Loading...
1985 07 24 e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JULY 24, 1985 Chairman Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Jim Thompson, Tom Merz, Susan Albee, Bill Ryan, Ladd Conrad, and Mike Thompson. MEMBERS ABSENT Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City planner, Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and vicki Churchill, Secretary. PUBLIC HEARING SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO SPLIT ONE 4.56 ACRE LOT INTO TWO 2.28 ACRE LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED R-lA AND LOCATED AT 815 CREEKWOOD DRIVE, DALE GUNDERSON, APPLICANT e Public Present Dale Gunderson Anne & Clara Vogel Applicant Applicants e Olsen stated that the applicant had previously applied for a building permit for a single family residence on 3.56 acres of property which he was intending to buy from the Vogel's 4.56 acre parcel. She stated that staff informed him of the 2~ acre requirement in the R-la District. She stated that staff informed the applicant that variances would be required before a building permit could be issued, and staff denied his building permit application. She stated that Mr. Gunderson applied for an appeal to staff's decision to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. She noted that they reviewed the case and found that staff's decision was correct in denying the application. She stated that Mr. Gunderson then applied for the variances needed and these were also denied by the Board and City Council. She stated that the applicant then pursued the case in court and the judge felt that if a subdivision was processed by creating two lots of a more equal acreage a more reasonable solution could be achieved. She noted that the judge felt that the topography of the 4.56 acre parcel did not allow it to function as one lot. She also stated the judge felt that one additional home on Creekwood Drive would not adversely compound the problem of dust. She stated that the City Council was advised of the judge's opinion that the city grant variances from the zoning Ordinance for the minimum lot size requirement and from the requirement that lots abut a public street. She stated that the applicant is now applying for sub- division approval to split a 4.56 acre parcel into two 2.28 acre e Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 2 lots. She noted that part of the settlement agreement states that should the city decide to construct a public street, the applicant will dedicate without charge any interest they have in the private roadway easement abutting the subject property. J. Thompson moved, seconded by Albee to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. J. Thompson stated that he does not like lots under 2~ acres in the R-la district. Albee stated that this was not in compliance with the ordinance. Conrad felt that it was bad planning. Ryan felt that the 4.56 acre parcel was created by default. He stated that both parcels were parcels of record and existed prior to the zoning ordinance. J. Thompson moved, seconded by Merz, to recommend approval of Subdivision Request #85-15 with the following conditions: e 1. That the applicants will dedicate without charge any interest they have in the private roadway easement abutting the sub- ject property 2. That the subject property may be assessed for the project. 3. Should the septic system fail, it is the owner's respon- sibility to correct it and not depend on government agencies. J. Thompson, Merz, Ryan, and M. Thompson voted in favor. Albee and Conrad were opposed. Motion carried. Albee and Conrad felt that it was not in compliance with the ordinance and it was bad planning. PUBLIC HEARING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 6.04 (10), 7.04 (9), AND 14.04 (2) OF THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, APPLICANT Public Present citizens did not sign list e Olsen stated that the proposed Recreational Beachlot Ordinance Amendment was drafted by the City Attorney and also contains staff revisions. She stated that the current ordinance has spe- cific regulations for a beachlot and a beachlot to have a dock. She noted that the beachlot must have 100 feet at the ordinary e Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 3 e high water mark and 100 feet landward or at least 4 linear feet per dwelling unit that has a right to use the beachlot. She stated that for a beachlot to have a dock, it must have the 100 feet at the ordinary high water mark and 100 feet landward. She stated that out of the 14 existing beachlots, six would meet the requirements for a beach lot with a dock. She stated that the amendment also includes a square footage requirement that must be met along with a lake frontage requirement for the beachlot to have a dock. She noted that the amendment allows for additional docks if the beachlot has enough lake frontage and square footage. She noted that only two of the existing 14 beachlots meet both of the requirements and would be allowed docks. She stated that the proposed ordinance amendment is more restrictive in allowing a recreational beachlot to have a dock because it requires the beachlot to meet a square footage requirement and have more lake frontage, but more lenient in that it allows addi- tional dockage if it is a larger beachlot. She also stated that the proposed amendment would allow overnight storage, mooring .or docking for up to five watercraft and it would also allow boat launching. She stated that the addition of overnight storage and launching privileges was an attempt at providing recreational beachlots with the same rights as privately owned riparian lots. She stated that the most important of the amend- ments was the square footage regulations which would stop the strange configurations of lots and the intensity of use versus the size. Dacy stated that the amendment will not affect existing beach- lots. She stated that they will in effect be grandfathered in. Jack Melby: I have a letter that I would like to give each one of the Commissioners and to ensure that it gets into the public record, I would like to read it. (The letter that Mr. Melby read is attached to this page of minutes). Harvey Parker: I think, to me at least, the point that strikes me strongest is the launching of boats from the beachlots. Basically, I could pass this, but that provision, what you are doing is telling each developer that is going to develop something on the lake, Mr. Developer you are going to have your own private launch area for your own development. You are already considering a public access on Lotus Lake. There are public accesses on the other lakes and I just don't see why we should have that many accesses. Is it one boat per 20 acres of water? You are really defeating the DNR standard if you allow other launches on the lake because the DNR states that you can have one boat through a launch for every 20 acres of lake area. e Roger Karjalahti: I just want to make a comment about how I feel about the inequity of the developers coming in and pushing the .... e e e July 23, 1985 Chanhassen Planning Commission: A citizens meeting with representatives of the Lotus Lake Home Owners Association, LakB Riley Home Owners Association and the Colonial Grove Home Owners Association considered the proposed amendments to Ordinance #47 pertaining to "beach lots". Enclosed is a position paper expressing our strong objections to the proposed changes. Than~OU' ;;:~ / /ff. ~ Hel5 y ~in / ; ~. .. Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance '47 e Position paper regarding proposed amendments to "Beach lot Ordinance". The proposed amendments markedly change the ordinance. The changes will seriously weaken the control that the city currently maintains. The changes would allow docks and overnight dockage of 5 motorized watercraft per dock. Docks could be multiple depending on the size of the beach lot. Launching of watercraft would be allowed from each beach lot. The original ordinance was passed: to protect the lakes: to maintain control of the number of watercraft: to assure safety and prevent overutilization of the lake. We feel these controls are desirable and necessary. The proposed amendments should be rejected for the following reasons: e 1. The ordinance was passed in 1982. It is only three years old and all the reasons and arguments made at the time of passage, still pertain. Nothing has occurred in the meantime that would support a change. 2. The current ordinance has been effective in dealing with developers. Although there have been threats and pressure from developers and homeowner associations, no law suits have been filed. Nothing has shown the ordinance to be uninforcable as may be feared by the city council. 3. An argument has been made by the city council that outlots should be treated the same as private reparian ownerships. We contend that the law, can and should be made to distinguish individual private reparian ownership from beach outlot ownership. The difference in taxation, which is many times more for individual ownership, is only one but a sufficient reason for the maintained difference. The difference in intensi ty of utilization of watercraft and the lake resource is a major second reason. e 4. Overutilization was just mentioned. The current ordinance allows a private owner to dock 5 watercraft at his dock. No one does have that many boats and if one would, they would not all be power craft. A family with 5 boats could possibly use one or two at a time. Five families at a beach lot dock with 5 watercraft would probably use all five watercraft at the same time. Multiplied by two or three docks, one has 10-15 watercraft from the same land parcel. Overutilization, crowding, and unsafe conditions would certainly occur. 5. The proposed changes allow launching from each beach lot. That means that each development essentially adds another boat 1 . e e e . lauch to the lake. The numbers of watercraft launched are not controlled, only those moored or docked. A public boat launch is currently being considered on Lotus Lake, and Lakes Riley and Minnewashta already have public launches. Private launching from beach lots could inundate the lakes and lead to unsafe conditions. 6. Even if changed as proposed, the ordinance could still be challenged in court. Any beach lot with 150 ft. of shoreline, rather than 200 ft. of shoreline, could make the same legal arguments that the city currently fears. Thus, changing the current ordinance which defini tely weakens it, does not protect from lawsui ts. 7. The city council is an elected body that is accountable to the ci tizens. Accountable especially to those ci tizens already here just as much and more so than to those future citizens not yet here. For the enjoyment, safety, and welfare of those current citizens, these proposed changes should be denied. If the city council has such difficulty in dealing with and controlling beach outlots, an obvious solution is to deny all future and currently proposed beach outlots. Those that now exist have been and can be controlled with the current ordinance as it stands. We strongly recommend for the above stated reasons that the proposed amendments be defeated. 2 I. e e Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 4 beachlot concept so they can sell their lots with dockage and we came and we paid the price and we are paying the price in taxes. If we get these extra launches and these extra docks, it is just going to get over utilized. I don't care to see that happen because the end result is going to be restrictions on motor size and then the boats that came out there with the houses that were originally built aren't going to be able to be used. It is going to get too much use. Don Fowler: I live at the south end of Lotus Lake. A week ago, I was down at the beach, and on the south end, just in that corner, there were 19 boats in the afternoon. Nineteen just in our section and I didn't even get out to see what was on the rest of the lake. But it is already being over utilized. I have been on the lake now for over 16 years and we have been through this so many times, I am beginning to feel that the City Council is harassing us homeowners and maybe a class action suit against the individual city and the individual council members should be taken by the homeowners because we are constantly up here year after year after year. We thought this was settled three years ago and we are being harassed again. The lake is being over uti- lized right now and the next thing they are going to do is ban boats on the lake. I am paying $450 a month taxes to be on that lake. Now these outlots and people are not paying that kind of taxes and I resent them telling me that they are. Dick Eide: How can they regulate this with the two counties. In the middle of that lake is Hennepin County and the other side is Carver County. Now there are other spaces around in Hennepin County that could be sold, developed and the same thing, now how can we control the whole lake? You can't control Hennepin