6. Appeal Decision of the Board of Adjustments & Appeals to Install a Dock on Beachlot I1, CITY O F r P.C. DATE: Nov. 6, 1989 `. 4.
`•� 1 CHAHAE C.C. DATE: Nov. 6 , 1989
CASE NO: 88-2 Variance
I .-
I Prepared by: Olsen/v
STAFF REPORT
1
IRequirement PROPOSAL: Appeal to the Interpretation of the Lot Depth
for a Recreational Beachlot to have a
�.. Dock and a Variance to the Ordinance Requiring at
Z Least a 100 Foot Depth for a Recreational
1 Beachlot to have a Dock
V LOCATION: 6830 Minnewashta Parkway - On the west side of
ijMinnewashta Parkway
APPLICANT: Pierce Construction Peter Beck
Cl. 3915 Farmhill Circle Larkin, Hoffman, Daly &
I < Mound, MN 55364 Lindgren
7900 Xerxes Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55431
I
1 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 31,400 square feet
I W ah' niniatfetat Mon DENSITY:
Endorsed ✓ R ,
1 ADJACENT ZONING Modier�
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; vacant Rejected
Dete 11-2-Y5
S- RSF; vacant Dee Submitted to Commiecbtl
1 Q E- Lake Minnewashta Sete Submitted to Coon*
Ig ' W- RSF; single family
1 W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
� PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site has
a grove of trees on the
(l) western side of Lake Minnewashta and steep
1 slope towards the lake.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
I
1
F.
II-
,
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
.,.
I
I
I I -. --_..I__._ � ��i_
\a-
-7 1 62ND ■ % �/ 7irs i
II
Ai - -aliiim,--;4 _ LA I/tri F.: r:: lar; dithfr-
p■ : IMMO go Ilti 1 rib kr
111 -40r
/ 4"0---;,..,,,,v 4 i* -11111iiiihiiirmi ,
411
i(
, _.*,.......„,,,r, ______ .._.-_.- -, _ ,,
w:. -*T- :itErtml-Ii4r-
A w_4.; mt....or 4iii,....zivvii_ (
opt,rtir giow 'mgr. \
4,1 w .41,,,Azzimar 5prn. .. ii V i
Mari IV ' . . ,
ip
M / N N E W A S H T
a
gillikitA.4
aadiMilv(IP(' ,
RD
K 1 N G R QaD lilt\ PUD-R
11
.i - �,7, lillr
Q LAKE ; 1� 11 EV•
Z P0*" i all ”011111111
111- u. ,-/ ( , , f RF
—
�. _. MAPLE !MORE!
. •— V — DRIVE
'M
(( -/-4. .
..: :
,.,,e,,,.,.,: ■ ,r
,. wat,,,
I , ��,! ' __MIMI
, 11M111
lit I ai Nale . /***-- .
, • 44, -- '-- : _ -,-;, 7.
qv*.
I Rt --- 101,11 , _
. ,_.,
1----
..
1----- _..... ....
r___ _ ,,.
Pierce Construction
November 6, 1989
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-263 ( 7) states that no dock shall be permitted on any
recreational beachlot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake
frontage and the lot has at least a 100 foot depth. No more than
one dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot for every 200
feet of lake frontage. In addition, 30, 000 square feet of land
is required for the first dock and an additional 20,000 square
feet is required for each additional dock. No more than 3 docks ,
however, shall be erected on a recreational beachlot.
The Zoning Ordinance defines lot depth as the mean horizontal '
distance between the front and rear lot line.
BACKGROUND '
The subject property was dedicated as an outlot (Outlot A) as
part of the Stratford Ridge subdivision approved by the City
Council in 1988 (Attachment #1) . Outlot A was created to serve
as a recreational beachlot for the Stratford Ridge development.
The outlot contains 31,400 square feet with 550 feet of
lakeshore. The depth of the outlot ranges from approximately 80
feet of depth on the south side of the outlot to approximately
110 feet on the northern side of the outlot with a lot depth of
approximately 95 feet as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. The
depth of the lot is measured from the street right-of-way to the
ordinary high water mark which is shown on the plans as 944.5.
During the platting process for Stratford Ridge, the applicant '
also applied for a conditional use permit for a recreational
beachlot. As part of the conditional use permit for the
recreational beachlot, the applicant requested approval for one
dock. In interpreting the ordinance, staff stated that the 100
foot depth was not met since the definition of lot depth is the
mean horizontal distance between the front and rear lot line.
This would result in Outlot A having a lot depth of approximately
95 feet. The Zoning Ordinance also stated only one canoe rack
was permitted per dock. Since a dock was not permitted, the
applicant could not have a canoe rack either. Therefore, the
applicant made application to receive a variance to .the require-
ment of the 100 foot depth for the recreational beachlot to have
a dock and canoe rack.
1
Staff recommended denial of the variance since the applicant had
reasonable use of the beachlot without the dock (Attachment #2) .
The Board of Adjustments and Council denied the request for the
variance (Attachment #3) . If an amendment to the ordinance was
processed to allow a dock on a recreational beachlot without a
lot depth of 100 feet and to permit canoe racks on the
recreational beachlot without docks (Attachment #4) . The
Planning Commission reviewed and approved a zoning ordinance
amendment as follows (Attachment #5) :
h s ^ y
Pierce Construction
November 6 , 1989
Page 3
Section 20-263 ( 6)
No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight
storage or overnight mooring of more than three ( 3) motorized or
' nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is
allowed more than one (1) dock, however, the allowed number of
boats may be clustered. Up to three ( 3) sailboat moorings shall
' also be allowed. Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes, wind-
surfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight
on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifi-
cally designed for that purpose. No more than six ( 6) watercraft
may be stored on a rack. The number of racks shall not exceed
the amount of storage necessary to permit one (1) rack slip per
lot served by the beachlot; however, in no case shall there be
' more than seven ( 7 ) racks per beachlot. Docking of other
watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than
overnight.
' Section 20-263 ( 7 )
No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it
has at least two hundred ( 200) feet of lake frontage and the lot
has at least one hundred ( 100) feet depth measured perpendicular
landward from the ordinary high water mark to the first intersec-
ting lot line inclusive of the street right-of-way. No more than
one ( 1) dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot every two
hundred ( 200) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty
' thousand ( 30, 000) square feet of land is required for the first
dock and an additional twenty thousand ( 20,000) square feet is
required for each additional dock. No more than three ( 3) docks,
however, shall be erected on a recreational beachlot.
' After much discussion, the zoning ordinance amendment for lot
depth requirement was denied by the City Council (Attachment #6 ) .
' The Council did approve an amendment that would allow canoe racks
to be located on a recreational beachlot which did not have a
dock. Therefore, the applicant now has the right to install
canoe racks but still does not have the right to install a dock
•
' on Outlot A.
ANALYSIS
' The applicant is appealing the interpretation of the ordinance
requiring 100 foot of depth for a recreational beachlot to have a
' dock. The applicant is also requesting a variance to the ordi-
nance if the appeal to the interpretation is not approved.
The Zoning Ordinance states that no dock shall be permitted on
' any recreational beachlot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake
frontage and the lot has at least a 100 foot depth. The defini-
tion of lot depth is the mean horizontal distance between the
front lot line and the rear lot line of a lot. In reviewing the
I
Pierce Construction
November 6, 1989
Page 4
definition of lot depth and the wording of the requirements for
a dock on the recreational beachlot, it appears that the stan-
dards for a recreational beachlot does not state that the lot has
to have a "lot depth" of 100 feet. Rather, it states that the
lot must have at least a 100 foot depth. In certain areas Outlot
A does have at at least a 100 foot depth.
In reviewing the history of the conditions established for ,
recreational beachlots, it is not clear if the Council' s intent
was to require the definition of "lot depth" to be applied to
recreational beachlots. The location of where the dock is pro-
posed
has approximately 95 feet of depth (this is to the ordinary
high water mark) . If measured to where the existing water line
is today, the area where the dock is proposed has at least 100
feet of depth. The area to the north of the dock meets or I
exceeds a 100 foot depth.
Staff feels the intent of the ordinance is being met in that '
there is adequate separation between the road and the proposed
activties on the outlot. The way the ordinace is written is not
clear that the definition of "lot depth" applies to the require-
ment
of "at least 100 foot depth" . Therefore, staff feels that
the appeal to the interpretation of the ordinance should be
approved.
Whether the appeal is approved or denied, it is apparent that the
wording of the standards for a recreational beachlot to have a
dock is not clear and should be amended to reflect the actual
intent of the city.
•
Should the Board of Adjustments and City Council feel that the
intent of the standards to the recreational beachlot was to
require a mean lot depth of 100 feet to be maintained as defined
in the ordinance, then staff is recommending that the ordinance
be amended to clarify that recreational beachlots must have a lot
depth of 100 feet and the appeal should be denied.
If the Board of Adjustments and City Council feel the intent of
hte ordinance was to require a recreational beachlot to have at
least 100 feet of depth in some area of the beachlot, specifi-
cally where the dock is proposed, then the zoning ordinance
should be amended to clarify that intent and the appeal shuld be
approved. If the appeal to the interpretation to the zoning
ordinance is approved, the applicant would still have to receive
a conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot to have a
dock. In addition, if the applicant still wishes to have canoe
racks on the recreational beachlot, a conditional use permit is
also necessary to allow the canoe racks. '
I
Pierce Construction
November 6 , 1989
Page 5
' RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments and City Council adopt
the following motion:
"The Board of Adjustments recommends approval of the appeal to
' staff' s interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance requirements for a
recreational beachlot to have a dock (Section 20-263 [ 7] ) and
that Outlot A, Stratford Ridge, does meet the requirements of
having at least 100 foot depth and therefore, meets the require-
ments of the standards for a dock on a recreational beachlot.
The Board of Adjustments and City Council recommend the Zoning
Ordinance be amended to clarify the intent of the requirement for
' at least 100 foot depth for a dock on a recreational beachlot. "
VARIANCE
Should the Board of Adjustments and City Council not approve the
appeal to the interpretation of the ordinance, the applicant is
' requesting that the Board and Council review another variance
request to the conditions of the ordinance. The applicant is
claiming that a hardship exists if a dock is not permitted to be
located on the recreational beachlot. The applicant is stating
' that "the right to build and maintain docks on and in front of his
land to the point of navagiability is fundamental right of the
riparian lot owner" . The applicant has provided case studies
that support this statement.
In speaking with the City Attorney, cases can be shown which
' would support the City' s position that the applicant has reaso-
nable use of the property without the dock and that the variance
would not be justified. As stated in previous reports, staff
would not be able to support the recommendation of approval of
' the variance in that a hardship does not exist. Staff would
therefore, have to recommend denial of the variance request.
' The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the
Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the
following facts :
' A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause
undue hardship and practical difficulty.
' *The enforcement of the ordinance does not cause undue
hardship and practical difficulty in that the applicant does
not have use of the property with a swimming beach and canoe
rack.
B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir-
cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure
' involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to
Pierce Construction
November 6, 1989
Page 6
other lands of structures in the same district. '
*The outlot is bordered by street right-of-way and Lake
Minnewashta and cannot meet the definition of "lot depth" of
100 feet. The difficulty is unique to the property and an
existing situation.
C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser-
vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
*The applicant has property rights without a dock.
D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con-
sequence of a self-created hardship. '
*The circumstances are not self created.
E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect ,
the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of
the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be
in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.
*Without hardship, the conditions of the variance would not
be in keeping with with the spirit and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council minutes dated February 8, 1988.
2 . Staff report.
3 . Board of Adjustments minutes dated February 22, 1988.
4 . City Council minutes dated February 22, 1988.
5. Staff report.
6. City Council minutes dated May 31, 1988.
7 . Memo regarding Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Canoe Racks.
8. Letter from Peter Beck dated October 23, 1989 .
9 . Application.
1
I :438
Y). = -2.Council Meeting R.
February 8, 1988 - Page 26
I
there and stopped there yesterday, I have never noticed that huge red
barn sitting there that you drive by.
' STRATFORD RIDGE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 6830 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, ROBERT PIERCE:
' A. SUBDIVISION OF 9.04 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC STREET WITHIN A
CLASS B WETLAND AND FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B
WETLAND.
C. VARIANCE TO THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE FOR LOT DEPTH AND
' NUMBER OF BOAT SLIPS.
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT.
Jo Ann Olsen: The variance has been ab
t led until February 22nd so the
Board of Adjustments can act on it. There was not a quorom for tonight.
I The first one is for a preliminary plat. It is 15 single family lots in
the RSF district. The property will be serviced from, there is an
existing private drive right now on the southern portion of the property
' which will be improved to a public street and will be served by a
cul-de-sac. The applicant is also providing future access to the north
with this cul-de-sac. All the lots have 15,000 square feet. The lots
I along Minnewashta Parkway are double frontage lots and therefore require
an additional 10 feet to the lot depth requirement for additional
landscaping. Since we are in the process of amending, the lot depth from
150 to 125, by the time we go through the final plan, that will not be
I an issue. They are proposing to provide a drainage basin in
approximatley this location. Currently it flows to the west and now it
will be coming to the east. The Planning Commission did approve of the
I subdivision with all of staff ' s conditions . We are recommending
approval of the subdivision's preliminary plat.
I Mayor Hamilton : Do the applicant's have any comments?
Robert Pierce: Not at this time.
I Councilman Boyt: I gathered from the discussion at the Planning
Commission, that all these lots would come in at 15,000 square feet or
larger so if there seems to be some small discrepency one place or
I another in this, that that will be worked out. There's enough area.
The other point I had was, I would think in a period in which we've got
some uncertai.nity about how the trail along Minnewashta Parkway would be
laid out, that it would be nice if we could have an easement on both
I sides until we get the trail located and then abandon whichever easement
wasn't used .
Councilman Johnson: It's a cliff.
1
City Council Meeting
February 8, 1988 - Page 27
Councilman Boyt: Well , it' s pretty darn steep and I 'm suggesting that II
that keeps our options open although it's a far fetched option.
Whereas, as the subdivision goes, it seems to fall within our guidelines"
and that's what we ask for.
Councilman Johnson: On the subdivision, I've talked with Larry Brown
earlier today on the height and the lack of erosion control for the
construction that' s going to be done on Outlot A. Larry, did you get a
chance to look at that?
Larry Brown: Yes I did. Right now the applicant is seeking preliminary'
plat approval. The matters of erosion control will be handled when they
come in for approval of grading and erosion control and plans and
specifications.
Councilman Johnson: I just wanted to point out that where that' s
located, that's a miniature Lotus Lake. A very steep area that's going II
to be totally stripped. We want to keep a very close eye on that one.
Mayor Hamilton: I was surprised to see that Charles Lawson changed his
name to Charles Larson. I actually liked Option A better than Option B.
It's hard to say how it's going to develop back there. If it connects
IL up with the Charles Anderson property, that will lay out nicely. I
think all of Mrs. Haligren's concerns have been answered. She's going
to have free access to her property on the easement that she' s had for a'
number of years. Since there' s going to be a lot more traffic on that
road, once it starts under construction, is the applicant going to do II
anything to prevent that traffic from going back to the Hallgren
property because I know they horses back there and they probably don' t
like a lot of disturbance.
Robert Pierce: You mean plowing down their driveway?
Mayor Hamilton: Right. '
Robert Pierce: I can' t see any real reason why they would have to go in
there. It's pretty far removed. You mean the construction of the
roadway?
Gary Warren: There will be a visible tapered section into the driveway
from the regular city road section so there will be a definite visual II
impact to anyone who would want to continue on so it will look like a
driveway and not a city street.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, so once you get past the entrance into where '
you're going to turn into the property, then the road will go. . .
Gary Warren: It will neck down to the driveway section. And we will
have curb and gutter up to that point also.
Mayor Hamilton: Other than that, I don't have any problems with the
subdivision. I think it looks nice. It lays out nicely. It will be II
nice subdivision.
168 -
R'
II City Council Meeting
February 8, 1988 - Page 28
I '—
Councilman Horn: I was curious about the church property there. It
' looks like it's subdivided.
Mayor Hamilton: I don' t know where this plan came from but I know the
II church is there.
Gary Warren: That's a concept plan we had just to see how this piece
would fit in with the rest of that area.
I
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the
I Subdivision #87-32 as shown on the plat stamped "Received December 14,
1987" and subject to the following conditions :
1. The right-of-way south of Lots 7 through 16 shall be designated as
Ian outlot.
2. Lots 1 -5, Block 2 shall provide an additional 10 feet of depth or
I an approved detailed landscaping plan providing screening from
Minnewashta Parkway.
I 3. The existing building and debris shall be removed from the site upon
approval of the appropriate permits.
4. Provision of a 20 foot trail easement on the west side of
IIMinnewashta Parkway.
5. Type II erosion control , staked hay bales and snow fence, shall be
Iplaced along the south side of Lots 1, 9 and 10.
6. A typical detail for type II erosion control , staked hay bales and
IIsnow fence, shall be placed on the grading plan.
7. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all
disturbed slopes greater than 3: 1.
I8. All streets and utilities shall be constructed in accordance to the
City's standards for urban construction.
I9. The watermain shall either be looped or increased to an eight inch
diameter. No dead-end stubs shall be allowed.
I 10. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the
commencement of any grading.
I 11. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City
and provide the necessary financial surities as a part of this
6
agreement for completion of the improvements.
12. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District and DNR permit.
I
City Council Meeting
February 8, 1988 - Page 29 1
13. The proposed manhole 2 shall be lowered to it ' s minimum possible '
elevation such that service from the north of the easterly proposed
cul-de-sac may be facilitated.
14. Drainage easements shall be adjusted to cover the entire ponding
site should shifting of the pond be necessary.
15. The curb radius as shown in Attachment #3 shall be replaced by sa '
curb transition section as shown in Attachment #4.
All voted in favor and motion carried. '
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. y '
Jo Ann Olsen: Real briefly, the wetland is located approximately along
this line and it's just a sloped hill where it goes into a larger I
wetland to the northwest. It acts mostly as a drainageway. It' s a low
Class B wetland. Again, the applicant is proposing a ponding area in
this location. We are requiring that that ponding area be designed to
the Fish and Wildlife's standards so that it will also act a wetland.
They will be filling in a portion of the wetland and will therefore hay
to also receive a permit from the Corps of Engineers. The Planning
Commission recommended approval and staff is recommending approval .
1. Mayor Hamilton: When I walked back there this fall, there didn' t seem
to be any different grasses or weeds in there than there were on most o
the rest of the property. There weren' t any trees is all where there
were some trees on the rest of the property. It's got to be such a
marginal type wetland, it' s hard to believe they even need a permit to
do anything there. When you can see the deer had nested in there, sleep"
in there occasionaly but other than that, there wasn' t anything there.
There wasn' t any water there. There was nothing there.
Jo Ann Olsen: It was marginal. There was wetland vegetation, sparse. 1
Mayor Hamilton: You'd have to look awful hard to find it. So you' re
comfortable that what they're proposing is then satisfatory for the
area. The area to the north, actually from there, - is that going to be
altered because of this? It is low in that corner and it drains to the
north. Doesn't it or where does it drain to? '
Jo Ann Olsen: The drainage will still flow from the rear of this lot.
Some of the water will be directed away from that wetland but that
wetland basically receives from all directions.
Mayor Hamilton: It's not going to be directed towards the Haligren' s
property I hope. I
Gary Warren : It's not being altered in that area. The concept plan
shows a drainage in a little better perspective as far as the whole area
is concerned.
r
r.
City Council Meeting
IIFebruary 8, 1988 - Page 30
ICouncilman Boyt: Has it been determined that that wetland can ' t be
saved? That we can't use that as a holding pond?
