PC Staff Report 5-19-09
PC DATE: May 19, 2009
OJ
CC DATE: June 8, 2009
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
REVIEW DEADLINE: June 16,2009
CASE #: 09-07
BY: TJ, SJ
PROPOSED ALTERNATE MOTIONS:
"The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny Planning Case 09-07 as
shown in plans dated received April 17, 2009, for a 46-foot variance request from the allowed 25-
foot crossbar for docks as outlined in the staff report, and adopt of the attached findings of fact
for denial."
~
-or-
"The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Planning Case 09-07 as
shown in plans dated received April 17 , 2009, for a 16- foot variance from the allowed 25- foot
crossbar for docks for the placement of two slips as outlined in the staff report subject to
conditions, and adopt of the attached findings of fact and recommendation."
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance from
Section 6-26(2)(c) of the Chanhassen City Code. This section ofthe code reads, "The crossbar
of any dock shall not measure in excess of 25 feet in length." The applicant has constructed the
frame for a dock that will measure 71 feet in length approximately parallel to the shoreline when
completed. The total variance requested is 46 feet.
LOCATION: 3301 Shore Drive - Tract I and Tract L of Registered Land Survey No.7
APPLICANT: Gary Bhojwani
3301 Shore Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING: Single-Family Residential (RSF)
2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density (1.2-4 units/acre)
ACREAGE: 3.89 Acres
LENGTH OF SHORELINE: 1,169 lineal feet
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the Boats and Waterways Ordinance for a variance. The
City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a
deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
Bhojwani Dock Variance
Planning Case 09-07
May 19, 2009
Page 2 of9
APPLICABLE REGUATIONS
This variance request is subject to Chapter 6.
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance for the construction ofa dock that measures 71
feet in length measured parallel to the shoreline. The city code allows a maximum length of25 feet
measured parallel to the shoreline.
The site is bordered by Lake Minnewashta on the south and east and is southeast of Cypress Drive.
The property is a riparian lot, with an area of 3 .89 acres, 1,169 feet of shoreline and is zoned
Residential Single Family (RSF).
Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request with an alternate motion for approval.
Bhojwani Dock Variance
Planning Case 09-07
May 19, 2009
Page 3 of9
BACKGROUND
The applicant purchased the property in 2007. At the
time, the site contained two docks with comparable
overall length and surface area to the dock proposed by
the applicant. Staff located aerial photographs that date
back to 1991 that showed two seasonal docks;
however, staff was unable to locate any form of
documentation permitting the two structures. City
Code allows one dock per lakeshore property. This is
an existing non-conforming use.
Construction on the new dock began in good faith. The
applicant's contractor reviewed city code and
concluded that construction of the dock did not require a city permit. The goal was to combine
the two seasonal docks with one permanent and comparable in size dock. The new location had
improved sight lines and eliminated the non-conformity of having two docks; however, the new
dock has dimensions that exceed the limits permitted by ordinance.
As construction began, staff received a complaint regarding a dock that was being constructed on
Lake Minnewashta. The caller was concerned with the size ofthe structure. Staff inspected the site
and found a dock with three slips. Staff determined that the dock exceeded the 25- foot crossbar
length limitation permitted by ordinance. Staff issued a Stop Work Order until a solution could be
reached. The applicant requested permission to complete the section of the dock that met ordinance
requirements. He entered into an agreement with the city enabling him to complete the first slip. It
was concluded that one slip is in compliance with City Code. The applicant had two choices; bring
the dock into compliance or apply for a variance. The applicant elected to apply for a variance.
Bhojwani Dock Variance
Planning Case 09-07
May 19, 2009
Page 40f9
Staff has received 22 emails and/or letters regarding the dock. They have been included for your
reVIew.
CITY CODE
The pertinent sections of the City Code dealing with variances read as follows:
Sec. 6-23. Variances.
(a) The city council may grant a variance from the dock requirements of this article where it
is shown that by reason of topography, soil conditions or other physical characteristics of
the lakeshore site, strict compliance with the dock requirements could cause an
exceptional or undue hardship to the enjoyment of the use of the lakeshore site; provided,
that a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect purpose and
intent of this chapter.
Sec. 20-58 (a) Undue hardship is addressed in Chapter 20 Section 58 (a).
That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of
the definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing
standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet these criteria.
ANALYSIS
Docks are regulated under Chapter 6 ofthe City Code. The following constitute staffs findings of
the applicant's request.
Chapter 6, Article II Structures
Section 6-24. Location Restrictions Request
No dock, mooring or other structure shall be so
located as to:
(1) Obstruct the navigation of any lake; When the applicant was considering where
to locate the dock, it was decided that it
should not be placed at the previous
location as other neighbors had expressed
concern that the dock was difficult to see
due to poor sight lines created by the shape
of the shoreline and existing vegetation.
The current placement should not pose any
obstruction to normal boat traffic on the
lake.
Bhojwani Dock Variance
Planning Case 09-07
May 19, 2009
Page 5 of9
Section 6-24. Location Restrictions Request
(2) Obstruct reasonable use or access to any other The applicant has 1,169 feet of shoreline.
dock, mooring or other structure authorized The current dock location is at least 540
under this chapter; feet from any adjoining property.
(3) Present a potential safety hazard; or The applicant selected this placement with
the input of their neighbors. The neighbor
indicated that the placement of the
previous owner's dock was difficult to see
and posed a potential hazard when water
skiing.
(4) Be detrimental to significant fish and wildlife The applicant considered the location of
habitat or protected vegetation. the wetland north of the current location
when selecting the dock placement. This
current placement was selected to avoid
impacts to the wetland.
Section 6-26 regulates dimensions, number of docks, etc. The following is staffs findings:
Section 6-26. Docks.
No more than one dock shall be
permitted on any lakeshore site.
No dock shall exceed six feet in
width and no dock shall exceed
the greater of the following
lengths:
(1) 50 feet; or
(2) The minimum straight-line
distance necessary to reach
a water depth of four feet.
Request
When the applicant purchased the property in April of 2007
there were two docks located on the property (see attached
historical aerial photographs). The applicant is removing this
non-conforming use by consolidating these two docks into
one dock. This action eliminated the nonconformity of having
two docks, however, has created a structure that exceeds
maximum crossbar length requirements.
The dock extends fifty (50) feet from the shore line. The
applicant stated that he chose this location for several reasons,
one of which being that a shorter dock could be used to reach
deeper water.
Bhojwani Dock Variance
Planning Case 09-07
May 19, 2009
Page 60f9
Section 6-26. Docks.
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 25 feet in
length. No dock shall encroach
upon any dock setback zone;
provided, however, that the
owners of any two abutting
lakeshore sites may erect one
common dock within the dock
setback zone appurtenant to the
abutting lakeshore sites, if the
dock is the only dock on the two
lakeshore sites and if the dock
otherwise conforms with the
provisions of this chapter.
No person shall store fuel upon
any dock.
No oscillating, rotating, flashing
or moving sign or light may be
used on any dock.
No advertising signs shall be
displayed from any dock.
Access across wetlands shall be
subject to the standards set forth
in section 20-405. Docks shall
be elevated a minimum of six to
eight inches above the ordinary
high water elevation.
Re uest
The crossbar extends 54 feet north from the main dock and a
swimming platform extends 12 feet south of the main dock.
Combined with the dock width of five (5) feet, the total length
ofthe crossbar is 71 feet. This has necessitated the variance
request.
I 50' I
r-13'~5'1 32' I
T
5'
l
13'
1
5'
l
13' ......
~
1
l
13'
1
5'
t
12'
1
.. S'-I
The applicant has 1,169 feet of shoreline and the dock is
located approximately central on the property. There is no
encroachment into the dock setback zone.
The applicant has no intention of storing fuel on the dock.
The applicant has no intention of using a light with any ofthe
prohibited characteristics.
The applicant has no intention of displaying any
advertisement signs on the dock.
The applicant selected the dock location for a variety of
reasons. In addition the length needed to reach a suitable
water depth, the applicant elected this location to avoid
impacts to the preserve wetland located north of the current
dock location. The dock will meet the minimum height
requirements.
Bhojwani Dock Variance
Planning Case 09-07
May 19, 2009
Page 70f9
MISCELLANEOUS
As much as 18 feet of the pilings are buried below the lake bottom. This requires special equipment
for installation or removal. This equipment is a wheeled vehicle which needs to be driven on the
frozen surface of the lake. Due to this fact, the pilings will not be removed until there are safe ice
conditions on the lake. This fact should be considered when rendering a decision on this issue.
Corrections will not occur prior to such a time when travel on the lake is safe.
VARIANCE
Sec. 6-23. (a) Variances.
By reason of topography, soil conditions or other physical characteristics of the lakeshore
site, strict compliance with the dock requirements could cause an exceptional or undue
hardship to the enjoyment of the use of the lakeshore site; provided, that a variance may be
granted only if the variance does not adversely affect purpose and intent of this chapter.
Finding: There are no physical characteristics of the site that would preclude compliance
with the City Code requirements.
Sec. 20-58 (a) Undue Hardship
That the literal enforcement ofthis chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes ofthe
definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing
standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet these criteria.
Finding: There are nine single-family residential properties with lake frontage within 500
feet ofthe applicant's residence. These properties have lake frontage ranging from 85 to 140
feet. All of these properties maintain temporary docks and can, by code, moor up to three
boats overnight. None ofthese properties have a crossbar on any dock in excess of25 feet as
allowed by code.
Given City Code indicates that three boats may be moored overnight, staff concludes that
this, coupled with access to the lake, are reasonable uses. The applicant could store three
boats without building three individual slips thereby reducing, if not eliminating, the variance
requested. The applicant has indicated that the two lifts he has purchased are designed such
that they need to be mounted on the pilings rather than resting on the lake bottom. Even
allowing for the two lifts, the applicant could eliminate the third slip and the swimming
platform and still have reasonable use of the lake - even allowing overnight dockage of all
three watercraft he owns. The third watercraft would not be enclosed within a slip but rather
Bhojwani Dock Variance
Planning Case 09-07
May 19, 2009
Page 80f9
would have to be docked alongside the main dock. This configuration would require a
crossbar 41 feet in length and a variance of 16 feet from the allowed 25-foot crossbar.
RECOMMENDATION
"The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny Planning Case 09-07 as shown
in plans dated received April 17, 2009, for a 46-foot variance request from the allowed 25-foot
crossbar for docks as outlined in the staff report, and adopt the attached findings of facts for
denial. "
Should the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of this request, staff
recommends the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Planning Case 09-07 for a
16- foot variance to the length of a crossbar as shown in plans dated received April 17 , 2009, and
adopt the attached findings of fact for approval with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall remove the most northerly slip resulting in two slips.
2. The applicant shall remove the platform.
3. The final configuration shall comply with the configuration shown below.
4. The overall length ofthe crossbar shall not exceed 41 feet.
...
5'
r
13'
1
,.41'
13'
1
5'
.L
r-13'--+5'1
32'
I
60'
Bhojwani Dock Variance
Planning Case 09-07
May 19, 2009
Page 90f9
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact Alternate A (Denial).
2. Findings of Fact Alternate B (Approval).
3. Application.
4. Emails and letters from property owners.
5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing.
6. Survey dated received April 17, 2009.
g:\plan\2009 plamring cases\09-07 bhojwani dock variance\staff report final.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
AL TERNA TE A
INRE:
Application of Gary Bhojwani for an after-the-fact variance for the purpose of constructing a
dock with a 71-foot long crossbar - Planning Case 09-07.
On May 19,2009, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting
to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard
testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential (RSF).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential- Low
Density (1.2 - 4.0 units per net acre) uses.
3. The legal description of the property is Tracts I & L, Registered Land Survey No.7.
4. Variance Findings - Section 6-23 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a dock variance:
a. By reason of topography, soil conditions or other physical characteristics of the lakeshore
site, strict compliance with the dock requirements could cause an exceptional or undue
hardship to the enjoyment of the use of the lakeshore site; provided, that a variance may
be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect purpose and intent of this
chapter.
