Loading...
2. Ordinance Requiring Permits for Rafts I ` i 4 I i ,:- („.„,_ CITY OF ,;--. _'tom;ti,� _ .� ' .> I .. .,,:., tit-, �x�• _ . „: , . ,,. , _ „ F 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I - A. (612) 937-1900 I MEMORANDUM Note: First reading of the attached ordinance was approved by the City TO: Mayor and City Council Council on July 10, 1989. Approval I of second and final reading is rec- FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager amended. DATE: July 10 , 1989 DWA (7-19-89) ISUBJ: Beachiot Ordinance, Consider Requiring Permits for Rafts IThis item was published as "Beachiot Ordinance, Consider Requiring Permits for Rafts" . In actuality, the item spans a far ' greater number of issues dealing with our beachlot and water sur- f ace 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 I 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 I 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 I those hearings. In summary, it was the belief of this office and 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. I 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 I 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. I 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, I 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 II • 11 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. 1 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. )616(-) (7))1 "' • II 1 i :, CITYOF AA CIIANHASSEN I - i „, I �\ ' ' �`'_' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ''7 "��.� (612) 937-1900 IJuly 14, 1989 IMr. Mike Wegler Mr. Roger Byrne 6630 Mohawk Drive 6724 Lotus Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 IDear Messrs. Wegler and Byrne: I During 1988, the Park and Recreation Commission received public testimony regarding various changes to the City' s Water Surface Usage, Beachlot, and Boats and Waterways Ordinances. The con- , cerns raised at those meetings were analyzed by the City Attorney' s office during the winter/spring of 1989. It is the conclusion of that office that, although various sections of the ordinance could be modified for clarity purposes, no substantive I changes would be required to accomplish the level of enforcement brought out during the hearing process. For example, docks/ moorings/storage of boats on or in front of public property has I been prohibited for the past 15 years and continues to be prohi- bited under current ordinance without any form of modification to accomplish such. The attorney did note that the current ordi- nance is weak in regards to requiring a permit for rafts. I Sections 1 and 2 of the attached code were drafted to eliminate that concern. During City Council discussion, Section 3 was added. IAs your names appear as persons speaking regarding the raft issue, this notice is being sent to you to advise you that the I attached ordinance modification will be considered by the City Council on July 24, 1989, Chanhassen City Council Chambers, 7: 30 p.m. [ Note: Please check the Villager printed on July 19 , 1989 to determine where this item sits on that agenda. ] IAs noted earlier in this letter, no other modifications are being considered to any of the City ordinances dealing with boats/ I waterways/public bodies of water. Should you have any questions in regards to this letter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, I 42 (132 i I Don Ashworth City Manager I DA:k • 11 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. The definition of "water obstacle" in Section 6-1 of the City Code is amended to read: 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 or watercraft. SECTION 2. Section 6-4(A) of the City Code is amended to read: 6-4 (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 erected or maintained in compliance with the other provisions of this chapter. SECTION 3. Section 6-28 (A) of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 6-28 (A) Swimming rafts may only be located directly in front ' of a lake shore site owned by the raft owner. 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 subsection (b) . Their distance from the ordinary high water mark shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately ' upon its passage and publication. • I ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day Iof 1989 . ICITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: IDonald J. Chmiel, Mayor ATTEST: IDon Ashworth, City Manager y g r I I I I I I I I I I I I I -2- 111 City Council Meeting - f -y 10, 1989 1r- Don Ashworth: Gary just gave me a copy of the County Records. They do show the City as the owner of that parcel which would lead me to believe that .we can get a copy then of the deed from the County. ' Councilman Boyt: So we own it? Don Ashworth: They do have us as the recorded owner. Councilman Johnson: Plus if we've done all the maintenance and everything for a number of