CAS-08_CONDITINAL USE PERMITS 84-80 I�
September 28, 2010
CITYOF
Lotus Lakes HOA
CIIONSEN
PO Box 63
Chanhassen, MN 55317
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box147
Re: Planning Case #09-16/Conditional Use Permit #79-06: Lotus Lakes Estates Beach lot
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Dear Lotus Lakes Homeowners' Association,
Administration
Phone:952.227.1100
City of Chanhassen Staff inspected the property associated with the above permit on
Fax:952.227.1110
August 5, 2010. Upon inspection of the property, it is evident that the site is being well -
maintained.
Building Inspections
Phone:952.227.1180
However, upon inspection, there were some aspects that were found to be not in
Fax:952.227.1190
compliance with the Permit:
Engineering
• A paver path and wood patio was observed on -site. These structures are not
Phare:952.227.1160
currently included in the Lotus Lakes Estates Beach lot Planning Case #09-
Fax:952.227.1170
16/Conditional Use Permit #79-06.
Finance I have enclosed a copy of the Planning Case #09-16/Conditional Use Permit #79-06. It is
,Phone:952,227.1140 my intent to work with you. In doing so, please provide me with a reasonable timeline
Fax:952.227.1110 to bring the entire site into compliance no later than October 29, 2010.
Park & Recreation If you have questions or concerns, feel free to contact me at 952-227-1173 or
Phone:952.227.1120 kspreiter(@ci.chanhassen.mn.us.
Fax: 952.227.1110
RecrealionCenter Sincerely,
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax:952.227.1404 c` __ C
Krista Spreiter
Planning& Natural Resources Technician
NaWral Resources
Phone:952.227.1130 Enclosure
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works cc: Building File
1591 Park Road Planning Case #09-16
Phone:952.227.1300 Conditional Use Permit #79-06
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Plane: 952.227.1125
Fax 952.227.1110
Web Site
wwwAdranhassen.mn.us
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning to Tanorrow
TO. Lotus Lakes Estate Beachlot File
M Angie Auseth, Ranner 1
CITYOF R;OM: Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator
CHMNSEN DATE February 24, 2009
7700 Market Boulevard
POBox
AN AN fE Inspection of CiJPCom (lance
Chanhassen, 55317 SPed p
Administration
Phone:952227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
On December 3, 2008 Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator with the aty of
Building Inspections
Chanhassen and JII Sinclair, Natural Resource qDecialist with the City of Chanhassen
PFax.:52227.1190
Fax: 952.227.1190
inspected the Lotus Lake Estates Beachlot. The inspection was prompted by the
associations desire to provide adequate stewardship to the property to avoid
Engineering
erosion and subsequent sediment deposition issuesthat might adversely affect
Phone:952.227,1160
water quality. It was also their desire to manage some of the invasive species that
Fax:952.227.1170
are present on the property.
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
At the time of the inspection, the property was found to be in compliance with the
conditions of their Conditional Use Permit. Moreover, it was observed that in many
instances the association had gone beyond the requirements of their CLIPto assure
that the property was in as good of condition as could be possible given the current
land use.
This concludes my review of the property. Any questions can be directed to Terry
Jeffery at extension 1168.
The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play.
0
0
August 8, 2002
CITY OF
CHMNSEN
Mr. Kenton Kelly
7700 Market Boulevard
6539 Gray Fox Curve
PI
Chanhassen. MNN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
RE: Dock on Lotus Lake at 6539 Gray Fox Curve
Phone. 952.227,1100
ra, 9522271110
Dear Mr. Kelly:
Building Inspections
Phone-, 952227.1180
As you are aware, the City of Chanhassen has been investigating the land
Fax 952227 1190
transactions and Conditional Use Permit on Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates. I
Engineering
received a letter today from Mr. Soren Mattick outlining the City's legal
Pheor 952227.1163
opinion on the dock, the Conditional Use Permit and the land transactions
Fax 9522271170
associated with Outlot B. Lotus Lake Estates. Please find the letter enclosed.
Finance
-.
The City requests the opportunity to answer any questions you may have
regarding this legal opinion. Please take time to review the enclosed letter and
Park E Recreation
formulate your questions. Once you have had adequate time to review the
2' 1120
letter, contact me at 952.227.1135 to arrange a meeting. The City will also
invite Mr. Mattick to attend the meeting since he is the individual most
oul!er
familiar with the legal issues surrounding this case.
2370 C Bcu.evant
-
Ph= 95222714W
Fax 952 227 1404
This letter also serves as notice that you will be required to remove the dock
From Outlot B. Please remove the dock from Outlot B by Monday, August
Punning a
Natural Resources
19 2002 and contact the C' once the work is complete forfinal inspection.
� �1' P .% .r P
F' :-.z. 952.2271130
Fax 952227,1110
Thank you for your continued cooperation in this matter. -
Public Works
1591 Park Road Sincerely,
Phase: 952.227.1300
Fax:952227.1310 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Senior Center
Phone:2.21125
Fax. 95252227.17.1110
Web Site LoiiHaak
ana ;;en mn us Water Resources Coordinator
Enclosure
GAENG\Lori\LE7TERSUCeIIy dock 03.dac
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Thomas J. Campbell
Roger N. Knutson
Thomas M. Scott
Elliott B. Knersch
Joel J. Jamnik
Andrea McDowell Poehler
Matthew K. Brokl'
'Als„ke dM W.nm,n
Ms. Lori Haak
Water Resources Coordinator
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Professional Association
Attorneys at Law
(651)452-5000
Fax (651) 452-5550
August 7, 2002
Re: Dock on Lotus Lake at 6539 Gray Fox Curve
Dear Ms. Haak:
RECEIVED
AUG — S 2002
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
John F. Kelly
Matthew J. Foli
Soren M. Mattick
Marguerite M. McCarron
Gina M. Brandt
I have had an opportunity to review the material forwarded to this office concerning the
dock erected by Kenton Kelly on a portion of Outlot B on Lotus Lake Estates. Based on the
information that I have received from staff, Mr. Kelly is not allowed to maintain the dock on
Outlot B.
History of Lotus Lakes Estates and Outlot B
1) The Lotus Lakes Estates subdivision was approved in January of 1979. Outlot B
encompasses the entire western edge of Lotus Lake Estates and runs to the southern edge of
North Lotus Lake Park.
2) The City of Chanhassen and B-T Land Company entered into a development contract
during January 1979.
3) On June 11, 1984, B-T Land Company executed a Limited Warranty Deed to the Lotus
Lakes Estates Homeowners Association ("Association's. It would appear the intent of the Deed
was to convey a portion of Outlot B to the association. However, the Deed only describes the
"match line" on the plat and doesn't actually convey any land.
4) Multiple Conditional Use Permits (CUP) and amendments to those CUP's were issued
throughout the 1980's. The most recent CUP was signed by the City on November 5, 1986. The
most recent CUP authorizes the association, among other things, to install three docks on Outlot
B. These docks have been installed by the association on the portion of Outlot B lying south of
the match line.
t t,. ntf„-., n ,...,. 0 I Un (`,,... ----- f .. (.. • G 1. dU S r t l t
Ms. Lori Haak
August 7, 2002
Page Two
5) On July 9, 1997, B-T Land Company executed a corrective Quit Claim Deed to the
Association whereby B-T conveyed the part of Outlot B lying south of the match line on the plat.
6) On July 24, 1997, B-T Land Company executed a Quit Claim Deed to Kenton D. Kelly
whereby B-T purported to convey the part of Outlot B lying north of the match line on the plat.
7) During the spring of 2002, City staff noticed that Kenton Kelly installed a dock on the
portion of Outlot B lying north of the match line.
Analysis
I. Subdividing Outlot B
Paragraph 25 of the development contract states that B-T shall organize a home owners
association and Outlot B shall be conveyed to and managed by the Association. In addition,
paragraph 28 states that no portion of Outlot B shall be developed, altered or disturbed in any
way except after receiving a permit from the City.
B-T has violated the terms of the development agreement with the City by Quit Claiming a
portion of Outlot B to a private individual rather than the association. Furthermore, when B-T
conveyed a portion of Outlot B to Mr. Kelly, Outlot B was subdivided without the consent of the
City. Unfortunately, the County recorded the transfer to Mr. Kelly and has assigned a new
parcel ID# to these lots. However, this does not validate the subdivision.
A quit claim deed passes only those rights and interests that the grantor possesses at the time of
the transfer. Based on the terms of the development contract with the City, B-T only had the
authority to transfer Outlot B to the association. Therefore, the quitclaim deed did not transfer
the right to possess or install a dock on the northern portion of Outlot B.
II. Conditional Use Permit
On June 1, 1985 a CUP was issued to B-T and the Association which allowed the placement of
one dock on Outlot B. On November 5, 1986, the City issued a restated CUP to the Association
which increased the number of docks allowed on Outlot B to three. The entire Outlot B is
subject to the terms and conditions of the CUPS that were issued in 1985 and restated in 1986.
101724
Ms. Lori Haak
August 7, 2002
Page Three
Mr. Kelly has told staff that he does not feel the terms of the most recent CUP governs the
northern part of Outlot B where he has placed his dock because the limitations of the CUP only
apply to the Association. A CUP is not personal to the applicant and "runs with the land."
Therefore, the terms and conditions provided in the CUP govern the entire Outlot B.
Recommendation
Mr. Kelly is not authorized to place a dock on the northern portion of Outlot B and should be
directed to remove the dock immediately. Mr. Kelly should be notified that pursuant to the terms
of the development contract with B-T, the ownership of Outlot B was supposed to be transferred
to the Association and the City is unwilling to recognize any ownership interest Mr. Kelly is now
asserting. Furthermore, the terms and conditions of the CUP apply to the entire Outlot B.
If you have any questions regarding my opinion please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
By:
Soren M. Mattick
SMM:dmo
101724
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-
•
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-
•
Except for construction equipment necessary for the exe-
cution of the plan and as necessary for the maintenance of the
,Subject Property, no motor vehicle shall be driven upon or parked
upon the Subject Property.
No boat trailer shall be allowed upon the Subject
Property. Nothing in the preceding three sentences shall be
deemed to prohibit the launching of any watercraft from the
Subject Property if accomplished without the assistance of any
motor vehicle or trailer or wheeled dolly upon the Subject
Property.
SECTION 3. MUNICIPAL DISCLAIMERS.
3.01. _No Liability to Suppliers of Labor or Material. It
is understood and agreed that the City, the City Council and the
agents and employees of the City shall not be personally liable
or responsible in any manner to the Association, its contractors,
or subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, or to any other person,
firm or corporation whomsoever, for any debt, claim, demand,
damages, actions or causes of action of any kind or character
arising out of or by reason of the execution of this permit and
agreement or the performance and completion of the work and
improvements hereunder and the Association will save the City,
the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City
harmless from any and all claims, damages, demands, actions or
causes of action arising therefrom and the costs, disbursements,
and expenses of defending the same.
3.02. Written Work Orders. The Association shall do no
work nor furnish materials, whether covered or not covered by the
plan, for which reimbursement is expected from the City unless a
written order for such work or materials is received from the
City. Any such work or materials which may be done or furnished
by the Association without such written order first being given
shall be at its own risk, cost and expense, and the Association
hereby agrees that without such written order, it will make no
claim for compensation for work or materials so done or fur-
nished.
SECTION 4. MISCELLANEOUS.
4.01. Severability. In the event any provisions of this
permit shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any
court or competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invali-
date or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the
remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired
thereby.
4.02. Execution of Counterparts. This permit may be
simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which
shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one
and the same instrument.
-5-
4.03. Headings. Headings at the beginning of sections
and paragraphs hereof are for convenience of reference, and shall
not be considered a part of the text of this contract, and shall
not influence its construction.
4.04. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Association
shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City
that it has acquired fee title to the Subject Property.
4.05. Notices. All notices, certificates and other com-
munications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be
deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, with property address as indicated
below. The City and the Association, by written notice given by
one to the other, may designate any address or addresses, to
which notices, certificates or other communications to them shall
be sent when required as contemplated by this permit. Unless
otherwise provided by the respective parties, all notices, cer-
tificates, and communications to each of them shall be addressed
as follows:
To the City: City of Chanhassen
City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn: City Manger
To the Association: Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Assoc.
Attn: President
P.O. Box 63
Chanhassen, MN 55317
4.06. Owners to be Notified of This Permit. The
Association shall furnish each owner, as that term is defined in
Section 2.02 above, with a copy of this permit within thirty (30)
days of the signing of this permit and shall furnish each future
owner, as that term is defined in Section 2.02 above, with a
copy of this permit, within thirty (30) days of any such owner's
initial occupancy of any residential structure in Lotus Lake
Estates.
4.07. Term of This Permit. This permit shall expire on
July 21, 2010.
SECTION 5. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.
5.01. Reimbursement of Costs. The Association shall
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.
0M.
•
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 /9 to have caused these
presents to be executed on the .S day of X04;gFR a .
LOTUS LAKE ESTATES
ASSOCIATION
My
&t��2
Its V ►ems
And
Its Lle. ,, ,s4 .
-7-
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
. B / c
y L
ItIo Ma or
Attest
City C erk/Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF )
On this �! day of kJlNeIIAXI( , before me, a notary
public, within and for said county, personally appeared
6,aq is• Weje_& and rer&-tce_ 1,'• , 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 (ar A k1d_t, and %ere.,. ✓ 06rr`e„ ,
acknowledge I, said instrument to be the free a and deed of said
corporation.
�y RICK D. MURRAW
NOTARY PUBLIC — MMNESM
CARVER COUNTY Notary Public
MY COInNIM> m EaWm A4 14. NM
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
On this 141� day of 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.
KAREN J. ENGELHARDT
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
CARVER COUNTY
M' oommalon *XP tat6Yt
QM
o ary ublic
i4 �'�L%j ':.
J .�{
•• 19.,, erojecting and Roof ii'Sed
Equipment.
1. All roof mounted equipment shall be
screened from the public view at street
level.
2. Air conditioning or heating units
projecting through exterior walls or
windows shall be so located and de-
signed that they neither unnecessarily
generate or transmit sound or disrupt
the architectural amenities of the
building. Units projecting more than 24
inches beyond the exterior finish of a
building wall shall be permitted only
with the written consent of the Village
Building Inspector.
19.12 Transmission Imes.
I. Within all districts the establishment.
construction, maintenance and use of
overhead or underground transmission
lines, conduits or pipelines for the
transporting or transmission of gas, oil.
petroleum. solids. liquids or high vol-
tage electrical energy is prohibited,
except upon the securing of a Condition-
al Use Permit.
