The URL can be used to link to this page

4. Boyer Sterling Estates Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot I Li C I TY 0 F oto 00 • ' ;, 1 CHANIIII,SSEN . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 , I " ( 612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM .. . . , '-'•• -1 ..-- TO Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner ., II - 1.' DATE: June 30, 1993 ,,'• , , ll SUI3J: Boyer Sterling Estates Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot VL V4 . b ' The Boyer's Sterling Estates Subdivision was platted in 1966. There are 16 lots in the ; I 'subdivision. In 1966, the beachlot was 9,000 square feet in area with 60 feet of lake frontage. ' • A 1986 survey shows the beachlot at 7, if i square feet inirea with 40 feet of lake frontage. The li beachlot does not meet the minimniptequirementS of 200Lfeet of lake frontage and the 30,000 , square fee • .,„ze In conjunction with filing the p lat, restrictions on use of Outot 1 were also filed. There was a complaint against the .beachlot made in 1986. A history of beachlot was outlined by City , . Planner, Barb Dacy. An incorporated or establiafieditomeownef s association for Sterling Estates 1 I was not or has wtbeen atomized witk144441 of by-laws or Based on the . evidence provideM ,.. time of the complaint in 1986, Ci ty itorne ltOger Knutson determined that the leve ■.' ' : w .uld be one dock with no more du ...roc ■• a.ts at the dock. ..,„, I , Part of the complaint is the exte ii:'Oti4f2hekdockAtot#14ocr '‘ zone. The city has recently passed an ordinance requiring that all • , i'meet the dock setback zone, Which is ten , ..3-.• ,-?i. - feet. a 7. , g An inspection of this beachlot was Performed by the city in 1981. At that time, it was observed 'I • '--- that there was one dock, no boats were noted at the dock, moored or on land. There was a swimming beach. There is a motor vehicle access to the site, the 1981 inventory noted no boat i I launch, tdthough the association is requesting one. _.- - • I . - ,triti I i.41 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER , I 1 , 1 1 Boyer's Sterling Estates June 30, 1993 Page 2 SUMMARY I The association is requesting the up approval of one dock with u to 4 boats docked overnight, P motor vehicle access and the boat launch. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE I On Wednesday, June 7, 1993, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Boyer I Sterling Estates Recreational Beachlot non - conforming use permit. The Planning Commission recommended two boats to be docked overnight, with no motor vehicle access to the lake. The Commission recommended placing a post at the entrance to the beachlot to prorhibit access. The 1 Commission also recommeded that the 10' extension off of the 50 foot dock be eliminated. ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Beachlot Application 2. Summary "of Beachlot Inventory I 3. 4. 1986 Recreational Beachlot Complaint Public hearing notice 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NON - CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT I Boyer Sterling Estates I Planning City Association Request Commission Council I Recommendation Action Association Boyer Sterling Estates I Lake Minnewashta Number of Homes 16 I Size, square feet 8,400' • Shoreline 55' Motor Vehicle Access yes none, place post to 1 eliminate access Boat Launch yes no III Buildings none I Seasonal Dock 1 1 I 50' with 50' with 10' extension no extension Canoe Racks none I Boats on Land 0 1 Boats at Dock four (4) 2 I Boats Moored none Swimming Beach yes 1 Swimming Raft no 1 Miscellaneous 1 1 1 I N G cts • • C , i ,. ...t,...:f:.• :-,• i ,.;'t ,=4 :••■• - 4 , ., . ••••': : 7 . ' .''' . • - . rn ..\ \ 6. . . '. V .': : I � 7. . - r I. • • cli ' \c°4 . Cb ca W 1, 1 \. 3 _ - - ' `; ` O • • T G — , -V � Z 2� m 1 W 1 ANE { gO t . o .. p ;:R c _5 r. • . M �o � r; s o nd pN - ? tpa °n ST - _ 7 k - TS • . N .. , - - I II r AOt „ t� A MI NNE MEq k4-'" R : .. _' ., -: VVg S T r Tq 1 _ /1/ ' � CO g K _ E ._ ; ` 1 �NILL IAM SHARP 1 O) - 1 I CTF N0. 4 T 2 b CP IV I - - _ = h " SURVEY FOR: W&I,. READAL. 152001 30,35 1 1,r1A Prepared By: D11 SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. 1 OPRIRIV6 � Engieers • Surveyors• Planners • Solis Testing 10660 Wayzata Boulevard 2 CU Minnetonka. Mn. 66343 p s2 3 , 6 1 ' Tel. 648 -7801 1 P ! 1 A. : DESCRIPTION: C / t O Outlot 1, BOYER'S STERLING ESTATES. 7: .% % ` ` GENERAL NOTES: 1 1 ��p : $ � � 'g 1) 0 - Denotes iron monument set. ? ' \. ' )-• : 2) • - Denotes iron monument found. 1 `•" "" 3) o - Denotes wood stake. .+ ...a, $ o tt. \ 1 -. ,..„. , ...... ,, ---, 0 • A o 0 1 • c • 1 %. .... 1 • .... ...., . ...1 37.p. .S/ 1 / e 1 / 0 144 6 04 I hereby certify that this survey 1 `� 0 was prepared under my supervision and that I am a Licensed Land II Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 1 N _ %ems.:_ • A..it4( - 14 heodore D. Kemna Date: 23 July 1986 Lic.No. 17006 1 . l 1 1 REEVr I CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE `''v 3- 19K, CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 C :i f ,- Or L HNNHJ SS!` n 1 NON - CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT APPLICATION I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: 80 C ESr "'"f `J -A) CONTACT PERSON: J'-! / ` h) S 1 ADDRESS: 3z7- 1 TutJm i -c-IC S (d k2 MAJ LA, �7 -1 3 L TELEPHONE 1 TELEPHO Q 2 C -2 i L 1 1 1 / Ew e) � 1 Please provide all requested data consistent with what existed in the summer of 1981. 1 1. Number of homes in the Homeowners Association I 3 2. Length of shoreland (feet) �� 3. Total area of Beachlot (in square feet) 9170 Qat 1 4. Number of docks Oh C 1 6. Length of dock(s) 5 Cr / Qom' 7. Number of boats docked FOX- /Z.. 1 8. Number of canoe racks AA) it -e= 9. Number of boats stored on canoe racks Xai` `E- 10. Number of boats moored, i.e. canoes, paddle boats, sailboats. )1 I 11. Number of boats on land fix < 12. Swimming beach Yes No Buoys Yes No 13. Swimming Raft Yes No 14. Boat Launch Yes >/ No 1 1 1 15. Motor vehicle access Yes t/ No 1 Number of parking spaces 11 A 16. Structures, including portable chemical 6. Stru tares, c udmg po table c e cal to ilets: /NC i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 'SY 1 C ry ;e F ._ I , \ I k 1 v V 1;3 P - -r . jr.R . - r NE.110E1 1 \LL,,k ° 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, "7 �•� MINNESOTA 55317 -,,,`, (612) 937 -1900 1 October 13, 1986 Mr. Roger Knutson II Grannis, Grannis, Farrell & Knutson P.O. Box 57 St. Paul, MN 55075 I Re: Recreational Beachlot Complaint • Dear Roger: II This is to request your opinion regarding whether or not a viola- tion to the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance exists at the Boyer's Sterling Estates Beachlot on Lake Minnewashta. 1 A complaint has been filed by abuttin owners of the beac Mary J. Moore (west) and Raymond Roettger (east). Please hlot 1 letters dated August 4, 1986 and September 25, 1986. They con- tend that the dock and boats are illegal and must be removed. Please review the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance as to existing 1 non - conforming docks and beachlots as it applies to this complaint. It appears from the information submitted that the chronology of II events is as follows: 1. Boyer's Sterling Estates was platted in 1966. II 2. In conjunction with filing the plat, restrictions on use of Outlot 1 was also filed. 1 3. An incorporated or established homeowner's association for Sterling Estates was not or has not been organized with offi- cial filing of by -laws or regulations. 1 4. The subdividers of the property, the Boyer's, apparently installed a 3 x 60 foot dock and stored three boats at it for II approximately 8 years. Another lot owner in the subdivision, Schur, lived at 6220 Barberry Circle (Lot 2, Block 3) and installed a similar dock next to the Boyer's and moored two boats for approximately the same time period. Boyer sub- 1 sequently removed his dock permanently after 1973. 1 11 -; - — - ------ _ _ . ,.. ' r I. Mr. Roger Knutson r ' October 13, 1986 II Page 2 - -- -5. Peter and Judy Walman bought the Schur residence at 6220 1 Barberry Circle in 1974. Their letter of September 3, 1986 _ states at that time one dock with one boat was in place at the outlot belonging to the Schur's. Walman's bought the boat and installed a new dock in 1977 or 1978. 1 6. In 1977, a person by the name of Mike Holloway, purchased Joe • Boyer's home and in the 1977 -1978 time frame, installed a ' boat at the dock on the outlot. - 7. The August 4, 1986 letter from Moore /Roettger alleges that . such installation of the dock was done in 1979 and was done - without the knowledge or approval of other homeowners. 8. U this point in time, there appears to have been two 1 boats moored at the dock from at least 1979 to 1981. 9. In the Walman letter of September 3, 1986, it is alleged that 1 - in 1980 or_1981 the Emmett's, who reside at 6210 Barberry Circle, stored their boat at the dock off of the outlot. - This item is contested by the Moore letter of September 23rd stating that the Emmett's did not move into the area until II August 17, 1982, according to the contract for deed evi- dencing the sale of the residence which was recorded at the county on September 7, 1982, Document No. 56232. 1 10. The Moore /Roettger complaint states that they feel that there were only two boats moored at the dock before the effective II date of the Beachiot Ordinance of March 17, 1982. The remaining homeowners in the area maintain that there was at _least one dock and three boats moored at that dock. 11. Each party has submitted pictures. 11 12. It is also asserted by Moore /Roettger that the dock is II . _installed so that it encroaches on the dock setback zone of their properties._ , 13. The.city.conducted a recreational beachlot survey depicting 1 :existing conditions of all beachlots as of June 4, 1981 in - preparation of the original beachlot ordinance. That survey recorded the existence of a seasonal dock of 50 feet with a II ten foot perpendicular extension. At that particular time, there was no boats moored at the dock, on the land or at buoys. 1 1 1 Ir Mr. Roger Knutson October 13, 1986 Page 3 Your interpretation is desired on the following issues: 1. Whether or not having an established homeowners association continually maintaining a dock constitutes a "lawfully" existing dock according to the ordinance. ' 2.. Given the conflicting evidence as to the number of boats moored at the dock, is it the correct interpretation to state that if "x" number of•boats existed prior to the effective date of the ordinance of March 17, 1982, the number of boats should not increase as the ordinance deems a recreational beachlot as a non - conforming use not to be enlarged. Secondly, what is your interpretation of the number of boats ' existing prior to the effective date of the ordinance? 3. In reviewing City files, it was the intent of the city survey ' to record what was occurring at existing beachlots. A dock • did exist according to the survey; however, boats were not in place at that time. Either they were not installed or were in use. Would the survey act as a legal basis to verify the 1 existence of the dock /boats? 