County. How you can turn around and stop people from Carver County with not having a beachlot down there and then Hennepin County can come in and they can let developers put 20 to 50 boats, whatever they want per lot or per acre or whatever they have down there. I don't see how you can control this from one county to the other. Bill Ryan: We can control what happens in the City of Chanhassen, we can't control anything once you have crossed the city line. The ordinance however, is in place today because three years ago, the City of Chanhassen felt that without some controls, there could indeed be unlimited use of outlots as beach lots and we had to do something to ensure they were going to protect the public health. So the ordinance was created to protect the city, not to permit but rather to restrict because unrestricted use could endanger the public health. So we feel the ordinance is necessary, it is a question of what is the form of the ordinance. We can't do a thing about what the City of Eden prairie does. e e e Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 5 Dick Eide: All of the boats that are coming on the lake now. That gentleman said he had a whole flock down there on the south corner of the lake. They are all coming in from Eden Prairie. Bill Ryan: There was a proposal for a beachlot about a year ago on our side. I believe that was put on hold. steve Burke: I am with the Sunnys10pe Homeowners Association which is the beach10t you referred to, even though it is not a beach lot right now. I guess I am speaking from a different perspective. We are part of a homeowners association that owns a piece of property on the lake and it seems very . . . We look at it from a different perspective because we wanted a development that has a 1akeshore. We may not be paying $400 a month in taxes because we are not actually on the lake with our homes, but we are paying taxes for that property down there. But what I am looking at is for the city to say that a recreational beach10t, basically, the only rights you have are to go down there and launch canoes across, is very unfair. What we talked to the City Council about last year, and didn't seem to make much headway with, is the fact that since we own our beach10t, if you can call it that, our lot on the lake is an R-1 piece of property that has inherent rights in it. If I were to sell it to any person here in this room, they could go down there, build a home and they could put a dock out and have up to five boats. What we are trying to do is install a dock and store five boats overnight. In our position, it would be very nice to have the launching pri- vileges, because right now, since we can't store any boats on that dock, well we don't even have a dock right now. If we had a dock we couldn't store boats. If we are not out on Lake Riley, since they control that access quite extensively over on the Eden prairie side, if we are not out by about 7:00 in the morning on a Saturday or Sunday, we are not getting on the lake. Yet we own property on the lake, we are paying taxes for that property. what we are trying to do is we are trying to get the right to put one dock and keep what is inherent in that property which is five boats. We haven't been trying to petition for the right to launch boats across the property. I would think an equitable, at least from the position that I look at, an equitable position would be to allow for the storage of the boats but not for the launching of the boats, then you are not going to have a developer with 40 or 50 homes and beach10t having 35 people storing overnight and 35 people launching. We are not a very big homeowners association, we only have 12 lots. We would still have to monitor and determine within our own by-laws who within the association could keep the boat on the property. We would most likely, as it was brought up before, we would probably have five boats on the dock, once it is all developed. Right now there is only one person that has a boat that would like to have it out there. We would utilize two or three a day and maybe on e e e Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 6 the weekends we would have five. But to say that a piece property that if sold to an individual can install a dock and have boats and then to sell it to a homeowners association and say that this particular organization can't install a dock and can't have any boats seems very unfair and therefore, it seems portions of this are acceptable. Maybe the launching of boats is unacceptable and that is something, if we, as an association, could have the right to keep the boats overnight, we are not fighting for the launching rights we are fighting for the over- night storage rights. Margie Karjalahti: I think the first thing that we need to remember through this process is that limitation of the boats on the lake is to preserve the lake itself. It seems that it is getting too much of an issue, that I really think we have to remember that what we see even on Lotus Lake a lot more green, a lot of muck and we are concerned about the natural beauty of the lake and the wildlife around it. We have to consider that. It is the number of the boats that are on the lake that affects it so much. David Wallin: I am President of Sunrise Hills Civic Association. There is approximately 50 families in our association and speaking for the majority of them, we are definitely against any- more traffic on Lotus Lake at this time. There has been, let's say numerous close calls as we see it from the beach area there and if any of you that are sitting up on the board there have been on that lake on a nice hot sunny day, you know that it's an excellent water skiing lake but only for about a half dozen boats. I would like to make a long pause there. Have any of you ever been on the lake when there has been water skiing? William was very concerned with the, let's say, endangering human lives, the safety of people and I think that should really be looked at. You should really consider that as being an utmost factor here. Secondly, I think that there should be some numerous indepth studies done as to what has happened in other lakes with over use of boats. Let's take Lake Minnetonka, the largest residential lake in the world right now. You look out at that lake on nice hot sunny day and you are looking at a beehive out there. We all know that, we have all been out there. Every year there is numerous accidents out there and they don't know how to control it, it is out of control right