11 19.13 Planned Unit Development Re-
quirements.
I. All proposed land developments and all
applications for rezoning which contain
in excess of 25 single family zoning lots.
or in excess of 24 multiple dwelling
units. or in excess of 10 acres for pro -
Posed commercial or industrial use
shall be submitted as proposed planned
unit developments and shall be gov-
erned by the regulations thereof.
19.14 Unimbabitable land.
I. Lots, parcels or tracts of land deemed
by the Council to be uninhabitable shall
not be utilized for residential use, nor
for such other uses as may endanger
life or property or the public health and
welfare or create or aggravate a flood,
erosion or water pollution hazard, but
such land within a zoning district shall
be set aside for such uses as shall not
create or contribute to any of the fore-
�om_g conditions.
3Y.IS-Toning Lot Limitation.
1. Only one principal structure shall be
permitted on each zoning loj,,.
�L 19.tu -6utstae rage in Reine`dital
Districts.
1. Outside storage of recreational equip-
ment is prohibited in the front and side
Yards in all residential zoning districts.
unless screened by fencing.
2. All outside storage structures in resi-
dential zoning districts shall be archi-
tecturally harmonious with the princi-
pal structure.
19.17 Certificate of Occupancy.
I. The certificate of occupancy required
by the Chanhassen Building Code, Ordi-
nance No. 23. shall be issued only for a
structure which complies with all ap-
plicable provisions of this ordinance
kXl", and said building code.
J. SECTION 20. NON -CONFORMING
USES.
20.01 Continaaiion. The lawful use of
Ito
ildings or land existing at the effective
date of this ordinance which does not con-
form to the provisions of this ordinance
Shall be discontinued within a reasonable
Period of amortization of the building, and
L. �rrte.naea �7-J
uses of land or buildings which li corn 20.06 :Normal Maintenance. Mainte-
non-conforming by reason of subsequent nance, necessary non-structural repairs,
amendments of this ordinance shall also and incidental alterations of a building or
be discontinued within a reasonable peri- structure containing or used as a non-
od of amortization of the building. The conforming use are to be permitted pro -
period of amortization shall commence vided that any such maintenance, repairs
with the effective date of this ordinance or alteration does not extend, enlarge, or
and shall extend for a period of not more intensify the non -conforming building or
than: use.
1. Fifteen 115) ,years for buildings of 20.07 Public Utility Buildings; Excep-
wood frame construction. tions. Municipally owned utility buildings
2. Twenty (20) years for buildings of and structures to be used for purposes of
woodand masonry construction. rendering service to the community, and
3. Thirty 130) years for buildings of fire not for warehouse purposes or for the
proof construction. storage of bulky materials, when the
4. Dwellings found to be non -conforming Councir shall deem them to be clearly
only by reason of height, yard, or area necessary for the public convenience,
requirements shall be exempt from the may be permitted in any district. Such
other continuation provisions of this variation from the height and area dis-
ordinance. trict regulations may be allowed for such
5. Any building or use partially taken by building or structures by the Council as it
public action under eminent domain deems necessary.
proceedings, which building or use is
thereby made non -conforming may
continue.
20.02 Enlargement or Alteration. No
non -conforming use shall be enlarged,
altered or increased, or occupy a greater
area than that occupied by such use on the
effective date of this ordinance or any
amendment thereto. A non -conforming
use shall not be moved to any other part
of the parcel of land upon which the same
was conducted. If an structural altera-
tions are made, a non -conforming use of a
building may be changed to another non-
conforming use of the same or more re-
stricted classification. Whenever a non-
conforming use of a building has been
changed to a more restricted use or to a
conforming use, such use shall not there-
after be changed to a less restricted use.
20.03 Restoration. Any building locat-
ed in any district which is partially de-
stroyed by any cause may be restored tc
its former use and physical dimensions:
provided that any such building which
does not conform to the use, height and
other restrictions of the district in which
it is located and is thus destroyed. accord.
ing to the estimate of the Council or some
official designated by it, to the extent of
fifty 4501 per cent or more, may not be
rebuilt or reconstructed except in accord-
ance with such restrictions.
20,04 Termination of Use. In the event
a non -conforming use is discontinued for
a period of one i 1) year, or if a non -con.
forming use is replaced by a conforming
use, any subsequent use of the premises
shall bein conformity with the use regula-
tions specified for the district in which
such use is located.
20.05 Junk Yards. No junk yard may
continue as a non -conforming use for
more than one i 1 i year after the effective.
date of this ordinance, except that a junk
yard may continue as a non -conforming
use in an I-1 District if within that period
it is completely enclosed within a build-
ing, fence, screen planting or other device
of such [eight, not less than eight ill) feet
in any case, so as to screen completely
the operations of the junk yard. Plans for
such building or screening device shall be
approved by the Council before it is erect-
ed or put into place.
SECTION 21. COMMON OPEN SPACE.
21.01 Definition. "Common Open
Space" is a parcel or parcels of land or an
area of water, or a combination of land
and water within the site designated for a
Planned Unit Development District, and
designed and intended for the use or en-
joyment of occupants of the Planned Unit
Development District. Common open
space may contain such complementary
structures and improvements as are nec-
essary and appropriate for the benefit and
enjoyment of occupants of the Planned
Unit Development District.
21.02 Dedication of Common Open
Space. The Village may, at any time and
from time to time, accept the dedication
of land or any interest therein for public
use and maintenance, but it shall not be a
condition of the approval of a Planned
Unit Development District that land pro-
posed to be set aside for common open
space be dedicated or made available to
public use.
21.03 Non -Dedicated Common Open
Space. The ownership and maintenance of
non -dedicated common open space shall
be governed by the following regulations:
1. Ownership. The legal or beneficial
owner or owners of all of the land pro-
posed to be included in a Planned Unit
Development District shall provide for
the establishment an organization for
the ownership and maintenance of any
non -dedicated common open space, and
such organization shall not be dis-
solved, nor shall it dispose of any such
common open space, by sale or other-
wise, except to an organization con-
ceived and established to own and
maintain the common open space, with-
out first offering to dedicate the same
to the Village or other government
agency.
2. Maintenance. In the event that the
organization established to own and
maintain common open space. or any
successor organization, shall at any
time after establishment of the Plati-
tied Unit Development District fail to
maintain the common open space in
reasonable order and condition in ac-
cordance with the Development Plan,
the Village may serve written notice
upon such organization or upon the oc-
19 � /'d0ted. /q-j l L l4. J2-0VMFda b 97-4
f{m,"Jej 147.6 .S• qm�. 6L d7-i4.1-p&(rd.19.73
3. /:.1l Iq r� /9; 9 ; � �C n�, d� 1 `j 7 4 . Z ` y41 Bi '�w`t�zr t i is yi
cupants of the Planned Unit Develop- follows: one member of the Planning Issuance of such order. requirement, de-
Commission, one citizen at large. and one cision or determination.
ment District setting forth the manner
in which the organization has failed to member selected by the Council from its 22.04 Procedures.
The from the Form. Appeals and applications for
maintain the common open space in own membership. member 1
reasonable condition. and said notice Planning Commission shall be deemed to
variances shall be filed with the Zoning
on forms prescribed by
shall include a demand that such defi- be the representative of the Planning
ciencies of maintenance be cured with- Commission for purposes of Minnesota
Administrator
him. A fee of t35.00 shall be paid upon
application for a vari-
in thirty days thereof, and shall state Statutes, Section 462.354. The Village
the date and place of a hearing thereon Engineer, Fire Chief and Building Inspec-
the filing of an
ance, in addition to payment of the es -
building permit fee, if any.
which shall be held within fourteen for shall be ex-otficio members without
At such hearing the the right to vote. The members of the 2.
tabbshed
Hearing. Upon the filing of an appeal or
Zoning
days of the notice.
Village may modify the terms of the Board constitute a quorum, and all action
the Board requires the affirmative vote
application for variance, the
Administrator shall set a time and
original notice as to the deficiencies of
and may give an extension of time with- of the quorum. The Board shall serve
place for a hearing before the Board of
Appeals on such ap-
in which they shall be cured. If the de- without compensation. Its members shall
ficiencies set forth in the original no- serve a term of one year beginning on the
Adjustments and
peal or application, which hearing shall
held 30 days after the filing of
tice or in the modifications thereof first day of January or until their succes-
shall be cured within said thirdy days sors are appointed. The Board shall select
be within
said appeal or application. At the hear -
hear such persons
or any extension thereof, the Village, in one of its members as chairman and ap-
to the taxable values of point a secretary who may, but need not,
ing the Board shall
as wish to be heard, either in person or
Notice of such
order preserve
the properties within the Planned Unit be one of its members. Administrative
for the Board shall be furnished
by attorney or agent.
hearing shall be mailed not less than 10
ent District and to prevent services
the common open space from becoming by the Council
days before the date of hearing to the
who filed the appeal or applica-
a public nuisance, may enter upon said
tt•a Powers and Duties. The Board of
person
n for variance, and, in the case of an
common open space and maintain the
same foro period of one year. Said theen- Adjustments and Appeal shall have the
duty of hearing and deciding,
application for a variance, to each
owner situated wholly or
sa and maintenance shall not vest in power and
subject to review by the Council in each
of property
artiall within 200 feet of the property
the public any rights to use the common
case, appeals or requests in the following
to which the variance application re -
open space except when the same is
voluntarily dedicated to the public by cases:
t. hear and decide appeals where a is
totes, w the names and addresses e
owners can tr determined the
the owners. Before the expiration of
alleged that there is an error in any
ll
such
c
Zoning Administrator from records
said year. the Village -shall, upon its ini-
tiative or upon the request of the orga- order. requirement, decision is deter-
made by an administrative
available to him. The Board shall
make its decision on the
nization theretofore responsible for the mination
officer in the enforcement of this ordi-
thereupon
appeal or application for variance, and
maintenance of the common open
space. call a public hearing upon notice nance.
2 To bear requests for variances from
its action shall be reported in writing to
the Council within 15 days after the
to such organization, or to the Deco- the literal provisions of the ordinance
pants of the Planned Unit Development
instances where their strict enforce
hearing: and within said
a copy of such deci-
in
District to be held by the Village Coun- ment would cause hardship because of
Board shall serve
Sion upon the appellant or the applicant
cil, at which hearing such organization circumstances unique to the individual
or the occupants of the Planned Unit
consideration.
by mail
The Council shall
Development District shall show cause property under
by the Village The Board Adjustments and Appeals
Council
3. Council Action.
ny
view, and may revise or reverse, any
why such maintenance o
shall not, at the election of the Village, shall not recommend. and the
shall not grant, a variance unless they
decision a the Board of Adjustments
Appeals. In reviewing such dech
continue for a succeeding year. If the find the following facts:
Village Council shall determine that , ,a.het there are special circumstances
and
lions the Council may conduct such
it may deem advisable and
such organization is ready and able to or conditions affecting the land, build-
in
hearings as
shall prescribe what notice, if any,
maintain said common open space
in or use referred to in the application
reasonable condition, the Village shall for the variance.
shall be given of such hearings. The
its review of any
cease to maintain said common open hathe granting of the variance is
2
space at the end of said year. if the Vil- Tl sary for the preservation and en-
neces
r
Council shall conduct
such decision and make its findings and
thereon within 60 days after re-
lage Council shall determine such orga-
- o ent of substantial property rights.
j Ym
order
cei t by it of the decision the Board
is not ready and able to main-
in rea- 3. That the granting of the application
I
of Adjustments and Appeals. No permit
fain said common open space a
in will not be materially detrimental to
for alvariance shall be issued unless a
sonable condition, the Village may.
its discretion, continue to maintain said the public welfare a injurious too r-
in the area adjacent to the proper-
decision of the Board of Adjustments
the same is re -
common open space during the next erty
ty for which the variance is sought.
arid Appeals approving
and approved by the Council. 1�
succeeding year and subject to a simi-
determination. in each.J4. That the grant of the variance will of
intent
viewed
4 Denial Variances may be denied by
tar hearing and of
year thereafter. The decision of the Vil- in keeping with the spirit and
the Council and such denial shall consti-
determination that
iage Council in any such case shall con- this ordinance.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Lute a finding and
required for approval do
stitute a final decision.
3. Cost of Maintenance. The cost of in recommending, and the Council in
a variance may impose condi-
the conditions
not exist. No application for a variance
has been denied wholly or in part
maintenance by the Village of common granting,
open space shall be specially assessed lions insure compliance and to protect
The Board of
which
shall be resubmitted for a period of six
the date of such order
a
it shallust-
ratably against the properties within adjacent properties.
the Planned Unit Development District merits and Appeals and the Council shall
as a variance any use that is
161 months from
of denial, except on grounds of new evi-
change of conditions
that have a right of enjoyment of the not permit
Any such special not permitted nderBthis ordinance fore
dence or proof of
found to be valid by the Board of Ad -
common open space. ist the
in assessment shall be made in accord- Isn� which is the subject of the variance
justments and Appeals.
Without Decision. If no decision
awe with applicable Minnesota law. application is located.
it is ai-
5. Action
is transmitted by the Board of Adjust-
1601
22 03 Appeals. Appeals where
' SECTION 22. BOARD OF ADJUST- le ed that there is an error in any order,
VARIANCES. B
ments and Appeals within silly
after referral of the appeal or P
. MENTS AND APPEALS;
ent. decision, or determdays
22.01 Creation and Membership. There made by an administrative officer iiintthe plication for variance to the Board, the
�take action without Fur -
is hereby created a Board of Adjustments enforcement of this ordinance shall be Council may
and Appeals which stall consist of three ther awaiting such decision.
fifteen il5i days after the
members appointed by the Council as taken within
20
pme,, e; y7-,91V
If
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
r
/,April
age Two.
ark and Recreation Commission Minutes
7, 1981
RE: Recreational Beach Outlot Regulations: Section 5.03 Parking. "No motor
vehicle shall be driven upon or parked upon recreational outlots."
QUESTION: What is the thinking of the Committee regarding the no driving or parking
on outlots?
ANSWER: To prohibit problems from new developers such as the cluttering effect of
too many families using too small of an outlot area. Ordinance regulations are
intended only to govern the size of outlots and the number of people using an
outlot. They are not intended to restrict the use of outlots.
Tom Schoenecker stated that he would like the words "driven upon" stricken from
Section S:03 and that Sections 5:05 and 5:06 also be stricken.
