3 Appeal Outlot 1, Boyers SterlPROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
CITY OF
BOA DATE: July 22, 1996
CC DATE:
CASE #: Appeal 96-2
By: Rask:v
STAFF
REPORT
Appeal of Planning Department's decision to allow a boat litt on the Boyer's Sterling
Estates Beachlot
Outlot 1, Boyer's Sterling Estates
Located between 3221 and 3231 Dann~uth Drive
Mary J. Moore
3231 Dartmouth Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARACTER:
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
RSF, Residemial Single Family
See attached survey
N/A
RSF, Residential Single Family
Available to the site
The lot contains a dock with space for two boats to be docked. A boa.
litt provides docking for one of the boats. A paved path provide~
access to the dock.
Low Density Residential
UULG
008~:.
O06E ·
000£
Mary J. Moore Appeal
July 22, 1996
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The Boyer's Sterling Estates subdivision was platted in 1966. There are 16 lots in the subdivision.
The beachlot is 7,000 square feet in area with 40 feet of lake frontage. The beaehlot does not meet the
minimum requirements of 200 feet of lake fromage and the 30,000 square feet of area.
Chanhassen City Code provides standards for the creation of beachlots. A beachlot is a parcel of land
which provides a shared access to the lake for more than one home owner. In 1993, the City
inventoried all non-confolming beachlots in the city to determine the non-conforming status and level
of use. The Planning Commission held public heatings to solicit public comment on those beachlots
requesting a non-conforming permit.
On July 26, 1993, the City Council approved a non-conforming use permit for Boyer's Sterling Estates
Homeowners Association recreational beachlot. The permit allows two (2) boats docked overnight at
one dock 50 feet in length, with a 10 foot extension permitted if it meets the City's dock setback
ordinance, no motor vehicle access to the lake, and with the recommendation that a post and/or sign be
installed at the entrance to the beachlot to protubit access to the lake.
BACKGROUND OF APPEAL
In May of 1996, city staff was informed of the Boyer's Sterling Homeowners Association's intent to
place a boat lift on the beachlot property. Staff informed both the complainant and the Association that
a boat [ff would be allowed on the property. Staff based their decision on the following facts:
The intent of the non-conforming beachlot permit was to limit the number of boats, size of the
dock, location of dock, swimming beaches, and use of the shoreland, and not to set specific
standards on how boats were to be moored or the size or type of boat. For example, we did not
specify if the boat could be a row boat or a 20 foot cabin cruiser, nor did we indicate how or where
a boat could be moored.
.
,
.
Staff did not inventory boat [frs at the time of permit application, nor did the Planning Commission
or City Council request this information. Therefore, no record exists on the number or location of
boat [ffis on any beachlot within the City.
Staff does not consider the boat [ff to be an intensification of the use because no additional boats
will be moored or docked on the beachlot.
The 40 feet of lake fi'omage appears to have sufficient area for a boat [ff while maintaining the 10'
setback from the extended lot lines.
Mary J. Moore Appeal
July 22, 1996
Page 3
APPEAL
.Mary J. Moore fled an appeal alleging that adding a boat lift constitutes an intensification of the non-
confom'dng use permit (see letter fi.om Mary J. Moore dated June 25, 1996), and should not be
permitted. The applicant is requesting an immdiate recision of staff's decision requiting the boat lffi to
be removed fi.om the beaehlot. In addition, Ms. Moore alleges that other violations of the non-
conforming use permit have occurred and continue to be a problem.
RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING STAFF'S DECISION
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motion:
"The Board of Adjustmem and Appeals finds that city staff made a correct interpretation of the City
Code and the non-conforming use permit for Boyer's Sterling Beaehlot when allowing a boat lffi to
remain adjacent to the dock. More specifically, the Board finds the following:
The intent of the non-conforming beachlot permit was to limit the number of boats, size of the
dock, location of dock, swinm-fing beaches, and use of the shoreland, and not to set specific
standards on how boats were to be moored or the size or type of boat.
