1g. Stratford Ridge Beachlot Variance Findings of Fact CITY OF CHANHASSEN
\ i ,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner .k)
1 DATE: March 10, 1988
SUBJ: Acceptance of Findings of Fact for Variance to the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance - Stratford Ridge
1 Attached please find a copy of the Facts and Findings for the
denial of the variance request to permit a dock, two canoe racks
1 and four overnight boat slips on a recreational beachlot as pro-
posed by the Stratford Ridge Subdivision.
1 RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
1 "The City Council accepts the attached Facts and Findings which
denies the variance request for a dock, two canoe racks and four
overnight boat slips on a recreational beachlot for the Stratford
1 Ridge Subdivision."
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Facts of Findings for Denial.
2 . City Council minutes dated February 22, 1988 .
1
1
1
1
1
I
, •
11
1/
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES , MINNESOTA
IN RE : Application of Pierce Construction for a Conditional
Use Permit and variances to the lot depth requirement
and to the requirement of a maximum of three watercraft
stored overnight for the purposes of establishing a
recreational beach lot on 6830 Minnewashta Parkway.
On February 22 , 1988 , the Chanhassen City Council met at
its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application I
of Pierce Construction for a Conditional Use Permit to establish
a recreational beach lot and for variances to the lot depth
111
requirement and maximum number of watercraft stored overnight
provisions on 6830 Minnewashta Parkway, on the West side of
Minnewashta Parkway approximately one-half mile South of Highway
7 , in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. The
Applicant was present and the City Council heard testimony from '
all interested parties wishing to speak at the meeting and now
makes the following Findings of Fact and Decision:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 . The property is located in the RSF , Residential Single
Family Zoning District . I
2 . Outlot A as shown on the Preliminary Plat contains
31 , 400 square feet and approximately 550 feet of lake 1
frontage , but does not contain 100 feet of depth.
The Northerly portion of Outlot A contains 110 feet
of depth and the Southerly portion contains approxi-
mately 84 feet of depth. The central area of Outlot
A contains only 40 feet of depth. I
11
I
I
3 . Each recreational beach lot requires a Conditional
Use Permit, and the Applicant has the burden of proving
' that the standards for a Conditional Use Permit are
met .
' 4. The City of Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance places addition-
al minimum standards on all recreational beach lots.
S. Applicant seeks permission for :
' a. One dock;
b. Overnight storage of up to four watercraft ;
c. Two canoe racks .
6 . The Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance prohibits docks on
recreational beach lots with a depth of less than 100
1 feet.
7. The Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance prohibits overnight
' storage of more than three watercraft.
8 . Applicant ' s proposed use of the property requires at
least two variances .
9 . The Applicant has failed to show that the standards
for granting a variance have been met.
10. Strict enforcement of the provisions of the Chanhassen
Zoning Ordinance does not result in a hardship unique
to the individual property.
11 . There are no special circumstances or conditions
concerning the land or its use which would necessitate
' a variance .
12. The Plat and the Outlot can be put to reasonable use
without the grant of the variances .
I
- 2 -
i
DECISION
1 . Based upon the foregoing considerations, Applicant ' s
request for a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational
beach lot is hereby granted subject to the following '
conditions :
a. Compliance with the recreational beach lot provi-
sions of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, as
amended.
b. Docks are prohibited. '
c. Storage buildings are prohibited.
d. Overnight storage of watercraft -is prohibited. '
2 . Based upon the foregoing considerations , Applicant ' s
request for a variance to permit a dock and overnight I
storage of more than three watercraft on Outlot A is
hereby denied. 1
Adopted this day of , 1988 .
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By: '
Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager
1
r
- 3 -
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988
Department, we'd like to award you with this plaque Chad and thank you
' personally for your act.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to congratulate Chad and certainly thank you for your
showing outstanding courage and timeliness in an incident like this. The world
' and our community and others like it can certainly use more people like
yourself. Thanks again.
STRATFORD RIDGE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 6830 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ON PROPERTY
ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, ROBERT PIERCE:
A. VARIANCE TO THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE FOR LOT DEPTH AND NUMBER OF
BOAT SLIPS.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT.