years, isn't there some kind of a... Mayor_- Chmiel: 7 years. Roger Knutson: 6 years on streets I think if what you're talking about. Councilman Johnson: The park. ' Roger Knutson: The park is like regular land, it would be 15 years for adverse possession. But if you have a deed. BEACHLOT ORDINANCE, CONSIDER REQUIRING PERMITS FOR RAFTS. Don Ashworth: This arises as a result of sending back a number of issues to the Park and Recreation Commission in having those looked at as a part of year end activities. The City Attorney and myself met on several occasions trying to go through the various issues that had been presented by both commission members as well as residents. We really came down to a position that existing ordinance, although there are certain areas that it would be nice to modify them from a clarity standpoint, really we have the enforcement ability under existing ordinance. Again, there are some glitches. For example, if you are riparian owner and have the right to moor your boat in front of your property, hypothetically you could give up that priviledge and moor that boat in front of someone elses property. It's just never happened in 20 years although it would be nice to clear that type of language up, I do not think that it's worth the problems that we faced and the misunderstanding that had occurred in some of the public hearings as to what it was the City was attempting to do. The only Section of the ordinance that we felt would definitely need to be or should be strongly considered for change is the section dealing with rafts. Right now there is no permit process that is required for the installation of a raft. You have to meet the section of the Code dealing with the specific design criteria but there is no requirement that the application, whether it be public or private, come before the City Council. That the City Council looks at the location. The placement in the lake. How many other rafts exist in that lake, etc.. We feel that this is a mistake in the existing ordinance. That that type of issue should be clarified. We're recommending placing on first reading an ordinance which would, I can't remember the wordage here, this office would recommend that the City Council place on first reading an ordinance amendment that would delete the words "or swimming raft". That deals with the Section of the ordinance that doesn't look like Karen put a copy of that ordinance i.n. ' Councilman Boyt: 6-4, it's in there. 47 ■ City Council Meeting - Jul( '0, 1989 ( IIDon Ashworth: By doing that, it makes anyone who is looking g for a raft, it requires than to come back again in front of the City Council. The best [-- I parallel staff can use is in that same section it is required that people do come in if they are considering putting in a ski slalom course and something like that can be a very, it's an issue that's of concern to the residents simple I to have the right to put in a slalom course without ever bringing that back to the City Council I think would be a real mistake. We had an application on Lotus. The Council determined that was not a good place for a slalom course. We had another request on Lake Minnewashta. The Council determined that that I was a reasonable location and again staff sees that as a parallel in that rafts should be similarly treated. IICouncilman Boyt: I'd make a motion. Councilwoman Dimler: Just a minute. Can we ask some questions? Don, does that II mean that existing rafts are grandfathered in or do they need to come in and yearly apply for a permit? Don Ashworth: They would need to come in for a permit on a yearly basis, right II Roger? Roger Knutson: Correct. IIMayor Chmiel: But they would have to conform with the requirements is what we're saying as to what the raft should be? IDon Ashworth: That's correct. It's one that has to be flexible. II Mayor Chmiel: If there's one that's existing and it's not in compliance with our requirements, it cannot be located. Don Ashworth: That's correct. IICouncilman Johnson: Even now it can't. It's not supposed to be there but we have no permit procedure so we have no way of knowing it there's without going I out and counting it so by having a permit procedure, it would actually be in violation of 2 things if the raft is out there without a permit and not properly constructed. I Don Ashworth: By going through the permit, we can insure that somebody has thought about insurance for the raft. Someone is responsible for that. IMayor Chmiel: Is it because of litigation reasons? Don Ashworth: That's another factor. At issue is really the Carver Beach raft but in looking at that ordinance, we basically have no control over anyone Iputting a raft on any lake. Hypothetically you could build a raft and put it out in Lake Minnewashta or wherever you might want to take and put one and you may want to put it right in the middle of the lake, the most dangerous spot Ithere