16 1 21 442-204 5 I Mr. C. Russell Bohlmann Omega Group Hazeltine Gates Building Chaska , MN 55318 I L RE: Outlot A, Kellynne Ad3_tion IDear Mr . Bohlmann: Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed your proprietary I rights in Outlot A, Kellynne Addition, Carver County, Minnesota. I have personally verified with the Office of the Carver County Recorder that you have a recorded fee ownership of Outlot A. This ownership is in fee simple with recorded I perpetual easements over and across Outlot A in the owners, heirs , and assigns of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 , and Lot 1 , Block 2, Kellynne Addition. As owner of Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1 , you have two separate interests in Outlot A. The first interest is ' f your outright ownership of Outlot A. Then V ownership of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 pursuant to your easement rights over and across OUtloouAhave the recorded I In res ponse to your question, you are free to do whatever you wish with either your ownership and/or easement interest. I Should you wish, you can sell Outlot A to anyone you wish. The property then would be transferred subject to any easement interest existing at the time of transfer. IAs to the easement interest, it is possible to any and/or all of the three easement interests (Lot Block nguish I Lot 2, Block l ; and Lot 1 , Block 2 , Kellynne Addition) . Tc do so, the easement interest would be deeded to whomever was desired. However, you would need to have the permission of the I easement owners and any other affected parties . Affected parties may include lenders , if they base their loan on the value of the collateral, and the easement right to Outlot A may materially affect the value . For example, if construction Iwas started on Lot 1 , Block 2, and there is any construction loan still remaining for that, the lenders approval would have to he obtained. Similarily, if there is a mortgage on the lot I from which the easement is going to be transferred, the lender ' s approval would also have to be obtained. Should you have any additional questions , please feel free If— to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely; v`...Q....,,. c . 1 July 21, 1988 17 Don Ashworth/ Joanne Olson/ Barb Dacy City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Boat restrictions for Outlot A, Kellynne Division, Lake Minnewashta The purpose of this letter is to state our position on the boat restrictions for Outlot A, Kellynne Division, Lake Minnewashta. We wish to elicit the support of the City of Chanhassen to clarify this situation. I would like to in- form the City of Chanhassen about the history of the use of Outlot A and the present situation. We purchased Lot 3, Block #2, in June, 1985 from Michael Schachterle. After a very thorough investigation of the covenants and after speaking with the City Engineer, Bill Monk, we were informed that Outlot A was intended to provide an access to the shore of Lake Minnewashta. The City of Chanhassen's intention, according the Mr. Monk, was that no boats could ever be parked or docked on Outlot A or in the waters of Lake Minnewashta. This intention is supported by the covenants for Kellynne Division. The previous owner of Lot #1, Block 1, Cliff Bohlmann, who was the fee owner of Outlot A from 12/22/81, sold his prop- erty and the fee ownership of Outlot A to Lyn Hall on 6/23/88. Before 6/1/88, neither Mr. Bohlmann nor any other individual had ever parked a boat on Outlot A or in the wa- ters of Lake Minnewashta off of Outlot A. The signed let- ters from John Merz and David Tester can attest to this fact. The following is a summation of the boat situation on Outlot A since June 1, 1988: June 12, 1988 - Lyn Hall's boat was parked in waters of Lake Minnewashta 2: OOpm-7: OOpm, (anchored on Outlot A) . June 16 - Lyn Hall's boat was parked permanently in Minnewashta off Outlot A. June 17 - The City of Chanhassen was contacted. After look- ing over the covenants, Assistant City Planner, Joanne II Olson, stated that no boats were allowed to be parked or maintained on Outlot A. She stated that a city officer-:.;v.:3-1 would be sent to issue a warning to the boat owners. June 20 - A warning citation was issued. jut_ 2 1988 2t Cr,ANt•i;..,StN • 1 ((- Since then the boat has remained moored with buoys in two feet of water off of Outlot A. Mr. Hall's contention is that as long as he does not violate the covenants by placing any anchors or other personal property on Outlot A, he can moor his boat in the lake with buoys. Our position is as follows: ' - We want the boat removed for the following reasons: As lakeshore taxpayers, we pay premium taxes for the right to dock a boat. The intention by both the City and the covenants was not to allow any boats on Outlot A or in the waters of Lake Minnewashta off Outlot A (See covenants) . ' - Allowing a boat on Outlot A will have an adverse affect on the value of our lot and home on Lake Minnewashta. - The narrow outlot (20' at lakeshore, 10 feet oth- erwise) is too narrow for boat placement. Main- taining a boat on Outlot A is against the inten- tions of the City of Chanhassen. ' Since the City of Chanhassen is currently clarifying an or- dinance for mooring boats with buoys on Lake Minnewashta, now is the opportune time to correct obviously detrimental situation to lakeshore owners and the City of Chanhassen. ' We strongly suggest the City of Chanhassen include wording in the ordinance to require either: 1) A minimum lot requirement (i.e. 50 to 75 feet of lakeshore) for lakeshore owners who intend to moor a boat with buoys. 2) Preferably, no mooring of boats whatsoever on Lake ' Minnewashta for association lots or outlots. We believe Lyn and Kae Hall were misled in this situation by the previous fee owner, Cliff Bohlmann. As taxpayers, we expect your support on this matter. If Mr. Hall is to have any legal recourse against Mr. Bohlmann for misrepresenta- tion, I'm sure he would like to proceed as soon as possible. ' Please respond with your position to this situation as soon as possible. ' Sincerely, (DA-4)-e- Dave and Sally Peterjohn 3921 Hawthorne Circle 1r- Excelsior, MN 55331 474-7086 1 (t fr- , I I TO THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN: 1 Prior to June 12, 1988, there has never been a boat docked or moored on Outlot A, Kellynne Division, or in the waters I of Minnewashta off of Outlot A. We can attest to this fact back to June, 1979 when the Kellynne addition was formed. As co-owners of Lot 2, Block 2, Kellynne addition, we would I like the City of Chanhassen to enforce the intent of the Kellynne addition covenants with the new mooring restric- tions presently being developed I I I __....---- ,,, ---/°/ , ,/,, , r---------, Qz.,:____,_- Le ` i '--,-;-- L--------'/X C—D---- JOHN P. AND(MARY ANN MVRZ DAVID L. SAND MARY TESTER 3900 Lone Cedar Circle 3897 Lone Cedar Circle II Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 474-6931 474-6527 II II II 1 II II II II II -- ■ . 1� I II ��': ,. L) IC O V E N A N T S James K. McCleary and Carolynne McCleary, his wife, owners of land described Ias Lots lO U 3 and 4, Block 1, and Lots() 2, and 3, Block 2, Outlot A Kellynne, Carver County, Minnesota, for the purpose *of creating and specifying I _ the rights of the owners of certain- of the above described lots over said Outlot I A, hereby covenant as follows: I1` 1. The owners and their heirs and assigns of Lots O and(,Y Block 1, and Lot CI) Block 2, Kellynne, Carver County, Minnesota, shall' have a perpetual easement I • over and across Outlot A, Kellynne to the shore of Lake Minnewashta; provided, however, that no such person shall construct or maintain any dock, pier,Thoat slip, boat lift or hoist, either on said Outlot A or in the waters of Like IIMinnewashta between the easterly extensions of the north and south boundaries of said Outlot A; nor shall any such person drive any motorized vehicle on or over (' _ said Outlot A. 2. No person shall cause or allow to be parked, stored or placed upon IIOutlot A any vehicle, trailer, boat, structure or personal property of any kind whatsoever whether or not a part of the real estate. t M 3. The owners and Their heirs and assigns of said Lots© and , Block 1, and Lot d) Block 2, Kellynne, shall maintain_said Outlot A_and keep it free of II noxious weeds, trash, litter_ao_d garbage. and sha_11 keep_any_ gras_s_thereon mowed. All owners of Lots andc2 Block 1, and Lot) Block 2, and each of them, are obligated to maintain said Outlot A according to the terms of this covenant, and said obligation may be enforced in any court of jurisdiction by the City of IChanhassen or by any owner of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, and Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. As an additional remedy, the City of Chanhassen or any owner of Lots 3 and 4, >�t Block 1, and Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, may recover by action in' a court of juris- diction from said owners of Lots I and 2, Block I, and Lot 1, Block 2, or any of them, all amounts reasonably expended by the party recovering for maintenance of IOutlot A as sal forth herein if said expenditures were made after seven (7) days , from written demand upon any such owner of Lot 1 and 2, Block 1, and Lot 1, 1t- Block 2. (� v / C 4 _. _____ 1 ___ _. .____...__ __ ._. _ . .. r-- - - - r • - i . . II 4. These covenants are for the mutual benefit of all owners of land in ' • Kellynne, Carver County, Minnesota, and the casements herein shall remain • forever for the benefit of and encumbrances against Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2, Kellynne, Carver County, Minnesota. WHEREFORE, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands on this 14 day II of June , 1979. James K. McCillp y II I t 0 /!1 C II arol unc McCleary OREGON STATE OF . • )se. II COUNTY OF YASHINGTqt The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 14 day of June, II 1979, by James K. McCleary and Carolynne McCleary, husband and wife. James K. McCleary and Carolynne McCleary, husband and wife. II ...Or)... • \" BY r';\ � • �j t• - Karlena Thoma II Signature of person taking acknowledgment. Commission Expires* Maur 30, 1982 NOTARY STAMP I OR SEAL Drafted by: Grathvol, Ploctz & Oberhauser II 1421 East Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 • 4t3,;;;q . OFFrr!OF G4tir4YY RECORDER S1 ATE Q?It;',ri;50TA - > , •-•— CPJf1Y m0.00 k —4L— was bomb).4afdfy Thet 14awithiiQn Inet�wmeent Z' • y a 1o17atCod� btR d� M..tcY. POI .�.)ym��. k+pook rpa .