3b. Recreational Beachlot Sunnyslope HOA CUP for Beachlot Activities r,
:.
\ I , CITY o: CHANHASSEN
.:.
... .
_,
\\„,,,..
\ I. /.4.,_,..,
_.,..
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner � __�iy� �
DATE: April 14, 1988 y/4 /£4' ._... .._
SUBJ: Sunny Slope Beachlot Request fib s-/.4-1.- _ _
After the last Planning Commission meeting, I discussed with my
staff the process for the Sunny Slope property owners require-
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
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
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the
conditional use permit request. Both sets of minutes from the
April 6 and April 20th meetings are attached.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
It 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.
" a (C I TY 0 F ( P.C. DATE: April 6 , 198
\\\1 CHANnAssEN C.C. DATE: April 25 , 19
r CASE NO: 84-6 CUP
Prepared by: Olsen/v
STAFF REPORT
F
PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot
Z
4
0
LOCATION: Lot 37, Shore Acres
Cl.
( APPLICANT: Sunny Slope Homeowners Association
340 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 5 ,500 square feet
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING '=;cxr
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family
Q S- Lake Riley Y_6_8 �/ p{�-
a; E- RSF; single family Z,, ., b �7J�
Q W- RSF; single family
W WATER AND SEWER: Sewer is available, water is not available
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is level and is a riparian lot.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
e,, - q0 8900 VIII
Q - ��
1 —r---' ' {- , '
SCR 18 ) 1
, ____., L
, \
}I 9000
4
ow 1
�' 9100
�
P-I )I RD
(\ ' . --_-;►4,i, 9200
4 . �:„, /f
R_I �, /// , �� / L A/YE
•,f� ,\`_� 9300
ilil �-
9F� � ��I P �t� � R/LEY
ti �:
�,� m.�.-_ '- �
'1--
9400
,,•0,0 o
�_ 9900
n
•Z
1.961T HI STIR8ELr l�
Z
.� 9600
I , w
Z
..w
POND �-:_j 9
(C.R. 14
CC-11-4
5
ts� 100
Q 200
Qv
. /
R
300 A
-IA
ra
N.
R KWOOO _ — 400
II I
ICOO
010/
l
C—3
A q� 1113=,,,
Z�Z .---.:7
500
o R-1 � \6g
•-_-- ' -,... --- -,`—\ s o oar ;r 600
`0U
f
— i
•
47 47
Sunny Slope HOA 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 3i 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 6# 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
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
{� r
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 Appeals and City Council
are responsible for reviewing the variance request to the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance requirements.
Sunny Slope HOA elLP
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.
CA R VER COUNTY AB STRACT AN D TITLE CO INC.
Enlik
CARVER COUNTY
P.O.BOX 106,121 WEST 4TH STREET,CHASKA,MINN.55318 (612)448-5570 ABSTRACT&TITLE
Dale B. Kutter David E. Moonen
March 8, 1988
Sunny Slope Home Owners Ass'n
c/o Steve Burke
340 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
According 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
feet of the following described property:
Lot Thirty-seven (37) , Shore Acres, Carver County, Minnesota.
1. Daniel & Adele Colich 6. Ronald Ytzen
9217 Lake Riley Blvd. 9227 Lake Riley Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
2. Dennis R. & Ann Baker 7. Frederick Potthoff III
9219 Lake Riley Blvd. & Judith C. Potthoff
Chaska, MN 55318 9231 Lake Riley Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
3. Eunice Elizabeth Kottke
4441 Washburn Ave. S. 8. John W. Ardoyno
Minneapolis, MN 55410 14150 Guthrie Ave.
Apple Valley, MN 55124
4. Alan & Karen Dirks
331 Deerfoot Trail 9. Paul Kent Olson
Chaska, MN 55318 4735 Lakeway Terr.
Excelsior, MN 55331
5. George & F. Marian Dewitt
3127 4th St. SE 10. Sunny Slope Homeowners Assn.
Minneapolis, MN 55414 c/o Steve Burke
340 Deerfoot Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
(
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
9245 Riley Lake Blvd. aka Allen Gray
Chaska, MN 55318 Pequot Lakes, MN 56471
13. Secretary of Housing & 22. Ken & Kathy Wolter
Urban Development 341 Deerfoot Trail
220 So. 2nd St. Chanhassen, MN 55317
Minneapolis, MN 55401
14. Vince A. Beacom
300 Deerfoot Trail 23. James Henderson
Chaska, MN 55318 7108 2nd Ave. So.
Richfield, MN 55423
15. Michael R. & Jody L. Schepers
320 Deerfoot Trail 24. Dale & Diane Kutter
Chaska, MN 55318 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
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
(?\ G-Je0/
Carver County Abstract &Citle Co. , Inc.
LRP:nls
This company does not assume any liability for the accuracy of this report.
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.
(3) The sewage treatment system must be in conformance with chapter 19, article W.
(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.
The following applies to state-licensed day care centers:
(1) The site shall have loading and drop off points designed to avoid interfering with
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) Recreational beach lots shall have at least two hundred(200)feet of lake frontage.
