Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10C - Ord Amd Boat Lifts CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: MAY 3, 2004 tOC JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DESIGNATING BOAT LIFfS AND RAIL SYSTEMS AS RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT (Case File #04- 020) DISCUSSION: History: On December 15, 2003, the Planning Commission and the City Council conducted a workshop to discuss several potential. amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, including one that would address boat storage and lifts. The Council and the Planning Commission directed staff to bring this item to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission initially discussed this matter on February 23,2004, and again on March 8,2004. The minutes of these Planning Commission meetings are attached for your information. Current Circumstances: The City staffhas received some complaints about the use of temporary structures for the storage of recreational vehicles. These structures generally include a fabric or metal roof or cover supported by poles anchored to the ground. Given the escalating price of off-premise boat storage, we expect to see more structures of this nature. The primary complaint about the temporary boat covers is aesthetic. In addition, these "temporary" structures may eventually become permanent. On the other hand, recreational equipment is a fact of life in a lake community such as Prior Lake. The temporary storage structures provide an economical means to store this equipment. The Zoning Ordinance currently defines Recreational Equipment as follows: HRecreational equipment shall include, but not be limited to, boats, boat trailers, general purpose trailers, recreational campers, self-contained motor homes, truck toppers, fish houses, utility trailers, jet skis and snowmobiles." 1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoning\boat lifts\cc report. doc www.cityofpriorlake.com Page 1 Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 The Zoning Ordinance also regulates the placement of Recreational Equipment as outlined below: "Currently licensed and operable winter recreational equipment, including fish houses, may be parked on or adjacent to a driveway on a lot in a "R" Use District from November] to April] each year. Currently licensed and operable summer recreational equipment may be parked on or adjacent to a driveway on a lot in a "R" Use District from April] to November] each year. At all other times, recreational equipment shall be stored in the rear or side yard. If topography or other natural conditions of the lot do not allow for storage in the side or rear yards, the recreational equipment may be parked adjacent to the driveway subject to written approval of the Zoning Administrator and the following standards: a. The recreational equipment must be located at least 5 feet from any side lot line. b. The recreational equipment shall not encroach into any public right-of-way. An amendment addressing boat lifts and rail systems in the same manner as other recreational equipment may be in order. An amendment written in this manner would ensure the structures remain temporary, but would also address some of the aesthetic concerns by limiting location and the amount of time a structure could remain in place. The option outlined above treats the temporary structures for boat storage as recreational equipment. In order to implement this strategy, an amendment to the definition of recreational equipment to include these structures is required. This amendment could read as follows: Recreational equipment shall include. but not be limited to. boats. boat trailers. boat lifts and rail systems. general purpose trailers. recreational campers. self-contained motor homes. truck toppers. fish houses, utility trailers, jet skis and snowmobiles. To further clarify the purpose of this amendment, we might also include the following definitions: Boat Lift. A structure or device, without walls that is desi~ed to lift watercraft above the level of the public water or ground elevation when not in use. This definition also includes rail systems or track systems extending from the lake bed to the shore. A boat lift may be designed to include a watercraft canopy. 1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoning\boat lifts\cc report. doc Page 2 Watercraft Canopy: A structure or device with a fabric covered roof and without walls or a floor that is attached to or an inte~al part of the boat lift and/or track system. and is designed to shelter watercraft. The Planning Commission discussed this amendment at a public hearing on April 12, 2004. There were six residents at the hearing to speak to the proposed amendment. These residents were concerned about the impact the proposed amendment would have on existing boat lifts and rail systems. They were also concerned the proposed amendment was too restrictive. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes is attached to this report. Over the course of the several Planning Commission meetings, the staff has also received several letters from concerned property owners. These letters have been shared with both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The letters are also attached to this report. The Planning Commission agreed with the ordinance as proposed. The Commission also suggested staff include a definition of "integral" as part of the ordinance. This definition should help to clarify some of the concerns. The Commission found this amendment, with the changes, would be in the public interest, specifically since it would address both the use and treatment of boat lifts and watercraft canopies. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. Lake Advisory Committee Recommendation: The Lake Advisory Committee (LAC) reviewed a potential amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify how such as boat lifts and watercraft covers are treated in the Zoning Ordinance on January 14, 2004. The LAC recommended "boat lifts" be incorporated into the definition of "recreational equipment." The minutes of the LAC meeting are also attached to this report for your information. BuildinR Code Issues: Attached is a memorandum from Building Official Robert Hutchins. As discussed at some of the earlier meetings, there are some Building Code issues pertaining to these structures. Even though the watercraft covers may not be considered a structure under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, they are regulated under the Building Code. This raises several questions about how to apply such an ordinance. In his memorandum, the Building Official considers boat lifts and watercraft covers water-oriented structures. This is the distinction between his memorandum and the proposed amendment. Under the amendment, boat lifts are not considered a structure. If the watercraft cover is attached to or an integral part of the lift structure itself, it is 1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoning\boat lifts\cc report. doc Page 3 also not considered a structure under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. If a watercraft cover is constructed over a boat lift, and is not attached to or part of the lift system, this would be considered a separate structure. It would be required to meet the minimum setbacks, impervious surface requirements, and of course the Building Code. After much discussion at the Planning Commission meetings, the staff is proposing this approach as a compromise. While we do not want to ignore the aesthetic or safety issues, we must also recognize that this is a lake community, and boats, boat lifts and watercraft covers are part of enjoying owning property on the lake. We must also recognize there are many of these structures already in use in the City, none of which have been issued building permits. At the same time, this amendment attempts to address the safety concerns by requiring permits for watercraft covers that are not included as an integral part of the boat lift or track system. The Issues: The City Council must make a decision whether to amend the Zoning Ordinance based on the following criteria: 1. There is a public need for the amendment. There is a public need for the amendment. Boat lifts and watercraft canopies are a fact of life in a lake community. The amendment addresses the treatment of these structures in a way that addresses the use and any structural issues. 2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or policies of the City. Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan include: . Promote sound land use. . Enact and maintain policies and ordinances to protect the public safety, health, and welfare. . Enact and maintain policies and ordinances to ensure the safety and preservation of property. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to: . Promote the most appropriate and orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, public land and public areas. . The Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum requirements to protect the public health, safety and welfare. 1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoning\boat lifts\cc report. doc Page 4 ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: The proposed amendment is intended to accomplish these purposes and objectives by addressing boat lifts and watercraft canopies, already in use in the City. 3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal requirements. This amendment is consistent with federal and state laws. Conclusion: Both the Planning Commission and the staff recommend approval of this amendment. The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt an Ordinance approving the proposed amendment as recommended. 2. Deny the proposed Ordinance. 3. Defer this item and provide staffwith specific direction. The staff recommends Alternative # 1. A motion and second to adopt Ordinance 04-XX a~ oving the amendment as recommended by the :p. 'ng 0 iss' 1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoning\boat lifts\cc report. doc Page 5 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 04- XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1101.400 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that: 1. Section 1101.400 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to add the following definitions: Boat Lift. A structure or device, without walls that is deshmed to lift watercraft above the level of the public water or ground elevation when not in use. This definition also includes rail systems or track systems extendinJl: from the lake bed to the shore. A boat lift may be deshmed to include a watercraft canopy. Recreational equipment shall include, but not be limited to, boats, boat trailers,boat lifts and rail systems, general purpose trailers, recreational campers, self-contained motor homes, truck toppers, fish houses, utility trailers, jet skis and snowmobiles. Watercraft Canopy: A structure or device with a fabric covered roof and without walls or a floor that is attached to or an integral part of the boat lift and/or track system, and is deshmed . to shelter watercraft. "Integral" means a canopy built and installed by the same manufacturer of the boat lift or rail system, and sold as part of the system. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 3rd day of May, 2004. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the 8th day of May, 2004. Drafted By: City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoning\boat lifts\ordinance.doc www.cityofpriorlake.com PAGEl Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2004 MINUTES 4/12/04 Lemke: . Allowing this do not necessarily mak~the bu . ess successful. Parents have to make the decision. fthey do not want the' 'ldren near a major road, let the parents decide. Vote taken indicated ayes b MOTION CARRIED. This item will g 2004. * E. Case 04-20 Consider an Amendment to Section 1101.400 of the Zoning Ordinance including boat lifts and track systems as recreational equipment. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 12, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The City staff has received some complaints about the use of temporary structures for the storage of recreational vehicles. These structures generally include a fabric or metal roof or cover supported by poles anchored to the ground. Given the escalating price of off- premise boat storage, staff expects to see more structures of this nature. The primary complaint about the temporary boat covers is aesthetic. In addition, these "temporary" structures may eventually become permanent. On the other hand, recreational equipment is a fact of life in a lake community such as Prior Lake. The temporary storage structures provide an economical means to store this equipment. An amendment addressing these structures in the same manner as other recreational equipment may be in order. An amendment written in this manner would ensure the structures remain temporary, but would also address some of the aesthetic concerns by limiting location and the amount of time a structure could remain in place. