CAS-08_CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 84-8 (3)' . l
S�
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PLAT OF LOTUS LAKE ESTATES
B-T LAND COMPANY
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
WHEREAS, application has been made by Ecklund & Swedlund
Development Corporation, as contract purchaser, to subdivide and
develop for residential purposes that certain tract of land which is
more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a
part hereof, which tract of land is referred to hereinafter as "the
subject property;" and
WHEREAS, Ecklund & Swedlund Development Corporation has
terminated its status as contract purchaser and has assigned its
interest in said application to B-T Land Company, a Minnesota
Corporation, which corporation now holds a contract vendee's interest
in the subject property; and
WHEREAS, said B-T Land Company has advised the City of
Chanhassen that it wishes to be substituted for Ecklund & Swedlund
Development Corporation and proceed with the subdivision of the subject
property in its own behalf (B-T Land Company is hereinafter referred
to as "the applicants"); and
WHEREAS, the subject property is presently zoned R-lA,
Agricultural Residence District, and lies wholly within the City of
Chanhassen; and _
WHEREAS, the applicants have made application under the
Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance for City Council approval of a Planned
Residential Development District encompassing all of the subject
property; said district and plat to contain approximately 77 acres,
including 44 residential building sites and 3 outlots; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Chanhassen Planning
Commission on July 14, 1976, and again on June 14, 1978 to consider
public comment on said development plans, plat and rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Chanhassen City Council, by its resolutions dated
July 10, 1978, July 17, 1978, and August 7, 1978, has approved the
development plan and preliminary plat of the applicants, subject to and
on condition that the applicants enter into this agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City has established a policy requiring land
developers to furnish surfaced streets, curbs, gutters, boulevard
sodding, driveways, storm and surface water drainage facilities, street
signs and lighting, municipal water and sanitary sewer facilities and
underground electric and underground telephone service lines to all
lots in plats approved by the City; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City to
be allowed at applicants' expense to construct, install and perform all
work and furnish all materials in connection with the installation of
-1-
9 4
the following improvements:
a. street signs;
b. boulevard sodding on residential building sites which are
not naturally wooded;
C. driveway surfacing within public street rights of way;
d. underground utility lines; and
e. street lighting; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have petitioned the City to con-
struct and install the following public improvements within the plat I!
and to have the cost thereof assessed against all benefitted properties
therein under the provisions of Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes:
a. street grading, stabilizing and bituminous surfacing;
b. -surmountable concrete curbs and gutters;
C. sanitary sewer mains;
d. water mains;
e. storm and surface water drainage; and
WHEREAS, the Chanhassen City Council has authorized the
construction of said public improvements as Project 78-6;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises
and acceptance by the City of the development plan and the plat of
Lotus Lake Estates, the City and the applicants agree as follows:
1. Improvements by Applicants. Applicants agree at their
expense to construct, installand perform all work and furnish all
materials and equipment in connection with the installation of the
following improvements:
a. street signs;
b. boulevard sodding on all residential building sites which
are not naturally wooded;
C. driveway surfacing within public street rights of way;
d. underground utility lines; and
e. street lighting.
2. Standards of Construction. Applicants agree that all of the
improvements described in 91 above shall equal or exceed City standards,
shall be constructed and installed in accordance with engineering plans
and specifications approved by the City engineers and the requirements
of applicable City ordinances and standards, and that all of said work
shall be subject to the supervision of the City engineers.
-2-
3. Materials and Labor. All of the materials to be employed
in the making of the improvements described in $1 and all of the work
performed in connection therewith shall be of uniformly good and work-
manlike quality, shall equal or exceed City standards and specifica-
tions, and shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the
City. In case any material or labor supplied shall be rejected by the
City as defective or unsuitable, then such rejected material shall be
removed and replaced with approved material, and rejected labor shall
be done anew to the satisfaction and approval of the City at the cost
and expense of the applicants.
4. Schedule of Work. The applicants shall submit a written
schedule indicating the proposed progress schedule and order of com-
pletion of work covered by this contract, which schedule shall be a
part of this contract. Upon receipt of written notice from the appli-
cants of the existence of causes over which the applicants have no
control which will delay the completion of the work, the City, in its
discretion, may extend the dates hereinafter specified for completion.
5. Payment of Special Assessments.
a. Allocation of Project 75=10 Special Benefit.
The applicants acknowledge receipt of the City Engineer's
report dated June, 1978, entitled "Feasibility Study for
Lotus Lake Estates, Phase I Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, Storm
Sewer, Streets & Concrete Curb & Gutter," a copy of which
is on file in the office of the Chanhassen City Manager,
which report is referred to hereinafter as the Phase I
Feasibility Study.
The parties hereto further acknowledge that the subject
property is specially benefitted by the East Lotus Lake
Sewer Project 75-10 and that the amount of said special
benefit is Two Hundred Two Thousand and Thirty -Eight
Dollars. ($202,038.00) and no more than Two Hundred Two
Thousand and Thirty -Eight Dollars($202,038.00). The parties
hereto acknowledge that said special benefit is allocable
to the subject property as follows:
To the 44 residential building sites
comprising Phase I as described in the
Phase I Feasibility Study: $67,473.00
To Outlots A and B, Lotus Lake Estates none
To Outlot C, Lotus Lake Estates 134,565.00
$202,038.00
b. Terms of Payment of Project 78-6 Special Assessments.
The applicants agree that the entire cost of the installation
of Project 78-6 improvements shall be paid by the applicants
to the City as special assessments levied against the propertie
in the proposed plat benefitted by said public improvements in
five (5) equal annual installments with interest on unpaid in-
stallments at the rate of seven percent (7%) per annum. In the
-3-
` occupancy permit is a. ed for for any residen-
event tY occu anc p F�
tial stru- a constructed upon any \ in the proposed plat,
the payment of the Project 78-6 spec# assessments shall be 1
accelerated as provided in 115(c) below.
C. Occupancy Permit Application Accelerates Payment of Assessments.
No res#dential structure within the proposed plat shall be
occupied until the applicants have paid in full all unpaid
special assessments levied against the lot on which said
structure has been erected. The term "all unpaid special
assessments" shall be deemed to include:
i. Any outstanding and then prevailing City sewer and water
hook-up charges for the subject lot.
ii. The unpaid balance, including interest accrued as provided
by Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes, of the Project 78-6
special assessments levied against the subject lot pursuant
to said Chapter 429.
iii. The unpaid balance, including interest accrued, as provide
by Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes, of the Project 75-10
special assessments levied against the subject lot pur-
suant to said Chapter 429.
d. Commencement Date for Non -Accelerated Installment Payment of
Project 78-6 Special Assessments.
If the special assessments levied by resolution for the con -
If struction of the Project 78-6 improvements pursuant to this
agreement are adopted by the Chanhassen City Council between
October loth of any year and April loth of the following year,
the applicants agree that they will pay the City one-half
(1/2) of the first annual installment with interest on or
before May 31st next following the date of adoption of the
Project 7806 assessment roll, and will pay the remaining one-
half (1/2) of such first installment with interest to the City
on or before the following September 30th. All remaining in-
stallments shall be paid as assessments to the Treasurer of
Carver County as and when the general property taxes become
due upon said property. If the special assessments levied
for Project 78-6 are adopted between April llth and October 9th
of any year, then all assessments due for Project 7806 shall be
paid as assessments to the Treasurer of Carver County as and
when the general property taxes become due on the subject
property.
6. Final Grading Plan and Easements.
a. Final Grading Plan. The applicants agree to cause their
engineers to prepare a final grading plan in substantial
accord with the proposed plans thereof prepared by McCombs -
Knutson Associates, Inc., and dated May 18, 1978, with the
following modifications:
-4-
A
Said grading plan shall encompass only that portion of
the subject property which is identified as Phase I
in the "Phase I Feasibility Study."
b. Easements. Applicants, at their expense, shall acquire all
easements from abutting property owners necessary to the in-
stallation of the sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water
facilities within the plat, and thereafter promptly assign
said easements to the City. In addition, the•applicants,
for themselves and for their successors and assigns, agree
to convey to the City of Chanhassen, at no cost to the City
of Chanhassen, the easements which are more particularly
described on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part
hereof. In addition, the applicants, for themselves and
for their successors and assigns, agree to convey to the
City of Chanhassen upon request, an easement for public
trail' purposes four (4) feet in width and extending from
the Southerly line of outlot B to the Northerly line of
outlot B, as said outlot is described in Paragraph 31 of
this contract and upon such an alignment as may be specified
by the Chanhassen City Council.
4-A
7. Reimbursement of Costs. The applicants shall reimburse the
City for all costs, including reasonable engineering, legal, planning
and administrative expenses incurred bythe City in connection with all
matters relating to the administration and enforcement of the within
agreement and the performance thereby by the applicants.
B. Disclaimer by City. 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 applicants,
the applicants' contractors or sub -contractors, materialmen, laborers,
nor 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 agree-
ment or the performance and completion of the work and improvements
hereunder; and that the applicants 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.
9. Written Work Orders. The applicants shall do no work nor
furnish materials not covered by the plans and specifications 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 Applicants without such written
order first being given shall be at their own risk, cost and expense,
and applicants hereby agree that without such written order, applicants
will make no claim for compensation for work or materials so done or
furnished.
10. Performance Bond. For the purpose of assuring and guaranteeing
to the City that the improvements to be by the applicants constructed,
installed and furnished as set forth in 11 hereof shall be constructed,
installed and furnished according to the terms of this agreement, and
that the applicants shall pay all claims for work done and materials
and supplies furnished for the performance of this agreement and that
the applicants shall pay all special assessments when due as provided
in 15 hereof, and that applicants shall fully comply with all of the
other terms and provisions of the development contract, the applicants
agree to furnish to the City a cash deposit, a corporate surety bond
approved by the City as obligee thereunder, or an irrevocable letter of
credit approved by the City in the amount of Thirty Thousand Dollars
($30,000.00).
11. Boulevards and Driveways. The applicants agree to furnish,
construct and install, at applicants' sole expense, the following
improvements for the benefit of each lot within the plat:
a. Boulevard sod, which shall be of uniformly good quality, on
all residential building sites which are not naturally
wooded;
b. Driveway surfacing within the public street righty-of-way,
the materials and installation of which shall be approved
by the City engineers.
-5-
weather
shall be installed
the date
described in this 1111 site no later In
The improvements constructed thereon their
permitting, on each residential building
ancy of the principal residence at its
licants or their assigns shall default may
of occup of Chanhassen maY� again
the event
the aPP this section, the City a the cost thereof a9
obligations under rovements and charqursuant to 910 of this
option, install said imP the applicants P
the security furnished by Provide
at their expense, shall
contract. Applicants, ractices, including
Erosion Control• ud ment of the
or such other devices an P
12. earthwork in the j q and
temporary dams, as shall be needed,
sedimentatioal1 phases
seeding of graded areas, plat during al cants
City engineers, to prevent the washing,
of lands on individual lots• from con -
and roads construction out the
erosion including all dirt and debris result9the lands
of construction, their agents or assignees upon
shall keep all streets free
o
struction by the aPP hereto.
Exhibit A temporary grading and
described in access, including in the plat
Access. Reasonable occupied residences
13. shall be provided to all he City-
graveling, accepted by
until the streets are of furnishing electrical energy
The expense the City 24 months
Street Lighting shall be assumed by lighting system,
14. h�rposes of the street liq the construction
for street 1i91etion of installation been improved by
after the comp lots have
or after 50%';0 the building first to occur. erforT
thereon, whichever is materials p
of residences work. All work and and subcontract(
Defectivelicants, their agents tance by tl
15. Replacement r the aPP one year after accep
ereunder by thin sole expense.
and furnished h to be defective within applicants
'
found by the City by applicants at_
City, shall be replaced
The applicants shall ragraoht15naboven-
Insurance. oblig under Paragraph
16. Liabilit a licants' ataamage insurance eoverie4which
so long as the PP and property damage
taint ublic liability and claims for property
continue, P including death, the work of its subcontractor:
ur ,. licants' work or of them. Limits for
personal in7 of the aPP employed by any person
may arise out or indirectly an $100,000 for one
one directly shall be not less than 0damage shall be no
or i injury or death limits for property
bodily for.each accident; The City shall be named as co-
300,000 accident. file a copy of the
and.$ 100,000 for each licants shall
less than $said policy and the app
insured Oncoverage with the City -
All water and sanitary sewer
City -
insurance City and all reve
Water and Sewer Revenues•be billed by the
the City.
17• shall at all times
service charges shall be the sole property
nues derived therefrom
Upon completion of the instal
Conve ance of It" rorovements set forth in 11 hereof in
18. a licants of the imP ecif-cations hereunder improvements
tion by PP the plans and sp said imp of tit
accordance with the applicants shallcana with warranty
approval by the City#
fv-p of all liens and encumbrances
i
Should the applicants fail to so convey said improvements, the same
shall become the property of the City without further notice or action on
the part of either party hereto, other than acceptance by the City.
19. Building Permits. Upon completion of the grading and place-
ment of rock stabilizing materials for road construction within said
plats, the City BuildingInspector, upon the approval of the City
Manager, shall be authorized to issue building permits for residential
construction within said plats upon payment of all fees, assessments
and charges applicable to the issuance of permits, including any
charges payable to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
20. Occupancy of Dwellings. The occupancy of any structure within
said plat for residential purposes shall be prohibited by the City until
grading and installation of road construction rock stabilizing materials
shall have been completed and municipal sanitary sewer and water lines
shall have been installed and are available to serve the lot for which
a building permit shall have been issued.
21. Remedies Upon Default.
a. Assessments. In the event the applicants 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 the applicants of written
notice thereof, the City, if it so elects, may cause any of
the required improvements to be constructed and installed, or
mayz=take- action to cure said default, and may cause the
entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engineering, legal
and administrative expense incurred by the City, to be recovered
as a special assessment under M.S. Chap. 429, in which case the
applicants agree to pay the entire amount of the assessment
roll pertaining to any such improvement within thirty (30)
days after its adoption. Applicants further agree that in the
event of their failure to pay in full any such special
assessment within the time prescribed herein, the City shall
have a specific lien on all of applicants' real property
within said plat 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 liens under the laws of the
State of Minnesota. In the event of an emergency, as
determined by the City engineers, the notice requirements to
the applicants shall be and hereby are waived in their entirety,
and the applicants shall reimburse the City for'any expense
incurred by the City in remedying the conditions creating
the emergency.
b. Performance Bond. In addition to the foregoing, the City may
also institute legal action against the applicants and the
corporate surety on their performance bond, or utilize any
cash deposit or letter of credit furnished pursuant to y10
above, to reimburse the City for the cost of making any of said
improvements or for the cost of curing any default by the
applicants in their performance of any of the covenants and
agreements contained herein.
-7-
c. 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 development con-
tract, to restrain or abate violations of the within develop-
ment contract, or to prevent use or occupancy of the proposed
dwellings.
22. Special Landscaping Conditions. At the time of sale by the
applicants of each of the subject 44 residential building sites, the
applicants shall advise their purchasers in writing that landscaping
and location of structures on individual lots shall be determined
through discussions between City staff and the building permit applicant
prior to issuance of building permits, subject to the following standards
and conditions:
a. Landscaping and location of structures shall take into con-
sideration the preservation of trees, slope protection, sub-
surface drainage, prevention of siltation and similar
potential problems.
b. In the event agreement cannot be reached between the City
Staff and building permit applicant,. the City shall have
the right, at the expense of the buildingpermit applicant,
to engage the services of the City engineer, planner, a
landscape architect, a soil conservation consultant and
others, to advise as to specific problems.
c. The certificate of occupancy for each homesite, or covenants
and restrictions, may contain conditions for tree maintenance,
and restrictions on tree removal, after consultations with
the City Forester.
d. Individual site drainage, basement waterproofing and footing
drains for each residential structure to be constructed
within the subject property shall be installed when necessary
and appropriate.
23. Redistribution of Existing Assessments. Applicants agree
to be bound by the determination of the City regarding any redistribu-
tion of existing assessments &the imposition of Project 78-6 assess-
ments for proposed lots for sanitary sewer, watermains, public street
construction, concrete curbs and.gutters, and storm water drainage.
24. Tree to be Provided. The applicants shall provide Lots 1 and
2 of Block 2, as described on the preliminary plat dated May 18, 1978,
with one boulevard tree per lot, said trees to be a specie acceptable
to the City Forester and of a diameter of not less than 1-1/2"
25. Homeowners' Association. Outlot B of the plat of Lotus Lake
Estates shall be reserved for the sole use of property owners within
the plat of Lotus Lake Estates in gaining pedestrian access to Lotus Lake.