4. Is it Correct that non - conforming or conforming docks should be installed so that it should not prohibit access to adja- cent properties or encroach upon "dock setback zones" of adjacent properties? ' V ry tr yours, ' Barbara Dacy City Planner BD :v 1 1 1 1 1 .. ... ,, A CITY OF I_ :"' IF J 1 i ._ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 1 • • November 10, 1986 I 1 Mr. Robert Roy 3110 Dartmouth Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 I Dear Mr. Roy: Attached please find the response from our City Attorney's office II regarding the complaint at the Boyer's Estate Recreational Beachiot. Also attached is my letter to him requesting his interpretation of the items that were submitted to my attention. Based on the Attorney's response, the following shall dictate the use of the beachlot in the future: II 1. Installation of one dock. 2. No more than two boats shall be moored at the dock. II 3. Although legally not required to observe dock setback zones, the dock shall be placed so as to not interfere with adjacent property owners boat traffic. - Affected property owners are encouraged to work together to II comply with the above position. Should you have further questions or wish to discuss the matter further, please feel free to contact me. Sincer y, i II Barbara Dacy II City Planner BD:k II II II k . 1 q it 1 LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON I DAVID L. GRANNIS - 1874 -1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER. DAVID L. GRANNIS, JA. - 1910 -1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612) 455 -2359 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING D AVID L HARMEYER VANCE B. GRANNIS M. CECILIA RAY VANCE B. GRANNIS, JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE PATRICK A. FARRELL auam B. KNrim34 DAVID L. GRANNIS, III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 ROGER N. KNUTSON I TELEPHONE: (612) 455 -1661 October 31, 1986 II Ms. Barbara Dacy, City Planner City of Chanhassen I P.O. Box 147, 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Recreational Beachlot Complaint II Dear Barb: Your letter of October 13th asked a series of questions concerning whether or not the Boyer's are violating the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance. 1 1. If the dock is designated on the June 1981 map referred to in Section 6 of Ordinance 47AB, the dock is a legal non - conforming dock and can continue to exist as provided in Section 7 of Ordinance II 47AB. 2. Since the dock is non - conforming the number of boats 1 cannot exceed the number moored at the dock on the effective date of the ordinance. A landowner does not have the right to intensify a non - conforming use. Prior Lake Aggregators Inc. v. II City of Savage, 349 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. App. 1984). 3. It is difficult to sort out how many boats were moored at the dock on the effective date of the ordinance in 1982. If I the only basis for the present owner's claim that three boats were moored is the Emmett's purchase of the home and adding the third boat, then the present owner is mistaken. The Emmett's II deed establishes that they did not move in until September 7, 1982. We could prosecute based upon the information we have if more than two boats are moored at the dock. The prosecution would not be easy, however, because the City would have to prove beyond I a reasonable doubt that only two boats were moored at the dock in 1982. I 4. The City's survey is evidence of the existence of the dock. It doesn't have much, if any, significance on the number of boats using the dock. They could have been out on the water. II CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED 1 NOV C CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. r r • Ms. Barbara Dacy - Recreational Beachlot Complaint October 31, 1986 ir Page Two 1 5. Legal non - conforming docks do not have to observe the dock setback zone. The zoning ordinance provides they can continue 1 at the same location. If you have any additional questions or would like us to take action, please let me know. Ver truly yours, GR NIS, ANNIS, ELL BY/ ON, P.A. N. Kntat" on RNK : s rn Enclosures 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 II 1 EASTLU ND, SOLSTAD & HUTCHINSON, LTD. LAW OFFICES WARREN E EASTLUND CAMBRIDGE OFFICE MARK T SOLSTAD 1702 MIDWEST PLAZA BUILDING THOMAS F HUTCHINSON 222 SOUTH ASHLAND 1 HANS F ZIMMERMANN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 DALE J MOE CAMBRIDGE, MINNESOTA 55008 WILLIAM S. SEELEY 612 • 339-8931 612 • 689-5734 MARY NORTON - LARSON SHARON N HERLAND ' REID R LINDOUIST August 28, 1987 Ms. Barbara Dacy City Planner City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147, 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Re: James Hofer /Recreational Beach Lot Dear Ms. Dacy: Enclosed please find three letter which my client has obtained regarding the prior use of the recreational out lot for boat dockage purposes. While at least two of the letters are specific about the number of boats docked at the access point, it does not appear that they are being as specific as you probably ' would require regarding the number of boats docked during the year of the enactment of the ordinance. However, in reviewing the previous correspondence which Mr. Hofer has supplied me with, I am concerned about the interpretation of the ordinance by Roger Knutson in his letter to you of October 31, 1986. If, in fact, the effective date of the ordinance was March 17, 1982, I question whether any boats were docked on the beach lot at that exact date. In my opinion, the number of boats which should be allowed to remain on the property would be the same number that had previously been moored at the dock on a regular basis in the preceding years, not simply the number moored at the dock on the date of your survey or any other individual date. Both the letters of Janie Jasin and Joe Boyer indicate that there were at least four boats at that dock in prior years. It seems to me that what will have to be done will be for someone to run down the tract index at the County Recorder's ' office and find out who exactly were the owners of all of the lots in the summer of 1981 and before, and write a letter to each one of them, asking them how many boats they regularly kept there ' themselves, or how many they know for sure were regularly docked at that outlot. I will contact Mr. Hofer and suggest to him that either he have me do that or have someone else complete that project so that we may report back to the City with what we have found. As your letter of June 16 indicates that considerable time was spent by yourself and the City Attorney on this issue, I wonder if a list was ever compiled by the City Attorney's off{tEeL;',;zo A U G 3 1 1987 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 11 Ms. Barbara Dacy August 28, 1987 Page 2 1 of all of those property owners at that time? If so, perhaps you could forward a copy of that list to me, and we could save some time in getting this matter resolved. I appreciate your patience and the patience of the City 1 Council in dealing with this matter; however, I am sure you can appreciate that this is an issue which Mr. Hofer and his neighbors are very concerned about. I think that their feelings in this matter are perhaps best summarized by the opinion expressed by Joe Boyer in his letter. Very truly yours, 1 EASTLUND, SOLSTAD & HUTCHINSON, LTD. Dale J. Moe 1 DJM /kra cc: James Hofer 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1[/' e.--- ;.. , / °27-7- ' --7-. V .......‘ II DOYE.R' S S s f. �Z. TERLING ESTATES Out Lot to, 1 �� I Ea3� ont Use, Condition, Stipulation, and Rostriotion Ki;0:1 ALL i•Ir,N BY THESE PRES.,x'NTS • That Joseph H, Boyer and F11oen F. Boyer II husband and tdfo, horoinaftor roferred to as "owners," owners, resident of Hennepin County, t•$nnoaota, boing tho owners of _all the lots in Boyer'° Storling Estates, a subdivision of land in Carvor County, Minnesota, Oocozdin to the II g plat thereof on Pilo and of record in tho office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Carver Count doclring to establish • stipulations, conditions y. and • II and restrictions to the use and onjoynent of access and dock oaaement over, across plat, do hereby declare the dominant � and upon, Out Lot 1 in sold �- ._-__.- _�arcelp subjeot to the following express covenants, stipulations and rostriotions to the use and onjoyrarnt thereof, roton*1on of casement thereon all of which and the ' ch are to be construed as restrictive s I be automatically covenants running with the title to said ea s ment, which covenants Juno 1, 1990, at which time such covenants shall hall until' extended for an dditional period of ton Yo rs, and successively thereafter for additional periods • of to yoars, unless, within one month of the beginning of Duch period of ton ypew act of the owners of Out it 1, dal • y cortifiod, and recorded ' it iu agreed redaco the burden of the said covenants, stipulations, p bons, and rostriotions and conditions II n whole, or in parts 1. Between the first day of October and the last day of December in each • II and ovory yoar, the the owner of the underlying fee of said Out Lot 1 shall randar to tho owners of the dominant tenement° and account for I Trot 1 fo the expanses of maintenance of Out r the previous year together with a billing to each owner of such dominant tenement for his fractional ' I char° thoroof. Tho fractional share of each owner of a dominant tonament i shall have as its numerator the total nuasber of lots in said lot owned II by r.::o;: ;;o: j .- o and to hart o�.no - ---1_ " -- _ which lots tho oasement is n and as its donoainator, tho total number of lots in said plat to %iii 1 II tho oas_mont io appurtenant plus one for tho lot ownership to which tho undorlfirl foe in Out Lot 1 is attaohod. 1 1 1 . i Each dominant ownor shall thereupon pay his fractional aharo to the II of the underlying foe in Out Lot 1 not later than Fobruary following the billing. II In tho ovont tho dominant owner dons not so pay his fractional aharo, suoh dominant easement shall be forfoitod providod the ownor of the - II undorlying foe shall commence action for tho declaration of such for - foituro, and filo Lis Pondens therewith, not lator than June 1st following the dofault claimed. The owner of the underlying foe of II Out Lot 1 nay opt at any Limo to sue for and rocovor for the arrearage(s) of said fraotional share togother with costs of suit, interest thoreon, 1 and roasonablo attorneys fees therefor. 4. Tho dominant owners shall have the right to compel the owner of the II undorlying fee, by suit at equity, to perform proper maintenance of said Out Lot 1 subject to tho duty upon such dominant owners to promptly II and faithfully contribute their tractional shore of the cost of maintenance as provided herein. Li tho ovent of such suit, the Court may award roasonable attorney's foes against the owner of the underlying fee if the Court finds substantial failure to properly maintain; ancw. award II the parties' plaintiff the underlying foe o•.rnor'n reasonnble attorney's foes should the Court find that tho owner of the underlying II foe had substantially properly maintained said Out Lot. t� .z. Q1..4.J.7.4. ', ,9" 1 : the Prosenoe of: 1 . / iJ . • Si . Al ' 1. 