The URL can be used to link to this page

1988 04 20 - CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Annette ElIson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli, James Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT WITH A CANOE RACK AND A DOCK WITH THREE OVERNIGHT STORAGE OF WATERCRAFT ON LOT 37, SHORE ACRES, ON LAKE RILEY, SUNNY SLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Public Present: Name Address ,~ Joy Tanner Lucille Remus Stephen C. Slaq Ken Wolter Dick Nelson Steve Burke Mary Jo Moore Ray Roettger 9243 Lake Riley Blvd. 9245 Lake Riley Blvd. Lake Susan 341 Deerfoot Trail 360 Deerfoot Trail 340 Deerfoot Trail 3231 Dartmouth Drive 3221 Dartmouth Drive Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: We tabled this item last time in case we didn't follow the right procedures informing everybody involved that may have input. We're going to open up the public hearing and if there are any other comments or if there are any comments from people who would like to talk about this particular issue, we'll open it up for those comments at this time. JOY Tanner: Would you like my comments from two weeks ago? Conrad: We remember them. Joy Tanner: They're still valid. The Olson's convey their wishes too to let you know that they're still opposed. - Mary Jo Moore: I'm not totally familiar with this request but I do object to the recreational beachlots. Headla: Barb, is the very first issue if they should if they should have a beachlot? Dacy: Correct. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 2 e Headla: I think some of the comments before I heard was more or less directed at some of the other issues. Are the people still taking the position they don't even want a beachlot? oacy: The property owners? Headla: Yes. Oacy: Yes. Headla: Totally? No beachlot? Oacy: As I recall, yes. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: On item 1 you said use of 12 households with friends and acquaintances is too intense a use for such a small lot. You're talking strictly the way 12 households would use that single lot? e oacy: Yes, that was the Planning Commission's reasoning during the 1986 conditional use permit request. Headla: And what did we say could be done with that lot if it didn't become a beachlot? oa~y: The applicants could potentially apply for a lot area variance to construct a single family home. Headla: I really thought about these beachlots. Thought about that one and these others and I agree with the staff's position. Wildermuth: I'm of the same opinion I was two weeks ago. I agreed with the 1986 finding where the use of the beachlot by 12 houses was too intense and I feel that our beach lot ordinance is a valid ordinance and should be enforced. Batzli: I haven't changed my mind from two weeks ago either. I think it would be an incredible impact on the neighboring lots from the standpoint of valuation and noise and intensity that that lot would receive since it's such a small lot. I'm planning on agreeing with the staff's recommendation. ElIson: Nothing new. I concur with the rest of the commissioners. Emmings: Same thing. I agree with the comments that have been made so far. I don't have anything to add to it. e Conrad: I have nothing different to add. I agree. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 3 e Headla: Can I say one thing? If we use the rationale that it decreases the value of the surrounding properties, that's why we vote against it, then I think we should be prepared to seriously consider approval if, when they put in a beachlot it improves the value of the adjoining properties, I think the converse should be true. Conrad: Valuation is one aspect. There are others. Headla: If that's the dominant but I think you've got to think consistently. If you vote no on decreasing for that particular item, you've got to vote yes if it's increasing. Emmings: On that point Dave, last time when we had the public hearing, I made it a point to ask the neighboring homeowners if, in their opinion, it would decrease the value of their property and they both said they felt it would. In fact, some people who even didn't live right next door felt that it would decrease the value of their property. I guess the same question would be asked on anyone that would come up. If somebody was going to be next door to one and they felt it was going to increase the value of their property, they'd have the opportunity to say that. Conrad: I think in this particular case, the ordinance is valid. It makes sense. I see no reason to change it myself. I think that the ownes of the property have other uses for that. e Steve Burke: Could you define the other uses? Conrad: Obviously it's a small property and you're going to need to seek, somebody's going to need to seek variances to use that property for those other uses. I think the City can not take that property and keep it worthless or keep it less of a value than it's potential but I think in this particular case, my opinion is that it's not conforming to the intent of the beachlot ordinance and I'd rather have it being pursued as a use for other uses. More than likely we're talking about putting a house on there which will require variances but in my mind, that's more in conformance with the surroundings than would be the impact of putting a beachlot there. The beachlot ordinance is concerned with valuation of property. It's concerned with having buffers and not funneling a whole lot of traffic next to people. On 50 feet, that's a short distance to put a fair amount of traffic on. That's a real quick, short synopsis of what the intent of the beachlot ordinance was but that's why the width restrictions or limitations were imposed. Trying to separate the users from the neighbors. Steve Burke: I know this is about the third or fourth time that this has been before the Council but you realize that this lot has been owned by Sunny Slope Homeowners since about 1978. Well before the beachlot ordinance was enacted. We're prepared to go before the full Council and state our case. e Conrad: And I think you need their input. You need their decision. Absolutely and there are other rememdies, obviously. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 4 e Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit #84-6 for a recreational beachlot on Lot 37 of Shore Acres. All voted in favor and motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 (6 & 7) OF THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR A DOCK AND THE ONE CANOE RACK/DOCK REQUIREMENT, ROBERT PIERCE. Public Present: Name Robert pierce Richard and Ann Zweig Annalee Hanson Zoe Bros Mary Jo Moore Ray Roettger Mr. and Mrs. Larry Wenzel. Stephen C. Slaq Steve Burke Address Applicant 3601 Ironwood Road 6400 Greenbriar Avenue 6631 Minnewashta Parkway 3231 Dartmouth Drive 3221 Dartmouth Drive 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Lake Susan 340 Deerfoot Trail e Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. Zoe Bros: I'm curious to know, someone has claimed that there is 50 feet of property there. Depth. I live just a bit north of this property. I'm contesting the fact that there's no land there. That there isn't any beach area. Emmings: I think the map that was presented to us showed a 100 feet on the north end from between the lake and the road. I don't know whether it's there or not but that's what they showed us. I assume she's talking about Stratford Ridge. What end wasn't there a 100 feet? Dacy: According to the half section maps that we have, this distance from here to here is 100 feet. The property owner is here also. Robert pierce: I might just say that the survey that we had done are done by Schoell and Madsen who are a very reputable firm. They shoot the elevations, the water levels, they know the mean water level and shoot all that. I would be willing to say that their data is correct, probably within inches. Dacy: It is not 100 feet all the way down. In one certain area it's a 100 feet and then it tapers down. e Zoe Bros: How do you propose to get to this property? To this beach? Robert pierce: What we have here is a walkway. We're planning on putting a walkway, either steps or a slope down using timbers and we've Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 5 e designed it in such a way that we eliminate the need for removing any trees. We've put a lot of thought into trying to leave the bank and the area along the beach there about as natural as possible and to work our walkway around the trees. Our intent is to pretty much leave the vegetation intact. Basically bring in a sand blanket because it shows on the plan, I don't know if you can see but stretching from about here down to here. Cleaning it up and just making it look nice and leaving the majority of the front in it's natural state. We have roughly 550 feet there and we're only using approximatley 100 or plus feet. Zoe Bros: For 15 families? Robert pierce: Yes. Zoe Bros: Well, I really dispute Schoell and Madsen. and there's no 100 feet. I was there today e Richard Zweig: We live on the north side of Lake Minnewashta. I haven't been down there and measured. I drive by there fairly regularly but the question that I would ask, and I'm not necessarily going to doubt the survey but what I will say is that measured 100 feet from where the slope goes down and then goes out to the lake or are we maybe talking 100 feet up to the road because there's a big difference there. You've got a hill sloping away, you might be talking 25 feet out before you actually get to the base of that hill and then towards the lake so that would be my question. What does 100 feet really mean? Robert pierce: I would assume that it's taken from the right-of-way from Minnewashta Parkway. Richard zweig: I think that's probably where you don't see the 100 feet and I don't know that I would either if I went over there. I don't know what that amount would be, I'd have to go and measure it but that makes a very small area then. You're not going to cut a bank straight down and out. Zoe Bros: Most of it is straight up and down. Robert pierce: You might say that the right-of-way that is given to Minnewashta, which the measurements have probably been taken off of, is much wider than that. The asphalt that you see there. Zoe Bros: I don't know what you're saying. Richard Zweig: For further widening of the road, is that what you're saying? Robert pierce: No. When you dedicate a city road, not correct me if I'm wrong, it's 50 normally but I'm not sure, Minnewashta might be 60 foot tit right-of-way? Dacy: It's 66 feet wide, the right-of-way is. The 100 distance is a horizontal distance measured on the map. You're absolutely correct. A Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 6 e significant part of that distance is a sloped area. That's not in dispute. We use the horizontal distance just as we measure lot width or lot depth and that's part of the issue that the Commission will discuss. Richard Zweig: I see that as a real problem if you're going to start giving variances. If that variance was flat land, now you might be talking one game but if you see that piece of property, you'll know exactly what she's talking about. There isn't very much that's down in the slope. e Conrad: Let me just jump in a little bit. The reason we have a depth requirement, there are two reasons. One, we want room for people to use it. We're concerned with safety. If you put a bunch of people on 12 feet of depth, there are some problems. That's one of the reasons. The other reasons we do want it buffered from any neighbors. We want beachlots buffered so that you're not abutting a house and affecting them. In this particular case, and we're looking at the general issue, you're obviously very interested in the specific and I understand that, we have to be real concerned with what this ordinance says in general because other folks will want to take advantage of whatever we do. In this particular case however, because you have the buffer of the street, we're really not impacting the immediate neighbors so that issue in my mind is not there. The issue that is there in my mind is there really enough room for people to be on that beachlot? Is there enough room to satisfy their particular needs and uses of that? I think that's key. That's important here but it's also important that we make sure that our ordinance considers that aspect of use. We just want there to be enough area for it to be an active area if there's a beachlot. Anyway, I just wanted to jump in on that thought. Ray Roettger: ...has an excellent point. We corne here and I think we may be against something just because we look at the piece of property so I think what could happen is it should be defined very well for us. These people maybe are used to looked at this stuff. Are you talking about the road right-of-way that Schoell and Madsen submitted...? Robert pierce: To be very honest, I couldn't answer that question. Ray Roettger: You should know that is exactly what you're talking about. The others, you drawing lines, as Barb confirmed, a horizontal line goes from Point A to Point B but if that line is at a diagonal, you can have 100 feet and end up really with 100 feet along the property line and end up with 10 foot of depth. The ordinance, is it 100 feet along the property line or is it 100 feet of depth perpendicular to the this particular line? Conrad: Barbara, are you comfortable that when we say 100 feet, it's obviously perpendicular to something. Do you feel we have that control? Do we think we know the specifications well enough? e Dacy: The ordinance even states that the beachlot has to be 200 feet in width along the lake frontage and the depth shall be measured 100 feet back from the perpendicular line along the edge of the lake. Typically Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 7 e how you would measure it, if this is the shoreline, we'll measure 200 feet this way and 100 feet deep. Zoe Bros: Are you talking the edge of the water or the high water mark? Dacy: The ordinary high water mark as established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Zoe Bros: Because we have low water right now. Dacy: Right, when they submit a survey they'll indicate where that elevation is. In the case of Lake Minnewashta I think it's elevation 945 so we look for that elevation and take our distances from that. Ray Roettger: You see my point. The property line there is running at quite an angle to that road and I'm just saying if that 100 foot is taken at an angle. Conrad: No, it would be perpendicular to the water. Barbara, maybe you better help. I guess I can't interpret what the ordinance says. e Dacy: If this is the property lines here, you can measure perpendicular to here. That's how you can measure it. If there's a dispute as to whether or not this is 100 feet or whatever, I determined that 100 feet cased on measuring from the half section map. The issue is, and not only in this case but in any other case that might occur, is the Commission and City Council satisfied with the 100 feet in depth? If you're not, then you have the option to change it. Conrad: But for this gentleman, what you just said, we're not really concerned with the lot line. We're not running it parallel to the lot line. We're running it perpendicular