Finding: There are no physical characteristics of the site that would preclude
compliance with the City Code requirements.
b. Undue hardship is defined in Section 20-58 of the City Code to mean that the literal
enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the definition
of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable
property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of
variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist.
Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from
them meet these criteria.
1
Finding: There are nine single-family residential properties with lake frontage within
500 feet of the applicant's residence. These properties have lake frontage ranging from
85 to 140 feet. All of these properties maintain temporary docks and can, by code, moor
up to three boats overnight. None of these properties have a crossbar on any dock in
excess of 25 feet as allowed by code.
Given City Code indicates that three boats may be moored overnight, staff concludes that
this, coupled with access to the lake, are reasonable uses. The applicant could store three
boats without building three individual slips, thereby reducing, if not eliminating, the
variance requested. The applicant has indicated that the two lifts he has purchased are
designed such that they need to be mounted on the pilings rather than resting on the lake
bottom. Even allowing for the two lifts, the applicant could eliminate the third slip and
the swimming platform and still have reasonable use of the lake - even allowing
overnight dockage of all three watercraft he owns. The third watercraft would not be
enclosed within a slip but rather would have to be docked alongside the main dock. This
configuration would require a crossbar 41 feet in length and a variance of 16 feet from
the allowed 25-foot crossbar.
5. The planning report #09-07, dated May 19,2009, prepared by Terry Jeffery, et aI, is
incorporated herein.
RECOMlVIENDA TION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny Planning Case 09-07
as shown in plans dated received April 17, 2009, for a 46- foot variance request from the allowed 25-
foot crossbar for docks.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 19th day of May, 2009.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chairman
2
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND IIENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
ALTERNATE B
INRE:
Application of Gary Bhojwani for an after-the-fact variance for the purpose of constructing a
dock with a 71-foot long crossbar - Planning Case 09-07.
On May 19,2009, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting
to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard
testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential (RSF).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential - Low
Density (1.2 - 4.0 units per net acre) uses.
3. The legal description of the property is Tracts I & L, Registered Land Survey No.7.
4. Variance Findings - Section 6-23 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a dock variance:
a. By reason of topography, soil conditions or other physical characteristics of the lakeshore
site, strict compliance with the dock requirements could cause an exceptional or undue
hardship to the enjoyment of the use of the lakeshore site; provided, that a variance may
be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect purpose and intent of this
chapter.
Finding: There are no physical characteristics of the site that would preclude
compliance with the City Code requirements.
b. Undue hardship is defined in Section 20-58 of the City Code to mean that the literal
enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the definition
of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable
property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of
variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist.
Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from
them meet these criteria.
1
Finding: There are nine single-family residential properties with lake frontage within
500 feet of the applicant's residence. These properties have lake frontage ranging from
85 to 140 feet. All of these properties maintain temporary docks and can, by code, moor
up to three boats overnight. None of these properties have a crossbar on any dock in
excess of 25 feet as allowed by code.
Given City Code indicates that three boats may be moored overnight, staff concludes that
this, coupled with access to the lake, are reasonable uses. The applicant could store three
boats without building three individual slips, thereby reducing, if not eliminating, the
variance requested. The applicant has indicated that the two lifts he has purchased are
designed such that they need to be mounted on the pilings rather than resting on the lake
bottom. Even allowing for the two lifts, the applicant could eliminate the third slip and
the swimming platform and still have reasonable use of the lake - even allowing
overnight dockage of all three watercraft he owns. The third watercraft would not be
enclosed within a slip but rather would have to be docked alongside the main dock. This
configuration would require a crossbar 41 feet in length and a variance of 16 feet from
the allowed 25-foot crossbar.
5. The planning report #09-07, dated May 19,2009, prepared by Terry Jeffery, et aI, is
incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDA TION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Planning Case 09-
07 as shown in plans dated received April 17, 2009, for a 16-foot variance request from the allowed
25-foot crossbar for docks with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall remove the most northerly slip resulting in two slips.
2. The applicant shall remove the platform.
3. The final configuration shall comply with the configuration shown below.
4. The overall length of the crossbar shall not exceed 41 feet.
...
5'
l
13'
1
l41'
13'
1
5'
...
1--13' -+5'1
32'
I
50'
2
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 19th day of May, 2009.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chairman
3
GARY C. BHOJWANI
3301 Shore Drive. Excelsior, MN 55331-7815 . 952.474.4995
gbhojwani@msn.com
April 17,2009
VIA COURIER
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
c/o Mr. Terry Jeffery
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
Re: Bhojwani Dock Variance Request
APR 1 7 2009
Dear Chairperson and Members:
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
1 attach herewith the following documents in pursuit of our variance request:
1) A $450 check payable to the City
a) $200 for the variance;
b) $50 for the recording fees;
c) $200 (refundable) for the notification signs;
d) 1 understand that 1 will also owe $3 per recipient for the required mailing notification. Once the
final list of recipients is determined, please let me know how much we owe; and
e) Please let me know if there are other fees 1 may have missed.
2) The completed development review application f1 pae:e). Some of the sections did not seem relevant,
bu t please let me know if 1 missed something.
3) A plot plan (1 pae:e) showing our property lines, etc. (I received same from the City.) 1 have hand-
drawn the approximate location of the dock on the plot plan; that notation is obviously not to scale.
4) A drawing showing the total dimensions of the dock itself (1 pae:e).
5) A written summary of the responses to Questions 5 and 6a. - 6f. (3 pae:es) from the page entitled
"City of Chanhassen - Variances".
6) A letter from the contractor (3 pae:es) containing various details and a schematic of the dock.
7) A letter and a legal citation from our attornev (12 pae:es).
The instructions requested 16 copies and some type of electronic format. 1 understand that those
requirements are relevant for more substantive requests (ie, subdivisions). If 1 have misunderstood
and you need me to also satisfy those requirements, please do let me know. The best way to reach me
is on my cell phone (612.345.0930). 1 may also be reached during business hours at: 763.765.6707,
via facsimile at 763.582.6102, or via e-mail atGary.Bhojwani@allianzlife.com.
Thank you for your time.
S~.U1cer : _ u
~.
Gary C. Bhojwani
r
/GCB
Attachments
DOCK_Cover Letter_0417.doc
Planning Case No. 09 ~ 07
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APR 172009
PLEASE PRINT
Applicant Name and Address:
G~ry c. Rhojwani
3301 Shore Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
Contact:
Phone: 8i2 345-0930 Fax:
Email: gary.bhojwani@allianzlife.com
Owner Name and Address':
Gary c. Rhojwani
3301 Shore Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
Contact:
Phone: 612 345-0930 Fax:
Email: gary.bho;wani@allianzlife.com
, '.J!.;;r
NOTE: Consultation with City staff is reauired prior to submittal, including review of development
p~ns ,
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAG)
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
x
Variance (VAR) f).-oo
Non-conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
Planned Unit Development*
Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
X Notification Sign - $200
(City to install and remove)
Site Plan Review (SPR)*
x ~{'V for Filing Fe~~orney Cost**
.1..$5O-CUP/SPRNA~AP/Metes & Bounds
- $450 Minor SUB
. _ CCJ
TOTALFEE$ttsO- c.t--#:: -:::5009
Subdivision*
An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant
prior to the public hearing.
*Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11"
reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a diaital COpy in TIFF-Group 4 (*.tif) format.
**Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for
each application.
PROJECT NAME:
Bhojwani Dock
LOCATION:
3301 Shore Drive. Excelsior. MN 55331
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID:
/I 9 <;r. 7""""<10
2.'5"-~/bc090
TOTAL ACREAGE: ~
WETLANDS PRESENT:
x
YES
NO
PRESENT ZONING:
RSF
REQUESTED ZONING:
N/A
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Residential
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:. N / A
REASON FOR REQUEST: To allow completion of a permanent dock that is 7' Feet
wide (vs. 25 Feet wide)
FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: N / A
and new employees: N/ A
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
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 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 request. 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.
Signature of Fee Ow
,l" ~r
Date
'fIb lor
Date
G:\PLAN\Fonns\Development Review Application.DOC
Rev. 1/08
I 'i~.o"
, ~ig h<m~
~~g~ i!~i~ii
f ~:~~ .i~!:if-
.-: Ii E~:~ R~iH;i
~ H 'I ~~~ di~ii
~ ~ Ii! !i j~
~---' .~
~;\U\6iIIl6\OIO\RJe&IIIQ _ Dtc 2 I):Ql:oo 1_
9lJhf'I(ClFlJIEAI~-:1
~ ~i'
I l~
fl
'" f~
I i~
z
V>
-.
I
I ~~
d
~
"v>S <:>
.e,V -
~ ?,,,",, '
?~YJ ...:;~~
.J;;:IalQ'!al!o'iC6C:;:O;:~-
HHHHf~~~~~ 0 '5'U~~22~~~1~"> ·
;~iim;~!m!!!~nnmmffif.i.iii iT mil ;
.~ ....}..ii,..."I'lrl'n ii aa I.<="
In~" ll"Jtt9J';: n1llfi!UW 1. ~ .wn
!l' ~ ~ 01. ~~ l,~ I f "~i;
I _ ". I a ";' .
.. . 1 'f.g
. . h:ia~.
~. H "
~ i l 0 ~d!.f
N ~ ~ t '[a
~ t l ~.1
. I ' "[
'I !;. ~ ~I~
. 2. II"
~,~~~
s:
^
Irrl
13::
1-
.Z
jZ
jrrl
!:E
I)>
\(J)
I
);!
~
-.-
I
~ -~I~
~I i ~ g
!j I! F
8 ~..
- / i~~
~; i ~ ~ ~
f ~ ~~ ~~
~ : ~Z
!">
^
-<
r
f'TI
I
I c ~
2 ~
I -l
lI:>
I 1J ~i;~i;: Ii
)> s~ ,^
:;u
-l ~m 1>
2 Is~~q
1'8-l I ~
I f'TI If~H f ~ ,'?'
:;u
y> ,(ho (,
Ii J' f
i Z ,[ . ,^
I 0 !i is I
Ii i1 ~ -...."'I\:r:
t! f [i
i-J. .i
~
U
r
.
~
I ~
"tl
~
<...
",
~
z
9
en
~
co
en
I
~
o
o
I
)>
2
I
)>
(f)
(f)
f'TI
~
;::
Z
Z
fTI
(f)
o
~
LAKE
MINNEWASHTA
O{n
0-1
;"0-<
.'
~
.
~.. ~ ~ ---=
?
l'
~
~ ,,-..:'"
I ~~ I * l!I
!.:.~
II III
~
g ~
: ~ ~
:r: 8
)>
:z:
J; l>
~ -0
m :::0
:z:
;::g /-o=l
5f ~
~ I'V
:z: C)
;; C)
m t.D
--0
-s
o
=i
-<
:00
mTl
00
mI
-)>
<2
mI
0)>
(f)
(J)
m
z
,,~
~~
~
d-R
(9.'
AI \ (.JO./ l<~,6 ~t
'3 32..' ~,,~!>
P\~'\ tJ\ ~'''' 12.'
GO:<tf \\\.\0 jW"f\\
~et""'t '^e ~ boc:A
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
APR 1 7 2009
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
IE'-s' ~
K
,Sf('
Sb'
1
5) WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF VARANCE REQUEST:
This is a variance request to allow completion of construction for a dock on the shoreline
of 3301 Shore Drive. (Construction of the proposed dock has already commenced. All
support pilings were installed during the winter.). Although it complies with all DNR
standards and the City's standard for length, the dock deviates from the maximum
width standards of the City of Chanhassen (71 feet vs. 25 feet).