A question was asked regarding the correct definition of "motorized vehicle".
Does it pertain only to cars and trucks and not to others such as snowmobiles and
motor bikes? Staff was directed to check this out.
A motion was made -by Tom Schoenecker and seconded by Jack Mauritz to accept this
ordinance with the above comments noted. Motion unanimously approved.
PARK COMMISSION
any agreements
Staff was directed to c e�th
seen the city and the school district.
Staff was directed to send a letter to Mayor Hamilton indicating further study on
this.
1982 LAWCON PRELIMINARY APPLICATION: A motion was made by Jack Mauritz that the
City of Chanhassen investigate the possibility of acquiring public land to develop
boat access around the Lake Lucy area and that a preliminary application be submitted
to LAWCON. Motion was seconded by Mary Muelhausen. Motion unanimously approved.
RECOMMENDATION TO FILL VACANCY ON THE CONU41SSION: Tom Schoenecker made a motion that
a decision to fill the vacant position on the Commission be tabled until the next
meeting to further review the candidates. Jack Mauritz seconded the motion. Motion -
unanimously approved.
A motion was made by Jack Mauritz and seconded by Tom Schoenecker to adjourn the
meeting. Motion unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 9.5S p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shena Coombs
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL I11NUI'ES - APRIL 27, 1981 -2-
4
SIGN PERMIT REQUEST, WEST 78TH STREET AND MONTEREY DRIVE, IM BURDICK CONTINUED:
3. The setback of the sign shall be 25 feet.
4. That after the sale of all the lots Mr. Burdick submit a
request for a directional sign for the area to the Sign
Committee and that the existing Frontier Meats sign be moved
to a more suitable location on the private property of Mr.
Burdick on a temporary basis until a permanent directional
sign is erected.
The following voted in favor thereof: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Swenson,
Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
CHANHASSEN AMERICAN LEGION, SEWER AND WATER EXTENSION: A motion was made by Councilman
Swenson and seconded by Councilman Geving to table action on this item to May 4, 1981.
The following voted in favor thereof: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Swenson,
Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Notion carried.
1980 FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND AUDIT REPORT: Don Egnell and Joe Froehling from
Long and Froehling, Inc. were present to discuss the 1980 financial staternent and
audit report. No action was taken by the City Council.
LAKE AND SHORELINE ORDINANCE REVIEW: The City Council reviewed recamTendations of the
Lake Study Committee, Planning Commission and Park and Recreation Cammission in regards
to the combined Take and Shoreline. Ordinance. The City Council discussed specific
revisions they would like made to the ordinance.
A motion was made by Councilman Horn and seconded by Councilman Geving to instruct
the City Attorney to place the revisions into final ordinance form and instruct the
Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the Lake and Shoreline Ordinance
as well as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding beach lots.
The following voted in favor thereof: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Swenson,
Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Notion carried.
1981 DISEASED TREE AMID LIBRARY/CITY HALL PLANTING PLAN: Given the uncertainty of
State funding, the City Council tabled action on review of the 1981 Diseased Tree
Program.
City Engineer, Bill Monk was present to discuss the City Hall/Library Planting plan.
No negative carments were received from the City Council. Staff will proceed with
planting in accordance with the plan and within the budget.
RESOLUTION, COUNTY ROAD 18: General discussion occurred in regards to the previous
conditions set by the City Council, City of Chaska and Carver County in regards to the
construction and alignment of New County Road 18. No action was taken and, as such,
the previous Council action remains unchanged (Resolution 81-08).
SIGNAGE FOR COMMUNITY FACILITY BUILDINGS: A motion was made by Councilman Swenson
and seconded by Councilman Geving to approve a budget amendment to include signage
for the new municipal facilities not to exceed $5,000. The following voted in favor
thereof: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Swenson, Geving and Horn. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
SPRING TOUR OF MUNICIPAL PROJECTS: The City Council set Saturday, May 2, 1981,
at 9:00 a.m. as the date for the tour of municipal projects.
A motion was made by Councilman Loving and seconded by Councilman Horn to adjourn
the meeting. The following voted in favor thereof: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen
Horn, Swenson and Geving. No negative votes. Notion carried.
TIME: 12:30 a.m.
Don Ashworth, City Manager
�GTAU.aM�i�r1" �3
L_:1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CHANHASSEN
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
C HELD MAY 27, 1981, AT 7:30 P.M. APPROVED ON
CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Members Present: Chairman Art Partridge, C. Watson, H.- Noziska,
W. Thompson, M. Thompson, L. Conrad
Members Absent: J. Thompson
Staff Present: S. Martin, B. Waibel, C. Mertz, B. Foreman
Public Hearing, Proposed Lake and Shoreline Ordinance, Private
Recreational Beach Outlots:
Steve Riley from Pleasant Acres asked why they shouldn't be
able to launch boats from their own property. Partridge explained
that with the growing population and the greater use of the
lakes some means of control would have to be made.
Scott Martin, Community Development Director, explained that the
current outlots will be grandfathered in, and that the new
outlots will have to abide by the new ordinance.
Craig Mertz, Assistant City Attorney, explained that a grand -
fathered use or a non -conforming use means that the current
C outlots may continue as they are,but may not expand. If the
current use is discontinued for 1 year or more the use will
have to go along with the proposed ordinance.
Bob Mortenson, Cypress Drive, expressed to the Planning Commission
that he resented that they were trying to place so many restrictions
on the lake shore owners.
Partridge indicated that the ordinance is trying to prevent
future abuse of over crowded 1-keg.
Jim Parsons, lake shore owner, indicated that the DNR, Watershed
District and the Corp of Engineers already have restrictions on
the lakes and the property owners do not need another government
agency placing more restrictions on them.
John Cousins, 7307 Laredo Drive, asked if the proposed public
park on Lotus Lake has to follow this ordinance. It was indicated
that this is a public park and will be funded by the State so
the park will follow different rules.
Aj�tAD4*�
•\ W\
Planning Commission Minutes
C May 27, 1981
Page 2
Conrad stated that the park will have only 12-13 parking spaces
and that no more boats than that will be allowed to use the
access at one time. No parking will be permitted on the road
side.
Mortinson expressed that he does not like the idea that some-
one from anywhere in Minnesota can come and use the lake and
have better use of the lake than the property owners in the
area who are paying taxes to live on the lake.
One of the lake shore owners asked if this ordinance had been
presented to the City Council yet. Mertz explained that the
Planning Commission has to review the ordinance and then rec-
ommend to the City Council for approval.
Jim Parsons, Brule Circle, indicated that he felt that the
concensus of the group wasthatthey were against having this
proposed ordinance. Partridge stated that the Lake Study
Committee has been working on this ordinance for 2� years
and that every one of their meetings were published in the
paper asking for some input from the public but no one ever
came to any of the meetings.
C Some of the lake shore owners indicated that their Association
presidents had not been notified of the meeting they had to
hear it by word of mouth. Martin stated that the staff tried
to notify all the presidents of the meeting the best that we
could. The presidents should leave their name and address with
him so staff will have a more current list.
Les Fisher, Sunrise Hills, asked the Planning Commission why
only 3 or 4 items pertain to the lakes and all the rest of the
items in the proposed ordinance are about lot restrictions.
Wally Coudron, Chairman of the Lake Study Committee, indicated
that the Lake Study Committee wanted to set restrictions for
parking on grass and try to prevent erosion of the lake. Want
to try to make people responcible for what they have. Want to
eliminate potential problems rather than wait and try to solve
problems after they occur.
Conrad stated that the ordinance is for the future developments
they are not trying to reprimand the existing outlots. The
City should have good guidelines for development for those moving
to Chanhassen.
Cousins suggested that the City get the legal descriptions from
all the existing outlots and make a legal document stating that
these outlots are exempt from the proposed ordinance.
I
Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 1981
Page 3
One of the lake shore owners indicated that this ordinance
proposal is a good idea. The City is trying to preserve a
limited resource, the lakes have to have some kind of control.
Georgette Sosin, 7400 Chanhassen Road, indicated that her family
moved to Chanhassen from Minneapolis because of the lakes and
the wildlife. Both of these are very fragile and that if the
home owners in the area are not careful they will push all the
beauty into an irreversible situation.
Mertz indicated that the purpose of the non-comforming use is
that in a few years all the outlots will be following the same
ordinance. If a non -conforming use is destroyed more than 50%,
the use may not be replaced.
Martin suggested to table this meeting until a time when the
Planning Commission and the Lake Study Committee can get to-
gether and hold a meeting to discuss the ordinance further.
The public is invited.
Conrad stated that he felt there were a lot of concerns that
were to be met by the grandfather clause that should be looked
into. Should be protecting the present home owners. Conrad
indicated that he couldn't make a positive recommendation
at this time but also feels that because of new developments
there has to be more restrictions.
M. Thompson indicated that the Lake Study Committee has been
working on this ordinance for 2� years and he doesn't see a
problem with it. There is a strong misunderstanding from
the public about the grandfathered uses. All the Planning
Commission wants to do is protect the lakes.
W. Thompson stated that another meeting is a good idean. The
City doesn't have the control on lakes that they should have.
Noziska expressed that he agreed with M. Thompson. He feels
that the ordinance is good, a listing of the outlots and their
exemption is a reasonable request but it would be a lot more
work.
Watson stated that she felt the ordinance was restrictive but
that was the intent of the Lake Study Committee. Watson felt
that outlots should be exempt by their condition.
Partridge agrees with what had been stated by the other Planning
Commission members. There has to be some control or the lakes
will be destroyed.
Planning Commissitriinutes
May 27, 1981
Page 4
Motion was made by Watson seconded by W. Thompson to table
discussion on the outlot ordinance until such time as they
can meet with the Lake Study Committee and the Home Owners
Associations. All in favor motion was carried.
The date of the above mentioned meeting will be June 17th at
7:30 p.m. with the purpose of reviewing the ordinance.
Public heari
line Ordinance
One of e property owners indicated that he dis rees with
page 4 - O5; why limit the number of boats r lot. He
owns 7 boat and would like to have 3 more. lso is against
page 9 sect io 5; permits for ski jumps, s lom courses, etc.
There are State aws for this so the Cit doesn't have to cover
it also.
Martin explained that the Lake Stu4Y Committee felt that the
City Council should be ware of any structures that were being
placed into the lake. T sho d have some restrictions.
The homeowner mentioned abov was also against page 10 section 6 -
who decides what is astetic/al pleasing? Didn't like the idea
of no sea planes, he felt 'this ould be look into.
CMartin brought up the rdinance wit only one dock per lot.
Ron Bart, a lake shor owner explain that he has two docks
one on each side of/ is lot for the pu oses of protection from
boats while swimmi g. He suggested that the ordinance be changed
to have two docks per lot.
Riley asked if wimming rafts have to have a ermit. It was
indicated tha a permit had to required from t e sheriff and
the cost is othinq.
Payiolved
ndicated that the new ordinance require a permit
frty Council for the reason that the City C uncil wants
to to protect others who use the lake.
Motated that section 3.05 shouldn't limit the o ers.Heat 50' docks are to short and that an owner sho dbehave as many boats as he wants with the requireme tthats be registered to the owner.
was suggested to have a restriction for number of boats per
unt of frontage.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
Chuck & Ursula Dimler
JUN 161981 7203 Kiowa Circle
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Chanhassen, Minn. 55317
June 15, 1981
Scott A. Martin
Community Development Director
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minn. 55317
Dear Mr. Martin:
Thank you for the Public Meeting Notice you sent out last week
regarding the joint meeting of the Chanhassen Planning Commission
and the Lake Study Committee to be held June 17, 1981. We do plan
to attend.
We have been carefully reviewing all the comments and considerations
brought out at the meeting May 27, 1981, and have come to the con-
clusion that the proposed ordinance is not necessary. The lake surface
use and recreational beach lots in the City of Chanhassen are already
adequately regulated by the state laws (DNP.), and the city zoning
requirements and building permits.
The proposed ordinance is far too restrictive and is unconstitutional
in that it takes away the rights of the private property owner. We
should be able to park on our private property,and use motorized vehicles
to launch our boats on our own property. Also, we should not be restricted
from making improvements which comply with the existing city ordinances.
We have done a good job of regulating ourselves for the past 20 years,
and have never had a major problem. Perhaps the City Council could
set up some guidelines for future beach out -lots, if that was their
original concern, but since the proposed ordinance goes way beyond
that purpose, it is not acceptable in our opinion. It is similar to
amputating a leg to cure an ingrown toenail.Besides, we are not in favor
of creating a heavier tax burden to allow the City to police this
ordinance.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We appreciate and deeply
believe in the American way of government by the people, of the peoples
and for the people.
As ever yours,
m
W
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RE.CEiVED
JUN 161981
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
x
A
a,4 �, 4 2t
;��t641-001
•(-
0( dl/z/ 5zj
�tdn - %�XFiOs�fE3 c o c/` / LoT�S Lp/rc ES T,��FS t E' Ns-l+rlrr-� NnsSE�✓/
1Y//�^i
>�o �no2E -#,44" S 60AT5 pco/( &L
.S'jgb W. 40 J6X cL k0E jdo� F- a a✓.dcICS 4ssoc- .
�) Dee- Ff5 / Swi.�in r6 (CAr^r5� £Tci slid a,0 ai
REPa/A.46X-C �+./4t' ?7//frl d?"Ot'lc 1d,eA(Zj.W9 / 7/l,E J--ACASJ;W—
-W A Gr vfN 7k + 'f/f£Y .r,4y ,.,or &F AEI"A c£p)
3J
To TLFczY
Aa R-CF )v/" �'Rrvc,F',,(E
13,eujvo U ,p/Lo P cs C/!
z
s'R 0l — c E PRE v r..-r /
vq
Sm.v �t oghEfor
T�
��Rr�+G a mpyY ro , LRJrE C TSJ
�q 66c57— AL Ai/.1/4ry4F
pF ,? la/rrsM.ILE �E� to - loo /tphE
co-T - a ."L 9
StR�E 20
/le�SEs -7AX�)
t/ I
�RESErr
OaTtcTS r%(agLL) SE
0'(L/4.v9/`RTNEREO
June 11, 1981
Mr. Scott Martin
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter
Chanhassen, hW 55317
Dear Sir:
With regard to the proposed ordiance governing the use of recrea-
tional beach outlots:
1. For sanitation purposes, satellite outdoor latrines should
be permitted.
2. Motor vehicle parking and boat launching should be allowed.
3. I firmly believe that overnight storage of boats should
be permitted; to disallow boat storage on recreational beach
outlots is discriminatory.
