4. Lake view apartments non conforming beach lot CITYOF
I ‘ CHANHASSEN
1
\y
., 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 - f (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Action by Ci :y Aomiristratot.
MEMORANDUM Modified
( j Rejecte' Q.Y.Z.,�.
1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager (/) l ate Su bmitted to Comriis_itn
1 FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner bete Submitted to Council
•
DATE: January 19, 1993
I SUBJ: Lake View Apartments Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot
1
UPDATE
1 At the September 2, 1992, meeting of the Planning Commission, the non - conforming use permit
for the Recreational Beachlot for Lakeview Hills Apartments was considered. This item had been
1 previously tabled from the August 5, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. The first time this
item was tabled was to seek counsel from the City Attorney to see if any additional conditions
can be placed upon this beachlot.
I / Ew
This same question has come up during some of the other beachlot reviews. Roger Knutson, the
City Attorney, said then, and continues to say, that the purpose of this hearing is to establish the
I level of use during the summer of 1981. The other issues being discussed are more of a policing
matter. The main area of concern appears to be the open access to the beachlot.
The second time this item was tabled was to allow for the applicants to provide documentation
as to the level of use regarding the storage of boats on land. Lakeview Hills Investment Group
I has retained Craig Mertz to represent them. 'The applicants have resubmitted the application for
a non - conforming recreational beachlot and the history of the site has been further investigated.
I This beachlot was not surveyed by staff as to the level of use in the summer of 1981. The
_ , application outlines the Lakeview Hills documentation as to the level of use in 1981 as well as
their request for the continued use of the beachlot.
1
1
�sr PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Don Ashworth
January 19, 1993
Page 2
1 SUMMARY
1 Lakeview Hills Apartments has requested:
1. Installation and maintenance of a gate which would be locked at night (but the residents
1 of the complex would have lake access by keys furnished by the management);
2. Prohibit overnight boat dockage, prohibit overnight boat mooring, and prohibit overnight
storage of boats on the beach itself, except for storage of canoe in canoes racks
(application requests 1 canoe rack with 8 to 10 boats stored);
3. All other overnight boat storage would be limited to designated portions of the existing
parking lots (north of Lake Riley Blvd.) and other designated portions of the property
lying north of the apartment building;
4. The dock length would be limited to 50 feet; and
1 5. Continued use of the boat launch.
' PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On January 6, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended approval for the Lakeview Hills
beachlot with the following conditions of approval:
1. Installation and maintenance of a gate which would be locked day and night (but the
' residents of the complex would have lake access by keys furnished by the management);
2. Prohibit overnight boat dockage, prohibit overnight mooring, and prohibit overnight
storage of boats on the beach itself, except for storage of canoe racks (application requests
one canoe rack with 8 to 10 boats stored);
' 3. All other overnight storage would be limited to designated portions of the existing parking
lots (north of Lake Riley Blvd) and other designated portions of the property lying north
of the apartments buildings;
' 4. The dock length would be limited to 50 feet;
1 5. Continued use of the boat launch;
6. Planning Commission has not ruled pro or con as to the number 11 on the application
1 itself but all other historic information has been agreed to.
1
1
1
Don Ashworth 1
January 19, 1993
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS I
1. Letter from Craig Mertz dated December 3, 1992. 1
2. Public hearing notice.
3. Planning Commission minutes dated January 6, 1993.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 NON - CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT
ASSOCIATION P.C. CITY COUNCIL
1 REQUEST RECOMMEND ACTION
1 Association Lake View Apartments
Lake Riley
I Number of Homes 170 Apartments
1 Size, square feet 3,000 sq. ft.
I Shoreline 120 feet
Motor Vehicle Access yes yes
1 Off - Street Parking yes yes
I Boat Launch yes yes
Buildings none
1 Picnic Tables yes yes
1 Grills /Campfires yes yes
Seasonal Dock 1 1
1 Diagram 30 feet 50 feet
Canoe Racks 1 1 with 8
I Boats on Land not requested
1 Boats at Dock not requested
Boats Moored not requested
Swimmin g Beach yes
1 Marker Buoys not requested
I Swimming Raft not requested
Miscellaneous
1
* Items requested by the Association for determination.
1
mg .; 'q..■-• --- -----------------__ ■ ...,au: ,..mo iti
i ���•�
Vet fin_ A. lit
Tiow' — A� Wr -� HANHASS
RR. S Tq r vT,... �., R M /N/ PA
vENNE ESTATES
DRIVE E NIG o ��� i n � � � � � ' a♦
�. ;Ina ptit_ ill PI 4,
X 4 6
o+ rI �.
4K 46
�:: god : 4Q\ , .. W `8100
t
PARK N � ��1► " ��� .ii a
- i .J ( _- - .1 � .,� ,7 /CE . z --8200
_ _ _ _ ' MARSH Z o
LAKE ,�_ 1
.� \ 1 1 1 j GRCLE PARK 83
/
J
;) LAKE Sl/SAN bawl A .Y \
I S . - gV 0 % II ----'-'
1% .. V , \ / /
II ) -- .
•
6TH • f b.
��
rilIIIIIP
' �l! /!�� ........--,--..; 0
, �_ g .,--
— _ C E
S
` , �I1_ ip MI = r .. i P N r 1/ ,. um ahonevr
_R y � L. „,
� � - � ' r 7 (1/4#,..,
r �
,x '. 4 ir i 1 I it --
)127..., , itpv
„•„,________________. r ....... J o = C^J
Nii �' • /� ■.
% , 1 1 �' - 9 • •
'
'/� / �\
1
I BAND/MERE .” / � / I
HE /GHTS
PARK /
C ro •T j� / 1 • 9200
BAND /MERE
1
COMMUNITY ` t / //y � LAKE
PARK , P e
.� it.; R /LEY Mi — L ,,,„, . \
. ,_
1 . e4f,
>> l
a vo �\ _
LAW OFFICES a :E;
WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & M ERTZ DC I;
=
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS 1992
ONE FINANCIAL PLAZA, SUITE 1100 CITY or' ; . t
' 120 SOUTH SIXTH STREET
A. THOMAS WURST, P.A. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-113C” TELEPHONE
CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A. (612) 338-4200
JAMES D LARSON, P.A
THOMAS F UNDERWOOD, P.A FAX NUMBER
CRAIG M MERTZ (612) 338-2625
ROGER J. FELLOWS
December 3, 1992
1
Ms. Kate Aanenson
Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
' Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
1 I an writing to you on behalf of Lakeview Hills Investment
Group, the owner of the Lakeview Hills apartment complex on Lake
Riley and Rice Marsh Lake. Enclosed you will find my clients'
Application for a non- conforming recreational beach lot permit.