now. I think that you all could really agree with me with that. If you look at the inner city, Nokomis and Calhoun, those are pretty much quiet water lakes right now. The reason why they really couldn't have alot of water skiing is because where are they going to stop? Where is it going to stop? I can understand alot of these developers coming to the city and saying that this is really going to be an added perk for us selling our property to have these boat accesses on the lake and these homeowners who can actually have e Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 7 these docks in front of their property. Those are added perks for them selling their homes. I think what really has to be looked at is really where we are. You have to look at a larger proportion. You folks won't be maybe on that board when an acci- dent could happen say five or ten years down the road when it's really out of control. But you are up there making that decision for those people five to ten years down the road. I would just like to let you know that we are against any more traffic on that lake. Dick Eide: I am concerned about, I think it is paragraph d. on the bottom of the page. You are talking about these beachlots, we have a beach lot at Lakeview Hills apartments. You are talking here about five boats or storing of, you go down there to Lakeview Hills, I understand that if this ordinance goes through, they will have a grandfather clause, they can leave their canoes and boats and everything helter skelter and piled allover the ground down there. You are concerned about airplane parking overnight, I have got two airplanes down there right now. I have all of these people here from the Sea Plane pilots Association of Minnesota and I think we are concerned about what is going on. e Olsen: This ordinance does not affect the overnight parking of sea planes on privately owned riparian lots. David Tester: I am with the Trolls Glen Homeowners Association and alot of talk tonight seems to be focused on Lotus Lake and I guess that is the main point of intention is the amount of traf- fic on that lake. I just want to confirm that our lake lot doesn't really have the square footage or the frontage that these new ordinances have but we have been getting along o.k. the way things are. I just want to confirm that things are going to be grandfathered in. Olsen: Yes it will be grandfathered in. Peter pemrick: What I have to offer is knowledge on Lake Riley which I live on now. Most of those lakes have public accesses and I nearly got ran over several times and typically it is someone from out of our area. Typically, it is five or six people in a boat, all drinking, pulling one or two skiiers behind. They are not usually the people that have a permanent place on the lake. I am not real concerned about the people that are on the lake. The transit people I think are the ones that really cause the safety risk. If anything can be done about the amount of outsiders from coming on the lake I think that is the way to control it. e Tom I live over on Lake Minnewashta. I guess you know that we have got two major boat launches that have come on e e e Planning Commission Minutes . July 24, 1985 Page 8 recently through the park. I am sure I don't understand what's all behind the proposed changes of the ordinance but I can tell you that from our view point and my neighbor's that the launching and the dockage in our view are very poorly conceived and there is a real issue here with the usage of the lake, the amount of boats and patrols. I think the gentleman here from the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association, that letter that was read into the record here articulates our viewpoint very well. Bob Dols: Earlier a comment was made by city staff that the change came from direction of the City Council. We have two mem- bers of the City Council here present this evening. I would appreciate it if they would enlighten us as to what motivated, what prompted the changes and what level of detail was given to city staff to come up with these changes. Bill Ryan: The Council members are welcome to respond if they wish. This is not their forum, this is our forum. We are here to take public comment on their behalf. It is not really fair to put them on the spot unless they are willing to be there. Clark Horn: Well, I think the main reason that it became issue is that since the ordinance was put into effect, I think there is some misunderstanding tonight. The ordinance is already in effect. What we are talking about tonight is a change in the ordinance. Since the ordinance was put into effect, we have been getting alot of heat from developers who want to expand the use of beachlots. They are saying that our ordinance is too restric- tive and primarily this is just for beachlots that where you have a multiple development, a PUD, and then you have a lake lot across the street from it so people in the PUD can all use that lot. That is what this ordinance is all about. Because of the pressure that we got, we agreed that we hold another public hearing on it to see what the public felt about it. That's all this forum is tonight. Roger Karjalahti: I have got a lot of concern and it has been voiced before about the years and years that the people from the lakes have had to come in and respond and I feel that we have got a Council that is answering to these developers for just that, they are developers. They are not citizens of Chanhassen, or if they are there is only one. The way that it has come down to us is it is coming from the City Council. It didn't come out of the Planning Commission with suggestions to be made, it came from the City Council with all the recommendations made and it looks to me that it is being ramrodded through. You gentlemen won't admit it but at the last Council meeting in about two minutes the whole decision on the public launch was voted on and gone through us and it was like a ramrod. Bill Ryan: There were some of us there. e Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 9 Roger Karjalahti: Maybe some you felt that too. I have got alot of concern about that, that our Council is taking this pressure from developers. Chanhassen is a wonderful place and if developers, in my feeling, need that extra lot with these rights for dockage to develop it, they can finish Eden Prairie first and we can wait a few more years. Chan has never seemed to be in any great hurry to get all these homes out here anyway. Bill Ryan: Until it comes time to pay the school