,
Staff did not inventory boat liRs at the time of permit application, nor did the Planning Conm~sion
or City Council request this information. Therefore, no record exists on the number or location of
boatliRs on any beach lot within the City.
3. The Board does not consider the boat lffi to be an intensification of the use because no additional
boats will be moored or docked on the beach lot.
4. The 40 feet of lake fi.omage appears to have sufficient area for a boat lift while maintaining the 10'
setback fi.om the extended lot lines."
RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING VIOLATIONS
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the following motion concerning the alleged violations
associated with storage of unused dock parts, junk materials, driving and parking on the beachlot, and
the establishment of a sign or gate on the beachlot:
"The Board requests that Boyer's Sterling Estates Homeowner's Association bring the lot into
comPliance with all the~conditions outlined in-the non-confom'dng use permit (g93-3) within two (2)
weeks fi'om the date of this meeting. If the Homeowner's Association fails to comPly with this order,
the matter shall be referred to the City Council for consideration and possffie revocation of the
permit."
Mary J. Moore Appeal
July 22, 1996
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter fi.om Mary J. Moore dated June 25, 1996
2. Application for Zoning Appeal dated June 25, 1996
3. Letter to Mr. Moe dated May 23, 1988 supplied by Ms. Moore as an attactnnent to the application
4. Letter fi.om Joe Boyer dated July 28, 1987 supplied by Ms. Moore as an attachment to the
application
5. Letter to Mr. Ted Bigos and Robert Roy dated August 19, 1993
6. Non-Conforming Use Permit #93-3
7. Inventory of Non-Conforming Beachlot Permit for Boyer's Sterling Estates
8. Memorandtun to Don Ashworth dated June 30, 1993
9. Plat map of Boyer's Sterling Estates
10. Survey ofOutlot 1
11. Non-Conforming Beachlot Application
12. Letter to Roger Knutson dated October 13, 1986
13. Letter to Robert Roy dated November 10, 1986
14. Letter to Barbara Dacy dated October 31, 1986
MARY J. MOORE
3231 Dartmouth Drive
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
June 25, 1996
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Attention: John Rask, Planner I
Subject:
Boyer's Estate Recreational Beachlot - Appeal of Zoning Decision Made by
Chanhassen Planning Department
Reference your letter dated May 29, 1996.
Dear Mr. Rask:
Enclosed is the completed and signed application requesting a hearing of the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals to appeal the City's decision to allow the installation of a boatlift at
the Boyer's Estate Recreational Beachlot ("Boyer's"). I request an immediate recision of
that decision.
As stated in Section 1. Purpose and Intent of the City Ordinance 47AB:
"The City Council's purpose for enacting this ordinance is to promote public health,
safety, and general welfare, to promote safety and sanitation in the use of public waters,
to keep public waters open for general public use, to avoid pollution and uncontrolled
and excessive use of public waters for docks, mooring and other structures, and to
eliminate unsafe and excessive installations of docks, boat mooting areas and other
fixed or floatin~ structures on the lakes." (emphasis added)
Through numerous hearings with the City Council; evidence submittals to the Planning
Department; and a final determination by the City Attorney in 1986, Boyer's was restricted to
(i) installation of one dock; and (ii) no more than two boats moored at the dock in
conformance with the dock survey done by the City. There was no provision for "boat
moorings" or other "fixed or floating structures". (Reference attached letter dated May 23,
1988.) It is also interesting to note the attached letter dated July 28, 1987, from the developer
of this property which states that he envisioned boats "with no boat lifts".
Additional hearings were held in the early 1990's regarding expansion of Boyer's lot use
with the application of the non-conforming conditional use permit submitted by Ted Bigos
and John Weber. The result of this hearing confirmed the established restriction of one dock
and two boats.