You will note that some of the information is different from the
original application as the history of the site has been
investigated more fully.
My clients' position is that its beach lot has the status of
a legal and valid non - conforming use and that the city may not
' diminish those rights in this process. While your Ordinance No.
163 indicates a "trigger date" of January 18, 1982 for the non-
_ conforming use status of beach lots, my research indicates that
Chanhassen Ordinance 47 -AB (adopted January 18, 1982) was not
applicable to Lakeview Hills. Your beach lot regulations first
became applicable to Lakeview Hills in 1987 when the definition of
1 " recreational beach lot" was expanded to encompass shoreline areas
which were not owned by a homeowner association.
Nonetheless, in the interest of good relations with the
community and without waiver of the owners' rights in the premises,
the owners of the Lakeview Hills complex are willing to promulgate
rules governing the use of their shoreline by Lakeview Hills
residents. Specifically, the owners would be willing to do the
following:
' 1. Install and maintain a gate which would be locked at
night (but the residents of the complex would have lake
access by keys furnished by management); and
1
1
I/
WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & M ERTZ
II
Ms. Kate Aanenson
December 3, 1992 1
Page 2
1
2. Prohibit overnight boat dockage, prohibit overnight boat
mooring, and prohibit overnight storage of boats on the
beach itself - except for storage of canoes in canoe
II
racks which would be specifically allowed; and
3. All other overnight boat storage would be limited to '
designated portions of the existing parking lots (north
of Lake Riley Blvd) and other designated portions of the
property lying north of the apartment buildings; and
II
4. Dock length would be limited to 50 feet.
If you have any questions regarding the application, please
II
call me. It would be appreciated if you would notify me as to the
possible Planning Commission date as soon as possible.
Very truly yours, 1
'-ST, PEARSON, LARSON, II DERWOOD & MERTZ
if ,•• 21- e,_",:,------
Craig M. Mertz 1
CMM:lkg
II
Enclosure
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 •
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
NON - CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. APPLICATION
,OWNER: Ie C X1EQVI : Lakeview Hills Investment Group
CONTACT PERSON: Donna M. Bohn (AIMS, Management Company)
9 800 Shelard Parkway, Suite 20, Minneapolis, DDRESS: Y • Minnesota 55441 P .
1
TELEPHONE (Day time) 542 -8111 TELEPHONE (Evening):
1 FAX 542 -8130
Please provide all requested data consistent with what existed in the summer of 1981.
1. NumberofhamesbatxamoomemscAmmbems 170 Units
2. Length of shoreland (feet) Approximately 1,260' (per County Half Sectioi
Map)
3. Total area of Beachlot (in square feet) 52.8 Acres*
* Apartment Complex and Lake Frontage are one parcel.
4. Number of docks 1
1 6. Length of dock(s) Approximately 48'
Days and Evenings: Approx. 15 (5 fishing boat:
7. Number of boats docked Overnight: Zero • or sail boats;
' 10 canoes)
8. Number of canoe racks 1
1 9. Number of boats stored onk oc raocis 8 to 10 overnight
10. Number of boats moored, i.e. canoes, paddle boats, sailboats.
Overnight: zero
Days and Evenings: as many as 15 . (including tied to dock)
11. Number of boats on land days and evenings: as many as 15 boats
overnight: as many as 15 boats
12. Swimming beach Yes_X_ No Buoys Yes No
13. Swimming Raft Yes X No
1 14. Boat Launch Yes X No
1
1
1
1
15. Motor vehicle access Yes x No
Number of parking spaces approximately 10 ■
16. Structures, including portable chemical toilets:
1
Fence II
Canoe Rack
II
.1
17. From time to time our residents have brought their own
picnic tables down to the beach and have utilized the
II
beach for bonfires and have used portable picnic grills
on the beach.
18. Copies of the Spring 1972 and Fall 1978 "Living Guide" 1
advertisements are attached as Exhibit A. Similar
have been run in the "Living Guide" consistently since 1972.
19. Affidavit of Sandra Durand is attached as Exhibit B. 1
20. Affidavit of Steven Liefschultz is attached as Exhibit C. ,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
II
II
MT - ac non 1o•
.(a, E k" g Aa
P. 0Z
r q p
I.
0
: � � f ' #....f; C t: ` ~ t N W O V E Q
_. a O t s °' y ~ c .C! `" (J V • 1 5 W _ , - . ".r4 t , _ W p, = �, 1 § q Z a ;� a'�, y V “. s � ,� , _
1..v, s '.'� C r Wf J' �'V�ti4~CC�ii y U. E Z ° � J
> J • • • • • • • • • • • W to W '�W
Cam as— >' C 4 �. X. 0/
'
C N ` _J a
i it
re C in
..„. i.......„.17.4„ ... ta .4 _..... . _ ....... :.,, m.. 0
ro IA= ....1111
j � m
IP Q
AREA 6
* IS- . ,
c'j .
•
._ •? �?4 ±l s. `v. . •V. +• �i r«�i it «�,.� sP. }.^•,/t ". it it J ',. � . 1 '..-.sy�P .� .�� ,��
• r
f
�4, �{ y in ill 44
•
III
ma --dams , i44 • r i �- J .+ ' C� 4 T. f yr ` •
r K- ,- • .x ' Y � � 7•s , w Jr , C o i. u+ 6 h
I' S
�
'��S' R } - J g '?L g �[ - T�j I c 0 •
r r �� ' G'-- r rr p r. 0 m N 1 4 1 n
Nr
;' ; . �- a m is ,i a rr 3 01.+ Q H l cc 5 41 . f 1 : 4 ....., ... ift
E
_ 1 .� z _ i 4 - •1_ .• GI 3 ol t .71 x ... - -t, t
,,,,,,f."1:".. • b bl • } C N : .1 L . ` :
N
Page 1 of 3 - Exhibit A
AFFIDAVIT OF SANDRA DURAND
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
I Sandra Durand being first duly sworn on oath states as follows:
In 1981 I was the Senior Property Manager of the Management s
Company which owned and operated Lakeview Hills Apartment
Complex in Chanhassen, Minnesota.
Ire 1981 and years prior, residents of Lakeview Hills Apartments I
were permitted to store their boats and canoes in the daytime, in
the evening and overnight on the beach lot property and the
residents IN FACT DID SO IN SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS. .N
It also was our practice to allow boats and pontoons to be tied
to the dock during the day, during the evenings and overnight and
the residents IN FACT DID SO IN SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS. — r
- I In 1981 the boat dock at the beach lot was approximately 48 feet
and at times during boating season the dock was fully occupied by
boats, pontoons and canoes.
