CAS-08_CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 84-8 (2)�-I
10
DAVID L. GRANNIS - 1874-1961
DAv1D L. GRANNis, JR. - 1910-1980
VANCE B. GRANNIS
VANCE B. GRANNIS, JR.
PATRICK A. FARRELL
DAvID L. GRANNIS, III
ROGER N. KNvrsoN
LAw Omcrs
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNuTSON
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
PDsT OmcE Box 57
403 NORWEST BANK BuDDiNG
161 NORTH CONCORD ExcHANGE
SouTH ST. PALIL, MiNNEscrm 55075
TELEPHONE: (612) 455-1661
December 29, 1986
Ms. Karen Engelhardt
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147, 690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: James M. and Sara S. Lacey, et al
v. City of Chanhassen, et al
Court File No. 86-21174
Dear Karen:
TEIEcoEIER:
(612) 455-2359
DAVID L. HARMEYER
M. CECILIA RAY
ELuorr B. KNur"
MICHAEL J. MAYER
Enclosed for the City's files please find original Settlement
Agreement and Release and a photocopy of Stipulation of Dismissal,
the original of which has been filed with the Court.
0
GR NNIS' GR IS, AR ELL
KNU P.A.
B J.
,AoqRf N. son
FINK:srn
Enclosures
cc: Sandra Agvald
DEC � 0 1986
'11 Y OF CHANHASSEN
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE, made and entered into
this 16th day of June, 1986, by and between, LOTUS LAKE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, JAMES M. and SARA S. LACEY, ROGER L. and DORIS KAY FRICK,
GARY A. and BRENDA A. WELCH, RAYMOND and WIL SCHUYT, PATRICK E. and
MARILYN D. McMAHON, ROBERT A. and VIVIAN M. ELMGREN, ROGER H. and
BECKY BERRY, STEPHEN C. and LOIS E. BUCHANAN, J. MICHAEL and L. SUSAN
HENDERSON, and GERALD D. and CANDICE L. CRANDALL ("Releasors"), and
THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a municipal corporation; and THOMAS HAMILTON,
CLARK HORN, PATRICIA SWENSON, DALE GEVING, and CAROL WATSON ("City").
WHEREAS, a dispute has arisen as to the legality of the Recre-
ational Beach Lot provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance and certain
conditions imposed on the Lotus Lake Estates Recreational Beach Lot
on Outlot B, the Lake Estates ("Outlot B"); and
WHEREAS, Releasors (except the Lotus Lake Estate Homeowners
Association which is not a party) have commenced a lawsuit against
the City in the Carver County District Court, First Judicial District
of the State of Minnesota, such case being File No. 86-211740 entitled
James M. and Sara S. Lacey, et al v. City of Chanhassen, et al; and
WHEREAS, the City has decided to consider certain amendmentfil
to its Zoning and Surface Water Usage Ordinances in the form attached
hereto as Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, Releasors are willing to dismiss their suit and release
the City from all claims if the City adopts the proposed ordinance
amendments and issues an amended conditional use permit consistent
with the proposed ordinance amendments and this agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained
herein, the undersigned parties hereby agree as follows:
r07/22/86
1. City will consider and act upon the proposed ordinance amendments
attached as Exhibit "A", and on amendments to the conditional
use permit for Outlot B, on July 21, 1986.
2. If, on July 21, 1986, the City enacts the proposed ordinance amend-
ments in the form attached as Exhibit "A", and approves an amendment
to the conditional use permit for Outlot B which: (a) allows a
total of 3 docks to be constructed on Outlot B; and (b) allows
overnight storage at these docks of a total of 9 watercraft without
restrictions as to whether the watercraft are motorized or non -
motorized;
Then, the parties further agree as follows:
A. The above -entitled lawsuit shall be dismissed with prejudice
and without the payment of costs incurred by either party
to the other, and the parties hereto hereby authorize their
respective attorneys to execute on their behalf a written
Stipulation of Dismissal to that effect for filing with the
said Court.
B. The parties release each other from any and all obligations,
actions, suits, claims, damages, judgments, and execution
and any other matter or act regarding the Lotus Lake Estates
Recreational Beach Lot and any review, action, or inaction
by them in connection with it.
C. The parties stipulate and agree that the ordinance amendments
contained in Exhibit "A" and the amended conditional use permit
provide for reasonable use of Outlot B and are in every respect
legal and constitutional. The Releasors waive any and all
objection and possible challenges to the ordinance amendments
and the amended conditional use permit that they may now have
or may have in the future.
3. If the City Council does not pass the ordinance amendments and
approve the amended conditional use permit as provided in this
agreement on July 21, 1986, the above referenced suit shall proceed
to trial.
4. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute an admission by either
party of the allegations or liabilities asserted in connection
with the above -referenced lawsuit. Each of the parties hereby
represents and warrants to the other that there has been no assignment
of any right, claim, or cause of action encompassed by this Agreement
to any individual, corporation, or any legal entity whatsoever
other than the parties to this Agreement, and that this release
has been duly executed by each of the parties without promises
or threats or the exertion of influence by or upon the other,
and that each party fully understands the legal and practical
effects of this document. This Agreement may not be changed orally.
5. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all
of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
-2-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Releasors and the City have executed and
delivered this Settlement Agreement and Release as of the date first
above written.
LOTUS LAKE ESTATE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCI�ATION
F-M
u
IIts / <.<.L` lv-%41
, HgFFMAN,l DtkLY &
Attorneys for Releasors
1500 Northwestern Financial
Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55431
P.A.
Attorneys for the City
403 Norwest Bank Building
161 North Concord Exchange
South St. Paul, MN 55075
Attorney I.D. No. 57186
-3-
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.04
OF ORDINANCE NO. 73 RELATING TO THE
r SURFACE WATERS AND ADJOINING SHORE
The City Council ordains:
to read:
Section 1. Section 3.04 of Ordinance No. 73 is amended
Except for privately owned commercial resorts or commercial
boat landings established prior to the adoption of this
ordinance, 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, and
in addition up to one sail boat and sail boat mooring.
Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats
may also be stored on land overnight. Overnight docking,
mooring, and storage is further restricted to watercraft
owned by the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of the
lakeshore site home to which the dock, storage, or mooring
site is an accessory use.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immedi-
ately upon its passing and publication.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this
21st day of July, 1986.
ATTEST:
City Clerk/Manager
1=)15
Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 6.04
7.04, 14.04 OF THE CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE
THE CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 6.04, subparagraph 10 of Ordinance 47,
the Zoning Ordinance, is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
Recreational beach lots provided the following minimum standards
are met in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed
in the permit:
A. Recreational beach lots shall have at least 200 feet of
lake frontage.
B. No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house,
camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle or shelter
shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beach lot.
C. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited
to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini -bike, all -terrain
vehicle or snowmobile shall be driven upon or parked upon
any recreational beach lot.
D. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight
camping.
E. Boat launches are prohibited.
F. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of
overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three
(3) motorized or non -motorized watercraft per dock. If
a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered.
Up to three (3) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed.
Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats
may be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot
if they are stored on racks specifically designed for
that purpose. No more than one (1) rack shall be allowed
per dock. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored
on a rack. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is
permissible at any time other than overnight.
G. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot
unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the
lot has at least a 100 foot depth. No more than one dock
may be erected on a recreational beach lot for every 200
feet of lake frontage. In addition, 30,000 square feet
of land is required for the first dock and an additional
20,000 square feet is required for each additional dock.
No more than three (3) docks, however, shall be erected
on a recreational beach lot.
H. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet
in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of
the following lengths: (a) fifty (50) feet or, (b) the
minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water
depth of four (4) feet. 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 length.
I. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided,
however, that the owners of any two abutting lakeshore
sites may erect one common dock within the dock set -back
zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the
common dock is the only dock on the two lakeshore sites
and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions
of this ordinance.
J. No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational
beach lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage.
No more than one sail boat mooring shall be allowed for
every 200 feet of lake frontage.
K. At least eighty percent (80%) of the dwelling units, which
have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational
beach lot, shall be located within at least one thousand
(1,000) feet of the recreational beach lot.
L. All recreational beach lots, including any recreational
beach lots established prior to the effective date of
this ordinance may be used for swimming beach purposes,
but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with
marker buoys which conform to United States Coast Guard
standards.
M. Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured
both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point one
hundred (100) feet landward from the ordinary high water
mark, of not less than four (4) lineal feet for each dwelling
unit which has appurtenant rights of access to the recre-
ational beach lot accruing to the owners or occupants
of that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowner
association or residential housing developers.
N. Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft,
where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the
owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have
appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach
lot.
-2-
9
O. The placement of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks,
and other structures shall be indicated on a site plan
approved by the City Council.
SECTION 2. Section 7.04, subparagraph 9 of Ordinance 47,
the Zoning Ordinance, is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
Recreational beach lots provided the following minimum standards
are met in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed
in the permit:
A. Recreational beach lots shall have at least 200 feet of
lake frontage.
B. No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house,
camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle or shelter
shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beach lot.
C. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited
to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini -bike, all -terrain
vehicle or snowmobile shall be driven upon or parked upon
any recreational beach lot.
D. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight
camping.
E. Boat launches are prohibited.
F. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of
overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three
(3) motorized or non -motorized watercraft per dock. If
a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered.
Up to three (3) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed.
Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats
may be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot
if they are stored on racks specifically designed for
that purpose. No more than one (1) rack shall be allowed
per dock. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored
on a rack. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is
permissible at any time other than overnight.
G. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot
unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the
lot has at least a 100 foot depth. No more than one dock
may be erected on a recreational beach lot for every 200
feet of lake frontage. In addition, 30,000 square feet
of land is required for the first dock and an additional
20,000 square feet is required for each additional dock.
No more than three (3) docks, however, shall be erected
on a recreational beach lot.
H. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet
in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of
MI!
the following lengths: (a) fifty (50) feet or, (b) the
minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water
depth of four (4) feet. 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 length.
I. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided,
however, that the owners of any two abutting lakeshore
sites may erect one common dock within the dock set -back
zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the
common dock is the only dock on the two lakeshore sites
and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions
of this ordinance.
J. No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational
beach lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage.
No more than one sail boat mooring shall be allowed for
every 200 feet of lake frontage.
K. At least eighty percent (80%) of the dwelling units, which
have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational
beach lot, shall be located within at least one thousand
(1,000) feet of the recreational beach lot.
L. All recreational beach lots, including any recreational
beach lots established prior to the effective date of
this ordinance may be used for swimming beach purposes,
but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with
marker buoys which conform to United States Coast Guard
standards.
M. Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured
both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point one
hundred (100) feet landward from the ordinary high water
mark, of not less than four (4) lineal feet for each dwelling
unit which has appurtenant rights of access to the recre-
ational beach lot accruing to the owners or occupants
of that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowner
association or residential housing developers.
N. Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft,
where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the
owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have
appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach
lot.
0. The placement of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks,
and other structures shall be indicated on a site plan
approved by the City Council.
SECTION 3. Section 14.04, subparagraph 2 of Ordinance 47,
the Zoning Ordinance, is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
-4-
Recreational beach lots provided the following minimum standards
are met in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed
in the permit:
A. Recreational beach lots shall have at least 200 feet of
lake frontage.
B. No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house,
camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle or shelter
shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beach lot.
C. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited
to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini -bike, all -terrain
vehicle or snowmobile shall be driven upon or parked upon
any recreational beach lot.
D. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight
camping.
E. Boat launches are prohibited.
F. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of
overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three
(3) motorized or non -motorized watercraft per dock. If
a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered.
Up to three (3) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed.
Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats
may be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot
if they are stored on racks specifically designed for
that purpose. No more than one (1) rack shall be allowed
per dock. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored
on a rack. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is
permissible at any time other than overnight.
G. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot
unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the
lot has at least a 100 foot depth. No more than one dock
may be erected on a recreational beach lot for every 200
feet of lake frontage. In addition, 30,000 square feet
of land is required for the first dock and an additional
20,000 square feet is required for each additional dock.
No more than three (3) docks, however, shall be erected
on a recreational beach lot.
H. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet
in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of
the following lengths: (a) fifty (50) feet or, (b) the
minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water
depth of four (4) feet. 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 length.
-5-
I. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided,
however, that the owners of any two abutting lakeshore
sites may erect one common dock within the dock set -back
zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the
common dock is the only dock on the two lakeshore sites
and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions
of this ordinance.
J. No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational
beach lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage.
No more than one sail boat mooring shall be allowed for
every 200 feet of lake frontage.
K. At least eighty percent (80%) of the dwelling units, which
have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational
beach lot, shall be located within at least one thousand
(1,000) feet of the recreational beach lot.
L. All recreational beach lots, including any recreational
beach lots established prior to the effective date of
this ordinance may be used for swimming beach purposes,
but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with
marker buoys which conform to United States Coast Guard
standards.
M. Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured
both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point one
hundred (100) feet landward from the ordinary high water
mark, of not less than four (4) lineal feet for each dwelling
unit which has appurtenant rights of access to the recre-
ational beach lot accruing to the owners or occupants
of that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowner
association or residential housing developers.
N. Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft,
where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the
owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have
appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach
lot.
0. The placement of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks,
and other structures shall be indicated on a site plan
approved by the City Council.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately
after its passage and publication.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 21st
day of July, 1986.
ATTEST:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor
City Clerk/Manager
-6-
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF CARVER
James M. and Sara S. Lacey,
Roger L. and Doris Kay Frick,
Gary A. and Brenda A. Welch,
Raymond and Wil Schuyt,
Patrick A. and Marilyn D.
McMahon, Robert A. and
Vivian M. Elmgren, Roger H.
and Becky Berry, Stephen C.
and Lois E. Buchanan,
J. Michael and L. Susan
Henderson, and Gerald D. and
Candice L. Crandall,
Petitioners and
Plaintiffs,
V.
City of Chanhassen, a municipal
corporation, and Thomas Hamilton,
Clark Horn, Patricia Swenson,
Dale Geving and Carol Watson,
Respondents and
Defendants.
DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Court File No. 86-21174
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
WITH PREJUDICE
The above -entitled action, having been fully compromised
and settled, it is hereby stipulated by and between the parties
thereto, by and through their respective undersigned attorneys,
that the same may be, and it hereby is, dismissed on its merits
with prejudice, but without costs to either party, and that the
Clerk of said Court, upon the filing of this Stipulation, is hereby
authorized and directed to dismiss said action of record.
Dated: Z 3 1986.
LOTUS LAKE ESTATE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION �Q
BY: //t
O/L - p� r ��cC�/ om
Its L.
LARKIN, , N, DALY S
LINDG E , TD.
BY:
PETER.TBECK
Attorneys fo Petitioners
1500 Northwestern Financial
Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Rio^minnton. MN 55431
3
kNNIS,/ FpRRELL
, PIA. I
Attorneys for the City
403 Norwest Bank Building
161 North Concord Exchange
South St. Paul, M 55075
Attorney I.D. No. 57186
-2-
`J
0
DAvID L. GRANNIS - 1874-1961
DAvm L. GRANNa, JR. - 1910-1980
VANCE B. GRANNIS
VANCE B. GRANNIS. JR.
PATRICK A. FARRELL
DAvID L. GRANNIS, III
ROGER N. KNUTSON
LAW OFFICFs
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
POST OFFICE BOX 57
403 NOAWEST BANK BUILDING
161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE
SOUTH ST. PAM MINNESOTA 55075
TELEPHONE:(612) 455-1661
October 27, 1986
Mr. James Lacey
121 Choctaw
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Mr. Lacey:
TELECOeIER:
(612) 455-2359
DAvID L. HARMEYEB
M. CECILIA RAY
EHIOTT B. KNETSCH
Enclosed please find Restated Conditional Use Permit and
Agreement between Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association
and the City of Chanhassen. Please have the permit signed by
the Association, notarized, and returned to me. I will then
see that it is signed by the City.
RNK:srn
Encl7arb
cc:Dacy
Very truly yours,
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL
S KNUTSON, P.A.
BY:
Roger N. Knutson
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECF_'IV ED
... ) ,I loci
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RESTATED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BEACHLOT - LOTUS LAKE ESTATES
This restated conditional use permit and agreement made
and entered into this 7th day of July, 1986, by Lotus Lake
Estates Homeowners Association (hereinafter the "Association"),
and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation
(hereinafter referred to as the "City");
WITNESSETH: That the City, in exercise of its powers
pursuant to M.S. §462.357, and other applicable state law, and
§14 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, hereby grants to the
Association herein a restated conditional use permit to maintain
and operate a private neighborhood association recreational area
upon Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, Carver County, Minnesota
(hereinafter the "Subject Property"), subject to the following
terms and conditions, all of which shall be strictly complied
with as being necessary for the protection of the public
interest.
SECTION 1. RECITALS.
1.01. Prior Platting of Lotus Lake Estates. BT Land
Company (hereinafter "BT") has previously platted tract of land
in the City as Lotus Lake Estates, consisting of 44 residential
lots and 3 outlots.
1.02. Outlot B. in connection with the platting of said
Lotus Lake Estates, BT entered into a development contract with
the City of Chanhassen, dated January 5, 1979, wherein BT agreed
to organize a homeowners association for the purpose of owning
and operating the Subject Property for the benefit of the owners
of properties lying within said plat. Section 28 of said develop-
ment contract provided that BT suffer no alterations of the
Subject Property except after first having obtained a permit from
the City setting forth a plan for the alteration and development
of the Subject Property.
Said Section 28 also provides that, for purposes of
said development contract, said permit would be deemed to be a
conditional use permit and that the application process and pro-
cedure would be as set forth in Section 23 of the Chanhassen
Zoning Ordinance, which sets forth the application procedure for
actual conditional use permits.
1.03. Homeowners Association. BT incorporated the
Association for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining certain
common properties including the Subject Property for the benefit
of the owners of lots in the plat of Lotus Lake Estates.
1.04. March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit. Upon appli-
cation of BT, the Chanhassen City Council on July 21, 1980,
approved the issuance of a permit for the alteration of the
Subject Property. Said permit, entitled "Conditional Use Permit
Beachlot - Lotus Lake Estates", was executed by BT and the
Association on March 10, 1981.
1.05. June 1'
1981 Application for Amendment of Permit.
On June 1, 1981, the Association, with the knowledge and consent
of BT, filed with the City an application for amendment of the
March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit, requesting City approval
of further development of the Subject Property.
1.06. City Council Approval. On August 12, 1981, the
City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on said June 1,
1981, application and approved issuance of a revised permit
authorizing further development of the Subject Property.
1.07. April 22, 1982 Conditional Use Permit. The above
described March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit was superceded by
the Conditional Use Permit executed on April 22, 1982.
1.08. July 18, 1984 Application for Amendment of Permit.
On July 18, 1984, the Association filed with the City an appli-
cation for amendment of the Restated Conditional Use Permit
requesting City approval of further development of the Subject
Property.
1.09. City Council Approval. On August 8, 1984, the
City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on said July 18,
1984 application. On August 200 1984, the City's Board of
Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing and approved a
variance to allow four sailboat moorings. The City Council, by
its motion of November 19, 1984, approved issuance of a revised
permit authorizing the installation of said moorings.
1.10. May, 1986 Application for Amendment of Permit. The
City of Chanhassen initiated a Conditional Use Permit Amendment
application requesting further development of the Subject
Property.
1.11. City Council Approval. On May 28, 1986, the City's
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment appli-
cation. On July 7, 1986, the City Council approved the issuance
of a revised permit authorizing further development of the
Subject Property.
SECTION 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
2.01. Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal
to the Association, and is not assignable or transferable, except
upon the written consent of the City.
-2-
2.02. Rights Under This Permit Not Expandable to Other
Owners. This permit is issued for the benefit of the owners of
the 44 lots in Lotus Lake Estates. The Association agrees that
the use and enjoyment of the Subject Property shall be limited to
the owners of lots in Lotus Lake Estates. The use and enjoyment
of the Subject Property may not extend to persons other than such
owners. The term "owners" as utilized in this §2.02 shall mean
and refer to any natural person who is either (a) the record
owner of fee simple interest, or (b) the recorder owner of a
contract for deed vendee's interest, or (c) the holder of any
possessory leasehold interest, in the whole of any lot in Lotus
Lake Estates, including authorized guests and family members of
any such persons.
2.03. Description of Property Subject To This Permit.
The premises subject to the within conditional use permit are
described as follows:
Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, according to the map
or plat thereof on file and of record in the Office
of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County,
Minnesota.
2.04. Certain Site Alterations Authorized. The
Association is hereby authorized to install the following
improvements on the Subject Property:
a. One sand blanket swim area, as shown on the revised
plan, Exhibit A, dated June 25, 1986, said swim area to
be marked with a minimum of three anchored "swim area"
buoys that are in accordance with the Uniform Waterway
Marking System; said buoys to be anchored a reasonable
distance from shore; and
b, a pedestrian walkway connecting Choctaw Circle with the
sand blanket swim area; said walkway to consist of wood
chips installed on a sand base with boardwalk steps on
the steep slope area of the walkway; and
C. four boat racks to be located on land with a storage
capacity of either six canoes or six small sail boats
per rack; and
d. Three docks, not to exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet
in length or that number of lineal feet necessary to
reach a water depth of four (4) feet; at the option of
the Association, the final ten (10) feet of any dock
may consist of a ten foot by ten foot (10' x 101) square
platform; and
e. One ten foot by ten foot swimming raft, to be located in
water having a minimum depth of seven (7) feet, not more
than one hundred (100) feet from the nearest lake shore-
line; said raft shall project a minimum of one (1) foot
but not more than five (5) feet above the lake surface,
and the corner of said raft shall be reflectorized; and
-3-
f. One conversation pit -fire hole, three (3) feet in
diameter with a six (6) foot apron constructed of brick
or masonry material, to be located landward of the walk-
way and no further north than the northerly line of Lot
32, Block 1, Lotus Lake Estates, extended northwesterly;
and
g. Four sailboat moorings, to be located in the manner
depicted on the site plan stamped "Received June 25,
1986".
Except as provided in this permit, no portion of the
Subject Property may be developed, altered, or disturbed in any way.
').05. Trees. In carrying out the above described altera-
tions -,the Association agrees to use every effort to keep tree
loss at an absolute minimum.
2.06. Reserved.
2.07. Erosion Control. The Association, at its expense,
shall provide temporary dams, earthwork or such other devices and
practices, including seeding of graded areas, as shall be needed,
in the judgement of the City Engineers, to prevent the washing,
flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and roads within and
outside the Subject Property during all phases of construction.
BT and the Association shall keep all public streets free of all
dirt and debris resulting from construction upon the Subject
Property.
2.08. Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for the
alterations described in Section 2.04 above, no structure, pier,
boat rack, mooring buoy, or swimming platform shall be
constructed, erected, or maintained on the Subject Property or in
the waters abutting the Subject Property.
2.09. Camping Prohibited. No owner, as defined in
Section 2.02 hereinabove, or other person shall camp overnight on
the Subject Property.
2.10. Motor Vehicle Parking and Boat Storage. No
watercraft shall be parked or stored overnight or on a permanent
basis on the Subject Property, except as follows:
a. not more than twenty-four canoes or small sail boats may
be so stored overnight in the four boat racks described
in Section 2.04 of this permit; and
b. not more than nine boats, motorized or non -motorized,
may be docked overnight at the docks described in Section
2.04 of this permit.
C. not more than four sailboats at the mooring described
in Section 2.04(g) of this permit.
-4-
Except for construction equipment necessary for the exe-
cution of the plan and as necessary for the maintenance of the
Subject Property, no motor vehicle shall be driven upon or parked
upon the Subject Property.
No boat trailer shall be allowed upon the Subject
Property. Nothing in the preceding three sentences shall be
deemed to prohibit the launching of any watercraft from the
Subject Property if accomplished without the assistance of any
motor vehicle or trailer or wheeled dolly upon the Subject
Property.
SECTION 3. MUNICIPAL DISCLAIMERS.
3.01. No Liability to Suppliers of Labor or Material. It
is understood and agreed that the City, the City Council and the
agents and employees of the City shall not be personally liable
or responsible in any manner to the Association, its contractors,
or subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, or to any other person,
firm or corporation whomsoever, for any debt, claim, demand,
damages, actions or causes of action of any kind or character
arising out of or by reason of the execution of this permit and
agreement or the performance and completion of the work and
improvements hereunder and the Association will save the City,
the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City
harmless from any and all claims, damages, demands, actions or
causes of action arising therefrom and the costs, disbursements,
and expenses of defending the same.
3.02. Written Work Orders. The Association shall do no
work nor furnish materials, whether covered or not covered by the
plan, for which reimbursement is expected from the City unless a
written order for such work or materials is received from the
City. Any such work or materials which may be done or furnished
by the Association without such written order first being given
shall be at its own risk, cost and expense, and the Association
hereby agrees that without such written order, it will make no
claim for compensation for work or materials so done or fur-
nished.
SECTION 4.
MISCELLANEOUS.
4.01. Severability. In the event any provisions of this
permit shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any
court or competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invali-
date or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the
remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired
thereby.
4.02. Execution of Counterparts. This permit may be
simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which
shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one
and the same instrument.
-5-
4_03. Headings. Headings at the beginning of sections
and paragraphs hereof are for convenience of reference, and shall
not be considered a part of the text of this contract, and shall
not influence its construction.
4.04. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Association
shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City
that it has acquired fee title to the Subject Property.
4.05. Notices. All notices, certificates and other com-
munications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be
deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, with property address as indicated
below. The City and the Association, by written notice given by
one to the other, may designate any address or addresses, to
which notices, certificates or other communications to them shall
be sent when required as contemplated by this permit. Unless
otherwise provided by the respective parties, all notices, cer-
tificates, and communications to each of them shall be addressed
as follows:
To the City: City of Chanhassen
City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn: City Manger
To the Association: Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Assoc.
Attn: President
P.O. Box 63
Chanhassen, MN 55317
4.06. Owners to be Notified of This Permit. The
Association shall furnish each owner, as that term is defined in
Section 2.02 above, with a copy of this permit within thirty (30)
days of the signing of this permit and shall furnish each future
owner, as that term is defined in Section 2.02 above, with a
copy of this permit, within thirty (30) days of any such owner's
initial occupancy of any residential structure in Lotus Lake
Estates.
4.07. Term of This Permit. This permit shall expire on
July 21, 2010.
SECTION 5. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.
5.01. Reimbursement of Costs. The Association shall
reimbare the City for all costs, including reasonable engi-
neering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by
the City in connection with all matters relating to the admi-
nistration and enforcement of the within permit and the perfor-
mance thereby by the Association. Such reimbursement shall be
made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of the
City's notice of costs as provided in Section 4.05 above.
This reimbursement obligation of the Association under this sec-
tion shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term of this
permit.
5.02. Remedies Uoon Default.
a. Assessments. In the event the Association shall default
in the performance of any of the covenants and
agreements herein contained, and such default shall not
have been cured within ten (10) days after receipt the
Association of written notice thereof, the City, if it
so elects, may cause any of the improvements described
in the plan to be constructed and installed or may take
action to cure such default and may cause the entire
cost thereof, including all reasonable engineering,
legal and administrative expense incurred by the City,
to be recovered as special assessment under M.S. Chapter
429, in which case the Association agrees to pay the
entire amount of the assessment roll pertaining to any
such improvement within thirty (30) days after its adop-
tion. The Association further agrees that in the event
of its failure to pay in full any such special
assessment within the time prescribed herein, the City
shall have a specific lien on the Subject Property for
any amount so unpaid, and the city shall have the right
to foreclose said lien in the manner prescribed for the
foreclosure of mechanic's lien under the laws of the
State of Minnesota. In the event of an emergency, as
determined by the City Engineers, the notice require-
ments to the Association shall be and hereby are waived
in their entirety, and the Association shall reimburse
the City for any expense incurred by the City in
remedying the conditions creating the emergency.
b. Legal Proceedings. In addition to the foregoing, the
City may institute any proper action or proceeding at
law or at equity to prevent violations of the within
property, to restrain or abate violations of the within
permit, or to prevent use or occupancy of the Subject
Property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these
presents to be executed on the day of
LOTUS LAKE ESTATES
ASSOCIATION
By
Its
And
-7-
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Un
Its Mayor
Attest
City Clerk/Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , before me, a notary
public, within and for said county, personally appeared
and , to
me personally know, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that
they are respectively the President an Vice -President of Lotus
Lake Estates Homeowners Association and that said instrument was
signed on behalf of said authority of its Board of Directors, and
said and ,
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said
corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
On this day of , 19 , before me,
a notary public, within and for the county, personally appeared
Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth, to me personally known,
who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respec-
tively the Mayor and the City Manager of the municipal cor-
poration named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal
affixed to said instrument is the municipal corporate seal of
said municipality, and that said instrument was signed and sealed
in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City
Council and said Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said
municipal corporation.
Notary Public
i
M
LOTUS LAKE ESTATES
SITE PLAN FOR OUTLOT B
DOCK
S.WMWG AREA
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT.
SAILBOAT 400RNOB
JANES I. LAR.IM
RO BERT L. NOPPMAN
JACN P. DALT
O. A.NN[tN LINpDRCN
ANDREW W. D NICLSON
WFNOFLL R. ANDFRSON
OFRALD N. ERIEDELL
...... S. WMITLOCR
ALLAN G MOLLIOAN
ROBCRT A NCMMA93ET
RONALD R. ILETCHE"
JAN. c. Ewl Cltsow
EDWARO 1. pA-...LL
ME3 I. M
...F M. EOLL.N
DAVID C. BELLERORCM
RICMARD J. REENAN
JOHN D. IOLLMER
ROBERT C. BOYLE
e 4 NARVCT
RICMARD A. PORSCMLER
CHAARD A. NORDEre
RLES 8. MODCLL
CHRIEtoR.ER J. .1.1
N
RICMARD L OND2
JOHN R. EEATTIE
LINDA M TNER
M. 11....
.NOMAE P
'-0. STOLTMAN
BrevCN D. ..W
MICHAEL D. ACKMM
MICXAEL C JACRMAM
JON I E
JOM 9.EWI EwZEWS.1
I....E. ELVNX
T...E I.OUIHN
ropD I. IRIIEIAAN
eTCIMLN B. 80 LOMOM
October 15, 1986
LABKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET
BLOOMINOTON, MINNESOTA 55631 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE 16121635-3800 TELEPHONE 1612133E-6610
TELECOPIER 1612) 835-S102 TELECOPIER 1612) 336-1002
Mr. Jim Lacey
121 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Conditional Use Permit
Dear Jim:
REPLY TO
Bloomington
ICTER R.....
JEROME N. RAxNRE
SMCRRI...... R...TIC"
OERALO L ....
Tx OMAR B. NUMPMREY, JR.
VID J. PEAT
JOHN 6LONDOIIIST
GREW J. MITCHELL
J.I ACOTT[R-
TMLCCM M. OATES-
B[ATRICE A. BOTH W EILER
IABL S. ALUM. ETI
30EAN R
AM,
A 1.L
MAR. C. DUVA W
TNLE[N M. PICOTTC MCWMAN
MRRT A. ROC.
PETER A CO LE
CATHCRIME BARNCTT WILSON�
BCTTY .NO NIMOSTAR
JC[I`[r G A... R...
L. BOWLC3
JONATHON 0. LANCE
TOO. LAT.OVIc.
nuptxr J. M.uAMus
R LOMOA J. JORON CIM
n I. EDexn
Oj C..... L
TIC IN
WISC... IN
Enclosed is the latest and hopefully final version of the Conditional
Use Permit for the beachlot, along with the cover letter from Barb
Dacy. I have not proofread this copy against the corrections which
you were suggesting. You should do that before signing.
If you are satisfied that the permit is now in the correct form you
should have it executed and you can return it directly to Barb Dacy at
the City. Please call me if you have any questions.
Si erely,
Pe4V K. Beck, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY
PKB:kw:BF2S
Enclosure
& LINDGREN, Ltd.
A
0 •
LAW OFFicEs
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARREL & KNUrSON
DAVID L. GRAmm - 1874-1961
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
TELECOPIER:
DAVID L GRANNm JR. - 1910-1980
(612) 455-2359
Posr DFFICE Box 57
VANCE B. GRANNIS
403 NoAWEsr BANK BUDDING
DAVID L
IL HAAMEYER
M. CuA RAV
M.Ea
VANCE B. GRANNIs, JR.
161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE
ELLIOTT B. KNEISCFi
PATRICK A. FARRELL
DAVID L. GRANNIS, III
SouTH ST. PAuL. M1NNEsorA 55075
ROGER N. KNVIsoN
TELEPHONE: (612) 455-1661
September 22, 1986
Ms. Barbara Dacy, City Planner
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147, 690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Lotus Lakes Estates Conditional Use Permit
Dear Barb:
Enclosed please find your most recent draft of the Conditional
Use Permit for the Lotus Lakes Estates Beachlot which has been
redlined by Peter Beck. I have reviewed the proposed changes
and have no problems with them. You should be aware, however,
that paragraph 4.06 is incomplete. Please see that d
to reflect Mr. Beck's c G. ned notarized and then
n o me. If you have any questions or commen s, p ease ca1T-
RNK:srn
Enclosure
September 23, 1986
Barb:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
"I2�-'9
8F
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT.
Peter Beck phoned Roger with additional changes to the
C.U.P. before I had a chance to get this in the mail. I have listed
these additional changes on the attached sheet.
Sue Nelson
I
1
1) Paragraph 2.04(g) -- Change date of site plan to reflect
new plan.
2) Paragraph 2.10 -- Add subparagraph "c" to read:
C. Not more than four sailboats at the mooring described
in Section 2.04(g) of this permit.
3) Paragraph 4.05 -- Change notice to the Association to read:
Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association
Attention: President
P.O. Box 63
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
4) Page 8 -- Signature line change: "Lotus Lake Homeowners Associ-
ation" to "Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association".
5) Change acknowledgment as per No. 4 above.
da
0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RESTATED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BEACHLOT - LOTUS LAKE ESTATES
This restated conditional use permit and agreement made l�
and entered into this day of , y and
between Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association (hereinafter
the "Association"), and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota muni-
cipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City");
WITNESSETH: That the City, in exercise of its powers
pursuant to M.S. §462.357, and other applicable state law, and
§14 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, hereby grants to BT-,a*d —
the Association herein a restated conditional use permit to main-
tain and operate a private neighborhood association recreational
area upon Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, Carver County, Minnesota
(hereinafter the "Subject Property"), subject to the following
terms and conditions, all of which shall be strictly complied
with as being necessary for the protection of the public
interest.
SECTION 1. RECITALS.
1.01. Prior Platting of Lotus Lake Estates. BT^mv--_ I/ ( )
previously platted a tract of land in the City as Lotus Lake
Estates, consisting of 44 residential lots and 3 outlots.
1.02. Outlot B. In connection with the platting of said
Lotus Lake Estates, BT 4ta4F-entered into a development contract
with the City of Chanhassen, dated January 5, 1979, wherein BT
agreed to organize a homeowners association for the purpose of
owning and operating the Subject Property for the benefit of the
owners of properties lying within said plat. Section 28 of said
development contract gu-r� provides that BT sha 4� suffer no
alterations of the Subject Property except after first having
obtained a permit from the City setting forth a plan for the
alteration and development of the Subject Property.
Said Section 28 also provides that, for purposes of
said development contract, said permit would be deemed to be a
conditional use permit and that the application process and pro-
cedure would be as set forth in Section 23 of the Chanhassen
Zoning Ordinance, which sets forth the application procedure for
actual conditional use permits.
1.03. Homeowners Association. BT incorporated the
Association for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining certain
common properties including the Subject Property for the benefit
of the owners of lots in the plat of Lotus Lake Estates /.J and--€e- —
the
furthe .
1.04. March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit. Upon appli-
cation of BT, the Chanhassen City Council on July 21, 1980,
approved the issuance of a permit for the alteration of the
Subject Property. Said permit, entitled "Conditional Use Permit
Beachlot - Lotus Lake Estates", was executed by BT and the
Association on March 10, 1981.
1.05. June 1, 1981 Application for Amendment of Permit.
On June 1, 1981, the Association, with the knowledge and consent
of BT, filed with the City an application for amendment of the
March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit, requesting City approval
of further development of the Subject Property.
1.06. City Council Approval. On August 12, 1981, the
City's�PlaRninc��ommission held a public hearing on said June 1,
1981Apoved issuance of a revised permit authorizing further
development of the Subject Property.
1.07. April 22, 1982 Conditional Use Permit. The above
described March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit was superceded by
the Conditional Use Permit executed on April 22, 1982.
1.08. July 18, 1984 Application for Amendment of Permit.
On July 18, 1984, the Association filed with the City an appli-
cation for amendment of the Restated Conditional Use Permit
requesting City approval of further development of the Subject
Property.
1.09. City Council Approval. On August 8, 1984, the
City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on said July 18,
1984 application. On August 20, 1984, the City's Board of
Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing and approved a
variance to allow four sailboat moorings. The City Council, by
its motion of November 19, 1984, approved issuance of a revised
permit authorizing the installation of said moorings.
1.10. May, 1986 Application for Amendment of Permit. The
City of Chanhassen initiated a Conditional Use Permit Amendment
application requesting further development of the Subject
Property.
1.11. City Council Approval. On May 28, 1986, the City's
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment appli-
cation. On June 16, 1986, the City Council approved the issuance
of a revised permit authorizing further development of the
Subject Property.
SECTION 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
2.01. Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal
o - " the Association, and is not assignable or trans-
ferable, except upon the written consent of the City.
-2-
2.02. Release of BT. The Ci upon written request,
shall release BT from its obligati s hereunder upon receipt of
documentation which demonstrates (a) the proper incorporation of
the Association pursuant to Chapter 317 of Minnesota Statutes,
and (b) the conveyance of ti a to the Subject Property in fee
simple to the Association ir the benefit of all owners of lots
in Lotus Lake Estates. such release shall be given until such
documentation has Pr.
pproved by the City Attorney as to legal
sufficiency. No slease as to BT shall have the effect of
releasing the Asson from its obligations, covenants, and
agreements hereun
z
2.0 . Rights Under This Permit Not Expandable to Other
Owners. This permit is issued for the benefit of the owners of
the 44 lots in Lotus Lake EstatesAand fer the b___F=t of the
the Association agrees that
the use and enjoyment of the Subject Property shall be limited to
the owners of lots in Lotus Lake Estates. The use and enjoyment
of the Subject Property may not extend to persons other than such
owners. The term "owners" as utilized in this §2.0 shall mean
and refer to any natural person who is either (a) t e record
owner of fee simple interest, or (b) the recorder owner of a
contract for deed vendee's interest, or (c) the holder of any
possessory leasehold interest, in the whole of any lot in Lotus
Lake Estates, including authorized guests and family members of
any such persons.
2.O1f� Description of Property Subject To This Permit.
The premises subject to the within conditional use permit are
described as follows:
Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, according to the map
or plat thereof on file and of record in the Office
of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County,
Minnesota.
2.0 � Certain Site Alterations Authorized. 41p-�the
Association 15 hereby authorized to install the following
improvements on the Subject Property:
a. One sand blanket swim area, as shown on the alteration
plan, City Council Exhibit A, dated July 21, 1980, said
swim area to be marked with a minimum of three anchored
"swim area" buoys that are in accordance with the
Uniform Waterway Marking System; said buoys to be
anchored a reasonable distance from shore; and
b. a_ pedestrian walkway connecting Choctaw Circle with the
sand blanket swim area; said walkway to consist of wood
chips installed on a sand base with boardwalk steps on
the steep slope area of the walkway; and
C. four boat racks to be located on land with a storage
capacity of either six canoes or six small sail boats
per rack; and
-3-
d. 2w0 docks, not to exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet
in length or that number of lineal feet necessary to
reach a water depth of four (4) feet; at the�o�t'ion of
the Association, the final ten (10) feet of - dock
may consist gf a ten foot by ten foot (10' x 101) square
platformAUlddeek shall be =c
Ri t Lotus Lake Estates e{�eIIIIE�A��cY7rvC3c�xxy a cr—'
e. one ten foot by ten foot swimming raft, to be located in
water having a minimum depth of seven (7) feet, not more
than one hundred (100) feet from the nearest lake shore-
line; said raft shall project a minimum of one (1) foot
but not more than five (5) feet above the lake surface,
and the corner of said raft shall be reflectorized; and
f. one conversation pit -fire hole, three (3) feet in
diameter with a six (6) foot apron constructed of brick
or masonry material, to be located landward of the walk-
way and no further north than the northerly line of Lot
32, Block 1, Lotus Lake Estates, extended northwesterly;
and
g. four sailboat moorings, to be located in the manner
depicted on the Eed site plan of the July 18, 1984
application.
Except as provided in this permit, no portion of the
Subject Property may be developed, altered, or disturbed in any
way.
5
2.0 . Trees. In carrying out the above described altera-
tions, the Association -^a a�a h¢agree5 to use every effort to
keep tree loss at an absolute minimum.
b
2.0 Reserved. /
! �S
2.0A: Erosion Control. Beak9- the Association, at t-heir
expense, shall provide temporary dams, earthwork or such other
devices and practices, including seeding of graded areas, as
shall be needed, in the judgement of the City Engineers, to pre-
vent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands
and roads within and outside the Subject Property during all
phases of construction.RT and the Association shall keep all
public streets free of all dirt and debris resulting from err
construction upon the Subject Property.