to the high water mark. That's what I understand Barbara to be telling us, right? So that should satisfy your concern. Ray Roettger: No, they're really not the same question. We're not just talking about this property but we're talking about...and we're talking about changing the ordinance. I think how that is defined, the depth, if you could get the condition in there... I think there's a lot of variation there. A lot of variation in depth. Conrad: How would you respond to that? Do you still feel that the way we measure that, how many feet is adequate Barbara? Dacy: It's up to the Commission. That's the way we've been measuring it. If you want to further define it in the ordinance, that's fine. e Robert pierce: 15 families. likelihood on would be very July and even "'here's a lot I feel like there is more than ample road down there for I think when you're looking at 15 families using it the any given day that you have 15 families on that is really unusual. If it happens it would probably be on the 4th of then, I doubt you would have all 15 families down there. of room on that frontage. People who would be using it - Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 8 e wouldn't all be concentrated in one area either. They'd be moving around. I think it will be a really nice frontage. Richard Zweig: How many docks are you looking to build? Robert pierce: We're looking for right now, one dock with three slips that will be for Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Block 1. The ones that face on Minnewashta Parkway. That's the same useage for a dock that you would have allowed by a single family home. You can have one dock with three boats on it. We're asking for one dock with three boats. Three boats for overnight storage. We have roughly a development of around 9 acres. We feel that's a real light use of the beach. The useage of the lake down, the canoe racks, that type of useage that would be very easily handled on the lake. Richard Zweig: How many canoe racks and how many canoes? Robert pierce: What we're looking for is one canoe rack, which is what we had requested, one canoe rack per lot which would be 15 canoes or maybe 15 sailboats or something like that. Sailboards. Richard Zweig: But they would definitely be non-motorized. They could not have a motor put on them. e Robert pierce: That's the way I understand it. Richard Zweig: There wouldn't be a rowboat on the rack and somebody brings a 25 horse motor down and things like that? Robert pierce: That's what I understand. Also, I think that if I understood it before that these are racks are designed to fit certain sizes of watercraft. Richard Zweig: The regulation is such that it is non-motorized. That's what I want perfectly clear in my mind. Conrad: That's right. steve Slaq: I have some property on Lake Susan. The question I have is, what about the... Robert pierce: No building. steve Slaq: Because there is a qualification on a 75 foot setback. Steve Burke: Are we discussing the recreational beachlot ordinance amendment or discussing his particular one? e Conrad: Well, his particular one is bringing the amendment to the forefront. We are talking the amendment. Steve Burke: Okay, because most of the discussion is not germain to your ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 9 e Conrad: We're using it as a case study to make sure that we can modify the amendment properly. steve Burke: Let me ask a question then. As you know, I'm with Sunny Slope, why don't you leave the ordinance exactly the way it stands and require them, this developer to come in with a variance request and let the City Council determine whether or not they wish to allow a variance to the 100 foot depth then it's not your decision, it's the Council decision. The other part of your amendment is to change the canoe rack and give the discretion to the City Council. Now when we made the provision we were told, I was wondering, this recreational beachlot seems to be amended every time a new developer comes in and instead of asking that developer to come in with variances, I'm just wondering what is moving the Council to consider amending the whole ordinance rather than requiring just a variance application and then letting the Council react to that. e Conrad: I'll try to answer that. Variances are really tough to handle. We prefer not to have variances because they're hard to document the why's and the wherefore's. If you grant a variance to one, then pretty soon everybody is there looking for a similiar type variance and you really do need some good rationale to document that variance and the reasons you granted that. When we see, as a Planning Commission, a case where the ordinance can be revised because in concept the original ordinance may not have been perfect and we can see some modifications to it so we don't have to go through a variance process, we'd much prefer that. As long as the intent of the ordinance is being upheld, we're going to modify that ordinance so that it can incorporate uniquenesses. There are a lot of numbers in ordinances and we find that they tend to be arbitrary in many cases but we do have some standards, we do have an intent of the ordinance that we're trying to uphold and if we can make sure that that intent is still being upheld, we can see, like in this particular case, where in my personal opinion, the intent of the ordinance is being upheld. We are protecting the neighbors. We are protecting the people that are using the land. There is plenty of land, when we talk about this, there is plenty of land for a recreational beachlot. It's a classic case of a good beachlot. It's what beachlots are intended to serve and in this case, the ordinance had some numbers in it that may be didn't ever consider this type of situation. I think in my mind, I'm setting a precedent if we, as a group, decide to change it, we're setting a precedent that I'd feel real comfortable that we could carry forth and have future developments come in and be acceptable under this particular change. e Steve Burke: I don't disagree with your statement that that particular beachlot is, I think is probably a good one. I'm not contending that it's bad but it seems to me that that one is a classic for granting a variance in that you've got the road and you can't make the lot any deeper than what it is without realigning the road so if your variance, through the process you can say the reason it was necessary to grant a variance for this one was we couldn't realign the road. But when you have a developer that comes in and buys a whole bunch, if you change the ordinance and if your intent is to have depth to beachlots and you have a Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 10 - developer coming in and buying a large tract of land and placing his road, now you're allowing him to have a narrower beachlot by just changing the ordinance and he can realign his road wherever he wants it to be on undeveloped property whereas this developer, it would seem to me that he should get a variance. If you're addressing that particular one, if you don't change your ordinance, you're going to have to come in with a variance and I would say that the City Council is probably going to look favorably on it because they're probably not going to require the developer to realign the road because he can realign it on his property but he can't... Conrad: You make a good argument. e steve Burke: My statement was, what you're looking at in your beachlot ordinance and if you're allowing it to become narrower and narrower, from my perspective, from Sunny Slope, the ordinance was established in 1982 was one thing and we've been trying to work and we're still trying and every time we turn around it seems that the City Council, for every developer that comes in, is willing to modify, the Vern Gagne property and you said they aren't putting very many people within 1,000 square feet so let's make a rural and urban beachlot and you expanded and liberalized your language. Now another developer comes in and it seems to me that a variance would handle this much better and you're ready to, it seems from our perspective, at a drop of the hat, a new developer comes in, sure we'll change it for you. I don't know if this is the impetus for the City to consider a change to the ordinance, I would recommend that the City Council not change the oridinance but ask the developer to come in with a variance because I think the City Council looks very favorably, ...to meet the intent of the beachlot ordinance and there's a real hardship. Zoe Bros: I still maintain that there isn't 100 feet there. Steve Burke: The question is not whether or not there's 100 feet. Zoe Bros: He keeps on saying this is a good example, it's not. Steve Burke: But they're not ruling on his development. Conrad: We're making a statement that 100 feet should be there, where the dock is placed. That's what we're looking at. If there isn't 100 feet, their application would not be accepted. We're not ruling on their application. We're looking at the ordinance in general. - Larry Wenzel: I kind of agree with the gentleman that this particular instance, the fact that because of the road and the fact that the square footage, even if he only had 50 feet, still is way in excess of the ordinance as far as the number of square foot per house. It doesn't seem to me that other than the fact, probably roughly four properties in which there is going to be somebody, at least 100 feet away, as a buffer comes into play in this particular instance because people don't, from a practical standpoint, the use from the beach, they don't sit 100 feet away from the water. They're up high and if you went to the beach and Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 11 - e you can only get within 100 feet you wouldn't go there anyway so that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I guess, I had some other questions that may not necessarily in relation to this particular property but the ordinance...and that is with lake property and the way it meanders, when you're working with a depth and then you come along and say well, the dock is going to be at the deepest point of that lot at 100 feet and the way lots are joined, it seems to me that what you're pushing is for docks to be put in a specific position on a lot line where therefore you get a concentration of docks from property to property more so than spreading them out. The other thing is as those things, and I don't think that that's necessarily a good practical thing to have happen from a utilization standpoint. The other thing is, if you're allocating where that dock goes from the depth of the property in relation to where the landowner or the people would want it in relation to what the beachfloor is, the floor on the bottom of the lake, you might have to put your dock up in an area that was marshy where you don't have a proper beach with respect to x number of feet over where you've got a bottom that's beautiful so that doesn't make a lot of sense. The next thing is that, if you've got the beachlot and there are x amount of dock spaces for boats and I don't know the law today but it seems to me that property will come into the water 10 feet from the existing water mark so that if the water drops, the landowner can still go out 10 feet if the water rises. You still have access to the lake. You can't lose your access to the lake. Then enters another situation as to whatever that is, 5 feet or 10 feet, whatever turns from private property to public water. Whatever the state laws and who controls the mooring of boats if they're properly identified and requested in public waters? So if you say you can only have two boats on this property, why wouldn't five people moor their boats in public waters because you're restricting their normal dockage? Just by putting it in public waters, you have basically no control. That would create even a greater problem, it would seem to me, as far as the water useage of getting in and out. Especially if you're in a restricted area. You could have a particular beachlot that would have the 100 foot depth and 200 foot width and x number of people using it according to the ordinance of 4 foot per home and the square footage rate. All of a sudden you have x number of boats moored out in open water in front of that piece of property and now you've got another problem. Conrad: How do we regulate the rights for mooring Barbara? - Dacy: The ordinance regulates overnight storage. It says that no more than three boats can be stored overnight at the dock. At any lake there is a public, I shouldn't say any lake in Chanhassen but at Lake Minnewashta, at Lotus Lake there is a public access. People can launch their boats through that public access and yes, outside of the beachlot, maybe 100 feet on the lake, you could have 5 or 6 boats there skiing, fishing or whatever. The ordinance regulates overnight storage. The ordinance also regulates the number of sailboat moorings that can be located off of a beachlot. The term overnight is defined from a period from 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. in the morning. The lake is public water and people can operate their boats, if they're licensed by the Carver County Boat Patrol enforces the license as well as DNR so the key for the Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 12 e beachlot ordinance is the overnight storage at the dock. Larry Wenzel: You still haven't answered, who controls the public waters. Dacy: The DNR and Carver County Boat Patrol. Larry Wenzel: I guess the question is, what is the rule on... Conrad: lake. If you didn't own lakeshore, you could not moor your boat in the Dacy: And conversely, if you were a member of his subdivision and wanted to use the lake, you would go to the Lake Minnewashta area, you can boat around the entire lake. You could corne to that beachlot dock. Play on the beachlot but if he was not authorized to store that boat overnight, you'd have to take it back out through the boat access. Larry Wenzel: Okay but how do they handle on Calhoun for instance? Batzli: That's Hennepin County Sheriff that patrols Lake Calhoun. e Larry Wenzel: Who has the actual control over the public water and that's what I don't understand. Conrad: The DNR does. Larry Wenzel: Okay, what is their ruling as far as mooring a boat in public water? Do you have to be a landowner to moor you boat in public water? I don't think you do. I think as long as the boat is properly identified as far as traffic hitting it, especially at night with the reflectors, it can be moored. Batzli: I don't believe that's right. I won't disagree with you because I don't know that's a fact but I'm under the impression that there are definite rules about where and when you can moor various objects and I think that you can not just go moor a boat in public waters. I would wager small sums of money that you can't do that. Conrad: I'm sure you can't but what's your point? We're not really talking about mooring boats tonight. Is this relevant to anything? Larry Wenzel: I'm worried about if you regulate too constrictively what people can store on the property... Conrad: We're generalizing tonight. We're not restricting. We're upening it up. - Batzli: Your point though is that if we restrict it too