IIGary Warren: Which wetland?
Councilman Boyt : The wetland that we're filling in. We can' t use that
II as a holding pond?
Jo Ann Olsen: The way that this was designed again was to bring the
I drainage to the east where it would enter into Lake Minnewashta. The
only way for it to really act as a wetland would be to direct drainage
back and forth to continue to direct it to the west.
II Councilman Boyt: What areas are leading to that being a Class B wetland
at this time? Where does it drain from?
II Jo Ann Olsen: Right now it drains here but once they put in the street ,
it will be directing most of the drainage from here on, will be directed
to Minnewashta Parkway. It could be used as a ponding area. No
II question about it. That's typically where we do locate the ponding
areas.
Councilman Boyt : So we' re recontouring the land? I guess I didn' t
I gather on here that that was very substantial. What kind of
recontouring were you proposing?
[_
IJo Ann Olsen : I believe the street drains in the storm sewers.
Councilman Boyt: Gary or Larry, can you tell me how deep the cut is
running on this property?
ILarry Brown: At which point?
II Councilman Boyt : I 'm kind of interested at the end there by the natural
marsh. How much of that we' re having to cut to change the flow.
IJo Ann Olsen: It' s being filled.
Larry Brown: It's being filled at that point.
I Jo Ann Olsen: The existing slope is down. This is being filled. So
the drainage, rather than naturally going like this, will be directed to
the street which will take it this way.
ILarry Brown: Bill, if I could address one more of your concerns. When
I attended the Planning Commission meeting I was asked the same
question, about using this area as a ponding area. The elevation is
IIquite a bit lower at that point than the rest of the site so to the
ultimate runoff point to Lake Minnewashta is how feasible to drain water
to a ponding area, not worry about this site and have it go into Lake
I Minnewashta. The storm sewer systems and elevations just would not
facilitate that . Mrs. Hallgren was quite concerned about directing any
more drainage back towards her property and that's one of the prime
1
City Council Meeting
February 8, 1988 - Page 31 I
reasons the pond was proposed away from her property and on this corner I
over there.
Councilman Boyt: Let me ask a question Larry. Maybe it will shorten
things up a little bit here. What you're telling me is, if we kept the II
current marsh as the ponding area, we'd be running water away from the
lake and it would basically have no place to go from there?
Larry Brown: Correct me if I 'm wrong Jo Ann, but this area has very
little runoff down to here. In the springtime it tends to need more or
less a holding until a majority of it can evaporate off. •
Jo Ann Olsen: It doesn't even hold. It runs itself out of water.
Councilman Boyt: What runs into the other wetland? '
Jo Ann Olsen: Nothing.
Councilman Johnson: I was going to say Bill , the fill is going to be 8
feet at that location.
Mayor Hamilton moved , Councilman Horn seconded to approve a Wetland
Alteration Permit #87-16 to permit the alteration of a Class B Wetland
with the following conditions :
1. The proposed sedimentation basin shall be designed to the following
six criteria so that it will also be as a wetland area: 1
a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to increase
shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and
resting birds.
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10: 1 to
20: 1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of
emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife.
c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable I
water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of
wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 to 3.4 feet) and (b)
encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow
water and thereby increase interspesion of open water with
emergent vegetation.
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing
1
wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable
substrate for aquatic vegetation.
e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, I
etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
f. The basin will have fringe of shurbs on upland surrounding the ,
basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
City Council Meeting
February 8, 1988 - Page 32
' 2. The applicant must receive a permit from the Corps of Engineers . (-
All voted in favor and motion carried.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT.
' Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for
a recreational beachlot. The recreational beachlot will be located on
Outlot A. A meets all the requirements for a recreational beachlot but
' does not have the depth required for a dock. The applicant is still
requesting a conditional use permit conditioned upon receiving the
variance for a dock and for the additional boat slips. Staff is
recommending approval of the conditional use permit for the recreational
' beachlot with the conditions that they do provide us with a more
detailed plan of what in fact will be located on the beachlot and with
an erosion control and tree removal plan. The Planning Commission also
' recommended approval of the conditional use permit.
Mayor Hamilton: I suspect we could handle (c) and (d) together when (c)
comes back if you wanted or if nobody has a problem with it. It might
give us an opportunity to discuss them both at the same time. I think
probably since it's not something they need to have tonight, you
wouldn' t have a problem with that I suspect. I don' t see that it' s
going to hold you up in anyway by not having your conditional use.
Robert Pierce: I guess not in one sense but in the other sense, it kind
' of leaves of hanging on a ledge there because it's a real important part
of the whole project. I don ' t know about procedures but I 'm wondering
if it's possible. I know it's a little backwards but we've had several
delays that have been somewhat unforeseen and nothing I guess that we
could do about it. To go ahead and proceed with these and make a
conditional on the Board of Adjustments granting the variance. Is that
possible or am I out of line?
Mayor Hamilton : No, I guess if the Board of Adjustments approves it,
it's approved unless a councilmember wants to discuss it further, if I
I remember correctly. I guess I 'd like to ask the council what their
pleasure is?
Councilman Johnson: I was intending on trying to table this one because
I I thought that asking for this information after we approve a permit is
like closing the gate after the horses have left. I want to see more
details about what's going to go on there. How deep is the sand? How
' many trees. . . I 'm not ready to approve the conditional use permit as is.
I want to see more detail. I 'd like to see the whole thing moved up
north were they have more room.
1 Mayor Hamilton: Are you making a motion then?
[E7
Councilman Johnson: You asked us just for an opinion. I was telling
Iyou what I was planning on doing.
R s ` 'Ell
City Council Meeting
February 8, 1988 - Page 33
Mayor Hamilton: I was hoping maybe you were going to make a motion. '
Councilman Johnson: I will and I was telling you some of the reasons
why I'll make this motion. I don' t like where the walkway is . He wants"
some feedback so I 'm giving him some feedback too. There' s a natural
trail already running down there. I see no reason to cut another trail .
There's a trail that's leading to the old dock. That' s where his trail
should be. There's no use in cutting out and making more disturbance of"
the soils in a very sensitive area so until some of these types of
problems. We get the increased detail that staff wants. The tree
program. This time of year there's also a tough problem, you go there II
and look at it and try to visualize because you can' t tell where the
shoreline is. That's not the applicant's problem but I 'd like to table
this until the applicant brings in. . .
Robert Pierce: Might I suggest though, the fact that the beach area is
not something , we' re willing to move and try to work with the City as we
have done and try to address most the problems but what I need from the II
City is not to get pushed off , come back and say maybe I ' ll move this
and again. What I'd really like to see is some action. Maybe if you
have some suggestions , to run that through your planning department.
I 'd be more than happy to sit down and talk to them. More than happy to,
try and alleviate the problems . We want to do a nice job but we' re
1 running out of time too. We need to continue on from our aspect. We've
been pushed off for months now. I
Councilman Horn: Can I ask a question of the attorney? Do we have any
basis to deny the conditional use permit without variances? '
Roger Knutson: I'm not sure what you mean by without variances .
Councilman Horn: We' re not allowing any variances by approving the
conditional use permit.
Roger Knutson: That's correct. '
Councilman Horn: They're asking for variances for other portions of the
beachlot. '
Roger Knutson: You could theoretically allow the conditional use permit
without variances.
Councilman Horn: That' s the only way I would allow it this evening .
That would be final. You wouldn' t have variances. Otherwise, if we
treat them together , then you can go for it but I 'm not really prone to II
variances on beachlots anyway.
Robert Pierce: So what are you saying? I guess, before I leave here,
if you' re going to table (c) and (d) , give me some guidance of what you II
want me to come back.
Mayor Hamilton: (c) is going to be tabled automatically because it has !'
not gone before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals so I don' t really
V L� R
I
City Council Meeting
February 8, 1988 - Page 34
' think it's appropriate for us to comment on that at this time. The
conditional use permit, I guess I 'd like to consider them both together (—
but if you want some comments, Jay has given his and perhaps Bill you
could give comments .
Councilman Boyt: Okay. I noticed Jay' s not done.
' Councilman Johnson: I 'd say mostly cut off.
Councilman Boyt: Well Jay, I suspect you' ll get another change here and
' I' ll be real quick and you can have my time. I 'm against (c) and I 'm
against (c) because you don' t have one of the three basic things we say
you need. I 'm not going to corrupt our ordinance by voting to give a
1 variance to it. That's all I need to say. I'm okay with (d) but not
with (c) .
Councilman Horn: That ' s my sentiment exactly.
' Councilman Johnson: I believe that without the variances, in other
words, I didn' t see the dock, the conditional use permit, we have no
choice but to approve it. But, we do have the choice to ask for
additional details on grading , tree removal , etc. and that's why I want
to see those before I approve it rather than putting the staff into the
' position of having to negotiate in our name. I 'd rather be letting them
negotiate and then let us approve it. I do believe you will get the
conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot and I too am against
the dock.
' Robert Pierce : Are you aware that at the present time you would have to
have a variance to have a single family home on 9 acres with 500 feet of
' lakeshore to have one dock. The way it ' s set up right now, you can ' t
even have one dock on a single family home and 550 feet of lakeshore.
I Mayor Hamiltonn : That' s not the issue. I 'm in favor of both of them.
I see no reason why they shouldn ' t be passed. If anybody' s familiar
with the outlot, it's a large outlot. It' s a nice piece of property and
can accomodate everything that the applicant is asking for without any
I undue effects or bad effects to the property itself or to the lake
surface or to the lake water quality or anything else. - I think it's a
good use of the land . It' s a nice piece of property and I think if you
I do it properly, you' re going to have a very nice outlot and allowing 4
boats on there is certainly not going to cause any problem to the lake
or to the shoreline or to anything else. I 'm in favor of both.
I Councilman Johnson moved , Councilman Boyt seconded to table the
Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot until the detailed
information, i .e. tree removal plan, etc. that the staff has asked for,
is brought in. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and
motion carried .
I
2
R JA DATE: Feb. -7717$1$1
�, ITN' o f R-
,� � ,� C.C. DATE: Feb. 8, 1988
CUAI'THAE ..
\fit , y CASE : 88-2 Variance
,-/' - Prepared by: Olsen/v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: To Receive a Variance to the Lot Depth Requirement
For a Recreational Beachlot and to Receive a
Variance to the Requirements of a Maximum of Three
1... Boats Stored Overnight. `
Z
Q ..
0 LOCATION: 6830 Minnewashta Parkway, on the west side of
Minnewashta Parkway approximately i mile south of
Highway 7 .
Cl. APPLICANT: Pierce Construction
Q 3915 Farmhill Circle
Mound, MN 55364
,'
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
I
ACREAGE: 9 .04 acres
DENSITY: 5 .9 acres (net acres) 2 .54 u/a (net densil
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family
I
S- RSF; single family ,
itr E- Lake Minnewashta /�/��
W- RSF; single family
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
W PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site has a grove of trees on the
western side of Lake Minnewashta. The
remainder of the site is open field.
(f) Outlot A has a steep slope toward the
lake and heavily vegetated.
1990 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
I
lq,
Stratford Ridge Variance
February 8, 1988
Page 2
iAPPLICABLE REGULATIONS
' Sections 5-9-11 requires a recreational beachlot to have at
least 200 feet of lake frontage. This section also requires that
no dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it
has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least a
100 foot depth. No more than one dock may be erected on a
recreational beachlot for every 200 feet of lake frontage and
30,000 square feet of land and no more than three motorized or
' non-motorized watercraft per dock shall be allowed to be stored
overnight. No more than one canoe rack shall be allowed per
dock with no more than six watercraft stored on a rack
' (Attachment #1) .
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a
recreational beachlot on Outlot A as shown on the preliminary
plat. Outlot A contains 31 ,400 square feet and approximately 550
' feet of lake frontage but does not contain 100 feet of depth.
The northerly portion of Outlot A contains 110 feet of depth and
the southerly portion contains approximately 84 feet of depth.
' The central area of Outlot A contains only 40 feet of depth which
is the approximate area for the proposed dock and sandbeach.
Therefore, a variance is required to the Recreational Beachlot
conditions to permit a dock to be installed on Outlot A. The
applicant is also proposing to store 4 boats overnight on the
dock. The Zoning Ordinance limits overnight storage of boats on
a recreational beachlot to three boats/dock. Therefore, the
Board of Adjustments must also act on the variance for the number
of overnight slips on the proposed dock.
The Recreational Beachlot Ordinance was first adopted in 1982.
The original ordinance required a recreational beachlot to have
100 feet of width at the ordinary high water and 100 feet land-
ward of the ordinary high water mark in order for the beach to
' have a dock (Attachment #2) . These dimensions resulted in a
minimum lot configuration for a beachlot with a dock of 100 feet
wide and 100 feet deep. The original Recreational -Beachlot
Ordinance did not permit any overnight storage of boats on a
recreational beachlot dock. The Recreational Beachlot Ordinance
was amended in 1986. The amendment included a regulation per-
mitting three boats to be stored on a recreational beachlot dock
overnight. The amended ordinance also included the 100 foot lot
depth requirement for the beachlot to have a dock. The amended
ordinance also increased the lot width for a recreational beach-
!'
lot with a dock from 100 feet to 200 feet of lake frontage. The
purpose of the minimum lot area requirements was to provide a
minimum area for the recreational beachlot activities.
I
I
Stratford Ridge Variance
February 8 , 1988
Page 3
The Recreational Beachlot regulations state that no more than one
canoe rack shall be permitted per dock and no more than six
watercraft may be stored on a rack. If the variance to permit a`
dock on the proposed recreational beachlot is denied, then a
canoe rack would not be permitted and a variance to permit a
canoe rack would also be required. The applicant is requesting
two canoe racks for the storage of 11 boats. The zoning ordi-
nance limits the number of canoe racks to one per dock, therefore
a variance would be required for additional canoe racks.
The Board of Adjustments and City Council must determine if a
hardship exists for the variance to be approved. A hardship is
defined as "the property in question can not be put to a reaso-
nable use if used under conditions allowed by the official _
controls" . Economic considerations shall not constitute undue
hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms
of the ordinance. Under strict interpretations of the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance, the applicant would be permitted
a recreational beachlot and would therefore have use of the prop-
erty. Although the proposed recreational beachlot would not be
permitted a dock or canoe rack under the Recreational Beachlot
regulations, it could be used for picnics , swimming and other
recreational activities . In a letter dated November 12 , 1987,
the City Attorney reviewed the variance request (Attachment #4) .
Since a hardship does not exist, the variance to the Recreational
Beachlot conditions should not be approved. If the Board of
Adjustments or City Council feels a dock and/or additional over-
night storage of boats should be permitted, the Zoning Ordinance
should be amended rather than approving a variance. I
Summary
The Board of Adjustments must act on two variance requests. The
first is to permit a dock on a recreational beachlot that does
not have 100 feet of depth. The second is to permit one addi-
tional
boat to be stored overnight on a recreational beachlot
•
dock.
The City Attorney responds to several questions of the Planning
Commission and addresses the "facts" required by the ordinance to
be established.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the
Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the
following facts:
A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause
undue hardship and practical difficulty.
I
I
Stratford Ridge Variance
February 8 , 1988
' Page 4
B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir-
cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure
involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to
other lands of structures in the same district.
C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser-
vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con-
sequence of a self-created hardship.
' E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect
the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of
the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be
in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
' Given the City Attorney' s opinion, staff recommends the Board of
Adjustments adopt the following:
' "The Board of Adjustments recommends denial of the variance
request to permit a dock on Outlot A, Stratford Ridge sub-
division, and deny the variance request to permit the overnight
storage of 4 boats on a recreational beachlot dock and deny the
variance request for two canoe racks ."
ATTACHMENTS
' 1 . Section 5-9-11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2 . 1982 Recreational Beachlot Ordinance.
3 . 1986 Recreational Beachlot Ordinance.
4 . Letter from Roger Knutson dated November 12, 1987.
5 . Letter from Craig Freeman dated February 2, 1988.
6 . Preliminary plat dated December 14 , 1987.
I
1
1
I
Al
III
K
B. Emergency vehicle access shall not be adjacent II
� cent to
or located across a street from any residential
I ') use.
I
J 11. Recreational beach lots provided the following minimum
III standards are met in addition to such other conditions
I
as may be prescribed in the permit:
A. Recreational beach lots shall have at least 200
II feet of lake frontage.
I
B. No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing
house, camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle
I
or shelter shall be erected, maintained or stored
upon any recreational beach lot.
IIC. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not I
limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized
mini-bike, all-terrain vehicle or snowmobile shall
II be driven upon or parked upon any recreational
I
beach lot.
D. No recreational beach lot shall be used for I
overnight camping.
E. Boat launches are prohibited.
IF. No recreational beach lot shall be used for I
purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring
11 of more than three (3) motorized or non-motorized
I
watercraft per dock. If a recreational beach lot is
allowed more than one dock, however, the allowed
number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3)
IIsail boat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes, I
windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats may
be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot
I if they are stored on racks specifically designed
I
for that purpose. No more than one (1) rack shall
be allowed per dock. No more than six (6)
II watercraft may be stored on a rack. Docking of
I
other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any
time other than overnight.
I G. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational
I
beach lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake
frontage and the lot has at least a 100 foot depth.
IINo more than one dock may be erected on a II recreational beach lot for every 200 feet of lake
frontage. In addition, 30, 000 square feet of land
is required for the first dock and an additional
20,000 square feet is required for each additional I
dock. No more than three (3) docks, however, shall
be erected on a recreational beach lot.
II )' ' a f°-'' I
toaf7r1 WI MO.
1 -48-
l
l:l,�i. 1/ 11/ u_
.. 2/17/82 - Om"
R'
II . • b. No motor vehicle, including but not limited to
any motorcycle, motorized mini-bike, all-terrain
vehicle, or sowmobile, shall be driven upon or
parked upon any recreational beach lot.
c . No recreational beach lot shall be used for
overnight camping purposes .
Id. No recreational beach lot shall be used for
purposes of overnight storage or overnight
I mooring of watercraft in abutting waters, or
overnight docking of boats , or other watercraft;
provided, however, that canoes may be stored
I overnight on any recreational beach lot if said
canoes are stored in canoe racks specifically
designed for that purpose. Docking of watercraft
or seaplanes is permissible , however, at any
IItime other than overnight.
I
I
I e . :Vo boat trailer shall be allowed upon any recrea-
tional beach lot; boats , seaplanes or other water-
craft may be launched from any 'recreational beach
I lot if accomplished without the use of any
motor vehicle, trailer, or wheeled dolly .
I f. No seasonal dock or permanent dock shall be
permitted on any recreational beachlot, unless
too' said recreational beachlot is not less than
one hundred (100) feet wide at both the ordinary
II 1 high water mark and at a point one hundred (100)
feet landward from the ordinary one
water mark,
One dock may be erected upon any recreational
I \_.. tcx ' beach lot which meets the minimum dimensional
requirements set forth in both this subparagraph
L44'1E, " f" and in subparagraph "g" of this Section 6. 04 (10) .
illi g. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6)
feet in width, and no such dock shall exceed the
greater of the following lengths: (a) fifty (50)
feet or, (b) the minimum straight-line distance
necessary to reach a water depth of four (4) feet.
-4- f Lei a.a����ANC,��
CI'. OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES , MINNESOTA i 4
' i
ORDINANCE NO. 47-BH
AN ORDINANCE
OF CHHANDHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE
7.04, 14.04 - I!
