5a. Sunny Slope Beachlot, Request for Reconsideration f _1
CITY OF -S=
1 CHANHASSEN
�\ I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 ""7 (612) 937-1900
3
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
IFROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: July 10, 1989
ISUBJ: Sunny Slope Beachlot, Request for Reconsideration
1 Background
The Sunny Slope Addition, representing 12 lots, was platted in
1 the mid-1970 ' s. Representations by the developer led owners to
believe that they would have access to Lake Riley via a beachlot
and would have certain dock/boat storage capabilities. There is
I also a question as to whether grandfather rights should be given
to the association recognizing general usage patterns prior to
1983 . [Note: The first set of minutes in the attachments (April
I 25, 1988) , depicts some of the history associated with the Sunny
Slope Addition.
Current Proposal
1 On June 20, 1989 , I met with the City Attorney and the attorneys/
representatives of the Sunny Slope Addition. At that meeting,
I the City Attorney informed me that a trial date has been set to
determine whether Sunny Slope should be granted beachlot priv-
ileges. The attorney for Sunny Slope, Mr. Alonzo Seran, has
I requested an out of court settlement be considered wherein his
clients would be permitted one dock with the allowance of three
or four boats. Mr. Seran believes that ordinance modifications
made by the Council to allow beachlots for Mr. Plocher on Lake
I Minnewashta and for Lotus Lake Estates while simultaneously not
considering modifications to help the Sunny Slope property owners
represents acts of arbitrariness and capriciousness .
I Additionally, he believes the court will favorably look to the
intent of the developer/owner even though actual usage was spora-
tic. However, rather than litigating the matter, Mr. Seran has
advised the association and is requesting the attorney' s office
1 to present their settlement offer to the City Council. In
discussing this item further with the attorney and homeowners , I
stated to them that I would attempt to determine how the Council
IIwould wish to procedurally act on this request, i .e. presented as
I
ii
Mayor and City Council I
July 10, 1989
Page 2
offer by the attorney or as a request for reconsideration. In
discussing this with Mayor Chmiel, he felt that the Council
should have the opportunity to review the full background packet
associated with this item and if sufficient new information was
available to warrant reconsideration, that potentially affected
property owners be notified before a final decision was made. In
accordance with that direction, this item has been placed onto
the agenda as a request for reconsideration. If the Council
should determine that sufficient new information exists, a motion
would be in order to move reconsideration of the Sunny Slope
request. If this motion receives a majority of votes, the item
would be tabled and all property owners likely to be affected
would be notified of the request and invited to make comment.
Should no motion be made for reconsideration or the motion fails,
the attorney would inform the homeowners association of such and
it would be their decision as to whether they would wish to con-
tinue to pursue litigation.
Note: This item was not published and typically this office i
would either recommend that it be pulled or have shown it
as an item delete because of that procedural error. Two
reasons were considered in leaving the item on the agenda,
i .e:
1. My Intent to Expedite the Item: The homeowners asso-
ciation, as a part of their presentation, stated that
they would remove all boats from the beachlot in an
effort to show good faith with the City. However,
they asked that the City similarly be courteous to
them in attempting to expedite the item. Although
this office had justification for holding the item to
research the procedural questions, it was solely an
error in not getting the item published; and
2 . Reconsideration Requires Tabling: The City Council ' s
potential vote to reconsider is not a vote approving
the proposed settlement agreement. The only purpose
of that initial vote is to determine whether suf-
ficient
new evidence exists to warrant recalling all
neighbors to re-hear the item and to give the Council
their reactions to the new proposal.
1
11
1 1
CITY OF
•
41,1 ANHAssEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1 June 29, 1989
' Ms. Joy Tanner
9243 Lake Riley Blvd.
1 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Ms. Tanner:
1 I have received Scott Harr ' s letter to you of June 27, 1989. I
would like to note a procedural correction to that letter.
Specifically, I had stated to the association that I would pre-
sent Sunnyslope ' s request for a potential settlement to the City
Council and obtain their advice as to whether the issue should be
pursued in the form of an "out of court settlement" or as a
1 "reconsideration" . Although I did not have an opportunity to
discuss this item with all Council members, it would appear as
though the best form by which an answer could be received for the
association would be as a "reconsideration" . This process would
1 involve accumulating all background information which had been
considered up to this point (provides new Council members with an
opportunity to review that information) as well as to include the
1 current proposal from the association. Should the Council
believe that sufficient new information is available to warrant
reconsideration, the item would be tabled to the next regular
1 meeting whereat all parties likely to be affected by the final
decision would be given an opportunity to speak before a final
decision was made.
Should you have any questions in regards to this letter, please
feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
1 Don Ashworth
City Manager
1 cc: Alonzo B. Seran Craig Bakken
Olson, Gunn and Seran, Ltd. 18990 Park Avenue
315 Peavey Building Deephaven, MN 55391
730 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis , MN 55402
1
■
. 1
CITY ® F
,i(i,
r
/--
czawEAssEN
1
, ,, i,..„0 ::.
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
-�,� (612) 937-1900
June 27, 1989 1
I
Ms. Joy Tanner
9243 Lake Riley Blvd.
II
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Joy: I
This letter is to advise you that I 'attended a meeting last week
involving representatives from the Sunnyslope Homeowners
Association; their legal counsel; our City Attorney; City Manager II
Don Ashworth; and, our Senior Planner. This was in fact a pre-
trial settlement conference, which involved a good deal of
discussion from all perspectives. I
The final arrangement consisted of having the homeowners asso-
ciation remove the boats and dock until City Manager Don Ashworth II has an opportunity to provide data to the City Council for their
input. Basically, the Sunnyslope Homeowners Association is
requesting that their lot be grandfathered in as their perspec-
tive is that they were in fact using it as such at the time the
II
ordinance was adopted. Any input would best be directed to City
Manager Don Ashworth.
Feel free to call if you have any questions . I
Sincerely,
IIi
c.-6 -1 l'-u� 1
S' tt Harr
Assistant Public Safety Director
SH:k
I
cc: Jim Chaffee II Jo Ann Olsen
Don Ashworth
II
II
■
1 , i
c �� i
rJ _
I CITY O �. .: .: .M
..„.
-T.,
1 , 7.3 1.
C i tzHAssEN
,\, ./ ,
I \ ;' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1
May 25 , 1988
I •
I Sunny Slope Homeowners Association
Attn: Steve Burke
340 Deerfoot Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I
Dear Mr. Burke:
I Attached are the Findings of Fact for denial for the conditional
use permit and variances for a recreational beachlot. The City
Council adopted these findings at their May 23 , 1988 , meeting.
IShould you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely
1
I Barbara Dacy
City Planner
I .. BD:v
I
I
I
1
I
1 e I.�•s .v>5s.,,..�- - - -- . t. .?„
•
-. T .,
(-
.c._
/lc_ ' II.
CITYOF
A
1
kA
\I ' '
\,,L„. .
+ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM _
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner 00''
DATE: May 16, 1988 1
SUBJ: Findings of Fact for Sunny Slope Homeowner' s Association
for the Conditional Use Permit and Variances for a 1
Recreation Beachlot
Attached please find the findings of fact from the City 1
Attorney' s office regarding the denial of the conditional use
permit and variance applications for Sunny Slope. Approval is
recommended.
1
1
I
1
• 1
1
1
1
1
1
II
ICITY OF CHANHASSEN
ICARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
I IN RE: Application of Sunny Slope Homeowner's Association for a
Conditional Use Permit and variances for purposes of
establishing a recreational beachlot on Lot 37, Shore Acres
Addition
I
On April 25, 1988 , the Chanhassen City Council met at its
Iregularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of the Sunny
II Slope Homeowner's Association for a variance and a Conditional Use
Permit to establish a recreational beachlot on Lot 37, Shore Acres
IIAddition (9241 Lake Riley Boulevard) , in the City of Chanhassen,
Carver County, Minnesota. The Applicant was present and the City
1 Council heard testimony from all interested parties wishing to speak
at the meeting and now makes the following Findings of Fact and
IDecision:
IFINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is located in the R-1 (Single Family
IResidential) Zoning District.
2. A recreational beachlot requires a Conditional Use
IPermit, and the Applicant has the burden of proving that the
Istandards for a Conditional Use Permit are met.
3 . Section 20-263 of the City Code places additional
Iminimum standards on all recreational beachlots.
4. The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for
IIa recreational beachlot with the following improvements:
I (a) The installation of one dock adjacent to the lot of
such size and shape as to conform to the requirements of the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance.
II
I
(b) Allow the overnight storage of up to three
watercraft.
(c) Construct two (2) canoe racks capable of storing
six canoes on each rack.
(d) Install front and side lot fencing on the property ,
to provide security and privacy.
(e) Landscape the north side of the property to bring '
the contour of the lot in line with that of any neighbors to
minimize soil erosion onto the lake.
5. The subject property has twelve (12) residential
dwelling units which would have appurtential rights of access to the
lot.
6. The City Code requires a lot to have a minimum of 200 ,
feet of lake frontage to receive a Conditional Use Permit for a
recreational beachlot. The City Code requires a minimum of 200 feet ,
of lakeshore, 30, 000 square feet and 100 feet of lot depth for a
recreational beachlot to have a dock. The proposed recreational
beachlot has 50 feet of lake frontage, 110 feet of lot depth, and '
5, 500 square feet of lot area.
7. Approval of the application requires four (4) variances:
(a) Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot
without the required 200 feet of lake frontage. '
(b) Permit a dock on a recreational beachlot without
the required 200 feet of frontage and 30, 000 square feet of
lot area.
(c) Permit a canoe rack on a recreational beachlot
without a dock.
(d) Permit one additional canoe rack over the permitted
one canoe rack per dock. '
8. A recreational beachlot is too intense a use of the
small piece of property. ,
-2- 1
•
9. The beachlot would have an adverse effect upon adjacent
' single family homes. It would disrupt the quietude of the area by
interjecting too many people into any area not designed to
' accommodate them.
10. The City's professional planner, in a report dated April
6, 1988, and incorporated herein by this reference, recommended
' denial of the application.
11. Approving the application would generate additional boat
' traffic and congestion on the lake.
12. The proposed recreational beachlot would depreciate
' adjacent property value.
13 . The Applicant has failed to show that the standards for
' granting a variance have been met.
' 14 . Strict enforcement of the provision of the Chanhassen
Zoning Ordinance does not result in a hardship unique to the
individual property.
15. There are no special circumstances or conditions
' concerning the land or its use which would necessitate a variance.
' 16. The lot can be put to reasonable use without the grant
of the variances.
DECISION
1. Based upon the foregoing considerations, Applicant's
' request for a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot is
' denied.
2 . Based upon the foregoing considerations, Applicant's
' request for the four variances is hereby denied.
I
' -3-
1
Adopted this -:3/ - day of jr?2r.--1 , 1988. I
v
CITY S3 ANHASSEN I 7 /./Z___,
BY: x'71/ 3
Thonfas L. Hamilton, Mayor
I
ATTEST: e a c =64
,_
Don Ashworth, Manager/Clerk '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-4-
I
•
1 •
I LAW OFFICES
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER:
I DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359
VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L. HARMEYER
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE ICHAE
M B. KNETSCH
MICHAEL J. MAYER
I PATRICK A. FARRELL
DAVID L. GRANNIS,III SOUTH ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 TIMOTHY J. BERG
ROGER N KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661
1 May 13 , 1988
IMs. Barbara Dacy, City Planner
Chanhassen City Hall
I 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Sunny Slope C.U.P.
I
Dear Barb:
I Pursuant to your request, enclosed please find proposed
Findings of Fact and Decision concerning the application of
Sunny Slope Homeowner ' s Association ;for a Conditional Use
IPermit.
Very truly ,ours,
I CRANNI GRANNI , FARRELL
��:•�E ► T C ]\.
I Rag'-
Knutson
RNK: srn
IEnclosure
I
I
I
I
MA f i t; 1988
ICITY OF CHA(VhASSLIV
K 1
CITY ® F
. .
‘ ...,,
.__ .
• \ I , .,!- CEANEASSEN
.,&,..
\ / ! . L.At
` ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1
(612) 937-1900
April 28, 1988
I
Mr. Roger Knutson
I
Grannis, Grannis, Farrell & Knutson
P.O. Box 57
So. St. Paul, MN 55075 1
Re: Variance #86-3 , CUP #84-6 , SUB #86-23 , SUB #86-19
Dear Roger: 1
The City Council requested the City Attorney' s Office to prepare
findings of fact for the following two issues: 1
1 . The Sunny Slope variance and conditional use permit request.
The City Council recommended denial. Please contact me if 1
you need copies of the staff reports or other information.
2 . The City Council extended the preliminary plat approval for II Sever Peterson to January 1, 1989 . The Council stated that
the basis for their decision was the TH 212 official mapping
process had not been finalized which would enable the appli-
cant to file for an application for right-of-way acquisition
II
loan funds from the Metropolitan Council.
Please contact me if you will not be able to prepare these
II
findings of fact within the next week. In order for them to be
scheduled for the May 9 , 1988 , City Council meeting, we should
have the findings of fact by Thursday, May 5 , 1988 .
Also, enclosed please find a development contract for Frank II
Beddor, for Park One Third Addition located around and including
the Press on TH 5 (Hennepin Co. ) . The final plat was approved in
I
1986 and the development contract was prepared shortly
thereafter. The contract was not signed nor the plat filed.
Meanwhile, the city proceeded with the public improvement project
II
for streets and utilities (Economic Development District
Project) . The assessments have been certified against the prop-
erty ( although not against the newly created lots proposed in the
unfiled plat) . In speaking with Gary, we felt that there was no
II
longer any need for a letter of credit. We also would like you
to revise the contract as you would recommend knowing that the
improvements are completed. 1
1
•
a
Mr. Roger Knutson
April 28, 1988
Page 2
Please call me if you have any questions .
Very truly ours,
Barbara Dacy
City Planner
BD:v
1
1
,___
. 1
3. i..
. , CITY OF I
1
\ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I
(612) 937-1900
I
April 27, 1988
I
Mr. Steve Burke
II
340 Deerfoot Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Burke: II
This is to confirm that the City Council at the April 25, 1988 ,
II
meeting denied your request for a variance and conditional use
permit for recreational beachiot activities subject to the City
Attorney preparing findings of fact for denial . The findings of
fact will be prepared for Council approval at their May 9 , 1988 ,
I
meeting. This item will be scheduled for the Consent Agenda.
Should you have any further questions , please feel free to con- ,
tact me.
Si ere ,
Barbara Dacy
I
City Planner
BD:v I
II
II
II
II
II
•
' City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: I have the same concern as Bill does. I don't want to see the
same stuff there as you have now and I realize why it's there. I understand
I that but I don't want to see it down there. Is the building a metal building?
It wasn't clear to me what type of bulling it was.
Barbara Dacy: Yes, it will be a metal building.
Mayor Hamilton: I thought we had talked about not having metal buildings. Can
' you refresh my memory on that.
Barbara Dacy: The intent of that was to prohibit polebarn type of construction
' but this would have a finished exterior and wood studs and metal construction
materials that will be finished with a light gray exterior and a dark gray with
red trim on the windows.
' Mayor Hamilton: So the appearance is basically not of a metal building or is
there any wood on it?
' Bernie Hanson: The appearance will not look like metal. It will match almost
what you're building there on main street with the shadow lines and the
different materials and so forth.
Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve th e Site Plan Review
and Conditional Use Permit Request for the following uses:
I I a. Outdoor display of merchandise for sale
b. Screened Outdoor Storage
c. Automotive Service Center
d. Small Vehicle Sales
with the following conditions:
' 1. The fencing be, in some manner, wood exterior. Nothing interwoven
the chainlink fencing. in
' 2. The flammable liquids clearly identified and a record of what it is and
where it is recorded with the Fire Department and Public Safety
Department.
' All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Horn: The thought occurred to me that I didn't see any comments
when this item came up to the HRA. Why don't we see HRA Minutes along with our
' packets? A lot of the same questions were talked about in this project.
Don Ashworth: That's a good point. I should make sure that we do that and
I! I'll make sure that in the Future we do try to have those in there.
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT REQUEST, SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: 3
I
-- A. VARIANCE TO THE LOT WIDTH AND LOT AREA REQUIREMENT FOR A RECREATIONAL
BEACHLOT.
' 17
City Council Meeting - AI;_, 1 25, 1983
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ACTIVITIES.
Mayor Hamilton: Item A, the variance to the lot width and lot area was before
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals this evening. Dale, perhaps you could
tell us what the disposition was.