� I C'' *Yfac• sat ©y i • Ocpu,y Clt a •; orders* 1 • IIIIIIIIIIIr • • CITYOF Anus sEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 v MEMORANDUM TO: Barb Dacy, City Planner FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator / ' DATE: September 7, 1988 SUBJ: Park and Recreation Commission Discussion of Boat & Raft Mooring ' The Park and Recreation Commission initially discussed Carver Beach Park along Lotus Trail last April when they directed staff to have personal property stored on parkland, removed. At that ' time there were a number of boats , fishing equipment and a raft stored on park property. Additionally, the Commission questioned whether the mini beach should be maintained with the big beach so ' close. Staff took appropriate measures to have all boats removed from the parkland. Upon investigation of the City Code, it was deter- mined that the raft was not prohibited from being anchored off of park property. The Park and Recreation Commission determined at that time to maintain the mini beach, and to upgrade the entire Carver Beach Park along Lotus Trail through the 1989 CIP. Park property has been removed from the tax rolls and should be enjoyed by all residents equally. Allowing parks to be used by a ' select few for their personal use would be discriminatory. Yet, allowing every resident to store or moor their personal belongings on park property would certainly be a difficult ' situation at best. Therefore, the Commission felt that the City Code should clearly reflect such. ' Recommendation: The Park and Recreation Commission has recommended that the City amend the City Code to prohibit the mooring of boats out from park property, the storage of personal property, and the mooring of privately owned rafts or docks out from park property. If- • Park and Recreation �mm ' I fission Meeting 4 April 12, 1988 - Page 35 I Mady: One last item, the change to the capital improvement program, are they going to be our agenda next time? ' II Sietsema : Yes. They've been pulled twice, because I couldn ' t figure out how to get my new machine and Don was in the hospital . ' Lynch: I'd like to ask for a motion for a staff directive. i toured the II Carver Beach trail and I 'm over there quite often, and they've dumped two more loads of sand on that place. They continue to develop the beach. The two loads are up by the street. There are two dumptruck loads obstructing any possible trail at this point. That floating dock II platform is pulled up on the beach on that site. There is a canoe and a boat. One on the trail further down in the woods towards Carver Beach, none of which are supposed to be there. I • Sietsema: Before you make a motion, can I make a comment? Maintenance staff put the sand there. I drove by one day last week and noticed the II pile of sand. I checked with maintenance and the street department said that they replaced the sand that was washed away during the big storm last summer. I Lynch : There ' s too much sand there. You can ' t have a trail . There is 2 _ feet of sand from last year over the top of the chips. You have to dig ' down in the sand there like I have to find where we had a trail . That 's not the most sand that ' s gone in there but right now there' s way too much sand . . . . they can get a cable on it now with a tow truck and pull it right up and haul it off because now they' re using illegal lake use. II It' s on park property right now. Sietsema : So you want the boat removed and the raft removed and what was I the third thing? Lynch : Well , the sand removed and I 'd like to see them go in there with II a backhoe and pull a lot of that sand out of there. It requires that they bank that , put some timbers in or whatever they have to do to keep that from falling over, that' s a city road crew maintenance problem but I don' t want it on a trail . I want the two boats that I saw and if there' s II any others out there in Carver Beach and the old access, I want them confiscated . They' re illegal . They' re not supposed to be there and then I want that boat platform pulled out. Now generally, they' ve gotten it II out to the middle of the lake, it is difficult to get there. Staff would actually have to go out there on the lake and pull it in which would be an extremely difficult job . Sietsema: I checked with Scott Harr because I did talk to II h there is another one on the other end too and I did talk to Scott about it and explained to him that it wasn ' t supposed to be there. I' ll I check with what the status is and try to light a fire under him. ( . Lynch : We tried it before and there ' s no way to identify it . In the past, if you know who' s boat it is, I want them out of there so that' s my ' II . IL Park and Recreation."� .nmissi.on Meeting April 12, 1988 - Page 36 I CI: motion anyway. Lynch moved , Mady seconded to direct staff , within the next two weeks , I staff get the sand off of the trail on the Carver Beach and to remove the two boats and raft from the trail . All voted in favor and motion carried. IBoyt: I don ' t think we should take excuses of wait until we find someplace else to put it because that ' s happened. There' s Novak-Fleck sign on the parkland and I asked them if they'd move the Novak-Fleck Isign. Well, we don't know where to move it so it's going to take a little while. There choise is either park property or their property and park property isn' t an option. I think you should just get the boats Iout. Just take them. Sietsema: They did that with another last year that was left, chained to I a tree down at the South Lotus Lake boat access and one of 'the park guys got a nice new boat . Boyt: I think it should be impounded and them put up for public auction. IMady: They should go to public auction. I _ Sietsema: Yes , Jim knows what the legal thing to do is and they held it for a number of weeks and nobody claimed it and then they did whatever they were supposed to . 1 Mady: One last thing , do you want us to make a motion on the sign? IBoyt: No. Mady: It ' s being handled? IBoyt: Yes . Hasek: I ' ve got one that ' s just a discussion item and that ' s all . We I finally did get something done with our over 35 league. It took 5 or 6 votes I think it was but I think in 2 years we are going to have a legal over 35 league in the city and it' s just going to be nice. I think there I was item in that whole package that related to not going to state tournament if you got some sort of a penalty. Do you have that someplace? We should consider that too . A lot of cities will not allow you to get into the league the next year if you don ' t get your team in I the state tournament . They just try and that ' s it . Hoffman: All those teams, all the 15 teams will have a team that is Ieligible to post season tournaments . I( Mady: Some of those teams just will refuse to go . They' ll get the berth and then refuse to go. Don ' t have enough guys that get off of work or whatever it is . I • ,,,. .ic i . - 1 13 ' CITY OF 1 '.1\ A w gr, ti i ssEN C ■ N .1 i cE 1 \\ ' `, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 • 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission II • FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: April 21, 1988 1 SUBJ: Lotus Trail Clean Up I At the last meeting, staff was directed to check out illegal boat 1 and raft storage on park property along Lotus Trail. Public Safety is in the process of identifying and contacting the owners of the boats and will be removing them if the owners do not do so r in an reasonable amount of time. II The Commission also expressed their concern over the sand that was dumped on the park property. I asked public works and main- II tenance why it was done and they indicated that there has always been sand in that area. The sand was replaced when it washed away after last summer' s big storm. 1 This strip of park land is heavily used by the residents in the neighborhood and many swim at that sandy area. I talked to some of the residents in the area and conveyed to them that the City II is happy the park is being used; however, storage of personal property is not acceptable. I said that I would relay to the Commission, the neighborhood's desire to keep the sandy area 1 along Lotus Trail. It is the recommendation of this office to continue to have boats II and rafts removed from the park area, but to leave the sandy area in tact and to construct the trail around it. cc: Scott Harr 1 1 ( II II li . I L. II Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26, 1988 - Page 32 r Boyt : There' s a park next to the development . I wasn ' t aware of it . II Mady: How big is it? We' re talking 384 acres of development with a 7 acre park. 340 acres with 3 lots per acre is . . . II Boyt : There 's a different philosophy in Chaska about development in that, from what I 've heard , I know the City Planner there you accomodate the . . .as much as possible. I Sietsema : I think that is comparable in size. If all of that does get developed, there is a lot of question of what actually is going to happen there with the road alignments of TH 212 going through and the I realignment of possibly TH 41 and different things. If it were to be developed as proposed , it ' s very comparable to what Lake Susan Hills West is in size. We required 37 acres and they' re requiring 7. IIBoyt : It ' s a difference in philosophy. Sietsema : We can' t make them do anything . IBoyt : Other than express our concern. I Mady: They understand that we want to be accomodating neighbors whenever possible and if they' re going to take the position that they don ' t think k_ _ they need the parkland there, we ' ve got to work together as cities. This is telling me that they don ' t care . I care a great deal about it . 