.,E CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS: w
Section 6.04, subparagraph 10 of Ordinance 47 , '
SECTION 1. 1
'nance, is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
he Zoning Ordi
provided the following minimum standards
Recreational beach lots p
rescribed
are met in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed
the permit:
A. Recreational beach lots shall have at least 200 feet of
lake frontage.
I
portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house,
B. No structure, i
camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle or shelter
shall be erected, maintained or stored upon
lot. :1
motor vehicle , including but not limited
C. No boat, trailer, m motorized mini-bike, all-terrain
to cars, trucks, motorcycles, on or parked upon
vehicle or snowmobile shall be driven up i �
any recreational beach lot.
recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight I'
D. No recrea ,I
camping. i
E. Boat launches are prohibited. ',
recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of , !
F. No storage or overnight mooring of more than three
overnight storag per dock. If II
(3) motorized or non-motorized watercraft p
a recreational beach lot is allowed more than lone
eedock, �i
however, the allowed number of boats may � ,
Up to three (3) sail boat boards, shall boats II
Canoes, windsurfers, sail
recreational beach lot
may be stored overnight on any designed lot
if they are stored on racks specifically(6)
t
ur
pose. No more than one (1) rack shall be allowed
that p P watercraft may be - gtorect
per dock. No more than six
of other watercraft or seaplanes is
on a rack. Docking ' ,
permissible at any time other than overnight.
permitted on any recreational beach lot
G. No dock shall at p I
unless it has at least 200 otf depth. Nok more othan eone ddock
lot has at least a 100 foot
be erected on a recreational every
feet of lake frontage. In
of land is required for the first dock and an additional '
I d
' i
� 3
I
LAW OFFICES
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
DAVID L.GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER:
DAVID L.GRANNIS,JR.- 1910-1980 POST OFFICE BOX 57
(612)455-2359
VANCE B.GRANNIS 4O3 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L. HARMEYER M.CECILIA RAY
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH
PATRICK A.FARRELL
' DAVID L. GRANNIS, II1
ROGER N. KNUTSON SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 MICHAEL J MAYER
TELEPHONE:(612)455-1661
' November 12, 1987
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
City of Chanhassen
' 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Stratford Ridge Development
' Case No. 87-17
Dear Jo Ann:
' Your November 4, 1987, letter asks a series of questions
regarding the Stratford Ridge Development recreational beachlot
' C.U.P. request:
Q. The Commission wants to be able to permit the applicant to
have a dock on the recreational beachlot. How can they do it?
A. The Board of Adjustment and Appeal has the ability to
grant a variance. The better approach would be to amend
' the ordinance.
Q. How would approving a dock on the recreational beachlot
impact the Lake Riley court case and would it set a
precedent? The Planning Commission feels there are different
circumstances and issues.
' A. The equal protection clause of the Minnesota and United
States Constitution requires that similarly, situated
property be treated similarly. The plaintiff in the Lake
Riley case would argue that the cases are similar; I
would argue that they are not. Granting the variance
would give the applicant another argument that the City
would not have to deal with if the variance is not
granted. The only difference I see between the two
situations is that one can't comply with the depth
requirement and the other can't comply with the size
' requirement.
NOV 161387
4 CITY.OF CHANHASSEN
I it
R T M w
Jo Ann Olsen W
November 12, 1987
Page Two
Q. Is there an existing hardship to permit a variance to allow
the dock? What is the definition of a hardship, is it no use
of the land or no dock?
A. The hardship is that without a variance they can' t have a
dock. If this is a qualifying hardship, then everyone who
fails to meet minimum ordinance requirements would be
entitled to a variance. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6
defines "undue hardship" as:
The property in question cannot be put to a I
reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by
the official controls, the plight of the landowner —
is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner, and the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of
the locality. Economic considerations alone shall
not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use
for the property exists under the terms of the
ordinance.
"Undue hardship" applies to the use of the land, not the
dock.
Q. The Commission feels that it is physically impossible to meet
the requirement of the 100 foot depth, that a dock existed
prior to the ordinance and that the ordinance therefore
inflicts the hardship. As a note, the property owner had a
dock on the property proposed for the recreational beachlot,
but this dock has not existed for over a year.
A. Since the dock was removed there are no non-conforming
rights to put it back. If "physical impossibility" to
meet the ordinance requirement was all that was required
for a variance, then ordinance restrictions would have
little if any meaning in relationship to existing lots.
Q. The Commission questioned that if a variance could not be
justified to allow the dock on the beachlot, that we should
review the Subdivision Ordinance which defines a lot as a
separate parcel if it is divided by a street. The Commission
felt that it should not be considered as a separate lot. They
felt that it should be permitted to be joined with the
property across the street.
A. The City can change the ordinance requirements. A lot
divided by a street, however, doesn't function as a
single lot. You could count both halves of the lot for
lot size requirement, but what about setbacks, lot
coverage, lot frontage?
I
4
Idl
Jo Ann Olsen
November 12, 1987
Page Three
' If you need any additional information, please call me. If
it would be helpful I will attend a Planning Commission meeting
and discuss this with the Commi - •
Ver truly your
GRA NIS, GRAk . S, EL.
' --•-o • , P.A.
BY. -��--'
Roger ► . Knutson
RNK:srn
•
I
I
1
I
R'
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES
FEBRUARY 22, 1988 1
MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Tom Hamilton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dale Geving '
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner
VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO PERMIT
INSTALLATION OF A DOCK WITH FOUR SLIPS FOR OVERNIGHT STORAGE AND
TWO CANOE RACKS, STRATFORD RIDGE SUBDIVISION
Dacy presented the staff report to the Board. She stated that
based on the City Attorney' s opinion, there was no hardship
proven to grant the variance. It was suggested that the City
amend the ordinance rather than granting a variance request.
Bob Pierce, the applicant, submitted a letter from Dave Headla in
support of the variance request. Pierce stated that the ability
to have a beachlot would increase the value of the four lots
abutting Minnewashta Parkway. He stated that if the beachlot and
variance were not granted then the lots and homes could lose
value up to $100 ,000.
Allen Willcutt from Schoell and Madson reviewed the proposed
recreational beachlot plan. He stated that trees would be
removed. He stated that the storm sewer pipe has been moved so
that tree removal can be avoided. He stated that the size of the
beach area has also been limited to preserve the natural area to
the south.
Bob Pierce also stated that the area where the docks are to be
located was in excess of 100 feet. He also stated that the
plan was designed to create as much of a buffer as possible to
adjacent property owners.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive, stated that she had no '
objection to the docking, however, she did object to the beachlot
in general because of the existing activity on Lake Minnewashta.
She stated that the city should stick by its current ordinance.
Ray Roettger, 3221 Dartmouth Drive, stated that people who own
property adjacent to the lake take care of the property better
than those who do not. He stated that his own experience has
been bad living next to a recreational beachlot. He stated that
usage has increased and the beachlot is becoming overloaded.
Chuck Lawson, current owner of the subject property, stated that
there has been a dock on the property for a number of years. He
stated that the Leach property was very busy many years ago and
he can see no agrument against having a dock on Lake Minnewashta.
I
BOA Minutes
February 22, 1988
Page 2
Motion by Johnson, seconded by Watson, to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' Hamilton stated that each case should be decided on its indivi-
dual facts and merits. He stated that the city should encourage
canoe racks as it would promote non-motorized activity. He
stated that he did not have difficulty with installation of the
dock. He also stated that a homeowners association should be
created to properly maintain it. He stated that the proposed
beachlot request would help clean up the dead trees in the area.
He stated that the beachlot can not be seen from the road as one
travels by. He stated that the lake is there for all people.
Hamilton questioned the City Attorney' s opinion regarding the
property being split by Minnewashta Parkway. He stated that the
parcel should be considered as one lot. He suggested to the
Board that they consider a motion to allow the canoe racks and
one dock, but allow overnight storage for thboat slips only.
Johnson stated that he did have a problem with the lot depth
issue and that the city should stick by the ordinance regarding
the number of slips.
Watson also questioned the City Attorney' s opinion on the
separate parcel issue.
Dacy stated that the current ordinance states that if a lot is
split by a road right-of-way, the abutting land on either side of
it should be deemed as a separate parcel. She reviewed the City
Attorney' s opinion explaining that if it is to be .considered as
one parcel it would be difficult to measure setbacks, lot covera-
lland other building requirements.
Mary Jo Moore stated that the city would not receive property
taxes from beachlots.
Hamilton stated that he did not believe that this was true.
' Hamilton moved to grant the variance to allow the installation of
a dock to permit three slips for overnight storage of boats,
installation of two canoe racks according to the plan stamped
"Received February 18, 1988" . The motion was seconded by
Johnson.
Watson stated that she felt the ordinance should be clarified
first rather than considering a variance request.
Johnson and Watson voted against the motion, and Hamilton voted
for the motion. The motion failed.
I
I
Pll
BOA Minutes
February 22, 1988
Page 3
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Watson moved, seconded by Johnson to approve the minutes of 1
October 5, 1987. Watson and Johnson voted in favor. Hamilton
abstained.
Hamilton moved, seconded by Watson, to adjourn the meeting at
7 :30 p.m.
1
, 1
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
11
7
1244
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988
II Department, we'd like to award you with this plaque Chad and thank you
personally for your act.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to congratulate Chad and certainly thank you for your
II showing outstanding courage and timeliness in an incident like this. The world
and our community and others like it can certainly use more people like
yourself. Thanks again.
STRATFORD RIDGE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 6830 MINNEWASHTA PARMAY ON PROPERTY
ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, ROBERT PIERCE:
A. VARIANCE TO THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE FOR LOT DEPTH AND NUMBER OF
BOAT SLIPS.
IB. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT.
' Mayor Hamilton: This item was discussed at the Board of Adjustments and Review
and it was voted by a 2 to 1 vote to not issue the variance. Consequently, the
applicant would like to have the Council consider this item. The reason given
' for the vote was both Carol and Willard did not want to issue a variance to the
100 foot lot depth. My feeling is that it's one piece of property. It's under
one PID number. It is one parcel and I'm not convinced that the 100 foot lot
II depth exists even though there is a roadway passing through the property. It
is one parcel. It's not two. You can't build a house on the lake portion of
it. It's all connected. It was sold as one. It's under one ownership. 11/
I Perhaps Barbara could give us just a brief overview of this item. I think we
reviewed it previously but you might want to show us what our alternatives are
here.
II Barbara Dacy: The applicant is requesting in essence three variances. The
first variance is the depth requirement of 100 feet. In order to have a dock
you must have 200 feet of lake frontage, 100 feet in depth and 30,000 square
I feet of area. The subject site does not have consistent lot depth of 100 feet.
At the northerly part of the property, it does measure 115 feet. However, the
narrowest portion does measure 40 feet. Fifth, the variances granted to have
' the dock and then the next request is to have four boat slips instead of the
required three boat slips. Thirdly, the number of canoe racks in the ordinance
is tied to the number of docks. One canoe rack is permitted per dock. The
applicant is requesting two canoe racks for the storage of 11 canoes. The
staff's recommendation is based on the City Attorney's opinion which is
included in your packet. That recommendation is to deny the variance request.
The Attorney's suggestion is to amend the ordinance rather than issue a
II variance. If the Council is going to approve the request, the following
summarizes a proposed motion. Again, the variance should be issued to the lot
depth requirement first in order that the applicant can receive the dock. Then
the Council should decide on whether or not a variance should be granted to
II allow one additional slip. Finally, a variance to the number of canoe racks.
Again, two being proposed and none being permitted. We'd also suggest that if
a motion of approval is made, that the motion contain reference to the plan
1 stamped "Received February 18, 1988". Finally, in regards to the second item
on the agenda, even if the variances were denied on all of these items, the
applicant still has the right to petition for the use of a beachlot in a more
I
C.
A s
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988
1
passive manner. That being a swimming beach, recreational area, etc..
Mayor Hamilton: We have members here in the audience that I think would like '
to speak to this issue. Did you want to vaanent again?
Mary Jo Moore: I live on Dartmouth Drive in Chanhassen next to an Association '
that has a dock. It's gotten totally out of hand. I think this ordinance that
Chanhassen came up with, it was after a 2 year study based on the fact that we
have too many of these associations around the lake. They get out of hand and
they're not maintained. It's a good ordinance and I think we should abide by
it. I have no objection, because of the size of this property, I have no
objection to a swimming beach, volleyball, whatever, canoes, but I don't think
they should be allowed a dock. Thank you.
Ray Ruttger, 3221 Darthouth Drive: I guess my comment was relative to the
access road which has a dock on it. Was loaded with 6 boats at one time and
then 5 and after a lot of hassle the City became involved in it. The neighbors
became angry at us. Essentially, they had not maintained it. They do
absolutely nothing to maintain it or remove the dock or put a painting on the
side. There are cans out there. Whatever maintenance is required in the dock
area. Then they became upset because they couldn't put boat lifts out there
but it wasn't just the 3 boats or the 4 boats or 5 boats, but you're talking
about large pontoon boats. The last person who parked the big pontoon out
there became upset because the realtor told him that he could put any and all
boats on the property. So we kind of indicated that he better check it out
with the City. He better check it out with the Ordinance before you go ahead
and buy a piece of property. I think what I'd like to do, I feel like Mary Jo
that the beachlot is fine and it is a good size piece of property. I would
like to see the City have some nice development, same well done homes,
expensive homes. I'm looking for a larger tax base but I think it should be
policed and I think if, as Tan indicated, go along with 3 boat slips. That it
should remain at 3. Be cast in iron and the people that buy the property or
the lots know exactly who is to be allowed to put a boat at the dock. That it
should be very carefully policed because, I don't know if you want me to say
this but I didn't think the development to the south is really maintaining what
they're supposed to be. There are boats out there tied to floats to get by the
additional dockage. I'm talking about the condominium development.
Councilman Boyt: Staff and the Attorney recommended that we not grant this and
my position would be to support them. If we need to look at the ordinance
again, let's look at the ordinance again. I'm not convinced wie' do need to but
I am convined that we've got to live with the ordinance we have.
Councilman Horn: I think we've already compromised our beachlot ordinance in
one case. Apparently with sane bad repercussions. I think in this case, the
reason that we did that was, we said that the beachlot was entitled to the same
rights as a riparian homeowner would have if they were to build a house on a
piece of property. If I heard the staff report correctly, this is not a
developable lot for a hone. Therefore, it would not have a home and be a
IF riparian homeowners situation. Therefore, I don't think it's necessary for us
to compromise beyond what we have already done in our ordinance and I would
suggest that we go along with staff's recommendation.
Councilman Geving: I think that this is certainly a large piece of property
3
12 '
E> R A
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988
and by denying the variance we wouldn't be denying them reasonable use of the
land. They can still use it for a beachlot, for swimming and playing but it
certainly doesn't meet our ordinance and I think I would not be in favor of
granting the variance simply because it is precedent setting. We do have a
memorandum from the Attorney with his recommendations and on that basis, I
would stay with the staff and the Attorney's opinions that the variance should
not be granted. That's the end of my comment.
' Mayor Hamilton: I would just call your attention to one of the questions that
the Attorney, Roger Knutson, addressed. I felt that he asked more questions
than he answered. That was the issue of the 100 feet. I felt that his answer
to that question, part of it is that you could count both halves of the lot.
The lot size requirement. What about setbacks, coverage and lot frontage? So
I think there are some unanswered questions here yet. If it is in fact a
single parcel, and I'm not sure how we determine that. Maybe Elliott can help
us with that question.
Elliott Knetsch: I'd be happy to. I guess what you're referring to there in
Roger's letter is that under the existing ordinance the road, being where it
is, the proposed beachlot is one lot and the portion across the road is a
separate lot under the existing ordinance so it can't be counted to meet the
depth requirement of the beachlot ordinance.
' Mayor Hamilton: Under our existing ordinance?
Elliott Knetsch: Under the City's Zoning Ordinance. It regulates the
beachlots as well as the Zoning Ordinance in general. The existing
interpretation is that that would not be considered all one lot. What you did
mention earlier at the prior meeting that he raised more questions than he
answered. I think, as Barb mentioned, he was being rhetorical there. If you
start getting a different interpretation of what the lot is, then all your
other zoning requirements such as setbacks cane into question too. Where you
' measure from. That becomes a question where you start to put your setbacks.
The size of a lot and lot covereage. All those things come into question.
' Mayor Hamilton: I don't have a problem with it. I think we should probably
address those questions.
Elliott Knetsch: I think the basic recommendation here is, if it's the feeling
' on the Council that something like this is appropriate, the way to address that
is not through a variance but through an amendment to the ordinance. Under the
existing ordinance you have our opinion that it doesn't meet the test for
' granting that variance. If the Council's uncomfortable with that position,
what they should do is take another look at the ordinance. Once the ordinance
is on the book, it should be followed and if you don't like the ordinance, it
should be changed.
Mayor Hamilton: To go back to the point that Clark made too, I don't think
it's right. There can be riparian rights here if the developer decided to sell
five lots on the lake, those five lots would have riparian rights and you would
just deed that part of the property on the lakeshore to those five owners that
he has plotted out on the front of that. They would have 100 feet, is that our
ordinance? 100 feet of lakeshore? What's the minimum?
I
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988
I
Barbara Dacy: Of lot width along the lake?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes. '
Barbara Dacy: 75 feet.
Mayor Hamilton: So he could have even more than that.
Barbara Dacy: But based on our current ordinance, you would in essence have to
grant almost 5 lot area variances for those 5 lots between the road and the
lake. Again, because the current ordinance defines if you have a parcel that's
split by a road then each piece is a separate lot.
Mayor Hamilton: I disagree with that. Then by doing that, in my opinion, we
are taking his property. We are in fact forcing a hardship on him and the City
better buy his property because what we're telling him is we're not going to
allow you to divide that property into five lots and let him put five docks out
there and the use of the lake for those people. He can't do it and I think
that's a taking. I would certainly see it that way. I'm not an attorney
though.
Elliott Knetsch: My response to that is, the City has the opportunity to
impose reasonable regulations. Obviously, the word reasonable is not a clear I
cut standard and I'm not sure I could tell you what a Court would say. In our
opinion, this ordinance, this does not amount to a taking. I think he does
have reasonable use of his property.
Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Pierce, did you want to make some comments?
Robert Pierce: Originally, when I drove by this parcel I looked at it and I
thought, wow, look at the lakeshore we have. There's got to be a way to have
some lakeshore, at least 3 or 4 lots across there. We have 500 feet. So I
went into it a little further and I checked it out and talked to the City
Planner then I went to the Planning Commission meeting and at that point, at
the Planning Commission meeting I went there for one reason. Multiple reasons
but the one major reason was I wanted to see the feeling and get sane direction
at that point because we were into a contract to purchase the property, and see
what they would have to say. At that meeting, it's in the Minutes, it was
pretty clear cut that, same language to that effect, that to deny us a dock
with that type of useage certainly wouldn't be reasonable. That's the
direction they gave us. I believe we came in with a really•Light, light useage
for this parcel. Again, like I stated earlier, I have talked to the neighbors
that are living on the north and I had quite a long discussion today with the
neighbors to the rear of the property, to the west and to the south. Each one
of them, I think, excuse me I should make reference that the one to the north
really didn't care what went on. She just said, whatever we'd like to do is
fine with her but the others I think would definitely like to see a development
with a higher grade of hares in there. Without the docks it's just not
possible. Plain and simple. We're looking at 15 lots. In my way of thinking,
we can reduce the valuation on each home by about $100,000.00 per package which
is a million and a half dollars to this single subdivision. In tax revenues, I
don't know what that would exactly cane out to for the City but if we could
start this out, in this development, and we could put together a nice package
of high quality hones, it would make sense to me that the area that's
11244 r ,.