1 1 i _z A06 w 1 3231 Dartmouth Drive II Excelsior, MN 55331 September 23, 1986 II City of Chanhassen t- ==,:-: __ 690 Coulter Drive `. ' :3 I Chanhassen, MN 55317 SEp 186 Attention: Ms. Barbara Dacy ( i ;r1 r Gr—tArsiritiSS \I I Subject: Beach Lot Ordinance No. 47 - Boyer's Sterling Estates Violation II Dear Ms. Dacy: This letter is written as follow -up to Mr. Roettger's and my letter II dated August 6, 1986, and our subsequent telephone conversations. You have requested proof of what was in existence at Boyer's Outlot 1 prior to March 17, 1982, the effective date of the City's Recrea- tional Beachlot Ordinance. The information contained in and I enclosed with this letter should prove beyond a doubt that only two boats were moored at the dock prior to this date. However, first I must reiterate Mr. Roettger's and my position that the dock and boats be removed entirely. This position is based on the following: II 1. Section 7 of Ordinance 47 states: A§ "Docks or building lawfully existing on any recreational. II beach lot . . . uses." (emphasis added) The dock on Outlot 1 was not and is not now "lawfully" I existing. There has been no approval or vote by the residents of Sterling Estates nor any documents filed with the City establishing Outlot 1 as a marina for a select few residents. II 2. None of the dock users nor Mr. Boyer (the "dominant owner ") have maintained the dock or, the outlot. Mr. Roettger is II the only resident of Sterling Estates who has - mowed the grass. 3. Sterling Estates residents must organize and agree to the 1 appropriate use of Outlot 1 for all residents. One or two residents cannot determine this useage for themselves. II 4. Attachment 1 to this letter contains pictures taken this . summer. We have organized these pictures to take you step by step through the many reasons why this Outlot 1 situation has prompted our actions. It is obvious that this Outlot II conflicts with normal property rights of'the adjacent owners. II 1 City of Chanhass September 23, 192sc3 Page Two Based on the above, the following infor mation is irrelevant except to prove the status of the outlot prior to the Ordinance: 1. Attachment 2, Boyer's Sterling Estates Out Lot No. 1, Easement Use, Condition, Stipulation and Restriction: This document, signed by Mr. and Mrs. Boyer on January 26, 1966, does not, in spite of its title, provide development or use restrictions" other than to establish an easement for all homeowners of Sterling Estates. This fact was substantiated during the survey conducted by the City June 4, 1981. The width of the lot at the shoreline (approximately 30 feet) along with the paved road from Dartmouth to the lake would indicate the proposed use of the site was for watercraft access only. 2. Contrary to Mr. Walman's statement pertaining to the third boat, Chuck and Dee Emmit moved to 6210 Barbarry Circle on August 17, 1982, making it impossible for the Emmit's boat to be moored at the dock in 1981. The Contract for Deed evidencing the sale of the Barbarry residence was recorded on the Abstract by Carver County on September 7, 1982. (Document 56232) ' 3. Mr: Roettger purchased the lot adjoining Lot 1 in 1976 and began building in 1976. There was no dock installed until I 1979 when Mr. Holloway, without the knowledge or permission of the other residents of Sterling Estates, installed the current dock. The installation of the dock has rendered the access useless for other residents including Mr. Roettger.' 4. Attachment 3: These three pictures show the status of the lot in the years 1980, 1981 and 1983. Each of these pictures II is taken from Mr. Roettger's sundeck toward Outlot 1. I would appreciate your keeping me advised on the status of our complaint. Sincerely, • Mary / oore Enclosures 1 1 f ,-, Ajto<AA; •--e-- 1 August 4, 1986 k i 04 6,-,..„. .....--4 1 ,,,-- 74 gA. t�' ,�,, ; . `, AU G r) 198 ��! l A' ; C7 -t City of Chanhassen c I FY 0c CHANh k SC. 690 Coulter Drive a.. U - W. 4/ I Chanhassen, MN 55317 / ( �� / S- Attention: Ms. Barbara Dacy I Subject: Beach Lot Ordinance No. 47 - Boyer's Sterling Estates Violation I Dear Ms. Dacy: This letter is written as formal complaint of the violation of Beach Lot Ordinance No. 47 1 by some residents of Boyer's Sterling Estates (namely Walman, Beggos, Hoffer and Read!). Out Lot 1 of Sterling Estates was established as an access to Lake Minnewashta for all 1 homeowners of Sterling Estates. There is a width of approximately 30 feet at the lake line and a paved service road runs from Dartmouth Drive to the Take. We believe this access road was for private boat launching and was not intended as a marina. I This complaint is based on the following: 1 1. There is no incorporated or established homeowners association for Sterling Estates nor are there any bylaws or regulations. 1 2. The present dock was installed by one resident, Mike Holloway (no longer a g resident) in 1979 without the knowledge or approval of the other homeowners. 1 3. Mr. Holloway subsequently sold part interest in this dock to another resident, Pete Walman. 1 4. During the period from 1979 until the summer of 1983 only two boats were moored at the dock. 1 5. In 1983 the third boat was put in and the fourth boat was put in this year. This fourth boat (pontoon) is almost as long as the out lot is wide. 1 6. None of the four boat owners do any maintenance on the beach, road or dock. 7. The dock is installed so that is encroaches the docksetback zone of our 1 properties which adjoin the out lot. I This letter is submitted with the request to the City to enforce the ordinance and have the dock and boats removed from this access. 1 // .■ 9 2 2?-61— t e---1 ---( - ' ,.,...-.410 ary J ,ore ' • ' mond . 'rift. - x I 3231 Dartmouth Drive, Chanhassen, MN 3221 Dartmouth Drive, Chanhassen, MN q 3fr3330 1 1 . b7.14 dee/6 4- a-e) /9 22 J, ..1471-frze/ " de ez-e -6 7 „Ge_le..;-z zP'./----Ye-A~/ 29, 111 ,,,,,,, ..... ...... ............... 11 ( — /7 2 MI //o-aote7 6O- /972 07 /9 77 4 1 1 ‘,10(-17/2 c4e. _ze7/21-r:4 q 77 — • ("41 /QTO er2 1 . . , " . • . . , .., ... • '2224-1}C.C.9: C'S --' a/2,..2 v4a 4 .,614( ... ;= .Ze2e-■ .. . I., ..„ ' 1 . _ - - ,-:-, .... !:•:,:, ,', ',•.. •,.......•:-...... ••• , -.- . . - ... . . . _ _ -., , _ .. ... _ . • : rt, 1r - • "Lf, r • _,. _ . -.4 - .s- -7: :.; '.1 71'. t , , .,:, " •; 'i '',:: ; , ....;■ - •.%•;.;', . '.',..:' . •:■; ::•.:;:,., `'`- . ••,. -. .;. :.' ,:•: 1111,!, :i• :71.. 4 ; • - i -..- 7-f 4, - . E.7..i . -,-•• -r1 _ -, i • i 1 1, ..s 4 s 0 — — — — - - - - — __ ii fti , �� — 1 S-- — l — . 1 — 5 7 0+1 S' -- 90 T 39 — . - 1 . - c .), 1 -.--)--r1-7■ i -- _,,4` 1 f 7/ • I _! 1 1 -- •, . .... - ° , _. 1 - Y f ` 1 l l JA /-3 1,1 - --y "-3 uu k-t4-r) S 4 /Ec / ' M,1/ �' -- T t 111 _- ....L 01 •2_1_1:;Q ?). , - -' Cain 4...t . ...4. -._ : _ . III Q„ g (°''' F� r _ _ pVvy s s 2 °° a 4 - _ -� -„ , �• _ ;-_ - -- �J jill - -_' _ — ^' I_ _ IlL l o o /— 11 1 -- -4 i , ____ 1210'....10' . ' ri : yt F .,- 6. • !.. i' re-1. : . . lie .= 4 6 1 .".•._. r • ...' , - - /,‘ V .�._ • : ~ Y ,,,. r T Y � I /! • _.. ' t '...-t i _ tad - • -_ -�T i- 0mac/= �y ®'" u _ ��T DoT .i�. ' A /irk ,.-17;0,e /f�.¢.�- • . . ::�;= /yam �/�.� REF ,c,��i . � � { . • , J ' . ��- .• .. arr.;. jr Y�/P X9 I7 L �{ .• - tR _ _ 11111.111__ � • r\ + • J N '•y ,•, -•• - - - ^ - •t•. -may... .• _ _. - _ _ I Z _ - '--' ... -� ��• -te - :.� � �; '• i�_ :. fir- -- - - - - - - -- - _.� - i L ♦Y—''Y /7/ -� ��I' -!"' - /-- ' I- - -./�f ��v • : -•-� ? Fes.. .t�- +..�. -� �t r '__'`„_.- „`-r —._ - ^fit- t'. -- '—Z.—f� -: } , ..'',/ I A . ,4772 Cr- ,. - ----- -----, -,-- s----- ,7--_(-.._ ,..ep-,..30..q. ..z?..7, mss:, ....,_____ __ _ ,_ ‘,... kie : e Q A . 7 - e --".-- 7 ..f f < < Y ' - /,4, .00./.4 4 ":.: ,r7„07-4/4 • l/�ivS�; - r,' ,..,„...•••:„. 2 'f . ... ii ••• .._.,_-_.-_ _ __ "A '- , •- .. -;`. ' - nA,CC,RE F6:1\16.a - ,4,0f,0 -- --7` ,4 , -,,il• ..... ,..,..,. ......-p-, t.,_...i. • : t. . . __ .r+ €� r. > $ f ,, l A Y �t '" _:r '4 `_ �7� ©Q� /_ / / / /f '� / , l ( ' ..S Y • - € - - �.'u. te r' A "I e/d,/,9' 4 /Y■ 4•I ., T _ c AED rc A - o'&. E.- 4 6A-c t -„ „ '� y� ry R. - - fit/ .Y ` Z f.1 ". 1 /' / io , ,,, v , I fi , t - fi W ittA; ; 1 \\ - - �� ,A.-�s - dim 1. 4 C t y 1;, } �,, i77:7 ..,,,.., N 4 A,20 it . } y r � ,t � / /� /� vOL, ti + a mt ►, jrt ` A`" # r f A „ �� a a f ` - iY /v _ ‘,/,‘,04,„ - � C ��t .K-\\..1%.4%.,),... t� 1`. , \ t i V1.4 r . < =i "\ S .a' '4 - - t • „cd t \ t i"r, L :y * . 1,4.-,2 - / V jy �.f tt :�. � . a . �. t! „,,):;:‘,....\,„..,,,n �t) ` fi t - _ t 1 t' +4` 1 �.. i. �.E ,. � r• � •' t ,,�7 `. - a s • r >r vaf t t r C,/ s � /� ,. - , yam; � ,� N- t \x` x jj ” j`. '<' . ., � • . , { ... ' IA ,,," - r -- / - /- -- / L 3 a 1 n.` t Y ', i 4 Q - l -- t , ' \, t + 1 k• t n / .',. , - s- _ ? 1 t ` / = ■ __ Z Lam /y�/ - _rie; e ,,,..41›. mac - � � 1 • . . i � . / .�;t : � i • • ` . n N',, t ♦ - .y. • ••4 : { t _ , ) v 3 t l i t -P - \ ta t tIb i t ` . -3," i - --- _ 1- . ..., . ..... - . -- ..---------_. ' I C I., ) , ...S: 76 4 .6.....c. .- 7 —. / - 0 •= ..s 1 1 .. . ... ... • •. .-.. . .: ..... , . - . • lit7, %re .. . ih , • l *a. . . •■... . . ...6714?7VC S OA 47° cr • : - _• 1 ;41- - ..;=-.. -- -__ - ___ L---__;:._-_ - - - 1: • ---. :- - :.7_ . " --7 .''' . - -- : II - •• ., INE&r" - ::. -.-: ---,- - i. ..,:v . ..„Aliiii 7 •■ . .: 111. , -- , ______ . I... - .b c' .1‹ c-S ) /A -4 So/9-7 : - , 1 .• . -.,.„--- - - ,--......„...,- A> /771 -19.-)e-£ SO - /r • 0 .-Natl... - /e Ai ..,.. YGA7) 0 / 6 A.4.0 , _ _ . - • 1 , • 'i / C:r _ . .. : . 1 t • , I / i E . A . F - az nA R ourr . • .r. ,., - , i. . • , , ( • 1.-., ,.,', ...... _ ...,;--7. . ,......i,„... „.„.. I ..... . „ ii - .- -.4,... •. ..„,,,-1, .,• . •-•'• - _.. _ ■-• Lk. (--`.I I. 9 6, 0 ..., L e...r Alce..4ss Doc.. - ... / I. _ • R..t -H- ifi-N I) (IA 1 iv Do 2.-G___ Dcg - ro _et-r2 - P..._Lc.,t4- s( 0 E . • ....__...........-.......-,---- !. .. . . . . _ . - - . .,- - -- 1 1 _ I 1 1 '': ----- 7 Il I 1 1 .! Ic)77 friejAir / Ci /'d I __7_ a , . Moa eE ,em u. GrJ � . i i i /S 0/21E /o0 7 1 - -P ITY LIN ore 30 �' :.'�,� imaziamialew o v a (Z 4)12.-0-PE-12---7"1 L j u • 1 s = 411'1:...' . A-� . .:: - `' ..� .. :' ' : X"- — - . 4 r - ?a L : .-r .. - - — r - - - J -.1,... t An r---- , kip , "L " I r -. - t -- D , t 5 .51) T L 6 t---) I . _. ' r ,b } �. , n•,. .:,r . - - s .l <' IQ UT� Gras s u ivc-c T - N b w EE,Os L :✓ c A 1 _ _ 1 oo h, . B O19-T - - - .....---..........4.....).-,, __, L. ,..„_____... . . _ ,...... ., i f - ..,..„ ._. iakG- f 0 F Prf ` . _. rte - . . � - . - ' r 7- •. 4 , :j ;: ,.�.�•• - Alm✓ vJ -7 -/- ,c • ~� . r `� . •. '�, ' ` ' • 1 • A � :el- •• + v ,.. . � :.• . ' 1 - .. Y∎ ' • w •� . -_- �/, 7 _i r 1 W � � :t. .,; 0 EXT r. T - ci) ._,*T 30 FT • �-. i � ��. .,L c DT4 5(4.e-1/ELI STf9 -1<E..S ;, `�-,. r. .s. `��• / NJ L' E Sal -ocos Z 061. • '� (,v P-20 I ( 3 O A- 7 • `r ,'. , _ T ' �KTf� O f NJ G $ E q o fv-D ' *At ill �- ' L•, FT Lo-r- Lt ►J E , 1 -- , f i - - -- -_s • . ; ' • � •' ; , Oc cr- o-n 1 -- 3 a P w f oa %* t• . •4 , 4 ' tiO E.---ST LbT 1 NE b�V E I - r - I N,!' '•• ---.. w • , • , , Poo L.N. . P 2.or1l 0 o2f ----- ._� : ; i' `3D F T 1-0 G t'ON .t� -:- ..• 1. C M..., a 'c \r'• ° i f 4 VO VA & S o4 .1aur- ri _i V } 1 ; 1 , � a e�p.