2.0 . Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for the
alterations described in Section 2.0 above, no structure, pier,
boat rack, mooring buoy, or swimming platform shall be
constructed, erected, or maintained on the Subject Property or in
the waters abutting the Subject Property.
-4-
2.1-0. Camping Prohibited. No owner, as defined in
Section 2.O1Lhereinabove, or other person shall camp overnight on
the Subject Property.
0
2. H. Motor Vehicle Parking and Boat Storage. No
watercraft shall be parked or stored overnight or on a permanent
basis on the Subject Property, except as follows:
a. not more than twenty-four canoes or small sail boats may
be so stored overnight in the four boat racks described
in Section 2.Q,!jof this permit; and
b. not more than nine boats, motorized or non -motorized,
may be docked overnight at the docks described in Section
2.0p`of this permit.
Except for construction equipment necessary for the exe-
cution of BT'-s'plan and as necessary for the maintenance of the
Subject Property, no motor vehicle shall be driven upon or parked
upon the Subject Property.
No boat trailer shall be allowed upon the Subject
Property. Nothing in the preceding three sentences shall be
deemed to prohibit the launching of any watercraft from the
Subject Property if accomplished without the assistance of any
motor vehicle or trailer or wheeled dolly upon the Subject
Property.
SECTION 3. MUNICIPAL DISCLAIMERS.
3.01. No Liability to Suppliers of Labor or Material. It
is understood and agreed that the City, the City Council and the
agents and employees of the City shall not be personally liabl
or responsible in any manner to-Si-&c the Association, k#e-E 14
contractors, or subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, or to any
other person, firm or corporation whomsoever, for any debt,
claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind
or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this
permit and agreement or the performance and completion of the
work and improvements hereunder and the_4V ate the Association
will save the City, the City Council, and the agents and
employees of the City harmless from any and all claims, damages,
demands, actions or causes of action arising therefrom and the
costs, disbursements, and expenses of defending the same.
3.02. Written Work Orders. 4n -art8 the Association shall
do no work nor furnish materials, whether covered or not covered
by $elan, for which reimbursement is expected from the City
unless a written order for such work or materials is received
from the City. Any such work or materials which may be done or
furnished by ZT-e?"the Association without such written order
first being given shall be at its own risk, cost and expense, and
7-BT-and the Association hereby agreo that without such written
order, t{tey twill make no claim for compensation for work or
materials so done or furnished.
-5-
SECTION 4. MISCELLANEOUS.
4.01. Severability. In the event any provisions of this
permit shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any
court or competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invali-
date or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the
remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired
thereby.
4.02. Execution of Counterparts. This permit may be
simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which
shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one
and the same instrument.
4.03. Headings. Headings at the beginning of sections
and paragraphs hereof are for convenience of reference, and shall
not be considered a part of the text of this contract, and shall
not influence its construction.
4.04. Proof of Title. Upon request, the
Association shall furn sh the City with evidence satisfactory to
the City that they.*avebquired fee title to the Subject
Property/ ion
this permit_
4.05. Notices. All notices, certificates and other com-
munications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be
deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, with property address as indicated
below. The City aad-4VF`and the Association, by written notice
given by one to the other, may designate any address or
addresses, to which notices, certificates or other communications
to them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this
permit. Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties, all
notices, certificates, and communications to each of them shall
be addressed as follows:
To the City: City of Chanhassen
City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn: City Manger
To the Association: Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Assoc.
c/o S'-\ Lcic_11,y
12J Choctaw Circle I
Chanhassen, MN
4.06. Owners to be Notified of This Permit. The
Association shall furnish each owner, as that term is defined in
Section 2.0�"above, with a copy of this permit within thirty (30) ?
days of the signing of this permit and shall furnish each future
SECTION 5
ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.
5.01. Reimbursement of Costs. 1T-aird' the Association
shall reimbure the City for all costs, including reasonable engi-
neering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by
the City in connection with all matters relating to the
administration and enforcement of the within permit and the per-
formance thereby by n'" a4� the Association. Such reimbursement
shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of
the City's notice of costs as provided in Section 4.05 above.
This reimbursement obligation of a4 -a 4 the Association under
this section shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term
of this permit.
5.02. Remedies Upon Default.
a. Assessments. In the event eithp —AT or7the Association
shall default in the performance of any of the covenants
and agreements herein contained, and such default shall
not have been cured within ten (10) days after receipt
by BT-and the Association of written notice thereof, the
City, if it so a cts, may cause any of the improvements
described in lan to be constructed and installed
or may take action to cure such default and may cause
the entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engi-
neering, legal and administrative expense incurred by
the City, to be recovered as special assessment under
M.S. Chapter 429, in which case BTU aad-the Association
agree to pay the entire amount of the assessment roll
pertaining to any such improvement within thirty (30)
days after its adoption. BT an the Association further
agreejthat in the event of its failure to pay in full
any such special assessment within the time prescribed
herein, the City shall have a specific lien on the
Subject Property for any amount so unpaid, and the city
shall have the right to foreclose said lien in the
manner prescribed for the foreclosure of mechanic's lien
under the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event
of an emergency, as determined by the City Engineers,
the notice requirements to BT and the Association shall
be and hereby are waived in their entirety, and BT--and
the Association shall reimburse the City for any expense
incurred by the City in remedying the conditions
creating the emergency.
b. Legal Proceedings. In addition to the foregoing, the
City may institute any proper action or proceeding at
law or at equity to prevent violations of the within
property, to restrain or abate violations of the within
permit, or to prevent use or occupancy of the Subject
Property.
-7-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these
presents to be executed on the day of
LOTUS LAKE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
M
-73
And
Its
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By
Its Mayor
Attest
City Clerk/Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
COUNTY )
On this day of , before me, a notary
public, within and for said county, personally appeared
and , to
me personally know, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectibely the President an Vice -President of aria (a b5"/
UV'e_
-7Cammp,anp-, and that said instrument was signed d n behalf of said t4tv_xb
y authority of its Board of Directors, and said
v�
and ,
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said
corporation.
Notary Public
2-M
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
On this day of , 19 , before me,
a notary public, within and for the county, personally appeared
Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth, to me personally known,
who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respec-
tively the Mayor and the City Manager of the municipal cor-
poration named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal
affixed to said instrument is the municipal corporate seal of
said municipality, and that said instrument was signed and sealed
in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City
Council and said Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said
municipal corporation.
Notary
or
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RESTATED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BEACHLOT - LOTUS LAKE ESTATES
This restated conditional use permit and agreement made
and entered into this �— day of _!�r ��Rs , by and
between B-T Land Company (hereinafter "BT"), and Lotus Lake
Estates Homeowners Association (hereinafter the "Association"),
and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation
(hereinafter referred to as the "City");
WITNESSETH: That the City, in exercise of its powers
pursuant to M.S. §462.357, and other applicable state law, and
§14 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, hereby grants to BT and
the Association herein a restated conditional use permit to main-
tain and operate a private neighborhood association recreational
area upon Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, Carver County, Minnesota
(hereinafter the "Subject Property"), subject to the following
terms and conditions,_all of which shall be strictly complied
with as being necessary for the protection of the public
interest.
SECTION 1. RECITALS.
1.01. _Prior Platting of Lotus Lake Estates. BT has pre-
viously platted a tract of land in the City as Lotus Lake
Estates, consisting of 44 residential lots and 3 outlots.
1.02. Outlot B. In connection with the platting of said
Lotus Lake Estates, BT has entered into a development contract
with the City of Chanhassen, dated January 5, 1979, wherein BT
agreed to organize a homeowners association for the purpose of
owning and operating the Subject Property for the benefit of the
owners of properties lying within said plat. Section 28 of said
development contract further provides that BT shall suffer no
alterations of the Subject Property except after first having
obtained a permit from the City setting forth a plan for the
alteration and development of the Subject Property.
Said Section 28 also provides that, for purposes of
said development contract, said permit would be deemed to be a
conditional use permit and that the application process and pro-
cedure would be as set forth in Section 2.3 of the Chanhassen
Zoning Ordinance, which sets forth the application procedure for
actual conditional use permits.
1.03. Homeowners Association. BT incorporated the
Association for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining certain
common properties including the Subject Property for the benefit
of the owners of lots in the plat of Lotus Lake Estates, and for
the benefit of the owners of any lots platted in the future by a
further subdivision of Outlot C, Lotus Lake Estates.
A0 A04#19 z
1.04. March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit. Upon appli-
cation of BT, the Chanhassen City Council on July 21, 1980,
approved the issuance of a permit for the alteration of the
Subject Property. Said permit, entitled "Conditional Use Permit
Beachlot - Lotus Lake Estates", was executed by BT and the
Association on March 10, 1981.
1.05. June 1, 1981 Application for Amendment of Permit.
On June 1, 1981, the Association, with the knowledge and consent
of BT, filed with the City an application for amendment of the
March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit, requesting City approval
of further development of the Subject Property.
1.06. City Council Approval. On August 12, 1981, the
City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on said June 1,
1981, approved issuance of a revised permit authorizing further
development of the Subject Property.
1.07. April 22, 1982 Conditional Use Permit. The above
described March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit was superseded by
the Conditional Use Permit executed on April 22, 1982.
1.08. July 18, 1984 Application for Amendment of Permit.
On July 18, 1984, the Association filed with the City an appli-
cation for amendment of the Restated Conditional Use Permit
requesting City approval of further development of the Subject
Property.
1.09. City Council Approval. On August 8, 1984, the
City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on said July 18,
1984 application. On August 20, 1984, the City's Board of
Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing and approved a
variance to allow four sailboat moorings. The City Council, by
its motion of November 19, 1984, approved issuance of a revised
permit authorizing the installation of said moorings.
SECTION 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
2.01. Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal
to BT and to the Association, and is not assignable or trans-
ferable, except upon the written consent of the City.
2.02. Release of BT. The City, upon written request,
shall release BT from its obligations hereunder upon receipt of
documentation which demonstrates (a) the proper incorporation of
the Association pursuant to Chapter 317 of Minnesota Statutes,
and (b) the conveyance of title to the Subject Property in fee
simple to the Association for the benefit of all owners of lots
in Lotus Lake Estates. No such release shall be given until such
documentation has been approved by the City Attorney as to legal
sufficiency. No such release as to BT shall have the effect of
releasing the Association from its obligations, covenants, and
agreements hereunder.
-2-
U
2.03. Riahts Under This Permit Not Expandable to Other
Owners. This permit is issued for the benefit of the owners of
the 44 lots in Lotus Lake Estates and for the benefit of the
owners of any lots platted in the future by a subdivision of
Outlot C, Lotus Lake Estates. BT and the Association agree that
the use and enjoyment of the Subject Property shall be limited to
the owners of lots in Lotus Lake Estates. The use and.enjoyment
of the Subject Property may not extend to persons other than such
owners. The term "owners" as utilized in this §2.03 shall mean
and refer to any natural person who is either (a) the record
owner of fee simple interest, or (b) the recorder owner of a
contract for deed vendee's interest, or (c) the holder of any
possessory leasehold interest, in the whole of any lot in Lotus
Lake Estates, including authorized guests and family members of
any such persons.
2.04. Description of Property Subject To This Permit.
The premises subject to the within conditional use permit are
described as follows:
Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, according to the map
or plat thereof on file and of record the Office
of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County,
Minnesota.
2.05. Certain Site Alterations Authorized. BT and the
Association are hereby authorized to install the following
improvements on the Subject Property:
a. One sand blanket swim area, as shown on the alteration
plan, City Council Exhibit A, dated July 21, 1980, said
swim area to be marked with a minimum of three anchored
"swim area" buoys that are in accordance with the
Uniform Waterway Marking System; said buoys to be
anchored a reasonable distance from shore; and
b. a pedestrian walkway connecting Choctaw Circle with the
sand blanket swim area; said walkway to consist of wood
chips installed on a sand base with boardwalk steps on
the steep slope area of the walkway; and
C. four boat racks to be located on land with a storage
capacity of either six canoes or six small sail boats
per rack; and
d. one dock, not to exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet
in length or that number of lineal feet necessary to
reach a water depth of four (4) feet; at the option of
the Association, the final ten (10) feet of said dock
may consist of a ten foot by ten foot (10, x 10') square
platform; said dock shall be located on that portion of
the shoreline of the Subject Property which lies between
the northerly line and the southerly line of Lot 34,
Block 1, Lotus Lake Estates, extended northwesterly; and
ism
or of I
e. one ten foot by ten foot swimming raft, to be located in
water having a minimum depth of seven (7) feet, not more
than one hundred (100) feet from the nearest lake shore-
line; said raft shall project a minimum of one (1) foot
but not more than five (5) feet above the lake surface,
and the corner of said raft shall be reflectorized; and
f. one conversation pit -fire hole, three (3) feet in
diameter with a six (6) foot apron constructed of brick
or masonry material, to be located landward of the walk-
way and no further north than the northerly line of Lot
32, Block 1, Lotus Lake Estates, extended northwesterly;
and
g. four sailboat moorings, to be located in the manner
depicted on the submitted site plan of the July 18, 1984
application.
Except as provided in this permit, no portion of the
Subject Property may be developed, altered, or disturbed in any
way.
2.06. Trees. In carrying out the above described altera-
tions, the Association and BT each agree to use every effort to
keep tree loss at an absolute minimum.
2.07. Reserved.
2.08. Erosion Control. BT and the Association, at their
expense, shall provide temporary dams, earthwork or such other
devices and practices, including seeding of graded areas, as
shall be needed, in the judgement of the City Engineers, to pre-
vent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands
and roads within and outside the Subject Property during all
phases of construction. BT and the Association shall keep all
public streets free of all dirt and debris resulting from their
construction upon the Subject Property.
2.09. Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for the
alterations described in Section 2.05 above, no structure, pier,
boat rack, mooring buoy, or swimming platform shall be
constructed, erected, or maintained on the Subject Property or in
the waters abutting the Subject Property.
2.10. Camping Prohibited. No owner, as defined in
Section 2.03 hereinabove, or other person shall camp overnight on
the Subject Property.
2.11. Motor Vehicle Parking and Boat Storage. No
watercraft shall be parked or stored overnight or on a permanent
basis on the Subject Property, except as follows:
a. not more than twenty-four canoes or small sail boats may
be so stored overnight in the four boat racks described
in Section 2.05 of this permit; and
-4-
# 0
b. not more than four non -motorized boats, not to exceed
sixteen feet in length, may be docked overnight at the
dock described in Section 2.05 of this permit.
Except for construction equipment necessary for the exe-
cution of BT's plan and as necessary for the maintenance of the
Subject Property, no motor vehicle shall be driven upon or parked
upon the Subject Property.
No boat trailer shall be allowed upon the Subject
Property. Nothing in the preceding three sentences shall be
deemed to prohibit the launching of any watercraft from the
Subject Property if accomplished without the assistance of any
motor vehicle or trailer or wheeled dolly upon the Subject
Property.
SECTION 3. MUNICIPAL DISCLAIMERS.
3.01. No Liability to Suppliers of Labor or Material. It
is understood and agreed that the City, the City Council and the
agents and employees of the City shall not be person-Ily liable
or responsible in any manner to BT or the Association, their
contractors, or subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, or to any
other person, firm or corporation whomsoever, for any debt,
claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind
or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this
permit and agreement or the performance and completion of the
work and improvements hereunder and the BT and the Association
will save the City, the City Council, and the agents and
employees of the City harmless from any and all claims, damages,
demands, actions or causes of action arising therefrom and the
costs, disbursements, and expenses of defending the same.
3.02. Written Work Orders. BT and the Association shall
do no work nor furnish materials, whether covered or not covered
by BT's plan, for which reimbursement is expected from the City
unless a written order for such work or materials is received
from the City. Any such work or materials which may be done or
furnished by BT or the Association without such written order
first being given shall be at its own risk, cost and expense, and
BT and the Association hereby agree that without such written
order, they will make no claim for compensation for work or
materials so done or furnished.
SECTION 4. MISCELLANEOUS.
4.01. Severability. In the event any provisions of this
permit shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any
court or competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invali-
date or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the
remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired
thereby.
-5-
or 4t
4.02. Execution of Counterparts. This permit may be
simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which
shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one
and the same instrument.
4.03. Headings. Headings at the beginning of sections
and paragraphs hereof are for convenience of reference, and shall
not be considered a part of the text of this contract, and shall
not influence its construction.
4.04. Proof of Title. Upon request, BT and the
Association shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to
the City that they have acquired fee title to the Subject
Property prior to any request by BT pursuant to Section 2.02 of
this permit.
4.05. Notices. All notices, certificates and other com-
municatons hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be
deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, with property address as indicated
below. The City and BT and the Association, by written notice
giv_:: by one to the other, may designate any address or
addresses, to which notices, certificates or other communications
to them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this
permit. Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties, all
notices, certificates, and communications to each of them shall
be addressed as follows:
To the City: City of Chanhassen
City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn: City Manger
To BT: B-T Land Company
1055 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
To the Association: Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Assoc.
c/o Aaron Babcock
125 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
4.06. Owners to be Notified of This Permit. The
Association shall furnish each owner, as that term is defined in
Section 2.03 above, with a copy of this permit within thirty (30)
days of the signing of this permit and shall furnish each future
owner, as that term is defined in Section 2.03 above, with a
copy of this permit, within thirty (30) days of any such owner's
initial occupancy of any residential structure in Lotus Lake
Estates.
4.07. Term of This Permit. This permit shall expire on
July 21, 2010.
l
0 0
SECTION 5. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.
5.01. Reimbursement of Costs. BT and the Association
shall reimbure the City for all costs, including reasonable engi-
neering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by
the City in connection with all matters relating to the
administration and enforcement of the within permit and the per-
formance thereby by BT and the Association. Such reimbursement
shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of
the City's notice of costs as provided in Section 4.05 above.
This reimbursement obligation of BT and the Association under
this section shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term
of this permit.
5.02. Remedies Upon -Default.
a. Assessments. In the event either BT or the Association
shall default in the performance of any of the covenants
and agreements herein contained, and such default shall
not have been cured within ten (10) days after receipt
by BT and the Association of written notice thereo_, the
City, if it so elects, may cause any of the improvements
described in BT's plan to be constructed and installed
or may take action to cure such default and may cause
the entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engi-
neering, legal and administrative expense incurred by
the City, to be recovered as special assessment under
M.S. Chapter 429, in which case BT and the Association
agree to pay the entire amount of the assessment roll
pertaining to any such improvement within thirty (30)
days after its adoption. BT and the Association further
agree that in the event of its failure to pay in full
any such special assessment within the time prescribed
herein, the City shall have a specific lien on the
Subject Property for any amount so unpaid, and the city
shall have the right to foreclose said lien in the
manner prescribed for the foreclosure of mechanic's lien
under the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event
of an emergency, as determined by the City Engineers,
the notice requirements to BT and the Association shall
be and hereby are waived in their entirety, and BT and
the Association shall reimburse the City for any expense
incurred by the City in remedying the conditions
creating the emergency.
b. Legal Proceedings. In addition to the foregoing, the
City may institute any proper action or proceeding at
law or at equity to prevent violations of the within
property, to restrain or abate violations of the within
permit, or to prevent use or occupancy of the Subject
Property.
-7-
ar
n
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these
presents to be executed on the —L day of (/Ale
B-T LAND COMPANY LOTUS LAKE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
BY BY /. 6
It �f. is
L__tAnd
Its ky,;�'_
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By
It Mav r
Attest 4cl efc:Et
City Clerk/Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF 60JAiEP#L) )
On this / day of before me, a notary
public, within and for said tounty, personally appeared
T/CK -/) . /Yt( ',ezg� =d , to
me personally know, who, being eaa}r by me duly sworn did say that
`t Y a" r y the P*esi4eirt as vice -President of B-T Land
Company, and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said
corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and said
V_ICK �. YVt)ea+`-/ and- r
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said
corporation.
BECKY L. BENTZINGER
NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA —�
HENNEPIN COUNTY '
" .. My COMM'55.0l Expires Oct. 24,1989 NOifdry b
-8- J
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF f4LwocP/d )
On this day of 1 XS- before me, a notary
public, within and for said dounty, personally appeared
Jdw.es M- L44e ' and C^ . b err --all r to
me personally 'know, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that
they are respectibely the President anAVice-President of-B Liz L. k<.
camiagan , and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said
gs51twt11�. corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and said
J�«cs M Lwcey and G.�. �z�do�` ,
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said
corporation.
:fir+1 BECKY L. BENTZINGER
,g[. NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA
ip\1F1,� HENNEPIN COUNTY
' �' My Commission Expires Col. 24, 1989
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
On this /0 t� day of 19$S, before me,
a notary public, within and for he 'county, personally appeared
Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth, to me personally known,
who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respec-
tively the Mayor and the City Manager of the municipal cor-
poration named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal
affixed to said instrument is the municipal corporate seal of
said municipality, and that said instrument was signed and sealed
in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City
Council and said Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said
municipal corporation.
tart' ublic
K404K�A�:REN7ENGELHARDT
E90TA
NTY1. 11 1W
r
Planning Commission Minutes
August 8, 1984
Page 4
Conditional Use Permit Reau
Public Present
Peter Beck
Pno
us Lake
Representing Lotus Lake Homeowner's Assoc.
Approximately 30 people in attendance from the Homeowner's
Association.
Martin explained that the Lotus Lake Estates Recreational
Beachlot was established in July, 1980 when a Conditional Use
Permit was issued by the City Council. The permit was amended in
August, 1981. He stated that the existing conditions of the lot
include a swimming beach, one swimming raft, two boat racks each
for 6 canoes or small sailboats, one dock that is approximately
67 feet in length and this dock is restricted in the permit that
allows overnight docking of not more than 4 non -motorized boats
and not greater than 16 feet in length each and also includes a
pedestrian walkway which provides access to the various facilites
on the lot. He stated that the proposal tonight is to amend
their conditional use permit to allow the installation of an
additional seasonal dock, to allow 4 sailboat moorings in their
abutting waters of the beachlot, allow the overnight storage of
10 watercraft without any restriction on the motorization of that
watercraft and the 10 watercraft would be split between the
existing dock and the proposed new dock and also to allow the
continuation of the existing pedestrian walkway for access to the
new dock. He explained that variances are required for this as
was in the previous petition which would involve the fact that
the ordinance does not allow more than one dock on any beachlot
regardless of the size of the beachlot and does not allow the
overnight storage or mooring of watercraft.
Peter Beck, representing the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowner's
Association, stated that the Outlot was roughly 900 feet long and
50-150 feet wide, a 3-4 acre parcel. He stated that when Lotus
Lake Estates was platted in 1979 it was contemplated that Outlot
B would provide access to the lake for approximately 144 homes to
be built in two phases, however the second phase became Fox
Hollow. He stated that Outlot B has been deeded to the 44
home sites in Lotus Lake Estates for their exclusive use only.
He stated that neither the development agreement or any provision
of the City's approval of the plat in 1979 prohibits docks or
overnight storage of boats on Outlot B, nor do they indicate that
they would be prohibited. He stated that if the variance is not
favored, the ordinance that prohibits overnight storage should be
amended. He stated that the proposed locatioe of the dock and
sailboat moorings has been selected to minimize the impact on the
lake in the deeper water area and would like to spread the use
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE, made and entered into
this day of May, 1986, by and between, LOTUS LAKE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, JAMES M. and SARA S. LACEY, ROGER L. and DORIS KAY FRICK,
GARY A. and BRENDA A. WELCH, RAYMOND and WIL SCHUYT, PATRICK 7. and
MARILYN D. McMAHON, ROBERT A. and VIVIAN M. ELMGREN, ROGER H. and
BECKY BERRY, STEPHEN C. and LOIS E. BUCHANAN, J. MICHAEL and L. SUSAN
HENDERSON, and GERALD D. and CANDICE L. CRANDALL ("Releasors"), and
THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a municipal corporation; and THOMAS HAMILTON,
CLARK HORN, PATRICIA SWENSON, DALE GEVING, and CAROL WATSON ("City").
WHEREAS, a dispute has arisen as to the legality of the Recre-
ational Beach Lot provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance and certain
conditions imposed on the Lotus Lake Estates Recreational Beach Lot
on Outlot B, the Lake Estates ("Outlot B"); and
WHEREAS, Releasors (except the Lotus Lake Estate Homeowners
Association which is not a party) have commenced a lawsuit against
the City in the Carver County District Court, First Judicial District
Of the State of Minnesota, such case being File No. 86-211740 entitled
James M. and Sara S. Lacey, et al v. City of Chanhassen, et al; and
WHEREAS, the City has decided to consider certain amendments
to its Zoning and Surface Water Usage Ordinances in the form attached
hereto as Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, Releasors are willing to dismiss their suit and release
the City from all claims if the City adopts the proposed ordinance
amendments and issues an amended conditional use permit consistent
with the proposed ordinance amendments and this agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained
herein, the undersigned parties hereby agree as follows:
1. City will consider and act on this Agreement on May 5, 1986.
2. City will consider and act upon the proposed ordinance amendments
attached as Exhibit "A", and on amendments to the conditional
use permit for Outlot B, on June 16, 1986.
3. If, on June 16, 1986, the City enacts the proposed ordinance amend-
ments in the form attached as Exhibit "A", and approves an amendment
to the conditional use permit for Outlot B which: (a) allows a
total of 3 docks to be constructed on Outlot B; and (b) allows
overnight storage at these docks of a total of 9 watercraft without
restrictions as to whether said watercraft are motorized or non -
motorized;
Then, the parties further agree as follows:
A. The above -entitled lawsuit shall be dismissed with prejudice
and without the payment of costs incurred by either party
to the other, and the parties hereto hereby authorize their
respective attorneys to execute on their behalf a written
Stipulation of Dismissal to that effect for filing with the
said Court.
B. The parties release each other from any and all obligations,
actions, suits, claims, damages, judgments, and execution
and any other matter or act regarding the Lotus Lake Estates
Recreational Beach Lot and any review, action, or inaction
by them in connection with it.
C. The parties stipulate and agree that the ordinance amendments
contained in Exhibit "A" and the amended conditional use permit
provide for reasonable use of Outlot B and are in every respect
legal and constitutional. The Releasors waive any and all
objection and possible challenges to the ordinance amendments
and the amended conditional use permit that they may now have
or may have in the future.
4. If the City Council does not pass the ordinance amendments and
approve the amended conditional use permit as provided in this
agreement on June 16, 1986, the above referenced suit shall proceed
to trial.
5. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute an admission by either
party of the allegations or liabilities asserted in connection
with the above -referenced lawsuit. Each of the parties hereby
represents and warrants to the other that there has been no assignment
of any right, claim, or cause of action encompassed by this Agreement
to any individual, corporation, or any legal entity whatsoever
other than the parties to this Agreement, and that this release
has been duly executed by each of the parties without promises
or threats or the exertion of influence by or upon the other,
and that each party fully understands the legal and practical
effects of this document. This Agreement may not be changed orally.
-2-
11
6. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all
of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Releasors and the City have executed and
delivered this Settlement Agreement and Release as of the date first
above written.
0
LOTUS LAKE ESTATE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCI1� ON y
BY:
Its
GARY . WELCH
-3-
ROGER H. BERRY
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY &
LINDGREN, LTD.
BY:
CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN
Attorneys for Releasors
1500 Northwestern Financial
Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55431
Attorney I.D. No. 22858
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
ffm
THOMAS L. HAMILTON, Mayor
DON ASHWORTH, City Manager
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL
& KNUTSON, P.A.
BY:
ROGER N. KNUTSON
Attorneys for the City
403 Norwest Bank Building
161 North Concord Exchange
South St. Paul, MN 55075
Attorney I.D. No. 57186
-4-
EXHIBIT "A" •
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.04
OF ORDINANCE NO. 73 RELATING TO THE
USE OF SURFACE WATERS AND ADJOINING SHORELINES
'The City Council ordains:
to read:
Section 1. Section 3.04 of Ordinance No. 73 is amended
Except for privately owned commercial resorts or commercial
boat landings established prior to the adoption of this
ordinance, 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. Canoes,
windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats may also
be stored overnight if they are stored indoors or on
racks specifically designed for that purpose. Overnight
docking, mooring, and storage is further restricted
to watercraft owned by the owner/occupant"or renter/occupant
of the lakeshore site home to which the deck, storage,
or mooring site is an accessory use.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immedi-
ately upon its passing and publication.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this
16th day of June, 1986.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
ATTEST:
City Clerk/Manager
Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor
• EXHIBIT "A" •
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 6.04
7.04, 14.04 OF THE CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE
THE CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 6.04, subparagraph 10 of Ordinance 47,
the Zoning Ordinance, is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
Recreational beach lots provided the following minimum standards
are met in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed
in the permit:
A. Recreational beach lots shall have at least 200 feet of
lake frontage.
B. No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house,
camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle or shelter
shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beach lot.
C. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited
to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini -bike, all -terrain
vehicle or snowmobile shall be driven upon or parked upon
any recreational beach lot.
D. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight
camping.
E. Boat launches are prohibited.
F. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of
overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three
(3) motorized or non -motorized watercraft per dock. If
a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered.
Up to four (4) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed.
Canoes, windsurfer.s, sail boards, and small. sail boats
may be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot
if they are stored on racks specifically designed for
that purpose. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes
is permissible at any time other than overnight.
G. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot
unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the
lot has at least a 100 foot depth. No more than one dock
may be erected on a recreational beach lot for every 200
feet of lake frontage. In addition, 30,000 square feet
of land is required for the first dock and an additional
20,000 square feet is required for each additional dock.
No more than three (3) docks, however, shall be erected
on a recreational beach lot.
H. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet
in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of
the following lengths: (a) fifty (50) feet or, (b) the
minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water
depth of four (4) feet. 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 length.
I. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided,
however, that the owners of any two abutting lakeshore
sites may erect one common dock within the dock set -back
zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the
common dock is the only dock on the two lakeshore sites
and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions
of this ordinance.
J. No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational
beach lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage.
No more than one sail boat mooring shall be allowed for
every 200 feet of lake frontage.
K. At least eighty percent (80%) of the dwelling units, which
have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational
beach lot, shall be located within at least one thousand
(1,000) feet of the recreational beach lot.
L. All recreational beach lots, including any recreational
beach lots established prior to the effective date of
this ordinance may be used for swimming beach purposes,
but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with
marker buoys which conform to United States Coast Guard
standards.
M. Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured
both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point one
hundred (100) feet landward from the ordinary high water
mark, of not less than four (4) lineal feet for each dwelling
unit which has appurtenant rights of access to the recre-
ational beach lot accruing to the owners or occupants
of that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowner
association or residential housing developers.
N. Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft,
where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the
owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have
appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach
lot.
SECTION 2. Section 7.04, subparagraph 9 of Ordinance 47,
the Zoning Ordinance, is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
-2-
Recreational beach
are met in addition
in the permit:
lots provided the following minimum standards
to such other conditions as may be prescribed
A. Recreational beach lots shall have at least 200 feet of
lake frontage.
B. No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house,
camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle or shelter
shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beach lot.
C. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited
to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini -bike, all -terrain
vehicle or snowmobile shall be driven upon or parked upon
any recreational beach lot.
D. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight
camping.
E. Boat launches are prohibited.
F. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of
overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three
(3) motorized or non -motorized watercraft per dock. If
a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered.
Up to four (4) sail boat moorings shall -also be allowed.
Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats
may be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot
if they are stored on racks specifically designed for
that purpose. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes
is permissible at any time other than overnight.
G. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot
unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the
lot has at least a 100 foot depth. No more than one dock
may be erected on a recreational beach lot for every 200
feet of lake frontage. In addition, 30,000 square feet
of land is required for the first dock and an additional
20,000 square feet. is required for each additional dock.
No more than three (3) docks, however, shall be erected
on a recreational beach lot.
H. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet
in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of
the following lengths: (a) fifty (50) feet or, (b) the
minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water
depth of four (4) feet. 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 length.
59M
I. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided,
however, that the owners of any two abutting lakeshore
sites may erect one common dock within the dock set -back
zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the
common dock is the only dock on the two lakeshore sites
and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions
of this ordinance.
J. No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational
beach lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage.
No more than one sail boat mooring shall be allowed for
every 200 feet of lake frontage.
K. At least eighty percent (80%) of the dwelling units, which
have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational
beach lot, shall be located within at least one thousand
(1,000) feet of the recreational beach lot.
L. All recreational beach lots, including any recreational
beach lots established prior to the effective date of
this ordinance may be used for swimming beach purposes,
but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with
marker buoys which conform to United States Coast Guard
standards.
M. Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured
both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point one
hundred (100) feet landward from the ordinary high water
mark, of not less than four (4) lineal feet for each dwelling
unit which has appurtenant rights of access to the recre-
ational beach lot accruing to the owners or occupants
of that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowner
association or residential housing developers.
N. Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft,
where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the
owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have
appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach
lot.
SECTION 3. Section 1.4.04, subparagraph 2 of Ordinance 47,
the Zoning Ordinance, is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
Recreational beach lots provided the following minimum standards
are met in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed
in the permit:
A. Recreational beach lots shall have at least 200 feet of
lake frontage.
B. No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house,
camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle or shelter
shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beach lot.
-4-
C. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited
to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini -bike, all -terrain
vehicle or snowmobile shall be driven upon or parked upon
any recreational beach lot.
D. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight
camping.
E. Boat launches are prohibited.
F. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of
overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three
(3) motorized or non -motorized watercraft per dock. If
a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered.
Up to four (4) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed.
Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats
may be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot
'if they are stored on racks specifically designed for
that purpose. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes
is permissible at any time other than overnight.
G. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot
unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the
lot has at least a 100 foot depth. No more than one dock
may be erected on a recreational beach lot for every 200
feet of lake frontage. In addition, 30,000 square feet
of land is required for the first dock and an additional
20,000 square feet is required for each additional dock.
No more than three (3) docks, however, shall be erected
on a recreational beach lot.
H. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet
in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of
the following lengths: (a) fifty (50) feet or, (b) the
minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water
depth of four (4) feet. 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 length.
I. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided,
however, that the owners of any two abutting lakeshore
sites may erect one common dock within the dock set -back
zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the
common dock is the only dock on the two lakeshore sites
and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions
of this ordinance.
J. No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational
beach lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage.
No more than one sail boat mooring shall be allowed for
every 200 feet of lake frontage.
-5-
0 •
K. At least eighty percent (80%) of the dwelling units, which
have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational
beach lot, shall be located within at least one thousand
(1,000) feet of the recreational beach lot.
L. All recreational beach lots, including any recreational
beach lots established prior to the effective date of
this ordinance may be used for swimming beach purposes,
but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with
marker buoys which conform to United States Coast Guard
standards.
M. Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured
both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point one
hundred (100) feet landward from the ordinary high water
mark, of not less than four (4) lineal feet for each dwelling
unit which has appurtenant rights of access to the recre-
ational beach lot accruing to the owners or occupants
of that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowner
association or residential housing developers.
N. Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft,
where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the
owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have
appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach
lot.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately
after its passage and publication.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 16th
day of June, 1986.
ATTEST:
City Clerk/Manager
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
ffm
Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor
-6-
• CITYOOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
October 13, 1986
Mr. Peter Beck
Larkin -Hoffman Law Firm
1500 Norwest Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Ave.
Minneapolis, MN 55431
Dear Mr. Beck:
Attached is the corrected Conditional U^e Permit for the Lotus
Lake Estates Beachlot. The Mayor has directed me to send it to
your office to coordinate signature by the Lotus Lake Estates
Homeowners Association. Please forward me the executed copy when
completed.
Ve t yyours,
Barbara Dacy
City Planner
BD:k
Enclosure
� CITV OF By�uo
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
September 2, 1986
Mr. Peter Beck
Larkin -Hoffman Law Firm
1500 Northwest Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55431
Dear Peter:
Attached is a revised draft of the Restated Conditional Use
Permit regarding Section 2.11(b). Also note that B-T Land
Company has been eliminated from the signature page as they have
now deeded title over to the Homeowners Association. Please
arrange to sign the permit and forward signed copies of the
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement to Roger Knutson's office.
The City will sign the Conditional Use Permit when these docu-
ments have been signed and received by Knutson. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely
Barbara Dacy
%City Planner
BD:k
Enclosure
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RESTATED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BEACHLOT - LOTUS LAKE ESTATES
This restated conditional use permit and agreement made
and entered into this day of , by and
between Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association (hereinafter
the "Association"), and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota muni-
cipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City");
WITNESSETH: That the City, in exercise of its powers
pursuant to M.S. §462.357, and other applicable state law, and
§14 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, hereby grants to BT and
the Association herein a restated conditional use permit to main-
tain and operate a private neighborhood association recreational
area upon Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, Carver County, Minnesota
(hereinafter the "Subject Property"), subject to the following
terms and conditions, all of which shall be strictly complied
with as being necessary for the protection of the public
interest.
SECTION 1. RECITALS.
1.01. Prior Platting of Lotus Lake Estates. BT has
previously platted a tract of land in the City as Lotus Lake
Estates, consisting of 44 residential lots and 3 outlots.
1.02. Outlot B. In connection with the platting of said
Lotus Lake Estates, BT has entered into a development contract
with the City of Chanhassen, dated January 5, 1979, wherein BT
agreed to organize a homeowners association for the purpose of
owning and operating the Subject Property for the benefit of the
owners of properties lying within said plat. Section 28 of said
development contract further provides that BT shall suffer no
alterations of the Subject Property except after first having
obtained a permit from the City setting forth a plan for the
alteration and development of the Subject Property.
Said Section 28 also provides that, for purposes of
said development contract, said permit would be deemed to be a
conditional use permit and that the application process and pro-
cedure would be as set forth in Section 23 of the Chanhassen
Zoning Ordinance, which sets forth the application procedure for
actual conditional use permits.
1.03. Homeowners Association. BT incorporated the
Association for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining certain
common properties including the Subject Property for the benefit
of the owners of lots in the plat of Lotus Lake Estates, and for
the benefit of the owners of any lots platted in the future by a
further subdivision of Outlot C, Lotus Lake Estates.
1.04. March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit. Upon appli-
cation of BT, the Chanhassen City Council on July 21, 1980,
approved the issuance of a permit for the alteration of the
Subject Property. Said permit, entitled "Conditional Use Permit
Beachlot - Lotus Lake Estates", was executed by BT and the
Association on March 10, 1981.
1.05. June 1, 1981 Application for Amendment of Permit.
On June 1, 1981, the Association, with the knowledge and consent
of BT, filed with the City an application for amendment of the
March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit, requesting City approval
of further development of the Subject Property.
1.06. City Council Approval. On August 12, 1981, the
City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on said June 1,
1981, approved issuance of a revised permit authorizing further
development of the Subject Property.
1.07. April 22, 1982 Conditional Use Permit. The above
described March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit was superceded by
the Conditional Use Permit executed on April 22, 1982.
1.08. July 18, 1984 Application for Amendment of Permitu On Jly 18, 1984, the Association filed with the City an appli-
cation for amendment of the Restated Conditional Use Permit
requesting City approval of further development of the Subject
Property.
1.09. City Council Approval. On August 8, 1984, the
City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on said July 18,
1984 application. On August 20, 1984, the City's Board of
Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing and approved a
variance to allow four sailboat moorings. The City Council, by
its motion of November 19, 1984, approved issuance of a revised
permit authorizing the installation of said moorings.
1.10. May, 1986 Application for Amendment of Permit. The
City of Chanhassen initiated a Conditional Use Permit Amendment
application requesting further development of the Subject
Property.
1.11. City Council Approval. On May 28, 1986, the City's
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment appli-
cation. On June 16, 1986, the City Council approved the issuance
of a revised permit authorizing further development of the
Subject Property.
SECTION 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
2.01. Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal
to BY and to the Association, and is not assignable or trans-
ferable, except upon the written consent of the City.
-2-
2.02. Release of BT. The City, upon written request,
shall release BT from its obligations hereunder upon receipt of
documentation which demonstrates (a) the proper incorporation of
the Association pursuant to Chapter 317 of Minnesota Statutes,
and (b) the conveyance of title to the Subject Property in fee
Simple to the Association for the benefit of all owners of lots
in Lotus Lake Estates. No such release shall be given until such
documentation has been approved by the City Attorney as to legal
sufficiency. No such release as to BT shall have the effect of
releasing the Association from its obligations, covenants, and
agreements hereunder.
2.03. Rights Under This Permit Not Expandable to Other
Owners. This permit is issued for the benefit of the owners of
the 44 lots in Lotus Lake Estates and for the benefit of the
owners of any lots platted in the future by a subdivision of
Outlot C, Lotus Lake Estates. BT and the Association agree that
the use and enjoyment of the Subject Property shall be limited to
the owners of lots in Lotus Lake Estates. The use and enjoyment
of the Subject Property may not extend to persons other than such
owners. The term "owners" as utilized in this §2.03 shall mean
and refer to any natural person who is either (a) the record
owner of fee simple interest, or (b) the recorder owner of a
contract for deed vendee's interest, or (c) the holder of any
possessory leasehold interest, in the whole of any lot in Lotus
Lake Estates, including authorized guests and family members of
any such persons.