City Council Meeting February 22, 1988
developed, and there is a lot of land in that area that is going to develop at
' a higher quality. I think that is certainly in the minds of the neighbors is a
real plus. I would think that also in the minds of the City would have to be a
real plus to get more revenue out of it. Also, there are beachlots I know up
' and down this road and I know at sometimes there has definitely been some
problems. I understand, but very few of them have the width that we do and the
type of screening. We've been really cautious to try to meet the needs of the
neighbors. We've worked with the City extensively trying to just meet every
criteria that they would have. We would like to work it for everybody's
benefit but we need the docks. It's an important part of this development.
Otherwise it just changes it. The neighbors I think are for it. To me, the
' way we're going right now, I can't even have a dock on 9 acres. It's one
parcel. The taxes one parcel. It's been taxed as lakeshore. It's just kind
of beyond my thinking that we can't put this one dock in there. The
neighboring property, Mrs. Campbell just to the north, I talked to her today
' and they have not had a dock on their parcel. They don't have the width. They
don't have the areas that we do. At this point, without a variance, that's not
even lakeshore anymore because the ordinance has concluded that. I think there
' is something wrong there. In order for us to do this project, we need those
and we will do a good job. I think it will be an asset to Chanhassen. It will
be an asset to the neighbors. If we're denied that, and we must go along
without it, then it's going to be on a much less of a scale. Plain and simple.
Councilman Boyt: I guess I would suggest that there is a certain amount of
logic to what you say about having a long strip of lake frontage and not having
' a dock on it. It's just that, my opinion is that we don't have an ordinance
that allows you to do that and to give you the variance to that ordinance is to
basically throw the ordinance out. I don't know what the answer is. I can
' recognize the problem as being legitimate and a concern that I would have if I
was in your position. I think maybe we need to look at the ordinance. I
agree, you mentioned during the appeals situation that it might be a rather
lengthy task. I suspect it would be because it's such a volatile issue.
Robert Pierce: If I could make a suggestion. I don't know how long. If there
would be some way to take a look at it, I'm sure it is volatile. I don't know.
' I have this development. It's going to go forward. We've cane to a point, the
dock issue. There's a period of time before we can get the project in the
ground and there's a period of time before construction begins. I would be
' more than happy to work with the City any way possible, to make contacts or
anything, but at the point that the first house goes in there, the whole tone
of the development is taken. If 6 months later we get the docks,' it doesn't
matter. It just doesn't matter. It maybe will bring the value of those 4 lots
' on the front but the rest of it has already been set. I don't have the
wearathol to get into a year. I just don't. I plain and simple can not afford
it. We're in an economic situation where this property right now can be
' developed. It can be done rather quickly I believe. It can get it up and get
it back to a finished product rather soon. If we wait a year, we get into the
economic situation can stop. I've had that happen before and it just sits. I
' personally just can not gamble on that. I don't have the ability to gamble on
that.
Councilman Horn: Where did you get the impression that a dock would not be a
' problem on this piece of property? It couldn't have been your reading the
ordinance?
11
------ ----- - ------- ---- -----
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988
Robert Pierce: No, from the Planning Commission when I went there. They _
talked about reasonable use. They said that, I think if you'd look in the
Minutes I think you'd see that it was clear that they said, let's give it to ~
the Attorney. There must be a way to do this without jeopardizing ourselves. I
know that you have had problems in different areas and I believe you're even in
litigation on one on a different lake, or there has been something in that
order, but the two projects are totally, totally different. There's not
anything in common to it. We're talking 50 feet and then we're talking 500
feet. 50 feet in width and I just feel like the word reasonable is the key
here and I think we have a very, very, very reasonable request before you.
However it needs to be done but I think time is a problem. Also, we do have, I
don't know if you want to go through it but we have a planner from Schoell and
Madsen here and he did do the project and he will explain what we're planning`
to do down there in a little more detail. It might be worth looking at.
Mayor Hamilton: Does anybody want to see it? I guess we still have the
concern. You've got 31,400 square feet which is over two-thirds of an acre,
550 feet of lakeshore and we're saying he can't use the lake. I think that's a
little bit ludicrous. That just isn't right in my opinion. To put 3 boats on
there with one dock. I guess the other concern I have is, the request was for,
I guess looking at the ordinance, it says we can only have one canoe rack for
each dock. It would seem to me that we certainly want to review that in our
ordinance. It seems like that's the type of thing we ought to be encouraging
more places to have rather than discouraging and I would see if there wasn't
any dock down there, I certainly can't see any reason why they can't have two
canoe racks. As long as they're used for canoes and that's the purpose for
them, canoes or sailboats on the lake is what you want to encourage people to
use than for.
•
Councilman Geving: I would have a tendency to agree with that Tan. I do agree
that this is a fairly large lot. It doesn't meet the depth requirements but on
the other hand, we've got other situations where it hasn't met the total area
requirements. I think they're really the same thing. But as far as reviewing
the ordinance to provide for the additional canoe racks and for sailboating, I
think that would be a terrific enterprise in this particular development
because it would lend itself to that. You've got a number of lots and any time
you get a dock with 3 or 4 boat slips, you're going to have contention for
those. But on the other hand, if you could have, let's say 2 canoe. racks with
12 canoes potential, you'd have enough for your neighborhood that you're
proposing Mr. Pierce. I agree with Ton, I think that has to be looked at.
Even though I'm opposed to granting the variance, I think the ordinance itself
could be revised to reflect some new conditions.
Councilman Horn: I agree. I think that stays within the purpose of the intent
of the ordinance. I think we could make an exception to lot area size to the
one canoe rack. The problem always comes in when you start having perinament
dockage of boats. Canoe racks typically are not a lake congestion issue. That
would be worth taking a look at but I agree, we shouldn't do it as a variance.
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the variance to the Recreational Beachlot at
6830 Minnewashta Parkway for lot depth requirement of 100 feet. To allow a
et A
II G}1-5
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988
dock to
be constructed with three (3) boat slips and allow two (2) canoe racks.
There was no second and motion failed for lack of a second.
Elliott Knetsch: May I make a slight amendment to that and suggest that you
move to have staff prepare Findings of Fact consistent with denial of the
variance and the actual decision would be made at the next meeting when you
have those Findings of Fact.
' Councilman Boyt: I'd like to ask why we need that?
Elliott Knetsch: There's a requirement that you have Findings of Fact
Isupporting your decision stating contemporaneously with your decision.
Councilman Boyt: We have it. What would you call the Attorney's letter if not
' Findings of Fact?
Councilman Geving: It would be just a restatement of that.
' Councilman Boyt: I don't understand why we have to put that off until next
session if we have all the facts we're going to have.
' Elliottt Knetsch: The letter doesn't address all the specifics that he may
want to include to support your Findings. We haven't listed exactly what you
want on there.
Councilman Geving: This is not unusual.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to direct staff to prepare
' Findings of Fact consistent with denial of the variance request to the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance at 6830 Minnewashta Parkway anc to direct staff
to review the ordinance for the change in the potential for a greater number of
' canoe racks for this particular lot. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton
who opposed and motion carried.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATONAL BEACHLOT.
Councilman Boyt: Gary I believe you mentioned in the packet that Minnewashta
Parkway was being upgraded to 4 lanes in the distant future.
•
Gary Warren: We said we were looking to upgrade possiblities. Subsequent
' information, the 66 foot right-of-way out there would be sufficient for that.
Councilman Boyt: When I looked at the map of the beachlot, I remember the
' statement about timbered walls. Where were the walls going to be timbered on
the beachlot? I didn't see that on the map or I didn't pick it out of the map
if it was there.
Barbara Laacy: You mean the steps down to the pathway?
Councilman Boyt: That a timbered wall would be built. That's the reference
that I have.
I
- -- --- -- - -
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988
constitute direct access onto these lots. To answer that question, the
variance request to the ordinance is not necessary as proposed by the
applicants to share a driveway. The other issue was whether or not there
should be two shared driveways or creation of an internal street. The
applicant went back and prepared a sketch plan of a lot pattern of the area if
it were to be served by an internal street. We would still potentially have
the possibility of getting 5 lots from this proposed lot pattern, however, Lot
1 at the top here would need a lot depth requirement and secondly, it would
need a variance for a flag lot. As to the engineering issues and traffic
issues, regarding an internal street versus driveway accesses, whenever you can
minimize conflict points along a major collector such as Minnewashta Parkway,
that is a desirable objective. In this option, you do eliminate one driveway
access. It should be noted that the proposed street is located in roughly the
same location as the driveway as proposed for the southerly shared driveway
between Lot 3 and Lot 4 in the first proposal. There was considerable concern
about whether or not the maple tree, located along the proposed lot line of Lot
4 would have to be removed. The Engineering Department has provided
recommendations that despite the driveway being located there or the internal
street, that a grading plan should be submitted to address the sight distance
in that area. Specifically, at least 180 feet of sight distance should be
achieved. If you like, Larry Brown, the Assistant Engineer to address those
issues in more detail, he can do so. In any case, the Planning Commission's
motion was a tied motion so in essense they took no formal action on the
request and passed this item to the Council with their noted concerns. As far
as the traffic issues are concerned, staff's recommendation would be that the
internal street option does minimize conflict points and is a more desirable
street pattern. However, the Council should be aware that that does dictate
some lot layout problems for Lot 1. Finally, if the Council is to approve this
proposed option, with the internal street, it is recommended that the plat be 11 revised and sent back to the Planning Commission so the full street and utility
detail can be worked out on this option. If the other option, ,if the Council
chooses to act on, the application as proposed, you have two options. You can
either approve it as presented and staff has included some recommended
conditions or secondly, you can deny the application for 5 lots and 2 shared
driveways. Would you like Larry to address anything further on the street
versus the driveway? '
Mayor Hamilton: Sure. I think we should see that, unless nobody wants to.
Councilman Geving: The only thing I was concerned about, can we save the maple '
tree under your plan? Do you have information on that? Secondly, I think I
recall a very deep drainage ditch that runs along the road right about at that
point. Right near the road bed. I think that still exists there and the water
canes across from Lake St. Joe. That's somewhere in that vicinity.
Gary Warren: No, that's further north. It's kind of a high spot. ,
Councilman Geving: Okay, then I guess the only issue is the tree for me.
Larry Brown: The issue of the tree, we went out and took some measurements.
Some minor modifications may be possible around the tree. It's a very touchy
area whether they can achieve the 180 foot sight distance without removing the
tree. There is one smaller tree around it that may be removed that might ,
improve the situation but again, it's so tight that it's going to have to be
I
rJ
__ s r
r Qr i�t "' f
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: There's no proposed 4 lane highway on Minnewashta Parkway.
Dave Prillaman: Isn't that what I just heard?
Mayor Hamilton: Somebody just asked the question. They said, no, there is not
a proposed 4-lane highway.
Dave Prillaman: You've got 66 feet for right-of-way? How wide was that road
going to be?
Gary Warren: That road would be maximum 44 foot road section that could
ultimately built.
Dave Prillaman: How wide is it now?
Gary Warren: That road now is maybe 31-32.
Dave Prillaman: I guess all I'm saying is, if we're going to have this
freeway, you can forget all the rest of it. All that road needs is to be
maintained. It doesn't need to be any wider. The speed limits are not adhered
to there now. Let's just don't, I know this is besides what you're talking
about, but you're going to have an awful big argument with me if you widen that
road.
Mayor Hamilton: We're not planning on any widening. You'd probably have an
' argument with me too. I don't have that either. My motion would include the
five conditions by the staff also.
Councilman Boyt: What about keeping the shoreline natural?
Councilman Geving: ...will be pretty natural anyway Bill. I think they're
trying to make this a receational area but I think they want to clean it up,
' not destroy the natural beauty of it. I have no problem with amending my
second to include that.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Conditional Use
Permit #87-17 for a recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions:
1. The recreational beachlot shall not have a dock or canoe rack(s) unless a
variance to the lot depth requirement is granted by the Board of
Adjustments and City Council.
2. The proposed dock shall not have 4 overnight slips unless a variance to
the limitation of overnight storage is granted by the Board of Adjustments
and City council.
3. A11 additional standards established for a recreational beachlot in the
' Zoning Ordinance must be met.
4. A tree removal plan must be submitted to the City and DNR for approval
prior to any alteration to Outlot A.
I
11
`_605111
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988 h'
5. The applicant shall provide a detailed grading and erosion control plan
for the recreational beachlot for staff approval.
4
6. The applicant shall keep the shoreline natural except where the sand beach
is installed.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: I would hope that you would meet with staff as soon as
possible to discuss the possibility of requesting a change in the ordinance and
I'd be happy to work with you on it also. If you don't want to request it, I
will. I think it's something we should be reviewing and getting on with.
Robert Pierce: I'll call than tomorrow.
SUBDIVISION OF 2.5 ACRES INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY TATS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF,
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO MINNEWASHTA
PARKWAY APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF TH 5, SCHWABA-WINCHELL, APPLICANTS.
Barbara Dacy: The property is located east of and adjacent to Minnewashta
Parkway. The property is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential. The parcel is
outlined in green on this overhead. The Planning Commission discussion focused
on two major issues with one of the major issues having three subdivisions, if
you will. One was lot size and the second one was access and that could be
divided into three issues. Driveways versus an internal street. Potential
variance request and third, the maple tree that's located in the property. I'd
like to address the lot size issue first. As you are all aware, the single
family zoning district provides for a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet.
There are a number of adjacent property owners in the area.that were requesting
that the Council look to reducing the number of lots in this subdivision so
that the proposed lot sizes would increase and be more comparable to the lot
sizes existing in the area. The Planning Commission discussed this at length
and directed staff to bring, an issue back if you refer to the discussion,
there was no action taken on this particular item. However, the Council should
be aware that the proposal does meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. All of the lots did contain 15,000 square feet as required by the
Zoning Ordinance. If these adjacent property owners would sell their
properties or same time in the future if the properties were to be subdivided,
the same requirements would be imposed.
Councilman Boyt: How big are those lots? '
Barbara Dacy: The adjacent lots to the east are, I would say at least an acre
and a half in size and maybe some of the property owners are here and could
verify my estimate. As to the second issue of access, one of the issues was
whether or not a variance request was necessary for two driveway accesses onto
Minnewashta Parkway which is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a
collector. We asked the City Attorney to respond to that issue discussed by
the Planning Commission. His letter is included in your packet. In essence
his opinion was that the ordinance prohibits access from "individual lots"
meaning if there were 5 driveways proposed for 5 lots, that would be 1
prohibited. However, since the proposed driveways are shared, that does not
r
CITY OF 0.,P.C. DATE: April 6, 19813
R'
II ,,, - CHANHASSEN C.C. DATE: April 25, 1988
' Y CASE NO: 88-3 ZOA
Prepared by: Olsen/v
1 STAFF REPORT
I .
I PROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-263
( 6 & 7 ) of the City Code to Amend the Lot Depth
FRequirement for Installation of a Dock and One
IZt Canoe Rack/Dock Requirement.
V
11 53 LOCATION:
IIAPPLICANT: Pierce Construction
Q 3915 Farmhill Circle
Mound, MN 55364
I
•
IPRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
IDENSITY: -
ADJACENT ZONING to/
I AND LAND USE: N- ","-`-
ioi
QE- ilea: -- , W- �uN
I gry-b' ''//-d ;
WATER AND SEWER: ..=, - (
I ILI 6-.7g
LPHYSICAL CHARAC. :
1990 LAND USE PLAN:
I 5
Stratford Ridge ZOA
April 6, 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-263 (7 ) of the City Code requires at least 200 feet of
lake frontage for a recreational beachlot and requires at least
30,000 square feet and 100 feet of depth for any recreational
beachlot to have a dock (Attachment #1) .
Section 20-263 ( 6) of the City Code permits only one canoe rack
per dock (Attachment #2) .
BACKGROUND ,
On February 22, 1988, the City Council reviewed a conditional use I
permit for a recreational beachlot as a part of the Stratford
Ridge subdivision (Attachment #3) . The property proposed for -the
recreational beachlot is long and narrow with less than 100 feet
mean depth. The applicant received approval for a recreational
beachlot but was not permitted a dock since it did not have the
required 100 foot depth. The applicant had also requested three
canoe racks with 15 slips. Since the recreational beachlot was
not permitted a dock, the canoe racks were not permitted either.
The Planning Commission and City Council commented that the
variance was not justified but that the applicant should pursue a
zoning ordinance amendment (Attachments #3 and #4) . It was com-
mented that the proposed site had adequate area and lake frontage
( 31,000 s.f. and 550 feet) to support a dock and related activi-
ties and that review of the Zoning Ordinance would be appropriate.
•
ANALYSIS
The a pp licant has a pp lied for a zoning ordinance amendment to
permit a dock on a recreational beachlot without a mean depth of
100 feet and to permit more than one canoe rack per dock.
Dock
The Zoning Ordinance requires a mean depth of 100 feet for a I
recreational beachlot to have a dock. The intent of the 100 feet
of lot depth requirement for a dock was to maintain adequate area
for the intensity of use related to a dock. Staff reviewed
existing parcels around the city's lakes which could be applied
for conditional use permits for recreational beachlots
(Attachment #5) . The majority of the remaining parcels will be
able to provide the required 100 feet of lot depth. Only along
Minnewashta Parkway does the potential exist for recreational
beachlots without 100 feet of lot depth. This is a result of the
location of Minnewashta Parkway near Lake Minnewashta.
Staff feels the 100 feet of lot depth is important to maintain in
the proximity of the dock because this usually is the area of
Stratford Ridge ZOA
' April 6, 1988
Page 3
' higher use. To accommodate the sites that do not have the mean
depth of 100 feet but have enough lot area and lake frontage to
support a dock, staff recommends that the following language be
' included in the Recreational Beachlot Regulations:
Section 20-263 (7 ) - No dock shall be permitted on any
recreational beachlot unless it has 200 feet of lake frontage
and the lot has at least 100 feet of lot depth where the dock
is proposed to be located.
' The above language would permit docks on recreational beachlots
that meet or exceed the lot area and lake frontage requirements
yet have a portion of the lot that is very narrow resulting in
less than 100 feet mean depth. As a part of the conditional use
permit process a site plan will be approved which will ensure
that the dock is located where there is 100 feet of depth.
RECOMMENDATION - Dock
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends amending Section 20-263 ( 7 ) of
' the City Code to read as follows:
No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless
' it has at least two hundred ( 200) feet of lake frontage and
the lot has at least one hundred (100) feet of lot depth
where the dock is proposed to be located. No more than one
(1) dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot every two
' hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty
thousand (30, 000) square feet of land is required for the
first dock and an additional twenty thousand (20,000) square
feet is required for each additional dock. No more than
three (3) docks, however, shall be erected on a recreational
beachlot."
Canoe Racks
The Zoning Ordinance currently ties the number of canoe racks
1 permitted with the the number of docks permitted on a
recreational beachlot. The code states that no more than one
canoe rack shall be allowed per dock. Staff feels the number of
canoe racks permitted should not be dictated by the number of
docks permitted on a recreational beachlot. There may be
situations where a canoe rack is appropriate where a dock is not
permitted or more than one canoe rack is acceptable.
' The number of lots which have use of the recreational beachlot
normally dictate the number of canoe racks (slips) that are
' requested. The applicants typically request a number of canoe
R
Stratford Ridge ZOA
April 6, 1988 '
Page 4
rack slips equal to the number of lots proposed (six watercraft
are permitted per canoe rack) . Therefore, it is difficult to
regulate a maximum number of canoe racks for all recreational
beachlots. Instead, staff recommends that canoe racks be a per-
mitted use on a recreational beachlot and the number of canoe
racks be determined as part of the conditional use permit review.