is. Councilwoman Dimler: There's no restriction where a raft can go? I 48 ■ City,Council Meeting - ( ,.y 10, 1989 jr- Don Ashworth: Right now the ordinance explicitedly excludes rafts. I think that there is one, there's some sections though that must be at least in 7 feet ' of water and it must, there's others. Roger Knutson: There's some criteria about nameplates and heights above the water and stuff like that. Councilwoman Dimler: So you're already controlling them to some extent? Don Ashworth: You're controlling them regarding the technical construction. We're not controlling them in regards to who owns it. So in other words, hypothetically it could be out there as we have one raft right now, that no one really is claiming ownership of it or at least ownership kind of skips around. Some days it's one person. If someone were hurt on that raft, it becomes a real question as to who would be responsible. Since the City knows that that raft exists, I think we have some liability in there in that we're not doing anything to make sure that it's reasonably safe or insured. Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying then that if you issue a permit you're ' taking on the liability then? Don Ashworth: No, but you would take it, and as a part of that, if this was a private application, insure that that party did have insurance that would cover that type of liability. Mayor Chmiel: Is that so specified in the ordinance? ' Don Ashworth: That is one of the things you can look to, yes. It gives the Council a great deal of flexibility in what you can look at. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Have there been any serious accidents that's prompting this? Don Ashworth: Not that I'm aware of. Again, I think there are some questions as to whether or not the raft at Carver Beach should be public or private but I don't see where that's a germain issue. The main issue is to force someone into going through a permit process and to show that that is a safe raft and that someone in fact is responsible for it. Whether it's public or private. Through the passage of this ordinance, staff would anticipate meeting with the owners of Carver Beach and requiring that a permit be applied for. At this point in time, we would push for public because that is the belief that we believe that the City Council had wanted the thing as of a year ago but if they are adamant and they can show insurance and they can show this and that, we may very well bring back the application as a private one. Councilwoman Dimler: So you can't arbitrarily deny if they meet all the , requirements? Don Ashworth: In a case such as this, I don't know if the riparian issue is going to come about with this raft or not. In other words, they do not have ownership on the lake. They might be making the application to have a raft on a lake where they are not a riparian owner. Rather than getting into second guessing those type of things, I think the basic issue is there is no procedure in place to require anyone to get a permit or to apply for a permit. 49 ' I 11 . 1ty Council Meeting - July 10, 1989 II Councilman Johnson: So theoretically I can apply for a permit to put a raft in II outside of your house if you lived on a lake and I could put it as long as I was within 100 feet of the shore? I could put my raft in your lake? Councilman Boyt: I think we can take care of that. There's a very simple Iadjustment to our existing ordinance. Two adjustments actually, that would bring this in our control. One of than is as staff has indicated to strike swimming raft from Section 6-4 of our ordinances and I would so move. IICouncilman Johnson: Also it needs to come out of the definition of water obstacles where it's excluded as a water obstacle in Section 6.1 direction above there. IICouncilman Boyt: That's a good point. So also in 6-1, strike swimming raft. It's on page 329. ICouncilman Johnson: I'll second that. ICouncilwoman Dimler: Don, does this need a public hearing? Don Ashworth: It requires two hearings. We would propose prior to the second Ireading on this that we would, at least in this case notify the Carver Beach area because as I see it, they're the only ones that are really affected. Councilman Johnson: It doesn't take two hearings, it takes two readings. Two IIreadings. This is the first reading. Don Ashworth: It would be published twice. ICouncilwoman Dimler: Okay, but it does need a public hearing? Don Ashworth: No. ICouncilwoman Dimler: No? IMayor Chmiel: Is this a first reading or is this just an informational? Don Ashworth: This would be proposed as a first reading. If the Council would just as soon have tonight's as a discussion with the idea the first reading II would occur on the 24th and second reading on August 1st. Mayor_ Chmiel: I took this just as an informational because consider requiring Ias it indicates here, permits for rafts. Jim Chaffee: I should point