1 Boyt: It was suggested by their planner that we meet with them. The Chaska Park and Rec Commission . ISietsema : I think it would behoove us too to make sure that we know what the other parkland in the area is. To go in there and act like we know a lot more about it and they' re not doing it good enough. People get a I little offensive to that. I will talk to John Redman and ask him what their existing parks are and express that we have a concern that it ' s not going to be enough and tell them what we ' ve done in Lake Susan Hills I West. I ' ll let you know what the outcome of that and possibly we can meet. I don ' t know how far they are in their process . If they 've already gotten preliminary approval . . . IIBoyt : Even if they' re through with it, I think it would be helpful to meet with them sometime . IILOTUS TRAIL CLEAN UP. 1 Hasek: I think the real issue here is the sand isn ' t it? Mady: There are a couple of issues here . The sand and the storage. If'''. Sietsema : The boat storage , word got out right away that we were going to be removing boats or notifying people so those boats got out of there. There is still one canoe and Scott ' s going to tag it and give them a Park and Recreation Commission Meeting II April 26, 1988 - Page 33 II reasonable amount of time to get the canoe out of there and if they don ' t them we will remove it. Scott' s philosophy, Scott Harr is the Code Enforcement Officer so he ' s in charge of this area and his philosophy is II let ' s not play hardball right away and go and take their boat and make enemies but give them some notice and do it in an appropriate manner . If they consistently store their boat there when they know full well that it' s not a legal thing to do , than we can get nasty about it. So he will I be tagging it. He told me that he would be. I don ' t know if it 's done yet and I ' ll follow up on it and let you know. Mady: I drove by there tonight. The canoe is no longer down there. II However , the raft is out in the lake now. Sietsema: We have no ordinance to prohibit that. I Mady: There is a license requirement on rafts . That is out from public property. You can ' t have a raft outside of your front land so that means ' that it ' s our raft . Sietsema: Where do you know that? I Mady: I drove by it today. CSietsema: How do you know that they can ' t have a raft out there? II Mady: It 's just like parking a boat . You can ' t do it. Sietsema: I looked it up today because Roger Burn came in and he wanted II to know why he couldn ' t have the raft there and wanted to see the ordinance and Barb and I spent a considerable amount of time looking it II up and there is absolutely nothing in the ordinance that we can find that says you can ' t have a raft out in the water . It ' s public domain and as long as you have it deeper than 7 feet and it ' s not too high and it ' s not too low and it' s got reflective license on it and it meets all those II requirements, you can pull that around the lake and put it anywhere you want. You can put it out in front of your house . Anybody' s house . We have nothing to say about it as long as they don ' t store it on park II property. Mady: Can you check with DNR on that? IISietsema: I will . Mady: I don ' t think that raft is legal . I really seriously don ' t. Does II it have a city license on it? Sietsema: It doesn ' t have anything to do with the City. I Mady: My raft on Lotus Lake has a little tag issued by the City that was required when we purchased it . I believe it was $5. 00 for the beachlot II ordinance and I believe that one has to have the same thing. If nothing else, we have a serious safety situation down there . I read through this thing , these people think they' ve got their own private little beach. i= Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26 , 1988 - Page 34 fr It ' s not marked . If the city owns the land there and this is a city beach , then we have to have it properly maintained and we have to have it ' properly designated and marked . There are no swimming bouys out there yet our water surface rules require that I believe. It ' s within two blocks of another city run, safe swim beach . I have some real serious ' problems with this thing and I talked to Mike Lynch Monday night and he was furious with what ' s going on down there. I think we' ve got to take a good hard look at this thing. If we allow any resident and he decides that he wants to put sand and swim off of any given point and put out a ' raft. Sietsema : The resident didn' t put the sand there though. The City did because it was , I checked with Jerry Schlenk and Dale about why the sand was there and they said because there has always been sand there and when a lot of it washed out in the big rain last summer, that they replaced it. There wasn ' t a trail there before though Jim. It was always sand there. Mady: A nature trail went right through there . Right now there ' s a mound of sand that high. There ' s no trail right now. Sietsema : There wasn ' t a trail their either . It led to there and it ICstops at that sandy spot and it went on . There was never a trail through the sand . Mady: All the sand on Lotus Lake has been placed there by people . The lake has no sand bottom. Sietsema: But what I 'm saying is that the trail that was there was put ' in after there was sand there. There was never a trail across that sand . It led up to that sandy spot and it started up as soon as that sandy spot quit because there always was a sandy area there. Whether it ' s natural or whether it was put in by somebody else , since the City has ever taken it over from the homeowners , there ' s always been a sandy spot there. I guess I 'm jumping from side to side on this one because my first reaction is they can ' t use that public property as if it was their own to store their boat and put out their own dock and raft and stuff but from the research I 've done so far , I haven ' t found any reason why they can ' t have a raft. They can not put up their own dock and I let them know now that ' they can' t store their boat there but other than that it ' s city property and we' ve been encouraging people to use city property, park property everywhere else. If they' re using it and enriching their lives on city property, park property, why not let them? Why not? They feel it ' s the ' safest spot to swim there than at the narrow spot . Boyt : If it is a swimming beach , then we need to make the steps to the 1 lake there. Hasek : Maybe the question is , is it a swimming beach? If we put stuff out there then we ' re encouraging swimming . Maybe it should be boats and no swimming . What is the criteria? What do you want to do with it? I guess the other , the dock I 'm still a little confused . I can see it maybe within the ordinance there ' s nothing we can do about putting it out 'C £ il Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26, 1988 - Page 35 II there but I was under the understanding that the dock was actually stored I the park. y Sietsema : Yes , the raft was pulled up. I told them that they can ' t II store the raft on the park property but it 's out in the water now. As far as I know, I can' t do anything about that. Hasek: I guess what I 'm saying is, next year, that ear if tha raft shows up thzs II fall on park property, my suggestion is , if we really have a problem with that, is to take the thing and dispose of it. I Sietsema: We can tag it. Public Safety would handle it. They would tag it that it has to be removed within a certain amount of time and if it II isn ' t, then we would remove it. Hasek: Is that what we would do with like a fishhouse that was stored down there? II Sietsema: Yes . Mady: If you check with the DNR, I don ' t believe that raft is legal . II I don' t think you can place things in the water anyplace you wish to place them. They can only be a certain distance from shore. II C Sietsema: That ' s right and he knew all about that and I ' ll check with DNR. Mady: That sandy spot can ' t be more than , it ' s 15 yards wide. That ' s I the length of it and then towards the toad maybe it comes back 10 feet. It' s just a very, very narrow spot and to tell people they' re going to II swim there when we have a marked beach just down the lake. Sietsema : I understand that . I 'm not saying that we should promote swimming there. All I 'm saying is , do we want to prohibit them? Do we II want to put up a bunch of signs now that say no swimming along this whole shoreline? Mady: What we ' ve done is we' ve just thrown some more sand down there for I them. We dumped it on top of the hill . Hasek: I guess I was under the understanding that it was the maintenance , crew' s suggestion or solution to an erosion problem. Sietsema : No , that was wrong . The correct answer is that it was washed out in the big rain so they replaced the sand that got washed away. Schroers : Where did they get that sand from? I Mady: The City put it there . (_ . Schroers : Yes , but where did the City get the sand from? Did they just II go to a pit someplace and buy a few truckloads of sand and take it over there and dump it? II 11 It C k I Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26 , 1988 - Page 36 rir- Sietsema : I really have no idea where they get the sand . 1 Mady: It didn ' t come out of the lake. Schroers : Yes right but did they get some direction from somewhere to do something like that? ISietsema : No, maintenance thought ht of it . Maintenance gully all washed out and decided go and replace it. saw that it was a IMady: What they've done now is dump sand at the top which was dirt and it still is underneath that on either side of the mound of sand . IBasically it extended the beach up to the road now. Hasek: Maybe what we should do is just put this back a little bit and I I ' ll go take a look at it and try and decide what we want to do. I haven' t seen it. It sounded to me originally as though the solution, the sand there was a solution to a problem which didn ' t bother me at all but now it sounds like really what we have is an issue. 1 Sietsema : There ' s a lot of issues with this whole strip. One person who lives right across from the park mows it themselves. The part that ' s right directly in front of their house so I think we need to look at the whole piece of property and decide how we want it to be maintained and _ how we want it be used . Do you want it to just grow natural and not invite anybody to use it or do we want it to be like a boulevard. The I only thing I can think of that ' s similar to it would be like Lake Calhoun is only there is no trail system in there right now. There ' s a nature trail that ' s kind of overgrown right now. But do we want it to be a nice I boulevard type that encourages people to go and use it? It is park property and it has been our philosophy to encourage people to use park property. Again , we don ' t want to encourage them to store their boats I and they know that they have to launch their boats at the public access and they do. They may hand carry across but I don ' t really have a problem with that . I Mady: How do have consistency? Last year we looked at the fire lane which is directly across the lake from this little piece of property. We told all those people that even though it was city property at that time I that they shouldn ' t be swimming down there. They shouldn ' t have their canoes down there . They shouldn ' t have all this and that down there. II Sietsema: That 's a different situation because it ' s not park property. Mady: The way this sounds, this isn ' t being maintained as park ro er ty. I have a real problem with anybody taking care of park property other II than city employees . There ' s a liability