1175
C
§ 20-263 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(2) No structure,portable chemical toilet,ice fishing house,camper,trailer,tent,recrea-
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.
(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, windsurfers, 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.
c (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.
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.
(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
C
3.
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
or 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
C
§ 20-1001 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(4) Animals being kept as part of the Minnesota Zoological Garden's r
o 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
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)
Secs. 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
It 2
C
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
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
§ 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(6�/a)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
47
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 26 , 1986
Vice-Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Tim Erhart , Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, Howard
Noziska and Mike Thompson.
MEMBERS ABSENT
Bill Ryan
STAFF PRESENT
Jo Ann Olsen, Asst . City Planner and Vicki Churchill, Secretary.
PUBLIC HEARING
j Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot and to
fconstruct a storage building on 5 ,500 square feet of property
zoned R-1 and located at 9241 Lake Riley Boulevard, Sunnyslope
Homeowner ' s Association , applicant
Public Present
Steve Burke applicant
Bill Boyt 7204 Kiowa Circle
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.
Joy Tanner 9243 Lake Riley Blvd.
Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd.
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
with the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission considered
the request on August 8, 1984 for the beachlot which also
requested permission to:
1 . Install a seasonal dock.
2 . Install two canoe racks.
3 . Install a privacy fence.
4 . Allow overnight storage of four watercraft .
Olsen stated that the request required variances to the
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
deny the conditional use permit request for a recreational beach-
lot.
.43
Planning Commission Minutes
February 26 , 1986
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 beachiot 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
beachiot must have at least four lineal feet for each dwelling
unit that has access to the recreational beachiot. She stated
that Sunny Slope Addition has 12 dwelling units which results in
a minimum requirement of 48 feet for a recreational beachiot.
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 [A] )
states that no structure shall be erected on a recreational
beachiot 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 .
4 C
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
they could also receive those variances. He stated that if they
built 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-
bors 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
C
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
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
Planning Commission Minutes
February 26 , 1986
Page 5
they 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 .
4E 47
Planning Commission Minutes
February 26 , 1986
Page 6
C
Tim Erhart stated that he did not feel Steve Burke was making 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
C 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.
47
Planning Commission MInutes
February 26 , 1986
Page 7
3 . He also stated that there should be some negotiations with
the neighbors and city staff on fencing as far as materials
and size.
Barbara Dacy
City Planner
Prepared by Vicki Churchill
March 3 , 1986
47 (7
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
jVariance Request to the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance, Lot 37 ,
Shore Acres , Sunny Slope Homeowner ' s Association
Jr
A. 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.
Steve Burke stated that this was not a new issue. He stated that
the Sunny Slope Homeowner ' s Association intended on using the
C
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes
March 17 , 1986
Page 2
property as either a beachlot or a single family residence 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 -3—
(- C
Sometime ago the City received a petition from Opus Corporation concerning a replot of a portion of
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
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
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
any reason for making that statement? Usually they let out recommendations. OK. No comment.
Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the following: _
To accept the bid from Volk Trucking and Excavating in the amount of $199,818.05 for the
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition.
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.
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
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
been going after this for two years. What we wanted to do at this point was resolve this situation
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
point out in the packet that was sent out, there was reference to a boathouse. At no time had 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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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 .
Steven 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
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986 —4-
I
have the boats stored overnight. We think the neighborhood would 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
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
think we know we are willing to fall under the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance and all of the restrivtive
1
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
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.
Tom Hamilton: Councilmen have any questions?
Councilman Geving: Has your homeowners association ever been assessed for a sewer?
Steven Burke: Yes, we have.
Councilman Geving: You are paying for that now?
Steven Burke: Yes, we are.
Councilman Horn: I would move denial of the Sunnyslope Conditional Use Permit and Variance request.
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 1
and the Board of Adjustment Appeals as in the Planner's report.
Councilman 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.
Steven Burke: May I ask 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
don't find basis for denial, at this point, has the decision been made or is the decision made on your
findings?
Roger Knutson: The decision is not made by me. The decision is made by the Council and they will review
my findings at the next meeting and if they agree with my findings, we will stop them, if they are not in
agreement, ok.
Tom Hamilton: Does that clarify it for you?
Steven Burke: Yes.
Tom 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.
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Clark 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 IEET
very advantageous for Jim or someone else on our staff to be a member of the Rotary, to have input from
4
Chanhassen City Oounl 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 committee 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
recatmended the City pursue the issue.
Mayor Hamilton stated that he would like to see a committee formed fran 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. What 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: Men 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 ganged 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
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?
City Council Minutes fay 5, 1986 ( -11- R�
Can 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
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?
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. To be a principle use you have to
put a house on it.
Steven Burke: mat you are saying then is that all lots in the City, regardless
of just caned 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
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?
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
anyone's attention. Nothing illegal is done, we have a limited budget to make
sure no one doesn't have anything sitting anyplace. As far as whether that dock
that is not being used sitting on a lot, I guess I would probably say it is a
technical violation.