out here that at present our City Ordinance is not Iin conformance with the County Ordinance. The County Ordinance does require permits for rafts. That's according to the water patrol and they have asked that we do conform with their ordinance and water permits. IIMayor Chmiel: I think we should. I don't see that as a real biggee. Any problem. [71 II I 50 - ■ City Council Meeting - { y 10, 1989 Don Ashworth: The item was published. The Council could put it on first reading or you could table action to the 24th. Councilman Boyt: I would encourage us to act on this in terms of a first reading. Otherwise, we just put it on two more agendas instead of one more agenda. Mayor Chmiel: I think I'd be inclined to agree with that. Councilman Boyt: I would propose another change. I guess we haven't voted on this one. I think we need to vote on this as a first reading don't we? Don Ashworth: Yes. Councilman Boyt: So if there a second to that motion? Councilman Johnson: I second that. Councilman Workman: To 6-4? ' Councilman Boyt: 6-i and 6-4. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Johnson: Yes I seconded that. The last part, the last paragraph of 6-1 is definition of water obstacle. It says does not include any dock or t swimming raft or water craft. We want to eliminate or swimming raft so it says water obstacle does not include any dock or water craft. So in effect we're defining a swimming raft as a water obstacle. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the first reading of amending the Beachlot Ordinance to strike "swimming raft" from Section 6-1 and 6-4. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I would propose a second motion. Section 628 which is on Page 333, I'd like to add or I would move that we add item (c) under 628. g Mayor Chmiel: What page is that Bill? Councilman Boyt: That's 333. Councilman Johnson: Or 6-45 on the top. Councilman Boyt: Yes, 6-45 on the top, 333 on the bottom. It talks about swimming rafts again there and we need something that would indicate that rafts must be located. That's where we've got within 100 feet of the high water mark is there. The height of the raft off the water and the size of the raft. We ' need to add, I believe, an item that says that rafts need to be located directly in front of property owned by the permit holder. Councilman Johnson: That can be just a continuation of item (a) right after 100 feet. 51 1 II ' "`"tity Council Meeting - July 1.0, 1989 ( II Councilman Boyt: Either way. IIMayor Chmiel: Roger, can that be done? Roger Knutson: Yes. ICouncilman Johnson: I'll second that. ICouncilman Workman: What does in front of mean? Councilman Boyt: Well, directly in front of would mean perpendicular to the II shoreline I suppose, if that's reasonable. Mayor Chmiel: And adjacent to property lines. I Councilman Boyt: Sure, that's good. The reason I am proposing this, and I don't know that this has happened but I live in fear that somebody comes in and says I want to put my dock 50 feet out from Lori's lake lot. We have under our IIordinance no way of preventing that. Councilman Johnson: Or 50 foot out from our boat access. Right at the end of the boat access. They can put it there. IICouncilman Boyt: So what we're saying here, and this also implies and it's the first reading of this so we may get some public discussion to help modify it but I it implies that the dock in Carver Beach would be publically owned, which I personally think i.s a smart move. I think the dock should be there but we should own it. We should maintain it. But anyway, this protects lake homeowners. II Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend Section 6-45 to Iinclude a phrase that would include wording to the effect that rafts need to be located directly in front of property owned by the permit holder. All voted in favor and the motion carried. IIREVIEW SOUTHERN PARKLAND STUDY. ILori Sietsema: Park and Recreation Commission at a recent meeting reviewed a land study for the parkland in the southern part of Chanhassen that was prepared by Mark Koegler. Mark is here to go over the plan if you'd like him to. IMark Koegler: I'll be fairly brief and then entertain questions that you might have. In August of 1988 the Park and Recreation Commission came up with a set Iof objectives that the City was looking for in a southern park site. It's those objectives that we really have used to review and to judge each of the candidate properties, the four sites that are identified on that map that's on the overhead now. Site A, south of Lyman is about 40 acres in size. The Site B is I the Bandimere piece which depending on which survey you use is between 33 and 35 acres. Site C is about two-thirds of what's known as the Sever Peterson property. It's 80 acres in size. The owner has indicated that the 40 acre [77 IIpiece that kind of doglegs back to the east if you will is one that he would I 52 II