Applicants shall organize a homeowners' association in the form of a
non-profit corporation, and said Outlot B shall be conveyed to and
managed by said association. The Articles of Incorporation and By -Laws
ffm
of the association shall be approved by the City Attorney. For purposes
of this agreement, said Outlot B shall be classed as nondedicated open
space under the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, to which the provisions
of Chap. 21.03 thereof shall apply. Said Outlot B shall be encumbered
with restrictive covenants which shall regulate parking of motor
vehicles, docking of water craft, erection of structures, and which
shall prohibit overnight camping. said restrictive covenants shall
be recorded in the office of the Carver County Recorder after said
covenants have been approved bythe City Attorney.
26. Address of Applicants. The address of the applicants for
purposes of this development contract is:
B-T Land Company
1055 E. Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391.
27. No Building Permit. No portion of any of the 44 platted
residential building site lots in the plat of Lotus Lake Estates lying
beneath public waters shall be developed or altered without first
having obtained the written consent of the Board of Managers of the
Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District.
28. Limitation on Alteration of Outlot B. No portion of Outlot
B shall be developed, altered or disturbed in any way except after
first having obtained a permit from the Chanhassen City Council for any
such development, alteration or disturbance. For purposes of this
development contract, said permit shall be deemed to be a conditional
use permit and the permit application process andprocedure shall be as
set forth in §23 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. Any application
for any such permit, together with appropriate supporting plans and
data, shall be submitted by the applicants to the Board of Managers
of the Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District for its comment, which
shall be advisory to the Chanhassen City Council. If no comment is
transmitted by the Board of Managers within sixty (60) days after
referral of the application to said Board, the City Council may take
action without further awaiting such comment.
29. Limitation on Alteration of Outlot C. No portion of Outlot
C shall be developed, altered or disturbed in any way except as part
of a new and separate development plan which shall be submitted to the
City and reviewed as provided in §14 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance.
Any.such development plan shall be submitted by the applicants to the
Board of Managers of the Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District for
its comment and review.
30. Park Charge Ordinance. The applicants further
no residential building permit will be issued for any to
property except upon payment in full of the Neighborhood
established by Chanhassen Ordinance 14A.
acknowledge that
t in the subject
Park Charge
31. Final Plat. The applicants agree to proceed immediately
with thepreparation of their final plan which shall conform to their
approved preliminary plat as prepared by McCombs -Knutson Associates
Inc. and dated May 18, 1978, with the following modifications:
a. All of the subject property other than that portion of
the subject property which is encompassed in Outlot A
or in Outlot B or in Phase I as described in the Phase
I Feasibility Study, shall be platted as Outlot C.
b. The lagoon depicted on the preliminary plat shall be
deleted.
c. Side and rear lot utility easements on all lots shall be
shown on the final plat.
d. The exterior boundaries of Outlot B shall be as depicted
on the preliminary plat dated May 18, 1978. Any references
to Outlot B or Outlot C in this contract shall be deemed
to mean Outlot B and Outlot C as described in this q31.
32. Proof of Title. Upon request, the applicants shall furnish
the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that they are fee
owners of the subject property.
33. Successors and Assigns. It is agreed by and between the
parties hereto that 'the agreement herein contained shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of their respective legal representa-
tives, successors and assigns.
34. Duration of this Contract. This contract shall remain in
force until such time as the applicants shall have fully performed all
of their duties and obligations under this contract, including but
not limited to:
a. Payment in full of the assessments described in §5(b)
of this contract together with accrued interest and and
penalty thereon; and
b. Completion of the improvements described in §1 of this
contract in accordance with §§2,3,4, and 15 of this contract.
Upon the written request of the applicants and upon the adoption of a
resolution by the Chanhassen City Council finding that the applicants
have fully complied with all of the terms of this contract and finding
that the applicants have completed performance of all of applicants'
duties mandated by this contract, the Chanhassen City Manager shall
issue to the applicants on behalf of the City an appropriate certificate
of compliance.
-10-
12-1-78 Draft --
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these
d and year first above written.
presents to be executed on the aY
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Mayor
0
a
And
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF CARVER
VL da of �1 ,,ua , 197�, before me,
a nocar
On this /0 y ersonally appeared Walter Hobbs
public within and for said counersonally known, who, being by me duly
and Donald W. Ashworth, to me personally
the Mayor and City Manager
sworn, did say that they are
ofthe City of Chanhassen named in the foregoing instrument, and that
said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by
authority of its City Council, and said Walter Hobbs and Donald W.
Ashworth acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of
said corporation.
ss.
SST
. /
C-.Ly anager 1
_KAREN J. ENGELHARDT
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
STATE OF MINNESOTA ; CARVER COUNTY
s s • My Commission E.Pir" Oct. 11. ION
COUNTY OF
i day of ��*'ti '1� . 1979, before me, a notary
On this
ic within and for said county, personally appeared Lam'/ � P)-
publ, to me personally known, who,
t and "jlk. Ncsr did say that they are respectively the
being each by me duly sworn, of B-T Land Company
and the
/C�sa�th g instrument, and that the seal affixed to said
named in the fore oing
instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said
instrument was signed and sea led in bandlsaid saidU6 corporation t. AA+bnirlr
authority of its Board of Directors
said instrument to be the
and ,^
free act and deed of said corporation.
Notary Public
�r RICK D. MURRAY ,
_UlaNOTARY PUSUC MINNESOTA Y
HENNEPIN COUNTY
m7 Cotnnfts" EsPIM Nov 7. 104
-11-
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 20, 1984, the City's Board of
Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing and approved a
variance to allow four sailboat moorings. The City Council, by
its motion of November 19, 1984, approved issuance of a revised
permit authorizing the installation of said moorings.
1.10. May, 1986 Application for Amendment of Permit. The
City of Chanhassen initiated a Conditional Use Permit Amendment
application requesting further development of the Subject
Property.
1.11. City Council Approval. On May 28, 1986, the City's
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment appli-
cation. On July 7, 1986, the City Council approved the issuance
of a revised permit authorizing further development of the
Subject Property.
SECTION 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
2.01. Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal
to the Association, and is not assignable or transferable, except
upon the written consent of the City.
-2-
0
2.02. Rights Under This Permit Not Expandable to Other
Owners. This permit is issued for the benefit of the owners of
the 44 lots in Lotus Lake Estates. The Association agrees that
the use and enjoyment of the Subject Property shall be limited to
the owners of lots in Lotus Lake Estates. The use and enjoyment
of the Subject Property may not extend to persons other than such
owners. The term "owners" as utilized in this §2.02 shall mean
and refer to any natural person who is either (a) the record
owner of fee simple interest, or (b) the recorder owner of a
contract for deed vendee's interest, or (c) the holder of any
possessory leasehold interest, in the whole of any lot in Lotus
Lake Estates, including authorized guests and family members of
any such persons.
2.03. Description of Property Subject To This Permit.
The premises subject to the within conditional use permit are
described as follows:
Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, according to the map
or plat thereof on file and of record in the Office
of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County,
Minnesota.
2.04. Certain Site Alterations Authorized. The
Association is hereby authorized to install the following
improvements on the Subject Property:
a. One sand blanket swim area, as shown on the revised
plan, Exhibit A, dated June 25, 1986, said swim area to
be marked with a minimum of three anchored "swim area"
buoys that are in accordance with the Uniform Waterway
Marking System; said buoys to be anchored a reasonable
distance from shore; and
b. a pedestrian walkway connecting Choctaw Circle with the
sand blanket swim area; said walkway to consist of wood
chips installed on a sand base with boardwalk steps on
the steep slope area of the walkway; and
C. four boat racks to be located on land with a storage
capacity of either six canoes or six small sail boats
per rack; and
d. Three docks, not to exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet
in length or that number of lineal feet necessary to
reach a water depth of four (4) feet; at the option of
the Association, the final ten (10) feet of any dock
may consist of a ten foot by ten foot (10' x 10') square
platform; and
e. One ten foot 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-
r • •
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
July7 21, 2010.
SECTION 5. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.
5.01. Reimbursement of Costs. The Association shall
reimbure the City for all costs, including reasonable engi-
neering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by
the City in connection with all matters relating to the admi-
nistration and enforcement of the within permit and the perfor-
mance thereby by the Association. Such reimbursement shall be
made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of the
City's notice of costs as provided in Section 4.05 above.
This reimbursement obligation of the Association under this sec-
tion shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term of this
permit.
5.02. Remedies Upon 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 her to have caused these
presents to be executed on the-' day of �0►'E^`b8P%
LOTUS LAKE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
By IL
Its V�
And X L { R Q
Its LzitY�
-7-
CITY OF CHANHASSEN ZL
14 By L e
It Ma or
Attest 2(2- (129P
City—Clerk/Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
COUNTY OF )
On this 0 day of WetxXg"' , before me, a notary
public, within and for said county, personally appeared
(S.qrY A. I,Jetg_k and Tere4gee ✓, O'Br�' , to
me pers nally 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 -4' A 1'j and %ere t- ✓ �'6,-4�
acknowledge said instrument to be the free a and deed of said
corporation.
RICK O. MURRAr
gE.
OTARY PUBLIC — 101Ml�
CARVER COWM Notary Public
COWA*Won Expon AIq, 11, NM
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
On this /6-14� day of 1994, 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.
ry,, l�ia
J. ENOEIHARDT ay, ublic
4).V.REN
PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
CARVER COUNTY
MY awwdso a avira W."41
—8—
•
LOTUS LAKE ESTATES
SITE PLAN FOR OUTLOT B
DOCK
-BOAT
SWIMMING AREA
CITY Of CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
1986
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT.
SAILBOAT MOCRMOS
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RESTATED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT C U
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.
105. 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 20, 1984, the City's Board of
Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing and approved a
variance to allow four sailboat moorings. The City Council, by
its motion of November 19, 1984, approved issuance of a revised
permit authorizing the installation of said moorings.
1.10. May, 1986 Application for Amendment of Permit. The
City of Chanhassen initiated a Conditional Use Permit Amendment
application requesting further development of the Subject
Property.
1.11. City Council Approval. On May 28, 1986, the City's
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment appli-
cation. On July 7, 1986, the City Council approved the issuance
of a revised permit authorizing further development of the
Subject Property.
SECTION 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
2.01. Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal
to the Association, and is not assignable or transferable, except
upon the written consent of the City.
-2-
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 52.02 shall mean
and refer to any natural person who is either (a) the record
owner of fee simple interest, or (b) the recorder owner of a
contract for deed vendee's interest, or (c) the holder of any
possessory leasehold interest, in the whole of any lot in Lotus
Lake Estates, including authorized guests and family members of
any such persons.
2.03. Description of Property Subject To This Permit.
The premises subject to the within conditional use permit are
described as follows:
Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, according to the map
or plat thereof on file and of record in the Office
of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County,
Minnesota.
2.04. Certain Site Alterations Authorized. The
Association is hereby authorized to install the following
improvements on the Subject Property:
a. One sand blanket swim area, as shown on the revised
plan, Exhibit A, dated June 25, 1986, said swim area to
be marked with a minimum of three anchored "swim area"
buoys that are in accordance with the Uniform Waterway
Marking System; said buoys to be anchored a reasonable
distance from shore; and
b. a pedestrian walkway connecting Choctaw Circle with the
sand blanket swim area; said walkway to consist of wood
chips installed on a sand base with boardwalk steps on
the steep slope area of the walkway; and
C. four boat racks to be located on land with a storage
capacity of either six canoes or six small sail boats
per rack; and
d. Three docks, not to exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet
in length or that number of lineal feet necessary to
reach a water depth of four (4) feet; at the option of
the Association, the final ten (10) feet of any dock
may consist of a ten foot by ten foot (10' x 10') square
platform; and
e. One ten foot 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:
To the Association:
City of Chanhassen
City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn: City Manger
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
reimbure the City for all costs, including reasonable engi-
neering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by
the City in connection with all matters relating to the admi-
nistration and enforcement of the within permit and the perfor-
mance thereby by the Association. Such reimbursement shall be
made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of the
City's notice of costs as provided in Section 4.05 above.
-6-
This reimbursement obligation of the Association under this sec-
tion shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term of this
permit.
5.02. Remedies Upon 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 her to have caused these
presents to be executed on the .S day of X DyE�`6FR ma
r_.
LOTUS LAKE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
I �
f
And 7VX•4�
I t s i/up - .- 4
-7-
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By L c
It Ma or
/2Attest �L1.L
City Clerk/Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
COUNTY OF )
On this 0 day of weetdyr , before me, a notary
public, within and for said county, personally appeared
GctrY A- WetCLa and Ter&ace ✓• to
me pers nally 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 , q sa. wkki' and %ere.ace ✓ 0f&iea ,
acknowledge id instrument to be the free a and deed of said
corporation. ,
Opp
RICK D. MURRA
,i-■, ,� N07Mr GUSLIC — M =��
CARVER COUNTY Notary Public
Yy Comwd"O F p," AW
pop
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
On this j61A day of 199G, 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.
KAREN RJO arye ublic
NOTARY UBEMINNESOTA CARVER COUNTY
My commualon a p'" 10.1"I
-8-
City Council Meeting OFtober 23, 1989 •
REQUEST FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A DECK ON A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT, LOTUS LAKE
HaMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION:
�� O^
�1J A. SHORELAND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST.
i B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST.
Jo Ann Olsen: On the Lotus Lake Estates beachlot, the first thing is they are
applying for a variance to the 75 foot shoreland setback for a deck. The deck
was located on the site without prior permission from the Citv. It did not
receive a variance, an amendment to the conditional use permit or a building
permit. Thev did go in front of the Board of Adjustments for the variance to
the 75 foot setback and it was denied by the Board of Adjustments. They are
appealing that decision to the Council. This goes along with the amendment to
the conditional use permit. They are requesting to allow the deck to be located
on a recreational beachlot. The zoning ordinance does not allow structures,
decks to be located on recreational beachlots. In addition, Lotus Lake Estates
has a conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot that also prohibits
any structures on the recreational beachlot other than those specifically
allowed in the conditional use permit. So you have two actions tonight. The
first would be the appeal of the Board's decision for the variance setback and
the second one would be whether or not to approve the amendment to the
conditional use permit. Staff is recomending denial and suggesting that if the
Council feels that structures such as a deck should be permitted on recreational
beachlots, whether that should be allowed. Number two, the ordinance and the
conditional use permit that are a variance to the ordinance, that they should
amend the ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone in the public who wishes to address the issue?