6) WRITTEN JUSTIFICATIONS BASED ON STIPULATED CRITERIA:
a) The literal enforcement of this chapter would ca:use undue hardship.
i) TRUE.
ii) When considered with the scale of the property, a dock of this size is proportional
in scale, a long distance from any neighbor, and allows us to enjoy reasonable use
of the property's extensive lakeshore.
iii) We purchased this home in 2007. The prior owner kept two unconnected
seasonal docks on the property which are of a size comparable to the current
permanent dock and which were configured in a manner that included a swim
platform/ seating area. Those seasonal docks were included in the 2007 purchase
of the home and were actually "in the water" before we physically moved into the
home in May, 2007. We understand that the prior homeowner maintained this
dual dock configuration for many years prior to our possession of the property
and we have continued to use the docks in the two years during which we have
owned the property. We never received a complaint from any neighbor and had
no reason to believe we were in violation of any ordinance.
iv) The new permanent dock has 3 connected boat slips. We already own 3 boats. (If
we are required to reduce or remove the permanent dock, what should be done
with the boats that are already owned?)
v) Removal or reduction of the current dock plans would result in significant and
unrecoverable expense ($75,000+) for the homeowner and the contractor.
b) There are unique conditions on our property that are not present on other
properties within the same zoning classification.
i) TRUE.
ii) The subject property is extremely unique. We believe that there are no other
privately owned properties of similar scale and shape in the City of Chanhassen.
This property consists of:
(1) Over 4 acres; and
(2) A peninsula with over 1260 feet of shoreline. (Presently we maintain
approximately 90% of the shoreline in a natural state, unburdened by docks,
piers, or other improvements. In effect, 90% of our shoreline is already
dedicated to preserving local wildlife, wetlands, cat-tails, etc.)
c) The purpose of the variance is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land.
i) TRUE.
ii) The variance is based upon a desire to allow us to maintain past levels of use
along the shoreline and to have a centralized location for our watercraft (versus 2
unconnected docks). We have been good neighbors in the past and intend to
continue being good neighbors. We seek only to enjoy our property in a way that
is commensurate to the scale of the land and length and character of the
shoreline we own.
d) Is the alleged difficulty or hardship self created?
i) The hardship stems primarily from the unique character of the property.
However, the hardship has been made more severe and more immediate as a
result of a legitimate and unintentional misunderstanding.
(1) The contractor sought and received guidance from the City of Chanhassen in
March, 2008 that he may proceed with construction of such a dock. Based on
this advice to the contractor, we paid a deposit in 2008 of 1/3rd the total cost
($25,000).
(2) The commencement of actual construction of the dock began in January,
2009, at which time we paid the next installment to the contractor.
(3) The Minnetonka-based contractor (Tom Niccum of Minnetonka Portable
Dredging) is well known in this field and has long experience constructing
other such docks in the area. This design and construction is in compliance
with the regulations of the DNR, which the contractor thought was the sole
governing entity over the construction specifications.
(4) We relied in good faith on the reputation, expertise and experience of the
contractor in moving forward with this significant expense.
ii) The language in the subject provisions of the city code now being invoked by the
City of Chanhassen is not clear. That lack of clarity, combined with the March,
2008 guidance received by the contractor from City personnel, furthered our
contractor's belief that the dock could be constructed without a permit from the
City of Chanhassen so long as it was in compliance with DNR standards (which it
is). Please see also the attached letters from our attorney and contractor.
e) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the
parcel is located.
i) TRUE.
ii) The proposed dock is located more than 600 feet from our nearest neighbor.
iii) Construction of a permanent dock allowing for the docking of 3 boats is
commensurate with the scale of both the home and considerable shoreline of the
property (over 4 acres and 1260 feet).
iv) Boating will not be impeded by this dock. The proposed dock does not extend
beyond the permissible 50 feet into the lake. (The width of the dock, not the
length, is what is at dispute.) Furthermore, the proposed dock has been located
on a portion of the peninsula and at a proximity to the shoreline that would not
otherwise allow for regular boating.
v) Fishing and wildlife will not be impeded by this dock. We have already dedicated
approximately 90% (over 1,000 feet) <?f our shoreline to the preservation of local
wildlife, wetlands, cat-tails, etc.
f) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets
or increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially
diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
i) TRUE.
We submit this Application without prejudice to the rights we have under Minnesota law as
owners of the property. Mr. Tom Niccum (our contractor) has prepared a briefletter in
support of this Application. We have asked our Attorney, Mr. Peter W. Johnson, to review
the background facts, the wording of your ordinances, and the legal effect of the "Stop Work
Order" that was issued. He has prepared an opinion letter which is also submitted
herewith. We ask that the letters from Tom Niccum and Peter Johnson be considered by
you in your deliberations and that they are made a part of the record in this proceeding.
Apr 17 09 09:34a
p. 1
Minnetonka Portable Dredging, Inc.
50 West Lake Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
(952) 474-9454
April 16, 2009
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Permanent dock being constructed by Gary and Kelli Bhojwani
at 3301 Shore Drive in Chanhassen
Dear Chairperson and Members:
I am President of Minnetonka Portable Dredging. Our company was hired to construct a
permanent dock for the Bhojwanis on their property at 3301 Shore Drive in Chanhassen.
Attached is a schematic drawing of thedocl< configuration I prepared showing the proposed
configuration for the dock. The dock is designed to be 50 ft in length and is five feet wide over
most of its length. The swim platform is 8 feet wide and 12 feet long. The dock has three slips
each having an interior measurement of 13 ft x 32 ft. The dock layout would not generally be
considered or referred to as an "L or T shaped dock".
I spoke to Chanhassen City staff about the project in the spring of 2008. I intended to buy
materials for the project even before the design had been finalized. I described the type of dock
to a planning staff person in very general terms. After that conversation, I was left with the
impression that Chanhassen ordinances would allow construction of the planned dock. Near
the end 0'2008, a specific plan for the dock was agreed to with the Bhojwanis. I then reviewed
the Chanhassen ordinances before starting construction of the dock. Based on my review, I
concluded that construction of the docK did not require a city permit.
We did not intend to violate Chanhassen's ordinances. When construction was commenced, I
believed that the only applicable restriction on dock width were the setbaCks from the property
boundaries abutting other property owners and length was restricted to SO feet.
Minnetonka Portable Dredging began constructing the dock from the lake ice in January of
2009. Neither Minnetonka Portable Dredging nor the Bhojwanis received any objection from the
City until all machine driven piles had been installed for the complete dock layout. In mid March
city staff contacted me and requested that I submit a permit application to the City. After we
complied with that request. the city staff visited the site and issued the Stop Work Order.
I met with Sharmeen AI Jaff and Terry Jeffrey on or about MarCh 23, 2009. r explained that
without the structural strength provided by bracing and decking, the unsupported piles would
Apr 17 09 09:34a
p.2
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning Commission
April 16, 2009
Page 2
likely be damaged by wind-blown ice. I requested permission to complete the bracing and
decking. That request was denied. I then requested permission to put bracing and dec~ing on
the portion of the dock that city staff acknowledged did not require a city permit. . Staff confirmed
that the request seemed reasonable but indicated they could not withdraw any aspect of the
Stop Work Order without first confirming their authority to do so. The city staff agreed to
promptly respond to my request.
It was not until April 6, that I finally received a response from the City. Unfortunately, while I
honored the City's Stop Work Order and waited for permission to continue construction, shifting
ice caused significant damage to several of the unsupported piles.
The language in the city ordinance (6-26(c)) restricts crOss-bars to 25 feet of width only on "T
and L shaped docks" and then provides that the dock may not encroach into the dock setback
zone defined as a buffer ~one between abutting properties along the shoreline. Other dock
regulators in the area (such as the DNR or the LMCO) regulate the width of docks solely or
primarily in reference to "side-yard setbacks" (i.e. setbacks from abutting lakeshore properties).
As the ordinance is written. both experienced /akeshore property owners and professionals in
the trade would likely interpret the ordinance just as I did. Most such readers of your ordinance
would not conclude that the language restricting the length of the cross-bar on a WT or l shaped
dock" was intended to limit the width of all docks, regardless of configuration,
City staff has argued that Section 6-26(c) is clarified by the Definitions found at Ordinance
Section 1-2. But "cross-bar" and "dock cross-bat" are defined to apply only on "l shaped and T
shaped docks". The terms "T shaped dock" and "L shaped dock" are not defined by the
ordinance. There is no restriction in the ordinance on overall width of dock structures that
applies to all docks regardless of configuration.
Our company has been engaged in business locally for many years. We proceeded with
construction in good faith. The Bhojwanis' dock is comparable to many of the docks we've
constructed for residential property owners over the years. Demolition and removal of the dock
will not benefit any abutting owner or any public interest. I request that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the variance requested by the Bhojwanis. Thank you,
60.'( ~ho Jwo.f\\
c
AI \ Wo.lk~6 .r'
'3 32..' ~\I~.s
P\~~'\ f'J\ ~ I 'f.. 12..'
~et~~ '^e ~ tJo~
.~-', ZQ
c:-'
227
/0
P
zirt
I?- S'..,j
I
~\
1
PETER W. JOHNSON
ATTORNEY AT LAW
This address by appointment only:
2305 COMMERCE BOULEY ARD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
Please direct all correspondence/inquiries to:
15250 W AYZAT A BOULEY ARD, SUITE 103
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391
TELEPHONE (952) 475-1907
FACSIMILE (952) 476-0007
EMAIL -PETERJ@PETERWJOHNSON.COM
DIRECT DIAL: (952) 475-1907
CELLULAR: (612) 741-1907
April 16, 2009
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Permanent dock being constructed by Gary and Kelli Bhojwani
at 3301 Shore Drive in Chanhassen
Dear Chairperson and Members:
I represent Gary and Kelli Bhojwani concerning their application for a variance allowing them to
complete construction of a permanent dock being constructed by Minnetonka Portable Dredging
on their property at 3301 Shore Drive. I also represent Minnetonka Portable Dredging.
This letter is submitted as a supplement to the Bhojwanis' Variance Application and will discuss
the legal principles that should inform the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City
Council.
The important background facts are detailed in a separate letter from Tom Niccum of
Minnetonka Portable Dredging. Most importantly, Mr. Niccum reviewed the Chanhassen
ordinances before commencing construction of the dock and he concluded in good faith that
construction of the dock did not require a city permit.
The dock is designed to be 50 ft in length and is five feet wide over most of its length. The swim
platform is 8 feet wide and 12 feet long. The dock has three slips each having an interior
measurement of 13 ft x 32 ft. Its total width is 71 feet.
All of the piling had been installed before either the Bhojwanis or Minnetonka Portable Dredging
were contacted by the City. Both the Bhojwanis and Minnetonka Portable Dredging have
cooperated with the City and have honored the Stop Work Order that was issued on site. They
did so notwithstanding the risks posed by the shifting lake ice. While awaiting a response to Mr.
Niccum's request that the Stop Work Order be amended to allow necessary bracing and
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning Commission
April 16, 2009
Page 2
decking, the dock was damaged by shifting lake ice during the spring thaw.
The variance requested by the Bhojwanis is supported by a very real hardship that is not of their
creation. They purchased their home two years ago and during their ownership they continued
to use two seasonal docks that had been in use by the previous owner, apparently without
complaint. The seasonal docks that were on the Bhojwani property during prior years had little
or no little impact on abutting property owners because the docks were located at a
considerable distance from the common property lines. The new dock is even more isolated
from abutting properties.
The scientific literature has established that some environmental consequences are associated
with the use of docks and piers on our northern lakes. A bibliography of reviewed materials can
be made available on request. According to the literature, the impact of the "shadow" cast by a
typical dock has the affect of diminishing "aquatic plant abundance" resulting in a loss of
macrophyte habitat directly under the pier. Environmentalists are rightly concerned that
allowing uncontrolled proliferation of residential docks along a section of shoreline might cause
unanticipated consequences. The main concern voiced in the scientific literature is directed at .
uncontrolled proliferation and density of adjacent dock uses overall. I found no consensus on
what concentration of docking structures would result in a measurable environmental impact.
Importantly, I have found no studies in the literature showing a detrimental environmental impact
from a single dock in a location separated from other structures.