taxes. Roger Karjalahti: And we are paying them and you know I may recourse with legal action and we all will get hit with that. Bill Ryan: The Council in this community is an elected body that serves a very tough job at very little pay. They do the best they can and they ask for help and we are here to help. e Roger Karjalahti: I have to say that I think you guys do a wonderful job and I know the Council does too. I realize that there has got to be a lot of pressure from these developers and alot of them are extremely articulate, they are high powered and they have got a lot of bucks behind them. They can talk some real nice numbers and I know it is a tough position for you. Bill Ryan: They ask us to give them guidance and that is what we try to do. Patricia Swenson: I think we should acknowledge this a little bit here and that is that Mr. Horn referred to the developers. I don't think he meant to exclude the citizens who are already in this city, who are living with beachlots. We are getting a lot of pressure from them, they too are resi- dents of the city. In an effort to become as impartial as we can and gather as much information as we can is one of the reasons why we are having these meetings. Running a city is an ongoing thing. We just don't make a rule or an ordinance and say this is it. You have to continually listen to people. Jack Melby: I would just like to give each one of you a copy of this letter. e Greg Halverson: I live on Lake Riley. I happen to be on the Eden prairie side of the lake. I am here speaking basically on my own behalf, although I represent a large group of homeowners on the lake. The comment that I have is that we have on our lake a large portion of shoreline which is pre- sently undeveloped and I guess my interest is in expressing concern to the Council that the potential exists there where Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1985 e Page 10 there is thousands of running beach front frontage. The numbers could be quite baffling in terms of the potential traffic on the lake. I guess my interest would be to ask the Council to review that particular situation and see how that might influence your thoughts and decision on the ordinance. It could really be significant in this case. e steve Burke: What I just want to point out is that those lakes where there is undeveloped shore front, that shore front is going to be developed sometime two or twenty years down the road. If you make the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance so restrictive what you are going to get is lots and you are going to get more boats on the lake. The developer might take 400 feet of shore- line under this ordinance and say I am going to make that a recreational beachlot and allow two docks and ten boats and then have a development behind it. If it is so restrictive that he can't do that, and all he could do is have the shoreline, then if I were a developer, if it was left the way it is, then it would be just as advantageous to me to say alright I am going to take that 400 feet of shoreline and I am going to cut it up to single family homes that actually have shoreline and I am going to let them, say I am going to put four lots with 100 feet of shoreline, now you are going to have four docks, you are going to have boats on those. From our perspective with that amount of shoreline is going to have inherent in there the ability of a developer some- how to get some docks out there. To say that a recreational beachlot, you can't have any boats, you know you are going to have them just cut it up into just R-I pieces of property so that he can get the most out of those pieces of property. Otherwise, a beachlot in future developments isn't worth anything. Jack Melby: I think maybe one of the answers might be to consider the elimination of beachlots altogether. Either that or some way of telling developers look we are not going to consider anything beyond what we have already got. We have been through this a large number of times, all of us have. We do have a concern that we protect the lakes, that is a reasonable concern. But if these kinds of things are going to happen all the time, why not just eliminate the idea of beachlots altogether in developments. Bill Ryan: The difficulty, Jack, is that if we just said today that we no longer have that ordinance and the developer owns one lot, one 75 foot lot on the lake and 40 lots inland from that, we have no control on what he does with that one lot. If he begins to function it as a beachlot, we don't even have a definition for a beachlot. It is just an unoccupied tit outlot. So you have no control over it at that point. e e e Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 11 I would like to make a comment. I am a developer over in Eden Prairie. I have two lots and I am allowed two docks. I have one dock and one boat. My neighbor to the north has 11 or 12 acres with five lots and no dock, so everybody doesn't do as you say they do. Roger Barry: If you don't want all the beachlots or if you don't want all those separate lots, why don't you give the beachlots a little bit more, or be a little bit less restrictive. Otherwise, you are going to have like this gentlemen says here, you are going to have a developer with 40 feet divided into areas too covered with boats. Why don't you give the beachlots a little bit more leeway, allow them to park a boat overnight and that way you would eliminate the problem that he is talking about. Bill Ryan: Two of the rewrites in the ordinance, one is to insist that beachlots be larger and the other is each beach- lot would automatically get overnight dockage of some sort. Bob Dols: I just want to comment on some of the specifics that I read in the ordinance as published in the Carver County Herald. You mentioned that part of this provision would be to ensure a little bit larger sized beachlot. They listed in here 30,000 square feet for the first dock. Assuming 200 feet on the lake and then this additional 30,000 square feet additional requirement. Thirty thousand feet requirement translates into 6.8 of an acre, seven tenths of an acres. Which is not particularly large by a lot of residen- tial standards particularly those that are already on the lake. The additional 20,000 feet to get the second dock only translate into .46 of an acre. So again, we are talking very, very small in relationship to the kind of lot size that is quite typical of lakeshore owners. I could very easily see a situation where the developer, not stretching