Nick Gassman: Mr. Mayor, Council, my name is Nick Gassman. I'm with Lotus Lake
Homeowners Association and Jo Ann has described to you what we'd like to do
tonight is pretty much to ask the Mayor's and the Council's perrission or
assistance in directing us as Lobs Lake Homeowners Association to go down the
necessary paths and approach the necessary channels to allow Lotus Lake to
maintain the 12 x 14 deck which has been placed about 60 feet off the high water
mark on our 1,500 foot site of lakeshore on Outlot B which we maintain with your
permission and the conditional use permit which we now have. The Association is
here to readilv admit that we had erred in the construction of the lot as you've
outlined in the previous meeting Minutes or the Planning Commission Minutes. We
built a deck in my misinterpretation of what I didn't know existed at that time
as a newly appointed officer of the Lotus Lake Homeowners and we had the 12 x 14
deck constructed to take care of a part that Mother Nature played. In 1987 we
had a very large rain that took a portion of the hill onto the sand blanket that
we had on our outlot so we built the deck the size of the, approximate size of
the washout to take care of that eyesore and to better improve the outlot and
it's appearance. Since that time, as Jo Ann did not say, the deck's actually
been constructed since the first part of July. We've realized some additional
advantages that we didn't consider. Other than the fact that it beautifies the
outlot, it makes it much more accessible to members of our 44 homeowners and
their children and for their enjoyment in that it allows for some shaded area
for the people not wishing to be on the sand and out of the sun and what I min
by that is by parents and/or grandparents that do want to came down there and
59
City Coiuicil Meeting - Cc r 23, 1989 •
enjoy the beachlot which we have. Also, one of the distinct advantages that
we've noticed and taken note of throughout the simmer was the advantage of being
able to have a better birdseye view so to speak, kind of on the same principle
as a lifeguard chair in that you're about 38-40 inches off the sand area so you
have a better visibility down toward the lake water and watching the children
playing etc.. But the deck is not permanent. 'there's no footings involved at
all. There's no concrete. It's imply a platform that's laid upon two cross
beans and with the appropriate man power could be moved. It could be considered
almost a little bit larger than the 10 x 10 swimming platform that we now have
floating on pontoons in the swimming area that we have narked. What we've done
is in good faith and when I was notified by staff, by Jo Ann that we had erred,
we did fill out and follow her direction. Filling out the necessary permits and
paying the necessary fees to go through the process in order that we may
maintain and keep this deck area. What we've heard now through the first two
meetings that we've been through is that Lotus Cake Estates cannot prove that we
have gone through any type of hardship. That we cannot use the beach area with
or without this deck. Well, it is not true that there is not same hardship.
obviously there are for some of the older and less capable homeowners in our
area but that is not an unduly hardship in that we did have the beach area and
that we did use the beach area and that is true but what we did when we built
the deck is not how we did it. We did err in how we did it but why we did it
was to beantifv and to increase the value of our outlot and of the 44 homes in
the Lotus Lake Estates. It just goes with the attitude that we have in our
homeowners association and what we've tried to do is take the fees that we
collect from each homeowner and beautify the area so that we have a better place
and that goes, I don't know if many of you are faruliar with the front entrance
that we've tried to improve and certainly beautified that with trees and flowers
and additional rock work so that it's a pleasant place to come into to show that
we do have interest in maintaining and presenting a good community on Lotus
Lake. Bert we're here tonight simply to ask what is the next step? We're here
in good faith. We're here to make it right with the City and we'd like to
maintain the platform. It is an advantage to our outlot and we didn't build it
with a big gazebo in mind where we could sell soft drinks or cold beer. It's a
here 12 x 14 platform and it certainly adds and beatifies the outlot that we
now have as a conditional use permut. If you have any questions of me right now
I'd be happy to answer them.
Councilwoman Dirder: Yes Nick, could you tell me how many feet do you need in
variance? It's a 75 foot setback and you said you had how many?
Nick Gassman: There's no way in the way God created the landshore there on the
high water mark. When the earth came down from the rain, it broke off some of
the hill and when it did, it washed some of the dirt away. What we did was move
the dirt away to rake a cleaner area and with that, it's from the front end of
the platform to the high water mark or to where it's been the highest since the
rain, it's about 56 feet. To the back of the deck would be with 12 feet, that's
about 66-68 feet away fromi the water. I tell you that this thing is above
grade. It's not on the beach level. It's not on the water level and again I
reiterate that it's not a permanent fixture. There's no footings. 'There's no
concrete footings. PA-- did not dig any holes. It is simply a platformi laid
across two heavy timbers. That's it.
Councilwoman Dinner: So you're requesting about a 19 foot variance is that
right?
01
City Colmcil Meeting *tober 23, 1989 •
Nick Gassman: Yeah, from the 75 foot, right and again as I recall, the
information that Jo Ann has supplied us, if it's not a man created problem,
which indeed this is not, that that would be a reasonable request.
Mawr QTxiel: Tbm, did you have any questions?
Councilman Workman: I got an opportunity to stand on it today and I wish there
were a cold beer down there. It's very tastefully done as I mentioned to one of
your neighbors. It certainly doesn't look malicious.
Nick Gassman: No, and when we put it in Tom we didn't have, again we were very
sensitive to the envirorreent around it. Vie didn't want to make it obtrusive.
We were very conscience of the fact that we do have neighbors other than the
people that live on our part of the lake and from my informal survey, I'm a
fisherman as well as a lot of people around the lake, and just when I'm asking
how they're doing, I've also proudly asked them what do they think of the deck
on the beachfront and I didn't have one negative corment. I had several
comoients that said, it's good to see that there's something in that damn hole.
Excuse me.
Councilman Workman: Yeah. We've got an awful lot of building going on that we
don't know about and we end up finding out about and then it really makes it
double tough for the Council because then we...
Nick Gassman: WL- understand and that's why when Jo Ann ratified me that we had
erred, that we wanted to get this up front, on the table and go through the
necessary paperwork. Pay the appropriate fees to make it right. I mean that's
why we're here is to make it right and to do what we can to maintain it and if
you agree that it was done tastefully, that it doesn't hurt anything. There are
certain things in out conditional use permit for instance that to a lot of the
new people that have moved into Lotus Lake Estates since the signing of the
original conditional use permit, that we would just as soon gladly give back to
the City of Chanhassen like a fire pit for instance. To me a small 168 square
foot platform on 1,500 feet of lakeshore is a lot less of an eyesore or a
hinderance that a 6 foot fire pit would be in the middle of that beach which we
have permission to do and to me, and the rest of the homeowners, the majority of
the hrnueowners in my association, it seers to be a very good trade-off I guess
if there is one. I don't want to say that I'm in a position to trade because
I'm not. I'm here for the next step. For the next step to be able to maintain
our deck.
Councilman Workman: Maybe there's more than 2 ways of looking at it. One is to
look at your instance specifically and look at it on it's own merits in regards
to our ordinance and everything else. The other side is to look at it in the
general scope of things and look at it in the general scope of the entire
boundary of the lake or each lake and I don't know how many lakes we have, 11
lakes that people live an in this town?
Nick Gassman: I would agree with your responsibilities. As a person that has
the task and employed to make those decisions and considerations, I would ask
that you look at each set of circumstances that were brought to you and evaluate
them on their merits as opposed to trying to consider other things that may have
happened in the past or may sere day happen in the future. The facts as you see
61
City Council Meeting - Oc*r 23, 1989 •
them evaluate them for what their merits hold. I would hate to be the person to
sav that we know all but I think at this point in time our good faith and
honesty...
Co uicilrian Workman: Well Jo Ann, the difference between a portable, this being
portable, versus permanent.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's still a structure.
Councilman Workman: Doesn't change a darn thing does it?
Jo Ann Olsen: And again we're saving the proper way, if you want to approve
it, the proper way to do it would be to amend the ordinance.
Councilman Workman: What does that create?
Jo Ann Olsen: Create?
Councilman Workman: If we amend the ordinance.
Jo Ann Olsen: Then they would still have to go through the amen anent to the
conditional use perriit. Their conditional use permit but it gives them...
Councilman Workman: Are we talking about just decks?
Jo Ann Olsen: It's something that we could look at. We could look specifically
at just decks. At call decks. With other stipulations. Currently right now
there are no structures at all permitted on a recreational beachlot.
Nick Gassman: The interpretation of that now is a deck isn't one but it would
make sense since the comments that I've had and some of the other discussions
that we've had, we've not had staff really say that decks nay not be an
appropriate use for an outlot or a beachlot, which I think the majority of you
if you were to see what has transpired here would agree but if the Citv Council
were to maintain or retain the authority to say and modify the conditional use
permit with the variance to such thing, I'm not sure of the legal terri, but that
anything like that would have to be run through the City Council for approval.
Whether or not it maintains the environmental considerations that the City
Council would like to see. Whether it is envirormen tally conscience. Those are
types of issues that certainly ought to be addressed to the City Council. That
would make sense.
Coivicilman Workman: What I'm trying to get at is we have a 75 foot setback and
the past leaders of the City decided that 75 feet was as close as they wanted
people to get. That was based on something. If we decide that we wanted it 56
feet or 59 feet or we don't care. Maybe the deck can hang out over the edge of
the water. We're a long way from amending I think because what would be proper
there I have no idea.
Jo Ann Olsen: They would still need the variance to the setback and that is the
DNR regulation that we've adopted.
Councilman Workman: These rules from people that want to boat accesses through
7 acres of swamp so it's a mixed up world and that's an inside joke. You have
62
Citv Council Meeting 0tober 23, 1989 •
to attend all these meetings if you want to catch all these jokes. I guess I'm
Interested in listening to everybody else. Again, it looks tasteful. It's
inside the 75 foot setback. 'That's a problem. We've got all sorts of sides to
this.
Mayor CSriiel: Bill, before I go to you, I have a question I'd like to ask
Roger. How clear are we in classifying this as a structure and is staff correct•
in their assumption as to calling that a structure because it's not on
foundations.
Roger Knutson: The definition is very clear and the staff is right. Let me
read you the definition. It's all encompassing. A building, fence, shed,
advertising sign, portable structures, stockpile, dock, boardwalk, culvert, hard
surface parking area, anything constructed or erected ... and that includes
portable structures specifically.
Councilwoman Dirder: A canoe rack is a structure also?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: But we do allow that?
Roger Knutson: Yes. That's spelled out.
Councilwoman Dimler: So we can spell out decks?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: I think you're right. If you want to pursue this, you need to
go through some sort of ordinance charge. As a variance, it doesn't, in my
opinion, it doesn't meet the definition of a hardship and it doesn't have a
chance as a variance. I would suggest before you launch into an ordinance
change and it's a legitimate thing for an_v citizen to do that, is as your
neighborhood knows as well as any, your walking into a field with lard mines all
over the place. You ask about the 75 foot shoreland setback. When that was
developed and went through a comrmittee that was formed to look at this whole
thing along with recreational beachlots, fortunately I wasn't actively involved
in that but frori what I hear from a distance, it was a bloody affair and so
before your neighborhood decides to open it back up, just be sure that you
really want to wade into srnnething that will take a great deal of time. I don't
venture you're going to have this straighten out by June would be my guess and I
think the reason is because it's such an emotional issue. It's not that your
deck is such a big problem. It's that when you open up the recreational
beachlot ordinance to amendment, I think the room will probably be full of
people because so many people live on lakes as Tom mentioned and recreational
beachlots to some, as you neighborhood knows, to some people they see that as a
threat all by itself. Even without a deck so I'm just saving, go ahead and
pursue an ordinance amendment. I think the chances of this, even if you had
approval to put a deck in a beachlot, which might very well make sense to do,
your particular beachlot doesn't have the 75 feet to put it, if I understand
that correctly and I would say the chance of getting a variance to that, even if
decks were allowed, the chance of getting a variance is very slim and I would go
so far as to say impossible because those five criteria require that you have to
have a hardship. You have to have something that is required to be there in
63
City Council Meeting - Dc*r 23, 1989
order to use that beachlot that you don't now have.
Nick Gassman: Can I ask you a Qiestion? Take a for instance then. Because of
what the rain did a couple years ago, would we then be obligated to put up a
gigantic timber wall to hold back the hill which would not be 75 foot off the
water?
Councilman Boyt: That's a really good question about your obligations to
prevent erosion. I suspect there is sane obligation there but I don't know what
that is. Gary would be a good person to involve and I'm sure if you put, if
that land had slid down in the lake, you would have been obligate] to get it out
of there if you could reasonably.
Councilwa an Diriler: Bill if you're done, I have some conments.
Councilman Bovt: Well I would just sumvarize. I'd just say, yes. Go after the
ordinance. I still think you've got a problem with the variance.
Mavor Crdel: I'd pose the question to Roger and maybe Roger can clarify it a
little further with the DNR with their new proposals.
Roger Knutson: Yeah, the DNR came out with a new shoreland regulations either
in Jane or July of this past year which the cities now are just getting and
examining and there are some new rules on decks which I have just read once and
I can't tell you for sure what they are but they liberalized the requirements.
Now cities can be stricter than those requirements so you could be and that's
something you ray want to, and it might not have any affect at all. I'm not
100% can't recall exactly what it said but thev do liberalize requirements on
decks. That's a possibility and another one would be of course amending your
ordinance if you wanted to amend your ordinance.
Councilman Workman: What do you mean Roger, liberalize?
Roger Knutson: Can be closer to the water.
Councilman Workman: Because that might be seen as scriethinxg that might help say
an elderly person or a child safely enjoy the...
Roger Knutson: As I understand it, it hasn't been for recreational beachlots.
That's not where it's been aimed. There's an awful lot of old cabins on lots of
lakes all over the state where people in the old days, I guess they wanted to be
tight next to the edge of the water or fairly close to it and now they want,
someone's buying it arc] they're upgrading it and they want to put a little deck
on the front and under the existing rules they just couldn't do it. They yelled
and hollered at DNR and had input and DNR said yep, that's reasonable. We'll
allow you to put sane shall decks in front of these old cabins under these rules
so I can't tell you for sure what they say but I know they liberalized then and
it's something you'd want to take a look at or you might want to take a look at.
Councilworan Diriler: I have a few ccrments. I guess my vain concern with this
is that I would like to see us be able to dispense justice with mercy and I
think that the applicants have indicated that they're well aware that they did
something that was illegal at this point but they are trying to make it right an
I think the problem is the City doesn't have a procedure in place to help then
64
City Council Meeting October 23, 1989 •
make it right. I think they've paid their application fees and they've applied
for all the required permits again showing that they're willing to do everything
to make it right plus they applied for the variance. I'm wondering if we can
follow a 3 step procedure here which I would favor. Number one would be that we
do change the ordinance to allow decks on beachlots. The stipulations can be
considered by staff. Whatever is reasonable. I don't know if we need to go
into all of that now. I did do a little bit of research on decks on beachlots
and how the public would react and I called people on Lotus Lake, on Lake Lacy
and on Lake Riley and so fax I have found no opposition to decks in general. A
lot of riparian lot owners have decks already on Lake Riley and so I see no
reason why they can't be included on a beachlot which is owned by a number of
homeowners in joint. Also I think that the original purpose was that, for the
ordinance, number one. No decks or no structures were allowed because it was
not aesthetically pleasing perhaps or there were no stipulations in place.
Also, my main concern is to protect the quality of the water. That's why
structures shouldn't be any closer than 75 feet is to protect the quality of the
water. In this case, it's aesthetically pleasing and I can see that it doesn't
do any harm to the quality of the water whatsoever so again, if those were the
reasons for the ordinance, then I can see why we might be able to do a variance.
Also, I would recommend that we change their conditional use permit. I can't
see that if we are all willing that that would be a tough thing to do to include
a deck. Then having done that, then a variance would seem like it would come
uvdex a hardship because we're going to allow them to have a deck and they
cannot meet the 75 foot setback requirement because of the configuration of the
lot and this configuration was not self imposed so they do meet 3 of the 5
criteria.
Mayor C miel: Okay. I too like everybody else have gone down there and looked
at the deck. one of your neighbors escorted me down. I didn't find the deck
very obtrusive of course. there as we've had our discussions and some of my
concerns, but I think I can agree with some of the positions that you're taking
on it. It's really not harming anyone. The appearance is there. The safety
aspect is another thing that I look at. Children are important too and you do
get a little better observation from that deck in looking at that water. I have
a question, how many more people are here from Lotus Lake Homeowner's
Association? Okay. with that, at least we agree with some of the things that
Lk sula has indicated. With that, any other discussion?
Councilman Workman: Again, I'm trying to figure out where we're going to go
with this. Coven if this was approved, where are we headed with decks on
recreational beachlots?
Mayor C7mlel: Well there's one of the factors yet that Roger is looking at toc
and of course to see what DNR's new requirements are and they can be, we can
always have things more restrictive than what the DNR puts out but we can never
have it less than what they basically have either.
Councilman Workman: Is that what he's be doing though?
Mayor Chmiel: That would be one thing that we could look at, yes.
Jo Ann Olsen: We're doing that anyway. Right now we're looking at adopting the
new shoreland ordinance as part of our ordinance.
65
City Council meeting - Ocoer 23, 1989 •
Councilman Workman: And that says what?
Jo Ann Olsen: We don't have it specifically in front of us.
Councilman Workman: Is that the one that Roger's talking about?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
Councilman Workrian: But it will have specific...
Jo Ann Olsen: It will have specific setbacks a certain number of feet that it
has to be back.
Councilman Workman: Whv don't we wait? Leave it as it sits and create a big
agenda scmetiree down the road and wait at this point and wait until we see it.
Councilman Bovt: I think somebody's going to have to pursue putting decks on
beachlots. That's a whole separate issue frcre the setback and if this
neighborhood feels that that's important and wants to pursue it, I think they
should do it. I think that conditional use permit in regards to your beachlot
was set after a great deal of struggle between your association and the City as
I recall. I don't think we should be messing with that. We should do this
through an ordinance process. If it passes through the necessary groups and
gets approval, fine. I think there's a very good reason for having that 75 foot
shoreland protection and that's because we want to maintain some sense of lake
shoreline and so maybe 75 feet was picked somewhat arbitrarily but it provides a
cushion between that house and the shore. To see how close people can build, go
out to Lake Minnetonka and look at scree of those older homes out there. You can
sit right on the rocks next to the shore. Without some sort of a setback,
that's where people would build. I don't know what the magic distance is. Maybe
the DNR can intuite that for us so I'd be all for postponing a decision on this
if that would help. I still think the homeeowners association has got to pursue
an ordinance change to get it through.