' Mayor Hamilton: This item was discussed at the Board of Adjustments and Review
and 'it was voted by a 2 to 1 vote to not issue the variance. Consequently, the
applicant would like to have the Council consider this item. The reason given
for the vote was both Carol and Willard did not want to issue a variance to the
100 foot lot depth. My feeling is that it's one piece of property. It's under
one PID number. It is one parcel and I'm not convinced that the 100 foot lot
depth exists even though there is a roadway passing through the property. It
is one parcel. It's not two. You can't build a house on the lake portion of
it. It's all connected. It was sold as one. It's under one ownership.
Perhaps Barbara could give us just a brief overview of this item. I think we
reviewed it previously but you might want to show us what our alternatives are
here.
Barbara Dacy: The applicant is requesting in essence three variances. The
' first variance is the depth requirement of 100 feet. In order to have a dock
you must have 200 feet of lake frontage, 100 feet in depth and 30,000 square
feet of area. The subject site does not have consistent lot depth of 100 feet.
' At the northerly part of the property, it does measure 115 feet. However, the
narrowest portion does measure 40 feet. Fifth, the variances granted to have
the dock and then the next request is to have four boat slips instead of the
required three boat slips. Thirdly, the number of canoe racks in the ordinance
' is tied to the number of docks. One canoe rack is permitted per dock. The
applicant is requesting two canoe racks for the storage of 11 canoes. The
staff's recommendation is based on the City Attorney's opinion which is
included in your packet. That recommendation is to deny the variance request.
The Attorney's suggestion is to amend the ordinance rather than issue a _
variance. If the Council is going to approve the request, the following
' summarizes a proposed motion. Again, the variance should be issued to the lot
depth requirement first in order that the applicant can receive the dock. Then
the Council should decide on whether or not a variance should be granted to
allow one additional slip. Finally, a variance to the number of canoe racks.
Again, two being proposed and none being permitted. We'd also suggest that if
a motion of approval is made, that the motion contain reference to the plan
stamped "Received February 18, 1988". Finally, in regards to the second item [177
' on the agenda, even if the variances were denied on all of these items, the
applicant still has the right to petition for the use of a beachlot in a more
City Council-Meeting - February 22, 1988
passive manner. That being a swimming beach, recreational area, etc..
Mayor Hamilton: We have members here in the audience that I think would like
to speak to this issue. Did you want to comment again?
Mary Jo Moore: I live on Dartmouth Drive in Chanhassen next to an Association '
that has a dock. It's gotten totally out of hand. I think this ordinance that
Chanhassen came up with, it was after a 2 year study based on the fact that we
have too many of these associations around the lake. They get out of hand and
they're not maintained. It's a good ordinance and I think we should abide by
it. I have no objection, because of the size of this property, I have no
objection to a swimming beach, volleyball, whatever, canoes, but I don't think
they should be allowed a dock. Thank you.
Ray Ruttger, 3221 Darthouth Drive: I guess my comment was relative to the
access road which has a dock on it. Was loaded with 6 boats at one time and
then 5 and after a lot of hassle the City became involved in it. The neighbors
became angry at us. Essentially, they had not maintained it. They do
absolutely nothing to maintain it or remove the dock or put a painting on the
side. There are cans out there. Whatever maintenance is required in the dock
area. Then they became upset because they couldn't put boat lifts out there
but it wasn't just the 3 boats or the 4 boats or 5 boats, but you're talking
about large pontoon boats. The last person who parked the big pontoon out
there became upset because the realtor told him that he could put any and all
boats on the property. So we kind of indicated that he better check it out
with the City. He better check it out with the Ordinance before you go ahead
and buy a piece of property. I think what I'd like to do, I feel like Mary Jo
that the beachlot is fine and it is a good size piece of property. I would
like to see the City have some nice development, some well done homes,
expensive homes. I'm looking for a larger tax base but I think it should be
policed and I think if, as Tom indicated, go along with 3 boat slips. That it
should remain at 3. Be cast in iron and the people that buy the property or
the lots know exactly who is to be allowed to put a boat at the dock. That it
should be very carefully policed because, I don't know if you want me to say
this but I didn't think the development to the south is really maintaining what
they're supposed to be. There are boats out there tied to floats to get by the
additional dockage. I'm talking about the condominium development.