Councilman Geving: Mr. Mayor, we asked that Willard Johnson who's the Chairman
of the Board of Appeals come before the Council and state what happened at the
Board meeting.
Willard Johnson: As you know this has been before the Council and Board many
times. Mr. Burke indicated that he would like to come before the full Council
and we passed it on to the Council because we supported the ordinance referring
to beachiots and the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Mayor Hamilton: So you didn't make any recommendation at all on it?
Willard Johnson: No, we passed it on following the guidelines of the beachlot
ordinance.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to ask the Council, I don't know if Jay and Bill have
had an opportunity to see all the material that's gone by on this but there's
been a lot of it. It's been here several times. If you want additional
information from the staff, we can do that. If not, we could perhaps get into
a discussion and resolve or attempt to resolve this once and for all. Nobody ,
apparently needs a staff report so what I'd like to do is ask if there are
homeowners here who have comments to make. I would like to here them first.
Joy Tanner: I live at 9243 Lake Riley Blvd adjacent to Lot 37. I have Lots 38 '
and 39. About 10 years ago when my property, we were going before the Board
for variances for the lakeshore property, it was the first time that the
feeling was held regarding that property being used as a beachlot. It wasn't a
good idea then and it didn't meet the ordinance requirements at that time with
the information that we had regarding the purchase of our lot. We went ahead
and bought our property and felt really quite safe in that the ordinances would
prohibit the use of a lot there as a beachlot. The ordinances have become more
restrictive and it still doesn't meet the requirements. I'm opposed to it now
as I have been for the last 10 years.
Steve Burke: I live at 340 Deerfoot Trail, one of the homes in the Sunnyslope
Homeowners Association. We're again here before the Council and let me just
state, when Joy mentions back in 1978 or 1977 when she bought her property, I
do believe that the City did not have any beachlot formal ordinance. That I
believe was in 1981 or 1982. We have owned the property since 1977 so the
property has been in the hands of Sunnyslope for a long time. This is the
third or fourth time before the Council and each time we have withdrawn the
application because in the previous presentations the City, it was clear that
the City was going to deny our request, not necessarily for the beachlot but
for the dock and boats. Well, what we're doing here today, we're presenting
L!!
our case one more time for the City. Sunnyslope owns an R-1, I don't know if
I'm zoning it correctly, an individual single family home lot. It's
substandard in size. Only 50 feet wide by 110 feet deep. It is the exact same
size as Mr. Paul Olson who is out here, who is the neighbor to the immediate
18
11
City Council Meeting ,pril 25, 1988 ~
east. He has the lot the same size as we do. He has a dock. He has the right
to store three boats. As the owner of that property, the riparian rights for a
I lot, our lot is one dock and thre boats. We are willing to petition the City
and ask that you designate that under a conditional use permit as a
recreational beachlot as long as we don't lose the rights that we have today
1 which is one dock and three boats. As I think all the councilmembers and
hopefully legal counsel knows, we are in court on this, or at least we have
filed and reading from the City's Answers to our Second Set of Interrogatories,
I one of the statements from the City is that the complaint should be dismissed
for failure to exhaust adminstratjve remedies. When asked by our Attorney what
those remedies are that we have not exhausted, the answer is "Sunnyslope
Homeowners Association withdrew it's application for a conditional use permit
I before the City acted upon it. The plaintiff's must apply for a conditional
use permit and allow the City to act on it." We're here to allow the City to
act on it. I'm just hoping that the City does not cause additional delays and
I additional expenses for us with no, to me it sounds like our remedy is to come
here. With the City saying this is a remedy, we're here and I just want to
conclude by stating if, as has been stated in the previous times I've been
I here, maybe not the first time that the developer Allan Gray was here, that I
don't feel the granting of a variance in this case is a precedent setting
variance in that it would be a precedent setting case if you had another
homeowners association that was established before your recreational beachlot
I ordinance. That has owned property since 1977. A lot that has the riparian
rights to install one dock. We originally applied for four and then when the
City changed it's ordinance down to three boats per dock, we have reduced it to
three. We are looking for the right to utilize that lot as any other homeowner
would that built a house. We're just saying we don't want to put a house on it
f and there was mention at the Board of Adjustment and Appeals that they felt
that the intensification of the lot is too much. The ordinance calls for 4
II feet of shoreline for every home serviced. We have 12 homes, 4 times 12 is 48.
We have more than enough shoreline. Yes it's a small one but as stated in our
application, neither of the lots to the left or right or within 1,000 feet of
I our development is available. We can't buy something else to expand upon it.
We have been homeowners for a while so I'm here pretty much based upon the
legal counsel's or the City's answer to our original lawsuit saying that I
II should bring it one more time before you because this is the remedy. It's not
the Court's and I hope this is the remedy. Thank you.
Jack Melby, 40 Hill Street: I just simply want to state that personally I
' oppose beachlots for any reason. For all the reasons that people have gone
through over the past several years. They just simply promote overuse of the
lake and I think it's simply a vehicle for developers to make additional money.
11 Councilman Boyt: It would be my understanding that they can now use this lot
IIto swim at. Is that right?
Barbara Dacy: It has not been approved for a recreational n 1 beachlot.
Councilman Boyt: Let me back up Barb. They own this piece of property since
1979?
Steve Burke: Since 1977.
II
I 19
City Council Meeting - Ap_. 1 25, 1988
Councilman Boyt: Okay, the record I had was 1979. I'll accept 1977. I would
imagine that you probably were using the land somewhere in that period of time
!-
around the late 70's. Is that correct?
Steve Burke: No, I believe we began using it in 1980. I owned the first house
to go up. I moved in in 1980.
Councilman Boyt: Our ordinance was established March of 1982?
Barbara Dacy: That's correct.
Councilman Boyt: Don't we typically grandfather in uses prior to the
ordinance? i
Barbara Dacy: Yes, we usually do but in this case, we had no documentation
since the 1984 application that there was a dock installed on the property or
activity used as a beachlot.
Councilman Boyt: Now let's take the dock out of the picture for a minute.
What use were you placing the lot to prior to 1982?
Steve Burke: Prior to 1982? I believe, and I'd have to check my exact
calendar but prior to 1982 I'm not sure if 1982 is when we first reinstalled
the dock. I think the question that you're asking is were we installing docks
and the answer was no. I was the only homeowner there until, I believe the
second homeowner was Lot 12 but he has since moved and so have the Cutters who
are here but when I moved in I did not own a boat and I did not own a canoe so
there was a dock that was resident on the grounds, uninstalled. It has since
been given to the neighbor Paul Olson here when we went out and bought a
wheeled dock. He has it installed. He fixed it up. There were some rotting
timbers in it. He has installed it on his property so on the day that the City
came around and inventoried the beachlots, this was considered part at least
right or wrong, the City felt that this was a beachlot because it was part of
that. . . They came out and the day they photographed it, there was no dock
installed and there were no boats. One of my discussions previously and I' ll
review it again, is that had they, the day they come around to photograph that
dock, the dock been installed and had I had a big party of friends and 5 boats
tied to it, the City would have grandfathered in 5 boats and one dock. But
since I was the only out there, I may be wrong on that, Tom is shaking is head,
but had it been in use on that day, I don't think this matter would even have
come before this body because it would have been indicated that they're
grandfathered in. So we had a dock uninstalled and I don't know if the summer
of 1982 or if it was a little bit later that we finally installed the dock.
Councilman Boyt: I guess what I'm trying to get at is, is there any use for
that piece of property by this Association?
Barbara Dacy: By the Association, no. '
however. It could be used as a single family lot
Councilman Boyt: So you're telling me that the Association owns this i '
property and they can place i.t to no use other than stand on it? p ece of
20 i
I
City Council Meeting = April 25, 1988
II
Barbara Dacy: They can sell the property for the construction of a single
IIIfamily home.
Councilman Boyt: I understand the property has use but you're telling me that
II the Association can not use it to in any way interact with the lake. They
can't swim from it. They certainly can't put a dock in.
II Barbara Dacy: Unless the Attorney would have a different interpretation.
Pat Farrell: I agree with that.
1 Councilman Boyt: That makes it tougher. I think I would be as surprised as
Steve is going to be if the Council approved this this evening. I think one of
the things the Council should move to do is the Association has no use for that
piece of property and it should not be taxed as a beachlot as it is now.
I They're currently paying taxes as members in an association with a beachlot. I
think that's inappropriate.
I Mayor Hamilton: The property is assessed at it's highest and best use and if
that's single family, that's what it should be taxed at.
II Councilman Boyt: I don't know. It's just not being taxed for what it
currently is.
Mayor Hamilton: It just depends on what the Assessor does. Highest and best
use.
x
Councilman Boyt: I believe that through experience. I think this is another
I case that points out that the City needs some means of controlling developers
beyond simply the size of the lots and the type of streets they put in. From
what I read in the Minutes the developer clearly misled some of these people.
I It would be my intention that 5,500 square foot lot should not be approved b y
this City for a beachlot and I would not intend to approve it for a single
family lot if there was anyway I could vote against it legally. That's
all I've got to say.
IICouncilman Horn: When did you first request the f) rst conditional use permit?
II Steve Burke: I would have to go back through these. The year, the summer we
installed the dock, we felt we had that right. We installed the dock and then
sometime later that summer is when the City came to us very matter of factly
II saying you don't have a permit yet for your dock and we said, oh sorry. We
needed a permit? We figured we had a right to do it. At that point we came to
the City for the first application. At that point, everytime we watched the
beachlot ordinance get changed, it either became very restrictive and now it
II seems to be liberalizing a bit to the benefit of other developers that are
coming before the City but the first time we installed the wheeled dock, later
that summer is when we were cited and we came forward figuring that it was just
a matter of fact that we came forward and applied. It was made clear at that
point that we didn't have the right.
Councilman Horn: My understanding of the way the conditional uses work is that
you are grandfathered in on a conditional use if you had a conditional use in
existence at the time the ordinance was put into place but you didn' t. As far
II
21
City Council Meeting - 4 _ 11 25, 1988
II
II
as you, Sunnyslope Homeowners Association having ownership of that lot in 1977,
it's my understanding that your developer owned that lot until that point. In
fact, from a city perspective there was no actual application for a conditional
use from your Association until 1984 which was after the ordinance was in
place. Therefore, any grandfathering would have occurred had you had a
conditional use permit in place before our ordinance was put in place which I II
don't believe is the case in this.
Steve Burke: The developer has in the past, and I don't know what year but I
it's on file upstairs, he had made application to the City before I moved in so
it has to be prior to the summer of 1980 for, I'll call it a recreational house
that he had. He has actual formal plans upstairs that are still on file and
you received a lot of resistence from the then neighbors, many of who have II
left, some who are still in the neighborhood and he withdrew that because at
that point there was so much resistence and he had no homeowners. One of the
concerns was who would monitor the building that he had an architect draw up
II
and was prepared to build at the time.
Mayor Hamilton: I think rather than carrying on a dialogue with Mr. Burke all I
the time, we should just make comments and if you have a specific question to
ask you can get to that. This dialogue is going to go on all night if we
continue with it.
Councilman Horn: I think my point Mr. Mayor is that I think Mr. Burke misled
I Council in his concept of implying that he had a grandfathered use. I
think it's very important that this Council be fully aware that he did not have
a grandfathered use and in fact, whether he had an application in or not is
totally irrelevant in this case. It's whether he had an accepted conditional
use permit at the time and that was not the case and it never nas been the
case. That's my only point.
Councilman Geving: Of course this lot has a lot of history. It goes back to
the time that I first moved here and there was a house sitting on that lot at
I
that time. It burned down and it laid there in a rubble for many, many years.
Finally some of the homeowners or whoever got together and maybe we enforced,
Mr. Allen Gray agreed to clean it up but it sat there for a number of years and
II
then finally the City, it seems like there were several applications came in
for a conditional use permit and then the beachlot activity arose. Sitting on
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, we have seen this issue five times. We
had hoped to resolve this in May of 1986 and I thought it was done at that time II
and that we gave the homeowners assocation the opinion that this was a lot of
record for a single family home and it should be used as such. There are other
homes in the area adjacent to it that are of the same size specifically so
II
there really is another use that this lot could be used for. We're not going
to take your property. We're not denying you from the potential of selling it
or using it for a single family home. There is sewer in the street. It has
been stubbed in specifically for this lot. I recall when we put in the sewer
for Lake Riley, we made sure that the stub was placed for this particular lot
and we have consistently said that it's a lot of record as a single family home
and it should remain as such. I just have to go with our ordinance. Even II
though it's been amended several times, it never did meet even our minimum
requirements way back when. As far as I'm concerned, it never should have been
Ell
granted a recreational beachlot status so I stay with the ordinance as we have
written it. I stay with the fact that it can be used for another purpose and I
II 22
"
kr-
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
encourage the homeowners association to seek out the possibility of building a
Isingle family home on that lot. I have no other questions.
I
Councilman Johnson: I'm sorry our lawyers have dragged you here for this. I
' know that it was a legal point that because your applications never came full
round that your application actually had to come full round. I'd like to know
why staff, I guess I do know, you want a legal opinion from the Attorney on
this so staff's asked us to table it actually until we get the legal opinion.
Mayor Hamilton: No.
' Councilman Johnson: No? I saw the word table.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't want to table it. We don't have to table it and we
' can come up with the Findings of Fact.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to deny it and get your lawsuit to pariti.on and
we'll find out what happens.
' Mayor Hamilton: The only comments I have is, I guess when Allen Gray owned
that property and began developing it, I don't recall ever having an outlot as
' an issue with that whole subdivision. We had a lot of problems with that whole
subdivision with Mr. Gray and that whole process but I just don't ever recall
that this was an outlot for that subdivision at that time and all of a sudden
it popped up. I don't know if Mr. Gray just decided he had so much trouble
with that subdivision that he was just going to turn over everything and
decided to give that lot to the homeowners. I think he had some ocner plans,
tennis courts and some other nice things there that were never accomplished and
' instead of that I believe he just gave than this outlot and said you can have
this but I'd have to review that. I'd have to review that and see just how the
things progressed but it's been a difficult subdivision to deal with and I
' agree with Jay. I don't think there should be allowed. It's too small and I
think it should go into court and get it decided once and for all.
' Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to deny the variance request to
the lot width and lot area requirements for a recreational beachlot and
conditional use permit request for recreational beachlot activities. Also, to
' direct the City Attorney to prepare a Findings of Fact that can be used to
substantiate the reasons for denial. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Steve Burke: We got one step past this last time and that was you asked for
legal opinion from the City Attorney and you got a legal opinion last time. At
that point when the legal opinion came down, that's when we withdrew it. We
want to proceed with our lawsuit.
Mayor Hamilton: You can withdraw it now.
Steve Burke: We're not going to withdraw.
Mayor Hamilton: I have moved for denial.
Steve Burke: I'm just going to ask a general question. We're now going to be
23
I
City Council Meeting - Ar._il 25, 1988
II
placed in another holding pattern while they basically photocopy what they said
last time and I'm wondering why the City was unwilling to take the Attorney's
ill
recommendation from last time and act on that to get this thing resolved so we
can get our dock? We feel we have. ..
Mayor Hamilton: I think this is standard procedure for us. Last time Roger II
Knutson was here. This time Mr. Farrell is here and he's heard the testimony
and he will come up with the Findings of Fact and talk to Roger and I'm sure
he'll have it back to us in very short order. I suspect we'll have it back
II
here in a weeks time or sooner.
Pat Farrell: Next meeting.
Mayor Hamilton: Next meeting we'll have it. II all. We'll get it just as quickly as we can. We're not trying to delay you at
II
LOT AREA VARIANCE TO PERMIT A HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON AN EXISTING 8,000
SQUARE FOOT LOT LOCATED ON WOODHILL ROAD, LOTS 2763-2766, CARVER BEACH, R AND R
II
LAND VENTURES.
Mayor Hamilton: This item was before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals so
Willard, can you inform the Council what the disposition was. II
Willard Johnson: We discussed it. It's a lot of record and we granted the
variance being it's a lot of record, unanimously.
SEVER PETERSON, PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve preliminary plat
extension until January 1, 1989 because of the proposed TH 212 corridor.
Without the corridor having been approved and finalized at this point, Mr. II
Peterson doesn't know how it's going to affect his property. Until he knows
how it's going to affect his property, he can't go through a platting process.
All voted in favor and motion carried. II
HSZ DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TH 7 AND TH 41:
A. REZONING FROM OI, OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL TO BN, NEIGHBORHOO I PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO CREATE 3 COMMERCIAL LOTS. D BUSINESS.