Councilwoman Direler: Are you willing to do that? Pursue an ordinance change?
Nick Gassman: Your advice. I feel the homeowners association is committed to,
we firmly believe as you heard tonight that we are, it's a very unobtrusive
structure and it is back off the water to the point where, other than the
railing, you don't know the deck is there. Like I say it's as far back into the
hill as possible given what's been placed there by Mother Nature and our
intention by no means is to build it out into the water. 'There are a couple of
decks on Lotus Lake unfortunately already that were long before any ordinance
was probably passed that are out over the water. 'There's also a couple boat
houses that are of recent construction that are on the water and that is
screething that I don't like either frore the standpoint that that and the big
concrete, or I'm sorry, not the concrete but the stone boulder walls that have
been placed around the lakeshore, especially last sumeer during the low water
time, that when you reentioned Councilman Bovt that we want to preserve
lakeshore, that is totally the intention of Lotus Lake Estates. Perfectly the
reason why there's absolutely manicured beach area and preservation of the 1,500
feet that we're blessed with. Mich to our chagrin to the develognent along the
lakeshore, of the water to the lakeshore, has been much to our chagrin as well.
Especially the boulder walls but you write it up to well, it was a decision that
M
Cit. Council Meeting *tober 23, 1989 •
was made and we live with that decision but this 168 square foot deck or 12 x 14
and again, I would invite you or any of the members of the Council that have not
been there and seen it, your fears would be calmed if you were to see the way it
is placed. I'm amiss at not having a photograph to show you but like I say, the
ccmplimients that we've bad have been all. The complaints we've had have been
nil.
Mayor Ctmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilwrnan Dirder: I guess I'd just like, I know we gave there's a gentleman
that had a deck built and what was his namie, I forget. Anyway, basically what
we said to him was we aren't going to grant you this variance but we're not
going to do anything to you for another year so in light of that, if we're not
going to go ahead with these steps that I proposed which I still recomniend, that
we start with the ordinance change and maybe the association should pursue that
but I know that you have at least a year because we have to be consistent.
Councilman Boyt: Well I'd like to think that we could get this resolved before
the ice is off the lake.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would too.
Councilman Boyt: I think we should table this. I don't think we should pile up
variances that we haven't resolved. It doesn't leave anybody in a good
situation.
Councilwoman Dirder: What does tabling do?
Councilman Boyt: Hopefully staff can come back with how the DNR is going to
impact on this thing with their change in ordinance. If they're already changed
their statute, it's there. It's done. With that we can either pass this or
reject it based on what the DNR is proposing. Or we can at least say to than,
go back and if you can get the recreational beachlot ordinance changed to allow
this sort of structure, the setback will take care of it and we've got some
confidence it will go through.
Councilwoman Dimmer: That's what I intend. Do that rather than table it.
Because whatever the DNR comes out with or whatever they have already cane out
with and then we find out what it is, they'll still have to go through the, I
would think they'd still have to go through the ordinance change. Because decks
are not allowed at all right now no matter what setback. We'd have to allow
than to have the deck in the first place.
Councilman Boyt: If the DNR didn't change the 75 feet, then we can save then a
lot of trouble.
Councilwoman Dirder: No, but they still need to have decks as a structure
allowed on beachlots regardless of the setback. If the DNR does not require the
75 feet any long and maybe in fact only requires 46 which you have.
Nick Gassman: 56.
Councilwcman Dimler: Or 56, then you won't need the variance. If they still
need to change the ordinance to allow decks on beachlots so I'm saying that's
67
City Council Meeting - 0#e,- 23, 1989 •
why we should go ahead with that and not delay the process any further. The DNR
ruling will only affect the variance and not the ordinance.
Councilman Hoyt: If they don't get the variance, I'll bet they're not going to
Pursue the ordinance very hard.
Mayor Chmiel: That will be up to their discretion.
Nick Gassman: Only one thing that maybe I'm not making clear. The 56 foot is
quite a ways and plus the deck doesn't sit on the grade. It's up about 38
inches I think was what the measurement was. It doesn't sit on the flat so if
you were to, even if the water cane all the way up to where it was in the rain,
It would not be in the water at all. Again, I would invite you to take a look
at it. It's a long way away from the water. It's not like it's close to the
shore at all.
Mayor Chmiel: Okav, I'll look for a nation.
Councilman Hoyt: I would make the motion to table this and direct staff to come
back with the DNR regulations that impact on this decision.
Mayor 01miel: Is there a second? It dies for lack of a second.
Councilwoman Dim'ler: I would -make a motion that we follow the three steps that
I've proposed. That the homeowners association and staff get together to draft
changes to allow decks on beachlots and that stipulations be, oh what do I want
to say. I'm tired. That staff come up with the stipulations on size, color,
etc. or characteristics of the decks. That number 2, if we need the change in
their conditional use permit, to allow then the variance then. I would
recommend that they go ahead with the change in their conditional use permit and
then number 3, that after we find out what the DNR new rules are, that we see
whether they need a variance or not. If they do, then they apply for the
variance.
Mawr Chmiel: okay. Jo Ann has all that done. Is there a second?
Councilman workman: Can I have 2 explained?
Mawr Ctndel: Clarification?
Councilman workman: &plain to me 2.
Councilwoman Dimler: They have a conditional use permit which allows, how many
itenLs are you allowed?
Councilman Boyt: 7.
Councilwoman
Dirder:
7. Okay.
I couldn't find anything in there that says we
can't add or
subtract
to that.
Is that correct? Can we add to their
conditional
use permit
at this
time?
Jo Ann Olsen: No. You'd have to go...
Mawr Chmiel: You'd have to reopen the conditional use hearing.
M.-
City Council Meeting *tober 23, 1989 •
Councilwoman Dinner: Is that a long procedure?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right now we probably, until you amend the ordinance to allow a
deck as part of a codtitional use permit for a recreational beachlot, you really
can't approve it unless you approve a variance.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. The variance still has to be there.
Jo Ann Olsen: You probably should just table everything to work on this and
bring it back.
Councilman Workman: Table with those conditions?
Councilwoman Dimler: Ch dear. We don't have a starting point at all?
Jo Ann Olsen: No. Not unless you grant a variance which have to show a
hardship.
Councilwoman Dimler: We can't change an ordinance without...
Jo Ann Olsen: Without public hearing.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's what I'm saying. To start that procedure. Can we
do that?
Jo Ann Olsen: That's what we're doing. We'll have to take it back in front of
the Planning Camussion.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's my motion. So we don't want to table it right?
Jo Ann Olsen: Are you denying...
Councilman Boyt: You have to table it sunless you dery it or pass it.
Mayor Chmdel: I think by tabling with the conditions as such. It will come
back with the answers so we know what they are.
Roger Knutson: What you're doing is tabling with direction.
Councilwoman Dimler: okay. I move that we table with those 3 directions. Is
that clear?
Councilman Workman: I'll second it.
Councilman Boyt: Not exactly. On question number 2 which Tan brought up.
You're saying to go back and...
Councilwoman Dimler: If they need a change in their conditional use permit, to
make the variance a hardship. If it's not necessary, then let's not do it but
if the conditional use permit, having it in there which allows then to do it
then and then makes the variance a hardship okay because they cannot meet the 75
foot setback because of the configuration of the lot which is not self imposed.
Cfl
City Council Meeting — Oc r 23, 1989 •
Councilman Boyt: Let's ask Roger. Roger, if the conditional use permit is
changed so they are allowed to have a deck, does it then become a hardship when
they can't find a place for it?
Roger Knutson: You have to look at the property as a whole and are you getting
a reasonable use of the property. It's a Council judgment as to whether they're
getting a reasonable use of the property without the deck.
Counncilwaman Dimler: See that's why I'm saying if you include it in their
conditional use permit.
Roger Knutson: That's what they're asking fox.
Councilman Boyt: But see what we've done in the past...
Councilwoman Droller: They're saying they can have a deck and now then we have
to grant the variance because you can't meet the regnirements.
Councilman Boyt: If we go on what we've done in the past, we have said if the
City doesn't require it, than it's not a hardship if you don't have it. There's
a big diffexence between required and perrdssion to. Now I just lay before you
the bodies of all the other people who've lost their variance because the City
didn't require it. I don't think we want to mess around with those dead bones
out there.
Roger Knutson: It's just like, if someone has a house right now and let's say
they, I'll just make up some dimensions. Let's say there's a 20 foot rear yard
setback xegnirement and their house is built to the 20 foot mark. They came in
and said I want to build a deck on the back end of my house. I would advise you
that they probably don't meet the requirements for a variance because they're
getting a reasonable use of their property by most standards because they have a
house there.
Councilwoman Dimler: I understand what you're saying. My main purpose with
this was to dispense some justice with mercy and I don't think we necessarily
want to be seen as a city without mercy and these people axe really trying hard
to right the wrong that they've done.
Roger Knutson: If you find that not having that deck deprives them of
reasonable use of their property, than they qualify for a variance.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well, they don't have any grass area where they can have
people that don't want to be in the sand. Older people don't like to be in the
sand. Babies are not good in the sand. They don't have any area where they can
do that. Would that be something? They need the deck for that.
Roger Knutson: I know the answer you're looking for.
Councilman Workman: Ursula, I would not for my own...
Councilwoman Dinner: Is this a football game?
Councilman Workman: What was your statement here? Your oxiginal statement on
that?
70
City Council Meeting Wober 23, 1989 •
Councilwrnian Dunker: Justice with mercy?
Councilman Workman: Oh, that basically because somebody did a wrong we want to
help them because I think then what we're doing is we're promoting to go ahead
and do wrong.
Councilwoman Dimler: No. We have a lot of those.
Councilman Workman: I don't want that. We've got two of those tonight with one
more I think this evening.
Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that.
Mayor Qrmiel: I'd like to just suggest something. That we let staff take a
look at what we've got. That we table the situation with all those conditions
to see the alternatives and pursue it from that point. Okay?
Councilwoan Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on the
shoreland setback variance request and conditional use permit request for the
placement of a deck on a Recreational Beachlot for Lotus Lake Homeowners
Association with the following direction fox staff:
1. The homeowners association and staff get together to draft charges to allow
decks on beachlots and come up with the stipulations on size, color, etc. or
characteristics of the decks.
2. If the conditional use permit needs to be changed, to allow the variance at
that timme.
3. After finding out what the DNR new rules are, to see whether they need a
variance or not. If they do, therm apply for the variance.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Ckrmiel: Let me make a statement. As we are quickly progressing towards
midnight. We normally cut off at 12:00. We will take the next agenda item and
discuss that. The balance we will do, what nights is everyone else going to be
available?
Councilman Boyt: Thursday?
Councilwc an Dimler: Wait a minute.
Mayor Cnrmiel: I know you've sat here all night. idat are you here for this
evening?
Councilwoman Dimler: Tore Curry Farms one.
Councilman Boyt: Can we do 12(b)?
Councilwoman Dimmlex: The wetland alteration.
71
• City Council Meeting - OcW 23, 1989
Councilman Workman: Raman doesn't look happy about that.
Councilman Boy Roman's not happy about that?
Councilman Workman: I say we give each of these items 5 minutes.
Councilman Bovt: 5 minutes. It isn't going to do it.
Mayor Chmiel: No. We won't be able to touch tlEri. There's a meeting on
Thursday that I've got with the neighborhood group.
Councilman Workman: Let's set a new record for longevity.
Mayor Ch iel: Do you want to continue?
Councilman Boyt: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Let's go. I'm all for it. Let's keep moving.
RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION TO CANCEL RECYCLING CONTRACT.
Mawr Chmdel: Basically everybody knows what it's about. What we're looking
at. Wp have had the different costs brought before us and maybe a quick
ssrmariration.
Jo Ann Olsen: The quick sromary is we're recommending that you continue the
contract. Tomorrow Carver County Board will be acting on it. The staff is
recommending that they provide us the $5,000.00, whatever the odd dollars are to
Pay for the rest of this year. Again, that ties you into 1990. Wl? still think
you should go. We should continue with the contract. We have lots of options
that we can pursue that will take the cost out of the general fund so right now
you just have to make the decision whether to continue with the contract. We're
recrnoien ding you to.
Mayor Clyd 1 m
: You hear recomendations. Don and I are going to be before the
County Board ta+iorrow morning bright and early to discuss the issue on this and
to see if we can acquire the additional dollars to offset our cost for carrying
it through to the end of the year. In addition to that, of course there's also,
what about the balance of the contract for 1990 Jo Ann?
Jo Ann
Olsen:
You mean as far
as paying for that? Well they are not, as fax as
Carver
County
staff, they are
not making any recpmiendation on a number, dollar
figure.
They
are essentially
saying let's wait and see.
Mayor Cruel: Okay. Any discussions?
Councilman Boyt: Okay. If we pass this, it should only be with the condition
that as of January 1 no money is taken out of the general fund. There is, do
You have the percent of participation for the month of October? We're not
finished with that. The month of September?
Jo Ann Olsen: Not yet, no.
72
f
z
a
U
—J
CL
A
Q
W
41:,ITY OF
CHAN%iASSEN
STAFF REPORT
OC. DATE: 9-20-89--`�
C.C. DATE: 10-9-89
CASE NO: 84-8 VARIANCE
84-8 CUP
Prepared by: Olsen:k
PROPOSAL: Variance to the conditions for a recreational
beachlot and an amendment to a conditional use
permit for a recreational beachlot. Actlor by C!}
Endorsed ✓
Modified_.
Rejected_.__ .
LOCATION: Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates Date �
Date Submitted to C.
APPLICANT: Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association
6800 Brule Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 92,700 square feet
DENSITY: N/A
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- PUD; wetlands and Fox Hollow
S- RSF; single family
E- RSF; single family
W- Lotus Lake
WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARAC.:
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
Lotus Lake Homeowners Association
September 20, 1989
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-263 provides specific minimum standards for a
recreational beachlot as a conditional use. Section 20-263(2)
states that "no structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing
house, camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle or shelter
shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beachlot" (Attachment W .
The ordinance defines a deck as a structure and the Building
Department confirmed that it should have received a building per-
mit.
BACKGROUND
The Lotus Lake Estates subdivision was approved by the City
Council on January 5, 1979 (Attachment #2). The City Council
approved a conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot
on July 21, 1980, and approved an amended permit on August 31,
1981 (Attachment #3). On November 19, 1984, the City Council
approved another amendment to the conditional use permit
authorizing the installation of four sailboat moorings
(Attachment W .
In December, 1985, the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association filed
suit against the city to allow additional docking and overnight
storage of boats. On June 16, 1986, the City Council approved a
zoning ordinance amendment to allow additional docks and over-
night storage of boats on a recreational beachlot and amended the
Lotus Lake Estates conditional use permit. The amended con-
ditional use permit allowed the following uses:
1. One sand blanket swim area.
2. A pedestrian walkway.
3. Four boat racks.
4. Three docks with no more than 9 watercraft being stored
overnight.
5. One 10 foot by 10 foot swimming raft.
6. One conversation pit fire hole.
7. Four sailboat moorings.
In the spring of 1989, staff was contacted by a representative of
the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. The Homeowners
Association was interested in constructing a deck on the Lotus
Lake Estates recreational beachlot. Staff explained that the
Zoning Ordinance specifically did not permit structures on
recreational beachlots and that it was not a permitted use as
part of their existing conditional use permit. Staff further
explained that a variance to the conditions of the ordinance and
an amendment to their existing conditional use permit would be
necessary. Staff was not further contacted by the Lotus Lake
Homeowners Association.
•
Lotus Lake Homeowners Association
September 20, 1989
Page 3
During the summer of 1989, staff was viewing sites with some
residents from Lotus Lake and noticed that the Lotus Lake Estates
recreational beachlot had constructed the proposed deck on the
beachlot. Staff contacted the homeowners association to state
that the deck was in violation of the ordinance and in violation
of their conditional use permit. Staff informed the homeowners
association that they must make an application for the deck or
that the City would have to refer the matter to the City
Attorney's office and code enforcement division. The homeowners
association contacted staff and proceeded with the application
process.