There is no consensus on how to reduce the expected impact from a concentrated proliferation
of docks. Shorter docks will bring power boats closer to shore, causing disruption of bottom
sediments. Boats stored in the water cast more of a shadow on the bottom and cause more
disruption of plant growth patterns compared to boats stored on a lift. The shadow cast by an
elevated docks has less impact than a dock constructed just above the waterline. Even the
environmental community seems to acknowledge that an isolated docks or pier are a relatively
benign human activity. That said,. applying the City's 25 foot dock width limitation to all
residential property, regardless of scale or lineal feet of shoreline imposes an unreasonable
burden on a property owner with 1260 feet of shoreline and may actually over time result in land
uses which are detrimental to the environment. If a property owner can't use more than 25 feet
of shoreline for docking there will be increased development pressure to split or divide larger
riparian parcels. Chanhassen's interest in limiting the proliferation will be well served by
granting the Bhojwanis the requested variance.
The City's ability to use and enforce a "one size fits all" regulation is an efficient and reasonable
approach to regulation only if exceptions are allowed for unique circumstances which allows
exceptions to avoid undue hardship. The Bhojwanis have requested that they be allowed to
use 71 lineal feet of shoreline for docking purposes. The remaining 1189 lineal feet of their
shoreline will continue to provide an unburdened natural habitat for aquatic animals and plants.
ANALYSIS
The Bhojwanis' property consists of almost 3.9 acres and has more than 1,000 lineal feet of
shoreline on Minnewashta Lake. The partially constructed dock is located along the eastern
shore at a substantial distance from either of the two properties which adjoin the Bhojwani's
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning Commission
April 16, 2009
Page 3
property. At that point in the shoreline, the water depth accommodates a shorter dock and
ensures that any activities at the dock are buffered from abutting property owners by almost 500
feet of unused shoreline in either direction. (In fact, because the property is a peninsula and the
dock is located on the east side, the dock is not even visible to the neighbors that live to the
Bhojwanis west side. As for the neighbors that live to the east of the Bhojwanis, there is at least
300 feet of shoreline between the dock and the eastern-most border of the Bhojwanis property
line. In addition, there is a plot of open land between where the Bhojwanis eastern-most
property line ends and the east neighbor's property begins. The net effect is that there is
approximately 500 feet of shoreline between either edge of the dock and the Bhojwanis nearest
neighbor to either side.)
The relevant provisions of the Chanhassen Ordinances are Sections 6-4 and 6-26. Section 6-
4(a) provides that no permit is required for any dock that is erected or maintained in compliance
with the other provisions of chapter 6. Section 6-26 provides in relevant part:
"(a) No more than one dock shall be permitted on any lakeshore site.
(b) No dock shall exceed six feet in width and no dock shall exceed the
greater of the following lengths:
(1) 50 feet; or
(2) The minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water
depth of four feet.
(c) 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 25 feet
in length. No dock shall encroach upon any dock setback zone; provided,
however, that the owners of any two abutting lakeshore sites may erect one
common dock within the dock setback zone appurtenant to the abutting
lakeshore sites, if the dock is the only dock on the two lakeshore sites and if the
dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this chapter."
THE STATUTE IS IMPERMISSIBLY VAGUE AS ENFORCED
The ordinance text is poorly drafted, particularly given the interpretation claimed by city staff.
The ordinance includes no clear language limiting the complete or overall width of any or all
docks. To support the city's interpretation, the ordinance should include clear language that
putting the public on notice that no dock shall be more than 25 feet wide. In contrast, the
language in the city ordinance restricts cross bars to 25 feet of width on only on 'T and L
shaped docks" and then provides that the dock may not encroach into the dock setback zone
defined as a buffer zone between abutting properties along the shoreline. Under Minnesota
law, an ordinance is interpreted to give the words used their "common and well understood
meaning". Few people with experience in selling, designing or installing docks would
understand the language of the ordinance to prohibit construction of the dock designed (and
partially constructed) for the Bhojwanis by Minnetonka Portable Dredging.
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning Commission
April 16, 2009
Page 4
It is highly relevant that other dock regulators in the area regulate the width of docks solely or
primarily in reference to "side-yard setbacks" (Le. setbacks from abutting lakeshore properties).
As drawn, both experienced lakeshore property owners and professionals in the trade would
likely interpret the ordinance just as Tom Niccum did. Most such readers would not conclude
that the language restricting the length of the cross-bar on a T or L shaped dock was intended
to limit the width of all docks, regardless of configuration.
City staff has argued that Section 6-26(c) is clarified by the Definitions found at Ordinance
Section 1-2. The relevant sub-sections read as follows:
"Cross-bar means that portion of any L shaped or T shaped dock which is
approximately parallel in alignment to the adjoining shoreline or ordinary high
water mark. See Dock Cross-bar. (6)
Dock cross-bar means that portion of any "L" shaped or "T" shaped dock which is
approximately parallel in alignment to the adjoining shoreline or ordinary high water
mark. See Cross bar. (20)"
These sections do not add clarity. The terms "cross-bar" and "dock cross-bar" are both
expressly defined to apply only on L shaped and T shaped docks. The terms "T shaped dock"
and "L shaped dock" are not defined by the ordinance. There is no restriction in the ordinance
on overall width of dock structures that applies to all docks regardless of configuration.
The City of Chanhassen is obligated to enforce its ordinances in a reasonable manner. An
ordinance that mandates a permit for construction must be especially clear. The City has no
right to order a valuable improvement to real property demolished based upon an ordinance that
doesn't put the public on notice that a permit for the construction was required. Similarly, a city
has no right to order construction stopped at an arbitrary point during construction when doing
so exposes the improvement to known hazards.
Whether an ordinance is sufficiently clear is considered in the context of the specific fact
situation presented. So while the Chanhassen ordinance may be sufficiently clear for a property
owner who intends to construct an L shaped dock, it is impermissibly vague for a property
owner constructing a dock with multiple dock slips on a parcel with extensive shoreline and no
encroachments into the setback zones. I'm confident that our courts would find the regulation
unconstitutional as is now being applied to the Bhojwani dock.
According to Geraen. et. a/. vs City of Mantorville, A05-1717, Ct. of App. Published (2009) there
are three primary rules of construction that govern the interpretation of a city ordinance. First,
ordinances are given their plain and ordinary meaning. Frank's Nurserv Sales. Inc., 295 N.W.2d
at 608. Second, ordinances should be construed strictly against a municipality and in favor of a
landowner. Id. at 608-09. Third, ordinances must be considered in light of their underlying
policy goals. Id. at 609. The Court added that "rules that govern the construction of statutes are
applicable to the construction of ordinances." citing Smith v. Barrv. 219 Minn. 182, 187, 17
N.W.2d 324, 327 (1944).
The ordinance was interpreted according to its plain and ordinary meaning by Tom Niccum. He
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning Commission
April 16, 2009
Page 5
believed that the dock could be constructed without a permit from the City of Chanhassen.
Now, support piers for the entire dock structure have been installed at considerable expense.
The Bhojwanis have relied on Mr. Niccum's expertise. All parties have acted in good faith. The
parties do not wish to argue or litigate over the conflicting interpretations. However, it the
Planning Commission, in making its recommendations, should take into account that the
ambiguities in the Chanhassen ordinance contributed to the hardships now faced by the
Bhojwanis.
IMPERMISSIBLE RESTRICTION ON RIPARIAN RIGHTS
Chanhassen has interpreted its ordinances to restrict the Bhojwanis' docking rights to a single
25 foot wide dock on a property with more than a thousand feet of shoreline. Clearly, if the City
is unwilling to permit exceptions to its "one size fits all" approach to regulation, the Bhojwanis'
ability to use and enjoy their riparian shoreline will be significantly impacted. The City has not
identified any compelling or important public interest that is protected by such a draconian
restriction.
Minnesota's property laws have consistently protected the rights of riparian owners to the use
and enjoyment of their riparian shoreline. The BhOjwanis' riparian property rights may be
regulated by the City of Chanhassen, but such regulations must protect an important public
interest and must be carefully tailored so as not to impose unreasonable regulation on the
Bhojwani's use and enjoyment of their riparian shoreline. A recent case decided by the
Minnesota Court of Appeals is right on point. I've attached a copy of the Court's decision in
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District vs Cannina. A05-1811 Mn. Ct. App. Unpublished (2006).
In that case, the Court of Appeals reviewed enforcement of a "one size fits all" docking
regulation by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (the "LMCD"). The Court struck down
the LMCD's effort to impose a single rigid standard on all lakeshore homeowners. The Court
found that the LMCD had impermissibly restricted a property owner's riparian rights by failing to
grant a variance. Specifically, the Court ruled that the LMCD's strict application of its dock
regulations and its reluctance to consider "the equities involved" seriously compromised the
property owner's riparian rights. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals relied on well
established precedents, stating:
"The owner of riparian land enjoys the right of exclusive access to water
that is directly in front of his or her waterfront property, and "title extends
to the low-water mark." State. bv Head v. Slotness, 289 Minn. 485, 487,
185 N. W .2d 530, 532 (1971). Riparian rights include the right to build and
maintain suitable "wharves, piers, landings, and docks on and in front of'
riparian land to the point of navigability. /d.; State v. Korrer, 127 Minn. 60,
71-72, 148 N.W. 617, 622 (1914). A riparian owner "has a right to make
such use of the lake over its entire surface, in common with all other
abutting owners, provided such use is reasonable and does not unduly
interfere with the exercise of similar rights on the part of other abutting
owners." Johnson v. Seifert, 257 Minn. 159, 169, 100 N.W.2d 689, 697
(1960)."
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning Commission
April 16, 2009
Page 6
The decision in LMCD vs Canning. Id., is an unpublished case. However, given the clear
precedents supporting its decision, the Supreme Court properly refused to review the ruling.
Consequently, the case confirms the that owners of riparian shoreline are still entitled to a
reasonable use of their shoreline for docking and that those rights extend out to the point of
navigability.
I've not yet undertaken extensive research to identify properties in Chanhassen that may be
comparable to the Bhojwanis' property. However, even a cursory review of aerial maps
confirmed that the Bhojwanis have an exceptionally large lake lot, with perhaps more natural
shoreline than any other residential property in the City (except Prince, who owns about 200
acres with riparian shoreline along the shoreline of 86 acre Lake Lucy). While the property
owned by Prince has extensive shoreline, it is located on a very small lake. In contrast, the
Bhojwanis' property abuts the largest lake in Chanhassen. A significant percentage of
Minnewashta's shoreline is publicly owned park land or owned by the Girl Scouts. Those large
tracts are not likely to have docks or piers constructed at intervals along the shore comparable
to the areas that are in residential use.
While the typical lake lot in the city may have only one hundred feet of lakeshore, the Bhojwanis
are able to buffer their neighbors with a dock setback area that is almost 500 feet wide. This is
a situation where "one size fit all" regulation is impermissibly restrictive when applied to the
property of Gary and Kelli Bhojwani.
The City staff have been reluctant to state the purpose and intent of its docking ordinance. The
ordinance is silent on the issue. I conclude the ordinance is intended to limit the size and scale
of a dock that can be constructed on a single residential site so that one owner's uses do not
impose a burden on his neighbors or put an undue burden on the community's natural
. resources. Because the property at 3301 Shore Drive has extensive shoreline and is large in
comparison to other properties in the City, there is no likelihood that the public interest or any
neighboring property owner will be prejudiced by allowing the proposed dock to be constructed
on the site.
Based on the foregoing, I have advised Gary and Kelli Bhojwani that they are entitled to a
variance from the ordinance. That is true regardless of whether the ordinance is vague and is
easily supported solely upon the degree of hardship imposed on them as the owner of 1260 feet
of shoreline.
My clients have tried to work this out with the City staff. City staff has been courteous and seem
to accept that both the Bhojwanis and Tom Niccum have acted in good faith. As counsel for the
applicant, I respectfully submit that under the facts present, the Bhojwanis' variance should be
recommended for approval. Thank you.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Respondent, vs. Miles B. Canning, et ai., Appell... Page 1 of 6
This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. f 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A05-1811
Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District,
Respondent,
vs.
Miles B. Canning, et aI.,
Appellants.