The usage of the boat launch, boat dock and beach lot was
extremely important to our marketin g apartments a artments and is
evidenced by our advertising in the Apartment Guide Magazines
dating back to 1972.
FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAITH NAUGHT.
E
it
t x._
SANDRA L. DURAND
Subscribed and sworn t. before = 1
thi �CO day ;/, .', 1992 -
— — - - -- 1 1
• AMV \AM/1M/A1AN
AN.11 r R! E. KOCA' DA I
DAKO CO;; 1
My Comm. E :.�a s A 18, 1994
rwond.wwvww. • !E:
Exhibit B
1
AFFIDAVIT OF STEVEN B. LIEFSenuLTZ
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) s s•.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Steven B. Liefschultz being first duly sworn on oath deposes
and says as follows:
1. Your affiant is one of the principals in Lakeview Hills
Investment Group which owns the Lakeview Hills apartment complex in
Chanhassen, Minnesota.
2. That in the Summer of 1984, your affiant investigated the
feasibility of the purchase of the Lakeview Hills apartment complex
by the entity which ultimately became Lakeview Hills Investment
Group.
3. That during the course of that investigation, your
affiant observed, during the Summer of 1984, that the beach portion
of the subject premises was being utilized by Lakeview Hills
' residents for on -land boat and canoe storage purposes (in the
daytime and overnight), boat launching purposes (in the daytime and
during the night), and for boat docking purposes (in the daytime,
in the evenings and overnight).
“••••i_4V'5* :: se ic:•t r14 :0I4, It:V':'.
• fS.t.,l:11= .! llAti:%ir. -441 4i.:5s.i.4041 i:« ri,i 'MOV— 4}. _f 44,i4
o. *i . C4:3,1' 4.4.) *i • 1 . ..11= t'000 ; 11'►4 4l /. a,i • A
*Jr** u
. lhuff4.4♦ :?aNi:iligOV =V :TAIPO ;IP( *01111.lclirf:.i:4>)1∎44 .ifLbili∎= v1V4 11,.le.1 (Li4
' n.:!ei ?:�i�l•i�i,Fi,.���di11�/ 2:3• ::.isi:qi.(: .) * *1•'.i *0/•,∎:13 • 1'(r�r�a�.���1��t 1•L'1;•,�;•1
•f.l .iai • Itt c.4. i'iF.1ai +fl ►1:1_ :1. ;1•• ►;1 11= ,'r0:►.•i!c.iii: ):
5. I believe that in the Summer of 1984, the dock was
approximately four sections long, which would be approximately 48
feet, and that at times the dock space was fully occupied by boats.
Further your affiant sayeth naught.
� Q A 1
Steven B. Liefschult•
Partner, Lakeview Hills ves m• - nt I roup
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
23rd day of Novembe , 1992.
d e6 - t4. 2 ^---' DIANE CLOUGH
Notary Public
r 1ien L ""
MU O n ES T Exhibit C
•
J" - 7 OP
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING .. - •
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING l i f'
Wednesday, August 5, 1992 - 7 :30 P.M. T ( J ' 4 t
City H all Council Chambers
Cit
s J 1�
690 Coulter Drive i, '
zs ii
Project: Lakeview Hills Apartments BAND /MERE '
Non - Conforming Recreational %E/G TS /tuft)/
Beachlot --wpa •:► /� /1
Applicant: Lakeview Hills z... ii
Pr
.-_-4-A ����� L
Homeowners Association ! e r �; ,
� � , R /LEY
Location: North side of Lake Riley E3 =
)V# k_ _ _ (..)
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in 1
your area. Lakeview Hills Homeowners Association for a non - conforming recreational
beachlot.
I
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform
you about the applicant'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:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
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.
Questions Y
uestions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please 1
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
I
choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department
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 July 23, 1992.
1
1
i •
RAYMOND & J. LEWIS BRENDA M. SCHAEFFER ALBERT & C. TRAPANESE
1 9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD. 8591 TIGUA CIRCLE 8571 TIGUA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
I BRUCE & T BIRKELAND DAVID & C. NAGEL RICHARD & J. LARSON
1140 WILLOW CREEK 8550 TIGUA CIRCLE C/O MGM
1 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8590 TIGUA CIRCLE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
1 DALE & R. BOYER JOSEPH & G. HAUTMAN BENJAMIN & P. SWENSON
9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD. 8551 TIGUA CIRCLE 9015 LAKE RILEY BLVD.
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 P.O. BOX 129
t CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
a VENCIL & C. PREWITT LESLIE O'HALLORAN RICHARD J. CHADWICK
421 LYMAN BLVD. P.O. BOX 683 420 LYMAN BLVD.
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
1
LELAND & L. WYMAN AL H. KLINGELHUTZ JAMES & P. DOLEJSI
1 400 LYMAN BLVD. 8600 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. 9260 KIOWA TRAIL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
II
T. J. HIRSCH MGMT. CO. NORMAN, JR. & K. GRANT ARTHUR & J. MULLIGAN
• SUITE 30 9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD. 8501 TIGUA CIRCLE
45 SOUTH 7TH STREET CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
1 DAVID S. NICKOLAY MATTHEW & C TRILL STEVEN & K BURKE
8500 TIGUA CIRCLE 9610 MEADOWLARK LANE 9591 MEADOWLARK LANE
1 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
1 WM & S PREDOVICH STEVE & CHAR. ZUMBUSCH MICHAEL & M. WISTRAND
9611 MEADOWLARK LANE 9794 CRESTWOOD TERRACE 219 LOGAN AVENUE NORTH
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55405
DAVID AND LYNNE HIGH MICHAEL AND USA REILLY NEIL A. KLINGELHUTZ
t 4330 OAKVIEW LANE 2305 INDIAN RIDGE DRIVE 9731 MEADOWLARK LANE
PLYMOUTH MN 55442 GLENVIEW IL 60025 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
1 ROBERT & D ROGERS
MARK & STARLA DANIELSON 4917 DIANE DR
1 11150 SUMPTER CIRCLE MINNETONKA MN 55345
BLOOMINGTON MN 55438
1
THOMAS & M ROGERS NORBERT & C LICKTEIG J & J HUNGELMANN I
14700 EXCELSIOR BLVD 9111 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9117 LAKE RILEY BLVD
MINNETONKA MN 55345 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I
JOHN JR & M GOULETT RICHARD & F OLIN JIM & JAN HENDRICKSON I
9119 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9125 LAKE RILEY BLVD • 9131 LAKE RILEY BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 s CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ii
TIM & PATTY BESSER CURTIS KRIER GREG & KELLY HASTINGS '
9209 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9211 LAKE RILEY BLVD - 9217 LAKE RILEY BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
1
DENNIS & A BAKER EUNICE KOTTKE ALAN & K DIRKS
9219 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9221 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9203 LAKE RILEY BLVD ,
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GEORGE & M DEWITT
RONALD YTZEN FREDRICK & J POTTHOFF I
3127 4TH ST SE 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55414 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ,
JOHN W ARDOYNO PAUL K OLSON SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNER,
9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD LESLIE TIDSTROM
CHANHASS.EN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 340 DEERFOOT TR I
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOY TANNER LUCILLE REMUS CRAIG & K HALVERSON ,
9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9245 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9283 KIOWA TR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
1
SIDNEY MOSMAN GARY EASTBURN RICHARD BLUMENSTEIN
7311 IZAAK WALTON RD 9355 KIOWA TR 9361 KIOWA TRAIL
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55438 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN W & B BELL HAROLD & J KING DONALD & K SITTER
I
9371 KIOWA TRAIL 9391 KIOWA TR 9249 LAKE RILEY BLVD •
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PETER PEMRICK JR BARRY & H BERSHAW JIM & MARY E JESSUP 1
9251 KIOWA TRAIL 9271 KIOWA TR 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1
1
DEL & N SMITH BOB & S PETERSON RAY & J LEWIS
1 9051 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9101 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RAYMOND & C BRANDT ARTHUR & M HALL ' WILLIAM BERNHJELM
PO BOX 722 9376 KIOWA TRAIL 9380 KIOWA TRAIL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 .