problem. There ' s also a problem, that person thinks it ' s hiw own private land and he maintains it as he wants . Ir- - Hasek : Maybe what we should do is take a look at it . How long would it take us to walk the problem area that you ' re talking about? ■ 17 k i Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26 , 1988 - Page 37 C Sietsema : We could go down there at 7: 00 before our next meeting . II Hasek: I 'd like to do that I guess . I Mady: I'm still a little upset and I 'm voicing both my comments and Mike' s comments that two weeks ago we asked staff to get that boat ramp II removed because we asked for it a year before and the year before we were II told it's out in the water, we ' ll wait until it comes back in again. Not it' s back out there again because somehow those people all got a wind of it and got it done and I believe part of it is because there is at least II one person on city staff who lives close by and that ' s become that person's private little beachlot. I feel we .have a real serious problem by allowing a given neighborhood to decide how the park property, they II can set that aside as their public beach when we already have one beach on the lake that is very close to it. Everything I see is not legally set up the way it should be. It ' s not wide enough in way, shape or form to be a public beach. It' s not a safe situation in having residents take ' over public property. Hasek: Did I hear you say you called the DNR? 1 Hoffman: Yes , on the raft. They don ' t have any jurisdiction over rafts on lakes . It ' s the County Sheriff that license them and they do need to II be licensed through the County Sheriff and if they are not, they can be ticketed . They need to have reflectors on all four sides and a license. Mady: So what you ' re saying is , any citizen of the City of Chanhassen I can go to a public park and put a raft out . That to me is ludicrous . I can ' t believe that ' s allowed. Boyt : If there ' s concern about this you could contact City Council and I say would you consider an ordinance? Mady: Yes , but I can ' t believe there isn ' t one existing . Otherwise , you can put ski jumps anyplace you want. You can put anything you want anywhere. Hasek: Most of the regulations are directed at beachlots though aren ' t II they? Most of the ordinances and the regular resident can have 15 boats and 10 diving rafts . I Boyt: No. Hasek: They can have substantially more than beachlots . I Boyt: Those with riparian rights can have. . . II f( Boyt: I don ' t think they' ve addressed those without lake rights . I ` Mady: This whole thing is ludicrous to me the way it ' s all set up. We need more information to look at it. II Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26 , 1988 - Page 38 • Hasek: Maybe what we should do is take a look at the ordinance and see Iif we've got a problem with it. Maybe there is a loophole in it. Sietsema : Do you have direction to staff for what you want done? ' Hasek: I personally like to take a look at the park first of all . If we ' re going to act on that , I 'd like to know what ' s going on down there myself. ' Mady: I know right now there' s a tree stump right down there. There ' s somebody throwing their minnows in the water right there. I don ' t know ' what the specific regulations are there but I know if you ' re a duck hunter you can ' t leave your decoys in a public area overnight. It seems to me it would apply to minnow buckets and boats any anything else . I ' guess probably I 'm upset about what ' s going on up there and I think it needs to be cleaned up. It ' s a mess . It ' s an eyesore and it ' s the citizens who live right there who think it ' s there to do what they want with it . Let ' s put it on the agenda for next meeting and go down there and look at it. Hopefully we ' ll have something accomplished here. Hasek : Maybe what you should do is kind of take that one on your own and ' give them a call and see what ' s going on . Mady: Otherwise , if you could do it outside the Hennepin County Park, one of their beaches and put my own raft out in front of it. ' Hasek: I think what the point is , at least they considered if you carried it across the park, which we don ' t approve, and then stuck it in the water and there ' s nothing keeping them from putting it in the water anyplace they want to because it ' s exactly what the ordinance allows . Then what we have to do is change the ordinance . CLARIFICATION OF CONFERENCE POLICY. Sietsema : Does anyone have any questions on that? Hasek: When is the next one coming? Mady: This fall in Bloomington . The last one was in Duluth I believe. ' COUNCIL ACTION ON LAKE ANN PARK PARKING FEE. Mady: Any bright ideas? ' Hasek : Both of them. I don ' t know that the suggestion of moving the house really changes what I felt about the park down there. If it ' s parking fees , if they' re fees specifically for boats or those things that I are beyond the ballpark, that doesn ' t bother me. I just can ' t see giving up what we ' re getting to maintain that park . To a lot of people that doesn' t seem like much but I think there ' s some comment in here, I don' t 1 • 1 CITY OF t , k I 1 �` 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Lori Sietsema , Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: May 6 , 1988 SUBJ: Carver Beach Park alon g Lotus Trail Swimming Raft 1 At the last meeting , staff was directed to research further the legality of a private individual launching a swimming raft off of park property. I have discussed this issue with the County, Department of Natural Resources , and Jim Chaffee, reviewed the Park Ordinance and Water Surface Use Ordinance and have found nothing that specifically prohibits such. Staff has referred this item to the City Attorney , Roger Knutson , for clarification. • I will update the Commission as soon as an opinion is rendered. Mini Beach Area I have discussed this item in detail with Don Ashworth. It is 1 his recollection that the homeowners put in the mini beach just south of the old boat access in the early 1970 ' s. At that time, staff felt it was a liability and recommended to the Park and Recreation Commission that the mini beach be removed as another beach was located just two blocks away. The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this item at that time and moved to allow the mini beach. Such has been in place and used by Carver Beach residents ever since. General Area 1 I have reviewed the file on this park property extensively and have found a lot of correspondence between the residents in the area and the City. Private individuals are not allowed to store personal property along the shore. The only person who has City approval to do so is Mr. Gordon Tock who has lived there for 30 to 40 years and is handicapped. Residents have also been notified that they are not to clear the park property. 1 ' Park and Recreation Commission May 6 , 1988 Page 2 II (7 It is the recommendation of this office to budget money in 1989 ' to improve the Carver Beach park along Lotus Trail bollards along the road as necessary, reclaim the trail and promote its use. Additionally, the area should be patrolled regularily to see that illegal boat storage is prohibited. Staff will submit a recom- mendation at a future meeting regarding the swimming raft , pending a legal opinion. I ( 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- 1 ■ ` t . II A. is CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION II REGULAR MEETING . MAY 10, 1988 II Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 8 : 00 p.m. . II MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Hasek, Jim Mady, Larry Schroers, Curt Robinson and Carol Watson MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Boyt and Mike Lynch II STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor i REVIEW VISIT TO CARVER BEACH PARK ALONG LOTUS TRAIL. Mady: Todd, there ' s no action required at this time on Carver Beach? We' re pending some information from Roger Knutson, the City Attorney. Robinson: What is that? - II Mady: He ' s checking to the legality of having that private raft out in front of the parkland. I Hoffman: On number 2 there Curt. It' s got a little review paragraph on each one. The swimming raft, the mini-beach area , general area and a II recommendation . On the swimming raft , we ' re waiting from Roger Knutson for clarification. On the City' s, what we can do about it. Actually the Carver County Deputy were the ones that oversee that . The DNR does not II have any part in it. Mady: From what I ' ve seen down there , I think we need to come up with a plan. That whole linear park area. To me, after seeing how nice it is II down there , there ' s no reason for us to say let ' s take this out , put this in. Let' s kind of take a look at it and come up with a plan in the next few few minutes . I 'd like to see up at Carver Beach have the bollards II installed. Get the parking area marked off . It doesn' t look like we had very many problems last year . There ' s no reason that I can see to not go forward with our plans to put the bollards in place , mark off the parking area and make a little notice of what it is there. II Robinson: For the record you probably should indicate that we did get - some input from a gentleman who lived across from the old beach . He II approached us that we should do something . It ' s a darn nice park area and we should do something . Put some money in there and let people park down there. He had a suggestion or a couple possibilities of a fishing dock II and a canoe rack . I think his points were well made . Mady: Did anybody get his name? IIHoffman : No. I didn ' t ask. Mady: He had some real ood suggestions .ggesti.ons . He was in favor of parking II along one side, he suggested parking along one side of the road. Ask that we try to clean up the park . It was nice hearing from him. II ■ 1 CiYOF 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: May 31 , 1988 SUBJ: Carver Beach Park Along Lotus Trail This item has been the topic of discussion at a number of recent Park and Recreation Commission meetings. I have placed it on ' this agenda to get clear direction as to what action staff is to take. 1 The Commission walked the site and viewed the area. At that time it was discussed that landscaping and additional maintenance should be done at the site. Staff will need specific direction to proceed, i. e. take out the mini-beach? ; mow the entire site? ; what types of plantings? ; etc. As I stated in my last memo, I contacted Roger Knutson regarding 1 the legality of the raft out from the mini-beach. Roger found nothing in any of the ordinances that prohibits