I strongly recommend that you grandfather the existing homeowner
association with no restrictions. I have lived in Pleasant Acres for
14 years and have a boat and used these facilities (and paid my share
of the taxes) with no problems.
VD/ j c
Yours truly,
Vince & Bea Decker
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
SUN 12 1981
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
- is +0 nv eU-2h+ 6UeYLAse_C_PIC( OLbLISe of +4ie
IOLUs., it SeewIs to me -Hint -tile M&S-f
pti lief icctk Q vice e ffecti � vm ec���s 6f atteLL)l i l9
_ +Ila+ atnt i s 0yn1a�Plec� � Ovdin"a L4-r ,
5e ct • opt P�+rca;� h D-� sub f�eQd b1.
`f h"e i n it r rC OLi rms i had' eacia out i Ga stiat.L
V1cu,xL hot less --+ilan Z ! i ► ieat f 2_¢ Of
I LU Ss Ove. f w ex-h du)(2 -t. *io in t4i e a�eixlot�me�2t
:-t se ems rodheyybu ibus HICLi 0�+ i n cYects� ��
_ -K,lQ mim► yam l►vie foot Y24tU.��2rvt�iLt , e
t�s
- - decreasgd -Cti1d i4leveloa de-cicasivia -Rle use_
l L t CIZr, c C r' r c�C
�f
0(
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
C::INMLSSEN PI.ANNING COMMISSION AND LAKE STUDY COVIIISSION
LOTUS' LAM ASSOCLtTION
WATER SURFACE USAGE ORDINANCE AND'ORIDINANCE 47
ju,:E 11, 1981
Enclosed you will find a document detailing the thoughts and suggestions of the
Lotus Lake Association, an organization of 91 families living on Lotus Lake, This
document was considered and passed upon as a resolution by the general membership on
6/11/81. Included in this cover letter are five alterations or additions also passed
by the membership. Time has li:rited our ability to incorporate these recent changes
into our original document. The original document has been noted by asterisks for
these changes.
WATER SURFACE USAGE ORDINANCES
1. Suggestion 1. concerning Sec. 2 2. 19 of the water surface usage ordinance
should be omitted. it is covered in other ordinances.
2. Suggestion 2. concernirg Sec. 3 2.02. An additional sentence stating that "T"s
or "L"s on docks cannot exceed 1/2 of the length of the dock perpendicular to
the shoreline.
3. Concerning 2.19, definition of "Site". This should include a reference to the
parcel bordering on s city lake.
4. Concerning 3.04 after the word "site", the phrase:"on the shore or within
view from the lake", should be inserted.
ORDINANCE 47
S. The Lotus Lake Association consideres the Sunrise Hills Recreational Beach Lot,
a model to he followed in considering applications for other recreational
belch lots and conditional use permits.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
JUN 12 1981
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Respectfully,
..., S.r►:..=I
Henry Sosin X.D. �•5.�
Alice -President
Lotus Lake Association
• JUNE ill 1981
TO: CBANHASSEN PLANNING MVISSION AND LAKE STUDY
FROM: LOTUS LAKE ASSOCIATION
-4; 74 j YOjI• tA• •M ••m ••11 P M • I ••11 P 41
•�41 412� V 1 0 M&I O •' k) a cam 4.1 P /• 71 • 1 •'U 1 /• M
The members of the lotus Lake Association wish to cMMMd the Planning
Commission and the Lake Study Camdssion for your efforts to preserve
and enhance the quality of surface water utilization, specifically
avoiding uncontrolled and excessive use of public waters and lake shore.
we support in general the water surface usage ordinance and would en-
courage the following suggestions and/or changes:
1. Sec.2 2.19 - Unless specifically covered under the meaning of
"Legally Subdivided" a minimum width of 50 feet should be re-
quired to qualify as a site for dock and mooring privileges.
2. Sec. 3 3.02 - It is suggested that no dock exceed a length of
50 feet from the shoreline, unless required to reach a depth
of 4 feet. Only one dock should be allowed per site.
3. Sec. 3 3.04 - The maximum number of watercraft should be re-
duced to four per site rather than five, as originally recan-
mended.
4. Sec. 4 4.06 Subdiv. 3 - Coastguard approved life vests are
recommended rather than waist -belt flotation devices.
5. Sec. 5 5.02 - We suggest you consider reducing the proposed
license fee to $ 10.00 rather than $ 25.00
we strongly support the intent and the philosophy of proposed ordinance
47 amendinq the Chanhassen zoning ordinance, Before making specific re-
ccmmendations, we ask you to consider the primary question of the ad-
visability of recreational beach lots per se. Until recently, lakes
were generally protected from overutilization and crowding, with its
attendant detrimental effects on environment, by their size alone. Small
lakes with restricted shoreline were protected by the relatively smaller
number of people with ready access to the lake by right of shoreline
ownership of private property. The recent use of recreational beach lots
to provide access for very large numbers of people, relative to lake
size, has become a developers ploy for commercialization. This allows
for extreme overutilization_ and overcrowding. Considering this potential
deleterious effect of bMtinuinq beach lot use, we ask you to consider
elimination of future -recreational beach lot usage entirely. If after
real consideration, elimination of beach lot usage appears tooextreme,
we urge you to reomaend ordinances which maintain strict control of
beach lot establishment and the privilege of conditional use of permits.
1.
or
i 2
Our purpose is to protect the relatively wild and natural elements of
the lake environs, so that waterfowl, fish -breeding and natural flora
can be preserved and allowed to flourish. In doing so, these places of
beauty and recreation can be maintained for all.
Our suggestions relative to the specific ordinance in question are as
follows:
1. Sec. 6.04 A - A prtable toilet if maintained and placed
at a distance from shore, may be preferable to no facili-
ty at all; unless restricted by health and other zoning
ordinances. We invite your considerations.
2. Sec. 604 F - We suggest a statement specifically requiring
a conditional use permit be added. In addition a statement
requiring conformity to the water surface usage ordinance
should be added and also a statement that only one dock
per beach lot be allowed. It should be stated also that no
overnight mooring or docking is allowed at a recreational
beach lot.
3. Sec. 604 G - We suggest a statement requiring a conditional
use permit and also a statement requiring conformity with the
water surface usage ordinance.
4. Sec. 6.04H - We suggest establishing a minimum width regard-
less of the number of dwelling units involved. Fifty or
seventyfive lineal feet measured at the shoreline, is sug-
gested.
5. Sec. 5 - We support the idea of non -conforming use. We
suggest that all current agreements with established re-
reational beach lots be reviewed, evaluated by the Planning
Coudssion and City Council and filed with the City Council.
The Lotus Lake Association wishes to direct your attention to the
following points which should be included or incorporated into the or-
dinance 47.
1. Recreational beach lot usage should be restricted to home -
owners association or developments whose land is immediate-
ly adjacent to the beach lot and to the lake in question.
2. No additional private docks or moorings should be allowed
even though a homeowners land is adjacent to the beach lot
property itself.
0
4
- 3 -
3. Developers should not be allowed to extend the privilege
of an established recreational beach lot for one develop-
ment to a new development or association, even though ad-
jacent to the first development.
4. A provision establishing review and re -issuance of conditio-
nal use permits on an annual or bi-annual basis should be
instituted. This will provide an opportunity to assess com-
pliance with the zoning ordinances.
5. An article clearly stating the city's authority to revoke
conditional use permits for non-compliance and provision
for the city's recourse should be added.
We respectfully submit these suggestions for your earnest consideration
and would be more than happy to discuss these matters at greater length
if you desire.
W
June 10, 1981
Mr. Scott Martin
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Sir:
Per your recent request for comments on the proposed ordinance governing the use
of recreational beach outlots, I would like to address the following objections:
A. For sanitation purposes, satellite outdoor latrines should be
permitted.
B. Motor vehicles parking and boat launching reduces the strain
on other recreational facilities and therefore, should be
allowed. I certainly do not understand the logic employed
by our planning commission in objecting to boat launching and
strongly object to any restrictions in this area.
C. I firmly believe that overnight storage of boats should be
permitted; to disallow boat storage on recreational beach
outlots is discriminatory and contrary to Mr. Craig Mertz's
opinion on the subject, is of dubious legality. Why should a
private lakeshore owner have the right to store watercraft but
not homeowner assocations?
In closing, I would like to suggest that at the very least, the planning com-
mission follow the recommendation of its committee chairman and grandfather the existing
homeowner assocations as the most recent edition of your newsletter indicated the city
would do. I would further like to suggest to Mr. Art Partridge that while he may have
found the large turnout at the recent hearing "amusing", many of us who own homes with
deeded lake rights which his commission plans to curtail did not appreciate his comment.
Since our assessed valuations are based, in part, on our lake access, you may rest
assured that association members will vigorously pursue a commensurate reduction in
property taxes if their dwellings' market value is adversely affected by your proposed
ordinance; this is hardly an "amusing" situation. Finally, I would like to call your
attention to the fact that during the recent planning commission meeting, no one in-
dicated that present associations would positively be grandfathered as stated in your
recent newsletter; to be sure, this was strongly recommended by the committee chairman
and several members in the audience, but the planning commissioners at that point in
time were clearly not prepared to agree, and in fact resisted our attempts to deter-
mine their individual positions on this suggestion.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
AIN 1 11981
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Yours truly,
��
Steven and Julie Riley
3851 Leslee Curve
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
0(
Minnewashta Shores Association
Excelsior, MN 55331
June 1, 1981
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, MN
Attention: Lake Study Committee
The members of Minnewashta Shores Homeowners Association would like to
express our personal concern with the proposed water surface usage ordi-
nances now being discussed.
We are sympathetic with the intent of preserving lakes in the area, and
we also share the concern that future developers may over -crowd lakes in
the city.
Our particular area and recreational beach "Minnewashta Shores" has been
in existence for almost 30 years. Our homes and beach area cover approxi-
mately 10 to 12 acres. Our recreational beach area is approximately 2
acres with about 400 feet of lakeshore. This equates to approximately 20
feet of lakeshore per Association homesite. Four years ago we obtained
permits from DNR and the City of Chanhassen to dredge a marina and erect
permanent dock slips. The cost to the homeowners to do this was over
$10,000.00. Each year we spend over $1,000.00 to maintain our recreational
beach lot. In essence, our Association maintains a park for our community
because the recreational beach area provides a ball field or soccer field
for more than just our own children. Our area is well maintained and we
are proud of it.
We are concerned with several specific statements in the ordinance. Sec-
tion 6.04 part d: no recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight
mooring. We moor our boats now and wish to continue to do so. Will those
in our Association who do not now moor boats at their dock be able to do so
in the future after the proposed ordinance is adopted? We are concerned
about future maintenance and replacement of our docks if they should be
destroyed or damaged by ice. Also, we want to be able to redredge our
marina if needed in the future. Will this be allowed? In order to assure
that we can continue to maintain our facility in the future, we would like
an amendment to the non -conforming use clause that would allow us to main-
tain our existing recreational beach lot whenever necessary, assuming we
obtain the necessary permits to do so. We want to continue to maintain and
be proud of our recreational beach area.
There seem to be two ordinances involved here, one for the general lake use
and one for recreational beach lots. We are concerned about Sections 3.02
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
JUN 11 1981
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
J
May zs, 1981
Mr. Art Partridge and
The Chanhassen Planning Commission
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Subject: Proposed Zoning Ordinance on Reach Outlots
and Proposed Ordinance on Water Surface Usage
Dear Mr. Partridge and Commission Members:
In response to your suggestion at last night's public hearing I
would like to provide in writing my views.
It is my feeling that the majority of people who attended the
hearing on May 27, 1981, are in favor of a reasonable set of
ordinances governing the lakes in Chanhassen. The disagreement
arises from the method used and the concern of present recreational
beach lot owners that their use of their property will be curtailed
or eliminated.
I have four specific recommendations to make:
First, include in the amendment to the zoning ordinance
a specific exemption for all existing recreational
beach outlots. This exemption should identify the
existing lots by legal description. Present uses and
future improvements should be allowed on these lots.
The concept of nonconforming use as stated in Section
5 is not acceptable because it can ultimately lead to
elimination of present uses of these lots, specifi-
cally boat launching, docking, and parking.
Second, I feel that the density of one dwelling unit
per two lineal feet allowed under paragraph h is
questionable. If the intent of the ordinance is to
prevent explosive increases in water surface usage,
then a greater number of feet per unit should be
required. I feel that five lineal feet or more per
dwelling unit would be more in keeping with the stated
objective.
Third, with respect to the water surface usage ordinance,
I think the 50 foot maximum length for docks is too
restrictive. There are places on Chanhassen's lakes
where a 50 foot dock will not reach a water depth
sufficient for swimming or boat use. I would recommend
a combination length and water depth limitation so that
docks longer than 50 feet would be allowed where the CITY OF CHANHASSEN
bottom slope is gradual. A four foot water depth would R EC EIV E D
be reasonable at the end of a dock. Similarly, the 100
foot from shore restriction on swimming rafts should be JU N 11981
combined with a water depth minimum. A depth of seven
feet for swimming rafts should be acceptable.
Fourth the requirement for annual COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
4 permits on swimming
rafts is going to cause much opposition and occupy the
council's time unnecessarily. I recommend that permits
not be required for swimming rafts under 100 square feet
in area and less than 5 feet above the water. However,
rafts of whatever dimensions should be illegal if they
don't project more than 1 foot above the surface of the
water. This would regulate the real hazard to boaters
and skiers that a partially sunken raft or a Moored
floating plank represents.
I hope the Planning Commission will consider my comments in the spirit
they are offered. My interest is in improved safety without undue curtail-
ment of water users rights.
I personally believe the biggest threat to water quality, safety, and
congestion is the proposed park on the north end of Lotus Lake. Please
don't be blinded to the problems such a park could cause just because some
Federal funding is available. One public park could result in greater
congestion, littering, and more unsafe boat operation than all the beach
outlots combined. If you doubt this, visit a public launch site on
Minnetonka on a Saturday or Sunday in July.
Sincerely,
John H. Cousins
7307 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
JHC:ch
JUN 1 1981
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1981
r Page 4
Fisher indicated that some people have built in gas tanks
that are safer than carrying 5 gallon tanks to and from
lake, ould these be permitted? Lynch indicated that 05
does no prevent anyone from taking a hose to tI ock.