1 ROBERT & M EICKHOLT RICHARD A MOSMAN ET AL PETER & G LILLIE
9390 KIOWA TRAIL 541 FAIRFIELD 9355 KIOWA TRAIL
1 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ST PAUL MN 55112 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
1 MARK & P MOKSNES RANDALL DUSOSKI JAMIE & S HEILICHER
9381 KIOWA TRAIL 9270 KIOWA TRAIL 9280 KIOWA TRAIL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
FREDERICK & J AMRHEIN PAUL & M ZAKARIASEN ELDON BERKLAND
1 9350 KIOWA TRAIL 600 94TH ST W 9261 KIOWA TRAIL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
1
1
1
1
1
1 -
1
1
1
1
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 3, 1993
The Planning Commission interviewed applicants prior to the regular
meeting.
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:55 p.m. •�
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings, Brian Batzli.,
Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; and Sharmin Al -Jaff, 11
Planner I
PUBLIC HEARING:
LAKEVIEW HILLS NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE RILEY. 1
Public Present:
Name Address 1
Donna Bohn 9201 40 1/2 Ave No, New Hope
Craig Mertz Suite 1100, 120 So 6th Street, Mpls 55402
Bob Peterson 9101 Lake Riley Blvd.
Delbert Smith 9051 lake Riley Blvd.
Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd.
Ray Lewis 9071 Lake Riley Blvd.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. '
Batzli: We didn't get the nifty little summary sheet that we normally a
get of what they're asking for. Did you guys get it?
Krauss: No. You mean where we had the '81 survey. What they're asking
for. No. I gather Kate didn't do it that way this time. It's pretty II
much limited to what you see in the conditions.
Batzli: Let me ask one question because after I read the attorney's
letter, the sheet that has the three columns.
Emmings: Oh right.
Batzli: It appears to me that the applicant is, well the attorney is
submitting an application on behalf of the applicant. they then go onto
say that they're really not, they're not subject to this ordinance. Arell
we comfortable, by the time we get done approving this and the City
Council approves it, are they then subject to this ordinance or are we
just approving them promelgating certain rules which will take care of 11
the noise and nuisance that's been going on there?
Krauss: Well, we will ask the City Attorney to clarify that when it gets
up to the City Council. I believe Kate was in contact with him and he
didn't seem to think it presented much of a problem. That they would be
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 2
obligated. They've accepted the conditions and they would be obligated
to operate under them.
Batzli: Okay. So this, okay. Is the applicant here tonight?
Craig Mertz: You bet. I'm Craig Mertz and Donna Bohn is here from the
management company also. I'm here representing the Lakeview Hills
Investment Group, which is the owner of the project. Some of your past
11 paperwork refers to a Lakeview Hills Apartments Homeowners Association.
There is no such thing. Never has been such a thing and if you thought
there was an association, you were misled. This is strictly an apartment
complex. There's approximately 170 units in this. The position of the
owners is that they have the status of a valid non - conforming use and
they are entitled to continue to do what they were doing when your
ordinance was adopted but in the spirit of cooperation, we have advised
staff that what we want to do and plan on doing is continue to use the
property just as we had in the past and without any waiver of those
rights, we're willing to promelgate the 4 conditions that I outlined in
my letter. The first was the gate and the second was the change in the
overnight boat storage situation. The third was that those people who
did want to store boats overnight would move them up to the parking lot
of the apartment complex itself at night. Fourth, we'd limit the dock
length to the 50 feet. Another way of saying it is we plan to continue
to use the boat launch. We plan to continue to make the property
available for resident picnics, barbeques, portable barbeque grills,
daytime boat storage, docking at the beach, swimming, etc. but we will
impose, or agree to impose those 4 conditions that I mentioned in the
letter. We've given you some historical material. You've seen the 1977
picture before. It isn't in today's packet apparently but that depicts a
dock. We've given you copies of the advertising copy relative to the
past dock on the property and we've given you two affidavits covering the
historical situation on the property. So with that I guess I'm open to
1 questions, if that's what you want to do.
Batzli: I guess I have one question and that is, is it your position
then that you're waiving the rights or you're not waiving rights and so
you could take back your promeigated rules and allow these 4 things to
occur. Are those the rights that you're?
Craig Mertz: Our position is that we'll agree to do these things and
carry these things out but it's our decision and not your's. That you do
not have the authority to impose this on a valid non - conforming use.
Batzli: These additional things which weren't occurring - on, in other
words. What this originally, what we were attempting to do was to get a
11 handle on what level of activity and intensity of use was occurring on
the various beachlots back in '81. I understand your position that you
feel that you're not subject to this for a technical reason that there
was no homeowners association apparently. So are you submitting an
application here today? Are you not, do you somehow feel that even
though you're going through the application process and we're trying to
bring you into the fold as a conforming use under our new ordinance, that
you're not subject to our new ordinance? Is that your position?
r
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 3
Craig Mertz: Our position is notwithstanding this procedure, we have
valid rights as a non - conforming use but nonetheless, in the spirit of
cooperation, will go through this process and register the historical
level of useage, if you will.