ANALYSIS
Currently the Lotus Lake Estates recreational beachlot is allowed
to have one sand blanket swim area, a pedestrian walkway, four
boat racks, three docks with no more than nine boats docked over-
night, one 10' x 10' swimming raft, one conversation pit fire
hold, and four sailboat moorings. The Lotus Lake Estates
recreational beachlot conditional use permit also prohibits,
except for alterations previously described, any structure, pier,
boatrack, mooring, buoy or swimming platform.
The applicant is requesting permission to maintain the existing
deck on the Lotus Lake Estates recreational beachlot. The deck
is 12' x 14' and is located on the sand beach approximately 56
feet from the ordinary high water mark of Lotus Lake. Since spe-
cific conditions of the zoning ordinance and the conditional use
permit for the recreational beachlot state that a structure is
not permitted, a variance to the conditions of the Zoning
Ordinance and an amendment to the conditional use permit must be
received in order for the deck to be maintained on the
recreational beachlot. In addition, the deck is within the 75
ft. setback of the shoreland as required by the Shoreland
Ordinance and a variance to the setback must be approved by the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
A hardship must be proven for a variance to the zoning ordinance
to be granted. variance to the ordinance. A hardship exists
when the strict enforcement of the ordinance does not allow use
of the property.
Since the existing recreational beachlot has several uses
approved for the site, it would be difficult for the applicant to
prove hardship if the deck is not permitted to remain on the
beachlot. Staff does not feel that a deck on a recreational
beachlot is necessarily an inappropriate use, but cannot recom-
mend a variance be granted to the zoning ordinance. If the
Planning Commission and City Council feel that a deck is an
appropriate use for a recreational beachlot, then the proper way
to allow it is to amend the zoning ordinance. It would not be
proper to grant a variance to the conditions of the zoning ordi-
nance since a hardship does not exist.
Lotus Lake Homeowners Association
September 20, 1989
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny the request
for a variance to the conditions of the zoning ordinance for a
recreational beachlot.
Should the Planning Commission and City Council feel that a deck
is an appropriate use for a recreational beachlot, then they
should direct staff to proceed with a zoning ordinance amendment
to permit decks/structures on recreational beachlots. If the
zoning ordinance is amended, the applicant could then apply to
amend their conditional use permit. It should be understood that
the applicant will still have to receive a variance to the
shoreland ordinance which requires proof of a hardship.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request for the
variance to the conditions of the recreational beachlot.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending the City Council deny the request for a
variance to the conditions of the zoning ordinance for a
recreational beachlot.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Excerpt from City Code.
2. City Council minutes dated January 5, 1979.
3. City Council minutes dated July 21, 1980.
4. City Council minutes dated November 19, 1984.
5. Current conditional use permit for recreational beachlot.
6. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated July 24, 1989.
7. Application.
8. Site plan.
9. Planning Commission minutes dated September 20, 1989.
ZONING § 20-263
d. One (1) percolation test per drainfield site where the land slope is between
thirteen (13) and twenty-five (25) percent.
(2) Areas where the land slope exceeds twenty-five (25) percent shall not be considered as
a potential soil treatment site.
(3) The sewage treatment system must be in conformance with chapter 19, article IV.
(4) School and day care uses accessory to the church use are not permitted unless
approved by the city council.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(7)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20.260. Private stables.
The following applies to private stables:
(1) Stables shall comply with chapter 5, article III.
(2) Stables must be located a minimum of two hundred (200) feet from wetland areas.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(8)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-261. State -licensed day care centers.
The following applies to state -licensed day care centers:
(1) The site shall have loading and drop off points designed to avoid interfering with
traffic and pedestrian movements.
(2) Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual
and noise impacts on adjoining residential areas.
(3) Each center shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(9)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-262. Hospitals and health care facilities.
The following applies to hospitals and health care facilities:
(1) The site shall have direct access to collector or arterial streets, as defined in the
comprehensive plan.
(2) Emergency vehicle access shall not be adjacent to or located across a street from any
residential use.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(10)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-263. Recreational beach lots.
The following minimum standards apply to recreational beach lots conditional use in
addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed in the permit:
(1) Recreational beach lots shall have at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage.
1175
E
§ 20.263 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(2)
No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house, camper, trailer, tent, recrea-
tional vehicle or shelter shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beach lot.
(3)
No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles,
motorized mini -bikes, all -terrain vehicles or snowmobiles shall be driven upon or
parked upon any recreational beach lot.
(4)
No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight camping.
(5)
Boat launches are prohibited.
(6)
No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight
mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a
recreational beach lot is allowed more than one (1) dock, however, the allowed
number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sail boat moorings shall also be
allowed. Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats may be stored over-
night 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.
(M
No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at least two
hundred (200) feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least a one hundred -foot depth.
No more than one (1) dock may be erected on a recreational beach lot every two
i
hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty thousand (30,000) square feet
of land is required for the first dock and an additional twenty thousand k20,000)
square feet is required for each additional dock. No more than three (3) docks,
\
however, shall be erected on a recreational beach lot.
(8) No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width, and no such dock
shall exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet or the minimum straight-line distance
necessary to reach a water depth of four (4) feet. The width (but not the length) of the
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.
(9) No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided, however, that the
owner of any two (2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one (1) common dock within
the dock setback zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the common
dock is the only dock on the two (2) lakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise cont orms
with the provisions of this chapter.
(10) No sailboat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at
least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. No more than one )1) sail boat mooring_
shall be allowed for every two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage.
(11) A recreational beach lot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for the
subdivision of which it is a part. For purposes of this paragraph, the following terms
1176
tea,
�ouncil Meeting August 31ft1 0
C :ouncilwoman Swenson moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilman
.:rn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson,
-_,uncilmen Geving and Horn. Hearing closed at 9:00 p.m.
%ORTH SERVICE AREA SEWER AND WATER REASSESSMENT: Councilman Geving moved to set a
�ecial Council meeting for September 8, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. and direct staff to provide
:5atever answers are needed to the questions asked in the correspondence received
_onight. ?lotion seconded by Acting Mayor Neveaux. The following voted in favor:
acting `favor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes.
`'otion carried.
';ES HORIZON HOMES: Frank Kurvers asked why the disturbed lands in Chaparral have not
een seeded. The Engineer will check into this and take appropriate steps, if needed.
::ORTHWEST LOTUS LAKE ROAD SYSTEMS: Homeowners in the area were present to discuss
a
,onnecting various roads within those areas presently being considered for development.
:;o action was taken.
:RONT YARD VARIANCE REQUEST, 7616 FRONTIER TRAIL: Mr. Coulter is requesting an eight
:lot front yard variance in order to construct a detached double garage. The Board
i Adjust-
ments and Appeals recommends approved.
:ouncilwoman Swenson moved to approve the front yard setback variance request, Planning
to lase 81-6. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting
"iyor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes.
:n :'otion carried.
CO%DITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST, LOTUS LAKE ESTATES BEACH LOT: The Lotus
LaKe estates Homeowners Association is requesting an amendment to their conditional
Ise permit for the following changes:
Five, 50 foot seasonal docks. Each dock to contain eight boat slips.
Two additional canoe/small sailboat racks storing six watercraft each.
3. Ten sailboat mooring buoys for sailboats.
`ne 10' x 10' swimming raft of wood construction with flotation.
Conversation pit - fire hole, three feet in diameter with a six foot apron of brick
or masonary construction.
:'any residents of Lotus Lake Estates as well as residents around Lotus Lake were present.
-e Planning Commission held a public hearing on August-12, 1981, as recommended
approval of the amendment to be modified as by the recommendation of the Lake Study
Cnmmittee in memo of June 24, 1981 as follows:
Only one dock should be permitted (not to exceed fifty feet in length, unless
necessary to reach a water depth of four feet).
-• Two additional canoe racks should be permitted allowing a maximum of four racks.
3• '<o sailboat mooring buoys or overnight docking of boats should be permitted
(including on -land boat storage).
+• A 10' x 10' swimming raft should be permitted if it is located in water having
a minimum depth of seven feet, is not more than one -hundred feet from the nearest
lake shoreline, and projects a minimum of one foot but not more than five feet
,hove the lake surface.
3• the proposed conversation pit should not be so constructed as to be of a permanent
nature (i.e. using brick or masonry material).
< Cnuncilma❑ Geving moved to deny the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowner's Association
"'Plicatiun for an amendment to their present conditional use permit as applied for
is Lheir .June 10, 1981, unsigned letter and referencing all illustrations and all
'at,rials relating to the ecology of Lotus Lake as presented in the Council Agenda.
`:otion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor
::eveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. `lotion
carried'
C)OA
Council Meeting AuA0 31, 1981 0 -14-
Councilwoman Swenson moved to accept the Planning Commission recommendations of
August 12, 1981, page 8, with modifications as follows:
1. One dock should be permitted (not to exceed 50 feet in length, unless necessar,.
to reach a water depth of four feet). Said dock may have the configuration of"
40 feet with a ten foot platform at the end. Said dock to be located in the
position of the southerly most shown dock.
2. Two additional canoe/small sailboat racks should be permitted allowing a
maximum of four racks.
3. No sailboat mooring buoys or over night docking of boats should be permitted
(including on -land boat storage except as in #2 above).
4. A 10' x 10, swimming raft should be permitted if it is located in water having
a minimum depth of seven feet, is not more than 100 feet from the nearest lake
shoreline, and projects a minimum of one foot but not more than five feet
above the lake surface. The corners to be reflectorized.
5. A conversation pit - fire hole, three feet in diameter with a six foot apron
erected of brick or masonry material placed on the landward side of the
walkway and no further north than the northerly lot line of Lot 32.
Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Councilwoman
Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Acting Mayor Neveaux voted no. Motion
failed.
Councilwoman Swenson moved to accept the Planning Commission recommendations of
August 12, 1981, page 8, with modifications as follows:
1. One dock should be permitted (not to exceed 50 feet in length, unless necessary
to reach a water depth of four feet). Said dock may have the configuration of
40 feet with a ten foot platform at the end. Said dock to be located in the
position of the southerly most shown dock. The overnight docking of four
16' non -motorized rowboats will be allowed.
2. Two additional canoe/small sailboat racks should be permitted allowing a i
maximum of four racks.
3. No sailboat mooring buoys or overnight docking of boats should be permitted
(including on -land boat storage except as in #2 above).
4. A 10' x 10' swimming raft should be permitted if it is located in water having
a minimum depth of seven feet, is not more than 100 feet from the nearest lake
shoreline, and projects a minimum of one foot but not more than five feet
above the lake surface. The corners to be reflectorized.
5. A conversation pit - fire hole, three feet in diameter with a six foot apron
erected of brick or masonry material placed on the landward side of the
walkway and no further north than the northerly lot line of Lot 32.
Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor
Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
Acting Mayor Neveaux noted that the Council considered a moratorium for the
consideration of motorized boat usage on homeowners and beach lot proposals for
this application and future applications but that no official decision was taken.
A review of the matter will be prepared by the City Attorney and submitted to the
Council by September 14 at which time consideration of scheduling a public hearing
will be held.
r uvnL OLVCLOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, PARK II, INSTANT WEB: Frank Beddor was present.
The City Planner presented the Planning Report. Since the Planning Commission
meeting the applicant has agreed to delete the lot line between Lots 1 and 2,
Block 2 as the Planning Commission did not recommend for a direct egress from
proposed Lot 2 onto County Road 17. The Planning Commission has recommended
approval of the request for C-2 zoning for Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1 and Lots 1 and
2, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 3. However, a new public hearing will have to be
held to approve this zoning as the initial hearing was held for P-3 zoning.
ii
ti :ouncil Meeting Nove�- 19, 1984 _5_
Councilman Geving - Other than changing the names of the streets, I don't have any
other questions.
Barb Dscv - 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 AMr'[IDNIES]T REQUEST TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE, WAREHOUSING AND COLD
STORAGE AS CONDITIONAL USES IN C-3 COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICTS:
Councilman Horn moved approval of a Zoning Ordinance amens ent to allow outdoor
storage, warehousing and cold storage as conditional uses in the C-3 Commercial
Service District, Planning Case 84-5. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and
Geving. No negative votes. Notion carried.
CHANHASSEN ESTATES SEWER PROBLEM -
Don Ashworth - It did hit over a weekend and we do not pay for stand-by time so we
haw to look to, hopefully, finding someone at hone. 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 hones 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
s if the City is a fault that our 'insurance coverage does cover that. If am confident
that it was a main line back-up. It does not happen very often but when it does
happen it is a real problem.
PROPOSED LOTUS LAKE ESTATES BEACHLOT IMPROVE4E2,T15:
Mayor Hamilton - Two parrs to it, variance request to install one additional dock
ana 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 croon. 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
A 7rAWA*FW 07
Council Meeting November 10 384 -6-
the Council feels that way then there needs to be a motion accepting the findings of
fact. If the Council agrees that no final action has been taken, a motion to that
affect should also be expressed. The proposal before us can be interpreted as a new
Proposal since it asks for five motorized boats at the existing dock and a new dock
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. Tbat'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 Thomason - As I recall, we denied it.
Barb Dacy - It's in the last part of your attachments.
Councilwoman Watson - The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the petition
August 8th. The Commission voted unanimously to deny the Lotus Lake Estates
Recreational Beachlot improvements in a.motion by J. Thompson and seconded by Albee.
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 mace 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 back through those minutes
twice. He is slightly disappointed with tow that was actually worded in the minutes
from the standpoint that the finding of fact recommendation came from the City
Attorney. He had anticipated that you may end up in a court case with this par-
ticular item from one side or the other and that the City would be best served by
placing those findings into a written form. If the Council determines that the
action was final on August 20th then those findings of fact really mean nothing from
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 cone 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 cam-ents
and Tom had again suggested that your first vote on this item be, what was your
intent and however you answer that you will be following your procedures. In other
L.
Council Meeting Novej 19, 1984 (P -?-
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 reapply 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 cemmment 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 out 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
}{1 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 coat 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
hack 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.
Mayor Hamilton - Based on what my recollection was of all the discussion that ensued
after the motion was made it was that the action of that evening was not final and
that we were going to, after we received the attorney's comments, review it again
and be certain that that was exactly what we wanted to do and then when we did
review tnose comments we didn't take action again at that time because we felt that
perhaps if we talked to the homeowners group that we could reach a mutual
understanding, something that could be discussed again.
Council Meeting November 1#84
Mayor Hamilton - It wasn't my intent to make it final. I still don't think it's
final.
Peter Beck - I remember that August 20th meeting, I asked, is this final, should I
even bother to cage 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 room 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 how we have been
proceeding until today and I still think it's a gaol 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.
Mayor Hamilton - I need a motion, used 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 is went to the Board 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 hack 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
t1me.
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 Gevinq - I don't think you are going to get a better version of that
September loth findings and decisions.
i
L.
Council Meeting NOVemC *9, 1984
Mayor Hamilton - The evening that we discussed this Z still feel that item #8 was
the �� o or ur 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
staff's ability to convey what the attorney was reccmnending. He was recommend*
that you not take final action that right. you established the point that you ing
wished to see included in a findings of fact dociarent and have that presented back
so then your final decision would be based on a document. It doesn't change the
did.
vote and it doesn't change the minutes as a valid representation of what it was you
Councilwoman Watson - Regardless of these facts and findings in September, the vote
tcox August and Z 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 f 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 them. 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 Aacv - 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 Gevina - I would propose that that be done with the waiver of the fee for
the Board of AZlustments 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 weexs.
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 is 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 members voted in favor and motion carried.
Beachlots:
a. First Reading of an Amendment to Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance No.
47 to Amend Section 6.04, Section 7.04 and Section 14.04
(Recreational Beachlots), City of Chanhassen.
b. First Reading of an Amendment to Section 3.04 of Water Surface
Usage Ordinance No. 73.
C. Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Allow a Total of 3 Docks to be
Constructed on Outlot B and to Allow Overnight Storage on these
Docks of a Total of 9 Watercraft without Restrict ons as to
Whether said Watercraft are motorized or Non -motorized
Don Ashworth: When the Planning Commission reviewed this item, there
appeared to be a great deal of emphasis placed on the fact that the lawsuit
and that was really the reason that this item was coming back to the City
Council. I disagree with that position. This issue is being considered on
its merits. 'the lawsuit potentially did hasten that process, but is really
not the reason for such. The City Staff is responsible to process and
review applications that come before the City. In that process we look at
the reasonableness of an ordinance and its consistency of enforcement. The
reasonableness of an ordinance is very subjective. The best example would
be the City Council has a lot of discretion in terms of establishing a new
ordinance that would require a 50 foot setback. A developer can come in
and question the reasonableness of that type of ordinance. He could
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 sane of the initial questions were
one of should the developer be allowed to have a beachlot, should there be
3
n
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
riparian rights associate] with that? The Council looked to trying to
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 of 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, Led 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 came 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. [finder 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 become one of reasonableness
and consistency of enforcement. The issue of the ordinance amendments that
you have in front of you are the same ordinance amendments that were
introduced by Councilwoman Swenson at that point in time, one year ago. I
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 Lacy: 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
t 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
i just highlight the major changes between existing beachlot ordinance and
7
0 9
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. 4he 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 says three 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 at this time is ask if there are any citizen comments dealing 6
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 Prillaman 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 come
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.
Fnforcability 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
0
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 pe,=ts so that would be
a potential 52 watercraft. Now when a beachlot is processed this triggers
what they call a PUD count which takes one boat for each of that 75 feet
then they add 50%. So in the case of 1,000 feet, the DNR would allow 20
boats. This is their regulations so they do take into consideration PUD's
in that form. Just clarification.
Don Ashworth: The question of reasonableness is a decision of a City
Council. Other cities typically define reasonableness of an ordinance to
mean one of the ability of existing beachlots, in this case or whatever the
use happens to be, to conform to the existing ordinance or the ordinance
that is proposed to be passed, and reasonableness in terms of your ability 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 lore 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 intend to bring
it up when the Council discusses this, we will get into that. I was
uncomfortable with that same issue and that was one of the points I wanted
to bring up so perhaps in our discussions here, that will answer your
question. I have some comments that I would like to make prior to the
Council's discussion of this issue. 'There are a few statements that I am
going to read to you.
Based on comments made by residents and Commission members, there seems to
be a need for clarification of some questions. The City Council has
responsibility of maintaining and directing growth and development in this
community for all interested persons. That includes residents and non-
residents alike. All ordinances are open to challenge at any time. It's
not a this year, not next year arrangement. It is anticipated that at the
time of passage, ordinances will stand the test of time. Unfortunately
situations arise that can diminish the legality or usefulness of a
particular ordinance. When that occurs, the ordinance will be reviewed and
changes made, if necessary. The Council has a responsibility to be fair
and impartial to everyone. The residents, future residents, commercial
organizations and employees of commercial organizations, visitors and
guests. Chanhassen is not an island or a community that is suddenly
stopping development. I refer to this as "I have mine now don't let
anyone else in" syndrome. Some residents have suggested that the Council
knuckles under to pressure or to developers. We have an obligation on this
Council to listen to each and every request made. To consider an issue, if
it is requested every year and to review that every year it is requested.
This Council continually examines questions and dissects all proposals
brought before us. In my opinion there are very few errors made in our
decision making process. Unfortunately, in today's society experts can be
hired to give an opinion on anything and if you don't like what the first
expert said, hire another, who for a price will also be an expert. Most of
these experts are attorneys, in my opinion, looking for something to do. I
heard a story the other day that I actually thought was humorous. 'The
fellow said that he understands that experimental laboratories are going to
start using attorneys in their experiments rather than white mice for two
reasons, because there are more of them and because you don't become quite
as attached to them. The City of Chanhassen has assembled a team of
professionals to advise the Council on technical matters. outside consultants
are also used to advise the Staff and Council when necessary. one of the
major factors in building a team is trust and confidence in their
abilities. I have a great deal of trust and confidence in the entire staff
of the City of Chanhassen. The Council and Staff goes out of its way to
11
:jir76?.
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
and fair treatment to all residents in the future will occur. I would like
to now have the Council make their comments and questions about the
amendment to the recreational beachlot ordinance 47.
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 50 feet of lakeshore. Believe me, I am one of the most
emotional advocates of saving lakes and saving trees and those things, I
would say of anyone of the Council, but I have a little trouble with that
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. Tb the issue or when -these ideas oriciiated,
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 came 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 L !!
number of uses we had. If we were to look at that, it would appear to me
12
~�Y
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. Ebr 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 homes 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 condition 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 donne 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
beachlot ordinance has to be amended. We probably don't like beachlots but
they are a fact of life. If we can eliminate and at least attempt to came
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
community.
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 canprcmise 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 sane 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
there. Moving down then, 100 would give you 80.
Mayor Hamilton: In applying that ratio to the outlots that are in
existence, the only outlot that does effect would be Frontier Trail. They
have 180 feet of lake frontage and 105,000 square feet of space. The rest
of them don't have the square footage required or they don't have the
frontage required but again it is an arbitrary number that would be
selected and I'm not sure how you would select that number. It could be
1,000, 2,000, 5,000, 10,000. Let's say you had 150 feet of lakeshore, you
would then be required to have 55,900 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
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. Rhe 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. Ebr 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
T 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
L area is but as you move south down toward the beach ro
deep or shorter and shorter so that p becomes less
possibility of a beachlot
t 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
of.
i
17
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
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
J S2
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: Wb 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 10, 1986 which states: No recreational beachlot shall be used for
the purpose of overnight storage of more than three (3) motorized or non -
motorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more
than one dock, however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up
21
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
that are amicably against this and you people are for it. It is all the I
same. W
e are using the same criteria. I don't understand it.
Mayor Hamilton: Probably the Council discussed this issue, as Pat said, a
Couple years ago. I have been one of those who wanted to discuss it and
probably was I who asked to have it on the agenda because I thought the
ordinance was unfair to the city. I have not been in favor of not allowing
overnight storage on the lakes. The Council has discussed it perhaps more
than the Planning Commission has. I don't know if we had any information
that the Planning Cmmission did not have. Everything that we have had
should have been passed on to the Planning Commission. I think it was
simply a matter of this body has been more in favor of change to the
ordinance at this time rather than the Planning Commission.
Councilman Geving: I think too Tom, that this body has been together for
the last four years and we put this ordinance together. I think the
Planning Commission has turned over somewhat during that time and there are
probably some new commission members that are not as familiar as we are
with this subject. I do know that all the information, all the notes and
data we have was given to them so Tom, I can only respond the same way that
I think we were quite a bit more familiar with this issue than the Planning
Commission.
Jack Melby: 40 Hill Street. I would like to know if you think that the
ordinance with these changes is as defensible or more defensible than the
old ordinance. 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
4
-1 •-1
ti y
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
l
t
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
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. C_ j
22
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 Coalitional 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.
T Roger Knutson: It is noted that this will have to be continued upon your
3}i 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
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
July 24, 1989
Mr. Nicholas Gassman
Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association
6800 Brule
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Gassman:
It has come to my attention that a deck has been constructed on the
Lotus Lake Estates Recreational Beachlot. I was contacted this spring
by residents from Lotus Lake Estates questioning whether or not a deck
could be located on the recreational beachlot. I explained at that
time that it would require a variance to the shoreland ordinance, a
building permit and an amendment to the conditional use permit for the
recreational beachlot. No effort was made to obtain any of these
required permits prior to the construction of the deck. The deck on
the recreational beachlot is in violation of the following:
1. The 75 foot setback of the Shoreland Ordinance.
2. Requirement to receive a building permit.
3. Violation of the conditional use permit for the recreational
beachlot.
You are required to apply for a variance to the 75 foot setback, apply
for a building permit and apply for an amendment to the conditional
use permit for the recreational beachlot. Application for the
variance, conditional use permit amendment and building permit must be
made by September 11, 1989. If the city does not receive an applica-
tion by that time or hear from the association, it will be necessary
for this office to refer the matter to our City Attorney's Office and
the Code Enforcement Division.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Jo Ann Olsen
Senior Planner
cc: Don Ashworth
Scott Harr
Roger Knutson
August 28, 1989
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Jo Ann:
On behalf of Lotus Lake Homeowners Association, I am submitting to
you a formal request for a variance to our existing Conditional Use
Permit.
I am enclosing the following:
-Site plan including names and legal description of lots within
500 feet of the deck.
-Names, addresses (in label form) of all current Lotus Lake
Homeowners in our Association.
-Proposed wording for the variance to the existing Conditional
Use Permit.
-Land Development Application
-Check for $150 for Conditional Use Permit.
Please let me know if there is anything else required. I will be happy
to provide it for you.
Thank you Jo Ann for your help and assistance.
Sincer I t
L
Nic D. Gassman
6800 Brule Circle
Chanhassen, MN
Phone: 934-8408 or 829-7600
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: Lotus Lake Estates
ADDRESS Homeowners Association
Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 829-7600
REQUEST:
Zoning District Change
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Variance
OWNER:
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE 934-8408 Zip Code
Planned Unit Development
Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
_X
Conditional Use Permit Amendment Metes and Bounds
Site Plan Review
Street/Easement Vacation
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Beach Deck
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION OUTLOT B - Neighborhood Rec Area
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION OUTLOT B - same
PRESENT ZONING OUTLOT B - Lotus Lake Estates
REQUESTED ZONING same
USES PROPOSED same
SIZE OF PROPERTY same
LOCATION OUTLOT B Lotus Lake Estates
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Variance for existing Conditional Use Permit
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary)
City of Chanhate❑
Land Development Application
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS:
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and
Plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before
filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application.
FILING CERTIFICATION;
The u
thatheeislfamiliar rwith tthe vProceduralprequirementsbofe of the aplicnt hereycaert
llifies
applicable City Ordinances.'
Signed By
Applicant Date
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described.
Signed By
Fee Owner Date
Date Application Received
Application Fee Paid
City Receipt No.
* This Application will be considered by the Planning Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their Commission/
meeting.
August 26, 1989
Proposed Amendment to Conditional Use Perm
Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association is proposing to the
City of Chanhassen an addition to the existing Conditional Use
Permit for the Beachlot - Lotus Lake Estates (Outlot B). The
addition is to Section 2.04 entitled "Certain Site Alterations
Authorized":
h. One 12' x 14' Recreational Deck, to be located in the
manner depicted on the modified site plan (Exhibit A).
The recreational deck will be constructed above grade
and without permanent footings to minimize the
environmental impact.
City of Chanhoen •
Land Development Application
Page 2
FILING INSTRUC'"IONS:
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and
Plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before
filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application.
FILING CERTIFICATION -
The
Signed By
Applicant Date
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to maize this application -or the property herein
described.
Signed By
Fee Owner Date
Date Application Received
Application Fee Paid
City Receipt No.
' Thia Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/
Board of Adjust-ments and Appeals at their
meeting.
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 20, 1984, the City's Board of
Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing and approved a
variance to allow four sailboat moorings. The City Council, by
its motion of November 19, 1984, approved issuance of a revised
Permit authorizing the installation of said moorings.
1.10. May, 1986 Application for Amendment of Permit. The
City of Chanhassen initiated a Conditional Use Permit Amendment
application requesting further development of the Subject
Property.
1.11. City Council Approval. On May 28, 1986, the City's
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment appli-
cation. On July 7, 1986, the City Council approved the issuance
of a revised permit authorizing further development of the
Subject Property.
SECTION 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
2.01. Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal
to the Association, and is not assignable or transferable, except
upon the written consent of the City.
s
-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 followi
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-
11
C�
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 describe0
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 wort 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
reimbure the City for all costs, including reasonable engi-
neering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by
the City in connection with all matters relating to the admi-
nistration and enforcement of the within permit and the perfor-
mance thereby by the Association. Such reimbursement shall be
made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of the,.
City's notice of costs as provided in Section 4.05 above.
0
This reimbursement obligation of the Association under this sec-
tion shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term of this
permit.
5.02. Remedies Upon 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 her to have caused these
presents to be executed on the S day of �0,regq, Z /`)¢ ,
LOTUS LAKE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
17
By Y! Jc Jh.
I t s
And
Its
—7—
u
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By L
I Ma or
Attest -Z(/ (ILCZ?
City Clerk/Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
COUNTY OF )
On this W day of Wead7tg' , before me, a notary
public, within and for saiTcounty, personally appeared
(Sory - 1 e c , and Tereoace_ V• (3 Ore u- , to
me pers nally 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 (ter A iigL. i. and %ere,w� ✓ 064eo,
acknowledge said instrument to be the free a and deed of said
corporation.
RICK D. MURRAV
y NOTARY PUBLIC - MNM IM
CARVER COUNTY Notary Public
,I MY C� Expp A" 14. IWI
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
On this 16"44 day of /LT�•' , 1996, 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.
KARENi
ELHARDT o aryublic
NOTARY C - MINNESOTACARCOUNTYW --avv" IN16a1
-8-
Buchanans
Block 2
Lot 31
Peroutka
Block 2 Swanson
Lot 32 Block 2
Lot 33
LOTUS LAKE ESTATES
SITE PLAN FOR OUTLOT B
Fricks Laceys
Block 2 Block 2
Lot 34 Lot 35
Proposed Deck-,
WcR
Khan
Block 1
Lot 8
Williams
Block 1
Lot 9
r,
6WIMMWp •REA
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
JIi�V 2'; 1986
CHANHASSEN PLANNING OEPT.
0
• s.REo•r ummn
s
E
0
September 1, 1989
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Variance for 75' Setback Ordinance
Dear Jo Ann:
Thank you for meeting with me on Monday. I appreciated the time you
took to discuss our Associations beach deck and the items I presented
to you for review.
Per your instruction, I am enclosing a check in the amount of $75.00
so the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association may apply for a variance
to the 75' Setback Ordinance.
On behalf of the entire Association, I want to assure you we will
do whatever the City feels is necessary in order for the deck to be
acceptable. We are grateful for your input and direction. Please
let me know if there is anything else I can provide to resolve this
matter.
Sincerely,
Nic Gassman
6800 Brule Circle
Chanhassen, MN
Phone: 934-8408 or 829-7600
Encl
V �.o
S EP 0 5 1989
w I Y Of CHANHASSEN
11Q11{X�
8069-�F6-217�1 �`I�77I n'N7H.7
$107 .:rp S3191S3 3av7 sntm
1191 x,rt
l rQzz"-r7
II
SirE f IAnI
coTaS 4aCE Z7Z7ES cne Zor 8
NSA' dlssAVAV
6 600 -' RfJJ.6 CsictE
CNdN.Y.45SFi✓ FGJZ-97�_ 84pe
Exhibir A
Planning Commission ifeting
September 20, 1989 - Page 63
0
Conrad: And I think when we don't see something on a plan, I think that's
a problem. We've been burned before many times when there's been vacant
things and there's all sorts of expectations built in. I think staff has
interpretted it differently than maybe in the past and in this particular
case, you've heard us say that we probably would be open to looking at
that. Yet on the other hand I heard some very serious concerns that staff
didn't feel 78th had a good access. I think Market has some potential in
My mind but I don't think there was a mandate that said yeah, you would. It
wasn't closed down in my mind but it certainly didn't say that there was
that great potential.
Clayton Johnson: I think you can understand our point. We don't want to
proceed until that's resolved.
Conrad: Absolutely and I think it's to your benefit of course to do that.
(Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and Steve Emmings took over as
chairman of the meeting.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A DECK ON THE RECREATIONAL
BEACHLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, AND LOCATED WEST OF CHOCTAW CIRCLE ALONG
LOTUS LAKE, LOTUS LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Emmings: Just clarify one thing for me. Even if we change the ordinance
to allow a deck on a recreational beachlot, they still couldn't build it
without a variance because you can't build a structure within 75 feet of
the high water mark. Is that right?
Olsen: They would still need a variance and they would still have to come
back through and amend their conditional use permit.
Emmings: Okay. Is the applicant here and do they want to present
anything?
Nick Gassman: Good evening. My name is Nick Gassman. I am the
representative of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. What Jo Ann has
laid out there for you is fairly true. The deck is existing. It's an
existing structure. It's 12 x 14. It's above grade. It's not a permanent
structure. There's no footings. It's sitting on a beam arrangement. It
can be moved and lifted and moved around. The deck was put there for, I
don't know what the definition of a hardship is but it was put there for
primarily three reasons. First of all we had, during the rain 2 years ago,
we had part of the hill wash out and it left a very eve sore where it left
pulled shrubs and trees down. We filled that with exactly what the size of
the deck is, 12 x 14. It's also being used for some of the folks in our
neighborhood don't use the deck area because they're of more of a senior
level age. They want to go down there and watch kids, grand kids, etc.