� Residential Building Contractor L 3630 Virginia Avenue, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 (612) 473 -5293 1 July 28, 1987 1 To Whom it may concern; I My name is Joe Boyer I In 1964 I purchased the 16 acres on Lake Minnewashta now known as Sterling Estates. I lived in the large stone estate house with my family 1 and developed the remaining acreage into 15 single family lats. Six of the lots were on private lakeshore and the remaining were I off shore w /deeded lake access. There were no restrictions at that time regarding the number of boat docks and we sold the lots giving the owner the understanding that each homesite could have dock space for 1 boat at the outlot. We envisioned boats of 16' to 17' runabout size at the most with no boat lifts. The outlot was 60' wide at the shoreline. I expressley know that in 1967 there were always 2 docks, 1 each 60' long, and with 4 boats anchored to the docks at all times. At that time there were only two (2) offshore houses in the area, I one of them being mine. . How can city expect to reneg on a plat that has been in effect for 20 years with theirinew amended ordinance? I think it is I grossly unfair. These homeowners have a deeded right to this space. Sincerel• , 1 • Joe Boyer 1 1 . II i f Twin City Medical, Inc. 1 I 2344 NICOLLET AVE. S. #60 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55404 (612) 871 -3375 II June 24, 1987 II I Jim Hofin 3220 Dartmouth Excelsior, MN 55331 I RE: Dock at Excelsior Dear Mr. Hofin, II . When we purchased our home from Joe Boyer.in 1975, one of the main things that we were interested in was lake access. Joe pointed out that there were ten lots not located on the lake front. The out lake access was II in his name and he paid the taxes. Those ten lots were non - lakefront lots. At that time we purchased four of those lots including the one that the house was on. . 1 At the time of purchase in 1975, the only two homeowners were Walmans and ourselves at which point Peter Walman owned a dock. He subsequently sold that. I purchased a new one and he contributed one half towards I the purchase of that. Since then, as you are well aware, the lots have been developed. During the period of time that I still lived there, 3oe's son -in -law's house as well as the white house were built and they II had an opportunity to use that lot although they did not dock a boat. The feeling was as the lots were developed and the people wanted to put a boat in, Peter and I would extend the dock and they would parti- II cipate in the cost of the dock; installation of it and removal in the fall. That lot was designed for the use of those non - lakefront home- owners. It was certainly also used as an access by others to put their boats in and so forth, but only by the people that lived in that area. II The expenses to have anything done to it were then shared by the non - lakefront owners. I I hope this helps to clarify your position. If I can be of any more help please do not hesitate to call me. Again, in summary, the out lot was to serve the non - lakefront homeowners designated on those, I II believe, ten lots. Si = ely, II . . I II Michael S. Holloway MHS /jmt II �, F f f 40 at. �. .� �. , yt . . + . I.. , '. • �y, jam_ j Y I q s._p C. A) \ 111 , , tAt , • / Jan �as� k g\vd. \ .83265 6 M' MN 553 W ayZata•4 3.1326 (612) I 90 i 7 1 1 Jim Hofer 3220 Dartmouth Drive II Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 To whom it may concern: From 1970 -1981 I was the resident of 3211 Dartmouth Drive on Lake 1 Minnewashata. Our lot was purchased from Joe Boyer and our home was bulit by him. The area directly on our beach had ori- I ginnaly had a dock on it.. We were told however that we probably could not put a dock there as the cattle had grazed there in the past and the lake bottom was so mucky. We found posts there I as we built our beach. It was suggested to us at that time that we would probably have to put our boats over at the access area as that is where the Boyers kept their boats they 1' -- the old Boutell Estate. The Boyers kept can and Aralliop type metal boat over at a dock on the acc a ski ' :!•oat was I about 18 feet long. Al Schnur''s family also kept a ki boa and t at the access dock. In later years Mike Holloway I and Pete alman enhanced the dock and other boats were kept there. It was my understanding when we built our home that the access II area was to be used for the purpose of having the boats for those who were not directly on thelake. ( Why would anyone build there if this was not the case) Of course that was the Boyer's idea when they subdividing the land) F As I recall the beach area looked like this picture. . (*---j-1 / Most Sincerely, 1, �--- I Alb F--",--,......_ " jr.741P-Igl' :- r _ 1 __ _______ ' , ,,,, y� . ,,,,I. ti), ter \.........L. ,,........,-......-- 41 „ J 1 � r C __ 1 r I ct , ca. ... „,,, 1 1 I..■ o N v. I fir f , . ' prive / Veal v j, N 55345 Niinne 474.4058 August 13, 1986 II g4 II To Whom it may concern... I was a resident in Sterling estates for nearly 12 years. The I Builder of my home there was Joe Boyer. We arrived in 1969 and were aware of the right of way which was to be used for those not living directly on the lake. II This is how I remember the dock situation. /,7 Boutell Estate had a dock there I r Boyers put a dock in the place of the old Boutell Pilings. "" Boyer Dock was made of long carpenter boards..2 wide and then posts... two more and more posts... It was rough and went about three lengths out. 11 At that time the Boyers kept their boats there...one canoe and a metal boat they pulled skiers with. I Al Schnur built and moved into what is now Walman's home. Al kept a ski boat at the wood dock. Al Shnur sold to Walman. 1 Boyers moved. Holloway bought...the Boyer home Mike Holloway expressed the need to make the Dock... "Look Good" Walman and Holloway... fixed the crummy dock and had a dock builder build a "Good Looking" dock at which the boats could be kept. I At one time we (Jim and Janie Jasin were asked to contribute to the upkeep and mowing of this right of way since (like the entrance) we were "All" owners of this strip. We weren't too keen on II doing the upkeep as we felt we had our own shore to work on. However we did mow and kep"the area raked along what is now Ray Roettger property. We did this because of the weeds washing ashore... the smell and wanting it to look nice. I Ray Roettger moved in. He added Rip Rap for his shore and put giant rocks into the mud to hold the level of lawn. We experianced lots of washout due to the fact that this entire II area had been low land and the dredging actually was our back yard. Enclosed find pictures of that time. II I did always know however that the property there was to be used by those "off of the Lake" Sincerely, 4 .. 1 , I C-z-_0 • _ I , --� • . . , si 0 ...„....,..f. i npriprirt ..„,...., 1 r, :7417;A • ,• A ,t, %4i ' 1 r • - „L ) j V 1....)i / . . - 1 ".......\ l l...) .. ' ;.../ - • j j d ; ri : j..) • ) \\' , , fai , ..... i 1 ' • I . ' Ss Inv • i mil . • - -' .- - -- - " 1E- . '----- .1) • . ....I I • i _.,..... • , • . . "ft - _ . - II i , . . 1 , • , . 1 . . . .. . ... i ; • , . •..... , ..., 0 _ - ...., . . „. . .. . . ...,. , , • .. .,,,......„,„• ........ .......... ,.. , V t • WI: . - . on. - I ...- .6 - .0. lit . . • . • .. • — - • •• 1. - ' -A..... : . ..... 44 . . . , .„, • . , _ .. , ....- - ..... • - ,. - ," —.: - , • - ••• - # - ' r f- - " R . - A - i • . - i.- 7 . ... • . t ..,, .. ..., ...JEW • . - . • JOSEPH N..p0-: - IL, • • - • - .. _ _• ....... - . - _ . :. ,. - i • ...., .... ........ . .,, ... ....,..----,. .,...„..„.. ____ .. .„...„--:, ••••,.,,,,.= ... • , • _ . . ..„.., fvn-v-iff7 :,,r ..„=„. •_ _ .... ir.,...., .,.... ., •-.=1,._•,... ,,,,..: :.-, -. 4 P k -ekr — :--:'-' . .' - . . '• - - . . , -7 - : ' 4. 1' . `•1 .• ..- • ... • .11.4, -IP -..""" • - -r ` , 4i er 40 *At . I I • - _• . . , --,... ' ` • t I: a . - ., -. N- •-• - -4 / ' - . ,.... : - . • •i ' - -'. - r: "' :- r 1 ,,,... e,„..,•,...,......e, ..... , ...,,,, ......:,,..„.....,,,,,...,...„.„. .., ....,:. 7 . I UP' e.r" N '""" 4 - . • :: ..."5 ' • ., „ ... , : '44, ;--- I* ...,_. •-• ....7 , _.....-- . : .. ri :. ._ le : j. . 1r. '1 a, 4411: - . 21414, _ft eTilre*.'. ''' l ..1 : „.... :' ,. -:- m i i % . • . ' • . ,. • 4 . . . . • .......,11" l• C :, i' ' *-- , ./J• .• . - - , .• '. _"a 1.. - .7.'" .. - • ? .,,, .* :. .• I- 5 • V .• 1pil■ ' A l * • .41 11..• ' ' ...). ,.. • /1 . . .' - .1 • 4' ',. . ''' c.f. - r; "-•• • ' • -,- * — . - "... rIF .*• ' . . ''.. 4 l f . • - ":••■• . • ' 4- ' - '4 ' 1, • •- . ••• -- - 1 e - -11 in .; ... . ' I - ' ; •-■ , •4 - • ., ..r4A v -- , - -_ .. , , • s'44 e A . • .. . e - li.... - _ 4•100-- _ " 1 . RA Ai 1 si _ I g na 1 1 .-_. - -4 -•04.-1• .-..... ., ..! 2--•S To • . _. • e . . , 9 -5 • .-‘,.. A : • te '4 _ ,•„...... ,• ‘• ... ,. 1 • , t-,--4,...-.....-- -2 .... .... _,.._••:.A...._..••••,,,,,,.,,..•_•,._..,•• .•_ ..„•_•••._.:. , -I • . ... „..,...._,.....„ 1.-""' • .,. ...i -..- ilg „,•4,...". . -rfi,-,.--13,-,i ■ 71-...:._- -- 24 - - - - :a-z7 AtZ et' -''; le1/4711" . • -.-, ....., ......v: - .. 1 ,,,,... -IL. , :,....%;. ..,_, _._'. ,... .....- . . ••■• ..f '.... ' '' 1 / . Alg - " _NVt..., - 1 , . , ,P.A..›ft..r. ._ a . , : ''''' -.■. --... , "•kt.t . 4" .. • .. '--- 4 - -:- . ..Z'"' s. ,-- , • 4 -r, -.--- 41.0 ' ' . - ^ . . : . . . ' 7 1 , :;;; * ?" '' A "- ' ''.. '1+:11:C4%64'41 r -t 1 ' S' ' . . , • 4 - V • ••'. * . • . ' ' . . '*: .^ • 1 -.-----.- —. " • , j)/ . il II I , v. • l\-- , . I L..;k/9...c., • . . 4 , I ..„ ..,..-, 1 ......:',) I I • / . I , .... -._ I 1 , )11/ ■ - . cr.... . , , CA , i \ A, '..), , i .,... , 1 ... _._ _ I , !'/ i r k \. I / i --- ■ 1 •At . lit ' . ; I II ..../ ....., ":-... - z.dw-tiNs. - ... '9041, -;... 4 k . 4; ; .., - ' 6 ' . : - V . :.• .- ‘46. '4 - •*- et. - , • _. , __--,:. -. X.._Ail yiv ii( r :. • .-... .. • . •-...-.,.. . -..., , • . ,.„..:,,-- : • ,,, , s . I : .., s .. _ . .......... , ....- .4a 7 - ,r,,A., ... - •?" 1.4 i • / ' . • - - ' 1: I. --mi '-*.r.' - . ' ' ' '1 44% 7 Y 1 . : . L - . - , r nn- - t • ' .. . - _ . , , _•,,7. . i ..`'' .:.- - 1 . •,, 1 • -fi- -..._-- -: • ' 1 9 . :_ :`,!-:" -, :if , . ..,. , ... ;. • '-- . • . . '-'-_ : - *•. - . , *'', 1 . . . :-.... . ' -4 : k • - li 1 I \ , - 1 1 June 22, 1988 1 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCREN: We, Joe AND Eileen Boyer, are the developers of the sub - division 1 known as "Sterling Estates" in the village of Chanhassen. The 15 acres was purchAsed by us in May of 1964. Situated on it was a large stonelhouse which we and our family occupied, and a carraige house which was used for garage and storage. After the first year of residence we proceeded to sub - divide the acreage. It consisted of approval of all plot plans and documents in both Carver and Hennepin counties. So the final approved sub- division of 16 lots came about, and with each parcel was a deeded "Building and Use Restrictions ". In the restrictions it was stip- ulated that each and every homeowner in Sterling Estates has equal ingress and egress of the lake by way of deeded Outlot which they were paying property taxes on each year. In and before 1981 the only off -shore lots sold and occupied were ours, Joe AND Eileen Boyers, and Alvin and Betty Schnur: We each built and maintained a dock. We had a 18! Starcraft run -a -bout and a 11 fishing boat plus a canoe and several other small boats off and on. Our run -a -bout and fishin: boat were docked in the lake alwa's and the canoe and other boats .art time. The Se urs a. a p easure boat .oc e. ere plus various smal •oats. Jim Jason who II built a home on lake front used Schnurs dock 2 summer is boats while he was finishing his shore ne an an scapin One of the main purposes for buying and settling in this area was the availability of the lake, the right of dockage and mooring of boats, our deeded part ownership of Outlot 1 which contained 60' of shoreline originally, as well as the responsibility of paying taxes and maintaining the Outlot. With all of this in mind, we stand firm that our intentions as well as the stipulations in the "Building and Use Restrictions" desreve to be honored to the people of this sub - division by the City of Chanhassen whose council approved the sub- division plans and restrictions 1 Yours truly, /v Alk • o - r PAIN' — P • / / "S' / ileen F. Boyer 1 1 1 1 1 year lot # name address sent result 68 1 -2 Schur no listing - 1 75 1 -2 Walman 6220 Barberry 4/3 75 1-4,5,6,8 Holloway? 