Batzli: Does anyone else have any other questions before I, okay. This"
is a public hearing. If there's anyone else from the public that would
like to comment on this particular issue. Feel free to step forward to
the microphone and give us your name and address please for the record. II
Raymond Lewis: My name is Raymond Lewis. I live at 9071 Lake Riley
Blvd. I've been here and participated in the last two hearings on this
subject. I have a couple, several recommendations I'd like to make. Th
first recommendation is that it was my understanding that the proposed
gate was supposed to be locked only at night. I think the gate is an
excellent idea but it's been my observation that there's uncontrolled us"
of the launch ramp during peak hours where the public access is being
used. And so I think that the gate should be locked at all times,
whenever the residents are not using the launch ramp. The second thing
is, and this is a point that I brought up at the last hearing. The
launch ramp is undeveloped. It's unpaved. It's basically soil with some
gravel on it and if you look at it, it has deep gullies and ravines and
it's very evident that there's been erosion. Erosion that's silting in ,
the lake are a source of nutrients and reduce the water clarity and I
think that the Lakeview Hills should submit a permanent erosion plan and
enact it to make sure that future erosion doesn't degrade the lake. And
the last thing is that in the last 2 years, Lake Riley has been innudatell
by Eurasian Milfoil. It's a big problem. It's a particular problem in
the north bay where the water adjoins this beachlot property. And I
think it's reasonable for the Lakeview Hills to participate in water
quality programs and lake weed programs that are initiated by the Lake
Riley Homeowners Association or Lake Improvement Association and by loos
government. And I'd like to see the Lakeview Hills participate as
members of the community. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the I
Commission?
Don Sitter: My name is Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Blvd.
Also a homeowner. I guess I have to ask some questions. Excuse my
ignorance. Do I understand that there is an ordinance for the beachlot
control and they do not feel that they are bound by this ordinance? Is
that what I'm hearing? 1
Batzli: There was a first beachlot ordinance passed in the 80's that in
essence excluded existing beachlots. Right Paul? At the time they were!'
an existing beachlot and for a technical reason, apparently there was
some language in there which included homeowners associations owning the
beachlot. They do not have a homeowners association and so they feel
that they would not even come under the purview of the current ordinance"
which this is all part of the process of getting these non - conforming
beachlots to a certain level of activity so that we can regulate them.
They can't increase that activity. I don't think they're saying that
they can expand over what their level of intensity was, but that due to II
M
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 4
some language in the ordinance, they don't fall under the prerequisite
for this ordinance. I'm paraphrasing I think what their position is.
Don Sitter: Okay. And' I'm trying to understand if they're trying to
fall under the ordinance or if they're saying they are doing this just
out of the goodness of their heart and we basically have absolutely no
control over this beachlot and I'm still, I'm sorry, I'm a little
confused.
11 Batzli: Well, the level of control that we have on beachlots under this
process is we're trying to freeze the level of intense use at any of
these beachlots as to where it was in 1981. We did not survey this
beachlot back in '81 so the City has very little evidence of what was
taking place on the beachlot back in '81. I think that they're saying,
they will go through the process and they will implement certain rules to
try and develop a level of activity that was occurring back then but if
they want to change those rules, they can. That's their position. I
think the City's position is, they do fall under this ordinance process
1 and they are subject to it.
Don Sitter: So if we approve them to fall into this ordinance, we're
trying to I guess gain the control that we think we're gaining under this
ordinance. Is that right?
Batzli: Yeah.
Don Sitter: Okay. I guess I'd like to second, raise concerns of I think
the gate is a wonderful idea and I think control is a big part of keeping
this. Working with the community. My question is of enforcement. Who
will enforce these rules? Who will make sure the gate stays locked? Is
this something you'd call the police on or is it something you'd call the
apartment? Who enforces something like that?
11 Krauss: Well you know, we need a clarification again from the City
Attorney when this gets up to the Council. What we have here is lawyers
doing lawyer things and reading innuendo and meaning things that may or
may not be there. The opinion we have thus far from our City Attorney is
that our ordinances are enforceable. Craig on behalf of the beachlot
owners dispute that but that's something that you know, if we have to
decide that in court, then we'll do that. If we have to change one word
in the ordinance, then we would do that too. The fact of the matter is
though, is that they're being cooperative in proposing it. However they
get there. We believe that in the future henceforth, if there is a
problem, that it's the kind, they deviate from the condiOoris, that it's
something that would be enforced through the City.
Don Sitter: Through the city, okay. And I guess I'd like to compliment
you on putting the gate or the sign that you did put up there. I thought
that was really helpful. I also agree with Ray with the erosion control,
11 and I guess we're basically asking you to put something in to help with
the erosion control. And is there anything in the ordinance on toilet
facilities being required at something like this?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 5
II
Krauss: No. Toilet facilities can be installed at the applicant's
request and it's a conditional use permit. We do allow it but we don't 1
mandate it.
Batzli: It goes through a process like this. A public hearing.
Don Sitter: Okay. Well then I guess I'd like to turn to you and ask II
you.
Craig Mertz: We're not asking for toilets. II
Don Sitter: Okay. We'd sure recommend some kind of toilet facilities. 1
If that's at all possible, I guess we're asking you to do whatever you
can. We'd like to ask you to install a Satellite or something on the
property.
Craig Mertz: ...didn't want a Satellite. II
Don Sitter: A Satellite or something like that would be much better thall
having people going in the woods uncontrolled. And we've all seen the
size of the parties that end up there on Friday nights and it would be
nice to have some place for them to use. So and thank you for your time
Batzli: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to II
address the Commission?
Craig Mertz: May I respond to a couple? 1
Batzli: Sure.
Craig Mertz: We have no intention of expanding the non - conforming use on
the property. Certainly the city, if it felt that expansion is taking
place...enforce the ordinance against the owners of Lakeview Hills.
Regarding the access to the lake, the owners have no intention that this
would be a public access for anyone to use. To come on the property.
It's an access point for our residents and their invited guests. We're
attempting to control the access and keep strangers off of the property.,
The toilet facilities, I don't think that's part of this particular
process. That's something we can look into. II Batzli: Thank you. Is there any other public comment? Is there a
motion to close the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted ill
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Joan, do you have any? II
Ahrens: Just to clarify something for the neighbors here. These items
that are listed as voluntary, I don't even know what to call them. 1
Batzli: Promelgated rules.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 6
11
Ahrens: Voluntary promelgated rules. That these aren't going to be
11 conditioned on any permit because Roger says we can't put conditions on a
permit right?