this raft from being placed there; however, he said that the Water Surface Usage 1 Ordinance could be amended to include such. Staff feels that the Commission should weigh carefully the pros and cons of removing the mini-beach and what is the objective of 1 doing so. The mini-beach was approved by the Park and Recreation Commission in the mid-1970 ' s against staff recommendation. The residents of this area are very possessive of the park ( something ' which is usually encouraged) and will fight very hard to keep the mini-beach. I bring this to your attention only to make you aware of the potential heated debates . Staff has contacted the Public Safety Department about the con- tinued storage of boats along Lotus Trail on park land. This is not a permitted use and Jim Chaffee indicated he would take measures to remove them if necessary. lA( 1 li1 Park and Recreation Commission June 14 , 1988 - Page 30 II e: everything . We don' t know what to do with them. I don ' II of them. t know how to get Mady: We' ll just have to let nature take it ' s course and hopefully Dale II can reduce the weeds in the park in both of those hockey rinks . Hasek: So really what we ' re looking at if we want to do that for soccer II would be we' ll have to treat it and just try and establish seed in there. My kids play in there and it' s an ideal thing for kids . They don ' t have to chase that ball around. II REVIEW CARVER BEACH PARK. II Hasek: I guess the interesting thing about this was that the main beach was approved by the Park and Recreation Commission in the mid-70 ' s so it , was established on approval . The only problem. that I have with it is the way that it' s acquired sand . It was put in there, it was my understanding the staff put it in there. Sietsema : Street maintenance . It wasn ' t for a drainage problem. It was II because it was washed out during the big storm last year . The sand that was there was washed out so they just put more sand to replace it. II Hasek: That ' s just in-house maintenance. If we have a problem with that park we shouldn' t allow that to happen. Lynch: My problem with it was just like maintaining a private p ark. II Hasek : It ' s not really. It ' s not really private. It ' s certainly less II public than some of the other places but it ' s on the street. The access is right off the street . Hoffman: If you had parking there , there would be a continuous shore II fishing there. Lynch : I 've been told several times when I was over there that I was II standing on private property. They tell people to split. There ' s no parking . There ' s no boat access and in view of the Council ' s recommendation that in order to maintain park II p property be accessible. There 's never going to be anyplace to park there . I 'd like to see this thing, if we heard from the residents out there and the letter from Lori May 31st that outlined a lot of the problems. I 'd like to see those passed up to the Council . I 'd like the Council 's recommendation on what I they would like to have done. If they say that okay, this is going to be a park. It' s alright to have that park there. I don' t think the Council is in a position where they can say well , in this instance we' re going to II let some of the citizens maintain a private beach on our property. The Council is going to have to either say the City is going to have a mini- . beach or the City is not going to have a beach on that property. Sietsema: They have said that they will . II II a f_e i; Park and Recreation Commission ' June 14 , 1988 - Page 31 tfj • Lynch: The Council? ' Sietsema: Yes . There' s a recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission back in the mid-70' s to approve that mini-beach and that was approved by City Council . ' Lynch : So it is an official park property and officially to be used for that? ' Sietsema : Yes . Lynch: Okay. That I never knew. • ' Sietsema: It was established and approved by the City. Lynch : Okay, then we ' ll say that we better sign and maintain it better than it is now. Boyt : We haven ' t treated it like it was our beach because I can remember standing there. . .up a ways. Mady: It ' s closer to them. If Boyt: It' s also at a bottleneck. The way the drivers go along that - lake, they must be coming real close to that swimming beach. Sietsema : It ' s actually safe for swimming . Lynch: Our official swimming ar`a should be moved to that position ' because of the lay of lake . It is dangerous where we maintain the present beach. I guess for now I would like if we could make a motion, I will make a motion that it has been brought to our attention that that is officially slated as a beach. That it be signed as a public beach and ' maintained as beach property in accordance with our park maintenance guidelines because now it looks shabby and I know now it ' s being used as a private beach and represented as such by people who live near there so I think we better bring it up to standard. Sietsema : I didn ' t get all that . ' Lynch : Bring it up to park standards with signing and maintenance . Boyt: And bouys . ' Lynch : Anything to do with normal maintenance . ' Mady: I 'd like to see the Council allow us to open up the parking on that street on the lake side or at least 4 parallel parking spots with proper signage on that street. We talked with one of the neighbors there . He indicated he would have no problems with parking on that ' street there because people are doing it anyway. This way they can do it legally and utilize it . 1 ■ Park and Recreation Commission June 14, 1988 - Page 32 Watson : If you can park at Greenwood Shores Park, you should be able ' le to park at here. I maintain that these people aren' t going to be real pleased that there' s suddenly going to be a swimming beach. , Mady: This is true but we need to address the problems with the boats being stored on that park property. The reason it ' s such an old problem II is because it' s now added to the beach. Sietsema : It has but it' s like the minute you turn around , you turn your back, they know that you' re going to be gone for a couple of weeks and they' ll put their boat back there. Mady: What you do is you confiscate their boat. We've got a request I somebody who wants to put a boat down there at that lake and we've got to tell him no, you can ' t do it. Why can' t I do it, you've got 4 of them sitting down here now. We' ve got to clean it up. This city' s always been kind of lax in their enforcement. Now they' re starting to get a little tougher but we need to get tough on everybody. If you've got the law, you' ve got to enforce it. Just because you live across the street from it doesn' t mean you get to go by a different set of rules than somebody who lives down on Chan Estates . Watson: What constitutes having a boat on a public park? As long as it' s out in the water a ways it' s alright? Lynch: It can' t be on the parkland in excess of 24 hours . Watson : As long as it' s completely in the water it ' s alright. Lynch: That ' s what we ' re being told . ' Sietsema : The boat that ' s moored there on the very, very northern end , there' s nothing we can do about it. There ' s nothing we can do about that II raft because we have nothing on the books that prohibits mooring a boat or a raft out from park property. That' s on the memo . . . Mady: I tell you what , when we go to bouy that , putting bouys out there, I I 'm going to make part of the amendment of the ordinance is we' re not going to allow people to put anything out from park property. To me putting a raft out on a public beach is no different than somebody else II coming in and deciding to put their own play structure in a city park and saying that' s theirs . You just don' t do those things because once it' s there, the City has the liability. That ' s it . It ' s ours . Sietsema: It' s on the list for th park amendment issues for next time . Lynch : Okay, I made a motion , Carol seconded it that we add four parking II spots . /( Mady: Signed off-street parking . w IL ' Park and Recreation Commission June 14, 1988 - Page 33 Lynch moved , Watson seconded that the ark along of P g L us Trail at Carver Beach be brought up to park maintenance standards with four parking ' spaces , proper signage and swimming bouys . motion carried. All voted in favor and the ' REQUEST TO REMOVE SEAWEED AND WATER LILIES AT CARVER BEACH. Mady: Lori , did you ever find out what part of the lake this was? ' Sietsema : It is at the Carver Beach. The designated beach. The main Carver Beach. There are lilies that are encroaching. ' Mady: Are they lilies or are they those . . . Sietsema : I don' t know. ' Mady: I do know that I don ' t want to see us do too much weeds .. There are a lot of residents around that lake that if you start removing ' vegetation from the shoreline, they' re going to be real . . . Lynch: Do you have to have DNR approval? I ( Sietsema : You have to have a DNR permit and there is a cost involved in having the weeds removed. I still don ' t know what that cost is . Schroers : I have some personal expertise in that . We hire every year a private company to come in and remove weeds at our park and it ' s very expensive. It ' s time consuming . There are a number of problems involved ' with it. Their equipment is very large and very bulky. They have to have an adequate place to load it and unload a very good launch facility. They need a place to discard the material after it ' s harvested and that stuff gets rank. Sietsema : There would be no way they would be able to et their eir equipment down that hill then to Carver Beach. ' Schroers : Besides being expensive, it ' s not 100% effective. They don' t get all the weeds. Propelling their machines through the water creates a ' wake out in front which pushes some of the weeds away from their cutters so it's difficult. They do get a majority of it but it' s lot like mowing your yard . It comes back. Not quite as bad but it does come back. ' Hasek: Don' t they only go out 4 feet or something too? Schroers : Yes , 4 or 5 feet is probably as far down as you can do it and ' the main reason that we do it is to eliminate swimmers itch because the swimmers itch actually comes from the snails and the snails live underneath the weeds. They remove the weeds and that eliminates the ' environment for the snails and eliminates the swimmers itch . Mady: How extensive is the problem? I ' ve seen a few weeds and it' s kind of bothersome when you walk out or is it choking the beahc out? ! a ' C Park and Recreation Commission Meeting ' June 28 , 1988 - Page 6 AMENDMENTS TO PARK ORDINANCE. Sietsema : Given a lot of discussions that we ' ve had , I thought that