2.04. Description of Property Subject To This Permit.
The premises subject to the within conditional use permit are
described as follows:
Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, according to the map
or plat thereof on file and of record in the Office
of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County,
Minnesota.
2.05. Certain Site Alterations Authorized. BT and the
Association are hereby authorized to install the following
improvements on the Subject Property:
a. One sand blanket swim area, as shown on the alteration
plan, City Council Exhibit A, dated July 21, 1980, said
swim area to be marked with a minimum of three anchored
"swim area" buoys that are in accordance with the
Uniform Waterway Marking System; said buoys to be
anchored a reasonable distance from shore; and
b. a pedestrian walkway connecting Choctaw Circle with the
sand blanket swim area; said walkway to consist of wood
chips installed on a sand base with boardwalk steps on
the steep slope area of the walkway; and
C. four boat racks to be located on land with a storage
capacity of either six canoes or six small sail boats
per rack; and
-3-
d. two docks, not to exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet
in length or that number of lineal feet necessary to
reach a water depth of four (4) feet; at the option of
the Association, the final ten (10) feet of said dock
may consist of a ten foot by ten foot (10' x 101) square
platform; said dock shall be located on that portion of
the shoreline of the Subject Property which lies between
the northerly line and the southerly line of Lot 34, .
Block 1, Lotus Lake Estates, extended northwesterly; and
e. one ten foot by ten foot swimming raft, to be located in
water having a minimum depth of seven (7) feet, not more
than one hundred (100) feet from the nearest lake shore-
line; said raft shall project a minimum of one (1) foot
but not more than five (5) feet above the lake surface,
and the corner of said raft shall be reflectorized; and
f. one conversation pit -fire hole, three (3) feet in
diameter with a six (6) foot apron constructed of brick
or masonry material, to be located landward of the walk-
way and no further north than the northerly line of Lot
32, Block 1, Lotus Lake Estates, extended northwesterly;
and
g. four sailboat moorings, to be located in the manner
depicted on the submitted site plan of the July 18, 1984
application.
Except as provided in this permit, no portion of the
Subject Property may be developed, altered, or disturbed in any
way.
2.06. Trees. In carrying out the above described altera-
tions, the Association and BT each agree to use every effort to
keep tree loss at an absolute minimum.
2.07. Reserved.
2.08. Erosion Control. BT and the Association, at their
expense, shall provide temporary dams, earthwork or such other
devices and practices, including seeding of graded areas, as
shall be needed, in the judgement of the City Engineers, to pre-
vent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands
and roads within and outside the Subject Property during all
phases of construction. BT and the Association shall keep all
public streets free of all dirt and debris resulting from their
construction upon the Subject Property.
2.09. Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for the
alterations described in Section 2.05 above, no structure, pier,
boat rack, mooring buoy, or swimming platform shall be
constructed, erected, or maintained on the Subject Property or in
the waters abutting the Subject Property.
-4-
2.10. Camping Prohibited. No owner, as defined in
Section 2.03 hereinabove, or other person shall camp overnight on
the Subject Property.
2.11. Motor Vehicle Parking and Boat Storage. No
watercraft shall be parked or stored overnight or on a permanent
basis on the Subject Property, except as follows:
a. not more than twenty-four canoes or small sail boats may
be so stored overnight in the four boat racks described
in Section 2.05 of this permit; and
b. not more than nine boats, motorized or non -motorized,
may be docked overnight at the docks described in Section
2.05 of this permit.
Except for construction equipment necessary for the exe-
cution of BT's plan and as necessary for the maintenance of the
Subject Property, no motor vehicle shall be driven upon or parked
upon the Subject Property.
No boat trailer shall be allowed upon the Subject
Property. Nothing in the preceding three sentences shall be
deemed to prohibit the launching of any watercraft from the
Subject Property if accomplished without the assistance of any
motor vehicle or trailer or wheeled dolly upon the Subject
Property.
SECTION 3. MUNICIPAL DISCLAIMERS.
3.01. No Liability to Suppliers of Labor or Material. It
is understood and agreed that the City, the City Council and the
agents and employees of the City shall not be personally liable
or responsible in any manner to BT or the Association, their
contractors, or subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, or to any
other person, firm or corporation whomsoever, for any debt,
claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind
or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this
permit and agreement or the performance and completion of the
work and improvements hereunder and the BT and the Association
will save the City, the City Council, and the agents and
employees of the City harmless from any and all claims, damages,
demands, actions or causes of action arising therefrom and the
costs, disbursements, and expenses of defending the same.
3.02. Written Work Orders. BT and the Association shall
do no work nor furnish materials, whether covered or not covered
by BT's plan, for which reimbursement is expected from the City
unless a written order for such work or materials is received
from the City. Any such work or materials which may be done or
furnished by BT or the Association without such written order
first being given shall be at its own risk, cost and expense, and
BT and the Association hereby agree that without such written
order, they will make no claim for compensation for work or
materials so done or furnished.
-5-
SECTION 4. MISCELLANEOUS.
4.01. Severability. In the event any provisions of this
permit shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any
court or competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invali-
date or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the
remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired
thereby.
4.02. Execution of Counterparts. This permit may be
simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which
shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one
and the same instrument.
4.03. Headings. Headings at the beginning of sections
and paragraphs hereof are for convenience of reference, and shall
not be considered a part of the text of this contract, and shall
not influence its construction.
4.04. Proof of Title. Upon request, BT and the
Association shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to
the City that they have acquired fee title to the Subject
Property prior to any request by BT pursuant to Section 2.02 of
this permit.
4.05. Notices. All notices, certificates and other com-
munications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be
deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, with property address as indicated
below. The City and BT and the Association, by written notice
given by one to the other, may designate any address or
addresses, to which notices, certificates or other communications
to them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this
permit. Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties, all
notices, certificates, and communications to each of them shall
be addressed as follows:
To the City:
To the Association:
City of Chanhassen
City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn: City Manger
Lotus Lake Estates
c/o Aaron Babcock
125 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN
Homeowners Assoc.
4.06. Owners to be Notified of This Permit. The
Association shall furnish each owner, as that term is defined in
Section 2.03 above, with a copy of this permit within thirty (30)
days of the signing of this permit and shall furnish each future
cm
SECTION 5. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.
5.01. Reimbursement of Costs. BT and the Association
shall reimbure the City for all costs, including reasonable engi-
neering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by
the City in connection with all matters relating to the
administration and enforcement of the within permit and the per-
formance thereby by BT and the Association. Such reimbursement
shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of
the City's notice of costs as provided in Section 4.05 above.
This reimbursement obligation of BT and the Association under
this section shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term
of this permit.
5.02. Remedies Upon Default.
a. Assessments. In the event either BT or the Association
shall default in the performance of any of the covenants
and agreements herein contained, and such default shall
not have been cured within ten (10) days after receipt
by BT and the Association of written notice thereof, the
City, if it so elects, may cause any of the improvements
described in BT's plan to be constructed and installed
or may take action to cure such default and may cause
the entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engi-
neering, legal and administrative expense incurred by
the City, to be recovered as special assessment under
M.S. Chapter 429, in which case BT and the Association
agree to pay the entire amount of the assessment roll
pertaining to any such improvement within thirty (30)
days after its adoption. BT and the Association further
agree that in the event of its failure to pay in full
any such special assessment within the time prescribed
herein, the City shall have a specific lien on the
Subject Property for any amount so unpaid, and the city
shall have the right to foreclose said lien in the
manner prescribed for the foreclosure of mechanic's lien
under the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event
of an emergency, as determined by the City Engineers,
the notice requirements to BT and the Association shall
be and hereby are waived in their entirety, and BT and
the Association shall reimburse the City for any expense
incurred by the City in remedying the conditions
creating the emergency.
b. Legal Proceedings. In addition to the foregoing, the
City may institute any proper action or proceeding at
law or at equity to prevent violations of the within
property, to restrain or abate violations of the within
permit, or to prevent use or occupancy of the Subject
Property.
-7-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these
presents to be executed on the day of
LOTUS LAKE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
By
Its
And
Its
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By
Its Mayor
Attest
City Clerk/Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
COUNTY )
On this day of , before me, a notary
public, within and for said county, personally appeared
and , to
me personally know, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that
they are respectibely the President an Vice -President of B-T Land
Company, and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said
corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and said
and ,
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said
corporation.
Notary Public
ME
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
On this day of , 19 , before me,
a notary public, within and for the county, personally appeared
Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth, to me personally known,
who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respec-
tively the Mayor and the City Manager of the municipal cor-
poration named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal
affixed to said instrument is the municipal corporate seal of
said municipality, and that said instrument was signed and sealed
in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City
Council and said Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said
municipal corporation.
Notary Public
cm
DAVID L. GRANNIS - 1874-1961
DAVID L. GRANNIS, JR. - 1910-1980
VANCE B. GRANNr.
VANCE B. GRANNK JR.
PATRICK A. FARRELL
DAVID L. GRANNIs, III
ROGER N. KNVtsoN
J
LAW OFFICES y
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
POST OFFICE Box 57
403 NoawEsT BANIc BDRniNG
161 NORTH CONCORD ERCHANGE
So1TTH ST. PAm MINNESO'TA 55075
TEWMNE (612) 455-1661
June 23, 1986
Ms. Barbara Dacy, City Planner
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147, 690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Barb:
TELECONEII:
(612) 455-2359
DAVID L. HARNEYER
M. CECE.IA RAY
EWOTT B. KNEISCH
im 24 1986
CITY OF CHAN6ASSE'1
At your request I have reviewed the amended Conditional
Use Permit for Lotus Lake Estates Beachlot and suggest the
following changes be made:
1.11 City Council Approval. On May 28, 1986, the City's
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment
application. On July 7, 1986, the City Council approved the
issuance of a revised permit authorizing further development
of the Subject Property.
2.05 Certain Site Alterations Authorized. BT and the
Association are hereby authorized to install the following
improvements on the Subject Property at the locations indicated
on the site plan attached hereto as Exhibit "A":
C. Three boat racks to be located on land with a storage
capacity of six watercraft per rack; and
2.11 Motor Vehicle Parking and Boat Storage.
a. not more than six watercraft may be so stored overnight
on each of the three boat racks described in Section
2.05 of this permit; and
Please call if you have any questions or comments.
Very truly yours
NU �, P.A.
RNK:srn
If
.01
0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RESTATED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BEACHLOT - LOTUS LAKE ESTATES
l-
This restated conditional use permit and agreement made
and entered into this day of , by and
between R 'm *=9a and Lotus Lake
Estates Homeowners Association (hereinafter the "Association")
and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation
(hereinafter referred to as the "City");
WITNESSETH: That the City, in exercise of its powers
pursuant to M.S. §462.357, and other applicable state law, and
§14 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, hereby grants to BT and
the Association herein a restated conditional use permit to main-
tain and operate a private neighborhood association recreational
area upon Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, Carver County, Minnesota
(hereinafter the "Subject Property"), subject to the following
terms and conditions, all of which shall be strictly complied
with as being necessary for the protection of the public
interest.
SECTION 1. RECITALS.
1.01. Prior Platting of Lotus Lake Estates. BT has
previously platted a tract of land in the City as Lotus Lake
Estates, consisting of 44 residential lots and 3 outlots.
1.02. Outlot B. In connection with the platting of said
Lotus Lake Estates, BT has entered into a development contract
with the City of Chanhassen, dated January 5, 1979,. wherein BT
agreed to organize a homeowners association for the purpose of
owning and operating the Subject Property for the benefit of the
owners of properties lying within said plat. Section 28 of said
development contract further provides that BT shall suffer no
alterations of the Subject Property except after first having
obtained a permit from the City setting forth a plan for the
alteration and development of the Subject Property.
Said Section 28 also provides that, for purposes of
said development contract, said permit would be deemed to be a
conditional use permit and that the application process and pro-
cedure would be as set forth in Section 23 of the Chanhassen
Zoning Ordinance, which sets forth the application procedure for
actual conditional use permits.
1.03. Homeowners Association. BT incorporated the
Association for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining certain
common properties including the Subject Property for the benefit
of the owners of lots in the plat of Lotus Lake Estates, and for
the benefit of the owners of any lots platted in the future by a
further subdivision of Outlot C, Lotus Lake Estates.
1.04. March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit. Upon appli-
cation of BT, the Chanhassen City Council on July 21, 1980,
approved the issuance of a permit for the alteration of the
Subject Property. Said permit, entitled "Conditional Use Permit
Beachlot - Lotus Lake Estates", was executed by BT and the
Association on March 10, 1981.
1.05. June 1, 1981 Application for Amendment of Permit.
On June 1, 1981, the Association, with the knowledge and consent
of BT, filed with the City an application for amendment of the
March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit, requesting City approval
of further development of the Subject Property.
1.06. City Council Approval. On August 12, 1981, the
City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on said June 1,
1981, approved issuance of a revised permit authorizing further
development of the Subject Property.
1.07. _April 22, 1982 Conditional Use Permit. The above
described March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit was superceded by
the Conditional Use Permit executed on April 22, 1982.
1.08. July 18, 1984 Application for Amendment of Permit.
On July 18, 1984, the Association filed with the City an appli-
cation for amendment of the Restated Conditional Use Permit
requesting City approval of further development of the Subject
Property.
1.09. City Council Approval. On August 8, 1984, the
City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on said July 18,
1984 application. On August 20, 1984, the City's Board of
Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing and approved a
variance to allow four sailboat moorings. The City Council, by
its motion of November 19, 1984, approved issuance of a revised
permit authorizing the installation of said moorings.
1.10. May, 1986 Application for Amendment of Permit. The
City of Chanhassen initiated a Conditional Use Permit Amendment
application requesting further development of the Subject
Property.
1.11. City Council Approval. On May 28, 1986, the City's
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment appli-
cation. On July 7, 1986, the City Council approved the issuance
of a revised permit authorizing further development of the
Subject Property.
SECTION 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
2.01. Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal
to BT and to the Association, and is not assignable or trans-
ferable, except upon the written consent of the City.
-2-
2.02. Release of BT. The City, upon written request,
shall release BT from its obligations hereunder upon receipt of
documentation which demonstrates (a) the proper incorporation of
the Association pursuant to Chapter 317 of Minnesota Statutes,
and (b) the conveyance of title to the Subject Property in fee
simple to the Association for the benefit of all owners of lots
in Lotus Lake Estates. No such release shall be given until such
documentation has been approved by the City Attorney as to legal
sufficiency. No such release as to BT shall have the effect of
releasing the Association from its obligations, covenants, and
agreements hereunder.
2.03. Rights Under This Permit Not Expandable to Other
Owners. This permit is issued for the benefit of the owners of
the 44 lots in Lotus Lake Estates and for the benefit of the
owners of any lots platted in the future by a subdivision of
Outlot C, Lotus Lake Estates. BT and the Association agree that
the use and enjoyment of the Subject Property shall be limited to
the owners of lots in Lotus Lake Estates. The use and enjoyment
of the Subject Property may not extend to persons other than such
owners. The term "owners" as utilized in this §2.03 shall mean
and refer to any natural person who is either (a) the record
owner of fee simple interest, or (b) the recorder owner of a
contract for deed vendee's interest, or (c) the holder of any
possessory leasehold interest, in the whole of any lot in Lotus
Lake Estates, including authorized guests and family members of
any such persons.
2.04. Description of Property Subject To This Permit.
The premises subject to the within conditional use permit are
described as follows:
Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, according to the map
or plat thereof on file and of record in the Office
of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County,
Minnesota.
2.05. Certain Site Alterations Authorized. BT and the
Association are hereby authorized to install the following
improvements on the Subject Property:
a. One sand blanket swim area, as shown on the revised
plan, Exhibit A, dated June 25, 1986, said swim area to
be marked with a minimum of three anchored "swim area"
buoys that are in accordance with the Uniform Waterway
Marking System; said buoys to be anchored a reasonable
distance from shore; and
b. a pedestrian walkway connecting Choctaw Circle with the
sand blanket swim area; said walkway to consist of wood
chips installed on a sand base with boardwalk steps on
the steep slope area of the walkway; and
C. four boat racks to be located on land with a storage
capacity of either six canoes or six small sail boats
per rack; and
-3-
d. Three docks, not to exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet
in length or that number of lineal feet necessary to
reach a water depth of four (4) feet; at the option of
the Association, the final ten (10) feet of said dock
may consist of a ten foot by ten foot (10' x 101) square
platform; said dock shall be located in the manner
depicted on the submitted site plan stamped "Received
June 25, 1986".
e. One ten foot by ten foot swimming raft, to be located in
water having a minimum depth of seven (7) feet, not more
than one hundred (100) feet from the nearest lake shore-
line; said raft shall project a minimum of one (1) foot
but not more than five (5) feet above the lake surface,
and the corner of said raft shall be reflectorized; and
f. One conversation pit -fire hole, three (3) feet in
diameter with a six (6) foot apron constructed of brick
or masonry material, to be located landward of the walk-
way and no further north than the northerly line of Lot
32, Block 1, Lotus Lake Estates, extended northwesterly;
and
g. Four sailboat moorings, to be located in the manner
depicted on the submitted site plan stamped "Received
June 25, 1986".
Except as provided in this permit, no portion of the
Subject Property may be developed, altered, or disturbed in any
way.
2.06. Trees. In carrying out the above described altera-
tions, the Association and BT each agree to use every effort to
keep tree loss at an absolute minimum.
2.07. Reserved.
2.08. Erosion Control. BT and the Association, at their
expense, shall provide temporary dams, earthwork or such other
devices and practices, including seeding of graded areas, as
shall be needed, in the judgement of the City Engineers, to pre-
vent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands
and roads within and outside the Subject Property during all
phases of construction. BT and the Association shall keep all
public streets free of all dirt and debris resulting from their
construction upon the Subject Property.
2.09. Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for the
alterations described in Section 2.05 above, no structure, pier,
boat rack, mooring buoy, or swimming platform shall be
constructed, erected, or maintained on the Subject Property or in
the waters abutting the Subject Property.
-4-
2.10. Camping Prohibited. No owner, as defined in
Section 2.03 hereinabove, or other person shall camp overnight on
the Subject Property.
2.11. Motor vehicle Parking and Boat Storage. No
watercraft shall be parked or stored overnight or on a permanent
basis on the Subject Property, except as follows:
a. not more than twenty-four canoes or small sail boats may
be so stored overnight in the four boat racks described
in Section 2.05 of this permit; and
b. not more than nine boats, motorized or non -motorized, -riot--
, may be docked overnight
at the docks described in Section 2.05 of this permit.
Except for construction equipment necessary for the exe-
cution of BT's plan and as necessary for the maintenance of the
Subject Property, no motor vehicle shall be driven upon or parked
upon the Subject Property.
No boat trailer shall be allowed upon the Subject
Property. Nothing in the preceding three sentences shall be
deemed to prohibit the launching of any watercraft from the
Subject Property if accomplished without the assistance of any
motor vehicle or trailer or wheeled dolly upon the Subject
Property.
SECTION 3. MUNICIPAL DISCLAIMERS.
3.01. _No Liability to Suppliers of Labor or Material. It
is understood and agreed that the City, the City Council and the
agents and employees of the City shall not be personally liable
or responsible in any manner to BT or the Association, their
contractors, or subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, or to any
other person, firm or corporation whomsoever, for any debt,
claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind
or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this
permit and agreement or the performance and completion of the
work and improvements hereunder and the BT and the Association
will save the City, the City Council, and the agents and
employees of the City harmless from any and all claims, damages,
demands, actions or causes of action arising therefrom and the
costs, disbursements, and expenses of defending the same.
3.02. Written Work Orders. BT and the Association shall
do no work nor furnish materials, whether covered or not covered
by BT's plan, for which reimbursement is expected from the City
unless a written order for such work or materials is received
from the City. Any such work or materials which may be done or
furnished by BT or the Association without such written order
first being given shall be at its own risk, cost and expense, and
BT and the Association hereby agree that without such written
order, they will make no claim for compensation for work or
materials so done or furnished.
-5-
SECTION 4. MISCELLANEOUS.
4_01. Severability. In the event any provisions of this
permit shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any
court or competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invali-
date or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the
remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired
thereby.
4.02. Execution of Counterparts. This permit may be
simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which
shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one
and the same instrument.
4_03. Headings. Headings at the beginning of sections
and paragraphs hereof are for convenience of reference, and shall
not be considered a part of the text of this contract, and shall
not influence its construction.
4_04. Proof of Title. Upon request, BT and the
Association shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to
the City that they have acquired fee title to the Subject
Property prior to any request by BT pursuant to Section 2.02 of
this permit.
4_05. Notices. All notices, certificates and other com-
munications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be
deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, with property address as indicated
below. The City and BT and the Association, by written notice
given by one to the other, may designate any address or
addresses, to which notices, certificates or other communications
to them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this
permit. Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties, all
notices, certificates, and communications to each of them shall
be addressed as follows:
To the City:
To BT:
To the Association:
City of Chanhassen
City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn: City Manger
B-T Land Company
1055 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Lotus Lake Estates
c/o Aaron Babcock
125 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 7
Homeowners Assoc.
4.06. Owners to be Notified of This Permit. The
Association shall furnish each owner, as that term is defined in
Section 2.03 above, with a copy of this permit within thirty (30)
days of the signing of this permit and shall furnish each future
Q�
owner, as that term is defined in Section 2.03 above, with a
copy of this permit, within thirty (30) days of any such owner's
initial occupancy of any residential structure in Lotus Lake
Estates.
4.07. Term of This Permit. This permit shall expire on
July 21, 2010.
SECTION 5. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.
5.01. Reimbursement of Costs. BT and the Association
shall reimbure the City for all costs, including reasonable engi-
neering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by
the City in connection with all matters relating to the
administration and enforcement of the within permit and the per-
formance thereby by BT and the Association. Such reimbursement
shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of
the City's notice of costs as provided in Section 4.05 above.
This reimbursement obligation of BT and the Association under
this section shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term
of this permit.
5.02. Remedies Upon Default.
a. Assessments. In the event either BT or the Association
shall default in the performance of any of the covenants
and agreements herein contained, and such default shall
not have been cured within ten (10) days after receipt
by BT and the Association of written notice thereof, the
City, if it so elects, may cause any of the improvements
described in BT's plan to be constructed and installed
or may take action to cure such default and may cause
the entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engi-
neering, legal and administrative expense incurred by
the City, to be recovered as special assessment under
M.S. Chapter 429, in which case BT and the Association
agree to pay the entire amount of the assessment roll
pertaining to any such improvement within thirty (30)
days after its adoption. BT and the Association further
agree that in the event of its failure to pay in full
any such special assessment within the time prescribed
herein, the City shall have a specific lien on the
Subject Property for any amount so unpaid, and the city
shall have the right to foreclose said lien in the
manner prescribed for the foreclosure of mechanic's lien
under the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event
of an emergency, as determined by the City Engineers,
the notice requirements to BT and the Association shall
be and hereby are waived in their entirety, and BT and
the Association shall reimburse the City for any expense
incurred by the City in remedying the conditions
creating the emergency.
b. Legal Proceedings. In addition to the foregoing, the
City may institute any proper action or proceeding at
-7-
law or at equity to prevent violations of the within
property, to restrain or abate violations of the within
permit, or to prevent use or occupancy of the Subject
Property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these
presents to be executed on the day of
M
By
An(
STATE OF MINN OTA)
ss
COUNTY OF )
LOTUS LAKE
ASSOCIATION
By _
Its
And
Its
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By
Its Mayor
Attest
City Clerk/Manager
On this da of before me, a notary
public, within and r said county, personally appeared
and , to
me personally know, wT
being each by me duly sworn did say that
they are respectibelye President an Vice -President of B-T Land
Company, and that sainstrument was signed in behalf of said
corporation by authorof its Board of Directors, and said
and ,
acknowledged said ins rument.,to be the free act and deed of said
corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , before me, a notary
public, within and for said county, personally appeared
and , to
me personally know, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that
they are respectively the President an Vice -President of Lotus
Lake Homeowners Association, and that said instrument was signed
in behalf of said association, and said
and ,
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said
corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
On this day of , 19 , before me,
a notary public, within and for the county, personally appeared
Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth, to me personally known,
who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respec-
tively the Mayor and the City Manager of the municipal cor-
poration named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal
affixed to said instrument is the municipal corporate seal of
said municipality, and that said instrument was signed and sealed
in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City
Council and said Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said
municipal corporation.
Notary Public
EXHIBIT A
n
z
n
2
c�
-
<
U3
m
-
Rl o
Z
G
^ T
CO
a�
m a
c
v�
m
m
Z
mlb W.rnntr Dead.
_rpor.Han b QorDnr><Hon
J
H
Form No. 23—M.
•
:. Made this ............ __ ... ....
Minnc.au
n1iIL nU,ci. l u„ Punpr.ilfl nn
umh"nl Om.rvm, nuv 111an1.. (Rrrl.rd 111--)
. ._..... day of....._June........................ 1944......
a corporation under the laws of the State of............. Mi,nngSOt.A................................... I party of the first part, and
Lotus Lake Estates Homesowners Association, a non-profit corporation
jX)CX A"*bon under the laws of the State of.................... .M.inllesata.................. _...................................................... I party of
the second part,
to it in hand,
hereby rrant
r,.rrrrr, all i
r,r•.' c,,,., e,!
egg¢tb, That the said party of the first part, in consideration of the sum of
............. One ....(11...9.Q.)....Q.o 1.1.a.r.....a.nd...otb.e.r .. good ... and...�aluabl.e... cons.i.derat.i.o nDOLL.41?8,
paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does
Bargain, Sell, and Convey unto the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns,
fir tract .. or parcel......... of land lying and being in the County of........................ .. Carver ... .........
,1linvs,t n, dr.erribrd as follows, to -wit:
Commencing at the most westerly corner of Lot 31, Block 2 of said Lotus
Lake Estates; thence on an assumed bearing of North 61 degrees East, along
the northwesterly line of said Lot 31, a distance of 145.01 feet to the
most northerly corner of said Lot 31, said point being the point of beginning
of the line to be described; thence North 60 degrees West, 194 feet, more
or less to the shoreline of Lotus Lake, and said line there terminating.
Considers4ion
\P9s .
'%r `Ales 1tr5fee- of �xo(xnc1.,4
Zo babe anb to lboib the *aMt, Together with all the hereditaments and appurtenances there -
unto belonging or in anywise appertaining, to the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns,
Forever. ✓Ind the said party of the first part, for itself and its successors, does covenant with the said
party of the second part, its successors and assigns, that it has not made, done, executed or suffered any
act or thing whatsoever whereby the above described premises or any part thereof, now or at any time here-
after, shall or may be imperiled, charged or encumbered in any manner whatsoever . ......................................... __
✓l n.d the title to the above granted premises against all persons lawfully claiming the same from, through
or under it, except items, if any, hereinbefore mentioned, the said party of the first part will Warrant
and Defend.
NO 3n Teotitnonp Wbereof, The said first party has caused these
CORPORATE presents to be executed in its corporate name by its ....................................
SEAL President aUxc UK......................................................z cxhtraaxXeowmxx�xKMx
bWAVeV0W X*jt Ad the day and year first above written.
............. 6-.T.... LAND ... QQMP NY........ .................... ..............
In Presence of '
illiam B. Van Nest
................................................... ........ I .....
....................... Its..........................................President
Its.............................................. _....... ......
z
btate of Ainnv5otat
Count o HenneP
p _,..n ...........
...........................................
The forewoins instrument Tnas acknowledged before me,
this ...... ilth dad of ..... .............. JUne..................... ............. 19-0...........
by.........................Wi 1.1.i am ... S...... Y.a.ri-ft.s.t.,... President ....... .... .......................................................
(NAME OF OFFICER OR AGENT, TITLE OF OFFICER OR AGENT)
andby ...... ,........... __..... ....................................................................._..............................................
INAME OF OFFICER OR AGENT, TITLE OF OFFICER OR AGENT)
B-T Land Company
Of......_......._,. _.._._._,_._._.....................................................................-I..................................................
(NAME OF CORPORATION ACKNOWLEDGING)
a .... .. .
MinneSAi.?.................... .... . ........... .... ... .......... ._corporation., 076 behalf of the corporation.
(STATL OR PLACE OF INCORPORATION)
1,1. 1•._ ,LOVER 2 �J V
u•:' NOT. : - rdiN:.=SOYA ♦ ... .... ...... ... ......... ........ ..............
it-n .-__................................... ...
>:, \ V', ,. � Jp; .,Y (SIGNATURE OF PER N TAKING ACKNOWLEDGMENT)
MyCOmmliHol E.pue,Aug.;.1986 y PUbI iC
I-ppppp d............................................................................................
..............................b
(TITLE OR RANK)
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY
B-T Land Company
1055 E. Wayzata BlATO)
Wayzata, MN 55391 (AaF1r„F)
I^: ;0-
f1'il
VMK
40
-s
C I TYOO F
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
July 28, 1986
Mr. Jim Lacey, President
Lotus Lake Homeowners Association
121 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Lacey:
This is to notify you that the City Council reviewed and approved
the revised site plan regarding use of the Lotus Lake Estates
recreational beachlot. The revised plan will be made part of the
revised conditional use permit which is attached for your review.
Please arrange for the signing of the permit by the appropriate
officers of the association and return the permit to my office.
A copy of the fully executed permit will be returned for your
files.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincere
Dacy
//BaArbaa
r
City Planner
BD:v
cc: Roger Knutson, City Attorney
� CITYbF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City
DATE: July 16, 1986
Manager
Planne
SUBJ: Review Lotus Lake Estates Beachlot Site Plan
Acton by CRY Aa^- -
Jlaii�
lr�rtrt
Plate Submitted to Cemmissien
Date Submitte/ to Dauncii
7/;t i /IY
At the June 16, 1986 City Council meeting the Council stated that
they would like to review the site plan for the Lotus Lake
Estates Beachlot and have a staff member inspect the site to eva-
luate the proposed location of the docks and other uses of the
beachlot. On July 1, 1986, I inspected the beachlot along with
John Stein from the DNR. The DNR was contacted because their
rules require that docks mooring in an excess of four boats must
receive a DNR permit.
As you recall, the Council approved the Conditional Use Permit
for three docks with overnight storage of nine boats. Attachment
#1 reflects the site plan for the beachlot. The homeowners asso-
ciation intends to moor the nine boats at the two southerly docks
reserving the northerly dock for fishing purposes. The DNR
representative, John Stein, felt that the proposed location of
the docks appeared to be copasetic with the vegetation existing
along the shoreline.
As can be seen by the attached letter from the DNR, they are
still evaluating the number of slips that they will permit at the
two docks. As in the case of the Plocher/Geske variance, the
matter regarding the number of slips will be between the DNR and
the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. However, in no case will
the number of slips exceed nine approved by the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site plan for Lotus Lake Estates stamped "Received June 25,
1986".
2. Letter from John Stein, DNR, dated July 15, 1986.
3. City Council minutes dated June 16, 1986.
DOCK
LOTUS LAKE ESTATES
SITE PLAN FOR OUTLOT B
SWIMMWG AREA
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
' (A 1986
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT.
K •
SAILBOAT MOORINGS
•
STATE F •
[I`1.l H LE z (0irQ
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PHONENo. 612/296-7523 1200 Warner Rd., St. Paul, MN. 55106 FILE NO.
July 15, 1986
Ms. Barb Dacy
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive,
Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: LOTUS LAKE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION - PROPOSED DOCKS
Dear Ms. Dacy:
As we discussed on July 1, 1986 on -site, proposed dock(s) providing 5
or more boat moorings requires a DNR permit regardless of the number
of docks or how the mooring slips are divided. I spoke incorrectly
when stating that we had no problems with more boat moorings.
DNR permit rules enable us to grant a permit for one boat mooring slip
per riparian lot width. In the case of this particular beach lot, we
would first determine how many riparian lots could be platted to the
waters edge. The resulting number would be the number of allowable
slips.
There have been instances where, if a single-family development
fulfills many of the requirements of a PUD development adjacent a lake
(e.g., sensitivity to land limitations, open space guarantees, etc.)
an increase of slips by up to 50% could be considered. This appears
to be a possibility in this instance.
To summarize, the proposed mooring of 9 boats requires a DNR permit.
The Homeowner's Association should obtain the necessary city
approvals/permits prior to application for a DNR permit. (The
Department cannot issue a permit until all necessary local
approvals/permits have been obtained.)
I have consulted with Judy Boudreau since her return from vacation and
she is willing to discuss this with you further if you desire.
Sincerely,
J n Linc Stine
A a Hydrologist
METRO REGION DIVISION OF WATERS
cc: Gary Welch, Lotus Lake Estates Homeowner's Association REC;Z. ;Z
L54
JUL 1 61986
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
O CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded that this item be tabled
until the July 7, 1986 Regular City Council meeting. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
APPROVAL, OF ACCOUNTS: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded
TO approve the b bills
dated June 16, 1986, check numbers 023757 through
023869 in the amount of $1,859,271.77 including the 11 bills as shown on
page 15 of the Accounts Payable dated June 16, 1986 in the total amount of
$94,591.65, and check numbers 026646 through 026752 in the amount of
$204,625.05. All Council memebers voted in favor and motion carried.
Beachlots:
a. First Reading of an Amendment to Chanhassen Zoning ordinance No.
47 to Amend Section 6.04, Section 7.04 and Section 14.04
T T
(Recreational Beachlots), City o—f Chanhassen.
b. First Reading of an Amendment to Section 3.04 of Water Surface
Usage Ordinance No. 73.
C. Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Allow a Total of 3 Docks to be
Constructed on Outlot B and to Allow Overnight Storage on these
a Docks of Total of 9 Watercraft without Restrict o as to
Whether said Watercraft are Motorized or Non -motorized. iro�zed. —
Don Ashworth: When the Planning Commission reviewed this item, there �-
appeared to be a great deal of emphasis placed on the fact that the lawsuit
and that was really the reason that this item was coming back to the City
Council. I disagree with that position. This issue is being considered on
its merits. The lawsuit potentially did hasten that process, but is really
not the reason for such. The City Staff is responsible to process and
review applications that come before the City. In that process we look at
the reasonableness of an ordinance and its consistency of enforcement. The
reasonableness of an ordinance is very subjective. nie best example would
be the City Council has a lot of discretion in terms of establishing a new
ordinance that would require a 50 foot setback. A developer can come in
and question the reasonableness of that type of ordinance. He could
contend that you were depriving him of his ability to develop. His ability
to sustain that position really would not be very good. In adopting the
ordinance, especially one that represents a leading edge, one which there
is not a great deal of other communities that have similar type of
ordinance. You always chance questions as to the reasonableness of this
new ordinance. The beachlot ordinance and water surface usage ordinance
really represented that type of an ordinance. They represented a leading
edge and the question as to could we defend or is this ordinance
reasonable, could only be answered by continuously monitoring the ordinance
itself. Looking at it in terms of development proposals that came before
the City. From its very beginnings, and I go back to the Derek Development
proposal, you have 10 riparian lots and some of the initial questions were
one of should the developer be allowed to have a beachlot, should there be
2
Ply
43
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
riparian rights associated with that? The Council looked to trying to
i! establish a protection of the spawning area that existed in that area. In
doing that, looked for mechanisms to have some give and take and to be able
to allow the developer potentially the right to share docks or share usage
and still preserve that area that was the spawning area. That really
became a kind of first test of the reasonableness of the ordinance. Since
that point in time you've had questions associated with the Will Thompson
development, Red Cedar Cove, Sunnyslope has been back in front of you
asking for consideration under the beachlot ordinance and Lotus Lake
Estates has been in several times as well. In each instance, the parties
have questioned the reasonableness of the ordinance. That reasonableness
can be determined in a court of law but typically the question of
reasonableness will cane back and be answered by the City Council
themselves. The second issue is really one of consistency of enforcement.
In the Plocher-Ceske variance that was approved, really questioned again
the reasonableness of the ordinance and our ability to consistently enforce
it. The issue before the Council was one of a developer attempting to
develop a piece of property where he had the right to develop 10 single
family lots. As part of that process he could have put in 10 docks each
having five boats. In total you would have been looking at 50 boats and
instead the developer presented to this Council the position that the City
of Chanhassen needed and could use condominium type of housing, that he
could live with and in fact would be willing to reduce the total dockage
rights from 50 to 15. [lender the current ordinance the Council could not do
that. The Council made a decision to provide a variance to that developer
as part of that process. That variance has created in fact, back to the
ordinance itself because again, the two tests became one of reasonableness
and consistency of enforcement. The issue of the ordinance amendments that
you have in front of you are the same ordinance amendments that were
introduced by Councilwoman Swenson at that point in time, one year ago. I
do not again believe that they in any way are related to the Lotus Lake
Estates lawsuit. They were hasten by Lotus Lake Estates. There is no
question they were hasten by Lotus Lake Estates but they were not presented
at the same time. At the time Plocker-Ceske arose, the ordinance amendment
again of Councilwoman Swenson was presented. The issue presented at the
Planning Commission was one of what makes you think that if you change your
ordinance at this point in time that you won't have another change or that
this is any different than where we were 2-3 years ago. I will go back to
the same two positions and those are reasonableness and consistency of
enforcement. If the City Council believes that the amendments before you
are reasonable and that you can consistently apply those in cases in the
future, the ordinance will remain intact, be enforceable and be law of the
City. At this point I would like Barbara to go through the specific
amendments.
Barbara Llacy: First I will discuss the amendment to the recreational
beachlot ordinance. Just to remind everyone, as everybody knows a
recreational beachlot is a conditional use in a residential district in the
zoning ordinance of the City. After this I will talk about the proposed
amendment to the water surface usage ordinance. That ordinance is not part
of the zoning ordinance but is a general ordinance of the city. I will
just highlight the major changes between existing beachlot ordinance and
7
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
the proposed ordinance. The first one is in regards to the first section.
Originally under the existing ordinance chemical toilets are permitted
subject to them being located 75 feet back from the ordinary high. The
Proposed ordinance those facilities are prohibited. What remains the same
in this section is the prohibition against any type of structure.
Secondly, while the proposed ordinance continues to maintain existing
restrictions to probibit launching over the beachlot, the proposed
ordinance does allow overnight storage of watercraft at docks to number no
more than three motorized or non -motorized watercraft per dock. The
proposed ordinance also allows up to four sailboat moorings, the storage of
canoes, windsurfer, sailboards and other small sailboats overnight if they
are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. The third
change between existing and the proposed ordinance is in regards to the
size of the beachlot. The existing four dock, right now you have to have
100 feet by 100 feet for a beachlot. The proposed ordinance regulates the
number of docks by requiring that it have at least 200 feet of lake
frontage, 100 feet in depth plus 30,000 square feet in area. Additional
dockage can only be granted for another 200 feet of lake frontage and
another 20,000 square feet in area. You have to have both lake frontage
and the lot area requirements in order to have the docks. The ordinance
does restrict the total number of docks per beachlot to a total of three.
Another difference in the ordinance is that the ordinance does specifically
regulate sailboat moorings. No more than one sailboat mooring is allowed
within 200 feet and each additional mooring has to have an additional 200
feet of lake frontage. It should be noted that the proposed changes to the
beachlot ordinance does not effect existing beachlots. Your packets
stamped for informational purposes, analyzed existing beachlots to see
how the proposed regulations would effect those if they all came under the
Proposed standards. only three beachlots would be allowed to have docks.
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendments
wanting to convey to the City Council that the existing ordinance should be
maintained.
The water surface usage ordinance proposed amendment is simply to reduce
the amount of boats stored at a dock where private riparian lot from five
boats
to three boats. The Planning Commission action on this particular
item
was to recommend approval to the Council. At this point I would like
to refer the
Council to Councilwoman Swenson's concerns regarding the
consistency between the two proposed ordinances. Basically the concerns
are that while existing beachlots are grandfathered, the proposed reduction
in the number of boats in the water surface usage ordinance, the existing
boats are not grandfathered. Secondly, the proposed beachlot ordinance
does not limit the number of additional watercrafts such as canoes,
sailboards
and small sailboats. While the water surface usage ordinance
simply three
says watercraft period. Third, the water surface usage
ordinance is
conflicting with the beachlot ordinance in concern to the
ownership of the lot. At this point if Council would like I could talk
about the conditional use permit amendment request or would you like to
discuss
the ordinances at this point.
Mayor Hamilton: We will take the ordinances first. I think what I would
like to do this
at time is ask if there are any citizen comments dealing
91
Chanhassen city Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
with the amendment to the ordinance.
Margie Gargalotty: 7413 Frontier Trail. You said not to give any new
evidence so I won't but I would like to present to the Council a petition
that was circulated among Chanhassen residents and on here are 290
signatures of people who would like the Council to uphold the current
ordinance with no changes.
Councilman Horn: I got a call today from Mr. Dave Priilaman and we
discussed this issue. He asked me to pass onto the Council that he would
like his named removed from the petition opposing this ordinance.