1172 keystone, Lakeville 4/3 11 0 -0∎A 77 1 -3 Morten 5045 Shady Is., Shorewood4 /3 a.�_ 77 1 -1 Martenson no listing - 79 1 -3 Adams no listing - 80 1 -1 Shearer 1405 Park, Orono 4/3 -.�.� 80 1 -1 Roettger 3221 Dartmouth 4/3 81 1 -5,6 Bigos 4820 Hwy 7, SLP 4/3 A 4—rancel 1 82 1 -3 Emmitt no listing - 77 2-2 Carlson 11679 NE 3rd, Blaine 4/3 1 77 2 -1 Roy 3110 Dartmouth 4/3 79 2 -2 Peterson 435 Water, Exc, 4/3 1 68 3-4 Mager no listing - 69 3 -3 Merz 3201 Dartmouth 4/3 1 69 3 -2 Jasin 19108 G7earview, Mtka. 4/3 ^ rw e 73 3-4 Ginther no listing - 75 3 -5 Fiedler 3121 Dartmouth 4 /10 1 76 3-6 Boche 7213 Gloucester, Edina 4/10 81 3 - -6 Steinberg 3111 Dartmouth 4/10 aliA,4 1 65 misc Boyer 4/10 1 1 1 1 1 1 jsu-Lt, I ' VV II April 3,1988 Dear II The City of Chanhassen has asked us to verify the level of usage of dock moorings and outlot at 144! the Sterling Estates outlot in 1981 and before. II Based on this information we may be able to , continue our usage of the outlot. Therefore I would like to hear from you 44111/!. II about: a) any family boats you had moore there,or b) if you are aware of other boats t r were moored there. II If you have any pictures of the outlot or lakefront taken prior to 1981 I would like to see them. I will return them to you as soon as 1 )6(ft tO 54 , possible. (VI Please respond directly to me; i Jim Hofer 44 : 1 1,X _,,,,„. . ' 11 fr 3220 Dartmouth Dr. Excelsior, Mn. 55331 ' 1 // f' 4/ Thank you for your time and interest. (:: # I I Regards, ` , fiktj 05 Nit& ) e ,.",N: . 1 - ps2e.„._ ,..,...„) ,....,___. . �•, 1 A c • 4.100, i i 1 ate`` i ttiv i k) % pi • 4 ' \. \ * A 41) t 1 , A )iti,. . '3 adi itie\fi4F:Y'Pe'liviiii V ia t.�� i P fi al _ ��, ►� c► N 7 ∎ mo C: K- ; It- r /IPA" J � = �� :i`'Lti� R � NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING . 1 11106 i41rip, ) , ri:%?: v i fii ivo tti 7, r S rl i n PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGt 5 w w *I a „ Wednesday, July 7, 1993 - 7:30 P.M. ° (;. LAKE City Hall Council Chambers W � LAKE (� 7 690 Coulter Drive • � M/ N N E w A S N T A � i REGIONAL I Project: Boyers Sterling Estates Non- Conforming Use Permit 5 l AJ , _______ _____ for a Recreational Beachlot �l 'a ' i - �� r Developer: Boyers Sterling Estates r P Y g ' � Homeowners AssociationL .'.�, lib D. V ,p4 441 Location: Lake Minnewashta _ (_ I � .... __, , , ;; Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Boyers Sterling Estates Homeowners Association has applied for a non- 111 conforming use permit for their recreational beachlot. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform I you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: I 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 1 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. I Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the please meeting, Q Y P g P I stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson at 937 -1900. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department I in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 24, 1 1993. 1 HANSON HELEN M ANDING CHESTER LOBITZ II ARTMOUTH DR 1708 EAST 57TH STREET 3637 SO CEDAR IOR, MN 55331 ,, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55417 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 GUENTHER NICHOLAS F HAWLEY ANDREW L JENSEN ' OGWOOD T 1920 SO 1ST STREET 3705 SO CEDAR IOR, MN 55331 APT 1 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 54 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55454 S E ELY BLAKE HORTON CLIFF PEDERSEN OGWOOD 3711 SO CEDAR 3713 SO CEDAR 1 IOR, MN 55331 r, EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 NTINGTON II EIDE TIM SCHWEIZER DOGWOOD 3719 SO CEDAR BOX 115 -IOR, MN 55331 53 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 NORWOOD, MN 55368 II EITNER RAFAEL FERNANDEZ DANIEL HERBST II ' OGWOOD 7620 CRIMSON BAY ROAD 7640 CRIMSON BAY ROAD .IOR, MN 55331 53 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 1 MITCHELL PATRICK BAUER FRED C HYDE II ) OGWOOD '^ 7404 FRONTER TRAIL 3740 PURITAN DR ;IOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRUNSWICK, OH 44212 1 DRESSLER ROBERT J ROY DONALD SUEKER II DOGWOOD = 3110 DARTMOUTH DR 3111 DARTMOUTH DR ;IOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 W. OAS TED I BIGOS JOSEPH BOYER ' OGWOOD 3221 HIGHWAY 7 3630 VIRGINIA AVENUE .IOR, MN 55331 ;3 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 WAYZATA, MN 55391 II M QUIST ETAL THOMAS MERZ STEVE MARTIN II ) OGWOOD 3201 DARTMOUTH DR 3211 DARTMOUTH DR IOR, MN 55331 ;3; EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 II BRANDY II PAULA ROETTGER PAULA S ROETTGER DOGWOOD ROAD 3221 DARTMOUTH DR 3221 DARTMOUTH DR ;ior, MN 55331 ,,s, EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 II II JOSEPH BOYER THEODORE BIGOS KENNETH C DURR 1 3630 VIRGINIA AVENUE 3221 HIGHWAY 7 4830 WESTGATE ROAD WAYZATA, MN 55391 Excelsior, MN 55331 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 1 RICHARD ZWEIG ROBERT W HEBEISEN THOMAS WRIGHT 11360 IRONWOOD 3607 IRONWOOD 3611 IRONWOOD 1 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 II DONNA HOELKE JOSEPH W MITLYNG SCOTT GAUER 3621 IRONWOOD 3800 LONE CEDAR LANE 3820 LONE CEDAR LANE II EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 "JOSEPH STASNEY ARNOLD HED STEPHEN VONBEVERN 3840 LONE CEDAR LANE 3860 LONE CEDAR LANE PO BOX 874 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ' ARNOLD HED GARY MECUS JAMES LIPE 3860 LONE CEDAR LANE 3861 LONE CEDAR LANE 3880 LONE CEDAR LANE CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 1 DANIEL HUDSON MICHAEL A JUREWICZ GORDON FREEBURG , 3881 LONE CEDAR LANE 3890 LONE CEDAR LANE 3891 LONE CEDAR LANE CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 DAN PETERJOHN JOEL ANDERSON JOHN FERM 3892 LONE CEDAR LANE 3894 LONE CEDAR LANE 3895 LONE CEDAR LANE " CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 "JEROME S AHLMAN DAVID TESTER TERRANCE JOHNSON 3896 LONE CEDAR LANE 3897 LONE CEDAR LANE 3898 LONE CEDAR LANE " CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 ( JOHN MERZ RAYMOND BERRY GERALD KELLY 3900 LONE CEDAR LANE 3830 MAPLE SHORES DR 3841 MAPLE SHORES DRIVE CHASKA, MN 55318 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 1 11 GERALD E BARBER EAGLE FOOD CENTERS INC SCOTT HOWARD 2201 STREET ANDREWS CIRCLE PO BOX 6700 3861 MAPLE SHORES DR BETTENDORF, IA 52722 ROCK ISLAND, IL 61204 Excelsior, MN 55331 1 1 GERALD BARBER SUSAN L JASIN BRADLEY D. STRAKA II 2201 STREET ANDREWS CIRCLE 425 CHAN VIEW #312 3881 MAPLE SHORES DR BETTENDORF, IA 52722 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 1 BARBARA SCOULER LANCE PARROW /MARY KRASKY LANCE PARROW 3890 MAPLE SHORES DR 38000 CAMDEN STREET #106 1652 CHURCH LAKE ROAD II Excelsior, MN 55331 FREMONT, CA 94536 VICTORIA, MN 55386 1 DENNIS W SHAFER KIRK EDWARDS TIM JENZER 3901 MAPLE SHORES DR 3911 MAPLE SHORES DR 3920 MAPLE SHORES DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 II DAVID B. FREE THOMAS GIESEN KEN DURR II 3921 MAPLE SHORES DR 3930 MAPLE SHORES DR 4830 WESTGATE ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 1 KEN DURR MR DANA JOHNSON TIMOTHY COLLERAN 1 4830 WESTGATE ROAD 50 PLEASANT LANE W 6560 MINNEWASHTA PKWY MINNETONKA, MN 55345 TONKA BAY, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 II KENNETH LUND CHARLES F. ANDING THOMAS ALLENBURG II 395 HWY. 7 6601 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6621 MINNEWASHTA PKWY EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 1 DALE MENTEN ZOE BROS JAMES AND JEAN WAY 6630 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6631 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6641 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 1 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 1 LEE ANDERSON JAMES LARKIN ROBERT M. JOSEPHS 6651 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6671 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6701 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 1 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 HARVEY L SOBEL THOMAS MCRAITH DEL SCHOTT II 1331 HILLSIDE DR 7028 RED CEDAR COVE 7034 RED CEDAR COVE RENO, NV 89503 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 1 PATRICIA A BIXLER AURETHA J SMITH GARY NELSON II 7038 RED CEDAR COVE REKORP FINANCIAL 7048 RED CEDAR COVE Excelsior, MN 55331 PO BOX 343 Excelsior, MN 55331 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 1 1 RALPH KARCZEWSKI WARREN RIETZ DAVID C. PRILLAMAN 054 RED CEDAR COVE 7058 RED CEDAR COVE 7064 RED CEDAR COVE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 II ERNARD GAYTKO ROBERT E BOYER RED CEDAR COVE ASSN. 068 RED CEDAR COVE 7074 RED CEDAR COVE PAT KAREZEWSKI xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 7054 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 II RED CEDAR COVE ASSN JOHN MANEY DONALD W BITTERMANN I C PRILLAMAN 7078 RED CEDAR COVE 7085 RED CEDAR COVE 064 RED CEDAR COVE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 "LOUIS GUTHMUELLER LURA L GENZ JAMES HOFER 7095 RED CEDAR COVE 7096 RED CEDAR COVE 7098 RED CEDAR COVE i xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ,TIMOTHY FISHER RICHARD SCHLENER T.J. SCHWABA 099 RED CEDAR COVE MINNCAST 3603 RED CEDAR POINT DR Excelsior, MN 55331 200 NE SO COMMERCE CIR. Excelsior, MN 55331 II FRIDLEY, MN 55432 ( DUG ANDERSON PAUL W LARSON LUMIR PROSHEK 607 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3609 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3613 RED CEDAR PT. xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 II MARK BROECKERT NANCY RADDOHL EMIL SOUBA 113616 RED CEDAR POINT REMAX RESULTS 14025 VALE COURT HANHASSEN, MN 55331 332 SECOND STREET EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 I S TEVE KEUSEMAN ERIC BAUER BIRUTA M. DUNDURS 3622 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3624 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3627 RED CEDAR POINT DR E xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 1 INDA JOHNSON TOM PARADISE RICHARD COMER 3629 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3755 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3800 RED CEDAR POINT DR li xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ROBERT OSBORNE BERNARD LEACH EDWARD ALLERMAN 815 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3820 