Filed June 27,2006
Reversed and remanded
Klaphake, Judge
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 05-1854
George C. Hoff, Justin L. Templin, Hoff, Barry & Kuderer, P .A., 160 Flagship Corporate Center,
775 Prairie Center Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344-7319 (for respondent)
Thomas J. Radio, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, 3100 Campbell Mithun Tower, 222 South Ninth
Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for appellants)
Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge, Stoneburner, Judge, and Harten,
*
Judge.-
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0606/opa051811-0630.htm
3/31/2009
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Respondent, vs. Miles B. Canning, et aI., Appell... Page 2 of 6
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellants Miles and Pamela Canning challenge the district court's grant of summary
judgment to respondent Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD). The LMCD brought
this enforcement action seeking an injunction to require appellants to remove their dock, which
does not meet LMCD regulations.
Appellants argue: (1) the LMCD lacks authority to regulate the location or configuration
of their private, noncommercial dock; (2) they have riparian rights to access the lake via their
dock that cannot be eliminated without payment of just compensation; (3) their dock is a legal
non-conforming use that cannot be removed by the LMCD absent use of eminent domain and the
payment of fair compensation; and (4) the LMCD ordinances are an unconstitutional delegation
of power because they allow neighboring landowners to withdraw consent to private docks.
Because appellants have riparian rights to access navigable waters of the lake and because the
position taken by the LMCD may interfere with those rights, we reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
FACTS
Appellants own approximately 12 feet of lakeshore on Lake Minnetonka. It is undisputed
that there has been a dock located on the property since the early 1930s, and appellants have
maintained a dock and moored a boat there since they purchased the property in 1990. It is also
undisputed that the dock fails to meet current LMCD regulations because it is outside appellants'
authorized dock use area, which is a small triangular area as drawn by extension of the
converging side lot lines into the lake, and because the extremely narrow width of the property
makes it nearly impossible to meet the five-foot side setback requirements.
In July 2000, appellants applied for a variance from the side setback and authorized dock
use area regulations to allow them to continue to maintain their dock and moor their boat there.
Appellants decided to withdraw their application after the LMCD voted to delay a decision and
http://www.lawlibrary.state.ron.us/archive/ctapun/0606/opa051811-0630.htm
3/31/2009
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Respondent, vs. Miles B. Canning, et ai., Appell... Page 3 of 6
referred the matter to staff.
In August 2003, one of appellants' neighbors e-mailed the LMCD and requested that it
enforce its regulations against appellants' dock. LMCD representatives met with appellants and
discussed several options, including applying for a variance; combining appellants' shoreline
with the two abutting properties to the west and installing one dock; or securing mutual consent
from appellants' neighbors to install a dock and store a boat outside the authorized dock use area,
which could be revoked by either neighbor at any time.
In November 2003, appellants renewed their request for a varIance. The LMCD
discussed appellants' application at several meetings and appointed one of its members to work
on a compromise with appellants and their neighbors. At the LMCD's March 2004 meeting, this
board member outlined three options for the board to consider. While appellants and their
neighbors . could not agree on anyone option, they all appeared willing to compromise.
Nevertheless, several board members expressed concerns about the extremely narrow width of
appellants' lakeshore, the public safety issues associated with granting a variance to allow for no
side setbacks, and the possible undesired precedent of granting a variance to allow continued
historical dock usage. The board voted to deny appellants' variance and directed its attorney to
prepare proposed findings. Two days later, however, appellants withdrew their variance
application.
Appellants continued to use their existing dock. In October 2004, the LMCD brought this
action seeking compliance with its regulations and injunctive relief against appellants.
In granting summary judgment to the LMCD, the district court determined that"[ e]
nforcing the ordinances in this case is appropriate and does not result in the taking of
[appellants'] property without compensation."
DECISION
Appellants argue that they have riparian property rights that cannot be eliminated through
LMCD regulation. They insist that they have the right to maintain a dock to the point of
http://www.1awlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0606/opa051811-0630.htm
3/31/2009
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Respondent, vs. Miles B. Canning, et aI., Appell... Page 4 of 6
navigability. They further insist that enforcement of the ordinance in this case impermissibly
impedes their right because the extension of their converging side lot lines into the lake does not
allow them to maintain a dock to the point of navigability. Appellants finally complain that the
LMCD has not shown how its regulations serve the public right of navigability as opposed to
serving the private rights of appellants 'abutting neighbors.
The owner of riparian land enjoys the right of exclusive access to water that is directly in
front of his or her waterfront property, and "title extends to the low-water mark." State, by Head
v. Slotness, 289 Minn. 485, 487, 185 N.W. 2d 530, 532 (1971). Riparian rights include the right
to build and maintain suitable "wharves, piers, landings, and docks on and in front of' riparian
land to the point of navigability. Id.; State v. Korrer, 127 Minn. 60, 71-72,148 N.W. 617, 622
(1914). A riparian owner "has a right to make such use of the lake over its entire surface, in
common with all other abutting owners, provided such use is reasonable and does not unduly
interfere with the exercise of similar rights on the part of other abutting owners." Johnson v.
Seifert, 257 Minn. 159, 169, 100 N.W.2d 689,697 (1960).
In order to determine the extent of riparian rights, riparian boundaries must be
ascertained. Minnesota case law does not endorse a specific method for drawing riparian
boundaries, although a method is described in Edward S. Bade, Title, Points & Lines in Lakes &
Streams, 24 Minn. L. Rev. 305, 306-07 (1940). Bade rejects a "rule of straight projection" to
arrive at riparian rights and suggests a more proportionate method based on the shape of the lake.
[d. at 341. While no single method applies in every' case, what remains important is that the
boundaries are drawn in a fair and equitable manner. See, e.g., Rooney v. Stearns County Bd.,
130 Minn. 176, 180-81, 153 N.W. 858, 860 (1915); Scheifert v. Briegel, 90 Minn. 125,133,96
N.W. 44, 48 (1903).
The method adopted here by LMCD regulations for defining the authorized dock usage
area was firmly criticized by Bade in his article as being fraught with inequity. Bade at 331-34.
And the LMCD's strict application of its regulations to appellants' property and reluctance to
http://www.1awlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0606/opa051811-0630.htm
3/31/2009
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Respondent, vs. Miles B. Canning, et aI., Appell... Page 5 of 6
consider the equities involved appear to have seriously compromised appellants' riparian rights.
Because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the extent of appellants' riparian rights,
we conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the LMCD. See Minn.
R. Civ. P. 56.02.
While the LMCD may place some reasonable restrictions on the size and location of
appellants' dock and boat, appellants are correct in arguing that LMCD regulations cannot so
restrict their riparian rights as to deny them access to the navigable waters of the lake. Under
LMCD regulations, extension of the side lot lines of appellants' abutting neighbors appears to cut
off appellants' reasonable access to navigable water. We therefore reverse the district court's
grant of summary judgment to the LMCD and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the
district court should determine the extent of appellants' riparian rights subject to reasonable
enforcement of LMCD regulations against appellants' property in a manner that is fair and
equitable, while still addressing public safety concerns. See State v. Kuluvar, 266 Minn. 408,
418, 123 N.W.2d 699, 706 (1963) (riparian rights are "subordinate to the rights of the public and
subject to reasonable control andregulation by the state"); Johnson, 257 Minn. at 165 n.5, 100
N.W.2d at 694 n.5 (riparian rights are subject to state regulation for public purposes).
Finally, we make the following comments in the interests of justice. First, the LMCD has
authority to regulate private docks on Lake Minnetonka for the benefit of the public and
navigation. See Minn. Stat. ~ 103B.611, subd. 3(6) (2004) (stating that LMCD has authority to
"regulate the construction, installation; and maintenance of permanent and temporary docks and
moorings"); City of Birchwood Village v. Simes, 576 N.W.2d 458, 462 (Minn. App. 1998)
(statute creating White Bear Lake Conservation District, which is substantially similar to statute
creating LMCD, "represents an effort by the local municipalities to cede authority to the board to
regulate all manner of activities affecting the lake," including size of boats that may be moored to
private docks). Second, because riparian rights are always subject to state regulation in the
public interest, a landowner's preexisting and continuing use of his or her lakeshore property is
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapunl0606/opa051811-0630.htm
3/31/2009
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Respondent, vs. Miles B. Canning, et aI., Appell... Page 6 of 6
not a lawful non-conforming use if the LMCD finds other factors, such as public safety, more
important. See Bartell v. State, 284 N.W.2d 834, 838 (Minn. 1979). Finally, because we have
determined that application of LMCD regulations to appellants' property has caused the potential
loss of their riparian rights, we need not decide whether those regulations are also
unconstitutional because they allow the LMCD to delegate its authority to neighboring
landowners.
Reversed and remanded.
! Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn.
Const. art. VI, ~ 10.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0606/opa051811-0630.htm
3/31/2009
Jeffery. Terry
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Larry Oppegaard [Iarry.oppegaard@gmail.com]
Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:02 AM
Furlong, Tom; Gerhardt, Todd; Aanenson, Kate; Jeffery, Terry; gary.bhojwani@allianzlife.com
Bhojwani Dock
May 12, 2009
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Bhojwani Dock (3301 Shore Drive)
Dear Chairperson and Members:
My name is Larry Oppegaard, 6310 Cypress Drive, Excelsior MN 55331. Telephone number 952.474.6047.
I am a next door neighbor of Kelli and Gary and their three school age children. This will be my fortieth (40) year at the
lake. I was also a former president of the Minnewashta Shores Association that is directly adjacent to the their property.
The tipping point for me is twofold:
. The dock looks great; and certainly doesn't detract from the beauty or usage of Lake Minnewashta.
. I understand that the width of the dock exceeds the City's stipulated dimensions. However, this dock is fine with
me when considered against the dock to shoreline ratio. I have no objection to allowing the Bhojwani's to
complete their dock.
I would favor a neighborly waiver!
Sincerely,
Larry B. Oppegaard
1
Jeffery, Terry
Subject:
qzilla32 [qzilla32@aol.com]
Friday, May 01, 2009 5:40 PM
Gary.Bhojwani@allianzlife.com; Furlong, Tom; Gerhardt, Todd; Aanenson, Kate; Jeffery,
Terry
Bhojwani Dock
From:
Sent:
To:
Dear Chairperson and Members,
My name is Rick Helling. I live on Lake Minnewashta at the address 3672 Landings Drive, Excelsior 55331.
My phone number is 952-470-0249.
I live west of the Bhojwani's and am familiar with their dock situation. My opinion is that the dock is not an
eyesore or a detriment to our beautiful lake. I am aware that the proposed dock exceeds the City's stipulated
dimensions. But, I believe that with a shoreline the size of the Bhojwani's (over 1200'), a dock of this size is not
excessive. I voice no objection to allowing the Bhojwani's to fmish construction of their dock.
I ask that you allow completion of the dock.
Sincerely,
Rick Helling
2
Jeffery. Terry
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jay Wissink Uwissink@thearistosgroup.com]
Friday, May 01 , 2009 4: 17 PM
Furlong, Tom; Gerhardt, Todd; Aanenson, Kate; Jeffery, Terry
gary.bhojwani@allianzlife.com
BHOJWANI DOCK
Date: May 1, 2009
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Bhojwani Dock (3301 Shore Drive)
Dear Chairperson and Members:
My name is Jay Wissink. My address is 6401 Landings Court. My phone number is 952-544-5270.
I live near Lake Minnewashta and I am familiar with the Bhojwani's partially completed dock.
I do not believe the dock in any way detracts from the beauty or usage of Lake Minnewashta.
I understand that the width ofthe dock exceeds the City's stipulated dimensions (71' vs. 25'). However, a dock
of this scale is completely appropriate when considered against the scale of the Bhojwani' s total shoreline (over
1200'). I have no objection to allowing the Bhojwani's to complete their dock.
I ask you to support the completion of its construction.