Henry Sosin: I live at 7400 Chanhassen Road. I would like to ask a couple
of questions and make a couple of points and I would like Mr. Ashworth and
Mr. Knutson to pay special attention because I would like to hear an answer.
One, the point you bring up about reasonableness and enforcability. They
intrigue me. The definition of reasonableness first of all, how you cone
about that. I would think that one of the laws from one of the state
agencies, namely the DNR might be considered as one judge of reasonableness.
They assume that for safety purposes alone, that the number of boats on a
lake should be restricted at any one time to one power boat per 10 acres of
water. They assume that the people who live on the lake get 50% of that
and therefore when they put in a boat launch, such as you know they are
doing here now, they take the number of one boat per 20 acres, which is 50%
of the usable capacity of the lake and they assume that is a reasonable
figure. What you are doing by changing this ordinance and allowing
essentially in this particular one spot with reference to one lake at
least, this change in ordinance would allow nine additional watercrafts,
motorized plus other boats by the way, onto the lake which would account
for 75% of the "off -lake" usage of the lake surface. Any more than that,
according to the DNR, promotes an unsafe situation. The argument is that
if you add all of these extra boats, then it is almost like adding another
portion of usage to the lake and I wonder if that is reasonable. The other
thing I would like to mention is what you said was consistency of
enforcability. I would like you maybe to expand on that or maybe Roger
can explain that to me. Just because the Council thinks something is
reasonable doesn't seem to mean that it is enforcable or that they would
enforce it. We have had laws on the books, there have been persistent
violations of those particular laws and regulations which to this date
continue. Assuming that these laws which are not up for change are
reasonable and enforcable, they haven't been enforced. The point being
is that the Council doesn't seem to enforce the rules or the law and it is
maybe not up to the Council to do that, City Staff whatever.
Ehforcability is determined in a court of law. At least that is my
understanding of it. What I would like to ask, and maybe I can get an
answer to this, is it seems in its current form the ordinance says that for
all the reasons that the ordinance was written, it was written this way and
we are limiting usage of the lake to riparian owners except for all the
usage that is allowed through normal access. That is a principal of the
law and that to me seems defensible. What I don't understand is your
presumption that making 200 feet plus 100 foot depth plus 30,000 square
feet is reasonable and defensible. If I were in the position of owning a
OJ
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
beachlot or having a lot that had 175 feet or 190 feet and you passed this
law, then you tell me that now the Council is comfortable with this and
this is defensible, you tell me how that is anymore defensible than our
current law because I think it is less defensible because that is being
arbitrary. You have no basis upon which to say 200 by 100 by 30,000 square
feet has any scientific merit. Where is the merit of that argument? I
would like that answer if possible.
Councilwoman Swenson: Henry, if I might respond to your DNR comment.
It is my understanding that when the DNR establishes that 20 acres as you
say, they take 50% of the people that are using it and they include all of
the lakeshore, not just the riparian rights. our regulations are based on
the premises of 75 foot lots. With the riparian rights for instance, with
1,000 feet on riparian rights, they would allow 13 docks depending on the
DNR which allows four boats par dock without additional permits so that would be
a potential 52 watercraft. Now when a beachlot is processed this triggers
what they call a PUD count which takes one boat for each of that 75 feet
then they add 50%. So in the case of 1,000 feet, the DNR would allow 20
boats. This is their regulations so they do take into consideration PUD's
in that form. Just clarification.
Don Ashworth: The question of reasonableness is a decision of a City
Council. Other cities typically define reasonableness of an ordinance to
mean one of the ability of existing beachlots, in this case or whatever the
use happens to be, to conform to the existing ordinance or the ordinance j
that is proposed to be passed, and reasonableness in terms of your ability L
to require new developments to comply with that same ordinance. Again that
is typically a test used in other communities. 'The question on consistency
of enforcement, the Lotus Lake Homeowners have made Staff aware of various
violations during the past 2-3 year period of time. I think that we have
responded to each of those. I think there has to be a recognition that
the Court process and the ability to enforce an issue is very difficult.
It can take a period of time. The one noted by the homeowners is Mr.
Harrison Winters. That has been in court several times. The Court just
made a ruling in the last two weeks in favor of Mr. Winters. In light of
that, the other one noted which is Mr. Gordon Talk really becomes very
questionable for the City to continue to pursue recognizing his number of
years on the lake and that he is a victim of polio. The other violations
that are referred to, I'm not sure what they are. I know there has been
some questions on Outlot 12. Outlot 12 has existed since the City was
incorporated. I know of nothing they are doing there today that was not
done there 50 years ago. If there are other violations, Mr. Sosin, I guess
I would like to know of them.
Tom Merz: I live on Lake Minnewashta. Rather than go through my list of
the many things that you have heard before, I would hope that all of us are
here to, our primary concern is that 10 years ago we started out to
preserve the lakes and the natural resources that we have. For that we
implemented that Lake Study. We had a findings and we spent a lot of time
on it. At that point we had certain guidelines that we were all willing to
follow. Less than three years ago with the implementation of the DNR and
their public access to the lake, we again in my mind in reading these books
10
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
that we all site laws, we have gone over that and gone over that. At this
point, we are not maintaining the lakes that we
all moved
out here for.
The clarity is gone from 10 feet to 7 feet, the
wildlife is
disappearing
and we are not maintaining what we've got and I
guess I'm
up here to say
we've got to stop someplace. We are abusing our
lakes at
this point, why
should be allow any more abuse.
Henry Sosin: Can I have an answer to the 200 feet question?
Mayor Hamilton: That was one of the items I wanted to discuss dealing with
this amendment. I had some questions about that also and I intern to bring
it up when the Council discusses this, we will get into that. I was
uncomfortable with that same issue and that was one of the points I wanted
to bring up so perhaps in our discussions here, that will answer your
question. I have some comments that I would like to make prior to the
Council's discussion of this issue. 'here are a few statements that I am
going to read to you.
Based on comments made by residents and Commission members, there seems to
be a need for clarification of some questions. The City Council has
responsibility of maintaining and directing growth and development in this
community for all interested persons. That includes residents and non-
residents alike. All ordinances are open to challenge at any time. It's
not a this year, not next year arrangement. It is anticipated that at the
time of passage, ordinances will stand the test of time. Unfortunately
situations arise that can diminish the legality or usefulness of a
Particular ordinance. When that occurs, the ordinance will be reviewed and
changes made, if necessary. The Council has a responsibility to be fair
and impartial to everyone. The residents, future residents, commercial
organizations and employees of commercial organizations, visitors and
guests. Chanhassen is not an island or a community that is suddenly
stopping development. I refer to this as "I have mine now don't let
anyone else in" syndrome. Some residents have suggested that the Council
knuckles under to pressure or to developers. We have an obligation on this
Council to listen to each and every request made. To consider an issue, if
it is requested every year and to review that every year it is requested.
This Council continually examines questions and dissects all proposals
brought before us. In my opinion there are very few errors made in our
decision making process. Unfortunately, in today's society experts can be
hired to give an opinion on anything and if you don't like what the first
expert said, hire another, who for a price will also be an expert. Most of
these experts are attorneys, in my opinion, looking for something to do. I
heard a story the other day that I actually thought was humorous. The
fellow said that he understands that experimental laboratories are going to
start using attorneys in their experiments rather than white mice for two
reasons, because there are more of them and because you don't become quite
as attached to them. The City of Chanhassen has assembled a team of
professionals to advise the Council on technical matters. outside consultants
are also used to advise the Staff and Council when necessary. one of the
major factors in building a team is trust and confidence in their
abilities. I have a great deal of trust and confidence in the entire staff
of the City of Chanhassen. The Council and Staff goes out of its way to
11
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
solicit input from the community. Most of the time input is constructive
and useful and is greatly appreciated. At no time has an issue ever been
ramrodded through or acted upon without input from all commissions and the
Public. Everyone has an opportunity to submit some sense of information
about why or why not a project should or should not be acceptable. This
Proposed ordinance amendment before us tonight is no different. All
information is looked at in an objective, unbiased perspective, one will
find that there is very little, if any, net change to the use of the lakes
ark] fair treatment to all residents in the future will occur. I would like
to now have the Council make their comments and questions about the
amendment to the recreational beachlot ordinance 47.
Councilman Horn: I think some of the comments Tom made really go a long
way for what happened in my thought process in reviewing this. I have been
involved in this since the inception as part of the first lake study
committee that was appointed and I understand what we set out to do with
this ordinance and know a lot of the reasoning behind it. I didn't follow
the committee all the way through but I did follow their recommendations.
I think one of the real issues to me that really had any question when we
originally had done, was the comparison of saying a piece of property with
900 feet of lakeshore doesn't at least have the same amount of rights as
one who has maybe 59 feet of lakeshore. Believe me, I am one of the most
emotional advocates of saving lakes and saving trees and those things, I
would say of anyone of the Council, but I have a little trouble with that
when it came to reasonableness and I had a little trouble when I equated
that with what we were trying to do, which was to keep down the density on L
the lake to a reasonable level. 1b the issue of when these ideas originated,
the night Pat brought up her proposals to the Council which was prior to
any lawsuit that we had and was prior to the approval of the property on
Lake Minnewashta, I was willing to go along with that and listen to those
arguments as long as we would apply that equitably to the proposal that was
before us and also to reduce the number of boats per dock to three. I felt
this was a reasonable compromise. I think if we take all of the docks on
the lake that now could have five boats and put three boats on them, we are
going to decrease the amount of density on the lake and that will
compensate to a great degree in allowing other docks for large property
owners. I think, first of all, I don't favor the the idea of outlots. I
tend to favor riparian lakeshore owners not so much for the idea of
crowding in this case, but for the idea of maintaining the lake. As we
toured the lakes we saw many inconsistencies on how well people maintained
their properties. 'There was a lot of inconsistencies in the riparian
lakeshore owners but there was an even greater inconsistency in outlot
owners. My concern with outlots at that time was that some type of a
community ownership doesn't seem to bring about the sense of pride that an
individual owner does, but there are exceptions to every rule. The Sunrise
beach outlot situation is very well done. It is immaculately kept. If we
had all outlots like that, I couldn't question it but I feel that what we
have cone to this evening, is a reasonable compromise because of the density
issue. I tend to feel that new residents, new developers have some rights
to lake use also. I'm not sure that I followed Henry's comments completely
but it seemed to me like we were talking about using up a quota with the
number of uses we had. If we were to look at that, it would appear to me
12
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
that a lot of the small lots along any of our lakes, would use up this
quota much faster than what three docks is going to do for us so I don't
feel we can shut the new developers and the new home builders out of the
uses that other people get priviledged to. For that reason I have changed
my original concept of what I felt was reasonable on this and feel that if
we do have the restrictions of 200 feet or whatever a reasonable criteria
is, so that we don't have the 25 foot outlot with 100 hones on it that we
will adequately control their use.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think that Don and you and Clark have covered
Pretty well my feelings on the subject also and I think it was important, I
thank you Henry for giving me an opportunity to mention the alternative
were we without an ordinance in remote possibility that we might be forced
into one with 20 watercraft which would be 7 more than the current amended
ordinance would allow and 40 less than would be permitted under riparian
ownership. By no means do I mean to imply that I disapprove of riparian
ownership. Being a lakeshore owner myself, I do confess to being as
sensitive to the coalition of our lakes as anybody else which may or may
not make it more difficult for me to cane to some of these decisions.
Sometimes these decisions are personally difficult because it costs
relationships with people you admire and respect but in the capacity of an
elected official one has to override these things. I think that perhaps
the time to make the recommendations would be after everybody has their
comments done so I will pass with that.
Councilman Geving: My comments are that I don't know of a single issue in
the last four years that we have spent more time on then docks, the number
of docks, the number of boats per dock and the whole issue of the
recreational beachlot ordinance along with the water usage. During the
last 10 days I suspect I have received as many phone calls as the rest of
the Council, but it is interesting that as I tallied up the scores, I had
almost equal number of fors and against on this whole issue. There are as
many people that wanted to amend the ordinance as to leave it alone. I
think that for anyone to suggest that at any time this Council has ever
been intimidated or an attempt to influence the Council by developers, if
you have that feeling it is totally false because it just doesn't happen.
If you look deep enough you will usually find that the people that are
behind the developers are the people who are trying to market their land.
They are the farmers, the local citizens and they are the ones, not the
developers who are intimidating or attempting to put pressure on whoever,
to market that land, so it isn't an outside influence. It is generally
local. The main thing about this particular issue tonight is that I think
we have studied it fairly, we have had public hearings on this issue, we
have had input from literally hundreds of people and we have spent a lot of
time on it and even though we were party to the original ordinance, we are
a dynamic community and changes do take place. There are at any one time,
500-700 building permits issued and available in the City of Chanhassen
right now. Houses are being built all over the lakes and the lakes are a
big issue with Chanhassen because I know how many people live out there.
Approximately 15% of all our citizens live on lakes and because of that,
they are very sensitive to what is happening around them. Changes are
*— taking place and as the ordinances that we put into effect need to be
13
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
changed because of some reason, whatever that might be, we have to take
another look at the issue. on this particular case, I feel that as long as
we are consistent and we try to be fair and we try to make every attempt to
be deliberate in our sound decision making process, we are going to come up
with a good solution tonight. Another thing is that we can't hurt the
existing homeowners. If we are fair to those people and grandfather those
people in where necessary, I think we will have accomplished that
objective. I am very much in favor of reducing the density of boat traffic
on our lakes. I have been attempting to get to this point for sane time.
This may surprise a lot of you but we have been considering this particular
amendment very early this spring. It is nothing new. We have talked about
it for the last six months and we have had several large meetings, lengthly
meetings. This isn't something that we just arrived at so the issue of
reducing the boats from five to three on a dock, I have gotten many good
comments on that and that seems to be one issue that people are in favor
of. As far as violations are concerned and the enforcement of those
violations that are brought to our attention. I think it is a citizen's
duty to bring those violations to our attention. We have 24 square miles
in this City Henry, and it is very difficult at any one time to catch
everybody who is doing something wrong, but you as citizens have a
responsibility. When you see a violation taking place and you know it is a
violation, report it to City Hall and it will be carried out swiftly. That
is how I feel about answering that particular question. We can't be all
places at all times. In terms of the ordinance itselves, I am very much in
favor of the way we are moving here on this particular issue. I think the r
beachlot ordinance has to be amended. We probably don't like beachlots but L
they are a fact of life. If we can eliminate and at least attempt to cane
up with some standards as proposed by Councilwoman Swenson, I don't know
where her criteria came from but I believe it is reasonable and I believe
we can enforce that. At least we will have a standard. We didn't have a
standard before so I think that will work. Again, if we can grandfather
those people in tonight that are existing riparian homeowners on the lakes
and take care of the other issues, I think this will be fine for the
conmunity.
Councilwoman Watson: I feel like everyone else. Most of the comments have
been made. I will just repeat one that we take great pride in that
regardless of whether there is a public hearing held here, everyone gets to
talk. There is always an opportunity to speak here even though these are
not public hearings and I think that is something we all take a great deal
of pride in. The other comment I have to make is I'm not opposed to the
amendment, more my opposition is to the timing. The action that some feel
percipitated the change of the ordinance involved the variance process.
The variance process is used in conjunction with other ordinances and
doesn't necessarily ccmpromise the ordinance.
Mayor Hamilton: I have two issues that I would like to have the Council
discuss. one is when I was reviewing this change that has to do with what
Dr. Sosin said earlier, I was looking at 200 feet and 30,000 square feet of
land and I thought that if we are going to be fair with the ordinance, that
isn't necessarily being fair to everyone because you can have a 100 foot
lot on the lake, we may allow 100 lot now. Consequently, I thought it
14
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
might be a good idea to at least consider having a scale of some kind so if
you reduce 200 down to 100 by 10 foot increments or whatever increment you
want, I just took 10 feet, for each 10 feet that you reduce the frontage on
the lake, you increase the square footage of land space by an increment.
Whether that is 2,000, 5,000 or 10,000. Again, it would have to be an
arbitary number that would need to be selected and see how that would work
once it is put into place. I worked out two ways. One using going down in
10 foot increments on frontage on the lake having 100 foot setbacks though,
and then going up in 10,000 foot increments so when you get down to 100
foot frontage on the lake, you would need to have 130,000, that is if you
go up 10,000 square feet for each 10 feet of frontage you go down, that
would give you 130,000 square feet of land space to have your outlot. Now
it you went up in 5,000 square foot increments, you would have 100 feet on
the lake and 80,000 square feet of space. It is a question I discussed
with Barb and Don this afternoon and we just kicked it around some and
thought it was an interesting concept and to me we need to have something
like this to make it fair to everyone so we aren't just saying 200 is the
only size you can have and you can have something smaller than that but you
have to meet the rest of the criteria.
Councilman Geving: Using your example then Tom, if you had the 200 feet
what would you cane up to.
Councilwoman Swenson: At 200 feet you would have 30,000.
Councilman Geving: So you would have the basic 30 and there is no problem
i there. Moving down then, 100 would give you 80.
L
Mayor Hamilton: In applying that ratio to the outlots that are in
existence, the only outlot that does effect would be Erontier Trail. They
have 180 feet of lake frontage and 105,000 square feet of space. The rest
of them don't have the square footage required or they don't have the
frontage required but again it is an arbitrary number that would be
selected and I'm not sure how you would select that number. It could be
1,000, 2,000, 5,000, 10,000. Let's say you had 150 feet of lakeshore, you
would then be required to have 55,900 square feet.
Councilman Geving: That is exactly what the Sunrise Hills would fit into.
Mayor Hamilton: That is grandfathered.
Councilman Geving: That type of thing.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, right.
Councilman Geving: Do we have any idea at this time, how many of these
potential beachlots we have? Where there are large acreages of land next
to a lake. I'm talking about future.
Councilwoman Swenson: Since there is only one and that will be
grandfathered in, doesn't this become a fundamental requirement of future
beachlots? We're not really effecting anybody who is already existing so
15
•
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
actually the 200 isn't any more arbitrary than the 100 was before or the 4 r
feet per dwelling or anything like that. Would that be correct?
Councilman Geving: I guess there is really no answer to the question.
Councilwoman Watson: It will all be on the decision we make.
Councilman Horn: My response to that would be that typically the area that
you have to use on a lake is dependent on the shoreline, not how much area
is behind the shoreline. That is why I don't really feel that is really
relevant to what the purpose of the ordinance is, which is density of the
lake surface itself. Lake foot frontage is relevant to that overall usable
size but the amount of area is not.
Councilmen Geving: I'm thinking of developments Clark, in terms of those
developments that might come to us in the future with beachlots
Permissions. I can think of 2 or 3 right off the top of my head.
Councilman Horn: I understand what you're saying but what I'm saying is
the purpose of the ordinance was not to promote development. The purpose
of the ordinance was to keep the lake from becoming overcrowded.
Councilwoman Swenson: If I may, I think there were also considerations
given to the surrounding area and adjacent property owners and as a result
of that I think, for instance you can't take something that is 150 feet and
100 feet deep or 200 or 50 or whatever it happens to be. I think the
square footage of the lot is pertinent in that there is more expanse for
people and not as much immediate effect on the adjacent property owners
which is why the 20,000 feet was important and the 200 satisfied that the
lake usage to 20,000 hopefully satisfied 30,000, satisfied the area which
could be used without hopefully effecting riparian adjacent property
owners. I have no argument with what you are saying, I just wonder whether
it would be effective inasmuch as we don't have anybody that is going to
be...
Mayor Hamilton: I was thinking more of the future. If another one comes
in I thought there should be guidelines to deal with. The other question I
had in dealing with this issue was the area of the lake. For instance, and
Pat has brought this point up before but I will bring it up again, Lake St.
Joe, we will use that as an example, small lake. If a person were to
purchase the whole lake or half the lake, the property around it and
decide to put docks in there and rent boats out or something. They could
do that with this ordinance so I was merely thinking of that and thinking
perhaps somehow we should try to tie in the acreage of the lake. Again I
don't know exactly how you do that but it is something that I think we need
to consider in light of the different size lakes we have.
Councilman Horn: If lakes were perfectly round, that would take care of
itself in just the number of people who could build around it but because
of the odd shapes that some of them have, you might run into something like
that. That is why we run into the crowding problem on Lotus Lake for
instance, is because of the shape. Theortically a small lake would allow a
16
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
small number of boats just with the strict front footages. That is why I
think the front footage is a reasonable method to use when we establish a
criteria.
Mayor Hamilton: Roger is using a scale any more reasonable or is something
in your opinion would be better.
Roger Knutson: I think that really is a judgment call for you to make. I
would be comfortable frankly with either one is fine. Maybe Barb could
help us. Are you going to have any situations where you would have 100
feet of lakeshore and 140,000 square feet, are you going to get plans like
that?
Barb Dacy: Here is an overhead of Lotus Lake. Vacant properties, the
Kerber area on the east side, the Moulton property on the west side may
redevelop and so on. The remaining frontage along Lotus Lake is either in
riparian ownership or Carver Beach lot and this is Fox Chase so there could
be two potential areas on that lake for some type of subdivision request
that may request a beachlot. on Lake Minnewashta it is a different
situation in that on the east side you have the regional park obviously
occupying that area and then there are obviously a number of existing
beachlots. vacant areas that stand out in my mind right now are this area
on the west side of Minnewashta Parkway, south of Pleasant Acres. These
property descriptions are tied across Minnewashta Parkway. As a matter of
fact, we did have an inquiry on this piece a couple of months ago that the
Planning Commission considered a beachlot request on it on an informal
basis. The depth of these areas is 100 to 150 feet. I don't know what the
area is but as you move south down toward the beach property becomes less
deep or shorter and shorter so that possibility of a beachlot in this area
is remote. other vacant areas on Minnewashta would be southeast corner of
Minnewashta Parkway and TH 7. The remainder of the lake appears to be in
riparian ownership unless some of these lots down in here would be
developed.
Councilman Geving: I think you are forgetting one area. I recognize 2 or
3 spots there but I think Lake Riley on the south side has tremendous
potential for future growth.
Councilwoman Swenson: There are 130 acres for sale right now.
Councilman Geving: That is the only other big area that I can think of.
Mayor Hamilton: There is the Gagne property. I think he has about 800
feet.
Barbara Dacy: Yes, I'm sorry I neglected to make a transparency of that
lake but this piece...
Councilman Geving: That's okay but that is the only one that I can think
I of.
3
17
Z, 1;
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
Councilman Horn: I think developers with 200 feet, they always have the
option of putting single family homes with riparian lakeshore. This isn't
taking away use of their property. In fact if you hear all their arguments
they will tell you that is greater intensification of the lake.
Councilwoman Swenson: What we are talking about are, I have the opinion
that when we discussed this at other meetings that we have been talking
about the 200 feet and the 30,000 or then the additional 200 feet with the
additional 20,000 as all being a solid, contiguous piece of property not
broken up by a road. I don't think any of us want to see a narrow strip
along the lake taken by 100 feet by 100 feet. Let's say 10,000 square foot
lot and then have the other 30,000 feet on the other side of the road.
This defeats the purpose all together.
Henry Sosin: I would like to point out a couple of things. Pat, when you
were talking about the number of boats and the length of the shore and that
sort of thing. You seemed to dwell on the 9 boats. The 9 boats on the
docks. You didn't count the four sailboats and you didn't count the 30
canoes and other sailcraft and as we all know, usage by one boat per family
is far different that usage by three boats per family so that when you make
the assumption, as example the only one I know the numbers on is Lotus Lake
Estates, if this were to go through, you're not talking about nine boats
and you were telling me the DNR would allow 20, you are talking about maybe
40 boats when you count all of them.
Councilwoman Swenson: These are 20 slips though Henry and an unlimited
amount of storage on land for the DNR. They don't control the number of
boats and canoes.
Henry Sosin: But Council does or has in the past.
Councilwoman Swenson: What I mean to say really is the fact that the 20
boats would be 20 slips so we would have in this particular one that you
are talking about. Incidentally one of the recommended changes that I have
is one sailboat mooring per dock, not four sailboat moorings so future
developments there would be a limit of 12 boats in the water in storage.
Henry Sosin: Stored in the water but utilization...
Councilwoman Swenson: One rack with a limit of six canoes or small
sailboats per dock so you have three of those. These things are already
there and if we are going to refer to Lotus Lake, Lotus Lake which is what
we are all familiar with, the only thing we would be adding there Henry,
are the two additional dock and the motorized, and there are already four
boats allowed so we would be allowing five more boats. They already have
the sailboat moorings so the only thing we are doing is saying they can
have nine watercraft and they can be motorized.
Henry Sosin: I'm not talking about the differences. I'm talking about
utilization and numbers. You are talking about in that particular spot 40
watercraft in that area. That seems a lot more than what riparian owners
currently use now. Riparian owners, they may store more than one
L
lu
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
watercraft but they only use one at a time. Utilization is far different.
Councilwoman Swenson: This is, I think subjective but I understand what
you are saying.
Henry Sosin: Can I point out one other thing. You are talking about
future lots and I think you should make sure that this doesn't happen and I
don't know what language you are going to need to do this but I could
readily visualize if I were a developer and I had a lot that stretched from
here to here and whatever you are talking about is the minimum number of
feet required for a dock. I could take this portion or any portion,
whatever it is, as long as this linear footage meets your requirement and
put my outlot back here in some kind of wetland that I can't touch anyway,
get my required square footage and have four docks down here or x number of
docks down here. You were talking about a road not be acceptable. I would
suggest that is not acceptable either.
Georgette Sosin: As all of you on the Council know, I live at 7400
Chanhassen Road and I swore I wouldn't speak tonight. However, I do want
to respond to a few comments that were made to set the record straight
which is why I'm here tonight to be counted really. First of all, this new
amendment to your ordinance was brought up for the first time to my
knowledge at an August meeting of last year to which I was present. It was
voted down by I think all but two voted against it. To my knowledge there
has not been a public meeting about this other than the public hearing
which took place several weeks ago in front of Planning Commission and I'm
sure all of you studied your notes very diligently and you knew that it was
roundly defeated by all of the Planning Commissioners who felt that the
ordinance was excellent as it stood. You read all of our comments I'm
sure. There are a few points that you made that I think should be in the
record as being corrected. We, as a group, were the ones who wanted the
reduction of boats from five to three. We as riparian owners recognize the
problems of crowding on the lake and even though it effects a number of
people in our own group who are going to have to give up some boats, are
willing and wanting to do that so I think some recognition of that fact
should be made at least for your records. I also understand the position
that you are all in and I understand the tone of the evening and I think
that might account for your group making the statement that we don't make
mistakes. I think everybody makes mistakes.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think any of us said we don't make mistakes.
Georgette Sosin: Well, that we try not to, I appreciate that and I know
that all of you work very hard and that you study very hard and you try to
responsive to everyone. I think this is an unusual situation this evening.
Tom Merz: one last thing and I guess to only follow what Georgette said is
that we do have a Planning Commission, we do have a study and as I heard
you Clark and Pat, the four of your, if I understood, for the change in
this beachlot and I wonder what kind of study or information you four can
have that can be so different than these other two committees. What type
of knowledge or research could be possibly be done that we have two groups
19
Chanhassen City council Meeting - June 16, 1986
that are amicably against this and you people are for it. It is all the sane. We are using the same criteria. I don't understand it. 1
Mayor Hamilton: Probably the Council discussed this issue, as Pat said, a
couple years ago. I have been one of those who wanted to discuss it and
probably was I who asked to have it on the agenda because I thought the
ordinance was unfair to the city. I have not been in favor of not allowing
overnight storage on the lakes. The Council has discussed it perhaps more
than the Planning Commission has. I don't know if we had any information
that the Planning Cmmission did not have. Everything that we have had
should have been passed on to the Planning Commission. I think it was
simply a matter of this body has been more in favor of change to the
ordinance at this time rather than the Planning Commission.
Councilman Geving: I think too Tom, that this body has been together for
the last four years and we put this ordinance together. I think the
Planning Commission has turned over somewhat during that time and there are
probably some new commission members that are not as familiar as we are
with this subject. I do know that all the information, all the notes and
data we have was given to them so Tom, I can only respond the same way that
I think we were quite a bit more familiar with this issue than the Planning
Commission.
Jack Melby: 40 Hill Street. I would like to know if you think that the
ordinance with these changes is as defensible or more defensible than the
old ordinance. I
Roger Knutson: As you know I am in an awkward position but I think Mr.
Ashworth summarized things. It involves reasonableness and consistency of
enforcement. Looking forward, I think what you have in front of you would
be enforceable ordinance consistently applied.
Mayor Hamilton: He said looking at the ordinance we have in front of us,
he thought would be enforceable in a consistent manner.
Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to add one condition be made to the
ordinance and I would like the Council to consider it. In view of the fact
that one of the reasons that this entire beachlot ordinance was initiated
in the first place was because there are certain lots, the Derek property
was one, when dockage would interfer with the wetland area which since that
time we haven't discussed or initiated in the past the wetlands ordinance
specifically identifying (a) and (b) but we all know that have certain
shoreline that is so classified specifically which is still habitat for
wildlife and so forth. I would like to have as a stipulation in the
beachlot ordinance, not just as part of the conditional use but the Council
must approve the placement, docks, bouys and I suppose diving ramps would
be important also and also the racks because in that way we can monitor and
protect the wetland area. Since we do have the clause in the ordinance
that allows a clustering of docks, there is no great necessity for three
docks. If they are allowed three, they can have one or two if this will
better protect the wetland ordinance. Therefore I would like to add
Council approval is required in the placing of docks, bouys and whatever
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
Iwould be pertinent to the subject.
Councilman Geving: Don't we have that now?
Councilwoman Swenson: It is not specifically stated.
Councilwoman Watson: TAb have used that discretion but it is not stated.
Councilwoman Swenson: It has not been stated and I would like to make it
quite clear.
Mayor Hamilton: Since this is the first meeting, that could be a condition
for Attorney's review and adoption for the second reading.
Ladd Conrad: Just two quick points. First one, Dale, as far as your
comments. The Planning Commission has been pretty aware of the lake issues
and there hasn't been much turnover until the last couple of months so we
are really pretty convinced of the validity of the current ordinance. The
recent two weeks ago when we looked at it, there was no new information and
there were three new Planning Commission members. My other point that I
think is real relevant and I think Clark has brought it up, as far as
reviewing the ordinance that you have in front of you, the best control on
lake usage is lakeshore and Clark made that point. Whether it be riparian
owners or whatever. Lakeshore does control the use. It does promote safety
and therefore I guess, pay real good attention I think Tom, to your
particular interest of a pie shaped type of development on the lake. I
don't think that serves the lake whereas lakeshore itself is a barrier or
it does tend to promote the safety in the things we are interested in.
Thank you.
Mayor Hamilton: Did I suggest a pie shape arrangement? I don't think I
did.
Ladd Conrad: You suggested an area which really goes back off the lake and
I don't believe that is a valid use when you do have lakeshore which is a
better way of controlling the use on the water.
Councilwoman Swenson: I have a real problem here with passing this without
the amendment for 73. Inasmuch as they are, at the present time as you
know, inconsistent and the fact that they are open.
Councilman Horn: Your recommendation is correct then if we pass it.
Councilwoman Swenson: If we accept these.
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to accept the
amendment to the Recreational Beachlot 47-AB as amended by Councilwoman
Swenson's recomendations and concerns listed in the letter to the Council
of June 19, 1986 which states: No recreational beachlot shall be used for
the purpose of overnight storage of more than three (3) motorized or non -
motorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more
than one dock, however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up
21
•
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
to one (1) sailboat mooring shall be allowed per dock. Canoes,
windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be
stored overnight on any
recreational beachlot provided they are stored on a specifically designed
rack having no more than six (6) such watercraft, per rack, per dock.
Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other
than overnight. Overnight docking, mooring and storage is further
restricted to the owner/occupants and renter/occupants of dwellings within
the Homeowners Association. Simulataneously to accept the water surface
usage ordinance amendment No. 73-A with the recommendations as stipulated
in my letter to the Council dated June 10, 1986 which states: Except for
privately owned commercial resorts and commercial boat landings established
prior to the adoption of this ordinance, no person shall dock overnight
more than three (3) watercraft. Overnight docking, mooring and storage is
restricted to the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of the lake site home
to which the dock, storage or mooring site is an accessory use. I would
like the stipulation be included that the Council approve placement of
docks, bouys and so forth be included. All voted in favor except
Councilwoman Watson who opposed. Motion carried.
Roger Knutson: Just so I have it clear in my minutes. I have added to the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance the following: the City Council may
regulate the placement of docks, if allowed, bouys, diving ramps and boat
racks. I will place that into the recreational beachlot ordinance. Now is
there any other change?
Councilwoman Swenson: Do you have the stipulated changes in the amendment
of June 10, 1986. Why don't
L
I give you my copy. The one for the beachlot
ordinance will replace item (e) and the one for the water surface usage is
Section 3.04 of the Zoning Ordinance No. 73.
Roger Knutson: 'Those are the three changes then? I have the two changes
you mentioned here in the letter of June 10, 1986 and the one change you
said earlier this evening.
Councilwoman Swenson: That is correct.
Mayor Hamilton: We now have the Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Allow a
Total of 3 Docks to be Constructed on Outlot B and to Allow Overnight
STorage on these Docks of a Total of 9 Watercraft without Restrictions as
to Whether said Watercraft are Motorized or Non -Motorized. Does Council
want to discuss this item.
Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to review this approval location in
this contract requiring the Council approval of the location of the docks,
etc.
Roger Knutson: That is what Barb recommended be approved, the site plan
they bring in.
Councilman Geving: No, we want to see the physical site on the lake by a
Staff member and maybe even some photos that would prove to us that they
are not into an area where there is a habitat problem. �-
22
• �z
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
Roger Knutson: You are going to approve a site plan. How you get there...
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Conditional
Use Permit Amendment to Allow a Total of 3 Docks to be Constructed on
Outlot B and to Allow Overnight Storage on these docks of a Total of 9
Watercraft without Restrictions as to Whether said Watercraft are Motorized
or Non -motorized with the following conditions:
1. Submission of a revised site plan indicating the proposed location
of the two additional docks.
2. Compliance with requirements of the Recreational Beachlot
Ordinance.
All voted in favor except Councilwoman Watson who opposed. Motion carried.
Councilwoman Swenson: That the previous contract of the Conditional Use
Permit is still effective as regards to limitations of the four sailboats
and racks?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilwoman Swenson: Everything else is as stated.
Roger Knutson: It is noted that this will have to be continued upon your
approval before the next meeting is before us.
Dacy: Mr. Mayor did your motion include the two conditions in the Staff
Report also?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes it did.
Request for Water Obstacle Permit, Minnewashta Water Ski Club, Dana
Johnson.
Dacy: The water surface usage ordinance requires that the Council issue a
permit for a water ski slalom course. This particular request though is
put before the Council for in excess of 72 hours which is allowed only in
the ordinance. The attached materials that you have in your packet
includes a letter from the applicant as well as petition from the property
owners along South Shore Drive and Ironwood in favor of the proposed
application. Use of this ski slalom course would begin immediately and is
proposed to last until the end of September. Use of the course would occur
on weekday mornings and the primary users would be the parents and by the
Sheriff's office as well as the Public Safety Director and their comments
are attached. It should be noted that they submitted an original
application in 1984 but have since changed the location of the ski slalom
course in reaction to the Sheriff's office comments and those comments have
now been resolved. On the second page of the memo, the ordinance lists
five standards which the Council can use as a basis for approval or denial.
Approval would require at least 3/5 majority vote. Should the Council
approve the applicaton we are recommending implementation of two
23
DAVID L.
GRANNIS - 1874-1961
DAVID L.
GRANNIs, JR. - 1910.1980
VANCE B.
GRANNIS
VANCE B.
GRANNIS, JR.
PATRICK A. FARRELL
DAVID L.
GRANNIS, III
ROGER N.
KNUTSON
LAW OFFICES •
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
POST OFFICE Box 57
403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING
161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE
SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075
TELEPHONE: (612) 455-1661
June 17, 1986
Mr. Peter Beck
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
1500 Northwestern Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
RE: James M. and Sara S. Lacey, et al
v. City of Chanhassen
Dear Peter:
TELECOPIER:
(612) 455-2359
THOMAS L. GRUNDHOEFER
DAVID L. HARMEYER
M. CECILIA RAY
ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH
The City Council, by a 4/5 vote, approved the first reading
of the two ordinances and approved the amended conditional
use permit subject to receipt of a site plan and the passage
of the ordinances. Please submit a site plan to me indicating
where buoys, docks, and boat racks will be located.
The Council made a few minor changes to the ordinances
which I have highlighted on the enclosed copy. I am also enclosing
original and one photocopy of the revised Settlement Agreement
and Release. Please have both copies signed by your clients
and return to me as soon as possible. Once I have received
the signed Agreement back from you, I will present to the
City for their signature and will then furnish you with a
fully executed copy.
The City Council will consider and -act on July 7, 1986
for final passage of the ordinances. It was handled in this
manner as the City has a two reading system. Please call me
to discuss the mechanics of postponing discovery and the trial
date.
RNK:srn
Enclosures
RECL:': --:D
JUN 1 81986
cc: Don Ashworth
Sandra Agvald CITY OF CHANHASSEN
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE, made and entered into
this 16th day of June, 1986, by and between, LOTUS LAKE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, JAMES M. and SARA S. LACEY, ROGER L. and DORIS KAY FRICK,
GARY A. and BRENDA A. WELCH, RAYMOND and WIL SCHUYT, PATRICK E. and
MARILYN D. McMAHON, ROBERT A. and VIVIAN M. ELMGREN, ROGER H. and
BECKY BERRY, STEPHEN C. and LOIS E. BUCHANAN, J. MICHAEL and L. SUSAN
HENDERSON, and GERALD D. and CANDICE L. CRANDALL ("Releasors"), and
THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a municipal corporation; and THOMAS HAMILTON,
CLARK HORN, PATRICIA SWENSON, DALE GEVING, and CAROL WATSON ("City").
WHEREAS, a dispute has arisen as to the legality of the Recre-
ational Beach Lot provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance and certain
conditions imposed on the Lotus Lake Estates Recreational Beach Lot
on Outlot B, the Lake Estates ("Outlot B"); and
WHEREAS, Releasors (except the Lotus Lake Estate Homeowners
Association which is not a party) have commenced a lawsuit against
the City in the Carver County District Court, First Judicial District
of the State of Minnesota, such case being File No. 86-211740 entitled
James M. and Sara S. Lacey, et al v. City of Chanhassen, et al; and
WHEREAS, the City has decided to consider certain amendments
to its Zoning and Surface Water Usage Ordinances in the form attached
hereto as Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, Releasors are willing to dismiss their suit and release
the City from all claims if the City adopts the proposed ordinance
amendments and issues an amended conditional use permit consistent
with the proposed ordinance amendments and this agreement.
NOW THEREFOR$, in consideration of the mutual promises contained
herein, the undersigned parties hereby agree as follows:
1. City will consider and act upon the proposed ordinance amendments
attached as Exhibit "A", and on amendments to the conditional
use permit for Outlot B, on July 7, 1986.
2. If, on July 7, 1986, the City enacts the proposed ordinance amend-
ments in the form attached as Exhibit "A", and approves an amendment
to the conditional use permit for Outlot B which: (a) allows a
total of 3 docks to be constructed on Outlot B; and (b) allows
overnight storage at these docks of a total of 9 watercraft without
restrictions as to whether the watercraft are motorized or non --
motorized;
Then, the parties further agree as follows:
A. The above -entitled lawsuit shall be dismissed with prejudice
and without the payment of costs incurred by either party
to the other, and the parties hereto hereby authorize their
respective attorneys to execute on their behalf a written
Stipulation of Dismissal to that effect for filing with the
said Court.
B. The parties release each other from any and all obligations,
actions, suits, claims, damages, judgments, and execution
and any other matter or act regarding the Lotus Lake Estates
Recreational Beach Lot and any review, action, or inaction
by them in connection with it.
C. The parties stipulate and agree that the ordinance amendments
contained in Exhibit "A" and the amended conditional use permit
provide for reasonable use of Outlot B and are in every respect
legal and constitutional. The Releasors waive any and all
objection and possible challenges to the ordinance amendments
and the amended conditional use permit that they may now have
or may have in the future.
3. If the City Council does not pass the ordinance amendments and
approve the amended conditional use permit as provided in this
agreement on July 7, 1986, the above referenced suit shall proceed
to trial.
4. Nothing in this Agreement.shall constitute an admission by either
party of the allegations or liabilities asserted in connection
with the above -referenced lawsuit. Each of the parties hereby
represents and warrants to the other that there has been no assignment
of any right, claim, or cause of action encompassed by this Agreement
to any individual, corporation, or any legal entity whatsoever
other than the parties to this Agreement, and that this release
has been duly executed by each of the parties without promises
or threats or the exertion of influence by or upon the other,
and that each party fully understands the legal and practical
effects of this document. This Agreement may not be changed orally.
5. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all
of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
-2-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Releasors and the City have executed and
delivered this Settlement Agreement and Release as of the date first
above written.