This would permit each site to be reviewed separately to deter-
mine the appropriate number of canoe racks .
RECOMMENDATION '
"The Planning Commission recommends amending the fifth sentence '
of Section 20-263 ( 6) of the City Code to read as follows:
No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of over-
night storage or overnight mooring of more than three ( 3)
motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a
recreational beachlot is allowed more than one (1) dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to
three (3) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes,
windsurfers, sailboards, and small sailboats may be stored
overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on
racks specifically designed for that purpose. The number of
canoe racks shall be determined as part of the conditional
use permit process. No more than six ( 6) watercraft may be
stored on a rack. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes
is permissible at any time other than overnight. " '
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 6, 1988
The Planning Commission tabled action on this item until lot
owners of all lakes within the city were notified. The notifica-
tions for this public hearing were mailed on April 11, 1988.
Staff has received a number of phone calls regarding this item,
the majority of which are to clarify that the ordinance change
does not affect individual lot owners their ability to install a
dock.
The Commission's comments as to the first issue of 'consideration,
the lot depth requirement, ranged from having no minimum require-
ment of lot depth to establishing some type of standard either
for the entire beachlot or for just the area where the docks are
to be located. There is a need to have some type of minimum
standard. As the ordinance requires a minimum lot depth for a
single family lot or creates a minimum setback, the intent of
that provision is to provide some separation between adjacent
buildings, streets or uses to prevent overcrowding of the land
and safe access. In the case of recreational beachlots, some of
them are located directly adjacent to major streets, others are
located within the subdivision. The beachlot activity, as any
other use, should have some type of minimum separation. The
problem is how to establish that standard.
w a
Stratford Ridge ZOA
April 6, 1988
Page 5
' In existing cases, the lot depth issue has not been a problem.
The majority of the beachlots are at least 100 feet in depth.
Most of the issues pertaining to the older beachlots were lot
1 width and area. For future beachlot requests, the lot depth
issue would arise only in the area where the Stratford Ridge sub-
division is proposed between Minnewashta Parkway and Lake
Minnewashta. Other potential beachiot requests are located in
areas where there is not a road in the immediate vicinity of the
lake. In the Lake Minnewashta area, the lakeshore varies to as
small as 25 feet and to as deep as 200 feet.
' The Planning Commission also suggested that the dock setback zone
of 10 feet be doubled or tripled so that the area where the dock
is to be located is at least 20 to 30 feet wide and 100 feet in
depth. In the Lake Minnewashta area, the following properties
could not survive even a minimal amount of area for the 100 foot
lot depth: the Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla properties (see
' Attachment #7) . Reducing the lot depth to 75 feet would still
prevent the Wenzel and Ziegler property from meeting this
requirement. The Wenzel and Ziegler property at its narrowest
point is approximately 40 feet. At its widest point it is about
80 feet with an average depth of 50 feet. The Headla property is
about 80 feet deep. The Wenzel and Headla properties have
approximately 250 feet of lake frontage and the Ziegler property
' approximately 450 feet. Both these properties cannot meet the
lot area test also. It is questionable then whether these sites
would be considered as beachlots.
Potential language that the Planning Commission could use is as
follows:
No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachiot unless
it has at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage and
the lot contains at least one hundred (100) feet of lot depth
' for at least thirty (30) feet of width where the dock is to
be located.
' The Commission can reduce the 100 foot lot depth requirement. It
is recommended that at minimum 50 feet be maintained in order to
provide a picnic area, sand blanket, storage of canoe racks, and
allowing other park activities. The 30 feet of lot width recom-
mended for the area where the dock is to be located is based on
twice the dock setback from a lot line (10 feet) plus 6 feet in
width for a typical dock.
As to the number of canoe racks, the Commission wanted to
establish some type of standard either a maximum number of racks
or a maximum number of slips per rack. Some beachlots could con-
tain at least 30 to 40 single family lots (for example, Kurvers
Point subdivision on the east side of Lotus Lake) . One slip per
I
I
• Stratford Ridge ZOA
April 6 , 1988 I
Page 6
home would mean that if a rack contained 6 slips for storage,
that anywhere from 5 to 6 racks could be located on a beachlot.
The largest number of lots permitted within 1000 feet of a beach-
lot would be approximately 40. Seven racks at six/rack would
allow storage of 42 boats.
It was also suggested that distinction for the type of boats to
be stored on racks would be the ones that are licensed by the
state. Canoes and sailboats do need to be licensed by the state
as well as small row boats. Inflatable rafts do require a
license. The intent of the rack is to be able to store the non-
motorized watercraft in a neat and safe fashion. Further, the
intent of the ordinance is to permit overnight storage of these
types of boats and to provide guidance as to the number of racks
stored on the property. Therefore, based on the Commission' s
discussion, the following is recommended to be included as part
of Section 20-263 ( 6) :
"No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of over- ,
night storage or overnight mooring of more than three ( 3)
motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a
recreational beachlot is allowed more than one (1) dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to
three ( 3) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes,
windsurfers, sailboards, and small sailboats may be stored
overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on
racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than
six ( 6) watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number of
racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to
permit one (1) slip per lot served by the beachlot; however,
in no case shall there be more than seven (7) racks per
beachlot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is per-
missible at any time other than overnight."
NOTE: Remember that the racks do pose a visual impact, but if
properly designed, the site plan during conditional use permit
review can address this issue.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION '
The Planning Commission recommended the ordinance be amended as
follows:
Section 20-$0( 6)
"No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight I
storage or overnight mooring of more than three ( 3) motorized or
nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is
allowed more than one (1) dock, however, the allowed number of
boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sailboat moorings shall
also be allowed. Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes, wind-
surfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight I
I
Stratford Ridge ZOA
April 6 , 1988
Page 7
on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifi-
cally designed for that purpose. No more than six (6) watercraft
may ne stored on a rack. The number of racks shall not exceed
the amount of storage necessary to permit one (1) rack slip per
lot served by the beachlot; however, in no case shall there be
more than seven (7) racks per beachlot. Docking of other
watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than
' overnight.
Section 20-263( 7 )
No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it
has at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage and the lot
has at least one hundred (100) feet depth measured perpendicular
landward from the ordinary high water mark to the first inter-
secting lot line inclusive of the street right-of-way. No more
than one (1) dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot every
two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty
' thousand ( 30,000) square feet of land is required for the first
dock and an additional twenty thousand ( 20,000) square feet is
required for each additional dock. No more than three ( 3) docks,
' however, shall be erected on a recreational beachlot. "
Headla was opposed the amendment to (7 ) (see minutes) .
' CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the recommendation
' made by the Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
1 1 . Section 20-363 (7 ) of City Code.
2 . Section 20-263 ( 6) of City Code.
' 3 . City Council minutes dated February 22, 1988.
4 . Planning Commission minutes dated January 6, 1988.
5 . Map showing potential recreational beachlots.
6 . Letter from applicant.
' 7 . Detailed location map of Lake Minnewashta lots.
8 . Planning Commission minutes dated April 6 , 1988, and April
20, 1988 .
I
1
1
11
City Council Meeting ' ay 31, 1988 r. ... - 1
Mayor Hamilton: That a signed agreement between the Reeds and the developer be II
Jr- signed so everybody knows who's paying it.
Councilman Johnson: The trail being built?
II
Mayor Hamilton: Right.
Roger Knutson: The development contract requires someone to do something. We
also require an escrow or letter of credit to make sure it gets accomplished.
Councilman Boyt: Now we need to understand what we're getting. We are talking I
; about a city trail. Right? It's 8 feet wide. That's our standard. Just so
there's no confusion. That's our typical trail.
II
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the partial vacatipn
of West 64th Street conditioned upon the following: ' I
i1. The City Attorney's Office shall prepare an analysis of all steps to be
t accomplished prior to filing the vacation resolution including driveway
relocation expenses, reconstruction and relocation plans, filing of
II
appropriate letters of credit or escrow amounts, and retaining necessary
drainage and utility easements and any other items deemed necessary by the
City Attorney's Office. This will be brought back for Council approval. I
2. A left turn lane off of TH 7 be completed prior to the vacation of 64th
Street. Completed either by MDDot or the developer. I
3. An 8 foot trail be constructed by the developer from the vacated portion of
64th Street to TH 41.
II4. Vacation of 64th Street is contingent upon a development contract being
signed and that the development contract spells out that the developer is ,
responsible for the expense of constructing the cul-de-sac and construction II of the trail.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution 88-48
II
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263. (6 & 7) OF THE CITY CODE TO
AMEND THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF A DOCK AND ONE CANOE RANK/
II
DOCK REQUIRE4ENT.
Barbara Dacy: Two issues, one issue is the lot depth requirement for a 1
beachlot in order to have a dock. The second issue is the canoe rack issue.
Currently as written you have to have a dock in order to have a canoe rack. So
the Planning Commission acted to recommend that the Council amend the ordinance
II
to keep the 100 foot lot depth requirement for a dock but added a phrase that
said, inclusive of street right-of-ways. And as to the canoe rack issue, they
made the language on page 7 in the staff report, recommending that there be no
II
more than 7 racks per beachlot. Those are the two issues.
Councilman Johnson: Did they come up with the number 7?
II
11
2 r
236 - - `
City Council Meeting - Ma; ,l, 1988 R.
1
Mayor Hamilton: There was some rationale for that. Barbara, maybe you could
pass that on.
[-
Barbara Dacy: The number 7 as a maximum was based on, staff looked at all of
' the recreational beachlots in the City and looked at the maximum number of lots
that would be allowed under the 1,000 foot perimeter and that worked out to be
about 45 lots. If you assume that each rack has 6 slips per rack, that way 7 x
' 6 was 42 so that was a recommended maximum on the canoe racks.
Councilman Johnson: Do you know what the maximum is right now?
Barbara Dacy: On canoe racks?
Councilman Johnson: On canoe racks. What beachiot has 7.
' Barbara Dacy: There is no language now which says that.
' Councilman Johnson: 7 is just an ungodly number of canoe racks I think.
Mayor Hamilton: Why?
Councilman Johnson: That's a lot of canoes. I don't think everybody in a
development owns a canoe.
Mayor Hamilton: One of the things I think we need to keep in mind is everybody
has a right to use the lake. If you use it with a canoe, how are you hurting
it? That would be, I would think, the ultimate use. We would want everybody to
use a canoe or a sailboat on the lake. If you say well, we're going to limit
canoe racks we'll restrict people from canoeing. I don't care if you put 100
canoes down there. What would happen to Lake Harriett and Lake,Calhoun if they
said you can only have 2 canoe racks?
Councilman Johnson: I think you haven't even included that. I'm saying 7 is
too many. I'm not saying 1. I never said 1. I think l's too little.
Mayor Hamilton: What's wrong with 10 is what I'm saying? I'm saying, what
difference does it make the number you have. You want to encourage the people
to use the lake and using a canoe is the best way to use the lake I think.
' Councilman Johnson: I don't think we should put an unreasonable number down.
If you look at a 30,000 square foot beachlot, which comes out to have maybe
10,000 square feet of useable area, put 7 canoe racks on there, the beachlot's
going to be aesthetically terrible.
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe instead of saying 7 it should be the number of canoes
because you can stack canoes in such like they do in the city so you hardly know
they're there and there are more than six on a rack.
' Councilman Johnson: I think the number should be, is decided upon on the site
plan and how it will be visually in that and how many households there are. If
[7.7
you get a group that has 42 homes and they've got an area where they can hide
the canoe racks to where they don't became a visual disturbance, there should be
some number. I think 4, 4 is one more than we've got at any other place. If I
12
City Council Meeting - nay 31, 1988
Jr- 1
was going to put a max on it. I think that 4 is more than every other house
owning a canoe and wanting it at the lake. A lot of people want a canoe at
home.
Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Pierce, did you have anything you wanted to present to us
this evening? '
Robert Pierce: I think you've pretty much seen the plans for it down there but
I did draw up a little bit of a plan here showing the lake useage as I see it.
I'm just trying to show why I'm doing this. I guess by showing you this, just
visualize a little bit the idea. The reason I think there should be an
amendment is one, I don't think that the ordinance as it stands is taking into
effect the parcels on this portion of the lake and as hard as everybody has
worked on it, sometimes there are areas that can be overlooked. We have enough
here, breaking into 150 foot plus frontages, just saying that the possibility of
each one of these homes, three homes, just were inclusive of these lots. We
could have three docks and nine boats. Again, I think that's even a very
reasonable request but I think what we're doing here with the way we're trying
to use it is to minimize the impact of power boats on the lake, which I believe
was your number one concern. Be able to set the tone for a really top quality
development by using the lake to a lesser degree that everybody would be happy
with and just start this area of development. There's a lot more to come and I
think the way we're going about it, I think it's really a good way to use the
lake. A good way for the City of Chanhassen to have a high quality home and
it's a good way for me to market to produce a top quality development.
+ Mayor Hamilton: There used to be a dock in here. Where would the dock be if you '
were going to put it?
Robert Pierce: Up in here and I would come out this way. '
Councilman Geving: Where would you put the canoe racks?
Robert Pierce: I'm open to any suggestions but they could be put out in this
area here behind some of the trees something... I was down there this weekend,
I think you could almost hide 20 to 30 canoes down there and people would be
hard pressed to even find them.
Councilman Geving: If you had the ability to put in any number of canoe racks,
how many would you want? In your development how many? Three? '
•
Robert Pierce: Yes.
Councilman Geving: So you need three racks? '
Robert Pierce: I would like to see one per buildable lot. That may not have
answered.
Councilman Geving: The problem is, I recognize that we have to have some kind
of basis when we do something like this. Some basis for devising the...that
we've got a basis and we say if you've got so many lots, virtually every lot can
have a canoe. I know fully well that not every home is going to have a canoe.
Maybe 50%. 1
13 1
238
II City Council Meeting - Ma, Jl, 1988 f _
R'"
' Robert Pierce: My guess is you're probably very right.
II Councilman Geving: I think a rationale is more important in the long term.
[—
Robert Pierce: It's no so much that I believe that everyone is going to have a
II canoe down there. I don't believe that that will probably happen but what I'm _
trying to do here is say, you have the opportunity to use the lake and that
gives value to the person. Whether they're going to use it or not, that's their
perogative but it allows us to develop a nicer area. I really do think also, I
I was out on the lake this Memorial Day weekend. I think too, if you have people
canoeing and windsurfers, I think in that area, I enjoy seeing than out there
for one but I also think that that type of useage will probably, if there's a
I lot of canoeing, a lot of windsurfing and that type of useage of the lake, I
think it also curtails the high speed boats. Not to say that there might not be
some that would abuse it but as a rule I think people are somewhat courteous of
II each other's ues of the lake and stay clear. I just think it's an excellent way
to use the lake and to impact it as little as possible.
Barbara Dacy: Just one clarification. I know that the Council is getting
I involved in discussion about the number of racks but I just want to remind the
Council that the way that it's written now, in order to have any canoe racks you
have to have a dock first and I think at minimum it really should be amended to
I say that canoe racks are a permitted use on a beachlot with or without a dock.
The number is kind of...
Mayor Hamilton: Did you folks have a question?
IIJeff Bros: I don't live on Lake Minnewashta but both our families do and we've
been very concerned with past activities by the Council. It seems like every
I time somebody is going to develop something near or on Lake Minnewashta, these
ordinances have been changed to suit whoever's going to develop. My mother
lives on Minnewashta Parkway. There is an access three lots north of her's.
There's not supposed to be any boats there. There are power boats anchored off
of that beach. We have a hard time believing that anybody's going to be able to
develop anything on the lake and not want power boats to be there. Now we're
not against power boats, we both have than and we're both avid skiers. We're
I both avid sailers and sailboards. We're using the lake as much as we possibly
can. We're greedy about it but you start by saying you want canoe racks. I
can't believe you can have more than five homes in an area to develop that
I somebody's going to have a power boat and somebody's going to have a sailboat
and they're going to want to keep that down on the beach becomes nobody on the
west side of the lake is going to drive all the way over to the park and launch
their boat everytime they want to use it. We're concerned that it's going to be
I abused like it's being abused now, the ordinance. We're scared that everytime
somebody wants to develop on Lake Minnewashta, the ordinance is going to get
changed to fit them.
IMrs. Bros: Is there 100 feet on the section where you're planning on putting
the dock?
IMayor Hamilton: That would include the road.
6
Robert Pierce: What you're looking at there too, if we were just taking lot
IIwidth into consideration, we have more than ample for lot width. This is the
II14
City Council Meeting - day 31, 1988 - r`1
R'
jr- type of useage. We're looking for three overnight slips. One boat for those II
three front lots. There are actually four but three that directly face. One
overnight storage and the canoe racks for the development for each landowner.
II
We feel that is an extremely light useage.
Jeff Bros: I think you're being unreasonably light in your useage. I don't II think anybody's going to buy a home with lake rights and not have a boat. I
mean it hasn't happened yet. Nobody's going to pay any price that you want for
a lake useage lot and now own a boat, and not just a canoe.
Mayor Hamilton: We have other developments in the community that are very II
similar to this one. What we have told then is they can start out with three
boats, the same as what Mr. Pierce is asking for. We told the developer it was
II
up to him to decide who was going to have use of the three slips that were
available to them. We are totally out of it. However they handle it is up to
then. We have never heard a complaint and people are still living there so
somehow they've handled that within their neighborhood and their association. II
That's fine with us.
That's their problem. That's the problem Mr. Pierce will have to work out.
Mrs. Bros: They can have 3 boats and 1 canoe on that strip of property? Have II
you been out there and seen it?
Mayor Hamilton: I certainly have. I've walked the whole thing. It's a very big I
piece of property. 30,000 square feet.
Jeff Bros: How about sailboats?
II
Councilman Geving: Sailboats are a permitted use.
Jeff Bros: Anchored out. II
.
Mayor Hamilton: What's the number of those?
Councilman Johnson: Three. II
Barbara Dacy: Three sailboat moorings. Three sailboat moorings shall also be '
allowed.
Jeff Bros: What about sailboats on the beach like we've got at the other common
II
area? Are they allowed?
Barbara Dacy: Canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be
stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks
II
specifically designed for that purpose.
Jeff Bros: It's being abused right now on the lake. I
Mayor Hamilton: We have to rely on people like yourselves to call it to our
attention. We don't have lake patrols going around and looking at every
II
beachiot. If people don't inform us, they don't in all cases go on. We need to
rely on people who live near by or use the lake to let us know about it.
Jeff Bros: Could you please go over with me again, since I'm not completely I
15 I
IICity Council Meeting - Ma: 1, 1988 ri -- -
R--
IIclear on it. Why can't this go through right now? What's restricting this from
going through now? Is it size or what has to be amended?
IIBarbara Dacy: The lot depth.
Mayor Hamilton: The Planning Commission reviewed this and suggested that the lot
II depth be changed to include the road right-of-way in the depth measurement. In -
this particular case that would give the developer the 100 feet so he would be
allowed to put a dock in.
I Mrs. Bros: And what is it without it? What's the depth without the right-of-
way?
IBarbara Dacy: Between 40 and 80 feet.
Robert Pierce: In spots 115 but you're talking, the way the City has
I interpretted it is they want, I believe 100 feet across the boat and I believe
on the very northern edge I believe we have about 115 feet and on the very
southern boundary we have about 80 and it gets narrower down to the slope
II inbetween so there is an area of a lot less. We have the equivalent square feet
in excess of two buildable sites square footage wise and what the ordinance is
stating right now, without any change, there's 9 acres roughly. There's 550
feet of lakeshore and right now you could not put one home on 9 acres and put a
I dock. That's how the ordinance says and I think that's not what the City or
anybody with a home for something like that.