Further, Section 7. Effect on Existing Recreational Beach Lots, states:
"Docks or buildings lawfully existing .... deemed to be nonconforming uses. No
such nonconforming dock or building shall be enlarged or altered, or increased~ or
occupy a [reater 'area than that occupied by such dock or building on the effective date
of this ora]nance or any amendment thereto." (emphasis added)
RECEIVED
JUN 7 1996
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
City of Chanhassen
June 25, 1996
Page Two
This outlot has been, and still is, in violation of the conditional use permit. Not only for the
further expansion of the dock area, but for the maintenance and upkeep. This lot is used for
storage of old dock and boat parts, dock posts, car tires, dock bumpers, etc. There is no
maintenance of the lake or shoreline weeds nor is the current dock kept in good repair. It is
falling apart and actually quite dangerous. Further violations of the permit are the dumping
of tree branches and leaves, and the driving automobiles and motorcycles on the property.
During the winter, dock parts, and if the decision is allowed to stand, this unsightly boatlift
will be stored on the property. In addition, the boatlift is launched and removed by means of
a motor vehicle - another violation of the ordinance.
A survey of the property was completed in 1986/87 and it was determined that there is 35 feet
of shoreline at the high water line. This is in contradiction to the "sixty feet" submitted in
the conditional use permit. The east lot line for this property takes a bend about fifteen feet
from the shoreline and proceeds out into the water to an eventual 60 foot width. However, it
has been established that it is no longer valid to project lot lines other than at a 90 degree
angle to the shoreline. Further, permits for the control of aquatic weeds lists this shoreline
property length at 35 feet.
My property has a chainlink fence which is set a minimum of one foot back from the outlot
property line. However, due to the pile of junk contained on this property (some of which
leans against my fence) I am unable to maintain the side of the fence facing the outlot.
Mr. Bigos personal home property is impeccably maintained. And, in fact, Mr. Bigos
installed a fence on his property to prevent his view of a new home built next door for which
he objected to its size and quality. One would think that with this personal attitude, he could
understand my concerns over the property at which I have to look and my concern for our
beautiful lake.
In conclusion, I reiterate that the installation of the boatlift is a direct and flagrant violation of
the City Code and the conditional use permit. Due to the numerous issues cited above, the
conditional use permit' should be repealed, but at a minimum, I request an immediate hearing
and appeal of the City's recent decision.
Please keep me apprised of your actions.
Sincerely,
474.5 t}~2'_~ ~ome
482-4541 - office
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-t900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: ~/~~ ~7' ~~/~--~
ADDRESS:
~LEPHONE (Day Ume) ~ ~ - ~ ~ J
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Intedm Use Permit
Vadance
Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
RezonJng
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Notification Sign
Site Plan Review* X
Subdivision*
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost**
($50 CUPISPRNAC/VARANAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $ --- t.") '"
A fiat ~f all ~.eaper~y ,~wne~c wiUd,, ~00 Met of the bou,tdarigs of U,¢ prope, iy must be h,clu~),tg[with the
application.
BcilJi,,t~ material samples ,,,d&t bo o,,~l~mittod with oito plan reviews._
*Twgp_ty-six full size folded cople- ,~f thc pla, m ,,ust be sub,,,i[tcJ, i,~aludi,ttl a,, IF~".x 1-, :' ruduced UUl, y of...
tr&,,a~,aruncy lb, uaclt plan shgcL
** ~-scrow w,II bu raqulred for omar ala~,licatien; throvgh fl,( Juvelul,,,,u,~t csl~tract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME
::::: .~ ~ LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
YES NO
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly pdnted and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
~ determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this requesL This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicanL
Sign . Date.
Signature of Fee Owner
tilm~Application Received on
Date
Fee Paid Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
CITY OF
690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
May 23, 1988
Eastlund, Solstad & Hutchinson, Ltd.
Attn: Mr. Dale Moe
1702 Midwest Plaza Building
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Re: Boyer's Estates Recreational Beachlot
Dear Mr. Moe:
Our last conversation on this matter occurred in September of
1987. We agreed that you or Mr. Hofer would conduct a survey of
lot owners of record in the summer of 1981 to determine the
number of boats stored on the beachlot prior to the effective
date of the beachlot ordinance. In my letter dated September 8,
1987, I stated that we should resolve this issue before the 1988
boating season. Please forward to me the results of the
research. In the meantime, I have no other choice but to enforce
the current interpretation of the City on the use of that beach-
lot which is as follows:
1. One dock may be installed on the beachlot.
2. No more than two boats shall be moored at the dock.
·
Although legally not required to observe dock setback zones,
the dock shall be placed so as to not interfere with adjacent
property owner's boat traffic.