LOTUS LAKE ESTATE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
BY:
JAMES M. LACEY
SARA S. LACEY
ROGER L. FRICK
DORIS KAY FRICK
GARY A. WELCH
BRENDA A. WELCH
RAYMOND SCHUYT
WIL SCHUYT
PATRICK E. McMAHON
MARILYN D. McMAHON
ROBERT A. ELMGREN
VIVIAN M. ELMGREN
ROGER H. BERRY
-3-
BECKY BERRY
STEPHEN C. BUCHANAN
LOIS E. BUCHANAN
J. MICHAEL HENDERSON
L. SUSAN HENDERSON
D. CRANDALL
CANDICE L. CRANDALL
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY &
LINDGREN, LTD.
CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN
Attorneys for Releasors
1500 Northwestern Financial
Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55431
Attorney I.D. No. 22858
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
BY:
THOMAS L. HAMILTON, Mayor
DON ASHWORTH, City Manager
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL
& KNUTSON, P.A. .
ffm
ROGER N. KNUTSON
Attorneys for the City
403 Norwest Bank Building
161 North Concord Exchange
South St. Paul, MN 55075
Attorney I.D. No. 57186
-4-
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 6.04
7.04, 14.04 OF THE CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE
THE CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 6.04, subparagraph 10 of Ordinance 47,
the Zoning Ordinance, is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
Recreational beach lots provided the following minimum standards
are met in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed
in the permit:
A. Recreational beach lots shall have at least 200 feet of
lake frontage.
B. No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house,
camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle or shelter
shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beach lot.
C. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited
to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini -bike, all -terrain
vehicle or snowmobile shall be driven upon..or parked upon
any recreational beach lot.
D. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight
camping.
E. Boat launches are prohibited.
F. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of
overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three
(3) motorized or non -motorized watercraft per dock. If
a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered.
Up to four (4) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed.
Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats
may be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot
if they are stored on racks specifically designed for
that purpose. No more than one (1) rack shall be allowed
per dock. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored
on a rack. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is
permissible at any time other than overnight.
G. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot
unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the
lot has at least a 100 foot depth. No more than one dock
may be erected on a recreational beach lot for every 200
feet of lake frontage. In addition, 30,000 square feet
of land is required for the first dock and an additional
20,000 square feet is required for each additional dock.
No more than three (3) docks, however, shall be erected
on a recreational beach lot.
H. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet
in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of
the following lengths: (a) fifty (50) feet or, (b) the
minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water
depth of four (4) feet. 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 length.
Z. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided,
however, that the owners of any two abutting lakeshore
sites may erect one common dock within the dock set -back
zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the
common dock is the only dock on the two lakeshore sites
and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions
of this ordinance.
J. No sail .boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational
beach lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage.
No more than one sail boat mooring shall be allowed for
every 200 feet of lake frontage.
K. At least eighty percent (80%) of the dwelling units, which
have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational
beach lot, shall be located within at least one thousand
(1,000) feet of the recreational beach lot.
L. All recreational beach lots, including any recreational
beach lots established prior to the effective date of
this ordinance may be used for swimming beach purposes,
but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with
marker buoys which conform to United States Coast Guard
standards.
M. Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured
both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point one
hundred (100) feet landward from the ordinary high water
mark, of not less than four (4) lineal feet for each dwelling
unit which has appurtenant rights of access to the recre-
ational beach lot accruing to the owners or occupants
of that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowner
association or residential housing developers.
N. Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft,
where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the
owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have
appurtenant right of access to the -recreational beach
lot.
-2-
O. The placement of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks,
and other structures shall be indicated on a site plan
approved by the City Council.
SECTION 2. Section 7.04, subparagraph 9 of Ordinance 47,
the Zoning Ordinance, is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
Recreational beach lots provided the following minimum standards
are met in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed
in the permit:
A. Recreational beach lots shall have at least 200 feet of
lake frontage.
B. No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house,
camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle or shelter
shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beach lot.
C. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited
to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini -bike, all -terrain
vehicle or snowmobile shall be driven upon or parked upon
any recreational beach lot.
D. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight
camping.
E. Boat launches are prohibited.
F. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of
overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three
(3) motorized or non -motorized watercraft per dock. If
a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered.
Up to four (4) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed.
Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats
may be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot
if they are stored on racks specifically designed for
that purpose. No more than one (1) rack shall be allowed
per dock. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored
on a rack. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is
permissible at any time other than overnight.
G. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot
unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the
lot has at least a 100 foot depth. No more than one dock
may be erected on a recreational beach lot for every 200
feet of lake frontage. In addition, 30,000 square feet
of land is required for the first dock and an additional
20,000 square feet is required for each additional dock.
No more than three (3) docks, however, shall be erected
on a recreational beach lot.
H. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet
in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of
-3-
the following lengths: (a) fifty (50) feet or, (b) the
minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water
depth of four (4) feet. 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 length.
I. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided,
however, that the owners of any two abutting lakeshore
sites may erect one common dock within the dock set -back
zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the
common dock is the only dock on the two lakeshore sites
and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions
of this ordinance.
J. No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational
beach lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage.
No more than one sail boat mooring shall be allowed for
every 200 feet of lake frontage.
K. At least eighty percent (80%) of the dwelling units, which
have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational
beach lot, shall be located within at least one thousand
(1,000) feet of the recreational beach lot.
L. All recreational beach lots, including any.recreational
beach lots established prior to the effective date of
this ordinance may be used for swimming beach purposes,
but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with
marker buoys which conform to United States Coast Guard
standards.
M. Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured
both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point one
hundred (100) feet landward from the ordinary high water
mark, of not less than four (4) lineal feet for each dwelling
unit which has appurtenant rights of access to the recre-
ational beach lot accruing to the owners or occupants
of that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowner
association or residential housing developers.
N. Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft,
where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the
owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have
appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach
lot.
O. The placement of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks,
and other structures shall be indicated on a site plan
approved by the City Council.
SECTION 3. Section 14.04, subparagraph 2 of Ordinance 47,
the Zoning Ordinance, is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
-4-
Recreational beach
are met in addition
in the permit:
lots provided the following minimum standards
to such other conditions as may be prescribed
A. Recreational beach lots shall have at least 200 feet of
lake frontage.
B. No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house,
camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle or shelter
shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beach lot.
C. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited
to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini -bike, all -terrain
vehicle or snowmobile shall be driven upon or parked upon
any recreational beach lot.
D. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight
camping.
E. Boat launches are prohibited.
F. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of
overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three
(3) motorized or non -motorized watercraft per dock. If
a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered.
Up to four (4) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed.
Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats
may be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot
if they are stored on racks specifically designed for
that purpose. No more than one (1) rack shall be allowed
per dock. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored
on a rack. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is
permissible at any time other than overnight.
G. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot
unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the
lot has at least a 100 foot depth. No more than one dock
may be erected on a recreational beach lot for every 200
feet of lake frontage. In addition, 30,000 square feet
of land is required for the first dock and an additional
20,000 square feet is required for each additional dock.
No more than three (3) docks, however, shall be erected
on a recreational beach lot.
H. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet
in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of
the following lengths: (a) fifty (50) feet or, (b) the
minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water
depth of four (4) feet. 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 length.
-5- - 1.
0
I. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided,
however, that the owners of any two abutting lakeshore
sites may erect one common dock within the dock set -back
zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the
common dock is the only dock on the two lakeshore sites
and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions
of this ordinance.
J. No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational
beach lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage.
No more than one sail boat mooring shall be allowed for
every 200 feet of lake frontage.
K. At least eighty percent (80%) of the dwelling units, which
.have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational
beach lot, shall be located within at least one thousand
(1,000) feet of the recreational beach lot.
L. All recreational beach lots, including any recreational
beach lots established prior to the effective date of
this ordinance may be used for swimming beach purposes,
but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with
marker buoys which conform to United States Coast Guard
standards.
M. Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured
both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point one
hundred (100) feet landward from the ordinary high water
mark, of not less than four (4) lineal feet for each dwelling
unit which has appurtenant rights of access to the recre-
ational beach lot accruing to the owners or occupants
of that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowner
association or residential housing developers.
N. Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft,
where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the
owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have
appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach
lot.
O. The placement of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks,
and other structures shall be indicated on a site plan
approved by the City Council.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately
after its passage and publication.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 7th
day of July, 1986.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
ATTEST: Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor
City Clerk/Manager
Q-12
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.04
OF ORDINANCE NO. 73 RELATING TO THE
USE OF SURFACE WATERS AND ADJOINING SHORELINES
The City Council ordains:
to read:
Section 1. Section 3.04 of Ordinance No. 73 is amended
Except for privately owned commercial resorts or commercial
boat landings established prior to the adoption of this
ordinance, 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. Canoes,
windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats may also
be stored overnight if they are stored indoors or on
racks specifically designed for that purpose. Overnight
docking, mooring, and storage is further restricted
to watercraft owned by the owner/occupant or renter/occupant
of the lakeshore site home to which the dock, storage,
or mooring site is an accessory use.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immedi-
ately upon its passing and publication.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this
7th day of July, 1986.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
1W
ATTEST:
City Clerk/Manager
Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor
• o 7
CHANHASSEN g�g�
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner
DATE: May 22, 1986
SUBJ: 1. Water Surface Usage Ordinance Amendment
2. Recreational Beachlot Ordinance Amendment
3. Lotus Lake Estates Conditional Use Permit
As you may know, the City has been challenged by the Lotus Lake
Estates Homeowners Association regarding the recreational beach -
lot requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Complicating
the issue was the recent application of the Sunny Slope Homeowners
Association and the approval of the Plocher/Geske variances for
additional dockage and overnight storage in conjunction with the
18 unit townhome development at the old Leach property adjacent
to Lake Minnewashta. During this entire timeframe various amend-
ments were discussed by the City Council. The Lotus Lake lawsuit
can best be seen as hastening that process.
The City Council met with the City Attorney and the attorney
assigned by the insurance carrier to review the pending law suit.
It was recommended by the attorneys that the existing ordinance
should be modified. The City Attorney has prepared the proposed
modifications to the Water Surface Usage Ordinance and the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance. The amendment to the Lotus Lake
Estates Conditional Use Permit is based on the revised Recreational
Beachlot Ordinance amendment. The lawsuit will remain pending
until a decision on the above referenced three items are
addressed by the Planning Commission at the May 28, 1986 meeting
and the City Council at the June 16, 1986 meeting. The City
Attorney will be present to answer questions regarding the three
proposals. The attached staff reports address each issue separately
and contain background information.
As the lawsuit is still pending, the City Attorney's Office has
stated that he cannot publicly discuss the Lotus Lake lawsuit and
has suggested that the Planning Commission address solely the
ordinance amendment issues.
f CITI*OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
June 10, 1986
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
I have two concerns with the draft Beachlot and Water Surface
Usage Ordinances, i.e:
- Current Drafts: The sections I have concerns with have
been drafted as follows:
_Water Surface Usage Ordinance No 73, Section 3.04 states:
"Except for privately owned commercial resorts and commer-
cial boat landings established prior to the adoption of
this ordinance, no person shall moor overnight, dock over-
night, or store overnight more than three (3) watercraft on
any lakeshore site or upon the waters of any lake.
Overnight docking, mooring and storage is further
restricted to the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of the
lake site home to which the dock, storage or mooring site
is an accessory use."
Beach
lot Ordinance No. 47-AB states:
"No recreational beachlot shall be used for the purpose of
overnight mooring or overnight storage of more than three
(3) motorized or non -motorized watercraft per dock. If a
recreational beachlot is allowed more than one dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up
to four (4) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed.
Canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be
stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are
stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose.
Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at
any time other than overnight."
i 0
Mayor and Council
June 10, 1986
Page 2
- Concerns with Above:
1. The beachlot ordinance is not equally restrictive, i.e:
a. Private docks limited to three (3) watercraft.
b. No other watercraft storage permitted.
c. Restricted to owner/renter occupant.
2. The beachlot ordinance does not limit "additional"
watercraft, i.e. canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and
small sailboats. (While not motorized so as to con-
taminate water, may yet defeat the purpose of this
ordinance by creating an overcrowding [over inten-
sification of use] of the lakes.)
3. Further, it is noted existing beachlots are grand -
fathered whereas private docks are not, that is I
assume, beachlot docks are allowed five boats if now
permitted?
I do not believe the Council intends to more severely
restrict riparian owners (I suspect we could be in deep
water there - no pun intended).
- Recommendation: I believe the following changes will
correct the concerns noted above and are hereby being
recommended for Council consideration:
Water Surface Usage Ordinance No 73, Section 3 04•
Except for privately owned commercial resorts and commer-
cial boat landings established prior to the adoption of
this ordinance, no person shall dock overnight more than
three (3) watercraft. Overnight docking, mooring and
storage is restricted to the owner/occupant or renter/
occupant of the lake site home to which the dock,
storage or mooring site is an accessory use.
Beachlot Ordinance No. 47-AB:
No recreational beachlot shall be used for the purpose of
overnight storage of more than three (3) motorized or non -
motorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot
is allowed more than one dock, however, the allowed number
of boats may be clustered. Up to one (1) sailboat mooring
shall be allowed per dock. Canoes, windsurfers, sailbaords
and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any
recreational beachlot provided they are stored on a speci-
fically designed rack having no more than six (6) such
watercraft, per rack, per dock. Docking of other watercraft
0
40
Mayor and Council
June 10, 1986
Page 3
or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than over-
night. Overnight docking, mooring and storage is further
restricted to the owner/occupants and renter/occupants of
dwellings within the Homeowners Association.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Pat Swenson
Councilwoman
PS:k
z
U
J
CL
CL
Q
CITY OF
�� CBANHASSEN
STAFF REPORT
�. DATE: 5-28-86 v
C.C. DATE: 6-18-86
CASE NO: 84-8 CUP
Prepared by: Dacy:k
PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit Amendment Request to
allow a total of three docks and to allow over-
night storage of nine watercraft without
restrictions for motorized or non -motorized
watercraft.
LOCATION: Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates
APPLICANT: Lotus lake Estates Homeowners Association
c/o Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, Lindgren, Ltd.
Suite 1500, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55431
PRESENT ZONING: P-1, Planned Residential Development
ACREAGE: 92,700 square feet
DENSITY: N/A
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARAC.:
N- P-1, Wetlands and Fox Holl Subdivision
S- Vacant zoned P-1
E- P-1, Single Family Residential
W- Lotus Lake
1990 LAND USE PLAN: Low density residential
I;
C
a
i to
Planning Commission
May 28, 1986
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The Lotus Lake Estates Subdivision was approved by the City
Council on January 5, 1979. The City Council approved a con-
ditional use permit for the recreational beachlot on July 21, 1980
and approved an amended permit on August 31, 1981. On November
19, 1984 the City Council approved another amendment to the con-
ditional use permit authorizing the installation of four sailboat
moorings.
The existing use of the beachlot is as follows: swimming beach,
swimming raft, two boat racks, one dock which is restricted in
use to the overnight docking of not more than four non -motorized
boats of not greater than 16 feet in length, and a pedestrian
walkway which provides access to the facilities.
In December, 1985 the Lotus Lake Homeowner's Association filed
suit against the City.
PROPOSAL
Based on the proposed amendment to the Recreational Beachlot
Ordinance, the applicant is requesting approval to amend the con-
ditional use permit to allow:
1. A total of three docks to be constructed on Outlot B; and
2. To allow overnight storage at these docks of a total of
nine watercraft without restrictions as to whether said
watercraft are motorized or non -motorized.
Attachment #1 reflects the plan that was submitted during review
of the 1984 permit amendment application. If approved, the
applicants should submit a revised plan showing the location of
the additional two docks as well as dock details to insure that
the dock size meets the requirements of the Beachlot Ordinance.
It should be noted that a DNR permit would be required for docks
containing five slips or more.
Should the Planning Commission move to approve the requested
amendment to the existing conditional use permit, the following
motion may be used:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional
Use Permit Amendment Request #84-4 to allow the installation
of no more than three docks on Outlot B and to allow the
overnight storage at these docks of a total of nine
watercraft without restrictions as to other said watercraft
are motorized or non -motorized, subject to the following con-
ditions:
0
Planning Commission
May 28, 1986
Page 3
1. Submission of a revised site plan indicating the proposed
location of the two additional docks.
2. Compliance with requirements of the Recreational Beachlot
Ordinance."
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Commissioners unanimously recommended denial of the
Conditional Use Permit Amendment Request because of its incon-
sistency with the existing ordinance. The motion was made by
Thompson and seconded by Noziska.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site plan from 1984 application.
2. Restated Conditional Use Permit dated June 1, 1985.
3. Planning Commission minutes dated August 8, 1984.
4. Board of Adjustment minutes dated August 20, 1984.
5. City Council minutes dated August 20, 1984.
6. City Council minutes dated September 10, 1984.
7. City Council minutes dated November 19, 1984.
8. Planning Commission minutes dated May 28, 1986.
Under Separate Cover will be:
City Council minutes from 1978 through 1981
LOTUS LAW
4P
1r • V PON
R�uc�oull RE�kNIroR'
Proposed Sailboa+
Moorings +
Recreational beachlot
(Outlot B)
Proposed Sailboat Moorings
Proposed Dock
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP
1
0 100 200
SCALE IN FEET
/ C
e,, ,
a too
cr
the .Shale/ine of t✓ �,;
L0fas Lake as locales
August24,1978 / MATCH LINE
r,V,, _ .L
IDOL 5rZ �t . k", �'•
I IA:
N8314�
108.57N61 i �� ! � \ .o29
;
ti
�� m 2422 d`24`10 �'+
31 -9S14 C`12I84 .,'L kh Id' -
0 s<
k1q 1\�,g6.46 L=12gB/ D��`�q0 L_ 'S
I k \
Jl 1-1 32 k151.40 l'II8.19d-24'ZojO n�' s c6
4
•' 0 6¢'St �a 0� 0 1b 85 l 63.30 - - - - R
V �v /y^n�• \i� c-6e3.14 {427, 8922,3206
O sry C ti 4? d=141907 44 d=3/04505
0 �h 00 L` 325.421
pSouih /ne 33 .N C d- ti z 23
olGor[LofZ,Sec.1 d " ■* a `�' L-5655
On I 2 l4- f2„ C=54.48 v N'WB4'/4dVv� a /Vv� s,� 0-24�Ti G=540
I ;J /407 22 y7p0 25 2�� ,
6905 � .
9t - 4174 N88E /39.2
g2 949 62.3p`4o.50 92.I
a „
31 "^
104 21
° 2019�8
Z049
, II 1�11 I O
y ? mac' �� C, \ i�S. 48 d=2218 v'o Uc'
i'i6 2 3Z
\35 �'�SC=105.99 �q .90.08
Val i ��� Mokpo L cv,, l 106.66 L 90.09 I I 634!
\`.k9�o000 aLCS''. tiC-174.8
d=3j3o'R=29904' L°159.83 d=6. 3(f
b'l°� ,k1 4/Bed j61 1 R=I4o885,
R. -?L=75 489-
s 0 44 C;�4ig 4363iC90.0�
4-/5"5B5-4v—
e
/mac\9}'yJ.?ia' 8 •V�-I l� 31 IJv ';I to .,
T g b 5
74.14 94.79 i 8965 \
\ 6.85
"..587`23'0 "W /68-93 Jig
9e
\ 549 7 t°22 M 75.
--- 17313-- 5 � _/00 46y
\IZV
4 q�
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RESTATED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BEACHLOT - LOTUS LAKE ESTATES
This restated conditional use permit and agreement made
and entered into this day of by and
between B-T Land Company (hereinafter "BT"); and Lotus Lake
Estates Homeowners Association (hereinafter the "Association"),
and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation
(hereinafter referred to as the "City");
WITNESSETH: That the City, in exercise of its powers
pursuant to M.S. §462.357, and other applicable state law, and
S14 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, hereby grants to BT and
the Association herein a restated conditional use permit to main-
tain and operate a private neighborhood association recreational
area upon Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, Carver County, Minnesota
(hereinafter the "Subject Property"), subject to the following
terms and conditions, -all of which shall be strictly complied
with as being necessary for the protection of the public
interest.
SECTION 1. RECITALS.
1.01. Prior Platting of Lotus Lake Estates. BT has pre-
viously platted a tract of land in the City as Lotus Lake
Estates, consisting of 44 residential lots and 3 outlots.
1.02. Outlot B. In connection with the platting of said
Lotus Lake Estates, BT has entered into a development contract
with the City of Chanhassen, dated January 5, 1979, wherein BT
agreed to organize a homeowners association for the purpose of
owning and operating the Subject Property for the benefit of the
owners of properties lying within said plat. Section 28 of said
development contract further provides that BT shall suffer no
alterations of the Subject Property except after first having
obtained a permit from the City setting forth a plan for the
alteration and development of the Subject Property.
Said Section 28 also provides that, for purposes of
said development contract, said permit would be deemed to be a
conditional use permit and that the application process and pro-
cedure would be as set forth in Section 2.3 of the Chanhassen
Zoning Ordinance, which sets forth the application procedure for
actual conditional use permits.
1.03. Homeowners Association. BT incorporated the
Association for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining certain
common properties including the Subject Property for the benefit
of the owners of lots in the plat of Lotus Lake Estates, and for
the benefit of the owners of any lots platted in the future by a
further subdivision of Outlot C, Lotus Lake Estates.
1.04. March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit. Upon appli-
cation of BT, the Chanhassen City Council on July 21, 1980,
approved the issuance of a permit for the alteration of the
Subject Property. Said permit, entitled "Conditional Use Permit
Beachlot - Lotus Lake Estates", was executed by BT and the
Association on March 10, 1981.
1.05. June 1, 1981 Application for Amendment of Permit.
On June 1, 1981, the Association, with the knowledge and consent
of BT, filed with the City an application for amendment of the
March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit, requesting City approval
of further development of the Subject Property.
1.06. City Council Approval. On August 12, 1981, the
City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on said June 1,
1981, approved issuance of a revised permit authorizing further
development of the Subject Property.
1.07. April 22, 1982 Conditional Use Permit. The above
described March 10, 1981 Conditional Use Permit was superceded by
the Conditional Use Permit executed on April 22, 1982.
1.08. July 18, 1984 Application for Amendment of Permit.
On July 18, 1984, the Association filed with the City an appli-
cation for amendment of the Restated Conditional Use Permit
requesting City approval of further development of the Subject
Property.
1.09. City Council Approval. On August 8, 1984, the
City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on said July 18,
1984 application. On August 20, 1984, the City's Board of
Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing and approved a
variance to allow four sailboat moorings. The City Council, by
its motion of November 19, 1984, approved issuance of a revised
permit authorizing the installation of said moorings.
SECTION 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
2.01. Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal
to BT and to the Association, and is not assignable or trans-
ferable, except upon the written consent of the City.
2.02. Release of BT. The City, upon written request,
shall release BT from its obligations hereunder upon receipt of
documentation which demonstrates (a) the proper incorporation of
the Association pursuant to Chapter 317 of Minnesota Statutes,
and (b) the conveyance of title to the Subject Property in fee
simple to the Association for the benefit of all owners of lots
in Lotus Lake Estates. No such release shall be given until such
documentation has been approved by the City Attorney as to legal
sufficiency. No such release as to BT shall have the effect of
releasing the Association from its obligations, covenants, and
agreements hereunder.
-2-
2_03. Rights Under This Permit Not Expandable to Other
Owners. This permit is issued for the benefit of the owners of
the 44 lots in Lotus Lake Estates and for the benefit of the
owners of any lots platted in the future by a subdivision of
Outlot C, Lotus Lake Estates. BT and the Association agree that
the use and enjoyment of the Subject Property shall be limited to
the owners of lots in Lotus Lake Estates. The use and.enjoyment
of the Subject Property may not extend to persons other than such
owners. The term "owners" as utilized in this §2.03 shall mean
and refer to any natural person who is either (a) the record
owner of fee simple interest, or (b) the recorder owner of a
contract for deed vendee's interest, or (c) the holder of any
possessory leasehold interest, in the whole of any lot in Lotus
Lake Estates, including authorized guests and family members of
any such persons.
2.04. Description of Prooertv Subject To This Permit.
The premises subject to the within conditional use permit are
described as follows:
Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, according to the map
or plat thereof on file and of record the Office
of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County,
Minnesota.
2.05. Certain Site Alterations Authorized. BT and the
Association are hereby authorized to install the following
improvements on the Subject Property:
a. One sand blanket swim area, as shown on the alteration
plan, City Council Exhibit A, dated July 21, 1980, said
swim area to be marked with a minimum of three anchored
"swim area" buoys that are in accordance with the
Uniform Waterway Marking System; said buoys to be
anchored a reasonable distance from shore; and
b. a pedestrian walkway connecting Choctaw Circle with the
sand blanket swim area; said walkway to consist of wood
chips installed on a sand base with boardwalk steps on
the steep slope area of the walkway; and
C. four boat racks to be located on land with a storage
capacity of either six canoes or six small sail boats
per rack; and
d. one dock, not to exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet
in length or that number of lineal feet necessary to
reach a water depth of four (4) feet; at the option of
the Association, the final ten (10) feet of said dock
may consist of a ten foot by ten foot (10' x 101) square
platform; said dock shall be located on that portion of
the shoreline of the Subject Property which lies between
the northerly line and the southerly line of Lot 34,
Block 1, Lotus Lake Estates, extended northwesterly; and
-3-
e. one ten foot by ten foot swimming raft, to be located in
water having a minimum depth of seven (7) feet, not more
than one hundred (100) feet from the nearest lake shore-
line; said raft shall project a minimum of one (1) foot
but not more than five (5) feet above the lake surface,
and the corner of said raft shall be reflectorized; and
f, one conversation pit -fire hole, three (3) feet in
diameter with a six (6) foot apron constructed of brick
or masonry material, to be located landward of the walk-
way and no further north than the northerly line of Lot
32, Block 1, Lotus Lake Estates, extended northwesterly;
and
g, four sailboat moorings, to be located in the manner
depicted on the submitted site plan of the July 18, 1984
application.
Except as provided in this permit, no portion of the
Subject Property may be developed, altered, or disturbed in any
way.
2.06. Trees. In carrying out the above described altera-
tions, --the Association and BT each agree to use every effort to
keep tree loss at an absolute minimum.
2.07. Reserved.
2.08. Erosion Control. BT and the Association, at their
expense, shall provide temporary dams, earthwork or such other
devices and practices, including seeding of graded areas, as
shall be needed, in the judgement of the City Engineers, to pre-
vent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands
and roads within and outside the Subject Property during all
phases of construction. BT and the Association shall keep all
public streets free of all dirt and debris resulting from their
construction upon the Subject Property.
2.09. Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for the
alterations described in Section 2.05 above, no structure, pier,
boat rack, mooring buoy, or swimming platform shall be
constructed, erected, or maintained on the Subject Property or in
the waters abutting the Subject Property.
2.10. Camping Prohibited. No owner, as defined in
Section 2.03 hereinabove, or other person shall camp overnight on
the Subject Property.
2.11. Motor Vehicle Parking and Boat Storage. No
watercraft shall be parked or stored overnight or on a permanent
basis on the Subject Property, except as follows:
a. not more than twenty-four canoes or small sail boats may
be so stored overnight in the four boat racks described
in Section 2.05 of this permit; and
-4-
6 i
b. not more than four non -motorized boats, not to exceed
sixteen feet in length, may be docked overnight at the
dock described in Section 2.05 of this permit.
Except for construction equipment necessary for the exe-
cution of BT's plan and as necessary for the maintenance of the
Subject Property, no motor vehicle shall be driven upon or parked
upon the Subject Property.
No boat trailer shall be allowed upon the Subject
Property. Nothing in the preceding three sentences shall be
deemed to prohibit the launching of any watercraft from the
Subject Property if accomplished without the assistance of any
motor vehicle or trailer or wheeled dolly upon the Subject
Property.
SECTION 3. MUNICIPAL DISCLAIMERS.
3.01. No Liability to Suppliers of Labor or Material. It
is understood and agreed that the City, the City Council and the
agents and employees of the City shall not be person-ily liable
or responsible in any manner to BT or the Association, their
contractors, or subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, or to any
other person, firm or corporation whomsoever, for any debt,
claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind
or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this
permit and agreement or the performance and completion of the
work and improvements hereunder and the BT and the Association
will save the City, the City Council, and the agents and
employees of the City harmless from any and all claims, damages,
demands, actions or causes of action arising therefrom and the
costs, disbursements, and expenses of defending the same.
3.02. Written Work Orders. BT and the Association shall
do no work nor furnish materials, whether covered or not covered
by BT's plan, for which reimbursement is expected from the City
unless a written order for such work or materials is received
from the City. Any such work or materials which may be done or
furnished by BT or the Association without such written order
first being given shall be at its own risk, cost and expense, and
BT and the Association hereby agree that without such written
order, they will make no claim for compensation for work or
materials so done or furnished.
SECTION 4. MISCELLANEOUS.
4.01. Severability. In the event any provisions of this
permit shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any
court or competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invali-
date or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the
remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired
thereby.
-5-
4.02. Execution of Counterparts. This permit may be
simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which
shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one
and the same instrument.
4.03. Headings. Headings at the beginning of sections
and paragraphs hereof are for convenience of reference, and shall
not be considered a part of the text of this contract, and shall
not influence its construction.
4.04. Proof of Title. Upon request, BT and the
Association shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to
the City that they have acquired fee title to the Subject
Property prior to any request by BT pursuant to Section 2.02 of
this permit.
4.05. Notices. All notices, certificates and other com-
munications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be
deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, with property address as indicated
below. The City and BT and the Association, by written notice
giv_:n by one to the other, may designate any address or
addresses, to which notices, certificates or other communications
to them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this
permit. Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties, all
notices, certificates, and communications to each of them shall
be addressed as follows:
To the City: City of Chanhassen
City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn: City Manger
To BT: B-T Land Company
1055 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
To the Association: Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Assoc.
C/o Aaron Babcock
125 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
4.06. Owners to be Notified of This Permit. The
Association shall furnish each owner, as that term is defined in
Section 2.03 above, with a copy of this permit within thirty (30)
days of the signing of this permit and shall furnish each future
owner, as that term is defined in Section 2.03 above, with a
copy of this permit, within thirty (30) days of any such owner's
initial occupancy of any residential structure in Lotus Lake
Estates.
4.07. Term of This Permit. This permit shall expire on
July 21, 2010.
Q-M
SECTION 5. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.
5.01. Reimbursement of Costs. BT and the Association
shall reimbure the City for all costs, including reasonable engi-
neering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by
the City in connection with all matters relating to the
administration and enforcement of the within permit and the per-
formance thereby by BT and the Association. Such reimbursement
shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of
the City's notice of costs as provided in Section 4.05 above.
This reimbursement obligation of BT and the Association under
this section shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term
of this permit.
5.02. Remedies Upon.Default.
a. Assessments. In the event either BT or the Association
shall default in the performance of any of the covenants
and agreements herein contained, and such default shall
not have been cured within ten (10) days after receipt
by BT and the Association of written notice thereo_, the
City, if it so elects, may cause any of the improvements
described in BT's plan to be constructed and installed
or may take action to cure such default and may cause
the entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engi-
neering, legal and administrative expense incurred by
the City, to be recovered as special assessment under
M.S. Chapter 429, in which case BT and the Association
agree to pay the entire amount of the assessment roll
pertaining to any such improvement within thirty (30)
days after its adoption. BT and the Association further
agree that in the event of its failure to pay in full
any such special assessment within the time prescribed
herein, the City shall have a specific lien on the
Subject Property for any amount so unpaid, and the city
shall have the right to foreclose said lien in the
manner prescribed for the foreclosure of mechanic's lien
under the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event
of an emergency, as determined by the City Engineers,
the notice requirements to BT and the Association shall
be and hereby are waived in their entirety, and BT and
the Association shall reimburse the City for any expense
incurred by the City in remedying the conditions
creating the emergency.
b. Legal Proceedings. In addition to the foregoing, the
City may institute any proper action or proceeding at
law or at equity to prevent violations of the within
property, to restrain or abate violations of the within
permit, or to prevent use or occupancy of the Subject
Property.
-7-
0
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these
presents to be executed on the _[_ day of �.&A/e /�_-T-
B-T LAND COMPANY LOTUS LAKE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
By By '� /.
It �, is
CITY OF 7ANHASSEN
By
z
It May r
Attest X2' CLT(�
City Clerk/Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF 6&JJVEP#-) )
On this day of before me, a notary
public, within and for said bounty, personally appeared
me personally know, who, being emeh by me duly sworn did say that
V,e t4i:ey ale r q the P*os*4eiwt as Vice -President of B-T Land
Company, and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said
corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and said
'_kCK T). WJ2.2.± � ,
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said
corporation.
.. BECKY L. BENTZINGER
(ya NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY
' My Commission Expires Oct. 1989 N ary
Pfi
—8—
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF Ffi%k€ 10 )
On this day of _1 Ix`s , before me, a notary
public, within and for said dounty, personally appeared
J& .e5 m. LaceS/ and � b. err,—wl , to
me personally know, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that
they are respectibely the President anaVice-President of Lo4usL.a--
Qompaay, and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said
A130t"`bm corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and said
_14'r4S M Lacey enand 6.'b. e_tm.d k ,
acknowledged said instrumt to be the free act and deed of said
corporation.
w
BECKY L. BENTZINGER
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY
y�
-r,!-r My Commission Expires OCL 24. 19M
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
COUNTY OF CARVER
��
"Wir
It
On this /0 -tA day of 19$S, before me,
a notary public, within and for he'county, personally appeared
Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth, to me personally known,
who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respec-
tively the Mayor and the City Manager of the municipal cor-
poration named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal
affixed to said instrument is the municipal corporate seal of
said municipality, and that said instrument was signed and sealed
in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City
Council and said Thomas L. Hamilton and Don W. Ashworth
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said
municipal corporation.
ar Public
,ca"..��\\\ KAREN J. ENGELHARDT
1 NARY PUBLIC - MiNNE80TA
CARvtR COUNTY
`R�. My Cemm.U..n Ewes CYI. 11 lees" }
Council Meeting Septemrmbe 0, 1984 ! -3-
Mona Kerber - No, you did not send him a copy. We gave a photostatic copy of ours.
Councilman Geving - I think we can move ahead with the vacation so that we will move off
the center of this thing and then it will be between you people to get your acts
together and carry out your agreement and then if it isn't worked out to either of your
satisfactions it has to come back to the City Council.
Pat Kerber - We are sitting in a situation there, if they are going to vacate the street
I want a street coming in first.
Tan Klingelhutz - I will build your street. I just want a firm commitment.
Mona Kerber - Mr. Kelly had told us that up until Mr. Klingelhutz came up and surveyed
to our specifications we were not going to accept anything and there has been nothing
surveyed. We have no land description in our hands and I believe if you recall we so
stated that we have title of the land but we were going to exchange.
Councilwoman Watson moved to close the public hearing. Notion seconded by Mayor
Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson,
Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
EASEMENT VACATION, OUTIAT A, SARATOGA FIRST ADDITION:
RESOLUTION #84-50: Councilman Geving moved the adoption of a resolution vacating the 20
foot roadway easement on Outlot A with the stipulation that this will not be became
final until Mr. Klingelhutz has carried out the driveway construction. Resolution
seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
RE -ROOFING FIRE STATION #1: Councilwoman Watson moved to accept the low bid from
Allweather Roof Company in the amount of $17,025.00 to re -roof Fire Station #1. Motion
seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman
Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Notion carried.
MINUTES: Councilman Geving moved to approve the August 20, 1984, Council minutes.
Notion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Notion carried.
Councilman Horn moved to note the August 27, 1984, Public Safety Cannission minutes.
Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Notion carried.
FINDINGS OF FACT, LOTUS IAKE BEACHIof IMPROVEMENT:
Mayor Hamilton - As you recall we had asked Roger to put in writing what it was that we
had discussed that evening to that we could review it.
Don Ashworth - I can't recall on that evening if you had actually closed that hearing or
not. I know that you had asked the Attorney to draft up these findings and whether or
not you are going to receive additional comments or not, I am not sure of. I believe
Mr. Beck is here and would like to speak.
Councilman Geving - It was a final action. There was no continuation. There are a few
j things here that have to be cleaned up.
! Peter Beck - I did ask of the Council whether I would have an opportunity to camment on
1 the findings. I would just like to note our exceptions to findings 6-10 which, we feel,
are inconsistent with evidence that was in front of the Council. To just go through
then briefly one by one, #6 we feel we showed that there are indeed special circumstan-
#4P
Qouncil Meeting September 10,084 . -4-
ces and conditions affecting this Outlot B where you need a piece of property in this
City completely unique recreational beachlot and #7 once again we presented evidence in
the form of my presentation with respect to the enjoyment, the variance being necessary
for preservation and enjoyment of property rights of those people in Lotus Lake Estates.
With respect to #8, I don't recall any evidence whatsoever to the effect that the water
quality of Lotus lake is poor much less that this is due in part because of overuse nor
any evidence with respect to overuse creating safety problems and making it difficult
for anyone to enjoy the lake. As we pointed out it's been impossible for the homeowners
and citizens of Chanhassen who live in Lotus Lake Estates to enjoy the lake at all due
to their inability to get any reasonable access to it. With respect to #9, we feel
that's inconsistent with the purpose of the Beachlot Ordinance. That the variances
would be consistent and perfectly appropriate. Number 10, I have no idea which sections
of the amprehensive plan are being referred to but we don't believe the proposals are
inconsistent. At the last meeting there was a question raised by at least one Council
members as to whether the folks in Lotus Lake Estates would be satisfied if they had
what everyone else had. In other words just one dock and only five boats and that's
all, without restrictions as to whether they were motorized or non -motorized. We have
called a meeting of the association to discuss that and other issues. The bylaws pro-
vide a 30 day notice period for that meeting so it can't be held until September 20th.
An informal poll has indicated that that type of a resolution probably avoid a lawsuit
which is apparently going to be inevitable if the Council's action is as it was on the
20th. That lawsuit, quite frankly, will challenge the ordinance directly and I have
advised the association and I feel confident in that advice, that the ordinance will be
stricken as being unconstitutional in it's different treatment of similar situated
owners. I also believe it goes beyond the authority of the City granted by the
Shoreland Use Statute and the Shoreland regs. of the DNR. The City can regulate the
location and length of docks, these sorts of things. There isn't any express authority
to regulate overnight storage of watercraft and the Supreme Court in an opinion just
last week involving the City of Orono very narrowly construed those statutes and those
DNR regs. and did not permit Orono to put a second layer of regulation on top of DNR's
with respect to dredging for a dock and the access to a dock. I do believe the ordi-
nance will fall. It will cost everyone a lot of money to have the question resolved and
it looks like it could be avoided if these people just were granted what every other
lakeshore owner in the City is entitled to, one dock, five boats with or without motors.
Councilman Geving - The very first paragraph, I don't know of an Outlot 13.
Peter Beck - It must be Outlot B.
Councilman Geving - The Findings of Fact, it seems to me there should be a lc added to
include mooring of sailboats.
Mayor Hamilton - We approved the mooring of sailboats. These are the items that there
is some question about.
Peter Beck - The theory is it never reached the Council.
Councilman Geving - If that is the contention on that I will withdraw that as a comment.
You are right it never did get to the Council. At the top of page 2, four boat racks.
The permit and agreement as amended allows: a sand beachlot swim area, a pedestrian
walkway, four boat racks. I believe that should be reworded to say four canoe racks.
Peter Beck - I think when they went around with this before they changed it from canoe
to boat to permit a small sailboat to be stored on those racks.
Councilman Geving - I think you are correct on that.
Ma or Hamilton - It should be reworded to four canoe/small boat racks.
Council Meeting Septemb#0, 1984 • -5
Don Ashworth - I'll just verify that the wordage in the conditional use will be exactly
the same.
Councilman Geving - I did find the comment in item 8, I don't recall that evening on
August 20th talking about the water quality of Lotus Lake. I personally would like to
strike the sentence "The water quality of Lotus lake is poor in part because of
overuse".
Mayor Hamilton - I think we have discussed water quality but I am not sure we would be
able to prove it's because of overuse.
Councilman Geving - The only other comment that I have is the one that Peter brought up
too and that is "The proposals are inconsistent with the city's comprehensive plan" if
they are I think they should be spelled out somewhere.
Councilman Horn - I think some of the comments in here while they may not have been spe-
cifically addressed on the evening of the 20th were definitely the thoughts of the
people who put the ordinance together and our general knowledge of the people on the
Council, the overuse of the lake and the safety factors are well known. We may not have
verbalized those that evening but were certainly in our consideration.
Councilman Geving - My comments as I wrote them to myself, I would like to have item 8
explainu more fully. I just feel that eight should be more full in detail.
Councilman Horn - Then I feel it's necessary for us to bring in all of the discussions
and mminutes of the previous conditional use permit. Sane of these things were discussed
at the time of the application for the original conditional use permit.
Mayor Hamilton - Those two items have been discussed continuously every time we talk
about water surface usage.
Councilman Geving - I guess it's difficult to separate in my mind the findings and deci-
sions of this paper from the minutes that we read here earlier. They have to go hand in
hand. I can't read this document without looking at the minutes. This document is not
complete unless we attach it to the record.