Sincerely,
Jay Wissink
3
Jeffery. Terry
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dirk Young [dirksbackyard@msn.com]
Friday, May 01, 20099:21 AM
Furlong, Tom; Gerhardt, Todd; Aanenson, Kate; Jeffery, Terry; gary.bhojwani@allianzlife.com
Bhojwani Dock
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re:. Bhojwani Dock (3301 Shore Drive)
Dear Chairperson and Members:
My name is Dirk Young. My address is 3830 Maple Circle Excelsior, MN 55331. My phone number is 952-470-
9341. I live in the Pleasant Acres Homeowner's Association on the west side of Lake Minnewashta.
I have lived here for 17 years and have been boating on Lake Minnewashta for 25 years. I am familiar with the
Bhojwani's partially completed dock.
I do not believe the dock in any way detracts from the beauty or usage of Lake Minnewashta. I believe that the
dock will enhance the lake and make for easier waterskiing access on that part of the lake.
I understand that the width of the dock exceeds the City's stipulated dimensions (71' vs. 25'). However, a dock of
this scale is completely appropriate when considered against the scale of the Bhojwani's total shoreline (over 1200').
I also understand that the contractor received verbal confirmation from the city that the dock could be
appropriately constructed. I have no objection to allowing the Bhojwani's to complete their dock.
I ask you to support the completion of its construction.
Sincerely,
Dirk Young
V(,y7v&M~Y~
Dirk's Backyard
Landscape & Design
3830 Maple Circle
Excelsior, MN 55331
(952) 470-9341
4
Jeffery, Terry
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Weinzetl, Jodi [jodLweinzetl@medtronic.com]
Friday, May01, 20098:12 AM
Furlong, Tom; Gerhardt, Todd; Aanenson, Kate; Jeffery, Terry
3301 Shore Drive - Bhojwani dock
Chanhassen Council,
I am writing to you in regards to the Bhojwani's dock issue - 3381 Shore Drive on Lake
Minnewashta.
My husband and I live on Lake Minnewashta and are aware of the Bhojwani's partially completed
dock. I am surprised at the issues I have heard about and want to let you know that the
dock is not a distraction or a hazard on Lake Minnewashta. I understand the size is out of
your required guidelines but based on the Bhojwani's shoreline, is not inappropriate. We
have no objection to allowing the Bhojwani's to complete their dock and sure hope you will
allow them to do so.
If you have questions, feel free to contact myself or my husband Tony. Our home # is 952-
388..;3548.
Sincerely,
Jodi Weinzetl
Medtronic Cardiovascular
Minneapolis Regional Sales Manager
612-848-3496 (cell)
952-388-3541 (office)
952-388-3542 (fax)
1
Vascular Core Values - Integrity Respect for the Individual
Winning Attitude Spirit of Innovation
Results Orientation Trust
[CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY NOTICE]
Information transmitted by this email is proprietary to Medtronic and is intended for use
only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that
is private, privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you
are not the intended recipient or it appears that this mail has been forwarded to you without
proper authority, you are notified that any use or dissemination of this information in any
manner is strictly prohibited. In such cases, please delete this mail from your records.
To view this notice in other languages you can either select the following link or manually
copy and paste the link into the address bar of a web browser:
htto:/lemaildisclaimer.medtronic.com
5
Jeffery. Terry
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Tim Jenzer [tjenzer@yahoo.com]
Friday, May 01,20097:29 AM
Furlong, Tom; Gerhardt, Todd; Aanenson, Kate; Jeffery, Terry
gary.bhojwani@allianzlife.com
Date: 4-01-2009
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Bhojwani Dock (3301 Shore Drive)
Dear Chairperson and Members:
My name is Tim Jenzer. My address is 3920 Maple Shores Drive, My phone number is 952-470-1904.
I live in the Lake Minnewashta area and I am familiar with the Bhojwani's partially completed dock.
I do not believe the dock in any way detracts from the beauty or usage of Lake Minnewashta.
I understand that the width of the dock exceeds the City's stipulated dimensions (71' vs. 25'). However, a
dock of this scale is completely appropriate when considered against the scale of the Bhojwani's total
shoreline (over 1200'). I have no objection to allowing the Bhojwani's to complete their dock.
I ask you to support the completion of its construction.
Sincerely, Tim J enzer
6
Jeffery. Terry
From:
Sent:
To:
Mary Oppegaard [besidemyself@mchsLcom]
Monday, April 27, 2009 11 :08 AM
Furlong, Tom; Gerhardt, Todd; kaaneson@cLchanhassen.mn.us; Jeffery, Terry;
gary. bhojwani@allianzlife.com
April 27,2009
Chairperson and Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Bhojwani Dock at 3301 Shore Drive
Dear Chairperson and Members,
I have lived in our home at Minnewashta Shores since 1970 and am passionate about
preserving the health and beauty of Lake Minnewashta.
I am familiar with the Bhojwani's new dock project.
I support the building and completion of this dock and believe it to be of appropriate scale for
the size of Bhojwani's shoreline and to be aesthetically pleasing.
Bhojwanis are Minnewahta lakeshore residents who have demonstrated that they care for our
lake in ways that continue to preserve and increase it's water quality and that they appreciate
the privilege of being a part of this lake's community experience.
Please support the completion of their dock construction.
Sincerely,
Mary Oppegaard
6310 Cypress Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
952-474-6047
7
Jeffery, Terry
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Knoll, Peter [pknoll@knwgroup.com]
Monday, April 27, 2009 7:09 AM
Furlong, Tom; Gerhardt, Todd; Aanenson, Kate; Jeffery, Terry
gary.bhojwani@allianzlife.com; Mary Knoll
Bhojwani Dock in Lake Minnewashta
April 27, 2009
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Bhojwani Dock - 330.1 Shore Drive
Dear Chairperson and Members:
Our names are Peter & Mary Knoll. Our address is 3131 Dartmouth Drive. Our phone number is
952.470.2193.
We live on Lake Minnewashta and are familiar with the Bhojwani's partially completed dock. We find it
disturbing that the City of Chanhassen is reconsidering their approval of this dock AFTER granting approval in
January 2009. If the City of Chanhassen wants to change any lake policy they should do so on a going
forward basis, not retroactively.
We do not believe the dock in any way detracts from the beauty or usage of Lake Minnewashta. Additionally,
the Bhojwanis moved the footprint of this dock back so that it would in no way interfere with traffic around the
point.
We understand that the width of the dock exceeds the City's stipulated dimensions (71' vs. 25'). However, a
dock of this scale is completely appropriate when considered against the scale of the Bhojwani's total shoreline
(over 1200').
We have no objection to allowing the Bhojwani's to complete their dock. We ask you to support the
completion of its construction.
Lastly, if approval is given by ANY person charged with such responsibility within the City of Chanhassen,
whether written or oral, the City of Chanhassen should honor their commitment and not bend when another
citizen gets vocal. Honor your commitment to The Bhojwanis.
Sincerely,
Peter & Mary Knoll
3131 Dartmouth Drive
Chanhassen, MN
*Securities and Investment Advisory Services offered through NFP
Securities, Inc. a Broker/Dealer, Member FINRA/SIPC and a
Federally Registered Investment Advisor. The KNW Group is an
affiliate of NFP Securities, Inc. and a subsidiary of National
8
Financial Partners Corp., the parent company of NFP Securities,
Inc.
Notice: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail
message may contain information that is confidential, proprietary,
privileged, legally privileged and/or exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please accept
this as notice that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
information contained in this transmission is strictly prohibited.
National Financial Partners Corp. reserves the right, to the extent
and under circumstances permitted by applicable law, to retain,
monitor and intercept e-mail messages to and from its systems.
Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the
sender and do not necessarily express those of National Financial
Partners Corp. Although this transmission and any attachment are
believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any
computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the
responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no
responsibility is accepted by NFP, its subsidiaries and affiliates, as
applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately contact
the sender by return e-mail or by telephone at 212-301-4000 and
destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy
format.
9
Jeffery, Terry
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ken Johnson [KENJ@CMSDirect.com]
Friday, April 24, 2009 2:20 PM
Jeffery, Terry
FW: Bhojwani Dock Variance
Terry Jeffery - Water Resources Coordinator
It has come to my attention the Bhojwani's on Lake Minnewashta (3301 Shore Drive) are being required to stop
construction and now seek a variance for a dock that conforms to DNR guidelines.
I live on Lake Minnewashta (3748 Landings Dr) and am familiar with the above mentioned partially completed dock. I
realize the City has a different requirement than the DNR for size requirements. As a lake resident, I do not see how the
planned size of this dock detracts in any way from the aesthetics or usage of Lake Minnewashta - in fact the Regional
Park pier has more of an impact.
Terry. I SUDDort allowing the completion of this dock as quickly as possible. In my opinion the delays imposed just add
distractions and costs - be it to the Bhojwani's, the construction company or even to the city staff.
I have chaired boards and commissions in another metro city for over 20 years. I know these boards and commissions
are advisory to the council. To expedite the completion of construction rather than delay it through a variance process
Uust to prove a point?). I recommend the City Council just passes a resolution allowing the construction to be completed.
I believe they can do it.
Ken Johnson
(952) 380-0776
10
Jeffery. Terry
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
The Noacks [d.noack@mchsLcom]
Friday, April 24, 2009 9:44 AM
Furlong, Tom; Gerhardt, Todd; Aanenson, Kate; Jeffery, Terry
gary.bhojwani@allianzlife.com
Bhojwani dock
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Bhojwani Dock (3301 Shore Drive)
Dear Chairperson and Members:
My name is Don Noack, and I live on Lake Minnewashta. My address is 3764 Landings Dr. I am sending this
regarding the Bhojwani's partially completed dock.
I do not believe the dock in any way detracts from the beauty or usage of Lake Minnewashta.
I understand that the width of the dock exceeds the City's stipulated dimensions (71' vs. 25'). However, a
dock of this scale is completely appropriate when considered against the scale of the Bhojwani's total
shoreline (over 1200'). I have no objection to allowing the Bhojwani's to complete their dock.
I ask you to support the completion of its construction.
Sincerely,
Don Noack
952 470-5342
11
Date: April 24, 2009
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: BhoJwani Dock
. Dear Chairperson and Members:
Our names are John and Lori Weber.
Our address is 3220 Dartmouth Drive, Excelsior (Chanhassen) MN, 55331.
We also own the Minnewashta Lakeshore Lot directly across the street from our
house, Boyer's Sterling Estates Out Lot No. 1.
Our phone number is 952-470-1556
· We own a Lakeshore Lot on Lake Minnewashta and live directly across
the street from our Minnewashta Lakeshore Lot. I am familiar with the
Bho~vani~pmtial~com~ereddock.
· We do not believe the dock in any way detracts from the beauty or usage
of Lake Minnewashta.
· We understand that the width of the dock exceeds the City's stipulated
dimensions (71' vs. 251. However, a dock of this scale is completely
appropriate when considered against the scale of the Bhojwani's total
shoreline (over 12001. I have no objection to allowing the Bhojwani's to
complete their dock.
· I ask you to support the completion of its cODstmction.
Sincerely,
~i/eb-
Jeffery, Terry
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ladd Langum [Ladd.Langum@chrobinson.com]
Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:56 PM
Gerhardt, Todd; Furlong, Tom; Aanenson, Kate; Jeffery, Terry
Bhojwani Dock
Date: 4/23/09
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
He: Bhojwani Dock (3301 Shore Drive)
Dear Chairperson and Members:
My name is Ladd Langum. My address is 6331 Cypress Drive. My phone number is 952-401-7919.
I've lived on Lake Minnewashta since 1962 and currently reside on a property directly adjacent to Bhojwalli's.
I am familiar with the Bhojwani's partially completed dock as I've been able to view its progress out of my
window since conception.
I do not believe the dock in any way detracts from the beauty or usage of Lake Minnewashta. In fact this new
structure is by far the most aesthetically appealing dock on the lake at this time. Its location is also an
improvement in safety from previous docks on this property as it hugs the shoreline without extending way
out into traffic areas of the lake.
I understand that the width of the dock exceeds the City's stipulated dimensions (71' vs. 25'). However, a
dock of this scale is completely appropriate when considered against the scale of the Bhojwani's total
shoreline (over 1200'). I have no objection to allowing the Bhojwani's to complete their dock.
I ask you to support the completion of its construction.