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota statutes. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommended approval. Comments from the public: John Craig, 2855 Spring Lake Road, felt the language in the public notice was not clear. He was concerned with enforcement if the proposed ordinance regarding boatlifts is approved. Craig questioned the purpose of the amendment. Stamson explained why the issue came up as a housekeeping matter the City is identifying the problem. Craig discussed portable car ports not being included in the public notice. Kansier explained L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN041204.doc 19 "'--- ~ Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2004 this ordinance does not apply to carports, is ordinance is strictly for boat lifts, the covers and rail lifts. . Stamson explained the purpose of the amendment. Ray Sharp, 6591 Harbor Beach NE, President of the Harbor Association stated they have a DNR permit with 35 rail systems. He did not feel they were a building structure. The covers just are designed for recreational uses. Nowhere else in Minnesota would anyone consider this a building structure. Stamson advised they are in the State Building Codes. Sharp concurred with staffbut said he was am3;Zed it was even an issue. Kansier said many lake communities do not allow boatlifts on shore. They are only allowed in the water. Starnson pointed out Mound specifically prohibits them from being on shore. John Ellis, 6594 Harbor Beach NE, said a neighbor gave him a notice of a hearing in September of 2003 of the discussions. At that time, the discussions went from accessory structures to building structures. Ellis disagreed with the interpretation of the ordinance. Ellis also presented photos of The Harbor and felt it was more aesthetically pleasing to have canopies than have a bunch of boats wrapped up in different colored tarps. Sherry Newtson, 14330 Rutgers St, said she owns the canopy structure under discussion and wanted to submit 13 pages of information for public record. She asked the Commissioners to consider the amendment. Marv Mirsch, 15432 Red Oaks Road, felt a statement in the Watercraft Canopy definition was not correct and explained a rail system. He did not feel the State Building Code required a building permit for a rail system or canopy. If the requirement remains in the ordinance the rail system will not be allowed. Several people leave a canopy over their boat all year round. He did not know of any rail system that has a mechanical link to hold up a canopy. If this is not clarified it will be the fatal flaw in the amendment. Building Official Bob Hutchins addressed Mirsch's concerns and explained you can have a rail system but the canopy has to be structurally designed to withhold all the wind loads and setbacks of a structure. It is not restricting the use of having the canopy on the shore at all. The structure turns into a year round building on the lake. Its not that you can't have it, it has to meet the impervious surface and setbacks from the side yard. The lifts come out of the water in the winter. When someone has a rail system the canopy structure is located there 365 days a year. This will regulate where they are set - ordinary high water mark, side yard setbacks, impervious surface and structure requirements for the canopy. It's not that you are being restricted at all. Marv Mirsch, 15432 Red Oaks, said he did not understand that at all. If the setbacks are 75 feet from the lake, a canopy and rail system has to be 75 feet. Kansier clarified the setbacks for accessory structures are 50 feet unless there is a slope if it is intended to be a L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN041204.doc 20 Planning Commission Minutes April 12,2004 permanent structure. Mirsch argued these are open structures and not a building. Kansier explained under the Building Code they are considered a structure and require a building permit and have to meet the wind and snow loads. What staff is trying to do is strike a compromise between some of the issues and the fact that people still want to use this type of equipment. Staff is trying to address both the safety issues and building code concerns and still allow people to use them. Mirsch said the building codes are for people activities and structures. Rail and boat systems are not a people rated structure. Building Official Bob Hutchins addressed Mirsch' s comments and explained the code. The City is trying to protect the public and the neighbors from the covers from lifting up in the wind. Structures that are up 365 days a year affect the impervious surface as well as the look of the lake shore. Tom Reichert, 6586 Harbor Beach NE, said the Harbor has 30 or so rail systems each of which is $7,000 or $8,000 a piece. One of the advantages is they can get the boats out of the water to protect them. If someone says there is more chance of a wind blowing the canopy off - that is ridiculous. The real storms come in the summer. Reichert said he did not understand what is going on. He sees canopies all over. There is a big cost. If the boats are left in the water the life span of the boat would be shorter. This is so obvious that a rail system is the way to go anywhere in Minnesota. The Crosslake area has them allover. He couldn't believe the City would say this is wrong. Stamson again explained the propose of the amendment. A fairly lengthy discussion followed by the public attending and Commissioners explaining the purpose of the amendment, impervious surface and setbacks. The public speakers were primarily concerned about the impacts of the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission and staff clarified the proposed amendment. The public hearing was closed at 9:35 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . Staffhas hit the spirit of the amendment. . Support the change. Lemke: · Explained his interpretation of the definitions. Weare trying to subtract not add problems. · Support the integral definition. If that's not the definition then I can not support it when it comes to rail systems. · It's a fact of life on the lake, would rather not get into a situation where someone is building a 4x4 structure, throwing it up and saying it's a canopy. It would be L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN041204.doc 21 Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2004 better to have a kit where it meets the fire codes. The manufacturers are somewhat responsible. · Lived on the lake through the late 1990 summer storms and had to replace the roof: Respectfully disagree with the Building Official as the building he says does, didn't and the canopy stayed in place. Perez: · Agreed with the definition. It seems to have clouded some perceptions. If that is the direction staff wants to go it needs to be attached, then I would take the "integral" part out of the definition. · The Commissioners have talked at length on this. The proposed amendment is as close as we are going to get. . Support with the change. Stamson: · There was a great deal of discussion on this. It is a difficult issue because there are so many possibilities that you need to define what you are looking for. · The proposed ordinance does an excellent job of solving the quandary for people who currently own boatlifts that technically could be considered noncompliant. It solves boatlifts, to some extent rail systems. . Many people tonight were confused by the definition. · Agreed the manufactured canopies are correct and acceptable. There are others who simply went out and bought blue tarps with some kind of hoop system and they are an eyesore. The difficulty has been defining one versus the other. This ordinance does a good job in addressing 90 percent of the covers. The other 10 percent is staffs working definition of "integral", what they decide "integral" is. · My recommendation is that canopies built and installed by the same manufacture is an integral part of the system whether they are attached or not. . Comfortable with the amendment and should move forward. Ringstad: . The word "integral" at face value is not suppose to be a subjective word. With everything we heard for the last hour, there is some subjectivity to go with it. · With respect to the same manufacturer purchasing it at the same time, to me that is an integral part of the entire unit or system. · Ninety percent of this will be achieved with the language, maybe there might be a little more work, but this is better than where we've been. Kansier said staff can define "integral". If the word is removed, it will be further limiting. The Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Atwood left the meeting. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN041204.doc 22 Planning Commission Minutes April 12,2004 Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on May 3, 2004. 6. 7. None A. Discu Comprehensive Plan Goals an B. Discuss omprehensive Plan Draft M . Planning Director on Rye presented the PI . g Report dated April 12, 2004, on file in the office of the Ci Planning Department. As part of the on-goin Comprehensive PI update process, staffhas prepared some suggested modifications 0 the Goals, Obj tives and Policies section of the Plan as well as a first cut draft Land . ng Commission consideration. The Goals and Objectives tl ework upon which the rest of the Plan is built. F or that reason, it is impo that Co issioners carefully review the attached Goals and Objectives. The modificat ns su gested are intended to reflect changes having occurred since the original Go an Objectives were adopted in 1999 as well as to eliminate some redundancy. Co ssioners should also determine if any of the Goals and Objectives are inconsistent wi community values and be prepared to suggest any changes as necessary. ot be made for some time, it is important to begin While a final decision on the m finalizing the map. ed the Urban Expansion Area (yearly annexation area) and Effic' ncy in Gove ent (exploration of partnerships with other agencies - other govemm ntal agencies, bus esses, citizens). The City is also workin closely with the Prior ake Spring Lake Watershed District. A brief discussion folIo d with the newly annex areas developing and potential runoff Issues. Most of the draft. ormation will be done in July. e model and system development will not be finish until the end of the year. The Comm' sioners felt it was a straightforward docume Lemke felt the e was nothing in the document he could The map' a work in progress. There are a number of park L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN041204.doc 23 Planning Commission Meetin, March 8, 2004 MINUTES 3/8/04 Ringstad: . Agreed to s port. The new right-of-way wil e dedicated at the final plat. Lemke & Perez: . It is in the public i . Agreed to support. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SEC BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE VA ON AS REQUESTED, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THE RESOLU N N BE RECORDED UNTIL AFTER FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. Vote taken indicated a~ The public hearing 11 be March 15 at the City Council meeting. . B. Case #03-20 Discussion on temporary boat and storage covers. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 8, 2004 on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On February 23,2004, the Planning Commission began discussion about a Zoning Ordinance amendment that would address temporary boat storage structures. This discussion specifically focused on boat lifts, rail systems, and the structures used to cover boats. After a great deal of discussion, the Planning Commission members decided the issue would require additional thought. The Commission directed staff to put this item on the next agenda for further discussion. Kansier said from a zoning perspective covers should consider them as part of the boat lifts. The zoning ordinance is not quite equipped to cover the item. Kansier explained the shed and fence permit process. Staff reviews the setbacks and make sure they are correct. There is no charge. Stamson questioned the track system-type covers. Building Official Robert Hutchins presented pictures of covered boatlifts. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: . You expect boatlifts to have canopies. It needs to be distinguished between that and storage. If it is structurally part of the lift it is legal and part of the recreational equipment. . Prohibit walls on the covers as it then becomes a structure. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804flXed.doc 15 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2004 . Limit to not having walls. Lemke: . A canopy is different than having walls. Typically canopies are removed in the winter. They are temporary and removed from the water. And most people remove canopies in the winter. But how do you define it? . Like the recreational equipment definition and let staff decide if it is a boat lift. That allows discretion. Stamson: . Need a little more clarification on where the break is between a boatlift and another person's building. But we are on the right line. Lemke: . Staff can look at the meeting Minutes and see track systems did not include 4 walls or walls of some kind and see the clear intent of what the Planning Commission considered boatlifts. Stamson: . Not worried about staff, it's the general public. There should be guidelines. Kansier - We should address rail systems as they are becoming more and more prevalent. In her opinion the conditions should be specifically listed as being a kind ofboatlift. If the canopy is going to be included it has to be structurally part of the lift. Ringstad: . Agreed with Kansier, we need to identify some sort of acceptable limit whether it is half, one-third or something like that. One thing we haven't talked about is the fact these are regulated under the building code. However, these structures have been on the lake for a long time and now we decided to kick into enforcement and for whatever reason we have not enforced it in the past. Would like to see the City Attorney check into this issue. Perez: . Agree with Kansier - if the canopy is part of the boatlift that would be acceptable. A carport next to the garage as a structure is not acceptable. The four walls can be part of the boatlift but that is where I would draw the line. Stamson: . Think it is a good point about what has been done in the past and what could be coming up. In general, people who are buying canopies at the Boat Show are buying products that would qualify. We want to eliminate cheap constructed materials. Bob Hutchins, presented a short survey of the lake and found 4 structures on upper Prior Lake that were either a track systems or hoop system and did about 50% of Lower Prior L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804fIxed.doc 16 PlIlnning Commission Meedng March 8, 2004 Lake and found 6 covers. Right now there is not that many out there. The only reason this came up was based on a complaint. Stamson: . The concern is creating a shanty town on the lake if some sort of standard is not set. Hutchins also pointed out staff's pictures of the 1999 shoreline parcels and said it was not a problem. There were only 4 structures up out of 643. In the last 5 years there has been a growth of these structures on the lake. Other lake communities restrict the use on water oriented structures. Some use bins for storage. Others follow the DNR guidelines that you cannot go over a 400 square foot area, meeting 10 foot side yard setbacks and lake setbacks. Impervious surface is also factored in as part of the lot. Any type of cover will be considered impervious surface. General Discussion and comments: . Track systems are not unique. They are gaining in popularity. . How do you justify these structures when we don't allow decks? . Are we making a mountain out of a mole hill? . We keep adding to it. Got to draw the line somewhere. . Have a problem with a canvas top without the walls being impervious. Without the canopy you still have a big boat and we don't call that impervious. . Most of these canopies are around 200 square feet. Don't know how much runs into the lake. . This is a concern from the DNR. The Commissioners agreed to revise the recreational equipment language and will look at it again this Spring. Kansier said it would be a public hearing in April. 7. New Business: A. The purpose of this report is to vide the regarding complaints, code v' ations, and cod orcement activity for the year 2003. This report consists ofa ye end summary of the t number of complaints and code violations in order to pro e the Commission with ins that may be useful in evaluating current resi t concerns and future regulatory . sions. A great majority of City residents have l>. e in their neighborhoods and commUlll d feel an obligation to maintain a neat ap arance on their respective properties, as well concern for the adjoining prope s. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\030804flXed.doc 17 Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2004 MINUTES 2/23/04 MOTION B TAMSON, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO SEND BACK TO STAFF FOR FURTHER DIS SSION. and will bring it back to the next meeting. 6. 7. ff A. Discussion on temporary boat and storage covers. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the discussion Memorandum dated February 23,2004 on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On December 15,2003, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop to discuss potential zoning ordinance amendments, including an amendment regarding treatment of temporary structures. The City staffhas received a number of complaints about the use of temporary structures for the storage of recreational vehicles. These structures generally include a fabric or metal roof or cover supported by poles anchored to the ground. Given the escalating price of off-premise boat storage, we expect to see more structures of this nature. The primary complaint about the temporary boat covers is aesthetic. In addition, these "temporary" structures may eventually become permanent. On the other hand, recreational equipment is a fact of life in a lake community such as Prior Lake. The temporary storage structures provide an economical means to store this equipment. The City Council and Planning Commission directed staff to bring this issue to the Planning Commission for further discussion. While attempting to write an ordinance addressing boat covers, several other issues were raised. The largest issue is how to address Building Code concerns. The staff is asking for further direction from the Planning Commission before bringing any amendment to a public hearing. Some of the options to be discussed could include: . Limit the size of such boat covers. . Allow the boat covers, but require a building permit. . Allow the boat covers without any building permits. . Limit the length of time in a year these boat covers could be utilized. . Do not allow boat covers at all. . Other options proposed by the Planning Commission. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting February 23.2004 This is not a public hearing. Questions from the Commissioners: . Atwood questioned if language could be pulled out of the building code and specifically define "recreational". . Building Official Bob Hutchins presented pictures of covered storage facilities. Hutchins pointed out the building code requirements and how they pertain to the picture presentation. . Perez questioned greenhouses. Hutchins responded with the regulations. . The building codes are State Statutes. . For boatlifts or Jet Ski? Hutchins said they have not been looking at those. 99% of the residents take the tops off in the winter. The building department has not been regulating anything below the 904 (ordinary high water mark regulated by the DNR). . Stamson said it is not an issue with the tarp off. Hutchins confirmed it was not. . Ringstad asked how the enforcement has been going. Hutchins said they have not been enforcing and needed direction tonight. . Hutchins pointed out several problems with the permanent covers and the building codes. One problem is the canopy covers become kites in windstorms. . Ringstad asked if there were manufactures that could have models the City could approve. Is that a factor that can be approved? Hutchins responded it would be if it met the building codes. . Stamson said this does not just included riparian lots. Many of the structures presented were not on the lake. People who own boats are parking them next to the garage. . Hutchins said some of these are carports next to garages on non-riparian lots. . Stamson - These tend to blow away in high winds. It is not just affecting the homeowner but the neighbor as well. . Atwood confirmed State Statute cannot be amended by the City. . A boat lift is not considered a structure. Just the covered ones. . Hutchins pointed out there were many non-riparian structures. People store boats off the lake. Structures in the water are heavier and do not tend to blow away. . Kansier said what staff is seeing now are problems on association properties where there are not enough slips for everyone. Rail systems are constructed and then operate like a boat lift so instead of staying in the water it is pulled up on shore and have the tarp canopy. . Hutchins pointed out most people take the tarp off in the winter so snow does not collapse them. So far staffhas not seen any tarp or metal covers meeting the building codes. . Ringstad said this is new ground; it has been going on but not enforced. Hutchins pointed out more and more free-standing metal frames are popping up. We did see this in the past. Comments from the Commissioners: L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2004 Stamson: · People are creating additional storage; even a carport next to their garage and its permanent. That should not be allowed. · Have no problem with canopies over a boatlift in the water for the summer. In this type of situation people are essentially building a carport next to the garage for additional storage. · That is not what the manufacture designed it for. It is for temporary storage. · We don't want to create all these little tent cities around the town. . Not in favor of allowing it. · Kansier said the complaints are coming in from lakeshore properties where they are probably obstructing someone's view. There are no easy answers. Lemke: · Further complicating this is the track system being different than a boat lift. · Kansier said the City does not regulate anything below the 904. It has been outside our scope of authority. It's like a utility structure located in the public right-of-way. The problem comes in when someone puts a structure like this on the shoreline. Stamson: · That's the reason the City regulates sheds and other structures along the shoreline. I don't see the fact that it is made of canvas is not any different than those made out of wood. Probably less acceptable. There is kind of an equity issue - if you have a boatlift over the water you can have a canopy but not ifit's above the shoreline. · It is not acceptable to have these boat structures next to a garage. That's a reason they are not included in the building code. If it was a good idea it would have been included. Lemke: · There are other issues - tents. What about exceeding 120 feet for a wedding awning? Kansier said if its there for less than 180 days it is considered temporary . · Is there a definition between tent and canopy? Kansier said there was and it could happen. Atwood: . Suggested this could be a workshop. Mirsch representing the Lake Advisory reviewed their discussions as noted in the report. Hutchins explained the track system problems with the snow loads and structures. Most people take the covers off in the winter. The building code states anything with a roof is a structure. The boat covers probably do not meet the criteria. They are temporary and the manufactures do not want the covers blowing off in 60 to 70 mile an hour wind. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting February 23,2004 Stamson: · Part of the solution could be that we don't allow temporary ones if it is a part of a boatlift structure - its legal if it meets the building code then it has to meet wind load structures. . It's a more expensive structure but if they are putting a lift to pull a boat out of the water it's not cheap either. . It will eliminate these temporary structures that do create problems. Both issues are addressed. Kansier said staff could take the new language out which are boat covers and structures used to cover boats. Staff can add tract systems and leave it at that. If there were a tarp over the tract system we could tell them they have to apply for a building permit. Stamson questioned the cost ofa building permit. Hutchins said it was $39.00. Stamson felt that was reasonable. Atwood: . Pointed out the enforcement problems. Ringstad: · Suggested the ordinance be broken down to structures on the lake and structures on the garage side. Stamson: . Clarify only structures that are part of a lift system. Eliminate all structures except for the lift. . The neighbor is not going to be happy when a structure blows into their property. Atwood: . Break it out by riparian and non-riparian lots and be specific. The general population, boats or not, a canvas cover is a canvas cover. There was a brief discussions on temporary boat structures and lake expectations by the Commissioners. Hutchins said this is becoming an issue because the City is seeing more of these temporary structures. There have not been that many complaints but staff has not taken an active role driving around looking for violations. If staff saw something new going up not meeting the codes they would react. Staff is trying to be proactive. Kansier said staff can use the "Wavelength" to get the information out - if they are going to have something like this to check with the City. Its one of many provisions of the ordinance. Staff enforces by complaints. When there are several complaints then staff tries to address it further where we are at right now. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2004 Hutchins gave an overview of structure complaints. Lemke questioned the "but not limited to" Kansier explained. The commissioners decided to bring back this item in two weeks. B. Variance Summary thia Kirchoff presented the 2003 Summ 'ng Department received 12 req sts for 16 variances. Ten were approved; five nied and one incomplete. Six:R . ng Commission decisions were appealed to City uncil with two overturned. MOTION BY LE THE REPORT ON TO SECOND BY PERE DIRECTING STAFF TO FORWARD E CITY COUNC . Vote taken indicated ayes b A recess was called at 8:31 pm. c. Prior Lake/Spring Lake Shannon Lotthammer, the District District spoke on the following: r for the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed . The Watershed Distric . Outlet Channel and . Study components d future conditions odels. . Analysis of Mana ment Options and M ement Plan. . Development sc arios and options for addi sing future development impacts. . Benefits and p ership opportunities. The Commissioners presentation. it was a very good 8. ments and Correspondence: None 9. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc 13 DATE: January 22, 2004 TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator FROM: Sue McDennott. City Engineer~ RE: An amenpment regarding the treatment of temporary structures At the January Lake Advisory Committee (LAC) meeting, the LAC reviewed the revisions you propose for the Zoning Ordinance regarding recreational equipment and has the following minor revision as follows: Recreational equipment shall include, but not be limited to boats, boat trailers boat covers and structurss used to cover boats, as long as such structures are not tied permanently to the ground and do not include 4 walls, boat lifts. general purpose trailers, recreational campers, self-contained motor homes, truck toppers, fish houses, utility trailers, jet skis and snowmobiles. A copy of the January meeting minutes when this item was discussed is attached. Please let me know if you have any questions. ~ G:\ Water _lnfo\LAC\recreationalequip.DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 MINUTES OF THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 14, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER The Lake' Advisory Committee (LAC) Meeting was called to order at 5:00 P.M. Members present: Dan O'Keefe, Harry Alcorn, Marv Mirsch, Brad Beneke, and Donna Mankowski. Members absent: None Others present: Sue McDermott, City Engineer, Larry Poppler; Assistant City Engineer, Sherry Newtson, Leatrice Daniels II. CONSIDER APPROVAL MEETING MINUTES Harry Alcorn made a motion to approve the minutes. The minutes were approved as written. III. NEW BUSINESS a. Review of boat canopy systems as they apply to the ordinance on accessory structures. McDermott passed out a memo from the Planning Department. The memo outlined a modification of the ordinance to allow the canopy structures. O'Keefe mentioned that regulation of this structure would mean regulation of a lot of different structures and the regulation would never end. The recreational equipment is a great category for this item. Mankowski stated that since the structure doesn't have four walls it should be classified as a temporary structure. Mirsch mentioned that this has permanent footings and stated that this should be con~ered a type of boat lift and add boat lift to the definition of a .-- recreational equipment. - Alcorn looked at the problem in a different way. Since the structure was built some time ago the structure would simply be "grandfathered" in. , www.cityoflfiorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 .~- O'Keefe stated that the Planning Department may have been thinking of other items when they wrote the memo, so no change should be made to the memo. Mankowski thought that simply adding boat lift shouldn't be a issue. McDermott will write a memo from the LAC agreeing with the Planning Departments language in the memo, but that the words boat lift be added to the language regarding the ordinance change. Mirsch made a motion, seconded by Mankowski accepting the proposal by the Planning Department for the change in the ordinance. Motion passed unanimously. Alcorn made a motion that nothing be done to the structure at 14330 Rutgers Street until the ordinance change run its course. Mirsch seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS a. Review of the 2000 Comprehensive Lake Management Plan I Sustainable Lakes Management Plan McDermott stated that the tasks outlined in the Comprehensive Lake Management Plan have been completed. What is remaining is just the yearly tasks. Mirsch mentioned that the tasks should be gone through to see if some of them would be things we would want to do again. McDermott added that the Sustainable Lakes Management Plan should be adopted with other defined tasks determined by the LAC to be added to the" plan. Mirsch mpntioned that the Sustainable Lakes Management Plan doesn't show the dollar value of the defined tasks. McDermott is looking for input into the Comprehensive Lake Management Plan on the definition of tasks. For example if the LAC feels the surface water regulations need to be reviewed again, it should be a defined task. Everyone will review both plans and provide input at the next meeting. .__ .., Beneke suggested that capital be put aside for the number one specific project which would increase water quality on the lake. Mankowski mentioned that the Sustainable Lakes Management Plan addresses the water quality of the lake and tasks were defined in that plan. The funding sources for the tasks are also included. 11 2 b. Articles for the next publication of the Wavelength. McDermott submitted the winter lake access article to Nathan Oster for publication in the Wavelength. McDermott asked for input into the next Wavelength for articles. The next Wavelength will be published in March. Alcorn suggested an article on the organizations on Prior Lake and contact information for these organizations. McDermott will check for a master list of organizations in Prior Lake. Mankowski suggested an article on shoreline restoration. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS a. McDermott mentioned that the Don Rye, Planning Director, is has almost completed the draft of the dock information and it will probably be distributed before the next LAC meeting. b. The DNR has contacted the City to talk about the plans for the Dewitte access upgrades. Once a plan has been given to the City, it will be shared with the LAC. The LAC should think about their position on the expansion of the Dewitte Access and the Sand Point access. Sand Point has space available to include additional parking. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALCORN, SECONDED BY OKEEFE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:30 P.M. RespectfuJly submitted, Sue McDermott City Engineer Larry Poppler Assistant City Engineer ~ . 3 MEMORANDUM 'DATE: MARCH 17, 2004 TO: JANE KANSIER FROM: ROBERT D. HUTCHINS RE: PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OF AN AMENDMENT REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF TEMPOARARY BOAT STORAGE STRUCTURES This is in regards to the discussion to change the Zoning Ordinance on Recreational Equipment to include an amendment regarding temporary structures. The amendment would address temporary boat storage structures by placing the structures in the Recreational Equipment section of the Zoning Ordinance. Currently the cities zoning code addresses water oriented accessory structures in Section 1104.308 (4). The ordinance addresses obtaining a building permit, placement, size and materials used on the structure. The International Building Code (IBC) addresses the construction, use and location of structures. It further prescribes membrane structures are to be designed and constructed to sustain dead loads and live loads including wind, snow and flood. I have recently compiled a partial survey of the shores of Prior Lake and have found four freestanding structures on Upper Prior Lake and seven such structures on the southern one-third of Lower Prior Lake. Due to poor viewing conditions, I have not surveyed the remaining shoreline of Lower Prior Lake. There appears to be three types of boathouses or structures that protect and store boats that are now in use on riparian lots on Prior Lake. The most common type of boat lift with a canopy is a portable 'lift that is submerged in the water during the summer months and pulled out onto the shoreline and stored during the winter months with the canopy removed. Another type of boat storage device is a tracked system which consists of two rail tracks that are placed into the water and extend to the shoreline beyond the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). The boat is placed on a trolley and raised out of the water onto the shoreline. This is a permanent type storage system. Some of these systems have a separate membrane structure placed over them to protect the boat from the weather. The third type of structure on the lake is a Quonset hut shaped freestanding membrane structure that protects boats or equipment from the weather. These structures mayor may not be removed in the summer months. I have also completed a survey of the fourteen cities that are on Lake Minnetonka in Hennipen County and the City of White Bear Lake in Ramsey County. Twelve of the 15 polled do not allow Water Oriented Accessory structures, Boathouses, buildings, membrane structures and or canopies over boat track systems between the OHWM and the principle building setback line on a. residential lot. The three cities that do allow boathouse structures stated that the square footage of the structure is included in the impervious surface calculations of the lot. Enclosed are the results of the survey. Also enclosed is a memorandum from the Minnesota Department of Resources Waters division area representative Patrick Lynch, stating that if the city decides to classify a structure as a water oriented accessory structure, that he would recommend the building area be included in the impervious surface of a lot. In conclusion, there are several options that the Planning Commission and City Council can chose. Those options are outlined in a memorandum from the Planning Department to the Planning Commission dated February 23, 2004. One of the options is to allow the boat covers, but require a building permit. This does answer to the building code question. While the Building Inspection Department has not seen any structural engineering on membrane structures, it is possible that a structure can be built that meets all of the live and dead loads that the building code requires. Another option that may want to be considered is to allow permanent boathouses constructed as a building that matches the principle building. 2 fIj ~ = .- ~ ....-4 e. == ~ .... o ~ = = ~ fIj ~ fIj = = ,..= .....- = = = ~ fIj ~ 1-.1 = .....- y := 1-.1 .....- 00. ~ 1-.1 = fIj fIj ~ y y < "0 ~ .....- = ~ .- 1-.1 o 1-.1 ~ .....- = ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ 1-.1 := rLJ v v ;05 M"'C ~ ; ~~ ~= ~O _ <1) 'S .:3 ~ = C'-. "V~ 00 v 0 <1)~- oo.,s:.- ::s .... ~ o '11,.-4 .;3~~ .... "'C <1) ..... V "'C o ~'.-4 ~ 0 ~ ,,- M ~ "a ~ 255 (,)~~ .E ~ ~ 0000.0 ~~ ~ o <1) ~ 00 ~ .b b1) ~~~ 00_ o ~.~ -< M = "'C<1).o <1) > <1) ~o- s::l oo.~ <1) <1) 0 .t=..-4 = o ~'I:: k);~ ~u ~ ~ ~] .. 00 = V ~E {IJ (,) ~.E 0100 ..c; "'C Q.) ; ~ _ 0 ~ ~ .8 ~ 00 8 V = .;3 . 0 b1) ~ .~ .S ~ ;j .~~ 00 ~ :El :< V~~ M $:l Q) t+-4.~ 00 000= ~~..8 v~~ (,) 0 0 e.s.o ~00b1) <1) ~ = -= c'~ s::l Cd .~ . .-4 t+-4 :>< ~" 0 V . .-4 s::l . = e.9 [ <1) 00 0 ~.E M ~ ~ ; ::SlUu "a <1) =05 ~ 0<1)"';:l . ~ "'C t-l .;,::: ::s 0 "'C_:>< = g 0 8.~ :6 ~ = 0 .~ 0 -=~.....:l . .-4 ..= ~ 0 -Eh 00":E :E ~ ~ " 1""""'<1)~ 8~~ 5$:l~ 00 :.a 00 ~.J::lo ~U~ 00000 0 < ZZZ~ Z Z ~ ..= o :.E ~ V o ;; = .~ ~ ] - ~ ] 00 <1) -= b1) = .~ ~ . .~ ~ <1) ~ M 00 ~:fi 00 = ~'.-4 (,) 00 ~~ Q.) 0 o5.s~~ .S ~ = = ~ 0 0 rJi ; :>< :>< ~ Cot-l 0 0 4;0:6:6 "i 5 g g ~.