Coudron sta d that the intent of the Lake S dy Committee
regarding Sect' n 8 was to make sure that esorts have the
right number of p servers, etc. and t they follow the
rules of the State. trike sectio
A motion was made by Conr a seconded by W. Thompson to
return the Water and Shore Ordinance back to the Lake
Study Committee for rewo of t items discussed this evening
and to incorporate th e into the dinance. After the
ordinance has been eworked the Lake -Study Committee should
return to the P1 ning Commission. All oted in favor and
the motion wa carried.
Conrad also mentioned that the Lake Study Comm sion should
review.�fhe grandfather clause.
on indicated that they would like this ordinanh�'to go
effect this summer if possible.
I"c � Discussion of
I L
Amendmen
s:
47 (Zon
Partridge indicated that the intent of this ordinance is that
current uses are to be continued. They will be grandfathered
in, anything that doesn't comply with the Zoning Ordinance
is considered a non -conforming use.
Mertz indicated that any outlot may develop to the point
of this ordinance but not more.
M. Thompson explained that this ordinance is to put restrictions
on those undeveloped areas and the new developments to control
use of the lakes.
Partridge indicated that this ordinance is to help to solve problems
in the future.
Lynch stated that Chanhassen long range plans are to have paths
on all the lakes. There would be no more private lake shore
in new developments.
Martin suggested that the Lake Study Committee write up a
Statement of Policy and Intent to be put into this ordinance.
A-I�c�1-tM�j �5
Planning
June 17,
Page 5
Commiss"Meeting
1981
•0
One of the property owners indicated that he moved here because
he likesthe nature. He likes to see blue heron and cranes,
he doesn't want more boats because it will become more of a
business district instead of a nice peaceful lake.
Someone asked if ice of fire breaks up their dock what happens?
Mertz indicated that if more than 50% of a non -conforming use
is destroyed than it cannot be replaced.
It was asked if the 50% rule applied to redredging. Martin
indicated that dredging is normal maintenance and it doesn't
go under this ordinance.
A property owner asked if 10a. included sanitary toilets or
will they be an exception.
Someone asked if this ordinance will effect the property values
in the future.
It was suggested that some restrictions should be placed on
size of outlots. Conrad indicated that minimum size should be
looked into. Someone suggested that 4' per house for frontage
on the outlot.
Martin indicated that the Lake Study Committee should specify
the number of seasonal docks in 10.f. Coudron stated that
it was the intent to have only 1.
A motion was made by Conrad and seconded by M. Thompson to
return this proposed ordinance amendment back to the Lake
Study Committee for final review and for legal review in light
of the discussion this evening. All voted in favor and the
motion was carried.
A motion was made by W. Thompson and seconded by M. Thompson
to adjourn at 11:40 p.m.
C
Revised 7-9-81
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
O�\ CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 47
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 4.02, 6.04, 7.04 AND 14.04 OF THE
CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Purpose and Intent.
The City of Chanhassen is authorized to enact regulations relat-
ing to the surface use of public waters and the adjoining shore-
line within its legal boundaries. Said regulations may control
the surface use of public waters at various times and the conduct
of other activities of public waters and adjoining shoreland.
This ordinance is enacted for the purpose of exercising such
authority so as to secure the public health and safety, the most
general public use of the surface of public waters, and the con-
servation of water resources.
The City Council is enacting this ordinance for the following
purposes: to promote public health, safety, and general welfare,
to promote safety and sanitation in the use of public waters, to
keep public waters open for general public use, to avoid pollu-
tion and uncontrolled excessive use of public waters for docks,
moorings and other structures, and to eliminate unsafe and
unnecessary installations of docks, boat mooring areas and other
fixed or floating structures on the lakes.
While this ordinance does regulate both the establishment of new
recreational beach lots and the further development of existing
recreational beach lots, it is not the intent of this ordinance
to limit or prohibit usages of recreational beach lots which are
already existing at the time of the adoption of this ordinance.
Rather, it is the intent of this ordinance to preserve the present
quality of public waters by preventing uncontrolled excessive use
of the surface of public waters and the abutting shoreline.
Section 2. Section 4.02 of Ordinance 47, as adopted and amended
heretofore, is hereby amended by adding the following definitions:
Section 4.02.
Definitions.
"Dock Set -Back Zone" means that portion of any body of
water lying within one hundred (100) feet of the ordinary
Revised 7-9-81
high water mark and which is bounded by (a) the extended
side lot lines of any lakeshore site and (b) by a line
running parallel to and ten (10) feet distance from the
extended side lot lines of any lakeshore site, measured
at right angles to said extended side lot lines.
"Lakeshore Site" means any lot, parcel or other tract of
land legally subdivided and recorded in the office of the
County Recorder or Registrar of Titles and which abuts any
body of water.
"Ordinary High Water Mark" means a mark delineating the
highest water level which has been maintained for a suffi-
cient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape;
the ordinary high water mark is commonly that point where
natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to
predominantly terrestial.
"Overnight" means any time between the hours of 2:00 a.m.
and 5:00 a.m. of any day.
Section 3. Section 6.04 of Ordinance 47, as adopted and amended
heretofore, is hereby amended by adding a paragraph numbered 10
reading as follows:
Section 6.04. Uses by Conditional Use Permit.
10. Recreational beach lots owned or operated by residential
neighborhood associations, or by homeowner associations,
or by residential housing developers and which abut on
any body of water situated wholly or partly within the
boundaries of the City of Chanhassen; and provided that,
in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed
by any conditional use permit, the following minimum
standards shall apply:
a. No building, ice fishing house, or tent shall be
erected, maintained, or stored upon any recreational
beach lot; provided however that professionally
maintained chemical toilet facilities may be placed
upon any recreational beach lot if located not less
than seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary high
water mark.
-2-
Revised 7-9-81
W \. •
b. No motor vehicle, including but not limited to
any motorcycle, motorized mini -bike, or snow-
mobile, shall be driven upon or parked upon any
recreational beach lot.
C. No recreational beach lot shall be used for over-
night camping purposes.
d. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes
of overnight storage, or overnight mooring in abut-
ting waters, or overnight docking of sea planes,
boats, or other watercraft; provided however, that
canoes may be stored overnight on any recreational
beach lot, if said canoes are stored in canoe racks
specifically designed for that purpose. Docking of
watercraft or of sea planes is permissible however
at any time other than overnight.
e. No boat trailer shall be allowed upon any recreational
beach lot; boats, sea planes, or other watercraft may
be launched from any recreational beach lot if accomp-
lished without the use of any motor vehicle, trailer,
or wheeled dolly.
f. No seasonal or permanent dock shall be permitted on
any recreational beach lot, unless said recreational
beach lot is not less than one hundred (100) feet
wide at both the ordinary high water mark and at a
point one hundred (100) feet landward from the
ordinary high water mark. One dock may be erected
upon any recreational beach lot which meets the
minimum dimensional requirements set forth in both
this subparagraph "f" and in subparagraph "g" of
this Section 6.04.
g. No 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 cross -bar portion of
any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall not be included
in the computation of length described in the pre-
ceeding sentence. The cross -bar portion of any
such dock shall not measure in excess of twenty-
five (25) feet on any horizontal plane. No dock
shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, pro-
vided however that the owners of any two abutting
-3-
Revised 7-9-81
lakeshore sites may erect o
set -back zone appurtenant t
sites, if said dock is the
lakeshore sites and if said
with the provisions of this
ne dock within the dock
o said abutting lakeshore
only dock on said two
dock otherwise conforms
ordinance.
h. 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 appurt-
enant rights of access to that recreational beach
lot, accruing to the owners or occupants of that
dwelling unit, under the applicable rules of the
subject residential neighborhood association, home-
owners association, or residential housing developers.
i. At least fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling units,
which have appurtenant rights of access to any
recreational beach lot, shall be located within at
least one thousand (1000) feet of said recreational
beach lot.
j. No recreational beach lot may be used for swimming
beach purposes unless swimming areas are clearly
delineated with appropriate marker buoys.
-4-
Revised 6-26-81
Section 4. Section 7.04 of Ordinance 47, as adopted and
amended heretofore, is hereby amended by adding a paragraph
numbered 9, reading as follows:
Section 7.04. Uses by Conditional Use Permit.
9. Recreational Beach Lots owned and operated by . . .
[text identical to proposed amendment to §6.04(10)
stated above].
Section 5. Section 14.04 of Ordinance 47, as adopted and
amended heretofore, is hereby amended by adding a paragraph
numbered 2, reading as follows:
Section 14.04. Conditional Uses.
2. Recreational Beach Lots owned and operated by . . .
[text identical to proposed amendment to §6.04(10)
stated above].
-5-
Aevisea 1-9-81
W o,
Section 6. Effect on Existing Recreational Beach Lots.
Recreational Beach Lots established prior to the effective
date of this ordinance which do not meet all of the minimum
standards set forth in Sections 2, 3 and 4 above shall be
deemed to be nonconforming uses; provided however, that the
continuation provisions of Section 20.01 of Ordinance 47, as
amended, shall not be deemed to apply to recreational beach
lots established prior to the effective date of this ordinance.
Docks or buildings existing on any recreational beach lot at the
time of the adoption of this ordinance which do not comply with
the limitations set forth in this ordinance shall be deemed to
be nonconforming uses. No such nonconforming dock or building
shall be enlarged or altered, or increased, or occupy a greater
area than that occupied by such dock or building on the effective
date of this ordinance or any amendment thereto. A nonconforming
dock or building shall not be moved to any other part of the
lakeshore site upon which the same is erected, unless it is re-
located in such a manner as to conform to the dock set -back zone
requirements of this ordinance. Any nonconforming dock or build-
ing which is partially or totally destroyed by any cause may be
restored to its former use and physical dimensions, if said
restoration is completed within one year of its partial or total
destruction. Maintenance and necessary structural repairs of a
nonconforming dock or building are permitted provided that any
such maintenance or repairs do not extend, enlarge, or intensify
such dock or building.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective
from and after the passage and publication.
Passed by the Council on this day of , 1981.
ATTEST:
CLERK/CITY MANAGER
MAYOR
Public hearing held -on May 27, 1981.
Published in Carver County Herald on
W-0
� M N
MINUTES OF THE CHANHASSEN
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
HELD JULY 22, 1981 AT 7:30 P.M.
C CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Members Present: Chairman A. Partridge, W. Thompson, L. Conrad,
H. Noziska and C. Watson
Members Absent: J. Thompson and M. Thompson
Staff Present: Bob Waibel, Scott Martin, Bill Monk and
Becky Foreman _
C.
Rev' f Proposed Amendment for Tax Increment Distric -2-:
The Planning Comm on indicated that the no further
comments on this item. o one was nt from the public.
Motion was made by Wa
to the City Counc'
specific c ts. A
car '
Final Review of
an�Water Surma
P,-,�secon W..Thompson to recommend
oval of the Amen lan without any
voted in favor and the m was
sed Recreational Beach L(
A. Partridge explained to the public that this is not a public
hearing.
Scott Martin, Community Development Director, gave a review
of the revisions of both ordinances.
Walter Coudron, Chairman of Lake Study Committee, explained
the reason for having a boat close when a swimmer is more than
100 feet from shore. It was for safety reasons. The rest of
the Lake Study Committee had indicated to Martin prior to the
meeting that they concur with this.
W. Thompson indicated that the Committee worked very hard on
this ordinance but there are some sections that he is unhappy
about. Section 3.02 W. Thompson stated that feels there should
be a definate limit on the length of the dock, he would be
favorable to 100' dock but would not be favorable to any more
than that. He did not care for Section 6.04, it was written
in bad language, it permits chemical toilet facilities 75 feet
from the lake. W. Thompson indicated that at another meeting
someone used the term "satelite" which has no meaning in our
definitions, He perfers to call it a latrine. It was mentioned
at the last meeting that one latrine would be an improvement,
two would be a better improvement and three is better yet, if that
would be the case we could have one for the ladies and one for
the men and one in reserve to handle the overflow when the others
get full. They might even be painted red, white and blue and
star put on them instead of a half-moon, how are you going to
keep this use under supervision of the people that own it.
Affj-ar 01
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1981
Page 2
W. Thompson stated that if this is such a good improvement for
whoever it was that proposed it, if it is such a good improve-
ment on that outlot then any outlot like Riley, Lotus, Minne-
washta, Lucy or Ann, we should put one on all of the outlots,
but make this a requirement for all the outlots.
Conrad asked if there is a section in the ordinance prohibiting
a dock that would be too long? Martin indicated that ordinance
states "can't be an obstruction of navigational waters" but
it would be easier to state a length.
Conrad asked if permits would be needed to put in a latrine?
Martin stated that any revisions on the outlots that are not
there now would need a Conditional Use Permit. Conrad indicated
that the City could deny a request for a latrine if it was not
up to standards.
Conrad asked if Section 3.05 permitted renters to have boats?
Martin explained that definition 2.17 included renters.
Conrad asked if Section 6 regarding T's on a dock, if this
section clearly means a T or would it be possible to have
4 ofcrosses. crosses. Is there any limit? Martin explained that
the intent was that a T not extend more than 25 feet but
more than one T is not regulated.
CA. Partridge stated that these ordinances are intended to control
future developments, it is a guide to go by. Martin explained
that ordinance #47 is regarding Outlots and #70 is to regulate
all other property.
A. Partridge indicated that Commercial Use are not addressed
in these ordinances.
Arron Babcock, a member of Lotus Lake Homeowners Association,
stated that 6.04 is discriminatory against outlots. Four
feet isn't enough, should be 8 feet or 10 feet.
Motion was made by Watson, seconded by Conrad to recommend
approval of ordinance 47 and 70 to the City Council and the
Planning Commission suggests to the City Council to hold a
Public Hearing to take public comments on these proposed
ordinances. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
W. Thompson
indicated
that these ordinances have created
more complication in
the
village than any other item. There
is a lot o:
;it_:
and
should be commended. W. Thompson
stated that
:.
favor
of sending the proposed ordinances
to the
it but
there are some section that he does
not 'To
Conrad .10rred :: i Thompson, he also indicated that the
Lake ;t,--d 'cm-mittee did a very good job. Noziska agreed with
W. Thompson also.
SPECIAL CHANHASSEN CSK�d UNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 26, 14K
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members
present: Councilmen Neveaux, Horn, and Geving. Councilwoman Swenson was absent. The
meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
AMERIC-INN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The developer is requesting that the sewer and water
trunk charges be assessed and levied over ten years. The City Manager recommended
denial of the request as it would set a precedent. The City Manager was instructed to
resolve this issue with the developer.
Section 5.05. Schedule of Work section of the conditional use permit was discussed.