C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 25,920 SQUARE FEET RETAIL CENTER. II
D. PUBLIC HEARING FOR PARTIAL VACATION OF WEST 64TH STREET.
Mayor Hamilton: This is an item that's been before us many times also. We II
have new developers of this property who have presented a plat to us.
Barbara Dacy: At the Planning Commission meeting on March 16, 1988, the II
Planning Commission covered a number of issues and the Planning Commission
Chairman is here tonight, or at least I thought he was. The major issues that
were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting dealt with the rezoning
issue, the traffic and the transportation alignments and various items on the
24 II
II
I . 3B
i CTYOF
•
,-,...,
EA . "it
I \' . AL.. , r,
I `\ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
•
1 MEMORANDUM `i `�,er-
TO: Planning Commission
IFROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner _y/zi,/s,r
DATE: April 14 , 1988 y/4 /,cc'
1 SUBJ: Sunny Slope Beachlot Request p q est 9/z /Ti
IIAfter the last Planning Commission sion meeting, I discussed with my
staff the process for the Sunny Slope property owners require-
I ment. My staff promptly reminded me that the property owners
along Lake Riley in Chanhassen were notified and that I misread
the affadavit. In any case, lake property owners were notified
I again of the proposal. We have recopied the Sunny Slope beachlot
report if you have not retained your other copy.
APRIL 20 , 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
IThe Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the
conditional use permit request. Both sets of minutes from the
IApril 6 and April 20th meetings are attached.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
IIt is recommended that should the Council wish to deny the
request, the item should be tabled so that the attorney can pre-
pare findings of fact for denial.
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
l CI T Y O F =_', .C. DATE: April 6 , 1988
•,\1 Y c CA.CE. DATE: 84-6 April CUP 25 , 1981
N0:
Prepared by: Olsen/v I
S�"AF R`PORT
II
PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot I
F.
Z I
0
II
^� LOCATION: Lot 37, Shore Acres
C ..
Cl-
II
APPLICANT: Sunny Slope Homeowners Association
340 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
I
4
II
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
IIACREAGE: 5 , 500 square feet
DENSITY: ✓ I
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family I
Q S- Lake Riley Y_ �.
E- RSF; single family `� TY I
O W- RSF; single family r
W I
WATER AND SEWER: Sewer is available, water is not availabi
II
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is level and is a riparian lot.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
II
II
•
1;11 — L 4+� R4 r 8900
SCR 18 ) i 1 1 I f-. _ 1.' 9000 . 4
isr/ ..
Li - ,..
9100
P-1 •7'11 RD \
1 _�
9200
R—I �,. _!�\\ ,i LAKE
. .,• "� '� 9300
�4 ! 14uc� RILEY
�t i�iFK(4.D em. F
r,� �f.�� Z!= 9400
�cwO O'
I 2 '
� �- �_-i--�-= 9500
U. .96,TH ST R1E;1'
Z
m 9600
w
Z
1 c�
POMO �=.; 9700
(G.R14)
-1
/ . ::0:0
5
. .1 firi. ‘+'
0\''
1 c.'
QP 200
/
1 R—Iq O
1 300 A
I,ll": 1/NO
il
7RaKW000 - 400
.P C-3 , :--
i AKq / 1 5 2,2 _ 500 C.
o I 9 ek
R�`J r
•ti+r�.--`.f�- - �0v0 I
0 600
•
i
l
•
Si
Sunny Slope BOA CUP
April 6 , 1988 '
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Sections 20-263 of the City Code requires a recreational beachlot
to have at least 200 feet of lake frontage . No more than one
dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot for every 200 feet
of lake frontage, 30, 000 square feet of land and 100 feet of
depth. 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) .
Section 20-1022 of the City Code permits a fence on riparian lots
to have a maximum height of 32 feet within the rear yard setback
( 75 feet from the OHWM) . Any other fence on a single family
lot may have a maximum height of Si feet (Attachment #2 ) . All
fences require a building permit.
BACKGROUND
The applicant most recently requested a conditional use permit
for a recreational beachlot and a variance to the Recreational
Beachlot Ordinance in the spring of 1986 . The conditional use
permit request in 1986 was for a recreational beachlot with the
following improvements:
1 . One 32 foot dock
2 . Overnight storage of four watercraft 111 3 . Two canoe racks ( 6 canoes each)
4 . Front and side yard fencing
5 . A 20 foot sand blanket
6 . A 12 ' x 21 ' storage building
The requested improvements to the recreational beachlot resulted
in the following items needing variances to the Recreational
Beachlot Ordinance:
1 . One 32 foot dock
2 . The 12 ' x 21 ' storage building
3 . Overnight storage of four watercraft
On February 26, 1986 , the Planning Commission recommended denial
of the conditional use permit request ( Attachment #3 ) . On March
17, 1986 , the Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed the
variance requests and moved to have the City Council act on the
proposal (Attachment #4 ) . On April 21 , 1986 , the City Council
moved to table action until the City Attorney provided findings
of fact for denial for the City Council to adopt ( Attachment #5 ) .
On May 5 , 1986, the City Council reviewed the findings of fact to
recommend denial of the variance and conditional use permit
Sunny Slope HOA CUP
' April 6 , 1988
Page 3
' request for the recreational beachlot. At this meeting, the
representative for the Sunny Slope Homeowners Association, Steven
Burke, requested that the application for the conditional use
permit and the variances be withdrawn (Attachment #6) . The
application was formerly withdrawn prior to the City Council
acting on either the variance or conditional use permit request.
ANALYSIS
' The applicant has submitted a new application for the conditional
use permit for a recreational beachlot and for variances to the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance to receive a final determination
' from the City Council (Attachment #7) . The applicant is
requesting a conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot
with the following improvements :
1 . The installation of one dock adjacent to the lot of such size
and shape as to conform to the requirements of the Recreational
' Beachlot Ordinance.
2 . Allow the overnight storage of up to three watercraft.
' 3 . Construct two canoe racks capable of storing six canoes on
each rack.
' 4 . Install front and side lot fencing on the property to provide
security and privacy.
5 . Landscape the north side of the property to bring the contour
of the lot in line with that of any neighbors to minimize
soil erosion onto the lake .
' The City Code requires a lot to have a minimum of 200 feet of
lake frontage to receive a conditional use permit for a
recreational beachlot. The City Code requires a minimum of 200
feet of lakeshore, 30 , 000 square feet and 100 feet of lot depth
for a recreational beachlot to have a dock. The proposed
recreational beachlot has 50 feet of lake frontage, 110 feet of
lot depth and 5 , 500 square feet of lot area. The regulations for
recreational beachlots permits one canoe rack per dock.
' The Planning Commission and City Council are responsible for
reviewing the conditional use permit request for the recreational
beachlot. The Board of Adjustments and Aopeals and City Council
' are responsible for reviewing the variance request to the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance requirements .
11
I
Sunny Slope HOA
April 6 , 1988
Page 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The proposed site does not meet the minimum requirement of 200
feet of lake frontage and therefore, would not be permitted a
conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot without a
variance. The dock and canoe rack would also not be permitted.
The applicant is proposing to provide fencing and landscaping on
the site. The Zoning Ordinance requires shoreline fences to have
a maximum height of 32 feet in the rear yard ( lakeside) . The
rear yard setback for a riparian lot is 75 feet, therefore, the
applicant could install a fence within 75 feet from the ordinary
high water mark at a maximum of 31 feet and any fence beyond that
could have a maximum of 61 feet. The installation of a fence
requires a building permit. The Zoning Ordinance does not have
any specific regulations for landscaping on individual lots .
RECOMMENDATION '
The site proposed for a recreational beachlot does not meet the
minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for it to receive
recreational beachlot status or to permit a dock and two canoe
racks . The applicant would have to receive variances to the City
Code to receive a conditional use permit and make the proposed
improvements. The fence and landscaping is permitted. Should
the Planning Commission prefer certain improvements to the site
if the necessary variances are approved, they should state these
in a recommended condition.
The Planning Commission denied the conditional use permit for the
recreational beachlot in 1986 for the following reasons : '
1 . The use of twelve households with friends and acquaintances
is too intense a use for such a small lot. '
2 . The ordinance is valid and a variance was not justified.
If the Planning Commission sees no change in the intensity of the
proposal as now presented, the Planning Commission may adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends denial of Conditional Use
Permit #84-6 for a recreational beachlot on Lot 37 of Shore
Acres. " '
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Section 20-263 of City Code. '
2 . Section 20-1022 of City Code.
3 . Planning Commission minutes dated February 26 , 1986 .
4 . Board of Adjustments minutes dated March 17 , 1986 .
5 . City Council minutes dated April 21, 1986 .
6 . City Council mintues dated May 5 , 1986 .
7 . Letter from applicant.
8 . Application.
1
■
CARVER COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CO., INC. et
I CARVER COUNTY
P.O.BOX 106,121 WEST 4TH STREET,CHASKA,MINN.55318 (612)448-5570 ABSTRACT&TITLE
IDale B. Kutter David E. Moonen
II March 8, 1988
II
Sunny Slope Home Owners Assn
I c/o Steve Burke
340 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
IIAccording to the 1988 Tax Books in the Carver County Treasurers Office the
following persons are listed as owners of the property which lies within 350
IIfeet of the following described property:
IILot Thirty-seven (37) , Shore Acres, Carver County, Minnesota.
1. Daniel & Adele Colich 6. Ronald Ytzen
II 9217 Lake Riley Blvd. 9227 Lake Riley Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
II2. Dennis R. & Ann Baker 7. Frederick Potthoff III
9219 Lake Riley Blvd. & Judith C. Potthoff
Chaska, MN 55318 9231 Lake Riley Blvd.
IIChanhassen, MN 55317
3. Eunice Elizabeth Kottke
II 4441 Washburn Ave. S. 8. John W. Ardoyno
Minneapolis, MN 55410 14150 Guthrie Ave.
Apple Valley, MN 55124
II4. Alan & Karen Dirks
331 Deerfoot Trail 9. Paul Kent Olson
Chaska, MN 55318 4735 Lakeway Terr.
IExcelsior, MN 55331
5. George & F. Marian Dewitt
1 3127 4th St. SE 10. Sunny Slope Homeowners Assn.Minneapolis, MN 55414 c/o Steve Burke
340 Deerfoot Trail
IIChaska, MN 55318
I
I
1
11 . Joy A. Tanner 20. Richard & Jill Madore
9243 Riley Blvd. 381 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
12. Lucille Louise Remus 21. Ernest & Mary Bundgaard
aar '
d
9245 Riley Lake Blvd. aka Allen Gray
Chaska, MN 55318 Pequot Lakes, MN 56471
13. Secretary of Housing & 22. Ken & Kathy Wolter 1
Urban Development 341 Deerfoot Trail
220 So. 2nd St. Chanhassen, MN 55317
Minneapolis, MN 55401
14. Vince A. Beacom
300 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55318 23. James Henderson
7108 2nd Ave. So.
Richfield, MN 55423
15. Michael R. & Jody L. Schepers '
320 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55318 24. Dale & Diane Kutter
301 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
16. Steven F. Burke
340 Deerfoot Trail 25. Donald & Kathryn Sitter ,
Chaska, MN 55318 9249 Lake Riley Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318
17. Richard L. & Linda C. Nelson 1
360 Deerfoot Trail 26. , Robert & Doris Rogers
Chanhassen, MN 55317 4917 Diane Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343 '
18. Kevin M. & Linda Sharkey
380 Deerfoot Trail 27. Peter Pemrick, Jr.
Chaska, MN 55318
9251 Kiowa Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
19. Douglas & Katherine Aamold
400 Deerfoot Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Carver County Abstract &4Title Co. , Inc.
LRP:nls
1
This company does not assume any liability for the accuracy of this report.
I
ZONING
§ 20-263
' d. One (1) percolation test per drainfield site where the land slope is between
thirteen(13) and twenty-five (25) percent.
' (2) Areas where the land slope exceeds twenty-five(25)percent shall not be considered as
a potential soil treatment site.
1 (3) The sewage treatment system must be in conformance with chapter 19, article IV.
(4) School and day care uses accessory to the church use are not permitted unless
approved by the city council.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(7)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-260. Private stables.
The following applies to private stables:
' (1) Stables shall comply with chapter 5, article III.
(2) Stables must be located a minimum of two hundred(200)feet from wetland areas.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(8)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-261. State-licensed day care centers.
IThe following applies to state-licensed day care centers:
(1) The site shall have loading and drop off points designed to avoid interfering with
1 traffic and pedestrian movements.
(2) Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual
and noise impacts on-adjoining residential areas.
(3) Each center shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(9)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-262. Hospitals and health care facilities.
The following applies to hospitals and health care facilities:
(1) The site shall have direct access to collector or arterial streets, as defined in the
comprehensive plan.
(2) Emergency vehicle access shall not be adjacent to or located across a street from any
residential use.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(10)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-263. Recreational beach lots.
The following minimum standards apply to recreational beach lots conditional use in
addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed in the permit:
1 /
s., _z< (1) Recreational beach lots shall have at least two hundred(200) feet of lake frontage.
1175
§ 20-263 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE '
(2) No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house, camper,trailer, tent, recrea- I
tional vehicle or shelter shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational
beach lot.
(3) No boat,trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited to cars,trucks, motorcycles,
motorized mini-bikes, all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles shall be driven upon or
parked upon any recreational beach lot. 1
(4) No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight camping.
(5) Boat launches are prohibited.
(6) No recreational beach lot 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 beach lot is allowed more than one (1) dock, however, the allowed
number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sail boat moorings shall also be
allowed. Canoes, %vindsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats may be stored over-
night
on any recreational beach lot if they are stored on racks specifically designed
for that purpose. No more than one (1)rack shall be allowed per dock: 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.
(7) No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at least two
hundred(200)feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least a one hundred-foot depth. 1
No more than one (1) dock may be erected on a recreational beach lot 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 beach lot.
(8) No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width, and no such dock
shall exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet or the minimum straight-line distance
necessary to reach a water depth of four(4)feet. The width(but not the length)of the
cross-bar of any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in the computation of
length described in the preceding sentence. The cross-bar of any such dock shall not
measure in excess of twenty-five (25) feet in length. ,
(9) No dock shall encroach upon any dock set-back zone, provided, however, that the
owner of any two (2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one (1) common dock within
the dock setback zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the common
dock is the only dock on the two(2)lakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise conforms
with the provisions of this chapter. I
(10) No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at
least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. No more than one (1) sail boat mooring
shall be allowed for every two hundred(200) feet of lake frontage. '
(11) A recreational beach lot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for the
subdivision of which it is a part. For purposes of this paragraph, the following terms
1176
•
i .
ZONING § 20-280
shall mean those beach lots which are located either within (urban)or outside(rural)
the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in the com-
prehensive plan.
' a. Urban recreational beach lot: At least eighty (80) percent of the dwelling units,
which have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational beach lot, shall be
' located within one thousand(1,000)feet of the recreational beach lot.
b. Rural recreational beach lot: A maximum of fifty (50) dwelling units (including
riparian lots) shall be permitted appurtenant rights of access to the recreational
' beach lot. Upon extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service boundary into the
rural area, the urban recreational beach lot standards will apply.
' (12) All recreational beach lots, including any recreational beach lots established prior to
February 19, 1987 may be used for swimming beach purposes, but only if swimming
areas are clearly delineated with marker buoys which conform to the United States
Coast Guard standards.
(13) Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured both at the ordinary high
water mark and at a point one hundred (100) feet landward from the ordinary high
' water mark, of not less than four (4) lineal feet for each dwelling unit which has
appurtenant rights of access to the recreational beach lot accruing to the owners or
occupants of that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowner association
Ior residential housing developers.
(14) Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft, where allowed, is restricted
' to watercraft owned by the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have
appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach lot.
(15) The placement of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks, and other structures shall
be indicated on a site plan approved by the city council.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(11)), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 80-A, § 1, 6-15-87)
' Sec. 20-264. Electrical substations.
Electrical substations are subject to the following conditions:
' (1) The substation must be served by a collector or major arterial street as desginated in
the comprehensive plan.
(2) The substation will not have sanitary facilities and will not be used for habitation.
(3) The substation will be located on at least five(5) acres of property.
' (4) A six-foot high security fence shall surround the substation.
(5) A landscaping plan shall be submitted for city approval.
(6) Substations shall be a minimum of five hundred(500)feet from single-family residences.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(13)), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-265-20-280. Reserved.