my imagi- nation too far, could easily portion 400 square feet into a situation where you could end up with eight docks. The other comments I had relative to the mooring provision, the storage of five at a dock. I don't appreciate that. I don't like that and I think it gives a development a more of a marina appearance. I know that for Lotus Lake Estates the City Council has gone along with five boats. They built into that a provision of non-motorized fishing boats. I think that kind of provides, which is already in fact part of what has been branched one outlot or beachlot situation. It should appear in this document. I would also more or less like to throw in two sentences. If this thing goes any further, and I am confident that the City Council will look favorably upon this, I think that there should at least be a provision in here that would regulate structures in the water such as boat e Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 12 lifts to try and eliminate that marina look. There is a dif- ference between having all this hardware sitting around and boats just casually floating in the water. I feel that the 80% clause, which I mistakenly thought that this 80% of all dwelling units which have a pertinent rights must be located within a 1000 feet. I thought that was new here. I find that a little difficult to believe in some of these situations, Lotus Lake Estates as being an example, 1000 feet is roughly three football lengths and that development extends beyond three football lengths to get 80% of the units in there. At least that is my casual observation of the situation. It would be very difficult to enforce this and I don't think it has been enforced in the past. It would be interesting to see if it is enforced in the future. e Bill Ryan: Some answers we may be able to give you. The 1000 feet will catch roughly 40 to 50 average size lots. Lotus Lake is larger than that. The one question that was raised by Mr. Eide dealt with the maintenance. I should emphasize to people that are here tonight the current ordi- nance allows beachlots as a conditional use. That means that every beachlot that is approved has conditions that stipulate the use of that lot. If those conditions are violated then that conditional use permit can and would be removed. Marge Spliethoff: Isn't this amendment going to encourage builders to come in and make big developments and use outlots instead of having private homes built on the lake? How do we want the lake developed? Bill Ryan: It represents the economical analysis for developers. Whether they can sell those lake lots for more than they can if they get a higher average value for the non- beach lots. It has been discussed and amended in many of the developments. We don't have an answer for you. e Fred Oeschlager: I am a life time resident of Chanhassen and of Lotus Lake. What I don't understand as far as, some of the Council people are here tonight, I have been up for the past 12 to 15 years based on the same situation. I have got nothing against people using the lake whatsoever. I am glad we are finally getting some type of access on the lake so that we get the lake filled up. What is wrong with the get tough policy and just saying no. We have got an ordinance, we are going to stick with it and stay with it. We just seem to when the developers come in and keep hounding and hounding us, and then we start knuckling under. I don't understand why. What is wrong with just saying no? We want to preserve the lake. We aren't saying that anybody can't use the lake. I just think we should get a little tougher. e e e Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 13 Roger Karjalahti: I just want to point out so that it is brought in the minutes clearly that several of the asso- ciations that are here. One of them represents 63 homes, said that they don't want to see anymore traffic on at least our lake, Lotus Lake. They are speaking for a lot of people, where each of us is standing for one. Albee moved, seconded by J. Thompson to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Bill Ryan: We had at the last public hearing a letter from the DNR referencing their calculation of what would normally be acceptable of the dockage of boats on a beachlot. Could you review that? Dacy: Those regulations pertain to a PUD situation. They calculated the lake frontage abutting a lake, and then divided that by the permitted lot width if it was going to be developed in single family lots. So for example, if you had 600 feet of lake frontage, you would divide that by 75 feet which is the lot width and that equals five. They would then multiply that by 50% and that equals 7~ or 8 boats. That is their process to calculate the number of boats. Bill Ryan: But the indication in that memo is that it develops the number of boats that can be docked, not the number docks that can be placed. Dacy: Right. Bill Ryan: So it amounts to an equivalent of one boat per equivalent riparian lot plus a 50% allowance for a PUD. Dacy: That is correct. Bill Ryan: It is not one dock per lot and five boats per lot. It is one boat per lot. Dacy: Yes. e e e Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 14 Mike Thompson: We started with the issue, it seems like five years ago and went through I think about everything that one could go through in order to come up with an ordinance. I think it took people two years to arrive at something and I think we all went through some of the heartache of dealing with some of these issues and came up with an ordinance which I thought was a very good ordinance. It was a restrictive ordi- nance, there is no question about that. Maybe in some ways too restrictive, but it was restrictive. I thought about the needs of the community and the needs of the lakeowners and it was in place and we grandfathered in all the existing beachlots. At that point, what we were telling the community and the developers is that if you are going to come in and develop a lake property this is the game you have to play. From that standpoint, I thought we were all set. Like some of the people have said, that it seems to me at least in the past month or two, we have had a development proposal on Lake Minnewashta, which I can't remember the name of it. Red Cedar Point and these people come in and apparently are able to make a fairly decent case for themselves and at that point, from where I stand, the Council decided to try to figure out a way to allow them to use beachlots other than what we have in place. So they