II Jeff Bros: We're concerned because obviously you bought this parcel of land
knowing that these lots were not buildable in this way. Did not meet the
requirements.
I Robert Pierce: When I first started the process, no and that's why I came
through the Council. As I started to get into it, I had some contingencies on
the purchase agreement. I started to get into it and saw there were some
I problems. I started to go through the process to see what I was up against and
I felt that I had a lot of encouragement to continue. It was down a different
road at that particular time but I think for the city staff write an ordinance
amendment is, as I understand it, certainly protects everyone in the best
1 possible way.
Mrs. Bros: So your dock, you're proposing putting that out there is where you
Ihave the 100 feet deep? Is that correct?
Mayor Hamilton: Right. Cn the northern end. You've got to remember, when we
I adopt ordinances we can't anticipate every possible scenario that's going to
cane before us so I would certainly hope that this Council and future Councils
could be open to change at any time. We can't anticipate every possible change
that's going to happen in the world at the time the ordinance is adopted.
1 Mrs. Bros: But you do have ordinances set up for reasons.
IMayor Hamilton: That's true but they also can be changed for a reason.
Jeff Bros: This is our biggest concern is everytime somebody is coming in, it '
II seems like everytime someone is coming in to propose something to be able to
16
II
`)�=_`y
City Council Meeting - iay 31, 1988
gain access to the lake, which again we're open it's '
g pen to if it s done in a correct
manner. It seems like everytime it's done the ordinance gets changed. My
mother could not build the house she wanted on her lot because she could not get
II
a variance for how she wanted it on her lot but now this and change it around so
somebody else can develop more land and it just doesn't weigh out for us.
That's why we raise concern. _ `' II
Councilman Boyt: A comment to staff. I think this is the beginning of the
process and not the end of the process. I think we're making a mistake if we
don't continue to clean up the beachlot ordinance rather than take it one blow
II
at a time. We're going to take a good hard look at it. There are some parts
I'd particularly like to direct staff to. Some of than are related to this
issue. One of than is, I think we need to very seriously look at the size of
I
the beachlot in terms of the number of people that are going to be using it. ' I
think that we need a different minimum actually. That may be impacted by the ,
number of boats. In reading the Planning Commission Minutes, they talked about II
the inequities of someone who wants to put a beachlot in for 10 houses versus
someone who wants to put a beachlot in for 45 houses and how are minimum
standard is the same either way. I think that we already have a reasonable
minimum that we should contemplate looking at and that is, when we ask for park
I
dedication we work on 75 people per acre. 75 people per acre would mean that
basically 40 households would not work with our existing minimum. We would
require a bigger minimum for 40 households. I think the reason we need to look
II
at that is because the issue we're dealing with here is concentration of people.
Although I wasn't here when they originally wrote the ordinance, my assumption
I would be that they tried to come to some sort of grips with how many people can
we put on 30,000 square feet or bigger? The gentleman tonight has a bigger lot
II
1_ to deal with and he finds himself handicapped by our ordinance because I think
depth was an attempt to wrestle with this same issue of concentration of people
use. I think the second issue is separation from neighbors so we ought to have
II
some way when we deal with beachlots of saying, is there an appropriate
separation from neighbors. Now clearly in this beachlot we've got a great
separation from the neighbors. The lot's big enough to certainly handle park
I
use of I believe it was, did you say 15? 20? How many houses?
Councilman Johnson: 15.
Councilman Boyt: The lot is certainly big enough to handle park use of people ` Il
from 15 households if we assume the typical average of around 2.8 people per
house. So from the standpoint of the logic of can this piece of property
I
support a beachlot, I think we've agreed all along that it can, or at least I
have felt that it probably could. It's a matter of how can we approach it and
retain our ability to protect the lake fran the people around it and the II concentration of use. I am in agreement with the Planning Commission that the
easy way out for this particular situation is to include the permanent roadway.
I happen to feel that that is a stop gap measure and we're missing the boat if
we don't take this opportunity to go back and look at the whole issue itself.
II
Then distance aside, I think that point 2 under the beachlot ordinance that does
not allow beachlot owners to maintain a Satellite needs to be corrected. It
implies that those people are not responsible enough, can not sign a contract II with the same service the City signs a contract with and I don't think the City
1 is any better qualified to maintain a Satellite than the people who own
beachlots and we're making a real mistake when we encourage people to make sane
other provisions and don't allow than to use the best available equipment. Tb I
17
II
242
IICity Council Meeting - May 1988 n r
R'
IIthe canoe racks. It's real interesting as I look at this issue Tom because I
agree with you that it makes sense for people to be able to have a canoe. My
[-
II concern is, in having used and lived around city lakes for a good bit of my
life, Lake Harriet. I may be wrong but they don't, in my memory, have 7 canoe
racks and they service thousands of people who enter a drawing and if you're
1 lucky you get a canoe. I think the problem I have with it is the screening
issue. Now you mentioned in this particular situation the canoe racks are easy
to screen. On the other hand, the drawback to a screening issue is how do you
protect your canoe? If you can't see it and once somebody's down there, it
1 would be very easy for than to vandalize the canoes. Especially is a situation
where you're going to have a relatively small number of people using that
beachlot. I agree that limiting the canoe racks, one canoe rack for a 30,000
I square foot beachlot is overkill. I'm concerned that 7 canoe racks is
conceivably too many and I'm interested in the comments from the rest of the
Council but the issue of putting canoes and other items on the lake, I guess I
I don't have Mr. Pierce's confidence, having just spent a good bit of the weekend
out on Lotus Lake. I don't think people watch out for canoes or sailboats. But
on the other hand I don't think we have the right to deny reasonable access
either.
1 Councilman Geving: I'll keep my comment quite brief. I think that we always
have to be consistent in how we're dealing with developers and their perspective
1 developments. In doing that we have to also be fair. We've invested a great
deal of money, we have a vision. We can see the market and how it could be
marketed best particularly on lake lots that have some amenity and we shouldn't
deny than unless it's absolutely essential to maintain the consistency that
II I mentioned. I'm not really in favor of amending the provisions for adjusting
our ordinances for each of potential developments that may came along.
Developments are all different and we have to have requirements. One thing that
II has to stand however is our ordinance. It was built...with a great deal of
thought and the people spent a lot of time looking at the issues and they should
stand, for the most part, being successful a good deal of the time but it can be
I changed and that's why we have an amendment process and the variance process.
In this particular development I'm not really in favor of changing the
ordinance. I'm not in favor of it for the same reason that I mentioned, a
matter of consistency. I change this ordinance now and amend it, tomorrow or
II next week, next year another developer will come in with something slightly
different with a little bit different twist but essentially they are same. They
want to amend the ordinance. In terms of the canoe area side, I really feel
I strongly that if you have a development of 15 homeowners who can see the lake,
you can smell the lake and you bought your home to take advantage of that
amenity, to buy that to own lake property, it's kind of nice to be able to have
Ito a canoe. At least a canoe if you don't have a motorized boat. But to be able
go to down to the lake and utilize it. For that reason I think we should
build into our ordinance some provision where we have a recreational beachlot
where every homeowner should have at least the ability to buy a canoe to use the
II lake so I agree with the staff proposal here to break that apart from the dock
issue. I think we can provide the homeowners with canoe potential without
having a dock. That's really about all I have to say Tan. I think I've said it
Iall. I'm not in favor of amending the ordinance.
Councilman Johnson: I agree with Bill on all of his comments on looking at the
[::
whole ordinance here. I also want to look at useable land. You've got a 30%
IIgrade on the beachlot and you've got a swamp along the front of the 30% grade or
II18
94 :-
City Council Meeting - ay 31, 1988 '1
20% grade on the back end of it. Sure you might have 50,000 or 60,000 square
feet of beachlot but how much of it is really useable and where are those people
going to concentrate. Are they going to concentrate on the beach which in this
case happens to be right on the edge. The beachlot issue, he's already got the
beachlot approved. He's got a reasonable use for that land. As a beachlot, I
almost laugh, I was talking to somebody on the phone today who did laugh when I
told than exactly what was going on here as far as, gee we're going to include
the road right-of-way. If you really look at that and start looking and say, in
order to make this fit we're going to include the city property in what we can
tell the people they can use. On the surface it looks pretty arbitrary. Now
what I do believe, if the purpose of the 100 foot was separation again, that an
ordinance change saying that at the point that the dock will be at, for 100 foot
makes some sense to me but to include road right-of-way in the 100 foot doesn't
make any sense at all. It's just ludicrous to me. Canoe racks, I can go two
different ways. One is enough canoe racks holding 6 canoes each to handle 50%
of the population. In this case he's got 15 people, that would be two canoe
racks so he'd actually be able to do 12. That's kind of a complex way to look
at it but this gives, I'd say at least half the people or just put an absolute
maximum, I'd put that at 4 right now because I don't think anybody's ever
requested 7. I know that Mr. Pierce is requesting 2 in this case. I do believe
canoe racks should be separate issues from the dock. It doesn't make sense.
Maybe sailboat moorings should be based on length of the property also versus
just arbitrarily 3 sailboat moorings. He's got 550 feet of property that he can
put 3 sailboats on where somebody else can put 3 on 200 foot of property.
That's interesting there. That's not on here either but I think the entire
IL_ ordinance does stand to be looked at again to see if it is still reasonable. I'm
still not 100% sure of the basis of a 100 foot. I have a feeling the 100 foot
depth is for separation purposes. If it includes road right-of-way in it, you
don't separate anybody because the road is still within 100 foot. I would much
rather see than say 100 foot at the point of the dock, in which case I would
have been halfway inclined to vote for this. As is, I'm not at all. I would
vote for 4 canoe racks and maximum of 50% of the houses. Acanoe is one thing
you can carry down to the beach too. I wouldn't want to keep it at the same
lake.
Mayor Hamilton: Ewen if you have a canoe rack you can do that. I guess Bill
points out some good points. We do need to have some work done on our ordinance
and certainly the people who did the work on the last one, put it together, did
the best job they could at that time but times change and things change. Life
changes and everything is always in a state of flex so we have to try to keep
current with everything that's going on around us. TO ignore and turn down a
person's request to change an ordinance seems ludicrous to me: ' Since times
change and if at the time the past ordinance was being developed we looked at
Mr. Lawson's property and said heck, this is going to be requested to be a
beachlot someday, we ought to take it into consideration, it probably would
already have been accomplished but who can know how a property's going to
develop who's going to request what. So I feel very bad that the comments I'm
hearing that sane people aren't willing to change ordinances on a sound request.
I do also feel and agree with Councilman Boyt that we should look at the entire
ordinance and probably do a significant changing of the ordinance. Redrafting
of it. Separating the canoes and docks makes a lot of sense and perhaps coming
up with same more concrete reasons why we are attaching numbers that we are
attaching but that isn't going to help Mr. Pierce at this time in his
development. We're all in agreement in separating docks from canoe racks will '
19 1
244
11 City Council Meeting - Ma_ il, 1988
t
IIhelp some. I think if you are familiar with the property, if you go out and
look at it, you can see the nice piece of property that it is. It has 115 feet
[-
II of depth not including the street right-of-way at one end. You could put a dock
in there for only 3 boats, I think there is more than adequate roam and depth
and length and to deny it, I would think that Mr. Pierce would have an awfully
1 good case in court and I'd be inclined to back him up. I think it's an
1 unfortunate thing that we're doing to a developer to a nice development and when
you look at a piece of property that is being proposed for one dock, 3 boats is
not a very intense use and could handle that use very easily.
rCouncilman Boyt: I think that if you look at the piece of property and then you
go along Lake Minnewashta and look at where the other docks are. Where the
II house is separated by the road. Now have we had any reported trouble?
Barbara Dacy: On the west side of Lake Minnewashta, no.
II Councilman Boyt: And we're looking at something when we talk about impact on
the lake, there's quite a bit of frontage there. When we talk about impact on
Chanhassen as a whole recognizing that maybe this is some way to, it's easy to
II think of it as a way of just penalizing the developer but it penalizes all of
us. Instead of him having houses that are a quarter of a million dollars and
paying, I don't know, $7,000.00 to $8,000.00 in taxes a year, it helps us all to
bring taxes down. We're saying to him, you can't do it. As you said, homes
I with lake rights are very expensive homes right now and what we're doing, we're
taking a lot that, forget the road. Nobody can get within 100 feet of there
living wise. Of where the dock is going to be. We've got plenty of square
II footage. This is a situation that cries out for same kind of a reasonable
solution that doesn't overwhelm our ordinance for future consideration. I would
like to see us state to this fellow and to others that are going to be in very
similar situations, this is a fairly low impact. It's a chance to develop the
Icity. Yes, it helps the developer but that's minor. It's what does it do for
us? I think we ought to pass this. I'm not comfortable with the canoe racks
situation and maybe we ought to hang on to a part of that for when we review the
II whole ordinance but you guys, there's something about this that says it
shouldn't be turned down.
I Mayor Hamilton: I guess to make a comment that we're just doing something for a
developer whether it's Mr. Pierce or somebody else, what if somebody who had
been on the committee who developed the first ordinance came in here and said,
I I've been studying the ordinance that we passed several years ago and I feel
that it's deficient. We've missed something in here and brought up a similar
case like this without even having Mr. Pierce here. Would we them say, Well
you're just a citizen. We're not going to listen to you just because you were
II on the committee that passed this thing. That's what you're saying now. You
don't want to do this because you don't want to change something for a specific
developer but if somebody came in here and said I think we missed something in
II our ordinance. I think it should be changed. Does that make a difference?
Let's be fair about it.
Councilman Geving: Has any member ever done that?
II Mayor Hamilton: I'm making a scenario. You know I am. I'm making a scenario.
6
iCouncilman Geving: Well, you are but you might be making an unfair scenario.
II 20
City Council Meeting - .,ay 31, 1988
11
You might be talking about people who don't exist. I don't know of any member
that would came in here and say to review this ordinance. 1
Mayor Hamilton: I'm just making a scenario. I can't say it's going to happen or
not happen. I'm just saying what if. It's a what if situation. What if's -
happen every day.
Councilman Johnson: I think one of my biggest problems on this one is not only
how it's done where it looks like it's, it's including road right-of-way, it is
so obviously pointing at this one piece of property. There is only one piece of
property in the City of Chanhassen, according to what I was told, that this will
really affect because the other pieces of property along Minnewashta are too
shall. They're going to be thrown away because they're less than 30,000 square
foot anyway. When we make this, it's going to, future people are going to look
at it and say obviously this ordinance was revised specifically to allow this
one thing in. If the purpose of 100 foot is separation, we should say 100 feet
at the dock. If there's a different purpose for the 100 foot, then we should
have, street right-of-way just doesn't do it.
Mayor Hamilton: Without the street right-of-way you have 115 feet at the dock.
Councilman Johnson: Right.
Robert Pierce: I thought that the separation too was to kee p lots the beachlots '
c away
from single family home dwellings and the closest to this particular dock,
roughly we're looking at about 180 feet to the lot line then you take the
setback. There's probably 200 feet to the closest house. As it is right now,
the property to the north, I don't know how many acres it is and there's a house
on it and the lady is an elderly person. She can't put her dock in anymore
because she hasn't had it in for the last couple years. There's something
drastically wrong with the ordinance.
Councilman Johnson: She can't put a dock in?
Robert Pierce: No, she can not put a dock in.
Councilman Geving: Why can't she?
Robert Pierce: Because she is elderly and has not had a dock. If we would have
had a dock on our property, if the Lawson's would have stayed there, we wouldn't
be arguing about a dock because it would have been grandfathered in. At any
point that there's not a dock put in, for whatever reason, you lose your rights
to the lake.
Mayor Hamilton: For how long a period of time Barbara? Is it a seasonal thing
if you take the dock out? When do you lose your rights to put your dock back
in?
Barbara Dacy: I'm not familiar with the case that you're talking about.
Mayor Hamilton: If you had a dock in on your property continuously and
you
continued to put it in there, those that were grandfathered in when the
ordinance was passed remain to be grandfathered in. However, if you take it out
and leave it out for a period of.
21 1
24i
' City Council Meeting - May ., 1988
Barbara Racy: The ordinance section says it's a non-conforming use.
Mayor Hamilton: Is it one year Roger? Do you recall? -
Roger Knutson: I'm double checking.
Mayor Hamilton: Because the Lawson's had a dock on that property last year at
this time.
' Councilman Johnson: But once you subdivide and you change this not to an
individual homeowner's lot but a recreational beachlot, it's under a completely
different ordinance and you're no longer grandfathered in at all. Even if he
had a dock there last year.
Robert Pierce: What I'm saying is, the neighbors themselves, she's going to be
' moving out to a home and I will guarantee you that the person who buys that
houes will not bother to call the City and ask if he can have a dock. It
wouldn't even cross my mind and they can not put a dock in under your ordinance
period and they probably have• 200, maybe 300 feet of lakeshore and multiple
acres and your ordinance states, it's the green house to the north of the
property, they can not do it. According to your ordinance. It's just beyond
comprehension to me. The idea that the dock on this size parcel, it's just
beyond...
Councilman Johnson: ...can't he put it back in? I'm not familiar with that
ordinance. This is getting a little off the subject but it still is docks. A
riparian homeowner can not put a dock in if they weren't grandfathered
previously in?
Roger Knutson: Does she own a home there?
Ma
•
yor Hamilton: Yes.
' Councilman Johnson: She lives there.
Roger Knutson: She's not under the recreational beachlot ordinance now.
' Robert Pierce: We have a home but we can't put a dock in there.
' Roger Knutson: You don't have a have there now?
Robert Pierce: We burnt it down because it was abandoned.
Roger Knutson: A recreational beachlot is one thing. A dock, an accessory to
a single family home is something else. If you can have a single family home
there, you can have a dock.
' Robert Pierce: I don't believe that's right. That's not what I was told when I
came to the City.
Roger Knutson: It's an accessory use.
Robert Pierce: Even if it doesn't conform?
22
r
sr
City Council Meeting - y 31, 1988 '
lr-
Roger Knutson: It's a non-conforming use.
Mayor Hamilton: Roger, perhaps you could make comment on this beachlot. I guess
I'd appreciate your input at this point. --
Roger Knutson: Everyone who has come in contact with it, that I've been aware
of and I'm not saying, it's certainly been a controversial ordinance for you.
Whether that makes it good, bad or indifferent, I'll let you decide but it has
generated a lot of heat, a lot of discussion as to whether it's appropriate. I
think what you're talking about is all the other lots...and how many people are
using it. That kind of examination which...
`Mayor Hamilton: Should this particular case be tested? I know what you do about
it. What would your view be? I think it's quite important that we know that.
Roger Knutson: The standards of whether, in regards to the City Council acted II
,arbitrarily and capriously and that's a matter of opinion. Your opinion would
be that it is. Other people would say that it's not. I guess that would 'be up
to the court to decide. This is not a great place to do an analysis... The
first day you hired me Tom, remember you told me one thing. Whatever you do
always win. Remember that?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think you'd have a hard time on this one. '
Jeff Bros: I'd just like to speak. We're not concerned about having a dock if
they want to have a dock where the property meets the 100 foot setback but I
certainly think that is being one-sided and showing a certain amount of
unfairness to the rest of the homeowners and property owners on the lake to
include the street and the roadway right-of-way to make roam for his dock. I
think that's being just ridiculous.
Mayor Hamilton: He has 115 feet without the roadway.
Jeff Bros: At that one point. If he wants to put the dock in where it's 115 - II
feet, that's fine but for the City Council to change the ordinance for this
instance to include the street as his property to make room for a dock, I think
that's being very selfish and I think it's showing favoritism... I think it's
being abusive to the homeowners on the lake who are paying the $7,000.00.