1177
I
1
§ 20-1001 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(4) Animals being kept as part of the Minnesota Zoological Garden's or St. Paul Como
Zoo's docent programs are in allowed use in all zoning districts. Before such animals
are allowed,however,the participant in the program must receive the approval of the
council regarding participation in the program and identify the animal being kept.
(5) Animals may only be kept for commercial purposes if authorized in the zoning
district were the animals are located.
(6) Animals may not be kept if they cause a nuisance or endanger the health or safety of
the community.
(7) Other animals may be allowed by conditional use permit. '
(Ord. No. 80,Art. VI, § 9(6-9-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1002. Care and treatment.
Animals kept within any zoning district shall be subject to the following requirements:
(1) The size, number, species, facilities for and location of animals kept shall be main-
tained so as not to constitute a danger or nuisance by means of odor, noise or
otherwise.
(2) Facilities for housing animals shall be: ,
a. Constructed of such material as is appropriate for the animals involved.
b. Maintained in good repair.
c. Controlled as to temperature, ventilated and lighted compatible with the health I
and comfort of the animals.
d. Of sufficient size to allow adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may
be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition of debility, stress or
abnormal behavior patterns.
e. Cleaned as often as necessary to prevent contamination of the animals contained
therein and to minimize disease hazards and reduce odors.
(3) Animals shall be provided wholesome,palatable food and water free from contamina-
tion and of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain all animals in good
health.
(4) Animals kept in pet shops or kennels shall be kept in accordance with regulations for
pet shops and kennels in addition to the regulations provided by this division. Pet
shop or kennel owners shall receive a license as required by the city.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 6-9-2, 12-15-86)
Sees. 20-1003-20-1015. Reserved.
DIVISION 5. FENCES AND WALLS ,
Sec. 20-1016. Intent.
The intent of this division is to provide standards for fences along the perimeter of lots
that act as boundaries and/or barriers.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-1), 12-15-86) —•
1240
L
•
ZONING
(-
§ 20-1021
- Sec. 20-1017. Permit.
A building permit shall be obtained for any fence installed for any purpose other than an
' agricultural purpose prior to installation of same. A site plan showing location of the fence
shall be submitted with the permit application. The building official may require a fence
permit application to provide a registered land survey establishing property lines.
' (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-2, 6-12-4, 6-12-5), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1018. Commercial and industrial fences.
' Fences for screening or storage purposes installed on property used for commercial or
industrial uses may have a maximum height of eight(8)feet. When commercial or industrial
uses abut property used or zoned for residential uses,a fence at least six(6)feet in height shall
be placed between the residential and the commercial and industrial property. Said fence
must be one hundred(100)percent opaque. Commercial or industrial fences over eight(8)feet
shall require a conditional use permit.
' (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-10), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1019. Location.
' All fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the fence owner unless the owner
of the adjoining property agrees, in writing, that said fence may be erected on the property
line of the respective properties. Such an agreement shall be submitted at the time of building
I permit application.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1020. Construction and maintenance.
Every fence shall be constructed in a substantial, workmanlike manner and of material
reasonably suited for the purpose for which the fence is proposed to be used. Every fence shall
' be maintained in such condition as to not become a hazard, eyesore, or public or private
nuisance.All fences shall be constructed so that the side containing the framing supports and
' cross pieces face the interior of the fence owner's lot. Any fence which does not comply with
the provisions of this chapter or which endangers the public safety, health or welfare shall be
considered a public nuisance. Abatement proceedings may be instituted by the proper city
' official after fifteen (15) days notification, if the owner of such fence has not undertaken the
necessary repairs to abate the nuisance. Link fences shall be constructed in such a manner
that no barbed ends shall be exposed.
' (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-6), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1021. Swimming pool fences.
' All in-ground swimming pools shall be protected by a fence not less than four (4) feet
in height. All gates shall have the latch installed on the pool side of the fence. All in-ground
pools installed prior to February 19, 1987 shall comply with this chapter within one hundred
' eighty(180)days of such date.Subsection(a)does not apply to pools inaccessible from adjacent
properties or which are located on property completely enclosed by a perimeter fence four (4)
feet in height.
' (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-7), 12-15-86)
1241
1
1
§ 20-1022 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 20-1022. Shoreline fences.
Fences to be installed on riparian lots shall have a maximum height of three and one-half
(31/2)feet in the rear yard(lake side). '
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-8), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1023. Height. ,
Any fence over six and one-half(61/2)feet must receive a conditional use permit.The fence
height is measured from ground elevation to the highest point on the fence.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 12(6-12-9), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-1024-20-1040. Reserved.
DIVISION 6. WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS(WECS)
Sec. 20-1041. Purpose.
The purpose of this division is to establish standards and procedures by which the
installation and operation of WECS shall be governed.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 20(6-20-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1042. Ornamental wind devices. '
Ornamental wind devices that are not a WECS shall be exempt from the provisions of this
division and shall conform to other applicable provisions of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 20(6-20-8), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1043. When allowed. ,
Wind conversion systems may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the regulations
and requirements of this division, provided the property upon which the system is to be
located is zoned agricultural, commercial or industrial and is constructed and maintained on
any parcel of at least two and one-half(21/2) acres in size.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 20(6-20-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1044. Declaration of conditions.
The planning commission may recommend and the city council may impose such condi-
tions on the granting of WECS conditional use permit as may be necessary to carry out the
purpose and provisions of this division.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 20(6-20-3), 12-15-86) '
Sec. 20-1045. Site plan.
All applications for a WECS conditional use permit shall be accompanied by a detailed
site plan drawn to scale and dimensioned, displaying the following information:
(1) Lot lines and dimensions. -,
1242
■
I .
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
I REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 26 , 1986
C
IVice-Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
I
Tim Erhart , Steven Emmings , Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, Howard
Noziska and Mike Thompson.
IMEMBERS ABSENT
IBill Ryan
STAFF PRESENT
IJo Ann Olsen, Asst . City Planner and Vicki Churchill , Secretary.
PUBLIC HEARING
IConditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot and to
construct a storage building on 5 ,500 square feet of' prooerty
I / zoned R-1 and located at 9241 Lake Riley Boulevard , Sunnvsiooe
Homeowner ' s Association , applicant
Public Present
ICSteve Burke applicant
Bill Boyt 7204 Kiowa Circle
I Eunice Kottke 9221 Lake Riley Blvd.
Rudy & Lucille Remus 9245 Lake Riley Blvd.
Mairan DeWitt 9225 Lake Riley Blvd.
Paul & Suzanne Olson 9239 Lake Riley Blvd.
I Joy Tanner 9243 Lake Riley Blvd.
Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd.
I Olsen stated that the Sunny Slope Homeowner ' s Association pre-
viously applied for a conditional use permit to allow the lot to
become a recreational beachlot and have an existing dock comply
I with the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission considered
the request on August 8, 1984 for the beachlot which also
requested permission to:
I 1 . Install a seasonal dock.
2 . Install two canoe racks.
3 . Install a privacy fence.
I4 . Allow overnight storage of four watercraft .
Olsen stated that the request required variances to the
I Recreational Beachlot Ordinance to allow overnight storage of
four watercraft and a dock on a lot with less than 100 feet in
width. She stated that the Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 to
i- deny the conditional use permit request for a recreational beach-
lot .
I 41 3
•
Planning Commission Minutes
February 26 , 1986
C Page 2
She stated that the conditional use permit and variance requests
were withdrawn by the applicant before it was reviewed by the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the City Council. She
stated that the applicant stated that DNR allowed the dock, for
storage of four watercraft , without the need of a permit. She
stated that the City replied that a dock could not be a principle
use of a property and ordered the dock removed.
Olsen stated that the applicant is again requesting a conditional '
use permit for a recreational beachlot with the following
improvements:
1 . One 32 foot dock. ,
2 . Overnight storage of four watercraft .
3 . Two canoe racks ( 6 canoes each) .
4. Front and side yard fencing.
5 . A 20 foot sand blanket.
6 . A 12 ' x 21' storage building.
Olsen stated that the Zoning Ordinance states that a recreational
beachlot must have at least four lineal feet for each dwelling
unit that has access to the recreational beachlot. She stated
C that Sunny Slope Addition has 12 dwelling units which results in
a minimum requirement of 48 feet for a recreational beachlot .
She stated that the ordinance also states that there must be at
least 100 feet at the ordinary high water mark and at a point 100
feet landward for a recreational beachlot to have a seasonal
dock. She explained that the lot has enough width to be used as
a beachlot , but 100 feet is required for a seasonal dock and thus
the need for a variance.
Olsen also explained that the applicant is proposing to construct
a 12 ' x 21 ' storage building , approximately 70 feet from the
ordinary high water mark. She stated that Section 7. 04 ( 9 [Al )
states that no structure shall be erected on a recreational
beachlot and again a variance will be required for the storage
building.
Olsen explained that a third variance is required for the over-
night
storage of four watercraft in which section 7. 04 ( 9[D ] )
prohibits the overnight storage of watercraft . She stated that
the same section does allow the storage of canoes.
Olsen stated that these variances are scheduled for review by the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals and City Council on March 17 ,
1986 . '
Olsen explained that the proposed sand blanket is regulated by
the DNR and the applicant will have to receive DNR approval .
•
' Planning Commission Minutes
February 26 , 1986
Page 3
' She stated that details of the proposed fencing have not been
submitted, but staff is recommending that it not exceed six feet
' in height to reduce screening the view of the lake from adjacent
residences.
' Steve Burke stated that the Homeowner ' s Association is attempting
to develop its lot into a recreational beachlot . He stated that
they have looked at this in a number of ways with their attorney
and their attorney indicates that they should request one more
' time from the City, to have the lot designated as a recreational
beachlot with the improvements indicated which are slightly dif-
ferent from the previous request. He stated that the Homeowner ' s
' Association has attempted to look into the future and ask for
what they feel will accommodate them at that time. He stated
without access to the lake , the lot holds very little value to
' them. He stated that their attorney has told them that they have
a couple of options. He stated that one is to come back and see
if they can get the recreational beachlot as submitted. He
stated that if they can not get approval of the request , the
' other option would be to build a single family home on the pro-
perty. He stated that the lots next to the subject lot received
variances to construct a single family residence and felt that
Ithey could also receive those variances . He stated that if they
Cbuilt a single family home on the lot , they would automatically
be allowed a dock with up to five boats to be stored overnight .
He stated that what he is looking for is feedback from the neigh-
, hors that are present tonight to find out if their preference
would be to construct a home on the property. He stated that the
lot , even though it is undersized, has the riparian right to
' install one dock and keep five boats overnight on it . He stated
they intend to obtain that and start using that . He stated that
at this point they want to get input from the City and neighbors
' and determine if a single family home or if they should go with
the recreational beachlot with the improvements.
Joy Tanner stated that she is located on the opposite side of the
' lot from the Olson ' s. She stated that she is opposed to the
recreational beachlot . She stated that based on the ordinance ,
everything they are proposing is contradictory to the spirit of
' the R-1 zoning. She stated that she thought she was assured in
1978 when Allen Gray requested a beachlot , that the because of
the R-1 zoning and because of the ordinances , there would be no
chance that anything but canoes would be used , no motorized traf-
fic over the lot , no RV ' s, no trailers , no snowmobiles and no
overnight boat storage. She stated that last year when the dock
was in the water , there were boats stored overnight . She stated
that boats were launched from the lot . She asked Mr. Burke if he
could see the lot from his home?
Mr. Burke stated that he could but not very well .
•
Planning Commission Minutes
February 26 , 1986
Page 4
Joy Kanner stated that it would be very difficult to monitor the
lot and she has seen people driving by the area looking for a
place to launch their boat . ,
Mr. Burke stated that they did have a dock on the lot for a while
until we got a notice from the City. He stated that the lot is
zoned R-1 , and it allows for a dock, boats , the launch of boats
and motorzied vehicle parking on the lot. He stated that
everything they were doing did not apply at the time the City
sent the notice. He stated that they understand that if the
request is approved for a recreational beachlot and improvements ,
they will not be able to launch boats over the lot. He stated
that when the city indicated in their letter to them that until 1
such time that proper use of the lot , which would be a home, the
dock can not be put out . He stated that they did not say a dock
could not be there. He stated to the neighbors that once the
homeowner ' s assocation has put up a house, they can put their
dock out , put their boats out , park the trailers on the property,
drive across and launch the boats as the lakeshore property
owners can. He stated that he would hope that they understand
the benefits of making it a recreational beachlot instead of
having a home constructed on the lot .
Don Sitter stated that he lives a few blocks down from the lot in
question and wondered how the Planning Commission feels because
Mr . Burke has been honest and stated that if he does not get the
beachlot , they will construct a home on the lot? He asked what
the Planning Commission ' s opinion was on building a home there
owned by an organization, a communitable property home? He asked
if there were ordinances or are there precedents? ,
Steve Burke stated that he thinks the answer to that is in the
ordinances as a definition of a person . He stated that a defini-
tion of a person is an individual, a corporation , partnership ,
trustee, a homeowner ' s association, and a person has the right to
construct a home.
Conrad stated that he is not going to ask the Planning Commission
to directly respond to that; however , you will hear their
thoughts after the public hearing is closed. He stated that we
are to react to the request . He stated that it is the appli-
cant ' s property and he can do whatever he gets permission to do .
He stated that the applicant wants to see if the city is going to
grant variances to do that. He stated that he is correct in
saying that if he receives variances to build a home , he can put
out five boats, however, those boats are not typically Owned by
anyone other than who lives in the home. He stated that owners
of lakeshore typically use one boat at a time.
Paul Olson stated that he lives next door to the lot. He stated
that he is opposed to it mostly because he does not see how the
city can allow more people on the lake in these instances while
■
1
Planning Commission Minutes
' February 26 , 1986
Page 5
C
Ithey are holding them off at the launches everywhere else. He
stated that the idea of four boats on 50 feet , there is not going
' to be much more room to move. He stated that they will be moving
over into my area or my neighbors beach area . He stated that he
is opposed to the safety outlook because there is not room for
four boats on the lot .
' Marian DeWitt stated that she is opposed to it in that if access
is granted to the lake for Sunny Slope right between two homes ,
all of the protection and security of the R-1 zoning is lost .
She stated that all the problems and traffic with a group of
people would have to be contended with instead of just one family
for which it is zoned. She wanted to read from the zoning
department standards for the granting of conditional use permits ,
which she said some are debateable; however , one just hits it .
"That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
' enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted. Not to essentially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood. " She stated that
there was no doubt in her mind that it has already happened to
the neighbors on either side of the lot have had their enjoyment
impaired. She stated that she felt if they were to try and sell
their property should the conditional use permit be granted ,
' there would be marked loss in property value. She stated that
when granting conditional use permits , the Commission should keep
in mind that the permit goes with the property , not the indivi-
duals , and once granted it is there for life. She asked about
what would happen if the homeowner ' s association sold the lot to
a big corporation from Chicago . She stated that they could rent
it out or do anything within the regulations , and then the city
' has lost control. She stated that conditional use permits should
be handed out very carefully . She stated that as for the argu-
ment about the one family home and having five boats , she stated
' that they will meet that when it comes . She stated that she
would not object to a single family home, but with a number of
owners of one home, yes she would object .
M. Thompson moved, seconded by Emmings , to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' M. Thompson stated that some of the members on the Planning
Commission established the Beachlot Ordinance to control what
property owners who did not live on the lake could do on the lake
' with a beachlot . He stated that the idea was not to necessarily
allow unconditionally people that lived off of the lake but had
some access or common lot . He stated that the Planning
' Commission has abided by the ordinance as written . He stated
that there were amendments proposed to the ordinance and they
were denied by both the Planning Commission and City Council. He
stated that he does not see the Commission swaying from the deci-
sion of one year ago .
1
Planning Commission Minutes
February 26 , 1986
Page 6
Tim Erhart stated that he did not feel Steve Burke was makin g a
threat . He stated in reading what was presented, they are
currently paying taxes. He asked what the sizes of the lots next
to the subject lot were.
Olsen stated that she did not have the sizes; however, thought
they were approximately the same size. She stated that they
both received variances to build a home.
Erhart said to the applicant that he did not hear him say that '
if a home was built the title would be owned by the homeowners.
Burke stated that the title of property would probably remain in
the name of Sunny Slope Homeowner ' s Association.
Emmings asked how many lots were in there and how many homes?