started the variance process and that went to Council and died, I believe, on a split vote. Then it was recalled back at the last meeting because one of the Council members thought it should come back for a vote again and so I think they rescheduled that for around August 5th. In the meantime, Council directed the city attorney, not the Planning Commission as far as I can see, to redraft this ordinance which we redrafted five years ago, and went through with 50,000 people. We used to come to these meetings and this whole place would be so full and the parking lot, you couldn't even park in it and went through all of these issues. Now we are back at it and it makes no sense to me. As far as I am concerned, we have got a very sound ordinance. The other thing that impresses me is the fact that the people with the existing beachlots, in most cases, they support the existing ordinance. I cannot see why we should consider a change. Ladd Conrad: A couple points of clarification. I think you went over it with Barb, but I guess in the proposed ordinance. Barbara, what did you say about dockage and what the DNR had said? Dacy: That applies in their PUD situation to calculate the number of boats to be allowed. They take the length of the shoreline, divide it by the number of lots you could get on that if it were to be developed in an individual single family lot situation. So if you had 600 feet of shoreline, divided by the average lot which would be 75 feet, then you get 8. You multiply that by 50% because of a PUD. e e e Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 15 Ladd Conrad: In this ordinance, if you, there are some things I don't understand in the redraft. It says 5 watercraft per dock, so that if there are two docks does that mean 10? Dacy: Yes. Ladd Conrad: It doesn't say that. I think that is sort of a, really deceptive. Dacy: The Chairman brought that up to explain. If you do wish to amend it to relate it to the number of lots using that type of formula. Ladd Conrad: I am questioning point a. in the redraft. If the Council finds that such a facility will not materially affect adjacent properties, we are talking about chemical toilets, does that mean it is a permanent toilet? That it can be there forever? Dacy: Yes. Ladd Conrad: It really doesn't say it that way. I guess, Mr. Chairman, that I am going to echo a great deal of what Mike has said. I am real amazed that this is a priority issue when there are so many other things that we have been laboring over and trying to get up to City Council. There are ordinances that are ten and fifteen years old that we haven't looked at. This one is only three years ago and most people that I hear are saying that it is not that bad. It is restrictive but it is not that bad. We had a great deal of public input. We had committees and sessions and we had public hearings and although it's not per- fect, we had a whole lot of public input and now three years later we are looking at it again when we have some ordinances that are 15 years old that have not been reviewed and we are trying to get staff time to review them. What this proposal does not do, it does not look at future use. It is fine to look at past use, but there is no input as far as what it is going to do to the lakes in the future. When we had a committee out there, the Environmental Protection Lake study Committee, they were trying to look into the future. So this looks like a really short approach to changing an ordinance that had a great deal of input in the first place, a whole lot of input and now we are going to change it or there is a recommendation to change it in a few short weeks. I guess I can't support anything here and would not recommend approval of any of the points that have been brought up. Susan Albee: I have no other comments. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1985 e Page 16 e e Tom Merz: Rather than me be redundant on many of the things that have been said here. Primarily we are talking about the ecology of the lake which we have seen in our lakes in the lakes the last 4 or 5 years it is decreasing. We talked about the clarity of lake in the last five years it has gone down 4 or 5 feet. We talk about public use of the lake. To comply with this we have had even DNR come in and say public use on our lakes will be so many boats and we have gone back and complied with that. We are allowing the limited amount of public and non-riparian use of the lake. Now we are coming back with this new ordinance, we could take the sides that access, with the amount of lakeshore that is undeveloped and we could again take this 33 that they are pro- posing and probably bring it up and double that again. The end result is that the lake isn't going to be used for what its intended and that is what we are here for. What we have done is with the existing ordinance is help control that and I think any change in that would be devastating. I also think that before something like this should come up in the future, somebody should come up with a certificate of need. We go through these things so many times, this type of thing should not be presented. Jim Thompson: Although this doesn't apply to beachlots, I would like to mention an article that was in the paper concerning Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. The Board of Directors has proposed and will be holding a public hearing that will limit the number of boats per riparian owners to two boats from the current four boats. If a homeowner could show the need that they needed more boats, they could come in with a permit. I think that would be a good idea for Chanhassen Water Surface Usage. A homeowner should have two boats and if he can prove that the family needs more boats, then come in with a permit. I think this would exclude the usage of brother-in-laws and other family friends to dock a boat at a riparian lot. Rather than considering the changes in the present beach lot ordinance, I could see a change in the Lake Surface Ordinance to improve something to this effect. I think we have a good Beachlot Ordinance and I see no reason to change it. Ladd Conrad: One thought in here, that maybe if the associations might consider. As far as property owners)there is a five boat maximum and I think most of the time those five boats are not motorized. I think it was put in there because it was a good number. I would think that the associations might want to change that to powercraft, some kind of powercraft restrictions per beachlot. Because I don't think that