Should you have any further questions, please feel free to con-
tact me.
BD: ktm
CC:
Roger Knutson, City Attorney /
Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive
Ray Roettger, 3221 Dartmouth Drive
James Hofer, 3220 Dartmouth Drive
3630 Virginia Avenue, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Residential Building Contractor
(612) 473-5293
July 28, 1987
To Whom it may concern;
My name is Joe Boyer
In 1964 I purchased the 16 acres on Lake Minnewashta
now known as Sterling Estates.
I lived in the large stone estate 'house with my family
and developed the remaining acreage into 15 single family lots.
Six of the lots were on private lakeshore and the remaining,~ere
off shore w/deeded lake access. There were no restrictions at
that time regarding the number of boat docks and we sold the lots
giving the owner the understanding that each homesite could have
dock space for I boat at the outlot. We envisioned boats of 16'
to 17' runabout size at the most wt~h no boat lifts. The outlot
was 60' wide at the shoreline.
I e~xpressley know that in 1967 there were always 2 docks,
each 60' long, and with 4 boats anchored to the docks at all times.
At that time there were only two (2) offshore houses in the are.a,
one of them being mine.
How can city expect to reneg on a plat that has been in e£f~ct
for 20 years with their ~new amended ordinance? I think it is
grossly unfEir. These homeowners have a deeded right to this space.
~nc ere?y,~
/~Joe Boyer
ITY OF
i
. ,'
690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 · FAX (612) 937-5739
August 19, 1993
Mr. Ted I. Bigos
3221 Highway 7
Excelsior, MN 55331
and
Mr. Robert Roy
3101 Dartmouth Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
Dear Messrs. Bigos and Roy:
,.
This letter is to confh'rn that on July 26, 1993, the City Council approved Non-conforming
Use Permit Request t~t93-3 for Boyer's Sterling Estates Homeowners Association with the
following:
1. Two boats docked overnight;
2. One dock, 50 feet in length, and a 10 foot extension, if it meets the dock
· setback;
3. No motor vehicle access to the lake;
4. A sign must be installed at the entrance to the beachlot to prohibit access to the.
lake. -
-:.'..." ::' ~"-'.;...':."..:.. "/ · :'... · .'";' ':' :..' 'i.':..' - :'. '."':' ~'!.!".... '~.:':
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact .me.
'.,.. '-'...' .
......... ........ ...:~.~:..
Sincerely,
Kathryn R. Aanenson
SeniOr Planner
Enclosure
CITY OF CHANI-IASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT #93-3
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen
hereby grants a conditional use permit for the following use:
Recreational beachlot for Boyer's Sterling Estates Homeowners Association
2. Prouertv. The permit is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver
County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows:
Outlot 1, Boyer's Sterling Estates
3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions:
Re
Two boats docked overnight;
One dock, 50 feet in length, and a 10 foot extension, if it meets the dock setback;
No motor vehicle access to the lake;
A sign must be installed at the entrance to the beachlot to prohibit access to the
lake.
4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing
for violation of the terms of this permit.
5. Lays,. If within one year of the issuance of this permit the authorized construction
has not been substantially completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse, unless an
extension is granted in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance.
6. Criminal PenalW. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal
misdemeanor.
Dated: July 26, 1993
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By:
Do'n~anager
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF CARVER
)
( ss
)
The foregoing insmtment was acknowledged before me this ~.5~lay of
19~ by Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor and Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Ch/fnhassen,
a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted
by its City Council.
DRAFTED BY:
Campbell, Knutson, Scott
& Fuchs, P.A.
Suite 317
1380 Corporate Center Cktrve
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
(612) 455-5000
KAREN J. ENGELHARDI'
NOTARY PUBLIC--MINNESOTA
CARVER COUNTY
My Comm~ssmn Expires ocr. 16. 1997
.
NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT
Boyer's Sterling Estates
Association
Boyer's Sterling Estates
Lake Minnewashta
Number of Homes
16
Size, square feet
8,400'
Shoreline 55'
Motor Vehicle Access yes
Boat Launch yes
Buildings none
Seasonal Dock
1
50' with
10' extension if it meets the dock setback
Canoe Racks
none
Boats on Land
Boats at Dock
Two (2)
Boats Moored
none
Swimming Beach
yes
Swimming Raft
no
Miscellaneous
ITY OF
690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 · FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
June 30, 1993
Boyer Sterling Estates Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot
BACKGROUND
The Boyer's Sterling Estates Subdivision was platted in 1966. There are 16 lots in the
subdivision. In 1966, the beachlot was 9,000 square feet in area with 60 feet of lake frontage.
A 1986 survey shows the beachlot at 7,000 square feet in area with 40 feet of lake frontage. The
beachlot does not meet the minimum requirements of 200 feet of lake frontage and the 30,000
square feet of area.
.,
In conjunction with filing the plat, restrictions on use of Outlot 1 were also fried. Them was a
complaint against the beachlot made in 1986. A history of the beachlot was outlined by City
Planner, Barb DacY. An incorporated or established homeowner's association for Sterling Estates
was not or has ~.~..~n. organized.:with official.: ffling .: of by,laws or .regu!ations.~.~ Based on the
evidence provi~;:~?/tt!~i~time of the complaint in 1986, City Att°meY, :: ROger Knutson
determined that the lev~i:'~.:Use should be one dock with no more than two bOats at the dock.
Pan of the complaint is the ex~:~'::~bf:the dock into the dock setba~'k zone. The city has
recently passed an ordinance requiring that alldocks' meet the dock setback zone, which is ten
An inspection of this beachlot was perform.ed by the city in 1981. At that time, it was observed
that there was one dock, no boats were noted at the,dock, moored or on land, There was a
swimming beach. There is a motor vehicle access to the site, the 1981 inventory noted no boat
launch, although the association is requesting one.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Boyer's Sterling Estates
June 30, 1993
Page 2
SUMMARY
The association is requesting the approval of one dock with up to 4 boats docked overnight,
motor vehicle access and the boat launch.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On Wednesday, June 7, 1993, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Boyer
Sterling Estates Recreational Beachlot non-conforming use permit. The Planning Commission
recommended two boats to be docked overnight, with no motor vehicle access to the lake. The
Commission recommended placing a post at the entrance to the beachlot to prorhibit access. The
Commission also recommeded that the 10' extension off of the 50 foot dock be eliminated.
ATTACHMENTS
.
2.
3.
4.
Beachlot Application
Summary of Beachlot Inventory
1986 Recreational Beachlot Complaint
Public hearing notice
¸CZ-
o .
,..
:....
Prepared By:
$CHOELL & MADSON, INC.
Enolneere, 8urveyor~, Planner~, 8o118 Teltlng
Mlnnet enkl.Tel. 546-760Mn' 166848'
GENERAL NOTES:
o - Denotes Iron monument set.
2) · - Denotes iron monument found.
3) 13 - Denotes wood stake.
I hereby certtfy that thts survey
was prepared under my supervision
and that T am a Ltcensed Land
Surveyor under the laws of the
Stye of Htnnes~a~
heodoreD. Kemna
Date: 23 July 1986
Ltc. No. 17006
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN ~317
RECEiV£
]993
NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT APPLICATION
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION:
CONTACT PERSON:
AVDm SS:
TELEPHONE (Day time) TELEPHONE ~):
Please provide all requested data consistent with what existed in the summer of 1981.
1. Number of homes in thc Homeowners Association
2. Length of shoreland (fee0 ~"' /
Total area of Bcachlot (in square feeO
4. Number of docks
e
.
e
10.
Length of dock(s)
Number of boats docked
Number of canoe racks
Number of boats stored on canoe racks
Number of boats moored, i.e. canoes, paddle boats, sailboats.
11. Number of boats on land
12. Swimming beach Yes
Yes No
14. Boat Launch Yes b/ No
:13. '. Swimming Raft
Buoys Yes.