it would be appropriate to come to the Park Commission with some amendment ideas. One with the Carver Beach problems that we've had there with people mooring and storing boats and rafts and what not. We need to clarify so there isn ' t a loophole. Allow it so they can have the rafts so we clearly have control of what goes on in the parks so one of the things on my list here was amending the Ordinance to prohibit boat mooring , ' private docks and rafts on park property and out from park property. Mady: Or within 150 feet of the high water mark. Robinson: Is that what you can do? 11 Sietsema : It would have to involve water surface zoning too. Not only our park ordinance would have to be amended but so would our water surface zoning so that DNR would have to approve it. We don ' t allow private rafts out from park property. Our concern being liability. If there ' s a raft II out there, it looks like it' s part of the park and Joe Blow from across the lake comes over and swims on it and hurts himself. Boyt : You know, that raft that ' s out there has a piece of metal . ' Mady: It ' s a pontoon. I was in the water and it ' s just, that thing is an eyesore. , Sietsema : Again , right now we don ' t have anything we can really do about it. ' Hasek: Historically, if you ask a question, would the DNR tend to go along with those types of things? Sietsema : If it ' s reasonable. If you have a good reason, good clear reasoning. If it 's just to make restrictions for the sake of having restrictions they don ' t go along with it. They won ' t approve it but if there is good sound reason and it's applicable to everybody on the lake or the lake user who doesn ' t live on the lake , they' re pretty reasonable. Hasek: Okay. We can just have the Attorney draw that up. ' Mady: The only thing is we might want to leave ourselves some space in the ordinance that at some point in time if the City decides to put . . . , Hasek: It would be anything that ' s not owned by the City is what would be. . . ' Sietsema : Right , so that would allow us to have a raft out there if we ( wanted to have one. Mady: Of if we wanted to put sailboat moorings out there or something . g - ■ �s Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28 , 1988 - Page 7 Schroers : Is it possible that that could come back to haunt you in that if we say that we have control up to 150 feet beyond our park area or something , if there' s an acciden-t with boats or waterskiers in that area , are we then liable because we control that space? Sietsema : No . Mady: What is it, 150 feet , you can not propell your boat through an area ' within 150 feet of a marked swimming area? Sietsema : Within 100 feet of the shore on Lotus Lake is a slow no wake area except going straight out or coming straight in. If you're puttzing along horizontal or parallel with the shoreline, it' s slow no wake within 100 feet of the shore. I think the Attorney will clear that up for us and make it so it' s not going to put us in a hole. ' Robinson: Do we want to act on these one at a time or overall? ' Mady: I think we can discuss them one at a time. Point of information, Lotus Lake, the Sheriff' s patrol was out in their boat Saturday afternoon because I witnessed them issuing a citation to one of my neighbors which I was glad to be seeing . ' Hasek moved , Robinson seconded a motion directing staff to g contact the City Attorney and ask him to draw up an ordinance which would exclude the ' mooring or installation of docks or any surface water use other than for the City for areas abutting and adjacent to parkland for whatever distance he feels is appropriate . All voted in favor and the motion carried . ' GLASS CONTAINERS. ' Mady: I, for one would like to issue a complaint on glass containers in the park after I spent 20 mintues cleaning up glass in the City Center Park. It was just one bottle. ' Sietsema : We really have received a number of complaints about glass . People having to walk around glass. Broken glass and what not. The thing ' is, we' ve received a lot of complaints in the park areas all together . There is more use in the parks than we 've ever had before. Lake Ann Park has probably taken in the same amount of gate fees as we did all of last year so far this year . It 's unbelievable the amount of use. ' Hasek: Than you get a letter like this lady that says she ' s never had to pay for a park. ' Sietsema : We currently have an ordinance that says there' s no glass allowed in the beach area. The problem that we have with a lot of these things is enforcement . There ' s no way that the lifeguards can guard behind their head. I ' ve asked them to at least be aware that that' s an ordinance so that in the sand area in front of them, if they see someone on the beach area with glass, that they tell them it ' s not allowed. They can ' t go over there and take it away from them because they' re supposed to Swimming Raft in Carver Beach II J1The swimming raft in Carver Beach has been in place for at least the l t 30 years. There has never been a`serious accident in connection with the II raft. The raft does not restrict boat traffic or contribute any adverse environmental impact on the lake; on the contrary, the raft has given I thousands of hours of pleasure to hundreds of children and adults who have used it over the years. The raft also is a favorite fishing spot for many II fishermen in the spring and fall when the swimmers aren't present. II The raft meets all the requirements of the water surface usage ordinani #73 passed by the council in 1983 . II After the recent attack on the mini beach by Mr. Lynch of the Parks Cdepartment and the fact that the raft in Carver Beach is the only thin on t� Y g e lake that would be adversely affected by section 2 of the ordinance ammendin, chapter 6 of the Chanhassen city code concerning boats and waterways . We feel there are forces in the city that are attempting to discriminate against the, public right to use and enjoy the public waters of this lake. We also feel the public interest would not be best served by passing section 2 of the ' proposed ordinance. I In conclusion we the undersigned implore you to give your careful I consideration to this matter and defeat section 2 of the proposed ordinance. Failing this the raft in Carver Beach should at least be grandfathered as ' non-conforming use under the ordinance. - II Thank you for your consideration in this matter. II SEP i 1988 CITY OF CHANFASSEPI I . - _- . ■ .-.. .. 0.4“ds..e _ 0 1,C)- .. , I , r '711. ■ ,Yle/ ��&8 , � �- 955i— 596/- f"?':). ),A..yriiqu-L4-_, -2 2e2 6 .k(A1-1) -f 1^-3 0 i,„-- ----- ,/ -,," - pc, ,1;-1. 1s4-1- ce&c•?, • � Gv�. ��! 7 3 , -7 2_rtic =;ri ,V la �� ivy Lac 0 =ter. ,�r � , 7 �� './ 7d - 5-0, 17J/ (% 6'� , 2" -�.. i,v ui�SrVp F.-. '.�r''f'.t.w.,y,;_,l�•!`,,� - 11 4.r.' _ : ..�- - .... e, 4.5 ' r-77/e_ �._, ..__..... - "- o �.a ,:2„cd ? 4 . i k ' 66:,,,c, r-T-6,..11--,-e„-- 1 i-e:, 6-7(:3-t. - -?-7z, ,,-,•,,/9 .-,' . .- . •• --7( -)..)-- /67(V/e67.- 42--e& .-"CP7q-r-/ IeLKd -i'0_,n,c)•,.. =. , -•••i•-: u�G G/ILV 1 7/(10 10 /1 ,...1 l • .f G/. c_ �: <v. ' • .. ma , i • ? ..' i. ; - , / (; . ;� LT L-Gt/ (,.$.1; ( i "L > / : , , f/ ' ,:' k " 7:q „ „. e f4 -.6.6e' r t ' ti��,� -'7;1: ..4 L G1 *-7...-:... ..7` . . .4,,,,-.(44).("A:d.-. ..,•e, 4642- - ,_;A.tc._ (i 7 a'4 6/1-tiltfr'i-1,2(L/A/e (_. r 611 -34- 1 i 07 .....":' - '" rcIAL\ '''- 'V-i.aiL; 7)C'c,(..)I r'' 7' 7 6 ( -, - 3 :(. IC ::":' rr IcIAA41- fCrea'A'- --)e W 1r ,, .! `� � _c , r;.. C-\..- . 5 5 "i- v/PV • I —IL-7 ad ) Ld• . , --`..''-'11'' .,,,k,.•-3-.1- ! '-..A.;:i.• • , - .- ., ,, A....)i f,--_:s_ i-I L-r-i—ap-og .::_,;,,, ,, . ., :N. 1-..`i6 ..,', ,• - ...l , ;:-:-•li,.. •zm , ,_ , k. ef.A.3-- siLib OCcitty-e).... ./94Dc,k___ tecy •tt. - . .„‘., . , ,,, ,-, 1 --:.:-.)-:,..,..-.:•-:f.,.. ' .. ,... 1.-1,,,,...,, -_,,,e.,-,-,, •• „.„,,,,,.. . - . , .. .. . .k.:.... I.! % ;'41;,-..fi''''' • ',"-..1.-Ii!..?...i;,--,:.,-.<,F,,. - -— ._. , . . . . . =1'• ..- .7_4. •-t:'...;:. . . (° Q.Ak.1.../42..A LCJA, c?...A._ . ,,.:, ,,.„.„....,•...,..,(7,."r"-.1`Nt.■•' '• ..-,.t„rf.r. ,....,4;;(,: ', -0..,- .- . ' - - • .:,, ,. , ...,.., .•x. ' i.;;;:::. _. .. . , -4.,''i:'-';;■',,r,IZ... '..5Ge‘e)Ctt("el Icy.'16 I''''."::::.; 7 I° C? i V C 2e,(1,712 %.' _ . 9 ?,4it ,,,,,-,,,r6 ,•,-..t.,,- „: ,, • .......-4,•, .- . ..... ,_... . f .._.4...:i...:...:v,,,,,,,,A .,„.--1-,,,,:r.,.....:11 .:,---. ...74-..:,,,,,•(,--/ ,,--,.„ ,..,.._ -- ' - p -,-.4,:-.„,:.• .s.t ._.., t 7,is,40:;;;:-...":.;:--t•i.t.-...,...-''tt41-/ '•-•-•:, ''. ' 1: :-- \"" ....:4' "•.. """,-.. , -, . 5. '- -.A z•- ••• .... ' -...v-,:-...-,..s.ta., .!!,.,.-••... . .000' • . 1/'' — , , . ' -!3'4..ii ' ... , -.2‘...-:W.-ell:14; 'm,sd- '- '2 __".• :t. ' .`":,."'''...''''' 40c.3./ /`428'17ZA4..er ' •-a6 .4 .„Y7Z:2_'. '. -'..-Ff; ,'1'14'i..1-`'.':.-ti -. ''''-'F."'.....ps•;;;;,,r..L;,.'S.i,i..•-' ' - ' - --' . ..,,; t1,1;:...,;.zi...-.,%s• ,,411/P ';•rk:,,e,-A..".r.1..t;••-:-*-45.-: --•:" --:, -- . . - .- •...' 5 1-...,-. . ;•••••.et• - -itAefi''...t.--•:;";et-F. - f,":.;'‘.; -.,,i-, ''-''.:f-,-..:.:1PAi..: , ''-'(11111ri. ''' ,.:--:, :--_-ii,..-... - - '-."....; -':.,/x•' - •I -:./•iii.',.eli• , •--1:4i .-'..”"-•'',"4.-.;.•" ,... ,.. - - . f: --'•l'''''::17 ..e.... ,,,/,,,,,.,.-, dot ... , . . .. „-,-. f , /-li - .. 11-6C Cebtif6C/#62644. /-' ' C.! 7- .j i 7r , - .', ...,„"31,..,:l-?..... ,,,.,,,,A '''',.'!:,viir, r.i.4.•.•'-.!:,. . - '''''' ,•■•`'. • - '- - . - , M.Tiit.4*11. ., . '';':iP,:t.,::7,'ie"''S.1.1:'• 11' - - .,. - .21-A..?,-r.,..-.4,...,. , 4141;;;;;„;,4,-,4,,.;..e..• ,.'4 ......;!..*.z.v1-4e,!... , ., . I . , „ . • •-,...y;....,,,.,,,sief4-r, ,,, . . _—,/ - . ....w.f., -,,,:-_- . t-,- . . •:-.. • . — . . ..„.-_, ,.. . . ..,,..„,,,,..• 4*' 'b..A. !Alif'1,titk\c/k,,..I'" ( '- _-.';i1:: .-0..,,,11,,,,,,.c.„.,..,.,,,,..,....;,. _.... ., -•■• ..e.:. .-',,Z4-i:iti".T.t.;0'..'..:r. -4"'""''''-:-," ;14-i. „V =-','';', :-'4•.?, ' '''"': '''t: i n,-.';- .-0.- 1-1'. ' ” •"...' 0 i • 1.,,. , • .:,- . --,S7Cf 4.... ', ".' ;-- JYYtk-A:Yt, -. • . .1 . ,. .,,,. .. ,-;..,...,. ,,,,,,,_,,,.1. ,s...7.,xf,-, , _, . .:,./. ' --ti...--T-'s •, ,. .-:, -.,'• .-----...„, —-.<, - I.-Y• 6 'A.c.---_,) LI (-7`1. li:flzt -, , .,.. ..,„ ,, • , . , , 1-/ 3-2) -o ' -__C.>' 'T s_.1 ...,...•••,4*-i'. 5- ,., , .1..,,,,...:;:,.,..,•:'::,-c:4,•?.-;Fr.i.,■':;.."-.^1;...). .A.,.:!.4.J...,..??-4.,(,..;,,t• - - jed,„ '' l'it"-"A-:' -F i.,., . ._, '-:,.r.:';i4,1-i..`t ,,_,,,, .,. ,....,_:.‘,.".'i) ;•*.'-.4:1:- - y-2 ti, /b 7 .4,400, „., ,:.:„,„: ,...,..,,,, ..!;,e,..i.:".4.1:_,:li,..,,,...,.____,-. , ...:•.:.,. i, .,..,,,T.,„„:;:,,,, :.:,, .,,-..y:,.,.:;.y: T' .•-: • ike___ 1 (.11-{ bct.-t,-,G) 1.