Councilman Boyt: I feel that what staff and the Attorney recommended that we
not grant this and my position would be, if we need to look at the ordinance
again, let's look at the ordinance again. I'm not convinced we do need to but
I am convined that we've got to live with the ordinance we have.
Councilman Horn: I think we've already compromised our beachlot ordinance in
one case. Apparently with some bad repercussions. I think in this case, the
reason that we did that was, we said that the beachlot was entitled to the same
rights as a riparian homeowner would have if they were to build a house on a
piece of property. If I heard the staff report correctly, this is not a
developable lot for a home. Therefore, it would not have a home and be a
riparian homeowners situation. Therefore, I don't think it's necessary for us
to compromise beyond what we have already done in our ordinance and I would
suggest that we go along with staff's recommendation.
Councilman Geving: I think that this is certainly a large piece of property
I
- 4 3
' City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988
IIand by denying the variance we wouldn't be denying them reasonable use of the
land. They can still use it for a beachlot, for swimming and playing but it
certainly doesn't meet our ordinance and I think I would not be in favor of
granting the variance simply because it is precedent setting. We do have a
memorandum from the Attorney with his recommendations and on that basis, I
would stay with the staff and the Attorney's opinions that the variance should
not be granted. That's the end of my comment.
Mayor Hamilton: I would just call your attention to one of the questions that
I the Attorney, Roger Knutson, addressed. I felt that he asked more questions
than he answered. That was the issue of the 100 feet. I felt that his answer
to that question, part of it is that you could count both halves of the lot.
II The lot size requirement. What about setbacks, coverage and lot frontage? So
I think there are some unanswered questions here yet. If it is in fact-a
single parcel, and I'm not sure how we determine that. Maybe Elliott can help
Ius with that question.
Elliott Knetsch: I'd be happy to. I guess what you're referring to there in
Roger's letter is that under the existing ordinance the road, being where it
II is, the proposed beachlot is one lot and the portion across the road is a
separate lot under the existing ordinance so it can't be counted to meet the
depth requirement of the beachlot ordinance.
IIMayor Hamilton: Under our existing ordinance?
Elliott Knetsch: Under the City's Zoning Ordinance. It regulates the
I beachlots as well as the Zoning Ordinance in general. The existing
interpretation is that that would not be considered all one lot. What you did
mention earlier at the prior meeting that he raised more questions than he
I answered. I think, as Barb mentioned, he was being rhetorical there. If you
start getting a different interpretation of what the lot is, then all your
other zoning requirements such as setbacks come into question too. Where you
II measure from. That becomes a question where you start to put your setbacks.
The size of a lot and lot covereage. All those things come into question.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't have a problem with it. I think we should probably
1 address those questions.
Elliott Knetsch: I think the basic recommendation here is, if it's the feeling
I on the Council that something like this is appropriate, the way to address that
is not through a variance but through an amendment to the ordinance. Under the
existing ordinance you have our opinion that it doesn't meet the test for
II granting that variance. If the Council's uncomfortable with that position,
what they should do is take another look at the ordinance. Once the ordinance
is on the book, it should be followed and if you don't like the ordinance, it
should be changed.
IMayor Hamilton: To go back to the point that Clark made too, I don't think
it's right. There can be riparian rights here if the developer decided to sell
I five lots on the lake, those five lots would have riparian rights and you would
just deed that part of the property on the lakeshore to those five owners that
he has plotted out on the front of that. They would have 100 feet, is that our [E7
IIordinance? 100 feet of lakeshore? What's the minimum?
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988
jr- Barbara Dacy: Of lot width along the lake?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes. '
Barbara Dacy: 75 feet.
Mayor Hamilton: So he could have even more than that.
Barbara Dacy: But based on our current ordinance, you would in essence have to
grant almost 5 lot area variances for those 5 lots between the road and the
lake. Again, because the current ordinance defines if you have a parcel that's
split by a road then each piece is a separate lot.