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3821 RED CEDAR POINT DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 II II JAMES GULSTRAND KENNETH SMITH HORACE LEACH 1 3831 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3837 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3840 RED CEDAR POINT DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 II KEVIN CLARK GARY COBB LOUIS ZAKARIASEN II 3841 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3859 RED CEDAR POINT DR 3861 RED CEDAR POINT DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 II JAMES CONNOR ROBERT BAUER RONALD STEVENS II 3901 RED CEDAR POINT DR 2700 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2720 SANDPIPER TRAIL Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 II RICHARD NEWMAN FRANK SCOTT DAVID JAMESON 2721 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2730 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2731 SANDPIPER TRAIL II Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsi.or, MN 55331 HARLAN NINOW STEPHEN HUGHES MARK KINNICH II 2740 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2741 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2750 SANDPIPER TRAIL Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 II DOUG ROPER R HINDERAKER HOWARD SCHMIDT II 2751 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2800 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2810 SANDPIPER TRAIL Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 II TOM SHOENECKER A M WEIMERSKIRCH HENRY NEUMANN II 2820 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2831 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2841 SANDPIPER TRAIL Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 II WILLIAM NAEGELE RALPH HEGMAN BARBARA WINTHEISER 4300 BAKER ROAD 6361 MINNEWASHTA WOODS DR 3321 SHORE DR MINNETONKA, MN 55343 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 II FLORENCE BISCHOFF WILLIAM MCDANIEL D QNALD CARSIK I 3331 SHORE DR 3341 SHORE DR 3342 SHORE DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 II F DENTON WHITE HENRY ARNESON ANN OLSEN II 3351 SHORE DR 3401 SHORE DR COLDWELL BANKERS BEST Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 17601 HIGHWAY 7 II MINNETONKA, MN 55345 II " RUTH AHLCRONA D POSTHUMUS TUSSEY JODE PROPERTIES 3420 SHORE DR 3421 SHORE DR 21020 RADISSON ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 II DAVE ANDERSON MORRIS MULLIN FRANCIS FABER ' 3441 SHORE DR 3451 SHORE DR 3471 SHORE DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 II RICHARD WING PER JACOBSON HERB PFEFFER 3481 SHORE DR 2840 TANAGERS LANE 2850 TANAGERS LANE "Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 'JIM SENST GENE FURY IVAN MIELKE 2820 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2821 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2830 WASHTA BAY ROAD 'Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ' KRISTEN ORTLIP LESLIE MICHEL JEANNINE HUBBARD 2831 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2840 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2841 WASHTA BAY ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 HAZEL ANDERSON HARRY NIEMELA JOHN SCHUMACHER 2851 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2901 WASHTA BAY ROAD 428 SO MISSISSIPPI RIVER Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ST PAUL, MN 55105 II WAYNE HOLZER GLADYS FERM NORMAN CASPERSON I 2911 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2920 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2921 WASHTA BAY ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 , WILLIAM J KILBY ALAN TOLLEFSON WILLIAM KILBY 2930 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2931 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2930 WASHTA BAY ROAD ,Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 "GLENN COPPERSMITH GEORGE HOCK KELLY SHEEHAN 2941 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2950 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2951 WASHTA BAY ROAD ,Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 II II II Ted I. Bigos , ( Robert & J. Roy Steven C. Hall 3221 Hwy. 7 W. , � 3101 Dartmouth Drive L C 6221 Arbor Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 k Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 i Paula S. Roettger Stephen & Karen Martin , 1 � C9' James & C. Ginther 1 3221 Dartmouth Drive 3211 Dartmouth Drive , • 3131 Dartmouth Driv [[��" Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 i Joseph & Susan Fiedler Donald & Cherlyn Sueker , l° Joseph & E. Boye . 1 3121 Dartmouth Drive 3111 Dartmouth Drive 3630 Virginia " ve. • Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 1 Wayzataa`MN 55391 John & Lori Weber ' l.* ' Peter & J. Walman William & Mary Readel 3220 Dartmouth Drive �l' 6220 Barberry Circle 6210 Barberry Circle 1 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 1 Michael & Marie Determan 6211 Barberry Circle I Excelsior, MN 55331 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I/ Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 11 information that we need to know. Ultimately I would think that the I Council's going to want to know the same thing. Olsen: Right. I request it. We don't receive it. II Conrad: It really goes back to, how do you want to leverage this situation to make him come into compliance with some of the things. He's never in compliance, and that's a generalization. On some things he's not in ' compliance and you know, then we've got to figure out how to get him there and if we're comfortable going over some ordinance, we're basically giving him more than what the ordinance gives. II Olsen: We process an application that is incomplete too. Ledvina: Are you ready for a motion? II Conrad: Wait, any other questions? Comments? Anything? Yeah. II Ledvina: Okay, I would move that the Swings Interim Use Permit be tabled until such time that sufficient conditions can be developed to define the operation and the terms of the permit. Also, taking into account the comments that Diane had made. And also, Paul touched on it briefly. If I staff feels it's worthwhile to get an opinion from the attorney regarding the situation of continuing this or even expanding this activity when we might have to take it at a later date by whatever public authority we have I for right -of -way, we should know about that and we should have an opinion on that as well. Conrad: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. II Conrad: Thanks Nancy. Any discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table the Interium Use Permit for Swings until such time that sufficient conditions can be developed to define the operation and the terms of the permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried. II PUBLIC HEARING: NON- CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR BOYERS STERLING ESTATES HOMEOWNERS II ASSOCIATION RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. Public Present: Name Address Scott Remmke 3221 Dartmouth Drive II Paula Roettger 3220 Dartmouth Drive Stephen C. Martin 3211 Dartmouth Drive Lori Weber 3220 Dartmouth Drive I Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive Arvid Oas 3230 Dartmouth Drive Planning Commission Meeting 1 July 7, 1993 - Page 12 Name Address II Joe & Eileen Boyer 3630 Virginia Avenue, Deephaven II Robert & Joleen Roy 3110 Dartmouth Drive Thomas Merz 3201 Dartmouth Drive Don & Cheri Sueker 3111 Dartmouth Drive I Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. II Rob Roy: My name is Rob Roy. I live at 3110 Dartmouth Drive. I am not the applicant. Ted Bigos was the applicant. There's a couple issues right , away that I would address. I do not live on the lake. I think it is inappropriate for that outlot to be utilized as a boat launch. I'm not sure what the beachiot application is. I've noticed there were other II notices about this situation from Kathryn. I was not made aware of this until just recently, and if I was I would have had the neighbors get together to discuss this a little bit and at least we could come to some sort of consensus anyway. But I think the, for a boat launch it's II inappropriate and I think if there can be anything done, and I don't know if the city can do this or not, but to stop any vehicular traffic on that outlot. The problem I see is there's a storm sewer that runs at the end of , the outlot and I don't know if the city would want anything there that. I know the Heights have put in posts to stop ingress and egress by cars, and I'm not too sure that the Association shouldn't do the same thing on that particular outlot. Just from the standpoint of even in the wintertime II people running across the property and then the Lakeshore homeowners property also just to get onto lake access. And dragging ice houses out. Going back to the 1981, I find it very difficult to find that a snapshot of 1981 was the number of boats was then became the basis of decision. We had 11 documentation and letters from the former owners that there was at one point 5 boats down there. Okay, now this goes back to people that lived there and who had moved before this issue ever became an issue. That we II had wrote and tracked them down in Florida and so forth to find out how many boats at one time were down at that outlot. So driving by in 1981 to take a snapshot and determine how many boats should or should not be there, II I find very difficult and I guess that's what we're trying to resolve tonight. The original intent I believe of the City, going back to the original platting of the property was to allow an outlot which would allow II people to have access to the lake. Whether that's an established marina or not. I know there's excessive marinas around Lake Minnewashta that are not exactly picturesque. But with 10 outlots, the availability of at least 4 boats on a current dock would allow two small boats and two, let's say 19 11 foot boats into that area. I don't think that is excessive. I'm not sure what the definition however of a beachlot is. I'm not too sure people want to swim where a storm sewer drain is in that particular area but I think the utilization of the property and the original intent of the builder was II to allow, as the land had been developed in 1981 or 19 whenever the land was developed, had it developed all at once he would have had a marina II there. Now you have 10 lots, I believe it's 10. 9 lots that are off the lake but should have some access to boat useages. Conrad: Thanks Rob. Any other comments? 