It was decided to insert the date of June 1, 1982, for completion of construction of
the motel and all site improvements. This date was agreeable with Mr. Graves.
The Sign Committee has met and recommended approval of two signs for the property.
One 4' x 8' sign along West 79th Street and one 4' x 16', interior lighted --sign _
along State Highway 5. Proposed sign approval will appear as a consent agenda item
at a future Council meeting. The City Attorney brought to the Council's attention a
Supreme Court decision on the issue of distinguishing between commercial and non-commercia
signs. Councilman Horn requested an opinion from the City Attorney on what the position
of the Council could have been regarding signs along Highway 5.
The City Forester has looked at the Americ-Inn landscape plan and suggested an additional
two trees. Council members requested that trees be planted to screen the air conditioning
units from view. Council members requested the land sentence in Section 3.03 be amended
to state: No landscaping permit shall be issued and Developers shall perform no
landscaping until after said landscape plan has been reviewed and approved by the City
Council.
Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the conditional use permit as shown on Exhibit A
dated October 5, 1981, with the change in Section 3.03 that the landscape plan be
reviewed by the City Council and that four additional trees be planted on the west
side of the building to conform with the landscaping on the east side. A faster growing
type of tree be specified by the City Forester. In Section 5.05 the date of June 1,
1982, be inserted. The recommendations of the Sign Committee will be considered on
a future consent agenda. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in
favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion
carried.
CARVER COUNTY ASSESSOR: Mayor Hamilton reported on a meeting he attended along with
the City Manager, County Board Chairman Joe Neaton and Jerome Aretz regarding the
county assessor.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 47, RECREATIONAL BEACH LOTS: The Lake Study Committee
and Planning Commission recommended the proposed ordinance amendment after numerous
public meetings and public hearings. Council members discussed various changes to the
proposed ordinance as follows:
1. Third sentence, first paragraph, Section 1. This ordinance is enacted for the
purpose of exercising such authority so as to assure the public health and safety, the
most general public use of the surface of public waters, and the conservation of
water resources and protection of the surrounding environment.
2. Second paragraph, Section 1. The City Council's purpose in enacting this ordinance is
to promote public health, safety, and general welfare, to promote safety and
sanitation in the use of public waters, to keep public waters open for general public
use, to avoid pollution and uncontrolled excessive use of public waters for docks, i
moorings and other structures, and to eliminate unsafe and unnecessary installations
of docks, boat mooring areas and other fixed or floating structures on the lakes.
3. A list of all lakes and the river in Chanhassen are to be included in the proposed
ordinance amendment.
4. First paragraph, first sentence, Section 1. The City of Chanhassen is authorized to
Council Meeting Octob r 26, 1981 -2-
4(
enact regulations relating to the surface use of public waters and the adjoining
shoreline lying wholly or partially within its legal boundaries.
5. Third paragraph, last sentence, Section. Rather, it is the intent of this
ordinance to preserve the present quality of public waters by preventing
uncontrolled excessive use of the surface of public waters, 'the abutting
shoreline, and to insure the safety of the public in the use of public waters.
6. Section 4.02, Definitions, include a definition of a recreational beach lot.
7. Section 4.02, Definitions, include definitions of seasonal and permanent docks.
8. Section 6.04, 10a, No structure, ice fishing house, tent, recreational vehicle
or other shelter shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beach lot; provided however, that professionally maintained portable chemical
toilet facilities may be placed upon any recreational beach lot if located
not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary high water mark.
9. Section 4.02, Definitions, include a definition of a cross -bar.
10. Section 6.04, 10g, second sentence, The cross -bar portion of any "T" or
shaped dock shall be included in the computation of length described in the
preceeding sentence.
11. Section 6.04, 101, 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 (1000) feet of said recreational beach lot.
12. Section 6.04, 10j, No recreational beach lot may be used for swimming beach
purposes unless swimming areas are clearly delineated with official Coast
Guard approved marker buoys.
13. Safety standards, such as #12 above, shall be applicable to all recreational
beach lots whether existing or proposed.
A survey of each existing recreational beach lot was taken during the week of June
4, 1981. If existing conditions are different than what appear on the survey,
association members will have to appear before the Council to prove the difference.
A map will be included with the ordinance amendment showing the location of existing
recreational beach lots and also the beach lot surveys.
The proposed ordinance amendment will be redrafted with the changes and submitted
to the Council.
SIGN ORDINANCE: Scott Martin reported that the Sign Ordinance is in the process of
being rewritten but due to substantial changes in the industrial and commercial
zoning districts, the Sign Committee felt that the Sign Ordinance should wait until
the zoning districts have been completed.
Councilman Neveaux moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn.
No negative votes. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
Planning Commissioleeting June 14, 1978 -10-
21' of Lots 2570 and 2571 into two single family lots. The Plann: q
Commission recommended that a 20 foot remnent in the west central portion
of the property be shifted to the northern proposed lot. The applicant �.
has done this.
Mr. Schwartz, owner of property across Mandan, asked if his property
(80' x 100')is suitable for a home? Mr. Schwartz was told that ^is
question had no bearing on the public hearing and he should see citv
staff regarding his property.
Les Bridger moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Jerry
Neher and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 10:00 p.m.
JACOBSON REPEAT, FOREST ROAD AND ELM ROAD,CARVER BEACH: Mal MacAlpine
moved to recommend the Council approve the replat of the subject parcel
into two building sites as identified on Exhibit A dated June 14, 1978,
with the understanding that a new survey will be taken as required.
The Planning Commission further recommends the Council approve lot area
variances for both lots and frontage variance on the northern lot
abutting on Forest Road. Motion seconded by Les Bridger and unanimously
approved.
_I PUBLIC HEARING
ECKLUND AND SWEDLUND LOTUS LAKE ESTATES
PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 10:15 p.m.
were present:
Mark Swedlund, Route #3, Box 501, Mound
Rick Sathre, McCombs -Knutson Assoc.
Bob Hackett, 6850 Chanhassen Road
Henry Atwood, 8007 Dakota
Bill Brezinsky
Russell Larson
The following persons
n
U
The Assistant City Planner read the official notice as published in the
Carver County Herald.
Bob Waibel - As you recall, at the last Planning Commission meeting there
was concern whether or not the road cut in the northwest
corner of the plat,which would egress onto the proposed
Lotus Lake Neighborhood Park, should remain in the plans or
not. Because of the neighborhood status of this park, it
is the feeling of this planner, that the proposed park will
not generate unduly large volumes of traffic throuq'h this
development, but will simply provide safer access from this
development to the park. The Park and Recreation Commission
has voted to that Outlot B be set aside for public use,
open space, and lakefront preservation, and trail corridor
serving the Lotus Lake Park. The Park and Recreation
Commission recommended that the park dedication fee be
maintained and remitted for each lot at the time of building
permit issuance. I was contacted by Jean Lovetank who
expressed concern about Lots 1-8 of Block 1 with respect to
landscaping and grading on said lots because of their
proximity to Purgatory Creek. Upon consultation with the
City Engineer and my personal review of the plans and the
property, I believe that any cut and fill activities on the
Planning Commissio&eeting June 14, 1978 -11-
subject lots will be of no major significance or degradation
of the immediate environs. All grading in areas such as this
are bound to the requirements of the Riley Purgatory Creek
Watershed District Rules and Regulations.
From the plans submitted to date, I recommend that the Plannir"
Commission base their recommendation of approval of Ecklund
and Swedlund's Lotus Lake Estates and rezoning upon the
following grounds and reasons:
1. That the applicant state at this time the timing and
phasing of this development and be bound to such.
2. That the open space system be considered part of the
transportation plan and that Ecklund and Swedlund be bound
to park dedication fees as prescribed by ordinance.
3. That all soil tests be approved by the City Engineer.
4. That the DNR grants approval for dredging along the
area indicated as future lagoon.
5. That the southern entrance to the proposed development
be redesigned to include exit and entrance lanes divided by
a median to staff approval.
6. That right of access and easements be granted to the City
to provide for adequate maintenance of any and all holding
areas. That all development activity conform to conservation
practices as prescribed by Soil and Water Conservation
District, Department of Natural Resources, and the Riley
Purgatory Creek Watershed District.
Rick Sathre
- In response to the request about the divided entrance, we
have prepared a drawing that shows two things; the DNR has
not established the line that they are interested in acquirin
up to. In this drawing we are showing what they had intended
at that time. Now, recently, they have expressed some
interest in moving that line a little farther north. We
have resketched that and pulled the street over a bit and
put in a divided entrance and increased the area adjoining
the Lovetang piece. I suspect that since the other drawing
is the one that was entered for the record that's the one
you would have to act on. It would be our intent to
make that change.
Roman Roos -
Does the DNR agree to the changing of the boundary?
Rick Sathre
- That's their suggestion. The road location that you were
discussing, I don't think that where it is would be too
much of a problem. Whichever road location is chosen
we would grade that in phase 2. The only problem that I
can see that we would like to resolve with the commission
and hopefully receive a recommendation that would reverse
the park people. We think it's very important to the
development that the outlot area be credited as far as
park dedication. If you didn't feel it was valid to give
us that credit based on the nature of the use as proposed
there, I think we would like to maintain private ownership
of it. We all know it's a very valuable piece of land.
Basically, the development is 140 lots proposed in three
phases over the next few years starting as soon as utilities
could be scheduled in.
Bob Hackett
- I am representing Jean Lovetang. We spoke with the DNR,
they were out last Friday morning. We have been working
Planning Commissio&eeting June 14, 1978 * -12-
with Len Swedlund on obtaining the area alongside her
property because her road now runs right through that.
The DNR came out and proposed to us that they were going r
to purchase to the original line. Since that time they
have come with a different line, which we proposed to them.
I think moving this line over is an acceptable thing.
This new proposal is much more acceptable to us than the
original.
Mal MacAlpine left the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Jerry Neher moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by
Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 10:35 p.m.
ECKLUND AND SWEDLUND, PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING:
Les Bridger
- I like the new plan better. I think it has handled the
Lovetang property in an equitable manner. We have
discussed this for several years now and I think we have
kicked around just about every aspect of the thing plan wise
and any other aspect. I do have the concern about the
outlot problem. We should address that and discuss that
and I think everything else as far as I am concerned looks
good to me. I wish there was someone here from the Park
and Recreation Commission that could address that issue
because I know by giving the Outlot B in dedication
Ecklund and Swedlund are really complying with what we
requested a few years ago, what we had considered a
conservation easement at that time and they have complied
with that. It's allowing a green area by a lake. It's
dedicated to public in general and allow access to the lake
without destroying aquatic vegetation as we were concerned
with a few years ago. As park land, I don't know if it
can be considered park land as such. The Park and
Recreation Commission has made a recommendation to us after
their consideration and deliberation, I am sure a lot of
thought has been put into it.As to why this can't be
considered park property as far as the needs of Ecklund
and Swedlund to meet the criteria for park land dedication.
As we can see there is no place else for a park there. They
would have to remove several lots to make some kind of a
little park in there.
Bob Waibel -
The park dedication fee as it would be applied in this
case would be of no actual cost to the developer. It would
be remitted at the time of the building permit. The real
cost is what it does to affect the developers ability
to sell the property.
Roman Roos -
Do you recall what Park and Recs feelings were on this.
Bob Walbel -
I guess most of the members had been involved with this
plan the last time it had gone through and this is essentially
the same plan, the outlot, the transportation plan, the
comprehensive plan also showed there being a connection
to a future park in that area which is the Lotus Lake Park.
It is part of a trailway. I don't know how far that issue
was taken the last time it had gone through. It seems to
be a precedent at least to me it's a -precedent.
Jerry Neher
- Ecklund and Swedlund were more or less dictated to as far
as that property is concerned, practically in my mind
a taking of the property. It is my feeling that they
Planning Commissio eeting June 14, 1978 -13-
should be given some credit, maybe not 100%,but a portion
of it should be credited. I don't believe I could go for
100% of it.
�. Bob Waibel -
I would like to consult the Park and Recreation Commission,
the City Manager and City Attorney.
Roman Roos -
I have a real hang up as to what in the devil is park and
what is not park.
Jerry Neher
- In my opinion that's park.
Roman Roos -
Private ownership defeats exactly what we were trying to do
initially so the developer was bound to donate that land
period.
Walter Thompson
- In looking at the Park's recommendation they are very
definitely stating Outlot B. I am wondering if that
property lends itself to a trailway.
Les Bridger
- That would be more than a trailway. How much land are we
talking about in Outlot B? When does a trailway end and a
park begin? I see in my mind a trailway as a pathway through
a woods or along a lake.
Jerry Neher
— That's something over 100 feet wide.
Les Bridger
- That's not what I consider a trailway system. A little
green path, yes.
Rick Sathre
- The average width must be about 120 feet or so. It's about
1600 feet long.
Les Bridger
- I couldn't consider that a trailway.
Roman Roos -
If Ecklund and Swedlund had wanted to donate that land it
would be quite a different picture than we requesting
that we get that land. I have a real hang up because you
are looking at -dollars that have been given to the city
`
to accommodate the city and you are also talking of putting
Ordinance 14A on it. I don't know if I can go along with
both of them. If that had been unusable land and they
were trying to use that land for thepurpose of eliminating
14A then I would take a whole different perspective.
Les Bridger
- This is prime land. We discussed that it would be a
deterrent for the sale of that property. People would
like to own right up to the waters edge and with this
they cannot. Would this Outlot B meet the requirements
of park land dedication if we were to accept it as such
or would additional monies have to be paid? We are not
armed with the reasons why the Park and Rec Commission
would not consider this as park land. I wish I had something
that would have Portrayed their reasons for that decision
because as I look at it I see park land. It's right on
the lake. It's very amenable to persons in the city to
go out and explore that area of the lake. I think it would
be excellent Dark property. I think that's what we had in
mind when we began this whole Project that that would be
a park area. Granted there will be another Dark just to
the northwest but this will be just an extension of that.
Jerry Neher
- I would be interested in knowing what percentage of
property can be donated for park. That's my basis upon
saying, a percentage.
Bob Waibel -
The problem of definition came up with this western Hills
park. That's a roadblock we will have to anticipate if
we try to Propose the use of this as a part of the acreage
requirement.
Roman Roos -
T4e can make a recommendation this evening to Council.
Along with our recommendation will be the Park and Rec.
recommendation as well as staff. The Council is .going to
have to weigh the issues.