Councilman Horn - And previous minutes from other conditional use permit applications
because those statements are still relevant
Councilman Geving - I as a Council member has never been intimidated by a lawsuit and I
don't believe any member of the Council has ever been intimidated by the thought of a
lawsuit. That's a fact of life. We get a summns once a month as a Council person.
That's the way we live. Just to let you know if we can work out a negotiation at some
future date that's something between the Council and your association. Don't try to use
it as a threat to us.
Peter Beck - I don't mean to use that to intimidate you or the Council and it's not a
threat. It's a fact. I think this Council knows that neither I nor my office does come
into this Council and make empty threats to the Council about bringing lawsuits. We
evaluate a situation like this as objectively as we can so that we can give our clients
the best advice and I am telling you that our advice is that that ordinance in its une-
qual treatment of similarly situated people is unconstitutional and I don't mean to
intimidate you by saying that but I think the Council's experience has been that when we
do take a position and do recommend to a client that they pursue it through a lawsuit
generall have been vindicated in our positions. We don't bring frivolous lawsuits and
we don't make empty threats and we are not in this case.
C=cil•Meeting September 10, 94 • -5-
Councilman Horn - Are your clients aware that this ordinance has been reviewed by both
our previous City Attorney and our current City Attorney and they agreed that it is
constitutional.
Peter Heck - I don't know that that fact is in the record and I don't know whether it is
true. I know the City Attorney was never asked in connection with this application. I
haven't had a chance to review those minutes. In fact I just got this resolution when I
came in the door tonight. I would like to reserve the right or at least let the Council
know that I may, upon review, object to the minutes and their explanation of what hap-
pened. I don't know that that would be true. Generally the minutes here are very good
but I don't want you to get an impression that I have reviewed them and I don't have any
objection to them.
Mayor Hamilton - Certainly the frost desirable position to be in is one where we both
reach an agreement. I still think we can do that without going to court but I also
think if we get in a position of a stalemate where we are not going to be able to reach
an agreement often times the best place to settle it is in a court.
Peter Beck - We have come here tonight having informally polled the members and they
indicate that if the Council were amenable that may be a solution just equal treatment,
one dock, five boats.
Manor Hamilton - We discussed that that evening but that's not something we are going to
discuss this evening. I think it is something we should talk about.
Peter Beck - I am not sure that we have any option for next step other than going to
court. If there is I would like to know what it is because I am not anxious to spend
any more money than we have to.
Mayor Hamilton - I think perhaps you and I and Don and some members of the association
can sit down and talk at least once more prior to your taking action. I have a couple
of ideas myself I would like to talk about.
Peter Beck - Let's try to fit that in before the 20th so we have something to present to
the association.
Councilwoman Watson - I would like to have an opportunity to discuss the issue of the
beachlots being treated as simply a piece of riparian lake property that happens to
belong to 40 people instead of one and just how that can be handled.
Peter Beck - I would definitely adopt an ordinance that regulates in a reasonable way
the use of the beachlot. I don't think a boat for every house or anything like that
that you are going to have to have huge marinas on beachlots but I think the regulation
has got to account for the size of the lot, the number of homes served, take into con-
cern a variety of factors and not just the rigid prohibition on overnight storage which
falls so unevenly on these people.
Don Ashworth - The formal procedure, I guess you have a couple of options, 1) is simply
to table this item, 2) would be to literally wait the six month period of time to come
back in for another conditional use permit. The third approach would be a letter from
You to the Council requesting reconsideration on this item.
Ma or Hamilton - It's not really a reconsideration or waiting six months because there
may be some new things that we want to discuss. For instance, asking for a dock with
five boats. That wasn't part of the original request.
Councilman GeGeving - Any time we get some new information, some new proposal I think you
I have a right to cow to us and have heard.
Council Meeting Sep 0, 1984 . -7-
Peter Beck - The problem with that is the costs are just getting so prohibitive to hire
me to cone out here again. I will be happy to meet and if you want to table it but to
start the whole process over with a different proposal is going to be almost as expen-
sive as going ahead the other way.
Don Ashworth - I will put the question to Roger. I am pretty sure what his response
will be and that is you have notified people of the request for the conditional use per-
mit and have allowed people to speak on that issue. If whatever evidence comes in or
based on what you hear, etc. if you can make a decision, in other words if you can
modify what was originally said to other people.
Peter Beck - You can always grant less.
Don Ashworth - I don't think we should call this totally over though. What you are
doing is still considering the position that was presented on August 20th.
Peter Beck - You can't go beyond what has been noticed. In other words you couldn't
grant 15 boats or three docks but you can always go less because people are on notice of
the worst case.
Councilman Geving - We could approve the findings of fact here as it was stated and that
more of less takes care of the August 20th issue. We denied the variances. Our attor-
ney has come back with a findings of fact, a summarization of that meeting, and that is
what this is and all we have to do is approve this synopsis and as far as I am concerned
August 20th is a dead issue. If the applicants want to come back with a new issue I am
willing to listen to it.
Peter Beck - We can't do it for a year.
Councilman Geving - We are willing to look at any issue at any time.
Don Ashworth - Under your ordinance once you close out an issue it's not to cane back
up. You have two options, you can table it or go through reconsideration. I think we
will have a problem if you vote on this item and close it out.
Councilman Horn - I would also like to have an opinion from our attorney as to relevance
of the case versus our ordinance that Mr. Beck has stated this evening.
Mayor Hamilton moved to table action. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and
Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
1985 POLICE CONTRACT: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the 1985 police contract for 18
hour service. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
1984 AUDIT CONTRACT: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the 1984 audit contract with Voto,
Reardon, Tautges & Co. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in
favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Geving stated his concern about the recommendations that were made to the
city in the Management Report of 1983 and would like a updated report.
FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION, FINALIZE BYLAWS: Jerry Schlenk and Jack Kreger were present.
Councilman Horn moved to approve the 1985 Relief Association package as recomnepdeo by
Jim Castleberry. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in a r:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
Council Meeting Noveo 19, 1984
Councilman Geving - Other than changing the dames of the streets,
other questions.
-5-
I don't have any
Barb Dacv - It is a fairly large subdivision and in case of an emergency it would be
best to differentiate between the street names.
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the preliminary plat for 20 lot single family resi-
dential subdivision, JCB Partnership, Planning Case 84-7. Motion seconded by
Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman
Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMWDMENT REQUEST TO ALIOW OUTDOOR STORAGE, WAREHOUSING AND COLD
STORAGE AS CONDITIONAL USES IN C-3 CQNCIAL SERVICE DISTRICTS:
Councilman Horn moved approval of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow outdoor
storage, warehousing and cold storage as conditional uses in the C-3 Ccamercial
Service District, Planning Case 84-5. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and
Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
CHANHASSEN ESTATES SEWER PROBLEM:
Don Ashworth - It did hit over a weekend and we do not pay for stand-by time so we
have to look to, hopefully, finding someone at home. We had a little more problem
with this one in terms of getting someone out there. I think it was maybe a half
hour before we got somebody there. The problem is corrected. It was a back up of a
sewer line. There were two homes on Dakota Avenue. The claim has been submitted to
our insurance carrier. The adjuster was supposed to be out there today. He did not
make it today. He will be out there tomorrow morning. They have been notified that
if the City is a fault that our -insurance coverage does cover that. If am confident
that it was a main line back-up. It does not happen wry often but when it does
happen it is a real problem.
PROPOSED LOTUS LAKE ESTATES BEACHLOT IMPROVEMENTS:
Mayor Hamilton - Two parts to it, variance request to install one additional dock
and to allow the overnight storage of 10 watercraft, and conditional use permit
-request to allow certain recreational beachlot improvements. This request goes back
a ways, I am not going to go all the way back to 1978. I don't think that's
necessary. However, I will go back to August 20th when the Council considered this
item and that evening there was a request for four items made. One was an addi-
tional dock on the northern portion of the outlot. Another was for four sailboat
moorings and that was approved. The third one was for the overnight storage of ten
motorized boats and the fourth one was the continuation of the walkway along the
north portion of their outlot and that was already allowed. There was a motion made
that evening to deny items 1 and 3, the additional dock and the overnight storage of
boats. Final action to be delayed until the City Attorney submitted findings and
decisions as what came out of all the discussion that ensued that evening. The City
Council received those findings and decisions, we made some comments about them,
The Council did not take final action and still has not taken final action on those
findings and decisions. We delayed action on them so that the City Manager and
myself could meet with the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association and see if we
couldn't find a suitable solution to the problem. One that would satisfy both
sides. What we have before us this evening is a proposal that the homeowners and
myself and the City Manager have agreed upon. The options that we have before us
this evening it seems to me, I am sure I'll be corrected, but this is the way I see
it, we can have a motion to deny that anything is going to happen this evening
really, that following discussions on the 20th meant denial. There was a motion to
deny on the 20th and if the Council feels that that motion was in fact to deny and
not to continue this item any further, that is one thing that we have to decide. If
..Council Meeting November 1084
0 -6-
the Council feels that way then there needs to be a motion accepting the findings of
fact. If the Council agrees that ro final action has been taken, a motion to that
affect should also be expressed. The proposal before us can be interpreted as a new
proposal since it asks for five motorized boats at the existing dock and a new dock
at the north end of their outlot. We can discuss that and vote on it right now at
this meeting this evening. We can return that to the Planning Commission and ask
for their input. Last time they reviewed this item they chose to send it directly
to the Council because they didn't want to deal with it and felt the Council should
deal with it and I suspect that may be the case again. Also, this evening, if 1)
which I had mentioned, if the motion to deny was in fact in the Council's opinion
the final decision, if that's accepted then six months must pass prior to a new pro-
posal being submitted which in my estimation would be February 18th meeting at the
earliest, at which time there would be a public hearing and we would review this
item again. As I see it, those are our options. That's what has happened since
August 20th. The Council at this time needs to decide what we would like to do this
evening.
Councilman Horn - One clarification on the Planning Commission action, it was my
recollection that they had voted on it and requested denial unanimously.
Mike Thomson - As I recall, we denied it.
Barb Dace - It's in the last part of your attachments.
Councilwoman Watson - The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the petition
August 8th. The Cammission voted unanimously to deny the Lotus lake Estates
Recreational Beachlot improvements in a.motion by J. Thompson and seconded by Albee.
Councilman Geving - I would like to ask at this time since we don't have the legal
services tonight, I am a little disturbed that we don't have our legal counsel
because I think this is a very important issue but I think we need to ask ourselves
and clarify before we proceed with this, whether or not we are following all of the
recommended procedures that we deal with as a City Council and that we will not
violate any procedure by concluding with this issue and I would like to at this time
ask Don Ashworth for that opinion.
Mayor Hamilton - It's up to the Council to decide whether or not we felt that the
motion mane by Pat Swenson on August 20th was in fact a motion to deny. If that's
what the Council felt our action was, then there is nothing to deal with.
Don Ashworth - That is Roger's opinion. Recognizing that that question would cane
up I did pose that exact question to Roger. I had him go hack through those minutes
twice. He is slightly disappointed with how that was actually worded in the minutes
from the standpoint that the finding of fact recannendation came from the City
Attorney. He had anticipated that you may end up in a court case with this oar-
ticular item from one side or the other and that the City would be best served by
placing those findings into a written form. If the Council determines that the
action was final on August 20th then those findings of fact really mean nothing from
September loth. In other words it was his intent in making that recommendation that
the Council's position be known but in fact the action of denial would be based on
the findings of fact rather than having your vote occur first then you cane along
later and decide why it was you voted that way. He has a problem with that. His
opinion is that it is your decision as to was it your intent on August 20th to see
this item closed out that evening or was it your intent to go to September loth.
Mayor Hamilton and I have talked on this item so he was aware of Roger's comments
and Ton had again suggested that your first vote on this item be, what was your
intent and however you answer that you will be following your procedures. In other
L.
Council Meeting Nova* 19, 1984 (0 -7-
words, if your intent was not to see it go any further, then your procedures would
be simply that item would be done and we would have no other business here this
evening except to agree to the findings of fact. Again, you would be making those
findings in a retrospect manner. If, on the other side your decision is that is was
not your intent to close it out that evening, then all options that were open to you
on August 20th are still open to you tonight.
Councilman Geving - You indicated Mr. Mayor, that if that were true this would go
bacx to the Planning Commission?
Mayor Hamilton - If, in fact, we decide that our decision on August 20th was final,
then they could re -apply on February 18th to the Planning Commission. What the
Council need to have clearly in mind is hopefully you know what your intent was on
August 20th. You voted for the motion which read: "Councilwoman Swenson moved to
deny the request for the variance 84-8, items 1 and 3, on the basis of the fact that
they are not in conformity with the existing ordinance and there is no basis for
variance in the criteria setforth and based on the discussion this evening. The
City Attorney will prepare findings of fact and set out the reasons for the denial."
The thing that is missing out of there is the discussion that followed the motion
which my recollection was that it would remain open and if you recall Peter even
brought that point up that the whole item would be concluded until the findings of
fact were presented and it would not be closed. I want each of you to comment on
whether you thought it was final or not.
Councilman Horn - We always tell people things are not final in a sense. We act on
eacn motion but we always have methods of bringing subjects up again. We have a six
month waiting period and they come again for consideration to see if there are new
facts involved. I felt the proposal that we were dealing with that evening which was
for the ten boats, the extra dock, the sailboats and whatever, it was closed that
evening by this motion. That was certainly my intent and understanding that this
criteria of findings was exactly what the City Attorney had recommended to more
solidly document our reason for denial of the petition.
Councilwoman Watson - I guess basically I agree with Clark in that we voted on that
ten boat proposal that was turned down unanimously and the continuation seemed to be
for those findings that Roger felt we should have in order to back up our decision
at that time. I guess, I agree with that and at the same feel that I guess the six
months is written in granite I suppose and it has to proceed in that manner. Is
that true? I do see this as a new proposal. I don't know if it necessarily has to
wait the six months to go back to the Planning Commission.
Councilman Horn - Can't that be waived by a vote of the Council?
Councilman Geving - The vote I made on August 20th I felt was a clear and final
decision to deny the request for that particular proposal. We always handle one
proposal at a time and I think that it would be unfair to our citizens not to give
them the right to comment in a public forum on a new proposal. I think it should go
back through the Planning Commission and through the procedures that we have
established for these kinds of things. I know it takes time but I think that's the
way this should be handled. My decision on August 20th was a firm denial.
Mavor Hamilton - Based on what my recollection was of all the discussion that ensued
after the motion was made it was that the action of that evening was not final and
that we were going to, after we received the attorney's comments, review it again
and be certain that that was exactly what we wanted to do and then when we did
review tnose comments we didn't take action again at that time because we felt that
perhaps if we talked to the homeowners group that we could reach a mutual
understanding, something that could be discussed again.
Council Meeting November 14384
0 -8-
Mavor Hamilton - It wasn't my intent to make it final. I still don't think it's
final.
Peter Peck - I remember that August 20th meeting, I asked, is this final, should I
even bother to cow back at the next meeting and I remember real clearly saying, we
haven't adopted our findings yet, you should probably be here and then I came and
detected that both from my clients and from the Council that there might be some
flexibility and some roan to resolve this without everyone having to incur a whole
lot more expense. We did meet with the Mayor and the Mayor made a proposal which I
don't really think is a new proposal. Everything in it is contained in, it's a
reduction of what we had. There is nothing new. It's just a reduction of what we
did have, offered by the Mayor as a way to resolve this without any further cost or
expense to the City of the people from lotus Lake Estates. That's haw we have been
proceeding until today and I still think it's a good suggestion, a reasonable one, a
good way to resolve this without having any party required to bear any more expenses
or invest any more time.
Mavor Hamilton - I need a motion, based on what I am hearing the Council members
say, to make this official, that the Council is in fact adopting the findings and
decisions.
Councilman Horn - Were those ever modified. There were some questions about those.
Don Ashworth - You made motifications to those.
Councilman Horn - I don't think we ever got a final version of those.
Mayor Hamilton - Regardless, what I am hearing the Council say is that the minutes
of August 20th are approved then the findings should be approved to make the action
final.
Don Ashworth - The Council did not vote on the conditional use amendment for the
four moorings. It was approved as a variance. You did not review it as a City
Council because it went to the Hoard of Adjustments and Appeals but as a part of
amending the conditional use permit your motion should be amending the conditional
use Permit to allow for four moorings and to adopt the findings and decision as sub-
mitted to the City Council on September loth and as modified that evening and that
should pick up any changes that you did make that we have not incorporated.
Councilman Horn - Some of those as I recall are just questions. I think Dale had a
Few questions about where the comprehensive plan was addressed. We didn't get a
response back from Roger, at least I don't recall that we did. I think we need a
final version of the findings and intent from Roger based on the input before we can
approve them.
Councilwoman Watson - I can't remember exactly what the questions where from that
time.
Councilman Horn - I think the only part that is open is the approval of the findings
of intent.
Mayor Hamilton - The decision portion, you agree with.
Councilman Horn - Yes.
Councilman Geving - I don't think you are going to get a better version of that
September loth findings and decisions.
L.
Council Meeting Nove* 19, 1984 -9-
Ma or Hamilton - The evening that we discussed this I still feel that item $8 was
the center of our discussion because we really hadn't discussed water quality as
part of that whole discussion. If we just deleted that whole section it probably
would answer most of the questions that came up.
Don Ashworth - Realize the issue at this point is really moot because, again, if the
decision was that it was closed off and a final decision was made on August 20th
then you really can't be adopting findings of fact on September loth as to why you
voted the way you did. The necessity to finalize this really is not there.
Councilman Horn - I guess I don't understand the original purpose.
Don Ashworth - The original intent, it's a matter of how the motion was worded and
staffs ability to convey what the attorney was recommending. He was recamiending
that you not take final action that night. You established the point that you
wished to see included in a findings of fact document and have that presented back
so then your final decision would be based on a document. It doesn't change the
vote and it doesn't change the minutes as a valid representation of what it was you
did.
Councilwoman Watson - Regardless of these facts and findings in September, the vote
took place in August and I didn't see that waiting for these made the vote non-
existant.
Mayor Hamilton - We don't need to vote on the findings and decision and by a three
to one vote the Council has said that they agree that the vote that they took on
August 20th was final.
Councilwoman Watson - Where is there any allowance for the process to begin on this
more quickly than six months because I do remember the discussion that night, I
don't think that discussion changed the vote or made that vote on the ten boats and
stuff null and void but I do remember the discussion. I do remember the Mayor
saying that he was going to talk to than. I can remember all these thincTs and so I
have a little trouble with six months and all that business about starting that part
of the procedure again because we did have that discussion. It should go back
procedurally but not necessarily wait six months.
Barb Dace - Under the variance provisions in the Zoning Ordinance it says, no appli-
cation for a variance which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted
for a period of six months from the date of such order or denial except on grounds of
new evidence or proof of change of conditions found to be valid by the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals. If the board finds that there are new grounds of evidence
or a change of conditions, then the case could be reheard before that six month
period.
Councilwoman Watson - They could begin the process again right now by coming to the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals for that finding.
Councilman Gevino - I would propose that that be done with the waiver of the fee for
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. I think that's appropriate.
Barb Dacv - That same clause is in the conditional use provision as well.
Mayor Hamilton - The Board of Adjustments and Appeals will meet in two weeks.
Coumicil Meeting November 10984
-10-
Peter Beck - We will consider that possibility and weigh it. Really, the proposal
tonignt I presented to the group as a way to resolve this without incurring any more
expenses. If we go back and start over we run the risk that the board will say it is
not changed circumstances, it appears that there is a procedural defect in other
words, or it could not go with the proposal and you have the Planning Commission and
then the Council at least one more board and Council meeting and then another if
there is going to be more findings. It is getting to the point I think there is the
possibility the group may decide that they will take their chances. In other words
the five boats was proposed by the Mayor and accepted by the group as a way to
resolve it weighing the costs of proceeding further against the benefit gained by
five more boats. I have a sense that at this point they just go back, we have got a
denial with no valid findings of fact, we might as well go ahead and take our chances
with that but I am just letting you know what I think are going to be some of the
considerations. We were hoping to came here tonight and get a sense for the fact
that we could resolve it. It seemed like a reasonable proposal.
Councilman Horn - What fee are you talking about? We are offering to waive the Board
of Adjustments and Appeals fee.
Peter Beck - My fees.
Councilman Horn - They don't need you to bring their case.
Peter Beck - I think the events of the last six months have indicated that they pro-
hala y do.
Georcette Sosin - I have a sense that 'somehow we shouldn't be speaking, either one of
us, eitner Mr. Beck or myself while there is a motion on the floor. I appreciate
Your recognizing us. I do want to say that the September loth meeting was not
attended by any one of us because we felt, everyone who was at that meeting and from
all that you read in the newspaper, the sentence had already been decided and it was
not necessary to be here for that finding of fact reading and the time element that
you are discussing is an important thing because it is a new proposal and I think it
needs. to be looked into for lots of different reasons.
Don Ashworth - I think there should be a motion. A motion to agree that the position
presented on August 20th was the final position of the City Council.
Councilwoman Watson craved to agree that the position presented on August 20th was the
final position of the City Council. Approve modifying the conditional use permit to
include four moorings. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in
favor: Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Mayor Hamilton voted no.
Motion carried.
Councilman Geving moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and
Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
Planning Commission Onutes
May 28, 1986-Page Seventy Three
Noziska moved, Thompson seconded to close public hearing. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
Conrad moved, Noziska seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the amendment to the Water Surface Usage Ordinance to
amend Section 3.04 of Ordinance No. 73, City of Chanhassen per the
Staff Recommendation. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Except for privately owned commercial resorts or commercial
boat landings established prior to the adoption of this
ordinance, 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 lakd. Overnight
docking mooring and storage is further restricted to the
owner/occupant or renter/occupant of the lakeshore site home
to which the dock, storage, or mooring site is an accessory
use.
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow a total of three docks to be
contructed on Outlot B and to allow overnight storage of these docks
of a total of nine watercraft without restirctions as to whether said
water craft are motorized or non -motorized, Lotus Lake Estates
Homeowners's Association.
Public Present
Ali Brock 7203 Frontier Trail
Marge Spliethoff 113 Sandy Hook
Pat Swenson
Dianne Needham
Franklin Kurvers 7220 Chanhassen Road
Barbara Miller 610 Carver Beach Road
Jim Parsons 6800 Brule Circle
Ryan: Item 3. I guess we don't have item three because we don't need
to discuss Lotus Lake's Conditional Use Permit if we don't have an
ordinance.
Roger Knutson: The public hearing schedule. I think it would be
advisable under the circumstances to hold the public hearing and I
know the sentiment of the Commission is to turn it down because it is
inconsistent with the present ordinance, you don't like it anyway.
Ryan: Yes, we don't want to be inconsistent.
Dacy: What is being proposed is three docks and a total of not more
Planning Commission Onutes •
May 28, 1986-Page Seventy Four
than nine watercraft to be stored at those docks without restriction
as to motorized or non -motorized.
Ryan: Is there anybody that wants to make public comment on this item
that hasn't already done so.
Larry Constitino: I am a resident of Lotus Lake Estates. I would
like to make it clear to the Commission as well as the other members
here that Lotus Lake Homeowners Association has not, I repeat, has not
asked for a change in the Conditional Use Permit. We as the
Homeowners Association have not asked for this. The City is
suggesting it as a potential settlment for the lawsuit that is
pending. If that is a commentary on the defensivibleness of the
ordinance.
Ryan: You are saying that you are not the applicant on this?
Larry Constitino: I'm on the Board of Directors and I am unaware that
we have petitioned a change in the Conditional Use Permit. The City
is suggesting it as an alternative.
Thompson moved, Noziska seconded to close public hearing. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
Thompson: Since the applicant hasn't made an application how can we
react to it. Since the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association hasn't made
application or indicated that they aren't interested in the
conditional use permit.
Thompson moved, Noziska seconded recommending denial of the
Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow a total of three docks to be
constructed on Outlot B and to allow overnight storage of these docks
of a total of nine watercraft without restrictions as to whether said
water craft are motorized or non -motorized, Lotus Lake Estates
Homeowners's Association. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Ryan: It's obvious the City Council wants to get a Conditional Use
Permit.
Knutson: City Council set it before you, that is correct.
Ryan: Well, they have a reason. We can't just pass this by and say
because they haven't asked for it the thing is not there. That
surprised me, I thought you people had asked for it. It was part of
the agreement. It's getting late in the evening and I don't want to
offend people. The City Council felt it was important enough to take
Roger's time and the Staff's time to prepare the request.
Thompson: The discussion is that one obvious reason for not
continuing to pursue it is because the interested parties aren't
interested.
Planning Commission 010nutes
May 28, 1986-Page Seventy Five
Conrad: They are interested.
Ryan: We don't have an ordinance that allows it in the first place.
Noziska: The main reason would be because we don't have an ordinance
and this would be in violation of that ordinance.
Ryan: If the City Council should over ride our recommendation and
approve the ordinance modification, then this will come back and we
can.
Ryan: Do we need to elect a new Chairman of the Planning Commission?
Should we elect a new chairman.
Dacy: You can do that now. Yes, if you are going to be gone by the
next meeting. It would normally go to the Vice Chairman.
Thompson moved, Siegel seconded to elect Ladd Conrad as Chairman of
the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Ryan: Would anyone have anything on the Minutes that they would need
to discuss.
Dacy: You should have two sets. The March 19, 1986 one you should
have gotten in the mail later.
Siegel: One thing. In here you have 12:30 p.m. when it should be
12.30 a.m.
Thompson moved, Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes of the meeting
on March 19, 1986 with the correction that the meeting adjourned at
12:30 a.m. instead of 12:30 p.m.. All voted in favor except Conrad
who abstained. Motion carried.
Thompson moved, Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes of the meeting
on May 14, 1986. All voted in favor except Ryan and Noziska who
abstained. Motion Carried.
Thompson moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn meeting. All voted in
favor and Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 a.m..
Submitted by Barbara Dacy, City Planner.
Prepared by Nann Opheim
June 9, 1986
40
Planning Commission Minutes
August 8, 1984
Page 4
Conditional Use Permi
Recreational Beachlot
p Qfnfcc
Public Present
-8 to Allow Certain
to Outlot B. Lotus
Peter Beck Representing Lotus Lake Homeowner's Assoc.
Approximately 30 people in attendance from the Homeowner's
Association.
Martin explained that the Lotus Lake Estates Recreational
Beachlot was established in July, 1980 when a Conditional Use
Permit was issued by the City Council. The permit was amended in
August, 1981. He stated that the existing conditions of the lot
include a swimming beach, one swimming raft, two boat racks each
for 6 canoes or small sailboats, one dock that is approximately
67 feet in length and this dock is restricted in the permit that
allows overnight docking of not more than 4 non -motorized boats
and not greater than 16 feet in length each and also includes a
pedestrian walkway which provides access to the various facilites
on the lot. He stated that the proposal tonight is to amend
their conditional use permit to allow the installation of an
additional seasonal dock, to allow 4 sailboat moorings in their
abutting waters of the beachlot, allow the overnight storage of
10 watercraft without any restriction on the motorization of that
watercraft and the 10 watercraft would be split between the
existing dock and the proposed new dock and also to allow the
continuation of the existing pedestrian walkway for access to the
new dock. He explained that variances are required for this as
was in the previous petition which would involve the fact that
the ordinance does not allow more than one dock on any beachlot
regardless of the size of the beachlot and does not allow the
overnight storage or mooring of watercraft.
Peter Beck, representing the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowner's
Association, stated that the Outlot was roughly 900 feet long and
50-150 feet wide, a 3-4 acre parcel. He stated that when Lotus
Lake Estates was platted in 1979 it was contemplated that Outlot
B would provide access to the lake for approximately 144 homes to
be built in two phases, however the second phase became Fox
Hollow. He stated that Outlot B has been deeded to the 44
home sites in Lotus Lake Estates for their exclusive use only.
He stated that neither the development agreement or any provision
of the City's approval of the plat in 1979 prohibits docks or
overnight storage of boats on Outlot B, nor do they indicate that
they would be prohibited. He stated that if the variance is not
favored, the ordinance that prohibits overnight storage should be
amended. He stated that the proposed location of the dock and
sailboat moorings has been selected to minimize the impact on the
lake in the deeper water area and would like to spread the use
Pr-nW/uFurOS
so
Planning Commission Minutes
August 8, 1984
Page 5
across the beachlot so it would not appear to be congested and
also to separate these uses. He stated that the request is made
for a number reasons, one that for three years since the most
recent denial, the owners in Lotus Lake Estates have realized
that the inconvenience of not being able to store a motorboat or
sailboat on this outlot has seriously detracted from both their
ability to enjoy and use the lake and from their property values.
He stated that with the respect to the property values, when
the restrictions on the use of this outlot became known to the
County Assessor, the appraised value of the outlot decreased from
roughly $18,000 to approximately $1,400. He stated that addi-
tionally property values throughout the subdivision have
decreased dramatically by an average of 15%. He felt that these
factors along with the inconvenience to lug small fishing boat
motors up and down the path in order to enjoy the lake are the
reasons for the request. He stated that there are no immediate
adjacent owners and felt that it would not endanger the lake or
adversely affect any other persons' enjoyment of the lake. He
stated that he has advised the association that there are two
problems with the restrictions, one is the matter of equal pro-
tection, i.e. granting individual owners with the right for over-
night storage and secondly that the taking of property does
require compensation, where restrictions have caused a decrease
in value, over 90%, and he felt that there is a potential taking
issue there.
Bob Dols stated that he is a member of the Lotus Lake
Association and on the Board of Directors and he stated that the
association felt that this was not an appropriate request for the
Planning Commission to grant because it is a precedent setting
issue. He felt that the Beachlot Ordinance adequately protects
the interest of the members of the community who are lakeshore
owners as well as people who do not enjoy the privileges of
lakeshore ownership. He stated that the devaluation of the
property is not necessarily the City's problem. He felt that it
wasn't the Planning Commission or the City Council's obligation to
protect the economic interest of those people who have purchased
homes in that development. He felt that the developer, at the
time the lots were being sold, may not have fully understood the
process necessary for the approval and unfortunately the people
that purchased were not completely aware of the issue.
Rick Murray stated that the developer did understand the
agreement and wanted to point out that the outlot was a little
over 3 acres and by asking for 5 more boats for storage would
just be a convenience to leave the motors stored on the boat. He
felt that you would not be keeping the boats off the lake by not
allowing this.
Bill Ryan asked Rick Murray what the original intent of Outlot B
was?
a*
Planning Commission Minutes
August 8, 1984
Page 6
Rick Murray stated that when this PUD was approved in 1977 there
was no plan for Outlot B. Mr. Swedlund, who was the original
developers in the wrote a letter about the different uses he saw
Outlot B being used as: swimming, docking or boating. When the
preliminary plat was approved, the City Council wanted to see how
Outlot B would be improved and the Council required the developer
to go through the Conditional Use Permit process.
Peter Beck stated that he thought these kinds of uses were con-
templated at the time that the subdivision was platted and
approved.
Albee moved, seconded by J. Thompson to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
J. Thompson stated that he was on the Planning Commission when
the first conditional use permit was sought and denied and agreed
fully with that decision then and does now.
Merz stated that the DNR has certain regulations for accesses
based on lake size which are designed to control the overall use
of the lake.
Albee was opposed and felt that if they started amending the
ordinance, they would open it up to every other lake. She stated
that there was a set of stipulations and most were aware of them
when the property was bought.
Ryan stated that alot of work went into the Recreational Beachlot
Ordinance and he sees nothing that has changed since that time to
justify an amendment to the ordinance. He also stated that the
development was done as a PUD and negotiations were agreed to
then.
M. Thompson stated that he was also on the Planning Commission at
the time the request came up, and felt that there were trade-offs
made between the City and Developer. He stated that there was an
agreement at that time and thought they already made their deal.
J. Thompson moved, seconded by Albee to deny the Lotus Lake
Estates Recreational Beachlot Improvements request. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Peter Beck stated that this is private property, that they were
not proposing a public access. He felt that this would not set a
precedent because of the size and frontage of the outlot. He
stated that the development agreement provides that a permit
had to be acquired but nothing in it indicated that it would not
be granted or that boats and docks are prohibited.
c
C
Planning Commission Minutes
August 8, 1984
Page 7
Public Present
Peter Beck, representing the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowner's
Association, and approximately 30 interested citizens were in
attendance at the public hearing.
Albee moved, seconded by Ryan, to recommend denial of the request
of the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowner's Association to initiate an
amendment to the recreational beachlot regulations of the zoning
ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
The Planning Commission gave the following reasons for recom-
mending denial of the association's request:
1. The potential for intensifying the use of City lakes by non -
riparian property owners.
2. The existing ordinance was adopted within the last two years
following a great deal of public input and discussion.
Circumstances have not substantially changed since the ordi-
nance was adopted to justify the consideration of the
requested amendment.
Peter Beck felt that the City should consider each case on its
individual merits and not to refuse to consider it because it
would set a precedent. He also stated that he saw nothing in the
ordinance which indicates what makes a jointly owned outlot dif-
ferent from one held by one individual to such an extent that the
outlot is denied any overnight storage of boats while the individ-
ually owned property is permitted 5 boats without restrictions.
tional Use Permit Reauest t84-9 to allow the addition of 18
motel rooms and a 50 person capacity meeting room
Public Present
Mr. 6 Mrs. Lawrence Zamor
Martin explained that the request is to allow the addition of 18
motel rooms and a 50 person capacity meeting room on the existing
motel which contains 51 units. He stated that the property is
Central Business District and makes it subject to a conditional
use permit without any specific standards and intended to give
flexibility in the development review process. He explained that
C
Chanhassen Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals
August 20, 1984
Page 2
Zoni
to Install
and
Geving stated that many beachlots in the City will be affected by
the Board's decision. He was familiar with the negotiations with
the Lotus Lake developer regarding beachlot use. Each'dock, he
felt, takes up considerable amount of space and affects lake
vegetation. He stated the City should allow only one dock per
lot and not waiver from the established ordinance.
Hamilton noted that installation of the dock is not the problem,
but rather it is the intensity of use of the dock which affects
the lake. Agreement on use of the beachlot, he said, was nego-
tiated and reached with the developer in good faith to protect
the best interests of lakeshore owners and lake users. He was
concerned about opening the door to renegotiation with other
homeowner associations having recreational beachlots.
Geving commented that several years were spent developing the
beachlot ordinance, and exceptions should not be made to it so
shortly after its adoption. He stated he had no objections to
the sailboat moorings,, howevei, the motorized boats affect the
lake most severely.
Peter Beck, attorney representing the Lotus Lake Homeowner's
Association, stated that a variance is not required because no
prohibition on docks was included in the development contract.
The contract, he said, provided site plan review and permitting
from the City Council.
Beck stated the fear of precedent setting was unfounded because
the circumstances are so unusual. The outlot consists of
approximately 900 feet of shoreline, he noted, not typical of
other recreational beachlots in the City. Historical background
of the outlot is also unique in terms of the provisions of the
development contract. Beck cited the assessed value of the
outlot declined nearly ninety percent since the adoption of the
recreational beachlot amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.
Geving moved, seconded by Watson to forward the request to the
City Council without recommendation. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Geving moved, seconded by Watson, to approve a variance to'allow
the installation of four (4) sailboat moorings in the abutting
waters of Lotus Lake, as proposed by the Lotus Lake Homeowner's
Association in Variance request #84-8. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
A7W 1f M&JrWY
:. 'Council Meeting August 1984
• -10-
Councilwoman Swenson - I have no complaints whatsoever about the motel.
Councilman Geving - I do believe the parking plan shown on Mr. Zamor's Attachment #1 _
is superior to the Attachment #5 and throw in part of what Barbara (Davy) had
designed for green space in Attachment #5, forget about the fencing and I think you
have got it made. '
Councilman Geving moved to approve the conditional use permit request to allow the
expansion of the Chanhassen Inn Motel to 69 units and a 50 person meeting room and
that Attachment #1 as shown dated July 16, 1984, be the attachment for the vehicle
movement and placement of parking spaces and to incorporate the plantings on the,
south side as shown in Attachment #5. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson,
Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Horn - When this project originally went in it specified some type of a
limit on the number of units this could have. I am wondering what that number was.
There was,a staff recannendation as to the maximum number we should put in there.
Councilwoman Watson - We just saw two phases of the project.
Councilman Horn - It disturbs me a little bit that we don't have the old minutes from
this so we can refer to those. Obviously there was some thought put into that maxi-
mun number at that time and I would like to know what the reasoning was. I think we
need to go hack through the whole proposal every time a new request comes up to find
out what the thinking was by previous Councils on the issues.
Councilwoman Swenson - I agree. Perhaps we could do that in the future.
PROPOSED LOTUS LAKE ESTATES BEACHIOT IMPROVEMqTS:
Mayor Hamilton --The next item on the agenda is the proposed Lotus Lake Estates
Beachlot improvements, (a) a variance request to install one additional dock and to
allow the overnight storage of 10 watercraft, (b) conditional use permit request to
allow certain recreational beachlot improvements. The Board of Adjustments and
Appeals met this evening and considered this item, they were requesting four things:
(1) the installation of one additional seasonal dock, (2) the installation of four
sailboat moorings in the abutting waters of the beachlot, (3) overnight storage of 10
watercraft, without any restriction on motorized watercraft, and (4) continuation of
the existing pedestrian walkway to provide access to the new dock.and moorings. Item
four we did not discuss because that is a permitted use now. Item #3 and #1 we had
Passed to the Council without a recommendation. Item #2, we approved. What we need
to discuss tonight are items #1 and U . One of the things that we discussed as far
as the docks and boats since the purpose of putting the dock in would be to have
boats moor there, I would guess that you don't want to have a dock there if you can't
have boats moored there.
Peter Beck - The request is to spread the ten boats over the two docks which are the
way they fit best given the size of the docks.
Councilwoman Watson - Would they still want the dock without the boats?
Peter Beck - I am representing the association of 44 members and I can't really
agree to anything other than what they have authorized us to seek. I don't know the
answer to that. There is the possibility they may want a second dock even if it is
restricted to just fishing and swimning.
AT7 F C � r: 7 r46
Council Meeting Aug-020, 1984 • -11-
Councilman Geving - Is that your answer affirmatively that the homeowners association
would request a separate dock even if the motorized or other craft were not allowed?
Peter Beck - I can't say that. The association can only act by a vote of 2/3 of its
members and even though I am their attorney I can't say.
Mayor Hamilton - We will deal with the first one first, the installation of one addi-
tional seasonal dock.
Peter Beck - A number of our association members are here tonight. Unless there are
specific questions that I feel I missed a point they will, at my request, not speak
to expedite things. I hope you will appreciate that they are here and they are very
concerned about it and are willing to speak if the Council wants. On the issue that
just came up, I don't want the Council to think that it's an all or nothing proposi-
tion. I only have the authority to seek what the association and its duly noticed
meeting by 2/3 vote authorized me to seek so if something lesser is approved I will
take it back to the association and they would decide at that point what to do. I am
going to cover very briefly some of the points which I have made in a long letter to
the Council and to the Board of Adjustments which I hope you have had an opportunity
to read. I had asked that that letter me made a part of the record so that I don't
have to go through point by point tonight. Basically, we have presented three
options to the Council. As you know we want the four things that the Mayor men-
tioned. Two are pretty much resolved. We are down to the two issues, the additional
dock and the overnight storage. We are proposing that can be handled in one of three
ways. First, due to the history of Lotus Lake Estates and the creation of the outlot
we don't believe a variance that the City's beachlot ordinance should apply because
of the contractual relationship between the City and the owners so that a variance
would not be required. Alternatively, if your City Attorney advises you or if you
determine that it does apply and a variance is required we are requesting the
variance and finally, I will address it separately if necessary, if the variance is
denied we suggest that the ordinance itself should be amended. This map will show
where we propose the dock to go. That location has been suggested because it's an
area where there won't be any disturbance to any sensitive areas. It's trying to
achieve a separation of uses between the two docks and the swimming beach to lessen
congestion and have a small impact on the appearance of the outlot as possible. We
have taken some shots from the lake to show as you are looking from the lake where
these uses would go. As you can see you get a little ways out in the lake and the
existing dock becomes almost invisible because of the heavy foliage in that area.
The development history is fairly long and involved. I touched on it in my letter.