Planning Commission Oeting
September 20, 1989 - Page 64
They want to be in the shade. This area allows for that on the deck. It
allows them a solid platform. They can sit up and not be in the sand and
do that. It also allows mothers better visibility because it is up higher.
It's about 3 foot above grade and it allows them again to watch their kids
swimming and things like that in our swimming area. It's also
aesthetically very, very pleasant. It's very nice. It's nice to have a
picnic on there, etc. and not be in the sand with, if you've got kids.
It's got a railing around it. It's perfectly safe. Guarded, etc.. It
also enhances our beach property. The outlot. There's 44 homeowners in
the association. We take great pride in trying to make the property that
we have nicer, better as witnessed by our driveway. We've been constantly
every year our dues go to that front end so it's prettier and it enhances
our property which enhances our property values. Again we're trying to,
again add beauty and value to the property that we own and are very proud
to own. I guess the next thing that I would ask is, you can see some
Positive aspects of that and we're trying to improve rather than detract
from the lake area. We've taken great strides of maintaining the outlot
that we were given the permission to build this beach way before I was a
neighbor and have come to like that we do have a conditional beach permit.
All the legal things but if you could see your way clear to look at it.
Realize that it's a real asset rather than a drawback or a negative I guess
for the outlot specifically. I refer back to what you folks have drafted
as factors upon which the conditional use permit will be based on the
Planning Commission and the 11 points that are on this sheet of paper here,
I cannot honestly look at any one of you and tell you that our deck, this
small 12 x 14 platform, violates any of these. If it did, I could sit here
and tell You that we did and we'd take other action but what we'd like to
do is do anything that we can as a Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners
Association to make this right. To maintain and keep our deck. To file
the necessary permits which we've done and Jo Ann and I have negotiated in
good faith to go through the proper channels to make this happen so that
everybody is happy and it's a win win deal for everybody concerned. I
guess at that point I'd really ask for your understanding and let's do
what's right and fair.
Emmings: Can you explain to its why someone from your group would call and
find out that a permit was necessary and then no permit be obtained but the
structure was built anyway?
Nick Gassman: Well at the time, Yes I can. At the time...
Resident: I was the person who called.
Nick Gassman: At the time that that phone call was made, I was unaware
that there was any phone contact made. The neighborhood had been talking
about building a deck since after the rain. It was a natural. If you had
a photo, you could see why. The advantages of having it, etc.. The
washout and everything but when the phone call was made and Jo Ann and
I have been over this, I was unaware that there was an inquiry of the
procedures to do through. As a matter of fact, I have to plead even
further ignorance and I hate to do that on video tape for God's sake but
that I was unaware of the conditional, of the wording, of the verbage of
the conditional use permit. I'm the president of the homeowners
Planning Commission Seting •
September 20, 1989 - Page 65
associations. I'm newly elected as a rookie, I might add, and now I am
aware of it. I realize the stupidness I guess, for lack of a better word,
of our action and now I want to make a right. I want to do the right thing
to keep the deck. It was not a cheap proposition and we built it so it
would be safe. It were environmentally conscience of it so we didn't dig
holes, sink concrete footings or anything like that so it's a free board
platform. I just want to make it right.
Emmings: Okay, thank you very much. Are there any other comments? This
is a public hearing item. Is there anybody else here who wants to speak on
this?
Erhart moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: I think we have to move to deny it as recommended by staff. Is
there a dock next to this thing?
Nick Gassman: The way it's laid out, I wish I had a photo to show you
because if you were to look at the photo, the way the deck is positioned in
the property, it makes terrific sense.
Erhart: I don't want to get into it at this time. I'm just suggesting, do
we have a definition of how big a dock can be and all that?
Olsen: A deck or dock?
Erhart: Dock. A dock is allowed right?
Nick Gassman: We have a permit for 3 docks.
Erhart: Is it defined how big a dock can be and what the answer is? It's
well defined?
Emmings: Yeah. 6 feet wide.
Resident: It also states that there can be on all three docks an end
platform 10 x 10. A large platform and that is only sitting on one of the
docks.
Erhart: Well why don't you just, instead of building a 14 x 12, making it
a 10 x 10 platform on the dock? I'm just giving you a suggestion but I
think we have to move to deny it.
Ellson: Nothing new here. I'm afraid the same thing.
Batzli: Yeah. I don't know that this deserves a variance at this time.
Headla: I'm not interested in a structure there and I shudder when I think
what it can do to other beachlots also then because then everyone would
have the right to come in for the same thing.
Planning Commission Ating
September 20, 1989 - Page 66
Emmings: I basically agree. Go ahead
like to make?
Do you have some comment you'd
Resident: I was just going to say, when I moved there, I moved in about a
year before him, and when we did have that rain there was this land that
just kind of, I don't know where it went. It washed away and it really
looked awful. I'm sure you wouldn't have liked to have seen that from the
water either. They have structures that keep everything picked up. We
clean all our garbage. We're very conscience in how it looks and
environmentally and everything else. This does sit low. It isn't like
it's a big gazebo type of thing. It looks good from the lake part and it
really, if we remove it, then we've got a big hole there that has it's
environmental where...
Emmings: There's nobody sitting up here who doesn't think this thing is
probably useful and probably attractive and that you all like it and that
you want to leave it there but we're here applying an ordinance to a set of
facts. our ordinance doesn't allow that thing. That's the reaction you're
seeing up here. The state shoreland zoning act which has been adopted by
this city does not allow it and our zoning ordinance doesn't allow it. You
have 2 things that are just a brick wall. Now if you can get a variance to
them, that's fine but.
Resident: What terminology? What is a variance?
Emmings: A variance is used to addressed a hardship. I'll read it to you
because it's language we look at again and again and nobody ever remembers.
A variance is just permission to depart from the ordinance. Basically we
say, the law says you can't do it but we're going to let you because and
what you have to show, oh cripe. In our definition section there isn't a
hardship but a hardship is something that usually is imposed by some
physical feature or some peculiarity. It can never be imposed by the owner
of the property. It can't be created by the owner of the property and you
have no hardship here. There's nothing that would fit in the conditions
you've described to us that would come close to being a hardship. You
don't need the deck there for any purpose.
Resident: If it keeps raining and it washes away, what...
Emmings: I'm not an engineer but I know that there is lots of ways to
stabilize land without building a deck on it. Building a deck would not be
my first choice if I was going to stabilize land. That's not the first
thing I'd think of. I'd think of filling it in with something. Building
something that would keep it from washing away. Planting it with
something. Getting rid of the source of the runoff that's creating the
erosion. There's 10 things I'd do before I'd say the solution to this
erosion problem is a deck. I don't think that would occur to me but an
example maybe of a hardship is, in fact I have a variance on my own lot. I
had a lot that didn't have any street frontage but it was an old lot. It
had been there forever. I was given a variance to build a house on that
lot because the house had been there and there was no way to do anything
about it. Either I got the variance or no one could ever build a house on
that lot. That's an example of a hardship where you can get a variance. I
Planning Commission Oting
September 29, 1989 - Page 67
C, J
think you're just flat up against. Basically what she said is right. If
we're going to allow something like this, we'd have to go back and rewrite
our ordinance and all it on every beachlot. There's no beachlot with a
deck on it in town. That's never been allowed.
Resident: That's an incorrect statement.
Emmings: If there is, you tell her about it and we'll go out and they'll
be here just like you are.
Resident: I have a question. When it's denied at this level, does it now
also pass to the next level?
Emmings: Yeah. We don't make any decisions here. We make recommendations
to the City Council. It just goes tip to the City Council and they make the
final decision and you should follow it right up there and make your case
up there if they let you speak.
Resident: If? Is that what you said? If they let me speak or when?
Emmings: I said if because they don't always allow public input. On the
other hand, they will read the comments.
Resident: This is the last public level?
Olsen: It's the last public hearing.
Emmings: It's the last public hearing but for one, they get a copy of our
minutes. Everything that's said here, they read before their meeting so
what _you've said here tonight they'll read. Send a request to be heard if
that's what you want to do.
Resident: My second question. I've sat here for 3 1/2 hours, almost 4.
Emmings: So have I.
Resident: Yes, listening to another one which was very interesting and
I heard a couple of comments that struck me a little bit. One was when
they were talking about the monuments outside the buildings. They talked
about slipping an ordinance.
Emmings: Who did?
Resident: That Conrad talked about we would slip by an ordinance.
Erhart: That was a misuse of terms. That was a poor term. A POD by
definition allows its to exchange in exchange for things we get from the
developer we can negotiate on things that we allow. Slipping was a poor
use of terms. Let me say one thing.
Resident: So that's a negotiated point?
Emmings: Yes.
Planning Commission feting •
September 20, 1989 - Page 68
Erhart: Being the old guy on the Planning Commission and trying to
understand where You're coming from, I've been involved in these things for
3 years now and these beachlots. The Planning Commission 5 years ago was
given the task of, in the first place, we have the task to write ordinances
in this group. We were given the task about 5 years ago to standardize a
beachlot ordinance because everybody in the city was abusing these things.
We did that and we got public input. It went through the whole process and
we established an ordinance and since that time, every 3 to 6 months
another beachlot group comes in and wants to do something different. And by
allowing one group to do something different, you will have thrown out all
the work that was done that we were requested to do by the City Council 5
years ago and that's, I think you've got to understand a little sense of
that is the reaction you're'getting here tonight. And in summary, the City
Council can override what, this is simply a recommendation and generally
our recommendation is to stay consistent with the ordinances that we write.
So I encourage you to go to the City Council and make your case.
Resident: I have one last question? Do they allow sea walls on Lotus
Lake?
Emmings: Rip rap, something like that? Is that what you're talking about?
Resident: Yeah. Wood. Anything of that nature?
Emmings: You have to get a permit from DNR.
Olsen: You have to go through the DNR and sometimes, depending on where
they're located and the size you don't need a permit.
Resident: So it's a yes.
Emmings: But don't go do it. Get a permit.
Olsen: Come to us too.
Batzli: Because it may be around a wetland or some other thing as well.
Resident: I was asking a very general broad term.
Resident: Can I ask Tim. What did you mean when you said something about
cut it down to 10 x 10? Is that an option?
Emmings: No. He's talking about at the end of your dock. I'm cutting off
discussion on this as I think we've discussed it thoroughly and we can talk
about it more later privately. We've got other people waiting here and
it's getting very late and the public hearing has been closed. So I'm
going to call a question this. Is there a motion on this?
Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial
of request for a variance to the conditions of the zoning ordinance for a
recreational beachlot. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Planning Commission O ting •
September 20, 1989 - Page 69
Batzli: Do we have to talk about the amendment to the condition use also
Jo Ann?
Olsen: If that's something you wish for Planning staff to pursue. You can
leave that up to the Council.
Batzli: If I just stop my motion right there have we covered it?
Olsen: Yes you have.
OFFICIAL MAPPING OF TH 212.
Paul Krause presented a brief staff report.
Emmings: This is not a public hearing. Do you have any comments you'd
like to make or just here to answer questions?
Evan Green: No, I'm just here if you want me to answer any questions.
Paul's covered it rather well. It's the same map you've had before you for
I don't know how long. The City Council has approved the layout and this
official map is based the layouts that have been approved by the City.
Emmings: What we're looking at is over here. If you people want to go
take a look.
The Planning Commission looked at the layout of the official mapping of TH
212 with Evan Green and Fred Hoisington. The map was located on the wall
away from the microphones.
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission approve the TH
212 Official Map and forward it to the City Council for public hearing and
final adoption. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Emmings: Let's put 4 over and 5 over to our next meeting. Is that alright?
Ellson moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor:
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m..
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Director of Planning
Prepared by Nann Opheim
•
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
the Chanhassen Planning Commission
will hold a Public Hearing on Wednes-
day, September 20, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. in
the Council Chambers in Chanhassen
City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The pur-
pose of this hearing is to consider the
application of the Lotus Lake Home-
owners Association for the placement of
a deck on the recreational beachlot on
property zoned RSF, and located west of
Choctaw Circe along Loth Lake.
A plan showing the location of the
proposal is available for public review at
City Hall during regular business hours
All interested persons are invited to
attend this public hearing and express
their opinions with respect to this pro-
posal.to Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
Phone: 937-1900
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager
'Ihusday, September 7, 1989, No. 2?3)
Affidavit of Publication
Southwest Suburban Publishing
State of Minnesota )
)SS.
County of Carver )
Sun Rolfsmd, being duly swom, on oath says that he is the publisher of the newspaper known as the Carver Counly
Herald and the Chanhassen Villager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows:
(A) This newspaper has complied with the requiremenu constituting qualifimtion as a legal newspaper, as provided
by Minnesota Statute 331A02, 331&07, and other applicable laws, as amended
(B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.Q23 , was published on
the date or dares and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as pan
of this Affidavit Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified Printed below is a copy of the
lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the Unit and size of type used
in the composition and publication of the Notice:
abcdefghij klmnopgrstuvwxyz
By:
n Rol scud, GeAwManager
Subscribed and swan before me on
this -I— day of.�(.11-f „ 1989
-talirie A. Hartmann, Notary Public
YC' "= D,
LAURIE A. HA9TMA N S
i
NOTARY PUaL C-MiNNE50TA Y
1
SCOTTCOUNN
'ZLs
WY com","ON EXP!PE961a0
RATE INFORMATION
Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space. .......................... $7.13 per column inch
Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter .................................... _._... _....... $7.13 per column inch
Rate actually charged for the above matter_...................................................... _....... ......... $5.30 per column inch
•SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired, and complete items
3 end 4.
Put your address i "RETURN TO" Space on the reverse side. Failure 0, this will prevent this
card from being retu d to you. The return recei t fee will provide you the n of the person delivered
to and the date of deliver . Fore Itlona ees t e o owing services are available. onsu t postmaster
or ees an c ec c ox es for additional service(s) requested.
1. ❑ Show to whom delivered, date, and addressee's address. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery
(Extra charge) (Exrro charge)
3. Article 1Addressed to: 4. Article Number
t t 4-7 �v
II -- Type of Service:
❑ Registered ❑ Insured
Certifled ❑ COD
1�i7�'r I ❑ Express M it ❑ Return Race ippt
for Merchants
Always obt nature of addresses
or agent and` E DELIVERED.
O. algnB — NOar a a. Hen maaee a rwruaa rvnr.x J
X L�i L requested and fee paid)
6. Signature — g
X
7. pate of Delivery
T4 o y
PS Farm 31311. Mar. 19RR LLS_(B_p_O. 1ARR-212-665 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
UNITED STPTES POST�RVICE 1111
OFFICIAL BUSINE
Print your name, address and ZIP Code
In the space below.
• Complete Items 1, 2. 3, and 4 on the
reverse.
• Attach to front of article If space
permits, otherwise affix to beck of
no article.
• Requested"
article
"Return Receipt
Requested" adjacent to number.
•
eeee�
tLS.MAIL
�O
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE
USE, 11300
RETURN Prints Sender's name,
address, and ZIIPCode
�in,the
apace below.
TO l L 01 - l�lO �ho
I
I
j �fll30X /417
I
�L SSR c�a WJ SS,���
I
Council Meeting Septem#10, 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 came 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. Motion seconded by Mayor
Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson,
Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Notion carried.
EASE[4ENT VACATION, OUTLOT 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 become
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. Notion 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. Notion
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 Commission 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 LAKE BEACHLOT 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
things here that have to be cleaned up.
Peter Beck - I did ask of the Council whether I would have an opportunity to comment on
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-
ATTn=., '- 't�
Council Meeting September 1C40 84 0 _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 pule 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 comprehensive 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
meters 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-imtorized. 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.
i
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.
i
Ma or Hamilton - We approved the mooring of sailboats. These are the items that there
is some question about.
i
Peter Beck - The theory is it never reached the Council.
i
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.
mayor Hamilton - It should be reworded to four canoe/shall boat racks.
Council Meeting Septemm#10, 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".
Ma or 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 then to myself, I would like to have item 8
explain.. 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 minutesdf the previous conditional use permit. Same 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 Gevinq - 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 summons 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 cane
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.
Council Meeting September 10,014
t
CM
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 Beck - 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 most 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.
Mayor 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
oourt. 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 cone
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
�Y 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 Gevin An time we ---_. _� - y get some new information, some new proposal I think you
do have a right to come to us and have heard.