~ .....:l .....:l 8 .E -Eh-Eh ~~:E:E o "" "'Cv~~ ~o5 :>< ~ - ~ V . . 5"'C~~ 00 .E 00 00 e800 ~.~ ~ ~ V V "'C"'C o 0 o 0 b1)b1) .S .S "'C"'C -- 'S 'S .0.0 00 V V 6 6 ~ ~ 00 00 ~~ ~~ 00 6 6 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ -:S-:S <1) <1) 00 00 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ::g::g ~~ 00 00 00 00 ~~ ~ ::g ~ 00 o V'l C"l ~ ::s 00 . ~~ - 00 MO O~ ~~ o C"l 05 . .-4 ~ ~ o ~ = cU ~o t k) ~ Oe. o Soo V'll 0 M c.l:l 0 lo ~~ ~ 00 ~~ 5 -:so5 V V'.-4 ~ ,,00 ~ V o~ .0 V'l0 j ji ~ ~~ ~ . ~o . O~Od~ ~ 0 ~ $:4 0 <1) 0 <1).8 0 (,) b1) (,) ~ b1) < .S < ~ .S "'C ~ "'C ~:s~-:s:s =.o=V.o <1)~<1)C"I)~ . I:: <1) . ~" <1) OVOOV M 6 M~,,6 <1) ~ V <1) ~ ~~~~~ ~::s~~::g ~ S s o c.l:l 000000000000 ZZZZZ~~Z~ ~ i! ~ {IJ Z ... ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~g~~ ~;~O~5~;. .. ~ Q 8000 0 V'l "".. ~ V'l V'l V'l V'l f"o- ~ ~ ~ U ~~8~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~u~~ ~:><:~~ Q~O~ 00 ~ olooooololoo V'lf"o-V'lV'lV'lV'lf"o-f"o-V'l i ~ I~I " 'I") f"o- ~~~~~~~ ~ eo~o~~-<.....:l ~ !:5~~~z~~8~El~ ~~~~~~~~~3~ Jane Kansier From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Pat Lynch [pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us] Friday, March 05, 2004 3:03 PM BHutchins@CityofPRIORLAKE.com JKansier@CityofPRIORLAKE.com temporary membrane structures Thanks for the fax and the e-mail photos earlier today regarding the growing use of membrane structures for the enclosure/ storage of vehicles, watercraft, and other materials. These things are growing in popularity on lots both on and off of lakes. Those that are above the ordinary high water elevation are regulated by local units of government, while any below the OHW are regulated by ONR. As I understand it, those that you are referring to meet the definition of a structure under the building code. As such, in shoreland areas, if local units of governments are going to treat them as structures, then they should meet the dimensional requirements and setbacks as specified in local shoreland ordinances. They should also be considered impervious surfaces (after all, the purpose is to keep property out of the sun and rain). It is common to see similar facilities in the water in form. of a watercraft lift. Some are covered, and some are not. Our ONR permit rules were amended in fall of 2002, and addresses these. Here are the definitions of a watercraft canopy and watercdtaft lift out of those rules: Subp.42a. Watercraft canopy. "Watercraft canopy" means a structure or device with a fabric covered roof and without walls or a floor that is placed on the bed of a public water, is designed to shelter watercraft, and is designed and constructed so that all components may be removed from the lake or stream bed on a seasonal basis by skidding intact or by disassembly with hand tools. Subp. 42b. Watercraft lift. "Watercraft lift" means a structure or device without walls that is placed on the bed of a public water, is designed to lift watercraft above the level of the public water when not in use, and is designed and constructed so that all components may be removed from the lake or stream bed on a seasonal basis by skidding intact or by disassembly with hand tools. A watercraft lift may be designed to include a fabric covered roof. taking it further, here is language under the "no ONR permit required" section of the revised rules: Subp. 4. No permit required. No permit is required for the following activities, unless prohibited under subpart 3: A. to construct, reconstruct, or install a dock, floating or temporary structure, watercraft lift, or mooring facility if: (1) the structure or mooring facility will not constitute a hazard to navigation or public health, safety, and welfare, as determined by the commissioner; (2) the structure will allow the free flow of water beneath it; 1 (3) the structure or mooring facility is not used or intended to be used as a marina; (4) the structure or mooring facility is consistent with or allowed under local land use controls, as determined by the local government land use authority; (5) the length of the structure is limited to that necessary to accomplish its intended use, including reaching navigable water depths; (6) the structure, other than a watercraft lift or watercraft canopy, is not more than eight feet in width and is not combined with other similar structures so as to create a larger structure; and (7) docks placed on rock filled cribs are located only on waters where the bed is predominantly bedrock, which is incapable of accepting pilings; I don't know that these definitions help or hinder your dealing with membrane structures. I think you are wise to address these now, before they become prolific along your community's lakeshore. DNR Waters is supportive of the city taking steps to minimize the visual and water quantity impacts impacts of these structures. Let me know if you'd like to discuss these matters further. 2 " ..'" Dear Planning Commissioners, and City Planning F-' -"H~" I'~' :s ;' ~-'\}'~'-:-~-1: :; r<.; ::..:' \0 ,c:; LI \~' I-~ : \ t : \ ;.~ ~ . - - ~:, I \' ,')1 I I ! 3~ ~i~~01-1AR I 9?flO4 '., I I , '; j ; :1 :: ;\\. ' 1L/' 'I :U \jl Stalff: ~ In response to the Planning co..ission Meeting on 3-8-04: If the Planning Commission is considering a requirement that tarp boat canopies have to be attached to the boat lift, then you are banning boat lift track systems with tarp boat covers, because they are not made that way. They operate differently than a traditional boat lift. A traditional boat lift stays in one location, so the canopy can be attached to the boat lift. On the other hand, the entire purpose of the track system is to move the boat from the lake to the shore, so the canopy has to be located on the shore where the boat ends up. Secondly, it is not structurally possible to attach a canopy to a track. It would be like attaching a tarp to a railroad track. In other words, a track system with a canopy attached to it does not exist. It is structurally necessary for the canopy to be on the shoreline. . Someone stated, "We need to have something to regulate these type of boat lifts." My question is: Why do you need to regulate them any more than you regulate the traditional boat lifts? It just makes good sense to put them in the "Recreational Equipment" category with all other boat lifts, and then let it go. When there has only been "one" complaint concerning these type of boat lifts, it would seem like an over-reaction to ban them all, or create so many regulations that it would be impossible to own one. For this reason, I am aqain suggesting that you put them in the "Recreational Equipment" category; so they are under the "Recreational Equipment" requirements... as the Lake Advisory Committee recommended. Then, if there should be another complaint in the distant future, (e.g., like 10 years from now), you can deal with it at that time. I believe that there are legitimate complaints and there are complaints that really should not be considered... They have no merit. After reading the many, many, pages of letters I have written, I would hope that you would see that our neighbor's complaint had no merit. To give this type of complaint any more time and energy is a dis-service to the people you are serving. It is taking up valuable time that should be spent on legitimate complaints and other important issues. In oth~ words, I agree with Jane Kansier who said. "We may be making a mountain out of a mOlehill." (This quot-e may not be exact.) It would be a sad day if "one" neighbor, who does not even own a boat, can control the fate of many other lake residents who do own pontoons and boats. I know how important it is to consider everyone's point of view, but I would say in this case, the majority should rule. ~ ;" ~ 2 At your pUblic hearing, I believe you will have very few people speaking up to defend or attack this issue; because very few people know about it, since no one else has had a complaint. I am not going to go around the lake to all the owners of these boat lift track systems and stir up a hornets' nest to bring people in. As you know, I am an elementary school teacher, and teaching my children is where I want to spend my time and energy. I am praying that you will have wisdom when making these d~cisions. Respectfully submitted, Sf t.ry AI e.wf SOh. Shery Newtson Phone # 952-445-2544 'IIIlF 11 Shery Newtson Leatrice Daniels 14330 Rutgers St. N.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 April 22, 2004 r '.:.~~~~u7~""1 f '"..' i i ! f \ ' ! ~ , ' APR 2 6 lOO4 .:! ,; ;..', , I I \ · , H! ;! I U l11 J1;// i Dear City Planning Staff, City Council, and Jack Haugen, Mayor: City Planning Staff City Council Jim Haugen, Mayor 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 I first would like to thank the City Planning Staff for all the time and effort you put into creating an amendment for boat lifts and boat lift track systems with canopy tarp boat covers. I know it has been a difficult task and I appreciate all you have done. I hope my letters have been helpful... That has always been my intention. Before this matter goes,before the City Council, I would like to request that you consider two modifications to the amendment pre- sented on 4-12-04. I believe Jane Kansier stated that some of the wording in the definition could or would be changed to deal with the concerns that were brought up at the public hearing on 4-12-04. Please consider the following changes: 1. Part of the definition of a Watercraft Canopy given at the 4-12-04 Planning Commission Meeting was: "A structure or device with a fabric covered roof and without walls...." Please notice the attached pictures of the canopy boat tarp that we own. It has two walls, which is the way boat lift track canopies like ours are constructed. It would look silly to have the sides of the tarp cut off, which would expose the steel framework and expose the pontoon. Not only would it look aesthetically ugly; it also would no longer serve its purpose of protecting the pontoon from the wind and weather. With a traditional boat lift canopy without walls, the boat is lifted way UP under the canopy, so the interior of the boat is protected. With our type of canopy for a track system, the boat or pontoon cannot be lifted up, so the sidewalls provide the protection. Please consider slightly modifying the definition back to what you had originally in your 1-14-04 and 1-22-04 Memorand.UlDs to Sue McDermott, the former City Engineer. If the definition reads "without 4 walls," it would allow 2 walls. 2 2. The 4-12-04 definition of a Watercraft Canopy also stated: "that is attached to or an inteqral 'Part of the boat lift and/or track system..." At the 4-12-04 pUblic hearing, several people explained how this part of the definition would prohibit all canopies for boat lift track systems from being considered as recreational equipment. Those explaining this were: 1. Marv Mirsch, of the Lake Advisory Committee 2. Ray Sharp, President of the Harbor Townhome Association 3. Myself Please review what I wrote in my 3-16-04 letter to the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission: "If the Planning Commission is considering a requirement that tarp boat canopies have to be attached to the boat lift, then you are banning boat lift track systems with tarp boat covers, because they are not made that way. They operate differently than a traditional boat lift. A traditional boat lift stays in one location, so the canopy can be attached to the boat lift. On the other hand, the entire purpose of the track system is to move the boat from the lake to the shore, so the canopy has to be located on the shore where the boat ends up. Secondly, it is not structurally possible to attach a canopy to a track. 'It wou1d be like attaching a tarp to a railroad track. In other words, a track system with a canopy attached to it does not exist. It is structurally necessary for the canopy to,be on the shoreline." If you modified the definition like this, it may solve the problem: "that is attached to or is desiqned as a separate and necessary inteqral part of the boat lift and/or track system, and is needed to ,shel ter watercraft." THE ENTIRE FINAL MODIFIED DEFINITION WOULD READ LIKE THIS: Watercraft Canopy: A structure or device vith a fabric covered roof and vithout 4 valls or a floor that is attached to or is designed as a separate and necessary integral part of the boat lift and/or track syste.,and is needed to shelter watercraft. 