Mayor Hamilton: I disagree with that. Then by doing that, in my opinion, we
are taking his property. We are in fact forcing a hardship on him and the City
better buy his property because what we're telling him is we're not going to
allow you to divide that property into five lots and let him put five docks out
there and the use of the lake for those people. He can't do it and I think
that's a taking. I would certainly see it that way. I'm not an attorney
• though.
Elliott Knetsch: My response to that is, the City has the opportunity to
impose reasonable regulations. Obviously, the word reasonable is not a clear
cut standard and I'm not sure I could tell you what a Court would say. In our
opinion, this ordinance, this does not amount to a taking. I think he does
have reasonable use of his property.
Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Pierce, did you want to make some comments?
Robert Pierce: Originally, when I drove by this parcel I looked at it and I
thought, wow, look at the lakeshore we have. There's got to be a way to have
some lakeshore, at least 3 or 4 lots across there. We have 500 feet. So I
went into it a little further and I checked it out and talked to the City
Planner then I went to the Planning Commission meeting and at that point, at
the Planning Commission meeting I went there for one reason. Multiple reasons
but the one major reason was I wanted to see the feeling and get some direction
at that point because we were into a contract to purchase the property, and see
what they would have to say. At that meeting, it's in the Minutes, it was
pretty clear cut that, some language to that effect, that to deny us a dock
with that type of useage certainly wouldn't be reasonable. That's the
direction they gave us. I believe we came in with a really light, light useage
for this parcel. Again, like I stated earlier, I have talked to the neighbors
that are living on the north and I had quite a long discussion today with the
neighbors to the rear of the property, to the west and to the south. Each one
of them, I think, excuse me I should make reference that the one to the north
really didn't care what went on. She just said, whatever we'd like to do is
fine with her but the others I think would definitely like to see a development
with a higher grade of homes in there. Without the docks it's just not
possible. Plain and simple. We're looking at 15 lots. In my way of thinking,
we can reduce the valuation on each home by about $100,000.00 per package which
is a million and a half dollars to this single subdivision. In tax revenues, I
don't know what that would exactly come out to for the City but if we could
start this out, in this development, and we could put together a nice package
of high quality homes, it would make sense to me that the area that's
. 1
City Council Meeting - February 22; 1988
II
developed, and there is a lot of land in that area that is going to develop at
II a higher quality. I think that is certainly in the minds of the neighbors is a
real plus. I would think that also in the minds of the City would have to be a
real plus to get more revenue out of it. Also, there are beachlots I know up
and down this road and I know at sometimes there has definitely been some
I problems. I understand, but very few of them have the width that we do and the
type of screening. We've been really cautious to try to meet the needs of the
neighbors. We've worked with the City extensively trying to just meet every
II criteria that they would have. We would like to work it for everybody's
benefit but we need the docks. It's an important part of this development.
Otherwise it just changes it. The neighbors I think are for it. To me, the
I way we're going right now, I can't even have a dock on 9 acres. It's one
parcel. The taxes one parcel. It's been taxed as lakeshore. It's just kind
of beyond my thinking that we can't put this one dock in there. The
neighboring property, Mrs. Campbell just to the north, I talked to her today
I and they have not had a dock on their parcel. They don't have the width. They
don't have the areas that we do. At this point, without a variance, that's not
even lakeshore anymore because the ordinance has concluded that. I think there
II is something wrong there. In order for us to do this project, we need those
and we will do a good job. I think it will be an asset to Chanhassen. It will
be an asset to the neighbors. If we're denied that, and we must go along
I without it, then it's going to be on a much less of a scale. Plain and simple.
Councilman Boyt: I guess I would suggest that there is a certain amount of
logic to what you say about having a long strip of lake frontage and not having
I a dock on it. It's just that, my opinion is that we don't have an ordinance
that allows you to do that and to give you the variance to that ordinance is to
basically throw the ordinance out. I don't know what the answer is. I can
II recognize the problem as being certainly a legitimate problem and a concern
that I would have if I was in your position. I think maybe we need to look at
the oridnance. I agree, you mentioned during the appeals situation that that
might be a rather lengthy task. I suspect it would be because it's such a
Ivolatile issue.