•
Krauss: There's no question that the one dealing with boat dockage
11 shouid be and is a condition. That was the intent of this whole
ordinance.
Ahrens: Let's talk about the gate issue. That's not a condition we can
put on any permit.
Krauss: The gate probably gets into the area of voluntary compliance.
Ahrens: Right. So there's really no enforcement of that. You can't
call the City. You can't call the police. You can't call anyone to
enforce that kind of thing.
Krauss: That's, unless Roger tells me differently, that's probably true.
11 Ahrens: Okay. Is that clearer?
Don Sitter: That's what I was trying to ask... In other words, they're
doing this voluntarily? But if they decided to change their mind or take
away the lock or just don't lock it at all, there's nothing we can do
about it? Is that right?
Ahrens: That's right. Okay. A question on the application itself. I'm
kind of confused about, this is a statement of first of all of what
existed on the beachlot in 1981. Number 7 says the number of boats
docked overnight was 0 in 1981, as I understand it. And then number 9
said, so there were no boats docked but stored on land it says there were
8 to 10 in canoe racks. Or they were on land or in canoe racks. And
then number 11 says that, the number of boats on land overnight were as
many as 15. What was the actual number of boats on land in 1981? Do you
understand that? Or am I looking at something wrong?
Craig Mertz: It shouid have been 10 that were overnight...
Ahrens: 8 to 10 or 10?
Craig Mertz: 8 to 10.
Ahrens: So you're asking for 8 to 10 boats on land... Oh, you're saying
that that's what existed in 1981. Okay. I understand the concern of the
neighbors. I'm not sure, the purpose of our hearing tonight is the
11 establishment of what the use was in 1981. I'm not sure that's
accomplished by the affidavits that are attached to this. With this
application it's evident by the pamphlet that there was some use in 1981.
What it was I don't think can be established. The affidavit of Sandra
11 Durand just says there was use...so we're back to this guessing game.
Really all we have is the application that states what the use was. We
don't have any kind of documentation as to what the use was. I feel kind
of, I don't know where to go with this again. If anybody else has any
ideas, I'll listen but.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 7
Batzli: Okay. So your position is?
Ahrens: I don't know yet. I mean if someone else has some clear idea o1
what the use was. It doesn't make much sense to me to just look at an
application and say this is what they say it is when there's really no
other documentation that states what the exact use was. Sure there was
use but what was it? Nothing in here states what the use was. The
numbers of boats docked. The numbers of boats on land. What was, how mi
was that beachlot being used? We don't have any documentation that
specifically states what the use was.
Conrad: Are you comfortable with their requested use? 1
Emmings: And let's just stop here and make sure we all understand what
this requested use is. I see this as 5 fishing boats or sailboats and 1
canoes. Is that what you're thinking? Because that's what's on the
application on the number 7.
Conrad: Well the application states '81 useage. I'm reading it real II
literally in terms of what they want to use and that's one canoe rack, 8
to 10 boats. Daytime useage. So no overnight storage?
Emmings: Right. Well, but in number 11 it says overnight as many as 101
Conrad: But in my mind this kind of supersedes what they had in '81.
Emmings: Oh okay.
Conrad: And I don't, I guess I don't have a problem with this document II
that they're submitting. In terms of their current useage.
Emmings: Okay.
Conrad: I don't know, Joan's comment might be right. If we agree to
that level of useage, does that also mean that we've agreed to the useage
that they had back in '81?
Krauss: I think that's an important point. You may want to add a
condition. You're right Commissioner Ahrens. You're being asked to
accept something at face value that's somewhat difficult to dispute.
Clearly there was something there. But you may want to add a condition,
if you're comfortable with it, that says that for the sake of
interpretation of this ordinance, that you have defined that the level oll
use for the purposes of this ordinance in 1981 was 8 to 10 boats.
Irregardless of what's on this application. If you define it in that
way, it gives you some way of enforcing that into the future. 1
Ahrens: Can we do that?
Krauss: There is nothing, I mean the hardest part of your job was to II
figure out exactly what was there in '81. It seems to be an impossible
task. On the one hand you're being asked to take the ballpark, well it's
10 to 15 boats. On the other, you're saying that consistent with
existing uses, it's more like 8 to 10 boats. There doesn't seem to be
11 Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 8
any clear guidance. Where there's no clear guidance, I'd take a shot at
I it.
Craig Mertz: The question from our standpoint is which day in 1981?
Every day is differ €nt.
Emmings: We let you pick it.
Craig Mertz: Well we'd pick the 4th of July I guess.
Batzli: Well, are you guys currently comfortable with 8 to 10 boats?
Craig Mertz: Yes.
Ahrens: Okay. I guess I don't have any choice but to go along with it.
We have no other alternative.
Craig Mertz: I think the situation is, this gate thing is for our
benefit also. We don't want strangers coming down there using the
facility. This is supposed to be for our residents and their invitees.
And we don't want third parties down there making trouble...and the
overnight restriction is for our benefit also. That's going to
keep the useage turning over so they're not the same residents that are
using that lake access day after day and hogging it, if you will. We're
rotating useage through our residents by having this park it up at the
building. -
Ahrens: Do you have any objection to locking it during the day, like
these people asked?
Craig Mertz: No.
Ahrens: Do you change the locks once a year because of the rental
building?
Craig Mertz: We can gate it in the daytime. It's not a big problem on
our end.
Batzli: Jeff, do you have any comments?
Farmakes: I think this whole thing needs a big dose of pragmatism. I
like Mr. Lewis' 3 issues. It seems that the applicant is not adverse to
doing that. And it discussed the milfoil issue but if they're a property
owner on the lake, I'm sure they're interested. Clearly-that particular
lake is quite subjected to that type of damage being that it's quite
shallow. I still get confused when we talk about this, not being an
,• attorney. It was my understanding that this whole thing that we have
been discussing so many times...such a long period, is the issue of
expansion of use and what we get thrown in along with this is citizens
coming in that are adjacent to the property complaining about current
use. They don't like so many people parking here. They leave garbage
cans. Or beer cans or they build fires and things like this nature. And
it's my understanding that just to focus this that if we are to evaluate,
this is the use you had in '81 and this is what you've got now. This is
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 9
the difference. You have to make an adjustment to that. It's not very
clear as to what the existing use was there. I agree with Joan. I thin
City should come to an agreement or an arrangement as to what they're
comfortable with. And as to the legal interpretations on it, obviously I
support the City on whatever direction they take with that but it seems II
to me that the client is willing to take care of the issue of
irresponsibility in using that access, in that case. To get the problem
solved there and at the same time it would seem to me to come to a
pragmatic agreement as to how many boats they can have there. I'd
support that. For 170 units, it doesn't seem to me to be out of line.