3. If watercraft canopies like ours are put into the category of temporary structures... (as Jane Kansier explained at the 4-12-04 meeting); then the tarp would have to be removed in the winter. Please review what I wrote in my 2-28-04 letter: "If regulations and restrictions force lakeshore owners to take down tarp canopy boat lift covers over their boat lift track systems...vhat viII go up to replace them? The expensive and sturdy tarp boat cover over the metal framework will be replaced with an unsightly makeshift "Menards" tarp placed directly over the pontoon with a makeshift frame and ropes to hold it on. Boats and pontoons need to be protected from snow and ice, so something needs to replace what you force people to take down. And the replacement will be a lot more aesthetically unpleasant and less sturdy. If aesthetic concerns are the issue, then why ask people to take down an expensive, veIl built, and decent looking boat tarp; that will end up being replaced by something really ugly.n 3 Also, we take care of our tarp by using a snow rake in the winter if a large amount of snow accumulates. If a large snowfall accumulated on a makeshift tarp placed directly on the pontoon, it would probably collapse. It was explained to me by the Building Official, Bob Hutchins, that our watercraft canopy would be "grandfathered in" because all the new regulations were not in effect when our canopy was put in pl~ce in 1991. However, if we had to move our canopy even slightly (e.g., 2 feet), we would then fall under all the new requirements which would cause all the problems I described above. Any newly installed canopies like ours would also be severely restricted with so many regulations that it would be virtually impossible to own one. These new requirements for canopy boat tarps like ours include: 1. A 50' setback from the lake... My house is setback 53 feet from the lake, so the boat lift would be in my house. Even if some- one had a yard long enough for the 50' setback, it would not be aesthetically pleasant to look at 50' of railroad track running across your yard. This. was explained at the 4-12-04 meeting by Marv Mirsch, who is an engineer and a member of the Lake Advisory Committee. 2. Impervious surface requirements 3. The international building code for snow load, wind load, fire code, etc. that only larger type structures such as tennis domes and stadiums have been designed to meet. Please refer to my 2-28-04 letter for a detailed explanation. Once again I would like to emphasize that these requirements would completely prohibit watercraft canopies like ours in the future, since it is virtually impossible to meet all these restrictions. For these reasons, please carefully consider the modified definition of a Watercraft Canopy that I suggested. Then the boat tarp canopies like ours and like those at the.Harbor Townhomes can also be placed in the category of "Recreational Equipment" with all the other boat lifts... as you were advised by the Lake Advisory Committee. (Please review the minutes, of the Lake Advisory Committee on 1-14-04.) Thanks in advance for thoughtfully considering my suggestions. Respectfully submitted, Sf 1.-'1 /1.1 UcJfs 011. ~~~ Shery Newtson Leatrice Daniels Phone: 952-445-2544 co @) CD L.... () 01,(,/ N lr -r. () wAfl-PS M.^lN 'BoD'l Of '- ktC~ . 11t~es MI: . f"\:Ib I NCr '! oA-l H ~,,~ F<<J; ~ r f!)fIJ tv e ~ ~ view rto~ "TttA1V F f!.D ~ oues e--lV(~~tL H ^ (Nt ltN Arvc.€ _ '^' EI-'- () VE ~ WE\ G-\{ nov ((ts t-.o-r.Lt N~ , rRobL-Et-tS f{E:. t. -rt<AC.K Wl'TK TA~ l> A D"Ie ~ '7 FV"(v'<: s: . t1 t) rtE -- -r1t~E5 It) (!.o~~1t\ I- AN t> -rkK..aJ P'( 641( €.c,t~A- 1" ( OtCI,At /,.. If E.61cJ l f> 'tENT Bernard & Lori Hanson 14318 Rutgers Street N.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 April 23rd, 2004 To: Mayor, Council Members, City Manager, Don Rye, Bob Hutchins, Jane Kansier Re: Draft Ordinance Amendment: -All "Rail Svstems" as "Recreational Equipment?" This would be against State Law. Dear Concerned Party, I would urgently like to draw your attention to the fact that, in spite of having several conversations with Steve Horsman over a period of eight months I had not been made aware of the nature of changes that may be made on May 3rd until this Wednesday April 21 st, when Jane Kansier informed me that, after May 3rd, it may be too late to represent my views and _. that the law has been "silent" (?) about the regulations during all of that time. T take it that this "silence" simply means that certain people in the City do not wish to enforc_e commonsense regulations well-known and effective here and in most lakeside towns for decades during which we had many boats, pontoons etc without ever breaking regulations. It ~ also seems to imply that a way has been devised to make coming changes retro-active. On request Jane agreed to send the proposal on Monday 26th.--.Only after further requesting did we receive it on Thursday April 22nd from Connie Carlson. My enquiries eight months ago were about a 486 square foot, 18 foot wide structure that looks like a military installation with a cemented-down boat track and unmovable covering structure with a tarp right down to the ground. It was placed on my lotline, and right on the shoreline, during my absence and has since been permanently in place year-round. We now discover too that - while we have been in the dark - those who have offended most against existing ("silent"?) regulations have been most vocal and "in-the-know" and have driven the proposed changes to the point of bending the law till it ~reaks State Law. This would affect the real value of many properties on this lake and change the nature of this community. We can warn you in advance of the consequences because we have seen them in advance. We also fmd, to our astonishment, that there are coincidentally several deceptively worded phrases in this amendment that blatantly cause it to contradict its stated purpose. Please note also that Jane has said that recreational equipment could technically stay in one place year round. This will be chewing-gum and superglue on the City's fingers and, as we prove below, will be against State Law and therefore actionable. I beg you therefore to read with urgency the following summary of reasons why we believe that the proposed amendment is deceptively worded, and a further summary of the likely complex and disastrous consequences of allowing this amendment without either some very careful changes or - perhaps preferably - returning instead to the existing regulations and - 1 - .... simply incorporating some distinctions and exceptions that will quite easily cover all the newly arising needs of the majority and also of virtually all the people in minority locations, such as harbourside, association properties and higher locations other than the majority location of lakeshore in general. I believe it will soon become clear to you that these points are in the general public interest and will help to avoid a grave, costly mistake being made. As time is now short, copies of letters indicating all the evidence supporting these points will be sent to Mr Hutchins, who should then be able to explain anything that is not clear below. In order to avoid embarrassing our neighbours, with whom we are seeking to establish complete reconciliation, we would prefer to keep the personal details of the evidence as confidential as possible,. at least at this stage. The points below also speak for themselves, however, and I believe your interest and attention could help you reach a happy and successful conclusion to this matter. A. Reasons for claimin~ proposed amendment is deceptively worded. We have remained part of the 'silent majority' partly because the issues seemed perfectly clear. Our neighbours' very large pontoon shed is virtually impossible to move and clearly cannot qualify to be allu~ in its present position by any conc~ivably fair regulations without also CQ!:ltradicting State Law. We ,~ought clarification of this while offering them the possibility of our agreeing some time for the continued enjoyment of their boathouse but it must be absolutely clear that it not be allowed to continue there indefinitely. For over half our lot, it blocks splendid horizon views of over two miles of lakewater and it effectively prevents our enjoyment of up eighteen feet of our own lakeshore. (See photos). The proposed amendment therefore seems deceptive in that - contrary to its declared aims - its wording actually enables inclusion of such a permanent building-like installation under the far too vague term "recreational equipment." Further, the words "includes rail systems" should read "includes rails systems without walls" to avoid ambiguity. Without that clarification, our neighbour's further suggestion, that the words "integral part" be taken out could then actually be taken to allow a rail system with walls. On lakeshore, as we prove below, anyone who wants to have permanent use of up to ten feet of their neighbour's land would then be able to do so effectively by choosing this particular kind of "recreational equipment" loophole. We also prove that such "equipment" will quickly proliferate because there will be a scramble to get equipment onto lotlines before one's neighbour does. Another deceptive factor is that, although we accept that the City cannot always prevent loss of light, space and lakeviews, it must provide regulations that acknowledge the real and measurable monetary value of these qualities to lakeside property. We clearly prove below how it applies to property values on Prior Lake. Therefore it is the City's responsibility always to avoid enabling careless or selfish placement of anything that could become a permanent daily reminder of the permanent loss of such value and beauty unless it is absolutely necessary and as minimal as possible. A further factor contributing to the deceptiveness of this amendment is the failure to distinguish between minority and majority locations as well as definitions of equipment. It is an accepted secondary principle of democracy that minority situations be allowed for. -2- However, the primary principle of democracy is that a minority's interest must not dictate to the majority. An amendment should not change rules for the majority instead of simply making exceptions for the minority. Thus it may be better to change the wording of existing regulations rather than add an amendment like this one. We show below how that may be the case here, but the crucial factor is the deceptive wording, as is shown in detail below. We conclude by listing important and helpful distinctions for making rules and exceptions and suggesting a useable version of the amendment that will cover majority needs without denying the quite acceptable needs of minority locations like harboursides, association properties and other unusual (eg highly-situated) properties. We know of no more than four instances - perhaps only one in fact - where we would suggest that time be given to comply with setbacks by removing equipment. This is the chief reason why we find the amendment astonishingly deceptive. How could your planners get it that wrong? The needs arising can easily be covered without causing the havoc that this amendment will cause - as we prove below. Most situations will be easily compliant under clear rules applying to the majority, or under one or more clear exceptions defined by location. In the case of disputes about equipment placed near both sides of one Iodine described below we can think of no complete solution other than "neighbourly agreement" being involved. Otherwise scrambles to get places where two facilities cannot viably fit close together may still produce friction - chewing-gum and superglue on your fingers if current wording is not carefully changed. B. Reasons why carefully worded distinctions and exceptions are needed. Surely the City should seek as much as possible to be peacemakers. However~ when initial enquiries are made with reiard to noncompliance. the City's policy fails to do so. This point is not directly related to the wording of the amendment, but shows an aspect of the City's policy and recent attitude that must also change. Currently the City apparently does nothing unless an enquirer is willing to call an enquiry a complaint. A letter is then sent out which more or less points to the would-be enquirer as a complainant, who may then be harrassed - as we can prove by our own experience. An entirely complaints-based system is likely to provoke friction. Also, given the recent unreasonably long time in giving a clear decision it can, and actually has, nurtured strife between neighbours. Surely a citizen has a right to receive confrrmation about whether a situation involves non-compliance with regulations before being labelled a complainant? The current policy tends to make it possible to treat those wishing to be among the law-abiding majority as awkward exceptions while no real, reliable information is given. Surely this should not be possible and the complaints-based system needs adjusting to ensure this. As much as possible the City should unashamedly uphold its own regulations - zealously. It appears to be reluctant and dithering and almost blamini "complainants" for seeking justice. In this context a deceptively worded amendment is even more suspicious. It creates the impression that the law is being "silenced" while retro-active changes are being devised to suit a minority. The city should distinguish between an enquirer and a complainant and should provide information without any risk whatever of provoking disputes. A further distinction which is more germain to the subject in hand is the possibility of distinctions of location. Please note. for example, that where the condominia on the Harbour do have splendid views of the lake, neither boathouse nor any other obstacle is in '" - ,) - sight - and would not be tolerated! The harbour itself is actually a very effective way of parking boats without ruining this view. A clear exception can therefore easily be made for the minority exception of the harbour itself, without applying the same rules about equipment used there to the majority situations on the lakeshore in general. Minority exceptions should not dictate majority rules. - And are the condos that do not share lakeview as valuable as those that do? OF COURSE NOT! Among a conglomeration of boats in a harbour, with high-placed condos, a large boatcover is of far less significance than on lakeshore where a similar structure can effectively block out two miles of glorious horizons for a neighbouring property! It is often situation not "equipment" that distinguishes majority rules from minority exceptions. The harbour example also clearly proves the reality and universal guiding principle of the fact that, on Prior Lake, the value of light, space and lakeviews is a real property value. The city should oppose any changes openly denying or ignoring this undeniable fact. They must not allow vague defInitions of "equipment" to set rules that need varying in various locations for minorities. This is partly why you are currently in grave danger of making the law hypocritical by deceptive wording that will in fact make it the exact opposite of what it claims to be. As the wording now stands, with the phrase "includes rail systems" (all rail systems?) it could encourage many to scramble to invest in light- and view-blocking installations if just one further change, as suggested by our neighbour, relating to tarps being not necessarily an "inte,ral part", is included. We prove this in detail below. You have now been warned: if you do not study those terms in context and ensure that you have understood what we are pointing to, there could be many real losses and much justified resentment not only between neighbours but very soon against the City. As stated earlier - we have seen it coming. / A further problem associated with the amendment as it stands is highlighted by the current situation with regard to docks. There is currentlv no law and order roverninr positioninr of docks. Since some of the DNR's responsibilities hav~ deVolved to the City, docks can apparently be placed on lotlines and, where the shoreline curves, they can therefore also cross one another or meet in a V -shape! And, where docks may cross one another, neighbours too will inevitably cross one another! What if both sides scramble for the same space on each side? Each spring there will be a continual source of friction -first come first served! This could be much worse still if more "recreational equipment" is allowed on both lotlines and shorelines - except in a carefully limited way. Two pieces of "equipment" on either side of a lotline wiU often be unviable. Hence you will be inciting a scramble! "Get it before your nei~bour does." Worse still, if the present careless or deceptive wording also enables "equipment" that can stay year round, it will be a scramble to landgrab. "Get it permanently before your neighbour does." [This has in effect already happened to us and is now awaiting possible perpetuation, should the "integral part" requirement be removed by your decision on May 3rd - See photos attached at end - This would however be against State Law. and therefore actionable as is shown below.] "- Where covering structures are defined as not necessarily an integral part of this "equipment" and still more again if this is allowed to include tarps that go right down to ground level and obliterate wide horizon views - and even still more again if the "equipment" may be allowed to stay year-round (such installations are in fact unmovable., but the wording will in effect -4- have now smuggled them into the amendment) it will be a permanent gain for one lot and a permanent loss for a neighbouring lot of real property value. Our experience attests to this future consequence and at present we could be the frrst victims of a very grave - although 1egally rectifiable - mistake. The law will thus have been bent till it breaks. The amendment will allow in e{fect permanent huildinp on lotlines and shorelines! The current proposed amendment as worded will do this given the removal of the "integral part" requirement - as is proved in detail below. My comment at this point is - how could the wording have been allowed to come so close to disaster? Without necessarily implying deliberate deception, it is abundantly clear that the word deceptive is truly appropriate. Anyone who feels that this change is not too important anyway should be warned. It will then actually incite a scramble for Iodine occupation. Where such permanent structures are allowed as "recreational equipment," at least six to ten feet of a neighbour's property will also be ef/eclivelv stolen. Maintenance work, with ladders, brushes and scrapers to remove snow takes up at least that amount of space on the neighbour's side (see photo 2.). Where the structure blocks view and sunlight and overshadows the shoreline, the land also becomes useless to the neighbour except as an area that needs to be mowed, weeded and watched to prevent further encroachments - which could become absolutely permanent after 15 vears as our neighbour is currently hoping (photo 1.). Even where equipment can be placed on both sides of one Iodine it will be crowded and maintenance often very difficult. And - hey you guys! - if you love your "recreational equipment" why not have it in the middle of your own lot where you are the one who sees it most and you have plenty of room for maintenance on your own land? (photos 1 & 2) Otherwise I could just put some more equipment right where you need to be to maintain this side! Point made? Our experience has been that owners of such equipment prefer to give their neighbours aU its view-blocking and overshadowing ugliness, while planting still more view-blocking trees to hide it from their own view (See photo 1). Once it is realised that the particular choice of "equipment" can ensure a permanent position - before the neighbour does it first - the way is potentially open to disaster. In effect it means that at least ten feet of lotline can effectively be claimed for nothing. It will also enhance the value of one property a little - and greatly, greatly diminish the value of the view-blocked property next door. This could be destructive of the neighbourly respect for law and order that the City surely seeks to foster and support? The City is in danger, then, of creating a situation which contains hidden incitements to encroach. Among lak.es4ore properties, where every foot may be worth at least $3,000, the law of "adverse possession" is already in danger of inciting encroachment. Changes in regulations could increase that danger many times over. Where encroachment and or cluttering of open space happens our experience clearly shows that it will soon also have a security aspect, and ecological aspect and a social aspect as a further consequence of failure to take into accoWlt the universal value of light, space and lakeview. Down-to-the- groWld structures which block views will provoke, encourage and justify more down-to-the-ground trees, more view-blocking fences and more hedges, creating more and more areas where - with increasing urbanisation - increased darkness and hiding places for intruders actually decrease security. Weare already experiencing the beginning of this now. .. 5 - Also the blocking of light and fresh air by "recreational equipment" that would in effect be permanent structures, together with more trees, more hedges, more fences - as people seek to place things so as to hide, prevent or confirm encroachment - will also provide more areas where flying insects congregate in large numbers during humid weather. The free flow of air around houses close to lakeside is important. Failing to recognise that light and space have value and to uphold that value will also tend to diminish this over the coming years and have an ecological impact. Again, both of these have already happened in connection with a particular type "recreational equipment" whose fate astonishingly has still not been decided and which had effectively grabbed land, views and fresh air from us before we took some action. Our natural reaction is to think of introducingfencing because, with trees placed to confirm that land is effectively no longer ours but made "private" for our neighbours, it has now also become darker, more cramped and actually less secure especially at-night on one (now) tightly enclosed comer of our house. (See photo 3 - in which the automatic flash did not work because it was one of the bri~htest days of the vear - 8/24/03 yet our pick-up and a friend in the foreground are not visible). ,.--. Socially, the crowding of the shoreline, blocking or cluttering more and more lakeviews for more and more houses will also tend to create a less neighbourly town. Again, evidence from our own experience clearly demonstrates and proves this. Neighbours who get blocked off tend to stop being friends or leave - probably selling up at a lower value than they would have got had the lake still been visible. We appreciate that the City cannot prevent some views being lost, but it is now almost unbelievably close to the danger of encouraging many situations which will diminish lakeviews and property values quite carelessly, selfishly and quite, quite unnecessarily. Much of it could be done to prevent others getting in first and so by escalation, rapid proliferation will happen. Socially, shared light, space and the beauty of lakeviews are the best guarantors of neighbourliness in a recreational community. The changes could be extremely important, therefore, and careless or deceptive wording could lead to very serious consequences. People will know they are losing real value that your regulations are not takin~ into account. We have seen it coming. Regulations with unrealistic and badly worded rules which ignore the value of open prospects will be unjust and provoke disappointment, bitterness and disputes. The City must not confuse the way by regulations that ignore real values, are carelessly or deceptively worded or confuse minority needs with majority needs. There is always a wa~.topeac~, however and it is not too late. We suggest distinctions, exceptions and additional wording (including "with nei~bourly a21'eement") that will k~p the ~..hewing gum and the ~uperglue off the City' s fin~s by keeping everybody happy. With Deht. space and lakeviews as the pidine principle. only a few clear distinctions and exceptions need to be made to ensure the success of your replations for all concerned. Clear lotline and shoreline setbacks will still be absolutely essential for most areas of lakeshore in order to prevent reallongterm losses to the whole community but, given a few clear distinctions, most recreational equipment can be allowed a great deal of freedom without really causing any loss. F or minorities, the previously existing regulations need only some specific location exceptions to cover everyone's reasonable needs. Where there is genuine loss in being obligated to comply with regulations, as for example, where people have already invested in non-compliant installations, an exception could be -6- made to allow some period of time for enjoyment of that investment - provided it does not create any precedents for light- and view-blocking permanent structures remaining in perpetuity. We believe it is quite possible that the existing regulations do and have always covered most of this and that only exceptions and distinctions listed below may be needed to satisfy aU concerned. However a quicker decision may be reached by carefully re-wording the proposed amendment with these distinctions in mind. I will repeat here: the kind of dispute that could become common, should the regulations ignore these points, is illustrated in details given in confidence to Mr Hutchins. If anything is doubted or unclear in what has been said, he can confirm or clarify. Most importantly I also wish to state here that, if the new regulations confirm that what we have