Robert Pierce: If I could make a suggestion. I don't know how long. If there
I would be some way to take a look at it, I'm sure it is volatile. I don't know.
I have this development. It's going to go forward. We've come to a point, the
dock issue. There's a period of time before we can get the project in the
ground and there's a period of time before construction begins. I would be
I more than happy to work with the City any way possible, to make contacts or
anything, but at the point that the first house goes in there, the whole tone
of the development is taken. If 6 months later we get the docks, it doesn't
I matter. It just doesn't matter. It maybe will bring the value of those 4 lots
on the front but the rest of it has already been set. I don't have the t.
wearathol to get into a year. I just don't. I plain and simple can not afford
I it. We're in an economic situation where this property right now can be
developed. It can be done rather quickly I believe. It can get it up and get
it back to a finished product rather soon. If we wait a year, we get into the
economic situation can stop. I've had that happen before and it just sits. I
I personally just can not gamble on that. I don't have the ability to gamble on
that.
67
I Councilman Horn: Where did you get the impression that a dock would not be a
problem on this piece of property? It couldn't have been your reading the
City Council-Meeting - February 22, 1988
ordinance?
Robert Pierce: No, from the Planning Commission when I went there. They
talked about reasonable use. They said that, I think if you'd look in the
Minutes I think you'd see that it was clear that they said, let's give it to
the Attorney. There must be a way to do this without jeopardizing ourselves. I
know that you have had problems in different areas and I believe you're even in
litigation on one on a different lake, or there has been something in that
order, but the two projects are totally, totally different. There's not
anything in common to it. We're talking 50 feet and then we're talking 500
feet. 50 feet in width and I just feel like the word reasonable is the key
here and I think we have a very, very, very reasonable request before you.
However it needs to be done but I think time is a problem. Also, we do have, I
don't know if you want to go through it but we have a planner from Schoell and
Madsen here and he did do the project and he will explain what we're planning
to do down there in a little more detail. It might be worth looking at. '
Mayor Hamilton: Does anybody want to see it? I guess we still have the
concern. You've got 31,400 square feet which is over two-thirds of an acre,
550 feet of lakeshore and we're saying he can't use the lake. I think that's a
little bit ludicrous. That just isn't right in my opinion. To put 3 boats on
there with one dock. I guess the other concern I have is, the request was for,
I guess looking at the ordinance, it says we can only have one canoe rack for 11 each dock. It would seem to me that we certainly want to review that in our
ordinance. It seems like that's the type of thing we ought to be encouraging
more places to have rather than discouraging and I would see if there wasn't
any dock down there, I certainly can't see any reason why they can't have two
canoe racks. As long as they're used for canoes and that's the purpose for
them, canoes or sailboats on the lake is what you want to encourage people to
use them for.
Councilman Geving: I would have a tendency to agree with that Tom. I do agree
that this is a fairly large lot. It doesn't meet the depth requirements but on
the other hand, we've got other situations where it hasn't met the total area
requirements. I think they're really the same thing. But as far as reviewing
the ordinance to provide for the additional canoe racks and for sailboating, I
think that would be a terrific enterprise in this particular development
because it would lend itself to that. You've got a number of lots and any time
you get a dock with 3 or 4 boat slips, you're going to have contention for
those. But on the other hand, if you could have, let's say 2 canoe racks with
12 canoes potential, you'd have enough for your neighborhood that you're
proposing Mr. Pierce. I agree with Tom, I think that has to be looked at.
Even though I'm opposed to granting the variance, I think the ordinance itself
could be revised to reflect some new conditions.
Councilman Horn: I agree. I think that stays within the purpose of the intent
of the ordinance. I think we could make an exception to lot area size to the
one canoe rack. The problem always comes in when you start having permament
dockage of boats. Canoe racks typically are not a lake congestion issue. That
would be worth taking a look at but I agree, we shouldn't do it as a variance. '
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the variance to the Recreational Beachlot at
6830 Minnewashta Parkway for lot depth requirement of 100 feet. To allow a
n
'
City Council Meetin g -
February 22, 1988
II
dock to be constructed with three (3) boat slips and allow two (2) canoe racks.