- x.a..,-,, . /_,./ 79- 2-s. / 33 ''';';',''''144,.,:ltT., -,,,,,A,,,----r4i. -. ••:-. ); ' - 4...,,,,,„;,.....„..:,.,...7. ,,v,,,•4:0'..4.:::..;:.:.,',' - :„.:y,,,,,,,,,-*1. 4,2,;:li....',, -- .---. .,„, " . -.4t1,:i.,:',.?,01.f,..:,..;•:,. ..;•4,.i.4.„.;.;.;::' 4,itc,f,..!.,...:P''' . ,Il -„,-.,-,•1..-141 .',.-46 :-?,!!,;.-1,'"; ,h,171.-0.'•, ' . ' '''''' 7 - I) _ _ .- . 93 7,5_,, d_ 1 ;4t *. ■ . , .. • • 4•1) 17 / 1 i./t Pl 1 L /- C'.7 . U L Z- ,, v , ....*-,' _•.;...' -'-'- I - ' o- ,‘.. ..'..%i . ' .: • .. ' ''* '' . ■ , , „ / 7/ --i. --.7(‘/7 4i I . I , , (4:Li' /L /1) (./7/I a_K._ .,, k_ , . z.. ,/ „ 7 7 0-- 11),..-/;. ,,.„''. I •■k' . '. I - e '' 'I'1' t 4• dal' /1 -•a...4. (.`7't - q t(go . , ....• - .. -- .,), - ,,,g,•;...., 6 6 ?et --,-.;-,•.:;,,,,,. . , 4 _,- e•i i ,t ' t ”4,-i..- „ ,,,- 8 I: -,,,,:- ;-- , y' .-.. . -'— 6&el ?a,‘....diuz ,c1A, # 7q- 7 0 0 . ; e. , .,, „ • 1,-'''''''.••••- :,:.-:,,,,,'.;;;,•::..'''' :,,,,,,.: 00.,•,.•.•,,,,, ,,re,„„)....fr..7 i__,J.,),..t.„...""-- ,,, - .. . II i ----- - 1.1 i‘ - - • . I-it].'4.)4 '''.Z.ifi.7z'7':•''''' .''''-'''' :'''''; 4-4„<,2„. •-r)14r71.-/. - ' -- „ I A. s cif i..,:..,,,... ..... .i.f.-i:.+;'..''••-• •,,. ., rj, `''r 7 " •••"' , . , .',.„A..e....4.1 '.. „....( ' • ' , ',.":,,ii..:'''I'l ' 2 ,4 - - - .,.... .. ,...„.„.. ,...„„ , , „„ 'Ci 6 ell We ....--- / _.... .. ., b , . ;„,..., / 2e_.7 t.(.,//,.0 c( -------' . , .?„,,,:rt.,..,„• ..„,..,,,f -',.''',:;.."7,-i,.. -• - -q„,:e,--•,...-,-tf--- 1 .. . t --- - :•,,,,,,-,t4 „.,,, , - -.:•-;;„ ...„4-. .:: ..., , 11-s 446 eetz."-- lit 7 (./ 7 -2- „1-,:,,z,s.,,.':,,,,_:-.„.-,:',;; .,.,., ,Li,,,, ..,,qt : ,., 0.): tit . -(4,7r,-: ,404-1 : -- .- Ifr, ,,,,,, ‘.:, ,,,,;7,ek:„.x.,, _ --,.......,.:.r ,....s• .,;,..,•!...,„ , . 4 '//5-- Pit' -2. ()-2'2" S‘- d . . . -,. -s., •' 8 ,. ki 7 61-3 78 '-4- ,, -7,:•:‘ ,., -,,'T.,:lkfli.3;:',"'; 'f', ' , 171°/311 i ...- ,, A 7.1 NZ,,t,;-k,:ar.,,,,,,,.... ..,,,,:.,,,.. .:0.- :;:'."tt::: :-,-,,;:i.a... ■•4 , ILL tAIC, itif 1(% 14.7ii3-7.5- .......,, b ..: 7.5;'.:..eS'.„ /11"44, i ...,,Tome ,.'e' ., :, ‘A ' V 44AA: ' ''I' 1 .i.4: ,.: . &.' 7 i( 61./IC ; 9' -* - 6.6 7 0 . 11,1 c) / 77 ..........- (.../ /2 ., V I 70 ,c.,tiC:y:;-:a./.2 , .4a'.•.•-::•,""---',-;:' - ; .'•;,, ' r•-, ,i.,!--' :k ...,..,,44..5','' '' '..•:hof 7•..:-• '. '. ' •'....,= ,• ,'•'',.:i4;:(, 6 . Cu 8(10 C, ti....2. 4.A..., 47/-1 - 5708 ,.„. 7::,, i ,4. ,et ,, 1.4 •Ni - 0;r ¶O e) ',..-ei.",,v,•:. •;‘,...,;t:.! 67 6,9‘../ A.;4:'-'2. pe,t-r,e. r .r -,-) C‘9r ki:,..z 7c'rce. -Z)1_ 4/29 - 4' /47' . 47/c ,y C (-, i 1-1 ,,,.. : --.....--------- 3.- • ., . i-iil.,•. Ai 71 ^ ?li 2 Iii(h,, 447 --fg 3 7 .....4414...,L., .. (0 4-D 1/LI A—, ki Cz- ....,4- as...4...„' 1.6.6,...„.jiLtit._ i . P3 76 ./\ ,____ . _. __ ________ 111 , " N.,........ 1---1 _ \,..4_,..... .e..,.....'. "----..„..... .;:''.*„..,--.2.-- ,... ir-'6-1T -L..\---- "-`71*At- ,■‘;:,s sz_ •Nss■-) t ._,-,5-.. ' - •-1; C .r7/2 . ... ''.. /11",: ""—...' 4.4E = , - (1):,-.-----z:',.. ECE' ts c C /-1--"tlYki c- e7-69 li 71i- di 4 .1._ _. triLi 1 — ,(11 .. 1, • , . — . - , - C .- ,,-,:,;',.,. '''' -‘•!. I_ .- ,I ..1,'., .:':-.'', , P.-:.''''• •- - ..-. .. '• '' 1 •-.7, :-."--,,;,:',..• 3,•' .......- 0 pp pan.:-e-g:- 4:7- ,,igifrpt-td - i ... .:-., .. ..,...., .... : , - - 4 7it „ . - . . .. . „ ,. . ... . . .--_...- ,... I .. ,:;:-.7•.;.;:'.... 4 ,,q,),,,,,41,00/A, i _ _-, 4,:1:- • 1--q,-:---:,..,„:_i- - -...v.,4•1J,, .,--f.,..-:•_, 4'?■'*:*'t s' .':;:.?"0-". 7...., ••.. . . ... . , . . .... . _ , • ,...•t.,,,,,..,;..,,...„. ,,,,. ,_ ,. ., .!: „....„, • ...,:.±,,,,.:1,-„,,...,,:,_,..:._ ----_-:,,,.,:. "„,,,..„,iitipz.t...w.....-4,:,•,-„,.: .,,. -.44„.7,.__,---ra,C.11,,,,. Vt$1...4';'•!1-4?..03iiS.41..rl.'-?- :-;41i,ll'Ai;--44;;'--:'.1.-....;., ..,::: .1,;;•----, -..-_,-4,,,,..-. , _, . , •,• 1 4t'-k k -1% ‘._,4.- -,;,;,'!:-.t r:- f,tbriett't.:,- '''.-''';.-C-g:ti'''.-,',.:•. ,i,:..-- ';'-'-i'''''-',-'!' - - _ _ ..r. t'ATC:;; fvi,f .Fi4;: rt.'..-,',...g., ;,-•: ,.,,:. -- _ -- ,„: •— - —:\ . ...Y..." - --''''''' '-4741- (7,24.-4,- ..-•ricch c_Z .F_W CZAzt 9.7.1 - 04e . .. „ :.. . ,c;) , ,•i- .„.,.,- ... -..e .,,,,,,,, .. .-- - .. . -----.. ....,, . N.,„•,.,-, .., - , , q 70 -062 1:,--,*,:,, ,!•-ktv.,r.,,g, ,.---,- •-• . .. , ., '..fiC-A-;-f:•-:..''' •:; ,,,,-.4,,.,-,:-::-r • - • , : ,-,, , C:114(7 . ...re -.- • --...:k • --.... '":,-2,4.=•- - .-. '- ..... 1c.i3ij ....... .--. .. . . -..- .•--...., m, , . ,.., .: - . .:'_:!,F,,,,.),...i,f,".:1 - •_,-,R.,;,f-". ..i.,.,..1.-,-:0,:..; . !,,, -,.. . . r, t"') r-sr,) ., - -'4c. 4.,4- , , r c. t....,„„i / 1 ..iikc4iti ..--t 1 ,%-i. ( (__Cvm-r41 IS- 6 I ':'',0:`;-:•;-,,'",,i.-:,--: • „..4,1.• :,„;:::):5-::';'.:: ,..,;:. ,..?; :- ' 1 tsev„,,,,i4 eico+,..410,47v-zi io....,,...„.•..:4, ,.1..,,,,...„1,....,.„.e. ....„,. . . _iv , ..t__._....,„i...,,,./,,.;:, ,,,,,W.:11'.7-'41 -' - ...?, ..-., '-• . : -- - ; - . . '.... - . - I - _., Ar,I, 0 „..,,..44.,:t Ii.__ ., ...:,-..- ,'-liR - ,:f-,,' at...etz4/ *74Z,C----(1:414.-t-/6" aa‘-4 /2/ =',.: 1 ... '''Aifi:::, m.- ...t. . , -' • 7 P 6 It -•:- -1 k'- I■::A:■-"j'•!• ■ •:,7-7' ', ter..44(.,:_oe..e.c.e?---- ,- - 4r LL p 041■ - 71/- 27k ;'-',.74:::::!:-47' .''''' ,,,,rf,'•,..,.: --,- i ??.•.-.,.?:,.'• ':•-'-'. .- ,..e.....4.4(--01"--, : f-4..k.,,,,,,,,:-7,... ,',1' . e‘4''..°. ‘ ..'• . * f . -atfil'h:' . . ' ,,,,..k.." ' ' s .---,;-- /. yp ayi.0,4,/, A 1-rizy 0)-.. e4 <i.-7y4- 4441 ll'44;-.. - ,., '4,1'6-., , . '',.';`, '?'.'''. ' ;P.14e- • .. .. . i Tr. 41 , cl7cr-ii . 1--:%_•.' • '•.'''i ii0r.•''/ I . 44( WO aLit6 LI ' ' ' 1 I ' :-,.., . ....„ ii ,:. ..,.. , . :,.,„, 0, / , ., .. : .‘ .,,.„__. .. ,, , . ,,,.......,..., ..„,..:._ ..... --i- / -:.'`-- ,.,-.14,_-,-•"-•'!, 1. . .-i;,-. -. P 0 ,'741-ADT--- ..-, • a r. ...... ,. ....;,1,. 644. ( erf g (.4 / !..... /7 ( C ( 4: e ' L ;''' ' . 'r ' , ,',-t-- - --'0•:,- 4 _ 41'• - ry -..:k., , vl i $',?! • - 4 7 it VSII AeilL , (0i (C / 3 7 0/Vriii'- /(.-Ok e.. fia 6-L- Liri 9- oc; IF .• , ... . ':0,,--./4.,,,,,,id,..- f • in 1 ctiRvcr. r krAc.” P, b . . .,. c ?6) /... (., , 4-• 1,. i „ ....-,.. ......... ,,•I( ( 1 . „ . L' Li-,‘,1 , — i i i ' P 6, ',.t..-;'• ... .. 6.f.,,,..4.-Ci1/4—. — — 4 I 1 - )1"-^c',-•-• i s.".."'N... .' . AZ/ .........ft........I c-<.,, I.. ...-J lc- . • . _ - /./ ! ,,._ "../ , r - - , , , 1 - '., y , - . i.,- - , , 1 .. .. i.„,....„ \ . \...-7.- • ' '/ ,, % /� i �__ i' '•C � ' i ` ,- ; i�tti Y;. -,1; 2t1/ J V .,."-417-e.-.:.,.."-:.....-?4,...., . ,/ — .,‘ :.., -,-..:.,,i----/„&.� r.. mss;. 1" _ ,s G C-% e-i--YL,?f -c -L I \ i 6 �-,'A LT (i3k.") 7 i 0, a ,,..,,r kb-, ....0.i. i , , i:(7;4. _3 , s,3 ... 1 1 ....„...4„,. ,. .. .Z'�4_ G.;ji. jyl, T.. T 3� t^-y,y..t�„ t_�. �. .&1 • ie ta- •Y A. 1 +rte' l ~� je %-- -)Sr. _77‘7%-eijti LW/) Q.,X/-) 1‘ . . _ I ' g ' `i'rhtiYys, • : .. _ f C '"7v j G-- r Jr,,. ` h: t Ei V .t..,crK•:",rv ,g�., - ..st- ,.a` L - '- 663/ ,� .: ,,:' �Vt, ,) w,. (, , `�, L� ,`I�)�l� LI1�'G/Uli, a '� 'L/ 7�" ' fir' ral <`.$ 6 l 7° J1� C 4` j 0_,ai.Xt.-Ac.i..1,..U4'N J/7! l i a n • r. Q" a r/C�' Ci\ i, 14.,_,. �-t.. L, c Imo- c - -V a 3,, . ..4r.k...,,,,..'4,. . fr..,-,-3,. \el - ,- b/OD ,(.1 L , i . -ir1‘17-LIA-14---e_._' ' --. -v) C.-, Lyn, 24--12-/ Iir, -, ,:f`.7 '':...;: ,folp i n , ,,,,sr. IA 0-(1 alacict/rrifu2 j r v t.!_i cif . ,,,,.,,., 1 ,1 , 't, v,-_, , -. , Jr-, i . :; ,� r 0,,,:_,,... r r�L. c l Ct `1 Lt_ 1 c/r1) � � k i, b`lz. \ CrL . -) . ,� • t I cii i_.' P.:;:e0Asea. l( 7 )/ le .44•7� C/71-.‘) (174� 7cr p F la..., fRo*rs,‘,. -,‘ri .1.,•,e‘ i .--.1 j R., , ii)---03,)...„--7 /(5-1/p6;ir k:), ,,/ I.-- k, , ,,, . , r • i • 1 f I / / / l ''''. '',...... f. / l T6.. , ._ . .- / .. ,111 I.,;.,....,....,.,„...t: .,), (bit C a(,)(,_ 4 ,I 74'. -•;. - ais.r.€ - ' 7-;t::,,,t,,.. -_.-.'::,•.::•i%; .- ,-,-: werie\..e ItN ee,-4.,(/&-( )-e - :!---- .. 4: :-..!, • ef...,..:•:„. . .„.._. .. . - ....:: ., . .4...:.,, ..,..„•, ,,;..,...:?..,.-44.-414,,A -;i,.,„•,-;?.•:::..,:.,,-.,:1„-.. .. ., • , • -i7-, •-•,.-si'' .--."..‘-1:::: y.''''..' .:,'''1,4..-.:^ -: "": ,C,?:',' C i.,. n Li, i Li) -6 (( .(') • , -,N#,- — :., ,,. ...::. I -1, ..-tirlA..-t-Q/1. -.-4.".)..e..A 1. 4, : .i.-4-'-•' i .iiiPi',,;1,:!._. . : - - .-'4....., , ...:.,:, _ - - • --j, 0 G ) 0.....trA_Art4 Q),,,vi ....,q tv2Ce -' i.-:11:.!.,--:i;'r.-1.4‘-a.\)..:;,- - ,,,i, .. i ,,-t?'... '• -..k.,5- .. -.4' titerT',-,-. . '- ..'it.,:::;.74-1"';'-' ..."'.1-..''. . -.:J. .i 1 ,,nP. - --- , ;-:::. , ' , ,.. 6 7 7C, Pzivi9,1m/7-1_4/74.,— . II i7,75/- .2333 . •',.--._-_,,.... ••;.•••,,,-- 071,-,.•t 1 .r.A.....,..n, -6.-.,■•• ,, . • 11.4',.;-• .!:.--.-44f .4, .e.;,;i.g-•' ..,,, -.) a 47 q .-73 .370t-, - :::-,i4: 2- ::,.i. - ..-,A.:;:,. . ..,- -.:. . •,.., 1 4/74/- 573/ • '.. 1----,:. • 1 0770 COA-a-e-L) /4- 1 .1 .. ; - 1 4 6--?z5- az--i /'-' 7 • --."-- ......- i .,7 •. 6 ?‘ , --) -,_ -.:•,, ..,, . . .,...,;,. •.*::..„.,,t.,,,,,-1-.- - .„.!..,:,Zt,.. '.:2;,-....• .../. 1 I.,.,y , . .••,••,•.- cp6c2 .64-1-iiiii-7-7/* 4/ei vt-_-:-.- ., - . - c;/- -.,s--- 4-- 1.,. .„.„.1.,. .. - . , ....,,,„...,. . st-4,...,- ..,4.iii.,..,::,•:4-::.:,-*. it-!.-, ii r 4,.., /7 1 ( 1.40-e4._, IZ a_ 47 q -6,3 1O 1 Q4LI24...1%/ 76) -- Cf)/60. I .t:-t.t.;. .. - :..;-'• ,. ri:.J.;-,'.-- ... -/foft—Ra _ ';'... 1,,..; . .. ,sii.4::::0-'''-.'1 ' ' — - 1 , .:' - , .-i 0, 61, .,..,•,,t/L it,:..4.. /7,:// 'Xii.- -,-( 4 z -7 O. .- 0/ . II *tr.'- 4 K Oi e41-:z.'.' , - l' " I.::'3'.:t_. , .,;,.k... ..:: , IA,. , MI .- '--.'i.- 67(0 1-40; oCd e-t• 70-- rs;› /-/ .. ., - . -.K.44,-.01$4..;._:.4. _...„::. .,::..rg..:„.,..,..„...„ , ...,, ._.._ Pí;.:-c_kr".„t (4, I 7O --?&:::, ;#(E-..-:! . . • ca,71 (477e7.... v g 6727 / ,172( 141.4§I'' . !-. -..-2*.f...'; ' ' * . ''' V •/ex( , I - -7 -- --‘) Y7 g - = ,-- ....,„'.:.-: :--',,. ,;:J, ,,-- - 6 ,'-'?,- 6 4,1' - /e:-z:_e a- , ,• , iii :',:-,72: • , - Le.?)5) 1 ---1- (..._i 7 i 1 *1 - g w,,: . ..,,,..,,„.; / / ( . _ t 1 '1/1 lk....--i1 r i'L. 1 - cl i ir.. ft . , itcgicc-.7, • .. ,.. . .,...: , 4/7 cr-01 7 '7 get 712?_&'2,e--2- 0-+- .- . 4, • ,I I, N... 1;' • (I(CO 01) 7.) Clic VA' -) / (:2/IL 1.....(---- 0,,,,)-- : -,A,.„‘..- , L TY li ,- r 4-71 - C.-•(‘-ct:- ,...., i i.._ • • . --1 1.- r-A ___.. 4-7 '1. -1.,--r-c_,,_,)------ : I Pr:. i I I ( i ,7. .„ I , C,„/ 4 ( _27)//i-,-i- ._,--- --/ / ')'" ,,. -)._. ..,r, . ,,-. ,.. _A, ,, /..,.. / # , c / // )..A01 A14L ,1>' c(''' z i - ---_-__. I /,./f ( ) ' -7„ 9 7 .) ...._ III A A I 660(61k- Li (L1 1 I/-1, . I h -- i\\. - \ I (.. ILCA-1( ti,e2„.3L).12e,c, . 1 f „ E\ cx.,-- ----( 713 0 c,,,,:),..)-su.- --) , . e l /3 U - qqnq' \ yv-,,ky\-, -z,.. , ,,..:3:,- 11 ,, ,• . I -, pf 2 - 7Z l°(rfict k-r1. 44 1ez4A-e CIA'difilidseti 93 -2., I --1. Lfrt._. IN 72J3 q 3 7- 630-fd-o I - e ,„-7 . rLt, -,- / .•/),,,,,.e._ .,,LI . 5, Li -1Dirli ---.) 