Planning, Commissio•4eeting June 14, 1978 • -14-
Les Bridger - If that outlot property were located somewhere else in
the develo?mient, is there no reason why that could not
be considered nark land as their dedication. Just because -;--
it happens to be lakeshore Droperty really should not
make a difference and I hope that is not a consideration
that is being placed by the Park and Rec. I, personally,
would like to see consideration by staff at least look -
into the -_possibility of accepting, this as Dark land
and if it doesn't quite meet the criteria as setf_orth
for Dark dedication for this development then I would
like to see the difference made up in funds placed in
escrow for Dark develonment.
Les Bridger moved to recommend the Council approve the rezoning and
plan amendment for Ecklund and Swedlund Lotus Lake Estates as nronosed
with the six points listed in the Planner's recommendation and further
recommend that staff review, perhaps with Park and Recreation Commission,
the Planning Commission member's feelings as presented tonight
concerning the acceptance of Outlot B as part: property and the
nossibiliSs.� �addiiional funds i a esn meet_ t eehe ramiiramant
lv
PUBLIC HEARING
PTTS PLAN AMENDMENT
ROOS PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
Walter Thompson called the hearing
interested persons were present:
George Butzow, 421 Bushaway Road,
Henry Atwood, 3007 Dakota
econded by Walter Thompson an I
to order at 11:10 n.m. The following
Wayzata
Gary Eastburn, 1225 Hesse Fares Circle
Bill Brezinsky
Roman Roos.abstained from voting on this issue. The Assistant Citv
Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver Countv
Herald.
The purpose of this hearing is to consider amending the PTTS development
plan to allow for construction of office/professional buildings
to be located in the northwestern corner of the MTS nroDerty.
Bob Waibel - Mr. Roos intends to construct two Professional buildings
on that Dart of the PTTS property severed by the proposed
frontage road. Building no. 1 is proposed for professional
services and building no. 2 is proposal for medical and
dental services. It is difficult to estimate the number
of parking spaces needed for this nroposal. Using the most
stringent ordinance requirement of 1 parking space for
every 300 square feet of gross floor area, it can be
determined that 73 spaces are required. The -proposed
plans are 13 spaces deficient from this standard. This
problem may be augmented, however, if the applicant can
tell us how many medical or dental tenants will occupy
building no. 2. Section 9.07 of Ordinance 47 states that
a minimum of six offstreet parking spaces shall be required
for each doctor or dentist maintaining, professional offices
within the principal structure. A letter dated May 24,
1978, from Mr. Butzow, President of the PTTS Systems Corn.,
states that the applicant will present his plans to an
open meeting of the Chanhassen Estates residents. The
r
s �
0GULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1978
Mayor Hobbs called the meeting to order at with the following
members present: Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Waritz. Councilman
1 Neveaux came at 9:15 p.m.
' ppPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Pearson moved to approve the agenda wit t e a 1tion of the following items:
Status of Construction Projects.
Flood Insurance.
Meeting date.
Official meeting place - City Council.
Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor:
Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Waritz. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
MINUTES: Amend the motion under PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE
P05S, INC. in the June 19, 1978, Council minutes to read: Councilman
Pearson moved to grant preliminary development plan approval contingent
upon access from Highway 5 acceptable to the City and sewer and water
availabth
e The City reserves the right to withdraw final approval
following public hearing on July 17, 1978. Motion seconded by
Councilman Waritz. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux,
Councilmen Pearson and Waritz. Councilman Geving voted no. Motion
carried.
Councilman Waritz moved to approve the June 19, 1978, Council minutes
as amended. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted
in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Waritz. No
negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Geving moved to note the June 14, 1978, Planning Commission
minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in
favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Waritz. No
negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Pearson moved to note the June 28, 1978, Planning Commission
minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in
favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Waritz. No
negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Pearson moved to note the June 28, 1978, Community Facilities
Study Committee minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Geving,
and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried.
LOTUS LAKE ESTATES REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
B I RO EMENT PROJECT - ECKLUND AND SLdEDLUND: The City Tlanager read
11Ae sta report noting t ree items or consi eration by the City Council.
firpproval of the revised development plan and preliminary plat for the
first nhase and rezoning.
2)Authorize public improvements for Phase I.
3)Reconsider lands abutting Lotus Lkae (proposed to be dedicated to the
City as full or partial payment under the Park Dedication Ordinance
rather than as a "conservation easement").
Rick Sathre, Len Swedlund, Mark Swedlund, Jean Lovetang, Bob Hackett,
Pat Boyle, Phyllis Pope, and Fran Callahan were present. Rick Sathre
spoke on behalf of Mr. Swedlund on the proposed development.
Councilman Neveaux came during this portion of the meeting.
'1
Council Meeting July 10, 1978
Councilman Pearson moved to rezone the tract of land known as Lotus
Lake Estates from R-lA to P-1. Motion seconded by Councilman GeVir.;..
The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson,
Geving, and Waritz: Councilman Neveaux abstained. Motion carried
Councilman Pearson moved to approve the preliminary plat of Lotus
Lake Estates Phase I to consist of Lots 1-14 inclusive, Block 1,
Lots 1-29 inclusive of Block 2, and Lot 1, Block 7 as shown on the
proposed preliminary plat of Lotus Lake Estates dated May 18, 1978
revised June 14, 1978, and June 19, 1978. Included within the
preliminary plat of Phase I will be Outlots A and B. The balance
of the proposed preliminary plat shown to be Phases II and III tobt
platted as Outlot C. Preliminary plat approval is continent upon
resolution of the issue presented y Outlot B whetter it isT-6-Fp-
Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Waritz. Councilman
Neveaux abstained. Motion carried.
Jean Lovetang is negotiating with Mr. Swedlund to purchase a small
portion of this property which may change the preliminary plat.
Councilman Pearson moved to table action on the public improvements
Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor
Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Waritz. Councilman
Neveaux abstained. Motion carried.
MODULAR HOME: Mr. Norman Monroe, 565 Lakota Lane, and several neigh' -
were present objecting to the modular home that is being moved onto
the lot next door to Mr. Monroe. Residents were invited to meet
with the Building Inspector and review the plans that were submitte:
to the Council. If they are not satisfied they can request to bt
placed on a future Council agenda.
ROAD AND ELM ROAD: Mr. Michael Howdyshell
was present requesting tnis item be p ace on the Council agenda th:,
evening for consideration. This replat will be on the July 17, 19T
Council agenda.
FRONT YARD VARIANCE, MICHAEL WALSH, 512 WEST 76th STREET: Mr. and?'
Walsh were present requesting a 17 foot front Yard variance to
construct a 24 x 22 foot garage, 8 x 24 foot breezeway, and 10 x 30
foot porch onto their present home at 512 West 76th Street. The
Board of Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing and voted to
recommend approval of the request. Staff recommended denial of suc
a large variance. Covenants for the property require a•minimum 16:
setback on corner lots. As such, a variance of 14 feet is the maxir
which could be considered.
Councilman Geving moved to grant Mr. and Mrs. Walsh an eleven foot
front yard variance. Motion seconded by Councilman Waritz. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux.
Waritz, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
3F _
Council Meeting July, 1978
-4-
Councilman Pearson moved to continue the public hearing to July 24, 1978, for
the purpose of receiving written comments. Written comments should be to staff
by Friday July 21, 1978. Motion seconded by Councilman Waritz. The following
voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Waritz. No
negative votes. Hearing continued at 9:20 p.m.
LOTUS LAKE ESTATES REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: This item was tabled to allow the Council, staff and Mr.
Swedlund to consi er the request of Mr. Swedlund to have Outlot B accepted in
lieu of the park charge. Staff did not recommend that Outlot B be totally acce:•,
in lieu of the park charge.
RESOLUTION #78-31: Councilman Pearson moved the adoption of a resolution accept.
the Lotus Lake Estates Preliminary Plan with the conveyance of Outlot B to oubli.
ownership to be maintained as undeveloped open space except for a trailway Syste
suc an cons tri as the ity ounce may a ermine, eso u ion
seconded y Councilman Geving. The fo owing vote in avoer: ayor obbs,
Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #78-32: Councilman Pearson moved the adoption of a resolution author
the public improvements for Phase I per the Enaineer's. feasibility study dated
April 12, 1978, and prepare plans and specifications. Resolution seconded by
Councilman Waritz. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pears:
Geving, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Waritz moved to allow the developer 50% credit aaainst park develoome-
fees in consideration for the donation of Outlot B. Motion seconded by Councilr:- Pearson. The following voted in favor: Councilmen Pearson and Waritz. Mav—
Hobbs and Councilman Geving voted no. Motion failed.
HESSE FARM PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Mr. Harold Hesse is requesting_ the
Council waive the application of Resolution 911721 passed September 11, 197�1
which prohibits the consideration of plans beyond the sketch plan phase unti
utilities are available or imminent, so that he can develop Phases II and II'
of the Hesse Farm. The Planning Commission recommended that in this particular
instance the Council waive Resolution 911721.
Councilman Pearson moved to grant a waiver for the application of Resolution
911721 to the Hesse Farm Phases II and III and allow Mr. Hesse to proceed to
proposed preliminary development plan, Planning Case P-058. Motion seconded ":y
Councilman Waritz. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pesrsr
and Waritz. Councilman Geving voted no. Motion carried.
FRONTIER DODGE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Frontier Dodge is requesting th-
Council reconsider their preliminary development plans for an automobile
dealership on Lot 9, Block 1, Frontier Development Park. The Council approved
the preliminary development plan approximately two years aao under the condition
that the applicant enter into a development contract prior to the City consideri-
rezoning of the property. The applicant was unable to proceed under the oric_inal.
schedule because of financial conditions and is now requesting approval.
Councilman Pearson moved to rezone Lot 9, Block 1, Frontier Development Park
from I-1 to C-3. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in
favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Waritz. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
Councilman Geving moved to approve the issuance of a conditional use permit
Council Meeting August ip, 1978
0 -3-
misused. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in
favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Waritz, and Geving.
No negative votes. Motion carried.
T,0TUS LAKE ESTATES - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Len Swedlund was
present requesting reconsideration of action taken July 17, 1978, whereby
outlot B would be under public ownership. Mr. Swedlund suggested that
outlot B remain in private ownership under a homeowners association
with an easement for a public trail across Outlot B.
Councilman Neveaux moved to reconsider in light of Mr. Swedlund's letter
of July 31, 1978. Motion seconded by Councilman Waritz. The following
voted in favor: Councilmen Pearson, Waritz, and Neveaux. Mayor Hobbs
and Councilman Geving voted no. Motion carried.
Councilman Neveaux moved to amend Resolution #78-31 to allow for private
ownership through a homeowners association of Outlot B with a public
trailway easement across Outlot B. Staff will prepare the necessary
document for resubmission to the Council. Motion seconded by Councilman
Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson,
Neveaux, Waritz, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
REVIEW HOUSE MOVING PERMIT, ROMAN SINNEN, 535 LAKOTA LANE: The Council
considered this item on September 6., 1977, and approved a --permit to
move in three modular units and combine them into one single family home.
since that time the City has received a petition questioning whether or
not those units were in line with the original conditions of the Council.
staff has contacted Mr. Carl Norlander, Inspector, Building Code Division,
State of Minnesota. Mr. Norlander inspected the site and reviewed the
plans. It was his finding that that'structure with the changes that
are proposed to be made will meet the residential building code standards.
Mr. Norlander will forward a letter to the City verifying the above.
No action was taken.
SUBDIVISION REQUEST, FRANK METZIG, 6400 CHANHASSEN ROAD: Mr. Metzig is
requesting approval to subdivide 50 x 2ll into three lots. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval.
Councilman Pearson moved to approve the subdivision request of Mr. Frank
Metzig for property at 6400 Chanhassen Road. Motion seconded by Councilman
Waritz. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson,
Neveaux, Waritz, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
VARIANCE REQUEST, DOWNTOWN BUILDING MORATORIUM, ROOS PROFESSIONAL
BUILDING AND REZONING PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Roman Roos was
present requesting approved to construct two 11,000 square foot professional
medical/dental office buildings on property located.approximately 230
feet west of the intersection of Laredo Drive and West 78th Street on
the south side of West 78th Street.
Councilman Neveaux moved to accept the Planning Commission, the Planner
and City Manager's recommendations to grant a variance to Ordinance 47-K
for Planning Case P-551 Chanhassen Professional Building. Motion
seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, Neveaux, and Waritz. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
Council Meeting Jul*, 1980 -2-
CONDITIONAL USE PEEMIT, IMS LAKE ESTATES BEACH IAT AND ENA'RANCE SIGN VARIANIC
!embers of the Lotus lake Estates Homeowners Association are requesting approZ
to establish a beach lot between Lot 35, Block 2 and Lot 9, Block 1. They are
proposing to install a sand blanket six inches deep and also install two canoe
racks.
Councilman Neveaux moved to approve a conditional use permit for a beach lot
conditional upon:
1. That the beach lot consist of a sand blanket, swim area, and two six capaci*
came racks as shown on the site plan, City Council Exhibit A, dated July 21, 1
2. That the swim area be marked with a minimum of three "swim area" buoys that
are in accordance with the Uniform Waterway Marking Systan.
3. That the swim area be marked by the above anchored buoys at a reasonable
distance from shore.
Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes.
Notion carried.
The homeowner's association is requesting a sign permit to erect an entrance
sign at Choctaw Circle and Chanhassen Road. The proposed sign will not be
lighted and will be made of wood. Staff and the Sign Cammittee recommended
approval of a variance.
Councilman Swenson moved to grant a variance for the installation of an entrant._
sign in the public right-of-way. Notion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, a1-
Swenson. No negative votes. Notion carried.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - FOX CHASE ADDITION (DERRICK LAND COMPANY): John Sharc_.
was present to discuss the proposed plat and answer questions.
Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the final development plan based upon the
configuration of 52 lots as presented to the City Council April 7, 1980. Moticn
seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Councilmen Pearsc
Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. Mayor Hobbs voted no. Motion carried.
Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the final development plan for Fox Chase
Addition subject to items 2, 3 and 4 of the City Manager's report dated July 17,
1980, and items 1-5 in the Land Use Coordinator's report of July 9, 1980. Nbtice
seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Councilmen Pears.
Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. Mayor Hobbs voted no. Motion carried.
VARIANCE REQUEST, LOTS 653-658, 683-688, CARVER BEACH: Mike Sorenson is
seeking two lot area variances of 3,000 square feet each. The Board of Adjastr,_-
and Appeals recommended approval provided that lots be combined as parcel one
being lots 653-658 and parcel two being Lots 633-688.