Burke stated that presently there are seven and one will be
constructed in the spring. He stated that he does not know of
the plans for the other lots. '
Emmings stated that the use of that lot by twelve households and
their friends and acquaintances on any given day is much too much
use of that small of a piece land. He stated that he was
persuaded most by the people who live close by the beachlot that
would be opposed.
Siegel stated that he also feels there will be an over usage of
the area. He stated that the association would possibly seek
to do something else with the property as far as its investment ,
as an association and seek other methods of use.
Conrad stated that he still feels that the ordinance is valid.
He stated that the lot could be used as a recreational beachlot
could under certain circumstances. He does not see this request
as being appropriate. He stated that he feels there is good
rationale in the ordinance and does not see anything to persuade
him to see it differently. He felt that the request as presented
would be an overuse of the parcel .
Emmings moved, seconded by M. Thompson , to recommend denial of the
conditional use permit as proposed. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Emmings felt that should the City Council approve the conditional
use permit , they should take the following points into account :
1 . The canoe rack and sand blanket should be allowed as long as
it meets the DNR requirements.
2 . They should not be allowed to have a dock , or overnight
storage of watercraft , or a building on the lot.
•
' Planning Commission MInutes
February 26 , 1986
Page 7
3 . He also stated that there should be some negotiations with
h
the neighbors and city staff on fencing as far as materials
' and size.
' Barbara Dacy
City Planner
' Prepared by Vicki Churchill
March 3 , 1986
1
Ic
1
I
r
I
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES
MARCH 17 , 1986
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6 : 30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Dale Geving .
STAFF PRESENT
Jo Ann Olsen , Assistant City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING
Shoreland Setback Variance Request , 9235 Lake Riley Blvd . , '
Craig Halverson
Olsen explained that the Halverson variance was withdrawn by the ,
applicant.
PUBLIC HEARING '
Variance Request to the Recreational. Beachlot Ordinance, Lot 37 ,
/ \, Shore Acres , Sunny Slope Homeowner ' s Association
1. Public Present
Steve Burke Sunny Slope Homeowner ' s President '
Olsen stated that the applicant is requesting a conditional use
permit for a recreational beachlot. She noted that the Planning
Commission reviewed the conditional use permit request on
February 26 , 1986 and unanimously recommended denial of the use
as proposed. She stated that the City Council will review the
conditional use permit request on March 17 , 1986 .
Olsen stated that the applicant is also requesting the following
three variances to the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance:
1 . Variance to Section 7. 04 (9 [ F] ) to allow one seasonal
dock on a recreational beachlot having a width of less
than 100 feet.
2 . Variance to Section 7. 04 (9 [D ] ) to allow the overnight
storage of four watercraft.
3 . Variance to Section 7. 04 (9 [A] ) to allow a structure on
a recreational beachlot. '
l Steve Burke stated that this was not a new issue. He stated that
the Sunny Slope Homeowner ' s Association intended on using the
111
.#Qr
11
1 .
' Board of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes
March 17 , 1986
Page 2
•
property as either a beachlot or a single family residence
Y and
that they would prefer a recreational beachlot . He also stated
' that he felt the neighbors would prefer a recreational beachlot .
He stated the lot has riparian rights for five boats with
launching and overnight storage.
Watson asked if they could have the dock without a single family
residence on the lot?
' Olsen answered that a dock is not a principle use and would
require a single family residence.
Burke stated that they are willing to give up the right for a
single family residence for a more restrictive use. The con-
ditional use permit for a recreational beachlot puts restrictions
' on the property.
Geving asked Burke if there was anything in the documents when
they bought the property that stated they had rights to use it as
a beachlot or gave Sunny Slope rights to use the lake?
Burke stated no.
' Geving stated his own preference to have the property used as a
single family residence. He stated that the proposed building
( boat house) is new to the previous requests .
Burke stated that they are asking for everything now rather than
coming in again .
' Geving stated that the three variances complicated the issue. He
asked if the applicant understood that the Board of Adjustments
' would not act on this tonight , that it would be passed on to the
City Council.
Burke stated that he understood.
Geving moved, seconded by Watson, to close the public hearing .
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Geving moved, seconded by Watson , to pass the proposal on to the
City Council for their decision .
' Geving moved, seconded by Watson , to approve the February 24 ,
1986 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Watson moved, seconded by Geving , to adjourn the meeting at 7: 00
p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986 _
II
i
Sometime ago the City received a petition from Opus Corporation concerning a replot of a portion of II the business plot into the 5th Addition. I believe council members are quite familiar with the redesign
,-- of a cul de sac to make the lots more usable. The City has now worked through the public improvement
i process to the point where we have solicited bids and four bids were received as shown on the bid tab.
{ The lower bid is from Volk Trucking and Excavating in the amount of $199,818.05 and based on the contents
II
of your packets, that is recommending that the award be made to the low bidder in that amount. IF there
are questions, I'll try to answer them. I don't want to draw this out.
Councilman Geving: One of the comments that was made here by the ICN, tentative award. Do we have
II
any reason for making that statement? Usually they let out recommendations. OK. No comment.
Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the following: I
To accept the bid from Volk Trucking and Excavating in the amount of $199,818.05 for the
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition.
II
Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen
Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. II Mayor Hamilton: The next item is the Sunnyslope Homeowners Association. Steven Burke is requesting
a Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot and Variance to a Recreational Beachlot Requirements.
I would like to call on Steve. If you have anything additional you would want to add that we haven't
II
heard previously, please present it now. I think we've gone over this so many times, we are all familiar
with it.
Steven Burke: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The couple questions and points I want to bring up. I know we've
II
been going after this for two years. What we wanted to do at this point was resolve this situation
I before this summer comes about and it's our hope that the Council will tonite approve the Recreational
Beachlot with the variances necessary for the improvements that we are talking about. I do want to
II
point out in the packet that was sent out, there was reference to a boathouse. At no time hao we applied
for a boathouse. I think that was in Adjustment of Appeals. It was misinterpreted. The structure
that was indicated was a storage shed for life preservers, canoe paddles, etc. It was indicated that II that type of structure we would not be able to store gas. We realize that. We are looking for what
I call a storage building, one of these things that you can buy from Sears. We are not looking for
a boathouse to store boats in that and so I know that you won't be thinking that's what we are looking
for. A couple of questions I am looking at are that we have been given a number of conflicting reports.
II
We have been told by the City that the City has jurisdiction over that lake and that's why we had to pull
the dock last summer, yet about three months ago I asked the City to enforce their right to have docks
pulled out of that lake for the people who left in those seasonal docks and I received a letter from
II
the City informing us that the City has no jurisdiction over that lake and therefore cannot require
anyone to pull seasonal docks. And the only jurisdiction on that lake was the DNR ordinance, which
was what we said when we reinstalled it. And, Barbara is aware of this because she responded to me
I
after having to check that. The other thing that I know you all know is what Roger gave you his legal
opinion on regarding how he felt the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance was not going to be dependable
in court and we don't want to go to the court system, but I Roger shaking his head. Barbara knows I've
seen it, but that's something is a communication. Barbara can address that if you want. I
Councilman Geving: I don't know how you would have seen that.
Steven Burke: It was accidently left in one of the files upstairs. I asked for a copy of it. She II
came back after making calls saying I can't have that.
Roger Knutson: I think what he is referring to is I did not say it
Burke: Anyway, what we were hoping that you will take a look at what we are asking for and as I
stated before we feel that as an R1 lot, if we put a structure up, we could have that dock and we could
II
II
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-4-
have the boats stored overnight. We think the neighborhood would
II 9 prefer not to have us build a house
down there or have any house on that lot, but have a lot that is a Recreational Beachlot being used by f
neighbors, not people way out. It's not like a Lotus Lake with lots and lots of people. We have twelve
and we are a little bit short. We know we are. We are asking for the variances to allow that and we
II-
I think we know we are willing to fall under the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance and all of the restrivtive
guidelines that go with that if you will let us become a Recreational Beachlot with that one dock and
with only four boats, we will determine how we which four boats go out there. We looked at a lot that
I has a right to have a dock and five boats and with a house, and we are willing to give up the house, the
ability to launch across the property, park on the property, etc. If you will leave us the right to have
that dock and four boats and we will then fall under the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance. Thank you.
IITom Hamilton: Councilmen have any questions?
Councilman Geving: Has your homeowners association ever been assessed for a sewer?
ISteven Burke: Yes, we have.
II Councilman Geving: You are paying for that now?
Steven Burke: Yes, we are.
IICouncilman Horn: I would move denial of the Sunnyslope Conditional Use Permit and Variance request.
II Councilwoman Watson seconded. Roger Knutson: Based upon your discussion on the packet materials. The
motion would be to direct the City Attorney's office with their findings based on discussions before you
and the Board of Adjustment Appeals as in the Planner's report.
ICouncilman Horn: I amend my motion to include specific findings for denial
Councilwomen Watson seconded. The following voted in favor to deny: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson
and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
IISteven Burke: May I ask k
y you said the recommendation was for denial based upon findings before this group
and the Board of Adjustment Appeals. I guess that my question that then if you take a look at it if you
II don't find basis for denial, at this point, has the decision been made or is the decision mane on your
findings?
Roger Knutson: The decision is not made by me. The decision is made by the Council and they will review
I my findings at the next meeting and if they agree with my findings, we will stop them, if they are not in
agreement, ok.
ITom Hamilton: Does that clarify it for you?
Steven Burke: Yes.
IITom Hamilton: The next item on the agenda is the bill dated April 21, 1986.
Clark Horn: Page 11, check no. 26444. Rotary Club membership for Jim Castleberry.
1 Don Ashworth: Yes.
IIClark Horn: Is this a mandatory requirement of his position?
Tom Hamilton: No, it's not. It was a suggestion by me that Jim join and has attended several meetings of
the Chaska Rotary. They have several city officials who are members of that club and I felt it would be 67
II very advantageous for Jim or someone else on our staff to be a member of the Rotary, to have input from
1
II
Chanhassen City Counci_L Minutes - May 5, 1986 -10-
items listed were implications for the City of Chanhassen. She stated that the
City would need to establish a recycling program, continued operation of yard
waste programs, cooperation and participation with the County and looking at
implementation of all these solid waste strategies as well as participating in
research for resource recovery facilities, public education on recycling,
backyard composting, paper reduction and even an office recycling program for
Chanhassen City Offices. She stated that the Planning Department is to
establish a solid waste advisory ccmtittee to assist the Council in implementing
some of the programs. She noted that a target date of 1987 for a drop-off
recycling center is anticipated, with a curb side collection program by 1990.
Mike Lien stated that the County is very serious about the whole solid waste
affair and 95% of his job is solid waste abatement. He presented the draft and
commented that he has been attending Council meetings around the County. He
stated that there is always a need for a drop off recycling center and strongly
recommended the City pursue the issue. '
Mayor Hamilton stated that he would like to see a committee formed from the
Chamber of Commerce, business community, etc. and really investigate the
programs. He also suggested advertising for volunteers to help seek local
financing in addition to the state funding.
No action was taken.
SUNNY SLOPE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, STEVEN BURKE:
a. Request for Conditional Use Permit for Recreational Beachlot
b. Variance Request to Recreational Beachlot Requirements
Mayor Hamilton: At the Council meeting on April 21, 1986, the Council moved to
deny the request based on the findings of the City Attorney which was based on
comments made by the City Council. We have such findings of facts presented to
us. I think if the Councilmembers have any questions about this, we can do
that. Vhat we can do, our action for this evening, is approve of the applicant's
request for conditional use for recreational beachlot with five conditions.
There is also a variance to deal with and I suggest that this be denied.
Steven Burke: When we made our application for the recreational beachlot.
I just have three questions. If the Council were to approve and make that a
recreational beachlot tonight, at this point, it is our intention to
to file for a building permit application variance to do that, but if we allow
that it be made a recreational beachlot and until such time as we apply for that
variance in order to build a structure down there, will by allowing it to be
made a recreational beachlot, have any bearing or affect on our application, at
such time as we make it to have the structure built? If it does, we do not want
it changed to be designated a recreational beachlot. So that would be my first
question. If it's going to make no difference on the application at whatever
time we file an application, then we would let it become a recreational beach-
lot because I think what we can do then, which I belive we can't do now, is put
up the canoe racks. The other question is as a vacant R-1 lot, what can happen
L!!
upon a vacant R-1 lot in this city? Is it better for us to just leave it
vacant? Those are the two questions I have. I know what recreational beachlots
can do because it is detailed in your beachlot ordinance. Can we have a house?
1
•
II i' s
City Council Minutes ay 5, 1986 -11-
i
ICan we store a boat trailer down there? Could we put a storage building down
there? Now, when we say we are talking within the entire community on all our
It own lots until a house is built, can a person store firewood or store a boat
trailer, or more importantly for use we have that dock that we're talking about
now. Can we leave that there without being in violation of some ordinance?
I Roger Knutson: If you put up a boat shed, or what have you, it can only go in
as an accessory use, not as a principle use. Tb be a principle use you have to
put a house on it.
ISteven Burke: What you are saying then is that all lots in the City, regardless
of just owned by homeowners, a house has to be there before boats can be stored,
before storage sheds can go on. Specifically, the question I need to find out
I is if we leave it just a vacant lot, we presently have the dock on the property.
Are we going to be cited in being in violation of that that ordinance?
I Roger Knutson: Just sitting on the land? At some point, the City has to make a
decision as to whether violations are occurring. In my point of view, if
someone has some minor things on an empty lot, it probably won't cane to
II anyone's attention. Nothing illegal is done, we have a limited budget to make
sure no one doesn't have anything sitting anyplace. As fax as whether that dock
that is not being used sitting on a lot, I guess I would probably say it is a
technical violation.
ISteven Burke: I'm certain that because it's gone this far, we may have some
complaints from the neighbors on either side who may say, "You've been told you
I can't put a dock out. Why are they being allowed to leave this structure
there?" And, if that's going to be in violation of the ordinance, if we move it
across the street onto one of the lots that aren't on the lake that isn't built
II on yet, we're still in violation of the ordinance. The only thing it seems we
can do is move it across onto a built lot and so what do we do with the thing?
Roger Knutson: In my own mind, a lot of those things probably would be found to
Ibe and that would be a prosecution.
Steven Burke: I guess that answers the second question, but I need to come back
to the first question and that is if we allow it to become a recreational
beachlot at this time, if at anytime in the future be it a week or two years
from now, we come forward and say that we are now making application for
II variance to build that structure down there, is it going to be affected by
allowing it to be changed to a recreational beachlot?
Roger Knutson: Cne of the things that you might very well consider is that one
II of the basis for variance is no other uses for the property without the
variance. Conceivably, if you already had a recreational beachlot approved and
running, that gives you the use of your property.
IISteven Burke: That being the case, it appears to us that we should leave it
since we do intend on building as a vacant R-1 lot and it appears that we could
theoretically leave the dock down there until such time that we were cited and
at that time we would have to move it to some place that it would not get cited
or sell it.
II
■
t
Chanhassen City Counc— Minutes - May 5, 1986 -12-
Roger Knutson: If I am hearing you right, ,
g , you wish to withdraw your application?
Steven Burke: Yes, we do. We will leave it as it exists today. Can I ask one
further question? The adjoining property owners have complained that we have "-
not had sufficient security down there to prevent people from launching. We
have put in a couple of fenceposts. It is my belief that we are not in viola-
tion of an ordinance as an R-1 lot owner to fence our property for the security
and safety of the neighborhood.
Roger Knutson: That should not be in violation. ,
Steven Burke: We would then formally like to withdraw the application.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR 126 SINC;T,F, FAMILY LOTS, CIHANHASSEN VISTA SUBDIVISION,
EAST OF KERB BOULEVARD, ENTERPRISE PROPERTIES, INC.
Mayor Hamilton: We asked staff to come back this evening and give us a synopsis ,
of the comments that had been made at the previous Council meeting so the devel-
oper would have a clearer idea of what the Council's position was on some of
the major issues dealing with this subdivision.
Councilman Horn: I think Barbara pretty well covered the issue and I think
there are still a few decisions to be made. We should note that Number 5 is
still purely a staff recommendation. I don't believe the Council has given
clear direction to the developer.