far, they will merely moor their boats off-shore and you believe have created a different problem. Larry Wenzel: Sure, why wouldn't they and now you've got a different Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 13 -- problem which is a bigger problem than the one you started with. I don't know what the rules are. Dacy: The City also has a water surface useage ordinance which applies to this lake. I can provide a copy of that to you. That has not been an issue during previous ordinance amendments. Conrad: The moorings on a beachlot, we do have restrictions on how many boats can be moored. Now I'm going to say this tongue in cheek a little bit but the DNR, I assume that ordinance has been reviewed and the State finds it satisfactory so we are controlling the number of moorings on a beachlot. However, there have been recent cases when we found that maybe in the wetlands case where we didn't have authority. Headla: I think that's the key thing there. We didn't have authority and I really question on the moorings. Conrad: Interesting to follow up, however I don't want to get hung up on that one issue tonight. I think we're looking at some other things. I think we will follow up your comments because they're of interest and I think we'll direct staff to help us struggle through that at some point in the future. Barbara, can you do that? e Mary Jo Moore: I would recommend if you're going to make any adjustments in the ordinance, that the 100 foot depth be useable land at a maximum elevation. The property that has brought this before the Council is not 100 feet of useable land. It's not even 80 feet. There's a very steep embankment with very little flat ground. I think there should be an elevation requirement. Conrad: But remember the 100 feet is really a buffer. It's a buffer and right now you've got a hill and a road as a buffer so in this particular case... Mary Jo Moore: It's not a buffer, it's whether they can actually use that land for a recreational beachlot which means a swimming beach, canoes. Conrad: You're right. They have hundreds of feet on the lake where in this particular case where they can use it. Mary Jo Moore: You have to pin down that number too. Conrad: It's something we have to resolve in our minds. Even 50 feet, how wide is this room? 50 feet? 60 feet? Is that enough to put 12 families? You'll never get 12 families down there at one time but, by chance if they did go, is that enough room? More than likely. Mary Jo Moore: If it was useable land. e Conrad: Let's say they only have 50 feet down there but I guess that's something we have to resolve up here. ~-..-._~-~ Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 14 e Mary Jo Moore: ...instance where we have this measurement of land, I am next to an outlot, on this lot they've got 60 feet of lakeshore. However, the land is at an angle and 60 feet is out into the water. Actual lakeshore is 30 feet. Now it depends on what measurements you use right? If you're going to take Schoell and Madsen's with 60 feet of lakeshore, let's go out here... As far as a canoe rack goes, I think that should definitely be restricted to the number of families that are using the lot as opposed to how many docks you can have... Mrs. Wenzel: You're looking at this on a square footage basis and 400 square feet for each of the 15 houses, he could have a strip 12 feet wide by his 550 feet long and it would still be adequate for those 15 houses. It's still that much square footage. Conrad: And your point is? Mrs. Wenzel: My point is that it doesn't make, if you're going to make it 100 feet wide, then it could be less length. He has 550 feet in length and it could be 12 feet wide by the 550 and that would meet the requirements for 15,000 square feet. Zoe Bros: Last spring there would not have been any property there at all. e Robert pierce: I guess I'd have to totally disagree. Every time I've been down there and I have gone down there, I've taken my kids down and there used to be a dock there and there hasn't been for a period of time since they moved out and it's been used and all I can say is, on this particular project and maybe some of the other projects coming along that way, I don't believe that when they made the ordinance that they were able to look at every type of useage. We've worked very hard to watch the impact on the neighbors, the impact on the lake and feel that we're doing a good job and our request is extremely reasonable. Ray Roettger: I live on the north shore of Lake Minnewashta and I know exactly what she's talking about because it's a piece of property that's defined by Schoell and Madsen Engineers. It was surveyed in 1960 or thereabouts. There is no more land there. It was surveyed, stakes pounded in, dredged and it has it down something like 35 feet. I'm kind of, with my engineering background and I've done some surveying, Barb's defined the horizontal marks but I can make you a sketch on that board and I think you'll see what the problem is that I'm talking about. If you took a piece of property like this and there's a road there and you took an exaggerated deal like this and the property just happens was laid out someway and you met these requirements but this dimension here is 10 feet. If this dimension becomes long enough or this dimension, depending on how you measure it, along the shore, you can get a very minimum dimension here and I think that's what your ordinance should take a look at. What the minimum depth is perpendicular to this surface. e Conrad: Staff is telling us that that's how they do it. I heard our staff say. Staff is not saying we do that. we measure it perpendicularly from... That's what Staff is saying Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 15 e Ray Roettger: Can you tell us then what that minimum dimension is? Conrad: That's what we're looking at tonight. Headla: That really isn't pertinent now. We're talking about the ordinance, not approving that particular one. Ray Roettger: But that should be put into the ordinance though. Conrad: them all. There are some good points being brought up and I appreciate Anything else? Richard Zweig: What are we amending this to? If you're talking about amending this thing, I agree with this gentleman over here. I don't think you should ever change the ordinance and that there should be a variance but what is it being amended to? Conrad: The beach lot ordinance. Richard Zweig: From what to what? What size? e Conrad: Right now we're looking at two things. We're saying the minimum requirement depth wise is 100 feet all the way through the beachlot. The recommendation or the thought that we're reviewing is, it doesn't have to be 100 feet all the way through. Only at the dock. That's what we're looking at. Richard Zweig: it's up to the is necessary. it's on a case So in other words, the amendment is up to the Council, Planning Commission to decide whether or not the 100 feet You're not going down to 75 or you're not going down to, by case basis? Conrad: No. There are a lot of situations, if we change it, the 100 feet is an absolute. It's easy to measure. It's easy to look at. We can always tell. If we change it, there are other situations where one end of the beach lot could be 10 feet and where the dock is it could be 100 feet and that's the only place where we have 100 feet and we may not have a good beachlot. That's the situation that we'd have to consider that might roll in. I'm very confident that this particular ordinance as we're looking at it and the changes to the language would, this particular request that we're not looking at tonight but as an example, I'm comfortable that this request is not abusing the ordinance and any change that we're looking at wouldn't have an impact. However, in the future is what we're looking at. We've got to be real comfortable that we're not changing the language where we get a different set of circumstances that we didn't anticipate. And maybe, as some people have brought up, maybe the variance in this case might be the way to fly. Mary Jo Moore: My understanding was that a variance request was put ~ through on this property and everything was approved but the dock. Dacy: That's correct. The applicant filed a variance. The City Attorney's opinion was that the City should not consider a variance for ~~ Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 16 e that particular case. The applicant consequently filed the zoning ordinance amendment application. Mary Jo Moore: So in this case, his variance was approved except for the dockage? Dacy: No, no variance was approved. His conditional use permit to allow a recreational beachlot was without a dock. Mary Jo Moore: Okay, so then because the dock was denied he comes through on a request to change the ordinance so he doesn't need a permit to get the variance? Conrad: He'd like to have a dock and we're just taking a look at the ordinance to see if that ordinance was too hard and didn't consider all the circumstances. We're looking at this one but we're really looking at the ordinance. He's obviously interested in changing it so he doesn't need a variance and we're obviously not proned to having variances. We really don't like variances because they're hard to defend and we want to make sure that if we change this ordinance that it's in the right direction. Mary Jo Moore: But I don't think it should be self serving. e Conrad: It's not. We're not doing it for him. We're smart enough to know we're doing it for whoever comes in and applies and that's why we're looking at it right now. We're looking at it to see if our intent of the ordinance is being upheld and will be upheld in future beachlots that are applied for. Ann Zweig: All I want to say is what happened to the residential lots that have been denied docks then? There are also those on the north side and west side. Conrad: It has nothing to do with beachlots. We're looking only at beachlots. Ann Zweig: This is a beachlot. families that have a beachlot. Residental neighborhood group, 15 Is that what we're looking at? Conrad: If they have been denied and we changed the ordinance, they can come back in and apply. Richard Zweig: Don't change the ordinance. Ann Zweig: Then we get lots of docks. e Conrad: No. I think you're wrong on that. The ordinance is very restrictive and you don't get lots of docks. You simply don't get lots of docks. You may get one and if they have enough frontage you may get two. What is it Barbara, after every 200 feet, for every 200 feet additional you may be a dock? And that's less dockage than most residential people have on the lake. That's less dockage so you're not Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 17 e getting lots of docks. I don't want you to think that we're out here granting docks willy nilly. It's quite restrictive. Batzli: How many beachlots are there anyway? Conrad: On all lakes? Batzli: On the lakes that they're concerned about. How many beachlots are there on your lake? Dacy: There's at least 5 or 6. Batzli: Do we know if we change the ordinance how it would affect those beachlots? Dacy: The existing beachlots would be grandfathered in as they are now. Batzli: I know but if they were denied a dock before under the old rules and if the rules are relaxed under the new ordinance, would there be any additional docks? Dacy: There has not been any other recreational beachlot request on Lake Minnewashta since I've been here so I don't know what ones they're referring to that's been denied. e Richard Zweig: There are some there without docks. There are some there without docks right now and that's why when you relax the ordinance, rather than keep the ordinance, I'm don't know why, I'm not a city planner and I don't know why you don't give variances but it seems to me that you would keep a rule sound rather than amending that and then go for a variance. I don't have a problem with this plan. That's not what I'm having a problem with. I'm satisfied here but I don't like the idea of amending an ordinance rather than doing a variance because there are some beachlots, I know one in particular and I know the people who do this, that's on the northwest shore and they have no dock now and I'm sure they've got enough, I was going to maybe they've got 200 feet, I don't know, but if the ordinance is changed, they may just come in and say we had a beachlot before but now we want a dock with 2 or 3 boats. I think that's a real problem. Conrad: And why would that be a problem? Richard Zweig: Because there are no boats there now and they were not authorized to have any before. I just don't understand. I think the rule that's up here is great that's set up now and I think that if he's granted a variance, I can see where that makes sense but why amend what's already there, which is very good and leave it that way and then have him file for a variance on that? Like you say, I don't see a problem with that. There's all kinds of square footage there. He's only asking for three boats. Why is the City wanting to do that? I'm at a loss. Like I say, I'm not a city planner but I don't understand. e J Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 18 e Ann Zweig: What would be the language of the ordinance? What are you changing it to? Conrad: We don't know. That's what we're trying to decide. The concept would be, we maintain the 100 feet but only where the dock is placed, with or without some other comments. The current language says you have to have 100 feet throughout the beachlot. We're considering having that 100 feet be maintained only where the dock is placed so the rest of the beach lot could go down to less footage and depth. Ray Roettger: Sir, I'm going to have to insist on that location of that dock at a 100 foot depth, you can force someone to put a dock in the worse possible location on that piece of property. I don't think the dock really would be significant as to where that depth would occur. Would it not be better to go to some minimum depth anywhere on the property? Conrad: Here's what you have for a beachlot ordinance. You have 200 frontage feet. You've got to have the 200 feet and you have to have 30,000 total square feet. Dacy: 30,000 for the first dock and 20,000 for the second dock plus 200 feet of additional lake frontage. e Conrad: So you have those restrictions. That's giving us some kind of control. Just generally, the 30,000 is a good tool to use. Whether that 100 feet is a good tool is really. That 30,000 talks to me about buffers and enough size. The 100 feet doesn't say much other than it's an absolute rule and there are exceptions to that. 98 feet, 94 feet. Geez, but we've got the 30,000 in there, we've got enough feet. There is enough square footage with other parts of this ordinance to protect the citizens so I'm really comfortable that there are those elements there. We're just debating whether that 100 foot is an absolute and whether we should change it or whether we should communicate that we don't want to change it and recommend a variance in this case because there aren't that many other alternatives and I don't know what we're going to do. Anything else that's new? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Wildermuth: Before you close the hearing I think maybe you shouldn't explain what the undesirability connected with variances is and the problems that the City has? Conrad: I tried to do that before. Wildermuth: They seem to have a lot of interest in variances and handling this situation with variances. Conrad: Let's close the public hearing and I'll mention that Jim. I'll go through it again and maybe Barbara can help. e Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 19 e e Conrad: Basically, in terms of going through this again, and Barbara help me if you can because I'm not that astute on all the ramifications of variances but basically our Attorney says variances are tough to deal with. When you grant a variance you set a precedent and you really have to document why you set that precedent really precisely. Really precisely and many times that's not easy. Many times you use general language to document that and most of the time, when you grant that variance you have a lot of other people coming in and and taking advantage of that same variance that you just granted because you haven't totally documented that and Barbara help me out. I'm sure if we had the City Attorney here he'd be killing me on this one. The other thing is, you try to make ordinances as good as you can. You grant a variance it means hey, who cares about the ordinance, it must be lousy and we used to have many variances in the old Chanhassen days 3-4 years ago and it meant that the ordinances meant nothing. What we're trying to do now is make sure that the ordinance means something. We can stand behind them. We can tell people that they mean something and they mean something for a real good reason. That's why we're looking at changing the ordinance tonight is saying hey, does it make sense to change that ordinance and that's what we're doing. We're trying to make the ordinances the valid ones that rule the City and you really don't like to rule the city by variances. You really don't because it's real difficult. It's costly. As taxpayers you spend legal fees, Attorney fees supporting it. It's not only the one issue, it's the next five issues that come up and typically they break down that ordinance. Therefore, our direction here on the Planning Commission is to make sure that the ordinance is right in the first place. There are times when variances make sense and they are appropriate but we choose to make sure that the ordinances are right. Batzli: There's a second aspect as well. I think he spoke mostly of the precedence and the policy. There's also a city ordinance as to when you can find a variance which has strict guidelines as well so you're not only looking at it from a precedent standpoint but you're also looking at meeting specifications on the ordinance to grant the variance in the first place. e Emmings: with the 30,000 square foot area, minimum requirement and 200 feet of shoreline, if you've got only the 200 feet you've got to have an average depth of 150 feet already so that does afford another protection. Just the area and width requirement gives you some protection right there. I've got some real uncomfortable feelings about this for two reasons. I guess the horns of the dilemma for me are, I feel like we're reacting to one proposal and we're changing the ordinance to let in one project here and I don't like that. That feels like spot zoning. It feels like a bad thing to do. On the other hand, I like his proposal. I think it's appropriate. I have no problem with what he's proposing to do and I live on that lake and look at that shore too. Before I came here tonight I had resolved in my own mind that there's nothing wrong with our ordinance and that this matter should be handled through a variance. I think that the comments of the gentleman from Sunny Slope are well taken. I think he said everything that I thought of and then some. We did see a survey done by staff as to what properties are left in the city which Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 20 e could become beachlots and the only ones that would require a depth variance are along that shore of Lake Minnewashta and it's Dave's property, these folks back here have some property and this one and I don't know, there might be a couple of others. The reason they don't have the depth is because of the road which makes it to me a very clear cut case for granting a variance because it's a thing that's there that's imposed on them. It's not something they imposed on themselves. I don't think that granting a variance in this case would set a dangerous precedent for those other cases where there's potential for beachlots and I don't see any reason to dispense with the 100 foot minimum requirement. The other thing about this one is that even if we approve these amendments, he's still going to need a variance because he's going to need a variance under Section l3that Barbara brought to our attention tonight. We're looking at amending two sections that would get our ordinance in shape for him to be allowed to do whatever he wants to do but he's still going to run afoul with Number 13 isn't he? Dacy: If the Planning Commission and Council wanted to change the ordinance to reduce the lot depth, they would also have to amend number 13 as well. Emmings: I know but all that's been proposed tonight, all that's been proposed so far is the amendment of two sections and we really have to amend three. Otherwise he's still going to have to apply for the variance. e Dacy: Yes and I would follow that by saying that because we are under lawsuit from the Sunny Slope Homeowners Association and because the City Attorney looked at this case and felt and went through the criteria and said no, a variance would not be justified and said that the Council should amend the ordinance rather than granting variances. That's why we went back and initiated this application. e Emmings: My own personal opinion on this, my position on this matter is this. They should leave the ordinance alone. There's nothing wrong with it. I want him to get what he wants and I think he should be granted a variance for the dock. I don't think it creates any kind of a bad precedent or anything else. The only other specific comment I have is just probably a lot more trivial, is that I think in the section of the ordinance that's number 6 that we're looking at amending, there's a sentence that starts, I think we ought to get canoe racks out of there. In a couple of sentences it talks about racks and then in another sentence it talks about canoe racks but we're really talking about storing a lot of different kinds of watercraft on these racks. Calling them canoe racks I think just adds ~onfusion to this. I think there's a sentence that begins with the word canoes and it's about the sixth line down and I think what we ought to do is say that starting there it should read, non-motorized watercraft such as, and then just pick up the sentence where it starts, canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they're stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose and then just take the word canoe out of the next sentence so it would just say, the number of racks shall be determined as part of the conditional use permit Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 21 Ie process. Just eliminate the word and then it tells them both the general, that we're talking about non-motorized watercraft and giving specific examples of canoes, windsurfers and so on and we get the confusion away from the canoe racks. Other than that, I don't have any other comments. ElIson: I looked at this from the standpoint of the ordinance change and I think when they wrote the you're trying to think of the different possibilities. I don't see a reasoning behind 100 feet. I think it was just a number that was pulled out of a hat and everyone say yes, that sounds okay and until you get something like this that brings it to your attention, you realize you pulled it out of a hat and you didn't really think as thoroughly as you can so I can see changing that because I don't think that 100 feet was something that was really well thought out and thought of all the possibilities. I don't see why 100 feet is so magic. Emmings: How about the 200 and 30,000? ElIson: Yes, those made more sense to me. 200 feet for families and 30,000, that made sense but the 100 all the way across didn't necessarily do that. e Batzli: I think Mr. Wenzel brought up a lot of good points. I think in particular, although I was the one that recommended that the 100 feet be where the dock was located, I will admit that I think a lot of good concerns, valid concerns were raised about why we're doing that but it still concerns me that I don't know, I think there should be a minimum lot footage. I think a 100 feet is probably a good number for the implementing of a barrier both from the surrounding people and the people that are at the beach, for their safety. I think it was a pretty good number that was pulled out. I think that the mooring of the docks in the public water would be an interesting question to direct staff to look into. The variance issue, I don't know that I agree with Steve that this is the prime candidate for a variance. I think that what he said, he contradicted himself when he said it was in that I always thought that the hardship was not characteristic of or applicable to other lands or structures in the same district and it sounds to me like he said there's a bunch of lots that are similar. I don't know that granting a variance is the right thing to do here. I guess I'd rather put an ordinance together that everybody can live with that had some good numbers in it and that the people in the community want and can live with. I don't think necessarily granting a variance in this instance solves anything at all and especially if there are other pieces of property that have the same problem with the road. The interesting thing that I started thinking about the minute we raised subsection 13 was the 100 feet that has to be landward of the ordinary high water mark, or what does that say? The width measured at both the ordinary high water mark and at a point 100 feet landward from the ordinary high water mark of not less than 4 lineal feet for each dwelling unit. The current one that we're not considering tonight but we're using as our model, how many lineal feet do they require? How many families? e Dacy: It would be 60. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 22 I I e Batzli: So they have at least 60 feet worth 100 feet back from the ordinary high water mark? Dacy: That's the issue. In some places there is not 100 feet depth landward to measure back from the ordinary high. That's why I'm saying if you amend the lot depth requirement in the other section, that shouldn't conflict with 13... Batzli: either? So they didn't meet 13 either? They don't currently meet 13 They don't even have 60 feet of 100 foot depth? Robert pierce: I think we do. I think we can contest to that. Wildermuth: The thing is, Section 13 wasn't designed for a 15 family beachlot. It's meant for the 40 family beachlot. Batzli: I also had a question for Steve, I didn't want to interrupt because you were rolling but I didn't understand your comment about the average of 150 foot depth. I didn't catch what you were saying, why you would have to have 150 foot depth. e Emmings: If you had 200 feet on the shore and you have to have 30,000 square feet, you have to have 150 feet in depth. Batzli: Yes, average but you would rather think of mean depth because average, you could have 1 square foot that goes back 2 million feet and then... Emmings: 30,000. I give up. Maybe I used the wrong word. 150 times 200 is Batzli: I understand what you were trying to say. You were just drawing a straight diagonal line and saying that's going to be. It's not necessarily the middle but you could have 1 square foot. I think Steve's amendment. I don't know that I'm ready to approve at least the recommendation by staff at this time. I think that we may want to put a maximum number on the racks that we allow in the event something about, I think someone in the public hearing mentioned something about one watercraft per family maximum or something and I might go along with something like that or a maximum of 10 racks or some such thing. I also think that trying to clean up this 100 feet, I think we do at least want to make Sections 13 and 7 consistent. I know that staff is measuring them perpendicular and landward and everything else but I think we should clean up that language as well if and when we get to amending the ordinance. Wildermuth: I favor an ordinance amendment because I don't think that this case or other cases would meet the hardship test for a variance. That's why we get into trouble defending our ordinances from a legal sense. e Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 23 e Conrad: Are you comfortable with the way that staff has worded the possible amendment? Wildermuth: I find it acceptable. I think we ought to table it this evening because I think there's going to be some language problems in our ordinance amendment but I don't think we should handle these case by case on a variance basis... Conrad: I heard some comments that were brought up in the audience. Would we change the 100 feet to another number? 90 feet in total. Do you feel it's a minimum depth that should be maintainted? Wildermuth: I was thinking about this. If you look at 30,000 square feet minimum. A minimum of 200 feet of shoreline. Do you really need a depth requirement? Conrad: A while back it was hoped that we wouldn't because of those two things but we found that a case in point... Wildermuth: On Minnewashta? e Conrad: In this particular case. 10 feet, which is not the case, it that a beachlot could shrink to 40 said, it may have even disappeared you care? Are we concerned that if it shrunk to could skrink to 40 feet, do you feel feet. Like some of the audience have during the rainstorm last year. Do wildermuth: I guess it's not a problem as far as I'm concerned. If you have a half a mile of 10 foot deep beach, that certainly is not intense use. Headla: I hear a lot of comments tonight and I think they're... The people have their stuff and they want to cut it off. I really believe that the people of Chanhassen and the public have a right to the lake and to all the recreation provided it doesn't hurt the neighbors or damage the lake and I didn't see us protecting that. That's one comment. Another one is I think the people who wrote the original ordinance...1 think they did a good job then... I think now we have a challenege... I think we ought to rewrite it to fit the situation. I haven't heard anybody disagree with what Mr. pierce wants to do so let's write an ordinance that will fit this situation. We had another situation where the Council approved something this last time. They hadn't..the building was there. We didn't do a good job of wording and I think we've got to improve the wording of this ordinance and we've got a good opportunity. Conrad: Let me take you up on that. Staff has drafted some language and you're not comfortable with that language is what you're telling us. What would you like to see changed versus their language of saying either 100 feet at the dock or 30 feet surrounding the dock of being 100 feet. e Do you see other things that we should be considering? Headla: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 24 e Conrad: And what might they be? Headla: Barb, how many people belong to Pleasant Acres beachlot? Dacy: I have it upstairs in the file but I just don't know off the top of my head. Headla: Is it more than 20? Dacy: Yes I would say so. Headla: More than 30? Dacy: Probably. Headla: Ladd, you voted no last time I mentioned this and I think you probably... Did you notice the distance from the parking lot to the lakeshore and that's the land that's being used. There are probably over 30 families and that's the place that's being used. 35, maybe 40 feet. Wildermuth: I in the area of talking about. happen to have think that's the problem with requiring that the dock go the 100 foot minimum. The very thing that you were That may be the worse place to put the dock where you 100 feet of depth. e Headla: Let me go on with some other points here. Have you had any complaints from Pleasant Acres or Minnewashta Creek beachlots? Dacy: From those two, no. Headla: But if they would apply today, they wouldn't get them. Dacy: That's correct. Headla: I think we're screwed up if we think we can cut out those lots. They serve the public well. They haven't had complaints. I think we ought to really seriously consider rewording that. Another point, on my place, if I was to sell half my place to my daughter and we wanted a beachlot, you're telling me I need 30,000 feet of beachlot for two families and neither one has any kids. I think it's screwed up. I think that's an incorrect requirement. Conrad: That's not the point of a beachlot though. You've distorted what a beachlot is in your definition. Headla: No. I want to get a beachlot but as soon as I sell a part of it, all the rules have changed. Changes, ...a beachlot for my daughter and myself. e Conrad: either. You also Dave, can't let friends store boats on your property There are a lot of good things to protect the lake. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 25 e Headla: I don't go along with that at all. Like one radar run on the lake, they can improve that lake a whole lot more than probably 10 or 20 beachlots. with all those cars driving around and all those people... I do like the rule of thumb you have. I think 30,000 and minimum width so you protect people from north and south, I think that hits the very foundation. I think there's a lot of logic in requiring so much lake width per family. That kind of gets down to useage and are you really going to... Should it be 35 or 55, I don't know but those are the rules I really think we should be looking at. The 100 foot depth, from what I read in all the notes here, was determined because that's the setback required for a home. We don't have any homes. You can't have a building. To me, you've got to treat that as an outlot or if I sold Mr. pierce 50 feet of property by 50 feet, there aren't any requirements on that. I really would like to see those parameters considered in the description of the beachlot. Batzli: What's the setback from the rear of the house to the back line? Dacy: 30 feet. Batzli: And what's the side setback? Dacy: 10 feet. tit Batzli: So a minimum setback in the normal requirement would be 40 feet. Are you comfortable with that? 30 and 10, that's as close as you can get from house to house. Do you like that as a setback? Headla: I think there's some logic to that. I think it should be 30 because that's what the house is required. I think we ought to have logic for the number of feet set down and I haven't heard that. Conrad: Dave, you'll be out there a long time. There isn't any. There's no logic to 10 feet sideyard setback. There's no logic to 30 rearyard setback. You find some logic that says they can pack in 18 people or whatever and I will be amazed. They are arbitrary numbers typically dictated from one city to the next and so you look at city to city. It's going to be real tough to find real numbers that you can justify based on economics or based on solid rationale. They are ballpark estimates. They're best guess. They're global guesses in many cases and we're not going to come up with something that's really particular. In this case, Barbara the City Attorney said no variance. Did you talk to Roger? Dacy: Yes. Conrad: And what was his comment? ie Dacy: He did do a written opinion. I can't remember the exact text of it but to summarize, he felt that there was not hardship here in the Stratford Ridge application. That it did not meet the five criteria that the ordinance sets out for granting a variance. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 26 e Conrad: In your humble opinion you thought there was a hardship, is that right Steve? Emmings: I think there's a hardship for that entire narrow strip of land where it gets narrow and then goes down to the point. Down to Red Cedar Cove. That strip of land is different than any other place in Chanhassen that can have a beachlot. It may be owned by 3 or 4 different people but it's just one piece of land. Conrad: Are you persuaded? Batzli: Am I? Conrad: These two are attorneys so I'm using them as a little mini-court here. Emmings: Neither one of us practice this kind of law. Dacy: Just a point of clarification, the Wenzel and the Headla property, these properties wouldn't be eligible for a beachlot anyway because they couldn't meet the lot area. They can't make the 30,000 square feet so you could be talking about this Stratford Ridge case and you new applications that would occur on the east side of Lake Minnewashta when that area becomes sewered or developed or on the west side of Lake Ann. e Emmings: But there are no roads there now that create this condition. Dacy: Right. I just get real concerned about debating the variance issue because the Council has denied that variance and the City is on a different road here. Conrad: If we vote the ordinance amendment down and we leave the applicant up to a variance request. ElIson: He's already had one. Dacy: The Attorney's going to come back with the same thing. The crucial part of the variance application is that you're saying that there is something wrong with the ordinance so what the Attorney is saying is, if you don't like the rules, fine, change the rules but you shouldn't be granting variances which do not meet the established criteria in the ordinance. It's his opinion that said the Stratford Ridge application didn't meet those criteria so as our legal advisor he said, don't grant the variance but if you feel you want to change the rules than change the rules. If you don't want to change the rules, then fine and that's the purpose of the zoning ordinance amendment. To go back and change the course, everybody's just wasted the last three months. Conrad: We may have wasted the time and I apologize to Mr. pierce for e this but we want to do the right thing. ElIson: If they weren't thinking in terms of hardship,...has gone before the Councilor the Attorney before. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 27 -- Dacy: For the Stratford Ridge application? Emmings: There aren't that many pieces of property that have this characteristic. wildermuth: Except for the north end of Lotus Lake and I think that's well established. Headla: On an overall basis, I think Steve's got some really good points and that is the variance is more defensivible than anything else. Take a look at it case by case if it doesn't make sense. Conrad: Are you saying we should grant a variance? Headla: Yes. That's an idea. I don't like it but I think his position is the most defensivible and makes the most sense. Take a look at it case by case. Don't change it at this time. I don't see where we're going to come to a mutual agreement. Conrad: I'm also uncomfortable that we have the right words in the ordinance amendment right now but I don't know that we're going, I think we're going to come up with mumbo-jumbo therefore my comments a few minutes ago. e Wildermuth: Take the depth requirement out of it entirely. 200 feet wide minimum. 30,000 square feet minimum. Where are you going to run into a problem? There isn't an undeveloped property left on any lake except on the one side of Minnewashta and most of that is park. There isn't enough land left on Lotus. There isn't enough land left on Riley. Ellson: You guys have to be really confident that what you've just been saying about the Attorney is well, that's okay we'll do it anyway. Headla: He's going to give an opinion to save himself anyway. Cover himself on that. Robert pierce: The parcel to the north, the Larson property, for instance right now they live there. She's an elderly lady and they might develop that parcel someday and it probably would be a single family home. The way the ordinance reads right now, if we change the ordinance in the depth, I think that would cover the fact that they can not put a dock on their land. As it is right now, they can't even have a dock for a single family home. If the dock is left out, as I understand it, you can not put it back in. For instance if it wasn't grandfathered in because they didn't have it in at the time. That's strictly because they were elderly people or someone might get sick and not put it in and you can't get a variance. I would think if you do away with the depth and have...on this particular side of the lake... I will guarantee that the Larson's will sell that property and without a doubt that whoever comes there thinks they're going to have lakeshore and they're going to find out they don't will be a little irritated. e Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - page 28 e Conrad: I'm a little bit concerned with lot depth because, and I'll give you an example of Lotus Lake Estates. Where property, you've got 900 feet of a beachlot and you've got parcels, and again, we're kind of beating this into the ground when we don't have too many things going to corne before us but again, let me just give you an example that I could create. Lotus Lake Estates, 900 feet of beachlot and houses corning down to that beachlot, we potentially, if we take away the depth requirement, and they've got tons of feet. This is small compared to what they have there. If you take away the depth requirement, you potentially could have a beachlot that is a 10 foot strip in front of somebody's house. Batzli: Under section 13 you couldn't. footage is and at least 100 feet back. amending this one section correct? You'd need whatever the lineal He's talking about a dock by e Conrad: But you're saying that a beachlot can be configured differently. You're saying no longer does a beachlot have to have 100 feet in front of everybody's house. It can be 10 feet. Only where the dock is you've got to have 100 feet but it can be 10 feet in front of 15 houses and that's what Lotus Lake Estates did. They have, I don't know how many houses but they have a lot of houses abutting the beachlot. We're not talking one or two so you basically can set a walking trail down in front of the people. Walking trails aren't bad but again, we're trying to buffer so we're talking distance between space for people and distance between where people actually, other lot owners have their residences. That's an extreme example but it's a case where if we took the depth out of there, you potentially could have that situation. Dacy: May I summarize your options? Options on the first issue about the dock. You can deny the proposed amendment all together. Conrad: And then what would happen? Dacy: The ordinance would remain as is. Conrad: And then what would the applicant do? Dacy: He can reapply for a variance but based on the Attorney's opinion, we're still going to recommend denial. He may not get that variance. Batzli: That's always up to the City Council. Conrad: How many additional steps are there in that process right now? Dacy: We would have to reschedule a hearing to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and probably at this point would not be heard until the end of May. That's one option. Conrad: Brian your feeling was that the language of the ordinance would 4It not permit a variance. Is that right? Batzli: That was my feeling, yes. ~ i Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 29 e Conrad: Okay, second option. Dacy: Section option is, you can establish no depth whatsoever. That would also mean that you should amend Section 13 too. Third option would be to keep it at the 100 feet, which I guess is really the same one as number one. Four, you could establish a smaller depth. 75 feet or 50 feet. 75 feet is consistent with the structure setback for a recreational development lake. Staff has said, if you're going to reduce it, don't go as small as 50 feet. You need area to move around in on the beachlot. The fifth option is the one that you talked last time and that is, requiring a certain amount of area of that beachlot be 100 feet where the dock is located. ElIson: What if we reword the ordinance and list the hardship so that if they went through we worded it. In other words, word the hardship. Do you know what I'm talking about? Dacy: If you wanted to say that a beachlot have an average lot depth of x amount of feet. Has an average lot depth of 75 feet or whatever. That's an option. You can do that. Emmings: The Attorney, in the letter also suggested we had an option to just knock out the whole beachlot ordinance and not allow beachlots. Simply just repeal the whole ordinance and just end all our troubles. e Headla: No, I think you'd have some trouble. Emmings: I don't think that's a good option. Conrad: Those are four options. Board of Adjustment and Appeals will get it next? Dacy: Right. e Conrad: I guess I'm uncomfortable with the language of the proposal right now. The only thing that I can think of briefly, without a lot of thought is to take it down to 75 feet in depth. Instead of the 100 take it down to 75. Therefore, we're not talking about the dock anymore, where the dock is located. I'm assuming, I don't want to take depth out of the ordinance. I think we need depth in there because I can't imagine all the different scenarios that may corne to play and I don't even want to set up a committee to try to figure out the scenarios and waste staff time because I don't think we're solving too many people's problems right now but I guess I'm saying, I'm not saying that this is my idea and I'm going to vote for it. I'm saying that I can see an alternative of changing the 100 foot depth to be 75 foot depth. Wildermuth: Look at the last page of this thing. If John Ziegler Jr., John Ziegler, Lawrence Wenzel and Barbara Mae Headla got together and decided to develop that piece of property as a parcel, they would have a lot of lineal shore footage. They would have, I guess at some point there's 80 feet but if you made the 75 foot minimum, there's a lot of it that would be 50 feet. That would mean that that whole stretch there, Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 30 e which would probably be over 1,000 lineal feet of shoreline, could not have a beachlot. I think that's the problem with the depth. Where do you put it? Where you cut it off. Conrad: a good enough it. I was persuaded by Steve in terms of variance. I think this is candidate for the variance because I don't think we can be smart to figure this out. I tell you Barbara, the more I think about Dacy: The issue is, what you're saying, is the City satisfied with only one part of the area meeting a certain amount of lot depth and having a narrower part. Do you feel that that's appropriate for a beachlot or do you want a consistent straight 75 feet? Wildermuth: I think it is. Dacy: That's the issue and if you feel it should be 100 feet or 75 or if you want to use the term average depth of x amount of feet. wildermuth: The area that I live in has probably got the most odd shaped ridiculous beachlot on any of the lakes. That one on Colonial Grove, that is really a little odd. That thing is only about 25 feet wide going down to the lake but it works well. e ElIson: Are we talking about two-thirds of it or an average? Dacy: That's the issue there and we pointed out these other properties to let you know that hey, some of them do get really narrow and where do you stop and feel uncomfortable that a beachlot should be located on that area? Conrad: We have to make a recommendation to the City Council. We can table it for more study. We can react and send it up to City Council who will probably have the same amount of comment as we do. I guess if they would like more study, I think I'd rather have them ask for it than us at this time. I think we should make a move on this and I think the power may be in the person who makes the motion. Dacy: On the second issue on the racks, the way that staff has recommended it, I think is what Mr. Batzli you're talking about, the intent of it was to allow one slip per lot on the rack situation which was also suggested by the public. Batzli: Was that in your sentence that reads, the number of racks shall be determined as part of the conditional use permit process? Dacy: No, it's on page 6. Somehow hopefully that got copied right. My pages were rearranged. ~ Ernmings: Why is that one repeated? Batzli: I've got repeated from page 4 to page 6. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 31 e Dacy: The staff report reads page 5, page 4 and page 6. Page 4 was the original recommendation for last times meeting. Page 6 is the recommendation for this meeting. Conrad: depth. There are two issues. Let's talk the first one out first, the Anybody want to make a motion? Batzli moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to amend Section 20-263(7) of the City Code to read as follows: No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage measured at the ordinary high water mark and the lot contains at least 75 feet of lot depth measured landward perpendicularly from the ordinary high water mark for at least 50 feet of width where th, dock is to be located. (Following is the discussion pertaining to this motion which was later wi thdrawn.) ElIson: Say that again, the part about the 50 feet. e Batzli: We don't even have to have that but I'm throwing something out so we can talk about something. 75 feet minimum depth for at least 50 feet somewhere around where the dock is going to be located. Do we need any requirement in any motion that we do, unless we throw the thing out of course, as to where a minimum or maximum linear footage would be? I guess I can picture a 10 foot strip of sand going in front of a couple of houses and I don't know if that's really the intent of what we're trying to do and I don't even know if that has anything to do with a lot's ability to have a dock and I think I keep on losing sight myself of we're not necessarily even talking here about whether we're allowing the beachlot so much as can the dumb thing have a dock on it. It appears to me that there's probably a certain amount of square footage that you need to have a dock and I don't know really that we need a minimum other than what the lot would already have to have in Subdivision 13. To be a beachlot. I'm kind of being swayed that way other than your comment where let's say the guy does have a 10 foot strip of land and that's where they're going to put the dock and that's where all the activity is and they've got this big hunk of land over here that nobody is using and they're right in front of everybody's house. I guess that's the only reason that I can see where you would want the minimum footage around where the dock is. I guess that's kind of why I kept it in my motion to take care of that situation where you've got the 10 foot strip of beach, that's where they want to put the dock and they've got this big hunk of land that they got the beachlot because they had this lot of land over here and nobody's using that. They're all in front of the neighbors. I guess that's kind of why I proposed the motion and take it from there. e Emmings: I have a different idea to throw out. What if we essentially left it as it was or we said that you've got to have 200 feet of lake frontage, 100 feet of depth, you've got to have the 30,000 square feet of land and then just said that the lot depth, in a particular case, as long Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 32 e as the area and the frontage requirements are met, lot depth can be varied if it can be demonstrated that the goal of buffering adjoining property owners has been met. Batzli: Are you talking about just forgetting the dock or are you talking about to get a beachlot? Emmings: I'm talking about this particular section right here. Batzli: Okay, so that's just to have a dock? 100 foot minimum? So you already need the Emmings: All those things are in this section related to a dock. I guess what I'm saying is... Conrad: Dock or no dock. Batzli: It's two different considerations though. Whether you have a beach lot or not and whether it has a dock or not. Emmings: But they're all contained in the same section of the ordinance that we're now amending that you just made a motion on. e Batzli: This amendment is only as to whether a dock is permitted on a recreational beachlot. Emmings: But it lays out when a dock is permitted and it has all those numbers in it. My note says this, if the depth requirement is in there primarily for buffering this activity from other adjoining properties, then if they met the frontage and the area, we could be forgiving on the depth as long as we're satisified that the thing is adequately buffered from the neighbors. That would allow his project and doesn't tie us down to any arbitrary number for depth. It makes it a little vague. Batzli: Other than the 100 foot minimum in Section 13, per family being served by the beachlot. Emmings: Well, we'd have to take a look at that. I think you've got to do one section at a time and then they can all fit together. Batzli: I'm looking at that as that's an initial threshold that you have to get over and I wouldn't necessarily adjust that. Conrad: I think there has to be a minimum footage. You're talking about 30,000 square feet but if you've got a 500 foot lot line, it's easy to make up 30,000 square feet if you've got 500 feet and it doesn't have to be very deep. I think that's a mistake. I think the intent of the ordinance is to give distance between the beachlot and the neighboring houses and therefore, I can vacillate the 100 feet a little bit. e Headla: Maybe that's how you want to word it then. That you want distance between that lot line and the neighboring house, 75 feet. Do you want that type of setback? That would answer your concern. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 33 e wildermuth: But Dave, could the dock be in the middle third of the lineal shoreline length? Headla: We're on a different point here. Ladd had the concern that we were really trying to define. If we put a 75 foot setback. Conrad: From the closest property line. Batzli: I think he was talking about from the nearest house, not from the nearest property line. There's a big difference there. Headla: Not really. Conrad: I think property line is the intent. I think Dave would agree with that. Headla: Maybe there's something here. What's a setback requirement like for pierce on Minnewashta Parkway? Dacy: 30 feet. Headla: 30 feet from the road? e Dacy: Right. Conrad: If we kept it at 100 feet from the closest property line, in this case, because we have a street and there's 66 feet of right-of-way, we got the 100 feet. Headla: I think you've got something. Dacy: You're measuring the setback from the dock? Conrad: No, we're not even talking about the dock anymore. We're talking about the depth on any place on that property. We're saying you need 100 feet of depth. Batzli: From the ordinary high water mark. Conrad: To the closest property line. Dacy: Which is how the ordinance is written now. Conrad: No. We're saying it requires 100 feet in and of itself on the lot. We're not saying the lot has to be 100 feet. We're saying from the ordinary high water mark to the first property line other than this property. ~ Batzli: But private property so you're not counting the street. Dacy: You've lost me. Here's the water and here's the road. - Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 34 e Conrad: There's the road and here's the right-of-way on either side of the road and therefore, here's the property line for this house that's across the street. We're saying from the ordinary high water mark, we want 100 feet from here to that property line. Not 100 feet here. We want 100 feet from here to the closest property line other than the parcel itself. In this particular case obviously what we're doing is we're saying the street has nothing to do with what we're doing. The street is a buffer in and of itself. Dacy: What you're saying then is that you have no minimum distance between the edge of the lake and the road right-of-way. This could be 10 feet but they'd have to make up the rest. Conrad: Right. Our assumption is the road right-of-way will be buffer enough in the future, any other parcel. That's our assumption. That this is accomplishing the intent of the ordinance as a buffer and all that other. Dacy: What happens if you wouldn't have a road right-of-way here and let's say on Kurver's Point, they have Lotus Lake here and the beachlot is something like that and the private lots are over here. In this case, there is no dimension? What happens if there is no road? e Conrad: We're measuring to the next lot line. That still has to be 100 feet. Batzli: Assuming that that point you just drew the line to is another property line and not like a cul-de-sac. Dacy: This road right-of-way line though is a property line. Conrad: We have to get the wording to meet our intent. Dacy: How about if you approach it from the standpoint when a beachlot directly abuts a road right-of-way... Emmings: The road right-of-way can be counted... Dacy: In the determination of 100 feet. Ray Reottger: You could end up with 1 foot wide strip band. Emmings: No because then you'd need a 99 foot wide road and we haven't got a lot of those. Mary Jo Moore: Using the road with the consideration in the width because of the safety hazard. You have a road there and then you have a 10 foot lot where kids are playing. It's a safety hazard. e Emmings: I think it's a terrible traffic problem there. a separate issue. I think that's Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 35 e Dacy: Your concern Mr. Chairman though about Lotus Lake Estates having a long strip of land, the 10 or 20 feet not having adequate area, is that still addresses in your mind then? Conrad: Yes. Very definitely. ElIson: Because that road wouldn't be there to the next line. Conrad: So you still have 100 feet. You've got 100 foot lot depth until you hit the first property line. Private property. I think we should make a motion very similar to this to bounce it up and have legal opinions and Barbara do some research and City Council take a look. As a footnote to whatever we're doing I want to make sure that Mr. pierce knows we're looking at the ordinance (1) to make sure it's solid as itself. We also feel that you have a good beachlot and we'll be making, at least I will, be making that clear. Anybody feel comfortable with making a motion that we can kick out of here? Headla: We've got one on the floor. Conrad: That's right it's still under discussion. e Batzli: In view of the circumstances that I don't think I'm even going to garner my own vote on my motion I'll withdraw my motion. ElIson: I withdraw my second. Wildermuth moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend amending Section 20-263(7) of the City Code to read as follows: No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least one hundred (100) feet depth measured perpendicular landward from the ordinary high water mark to the first intersecting lot line exclusive of the street right-of-way. No more than one (1) dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot every two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of land is required for the first dock and an additional twenty thousand (20,000) square feet is required for each additional dock. No more than three (3) docks, however, shall be erected on a recreational beachlot. All voted in favor except David Headla who opposed and motion carried. Headla: You want the rest to read the same? Wildermuth: Yes. e Headla: I've got a big question on the other. I don't like the 30,000 square feet. I think you've got to give them incentive. If somebody is developing their property, you really want more with a minimum number of homes on that property. I think the area on a beachlot should be tied into the number of homes that are going to be using that beachlot. My daughter and I, two people and we need 30,000 square feet. That's at he Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 36 e extreme end but that's the point. Maybe you ought to require x number of feet for a home. Or maybe it's so many feet of width but I think there should be a ratio there and that's going to be the incentive for the builders not to bring in the absolute maximum number of homes. Conrad: Do you want to change your motion at all Jim? Wildermuth: I don't think so. Headla: I'm opposed and the reason being, I think the 30,000 square feet is ludicrous. I think the square foot area should be tied into the number of homes using that beachlot. Conrad: We have a second item in terms of the overnight storage on the property. Anything Steve? Emmings: I'm not sure about, one says 6 and one says 7. which one. I'm not sure Conrad: Seven racks but 6 boats per rack. The thought there is basically the maximum number of boats at one per house would be 42 based on some of Barb's calculations. This would be the maximum number. e Emmings: In the proposed language, I'm looking at page 6. Is that where I should be? Okay, so it says no more than six (6) watercraft are stored on any racks. The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one slip per lot served by the beachlot. That's fine. A motion was made at this point with the following discussion. Emmings: I don't see any problem with rowboats. If somebody's got a 12 foot boat with oars in it, if they can get it on a rack and they can take it out and row around in it to go fishing or something, I don't care. Batzli: I think you'll get people bringing their motors down and taking them on and off the motor. If they've got a small motor, and I still don't know if that's a problem. Emmings: You can get it on a canoe. Batzli: I know, then I don't think that's a problem anyway. Wildermuth: Remember we talked about this last time, this sticker and number business. I guess the reason my canoe and sailboat always had a number on it was it has a motor on it so why don't we define the type of watercraft that can be put on these racks to grant them with a sticker, State sticker. e Emmings: Do you have a sticker on a sailboard? Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 37 e Batzli: You need one. citizen and have one. Most people don't but I'm actually a law abiding A lot of windsurfers don't have them. Dacy: And there's a number on the sticker. Then if they wanted to store a life raft, one of those big ones, doesn't require one but yet they could store it so that's why I kind of stayed away from. Batzli: Requiring the licensing. Emmings: I'm not going to put that in. I don't care if people want to carry a motor down. Conrad: I like the language as is worded. If people can construct a 4 story tall canoe racks that can support. Put a boat in, carry it, I don't think anybody's going to be criticking that. I do like the language of this. It talks about the more passive uses. When you have 42 boats, that's still pretty liberal. I like your wording Steve. Batzli: I think I have the same problem with the word slip. We haven't used that yet and I know that we mean one slot on the rack but slip to me indicates something in the water. Dacy: Do you want to use space. e Ernmings: I know when I did some work in Orono, when we had those dry storage racks, we called those slips too but it all depends on how you define the term. The term hasn't been defined so maybe you want to say one space. One rack space. Is that clearer? Batzli: I thought it was because I looked at the slip and got confused as to whether we were talking about boats in the water or not. Ernrnings: Let's say rack space. Wildermuth: Where did you corne up with the number 7? Conrad: There's rationale for that. Emmings moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to amend Section 20-263(6) of the City Code as follows: e No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more than one (1) dock however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one (1) rack space per lot served by the beachlot; however, in no case shall there be more than Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 38 e seven (7) racks per beachlot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight. All voted in favor and motion carried. Emmings: Should we look at 13? Dacy: Actually, you're keeping that 100 feet consistent with the next property line and you're just only excluding those rights-of-way. Batzli: I like 13 in there still, personally. Emmings: So there's no conflict with what we've got? Conrad: I don't know. I guess rather than reviewing it, maybe instruct staff to make sure that Section 13 is in concert with the motions that have been made tonight. e Emmings: It does say from the ordinary high water mark to a point 100 feet landward and it doesn't tie it to anything else so I guess maybe it does. I think the one odd thing that we've created here is, the one potential problem I see is you've got 100 feet back from the ordinary high water mark and you'll be in a situation where you have 20 feet and then a road and now you pick up 66 feet so now you're back 86 feet, you need another 14 feet and it winds up being on the other side of the road. Because the developer comes in and has to put his lot line for his first property 14 feet back from the road in order to get the 100 feet of depth and that is providing the buffering and maybe that's okay but... f Conrad: I'm sure that city staff will look into this before it gets to the City Council and Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Dacy: It would go on May 9th to Council. You're just amending the zoning Ordinance so it does not need to go to the Board of Adjustments. Emmings: I think someone should volunteer to be at the Council meeting to explain all this stuff. Conrad: I thank you all for attending tonight because you did bring up some really good points. Hopefully we paid attention to them. I think we changed our feelings quite a bit so thank you for staying with us this late hour and maybe you can attend the City Council meeting when this thing comes and they have their crack at it. Ray Roettger: Do I understand it correctly? Are you saying that you are ending up going with 100 feet with a 66 foot road which could be widened, and you would be allowing 34 feet. e Conrad: Right. Ray Roettger: I can't believe it. You're going into a real bad situation. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 39 I 'e Emmings: They still have to have 30,000 square feet. Don't forget. You find one in this city and show it to me. You can't. Mary Jo Moore: You do not comply the ordinance for the purpose one developer... Conrad: We really feel that he's got a good parcel. We feel that we've changed the ordinance to be good for Chanhassen and uphold what Chanhassen's intent is in that ordinance. Ray Roettger: Why didn't you use an average depth? Conrad: Because that didn't make sense either. There are a lot of things. Stick around with the issue. I think we could have cut this 100 ways. There were a lot of ways to do it. Mary Jo Moore: I think after a study of 2 years for this ordinance which got public opinion and resolved...there was a 2 year study before this ordinance was drawn up and now because a developer has come in and is going to cause more problems for the existing homeowner associations. Conrad: I don't know that. City Council has their look at this. They may be advised that a variance is the right way to go but I want you to pay attention to what, I was around for those ordinances. ie Mary Jo Moore: So was I. I'm a member of a homeowners association. Conrad: I think it's real important that the intent be carried out and I think that's what we were trying to do tonight. If you can think of a way before the City Council meeting that satisfies the intent, I think they'd be interested in your opinions, as we were. Ray Reottger: Is Mr. pierce involved with the condominium devleopment down there? Whoever it was, I don't know but whoever it was we were talking about last time, power boats were moored out there. I would like to find some way of enforcing whatever guidelines you use. Emmings: What should he do Barb? What should he do to enforce it? If people are parking power boats out at sailboat moorings, what can he do? Dacy: There are a certain number of moorings permitted along with that beachlot request. We'd have to go out and see how many are moored. Emmings: But aren't they for sailboats? Dacy: I can't recall off the top of my head. check it. I'd have to go back and Ray Roettger: You know what happens, nobody wants to call up City Hall. e Dacy: You should. That's the only way we can follow up on these. Conrad: We need those comments. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 40 e Ray Reottger: You create bad feelings with people. Emmings: But you have a choice of either living with it or creating a bad feeling so make your choice. Ray Roettger: Lord knows we've tried in our case and we live across the way also. It's not clear to me how many docks has this man got? Conrad: One. Ray Roettger: You said two. Conrad: No, it's real clear. There's one dock. He's got three boats which is in the ordinance. Ray Reottger: I would like to see that cast in iron. Conrad: It is. Mary Jo Moore: The residents of the lake don't want to be monitoring these all the time and that's what it's turning out to be. e Ernmings: They're impossible to police. They just are. That's why we should probably not have beachlots at all. Ray Reottger: Brian, so you know what we're talking about, we ended up having 5 boats on one dock with like she said, 35 foot frontage. Right next to homes and they never clean it. They never cut the grass. They don't do anything. So I'm up to here. PUBLIC HEARING: SIGN PERMIT VARIANCE TO PLACE AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN FOR HERITAGE INN MOTEL, DONALD KRUEGER. Public Present: Name Address Donald and Phyllis Krueger Applicants, Heritage Inn Motel Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. e Donald Krueger: I've read the entire report, whoever wrote it and they say that there needs to be an economic hardship. Well, that's the only reason I want to put up a sign is because we are so located that we're behind Super Value's buildings and property so any traffic corning can't see us until they're past. We have one small sign at the entry of the Cline Brickyard development. That's the only sign we have outside of our road sign 30 miles west. We feel that we need a sign east of Chaska so Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 41 e people know we're in town. We get a lot of comments, people coming in. They finally have found us and they say, why don't you have a sign, how can people find you? I cited in my little note that we need a sign to bring us some more business to help pay the taxes of our business. We're not asking for a sign to enhance our personal benefit. We just want the business to run and be a success. Phyllis Krueger: How many of you know where the Hertiage Inn is located? Batzli: I think we were just told it was behind the Super Value buildings. Phyllis Krueger: Have you driven TH 212 and TH 41, any of you? Conrad: Yes. Wildermuth: Yes. Phyllis Kruger: Do you know where it's located? Conrad: Yes. Phyllis Krueger: Do you agree that we are handicapped by our location? e Ellson: As far as visibility from the road? Yes. Phyllis Kruger: Very much so and we have customers that come in occasionally that have made comments like, my god I've been driving this road for a year and a half and I just noticed you're here. We feel it's a need. Conrad: Do you have any signs in Chaska? Phyllis Krueger: Yes, we have a lighted sign, as Don said, the Brickyard Mall has a host of signs inbetween two pillars. We are in there. Conrad: So it's close to your property? Donald Krueger: It's about three-quarters of a block away. Conrad: Any other property in Chaska that you can put a sign up on? Donald Krueger: No, because they have the same ordinances that you have. Conrad: Naegle has signs there don't they? Phyllis Krueger: Yes, but I don't think a business like ours can afford Naegle. Naegle's, you have to be a cigarette company. e Conrad: There are other sign owners besides Naegle on that same stretch. Not just Naegle. They are more expensive but it is an alternative. Donald Krueger: But you can't get those signs because they're taken. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 42 e Conrad: No, you can get them. I get them all the time for advertising so they're there. Your point is they're more expensive than this but it's not that you're restricted, you just chose to have a less expensive sign on a more permanent basis is what you're asking but there are sign locations available all up and down. Even though the Flying Cloud Drive there are more and more restrictions applying to signage and billboards there, they still are there and you still have those alternatives. Phyllis Krueger: As we understand, that piece of property that we're looking at has been designated for signs. Is that not correct? Donald Kruger: No, it's a little piece of ground that's there and I talked to the realtor that had it for sale and he says, sure if you want to put a sign, I'll work out a lease with you to construct a sign on that little piece of property. Headla moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Dave, we'll start at your end. Are you tempted to change the sign ordinance? e Headla: No. We've come up against different ones on the sign ordinance. I'm in agreement with the sign ordinance. I still don't have any arguments with staff's recommendation. Wildermuth: Barbara, this means that if somebody like Naegle came in for an application, we would not grant a new billboard location? Dacy: That's correct. Wildermuth: How many existing signs, do we keep a record of what we have allowed in Chanhassen along the TH 212 corridor? Dacy: Yes we do have a record. We do have a sign permit file. I think there is one existing billboard that is within Chanhassen city limits but I know that's been there for a number of years. Wildermuth: It was probably grandfathered in before the sign ordinance. Dacy: Right. Wildermuth: I can certainly sympathize with the applicant. On the other hand I think there's a real need for the ordinance and I would agree with the staff recommendation. Batzli: I was curious Barbara, the economic hardship thing, what is considered an economic hardship? e Dacy: It's my understanding from the State Statute that an economic hardship would be that if the variance isn't granted, that the applicant is claiming that there is either some type of monetary loss if it's Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 43 e denied. What the Statute is saying, you can't grant a variance just for monetary reasons. You have to look at the ordinance and the intent of the ordinance rather than the particular financial situation of the applicant. Batzli: So our variance ordinance of course applies and we're looking at the same type of language where the variance has to be due to the lot and the unique nature of the lot and that there's no other similarly situated lots. I guess from that standpoint, I agree. I think it's kind of a tough case for this applicant but I don't think a variance is appropriate in this case. ElIson: I would vote against it also. Same reasons. Emmings: Same thing. e Conrad: I don't have anything new to add. I appreciate your circumstance and being hidden. Obviously billboards are what you need. Signage direction, signage whatever, that certainly would help. From a consistency standpoint, I think a claim could be made by almost every company in Chanhassen that their business would be improved if they had TH 5 visibility and you'd have to agree with them. I feel comfortable with our sign ordinance as it is. I feel that I'm not persuaded that a variance needs to be granted here. I also think there are other alternatives signagewise that could help you out. Maybe not as economical as this one but I know that in Chaska itself, you have some options. Even along the corridor corning along Flying Cloud Drive, there are other options so my recommendation is to turn this request down and keep the ordinance as it is. Headla moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Sign Variance Request #88-2 to install an off-premise advertising sign on TH 212. All voted in favor and motion carried. NEW BUSINESS Headla: Did you notice where the Council approved that 5 lots on Minnewashta Parkway? I don't know how close you really looked at that property but the property drops off real fast on each side. We were uncomfortable with it. The Council appeared to be uncomfortable with it. Their only rationale was, it met the 15,000 square feet. I don't know of anybody who is really comfortable with that wording but we all approved it and it makes me think that wording probably really isn't what we think it should be. I wonder if we shouldn't be looking at that to see if we could do something to make it say what we really want it to do. I'm not ready to make a suggestion what it should say but when