Although what I'm doing is undermining the issue that we've been dealing
with with the other associations, and I realize you're claiming you're II
not an association but non - conforming use beachlots is that the issue of
use in '81 versus use now. I don't know how else to get around that
since we can't define use in '81. 1
Batzli: Would you support 8 to 10 boats? Or don't you know?
Farmakes: Well I have nothing to base that in. I think unless we can
come up with some evidence to the contrary and an agreement needs to be
cut between our staff and the applicant as to what is acceptable. Withi
the realms of safety and... 1
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Steve.
Emmings: I basically agree with what Jeff just said and I think that
approving them for 8 to 10 boats stored and the rest of the conditions
that are set out in this request and perhaps adding to it. Do you have
swimming beach there?
Craig Mertz: People do swim there but it's not a particularly attractive
place. 1
Emmings: Alright. And that's an activity that's gone on I supposed so
that maybe should be approved. Is there a raft?
Craig Mertz: Not at the moment but in the past I understand that there
was...and I think there was one in 1981. We have no plans to put in a
raft. 1
Emmings: Well okay, alright. 5o we can leave that out. Alright. So
we're going to do nothing. There's no way to do anything but go round
and round on this and so I think we just have to set it and to me what's
being requested here seems reasonable. .
Batzli: Okay, Matt? 1
Ledvina: I had a question. Maybe Paul can respond to this. Does the
DNR have specific requirements for maintaining access ramps to lakes, in
terms of preventing a situation such as this with erosion?
Krauss: I'm actually not certain on that but we could sure find out
before it gets to Council.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 January 6, 1993 - Page 10
Ledvina: Okay. Because maybe there's something that we can make the
11 applicant aware of that, some standards that they can use to help improve
our situation there. If that's possible. Let's see, otherwise I think
it appears reasonable in terms of 8 to 10 boats. There's just the boats,
these will be canoes and then they'll be fishing boats. Will there be
boats on trailers and that type of thing as well? Do you anticipate that
use?
Craig Mertz: ...lead them down to the water on trailers.
Ledvina: Okay. So you'll have boats on trailers stored right on the
beachlot then?
Craig Mertz: No, no. We'll have people coming down in the daytime and
who will put their boat in the water and they may bring the trailer back
up to the apartment parking lot or they may leave their trailer on the
lot. But overnight, they have to get their boat and their trailer up to
the apartment parking lot. I should mention here, when we're throwing
out this 8 to 10, what that means to us is that there might be 8 to 10
parked there either hooked up to the dock or beached or up on the beach
itself at a given point in time but we might have 15 boats using the
water. There might be 5 out in the lake and 10 on the beachlot.
Ledvina: Okay. That heaps to clarify that. No further comments.
Conrad: I think the applicant's done a good job of taking care of most
of our concerns. If we can have daytime, if we can lock the gate during
the daytime, I think that's the only addition that I would impose. I
think the neighbors, the two other points, I just don't think they're
part of this process. They're important but I don't think they're
something that we can deal with in our realm right now. I do have a
problem approving the beachlot application that stated what the use was
in '81 for line item 9 and 11. Now I'm trying to understand, does
everybody else feel that that was a documented? Well I now you don't.
Some of you don't but are we saying that that useage, on number 9 and 11,
is acceptable?
Craig Mertz: Can I clarify that since...? Part of the trouble here was
' understanding the form that you have. On number 9 what we're asserting
is that in canoes there were between 8 or 10 of them overnight. Some of
the people might have put them in the racks. Some of the people might
have had them laying on the ground. When you get down to number 11.
That we are asserting that as many as 15 of the boats, or watercraft if
you will, the all inclusive term, were up there overnight. 'So I
explained it wrong.
Batzli: 5o you had as many as 15 on the property. Watercraft.
Craig Mertz: We believe in 1981 we had as many as 15 watercraft up there
overnight.
Batzli: And that would include the 8 to 10 canoes?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 11
Craig Mertz: That would include those canoes. I think the canoe rack ha
a different configuration.
Conrad: Okay. The I can accept number 9, that Craig talked about.
Basically I don't care. I think that canoes are not a major issue. Now"
my only concern is number 11. Obviously they've said in their statement
to us that that's not going to happen. They have a different anticipated
use but I guess, the 15 boats stored, I don't want to say that I agree 11
with that right now. I don't want to debate it. I just want to make
sure that if they go back on what their recommended use is, that I'm not
locked into point number 11, saying that I agree with that.
Batzli: If we find 8 to 10 boats, and we're going to grant 8 to 10
canoes, no overnight parking of boats, then that solves it. As far as if
we, at least if we determine in our devine wisdom that that's the level II
of.
Conrad: It solves it based on our agreement. But it doesn't solve it
legally. Because if they decide that they don't come under this
ordinance, if they decide they don't come under this ordinance I guess
this is just folly anyway. 4
Emmings: As a suggestion Ladd, maybe we could ignore the application and
just say what we're approving for them under the non - conforming beachlot
in terms of what they're written. 1
Ahrens: It's not really an application.
Emmings: So that we don't have to take a position on this thing. Becaus,
I feel the same way you do.
Conrad: I like what you're doing. I guess I don't want to say we've II
done a good job of backgrounding.
Batzli: Well, as part of the whole original ordinance process, and
people coming in here, the burden was intentionally placed on the
applicant. To the extent that the applicant is unable to prove that they
had 15, we can find that we think there was only 8 to 10. And if you
want to find that you can. 1
Emmings: Not without a rational basis you can't. You have no basis for
that whatsoever. And I don't think... 1
Batzli: Well, then your other choice is not to approve anything.
Conrad: No. I think we can approve what their request is. I think we
can acknowledge their beachlot application except for point number 11.
Therefore we're acknowledging that everything on their application we may
believe is true, except for point number 11. So if they withdraw their II
recommendation use and then they go back to default some other use. We •
can say, well we never really said that you had 15 boats.
Batzli: Okay. My comments are, I'll buy into your proposed plan there 11
Ladd. I don't think they've necessarily given us data to make a final
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 12
determination and I guess I support the City's interpretation so I'm
1 going through this exercise as if they are becoming subject to our
ordinance. Is there a motion? Is there any other discussion first
1 before someone makes a motion?