Councilman Neveaux moved to accept the Planning report of July 16, 1980, and tt.:
Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommendation and the Land Use Coordinator's
memorandum of July 11, 1980, points 1-3. Notion seconded by Councilman Geving.
The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Gevim,
and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried.
POINT: Ron and Sherry Ytzen are requesting an 8,000 square foot lot area varial
a 25 foot rear yard setback variance to the Shorelanl Management Ordinance, arid.'
front yard variance of 14 feet in order to build a hone. The existing cabin w-1
be demolished.
Planning Commissioeinutes
August 12, 1981
Page 4
Waibel indicated that the applicants proposal should hook up
with 65th Street for the reason as to not create a long cul
du -sac. There is no reason for not hooking up i.e. the terrain
or the soil.
M. Thompson indicated that he likes the plan as proposed. Watson
concurred with M. Thompson. M. Thompson stated that there will
be no more development beyond this area because it is next to the
school.
Waibel explained that there are no assessments on this property.
Conrad indicated that it bothers him to not follow the ordinance.
14. Thompson made a motion, seconded by Watson to proceed to pre-
liminary plat with staff assistance regarding possible optional
street alignments. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
t Request. Outlot B. Lotus
W. Thompson called the Public Hearing to order at 8:45 p.m.
Craig Mertz, the Assistant City Attorney, advised the Planning
Commission not to attend the meeting at the Fire Place Room
at Instant Web, Inc. because they would be getting into a
potential liability situation under the open meeting law. Mertz
indicated that he will advise the City Council also.
W. Thompson explained to the public that the Planning Commission
is only to deal with the planning aspects of this request and
not get into the legal matters at all.
Mertz presented two letters to the Planning Commission to be on
record that he had received. The first being a letter dated Aug.
12, 1981 from Attorney Bruce Milkerson, representing the Lotus
Lake Estates Homeowners Association and the second being a
letter in opposition from Raymond H. Russell. Both letters will
be available at City Hall for review.
Waibel stated that the land use in the area is mostly agricultural
and residential. He also stated that the staff is in concurrence
with the recommendations made regarding this request by the Lake
Study Committee.
Arron Babcock, president of the Lotus Lake Estates Home owners
Association, gave some history of this request. He stated that
last year the association came in for a conditional use permit
for a swimming beach and 2 canoe racks. At that time they had
mentioned that they would want to come back at a later date to
request some docks.
A
Planning Commissi inutes •
August 12, 1981 CW
Page 5 lwp
Arron Babcock, explained that they are requesting 5 dock=,1 I`r
long and four other docks going northward. They are propi_�rf'�w "
2 more canoe racks and 10 sailboat moorings. Also are propo$
a conversation pit and a barbecue pit. The five docks will
house 8 boats each for a total of 40 boats. The City has a
easement 4' wide all along the beachlot. Mr. Babcock explair
that the outlot has 1590' of lakeshore. They are proposing
development of less than 800' of development. There will be
800' or more left for wildlife habitat- Babcock indicated that
there are presently 77 docks around Lotus Lake, we are proposing
only 5 docks. They are proposing to do no bulldozing, reclaimation,
and no trees will be disturbed. We are the largest lakeshore
owner on the lake.
John Nicolay, asked if the 50' dock will be measured from the shore-
line or from the 4' depth. Babcock stated that it would be
measured from the shoreline. Each dock will have a 32' T on
the end.
Georgette Sosin asked what if other Outlots would have a proposal
like this one. Babcock stated that if they are granted full
riparian rights then there is little anyone can say about it.
John Danielson asked how many boat does Babcock feel Lotus Lake
can support safely? Babcock stated that he didn't know. Danielson
stated that maybe that should have been one of their first steps.
Jim Parsons, stated that the DNR standards are 1 boat per 20 acres.
Lotus Lake has 220 acres that makes 20 boats. The lake will have
to be limited to horsepower.
Ron Harvey stated that the increase of docks on the lake would
--be 6% but the increase this proposal will create for boats is
approximately 30%.
Nicolay asked how many homes are presently in Lotus Lake Estates.
It was answered 39 homes there are about 100 more lots. Nicolay
asked Babcock how many docks they are going to come back for in
the future, what's going to happen to the other 800' of shore-
line when the other 100 homes go in? Also there are 90 homeowners
on the lake that pay taxes to have full riparian rights.
Babcock stated that as the development grows the homeowners
rights to the docks get smaller.
Steve Hemping stated that they pay as much taxes as the lakeshore
owners, he had a list from the Assessor's Office stating how much
tax everyone pays.
W. Thompson explained that the Lake Study Committee has studied
Lotus Lake and come up with some recommendations to the Planning
Commission. (See memo dated June 24, 1981 from S. Martin)
Henry Sosin indicated that Babcock stated that they are
as much a lakeshore owner as anyone else. Their Outlot is
governed by their Development Contract and from their homeowners
association with the City and the Conditional Use Permit which
they have already. Their covenants permit no development at all.
Planning Commissiowinutes .
August 12, 1981
Page 6
Their proposed 40 more boats would increase the usage of the
lake by at least 30%. Sosin stated that this would create a
precident for other Outlots.
Nicolay, president of the Lotus Lake Association, The actions
that the Planning Commission and City Council have taken in the
past has been that this piece of land be left as it is. He does
not believe that this proposal is in the spirit of what has been
done in the past. The public relies on the Planning Commission
and City Council to be consistant. Asked that this proposal be
denied.
Babcock, explained that Outlot B was originally proposed as a
conservation lot but didn't end up that way.
Conrad asked Babcock what he proposes the Planning Commission
do regarding the rest of the Outlots if they come in and ask
for the same kind of request. Babcock stated that they should
look at each request separately.
Lloyd Miller, doesn't belong to an association, he owns 200' of
lakeshore & only 3 feet is developed. He is very much opposed
to this request. Lotus Lake is very shallow, with an average
depth of 15', if there are only 4 boats on the lake, the lake
turns to mud. He feels that 40 more boats will just make the
/ lake die.
1 Bill Spodoff indicated that if there are 5 docks 50' in length
each with 32' T's that comes to 400 feet of dockage. This is a
marina. Lotus Lake doesn't allow marinas on the lake.
Walter Cordron, Chairman of the Lake Study Committee, indicated
that last year when the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association
received their Conditional Use Permit they had asked for a swimming
beach and mentioned at that time that they might want a canoe
rack which was granted, at that time we also requested that no
shrubbery or trees be destroyed in creating a swimming beach.
The City hired a biologist at that time and he requested that
no plastic be placed below the swimming beach. As the beach
is today it has plastic, which was against the recommendations
of the Committee, they also have had trees and shrubs removed
to make room for their swimming beach which was also against
the recommendations of their Committee.
Sosin indicated that some of the homeowners on the lake have spent
time to learn about Lotus Lake. Dr. Willer from the University
of Minnesota came out to look at Lotus Lake and had a tour of
the wetlands. Dr. Weller commented that the amount of boats and
turbulence in the peak area by Lotus Lake Estates, will destroy
the shoreline more surely than any phosphates or any other impurity
coming from our lawns. He indicated that he could see the erosion
{ beginning already. 800' is not enough to sustain the wildlife.
L
Planning Commissicoinutes •
August 12, 1981
Page 7
A motion was made by M. Thompson and seconded by Watson to close
the Public Hearing. All voted in favor and motion was carried.
M. Thompson asked what the Staff recommendations are. Waibel
stated that the Staff concurs with the recommendations of the
Lake Study Committee.
M. Thompson asked the presidents from both Homeowners Associations
if they had attempted to meet to work out a compromise. They
indicated that they have not met.
Conrad stated that he is sensitive to the situation that the
homeowners are in. They have quite a bit of lakeshore frontage.
From the history of the City Council, Planning Commission and
Lake Study Committee, they have not supported this type of re-
quest on Lotus Lake. They have intended to keep this area natural.
Conrad doesn't want to create a precident for other outlots.
Watson indicated that it is hard to keep away from the legal
aspects of this item because this is a big part of the issue.
Her major concern is the motorboats, not the sailboats.
W. Thompson indicated that he is going to poll the Planning
Commission on their feelings regarding the Lake Study Committee's
recommendations taking each recommendation separately.
1. Only one dock should be permitted only 50' in length, unless
necessary to reach a water depth of 4 feet; M. Thompson, Conrad,
and Watson indicated no problem.
2. Two additional canoe racks should be permitted allowing a
maximum of -four racks; M. Thompson, Watson and Conrad indicated
'they had no objections.
3. No sailboat mooring buoys or overnight docking of boats should
be permitted (including on -land boat storage); No objections
from any of the Planning Commission.
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;
No objections from the Planning Commission.
5. And, the proposed conversation pit should not be so constructed
as to be of a permanent nature (i.e. using brick or masonry material).
The Planning Commission concurred with the conversation pit
whether permanent or not. "
Conrad made a motion seconded by M. Thompson to deny the current
permit application for Lotus Lake Estates on Outlot B. All voted
in favor and the motion was carried.
Planning Commissi*Minutes •
August 12, 1981
Page 8
Conrad stated that his reasons for voting to deny this request
is because the precident that would be set for Outlots, the intent
of the Planning Commission and City Council in the past has been
to keep this outlot natural. This request is outside the scope
of the intent of the ordinance and the intent of the direction of
the City.
Watson indicated that she concurs with Conrad, the proposed ordinance
is a good ordinance and we should go by it. Five docks and 40
overnight motor boats is way too many.
M. Thompson stated that he is a lake shore owner on Lotus Lake
-he lives in a wetland area and doesn't own a dock or a boat.
He believes that the proposed ordinance is a good one and they
should use it a guideline.
W. Thompson stated that the lakeshore area on Lotus Lake is too
fragile to support the volume of traffic that will be generated
by this request.
Conrad made a motion to recommend approval of the Development
Contract Amendment for Lotus Lake Estates as effecting Outlot B
to be modified as by the recommendation of the Lake Study Committee
in Memo of June 24, 1981 as follows:
1. Only one dock should be permitted (not to exceed fifty feet
in length, unless necessary to reach a water depth of 4 feet);
2. two additional canoe racks should be permitted allowing a
maximum of four racks;
3. no sailboat mooring buoys or overnight docking of boats should be
permitted (including on -land boat storage);
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
one -hundred feet from the nearest lake shoreline, and projects
a minimum of one foot but not more than five feet above the
lake surface;
5. and, the proposed conversation pit should not be so constructed
as to be of a permanent nature (i.e. using brick or masonry
material).
The second to the motion was made by W. Thompson. Watson, Conrad,
and W. Thompson voted in favor, M. Thompson voted nay. The motion
was carried.
M. Thompson indicated his reason for voting nay was because why
should the Planning Commission grant something that the Lotus Lake
Homeowners Association hasn't asked for.
Council Meeting August 31, 1981 -13-
i
Councilwoman Swenson moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilman
Horn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson,
Councilmen Geving and Horn. Hearing closed at 9:00 p.m.
NORTH SERVICE AREA SEWER AND WATER REASSESSMENT: Councilman Geving moved to set a
special Council meeting for September 8, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. and direct staff to provide
whatever answers are needed to the questions asked in the correspondence received
tonight. Motion seconded by Acting Mayor Neveaux. The following voted in favor:
Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
NEW HORIZON HOMES: Frank Kurvers asked why the disturbed lands in Chaparral have not
Pen seeded. The Engineer will check into this and take appropriate steps, if needed.
NORTHWEST LOTUS LAKE ROAD SYSTEMS: Homeowners in the area were present to discuss
connecting various roads within those areas presently being considered for development.
No action was taken.
FRONT YARD VARIANCE REQUEST, 7616 FRONTIER TRAIL: Mr. Coulter is requesting an eight
foot front yard variance in order to construct a detached double garage. The Board
of Adjustments and Appeals recommends approved.
Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the front yard setback variance request, Planning
Case 81-6. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Actin.
Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST, LOTUS LAKE ESTATES BEACH LOT: The Lotus
Lake Estates Homeowners Association is requesting an amendment to their conditional
use permit for the following changes:
1. Five, 50 foot seasonal docks. Each dock to contain eight boat slips.
2. Two additional canoe/small sailboat racks storing six watercraft each.
3. Ten sailboat mooring buoys for sailboats.
4. One 10' x 10' swimming raft of wood construction with flotation.
I5. Conversation pit - fire hole, three feet in diameter with a six foot apron of brick
or masonary construction.
ny residents of Lotus Lake Estates as well as residents around Lotus Lake were present.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 12, 1981, as recommended
approval of the amendment to be modified as by the recommendation of the Lake Study
Committee in memo of June 24, 1981 as follows:
1. Only one dock should be permitted (not to exceed fifty feet in length, unless
necessary to reach a water depth of four feet).
2. Two additional canoe racks should be permitted allowing a maximum of four racks.
3. No sailboat mooring buoys or overnight docking of boats should be permitted
(including on -land boat storage).
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 one -hundred feet from -the nearest
lake shoreline, and projects a minimum of one foot but not more than five feet
above the lake surface.
5. The proposed conversation pit should not be so constructed as to be of a permanent
nature (i.e. using brick or masonry material).
Councilman Geving moved to deny the Lotus Lake Estates Homeowner's Association
application for an amendment to their present conditional use permit as applied for
in their June 10, 1981, unsigned letter and referencing all illustrations and all
materials relating to the ecology of Lotus Lake as presented in the Council Agenda.
.Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor
jNeveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion
!carried.
Council Meeting August, 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 nece....
to reach a water depth of four feet). Said dock may have the configuration,
40 feet with a ten foot platform at the end. Said dock to be located in th,
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 Oft above).
4. A 10' x 10' swimming raft should be permitted if it is located in water ha,.i.
a minimum depth of seven feet, is not more than 100 feet from the nearest 1ap
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: Councilwor..'
Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Acting Mayor Neveaux voted no. Motion
failed.
Councilwoman Swenson moved to accept the Planning Commission recommendations o:
August 12, 1981, page 8, with modifications as follows:
1. One dock should be permitted (not to exceed 50 feet in length, unless necessa-
to reach a water depth of four feet). Said dock may have the configuration,.
40 feet with a ten foot platform at the end. Said dock to be located in th,
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
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 havir..
a minimum depth of seven feet, is not more than 100 feet from the nearest lai;,
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 Mayer
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 hearin:
will be held.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, PARK II, INSTANT WEB: Frank Beddor was present.
The City Planner presented the Planning Report. Since the Planning Commission
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.