I see so many people feel uncomfortable but we all approve it. e Wildermuth: Do we have criteria for a buildable lot? ~ Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 44 - Dacy: Lot area, lot width and ability to be served by some type of means of sewer and water. Septic or well. ElIson: I thought you said that they changed that. This is going to be five? Dacy: It's five lots to be served by an internal street. Conrad: And when we saw it, it had two streets didn't it? Dacy: It had two driveways, that's correct so they eliminated the need for two drives. Conrad: Which is what we wanted. We really wanted to do that. Headla: But the other one was, and maybe you didn't drive out to each side but it dropped off so fast. ElIson: Like no yard at all there. Headla: Yes, there's no yard and I remember Ladd you were questioning me more about it. Well, what does it really do? We were kind of struggling with it but we didn't really know how to handle it. 4It Conrad: So you'd like to take a look at the ordinance that talked about street frontage or what part of that ordinance? Headla: No, the 15,000 square feet. It seems like it should be useable area. Useable is going to mean different. things to different people. Dacy: All of the five lots, the one flag lot was actually 18,000 square feet. The extra 3,000 was the handle of the flag but all of them were 15,000 and I would say buildable. Headla: But on the east side it dropped off so fast. Dacy: Yes, but that was along the east lot line. Besides they have that 30 foot rear setback anyway. Headla: It's just when we request and then the comments that were made at the Council meeting made me think, are we really doing the right thing. Dacy: The Council was consistent with the Planning Commission's intent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: e Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 6, 1988 as amended by Brian Batzli on page 8. All voted in favor and motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 45 e BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT DISCUSSION. Batzli: Can we have two seconds of discussing this issue? I don't know what to think. I'd like to hear what Tim, well, I already know what Tim's thoughts are but is it everybody else's understanding that he doesn't like that as a business fringe area because of the traffic situation? ElIson: Exactly. You're going 65 mph and you can stop and turn into someplace. Batzli: So what a solution may be, and of course we've got handcuffs on because of the Department of Transportation but basically if we want to make that a business area or business fringe area, put in service roads one way or another. That gets rid of all the concerns. Dacy: Also with the land use perspective. It was the contractor's yards and the outdoor display. Headla: I thought that was the major concern. Emmings: I think Tim thought as you come down, as you're going west, you come down off the hill on TH 212 and it's all that, except for the Lion's Tap it's pretty much just bare land and I think... e Batzli: He wants to keep it there. Agriculture. Emmings: Just because it's a nice place. Batzli: I think that one corner is already been developed to the point where, at least that corner may not be such a nice place due to the concerns. It's kind of a hodge podge of things right there. wildermuth: I think business fringe development down there is inevitable. I think it's a good land use. Probably the more activity, the more congestion there is in the area, the slower traffic is going to have to go. Dacy: Did you want me to give my report or did you want to postpone it? Conrad: Let's wait. I want Tim here. It's his deal. My feeling is, I think it should remain fringe. I think it was intended to accomodate what was there. It was intended not to intensify and that's the way I feel comfortable with it. I think we can let replacement businesses come in, in my perspective. We're not going to clean it up. It's not going to be a pure countryside drive. It's just not going to happen. I think it's probably a waste to make it a real business area. To put in frontage roads and all that so I guess my perspective is to let it be used by low intensive use businesses down there. We're not escalating it and we're not creating traffic hazards. If we can get by with that. Ie Batzli: I guess I think if it continues to be developed and it's inevitable, I think that a service road will eventually have to be put in Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 46 e because I think there is too much traffic down there to support cars turning in and out every 100 feet. Conrad: Then that's the decision that we have to make. If it's inevitable and you want it to happen in 3 or 4 years, then let's go ahead and make sure that we put that in the Comprehensive Plan or else we say, no, we don't want any further traffic problems. We are not going to allow intensification, any intensification of use of that property down there. SQ when the garbage haulers come in and they have 12 trucks and we say what did it have before? It had two trucks. We say no, you can't have 12 trucks because the intent is no intensification. Batzli: Is there any plan at all, do you know Barb, to expand that to like four-lane road? It kind of goes back and forth up and down the hill. Dacy: New TH 212 is to replace, not "replace" but the new TH 212 is designed to remove some of the traffic from in-place TH 169/212. There are some proposed improvements up in Eden prairie near Hennepin County, up in that area but not any planned improvements in Chanhassen. Batzli: That we know of at least? e Dacy: Right. Another reason to get TH 212 built. Conrad: I have a different issue. I'm just curious about the wetland issue Barbara in terms of our control. Revisiting the wetland ordinance based on the last piece of information that we got when we said we could not regulate wetlands below the ordinary high water mark and if that be the case, we've got to look at the wetland ordinance because it's invalid. I guess what I'd like you to do is to prepare a review of that ordinance and present to us the Attorney's comments and what options we have to either make the ordinance valid again, without changing the language. What alternatives do we have? To either strip the ordinance of what is invalid or how do we change State Ordinance to accomodate what we want to do? Wildermuth: What's the minimum wetland that the City considers a wetland? Dacy: What we would call Type I or Class B. Wildermuth: What is the minimum size? Dacy: It could be a half acre or an acre. We have no minimum size. We go by identification. Wildermuth: But if the property has been platted, then the ordinances e don't apply? Dacy: Must be talking about those lots in Colonial Grove? Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 47 e Wildermuth: Yes, exactly. Dacy: Yes, that's true. When the plat was filed on that back in 1970 whatever, that was prior to the enactment of the wetland ordinance so the plat wasn't designed with the 75 foot setback in mind and the City at that time said these lots are buildable. Wildermuth: Can't we do something about those lots if they haven't been built on yet to prevent them being filled in? Dacy: The best thing that you could do would be to try and minimize the amount of intrusion into the wetland that they would incur but we can't deny buildability all together. Batzli: You could if the City was willing to buy the land probably? Dacy: That's true. wildermuth: Or individuals. Dacy: You could minimize it by granting a front yard setback variance to allow them to be closer than 30 feet to the road so toey maximize the distance between the edge of the wetland and the house. e Wildermuth: That's a shame that those wetlands are going to be filled in and they will be. Dacy: If that plat came through today, it would be completely different. There's no question about that. Wildermuth: Because I think that all those remaining lots that haven't been sold, that will all be filled in. Conrad: Anything else? Dacy: I have a map here of a subdivision that's going on in Chaska that's directly adjacent to Chanhassen. If you want me to review it, I can. It was on the Council agenda last Monday. The timing was that I had to put it on Council first. Conrad: It's a subdivision in Chaska? Dacy: Right, directly adjacent to Chanhassen. ~onrad: Anybody want to see it? Batzli: Sure. e Dacy: I think you'd be interested because it's supposedly a PUD. This is Audubon Road right here, pioneer Trail goes around here and then this is the new TH 212 corridor, Hesse Farms in Chanhassen is over here and Bluff Creek Drive comes out right here. In total they have about 350 Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 48 e acres proposed and they have a combination of single family, multiple family in the orange, commercial site and single family and open space. Average lot size is approximately 12,500 square feet. wildermuth: Chaska doesn't have a minimum lot size? e Dacy: Yes they do and as a matter of fact they are considering changing their ordinance to require a minimum of 15,000 square feet now because, as you did a couple years ago, they feel that they've done their share for the smaller lots so they're looking at changing that. 7 1/2 acres of parkland. A lot of this is steep slope, Bluff Creek. The commercial I felt was a good idea because it's in their urban service area. It relieves pressure from locating commercial in our rural area and it's at a major intersection. However, obviously that's a long term situation and it would serve a neighborhood function for all of the plats in south Chanhassen so what the Chaska Council is doing is they're just going to approve the first phase of the development which is about 50 lots here and there's a proposed church site down on Audubon. The rest of the area is going to be postponed for action until they can decide on some transportation issues. One being access to TH 212. They're looking at adding a separate interchange there as well as, if you remember from the transportation plan, we're talking about a new highway TH 41. That runs right through the middle of this so the Chaska Council is gripping with this issue of, here's the site here and this long term corridor runs right straight through the middle of it. They have no official map. They have no means to acquire the property. They have no means to preserve the corridor and this improvement is designated for sometime in the year 2050. That's what the Chaska Council is dealing with. Should we prioritize the TH 212 corridor and potential access to that right now? Do we look at preserving this corridor knowing that for long range planning purposes that we are going to need some type of reliever to existing TH 41 and we're going to need another bridge across the Minnesota. They've just approved the first phase and now they're going to be grappling with this transportation issue at their next meeting. Conrad: Directly east of where the high density is going, on the other side Barbara, what is there? Dacy: Hesse Farms. Conrad: And what's the average lot size there in Hesse Farms? Dacy: One unit per 5 acres. Originally they proposed a development density of 12 units per acre and I know it's hard to see but there's a huge ravine and wooded area between the Hesse Farm lots and the multiple family area. I would think from the people's second story, they will probably be able to see the development in the winter but there's a significant amount of space and a lot of slopes inbetween there. e Conrad: Like how much space between? Dacy: I would say at least 100 feet in this area. They're going to have to be clustering these units and the Chaska staff is recommending that Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 49 e they reduce the density. Wildermuth: Those folks in Hesse Farm are going to be coming in for a reduction of assessments. Dacy: We've made them aware of this. There's been a presentation made to them. Haven't heard one adverse comment. Maybe they have them and they just haven't expressed them. Conrad: That's lousy. Even though there's 100 feet there, that's not much. Dacy: The topography is, straight line distance again. The topography is so severe though. There's a physical barrier between them and there's a lot of trees back there. Conrad: I can't agree with high density there at all. Dacy: When you look at it you think why not up in this corner. Conrad: Or just adjacent to TH 212, I could buy that but that entire orange section, that just doesn't make sense. How do we respond as a City Barbara to something that one person, maybe myself, doesn't agree with? e Dacy: That's the reason we scheduled it for the Council on Monday night. They reviewed a proposed letter. One of the comments in there was that we were concerned with the impacts of multiple family against Hesse Farms. We don't have any specific plans yet but we'd like to be made aware of those. We sent those comments down to Chaska. Conrad: I know we're negotiating for land swaps and all sorts of stuff like that but I guess if you can relay my comments to the City Council that I think that's terrible in terms of planning. Now I haven't looked at the site so I'm doing it sight unseen but in terms of putting high density next to Hesse Farms, that's not neat. Especially that amount of high density and I think the City Council should express their feelings directly to Chaska in regard to high density next to one of very low density for now and well into the future. That just doesn't make sense. I want to qualify that by saying I'm not sure what that buffer really does do. I'd have to take a look at it. I don't like that. Batzli: Does anybody on the Commission like that? Conrad: If they want to put small lots in, that's fine with me. That's their business. If they want to establish a 12,000 square foot lot in this PUD but I think when you start putting high density, 12 units per acre next to Hesse Farms. e Emmings: It kind of brings up what Dave said earlier too about that Schwaba-Winchell thing and we've talked about it from time to time. How you blend these smaller lots in against bigger lots and we were going to talk about that weren't we? Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1988 - Page 50 - Dacy: That's still on our list. Conrad: We've still got to talk about that. We really do have to talk about that issue. I'm still bothered that we have no control when a high density area bounces into the middle of a low density area. We really have no control. Dacy: We're really not bouncing into it. There is a separation there. Conrad: I'm not talking about anything in particular but I've seen too many cases recently where we take lot sizes that are 30,000 and 40,000 square feet and we put 15,000... Dacy: I thought you were talking about this. Conrad: No, I'm generalizing Barbara. That really bothers me that all of a sudden, plop, there goes a 15,000 and here we are planners and we say we like transition and we like this and that and the neighborhood's all screwed up because we've got a 15,000 versus a 50,000 and you sit out there and say, it meets the ordinance. I'd sure like you to talk to us about that. 4Il. Headla moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City planner prepared by Nann Opheim .