Loading...
1981 05 27 ,e e e MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 27, 1981, AT 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS APPROVED ON cr-;;.:Q(: ~ '81 Members Present: Chairman Art Partridge, C. Watson, H-~ NQziska, 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 Out10ts: 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 out10ts 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 out10ts 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 shoEe owners. Partridge indicated that the ordinance is trying to prevent future abuse of over crowdpd lrikeR. Jim Parsons, lake shore owner, indicated that the DNR, \vatershed 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. e Planning Commission Minutes 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. e Jim Parsons, Brule Circle, indicated that he felt that the concensus of the group was that they were against having this proposed ordinance. Partridge stated that the Lake Study Committee has been working on this ordinance for 2~ years and that everyone 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. 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 responcib1e 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 out lots and make a legal document stating that these out10ts are exempt from the proposed ordinance. e Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1981 Page 3 e 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 out10ts 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. e 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 out10ts 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 out10ts 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 Commission Minutes May 27, 1981 Page 4 e 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 hearing, Proposed Lake and Shoreline Ordinance, Surface Waters and Shoreline: One of the property owners indicated that he disagrees with page 4 - 3.05; why limit the number of boats per lot. He owns 7 boats and would like to have 3 more. Also is against page 9 section 5; permits for ski jumps, slalom courses, etc. There are State Laws for this so the City doesn't have to cover it also. Martin explained that the Lake Study Committee felt that the City Council should be aware of any structures that were being placed into the lake. They should have some restrictions. The homeowner mentioned above was also against page 10 section 6 - who decides what is astetica11y pleasing? Didn't like the idea of no sea planes, he felt this should be look into. e Martin brought up the ordinance with only one dock per lot. Ron Bart, a lake shore owner explained that he has two docks one on each side of his lot for the purposes of protection from boats while swimming. He suggested that the ordinance be changed to have two docks per lot. Riley asked if swimming rafts have to have a permit. It was indicated that a permit had to required from the sheriff and the cost is nothing. Partridge indicated that the new ordinance requires a permit from the City Council for the reason that the City Council wants to be involved to protect others who use the lake. Mortinson stated that section 3.05 shouldn't limit the owners. He feels that 50' docks are to short and that an owner should be able to have as many boats as he wants with the requirement that the boats be registered to the owner. It was suggested to have a restriction for number of boats per amount of frontage. e e Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1981 Page 5 It was asked if the grandfather clause applies to this ordinance. Mertz answered that this ordinance would have to be followed with no grandfathered uses. Another property owner indicated that he felt the speed limits were to slow. He suggested 50 mph because he can not barefoot ski except at that speed. Mertz explained that the speed limit was adopted from the DNR and that the City can be more restrictive but not less. Lance Fisher indicated that Section 3.05 should read - resident instead of owner regarding the boats on the property because of renters \o'\ho live on the lake. Fisher regarding subdivision 10, indicated that this method was used in California with a red flag where the boats are much more conjested and it was unenforcab1e and very confusing, Fisher felt that a raised arm would be even more unenforcable. W. Thompson made a motion seconded by Watson to close the Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. e A motion was made by Watson and seconded by Noziska to table this item until the June 17th meeting. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. Sketch Plan Review, Tract C, R.L.S. #38 Two Single Family Building Sites, Michael Schmidt: Partridge stated that this item is being taken out of sequence because of the lateness of the meeting. Waibel suggested that the Planning Commission not make any rec- ommendations until the applicant has met with Bill Monk the City Engineer. It was asked if the applicant could connect a private sewer line to the public sewer. Waibel indicated that it would not be permitted. Partridge asked staff if there are any problems with this request. Waibel stated that 3 properties are land locked but that really has nothing to do with this request. The applicant is going to discuss this item with Bill Monk before coming back to the Planning Commission. e e Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1981 Page 6 Discussion, Comprehensive Plan Draft Revision Reference 1990 MUSA Line: The Chairman made a call iOrepresentatives from Eden prairie School, Chaska School District, Minnetonka School District, the City of Chaska and other municipalities abutting the City of Chanhassen and no one answered that call concerning this item. Bob Waibel explained to the Planning Commission that at the last meeting they had decided to send notices to the property owners within 1,000 feet. Staff contracted with an abstract company for the names and staff just received the list today. Mr. Waibel suggested that the Planning Commission hold the public hearing and that the notices to the property owners can be sent for the City Council meeting. Staff did send notification to the paper. Motion made by Noziska and seconded by Watson to close the Public Hearing. All voted in favor and motion was carried. e A motion was made by Noziska and seconded by W. Thompson to recommend to the City Council to approve moving the MUSA line North of highway 5 and including the Minnetonka, Inc. property. Also request City Council to forward this item to Met Council. Noziska amended his motion, seconded by W. Thompson to include that staff will notify property owners within 1000' of the subject property before the City Council meeting. Four members voted in favor, Conrad abstained, M. Thompson voted against, the motion carried. Public Hearing, Rep1at Request for Park One, Instant Webb, Inc. Waibel indicated that this item was introduced ago. Notices were sent out for this hearing. up. about 1~ years No one showed Conrad made a motion, seconded by Noziska to continue the Public Hearing until the Developer can be here to present his request. Contiued to June 10th. All voted in favor and the motion was carried. e . e e Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 1981 Page 7 A motion was made by M. Thompson and seconded by Watson to adjourn the meeting at 12:15 a.m. All voted in favor and the motion was carried.