Conrad: I'll make the motion but I don't know what I'm going to make the
motion. They have not, are we making a motion for a non - conforming
beachlot application? Is that what it is? Okay. I make a motion that
we approve the non - conforming recreational beachlot application of
Lakeview Hills Investment Group with the recommendations that are found
on the staff report dated December 28, 1992. That a change in number 1,
which would have the gate being closed or keyed also during the daytime.
And then maybe a sixth point. A sixth point would state that the
1 Planning Commission has not ruled pro or con as to number 11 on the
application itself. But all other historic information has been agreed
to.
Batzli: Is there a second?
Emmings: I'll second it.
1 Batzli: Discussion. No discussion.
1 Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Lakeview Hills Apartment Non - Conforming Recreational
Beachlot with the following recommendations:
1. Installation and maintenance of a gate which would be locked day and
night (but the residents of the complex would have lake access by
keys furnished by the management);
2. Prohibit overnight boat dockage, prohiit overnight boat morring, and
prohibit overnight storage of boats on the beach itself, except for
storage of canoe in canoe racks (application requests one canoe rack
1 with 8 to 10 boats stored);
3. All other overnight boat storage would be limited to designated
portions of the existing parking lots (north of Lake Riley Blvd) and
other designated portions of the property lying north of the
apartment building;
4. The dock length would be limited to 50 feet;
5. Continued use of the boat launch;
6. Planning Commission has not ruled pro or con as to number 11 on the
application itself but all other historic information has been agreed
1 to.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I/ -
Batzli: When does this go to the City Council?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 13 1
Krauss: I believe the 25th.
Batzli: Thank you very much for coming in everyone.
Craig Mertz: Paul, is that February 25th?
Krauss: I'm sorry, January 25th. Mr. Chairman, before we proceed. I'
sorry but in the hubbub of the interviews I neglected to tell you. We
had Sunlink call us yesterday afternoon. Their attorneys called us to I
pull from them from the agenda. It's item number 4.
Batzli: 5o that one's gone, okay.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT 2 LOTS INTO 2 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT ON PROPERTY
ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW I
ROAD. JUST NORTH OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE. VINEWOOD ADDITION. STUART HOARN.
Public Present: 1
Name Address
Julius C. Smith 7600 France Avenue So, Mpls 55435 1
Dan Rogers 6500 Nez Perce Drive
David Lundahl 6501 Nez Perce Drive
W. Pat Cunningham 865 Pleasant View Road
1
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order.
Julius Smith: My name is Julius Smith. I'm here representing the
landowner to the immediate west of that property.
Emmings: Who is that?
Julius Smith: Frank Beddor Jr. Now I can put it in the negative or the
positive. I'll take it in the positive. We don't object to this,
provided that it doesn't negatively impact the lots to the west, which my
client owns. He has engaged in substantial landscaping and we would hop
that the City would require the same requirements on this developer who
is being benefitted of course, because he's getting two lots out of one,
that they do of everyone else and that trees on that lot would be
replaced 1 for 1 and inch for inch like they require of other developers"
And we feel that he should replace all the trees that are going to be
done or we should establish or the City should establisha 20 foot
conservation easement certainly along our side. We've spent a
considerable amount of money landscaping the land to the west and there I
of course is many precedence for establishing a 20 foot conservation
district where they can't remove the trees. They've done it with my
client on several parcels. The other question, the other thing we're II
concerned about is the use of Outlot A for access to Pleasant View Road.
Under the initial platting, Lot 2, the original Lot 2 was required to go
to Nez Perce Road, and we don't have any problem if both lots go to Nez
Perce Road but we don't want, we would object to any authorization
allowing them to use access to Pleasant View Road along Outlot A. Since
I i . 4,, IS is ' i . ee.
LAW OFFICES / / /
1 WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & M ERTZ
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
1100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST
A. THOMAS WURST, P.A. MINNEAPOLIS, M I N N ESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE
CURTIS A. PEARSON, P,A. (612) 336-4200
JAMES D LARSON, P.A.
FAX NUMBER
THOMAS F UNDERWOOD, P.A. (612) 339-2625
I CRAIG M. MERT2
ROGER J FELLOWS
1
January 25, 1993
1
Ms. Kate Aanenson
I Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I Re: Lakeview Hills Apartments
' Dear Ms. Aanenson:
I'm writing to you on behalf of Lakeview Hills Investment
II Group, the owner of Lakeview Hills Apartment Complex on Lake Riley
and Rice Marsh Lake. On January 6, 1993, I appeared before your
Planning Commission regarding the status of my client's beach lot
as a non - conforming use under your ordinance. I understand this
1 matter will appear before your City Council on January 25, 1993. 1
I understand that the Planning Commission is recommending
I approval of a so called "non- conforming use permit" subject to the
following conditions:
I 1. Installation and maintenance of a gate which would be
locked 24 hours each day (but the residents of the
complex would have lake access by keys furnished by the
management);
I 2. Prohibit overnight boat storage, prohibit overnight boat
mooring, and prohibit overnight storage of boats on the
I beach itself, except for the storage of 8 -10 canoes in
canoe racks;
3. All other overnight boat storage would be limited to the
' existing parking lots north of Lake Riley Blvd. or other
designated portions of the Lakeview Hills property line
north of the apartment buildings;
I 4. Dock length would be limited to 50 feet; and
1
II
WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ
Ms. Kate Aanenson
Page 2
5. The boat launch would be available for continued use.
' It is the position of my client that its beach lot has the
status of a legal and valid non - conforming use and that the City
may not diminish those rights in your non - conforming use permit
process.
1 My client is committed to promulgate Lakeview Hills resident
regulations which would encompass all five of the conditions
' recommended by the Planning Commission. However, the Lakeview
Hills of Investment Group would be doing this voluntarily and
without a waiver of its constitutional rights to continue to
utilize the beach lot property as a valid non - conforming use
' consistent with the manner that the property was utilized on the
effective date of the beach lot ordinances. The regulations
proposed by my client would be promulgated for its own management
' reasons and the imposition of those regulations should not be
construed as any waiver of constitutional rights. My client
recognizes that residential zoning ordinances may constitutionally
' prohibit the creation of uses which are non - conforming, but my
client is also aware that existing non - conforming uses must either
be permitted to remain or be eliminated by use on eminent domain,
(subject of course to the City's right to see that a non - conforming
' use is neither expanded nor enlarged). (See Freeborn County vs.
Claussen, 1972, 203 N.W.2d, 323).
I ask that this letter be made apart of the record of
proceedings before the City Council. If you have any questions
regarding this please call me.
1 ry truly yours,
Craig M. Mertz
' CMM /kh
Enclosure
cc: Bernard Reeck
John Otto
1
1
1
1