Originally, the piece of property was supposed to be platted with individual lots to
the lake. The plan was changed, apparently at the City's request, to provide a
recreational outlot to provide access to the whole subdivision and that so-called
Outlot B was created and because the subdivision had so much frontage on the lake it
became very large, some 900 feet of frontage, 31 acres in area. At the time the plat
was approved the development contract was entered into which contains a couple
paragraphs related to the outlot. Paragraph 28 requires that before there be any
alteration or development on the outlot a permit be sought from the Council. That's
the permit we are requesting. It's to be treated as a conditional use permit. I
don't believe it is actually a conditional use permit but it is to be deemed a con-
ditional use permit, same procedures but the permit we are actually seeking is pur-
suant to the terms of that contract. The contract prohibited overnight camping on
the outlot. There is no question that all parties agreed at that time that there
wouldn't be overnight camping. It does not prohibit overnight storage of boats or
the installation of docks nor does it provide for a conservation easement in this
area. There is a four foot easement for a path but there is no conservation ease-
ment. In fact in reading the development contract it appears that it was con-
templated that there would be docks or watercraft on the lot because the developers
Council Meeting August W984 • -12-
were required to establish a homeowners association which in turn would and provide
covenants for the City Attorney to review which would provide once again that the
homeowners association had control over requests for structures and docks. So far
from prohibiting them, it seems to anticipate this type of a request and there has
been a lot of discussion as to the history and background of that. My version is
taken from the paper, the minutes of the meetings, the development contract itself
and that's the indication we get from the documents. There has been a couple of
requests under that paragraph of the development contract, prior requests, for use,
first in 1980 a beach and a few other things. It was approved. Secondly, in 1981 a
number of improvements were requested although I think, a conversation pit and maybe
one or two other things were granted, that request was substantially denied. It
included a request for a number of docks and that sort of thing. The City Manager
has suggested in his memo that that was an agreement reached in 1981 and I would sub-
mit that it wasn't it was a request for a conditional use permit which was acted on
by the Council and substantially denied. At that point the homeowners did not
realize the impact that these restrictions would have on their property values. They
decided that they did not want to invest the irony to pursue it further. We are back
here tonight because in the interim it has became apparent to them the dramatic
impact that the inability to get on the lake with watercraft is having both on their
property values which have increased some 15% to 20% and on their ability to use and
enjoy Lotus Lake which is an amenity that they purchased when they bought their lot.
Fisherman have to carry their motors up and down where I think most Council members
know is a fairly steep hill even to get on the lake and do a little fishing. Bigger
boats they have to trailer to a public landing. The inconvenience has been more than
they expected. More significantly the impact on their property values has been far
greater than they thought. I would like to suggest that this is a completely dif-
ferent request than in 1981. The use is much reduced, just one extra dock, the over-
night storage of the ten boats and we think the circumstances are quite a bit
different because we now have the experience and we know what restrictions on this
lot have done to property values and secondly, because in the interim the outlot has
been deeded over to the 44 owners in the present Lotus lake Estates Subdivision. In
1981 it was contemplated that this outlot would serve another 100 or so lots in what
was then Outlot C and is now Fox Hollow. Those lots are not served by this outlot
and that's a significant difference when the Council is considering what type of use
this outlot would receive, what intensity of use it will receive. There was some
question at the Planning Commission as to whether in 1981 there really was 144 lots.
I went back and looked at the conditional use permit itself I think you will find on
page 2, Section 2.03 it expressly says that the use at that time was for the 44 lots
plus any lots to be platted as part of Outlot C which was the 100 lots. That is a
change in circumstance today that we think merits your consideration. The first
request is that you grant a permit under the terms of the development contract. We
feel that is appropriate because of the history and because of the development
contract. Th move on to the variance issue, if it is your decision that the ordi-
nance is applicable we feel this is an appropriate case for a variance because of the
very unusual circumstances surrounding outlot and they would be 1) the history which
I have already related and the contemplation of the parties at that time that there
could be these type of improvements and 2) because of the physical nature and loca-
tion of the lot. It is extremely large, 31 acres some 900 feet of frontage, unique
in the City and its location is also unique. It is not adjacent to any individual
property owner on either side nor is there anybody in the immediate proximity to it
which would be impacted or whose enjoyment of their property would be directly
impacted by the ten boats scattered on these locations. Your Zoning Ordinance sets
forth standards for the granting of a variance. Th summarize then, 1) there be spe-
cial circumstances or conditions. we feel that this lot does present a special cir-
cumstance and condition due to its size, its location, it's unlike the typical 50 ,
foot beachlot/outlot which is flanked on either side by individual property owner and
which may be overused given its size if it's a large subdivision. Also, the special
Council Meeting August 1984 -12-
were required to establish a homeowners association which in turn would and provide
covenants for the City Attorney to review which would provide once again that the
homeowners association had control over requests for structures and docks. So far
from prohibiting them, it seems to anticipate this type of a request and there has
been a lot of discussion as to the history and background of that. My version is
taken from the paper, the minutes of the meetings, the development contract itself
and that's the indication we get from the documents. There has been a couple of `
requests under that paragraph of the development contract, prior requests, for use,
first in 1980 a beach and a few other things. It was approved. Secondly, in 1981 a
number of improvements were requested although I think, a conversation pit and maybe
one or two other things were granted, that request was substantially denied. It
included a request for a number of docks and that sort of thing.The City Manager
has suggested in his memo that that was an agreement reached in 1981 and I would sub-
mit that it wasn't it was a request for a conditional use permit which was acted on
by the Council and substantially denied. At that point the homeowners did not
realize the impact that these restrictions would have on their property values. They
decided that they did not want to invest the money to pursue it further. we are back
here tonight because in the interim it has become apparent to them the dramatic
impact that the inability to get on the lake with watercraft is having both on their
property values which have increased some 15% to 20% and on their ability to use and
enjoy Lotus Lake which is an amenity that they purchased when they bought their lot.
Fisherman have to carry their motors up and down where I think most Council members
know is a fairly steep hill even to get on the lake and do a little fishing. Bigger
boats they have to trailer to a public landing. The inconvenience has been more than
they expected. More significantly the impact on their property values has been far
greater than they thought. I would like to suggest that this is a completely dif-
ferent request than in 1981. The use is much reduced, just one extra dock, the over-
night storage of the ten boats and we think the circumstances are quite a bit ((
different because we now have the experience and we know what restrictions on this 1
lot have done to property values and secondly, because in the interim the outlot has !L
been deeded over to the 44 owners in the present Lotus Lake Estates Subdivision. In
1981 it was contemplated that this outlot would serve another 100 or so lots in what
was then Outlot C and is now Fox Hollow. Those lots are not served by this outlot
and that's a significant difference when the Council is considering what type of use
this outlot would receive, what intensity of use it will receive. There was some
question at the Planning Commission as to whether in 1981 there really was 144 lots.
I went back and looked at the conditional use permit itself I think you will find on
page 2, Section 2.03 it expressly says that the use at that time was for the 44 lots
plus any lots to be platted as part of Outlot C which was the 100 lots. That is a
change in circumstance today that we think merits your consideration. The first
request is that you grant a permit under the terms of the development contract. We
feel that is appropriate because of the history and because of the development
contract. To move on to the variance issue, if it is your decision that the ordi-
nance is applicable we feel this is an appropriate case for a variance because of the
very unusual circumstances surrounding outlot and they would be 1) the history which
I have already related and the contemplation of the parties at that time that there
could be these type of improvements and 2) because of the physical nature and loca-
tion of the lot. It is extremely large, 31 acres sane 900 feet of frontage, unique
in the City and its location is also unique. It is not adjacent to any individual
property owner on either side nor is there anybody in the immediate proximity to it
which would be impacted or whose enjoyment of their property would be directly
impacted by the ten boats scattered on these locations. Your Zoning Ordinance sets
forth standards for the granting of a variance. To summarize them, 1) there be spe-
cial circumstances or conditions. We feel that this lot does present a special cir-
cumstance and condition due to its size, its location, it's unlike the typical 50 ,
foot beachlot/outlot which is flanked on either side by individual property owner and
which may be overused given its size if it's a large subdivision. Also, the special
Council Meeting AugAWO, 1984 • -13-
circumstance going back to the history and the expectation of the parties when the
development contract was entered into. The second standard is that the variance be
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. The
right of these riparian owners in Lotus Lake Estates to have access and use the lake
is clearly a substantial property right and it has been their experience that this
right has been severely affected both due to the inconvenience and the danger of
lugging motors up and down that hill and the property values which have been substan-
tially affected. The third standard is that it not be materially detrimental to
public welfare or injurious to adjacent property. I don't believe the question on
public welfare, the City being affected by an additional dock on a lot of this size
and the additional boats on a lake the size of Lotus Lake, again, of course, if even
two lots had been platted there would have been the right to two docks and ten boats
and in respect to being injurious to adjacent property I have mentioned already,
there are no property owners immediately adjacent who could reasonably be said to be
affected. Finally, that the variance be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance. It is my belief that the intent of this ordinance was to protect property
owners immediately adjacent to undersized outlots from over use and excessive boat
traffic that could interfere with their enjoyment of their property. That situation
just isn't raised by this where there are no people in the immediate area and it is
such a large outlot. Really to say that it is not in keeping with the intent is to
say that the intent of the ordinance was in fact to preserve the lake for individual
property owners at the expense of beachlot owners and if that is the intent, I hope
it's not, but if that is the intent of the ordinance we would suggest that it's
improper, that it's unfair and it's unreasonable and I will get into that a little
bit more detailed if necessary on the next item with respect to amending the ordi-
nance. I don't think that was the purpose of it. I think it was to prohibit abuse
of beachlot situations, a 50 foot below standard outlot that served 100 lot sub-
division and I don't think that permitting this limited use of this outlot is
([ contrary to that. There has been concern at the Board of Adjustments and the City
Manager has expressed some concern that if this request is granted it will generate
similar requests from other beachlot owners. I can't stand here and tell you that's
not true you may very well get more requests. of course, it is the right of those
people to make that request and they have that right now notwithstanding what happens
with this. What I can tell you is that in my opinion by granting the variance we
have requested you will not be obligating yourself to grant a variance in the 50 foot
outlot that has immediately adjacent property owners. That is a much different
situation and a variance has to be considered in light of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the request and I would say far from obligating yourselves to grant every
request for a beachlot that comes in I think you would be setting a standard as to
what types of uses very large properly located beachlots can be granted. This is
clearly a very limited use for this size of lake front property. There just simply
is no other outlot of this size located away from adjacent owners unless you have a
request to put ten boats on a 31 acre, 9o0 foot outlot that is located with no adja-
cent owners and has the history that this has with respect to expectations that
request you would have to grant but of course you won't get it because there is no
situation similar to this.
Scott Martin - Since Mr. Beck on several occasions referred to the development
contract perhaps the Council should have the ability to look at that. It is circled.
It is #28 and he seems to be reading in some intent there but it stands alone. I did
include in your packet the current conditional use permit in its total which does
control the property to date.
Peter Beck - I would ask if you are going to read paragraph #28 you also take a look
at my letter which contains excerpts from paragraph #25 which, I think, contemplates
the structures and storage of watercraft. With respect to the 1981 contract, I just
mentioned it because it did contemplate the 100 extra lots. I also noted that it
does not in any way restrict or prohibit the association from making a further
Council Meeting August *1984
• -14-
request and I think it's appropriate for then to do so given the course of events and
years that are intervening.
Councilwoman Swenson - We have here a copy, Peter, of a restated Conditional Use Permit
beachlot Lotus lake Estates and it was signed by Mr. VanNest, Rick Murray, Mr.
Parsons, Mr. Babcock, and Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Ashworth and this was dated the 2nd
day of November 1982 and one of the conditions here is that not more than 24 canoes
or small sail boats may be so stored overnight in the four boat racks. When at the
last time the Council granted all these other concessions and your association agreed
to this now what assurance do we have that if we were to go along with you are saying
that two years from now you are not going to came back and want 44 boats or five
docks or anything else. What faith can we have in what you are requesting?
Peter Beck - We can't commit future owners. Every one that is now a member may sell
and they might think they need something else but I think that your job is to con-
sider these requests and evaluate then individually based on their merits. I think
that all the conditions of this permit have been met to my knowledge and there has
been no breach of these conditions. No all of the improvements have been installed
yet.
Mayor Hamilton - In taking your boat out of the water from 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.,
it's a three hour period of time that you can't have your boat in the water and I
don't think there is a lot of boat traffic from 2:00 to 5:00 a.m. and you stop and
think about that I am not sure how much harm it does having a boat sitting in the
water with a motor on it from 2:00 to 5:00 a.m. Now all of the people in the asso-
ciation a perfect right to use the lake, all 44 of those could put a boat in the
water each day and use it fran 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. and take the boat out now.
That's the current regulation. In looking at that I don't recall what we were
attempting to prove by using those times or what we were driving at or trying to
accomplish other than I felt we were looking for non -intensification of use of the
lake but there isn't a lot of use between 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. anyway. On the
other side of the coin when I look at the agreement that we have and went to great
lengths to develop with the developer at that time, B-T Land Company, the City Staff,
the Council and the Planning Commission spent an awful lot of time working on this
and coming up with an agreement that we felt was fair to both sides and now we are
facted with a request to intensify the use of that outlot. I think if at any time
during that process I had thought that this type of thing would happen more than
likely not only on this outlot but on others should this be approved, I would for one
would not be in favor of outlots because you could have, in this case about seven
homeowners would have a dock and they would have approximately 35 boats but at the
same time I am not sure there would be a dock for each one of the lots. We were
searching for a way to try to reduce the use of the lake and try to keep it safe and
clean for everybody and keep the water quality high while at the same time trying to
be fair to all those who live in some proximity to the lake. I thought we had
reached that.
Councilman Horn - I have reviewed in great detail all of the old Council minutes and
I have had many discussions with Rick Murray about the old Council minutes. I feel
that the Counsel is stretching a little bit when they feel it was the City's intent
to make this a beachlot. I found no record of that in the minutes that I reviewed.
I don't know where that implication came from. As far as I was concerned it was
clearly the intent of the developer to make that a beachlot so more people would have
access to the lake which is exactly why beachlots have a different type of regulation
against then than what riparian lake owners have. I also failed to find where the
City had implied a dock request by it recommendation in the conditional use permit.
I think that and I have a lot of sympathy for the people that moved into that area.
I know some of then have since moved out because they were lead to believe certain
Cbuncil Meeting August * 1984 . -14-
request and I think it's appropriate for them to do so given the course of events and
years that are intervening.
Councilwoman Swenson - We have here a copy, Peter, of a restated Conditional Use Permit
beachlot Lotus lake Estates and it was signed by Mr. VanNest, Rick Murray, Mr.
Parsons, Mr. Babcock, and Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Ashworth and this was dated the 2nd
day of November 1982 and one of the conditions here is that not more than 24 canoes
or small sail boats may be so stored overnight in the four boat racks. When at the
last time the Council granted all these other concessions and your association agreed
to this now what assurance do we have that if we were to go along with you are saying
that two years from now you are not going to come back and want 44 boats or five
docks or anything else. What faith can we have in what you are requesting?
Peter Beck - We can't commit future owners. Every one that is now a member may sell
and they might think they need something else but I think that your job is to con-
sider these requests and evaluate them individually based on their nerits. I think
that all the conditions of this permit have been met to my knowledge and there has
been no breach of these conditions. No all of the improvements have been installed
yet.
Mayor Hamilton - In taking your boat out of the water from 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.,
it's a three hour period of time that you can't have your boat in the water and I
don't think there is a lot of boat traffic from 2:00 to 5:00 a.m. and you stop and
think about that I am not sure how much harm it does having a boat sitting in the
water with a motor on it from 2:00 to 5:00 a.m. Now all of the people in the asso-
ciation a perfect right to use the lake, all 44 of those could put a boat in the
water each day and use it from 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. and take the boat out now.
That's the current regulation. In looking at that I don't recall what we were
attempting to prove by using those times or what we were driving at or trying to
accomplish other than I felt we were looking for non -intensification of use of the
lake but there isn't a lot of use between 2:00 a.m, and 5:00 a.m, anyway. On the
other side of the coin when I look at the agreement that we have and went to great
lengths to develop with the developer at that time, B-T Land Company, the City Staff,
the Council and the Planning Commission spent an awful lot of time working on this
and coming up with an agreement that we felt was fair to both sides and now we are
facted with a request to intensify the use of that outlot. I think if at any time
during that process I had thought that this type of thing would happen more than
likely not only on this outlot but on others should this be approved, I would for one
would not be in favor of outlots because you could have, in this case about seven
homeowners would have a dock and they would have approximately 35 boats but at the
same time I am not sure there would be a dock for each one of the lots. We were
searching for a way to try to reduce the use of the lake and try to keep it safe and
clean for everybody and keep the water quality high while at the same time trying to
be fair to all those who live in some proximity to the lake. I thought we had
reached that.
Councilman Horn - I have reviewed in great detail all of the old Council minutes and
I have had many discussions with Rick Murray about the old Council minutes. I feel
that the Counsel is stretching a little bit when they feel it was the City's intent
to make this a beachlot. I found no record of that in the minutes that I reviewed.
I don't know where that implication came from. As far as I was concerned it was
clearly the intent of the developer to make that a beachlot so more people would have
access to the lake which is exactly why beachlots have a different type of regulation
against them than what riparian lake owners have. I also failed to find where the
City had implied a dock request by it recammendation in the conditional use permit.
I think that and I have a lot of sympathy for the people that moved into that area.
I know some of them have since moved out because they were lead to believe certain
Council Meeting AugW0, 1984 • -15-
things from the people that they bought their homes from which is not the fault of
the City that they had certain rights that indeed the -City had not granted and
indeed the developer knew the City had not granted and as far as the issue of pro-
perty values, I am a little disturbed by having that cam back and used against us at
this point because this Council did take upon itself the job of trying to get those
property values put more in line with the intended use and now to see this come back
and used against us I think you have to question whether we should pursue that action
in this case. The letter from Mr. Beck had indicated that we indeed may be being
arbitrary by selecting a difference between a beachlot and what I would call a
riparian lake owners rights and I don't think that's an arbitrary decision at all.
It's a very rational decision based on the fact that one owner uses a riparian dock,
one owner may have five boats moored there but it's very seldom that he has all five
of them in operation at one time and I think the obvious issue is overinten-
sification. Also, I don't find anything that says that a beachlot has the same
rights as a riparian lot. I think the whole intent of the ordinance was for the com-
mon type ownership situation so that the possibility of overintensification exists
and I think we did go beyond even what we intended in the ordinance in what we have
allowed in the previous agreement and I share Pat's concern if we allow this one, a
year later they will cane back with further intensification. I don't believe it's
because of any attempt that the City had to mislead anyone in that area. I think
there was a definite discrepancy between what the people were told who built there
and what the City would allow.
Councilwoman Swenson - I feel that we do have an ordinance in place and it was
brought about after many hours of deliberate consideration and I just feel we have
either got to stay with our ordinance or not bother spending the time and money to
write them.
Councilman Geving - we worked very hard on the ordinance. We tried to be fair to the
homeowners associations. Back in 1978, I believe, we were up to plat G or H before
it was finally agreed upon that we had arrived with the developer at a plat that we
all could work with and it did include the plat just as you see it tonight with a
beachlot that was really the developers idea. It wasn't our idea. We made many
allowances to the.developer and to the homeowners association since that time. We
didn't intend to have any docks in that area. It was strictly going to be a con-
served area. An area we wanted to preserve because there is a lot of very fragile
aquatic vegetation in that area and that was our intent. We had originally carved
out a very nice piece of lakeshore that was going to be a conservation district and
when we finally got down to negotiations with the developer, the developer changed at
that time in 1978 and we did sane allow some things to happen there including a
beachlot. There is a nice sandy beach there now. I think that the maintenance of
the area is terrific. I have looked at the proposed site for the second dock and I
believe it would be a desirable site because I think there would be less impact on
the vegetation in that particular area but I have to go back to some of the laws that
we create as people here for the City and those ordinances must stand the test of
time. They must stand more than a two year period. This ordinance was amended in
January 1982 and we are only in 1984. I believe we have to stay with that. Those
are the things that build a city. My personal feeling is that we have an ordinance
in place and let's keep it that way. Let's not try to amend it, abuse it or bend it
and not allow the request that is before us tonight and that's to do anything other
than what's intended. I would like to read in the ordinance. "It is the intent of
this ordinance to preserve the present quality of public waters by preventing
uncontrolled and excessive use of the surface of public waters, the abutting shore-
line, and thus securing the safety of the public in the use of public waters." I
think that was really our intent as far back as three or four years ago and I think
we have to stay with it.
Council Meeting August 2a984 0 -16-
Peter Beck - First of all, someone has suggested that you allowed more in 1981 than
was already was allowed, well, that's not true. The ordinance as you know was not
adopted until 1982 so nothing illegal was allowed in 1981 or it wasn't any variance
at that time. Secondly, because of the fact that the ordinance wasn't adopted until
1982 these people could not know that a boat would be prohibited on their outlot when
they purchased in 1980 and 1981. The development contract did not say that docks are
prohibited. It did say that overnight camping was prohibited. They knew that but
there is nothing in there that would cause them to believe that they couldn't put a
dock or a boat on there.
Mayor Hamilton - Just to comment on that, if the developer would have been notified
all the people that bought homes, they would have known. It's not like he didn't
know what was going on. I think a lot of the fault lies there. Not at the City.
Peter Beck - To read the development contract, it doesn't seen to me to be any reason
for a clause that provides you shall request a permit, you can't have it anyway.
Secondly, these people are riparian owners. They wan Lakeshore land so to say they
are not and that justifies denying then access to the lake is inaccurate. The fact
that they own the riparian land as part of an association does not make then any less
riparian owners and should not make them second class citizens. I would also point
out that although the integrity of your ordinances is important and significant this
Council has not been reluctant to grant variances where appropriate and I saw several
granted tonight so I believe this issue should be addressed on its merits like any
request for variances.
Kay Fricke - When I am out at the beach or my kids are using the beach or my hus-
band is out sailboating or we have people out canoeing and there is no motorboat dawn
at the dock, on occasion when you need to get out there and help somebody there is no
boat to be used. There is no way to get out there and look.
Don Miller - When you were giving your address you kind of glossed over the fact that
it wouldn't increase the traffic on the lake. You know it would increase the traffic
on the lake.
Peter Beck - I never suggested that these people should be restricted to parts of the
lake.
Court MacFarlane - Rick Murray was before the Lake Study Committee several times with
different requests and he was certainly aware of the work that we were doing on the
ordinance at least a couple of years prior to its adoption.
Ron Harvieux - I am a lakeshore owner and I guess in 1978 my wife and I took a ride
through what is now Lotus Lake Estates when the developer was just pushing the road
in there. We were trying to find Lotus Lake land and it was real clear to us at that
time and there was just no decision at all as to whether there would be boat dockage.
In fact they said there might be a marina. There might be this or there might be
that. I don't know that anyone could hide behind that and say that, if they were
mislead we are all big boys and we have to make a conscious decision on what we are
buying and it's a little bit of the buyer beware I guess. We had to choose to hold
off and try to buy some lakeshore which we did and we are paying taxes for it. I
feel we made a conscious decision. It sounds a little bit to me like someone else
wished and hoped and now they want to try to change it.
Jerry Crandall - I am a member of Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association. When I
bought my lot I had my attorney review the documents including the development
contract and at the time there was nothing in there that prohibited a beach, nothing
that prohibited a dock. At the same time there was nothing in there that said that
Council Meeting August *1984 . -16-
Peter Beck - First of all, saneone has suggested that you allowed more in 1981 than
was already was allowed, well, that's not true. The ordinance as you know was not
adopted until 1982 so nothing illegal was allowed in 1981 or it wasn't any variance
at that time. Secondly, because of the fact that the ordinance wasn't adopted until
1982 these people could not know that a boat would be prohibited on their outlot when
they purchased in 1980 and 1981. The development contract did not say that docks are
prohibited. It did say that overnight camping was prohibited. They knew that but
there is nothing in there that would cause them to believe that they couldn't put a
dock or a boat on there.
Mayor Hamilton - Just to comment on that, if the developer would have been notified
all the people that bought hones, they would have known. It's not like he didn't
know what was going on. I think a lot of the fault lies there. Not at the City.
Peter Beck - To read the development contract, it doesn't seem to me to be any reason
for a clause that provides you shall request a permit, you can't have it anyway.
Secondly, these people are riparian owners. They own lakeshore land so to say they
are not and that justifies denying them access to the lake is inaccurate. The fact
that they own the riparian land as part of an association does not make them any less
riparian owners and should not make them second class citizens. I would also point
out that although the integrity of your ordinances is important and significant this
Council has not been reluctant to grant variances where appropriate and I saw several
granted tonight so I believe this issue should be addressed on its merits like any
request for variances.
Kay Fricke - When I am out at the beach or my kids are using the beach or my hus-
band is out sailboating or we have people out canoeing and there is no motorboat down
at the dock, on occasion when you need to get out there and help somebody there is no
boat to be used. There is no way to get out there and look.
Don Miller - When you were giving your address you kind of glossed over the fact that
it wouldn't increase the traffic on the lake. You know it would increase the traffic
on the lake.
Peter Beck - I never suggested that these people should be restricted to parts of the
lake.
Court MacFarlane - Rick Murray was before the Lake Study Ca[mittee several times with
different requests and he was certainly aware of the work that we were doing on the
ordinance at least a couple of years prior to its adoption.
Ron Harvieux - I am a lakeshore owner and I guess in 1978 my wife and I took a ride
through what is now Lotus Lake Estates when the developer was just pushing the road
in there. We were trying to find Lotus lake land and it was real clear to us at that
time and there was just no decision at all as to whether there would be boat dockage.
In fact they said there might be a marina. There might be this or there might be
that. I don't know that anyone could hide behind that and say that, if they were
mislead we are all big boys and we have to make a conscious decision on what we are
buying and it's a little bit of the buyer beware I guess. We had to choose to hold
off and try to buy some lakeshore which we did and we are paying taxes for it. I
feel we made a conscious decision. It sounds a little bit to me like someone else
wished and hoped and now they want to try to change it.
Jerry Crandall - I am a member of Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association. When I
bought my lot I had my attorney review the documents including the development
contract and at the time there was nothing in there that prohibited a beach, nothing
that prohibited a dock. At the same time there was nothing in there that said that
L.
Council Meeting AugL20, 1984 • -17-
there could be docks or there would be a beach or a dock so I guess it was left up to
the association to make application for a permit". Which we did prior to the beach
ordinance being instituted and we made a proposal for approximately ten docks and
that was turned down by the City Council so for the City Council to arbitrarily say
that they had no part in making the decision of whether or not there would be docks
there is incorrect. we had no beach ordinance enforce at the time that I bought my
lot. We had no beach ordinance enforce at the time that my house was built and I
moved to Lotus Lake. The developer did not mislead me to the extent that I could put
any dock that I wanted down there. I understood common usage having lived in two
previous homeowners associations, however, the City Council did arbitrarily take away
my right to put a boat in the lake and limited the dock. What we have done as 44
homeowners is said we can be self-governing. We could all buy a boat, trailer it
across the lake and put 44 boats in the lake every day for all but three hours just
as you said. Instead we have said, give us two docks, five boats, we will police
ourselves with the number of people that put their boat in and use that lake on a
daily basis. We have homeowners who own boats on lake Minnetonka, etc. We are not
looking to put a cabin cruiser in this lake. We have people who like to fish. there
are people that like to go out there with a small sailboat, maybe with a motor on it
if there is no wind. We will be a self-governing body. We have done pretty well so
far with what you have given us. All we are asking for is a chance with those number
of people that want to use that lake and want to put a boat in, let us govern the
idea that we can actually have a motor there. Right now I carry a 3 HP up and down
every time I want to go fishing in that lake. I consider that somewhat of an
injustice. My taxes were just lowered compliments of you people. I don't know that
you realize maybe you made a mistake or the fact that we have been inequitably taxed
since 1979 when I built my house. We are just asking for a small piece. We are not
asking for 50 boats or 45 boats. I would just as soon the lake were a quiet lake
quite frankly. Let's have everybody take every motor off the lake but the Council
didn't want to make that decision the last time I suggested it either. Let's do it
then we won't have this situation.
Pat McMahon - You can see from the drawing that there are seven lots abutting the
outlot and you observed yourself that that's equivalent to 35 boats and we are asking
for ten boats. I think it points out a sense of proportion that seems to be missing
from many of the comments that have been tossed around. I think many of the
homeowners in our association, we don't necessarily believe we have the same level of
riparian rights as a homeowner whose lot abuts the water, many of us don't including
myself but by the same token we believe we have some rights to the shore and I think
the thing that's mussing is the sense of proportion and I don't know how to describe
it any better. I think our application is a reasonable compromise.
Tim Rashleger - I would like to defend some of the people who aren't so lucky as a
couple of us are to be able to haul our motors up and down that hillside. We have
some elderly residents who have been unable to carry their motor up and down that
hill and I think it's a shame that the very people that ought to be able to use that
lake to its maximum, the people who have paid their taxes for the last 65 years can't
get their motor down there unless they actually come and get one of us to physically
help them bring their motor down to the lake. I know first hand myself I use that
lake once a week, sometimes twice a week with a boat that I go through the incon-
venience of parking over on the other side of the lake and walking from Carver Beach
and all the other fooling around to get your boat in. I wouldn't use that lake pro-
bably any more or less than I do right now if I had a boat on that lake. It is just
the inconvenience that this state of affairs puts this community in. A lot of
thought and a lot of serious consideration has gone into this by this group of fami-
lies. We have really negotiated our way down to what we thought was a terribly
realistic view of how we could use 900 feet of shoreline. It's a far cry from what
we were talking about a couple of years ago. I hope everyone up there realizes that
we have worked very hard as a self-governing group to get to this point.
Council Meeting August *1984 is -18-
Rick Murray - There have been several inferences to the developer of this project,
some of which probably are fair and some of which are maybe unfair. I appreciate
some of the comments that were made. I probably know this project as well as anyone
here. There was a time when a past Council could have made that a conservation ease-
ment. At that time as the records show it was not done. I know I have argued this
point several times before. our developers agreement when we entered into a contract
was relatively straight forward as the gentleman said. Things were kind of left up
in the air and that's about as clear as you make it. We made same proposals as time
went by and as residents occupied our first addition. Sane of those proposals were
accepted. Some were declined but the option was always there to make the proposal.
I am somewhat disturbed if the Council, in light of the shoreland ordinance and what
was intended by that ordinance, seems to take a position that the application is
unwarranted. I think the application is warranted. Nov whether you folks as a body
decide that that is a reasonable application, that may be your jurisdiction but I
think we have the right to make the application. That was part of the original
developer's agreement. Nov, we have subsequently limited that parcel of land from
what was originally envisioned when Ecklund and Swedlund had the property. I think
the application before you is probably reasonable. There is another thing that
bothers me and maybe I will speak to it now, as long as the Council and as long as
the City continues to support the 70 or 80 or 90 privatly held pieces of property
around the lake to the exclusion of the other pieces of property around the lake
there is going to be this kind of question. The gentleman's point previously that
maybe we should make it a quiet lake and dispell this argument is probably very good
comment and should merit consideration. I would support that kind of action. I
think this proposal is reasonable and I would hope that it would merit your careful
consideration.
Councilman Horn - I think one of my statements might have been misinterpreted and
that is the comment that the City had nothing to do with the dock issue. That cer-
tainly was not what I was stating. What I was stating was that it was not the City's
decision to make that an outlot. It was the developer's decision to make that an
outlot. Those could indeed been seven individual lots going to the lake and that was
entirely within the developer's prerogative to do. I think also the issue of inten-
sification was addressed by this Council and if we have had seven individual lot
owners there they would not have been using all five boats at the same time so to
compare 35 boats with ten boats, to me, is not equivalent in this case. I think it
would be very rare from what I have seen of lakeshore owners that they would be using
more than one boat at a time.
We are asking for ten motorized boats versus the seven lots that
would have been platted for that area. The difference is very minor. It's the dif-
ference between seven boats and ten boats being held privately. What we are talking
about here is almost a throw.
Councilwoman Swenson - If you were to have the same rights as a riparian homeowner on
that property you would only be allowed to have five boats.
They could be motorized though.
Councilwoman Swenson - You want to settle for five motorized boats and one dock?
If you will give me five motorized boats and that dock, I'll take it
back to the homeowner's association and I think you have a pretty good chance of us
taking it. Right now you have limited us to sane rowboats. We can police the
canoes. We can police everything else. We can police the boats on the water. What
You have done to us virtually is told us that we have to have a quiet lake unless we
go across the lake and put our boat in every day.
Council Meeting August 0 1984 . -18-
Rick Murray - There have been several inferences to the developer of this project,
some of which probably are fair and some of which are maybe unfair. I appreciate
some of the comments that were made. I probably know this project as well as anyone
here. There was a time when a past Council could have made that a conservation ease-
ment. At that time as the records show it was not done. I know I have argued this
point several times before. Our developers agreement when we entered into a contract
was relatively straight forward as the gentleman said. Things were kind of left up
in the air and that's about as clear as you make it. We made some proposals as time
went by and as residents occupied our first addition. Some of those proposals were
accepted. Sane were declined but the option was always there to make the proposal.
I am somewhat disturbed if the Council, in light of the shoreland ordinance and what
was intended by that ordinance, seems to take a position that the application is
unwarranted. I think the application is warranted. Nov whether you folks as a body
decide that that is a reasonable application, that may be your jurisdiction but I
think we have the right to make the application. That was part of the original
developer's agreement. Now, we have subsequently limited that parcel of land from
what was originally envisioned when Ecklund and Swedlund had the property. I think
the application before you is probably reasonable. There is another thing that
bothers me and maybe I will speak to it now, as long as the Council and as long as
the City continues to support the 70 or 80 or 90 privatly held pieces of property
around the lake to the exclusion of the other pieces of property around the lake
there is going to be this kind of question. The gentleman's point previously that
maybe we should make it a quiet lake and dispell this argument is probably very good
comment and should merit consideration. I would support that kind of action. I
think this proposal is reasonable and I would hope that it would merit your careful
consideration.
Councilman Horn - I think one of my statements might have been misinterpreted and
that is the camient that the City had nothing to do with the dock issue. That cer-
tainly was not what I was stating. What I was stating was that it was not the City's
decision to make that an outlot. It was the developer's decision to make that an
outlot. Those could indeed been seven individual lots going to the lake and that was
entirely within the developer's prerogative to do. I think also the issue of inten-
sification was addressed by this Council and if we have had seven individual lot
owners there they would not have been using all five boats at the same time so to
compare 35 boats with ten boats, to me, is not equivalent in this case. I think it
would be very rare from what I have seen of lakeshore owners that they would be using
more than one boat at a time.
We are asking for ten motorized boats versus the seven lots that
would have been platted for that area. The difference is very minor. It's the dif-
ference between seven boats and ten boats being held privately. What we are talking
about here is almost a throw.
Councilwoman Swenson - If you were to have the same rights as a riparian homeowner on
that property you would only be allowed to have five boats.
They could be motorized though.
Councilwoman Swenson - You want to settle for five motorized boats and one dock?
If you will give me five motorized boats and that dock, I'll take it f
back to the homeowner's association and I think you have a pretty good chance of us
taking it. Right now you have limited us to some rowboats. We can police the
canoes. We can police everything else. We can police the boats on the water. What
You have done to us virtually is told us that we have to have a quiet lake unless we
90 across the lake and put our boat in every day.
} Council Meeting AugL20, 1984 • -19-
Mayor Hamilton - I was just talking with our attorney to try to clarify a question
that I had and that is since the outlot has been turned over to the homeowners asso-
ciation should that lot be treated as one owner. If in fact that is construed to be
a lot of record, one owner, this is your association then you would be entitled to
the same rights as any other single lot owner, five boats in total. One dock, five
boats total including sailboats, canoes, motorized boats and everything else. I am
not sure that's right. I am asking the question. What I would like to do is to have
Roger do a little research and resolve that. I don't think we can resolve that here
tonight.
Peter Beck - There is no question that the minimum constitutional right of these
folks to be treated like any other lakeshore owner. In terms of the ordinance they
are not.
Councilman Geving - I think the thing that we have to avoid so that a future Council
doesn't get stuck with this very same question again and again as the homeowners
associations turn over and different applicants care before us to discuss another
dock. We have to resolve this through the ordinance process and not through the
variance process.
Tom Seifert - The first time we were concerned noticably was when the ads started
running for the houses that were being built. They were saying Lotus Lake, boat,
swim, dock, all this other stuff. We called the City Attorney. We called the City
Administrator. We said, what's going on here? They don't even own lakeshore do
they? They assured us, no Outlot B is a conservation outlot. I was a founder of the
Lotus lake Homeowners Association and in 1980 or 1981 a guy that built an extremely
large home in Lotus lake Estates, he had called me up and said I want to build a dock
and I was wondering if I can address your homeowners association and I said well, we
are just a group of people who have a common interest in that and I don't see what
basis you have for calling us you should talk to the City Administrator because I
wasn't even certain that you folks even owned the land. As far as the boats, there
is probably 1500 feet of shoreline from 500 Pleasant View Road down to 600 Pleasant
View Road and there is three motorized boats.
Walter Coudron - I was a member of this commission and given certain charges by you
folks. At that time the composition of the commission was two outlot owners, two
private homeowners with private lakeshore and two people from within the city who
didn't have anything to do with outlots or lakes. Just about everything that has
been hashed out tonight came up at one time or another in our meetings. I think we
had a good composition of people to hash those things out and to cane up with a
workable ordinance. I know we stretched ourselves in some areas and probably regret-
fully so now. When we start talking about five boats we really stretched ourselves.
I think it should have been less boats than the five. I know when we talked about the
hours of 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. we stretched ourselves again in case somebody had to
give somebody a ride home or they had party on their dock or something like this.
Some of the things that we really didn't I don't think was in the homeowners asso-
ciations and when we started talking about boats on a dock and we were very specific
in that a homeowners association was a beachlot. Any more than two people was a
homeowners association. It wasn't a private lakeshore homeowner and I think there
are problems when you start talking that compared to the five boat situation. The
other thing on five boats as we wrote it they had to be registered to the homeowner
that was there. Not to an association or anything else. It had to be specifically
to that person and they couldn't be renting out dock space or anything like that. It
was restrictive in that sense and I think it should be. The sad part is at the time
I was appointed to this commission I was a member of the Park and Recreation
Commission and I remember Mr. Murray or his predecessors caning to the Park and
Recreation Commission talking at that time of the outlot and they were going to have
Council Meeting August *984 • -20- ,',t'-
a flotation type walk path to the proposed City park at that time and there wasn't
going to be any docks or anything else. It was going to be a preservation of the
nature and wildlife. we have gone all the way from that nature type atmosphere to an
outlot with a sand beach and to a dock with canoe rack to a later proposal of just
let us have four rowboats out there and we will be happy. It went from four rowboats
to we will put motors on them and some time in the history of this we are going to
have to dig our heels in. f
Councilwoman Swenson moved to deny the request for the variance 84-8, items 1 and 3,1
on the basis of the fact that they are not in conformity with the existing ordinance
and there is no basis for variance in the criteria setforth and based on the
discussion this evening. The City Attorney will prepare findings of fact and set out
the reasons for the denial. Notion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted
Lfavor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and J
ving. No negative votes. Notion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE ANBMNIENT, REC�OEST TO INITIATE AN XM4U ENT TO SECTION 14.04(2)(d)
TO ALLOW THE WERNIGHT STORAGE, hDORI% AND DOCKING OF WATERCRAFT ON AND ADJACENT TO
RECREATIONAL BEPCHIDTS • — — — —
Peter Beck - My thoughts on the subject are in my letter. The ordinance is ill-
advised for three reasons. First as a practical matter it is going to have exactly
the opposite affect of what I have heard expressed tonight as the purpose. That is
to limit, reduce lake usage, intensification of use because there is no developer or
property owner in his right mind who is going to develop riparian land with a beach -
lot that will foreclose his access to the lake. I think if the Council is going to
pursue the ordinance nevertheless on the assunption that they can prevent a riparian
landowner from platting lots to the lake that issue has been resolved the other
direction already in this City. You just don't have the right to take away that
land. You are going to end up with people platting lots down to the lake. Each lot
is going to be permitted one dock with five boats and it's my suggestion that that is
going to result in intensification of use because you are not going to be getting a
900 foot outlot with ten boats. You are going to get seven or nine lots with five
boats each and to say of those five boats maybe only two will be used at a time I
don't know if there is any factual basis for saying that in the first place and I
don't know that it's accurate. Even if it is, also that same argument argues that
the ten boats because there is 44 owners all ten will be used at the same time. I
don't know if there is any basis for saying that or that that's accurate. I think
overall the difference between 40 boats and ten is apparent. As a practical matter I
think the ordinance is ill-advised. I think you are going to see no more beachlots
platted in the City. Maybe you don't want then but I think they are a decent device
for managing the City's lakeshore and I think that reasonable restrictions on their
development could be adopted. Restrictions related to the frontage, related to the
area of the outlot, related to the number of lots served, that leaves some reasonable
use for those riparian owners. I think the City would be within its rights to adopt
those kind of restrictions but the prohibition on overnight storage on this outlot, I
don't think so. I see two legal problems, the equal protection problem that surfaced
briefly. Councilwoman Swenson pointed out that we could be treated like regular
owners, well, regular owners are permitted five motorized boats and there is no basis
that I see for saying that an individual property owner with a 100 foot lot should
have five motorized boats and 900 foot outlot none. I don't see a reasonable basis
for that. I think it will fall on an equal protection challenge and I also think
that this particular outlot there is factual basis for saying that this regulation
has taken this property from these people. It's taken their riparian rights.