No
1:5.
16.
Motor vehicle access Yes
Number of parking spaces
No
Structures, including portable chemical toilets:
C 0' - -
690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
October 13, 1986
Mr. Roger Knutson
Grannis, Grannis, Farrell & Knutson
P.O. Box 57
St. Paul, MN 55075
Re: Recreational Beachlot Complaint
Dear Roger:
This is to request your opinion regarding whether or not a viola-
tion to the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance exists at the Boyer's
Sterl'ing Estates Beachlot on Lake Minnewashta.
A complaint has been filed by abutting owners of the beachlot,
Mary J. Moore (west) and Raymond Roettger (east). Please see
letters dated August 4, 1986 and September 25, 1986. They con-
tend that the dock and boats are illegal and must be removed.
Please review the Recreational ~eachlot Ordinance as to existing
non-conforming docks and beachlots as it applies to this
complaint.
It appears from the information submitted that the chronology of
events is as follows:
1. Boyer's Sterling Estates was platted in 1966.
2. In conjunction with filing the plat, restrictions on use of
Outlot 1 was also filed.
3. An incorporated or established homeowner's association for
Sterling Estates was not or has not been organized with offi-
cial filing of by-laws or regulations.
4. The subdividers of the.property,.the Boyer's, apparently
installed a 3 x 60 foot dock and stored three boats at it for
approximately 8 years. Another lot owner in the subdivision,
Schur, lived at 6220 Bar~rry Circle (Lot 2, Block 3)' and
installed a similar dock next to the Boyer's and moored two
boats for approximately the same time period. Boyer sub-
sequently removed his dock permanently after 1973.
Mr. Roger Knutson
October 13, 1986
page 2 .... .-.- ·
Peter and Judy Walman bought the Schur residence at 6220
Barberry Circle in 1974. Their letter of September 3, 1986
. .
states at that time one dock with one boat°was in place
at the outlot belonging to the Schur's. W~lman's bought the
boat and installed a new dock in 1977 or 1978.
In 1977, a person by the name of Mike Holloway, purchased Joe
Boyer's home and in the 1977-1978 time frame, installed a
boat at the dock on the outlot. "
o
rT~ -The August 4, 1986 letter from Moore/Roettger alleges that
.... such installation of the dock was done in 1979 and Was done
· '-. 'without the knowledge or approval of other homeowners.
'.8. U- .to this point in time, there appears to have been two
boats moored at the dock from at least 1979 to 1981.
·
o.
In'~he Walman letter of September 3, 1986, it is alleged that
in 1980.or..!981 the Emmett's, who reside at 6210 Barberry ..
Circle, stored their boat at the dock off of the outlot.
· This item.is contested by the Moore letter of September 23rd
stating that the Emmett's did not move into the area until
August 17, 1982, according to the contract for deed evi-
dencing the sale of the residence which was recorded at the
county on September 7, 1982, Document No. 56232.
10. The Moore/Roettger complaint states that they feel that there
were only two boats moored at the dock before the effective
date of the Beachlot Ordinance of March 17, 1982. The
remaining' homeowners in the area maintain that there was at
· - ...least one dock and three boats moored at that dock.
11. Each party has submitted pictures.
~2. 'it is als0 asserted by Moore/Roettger that the dock is
.~. _installed so that it e. ncroaches on the dock setback zone of
~.their properties. ~.".....'
13..".The.city.conducted a recreational beachlot survey.depicting
'existing'conditions of all beachlots as of June 4, 1981 in
.--preparation of the original beachlot ordinance. That survey
recorded the existence of a seasonal dock of 50 feet with a
ten foot perpendicular extension. At that particular time,
there was no boats moored at the dock, on the land or at
buoys.
·
· Mr. Roger Knutson
October 13, 1986
Page 3
Your interpretation is desired on the following issues:
1. Whether or not having an established homeowners association
continually maintaining a dock constitutes a "lawfully"
existing dock according to the ordinance.