Sincerely,
Ladd N. Langum
Offia P/i 952-683-5683
cef{p/i 612-805-5097
************"''''1. 11111.1.",\ 1*************************************************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you
are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately bye-mail if you have
received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily represent those of CH Robinson. CH Robinson accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted
by this email.
CH Robinson Worldwide, 14701 Charlson Road, Eden Prairie, MN, USA
12
Jeffery. Terry
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
mamaharry@aol.com
Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:54 AM
Furlong, Tom; Gerhardt, Todd; Aanenson, Kate; Jeffery, Terry; gary.bhojwani@allianzlife.com;
jonharris 183645@aol.com
Fwd: Bhojwani Dock 3301 Shore Drive
-----Original Message-----
From: mamaharry@ao1.com
To: jonharris183645@ao1.com
Sent: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 9:43 am
Subject: Bhojwani Dock 3301 Shore Drive
Dear Chairperson and Members,
My name is Kristi Harris and we live at 3241 Dartmouth Drive. Our lake shore is closest in proximity to the
Bhojwani dock and we have absolutely no objection to the completion of this project. At twelve times the size
of the average homeowner's lakeshore, the property can certainly support the structure. Moreover, we prefer to
look at the permanent dock vs. the stacks of docks and canopies you see dragged into other homeowner's yards
for seven months out of the year! We support the fact that our neighbors are trying to enhance their property
and lifestyle here, and don't believe it's at the expense of anyone else's enjoyment ofthe lake.
I am one of SEVERAL Lake Minnewashta residents who grew up on this lake and returned to buy property
and raise our own families here. We have a huge vested interest in not only our own property, but the lake as a
whole. There are far bigger concerns (safety, growing milfoil, water quality etc..) that we should be focusing
our energy and the time of city officials on. I find it very disappointing that a few neighbors find themselves so
resistant to change that they had to stir things up instead of bringing their concerns to the Bhojwani's right
away. Furthermore, I think it is extremely unfortunate that the hardworking folks at the dock company could
ultimately be affected by the decision made about this project.
My husband and I strongly encourage you to allow this project to be completed. Thank you for your
consideration of our opinion.
Sincerely,
Kristi and Jonathan Harris
(952)474-2773
Bio savinas on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops!
Bio savinas on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops!
14
April 22, 2009
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: BhoJwani Dock (3301 Shore Drive)
Dear Chairperson and Members:
Our names our Peter and Pamela Strommen and we live in the same
neighborhood and on the same bay as Gary and Kelli Bhojwani. Our property is
four lots away from the Bhojwani property.
We are aware that a neighbor took action with the city to halt the construction
of the Bhojwani dock project. We are also aware of some of the specifics of this
complaint and fmd them unmerited. While the dock exceeds the 25' width
allowed by the city of Chanhassen, it is visually small and is very appropriate in
the 1200' of shoreline that the Bhojwani's own. The permanent dock is
aesthetically pleasing and is more fitting for the Bhojwani property than a
temporary one.
The Bhojwani's have strived to maintain the integrity of their shoreline and
have consistently displayed the attitude of good stewards with their property
and the Lake.
We believe that a varience to the city ordinance is appropriate and request that
you allow the Bhojwani's to complete the dock as it is presently configured.
Sincerely,
S eet Address and Contact Information:
3221 Dartmouth Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
Home: 952-470-6372
Work: 763-512-5201
April 22, 2009
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: BhoJwani Dock
Dear Chairperson and Members:
I am writing you today regarding the Bhojwani family dock. I am a resident of
the city of Chanhassen.
My address is:
2545 Arrowhead Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Home phone:
952.474.2323
. I am familiar with the Bhojwani's partially completed dock.
· I do not believe the dock in any way detracts from the beauty or usage of
Lake Minnewashta.
. I understand that the width of the dock exceeds the City's stipulated
dimensions (71' vs. 25'. However, a dock of this scale is completely
appropriate when considered against the scale of the Bhojwani's total
shoreline (over 1200'. I have absolutely no objection to allowing the
Bhojwani's to complete their dock.
. I ask you to support the completion of its construction.
Sincerely,
?<J~l ~
Eric J. Thomes
Date: April 22, 2009
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Bhojwanf Dock
Dear Chairperson and Members:
My name is CoreyJ. Walther
My address is 8584 Drake Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
My phone number is 952-294-0868
. I live in Chanhassen and I am familiar with the Bhojwani's partially
completed dock.
· I do not believe the dock in any way detracts from the beauty or usage of
Lake Minnewashta.
. I understand that the width of the dock exceeds the City's stipulated
dimensions (7I'vs. 251. However, a dock of this scale is completely
appropriate when considered against the scale of the Bhojwani's total
shoreline (over 12001. I have no objection to allowing the Bhojwani's to
complete their dock.
. I ask you to support the completion of its construction.
Sincerely,
(!~j~
Corey J. Walther
Date April 22, 2009
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: BhoJwant Dock
Dear Chairperson and Members:
My name is Kevin Bachmann
My address is 7140 Hazeltine Blvd., Chanhassen, MN 55331
My phone number is 612-558-1280
. I live on Lake Minnewashta and I am familiar with the Bhojwani's
partially completed dock.
· I do not believe the dock in any way detracts from the beauty or usage of
Lake Minnewashta.
. I understand that the width of the dock exceeds the City's stipulated
dimensions (71' vs. 251. However, a dock of this scale is completely
appropriate when considered against the scale of the Bhojwani's total
shoreline (over 12001. I have no objection to allowing the Bhojwani's to
complete their dock.
. I ask you to support the completion of its construction.
Sincerely, ___ d
~7~~
Date: Apri120, 2009
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: BhoJwanf. Dock (3301 Shore Drive}
Dear Chairperson and Planning Commissioners:
My name is Paul Quarberg and I live at 3311 Shore Drive, Excelsior, MN 55331.
My home phone number is 952-470-0318.
I live on Lake Minnewashta and am familiar with the partially completed dock
at the Bhojwani's residence. I do not believe the dock in any way detracts from
the beauty or usage of Lake Minnewashta nor do I have any objection to its
completion.
It is my understanding that the width of the dock exceeds the City of
Chanhassen's dock standw'ds. However, when one considers the shoreline of
the Bhojwani's property against that of most lake shore properties, the width of
the dock is completely appropriate. Again, I have no objection to allowing the
Bhojwani's to complete their dock and I ask you to support the completion of its
construction.
Apri120, 2009
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: BhoJwant Dock (3301 Shore Drive)
Dear Chairperson and Members:
Our names are Kirk and Linda Dickey and we live at 6221 Barberry Circle in
Excelsior. We have deeded access and a dock on Lake Minnewashta, which is
located three lots from Gary and Kelli Bhojwani's property and is on the same
bay.
We are aware that action was initiated by a neighbor to halt the construction of
the Bhojwani's dock. While the dock exceeds the 25' width allowed by the City
of Chanhassen, it is visually small compared to the 1200+ feet of lakeshore that
the Bhojwanis own. The timber construction and thoughtful design of the
Bhojwani's dock make it aesthetically preferable to the norm on the lake. For
example, most lakeshore owners stack their metal dock sections and boat lifts
on their lake shore for the winter. The Bhojwani's timber dock is permanent
and blends into the natural lake shore they maintain year round. In addition,
the location of the dock would not obstruct boat traffic. A variance to the city
ordinance would be perfectly reasonable in this case. Please allow the
Bhojwanis to resume construction and complete their dock project.
Sin~e~
L-/1b(J()
~hA
Dr. Kirk Dickey and
Mrs. Linda Dickey
Contact Information:
6221 Barberry Circle,
Excelsior, MN 55331
952-474-6844
April 19, 2009
Chairperson and Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission, City of Chanhassen
Re: Bhojwani Dock (3301 Shore Drive)
Dear Chairperson and Members:
My name is Rachel Livingston and I live at 3331 Shore Drive on lake Minnewashta. I have lived at this
residence for six years. I grew up in this neighborhood and spent my entire childhood on this lake.
I am aware of the Bhojwani dock project and I do not think that there Is anything about the new dock
that detracts from the overall beauty of the lake. The dock is in the exact location, and there is no
interference with the recreational activity on the lake. In fact, I would say that the property at 3301
Shore Drive has always been, and continues to be, one of the most well kept and glorious pieces of
property on lake Mlnnewashta .
The lake has changed In so many ways since the days of leach's Resort. And, it has also remained the
wonderful, quaint, family friendly lake It was when I was a child. As someone who cherishes and values
lithe way it used to be" I want to be very clear about the fact that I do not see any reason for time or
money to be spent trying to stop the Bhojwani's from completing their dock.
I hope that you support the completion of their construction and take Into account the fact that when
that property came on the market, many of us who live on the lake, worried that a new owner would
use that lakeshore In ways that would detract from the natural beauty of that "paint." In my opinion, it
is their property and their right to put in this dock, and I am incredibly thankful for new owners who
value the same beauty and recreational activities that make this lake a wonderful place to live!
Sincerely,
RaeAeR ~.~
Rachel f.ivingston
3331 Shore Drive, Excelsior, MN 55331
952-470-4195
Date: 4/18/09
Chairperson and Members of the
Chanhassen Planning commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
cc: TorTI Furlong- Mayor
Chanhassen City Council
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Re: Bhojwani Dock (3301 Shore Drive)
Dear Chairperson and Members:
We are Greg and Robin Niemann and we live in the same neighborhood on the same bay as
Gary and Kelli Bhojwani. Our property is 3 lots away from the Bhojwani residence.
We were very concerned and upset to find out recently that the Bhojwani's dock project was
halted abruptly due to a couple of complaints by other lake residents. We cannot comprehend
how this dock wouldn't be more than acceptable in every aspect. Even though we understand
that the dock may exceed some maximum size the city allows, it actually looks small and very
much acceptable in the context of the total shoreline the Bhojwani's own.
In our opinion the Bhojwani's have been ideal stewards of their considerable lake frontage. They
have been very sensitive in the design of this particular dock as well as how they use their
frontage. They have something like 1300 feet of frontage and most of it is completely natural.
How many people would keep it this way, as the Bhojwani's have?
We can't imagine a better looking form of dock than natural timbers, so if the complainant's
concern is about aesthetics, we think it is only fair to consider the appearance of all the other
docks on the lake- many of which are <X>mplete eyesores. We would consider filing our own
complaint against the owners of those docks (which would be a much more legitimate one)
except that we view it as a waste of governmentresources and our time, in addition to being an
overstepping of personal opinion and preference over an individual's private property.
Honestly, with stressed budgets and ever-higher taxes we find it very disturbing that we are
spending city resources on this argument. Please support the immediate completion of the
Bhojwani's dock without further expense to our city and it's residents.
~IY., ~A '
~M tf(.IJp--
>;f2 n/}L'<-1"~
Greg and Robin Niemann
Street Address and Contact Information-
3231 DartmQl,Jth Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
Home: 952-401-8631
Work (Greg): 651-481-2372
Monday march 22nd
City of Chanhassen
Terry Jeffery
re . Permanent dock structure
3301 shore drive
Terry Jeffrey
As a 45 year resident oflake minnewashta myself and many other lakeshore owners have worked
very hard with city chanhassen,carver county county parks to develop and maintain our lake in
its natural environment.
Carver County has developed a nature park with controlled boat access.
City of Chanhassen has developed codes and regulations re structures and non permanent docks
on public waters. City of Chanhassen has provided a water resource cordinator to assist owners with
compliance of rules regulations.
Lake Minnewashta lake shore property owners are proud of our lake . We request that all property
owners abide by the same rules and that city enforce city permits and dock code compliance.
Tom Merz
3201 dartmouth drive
Excelsior; minn
952474 6205
Please review and advise
ClTY OF cu .
rDlfe0>'r},,^NHASSEN
1J111S;~lSaW~[(5)
,', . .MAR 2'4 2009
, ENGINEERINq.OEPT.
SCANNEO
City of chanhassen
city planning commission
TERRY JEFFERY
april 27 th 2009
permanent dock at 3301 shore drive
Dear Terry
In accordance with our phone conversation April 24th 09
I have met with Gary Bhojwani and reviewed his proposed Variance Request.