Council Meeting Septa* 10, 1984 -7-
Peter Beck - The problem with that is the costs are just getting so prohibitive to hire
Ire 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.
Ion 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 cane 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 reccmnepdeci by
Jim Castleberry. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in tavKr:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
Planning Commission Minutes
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 .Lnutes
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 minutes
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 12:39 p.m. when it should be
12.39 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
12:39 a.m. instead of 12:39 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
tw
Planning Commission Minutes
August 8, 1984
Page 4
Conditional Use Permit Request #84-8 to Allow Certain
Recreational Beachlot Improvements to Outlot B Lotus
Estates
Public Present
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
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?
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.
10
Planning Commission Minutes
August 8, 1984
CPage 7
Zoning ordinance Amendment R
initiate an amendment to Sec
Ordinance to allow the overn
watercraft on and adiarant r
Public Present
est #84-4: Consider reau
n 14.04 (2)(d) of the Zon
t storage, mooring and do
ecreational Beachlots, Lo
n, Petitioner.
st to
us
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.
Conditional Use Permit Request #84-9 to allow the addition of 18
motel rooms and a 50 person capacity meeting room to the
Chanhassen Inn Motel, located at 531 West 79th Street, Lawrence
7..,, Al:__-�
Public Present
Mr. & 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
Chanhassen Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals
August 20, 1984
C Page 2
Petition for Zoninq Variance to Install One Additional Dock and
To Allow Overnight Storage of Watercraft at Outlot B, Lotus Lak
Estates Lotus Lake Homeowner's Association. Annlicant
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; however, 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.
ATWHM&fr*t-Y
'Council Meeting August 0 1984 to -10-
Councilwoman Swenson - I have no complaints whatsoever about the motel.
Councilman GevincT - I do believe the parking plan shown on Mr. Zamor's Attachment #1
is superior to the Attachment 45 and throw in part of what Barbra (Dacy) 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 recommendation 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-
mum number at that time and I would like to know what the reasoning was. I think we
need to go back 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.
N PROPOSED LOTUS LAKE ESTATES BEACHLOT IMPROVEMENTS:
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 net 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 #3. 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 swimming.
AT? A C i, h'+: wF ns
Council Meeting Augy�20, 1984 _11-
to
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
i 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, 3# 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 August01 to
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 than, 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
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. 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
r�
L.
Council Meeting Augu#20, 1984 to -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 could 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, 900 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-
a
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 j
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 comnit 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 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 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 Cammission 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 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 them have since moved out because they were lead to believe certain
Council Meeting Aug# 20, 1984 to -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 come 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 lack
and used against us I think you have to question whether we should pursue that action
in this case. The letter from Mr. Heck 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 c m-
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 come 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 some 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
t 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 2 984 -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 caring was prohibited. They knew that but
there is nothing in there that would cause then 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 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 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 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
r
L.
Council Meeting Augy 20, 1984 OP -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 missing 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 P 1984 � -18-
i
Rick Murrav - 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 ccau ents 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. Now 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 Ecklmmd and S,edlund 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 ant 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 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
go across the lake and put our boat in every day.
Council Meeting Augu#20, 1984 00 -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 come before us to discuss another
dock. We have to resolve this through the ordinance process and not through the
variance process.
Tan 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 hone 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 awned 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 manlier 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 coming to the Park and
Recreation Commission talking at that time of the outlot and they were going to have
'Council Meeting August P 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.
rouncilwa:an 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
L=Lin favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and
Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
ZONING C2DINANCE AMENDMENT!, REQUEST TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 14.04 (2) (d )
TO AUOW THE OVERNIGHT STORAGE, MOORING 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 natter 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 cut 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,
P,
Council Meeting August
1984
-21-
hones have not sold in
the subdivision.
They have not been able to sell
them for the
F
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 Zo:
Ordinance to allow the overnight storage, mooring, and docking of watercraft on
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.
TION BEACHIOT, IOT 371SI
moved to table this item
Burke. Notion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson.
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson,
negative votes. Notion carried.
r 1, 1984 as requested by Steven
The following voted in favor:
Councilmen Horn and Geving. No
APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PHEASANT HILL AND WALDRIP SECOND 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 recacmending that the phrase "based upon special benefit to the plat of Pheasant
Hill derived therefron" 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
sane 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 metro 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.
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
' and everything else on every developer that canes through, when the City does a 429
improvement and approves that improvement it is taking some implicit responsibility.
•
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 Plattinq 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 Applicat
On July 18, 1984, the Association fi
cation for amendment of the Restated
requesting City approval of further
Property.
ndment of Permit.
led with the City an appli-
Conditional Use Permit
development of the Subject
1.09. City Council Approval. On August 8, 1984, the
City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on said July 18,
1984 application. On August 20, 1984, the City's Board of
Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing and approved a
variance to allow four sailboat moorings. The City Council, by
its motion of November 19, 1984, approved issuance of a revised
permit authorizing the installation of said moorings.
1.10. May, 1986 Application for Amendment of Permit. The
City of Chanhassen initiated a Conditional Use Permit Amendment
application requesting further development of the Subject
Property.
1.11. City Council Approval. On May 28, 1986, the City's
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment appli-
cation. On July 7, 1986, the City Council approved the issuance
of a revised permit authorizing further development of the
Subject Property.
SECTION 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
2.01. Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal
to the Association, and is not assignable or transferable, except
upon the written consent of the City.
-2-
2.02. Rights Under This Permit Not Expandable to Other
'Owners. This permit is issued for the benefit of the owners of
the 44 lots in Lotus Lake Estates. The Association agrees that
the use and enjoyment of the Subject Property shall be limited to
the owners of lots in Lotus Lake Estates. The use and enjoyment
of the Subject Property may not extend to persons other than such
owners. The term "owners" as utilized in this §2.02 shall mean
and refer to any natural person who is either (a) the record
owner of fee simple interest, or (b) the recorder owner of a
contract for deed vendee's interest, or (c) the holder of any
possessory leasehold interest, in the whole of any lot in Lotus
Lake Estates, including authorized guests and family members of
any such persons.
2.03. Description of Property Subject To This Permit.
The premises subject to the within conditional use permit are
described as follows:
Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, according to the map
or plat thereof on file and of record in the Office
of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County,
Minnesota.
2.04. Certain Site Alterations Authorized. The
Association is hereby authorized to install the following
improvements on the Subject Property:
a. One sand blanket swim area, as shown on the revised
plan, Exhibit A, dated June 25, 1986, said swim area to
be marked with a minimum of three anchored "swim area"
buoys that are in accordance with the Uniform Waterway
Marking System; said buoys to be anchored a reasonable
distance from shore; and
b, a pedestrian walkway connecting Choctaw Circle with the
sand blanket swim area; said walkway to consist of wood
chips installed on a sand base with boardwalk steps on
the steep slope area of the walkway; and
C. four boat racks to be located on land with a storage
capacity of either six canoes or six small sail boats
per rack; and
d. Three docks, not to exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet
in length or that number of lineal feet necessary to
reach a water depth of four (4) feet; at the option of
the Association, the final ten (10) feet of any dock
may consist of a ten foot by ten foot (10' x 10') square
platform; and
e. One ten foot by teLoot swimming raft, to be located in
water having a minimufm 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
hot 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
reimbure the City for all costs, including reasonable engi-
neering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by
the City in connection with all matters relating to the admi-
nistration and enforcement of the within permit and the perfor-
mance thereby by the Association. Such reimbursement shall be
made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of the
City's notice of costs as provided in Section 4.05 above.
J
This reimbursement obligation of the Association under this sec-
tion shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term of this
.permit.
5.02. Remedies Upon 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 her to have caused these
presents to be executed on the S day of �OyE°`bFR 11!46 .
LOTUS LAKE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
And ;41 + 7j`�
Its I/&Cr-
.uy
-7-
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By .
It Ma or
Attest Z( -_ ( L<;p
City Clerk/Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
COUNTY OF )
On this �! day of kJtNeettlae�( , before me, a notary
Public, within and for said county, personally appeared
6ccry A • !Je(c It and Tere ace- ✓• 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 (sn -I A r&k t, and % renrc. ✓
acknowledged said instrument to be the free a and deed of said
corporation.
y ti RICK O. MURRAV
a NOTARY PUBIlc — YMOMM�
" CARVER COUNTY Notary Public
il MY Cc M Ea0w" A". 14. 1Mf
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
f
On this ,--cA day of _� cz G ,, , 19 5 G, 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.
KAREN J. ENOELHASO7 tJo ary,, ab11C
NOTARY PUBUC - MINNESOTA
CARVER COUNTY
YY wYan talesl
-8-
0 It
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 vzatercraft 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
0 q
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.
1. 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
h&ve 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 riahts 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.
-3-
0 It
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-
F
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 Ch hassen, Minnesota, on oath and
deposes and says that on
� 1 cl�.
she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of hearing
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.
IL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, September 20,
1989, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City
Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to con-
sider the application of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association
for the placement of a deck on the recreational beachlot on
property zoned RSF, and located west of Choctaw Circle along
Lotus Lake.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for
public review at City Hall during regular business hours.
All interested persons are invited to attend this public
hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal.
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
Phone: 937-1900
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on September 7, 1989)
f f f { f t { { r t r r r r r r
M
M
�. ri o
m
T m
.0.1 m
n
^ on
mn
oN
y.m.�
�q".Vi ynj
on
U un
d Vn
q.�
ZZ
ZZ
yy
U
m
b
m
-qm
GY m
•Ym
]M
aq e
Um
C'
000U m
O
mo n
U m
0 q
F tl
tl Om
OC
q
OFON
U
F MLF
U
OF
SO
Fq
i
.yq
tia
q
P
Z-
on=
7Vc
.
�UU
3-U
QdU <nu
m+V
m-U
€
( C
( C
t
( C ( ( C ( C
t ( l
(
( t
C t
Miller, Mike 6. Pat
(�
Coffin. Harry 6 Rosa
(
Johnson, Craig (C.J.) & Shannon
71 Choctaw Circle
110 Choctaw Circle
6750 Brule Circle
Chanhassen, NN 55317
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Chanhassen. MN 55317
i
Morton. Bill 6. Marsha
Constantineau, Larry 6 Linda
(
Kahnke, Jeff 6 Carol
91 Choctaw Circle
130 Choctaw Circle
-
154 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Murray, Rick S Roberta
(Bobi)
(i
Crandall, Jerry S Candy
(
Kelly, Tom 6 Sue
15 Choctaw Circle
6760 Brule Circle
100 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Parsons, Jim 6 Canny
Dragsten, Paul 6 Susan
(
Kempski. Brian 6 Nanette
145 Choctaw Circle
30 Choctaw Circle
6791 Brule Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Peroutka, Bob 6 Judy
(.
Dryke, Paul 6. Lenore
(
Khan, Faiz 6. Kathy
135 Choctaw Circle
105 Choctaw Circle
111 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
`
('
Peters, Bob 6 Nadine
(
Elmgren, Bob 6 Vivian
(
Lacey, Jim 6 Sue
90 Choctaw Circle
161 Choctaw Circle
121 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Reynolds, Mark 6 Sherry
(
Frick, Roger 6 Kay
(
Lane, Phil 6 Kathy
6751 Brule Circle
125 Choctaw Circle
6771 Brule Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(
(
Riedel, Pete 6 Deane
(
Gassman. Nick 6 Sandy
(
Larson. Wayne S Carolyn
31 Choctaw Circle
6800 Brule Circle
6801 Brule Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ripley, Mark
(
Goldberg. Teresa (Terry)
(
Libson. Neil 6 Susan
(-
6761 Brule Circle
160 Choctaw Circle
140 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(
(
(
Shandley. Tom S Kim
(
Golden. Pat 6 Joan
i
McCormick. Tim 6 Linda
50 Choctaw Circle
6780 Brule Circle
70 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Chanhassen. MN 55317
e
Swanson, Harlan 6 Margie
Hallau- Chuck 6 Paula
McMahon, Pat G Lynn
131 Choctaw Circle
6770 Brule Circle
151 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen. MN 55317
_
Tomaich. George 6 Mary
Jo
Hyack. Randy 6. Jean
Miller. Mark 6. Candy
6781 Brule Circle
120 Choctaw Circle
150 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
t
4
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, September 20,
1989, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City
Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to con-
sider the application of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association
for the placement of a deck on the recreational beachlot on
property zoned RSF, and located west of Choctaw Circle along
Lotus Lake.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for
public review at City Hall during regular business hours.
All interested persons are invited to attend this public
hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal.
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
Phone: 937-1900
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on September 7, 1989)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED VARIANCE
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Board of
Adjustments and Appeals will hold a Public Hearing on Monday,
October 9, 1989, at 7:00 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
Homeowners Association for a 75 foot setback from the lake to
place a deck on the recreational beachlot located west of Choctaw
Circle along Lotus Lake.
All interested persons are invited to attend this public
hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal.
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
Phone: 937-1900
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on September 28, 1989)
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 _ jQ�_ , 190/ f
she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of hearing
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 VARIANCE
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Board of
Adjustments and Appeals will hold a Public Hearing on Monday,
October 9, 1989, at 7:00 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
Homeowners Association for a 75 foot setback from the lake to
place a deck on the recreational beachlot located west of Choctaw
Circle along Lotus Lake.
All interested persons are invited to attend this public
hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal.
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
Phone: 937-1900
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on September 28, 1989)
r r r r r -' r r r r r r r r r r r
ti
r o
m
m
L y ul N
d rn
q r v�
U^
NO
V
bLE
UZ
4yy
DVS
..E
cc -em
u
c
_ q
uu c
S c
m q c
J.� N
q0
GJ d
h 3of CJm
m
O
.0
• 00 0
M e
tl
02
C L q
Or L LG
qVL
-
0 U OUC
g C
a P 0 O
q
3 N q
ice+ GrL
czU 4nU
ONL
Ia .+V
3 ( (
t
t a
Miller, Mike 6 Pat
(�
71 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
�
(r
j
Morton. Bill 6 Marsha
(r
91 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen. MN 55317
31
(r
Murray, Rick 6 Roberta
(Gobi)
(r
15 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Parsons. Jim 6 Conny
(�
145 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Peroutka, Bob 6 Judy
(.
135 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
j
a
Peters, Bob 6 Nadine
90 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
�
( i
Reynolds, Mark 6 Sherry
(�
6751 Brute Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
3
Riedel. Pete 6. Deane
31 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
3
(
z
Ripley. Mark
6761 Brute Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
3
S,
Shandley, Tom 6 Kim
50 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
i
Swanson, Harlan 6 Margie
131 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Tomaich. George 6 Mary Jo
6781 Brute Circle
Chanhassen. MN 55317
L
m
ti
,-Ol n m V m
dN N corn
u eaqrm LUN
n V R1 „
d Lz yy
N A
10 0 qJd
c u m C 4 m b o m
q O n0014
CLtl M-a 0 C
u a ° q
.piU qmL COG
3 b U 3 r U
Coffin. Harry 6 Roan
110 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Constantineau. Larry 4 Lind
130 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Crandall. Jerry 6 Candy
6760 Brute Circle
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Drageten. Paul 6 Susan
30 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dryke. Paul 6 Lenore
105 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Elmgren, Bob 6 Vivian
161 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Frick, Roger 6 Kay
125 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gassman, Nick 6 Sandy
6800 Brute Circle
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Goldberg. Teresa (Terry)
160 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Golden. Pat 6 Joan
6780 Brute Circle
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Hallau. Chuck 6 Paula
6770 Brute Circle
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Nyack. Randy 6 Jean
120 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen. MN 55317
r
m d �
,t"rN
N 4
t
OV
F
J d
u m
o m
gGtl
�U G
r
G
.Ni
(
Johnson. Craig (C.J.) 6 Shannon
6750 Brute Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(
(
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, September 20,
1989, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City
Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to con-
sider the application of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association
for the placement of a deck on the recreational beachlot on
property zoned RSF, and located west of Choctaw Circle along
Lotus Lake.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for
public review at City Hall during regular business hours.
All interested persons are invited to attend this public
hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal.
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
Phone: 937-1900
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on September 7, 1989)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED VARIANCE
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Board of
Adjustments and Appeals will hold a Public Hearing on Monday,
October 9, 1989, at 7:00 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
Homeowners Association for a 75 foot setback from the lake to
place a deck on the recreational beachlot located west of Choctaw
Circle along Lotus Lake.
All interested persons are invited to attend this public
hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal.
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
Phone: 937-1900
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on September 28, 1989)
C'
Ga