' There was no second and motion failed for lack of a second.
I Elliott Knetsch: May I make a slight amendment to that and suggest that you
move to have staff prepare Findings of Fact consistent with denial of the
variance and the actual decision would be made at the next meeting when you
have those Findings of Fact.
IICouncilman Boyt: I'd like to ask why we need that?
I Elliott Knetsch: There's a requirement that you have Findings of Fact
supporting your decision stating contemporaneously with your decision.
I Councilman Boyt: We have it. What would you call the Attorney's letter if not
Findings of Fact?
Councilman Geving: It would be just a restatement of that.
ICouncilman Boyt: I don't understand why we have to put that off until next
session if we have all the facts we're going to have.
IElliottt Knetsch: The letter doesn't address all the specifics that he may
want to include to support your Findings. We haven't listed exactly what you
want on there.
IICouncilman Geving: This is not unusual.
I Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to direct staff to prepare
Findings of Fact consistent with denial of the variance request to the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance at 6830 Minnewashta Parkway and to direct staff
I to review the ordinance for the change in the potential for a greater number of
canoe racks for this particular lot. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton
who opposed and motion carried.
ICONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATONAL BEACHLOT.
I Councilman Boyt: Gary I believe you mentioned int he packet that Minnewashta
was being, at least in the distant future was looking at four lanes?
II Gary Warren: We said we were looking to upgrade possiblities. Subsequent _
information, the 66 foot right-of-way out there would be sufficient for that.
Councilman Boyt: When I looked at the map of the beachlot, I remember the
I statement about timbered walls. Where were the walls going to be timbered on
the beachlot? I didn't see that on the map or I didn't pick it out of the map
if it was there.
II Barbara Dacy: You mean the steps down to the pathway?
[7
Councilman Boyt: That a timbered wall would be built. That's the reference
Ithat I have.
II 1 ' f7'
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988
1
Robert Pierce: It's the steps going down. Steps or a ramp. There's been some
discussion about... ,
Councilman Boyt: I can understand the recommendation by the fire people to
look at a ramp. I would think a ramp might create some erosion problems. Are
steps less of an erosion inducer than a ramp Gary?
Gary Warren: Anything that would minimize the rate of runoff typically helps
to also minimize erosion. The faster the water goes over the land, the more
potential there is for erosion so the ramp, as you're saying from that
perspective would be more an erosion hazard.
Barbara Dacy: This issue came up with the Kurvers Point recreational beachlot ,
and I think the applicant can look at a design where you would have a ramp plus
a longer set of steps so you wouldn't have a straight slope down to the beach
area. I think the main intent from the Fire Department was to make sure that
the steps weren't designed so that they could easily roll stretchers or
whatever down there. We've got the best of both worlds on both options. The
one to control erosion and the other to facilitate access. '
Councilman Boyt: I know we all have our points of concern here and that was
just an issue that I wanted to bring up. The last issue is that I feel we
should make some effort to preserve the shoreline where you're not having a
beach area. I would propose that one condition of approval would be that it
remain natural all along the shoreline except where the sand beach is
installed.
Robert Pierce: I think that's what my proposal had. '
Mayor Hamilton: I think along the beach not there are trees that have fallen
into the lake and there is a lot of garbage along the lake.
Robert Pierce: When I mean natural, I think we want to clean up and improve it
but what we want to do basically is leave intact anything that's alive and
flourishing and holds our bank in. '
Mayor Hamilton: I think what Bill may be referring to however is to keeping
the weeds growing near the lake. I don't know if that would inhibit the use of
your lot down there or not.
Robert Pierce: The sand blanket area that we have there is probably the area
that we use for swimming mostly. The rest of it I hadn't really planned on
trying to change it much other than clean it up.
Mayor Hamilton: You may have a volleyball court or something. '
Robert Pierce: It would probably be on the sand area.
Dave Prillaman: I live on Red Cedar Point for 25 years. Now I just heard '
something that really bothers me. You're talking about a 4-lane highway
on Minnewashta Parkway. You can forget then the beachlot and anything to do
with it if you're going to have 4 lanes going down there. '
:1JJ
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988
I
Mayor Hamilton: There's no proposed 4 lane highway on Minnewashta Parkway.