experienced is acceptable to the City, we are sure the silent law-abiding majority will eventually blame the City for such a gross infringement of natural justice and will seek redress. We do not believe it will be long before an increasing number will wish to do so for their own sake - and for that of the whole community. c. Discussion of distinetions that must be lliade in the wordine in order for the amendment to have the stated result. (All distinctions are taken from DNR advice and that of your own advisers - tempered by our own experience of the reality). "Recreational Equipment" - In the context of the Zoning Ordinance this term refers to equipment that is clearly assumed to be licensed, movable and regularly (seasonally) moved. The ordinance even dictates periods of time for storage and periods of use in different places. However, boat tracks do not and cannot fall into this category of recreational equipment as they do not move at all but are cemented in. Boat lifts do move and are not cemented - they are very different. Boat tracks could be permissible only in unusual (minority) locations. There must therefore be distinctions between: lifts vs tracks tracks with canopies vs tracks with tarps majority and minority locations, creating exceptions Tarps that go down to the ground are virtually unmovable and on a virtually unmovable frame needing very secure, weighted fastenings. They cannot comply with wording that would achieve the stated aims even in exceptional locations . The stated PUl'JlOses of the proposed amendment will not be fulfilled as currently worded therefore. The stated pur:pose is "to ensure structures remain temporary." In practice it could now do iust the opposite. The proposed change as written could in fact now make so-called "temporary" structures permanent on both the lotline and shoreline. This could be averted if you also avoid blurring the distinction between:- units without walls (canopies) vs those with walls (down-to-ground tarps). The tarp of a track system actually can form extremely large walls. It is in no way accurate, therefore to say, as presently worded, that the "boat lifts without walls...definition includes -7- raiVtrack systems" unless you also repeat "without walls" after the words "rail systems." The tarp itselfis a large wall (27 feet long in one case) that then creates a floor. The DNR has discussed this with Bob Hutchins and for this reason is concerned about floors and impervious surfaces. Tracks with ta'1'S have both. The tarp itselffonns walls on a heavy fixed frame, creating a large impervious swface area - precisely for the purpose of blocking rain - and snow! (See photo 2.) In effect, therefore, boat tracks with tams are large storage buildings that are not moved at all from year to year and should be subject to setbacks and impervious surface rules. The amendment appears then, to us, to be deceptively attempting to redefine a structure (track with tarp) as a piece of "equipment" that would then not be bound by setbacks - and yet it is bigger than some garages and most sheds on residential lots. According to all the advice you have already been given, and according to State Law:- "\ Tracks with Tarps should: require a building permit require setbacks (DNR says 10 feet) be of limited size (DNR recommends 8 ft in width) and be considered an impervious surface factor OR: should have limited length of time in use ( 180 days) The term "recreational equipment" simply cannot, therefore, apply to tracks with tarps. They are in fact buildings that "ever move. Setbacks would preserve views and avoid obstruction. They are not movable equipment. They are roofed and walled to protect from sun, rain - and snow! The DNR states that "all components must be removed on a seasonal basis" -lifts do this - tracks most certainly do not and cannot. (Although in some minority locations - such as harboursidelassociations - this is not really a problem at all). The DNR advised (3/5104) that the city would be "wise to address this now before it becomes prolific along your community's lakeshore". We have explained why they will become more 'prolifIC' - in a scramble to do itfirst. Do you really wish to set this off? The DNR also states that these struc!qfes "meet the definition of a structure under the building code" (building codes are State Statutes) and that they are "supportive of the city taking steps to minimize the visual.... impacts of these structures." I The City Engineer recommended "shch structures" be "not tied permanently to the ground" and said lifts could stay but left out tracks. These tracks are concreted in. The firms that sell them tell us "they are a permanent, permanent thing." Again, in some minority locations this might not matter. Exceptions for locations are the correct way as planners should know. Twelve out of 15 area cities (including Minnetonka) exclude this type of unmovable structure in the setback area. These structures are "water oriented accessory structures" and it is not right to hide them deceptively under the more general term "recreational equipment." - 8- This is all clear and obvious, but look carefully. Deceptive wording has still managed almost completely to smuggle them into your amendment. Hence our astonishment, alarm and urgency! To recap our own experience and its relevance - we have happily and respectably enjoyed this property for almost 45 years and have had all kinds of boats including pontoons with winch systems. During our absence, our neighbour put a structure in place that tries to circumvent the building code. A new owner has recently changed the normal track to a pontoon track, even larger than the regular track. We now fmd that the changes proposed give a totally out of proportion way of focusing on "equipment" rather than location - clearly the crucial factor - and also of allowing minority interests to dictate to those of the majority - and even of viola"nr State Law' Given the smallest amount of commonsense knowledge of the lake, with all the well-known facts about tracks with tarps easily available, and with all the precise recommendations after careful research from your own advisers and specialists, how could such a wron, decision ever have been reached? After all, why is the law "sUent"? Given a few exceptions, for newly arising needs, it already perfectly addressed these situations. There seem to be rather a lot of coincidental factors fll1 contributing to one end:- a lOQPhole for particular structures that are effectively on-the-lotIine and on-the-shoreline permanent buildings overshadowing and effectively claiminsz neipbour's land. - Which, of course is the very question to which we have been given no straight answers for eight months - was this while the loophole was apparently being designed and put into place? Can we be blamed for privately suspecting that this seems either culpable incompetence or a deliberate connivance? Fortunately, it is not too late and there is a way to a happy solution without involving ourselves in further speculation at this stage - though an inquiry might well wish to do so should the mistakes described above be aUowed to pass. D. List of ImportantJbeloful distinctions to avoid the mistakes outUned above: (i) between down-to-the-eround covers or tarps (potentially blocking views) and canopies (ii) between harbours, association properties, high-placed or other exceptional minority locations (where almost any equipment may be acceptable on a temporary or even on year-round basis because it can be easily overlooked and does not block any views or light) and majority lakeshore locations where views are often an extremely valuable feature that clearly should be shared as much as is reasonably possible. (Hi) between "recreational equipment" (which the Zoning Ordinance clearly assumes to be licensed, movable and seasonally moved - see 2nd page of Planning Report) and other installations which involve permanently fixed, permanently covered structures clearly defined by the building code, backed by State Law. (iv) between an enquirer and a complainant Although this is not directly related to the -9- amendment wording, it is a further lesson of our experience that the current entirely complaints-based policy needs to be adjusted. The City should take responsibility for confirming to an enquirer whether there has been a definite infringement of regulations well before pointing the offender's attention to someone else having complained. This could be the beginning offostering friction and contention. It serves no good purpose and discourages people seeking justice. (v) between a boat lift (much more movable) and a track or rails (which require cementing in). We contacted tour ordinary dealers who confirmed this distinction emphatically - names and numbers are available. (vi) between minority (exceptions) and majority (rules). This is a commonsense guideline that the current proposal has nevertheless managed to circumvent by deceptive wording. With a few exceptions for minority situationsllocations the regulations can easily be made to cover the needs of both majority and minority locations. (vii) between use that is legally allowed and use that requires ne;ghbour's agreement. This distinction may be needed to avoid disputes about positions close to and on both sides of one Iotline. The Draft Ordinance is said to be consistent with State and Federal Laws. However, if it is rewritten to include tracks with tarps, the amended ordinance would almost certainly violate State Law. It would also go completely against the advice and recommendations of the DNR, the City Engineer, several members of the Planning Commission and Prior Lake's own Building Official. We believe that, given some thought, the distinctions listed can be seen to help satisfy the needs of the majority and virtually all of those in minority situations by means of making some clear exceptions and distinctions. As far as we are aware, those needing time to conform would actually be a minority of one - and we are seeking to allow time for them as our own neighbours. To sum up, the task under discussion is to define not only what equipment is acceptable but also - and much more importantly - in what locations it is acceptable, since light, space and lakeviews clearly have a very real, estimable value. The wording suggested below will prevent tarps with tracks being allowed in majority locations right on lotlines on low-lying lakeshore. If this were not so, the stated purpose of the amendment would be totally contradicted~ all advice on the matter effectively ignored and, we believe, State Law contradicted. E. Suggested wording as one possible way of avoiding mistakes described above: (Our suggested edits are in brackets and bolded.) See page 11. - 10- (' E. Suggested wording as one possible way of avoiding mistakes described above: (Our suggested edits to current proposed amendments are in brackets and bolded.) Ordinance No. 04XX - AmendiDe Sections 1101.400 of the Prior Lake City Code Boat Lift. A structure or device without walls that is designed to lift watercraft above the level of the public water or ground elevation when not in use. This defInition also includes rail systems or track systems (also without walls or tarps that form walls) extending from the lake bed to the shore. A boat lift may be designed to include a watercraft canopy (which is also without waDs). Recreational equipment shall include, but not be limited to, boats, boat trailers, boat lifts and rail systems [without walls and/or without tarps that form walls], general purpose trailers, recreational campers, self-contained motor homes, truck toppers, fish houses, utility trailers, jet skis and snowmobiles (and must be seasonally moved). Watercraft Canopy: A structure or device with a fabric covered roof and without walls (and lor without tarps that form walls] or a floor [or floor equivalent) that is attached to or an integral part of boat lift and/or track system, and is designed to shelter watercraft. [Canopies should in way way form a wall or floor or create an impervious surface and should NOT include tarps that go around sides or down to the ground.) We also SUflflest that wording such as the fbllowinfl may be added to define exceDtions: "Except in defmed areas [e.g. harboursides, association properties or high-placed property etc) the placing of equipment on lakeside lotlines shaD be either in accordance with setbacks of 10 feet or by neighbourly agreement. We believe that this will keep all the chewing-gum and superglue from the City's fmgers. We hope it helps. We trust you will be determined to make the right choices and lead the way to a peaceful and law-abiding, rather than a quarreling and legalistic - and cluttered-up - future for Prior Lake. Thank: you for your time and consideration, d~'~~ ~4~ Lori Ann Hanson (nee Wells) Bernard Hanson - 11 -