Anywhere from $5,000.00 to $8,000.00 a year in property taxes. Who had to get
variances to put houses that they wish to build on their lots that they paid a
premium price for, to be able to arbitrarily change it to include now the
street. Somebody else comes in, they get the other side of the street. I don't
understand how you can show this kind of favoritism.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think there's any favoritism being shown. It's the
recommendation from the Planning Commission that the street right-of-way be
used. I don't know why they recommended that but it. Whether it was
specifically directed at Mr. Pierce's development. It would be used for
anybody's development, not just Mr. Pierce's so it's not for just one person.
Jeff Bros: I think they're going to want to add another two car garage to my
mother's house.
I
23 1
City Council Meeting - May , 1988
' Councilman Boyt: As we look at this, one of the reasons that the road
right-of-way becomes attractive is that it's so limited. It makes a change to
the ordinance but it's very narrow in it's impact. You may think of that as a
' liability. It's actually a strength in that it doesn't open the ordinance up to
other abuse. Let's take the possibility of having a dock built where the lot's
a 100 feet deep. Now what we've done is we've given somebody out there the
' opportunity to construct a beachlot that looks like this. Sure, we'll give you -
100 feet but then along the two sides we're going to have it be about 5 feet
deep. There are probably worse case scenarios with every event and I think what
was appealing to the Planning Commission is that this was so narrow in focus
that it would actually apply to only a couple of potential beachlots. I don't
know quite what your issue was a year or two ago or whenever this came in. I
think you raise the question of is the City going to be fair to everyone? It's
awfully hard. I think the City is going to try to be but clearly you don't
think the City has been. When we change an ordinance we certainly have to be
careful that we create a situation that we think is going to have as little as
possible impact. I don't think this has a lot of impact. It has a lot of
impact on our ability to get some tax money to this town. I guess I can't say
anymore.
Councilman Geving: I'd like to see that we take that canoe one separately.
The whole issue of the canoes.
' Councilman Boyt: What's your magic number going to be?
Councilman Geving: I have several suggestions. It could be based on the
number of lots in the development with a maximum number of four.
Mayor Hamilton: I suggested that there wouldn't be any number established but
each request would be evaluated during a conditional use permit approval.
Councilman Geving: I like that idea. Here he's got three.
II Councilman Johnson: With guidelines written in, here's the normal guidelines.
We can put guideline whatever and say our guideline is canoes for 50% of the
households and some situations might warrent more. Some situations might
warrant less.
I
Councilman Boyt: We can do that but I don't think that makes sense. We've got
to fight the issue out as clear as we can tonight such that I don't have any
I trouble separating the canoes from the other issue but I think if we say we're
going to let this just float with whatever the situation is at the time, as soon
as we make our first decision about it, we set the precedent then that, let's
I suppose the first person comes in and they want 12 canoes because they are going
to have 12 houses. You approve that. The next guy has got 40 houses and wants
40 canoe racks, we're going to be in, I think a difficult position. Anyway, I
would argue that why not put it out there like Dale said with four racks max and
look at the whole ordinance.
Mayor Hamilton: But we can review them when they came in for a conditional
Iuse...just because you allow 15 here doesn't mean that you have to allow 40 for
tE7the next one.
1 24
City Council Meeting - ray 31, 1988
I
''"- Councilman Boyt: I think that we have to make our decision based on some fact
and I think this will open it up to, it just makes the whole ordinance harder to
resolve each time if we don't have a clear statement.
Councilman Johnson: I would like to see us say a maximum of 50% of the
households. Canoe racks able to hold 50% of the households or a total maximum
of four.
Mayor Hamilton: That means he gets to build another rack. '
Councilman Geving: No, four. Four would give him 24.
Councilman Johnson: He's got 15 households so 50% would be 7-7 1/2 so it's '
over 6 so he gets 2. You can't build a rack with only one. He gets 2 racks
with that.
Councilman Geving: I guess I would go the other way. Recommend that every lot
have the possibility of getting a canoe.
Councilman Boyt: How are we going to make that decision at the time? '
Councilman Geving: Base it on the number of lots that are being proposed in
the development and you condition it. Make a condition that if in the judgment
of the Council that particlar recreational beachlot won't hold as many as there
are for that particular development, you'd say let's cut it down to 2 rather
than 4 but the maximum would be 4. '
Councilman Boyt: When you get into those situations then we create an area
where Jeff could say you're not fair. I think we open ourselves up to that.
Why don't we just come to grips with it. If we want 1 canoe per, then let's
see if that passes.
Councilman Geving: There's nothing wrong with it. That's a good place to '
start. At least you've got a basis for your intention and then you're not going .
with 50°% or 75% or whatever.
Councilman Johnson: I would_ like to see 1 per with a max. '
Mayor Hamilton: We've already put a maximum of 1,000 feet so you've limited the
number of homes that could use the outlot.
Councilman Johnson: Until you start putting like this PUD that they have up,
what's that one call with all the condos?
Barbara Dacy: Red Cedar Cove.
Councilman Boyt: What about 1 per with up to 4 as a place where we can start. '
We can leave the whole ordinance out and figure out what the reasonable logic is
here. If it comes out that 1 per household up to whatever.
Barbara Dacy: That's the way the proposed language is written now. One per
household. The Planning Commission recommended 7. If you want to change it to
4, that's fine too. '
25 1
25ti
City Council Meeting - Ma_ 31, 1988
Councilman Johnson: I'll move that. One per with a maximum of four.
' Councilman Geving: I'll second that.
Mayor Hamilton: I think it's being near sighted.
' Councilman Geving: It still gives you 24 though Tom.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't care. Still the useage you want to have on the lake if
' you want to clean up your lakes, and not allow people to use them unless they...
I don't know that we're ever going to get to a maximum of 42 or whatever.
'
Councilman Geving: A practical maximum number of users is probably close to
half. If you tood 42 homeowners, my guess is that no more than 15 or so would
have canoes.
Mayor Hamilton: But we're kind of limiting it for the people who do.
Councilman Geving: I'm just taking it from a practical standpoint of knowing
how many people live on a lake and what kind of boats they have.
Councilman Boyt: If we go back to 1 per household but provide sane sort of
' provision so that people don't. Suppose I had 2 canoes, there's an open
the rack so I store a spot on
my canoe down there. I don't know, are we after a place for
people to store their canoes or a place where people are going to use it? If we
had someway of preventing...
Mayor Hamilton: You're park of the Sunrise Hill's Association right?
' Councilman Boyt: Right.
Mayor Hamilton: They have two racks.
' Councilman Boyt: Two racks and I don't know, 45 homes.
Mayor Hamilton: I've never heard anybody complain about that. Those who don't
' have it on the beach probably don't even have a canoe.
Councilman Boyt: Oh yes. What happens and maybe this wouldn't happen if there
' were more racks, but what happens is if one of those spots becomes open and it's
open for a few weeks, if somebody has a notion, they'll move their canoe off
their rack at home and put it up there. Get it out of the yard. That's not all
bad. It kind of cleans the neighborhood up. There's a whole lot to this issue
' and I guess if we could strike something, I just have difficulty looking out on
this lot, it's fairly narrow or any other lot and seeing 7 canoe racks. It's a
forest.
' Mayor Hamilton: There aren't going to be 7 here. You've got to keep that in
mind.
' Councilman Boyt: Well, as I've said all along, the thought of having everybody
who is a part of the beachlot who wants a canoe or sailboat to be able to have
it makes a lot of sense.
1 26
n s -
City Council Meeting - .y 31, 1988 `--
Barbara Dacy: But the motion was for a maximum of four.
Mayor Hamilton: I still don't have see the problem with having a maximum of 7 as
long as you can control that within your conditional use. You're saying if in
the future some, and I don't think we're ever going to have that situation, but
if something came in and they had a huge outlot and wanted to have 7 canoe racks
on this huge outlot. The potential is there but Mr. Pierce doesn't want 7. "
Councilman Geving: How did you arrive at 7?
Barbara Dacy: That was based on existing examples of largest subdivision in an 11
urban area was Lotus Lake Estates which had 44 lots so if you say 1 per lot, 6
on a rack would be 7. '
Mayor Hamilton: They can have how many right now?
Barbara Dacy: Canoe racks? '
Mayor Hamilton: Yes.
Barbara Dacy: No more than 3.
Councilman Geving: Let me ask you, how about the Kurver's property that's
being developed? They had a recreational beachlot.
= Barbara Dacy: They received approval for two docks and I believe it was 3
canoe racks also. There were 36 lots.
Councilman Johnson: Seven just seems to be too high.
Councilman Boyt: It seems like the thing we're saying to somebody, if you have
a beachlot you can put up a canoe rack. We're taking that away from the dock
issue so that's a good point. '
Mayor Hamilton: I kind of agree with Tom. I think I'd rather go back to the 7.
There is that practical possibility. There's nothing wrong with a 7 as a
maximum. = 1
Councilman Boyt: Once we go there we can't cane back down.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to do 4 right now and then like Bill says, '
- there's a lot of issues to look at with the beachlot and we might want to put a
beachlot group back together, look at the whole thing including the numbers
instead of sitting here tonight and figuring it out. We've got a reasonable
compromise here between the 1 and 7 that will fit every application we know in
the City. There's nobody asking for anything near the number we're proposing.
It should be kind of non- controversial.
Councilman Boyt: I sense that 4 will pass. Let's take a vote on 4.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded the first reading of Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-263 (6) to read as follows:
27 1
II 252
City Council Meeting - May .sl, 1988 + R_
II
No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or
[-
I overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft
per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more than one (1) dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sailboat
moorings shall also be allowed. Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes,
Iwindsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any -
recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that
purpose. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number
II of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one (1) rack
slip per lot served by the beachlot; however, in no case shall there be more
than four (4) racks per beachlot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is
Ipermissible at any time other than overnight.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
IIMayor Hamilton: This will be separated from the need to have a dock, correct?
ICouncilman Johnson: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: Just the canoe rack issue here and we're not tying it to docks
II or anything else.
(Councilman Horn arrived at this point in the meeting.)
IMayor Hamilton: We are wrestling with the issue right now of the dock to be
allowed on Mr. Pierce's outlot and have the use of three motorized boats for
I overnight storage. We have just voted favorably to change our ordinance allow,
the first reading, to allow four canoe racks, a maximum of four canoe racks per
beachlot, six canoes per rack as a maximum. That brings you up.to whatever
happened. We seem to be fairly split on the issue of Mr. Pierce's use of his
I property to put a dock on and to allow him to have three boats. He has 115 feet
of depth on his lot without the use of the road right-of-way...
1 Councilman Horn: He still needs a variance though?
Councilman Boyt: What he's proposing is to change the.ordinance.
1 Councilman Horn: The proposed location would include the...?
Mayor Hamilton: That's the Planning Commission's proposal to us. There seems to
I be some disagreement on whether or not you want to continue with that or come up
with something different.
I Councilman Johnson: My disagreement Clark is that including road right-of-way
appears that we're changing our ordinance specifically for this project and I
believe that we can draw our position anyplace that we try, buy your property
II and go for it and get your ordinance changed to where you can get what you want.
These guys they'll come up with some creative ways to do this. Include road
right-of-way. If the purpose of the 100 foot was for separation, he's got 100
foot where the dock is, then that makes sense to change the ordinance to meet
t
i=7
the purpose of the 100 feet. Include road right-of-way into that to meet the
confines of the ordinance to me seems fairly arbitrary. I have a problem with
I28
/.
-.44740'.
City Council Meeting - 41, 31, 1988
R'
II
that. I don't think with 500 feet or whatever of lake front here with
one dock
will have a huge impact on Lake Minnewashta. I will be more than willing to go
the other way. I'm not moved much by the argument that we're going to get all II these huge taxes. We don't get that much taxes by the time the County and
everybody else takes our their whack but that helps all of us too I guess.
These are going to be sane fairly good sized homes. Even without the rights to II have a boat on this dock, I don't suspect you're going to put $60,000.00 homes
on those four lots without a boat there. They may not be $250,000.00 homes. It
might just be $200,000.00 homes but to me that's not a huge difference. I'm not
going to vote for changing our beachlot ordinance on the fact that this change
II
will generate more tax revenues to the City.
Councilman Horn: That's the argument? I
Councilman Johnson: That was one argument that we had earlier was that geez,
look at what this would do for generating money but I don't like the road
'right-of-way part. That's my argument against it is including road right-of-wad II
in measuring your setback and this is essentially a setback type of thing to me.
' It's kind of silly.
Councilman Horn: It's unique to this property though? II
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I
Barbara Dacy: It will affect one other property on the west side of
Minnewashta also.
Councilman Johnson: What would you say, 100 foot at the point I
Y po of the dock.
How many properties would that affect do you think?
Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission struggled with that because how wide of II
an area do you have that 100 feet? Do you keep it at 20, 30 or 40? And they
felt uncomfortable that that was being just as arbitrary as anything else so we II
wanted to try to establish a consistent means of creating a guideline in the
ordinance to avoid a situation like this, as Mr. Hoyt pointed out. Yes, they
looked at the map and saw that there was one other property, the Ziegler's south
of the Lawson property on the west side of Lake Minnewashta that this would
I
affect but separation was a big issue. The rationale being that that road
right-of-way does serve a purpose as a buffer and the Planning Commission
chairman really explained that they felt that that should be included as part of
II
the buffer between a beachlot and a group of single family hones. Also, it
provided an easy mechanism to enforce the ordinance because again, look at that
area. He's got maybe 30 feet of the beachlot being 115 feet deep. Is that II really what you're trying to separate from adjacent single family homes?
Councilman Johnson: The other one would be a 100 foot depth with an average
lot depth of the entire length of the lot of 75 feet, 90 feet or something to
I
where that, obviously that type of "T" shape, your average lot depth is going to
be way low or flag lots or some wording there.
Barbara Dacy: Again, it still doesn't affect those beachlots that do not have I
L road right-of-way. You still have to have 100 feet of lot depth no matter what
in this case so they felt that you're acheiving both objectives. You're setting
an established minimum with or without the road right-of-way.
II
29
I
II 254
City Council Meeting - May ,., 1988
I
Councilman Johnson: What about the people who, they want to add a two car
[-
II garage in the front of their house but they're too close to the road
right-of-way to do it and they say we'll just include the road right-of-way in
our setback. They did it for the beachiots.
Councilman Boyt: Whole different issue. --
Councilman Johnson: Similar.
Councilman Boyt: No. Much different issue. When we talk about a garage and in
putting traffic on the road, we've got a safety issue. What we're talking about
here isn't a safety issue, it's a concentration of useage.
Councilman Johnson: We're putting pedestrians across it.
' Councilman Horn: Can you distinguish, in your November 12th memorandum you
said you couldn't differeniate between lot depth and lot size. Can you do that
' now in terms of intent of ordinance with what the Planning Commission
recommended? Cr do you think, the impression I'm getting here is that the
Planning Commission feels that their proposal meets the intent of the ordinance.
I don't think there is anything that meets the intent of the lot size. You
' looked at this in terms of depth... If you look at it in terms of if we allow
the road right-of-way as they would get the total area, there seems to be lots
that would change their compliance based on the area.
Barbara Dacy: The Commission's intent was not to include the road right-of-way
as a part of the lot area.
' Councilman Horn: So how do we differeniate that in terms of arbitrary and
capricous?
' Barbara Dacy: The difference being is that the Commission was looking at this.
Councilman Horn: So it was intent of the ordinance?
Barbara Dacy: I don't know.
Councilman Horn: That's the question to the Attorney.
Roger Knutson: You're changing the ordinance.
Councilman Horn: As I got your issue the question could go backwards. Why
would you change the ordinance for depth without changing it for lot size?
What would be your rationale?
Roger Knutson: Do we think that the ordinance is fine. It helps you...in the
depth part of the ordinance shall we change? Are we talking about changing the
depth as a buffering and by including the road we accomplish the buffering.
Councilman Horn: You could argue that lot area is a buffer.
Councilman Johnson: Now we could use the lot area, the 66 foot of road
right-of-way to get some of these below 30,000 square feet up to 30,000.
30
.
City Council Meeting - ray 31, 1988
55i
I
Ir- Barbara Dacy: No.
Councilman Johnson: That's the next request. They'll use the exact same logic
to get it.
Councilman Boyt: It's a different issue. -
Mayor Hamilton: Co you have another question Clark?
Councilman Horn: No. I'm still trying to sort out how that's a different
issue. In my mind I can't differentiate that.
Barbara Dacy: If clarification of the intent needs to be solved, we can easily
add a sentence that says, however, road right-of-way shall not be used in the
calculation of lot area for the beachlot. That can be added. Roger assessment
of the distance and the depth issues is exactly right there. For whatever
reason in 1982 100 feet was set as a minimum lot depth, so what they were
looking at is well, we do have narrow stretches between Minnewashta Parkway and
Lake Minnewashta and the Commission felt that including the road right-of-way as
far as that lot depth calculation was, was appropriate.
Mayor Hamilton: Anything else Clark? '
Councilman Horn: I'm still having trouble with it. I can't differentiate
between 30 and... '
Barbara Dacy: The other criteria for area is that you have enough area for
canoe racks and play areas, swimming beaches, volleyball nets and so on. So
supposedly the ordinance already says 30,000 square feet and then 20,000 square
feet for any additional dock so there's a relationship there between docks and
useage.
Councilman Horn: So one is strictly related to a dock issue and the other is - 1
related to...?
Barbara Dacy: I guess, yes. I
Mayor Hamilton: There were some comments made by some of the Council members
that they were relunctant to change the ordinance for a specific developer. I
guess I still ask the question, we're not going to change it for a specific
developer, what if the staff, another what if, what if the staff had looked at
the ordinance and said look, ...and brought this same issue before us to change?
Would we be sitting here,...in mind to deny it or would you...? That's
certainly an issue for me because I know the...just to use it can make a
difference.
Councilman Horn: I agree with you Tom on that. I think obviously when you
get new uses and new circumstances that come in, that's usually what the problem
is. Take a look at the ordinance see if it still makes sense. I don't have... '
Mayor Hamilton: I'm going to make a motion to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment
for a recreational beachlot to allow. Now do you want to do this? Section
20-263.
31 I
y Council Meeting Ma: 1, 1988
I
Barbara Dacy: It's on Page 7. 20-263(7) .
II
[-
Mayor Hamilton: To adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission as
outlined on page 7. Do you want me to read it? Is there a second to the
motion?
Councilman Hoyt: I'll second it. - -
Mayor Hamilton: Is there further discussion?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I'd like the City Attorney to look at something. In
the existing ordinance it states no dock shall be permitted on a recreational
beachlot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the lot has at
least a 100 foot depth. In our definitions, in our Zoning Ordinance
definitions, we never define actually, we define the lot depth but here we did
' not say 100 foot of lot depth. We just said 100 foot of depth at this point in
this ordinance. Can there be an argument that he does not need lot depth or
have we used it every place else in the ordinance? What I'm trying to say is,
is this even necessary in this case?
Roger Knutson: It's a good point and I think it is somewhat ambiguous but from
' my understanding is that they're talking about lot average and he did not have
100 foot average lot depth.
Mayor Hamilton: The ordinance amendment would clarify that where it says 100
' feet depth measured perpendicular landward from the the ordinary high water mark
to the first intersecting lot line inclusive of the street right-of-way. It's
more specific than what's in there currently.
Roger Knutson: I suggest so we're all very clear that usually the word lot
depth, actually lot depth is defined in the ordinance and what the means is an
average depth.