we are concerned or anybody's concerned with non-motorized vehicles, whether it be sailboats or canoes. I think that is not dangerous out on the lake. But if we start talking about powercraft per beachlot per property, I think we have got something that's a little bit more tangible. Right now I think the ordinance is kind of misleading e Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 17 assuming that watercraft can be all motorcraft. Well typically that is not the case. That might be an issue that homeowners, lakeshore owners or beachlot owners might be interested in pursuing and changing. e Bill Ryan: As a personal comment, I have two or three that echo again what you have heard from the rest of the Commission. The existing ordinance addresses quite adequately the use of chemical toilets, it addresses a minimum size beachlot, where the new ordinance doesn't. It handles quite well the launching of boats. We don't want launching I don't believe across a beachlot. We do need motorized access in the fall for removal of docks or for a replacement of a dock, but to launch boats across the beachlot is nothing but creating a boat access, a boat launch right next door to somebody's R-l property. We would lose control. Our purpose here is to set reasonable standards that the staff and Council can use in evaluating applications. The reason that this is kicked back to us tonight because there are some areas in the existing regulations that don't have sufficient standards defined. Looking through it the only one that I can see that's not well enough defined right now is the number powered motorized watercraft that can dock overnight. That is the heart of the issue. It keeps coming back. The Council needs us to give them a recommendation of what we think represents good planning. The rest of it is cosmetic. I think the existing ordinance defines it well enough to allow the Council to use their descretion in approving conditional use permits. But I do think that we ought to address one item. What represents a reasonable standard for calculating the number of powercraft that should be allowed to dock overnight? Tom Merz: My position is that we have taken care of that. Why do we feel we have to have more accesses than the DNR presently requires? There is a specific number and beyond that we are abusing our lakes. Bill Ryan: We have to regulate because Sunnyslope is sitting there with a dock on their beach because they can't put it in. Sunnyslope will not, in our calculations, even represent one legal riparian lot because it is less than 75 feet. So it is not a wide open thing. It doesn't say that landlocked lots can have a dock on a forty foot lot. They can have a beach but they can't have dock. We need to give the Council a standard. e Ladd Conrad: There is a bottom line and I think any ordinance can always be improved and that is why I think City Council bounced this back. I get nervous when we move something through real quickly and the previous ordinance had so much public input. It was a good procedure. We went through the steps. I get real nervous when we try to revise things, we forget about things that e Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1985 page 18 we made decisions upon. If we are really interested in this we could table it and take a look at what the impact of this is going to be in future development because there are lakes that are going to have more development. Dacy: I would just like to summarize once again some of staff's points. If you could to page four of the staff report where we went over the differences of the ordinances. I would just like to point out real quick that for example, Item a. regarding chemical toilet facilities was proposed as is in response to a situation on Lake Riley where there is a vacant lot and there is a chemical toilet there for days on end and the city is trying to prosecute that land owner and if you read between the two ordi- nances, the proposed ordinance does try to be more restrictive in saying only for special events. That was the background on that particular item. Ladd Conrad: That is why I made that original point. Dacy: Yes, I understand that, I just wanted to give the background if you wanted to change the language. e Ladd Conrad: Council finds properties". rid of that. But the intent was then you are saying "or if the such facility will not materially affect adjacent O.k. so that gives the Council the ability to get Dacy: O.k. but if you want to recommend the slashing of that phrase fine, but I just wanted to express what was behind that. Bill Ryan: Our concern is that this is a conditional use and the ci ty has the opportunity in developing that. conditional use per- mit to determine whether the proper controls are in place within the homeowners associations covenants to maintain that chemical toilet and if they are not there then the conditional use permit should not allow a toilet. e Dacy: It seems that two of the major issues is launching and overnight storage. It is apparent from your discussion that you do not want to allow launching on the beachlot and prefer it on a public access. That can eliminate one or two of the revisions. As you will note, f., g., h., i. and j. are basically the same, we add that the conservation easement shall not be calculated in the area of the beach lot and the proposed ordinance is more restrictive in the size. It says at minimum the beachlot has to be 100' x 100'. But if you want a dock it has to be 200 feet plus 30,000 square feet in area. If you want any other addi- tional docks, that is another 200 feet and another 20,000 square feet beyond that. Our research on existing beachlots, if all 14 beachlots did not exist today and came in tomorrow, only two out . - e Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 19 of the 14 would be able to have docks. So basically, there are three things that are different. The chemical toilets, launching and the overnight storage. The proposed ordinance is more restrictive as to the size of the beachlots. Merz moved, seconded by M. Thompson, that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the proposed Recreational Beachlot Ordinance Amendment. J. Thompson, Merz, Conrad, Ryan and M. Thompson voted in favor. Albee abstained. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M. Thompson moved, seconded Ryan to approve the July 10, 1985 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad abstained. Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Vicki Churchill July 30, 1985