1981 06 17
e
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CHANHASSEN
PLANNING COMMISSION AND LAKE STUDY
COMMITTEE MEETING, HELD JUNE 17, 1981
AT 7:30 P.M., CHANHASSEN COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
q ...Cf)
1"'" 'V
APPROVED ON ., ~ _. .~
Planning Commission
Members Present:
Art Partridge, Walter Thompson, Ladd
Conrad and Mike Thompson.
Lake Study Committee
Members Present:
Walter Coudron, Michael Lynch and Ellen
Chilvers.
Staff Present:
Scott Martin, Craig Mertz and Becky Foreman.
Mr. Partridge, Chairman of the Planning Commission, gave a
brief review of the May 27, 1981 meeting where the proposed
ordinances were brought before the Planning Commission for
discussion. It was decided that for this meeting the Planning
Commission and the Lake Study Committee will go through
both ordinances item by item for review.
Proposed Lake and Shoreline Ordinance, Surface Waters and
Shoreline:
e
Coudron asked if 2.10 was to include snowmobiles and mini-bikes.
Craig Mertz, the Assistant City Attorney, indicated that they
are to be included.
It was asked if Definition 2.06 "Lake" does this exclude Lake
Riley because it is half in another county. Mertz answered
that that is how it is to be taken. Also Christmas lake would
be excluded for the same reason. But when this ordinance is
adopted Chanhassen could send this to the other counties asking
them to adopted the same ordinance.
Conrad asked if Definition 2.19 should havesQme connection
with water. Mertz indicated that it should.
W. Thompson pointed out that 2.18 was very broad and that maybe
high water mark should be used in this definition. Mertz
agreed, the States definition has high water mark in it.
Mertz suggested that under Section 3.01 (a) be deleted and
made to read "obstruction of navigation of waters". Mertz
indicated that the State Law talks about navigation of waters
that you can not obstruct them. Navigable waters is a technical
meaning. Both committees agreed.
Coudron indicated that 3.02 should read that No dock shall
exceed 50 feet in length except in shallow areas a dock may
be erected to obtain a minimum of 4' of depth.
It
It was brought up to the Committee - what about T or L docks?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1981
Page 2
It was suggested to allow T or L shaped docks if no part of
the dock extends closer than 10 feet from neighboring wetline.
Someone from the audience suggested that maybe if two neighbors
wanted to build an adjoining dock to cut down on the number of
docks could they? Mertz indicated that they could waive the
10' from wetline rule if two adjoining land owners wanted
adjoining docks.
w. Thompson asked if someone wanted a diving board off the
end of the dock would that be included in the 50' length.
It was answered yes.
It was indicated that lake shore owners like to have two docks
to enclose their swimming area for safety reasons. It keeps
boats away from swimming areas.
Conrad asked if docks would be included in the grandfather
clause. Coudron indicated that it is the Committees intention
that permanent dockage would be grandfathered in but not seasonal.
Mertz stated that there should be no variances for the ordinance
because 90% of it does not lend itself to variances.
e
3.03 is in the ordinance because fuel storage is
3.04 - the intent of the Lake Study Committee that on outlots
boats presently stored will be grandfathered in. This section
is applicable to both outlots and private lots except where
grandfather clause is effective. But does not effect private
resorts.
Partridge indicated that the reason for permitting only 5 boats
per lot is to stop wall to wall aluminum. Coudron indicated
that he felt that 5 boats per lots was a generous number that
the Lake Study Committee wants to avoid a lot full of other
peoples boats.
A property owner was concerned about 3.06, he indicated that
a raft needs to be 7 feet of water to be safe for diving. It
was suggested to have no raft be more than 50 feet from
the end of the dock. Martin asked if the Committee would con-
sider changing the area size to be 12' x 12' it is a more common
size. The Committee indicated that they would go along with
that request.
e
Lance Fisher asked why the City has to be so restrictive, why
can't they just adopt the laws set up by the DNR. Lynch indicated
that the City may be more restrictive than the DNR but not
less. Conrad stated that the DNR has to set up standards for
the whole state so their laws are very general so the City
has to set up ordinances that will pertain to just the City
of Chanhassen.
-
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1981
Page 3
4.06 - It was mentioned that the ordinance states there has
to be an observer in the boat to watch the waterskier on week-
ends and holidays, is this necessary. Mertz indicated that
State law does not require this, State permits the driver of
the boat to be the observer if the boat has a rear view mirror.
Coudron asked if "coast guard approved" could be added to
4.06, Subd. 3.
Coudron asked if 4.06, Subd. 10 was needed. Fisher indicated
that this was tried in California and failed. It was to hard
to enforce. Coudron suggested that Subd. 10 be deleted.
,,'j
The Planning Commission received a written statement from
someone regarding 4.13. The state has a maximum speed limit
of 40 mph and there is no way that the City can raise it.
Section 4.18 is defined in the City Ordinance measured in decibles.
Section 4.19 should indicate what type of materials the raft
should be made of and all structures should be above the water
at least 1 foot for safety reason. This was suggested by
the audience. Boats should be stricken from 4.19.
e
Conrad suggested that swimming rafts be deleted from 5.01 be-
cause the are not an exception. Docks shall be excluded from
this paragraph.
Mertz indicated that diving tower should be added to the
list of definitions.
M. Thompson asked why in Section 5.02 persons who want any
of the items mentioned in 5.01 have to go before the City Council.
Is this necessary? Mertz indicated that the Lake Study Com-
mittee had not indicated how they wanted this item handled.
The City Council could set up standards and leave the permits
for administrative decisions. They would have to be given
proper guidelines to go by and the decisions could be appealable
by the City Council.
w. Thompson asked why in 5.05 there is a 7 day waiting period?
Coudron indicated that they wanted to leave a notification time.
Aesthetically pleasing shall be taken out of 6.01 and "main-
tain in a workman like manner" put in its place.
It was asked if 6.04 meant Real Estate signs also. Coudron
stated that real estate can be advertised from the property
but not from the dock or on the water.
~
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1981
Page 4
Fisher indicated that some people have built in gas tanks
that are safer than carrying 5 gallon tanks to and from the
lake, would these be permitted? Lynch indicated that 6.05
does not prevent anyone from taking a hose to their dock.
Coudron stated that the intent of the Lake Study Committee
regarding Section 8 was to make sure that resorts have the
right number of preservers, etc. and that they follow the
rules of the State. Strike section 8.
A motion was made by Conrad and seconded by W. Thompson to
return the Water and Shoreline Ordinance back to the Lake
Study Committee for rework of the items discussed this evening
and to incorporate these into the ordinance. After the
ordinance has been reworked the Lake Study Committee should
return to the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and
the motion was carried.
Conrad also mentioned that the Lake Study Commission should
review the grandfather clause.
Coudron indicated that they would like this ordinance to go
into effect this summer if possible.
a
Discussion of Proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. 47 (Zoning
Ordinance) Concerning Recreational Beach Lots:
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.
-
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1981
Page 5
One of the property owners indicated that he moved here because
he likesfue 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 lOa. 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.
e
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.
e