Mayor Hamilton: I am not sure if we need to at this time. When you have a I
sketch plan review we are merely trying to point out the areas of greatest con-
cern to us and then it is up to the developer to go back and either incorporate
those into his plan or to leave them out. An I correct?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, the sketch plan review is exactly that. Regarding the
Frontier Trail connection and the Saratoga connection to Kerber Blvd., I
believe that the applicant has stated that they would be amenable to either
recommendation of the Council - either to connect it or cul-de-sac it. However,
staff remains firm on it's recommendation that these connections be made and
thus the reason we included the memo from the Public Safety Director. The
Engineer has prepared some additional information regarding traffic patterns,
etc. If you want to explore each of these issues in further detail, the appli-
cant is here. '
Mayor Hamilton: That's fine. I guess it was my feeling that we did not have
this on the agenda to explore anything further other than to make certain that
the comments that were made on this issue at the last Council meeting was being
represented in your memo. I don't want to look at a new plan. I feel we should
just pass on our comments and at that point it goes back to the Planning
Camanission and its up to the developer at that point if they want to incorporate
any of these ideas we've had. The Planning Commission will then make a recom-
mendation to us as to how they see it and then proceed. That's how I see this
particular issue. '
Don Ashworth: It is a sketch plan and the City Council need not take any speci-
fic action. The items in front of you represent the statements you made before
and you may wish to add or delete to those.
I .
Sunny Slope
Homeowners
1 Association
Sunny Slope Homeowners Association (SSHA) hereby makes ap-
plication to the City of Chanhassen for a Conditional Use Permit
I and Variance to permit the following improvements to Lot 37 Shore
Acres:
- to designate this property as a recreational beach
Ilot for Sunny Slope Homeowners Association.
- to allow the installation of one dock adjacent to the
I lot of such size and shape as to conform to the require-
ments of the recreational beach lot ordinance, in the
that regard.
I - to allow the overnight storage of up to three (3)
boats overnight on that dock.
' - to construct two (2) canoe racks, capable of storing
six (6) canoes on each rack.
I - to install front and side lot fencing on the property
to provide security and privacy.
I - to landscape the north side of the property to bring
the contour of the lot in line with that of the im-
mediate neighbors to minimize soil erosion into the
lake.
IWhile Lot 37 Shore Acres is substandard in size, it repre-
sents a buildable lot with the riparian right to install one dock.
I and store three (3) boats overnight on that dock. SSHA, the
owner of that lot, is requesting that the lot be designated a
recreational beach lot for the association as long as the
riparian right to install a dock and keep boats overnight is not
Ilost or diminished in any way.
This lot serves the twelve ( 12) families of SSHA and its 50
I feet of shoreline is consistent with the regulation pertaining to
lineal feet per household served. The lots to be served also
meet the proximity requirements for a recreational beach lot.
I A variance is requested for the installation of the dock and
overnight storage of up to three (3) boats since neither or the
immediate adjacent properties are for sale or are likely to be
I marketed in the foreseeable fut ure. There is also no vacant
property available which would meet the city' s requirements for a
recreational beach lot with a dock and boats without a variance.
ISSHA therefore makes this application before the City of Chanhas-
sen and respectfully requests that the Conditional Use Permit and
the Variance be granted as applied for.
I i -1
, -
/Ara-
_O-
CR
RA C S fcri4
(
'
Oti 0.1
40 LL
-o ' Rn,gy £32-7/4
__
107- .3 7 y //ay eockiNER-s- A-Soe//977 OA/ I
•
I -
N
I LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I (612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: 5TE-v,, RuK:KE OWNER: -SUNNY sid:PF il/otic i,J02-- 4 �cC.
IADDRESS 340 DELP.Fcr,7- I: ADDRESS 0 , 1731'%/cc- 34° Dcz=-er-'tr
eim5 m- 53-34 ()Ms ek M/,' -5.3'
I
TELEPHONE (Daytime ) Zip Code
940 -765-V TELEPHONE 91{/--765-y Zip Code
IREQUEST:
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
IZoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
V Zoning Variance Final Plan
■ Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
I Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
I Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
IPROJECT NAME R--' L.C7- / /it=
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION if 'i}n7---- -,vii
IREQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PL=tTE,447 1 I,'c/J /, to?"
PRESENT ZONING 1. (
IREQUESTED ZONING R I
IUSES PROPOSED Crirvo[= 1.,r4'� ( rc + 7 ^.',.T'" ( )
SIZE OF PROPERTY -3 -' I!i? '
LOT I LOCATION LO 37 -S,E02E t eRc-s
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST i F-,'r,Ly L,'77/./Z[2: tST'
■
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) �T 3 7 ��+c:c=
AYREs
■
I z, I .
i m ti �38
rlt
■ `=i I Y OF CHANHASSEN
•
t II
City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application II
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS : I
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and or
I
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before
filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements I
applicable to your application .
FILING CERTIFICATION: I
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all II
applicable City Ordinances .
G�GrL Applicant I Signed By
Date ��' c/
1
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been I
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described . �/
S;ti;vy <�iE //A.-ouvl�s 4:522 :
Signed By �y .v .. "77.'E„4sa2 Date .Y/i/,Y
�! Fee Owner
I
I
Date Application Received ----( J ii
Application Fee Paid ,1_r,0
City Receipt No, ,�^_� I
(Tht 1
* This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their I
meeting ,
I
•
' CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 6, 1988
r�
Vice Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad , Annette Ellson, Steven
Emmings , Brian Batzli , James Wildermuth and David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Larry Brown, Assistant
City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT WITH A CANOE RACK AND
' A DOCK WITH THREE OVERNIGHT STORAGE OF WATERCRAFT ON LOT 37, SHORE ACRES ,
ON LAKE RILEY, SUNNY SLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Public Present:
' Name Address
' Kevin Sharkey
Ken Wolter 380 Deerfoot Trail
341 Deerfoot Trail
Paul and Sue Olson 9239 Lake Riley Blvd .
Joy Tanner 9243 Lake Riley Blvd .
I� Lucille Remus 9245 Lake Riley Blvd .
Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd.
Dick Nelson 360 Deerfoot Trail
Jim Oeckoog 510 West 78th Street
Jill Koeugh 9361 Kiowa Trail
Richard Blumenstein 9361 Kiowa Trail
' Gary and Kay Eastburn 9355 Kiowa Trail
Jack Harweeno
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item.
' Emmings : We ' ll open it up for comments from anybody here who wants to
speak on this issue . I ' d like to hear from the applicant ' s first , if
' they' re here and would like to say something .
Kevin Sharkey: I 'm President of the Homeowners Association of Sunny
Slope. You ' ve seen this request before. We have modified it a little
bit. I 'm here to clarify any questions you might have.
Emmings: We can hear from anybody else who wants to speak on this
subject . I , personally, am particularly interested in hearing from the
people who live on the properties adjacent.
Paul Olson : I live adjacent to the property on Lot 36 .
Emmings : Which would be on' which side?
Paul Olson : Looking at the lake it would be on the left side . The east
side towards the point. I guess I oppose it because your proposed useage
is for 12 families to use that property. It ' s original platting was R-1,
•
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 2
single family useage. If you look at the property,Y. on the map you can' t I
tell but it' s only 50 feet wide. That ' s a very small piece of property
to be trying to moving boats around on so I 'm opposed to it for all those
reasons . 1
Emmings : I'd like to ask you, do you feel , in your opinion , would it
depreciate the value of your property and your home to have that next
door to you?
Paul Olson : Yes I do. That ' s my major concern.
Headla: You mentioned about boats. You were concerned about the boats.
How many boats were you concerned about?
Paul Olson: I 'm concerned with the idea of a dock. To put a dock down
there and you put one boat or two boats and they have to access off of
either side. The property is only 50 feet across and coming around the
point, they' re cutting me off virtually if they put too many boats there. II
It affects my access to my property with too much traffic.
Headla : How would you feel if they didn ' t have boats there?
Paul Olson: I 'm still opposed because I 'd view it 's useage as a
beachlot .
Headla : So you ' re basically just opposed to the beachlot?
Paul Olson: I 'm opposed to the whole thing because of the valuation of
my property.
Joy Tanner : I live on the adjacent property of Lots 38 and 39 . About 10
years ago I went to my first meeting regarding this matter. That was at I
the time when we needed a variance for setbacks and so forth in the road
before the whole landing was built . The developer at that point withdrew
his request and they' ve been after him ever since . I was assured by City
Council and whoever, Planning Commission at that time, that it was
absolutely against any intent of the ordinances in anyway whatsoever to
give the permission or a conditional use permit or to call it a
recreational beachlot. Nothing has changed except the ordinance has
become more restrictive. I felt protected by the City' s ordinances . I
would like to feel protected again . The Sunny Slope residents have used
that lot as though it were approved. They' ve had a dock in as if it were
approved. They' ve started going overnight all last summer . The summer
before as though it were approved. I ' ve had difficulty getting response
from the County Sheriff ' s Department . On a Sunday afternoon when they' re
busy with drownings and things like that I can understand that but it ' s a
difficult situation and I would like to see a resolution of it .
Emmings : I would like to ask you the same question. Do you feel that it
would depreciate the value of your property to have that used as a
N. beachlot?
Joy Tanner : Definitely. That was my opinion before we bought our
property and we were assured that it couldn ' t happen.
■
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 3
' Headla : Did that dock present any problem last summer?
Joy Tanner: It did in that it wasn ' t supposed to be there and there
weren ' t supposed to be boats anchored there. If it is , it violates the
ordinance. And there were comings and goings, noisy docking and taking
off very late at night which is real unusual on a quiet bay that we live
on.
Jack Harweeno : I have a couple of lots to the east of Paul who spoke
here before and we' re building a home this summer so that ' s why I came
tonight. I just have a question really. I don ' t know that much about
this and I wonder, what is the utility of that lot? Was it intended to
be as a buildable, as a 50 foot lot or what are the alternatives for the
people who are making the decision?
Emmings : That ' s a good question . If it' s not used as a beachlot , at
least from what I know of the history of this , I think we could probably
expect to see, probably it ' s only use is as a residential property.
Jack Harweeno: But it is buildable at ' the 50 foot width?
Emmings : It would need a variance obviously. It ' s a very small lot but
if they couldn't put a house on it, they probably couldn ' t do anything
lir with it then , if it ' s not approved as a beachlot .
Jack Harweeno: The history of it was , how long has it been that you had
to have 100 feet to build on?
' Emmings: I have no idea. Barb, can you answer that?
UDacy: 100 feet to build on as far as a house? As far as a beachlot?
Jack Harweeno: Yes.
Dacy: The beachlot ordinance was adopted in 1982 which imposed the 100
foot lot widths requirement . Then in 1986 the City amended the beachlot
ordinance to require a 200 foot lot width for a recreational beachlot .
Jack Harweeno: For recreational beachlot which is what this application
is for?
Dacy: Right.
Emmings : Were you asking how much , if it has enough frontage , could be
used as a residential property?
Dacy: Alright. The standard for any new lots in the single family
' district is a 90 foot wide lot. Because this is a platted lot of record ,
meaning that the plat was filed I believe in the 1920 ' s , the City does
allow lots to be built on if they meet 75% of that 90 foot lot width .
Obviously at 50 feet that would not make that requirement . They would
I need a variance not only for the lot width but the lot area and more than
likely for setbacks .
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting II April 6, 1988 - Page 4
1-
k. Jack Harweeno : So it really have no utility for those who own it except
as a recreational beachlot.
Dacy: Unless a variance is granted for a single family home. I
Gary Eastburn: We live over on Kiowa Trail and all the residents of
Kiowa Trail were not notified of this hearing but I live approximately
I
right here. I have a concern in that over here the City Council has
already granted a recreational permit for Lake Riley Woods for a beachlot
over here already. The concern that I ' ve got and some of my neighbors
have is that the DNR has restricted this lake to an access with 15 boats 1
I believe is the restriction on it and they did that for a purpose in
itself. To restrict the use of the lake. My concern is that on the left
of my lot there are three vacant lots already and it ' s owned by Sid
II
Mossen who has owned it for about 15 years . They use it as a
recreational lot for four families . On the weekend it is a zoo out there
with four families and each have 3 or 4 kids and there ' s 20 people
running around on my block next door. That ' s a nuisance to me as it is
so if I was to have another recreational lot on the north side and then
one on the south side plus the public access over there, the value of all
the lakeshore property goes down . I guess the concern I ' ve had , in 1976 II
I believe, or 1977 was when they had the previous hearing on this before
and at that time they denied access to that property as a recreational
beach and at that point in time they said that they would in fact allow a I
2- variance for building on that lot and grandfathered in because it was
since platted so I think there is value there for the purpose of building
a home on it . It is very distressing to us , who have paid a premium for
the lakeshore itself, it have the residents who are off of the lakeshore,
be able to enjoy the same benefits that we ' ve paid extra money or
incremental money for when there is a public access that everybody has
access to on the east side.
II
Don Sitter : I ' ve been up here before . I ' ll kind of give you the same
speech. People that live on Sunny Slope are our friends and our
neighbors and we don' t want to create a hassle with any of these people. II
Emmings: Where do you live?
Don Sitter : I live about 5 lots to the west of this . 1
Emmings: On the lake?
II
Don Sitter : Yes , on the deadend . My concern is this . Agreed , there
are other properties on the lake that could eventually have lake access
or beachlots conceived on their property, it could be sold off . There
II
could be a real impact on the lake . The 15 boat limitation on the public
access , as I understand it, is up for discussion here in about a week.
The DNR has ruled that that is illegal to have a 15 boat limitation and
they' re going to open up the public access to however many people want to
launch their boats on the lake. I feel we have a real problem with this
poor little lake. It ' s a nice little lake. It can barely handle the
1 traffic that it ' s got on there now and if Eden Prairie opens up that
public access to any number of boats , we have this beachlot with more
boats, the Lake Riley Woods and other property that could be developed ,
II
■
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 6 , 1988 - Page 5
I think we' re really asking for trouble with the lake . I think we' re
going to be back here again in the future asking for speed restrictions
and all sorts of other things that I 'd really prefer not to get into . I
' also feel like the people at Sunny Slope king of got misled when they
bought their property. They bought it with lake access property and I
feel real bad that they can ' t use that. I would like to propose that we
allow it to be a beachlot. Allow it have a dock. Allow them to have the
canoes but I would like to draw the line at the boat launching and the
overnight storage of the boats . I don ' t know if you can change their
request or as it goes to Council because I don ' t feel very neighborly
saying we don ' t want you on the lake because I don ' t think that ' s the
procedures at all . I would like, if they could amend it. I don ' t know
if that ' s possible to do and give them some value, something to use that
beachlot for. Hopefully they can come to some kind of agreement and we
can all live as a cohesive neighborhood . If we can put this issue to bed
this time. I 'd like to take care of it.
Emmings : A couple of people have eluded to boats being launched across
the property or boats going in and out there and I believe that our
ordinance states that you can not launch a boat across a beachlot .
Gary Eastburn: Could I ask one more question? Who enforces that
ordinance?
lir Emmings : That ' s the $64 , 000. 00 question . It takes people who see
violations basically calling the City and getting the sheriff to come
out . It ' s tough.
Don Sitter : We ' re supposed to call the police on our neighbors? That ' s
a hard thing to do.
Headla : I think there ' s another alternative . Require the beachlot
owners to put up some pilings across there so you ' re not going to get a
vehicle in there. That ' s all you need .
Emmings : I think his question is broader than just boat launching . I
think he' s asking , how do you enforce all of these things?
' Don Sitter : You bet. If they put 3 boats overnight and the 4th one
slips out there , what are we supposed to do . Call the Sheriff? That ' s
' crazy. I heard a comment the last time we were here that this is a self
policing policy and I have a hard time with that . It is not a self
policing policy. People like to get on the lake. I know they will do
anything they can to get out . The public , I ' ve seen drive by their lot
' and start to back down. They' ve come down my driveway and tried to
launch boats . They think they can get on here because the public access
was filled so I guess that ' s the other part of the problem. Who enforces
' these regulations when we do set them up?
Emmings: I think there ' s no question that when beachlots are permitted ,
there are abuses . There ' s just no question about it . It happens .
Gary Eastburn: One other thing too before you close up the discussion on
this thing . What is to stop this from becoming a precedent setting
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6 , 1988 - Page 6
r
thing? Becaues the Lake Riley Woods is one that , you can see that
dividing line there between Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. Just to the
left of that is another development. David Vogel owns that I believe and
he' s proposing 14 lots. It 's been before the Planning Commission. I
assume he too is going to want to have some way of having access for the
off lake lots for these people. So if you have one at Lake Riley Woods ,
you have the public access , then you allow this one over here , he' s going
to want to have another one on there and how do you deny this person one
if you' ve allowed the previous one and the previous one before that .
Emmings: Simple answer. The ones we have coming in now comply with the
ordinance and this one doesn ' t come close.