Steven 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
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
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
be and that would be a prosecution.
Steven Burke: I guess that answers the second question, but I need to cane 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 tune forward and say that we are now making application for
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
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.
Steven 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.
r4 b
Chanhassen City Coml. Minutes - May 5, 1986 -12-
Roger Knutson: If I am hearing you right, 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 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, CHANHASSEN VISTA SUBDIVISION,
EAST OF KERBER 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 sane 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
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
Commission 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 had 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.
^ ^
/-
^ � \
,
Sunny Slope
Homeowners
Association
Sunny Slope Homeowners Association (SSHA) hereby makes ap-
plication to the City of Chanhassen for a Conditional Use Permit
and Variance to permit the following improvements to Lot 37 Shore
Acres:
- to designate this property as a recreational beach
lot for Sunny Slope Homeowners Association.
- to allow the installation of one dock adjacent to the
lot of such size and shape as to conform to the require-
ments of the recreational beach lot ordinance, in the
that regard.
- 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.
- to install front and side lot fencing on the property
to provide security and privacy.
- 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.
While Lot 37 Shore Acres is substandard in size, it repre-
sents a buildable lot with the riparian right to install one dock
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
lost or diminished in any way.
This lot serves the twelve ( 12) families of SSHA and its 50
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.
A variance is requested for the installation of the dock and
overnight storage of up to three (3) boats since neither of the
immediate adjacent properties are for sale or are likely to be
marketed in the foreseeable future. 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.
8SHA 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.
4 -1/
ep mos
1?A cx.s pk)Kri4
()
p ,
Pi o'
1.61L
_
_ -
' et.= Y
_ _ _ _ • _ . _ _______
Log- 37 .5-/,‘:ve AW55 ,5;,/v/t/y /4/0i41540W/VERS ASOC/I1770^
• (7 C
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: 51-EvL BURiE OWNER: .SUNNY -S11.0P6- kloM k1,iIi.°,es AL-502.
ADDRESS 340 DE6Woor- t K ADDRESS C"O St Qu2h 3''o DLz,eroc
01135144- 8 5631$ 0405a- "1" .c-5-348
Zip Code Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 910 -745y TELEPHONE q94-7g5-41
REQUEST:
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
• Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
VI Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME PC=CWf 77c,v4G 7'Ef}t?y p'T' R2 Stt,i,L/ 14nEbkwegs 4S�'
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION 1 4-n,7-LivL
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION r\CC',Pe4.7DA1 PFahl /o7r
PRESENT ZONINGI
REQUESTED ZONING I
USES PROPOSED £14Ac& I h / !Icc r /4T-5O _
-
SIZE OF PROPERTY 5VX110 `
LOCATION LOT 37 Si4-n2e F
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST TD POccy UT1tl z 4O7
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) LT 37 3--1402c 1362e.5
MAR X1988
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
4
City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS :
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and
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
applicable to your application .
FILING CERTIFICATION:
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
applicable City Ordinances .
Signed By GGrL `h- Date 2 y gg
Applicant PP _
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described . /I
S�;G'y CGS 4/1,..-o,hvl'S 4SO('
Signed By / - 77.'P,Vst'2 Date
✓ Fee Owner
Date Application Received �'r l (v
Application Fee Paid
City Receipt No. P75)'Z,
* This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their
meeting .
•
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 6, 1988
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 380 Deerfoot Trail
Ken Wolter 341 Deerfoot Trail
Paul and Sue Olson 9239 Lake Riley Blvd.
Joy Tanner 9243 Lake Riley Blvd .
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,
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 2
single family useage. If you look at the property, on the map you can't
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 .
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.
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
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
beachlot?
N,
Joy Tanner : Definitely. That was my opinion before we bought our
property and we were assured that it couldn' t happen.
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
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?
Dacy: 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
need a variance not only for the lot width but the lot area and more than
likely for setbacks .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 4
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.
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
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
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
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
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
f 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.
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.
Emmings: Where do you live?
Don Sitter : I live about 5 lots to the west of this .
Emmings: On the lake?
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
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
'" 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,
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?
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
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 6
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
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.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 7
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 .
When I went over to this particular place, I see the houses very close
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 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
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
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 from 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
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. . .
Erhart : 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
property 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?
Kevin Sharkey: The Sunny Slope Homeowners Association did .
l
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 1988
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
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner
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
Joy Tanner 9243 Lake Riley Blvd.
Lucille Remus 9245 Lake Riley Blvd .
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
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 their wishes too to
let you know that they' re still opposed.
Mary Jo Moore: I 'm not totally familiar with this request but I do
object to the recreational beachlots.
Headla : Barb, is the very first issue if they should if they should have
a beachlot?
Dacy: Correct .
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 .
Conrad: I have nothing different to add . I agree.
•
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 if,
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.
Emmings: On that point Dave, last time when we had the public hearing, I
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
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 rememdies , obviously.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 4
Batzli moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
denial of Conditional Use Permit #84-6 for a recreational beachlot on Lot
37 of Shore Acres . All voted in favor and motion carried .
•
C
I I r M r