' Councilman Johnson: Lot depth is defined. Here we're just saying depth. He's
Y 9 P
got 100 foot depth laying perpendicular from the ordinary high water mark to the
first intersecting lot line period. He's got that right now without including
the street right-of-way. With the street right-of-way he has 180 feet of lot
depth at this point. There's no need to include the street right-of-way here in
' this case, the way they defined it.
Barbara Dacy: He doesn't have an average lot depth of 100 feet. He has a
point in the lot that's 100 feet.
Councilman Johnson: It doesn't say average lot depth.
Barbara Dacy: That's defined.
Roger Knutson: That lot depth is an average.
Councilman Horn: So if you cut in, pulled in the sides of the lot, take out
the area that don't comply to pull it under the mean, could he come out with a
lot that we would?
1
1 32
City Council Meeti ng - . 31, 1988 :
R'"
Councilman Boyt: He'd lose sNa e.re foots '
g
Councilman Horn: Would he lose it in the square footage then? '
Councilman Boyt: I think so. He's only got 40,000 square feet.
Barbara Dacy: No, he's got 31,500. _ - - 1
Councilman Boyt: Then he definitely can't.
Councilman Horn: When we originally changed this ordinance, the argument was
' brought forth that we should not be more restrictive on a beachlot than what a
;private individual could do if he had riparian rights on a beachlot. That time
the argument made sense to me that we should use that in making the decision to
change because that argument was sound. I don't think that requirement in true
in this case. I don't think we have a buildable lot and I don't think there's
'any way that this mean average thing will work out to where it would comply.
'Barbara Dacy: When he first applied, our interpretation was that the ordinance
was saying that you had to have a consistent depth of 100 feet all the way
throughout the beachlot. That's what we required every other application to
do. If he had a spot that had 100 feet so I agree with you kind of. It's
ambiguous and there is an advantage to amending that to clarify how we measure
,lot depth.
IL ;Mayor Hamilton: Since we're arbitrary on everything else, we can be arbitrary on 11 the width be at the 100 foot depth to give you a minimum. I would think we're
arbitrary. You pick 100 feet out of the air. There's no reason why 100 foot is
so.
Councilman Johnson: As I go through the Zoning Ordinance, every place else in
the Zoning Ordinance that talks about depth of the lot, it Says lot depth. This
one point it says depth. '
Roger Knutson: The easiest explanation for that is that often the Zoning
Ordinance, you're looking at was drafted by the Planning staff of a consulting
planner. The recreational beachlot was drafted by a committee and I think the
difference is the style that we're talking about. A slight language variation
are a result of that rather any intention on the part of the draftsman to draw
attention. '
Councilman Johnson: If the people who drafted this were thinking that they
were looking at an average lot depth at the time or they were just looking for
100 foot at any point.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance I
Amendment to amend Section 20-263(7) of the City Code to read as follows:
No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it has at least two
hundred (200) feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least one hundred (100)
feet depth measured perpendicular landward from the ordinary high water mark to
the first intersecting lot line inclusive of the street right-of-way. No more
than one (1) dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot every two hundred
33
1 24y Council Meeting - Ma_ 1, 1988 -
(200) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirty thousand (30,000) square feet
of land is required for the first dock and an additional twenty thousand
[-
I (20,000) square feet is required for each additional dock. No more than three
(3) docks, however, shall be erected on a recreational beachlot.
Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Hoyt voted in favor of the motion. Councilman
Horn, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition to the motion-
and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Robert Pierce: Can I say something?
Mayor Hamilton: Sure.
Robert Pierce: I guess at this point, you put this into a, I was encouraged by
your Planning Commission. I've been encouraged here and there. You leave me no
' choice but to start legal action. We will get more use on that lake than what
we asked for. I don't fight unless I'm pushed in a corner. I don't ask for
unreasonable things...but I guess as far as I'm concerned, the people around
your lake has lost. The City has lost. The whole tone of that whole area out
there is going to be $100,000.00 less per home. We will cane back and maybe do
something there with the lake frontage but I can't believe it. You throw the
baby out with the bath water and you're losing all the way around. We'll be
' back and we'll get it. I just can not understand. Thank you.
' Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
I
34
- 1 h_, -
,.........._ i
CITY OF
t-q,
IliqlOr
1‘4000,
CHANHASSEN 1
/ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 5'5317
k „ i
(612) 937-1900 I
MEMORANDUM
I
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner `
I
DATE: June 7 , 1988 I
SUBJ: Ordinance #87, Second and Final Reading ~
Attached is the above referenced ordinance for amending the
I
recreational beachlot regulation concerning canoe racks. First
reading was approved by the City Council on May 23 , 1988.
Approval of the attached is recommended.
I
I
Il
H /7/ffe
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
nY
II
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 87
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
The City Council of Chanhassen ordains:
' Section 1. Section 20-263 (6) is hereb y amended as follows:
"No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of over-
night storage or overnight mooring of more than three (3)
motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a
recreational beachlot is allowed more than one (1) dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to
three (3) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed.
' Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes, windsurfers,
' sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any
recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifi-
cally designed for that purpose. No more than six (6)
' watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number of racks
shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit
one (1) rack slip per lot served by the beachlot; however, in
' no case shall there be more than four (4 ) racks per beachlot.
Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at
any time other than overnight.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective from and
after its passage and publication.
Passed and adopted by the City Council this 13th day of June,
1988.
I
Mayor
Attest:
City Manager
I
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW '
1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET
BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE(612)835-3800 TELEPHONE(612)338-6610
TELECOPIER 1612)835-5102 TELECOPIER 16121338-1002
PETER K. BECK REPLY TO BLOOMINGTON
October 23, 1989
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Stratford Ridge '
Application of Pierce Construction for Ordinance Interpretation
or, in the Alternative, Zoning Variance
Dear Sirs: '
This letter is submitted in support of the application of Pierce
Construction for an ordinance interpretation or, in the alternative, a
zoning variance which will allow the installation of a dock with three
boat slips on Outlot A, Stratford Ridge.
BACKGROUND '
Stratford Ridge is a nine acre, 15 lot single family subdivision on
the west shore of Lake Minnewashta which was approved by the City
Council in February, 1988 . Prior to subdivision, the property was a
single family home site which was in the ownership of the same family
for over 70 years. This family always had a dock on the lakeshore ,
portion of the property, and for many years rented boats from the
property.
Pierce Construction acquired the property in 1987 and began the '
process of subdividing the property for single family'deveiopment.
Requests for subdivision approval, a conditional use permit for the
beachlot, and a wetland alteration permit were considered by the
Planning Commission on October 28, 1987 and January 6, 1988. The
requested approvals were then heard by the City Council on February 8,
and February 22, 1988. '
During the course of these approvals, permission to locate a dock on
the beachlot was denied on the grounds that the 100 foot depth
requirement was not met. However, it was suggested that Pierce
Construction request an amendment to the Beachlot Ordinance to clarify
OCT 31 1989
i
at OF CHANHASSEN
Y r w �
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
City of Chanhassen
' October 23, 1989
Page 2
' how the depth of a beachlot is measured, so that a dock could be
approved for this beachlot.
' A proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment was considered by the Planning
Commission at hearings on April 6 and April 20, 1988, and by the City
Council at hearings on May 9 and May 31, 1988. The City Council
ultimately declined to amend the Beachlot Ordinance to clarify the 100
foot depth requirement for docks.
This application is submitted because the combination of the denial of
the earlier dock proposal and the refusal to amend the Beachlot
Ordinance has left the Stratford Ridge Subdivision without full access
to Lake Minnewashta. This is an inequitable and unlawful result which
must be corrected.
' THE PROPOSAL
' The proposal is to construct a single dock with three boat slips on
Outlot A, Stratford Ridge. Outlot A complies in all respects with the
City's requirements for a recreational beachlot, and a Conditional Use
' Permit for use of Outlot A as a recreational beachlot was approved by
the Chanhassen City Council on February 22, 1988, subject to the
condition that the beachlot not have a dock unless a variance to the
lot depth requirement is granted.
The dock is proposed to be located on the northern end of Outlot A, as
shown on the plan submitted. The depth from the lake to the
' Minnewashta Parkway right-of-way is 115 feet along the north property
line of Outlot A. The three boat slips would be for the exclusive use
of the three lots in Stratford Ridge which front directly on
Minnewashta Parkway and Lake Minnewashta. The slips would not be
available for use by any of the other 12 homes in the Stratford Ridge
Subdivision.
' During the earlier proceedings before the Planning Commission, the
Board of Adjustment and the City Council, the question of whether a
dock located on a beachlot which is over 100 feet deep at one end
would comply with the requirements of the Beachlot Ordinance was not
directly raised or decided; nor was the issue of whether a dock
located as presently proposed, with only three boat slips, meets the
standards of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a variance. The
' purpose of this application is to obtain a determination from the City
that the dock as proposed complies in all respects with Section 20-
263(6) of the Beachlot Ordinance, including the 100 foot depth
I
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY 8c LINDGREN, LTD.
1
City of Chanhassen
October 23, 1989
page 3
requirement; or, in the alternative, to obtain a variance from the 100
foot depth requirement.
ARGUMENT
1. The dock proposed for Outlot A, Stratford Ridge, complies in all
respects with the City Beachlot Ordinance, and Pierce Construction
is entitled to install the dock as proposed. '
Section 20-263(6) of the Chanhassen Beachlot Ordinance provides as
follows:
No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beachlot unless it
has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least a
100 foot depth. No more than one dock may be erected on a
recreational beachlot for every 200 feet of lake frontage. In
addition, 30,000 square feet of land is required for the first
dock and an additional 20,000 square feet is required for each
additional dock. No more than three docks, however, shall be
erected on a recreational beachlot.
Outlot A is approximately 31,400 square feet in size with '
approximately 550 feet of lakeshore. The depth of Outlot A varies
from less than 100 feet to 115 feet on the north end. Outlot A
therefore complies in all respects with the requirements of the
Beachlot Ordinance for a dock.
During the earlier hearings on the subdivision and proposed Ordinance
amendment, staff pointed out that the language in the Beachlot
Ordinance requiring a 100 foot depth for docks is somewhat ambiguous
with respect to lots which vary in depth. Councilmember Johnson also
raised this issue and stated his opinion that Outlot A complies with
the Beachlot Ordinance requirements.
The Beachlot Ordinance requires that a beachlot have, "at least a 100
foot depth" for a dock. The Beachlot Ordinance does not incorporate
the Zoning Ordinance definition of "Depth". The requirement is that a
beachlot have, at some point, 100 feet of depth - as Outlot A does .
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held very specifically that zoning
ordinances must be construed strictly against the city and in favor of
the property owner. Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville,
295 N.W.2d 604, 608 ( 1980) . The Courts require that the least
restrictive interpretation, protecting the rights of the property
1
r, u
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY SC LINDGREN, LTD.
City of Chanhassen
' October 23, 1989
Page 4
' owner be given to zoning ordinance provisions . Odell v. City of
Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 792, 797 (Minn. App. 1984) .
In this instance, the Beachlot Ordinance does not require a continuous
minimal 100 foot depth, nor does it require 100 feet of "Depth" as
defined in the Zoning Ordinance. It requires only, "at least a 100
foot depth". Outlot A has a 100 foot depth and complies with this
language. At best, the ordinance is ambiguous . In this instance,
under the cases decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court, the Ordinance
must be interpreted in favor of the property owner to protect his
rights of property ownership.
' The least restrictive interpretation of this language can lead to no
conclusion other than that Outlot A, which has a depth of 115 feet on
its northern boundary, complies with the requirements of the Beachlot
Ordinance and is entitled to a dock.
11 2 . The standards for the issuance of a variance are met in these
unique circumstances .
In the event that the City Council elects to interpret Section 20-
' 236 (6) of the Beachlot Ordinance against Pierce Construction, we
respectfully request that the City Council consider our application
for a variance from the 100 foot depth requirement.' Section 3-1-3(2)
' of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance sets forth five standards for the
issuance of a variance. Each of these standards is set forth below,
with a brief discussion as to how the standard is met by these unique
circumstances .
' A. That the literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause
undue hardship and practical difficulty.
If the Beachlot Ordinance is interpreted to require a, 100 foot average
depth for a dock, this would make it impossible to have a dock on
Outlot A. Denial of the right to a dock causes undue hardship on
Pierce Construction in that it reduces substantially the value of the
lots which the dock would serve. More importantly, it causes undue
hardship on the three future homeowners who would have a right to use
1 the dock in that they will be deprived of this fundamental property
right and will be unable to enjoy the same rights as other single
family property owners on City lakes to have a dock and store boats
thereon.
I
R'
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
City of Chanhassen
October 23, 1989
Page 5
B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and
circumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure I
involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to
other lands or structures in the same district.
Outlot A consists of all the property in the Stratford Ridge '
subdivision located west of Minnewashta Parkway. The depth of Outlot
A is defined by the Minnewashta Parkway right-of-way and the shore Hof I
Lake Minnewashta. There was no opportunity for the property owner, in"
the course of subdividing Stratford Ridge, to make Outlot A any .size
other than what it is. The depth of Outlot A is a result of the
proximity of the Minnewashta Parkway right-of-way to the lakeshore.
There is no way that the lot could be made deeper, as city ordinance
does not allow a lot to cross a public right-of-way.
This is a situation unique and peculiar to a few properties on the ,
west shore of Lake Minnetonka, and not characteristic of or applicable
to other lakeshore areas throughout the City. Under these
circumstances, it is a physical impossibility to make the Beachlot any
deeper.
C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the
pre ervation and enjoyment of s bstantial property rights.
•
The exclusive right of access to the water in front of his land, and
the right to build and maintain docks on and in front of his land to
the point of navigability, is a fundamental right of the riparian
property owner. See State v. Slotness, 289 Minn. 485, 185 N.W.2d 530
(1971) citing lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181, 197, 53 N.W. 1139, 1142
and Brisbine v. St. Paul and Sioux City Ry Co. , 23 Minn. 114, 130.
The granting of this variance for a dock on Outlot A is necessary for
the preservation and protection of this fundamental property right of
all riparian property owners. Denial of the variance; and 'denial of
the fundamental riparian property right to build and maintain a dock
into the water to the point of navigability, is in all likelihood I
compensable given the fundamental nature of this riparian property
right.
D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not d '
consequence of self created hardship.
The depth of Outlot A is defined by the Minnewashta Parkway right-of- '
way and the shore of Lake Minnewashta. There was no opportunity for
I
rn
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY 8c LINDGREN, LTD.
City of Chanhassen
October 23, 1989
Page 6
the property owner, in the course of subdividing Stratford Ridge, to
make this lot any size other than what it is. City ordinance defines
Outlot A as a separate lot, because a single lot cannot cross a public
right-of-way. Therefore, Outlot A cannot be split and attached to the
three lots in Stratford Ridge which front on Minnewashta Parkway.
The Zoning Ordinance also does not allow residential use of Outlot A,
' because it could not meet minimum depth and setback requirements .
Therefore, the only feasible use of Outlot A is as recreational
beachlot for the remaining lots in Stratford Ridge. The depth of the
beachlot is not a product of any self created hardship, but the result
' of the location of the Minnewashta Parkway right-of-way and the
shoreline.
E. That the variance will not be injurious or adversely affect
the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City or
the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be
in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
' The City Beachlot Ordinance allows docks and the overnight storage of
boats on recreational beachlots . The dock proposed for Outlot A will
be located at a point where Outlot A is approximately 100 feet deep.
Furthermore, the distance between the actual roadway surface on
Minnewashta Parkway and Lake Minnewashta is over 125 feet. If the
' City Council determines that a variance is necessary for the
construction of the dock on Outlot A, in no way will this variance be
injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the
residents of the City. No use is requested which is not otherwise
' already allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
CONCLUSION
The recreational beachlot serving the Stratford Ridge Subdivision is
over 31,000 square feet in size with approximately 550 feet of
lakeshore. The proposal is for one dock and three boats. The same
number of docks and boats that would be allowed if the Stratford Ridge
property remained a single family property. To deny the new
homeowners at Stratford Ridge the right to a dock and overnight
storage of boats because City ordinance requires that Outlot A be a
recreational beachlot and further prohibits a dock on this particular
beachlot, is simply unfair and unreasonable.
1
R'
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
City of Chanhassen
October 23, 1989
page 7
The standards of the Beachlot Ordinance for a dock have been met and
the City Council must allow the dock to be constructed. In the
alternative, if the City Council would be more comfortable not
addressing the zoning interpretation question and granting a variance,
the standards for the issuance of a variance have been met. '
We will be at the Board of Adjustment and City Council meetings to
answer any questions .
Very truly yours,
bcto
Peter K. Beck, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
kw
I
1
I
I
I
PKB:EW9s
i
IILAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ,..
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
• (612) 937-1900
' APPLICANT: Pierce Construction OWNER: same
c/o Peter K. Beck, Larkin,
ADDRESS Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren_ ADDRESS
' 7900 Xerxes Avenue So. , Ste. 1500
Bloomington, MN 55431
Zip Code _ Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 835-3800 TELEPHONE
REQUEST:
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
X Zoning Variance Final Plan
' Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME Stratford Ridge Beachlot Dock
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Residential Low Density
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION same
' PRESENT ZONING RSF, Residential Single Family
' REQUESTED ZONING same
USES PROPOSED See attached letter
' SIZE OF PROPERTY 31,400 square feet
LOCATION 6830 Minnewashta Parkway
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST See attached letter
' LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) Outlot A, Stratford Ridge
I
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES
NOVEMBER 6, 1989 I
MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Ursula Dimler
STAFF PRESENT:
PIERCE APPEAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS
Staff presented the report to the Board. i
Peter Beck stated that the general concensus of the City Council
during the last discussion of this item was that the dock would
be okay but that an amendment to the ordinance should be pro-
cessed rather than granting a variance. By the time that the
Council reviewed the zoning ordinance amendment it could not be
agreed upon how to amend the ordinance and the ordinance amend-
ment
was denied. During the City Council review, the question of
interpretation of the ordinance was brought up by Councilman Jay
Johnson. Jay Johnson questioned if the applicant did not already
meet the regulation since it stated that they must have a 100
foot depth, which the recreational beachlot does have.
Watson stated how can they appeal if we don't know what it means
and it seems like we are putting the cart before the horse. The
City Council should make the determination of what the ordinance
means and that is not a determination of the Board of
Adjustments.
Elliot Knetsch stated that the Board of Adjustment' s purpose is
to review the ordinances as they are written right now and the
applicant' s appeal is to the interpretation of how the ordinance
is stated and that the ball is in the Board of Adjustment' s
court. 1
Dimler questioned how the applicant would determine who uses the
recreational beachlot. p
Peter Beck stated that there would be a homeowner' s association
and only the front three lots along Lake Minnewashta would have
use of the dock. '
Johnson stated that there is 95 feet of depth at the area where
the dock is being proposed and that he feels the interpretation
of the ordinance could be seen as only requiring 100 foot depth
which the recreational beachlot does have and that the dock
should be permitted.
Dimler stated that the recreational beachlot does have a 100 foot
depth which is how it is stated in the ordinance. The applicant
is requesting an appeal to staff interpretation of the ordinance
and feels that the Board of Adjustments must review the way the
i
I 1
BOA Minutes
November 6, 1989
Page 2
' ordinance is written today. The ordinance states that a
recreational beachlot must have a 100 foot depth and again, that
they do have a 100 foot depth and that she recommends approval of_
the 100 foot depth interpretation. ..
Dimler moved, seconded by Johnson to approve the interpretation
of the 100 foot depth for recreational beachlots as stated in the
' zoning ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Watson moved, seconded by Dimler to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1 _ ~
I
1
1