4- .. . . - : , . ., r t ,. ,. ,-.1r --• 0--/ al.,,it.....1.4 1,- L...., ,. • -.4,:,...- . .,440-7.....- /L-2 6....Afetea (..... A A, 9 s'i ---0 /e ( . • - -7SCIC-P6f4(.e,,ed 0!)-P 6)3(k-6 7) „,.?:,,,.-:,,, ,,,. :::-., -• ' -- - - / , rez)24.6 -Vii 4,V.,Lf "c*-,,.- V / I , , , aa, 9.,,/,_ /6e-/( : if : .- ' '':". -fe-) ?,/, 4,44 ... - lo• ... • ,.. , ,, .. , . 2O ,--73 .?.. 571... --,-\--) ‘,-,A-. ;,, ,, ;,i, Lc cF7 -050 • . C.3( C fc-,11,r‘'eCc -- ::I.c.4..'''''g:'. ':ii?fifi:' •"; ..r” "' _,: , -■-...i.21::.:. ..? % . 5-I r:\ / \l'.›4: ;1\- l')( ' 1 1 P ri N-5.4 ..._,.. . . , - ,.._,, •,,,•i'c...4, .1...1 I 0 7 - ( •"-- , 4...4....,....._ 7 0 s--1) /)( 61.1 ( / r I N (.../0 i 7 I Alut.eze..2 (,),Lco 7iv.e:2; 0 A in ;....-6.:L., / , ; r 0 4.--e%/r...e ‘: 7 -. ■3'----). CP7 /7/7/Vie. 8:77-4t,S741/‹.ile, I.. ra S-C-`1° )67( .-76 4 (/ ....) ( / ( 11 t ' '4t 1' ' C C... —-1 • 4if:?7 I .‘t ID SOP IA 6■ S C 0 ir's CI ( . .. _. i w . i d �-`1 '� —319 -- - -- '': , i---,-...i'. .ro."...��,.�• t,.t....; 4 •�q:,•-.:..1`..?(`(jkn ...'' `'^) _ ,c yRyKsyy� '',,s ' TrQ..t . .K, 4� Vi = o.41;3-7 .,t,,!-. °5 , .,‘ *4o- ,r " ` : ;z o ,,,,,,. _ ,: , a{. .:i•r:r%a+44:,, i. #'.. -.,„. trrf:.,. ” i' 1� _ _ 5 w, 3 tom• ._ri3:4I1i , f: • }te" - ^ /�{} ,-;-•••••-f.".!,:.?'x :F: ?:' YI s �+tyw • 'ig 'a.: = `; " 4 * rM1r` ': �r lam•' 4" w ta4"•3rgc :d .,:(�' ,-- .-h,.M1;4Y-.: .„-. _r ,- _ ,• .4,.-. .:•Ips. .-1.1• ,.ti'r�'i:�^3.b? .4_ ''•'v •1'£ r. ion v �?4,i ”; •:dpi.��.. 'J •-4i37, 47...t);; , •' . : .�: ' ' 2 :` :�': •- .•• -i'. 7,,, -,t:.:..., . x^v!: "t-_ ., ". , q . �t.i.'.',`�;i,>: rr',7.::.$.�i^K.A. :: "x i'•'.`'c`- _,.1'�; g;:k'r:, _ __i: .„:CSC I^. • SS'.4.-, �;~f-. "1 ti .•rA - 4: .'45' .15.'�['-'�S t .:{`j ,` .,t♦ � `'''";74773 .-'. l•1 sY4 P.7• 'h 'r 115:'- u V 50":747:114.,too/ a i, R / - - o..ti kh ' ;:�4. : Ire L _,, ...• ..r,:.4,1, ,. x' 4'7=.;-. 'x,...4,.• --.:. �,� ”�;.'fie.�'�"��,.'r•^.a+. __s.�t ..,].'�•,_� .1- N q �,� ,, a I( _ � • - ' _ ':74'x• .:_ '' ',e.. gg9Y", .:_:�x�l.. .: -• rte/.phi tev. i6-.-^ , ,,, �.,;y..e.,_1 .4 ,---)7, .., got,".- ;,� .,;,:` r 1 CAA-,./f. � �� ..� - (•17q -l (',;`� tS+r •, ' �;' w.`. P / /% 9'4 '. /(•-‘.....-7 . ";T t�c L -Ll' 5(7‘' J4��/{',_r. ,,`gi p 1.'%c Fh`T,,Eyi'�.,'a /�_ 4 _ .:ti.;�±,�al;: - ,.�, _i l.c� :`' ',j? i'i- ,..rrw.f l _fiT.. ..g.,, -max,::: _ `(/}.�jp �///��.. 0-" //..r..c.,........_ _ /1 ,} _` �'l _,rpy 'Y, it _ Y / :,�: \^..I /��l' Yr 'I ' i.3 �.` �'��.s'F,''.�;a.31(. •.?t'�:�. ;'7�''�1-¢�g'`;'� ``•.'i: - '�.i. mil''!, i`, ?'"'. 'rkr: ,r,:F"• :t';:�:ri',�'.� ;y ^fin:'• :�� 8-1.3 ., ��J/(7 , -1!f_:(!.-_,;,..., ,- . : '-'A-rr _ „y. '; "ti� - x . � ..`'',:.k. t� ll...i;r,l,+ '*,-,V.ft1i!r:,,-: ,y� ,{ •.✓" -��'�(J ' ' + ,.,,,rf,•' ;°•. „-�., .:4.;;.:4..,0- M ..if M ..i �..?'.y�[idx .,.,4 h;^ tiu.. .:s5?h'+' ,'i�LJ y7r / 4,.�,. '��.:. •Y..tom;: ,. .• : ,J ,,.,y ,:.. '.iTiPf-7i .'4',t▪ '"4.jo;�!":,':''''''is •:'S : F P/ 1 b 1. /� {1 G'4 •K a7_ .tr'ur' ,6 ,.d ,.f. - ,l;ih ir.„--.. „.. ..:,.( (i.:: .,• ,,,,, - . ...,.. e.,f,30, .-ee-Z,e4ie-,A-. ci-1-- 4,1-'Yr-- ..- - - "." ' ' r " U ` ::-'.k .i�. : r rr i .• Ct-51-nzioi: . ,:-:..-..... ......,-;:.:-.,:f.,... , .7' - , ,---v„4.•0.•- de—Ariki D(-, ,s„. ... . '.... ; • .- . �. <.. , 4 ,i ..,-- 7* ,i('-- --... ( , .I ..,-., , ,, i , L.,..„,...,.e.,,, p..-:),,.....,. —1. ) L.I I ::-.'.6- ' 0-""4-201-4:"9' - .. . —. .. 7 lin( ":1,4''..:::'-- -- 1 -:' -,• ''''',"' . •. ••,..*:!.1,..,:v,i,a,.•-•.:-' i. ._ • L\—1 - Q 9 2 6 , 1 A6V-,,,,.. 0J1-h-z-z -...,..., -• ,,,,,„„.4,,,,,e...„.„..,..„..,.,.,,.„.„, ..,. : , '. 6-1-‘ 66/96) 71,atii2A4 - i , 1 1 . . , • .,,,....„.„,„.• .... .•••• , • , 4 ,;--- -••-•=,-,-.',-..:.e. -:-.•.---.•:' ,- ., .,.`;;-•---- ' V , . . ' ,-..,=4., .. 12- . ../..„, / 0,..0.-/ I sv....r. ...A..... .-Z:„.... .. -', . - , . • -1.• , • ... ..,. 4. ..i‘i•or-^7 ,-;t:fi' -'..r.V.:':':...,f1-'.' .: --- . .14?".-... ..., i k 1,0i(kt t C■\ t ,.., . ., . - ...., _.... .1-4.44-,g,.,-4--,' '.e,,,,:.-4,;:litisq-.:?.11'.,r.' .'!..."!:.;:-4W-.' ' •-...----', "-'.-' -— / /' ::i'fi.Z.tit•• ' •"`' 4•'•''t• , _ c2 6• A 6 t2 . :::•$titi.f .'1::-..,..i. - ' - ''' . - - 6 7 c' c,s..,,,,.....,...... "3..2.,.._•••e" ....-2---?' ,,. .',kh‘f•r.. ' - - .,-- 7,-.1::."3‘",i- s-. .-.".7 :_.N,■•;s4X-Velot. .."''-',..•4,,-, ...;,-,:!;:,. 7 •:.,0■1. ..,,,. ,fl'',74$7'.:'•:-:•■••••-i.,,.:-t'''-. '3... -'-7--,.. ••'••• ,,'•.,-,,:i -. ---,■-;•!:.e?../.., :;7.1',,,- ",---k.--,, •,• •:: i _....:,,ik , ..fr, IN. .._i94...._..:-.14', ,R•?7■ • 4. :..; . 1, -. L7 t4,,S o ill 041 cLuAz, Z r . •.. ,. 4....,.....„..,...... „...q.l.t...4 ..,.,-,..._. :,..0 t•/)8 ck sz co.44\i c-r b q i ciN 0 01 - -ti 7(f4-- 263 , -. 3.6:5Thrk.;•!•;• ''''' '''= :...,,,1,?' N..•iter' •'':fl:G2i:.`.' ' '''.;::...:•". ...-.-. -:,-..•..'-'..,,,,".!,..:••. .. . a 401-,..:::,,' -: ,?::4.. ......,. ,litl e.A...‘„1„,„„‘,1 ■..X...C..-' „, 7 3 (/ ' 1.......) t.'2 5 , • "41,,,,,•".:' .....i t;:,....,3-: . -, --- t ',7,-...' .., -...:,.. ... i f .... „---.... hi. i - r,,, 1?-/ u,—7 y. ..- a r, c, m 11 1.5 ' Or I . ,e”w■ - -.. .. -1: • V ,!:..1f29t.:,ti4.'4,so.t",4 -- 'yere7 r ., " 71..is cfy--1#--77 -, , ; _ / - g 9 (7 6 ct„: „ ,,,, -1,-..,,,,,,>1 c) 7 Li 7 II .,,,cre,*,:.: Nt...,. 4.f -j/ --7<i 0 ,1 k.lj ,. •• .-- i.,4-0„;.. ■ •• -q".c-;.., _)kns, ., C;CII ') LleStilAP°-r 71-40_,Sk•Aji 1 i7.- i -..- . ,•••••",';',?;•-•,;„,-,1:';:.4:,.,,,,1;7.".•4•;'::'''',-VIVi'li•VC""tt-Li-":• • ..../ , .._ • ,..:.. • '•:-?•'"''ft-•••••.:•!;;.'',1•4,,•: ','?: •,,X,-.Z•ilL; ,..,1 .1-07-/:-. i''';;,••4,- .' .••, ., , ;.'•,::?:.■:- . -=.•:-42-'',1"*...-M;Lv",,.. gg..!'' .• '''''''...5:.''.••!:._ - e . :.., t . .,„„ .„ ...,• 5.• ,,,,.,:.• .,i..,.....,,..:,,•,t. ,,,,..F,,.....„5...1.,,,,,t.. •,,,,,,,,7,;;.,09::•;,i,f:1„4,.,...,,,.., •,..,,!:,;.:31,,,,,,,,,„.:;,...,,,.• ,f•A: ....,,....,.. ....,. --) . 7' st: e.,(. , , ; /,,y/::/7?/)/1 4 --- -2/v7- - , .. - t- - ., , s t...-...... , . .., Ii..:(4.,- '''.' •ti.'..•-r6k4 . 77.1 ,_ _ ,A.? -0' -/— 2 7 2 I- -I- I..' 3 t::::I- ,, • ,' 0.,#)1.1, le.„..----,..). :4 4 i - ,, , •;.:,..- , ''-• ;- - 71.-4'\ (,. k i k .i.; - ,,i • v,...; ;_j 4 i• VI.S f;-'1•?t■4‘S.r. ., (2....„, //... . ; % — ,tri•, • -.42n .'a py,,,c,-.14; ..,... , i-s,....c_.. ,........,,-7 ■- .,-) t.••'.••;-,.•••r:,'-"..,. .,.• 4/ 35 -C":4-7 ,.•,, t‘-‘4 .'''''13'1:112..i°4. I 5C, :•7 -Pr..11..11—.1.02- 0 ""e7;13'"— ' 111 / .., 7 2 2( ti (.,l , ..--- . . 6 C k 4 7"'''' (.7 .. nue, • , , ( r 1 , 4. ••••.. . •% , . •-- .. - ...,• • .. /10D CA d ,,.)a,4./,.y .. • 1r4: C:_ y<1.7..;Ze.Pt-!' 4-‘-. .-. -4tr-i `7'- /' // .-----,Pg:T.Z• ,i, ,... --#4. -,,,.1.,.:*, ,i' ",., ,-,,;:•1..:., ,..-J,. ..,.,,,,,. ) _._ ,....kly,..,--(__ (:., k ,, .,, ., 6.6k 2 i7/a/'/ . _. . t ` */) L � V +- - ":+. :t�:1 hi • - n ' - - `•,,• h //i 7.1-4), , 7 , ..,-----,- ,----)4,._—, /(C•IA 4.-4 e • ''• �y 1 •tJ'ir.. hit IY� .yy :, ' '� - / • ,,,.git,,,*-,' ,., • ..•-,,p.k,..., • , ' C/S2d f6 ....•63ZZ4 di`-'1e‘ -i.-A7777‘ .•1 44 .?i'','g Vii:; 4 ! L. e ,1-) 5 1 .-• -. -" ' ii..,.. 7)—'('"'',1s, - r;a••a iii(//1:71-1 ..C)ii Oe, ,-7 Z:`tip:,: ., � l' E. �' < .,. .,.;430'df,' . !,4,- . / 1,t, ,> ' 95"'--:C7C'-----Xf76"/(id'ila?E'lli€I-Pi M. -)-- - -:-,tt.,1,,,.. .- 4/4. , '. . ,,,t, , "-- , , -,--i--:i.--/g-- ti...../.-c•-•'' '''1.4;,.; ;., ' - :,•'• _14:,k6- /:,--- ,,,,,, ,,,,,,, , At4,2.e/19/......1'e :. 4 4 r �l I x'07 $ �%ez � ,t� Cr c� 5, 1C, /1./j- ";.- -4' «,,., 0,5";r4- t ,..4 . , .., , ..,..A. , / 1 - •• .. - , t i - ••/2- - -; 4 ;0,-.----1c; ( - , .4,/- -... . . ,), , , , , , ,.. , ,,, , - ,,.; (I? <„ i (1: 7{1 • I I ( ;.,• ,,. /'r' _,:.4s,::,_ ,,: ,i, ti,_ , j /, s,,..„E. ,-.i. i • ...2?' -.,'1..-''''''''. , , , 7 6 , :)1 (Al's ' .1 7 ..4-4— if'-1,...e• ,_ f.f..-".; K.-.*1 .7,..' / JO-7 5) / .1%,i -- ''7,. :';.:,'i- - . ( __. i ,( • • .,4• ' ' J . ...'7'''. ' , .,„. 1 .(5774 • ',.. o ' , . • - -,,z:s: • ,-.••• , . \.A.,,, ,., •■•••••..... 'i ;4.) \'' V A'• 1 k s• 4 /4 • 4,....‘7, ..• l•4..,.:,; • •-s.:.! :Pi•'':' '-.' •• .';'•'41At....1 ilfi„;,",•,., , ;:.} C.t • i - ,.‘, (.1 .(...,1)...67.•;.:i it#1....ri./'.'i.f• 5 ' .2e,tt. iii 2,;,/ ../.1„) , •. ., .. 7 ,,,. :,...1. ,_ t. '1,--..... .1_'- ,,, , •-•- -' • , . (-1: i . /L)b j. •:?:... I,,i'l iN-"' t i ) 3 C fr::.„-,...t . J ' :,!•!;;1::,„:.i 7 f.,..,,-, ; 4;.`,41.t.,:,:,,,..'0 4r.:...- • .tA cs..iff). ...f,:),ruy,„, ,,,,-, k. 6 ". .t . t .... _ r J,- ,./k-... _ -,,,,..„.„,„..,:„.::4,,. .•., , !...r. ... ,N--J-. -,1,4;....... i 1 , ,..-........ 1.,..7r:::;-'';', '*'••z-..";', Mdt., : ,tc.,L5_,L,..,, N ),,-){"11 r •_. \_,,f,,......) \'4'`) .'_. \ (J. \'\‘ \'` C r.,iic. 21.742/5S/....;;.;, ..:,,...'7,. ••:4-V-ki;•••.. ‘,V:••••!;•'-' -•,..i.r. ,'4', _ • -- •• (11 1(----- . .!-• •--) , , „ IN 1 e,el ri-)11-,k. ---,1-ic-t-Ir - ' . • ,..,•..,-, :.• ,..,o--. ,:l.....,.,-, - 0 „: ' /i,'i "--- (...9 taro.i,;(,,:,, ..:••- , -..,,,,:',.•: ,,,„...j.....0.)':/ 44,,m..--"--- .: p.:; ':--4'..-...:_ ,„-.y."!'.' '04'''' r'..,:lr''' I .ii.w.: r. :1":;;; . .,:. .?. , . ,. ......./f c).,....,.°02 .... -. ..I'. I : ..... ,,,,,-z:!-,4•:,,,,,•44,--, ,:•--./,'-'1 .:. •'• --- ,.;• • •,. 4, ,• e }C.,),...„‘ r‘,.._ L.:I r.- '64%. 'Y'2,t•;'• ••.. •;•'-',.•'J .2'.:.: ,.: ".:=' ,.i,:,y__-•- •4'4".i., --.4.17 -S I. fs ! A,. - C -V- .*ti.?......t.,,...,;1:* - ,,,,.,;.... t.-,.;.1" •.;;,-t , ((14 • ,•-;;,,,..:: .;;■.: ,,,,, v . • ,i-I.N.,-,..4",,r." ?-:;": , ..i.,, -l.' "'Y ..,:.:).■!.'i, -'14,,-;" c . ,i`I . ...,. ,f 4 ' t I „.1::: ,,4,.4-..t<''''.'',.-....•..'.::-.:',..', -v7,_ Ai , 1 6,1-i e I d, / '•;7 . -. '.-. -C) 1 ... , , •--ii.',-,:l.ttri;,Yq',,i,.,,.„...,.%:.:.:,V::,,--:•;.,'.4:1-a.a...4,ff,.f-'l1 t„7:1',.,...!,.•.,:3„.",, te, &..7.21 4 / 5 / / q7/3 . • ..„,... ::-'2'it=ii:','f•.,*.dC,': .;;W,;;-'''' , ..... 7`tt,..-)':'.;•';' :- ..,-','.' "_'A' ,: i.-..: . , t n-,',','I- -)'. `.:4;;,.-,;,!;.i■f' . -"-t, /0 i •1'),/IN , I 6-v-i t_ q?q.- OS 7? , , ... („,,q95 c ...1,,,1,,v((c.-..,,, 1.4Keftcie ' 1-1/4dc4 Li,/ • L.( 7 9 ;-g .)_-7 ...„: ..„.. , • ,,,,,•:, •-•.4::•1---1-::,",:f0,:-:,!..:•il:11.,,,-;i';,' •., 160 .4,41r4 „, ,1 -,- ... --r-, , ._ 1 Alr: 76 Az7-t-i--et- - '- 11., -.-:-,k ..‘ i'::,,:.;,':;;),' :,,-4. ',‘ %,7.-1=';',:-4' --'-- :---.• ' '"' •.. ,-,,,,,;:„.,.4.:,..„.:,,,,,,,,41:::;,::,'4,..:„.•,.4--i -,,,,,,,:..-'. Y ,,,,''•4,4.All•pittte7:.;::'4f4-•+.4,..':q' *, •••'' •. ' '- . ''• nrK,•.-,:-.T1,0••I'' '” ; .. , •'.:A,..±, ; •;r4V,;:' .. .';'" .a. L,i!..:;. '''.1. .. '.■ '..:VI''''''''-•'"'" '' ; ' ,„. ..... . . ,, ., .,4,...k,:: .;,-;;,„ • ,.,.?.•.4• • ,,:- , --4•;:- ••:- • ' ' ' „. . •,i...,- •• ••-„ . ,..., ' ..: .. ''',t -, - •‘• , ''. .L. :: ' ...,, .. ' 1Pki.V.X■'''',":' '''' •'. ' ' r'' '''' ?,,f.,,,,,:**4.; i•'. , 'i:, 'I;ffk. S, , • ■„! . „ • ,*....'.'• •' • '4' ''' •-• ... . '. ■ • • S..... .. 111