Gary Eastburn: Which one? ,
Emmings : The one that ' s being proposed today. Sunny Slope . We ' ve got
an ordinance.
Gary Eastburn: You mean the 200 foot limitation .
Emmings: Exactly and this one doesn ' t come close so I don ' t think that
that ' s a concern.
Gary Eastburn: One last point , what would be the DNR' s position on the
overcrowded situation that this might cause to Lake Riley?
Emmings : I have no idea . The DNR is an absolute mystery to me . I don ' t
know if there really even is one .
Dacy: The number of boats stored at a beachlot dock are the same number
that would be permitted if it was an individually owned riparian lot .
Three boats stored overnight . Now granted , during the day somebody from
the Sunny Slope subdivision could go over to the Eden Prairie side,
launch their boat and in essense you could have additional boats out
there but "overnight storage" at that dock could not exceed three. DNR' s
position is probably going to be discussed more in conjunction with the
Eden Prairie boat access issue .
Richard Blumenstein : My wife Jill and I have moved in on Kiowa Trail
on Lake Riley last summer . We don ' t have much different to say than has
already been said before . We moved from Minnetonka where we moved from a
very nice house, which we traded for a house that was basically trashed
on the lake, and it was an even trade so that we could live on the lake.
We feel we sacrificed a lot and we ' re going to have to put a lot of money
into this house to come up to the standard that we were living before .
That was our sacrifice to live on the lake. I empathize with the owners
at Sunny Slope . I wish there was an easy solution for this but
apparently there really isn ' t. I guess we sort of feel the way Don II Sitter did who talked before sitting in the back there about we wouldn ' t
mind if had canoe storage and people could run their canoes out of there
but we would not like to see launching because we ' re concerned with
additional boat traffic on the lake.
1 .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 7
11 4" Headla moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Emmings : We have choices here . We can go around and make our comments
on this but I don' t think that ' s probably a good idea in light of the
fact that we' re going to have to hold the public hearing open to the next
meeting but I think it probably would be, if anybody wants to give an
indication of their general feelings on this issue or how they feel about
it, at least with the input we ' ve had so far, I think that would be both
fair and reasonable to the people who have shown up. If you don ' t want
to comment, fine, just pass but let's go around and give a general
indication of how we feel about this thing . At least with the input
' we've gotten so far .
Headla : I 'm glad to see it deferred. I 'd like to see what happens with
5. The outcome of that but generally, I think the public has a negative
stereotype feeling on beachlots and I don ' t know where that happens .
I ' ve got three beachlots within a block of me on Minnewashta and every
one of them have been an asset to the community. The lakeshore is kept
' clean. The people keep it neat and I see this lot very, very similar to
Minnewashta Creek beachlot . I stopped in there Sunday. That ' s a pretty
neat place. The grass is cut and they' ve got a grill . I think it adds
something to the community. They' ve got a little bit of a sand beach .
r When I went over to this particular place, I see the houses very close
1_ together . Barb , what ' s the lot width on the adjoining lots?
Dacy: In this area here?
Headla : Yes .
Dacy: Similar size. It ranges between 40 to 60 feet .
Headla : Yes . To me, if we ' re going to be consistent, I think we ' ve got
' to let these people have a dock. I go down there and see house after
house, they've got a dock. Those people bought the land . They pay taxes
on it. So I called the Tax Assessor and asked him, what do you do on a
beachlot? They don ' t even put any value on the beachlot. However , the
people who have access to that beachlot , their value of their property is
increased due to the beachlot. The Assessor doesn ' t ask you if you have
' a dock or not . He charges them. He ' s assessing them just like that lot
owner right on the lake. I think Mr . Sitter certainly, that ' s the
conclusion I came to . I really would like to see a dock in this
situation. I would like to see them have canoe racks . I ' ve got a lot of
concern about the boats but we also have the situation that if you have a
dock, even if you don ' t have a dock , those people can bring 5 to 6 boats
just like the adjacnet property owners . They can bring 5 to 6 boats in
one day. You can ' t stop them. They' ve got a perfect right to be there .
I was thinking more along , as I look ahead , if we allow some boats there,
there ' s nobody policing those boats and they ' re really open for people to
come and rip stuff off. Pretty soon then , I would suspect people are
going to want a nightlight there . Now that ' s really an imposition on the
neighbors . I don ' t think that would be right . So looking at the whole
thing, I would like to see the ordinance reworded . I think we know much
•
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6 , 1988 - Page 8
r
more now. How to reword an ordinance or how to write an ordinance on a
beachlot. I 'd like to see us back off from this and rewrite that
beachlot ordinance so the beachlot is considered to be consistent with
the community where they want it. Let ' s have some basis for the number
of feet they put in. 100 feet or 200 or whatever . That ' s all .
Wildermuth: I can sympathize with the people who own this lot , in the
Sunny Slope Association but I think the fact is , the description of the
lot doesn' t in any way meet the ordinance. It doesn ' t meet the current
ordinance nor did it meet the previous ordinance . I think considering
the kind of use a beachlot gets, I think the ordinance is a good one and I
I think basically it should stand with some minor modifications which
we' ll be discussing later tonight .
Batzli : I agree with those sentiments . I think the lot is so small for I
the use that 's being proposed that I think that ' s an unreasonable burden
to put on the adjoining land owners and I do think it would substantially
harm the values of their property. Part of my problem is that it doesn ' t
even come close to meeting the current ordinance as it reads. I
understand that this is coming back and it is probably closer than
several years ago but I still think it ' s too small of a lot to put
something like they are proposing in on a conditional use.
Ellson: I agree with Brian. I think I 'd be more inclined to grant a
variance to have another house so this size property is exactly like the
ones on either side than I would allowing 12 families to come in on this
small property.
Emmings : On that issue, if I could just interrupt here for a minute , I
seem to remember from the last time we were here that the people that
lived to the west actually built on more than one lot are they not? You
own two lots so your house is built on two lots?
Joy Tanner : I have two lots .
Conrad : I agree with most of the comments to date other than Dave ' s .
The beachlot is a real priviledge because it ' s an intensification on a
few feet of lakeshore . Therefore , to achieve that priviledge you have to
meet certain things and you ' ve got to be real sensitive to the neighbors .
I happened to be around when that ordinance was drafted and a lot of work
went into it and a lot of good thought . I don ' t see anything that tells I
me other than some small changes to it that are good , that the ordinance
should be changed. There are real good reasons for 200 feet of
lakeshore . Real good reasons and here we ' re so far away Erom the intent
of the ordinance that I think there are other uses of that property
should be explored . It ' s real clear . There ' s just not any doubt in my
mind that this does not meet the beachlot intent . Not even close and
therefore I think it ' s wise to send a signal that we should pursue, the
City should pursue, the owners should pursue a different course in using
that land .
Erhart : Fill me in again . Why are the owners of this lot , why do they
feel they have rights to a beachlot in the first place? They were told
by the developer? Did we have such a thing as a beachlot when this
I
1 .
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 6 , 1988 - Page 9
development took place?
Dacy: I would prefer that the applicant would answer the question to
' make sure that 's correct.
Emmings : Would you be willing to answer the question?
' Kevin Sharkey: Yes sir .
Erhart : During the time of development , did a home owned . . .recall that
' this lot was to be used by the developers or by the people who owned the
houses? Is that true?
' Kevin Sharkey: Yes , at least four of the current owners were told that
they had the right to have a dock on the lake. The balance of us in
Section 2 it was implied to. We have it in a written statement with
Steve Burton so we' ve been led all the way along that we could have. . .
UErhart : We didn ' t have a beachlot ordinance at the time? Did we have
anything at the time to prevent them from doing that?
' Dacy: The beachlot ordinance was enacted until , I think it was March of
1982. It was my understanding at that time that there was no dock on the
IFCproperty or there was no active use of that lot as a beachlot .
Erhart: Who owned it?
' Dacy: I don ' t know.
Erhart : Was there a Homeowner ' s Association at the time?
' Kevin Sharkey: In 1982, yes there was . It was incorporated in 1979 I
believe.
Joy Tanner : I ' ve been living next door to the beachlot , Steve Burton
owned it. One of the first families there . And they asked us if they
could use our dock. . . .and my former husband and I said yes .
' Absolutely. You ' re free to use our dock when your relatives are here .
But when it ' s more than one family though , that ' s it . I don ' t recall how
long . . .
' Erhart : Barb , somehow the City doesn ' t feel that this has been
grandfathered in.
Dacy: That ' s correct . It would have been a different situation if there
had been an active use of that lot . If there was a dock out there. If
there was dock limitation , then it was a "beachlot" . Ever since their
' first application in 1984, that ' s been the City ' s position .
Erhart : Who owned the lot in 1982?
IFKevin Sharkey: The Sunny Slope Homeowners Association did .
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 1988 1
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian
Batzli , James Wildermuth and David Headla 1
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner 1
PUBLIC HEARING: 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT WITH A CANOE RACK AND
A DOCK WITH THREE OVERNIGHT STORAGE OF WATERCRAFT ON LOT 37, SHORE ACRES,
ON LAKE RILEY, SUNNY SLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. 1
Public Present :
Name Address 1
Joy Tanner 9243 Lake Riley Blvd .
Lucille Remus 9245 Lake Riley Blvd . 1
Stephen C. Shaw Lake Susan
Ken Wolter 341 Deerfoot Trail
Dick Nelson 360 Deerfoot Trail
Steve Burke 340 Deerfoot Trail
Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive
Ray Roettger 3221 Dartmouth Drive
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item.
Conrad : We tabled this item last time in case we didn ' t follow the right II
procedures informing everybody involved that may have input . We ' re going
to open up the public hearing and if there are any other comments or if
there are any comments from people who would like to talk about this
particular issue , we' ll open it up for those comments at this time .
Joy Tanner: Would you like my comments from two weeks ago?
Conrad : We remember them.
Joy Tanner : They ' re still valid . The Olson ' s convey thair wishes too to II
let you know that they ' re still opposed.
Mary Jo Moore : I 'm not totally familiar with this request but I do 1
object to the recreational beachlots.
Headla : Barb , is the very first issue if they should if they should have II
a beachlot?
Dacy: Correct .
I
1 ' .
' Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 2
Headla : I think some of the comments before I heard
was more or less
directed at some of the other issues. Are the people still taking the
' position they don ' t even want a beachlot?
Dacy: The property owners?
' Headla : Yes .
Dacy: Yes .
Headla : Totally? No beachlot?
Dacy: As I recall , yes .
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All
voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Headla : On item 1 you said use of 12 households with friends and
' acquaintances is too intense a use for such a small lot. You ' re talking
strictly the way 12 households would use that single lot?
' Dacy: Yes , that was the Planning Commission ' s reasoning during the 1986
conditional use permit request .
Headla: And what did we say could be done with that lot if it didn ' t
become a beachlot?
Dacy: The applicants could potentially apply for a lot area variance to
' construct a single family home.
Headla : I really thought about these beachlots . Thought about that one
' and these others and I agree with the staff ' s position.
Wildermuth : I 'm of the same opinion I was two weeks ago . I agreed with
the 1986 finding where the use of the beachlot by 12 houses was too
' intense and I feel that our beachlot ordinance is a valid ordinance and
should be enforced.
Batzli : I haven' t changed my mind from two weeks ago either . I think it
would be an incredible impact on the neighboring lots from the standpoint
of valuation and noise and intensity that that lot would receive since
it' s such a small lot. I 'm planning on agreeing with the staff ' s
recommendation .
Ellson : Nothing new. I concur with the rest of the commissioners .
Emmings : Same thing . I agree with the comments that have been made so
far . I don ' t have anything to add to it .
1 Conrad: I have nothing different to add . I agree.
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20 , 1988 - Page 3
Headla : Can I say one thing? If we use the rationale that it decreases
the value of the surrounding properties , that' s why we vote against it,
then I think we should be prepared to seriously consider approval i.f,
when they put in a beachlot it improves the value of the adjoining
properties , I think the converse should be true .
Conrad: Valuation is one aspect. There are others .
Headla : If that ' s the dominant but I think you ' ve got to think
consistently. If you vote no on decreasing for that particular item,
you' ve got to vote yes if it ' s increasing .
Emmi.ngs: On that point Dave, last time when we had the public hearing, I II
made it a point to ask the neighboring homeowners if , in their opinion,
it would decrease the value of their property and they both said they
felt it would . In fact , some people who even didn ' t live right next door II
felt that it would decrease the value of their property. I guess the
same question would be asked on anyone that would come up. If somebody
was going to be next door to one and they felt it was going to increase
the value of their property, they' d have the opportunity to say that . '
Conrad: I think in this particular case, the ordinance is valid . It
makes sense . I see no reason to change it myself. I think that the
ownes of the property have other uses for that.
Steve Burke: Could you define the other uses?
Conrad: Obviously it ' s a small property and you ' re going to need to
seek, somebody' s going to need to seek variances to use that property for
those other uses. I think the City can not take that property and keep
it worthless or keep it less of a value than it ' s potential but I think
in this particular case , my opinion is that it' s not conforming to the
intent of the beachlot ordinance and I ' d rather have it being pursued as
a use for other uses. More than likely we ' re talking about putting a
house on there which will require variances but in my mind , that ' s more
in conformance with the surroundings than would be the impact of putting
a beachlot there. The beachlot ordinance is concerned with valuation of
property. It ' s concerned with having buffers and not funneling a whole
lot of traffic next to people. On 50 feet , that ' s a short distance to
put a fair amount of traffic on. That ' s a real quick , short synopsis of
what the intent of the beachlot ordinance was but that ' s why the width
restrictions or limitations were imposed . Trying to separate the users
from the neighbors .
Steve Burke: I know this is about the third or fourth time that this has
been before the Council but you realize that this lot has been owned by
Sunny Slope Homeowners since about 1978 . Well before the beachlot ,
ordinance was enacted. We ' re prepared to go before the full Council and
state our case.
Conrad : And I think you need their input . You need their decision . ,
Absolutely and there are other rememdi.es , obviously.
■
Ii -
I Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 4
IBatzli moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning o
nn ng Comm� ss� on recommend
denial of Conditional Use Permit #84-6 for a recreational beachlot on Lot
I37 of Shore Acres . All voted in favor and motion carried .
II
I
II
II
r
I
I
II
II
I
II
I
II
I
1
•
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
1r- - f 1
I
Mayor Hamilton: I have the same concern as Bill does. I don't want to see the
same stuff there as you have now and I realize why it's there. I understand
that but I don't want to see it down there. Is the building a metal building?
It wasn't clear to me what type of bulling it was.
Barbara Dacy: Yes, it will be a metal building. '
Mayor Hamilton: I thought we had talked about not having metal buildings. Can
you refresh my memory on that. '
Barbara Dacy: The intent of that was to prohibit polebarn type of construction
but this would have a finished exterior and wood studs and metal construction
materials that will 'be finished with a light gray exterior and a dark gray with
red trim on the windows.
Mayor Hamilton: So the appearance is basically not of a metal building or is
there any wood on it?
Bernie Hanson: The appearance will not look like metal. It will match almost
what you're building there on main street with the shadow lines and the
different materials and so forth.
Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Site Plan Review
and Conditional Use Permit Request for the following uses:
a. Outdoor display of merchandise for sale
b. Screened Outdoor Storage
c. Automotive Service Center
d. Small Vehicle Sales
with the following conditions:
1. The fencing be, in some manner, wood exterior. Nothing interwoven in
the chainlink fencing.
2. The flammable liquids clearly identified and a record of what it is and
where it is recorded with the Fire Department and Public Safety
Department.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Horn: The thought occurred to me that I didn't see any comments
when this it came up to the HRA. Why don't we see HRA Minutes along with our
packets? A lot of the same questions were talked about in this project. '
Don Ashworth: That's a good point. I should make sure that we do that and
I'll make sure that in the future we do try to have those in there.
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT REQUEST, SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION:
A. VARIANCE TO THE LOT WIDTH AND LOT AREA REQUIREMENT FOR A RECREATIONAL
BEACHLOT.
17 '
•
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FORRECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ACTIVITIES.
Mayor Hamilton: Item A, the variance to the lot width and lot
area was before
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals this evening. Dale, perhaps you could
tell us what the disposition was.
Councilman Geving: Mr. Mayor, we asked that Willard Johnson who's the Chairman
' of the Board of Appeals come before the Council and state what happened at the
Board meeting.
Willard Johnson: As you know this has been before the Council and .Board many
times. Mr. Burke indicated that he would like to come before the full Council
and we passed it on to the Council because we supported the ordinance referring
to beachlots and the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
' Mayor Hamilton: So you didn't make any recommendation at all on it?