Riparian rights are unique. They are accorded special deference in the decisions of
our Supreme Court, decisions that go back to the 1800s. They can not be taken
without compensation and I think the ordinance does that by limiting the use and I
think the facts on the value of the outlot and what's happened in this subdivision,
#founcil Meeting August 0 1984 . -20-
,•
a flotation type walk path to the proposed City park at that time and there wasn't
going to be any docks or anything else. It was going to be a preservation of the
nature and wildlife. We have gone all the way from that nature type atmosphere to an
outlot with a sand beach and to a dock with canoe rack to a later proposal of just
let us have four rowboats out there and we will be happy. It went from four rowboats
to we will put motors on them and some time in the history of this we are going to
have to dig our heels in.
Councilwoman Swenson moved to deny the request for the variance 84-8, items 1 and 3,
on the basis of the fact that they are not in conformity with the existing ordinance
and there is no basis for variance in the criteria setforth and based on the
discussion this evening. The City Attorney will prepare findings of fact and set out
the reasons for the denial. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted
in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and
LL Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
LZONING ORDINANCE ANMOMENT, REQUEST TO INITIATE AN AMHIVDMQ9T TO SECTION 14.04(2)(d)
TO ALIDW THE OVERNIGHT S'IgRAGE, MDORING AND DOCKING OF WATERCRAFT ON AND ADJACENT TO
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS• — — — —
Peter Beck - My thoughts on the subject are in my letter. The ordinance is ill-
advised for three reasons. First as a practical matter it is going to have exactly
the opposite affect of what I have heard expressed tonight as the purpose. That is
to limit, reduce lake usage, intensification of use because there is no developer or
property owner in his right mind who is going to develop riparian land with a beach -
lot that will foreclose his access to the lake. I think if the Council is going to
pursue the ordinance nevertheless on the assumption that they can prevent a riparian
landowner from platting lots to the lake that issue has been resolved the other
direction already in this City. You just don't have the right to take away that
land. You are going to end up with people platting lots down to the lake. Each lot
is going to be permitted one dock with five boats and it's my suggestion that that is
going to result in intensification of use because you are not going to be getting a
900 foot outlot with ten boats. You are going to get seven or nine lots with five
boats each and to say of those five boats maybe only two will be used at a time I
don't know if there is any factual basis for saying that in the first place and I
don't know that it's accurate. Even if it is, also that same argument argues that
the ten boats because there is 44 owners all ten will be used at the same time. I
don't know if there is any basis for saying that or that that's accurate. I think
overall the difference between 40 boats and ten is apparent. As a practical matter I
think the ordinance is ill-advised. I think you are going to see no more beachlots
platted in the City. Maybe you don't want them but I think they are a decent device
for managing the City's lakeshore and I think that reasonable restrictions on their
development could be adopted. Restrictions related to the frontage, related to the
area of the outlot, related to the number of lots served, that leaves some reasonable
use for those riparian owners. I think the City would be within its rights to adopt
those kind of restrictions but the prohibition on overnight storage on this outlot, I
don't think so. I see two legal problems, the equal protection problem that surfaced
briefly. Councilwoman Swenson pointed out that we could be treated like regular
owners, well, regular owners are permitted five motorized boats and there is no basis
that I see for saying that an individual property owner with a 100 foot lot should
have five motorized boats and 900 foot outlot none. I don't see a reasonable basis
for that. I think it will fall on an equal protection challenge and I also think
that this particular outlot there is factual basis for saying that this regulation
has taken this property from these people. It's taken their riparian rights.
Riparian rights are unique. They are accorded special deference in the decisions of
our Supreme Court, decisions that go back to the 1800s. They can not be taken
without compensation and I think the ordinance does that by limiting the use and I
think the facts on the value of the outlot and what's happened in this subdivision,
I i Council Meeting August 0 1984
-21-
homes have not sold in the subdivision. They have not been able to sell them for the
value of the mortgage. I suggest that the ordinance be amended so that all riparian
owners in the City are treated equally. That's all that our request is. Not special
consideration, just equal treatment.
Mayor Hamilton - Do Council members have any questions, comments?
•
Mayor Hamilton moved to deny the request to amend Section 14.02(2)(d) of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow the overnight storage, mooring, and docking of watercraft on and
adjacent to recreational beachlots. Notion seconded by Councilman Horn. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson,
Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Notion carried.
SUNNYSIOPE ADDITION BEACHLOT, IOT 37, SHORE ACRES:
Mayor Hamilton moved to table this item to October 1, 1984 as requested by Steven
Burke. Notion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No
negative votes. Motion carried.
APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PHEASANT HILL AND WALDRIP SBCOND ADDITION:
Bill Monk - The Council took several actions on July 23rd. The first one that needs
Council attention tonight is the development contract for both Pheasant Hill and
Waldrip's Second Addition. The Council tabled action on the development contract
until several sections were modified. I believe those sections have been modified.
We made minor revisions to Section 7.02 and added a Section 7.13. The developer has
asked that a half sentence be put on the end that I am not implying that assessments
would be based on special benefit to apply to Pheasant Hill and as they would be
derived therefrom. I think that was implied in the sentence but could be added so I
am recommending that the phrase "based upon special benefit to the plat of Pheasant
Hill derived therefrom" and the same type of phrase be put in Waldrip's. It just
implies that the City would only be assessed as benefit is derived. This would be
added in Section 7.13. The development contracts are very much the same. I tried to
put in all of the Council's ideas on that one. The final plat was approved. It
takes no further action. You accepted the feasibility study detailing improvements
with the stipulation that storm drainage section be expanded. There is a separate
section attached by the engineering firm who did this project and I have alluded to
some those numbers in my memo and I believe that I can state that the rate and volume
numbers will not have a negative impact on the downstream property. Mr. Merrill
Steller did get notification. He was mailed a copy of the cover mew and the agenda.
Lastly, plans and specifications were approved. I attached the first three sheets
because they give the Council a very good overview but since the plans are quite
bulky and the specs are just as bulky I did not put final sets in each packet.
Mayor Hamilton - Merrill Steller was apparently satisfied with the drainage infor-
mation?
Bill Monk - I don't know. I didn't talk to him.
Mayor Hamilton - It would appear as though it certainly is better for him. It gives
him less flowage for a longer period of time.
i
Councilwoman Swenson - Do we have any way to assure that the City could be held
harmless in the event that storm water runoff does create that problem in the future?
Bill Monk - As much as I would like to say that I would like to put the total blame
Iand everything else on every developer that comes through, when the City does a 429
improvement and approves that improvement it is taking some implicit responsibility.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF HEARING
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
Vicki Churchill, the duly qualified and acting Planning
Secretary of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, on oath and
deposes and says that on _ , 19j 4
she caused to be mailed a copy o the attached notice of hearing
on a 4/1 1 f`Y 9 4 a r/ Rv,noP 1,i4 D ) /10 .0 i . `$
4-
in the City to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by
enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such
owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners
in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon;
that the names and addressess of such owners were those appearing
as such by the records of the County Treasurer of Carver County,
Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
Public Hearing on Wednesday, May 28, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers
in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to
consider the application of Lotus Lake Estates Homeowner's Association to amend
the beachlot conditional use permit to allow a total of three docks to be
constructed on Outlot B and to allow overnight storage at these docks of a total
of nine watercraft without restrictions as to whether said watercraft are
motorized or non -motorized.
All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express
their opinions with respect to this proposed amendment.
Barbara Dacy, City Planner
Phone: 937-1900
(Publish in the South Shore Weekly News on May 15, 1986)
William & J. Lindstrom
Roger & D. Frick
Cynthia Walston
91 Choctaw Circle
• 125 Choctaw Circle
• 6811 Brule Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dale & S. Nelson
Gary A. Welch
James & S. Lacey
6801 Brule Circle
101 Choctaw Circle
121 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Norwest Fbrtgage Inc.
Tthrrence & G. O'Brien
Harry & R. Coffin
3541 Hammnd Ave.
105 Choctaw Circle
110 Choctaw Circle
P.O. Box 780
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Waterloo, Iowa 50704
Third Williams Finance Co.
Craig & R. Anderson
Florence Windsor
Box 540
111 Choctaw Circle
120 Choctaw Circle
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Warren & L. Erdman
Joe & S. Lawrence
Larry & L. Constantineau
6771 Brule Circle
115 Choctaw Circle
P.O. Box 8019-117-116
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Mark Ripley
Dean Bowman
Roger & B. Berry
6761 Brule Circle
155 Choctaw Circle
140 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Aaron Nelson
Patrick & M. McMahon
Iarkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgrer
6750 Brule Circle
151 Choctaw Circle
Suite 1500
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
7900 Xerxes Ave. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55431
Gerald & C. Crandall
Dennis & J. EWing
B-T Land Company
6760 Brule Circle
6770 Brule Circle
1055 E. Wayzata Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Wayzata, MN 55391
Patrick & J. Golden
Stephen & L. Buchanan
Mark Miller
6780 Brule Circle
141 Choctaw Circle
150 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
John & V. Aldag
Pobert & J. Peroutka
Jay M. Henderson
6790 Brule Circle
135 Choctaw Circle
154 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
James & C. Parson
Harlan & M. Swanson
Dennis Goldberg
6800 Brule Circle
131 Choctaw Circle
160 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert & V. Elmgren Robert Mills Thomas & K. Shandley
161 Choctaw Circle • 30 Choctaw Circle • 50 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MAR 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert & K. Hoyord
90 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Timothy L. Rashleger
31 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ron Russell
6781 Rr ule Circle
Chanhassen, MAR 55317
Bruce Nordby
100 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Raymond Schuyt
51 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Rick & R. Murray
15 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Michael & P. Muller
71 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE@P.O. BOX 147
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
Don Russell
6781 ffiule Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
J•
MAY ISfl6 �'+i _ O•� ��
R� "9
1 a8683:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
Public Hearing on Wednesday, May 28, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers
in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to
consider the application of Lotus Lake Estates Homeowner's Association to amend
the beachlot conditional use permit to allow a total of three docks to be
constructed on Outlot B and to allow overnight storage at these docks of a total
of nine watercraft without restrictions as to whether said watercraft are
motorized or non -motorized.
All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express
their opinions with respect to this proposed amendment.
Barbara Dacy, City Planner
Phone: 937-1900
(Publish in the South Shore Weekly News on May 15, 1986)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN .
0
I, the undersigned publisher or managing editor
of the Wayzata Weekly News and South Shore
Weekly News, swear that said newspaper has its
office of issue at 240 South Minnetonka Avenue, in
the City of Wayzata, in the County of Hennepin,
State of Minnesota, and is a third class free
distribution newspaper with a combined circu-
lation of 20,000.
I further state an oath that the printed Legal
Notice hereto attached as a part hereof was cut
from the columns of said newspaper, and was
printed therein in the English language once a
week for I week(ak that it was first so
published on the_6'rr, dayof
19_1, and thereafter each week to
the -- day of ,19— ,
and that the following is a copy of the lower case
alphabet which is acknowledged to have been the
size and kind of type used in the publication of
said notice.
abcdef&jklm pgraluvwxyx
Sign
(Publish • or Managin ditor)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 36 T*
dui' of-- 44eyj �19Ar.
NotaryPubli
County of
My commission expires _ _.
BRIGITTETARY K. REUTHER
NOTARY PUBLIC MpINESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY
Mr CON111dow" dV 6Tbi1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Plarming Commission will
hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, May 28, 1986 at 7:W p.m in the Council
Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this
hearing is to consider the application of Lotus Lake Estates Homeowner's
Association to amend the beachlot conditional use permit to allow a total of three
docks W be constructed on OutlotH and W allowovernight storage at these docks
of a total of nine watercraft without restrictions as to whether said wateren ft are
motorized or non -motorized -
All interested Persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express
their opinions with respect to this proposed amendment
BARHAM DACY, CITY PLANNER
CITYOFCHANHASSEN PHONE:937-1990
Published in the papers of WEEKLY NEWS, INC. this 151h day of May, Hall.
0 CITY'0bF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: May 2, 1986
SUBJ: Lotus Lake Estates Law Suit
Attached please find the draft "Settlement Agreement and
Release" for the Lotus Lake Estates law suit. Roger Knutson
will be present on Monday evening to discuss this with the
Council at the end of the meeting.
• 0
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE, made and entered into this
day of. May, 1986, by and between, LOTUS LAKE ESTATES
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, JAMES M. and SARA S. LACEY, ROGER L. and DORIS
KAY FRICK, GARY A. and BRENDA A. WELCH, RAYMOND and WIL SCHUYT,
PATRICK E. and MARILYN D. MCMAHON, ROBERT A. and VIVIAN M. ELMGREN,
ROGER H. and BECKY BERRY, STEPHEN C. and LOIS E. BUCHANAN, J. MICHAEL
and L. SUSAN HENDERSON, and GERALD D. and CANDICE L. CRANDALL
("Releasors"), and THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a municipal corporation;
and THOMAS HAMILTON, CLARK HORN, PATRICIA SWENSON, DALE GEVING, and
CAROL WATSON ("City").
WHEREAS, a dispute has arisen as to the legality of the
Recreational Beach Lot provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance and
certain conditions imposed on the Lotus Lake Estates Recreational
Beach Lot on Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates ("Outlot B"); and
WHEREAS, Releasors (except the Lotus Lake Estate Homeowners
Association which is not a party) have commenced a lawsuit against the
City in the Carver County District Court, First Judicial District of
the State of Minnesota, such case being File No. 86-211740 entitled
James M. and Sara S. Lacey, et al v. City of Chanhassen, et al; and
WHEREAS, the City has decided to consider certain amendments to
its Zoning and Surface Water Usage Ordinances in the form attached
hereto as Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, Releasors are willing to dismiss their suit and release
the City from all claims if the City adopts the proposed ordinance
amendments and issues an amended conditional use permit consistent
with the proposed ordinance amendments and this agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained
herein, the undersigned parties hereby agree as follows:
1. City will consider and act on this Agreement on May.5, 1986.
2. City will consider and act upon the proposed ordinance amendments
attached as Exhibit "A", and. on amendments to the conditional use
permit for Outlot B, on June 16, 1986.
3. If, on June 16, 1986, the City enacts the proposed ordinance
amendments in the form attached as Exhibit "A", and approves an
amendment to the conditional use permit for Outlot B which: (a)
allows a total of 3 docks to be constructed on Outlot B; and (b)
allows overnight storage at these docks of a total of 9 watercraft
without restrictions as to whether said watercraft are motorized
or non -motorized;
Then, the parties further agree as follows:
A. The above -•entitled lawsuit shall be dismissed with prejudice
and without the payment of costs incurred by either party to
the other, and the parties hereto hereby authorize their
respective attorneys to execute on their behalf a written
Stipulation of Dismissal to that effect for filing with the
said Court.
B. The parties release each other from any and all obligations,
actions, suits, claims, damages, judgments, and execution and
any other matter or act regarding the Lotus Lake Estates
Recreational Beach Lot and any review, action, or inaction by
them in connection with it.
C. The parties stipulate and agree that the ordinance amendments
contained in Exhibit "A" and the amended conditional use
permit provide for reasonable use of Outlot B and are in
every respect legal and constitutional. The Releasors waive
any and all objection and possible challenges to the
ordinance amendments and the amended conditional use permit
that they may now have or may have in the future.
4. If the City Council does not pass the ordinance amendments and
approve the amended conditional use permit as provided in this
agreement on June 16, 1986, the above referenced suit shall proceed
to trial on the earliest available trial date.
5. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute an admission by either
party of the allegations or liabilities asserted in connection
with the above -referenced lawsuit. Each of the parties hereby
represents and warrants to the other that there has been no
assignment of any right, claim, or cause of action encompassed by
this Agreement to any individual, corporation, or any legal entity
whatsoever other than the parties to this Agreement, and that this
release has been duly executed by each of the parties without
2.
i
promises or threats or the exertion of influence by or upon the
other, and that each party fully understands the legal and
practical effects of this document. This Agreement may not be
changed orally.
6. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of
which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Releasors and the City have executed and
delivered this Settlement Agreement and Release the day and year first
above written.
LOTUS LAKE ESTATE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
BY:
Its:
JAMES M. LACEY
SARA S. LACEY
ROGER L. FRICK
DORIS KAY FRICK
GARY A. WELCH
BRENDA A. WELCH
RAYMOND SCHUYT
WIL SCHUYT
3.
PATRICK E. MCMAHON
MARILYN D. McMAHON
ROBERT A. ELMGREN
VIVIAN M. ELMGREN
ROGER H. BERRY
BECKY BERRY
STEPHEN C. BUCHANAN
LOIS E. BUCHANAN
J. MICHAEL HENDERSON
L. SUSAN HENDERSON
GERALD D. CRANDALL
CANDICE L. CRANDALL
4.
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
BY:
CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN
Attorneys for Releasors
1500 Northwestern Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
Attorney I.D. No.: 22858
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
THOMAS L. HAMILTON, Mayor
BY:
DON ASHWORTH, City Manager
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL &
KNUTSON, P.A.
BY:
ROGER N. KNUTSON
Attorneys for the City
403 Norwest Bank Building
161 North Concord Exchange
South St. Paul, MN 55075
Attorney I.D. No.: 57186
5.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.04 OF
ORDINANCE NO. 73 RELATING TO THE USE OF
SURFACE WATERS AND ADJOINING SHORELINES
The City Council ordains:
Section 1. Section 3.04 of Ordinance No. 73 is amended
to read:
Except for privately owned commercial resorts or
commercial boat landings established prior to the
adoption of this ordinance, 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. Overnight docking,
mooring, and storage is further restricted to the
owner/occupant or renter/occupant of the lakeshore
site home to which the dock, storage, or mooring site
is an accessory use.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately
upon its passing and publication.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of , 1986.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY: _
Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk/Manager
• 6
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 6.04
7.04, 14.04 OF THE CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE
THE CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 6.04, subparagraph 10 of Ordinance 47,
the Zoning Ordinance, is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
Recreational beach lots provided the following minimum standards
are met in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed
in the permit:
A. No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house,
camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle or shelter
shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beach lot.
B. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited
to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini -bike, all -terrain
vehicle or snowmobile shall be driven upon or parked upon
any recreational beach lot.
C. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight
camping.
D. Boat launches are prohibited.
E. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of
overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three
(3) motorized or non -motorized watercraft per dock. If
a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered.
Up to four (4) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed.
Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats
may be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot
if they are stored on racks specifically designed for
that purpose. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes
is permissible at any time other than overnight.
F. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot
unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the
lot has at least a 100 foot depth. No more than one dock
may be erected on a recreational beach lot for every 200
feet of lake frontage. In addition, 30,000 square feet
of land is required for the first dock and an additional
20,000 square feet is required for each additional dock.
No more than three (3) docks, however, may be erected
on a recreational beach lot.
G. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet
in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of
the following lengths: (a) fifty (50) feet or, (b) the
minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water
depth of four (4) feet. 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 length.
H. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided,
however, that the owners of any two abutting lakeshore
sites may erect one common dock within the dock set -back
zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the
common dock is the only dock on the two lakeshore sites
and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions
of this ordinance.
I. No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational
beach lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage.
No more than one sail boat mooring shall be allowed for
every 200 feet of lake frontage.
J. At least eighty percent (80%) of the dwelling units, which
have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational
beach lot, shall be located within at least one thousand
(1,000) feet of the recreational beach lot.
K. All recreational beach lots, including any recreational
beach lots established prior to the effective date of
this ordinance may be used for swimming beach purposes,
but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with
marker buoys which conform to United States Coast Guard
standards.
L. Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured
both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point one
hundred (100) feet landward from the ordinary high water
mark, of not less than four (4) lineal feet for each dwelling
unit which has appurtenant rights of access to the recre-
ational beach lot accruing to the owners or occupants
of that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowner
association or residential housing developers.
SECTION 2. Section 7.04, subparagraph 9 of Ordinance 47,
the Zoning Ordinance, is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
Recreational beach lots provided the following minimum standards
are met in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed
in the permit:
A. No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house,
camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle or shelter
shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beach lot.
B. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited
to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini -bike, all -terrain
-2-
vehicle or snowmobile shall be driven upon or parked upon
any recreational beach lot.
C. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight
camping.
D. Boat launches are prohibited.
E. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of
overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three
(3) motorized or non -motorized watercraft per dock. If
a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered.
Up to four (4) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed.
Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats
may be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot
if they are stored on racks specifically designed for
that purpose. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes
is permissible at any time other than overnight.
F. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot
unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the
lot has at least a 100 foot depth. No more than one dock
may be erected on a recreational beach lot for every 200
feet of lake frontage. In addition, 30,000 square feet
of land is required for the first dock and an additional
20,000 square feet is required for each additional dock.
No more than three (3) docks, however, may be erected
on a recreational beach lot.
G. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet
in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of
the following lengths: (a) fifty (50) feet or, (b) the
minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water
depth of four (4) feet. 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 length.
H. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided,
however, that the owners of any two abutting lakeshore
sites may erect one common dock within the dock set -back
zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the
common dock is the only dock on the two lakeshore sites
and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions
of this ordinance.
I. No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational
beach lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage.
No more than one sail boat mooring shall be allowed for
every 200 feet of lake frontage.
MIN
J. At least eighty percent (80%) of the dwelling units, which
have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational
beach lot, shall be located within at least one thousand
(1,000) feet of the recreational beach lot.
K. All recreational beach lots, including any recreational
beach lots established prior to the effective date of
this ordinance may be used for swimming beach purposes,
but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with
marker buoys which conform to United States Coast Guard
standards.
L. Each. recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured
both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point one
hundred (100) feet landward from the ordinary high water
mark, of not less than four (4) lineal feet for each dwelling
unit which has appurtenant rights of access to the recre-
ational beach lot accruing to the owners or occupants
of that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowner
association or residential housing developers.
SECTION 3. Section 14.04, subparagraph 2 of Ordinance 47,
the Zoning Ordinance, is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
Recreational beach lots provided the following minimum standards
are met in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed
in the permit:
A. No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house,
camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle or shelter
shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beach lot.
B. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited
to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini -bike, all -terrain
vehicle or snowmobile shall be driven upon or parked upon
any recreational beach lot..
C. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight
camping.
D. Boat launches are prohibited.
E. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of
overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three
(3) motorized or non -motorized watercraft per dock. If
a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered.
Up to four (4) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed.
Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats
may be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot
if they are stored on racks specifically designed for
that purpose. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes
is permissible at any time other than overnight.
-4-
F. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot
unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the
lot has at least a 100 foot depth. No more than one dock
may be erected on a recreational beach lot for every 200
feet of lake frontage. In addition, 30,000 square feet
of land is required for the first dock and an additional
20,000 square feet is required for each additional dock.
No more than three (3) docks, however, may be erected
on a recreational beach lot.
G. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet
in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of
the following lengths: (a) fifty (50) feet or, (b) the
minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water
depth of four (4) feet. 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 length.
H. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided,
however, that the owners of any two abutting lakeshore
sites may erect one common dock within the dock set -back
zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the
common dock is the only dock on the two lakeshore sites
and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions
of this ordinance.
I. No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational
beach lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage.
No more than one sail boat mooring shall be allowed for
every 200 feet of lake frontage.
J. At least eighty percent (80%) of the dwelling units, which
have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational
beach lot, shall be located within at least one thousand
(1,000) feet of the recreational beach lot.
K. All recreational beach lots, including any recreational
beach lots established prior to the effective date of
this ordinance may be used for swimming beach purposes,
but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with
marker buoys which conform to United States Coast Guard
standards.
L. Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured
both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point one
hundred (100) feet landward from the ordinary high water
mark, of not less than four (4) lineal feet for each dwelling
unit which has appurtenant rights of access to the recre-
ational beach lot accruing to the owners or occupants
of that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowner
association or residential housing developers.
-5-
E
(Sertified
aims
Certified Claims
Corporation
April 4, 1986
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn: City Manager
RE- INSURED:
Claimants:
Our File No.:
Dear Sir:
Port Clinton Square
Suite 315
600 Central Avenue
Highland Park, IL 60035
(312)433-7811
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
James & Sara Lacey, et al.
MO 7091
- /l%, i J -f17
l P*,4.r:
A-4xt "V- e-i -A�
In our letter of March 26, 1986 we advised you of the assignment of the defense
of this suit to the law firm of Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufman & Doty in
Minneapolis. I have now been advised by Frederick Brown of that firm that this
firm has a conflict of interest which precludes their participation in this
litigation on behalf of the City.
Therefore, this defense has been reassigned to the law firm of Sandra K. Agvald
and Associates, 4644 IDS Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (which you will note,
is the same building as Mr. Brown's address). I have made arrangements for her
to get the file from Mr. Brown and to continue representing the interests of the
City and its officials.
I hope that this will not cause any inconvenience for you, but please let me
know if it does. Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
&iaAL . Leo
Claims Supervisor
BLL/mms
CC: Forum Insurance Company
Lockbox 5029
North Suburban, IL 60197
Sandra K. Agvald and Associates I'2L'C.J
4644 IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402 APR i 1986
CITY Of CHANHASSE'I
Y y
(Sertified
aims
Certified Claims
Corporation
April 4, 1986
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn: City Manager
RE: INSURED:
Claimants:
Our File No.:
Dear Sir:
Port Clinton Square
Suite 315
600 Central Avenue
Highland Park, IL 60035
(312)433-7911
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
James & Sara Lacey, et al.
MO 7091
46
Al" //7 T'
In our letter of March 26, 1986 we advised you of the assignment of the defense
of this suit to the law firm of Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufman & Doty in
Minneapolis. I have now been advised by Frederick Brown of that firm that this
firm has a conflict of interest which precludes their participation in this
litigation on behalf of the City.
Therefore, this defense has been reassigned to the law firm of Sandra K. Agvald
and Associates, 4644 IDS Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (which you will note,
is the same building as Mr. Brown's address). I have made arrangements for her
to get the file from Mr. Brown and to continue representing the interests of the
City and its officials.
I hope that this will not cause any inconvenience for you, but please let me
know if it does. Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
&3aL. Leo
Claims Supervisor
BLL/mms
CC: Forum Insurance Company
Lockbox 5029
North Suburban, IL 60197
Sandra K. Agvald and Associates J
4644 IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402 APR 0� 1086
CITY OF CHANHASSE'l
6
6
Y17
(Sertified --
aims r�. e-Y-1 V
Certified Claims Port Clinton Square Corporation Suite 315
600 Central Avenue r7
Highland Park, IL 60035/1�i
(312) 433-7811 G((L
March 26, 1986 C
City of Chanhassen J
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn: City Manager
RE: FORUM INSURED: CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Claimants: James & Sara Lacey, et al.
Date of Loss: 12/30/85
Our File No.: MO 7091
Popham, Haik File No.: 6096-067
Gentlemen:
Certified Claims Corporation is the claim handling agent for Forum Insurance
Company in regard to losses arising from its Public Official's Liability program.
This will acknowledge receipt of notice of the ibove captioned matter. We have
referred copies of the pleadings to the law firm of Popham, Haik, Schnobrich,
Kaufman & Doty, 4344 IDS Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. Frederick C.
Brown of that firm will be filing an appearance on behalf of the City of
Chanhassen, Thomas Hamilton, Clark Horn, Patricia Swenson, Dale Geving, and
Carol Watson. Forum will provide a complete defense to this matter, subject to
your $1,000.00 deductible and subject to a Reservation of Rights based on certain
Policy provisions which may ultimately result in a lack of coverage.
Specifically, I would like to call your attention to paragraph I (Insuring Clause),
which limits the indemnification available to Forum's Insureds to amounts which
they shall become legally obligated to pay as damages. Forum cannot be held
responsible for the cost of satisfying any injunctive relief granted by the court.
Further, paragraph III (Definitions), subparagraph (d), reads as follows:
"'Loss"' shall mean any amount which the Insureds are legally obligated to
pay, including, but not limited to, any amounts which the Public Entity may
be required or permitted to pay as indemnity to an Insured, for a claim or
claims made against an Insured for a Wrongful Act and shall include but not
be limited to damages, judgements, settlements and costs, cost of investiga-
tion and defense of legal actions (excluding salaries of officers or employees
of the Public Entity, or any other governmental body) claims or proceedings
and appeals therefrom, premiums on bonds to release attachments or similar
bonds but without any obligation to apply for or furnish any such bonds,
provided always, however, such subject of loss shall not include fines and
penalties imposed by law and any amounts due or payable under the terms of
any contractual obligation."
*1AR � - 198G
'I ry OF GHAhHAS: f: I
' :larch 26, 1986
Page 2 40
•
Forum will not be responsible for the payment of any fines or penalties
awarded by the court, including punitive damages, Also, any relief
granted on a contractual theory must be satisfied by the defendants
without involvement of Forum's coverage,
Finally, paragraph IV (Exclusions), subparagraph (a) and (4) reads as follows;
"(a) The Company shall not be liable to make any payment in connection
with any claim made against the Insureds:
(4) for any damages arising from bodily injury, sickness, mental
anguish, disease or death of any person or for damage to or
destruction of any tangible property including loss of use
thereof;"
Forum's coverage will not respond to any award of damages based on loss
of use of the plaintiff's property.
As mentioned above, we have undertaken to defend this entire lawsuit on behalf
of all the Insured defendants. The purpose of this letter is merely to preserve
Forum's rights under the terms of its policy. Specifying particular policy
provisions at this time should not be construed as a waiver of any other
provisions which may apply.
If you have any questions or comments in regard to this letter, please contact
me immediately. I presume that a copy of this letter will be forwarded to each
of the Insured defendants.
Very truly yours,
1
John E. Pasquini
Executive Vice President
JEP/ms
WAYNE G.POPHAM
ROGER W. SCHNOBRICH
DENVER KAUFMAN
DAVID S. DOTY
ROBERT A. MINISH
ROLFE A. WORDEN
G.MARC WHITEHEAD
BRUCE D.WILLIS
FREDERICK S. RICHARDS
G. ROBERT JOHN50N
GARY R.MACOMBER
ROBERT 5. BURK
HUGH V. PLUNKETT,M
FREDERICK C. BROWN
THOMAS K. BERG
JAMES R.STEILEN
POPHAM, HAIK,SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD.
4344 IDS CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE AND TELECOPIER
612-333-4800
JAMES B. LOCKHART
ALLEN W. HINDERAKER
CLIFFORD M.GREENE
D.WILLIAM KAUFMAN
MICHAEL O. FREEMAN
HOWARD SAM MYERS.M
THOMAS C.D'AOUILA
LARRY D.ESPEL
JANIE 5.MAYERON
THOMAS J. BARRETT
JAMES A. PAYNE
DAVID A. JONES
LEE E.SHEEHY
ALAIN FRECON
LESLIE GILLETTE
MICHAEL T. NILAN
ROBERT H. LYNN
ROBERT C. MOILANEN
THOMAS F. NELSON
THOMAS J. RADIO
DAVID L.HASHMALL
KATHLEEN M.MARTIN
JOHN C.CHILDS
DOUGLAS R SEATON
THOMAS E.SANNER
BRUCE B.McPHEETERS
GARY D. BLACKFORD
SCOTT E. RICHTER
GREGORY L.WILMES
ELIZABETH A.THOMPSON
KEITH J. HALLELAND
MARK B. PETERSON
TIMOTHY W. KUCK
JULIE A.SWEITZER
THOMAS C. MIELENMAUSEN
KATHLEEN A. BLATZ
MICHAEL O.CHRISTENSON
J. MICHAEL SCH WARTZ
LARAYE M.OSBORNE
MARK F. PALMA
BONNIE G.RESNICK
RU55ELLS.PONE55A
BRYAN L. CRAWFORD
DAVID K. RYDEN
OWEN E.HERRNSTADT
MATTHEW E. DAMON
OF COUNSEL
FRED L. MORRISON
April 3, 1986
Roger N. Knutson, Esq.
Granis, Campbell, Farrell and
Knutson
403 Norwest Bank Building
161 North Concord
South St. Paul, Minnesota 55075
1240 AMHOIST TOWER
345 ST. PETER STREET
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102
TELEPHONE
612-333-4876
Re: James M. Lacey and Sara S. Lacey, et al. vs.
City of Chanhassen, et al.
Our File No. 6096-067
Dear Roger:
SUITE 2400
1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET
DENVER,COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE 303-893-1200
TELECOPIER 303-893-2194
SUITE 300 SOUTH
1800 M STREET, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
TELEPHONE 1202) 828-5300
TELECOPIER 12021828-5316
After receiving a copy of attorney Christopher Dietzen's
letter of March 12, 1986, I reviewed in some detail the nature of
our law firm's prior involvement in the development of the Lotus
Lake Estates subdivision. Mr. Dietzen is correct in his statement
that our firm did have significant involvement in the project
through representation of B-T Land Company. I have reviewed the
matter with others in our firm and with you to determine whether
or not a conflict or potential conflict of interest exists.
APR 4 1986
'.11 Y OF GIJANHASSVI
Roger N. Knutson, Esq.
April 3, 1986
Page Two
It is the consensus that at least a possible conflict of
interest does exist. I informed Brian Leo of Certified Claims
Corporation by telephone today of this situation. He informed me
that he would immediately make contact with Minneapolis attorney
Sandra K. Agvald for purposes of representing the City of
Chanhassen.
I will immediately transmit all file materials I have
received from you to Ms. Agvald. I am sorry that we could not
work with you in the defense of this lawsuit. It certainly
appears to be an interesting lawsuit.
V truly yours,
��
Frederick C. Brown
FCB:dmb
cc: Mr. Don Ashworth
City of Chanhassen
City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55137
Enclosures
0485hb
41,.. .Qd
y1716l;
61ertified P`
aims
Certified Claims Port Clinton Square
Corporation Suite 315
600 Central Avenue p7
Highland Paris, IL 60035
(312)433-7811
March 26, 1986
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn: City Manager
RE: FORUM INSURED: CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Claimants: James & Sara Lacey, et al.
Date of Loss: 12/30/85
Our File No.: MO 7091
Popham, Haik File No.: 6096-067
Gentlemen:
Certified Claims Corporation is the claim handling agent for Forum Insurance
Company in regard to losses arising from its Public Official's Liability program.
This will acknowledge receipt of notice of the &ove captioned matter. We have
referred copies of the pleadings to the law firm of Popham, Haik, Schnobrich,
Kaufman & Doty, 4344 IDS Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. Frederick C.
Brown of that firm will be filing an appearance on behalf of the City of
Chanhassen, Thomas Hamilton, Clark Horn, Patricia Swenson, Dale Geving, and
Carol Watson. Forum will provide a complete defense to this matter, subject to
your $1,000.00 deductible and subject to a Reservation of Rights based on certain
policy provisions which may ultimately result in a lack of coverage.
Specifically, I would like to call your attention to paragraph I (Insuring Clause),
which limits the indemnification available to Forum's Insureds to amounts which
they shall become legally obligated to pay as damages. Forum cannot be held
responsible for the cost of satisfying any injunctive relief granted by the court.
Further, paragraph III (Definitions), subparagraph (d), reads as follows:
"'Loss"' shall mean any amount which the Insureds are legally obligated to
pay, including, but not limited to, any amounts which the Public Entity may
be required or permitted to pay as indemnity to an Insured, for a claim or
claims made against an Insured for a Wrongful Act and shall include but not
be limited to damages, judgements, settlements and costs, cost of investiga-
tion and defense of legal actions (excluding salaries of officers or employees
of the Public Entity, or any other governmental body) claims or proceedings
and appeals therefrom, premiums on bonds to release attachments or similar
bonds but without any obligation to apply for or furnish any such bonds,
provided always, however, such subject of loss shall not include fines and
penalties imposed by law and any amounts due or payable under the terms of
any contractual obligation." V.,EC, L.J
[AAR 2 1986
CITY OF CH,ANHASSZ_'--1
Merch 26, 1986 .
Page 2
r �
U
Forum will not be responsible for the payment of any fines or penalties
awarded by the court, including punitive damages. Also, any relief
granted on a contractual theory must be satisfied by the defendants
without involvement of Forum's coverage,
Finally, paragraph IV (Exclusions), subparagraph (a) and (4) reads as follows;
"(a) The Company shall not be liable to make any payment in connection
with any claim made against the Insureds:
(4) for any damages arising from bodily injury, sickness, mental
anguish, disease or death of any person or for damage to or
destruction of any tangible property including loss of use
thereof;"
Forum's coverage will not respond to any award of damages based on loss
of use of the plaintiff's property.
As mentioned above, we have undertaken to defend this entire lawsuit on behalf
of all the Insured defendants. The purpose of this letter is merely to preserve
Forum's rights under the terms of its policy. Specifying particular policy
provisions at this time should not be construed as a waiver of any other
provisions which may apply.
If you have any questions or continents in regard to this letter, please contact
me immediately. I presume that a copy of this letter will be forwarded to each
of the Insured defendants.
Very truly yours,
VJohn�
John E. Pasquini
Executive Vice President
JEP/ms
i
March 12, 1986
Don Ashworth
695 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Don,
We are aware of the law suit against the City of Chanhassen
and the members of the Council. We are also aware of the
assertion that the Beach Lot Ordinance is unconstitutional.
Some of us have stated in the past that informal discussion
with personal lawyers has indicated that the City definitely
has the legal right to distinguish between private lake
shore owners and "beach lot" owners.
In order to aid the City and formalize our claims, the Lotus
Lake Homeowners Association has obtained legal council from
Mr. Steve Poindexter. Enclosed is his letter detailing his
opinion and advice. He believes the law is correct and
definitely defensable!!!
This ordinance was recently conceived and written. It is
meaningful and needed to conform to the City's long range
plan and to assure proper lake and lake shore utilization.
Without adherence to the law, the law becomes meaningless.
Compromise or capitulation to pressure would send a strong
signal to other beach lot associations to make similar
demands.
We urge you to stand fast in support of this law; not to
capitulate to pressure under the guise of compromise, and
to proceed to trial with strong council.
Sine e6�/G
e-Board Ae L s Lake
,Homeowners Association
[AAR i 4 1986
CI I Y OF CHANHASSEN
-2-
The following people have requested to be listed in support
of this letter.
Jim and Gail Murphy
Lake Susan
Scott and Joanne Reinertson
Lake Lucy
Al Tollefson
Lake Minnewashta
Ted Cogy
Lake Lucy
Frank Fallon
Crystal Lake
Tom Merz
Lake Minnewashta
Dr. Joe Feidler
Lake Minnewashta
Steve Martin
Lake Minnewashta
Wayne and Kathy Holtmeier
Lake Susan
James and Claudette Schluck
Lake Lucy
Craig Halverson
Lake Riley
Tom Wright
Lake Minnewashta
Jack and Judy Hungelman
Lake Riley
James Ginther
Lake Minnewashta
Ray Roettger
Lake Minnewashta
Mary Jo Moore
Lake Minnewashta
POINDEXTER JACOBSON STROMME & HARWOOD
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS
2550 MULTIFOODS TOWER
33 SOUTH SIXTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE (612) 340-0234
TELEX I%273PIS UR
TELECOPIER (612) 3q%87
March 12, 1986
STEPHEN I. POINDEXfER
Lotus Lake Homeowners Association
c/o Mr. Jack Melby
40 Hill Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Jack:
Your organization has requested that we give you an informal
legal assessment of the action commenced by certain individuals
residing in Lotus Lake Estates, against the City of Chanhassen.
We have not undertaken a formal review of Ordinance 47ab of
the City of Chanhassen, nor the relevant statute or case law
which may be applicable to the application of said Ordinance. We
have, however, read the Ordinance itself, and reviewed the com-
plaint.
while we are unable at this time to give a formal opinion as
to the questions you have asked us, the following are our infor-
mal recommendations.
1. The Ordinance, on its face, appears to be constitu-
tional and enforceable.
2. The City should not settle this matter for the follow-
ing reasons:
a. The City's insurer has undertaken a defense of the law
suit, and Mr. Fritz Brown, the attorney who has been
engaged to handle the matter, has an excellent reputa-
tion as a trial lawyer in these matters;
b. He should be able to demonstrate the rational for not
granting the variance on Lotus Lake Estates, even
though a similar variance was granted recently on Lake
Minnewashta;
• 0
Mr. Jack Melby
March 12, 1986
Page 2
c. Settlement would effectively emasculate the Ordinance
and result in extreme adverse impact on the lake itself
and an adverse impact on the use and enjoyment of the
lake by present riaprian owners; and
d. As stated before, the City's insurer has undertaken a
defense in this matter, with the City's exposure
limited to a $5,000 deductible. It is our under-
standing that this $5,000 deductible is the City's only
monetary exposure on this case.
3. Continuance of the trial date of June 9th should be
sought in order to obtain environmental studies over the summer
as to the impact of the summer usage on the lake. This may
result in the appointment of a different judge to try the case
other than Philip Cannon, who, as we understand it, is a former
plaintiff's personal injury lawyer who may not have an expertise
in municipal law.
4. Other associations in connection with other lakes in
the City have expressed their concern over settlement of this
case as well. Settlement will invite other beach lots to request
or litigate for more dock usage, etc., and thus defeat the pur-
pose of Ordinance 47ab.
I would recommend also that you discuss the contents of this
letter immediately with the members of the City Council to inform
them of your position and our recommendations.
In the meantime should you have any questions, please
advise.
very truly yours,
POINDEXTER JACOBSON STR MME & HARWOOD
e en J7 415n7dexter
SJP/djc
2076-001