' Dave Prillaman: Isn't that what I just heard?
Mayor Hamilton: Somebody just asked the question. They said, no, there is not
a proposed 4-lane highway.
Dave Prillaman: You've got 66 feet for right-of-way? How wide was that road
' going to be?
Gary Warren: That road would be maximum 44 foot road section that could
' ultimately built.
Dave Prillaman: How wide is it now?
Gary Warren: That road now is maybe 31-32.
Dave Prillaman: I guess all I'm saying is, if we're going to have this
freeway, you can forget all the rest of it. All that road needs is to be
maintained. It doesn't need to be any wider. The speed limits are not adhered
to there now. Let's just don't, I know this is besides what you're talking
about, but you're going to have an awful big argument with me if you widen that
road.
Mayor Hamilton: We're not planning on any widening. You'd probably have an
' argument with me too. I don't have that either. My motion would include the
five conditions by the staff also.
Councilman Boyt: What about keeping the shoreline natural?
t Councilman Geving: ..will be pretty natural an yway Bill. I think they're
trying to make this a receational area but I think they want to clean it up,
' not destroy the natural beauty of it. I have no problem with amending my
second to include that.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Conditional Use
Permit #87-17 for a recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions:
1. The recreational beachlot shall not have a dock or canoe rack(s) unless a
variance to the lot depth requirement is granted by the Board of
Adjustments and City Council.
' 2. The proposed dock shall not have 4 overnight slips unless a variance to
the limitation of overnight storage is granted by the Board of Adjustments
tand City council.
3. All additional standards established for a recreational beachlot in the
Zoning Ordinance must be met.
' 4. A tree removal plan must be submitted to the City and DNR for approval
prior to any alteration to Outlot A.
1
:xJ
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1988
5. The applicant shall provide a detailed grading and erosion control p lan
for the recreational beachlot for staff approval.
6. The applicant shall keep the shoreline natural except where the sand beach
is installed.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: I would hope that you would meet with staff as soon as '
possible to discuss the possibility of requesting a change in the ordinance and
I'd be happy to work with you on it also. If you don't want to request it, I
will. I think it's something we should be reviewing and getting on with. '
Robert Pierce: I'll call than tomorrow.
SUBDIVISION OF 2.5 ACRES INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO MINNEWASHTA
PARKWAY APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF TH 5, SCHWABA-WINCHELL, APPLICANTS.
Barbara Dacy: The property is located east of and adjacent to Minnewashta
Parkway. The property is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential. The parcel is
outlined in green on this overhead. The Planning Commission discussion focused
on two major issues with one of the major issues having three subdivisions, if
you will. One was lot size and the second one was access and that could be
divided into three issues. Driveways versus an internal street. Potential
variance request and third, the maple tree that's located in the property. I'd
like to address the lot size issue first. As you are all aware, the single
family zoning district provides for a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet.
There are a number of adjacent property owners in the area that were requesting
that the Council look to reducing the number of lots in this subdivision so
that the proposed lot sizes would increase and be more comparable to the lot
sizes existing in the area. The Planning Commission discussed this at length
and directed staff to bring, an issue back if you refer to the discussion,
there was no action taken on this particular item. However, the Council should
be aware that the proposal does meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. All of the lots did contain 15,000 square feet as required by the
Zoning Ordinance. If these adjacent property owners would sell their
properties or some time in the future if the properties were to be subdivided,
the same requirements would be imposed.
Councilman Boyt: How big are those lots?
Barbara Dacy: The adjacent lots to the east are, I would say at least an acre
and a half in size and maybe some of the property owners are here and could
verify my estimate. As to the second issue of access, one of the issues was
whether or not a variance request was necessary for two driveway accesses onto
Minnewashta Parkway which is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a
collector. We asked the City Attorney to respond to that issue discussed by
the Planning Commission. His letter is included in your packet. In essence
his opinion was that the ordinance prohibits access from "individual lots"
meaning if there were 5 driveways proposed for 5 lots, that would be
prohibited. However, since the proposed driveways are shared, that does not '
1