2.. Given the conflicting evidence as to the number of boats
moored at the dock, is it the.correct interpretation, to state
that if "x" number of'boats existed prior to the effective
'- date of the ordinance of March 17, 1982, the number of boats
should not increase as the ordinance deems a recreational
beachlot as a non-conforming use not to be enlarged.
Secondly, what is your interpretation of the number of boats
existing prior to the effective date of the ordinance?
·
In reviewing City files, it was the intent of the city survey
to record what was occurring at existing beachlots. -A dock
did exist according to the survey; however, boats were not in
place at that time. Either they were not installed or were
in use. Would the survey act as a legal basis to verify the
existence of the dock/boats?
·
Is it correct that non-conforming or conforming docks should
be installed so that it should not prohibit access to adja-
cent properties or encroach upon "dock setback zones" of
adjacent properties?
~.~ry tr~y yours,
Barbara Dacy
\City Planner
BD:v
IT't OF
690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
November 10, 1986
.Mr. Robert Roy
3110 Dartmouth Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
Dear Mr. Roy=
·
o
Attached please find the response from our City Attorney's office
regarding the complaint at the Boyer's Estate Recreational
Beachlot. Also attached is my letter to him requesting his
interpretation of the items that were submitted to my attention.
Based on the Attorney's response, the following shall dictate the
use of the beachlot in the future=
1. lnstallation of one dock.
2. No more than two boats shall be moored at the dock.
3. Although legally not required to observe dock setback
zones, the dock shall be placed so as to not interfere
with adjacent property owners boat traffic.
Affected property owners are encouraged to work together to
comply with the above position. Should you have further
questions or wish to discuss the matter further, please feel free
to contact me.
BD:k
..
DAviD L. O~tAN~n - 1874-1961
DAviD I.. OZt~,NmS. J~,. - 1g10-1980
¥~NC~ B.
¥,wc~ B. Ge,wins.
P~,TZ~Cg A. 1~.~.
DAVID L G~au, mn,
Law Omc~
G Nzs, G NIS, & KNUTSON
~O~o~ ~~o~
~ Om~ ~x ~7
~3 No~ B~ Burma
161 No~ ~N~D
~ S~. P~ M~~ 55075
T~m4ON~: (612) 455-1661
October 31, 1986
(612) 4~-23~9
DAVID
M. C.K:mA ~y
F. LUOTT B.
Ms...Barbara Dacy, City Planner
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147, 690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Recreational Beachlot Complaint
Dear Barb:
Your letter of October 13th asked a series of questions
concerning whether or not the Boyer's are violating the Recreational
Beachlot Ordinance.
1. If the dock is designated on the June 1981 map referred
to in Section 6 of Ordinance 47AB, the dock is a legal non-conforming
dock and can continue to exist as provided in Section 7 of Ordinance
47AB.
2. Since the dock is non-conforming the number of boats
cannot exceed the number moored at the dock on the effective
date of the ordinance. A landowner does not have the right to
intensify a non-conforming use. Prior Lake Aggregators Inc. v.
City of Savage, 349 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. App. 1984).
3. It is difficult to sort out how many boats were moored
at the dock on the effective date of the ordinance in 1982. If
the only basis for the present owner's claim that three boats
were moored is the Emmett's purchase of the home and adding the
third boat, then the present owner is mistaken. The Emmett's
deed establishes that they did not move in until September 7,
1982. We could prosecute based upon the information we have if
more than two boats are moored at the dock. The prosecution would
not be easy, however, because the City would have to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that only two boats were moored at the dock
in 1982.
4. The ..City.'s survey is evidence of the existence of the
dock', It doesn't' have mUch, i'f any, significance on the nUmber
of boats using the dock. They could have been out on the water.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
0 t.986
GHANHASSEN PI, ANNING DEPT,
J
Ms. Barbara Dacy - Recreational Beachlot Complaint
October 31, 1986
PaGe Two
5. LeGal non-conforminG docks do not have to observe the
dock setback zone. The zoninG ordinance provides they can continue
at the same location.
If you have any additional questions or would like us to
take action, please let me know.
RNK:srn
Enclosures
Very truly yours,
N. Kn~C~on