1 II II Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 13 Joe Boyer: I'm Jo Boyer. I'm the original developer of that area and the inal develo J y e B y g p intent in 1966 -67, when we developed that property, was to have lake access I for the 10 inside lots. And at that time I think we had that in our covenants. We had at one time 3 boats of my own. One of the people I built for, Al Schnurr had 2 boats there and that was in the 1960's. But we I never envisioned, ever, that people from the adjoining area could shut down our lake access, or that anybody else could change the covenants to shut out the inside subdivision owners. I still don't understand how you can cut people out of their lake access when it's, it was accepted in the original plan. In the original covenants. Conrad: The point tonight, that's a fairly, we could discuss that item. I Is to bring out how can you? The reason there are controls is because there were abuses and that's why the controls went in, especially in '81. That's when the ordinance went it that basically froze the use and that's II where we're here tonight to do. Not really to debate the wisdom of that use. Or that ordinance but trying to assess the 1981 status so that we can tell the owners what to expect. The only other thing that any beachlot ' owners or recreation beachlot owners should know. The current restrictions are fairly significant. And they're for a reason. It's a pretty good reason but that's, again we're not debating that tonight. Not debating what you did in the 60's. We're trying to figure out what a fair level of I use was in '81 and to set that and therefore we kind of, and we've done this to 16, well we've done it to every unconforming beachlot in the city and we're almost" - wrapping it up right now. II Joe Boyer: Well that lakeshore access was kind of utilized and brutalized I'm afraid by some adjacent property owners you know. And when we originally put that access in Archie Carter, the engineer for the City of I Chanhassen, and Bill Schoell, who is my engineer, for my subdivision. Schoell and Madsen. Agreed that since we had so much water drainage over the area, and sewer drainage from all of the properties in the adjacent II area, it was best to drain the water out on the surface of the ground. MI When the lake was up, a below ground culvert would be full of water anyway, as it is now. It's useless. The only drainage they have is surface ' drainage. So somewhere along the line the City of Chanhassen was either coerced or sold a bill of goods on how on a below ground drainage that is almost lakeshore anyway you know. And the original plan was all drainage was surface drainage on a blacktop surface. It was a 3 inch rock lake ' access area. A base for the lake access where people could launch their own boats and then would have a common dock where they could each have a small boat. Minnewashta was never really, as we thought, intended to have II 240 horse 18 foot ski boats in it you know. Minnewashta really is about a 5 or 10 horse motor lake. You should think about that. But anyway, I just think that the people who bought into my subdivision have fully expected to I have lake access as the covenants provided. Like a 16 foot motor boat or whatever. At least a fishing boat. I don't think the adjacent property owners should have the right of cutting them out of that. II Conrad: Okay, thanks. Other comments. Mary Jo Moore: Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive. I've been before you I many times on this issue and I come again. This time it's very personal to me because I'm one of the adjacent property owners. I'm just west of this Planning Commission Meeting i July 7, 1993 - Page 14 beachlot, which has been in contention really since '78 when Mike Holloway put in this dock. It's probably the largest dock in the area. I am not trying to deny access to the lake. I am trying to deny boats out this lot II which is about 40 feet. It was in '86 when my complaint was filed. There was a survey done and it was 40 feet, as I understand at the water line. That's not sufficient. I, as a property owner on the lake bought the best house I could afford with one criteria that it be on the lake. I have 120 feet. I am restricted to 3 boats. Maximum on that property. I pay high taxes. Why should 10 people who are off the lake be able to have more boats on 40 feet of property and this large dock does encroach in the dock setback zone. Now I think there's adequate documentation in the files that there were two boats grandfathered in, in spite of the fact that this was not a legal dock or boat. There were two boats in '81 and one dock and that II was grandfathered in. However, when Jim Hoffer moved out of the area, the useage dropped to one boat which is now Tim Bigos, who is the applicant for this. Under the grandfathering law, if useage drops for a significant number of years, in fact I think it's only one year, then you lose the right. It's use it or lose it. So I really think at a maximum there should be one boat and I also request this L section be removed from the dock setback zone. And I have written a letter and outlined my position. I would like to get rid of the whole thing. The city really has eliminated the boat launching, has eliminated the swimming by installation of that storm sewer, which I objected to also because it's direct drainage of all the fertilizer and salt and everything directly into the lake. That was not my doing. I to it and I had the City people out to see what was happening to the lake in that area because of that storm sewer. Now it is not accessible as a boat launch or a swimming beach. Like Joe said, who II wants to swim when the storm sewer's dumping into the lake. At any rate, I request that you deny this permit. I think it's illegal. In fact the other residents in Sterling Estates were advised of this permit request... joint decision to have a boat or a dock down there from this association. So I request that it be denied and at a very minimum one dock, no L, one boat. Thank you. Conrad: Other comments? Other people? Before you get back, anybody else? P Y , Y Y We'll give other folks a chance to talk first. Lori Weber: I'm Lori Weber. I live at 3220 Dartmouth Drive and that is the home directly across from this outlot that we're talking about this evening. As Mary Jo mentioned, there's only been one boat docked down there since Hoffer's moved out of the area. We replaced Hoffer's. We also bought a home that was the most we could financially afford and unfortunately it didn't allow us to buy a boat immediately. We are now in a position to buy a boat and with there being one boat docked down there already, that leaves no room for us if we were going to drop this down to one. So unfortunately I'm against it being dropped down to one for that reason, because we certainly would like to enjoy that dock and boat and have access there. Be able to utilize it living directly across the street from it. Thank you. Conrad: Other comments. Anything else? i Rob Roy: I would like to also support her position. Back when this was going on, I was not able to afford a boat. The property wasn't totally 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 15 developed. Mr. Bigos has decided to have a boat down there and he's had his boat down there. I think it's for the outlot owners to decide the I rotation of the boats and that's why we're requesting 4. This property has not been abused at all. It's very evident that there's only one boat down there right now in the middle of the summer. We have not abused the situation one bit. And that's why the request is for, I don't think there's been since the Boyer's and the Schnurr's and I believe that was it. Had the 5 boats down there. That there's been any more than 5 boats and recently is 2 and 1 boat. So I think our request for 4 boats, whether the II 4 boats show up there or not, allows the people on the 10 outlots to have access and boat dockage. ' Conrad: We reviewed a lot of, we've reviewed a lot of the, and it's not a whole lot of fun. But I just want to let you know the process. Most beachlot folks have come in. Again, we're going to arbitrary as can be. ' You know this is like a mini court of law here you know and what we're trying to do is get somebody to show us a use in 1981. Now whether it's good or bad or whatever, we're trying to say hey. What happened in '81 because that's what we're trying to determine. In front of us we've got a I lawyer, the City Attorney who said there's a particular use. We have a staff inventory that set it at a particular number. We're kind of hoping that somebody would say, show us a use of '81. And that's not easy. Nobody ' goes around taking those pictures but just to let you know, a lot of folks have come in with that and supported their position. And again it being a little mini court here, we try to be as liberal as, we're fairly liberal but again we need information to make the decision. It's really not a case of, do we think you should have this because you're nice or you live across there. That doesn't enter our minds. It's in this case what we're trying to do is say hey, what happened in '81 and we go from there. So I just II wanted to let you know that boy, that makes our decision arbitrary here when we don't see anything that's kind of, and it puts you in a tough situation but that's what we're trying to do. II Tom Merz: Well I didn't come here. Conrad: You've got to tell us your name first. I Tom Merz: My name's Tom Merz. I've known these people my whole life and Joe sold me the lot that I bought and it's been a wonderful place to live. 1 And I do object to the boat access. I don't think that's in keeping with the, or not the boat access. The ability to drive cars down and launch boats. I think that Joe, so that you understand, if you know I fought this I thing for 30 years when I first got on that Park Board Commission and my whole emphasis has been to try to preserve the quality of Lake Minnewashta. And we did that by closing down all the accesses around the lake and allowing only access to come through the park. We did that for a specific II reason. That the lake becomes used and abused by too many boats. There's just riparian which means there could be 60 non - lakeshore owner boats using that lake and beyond that it would become abused. We've now got a total of I maybe we're double that. We've got 120 so each time these Planning Commissions and these outlots come up, I'm up here fighting to maintain this '82 baseline so that we maintain the quality of the lake. Because what happens when they take 1982 Sterling Estates and go from 2 to 4, then they take Minnewashta and they take each one of these things and we not Planning Commission Meeting i July 7, 1993 - Page 16 only add 4 boats but we add 20 -30 -40 boats. And in keeping with that, we're all losing. I mean we're losing as lakeshore owners. You're losing as people who are trying to use that lake. I think, my personal opinion to II buy that beautiful lot that you sold me and to think that 3 homes or 4 homes down somebody could build a narrow dock with 5 or 6 boats, I don't know if that was in keeping with your plans. I think that that lot should be used for access to the lake. I'm for the 1982 baseline but again, I'm for that for preservation of something that's going on 20 -30 years from now for our kids. And once we start with Minnewashta increasing, then everybody else increases. 1 Conrad: Thanks Tom. Don't you miss being on the Planning Commission Tom? Any other comments? Anything? Anything new? One more crack, sure. ' Joe Boyer: Well this whole thing appears to me as kind of a I'm here and you're not. You know. A dog and...type situation. I have lakeshore, you II don't. And I think the original intent should kind of be adhered to here, at least in part. These people bought into this area with the idea that they would have lake access. How can you kill that? It's part of the ordinance. Or not the ordinance but part of the covenants for the property. I really don't understand this. Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Well I am, no this is not fun. My feeling is that we do need to II keep the level of the use in 1981 and to look at the beachlot survey that was done on June 4th in 1981 that is in Barbara Dacy's letter to our City Attorney in 1986. And at that survey it says that there is a seasonal dock of 50 feet with a 10 foot perpendicular extension so we do know that in 1981 there was a dock with the extension so I would be in favor of keeping that dock there the way it is. Conrad: Does the extension go over into the, is that within 10 feet of the property line? ' Mancino: Yes but well, to tell you the truth, I don't know if it is. But I can say that again the City Attorney said that legal non - conforming docks do not have to observe the dock setback zone. The zoning ordinance provides 11 they can continue at the same location. Now this was written in 1986. Is it still? Aanenson: We did pass a dock setback zone requirement. We've asked for voluntary compliance as we've gone through this process. It is a concern of the adjoining property owners. In some circumstances we haven't always II been able to do that based on maybe there's a wetland or something that we don't want it to but there's a few circumstances based on the fact that they're very narrow that it's impossible for them, based on the level of number of boats that have been granted that they can always meet that. Although we have pretty much gotten voluntary compliance on that. r 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting II July 7, 1993 - Page 17 Mancino: So then what you're telling me is that it is legal. II Aanenson: Roger told me that it would be an interesting challenge if someone absolutely refused to do it. Mancino: So what does that mean? Taking off 10 feet of this... Aanenson: We've done it. We've asked for compliance on all of them to do II that. I'm not sure that they can all meet it based on the number of boats some of those, that we've given such as Pleasant Acres and the like. It's pretty tough. Some of those. The Heights where they're very narrow and II we've given them maybe 10 boats. It's difficult. Mancino: Well then let's see if this one can meet it. II Aanenson: Sure. Mancino: As long as, I would like to go ahead and have it meet the setback II requirements then. The other questions are, let's see motor vehicle access. And in 1981, it doesn't say. According to your survey does it show in 1981 whether there was motor vehicle access? II Aanenson: Yes. I Mancino: It does? Aanenson: You're talking about boat launch or the access? II Mancino: Just the access. Aanenson: Yes. II Mancino: Okay. So if there was in 1981 motor vehicle access, I would be in favor of continuing that. There was no boat launch in 1981 so I would say no boat launch now. Boats at dock, in 1981 it says there were none. I However there is supporting evidence from the City Attorney's letter in 1986 saying that there may have been boats out on the water. That the Walman's had a boat and the Hollaways had a boat. So I would be in favor II in allowing 2 boats on the dock and to go ahead with the City Attorney's 1986 opinion. I Conrad: Good, thanks Nancy. Matt. Ledvina: I think that letter is, that October, 1986 letter is fairly crucial and I really don't see any additional information to invalidate II that opinion so I think that was, as I went through this thing, I used that as pretty much the benchmark and was looking for other information. So I concur with Nancy on the opinion as it relates to the 2 boats. I also think II that if we can, we should meet the setback requirement. I think, and I don't know what the legal requirements are there but if that is an ordinance in place, that ordinance should have to be adhered to. The I situation with the boat launch, I don't feel that should be allowed. The motor vehicle access, I think that should be restricted or not allowed. I think the applicant, the representative for the applicant has indicated II II Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 18 II that they'd like to delete that part of the request. So I don't know if that's essentially a modification of the application in front of us but I II think that the access could be deleted. Let's see. That's about it. Conrad: Thanks Matt. Diane. II Harberts: My understanding as we, on number 9. The non - conforming beachiot survey. My understanding is what we look for too though is kind of the responsibility or accountability from the association. I'm a little II concerned. Some of the letters that we've received that talked about some of the garbage, tires, debris, things of that left there. Isn't it Kate, my understanding that you know these associations in a sense we ask that II they take accountability for the area. Am I incorrect or am I correct on that? Aanenson: Well we've asked that in a good neighbor sense but technically II the City Attorney's opinion is what we're trying to do is establish the level of use. If there's a complaint, we can certainly handle that in a different forum. Or we've attached that in some of the conditions where II we've asked them, under miscellaneous to post where they have boat launches, a milfoil sign and I think under the process that we've gone through as far as being amicable, they've all agreed to do such things as II keep it clean or post it that this is the association property. Members only. Those sort of things. I think if you want to do that under miscellaneous, I think the parties may be willing to do that. II Harberts: Yeah, it's more of a comment. I guess I'm just raising that concern for that. I guess with regard to the primary issue at hand, with the beachiot permit, I would concur with the Commission members. Basically II leaving it at the 1981 baseline and simply because we don't want to make decisions on an arbitrary basis. For instance tonight with the extension, I would support bringing it in compliance with the ordinance. I didn't hear anything tonight that would convince me that it's necessary and that's II all we ask is that, you know if there's some particular reason or whatever, bring the information to us so we can really look at it in an informed II basis and based on the information that I have here, and I agree that the letter from the Attorney is really an important piece to making my decision. That we stay with the 1981 baseline. I would also recommend some kind of restriction on the motor vehicle access. The area doesn't I seem very conducive to a lot of access by vehicles. And I would just encourage the Association maybe to take some steps. I don't know, a fence or whatever. Gate to control it. I Conrad: So you're in favor of the access Diane? Harberts: Yes, with some restrictions of use. It was there in '81. And I II haven't heard a whole lot for or against it in the sense of really swaying me to go against that. So I would just encourage some restriction or control or whatever by the Association if it's a problem. But based on the II information today that I've received, I don't have any problem with it. Conrad: Kate, what's your opinion about the motor vehicle access on this 11 property? 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 19 Aanenson: It seems to me that they've stated that they'd be willing to put I a post there, if that seems to be a problem. Maybe they could put a post up. If they're willing to do that. I don't want to speak for them. Put a post up that says, Sterling Estates Beachlot and put it in the middle such that a car can't get down there. Or people can't run their ice houses. ' Mancino: But the applicant isn't here. 1 Aanenson: Except that these people are also of the Association. Mr. Boyer's. They have spoken to the applicant about representing the Association. So I mean if they're willing to do that, why not put it down I as a condition and make both parties happy. We have done that or requested that on other associations. That they do post it for security reasons. We just did that on Schmid's Acres. That they post that because that's another one where it's. II Conrad: So when we say a post, are we closing that down? What are we doing? Harberts: Putting a sign up or what? ' Aanenson: Well, putting a post in the center restricting cars from getting down there. Restricting people from, it seemed to me the concern was, people bringing their ice houses out. Or fishing houses out onto the ice. That would restrict that. That was a concern and if they're willing to do II that, why not put it in as a condition. Conrad: Okay. Are you done? II Harberts: Yeah. Conrad: Okay. I have nothing has taken me away from the information that II I've got. I think it shouldn't be a boat launch. I think the docks have to be taken out of the dock setback zone. I think two boats is probably more than fair, and it's substantiated to a degree based on some of the I information we have. And if we want to restrict the motor vehicle access, that's fine. It doesn't look like it's, well. I think if the applicants want to do that, I think that's appropriate. I'd like to see it. I don't have anything else. Any motion? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend the issuance of a non - conforming recreational beachlot permit to the Boyer Sterling II Estates with the following conditions as we've discussed. Just briefly going over these. No motor vehicle access. As far as no off street parking. No boat launch. No buildings. A seasonal dock. 50 foot dock 1 with the extension to be reviewed for compliance with the setback ordinance. No canoe racks. No boats on land. Two boats at the dock. No boats moored. A swimming beach. No swimming raft and I think that pretty much covers it. Conrad: Is there a second? II Mancino: Second. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 20 Conrad: Any discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot Permit to Boyer's Sterling Estates with the following conditions: No motor vehicle access. 1 No off street parking. No boat launch. No buildings. A seasonal dock 50 50 feet in length with the extension to be reviewed for compliance with the dock setback ordinance. No canoe racks. No boats on land. Two boats at the dock. No boats moored. A swimming beach. No swimming raft. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item going over the proposed ordinance. Mancino: Does it include labor? Harberts: It should exclude labor. Mancino: Yeah, thank you. Labor, grading, maintenance. Any of that stuff? Aanenson: Yeah, this is just planting materials. Ledvina: So previously those things were included and now they're excluded II so? Aanenson: No, it wasn't defined. In the bold, under minimum landscape value, that definition is completely new. We never explained what value meant. So I guess if somebody said that includes the site prep. Krauss: Well actually it was pretty nebulous. It did include, if you wanted to put. Aanenson: The project value. 1 Krauss: If you wanted to put nice pavers in, you could have included anything. Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. Krauss: It's strictly landscaping now which gives us a lot more... 1 Aanenson: Or even site prep. It could have included that. That's what I was saying. So now we're excluding that out. We want to use, if planting materials, trees, shrubbery, that sort of thing. Krauss: It's also a lot easier for us to administer because we say give us a contract and show us that you did it. 1