' Willard Johnson: No, we passed it on following the guidelines of the beachlot
ordinance.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to ask the Council, I don't know if Jay and Bill have
' had an opportunity to see all the material that's gone by on this but there's
been a lot of it. It's been here several times. If you want additional
information from the staff, we can do that. If not, we could perhaps get into
a discussion and resolve or attempt to resolve this once and for all. Nobody
apparently needs a staff report so what I'd like to do is ask if there are
homeowners here who have comments to make. I would like to here them first.
Joy Tanner: I live at 9243 Lake Riley Blvd adjacent to Lot 37. I have Lots 38
and 39. About 10 years ago when my property, we were going before the Board
for variances for the lakeshore property, it was the first time that the
' feeling was held regarding that property being used as a beachlot. It wasn't a
good idea then and it didn't meet the ordinance requirements at that time with
the information that we had regarding the purchase of our lot. We went ahead
and bought our property and felt really quite safe in that the ordinances would
prohibit the use of a lot there as a beachlot. The ordinances have become more
restrictive and it still doesn't meet the requirements. I'm opposed to it now
as I have been for the last 10 years.
' Steve Burke: I live at 340 Deerfoot Trail, one of the homes in the Sunnyslope
Y Pe
Homeowners Association. We're again here before the Council and let me just
state, when Joy mentions back in 1978 or 1977 when she bought her property, I
do believe that the City did not have any beachlot formal ordinance. That I
believe was in 1981 or 1982. We have owned the property since 1977 so the
' property has been in the hands of Sunnyslope for a long time. This is the
third or fourth time before the Council and each time we have withdrawn the
application because in the previous presentations the City, it was clear that
the City was going to deny our request, not necessarily for the beachlot but
for the dock and boats. Well, what we're doing here today, we're presenting
our case one more time for the City. Sunnyslope owns an R-1, I don't know if
I'm zoning it correctly, an individual single family home lot. It's
' substandard in size. Only 50 feet wide by 110 feet deep. It is the exact same
size as Mr. Paul Olson who is out here, who is the neighbor to the immediate
18
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
II
east. He has the lot the same size as we do. He has a dock. He has the right
to store three boats. As the owner of that property, the riparian rights for a
lot, our lot is one dock and thre boats. We are willing to petition the City
and ask that you designate that under a conditional use permit as a
recreational beachlot as long as we don't lose the rights that we have today
which is one dock and three boats. As I think all the councilmembers and
hopefully legal counsel knows, we are in court on this, or at least we have
filed and reading from the City's Answers to our Second Set of Interrogatories,
one of the statements from the City is that the complaint should be dismissed
for failure to exhaust adminstrative remedies. When asked by our Attorney what
those remedies are that we have not exhausted, the answer is "Sunnyslope
Homeowners Association withdrew it's application for a conditional use permit
before the City acted upon it. The plaintiff's must apply for a conditional
use permit and allow the City to act on it." We're here to allow the City to
act on it. I'm just hoping that the City does not cause additional delays and
additional expenses for us with no, to me it sounds like our remedy is to come
here. With the City saying this is a remedy, we're here and I just want to
conclude by stating if, as has been stated in the previous times I've been
here, maybe not the first time that the developer Allan Gray was here, that I
don't feel the granting of a variance in this case is a precedent setting
variance in that it would be a precedent setting case if you had another
homeowners association that was established before your recreational beachlot
ordinance. That has owned property since 1977. A lot that has the riparian
rights to install one dock. We originally applied for four and then when the
City changed it's ordinance down to three boats per dock, we have reduced it to
three. We are looking for the right to utilize that lot as any other homeowner ,
would that built a house. We're just saying we don' t want to put a house on it
and there was mention at the Board of Adjustment and Appeals that they felt
that the intensification of the lot is too much. The ordinance calls for 4
feet of shoreline for every home serviced. We have 12 homes, 4 times 12 is 48.
We have more than enough shoreline. Yes it's a small one but as stated in our
application, neither of the lots to the left or right or within 1,000 feet of
our development is available. We can't buy something else to expand upon it.
We have been homeowners for a while so I'm here pretty much based upon the
legal counsel's or the City's answer to our original lawsuit saying that I
should bring it one more time before you because this is the remedy. It's not
the Court's and I hope this is the remedy. Thank you.
Jack Melby, 40 Hill Street: I just simply want to state that personally I
oppose beachlots for any reason. For all the reasons that people have gone
through over the past several years. They just simply promote overuse of the
lake and I think it's simply a vehicle for developers to make additional money.
Councilman Boyt: It would be my understanding that they can now use this lot
to swim at. Is that right? '
Barbara Dacy: It has not been approved for a recreational beachlot.
Councilman Boyt: Let me back up Barb. They have owned this piece of property '
since 1979?
Steve Burke: Since 1977.
19
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
Councilman Boyt: Okay, the
y, record I had was 1979. I'll accept 1977. I would
imagine that you probably were using the land somewhere in that period of time
[-
I around. the late 70's. Is that correct?
Steve Burke: No, I believe we began using it in 1980. I owned the first house
' to go up. I moved in in 1980.
Councilman Boyt: Our ordinance was established March of 1982?
' Barbara Dacy: That's correct.
Councilman Boyt: Don't we typically grandfather in uses prior to the
' ordinance?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, we usually do but in this case, we had no documentation
since the 1984 application that there was a dock installed on the property or
activity used as a beachlot.
Councilman Boyt: Now let's take the dock out of the picture for a minute.
What use were you placing the lot to prior to 1982?
Steve Burke: Prior to 1982? I believe, and I'd have to check my exact
' calendar but prior to 1982 I'm not sure if 1982 is when we first reinstalled
the dock. I think the question that you're asking is were we installing docks
and the answer was no. I was the only homeowner. there until, I believe the
' second homeowner was Lot 12 but he has since moved and so have the Cutters who
are here but when I moved in I did not own a boat and I did not own a canoe so
there was a dock that was resident on the grounds, uninstalled. It has since
been given to the neighbor Paul Olson here when we went out and bought a
' wheeled dock. He has it installed. He fixed it up. There were some rotting
timbers in it. He has installed it on his property so on the day that the City
came around and inventoried the beachlots, this was considered part at least
right or wrong, the City felt that this was a beachlot because it was part of
that. .. They came out and the day they photographed it, there was no dock
installed and there were no boats. One of my discussions previously and I' ll
' review it again, is that had they, the day they come around to photograph that
dock, the dock been installed and had I had a big party of friends and 5 boats
tied to it, the City would have grandfathered in 5 boats and one dock. But
since I was the only out there, I may be wrong on that, Tom is shaking is head,
' but had it been in use on that day, I don't think this matter would even have
come before this body because it would have been indicated that they're
grandfathered in. So we had a dock uninstalled and I don't know if the summer
' of 1982 or if it was a little bit later that we finally installed the dock.
Councilman Boyt: I guess what I'm trying to get at is, is there any use for
• that piece of property by this Association?
Barbara Dacy: By the Association, no. It could be used
as a single family lot
however.
' Councilman Boyt: So you're telling me that the Association owns this piece of
property and they can place it to no use other than stand on it?
' 20
��J
•
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
Barbara Dacy: They can sell the property g
family home. pro rt for the construction of a single
Councilman Boyt: I understand the property has use but you're telling me that
the Association can not use it to in any way interact with the lake. They
can't swim from it. They certainly can't put a dock in.
Barbara Dacy: Unless the Attorney would have a different interpretation.
Pat Farrell: i agree with that.
•
Councilman Boyt: That makes it tougher. I think I would be as surprised as '
Steve is going to be if the Council approved this this evening. I think one of
the things the Council should move to do is the Association has no use for that
piece of property and it should not be taxed as a beachlot as it is now.
They're currently paying taxes as members in an association with a beachlot. I
think that's inappropriate.
Mayor Hamilton: The property is assessed at it's highest and best use and if '
that's single family, that's what it should be taxed at.
Councilman Boyt: I don't know. It's just not being taxed for what it I
currently is.
Mayor Hamilton: It just depends on what the Assessor does. Highest and best
use.
Councilman Boyt: I believe that through experience. I think this is another
case that points out that the City needs some means of controlling developers
beyond simply the size of the lots and the type of streets they put in. From
what I read in the Minutes the developer clearly misled some of these people.
It would be my intention that 5,500 square foot lot should not be approved by
this City for a beachlot and I would not intend to approve it for a single
family lot if there was anyway I could vote against it legally. That's
all I've got to say.
Councilman Horn: When did you first request the first conditional use permit?
Steve Burke: I would have to go back through these. The year, the summer we ,
installed the dock, we felt we had that right. We installed the dock and then
sometime later that summer is when the City came to us very matter of factly
saying you don't have a permit yet for your dock and we said, oh sorry. We
needed a permit? We figured we had a right to do it. At that point we came to
the City for the first application. At that point, everytime we watched the
beachlot ordinance get changed, it either became very restrictive and now it
seems to be liberalizing a bit to the benefit of other developers that are
coming before the City but the first time we installed the wheeled dock, later
that summer is when we were cited and we came forward figuring that it was just
a matter of fact that we came forward and applied. It was made clear at that
point that we didn't have the right.
Councilman Horn: My understanding of the way the conditional uses work is that
you are grandfathered in on a conditional use if you had a conditional use in
existence at the time the ordinance was put into place but you didn't. As far
21
II /
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
Ias you, Sunnyslope Homeowners eowners Associati.on having ownership of that lot in 1977,
it's my understanding that your developer owned that lot until that point. In
r.
1 fact, from a city perspective there was no actual application for a conditional
use from your Association until 1984 which was after the ordinance was in
place. Therefore, any grandfathering would have occurred had you had a
I conditional use permit in place before our ordinance was put in place which I
don't believe is the case in this.
I Steve Burke: The developer has in the past, and I don't know what year but
it's on file upstairs, he had made application to the City before I moved in so
it has to be prior to the summer of 1980 for, I'll call it a recreational house
that he had. He has actual formal plans upstairs that are still on file and
Iyou received a lot of resistence from the then neighbors, many of who have
left, some who are still in the neighborhood and he withdrew that because at _
that point there was so much resistence and he had no homeowners. One of the
I concerns was who would monitor the building that he had an architect draw up
and was prepared to build at the time.
I Mayor Hamilton: I think rather than carrying on a dialogue with Mr. Burke all
the time, we should just make continents and if you have a specific question to
ask you can get to that. This dialogue is going to go on all night if we
continue with it.
ICouncilman Horn: I think my point Mr. Mayor is that I think Mr. Burke misled
this Council in his concept of implying that he ,had a grandfathered use. I
' think it's very important that this Council be fully aware that he did not have
a grandfathered use and in fact, whether he had an application in or not is
totally irrelevant in this case. It's whether he had an accepted conditional
use permit at the time and that was not the case and it never has been the
I case. That's my only point.
Councilman Geving: Of course this lot has a lot of history. It goes back to
I the time that I first moved here and there was a house sitting on that lot at
that time. It burned down and it laid there in a rubble for many, many years.
Finally some of the homeowners or whoever got together and maybe we enforced,
II Mr. Allen Gray agreed to clean it up but it sat there for a number of years and
then finally the City, it seems like there were several applications came in
for a conditional use permit and then the beachlot activity arose. Sitting on
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, we have seen this issue five times. We
Ihad hoped to' resolve this in May of 1986 and I thought it was done at that time
and that we gave the homeowners assocation the opinion that this was a lot of
record for a single family home and it should be used as such. There are other
' homes in the area adjacent to it that are of the same size specifically so
there really is another use that this lot could be used for. We're not going
to take your property. We're not denying you from the potential of selling it
II or using it for a single family home. There is sewer in the street. It has
been stubbed in specifically for this lot. I recall when we put in the sewer
for Lake Riley, we made sure that the stub was placed for this particular lot
and we have consistently said that it's a lot of record as a single family home
I and it should remain as such. I just have to go with our ordinance. Even
though it's been amended several times, it never did meet even our minimum
requirements way back when. As far as I'm concerned, it never should have been
[7:
I granted a recreational beachlot status so I stay with the ordinance as we have
written it. I stay with the fact that it can be used for another purpose and I
1 22
L
11
l II
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
T- encourage the homeowners association to seek out the possibility of building a
single family home on that lot. I have no other questions.
Councilman Johnson: I'm sorry our lawyers have dragged you here for this. I
know that it was a legal point that because your applications never came full
round that your application actually had to come full round. I'd like to know
why staff, I guess I do know, you want a legal opinion from the Attorney on
this so staff's asked us to table it actually until we get the legal opinion.
Mayor Hamilton: No.
Councilman Johnson: No? I saw the word table. '
Mayor Hamilton: I don't want to table it. We don't have to table it and we
can come up with the Findings of Fact.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to deny it and get your lawsuit to parition and
we'll find out what happens.
Mayor Hamilton: The only comments I have is, I guess when Allen Gray owned
that property and began developing it, I don't recall ever having an outlot as
an issue with that whole subdivision. We had a lot of problems with that whole
subdivision with Mr. Gray and that whole process but I just don't ever recall
that this was an outlot for that subdivision at that time and all of a sudden
it popped up. I don't know if Mr. Gray just decided he had so much trouble
1 with that subdivision that he was just going to turn over everything and
decided to give that lot to the homeowners. I think he had some other plans,
tennis courts and some other nice things there that were never accomplished and
instead of that I believe he just gave than this outlot and said you can have
this but I'd have to review that. I'd have to review that and see just how the
things progressed but it's been a difficult subdivision to deal with and I
agree with Jay. I don't think there should be allowed. It's too small and I
think it should go into court and get it decided once and for all.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to deny the variance request to
the lot width and lot area requirements for a recreational beachlot and
conditional use permit request for recreational beachlot activities. Also, to
direct the City Attorney to prepare a Findings of Fact that can be used to
substantiate the reasons for denial. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Steve Burke: We got one step past this last time and that was you asked for '
legal opinion from the City Attorney and you got a legal opinion last time. At
that point when the legal opinion came down, that's when we withdrew it. We
want to proceed with our lawsuit. '
Mayor Hamilton: You can withdraw it now.
Steve Burke: We're not going to withdraw.
Mayor Hamilton: I have moved for denial.
Steve Burke: I'm just going to ask a general question. We're now going to be
1
23
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
placed in another holding pattern g Aa n whzle they basically photocopy what they said
last time and I'm wondering why the City was unwilling to take the Attorney's
' recommendation from last time and act on that to get this thing resolved so we
can get our dock? We feel we have. ..
Mayor Hamilton: I think this is standard procedure for us. Last time Roger
Knutson was here. This time Mr. Farrell is here and he's heard the testimony
and he will come up with the Findings of Fact and talk to Roger and I'm sure
he'll have it back to us in very short order. I suspect we'll have it back
here in a weeks time or sooner.
Pat Farrell: Next meeting.
Mayor Hamilton: Next meeting we'll have it. We're not trying to de a
all. We'll get it just as quickly as we can. Y 9 1 y you at
LOT AREA VARIANCE TO PERMIT A HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON AN EXISTING 8,000
SQUARE FOOT LOT LOCATED ON WOODHILL ROAD, LOTS 2763-2766, CARVER BEACH, R AND R
' LAND VENTURES.
Mayor Hamilton: This item was before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals so
' Willard, can you inform the Council what the disposition was.
Willard Johnson: We discussed it. It's a lot of record and we granted the
variance being it's a lot of record, unanimously.
SEVER PETERSON, PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION.
' Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve p reli.mi. plat
extension until January 1, 1989 because of the proposed TH corridor .
Without the corridor having been approved and finalized at this point, Mr.
Peterson doesn't know how it's going to affect his property. Until he knows
how it's going to affect his property, he can't go through a platting process.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
HSZ DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TH 7 AND TH 41:
A. REZONING FROM OI, OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL TO BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS.
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO CREATE 3 COMMERCIAL LOTS.
C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 25,920 SQUARE FEET RETAIL CENTER.
D. PUBLIC HEARING FOR PARTIAL VACATION OF WEST 64TH STREET.
IMayor Hamilton: This is an item that's been before us many times also. We
have new developers of this property who have presented a plat to us.
Barbara Dacy: At the Planning Commission meeting on March 16, 1988, the
Planning Commission covered a number of issues and the Planning Commission
Chairman is here tonight, or at least I thought he was. The major issues that
II were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting dealt with the rezoning
issue, the traffic and the transportation alignments and various items on the
' 24
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
.