Due to the following
a. Size of the property 4 acres
b. Length of shoreline 1200 lin feet
c. Preservation of existing shore line and habitat
I think this is a special piece of property and would hope the City Of Chanhassen
Planning Commission will resolve this issue accordingly.
Tom Merz
3201 dartmouth drive
Excelsior Minn
952474 6205
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDA VIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
May 7, 2009, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota;
that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for the
Bhojwani Dock Variance - Planning Case 09-07 to the persons named on attached Exhibit
"A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing
the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid
thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the
records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 7~ day of mcu..{ ,2009.
.T
Ol
C
;:
a,)
a,)
:a:
OlS
-= -Ci)
11.. tn
co-_
a,) E
J:
(.) E
-- 0
:EO
::::JOl
o.c
--2
o c:
a,) co
(.)-
;:0.
o c
Za,)
tn
tn
co
.c
c:
co
.c
o
Ol
C
;:
a,)
a,)
:a:
c
OlO
c--
__ tn
11.. tn
co--
~E
(.) E
__ 0
-0
.c
::::JOl
o.c
-c
o c
a,) co
(.)-
-- 0.
-
o C
z~
tn
co
.c
c
co
.c
o
~
:J
t::
tIl
ti
(5
C
>-
tIl
E
Cl. .
'E~~
tIl c_
<D <D OJ
-;tIl"Q)
0)
E
i=
~
0)
-
ctl
C
s::
o
:;:0
ctl
U
o
....I
ctl
III
o
0.
o
...
a.
Q)-g~ 00
..c0- Q)
-..c"O 00
-..... ctl 00
::l 0 Q) ::l
0.0_"": U
.o..c_ U 00
ctl Ol= Q) '6
::l '05 ~ 'e t5
o C .!::: c...~ 6
>Q)ctl -~
E ..c ..c "0 e 'Ci)
a) ..... - 0 ~ c.. ..!Q
uOEQ) OQ),gE
:;::; 1: o..c 00 c....c .0 E
g '0 :: ci 2" ~ ~ 6. 00
:E-::lcOO OQ)
- .!Q c.. +::: Ol ~ 00 ..c Q)
'0 Ol'~ Q) C - C - :E
C C Q) .~ .... l!1 E "0
-8 .;:: '(tj E 0 0 c.. 0 C
'iii ctl_ Q)= ~-.l:: ctl
Q).o OQ)C
Gl ..c 0:E .... ._ Q) -g "0
f!UOOlQ)C:OO>Q)
Gl = _ C ..c Q) ~._ 00
a; .0 "0 .;:: - > c.. Q) .Q
"'::lC::l..co_~U
c.. ctl 0 g> C = ..... .!Q
.!Q - 0 ctl ~ Q) Ol
:E ~ t5 .c Q) "E Ci1 .~
.... ::l Q) _ > ctl ......
o C-"O Ol 'OJ.2 .$ ctl t5
Q)Q).....C=a.CQ)Q)
00 ..... c..';:: 'S c.. Q) ..c '0
o_ooooctl>ctlEu.....
c.. - .- Q) .... E =
:;ffi.,s..c:S~o.gQ)
o..g"5gcn.....oa..:5
Q) c..o.o
~ ~~ 6....- C\i cv:i ~
Gl
.c
-
Q)C
>0
.- Ul
(s'Q.
Q)1ll
.....E
Oc
..co
en:;::;
III
"'-u
00
C')-
C')<l:
+.:
s:: >.s::
ctlt::o
UO):;:O
o.ctl
E g
<ca.....I
1IlC)
s:: s::
0),-
0.-
0.0)
ctl 0)
J::::
- 0)
ctl.r:.
.r:.-
:5:10
~ Q)-g~
t:: ..c0- 00
tIl -..c"O Q)
(j) ...... 10.... ro (J)
C ::l 0 Q) 00
g 0 .8~-....: ~
>-.::s:. ctl Ol= ~ 00
~ g ::l '05 ~ '0' _ '6
"0 0 C .!::: .... U C
Cl. . > Q) ctl c.. Q) .Q
'E {g"O> ctl LL E ..c ..c "0 '0' 00
tIlC-Q)en . -u Q)..... 00
<D 9! OJ U Gl (; E 00 c.. U .-
..c~_ctla: .!:!....co~cnoQ)=E
.511 <D Q) a. '0 .- .... _ c.. c....c .0 E
~-StO~ co.... -Q)e-6.0
ctl-- Ul-"5g>tic..6Q)U
E ~::;a:: ~ ~ ;S .!Q g- +::: Ol Q) 00 ..c Q)
ci -E 0 C :Q '0 Ol'- ~ .~ :E C - :E
o 0 .~ ~ Gl .~ .~ E ~ '0 l!1 E "0
g<D[::::Ci1a: "Ci1ctl 0 c..oc
....c >~ 'iiiQ):O~~~"E.l::ctl
~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ -g -g
~ .0 ... ctl > = - C ..c Q; Q) .::= 00
m._ E Q) LL l!! .g "0 .;:: +-' > a. Q) 0
o-gctl:EQ) c..C::l..co=u(3
~ 91..c ..!..;:::< ~ 00 ctl 0 g> C .- ~ 00
- ~ U .$ C - .- en . 0 ctl ~ Q) .-
m ""0 .... .- Q) C :E Q) t) .c Q) "E Ci1 g>
...- ci'o ctl en > 0 .... ::l Q) - > ctl ._
> C C c"O C ';::.!!! 0 c-.~ Ol'- U 00 Ci1 ....:
ctl~::lctlQ)ctlO~Q)Q)ecOl="EQ)U
~~01o....C~mEm(J)1o....o..'~~o..ID~.~
..::: > U 0 0.::-.... 0 00 ctl > c.. E 0
- <D .... N 0 0 C c..:;......!Q Q) > ctl .2 Q
~ E Cii en f: ffi V5.2 :; ffi:E ..c 1ij Q) E :0
"OcI~Q)~ ~c..u_u_..cO::l~
~.;:;:-, c-Q. cog Q)'E.6:Eenf-Oo..-
::l 2:!: Q) e ctl C') - ..c c...o ::l
f-~Ua: o.(!) C')<l: f- ctl ctl c..~C\icv:i~
0)
E
i=
~
0)
-
ctl
C
s::
o
:;:0
ctl
U
o
....I
"ij
III
o
0.
o
...
a.
.;.: ..
s:: >.s::
ctlt::o
.~ 0):;:0
ag.B
Q. ... 0
<ca.....I
tni:>>
~.5
0.-
0.0)
ctl 0)
J::::
- 0)
ctl.r:.
.r:.-
:5:10
.8 Q) :!: 0)
..c Coo ;;
00 ,g-'O S::o
.~ c.. ~ Q) C 0 -
::l 2:' > E g .~ 0) 0
g,Q;~ E ctl oo,5.t:
.... f- 0 0 -6 'E 'E 0.
-t)oouctlEo>.
-ctl::lCcoO)ctl
g' S"Ec~:;:O:i5~
+::: ~ 8 E .~ C Q) ctl 5
~ oQ)c ~:E~.r:.
E ~ooQ):!:"to>'-
VI ctl ~ E ctl - ctl 0)
Q) Q~ ctl.o c..OO O).r:.
:E C c....c ~ Q) .!!! .c -
Q) ctl _ C "0 c.._ 0)
..... -t)ctlOQ)O=>'
.8..>Q)i5;..cu3:,gs::
Q) 1U Q; '0'.-: 00 - ~ E ctl :;:0
.0 Q) 00 a. U 0 .8 .- 0) 0)
00 -- @O > '00)
cOlOOoo ..c>o:t::O)E
l!1 ~ ~ :c .... U g. a..!!! 1;)
c.. c-Q)::lU-.r:.-_S::
Q).g ~"515 g,Q)~-Q;.2
..c""cO' c "'_1Il
- > Q).o:::= 0:::: O--1Il III
Q) 00 ctl ctl. ctl .... .-
Q)t)~Q)-co~U5t::.cE
00 Q) ctl c.(tj c.o ctl 0 ~ E
o 'O'..c 0 E ...- ..c 0. "" 0
_.....cQ)Q)"';"" 0,0)-0
-c..ctlE t--.8c"'u
c 00 ..c > C\I .-:t: 0)
ctl_ <,-?o.oC\l"S"Q)ctl'-S::
~ ~'o 00 > ' 'E.. Q) _ 0._
::l 0'- . 0 .... C\I - E III a s::
o ~-Q)L()Q) s::
>Q)~~::::0>..cQ)~0).!!!
= :E ~ ,gl ..95 1U .!Q :E .- ;; a.
-
00
'>
Q)
00
ctl
Q)
a.
~
Ill:!
s:: s::
o 0)
:;:OE
lfi E
::::l 0
00
.8 Q) :!::: 0)
_ ..c c -.... ;;
00 00 ,g.$oc'S::o
'> .~ c.. ~ Q) 0 -
Q) > > E U .Q 0) ...
::It:.o Coo_o
00 0 E ctl oo.:'t:
ctl > Q).... > .-
Q) =f-oo"OE'Eo.
a. -=t)oouctlEo>
ctl::lCcoO)ctl
g> ~g~€~~i~
1i5 t--uc~Q)..c=::::l
~ o~Q):!:E~~~
6ctl~E~-ctlo)
Q) Q~ ctl.o c..OO O).r:.
:E c c....c ~ Q) .!!! .c -
Q) ctl _ c "0 c.._ 0)
.... ]:i-ctlO 0->':'
o --~..c-Q)U'ii:O""
Q; .;...; c: .~ ~ Q) :E Q) .c .5
.0 ctl ~ e.o ~ 0 "0 E ctl Q)
00 Q) --. c.. @ 0 - '> 0) '0 0)
c Oloo oo;::...c >o:t:: 0) E
l!1 ~ ~ :c c U g. a..!!! 1;)
c.. c-$::lu=.r:.::S::
Q).g ~ "5 Q; g, Q) .~ - 0).2
:E~c.8~....c....o:t::~
Q) ctl-- 0........ 1Il._
~.$~ ctlcx:)Q),glt::.cE
oo~ctl~<<ic.o~enoO)E
0"0"2 0 E ::=..c . 0. 3: 0
-.... Q)Q) I o 0l0)-0
-c..ctlE t--_c"'U
ffi _00 ~ 0 E' ~ "S 1i5 1; .~ g
~ ~'o 00 > I 'E.. Q) - E .-
::l 0'- . 0 .... C\I - E III 0. s::
o ~-Q)L()Q) s::
>Q)~~::::0>..cQ)~0).!!!
= :E ~ ,gl ..95 1U .!Q :E .- ;; a.
~
Ill:!
s:: s::
o 0)
:;:OE
lfi E
::::l 0
00
W -0 0 ~
c! o~ .5m ~ ro
o _ C~m ~= ~ ~ ~~
~ 0 .2 Q) a. n:s- C >-.- a.Q) n:s_
Q5Q)"C Cti.~CtJ a:o nscg>.Q.z; cJ:c
~.z;.~ ~~w Q)2 g<~ ~~ ~.~~
::; ~ ~ Q) 0 ~ .z; ~ &2 m ~.~ .s ~ ~
coc E~mctS>->- CtJ~~ m mo~
CtJQ5 E.o 0 Q):e.'E . Q) a.,- ffi '- '- >.+:;
~ .0 ~ 8 d> a.td ctS .Q,~ ~ E C ~ .9 : ~ g
~~o Q)>eEa.cu~w8Q) Om Q) 'Q)
.~- '-cua. ~E~w E .~ S~J:
~*~ ~~~~~~~~.9i ~~ ~~~
en J: (J) C .- - ctS "'5 a., :::J ~ Q. 0 cu ~ 0 0
~.Q~ ~~~~j.~~~c~ ~~ ~Oi
~~E g'~.o~>.ctS~~~o ~o g~E
$ 5. ~ Cti 1ij ~ ~ :g Q) ~ 0 _ ,5 .e ~ w U ~
~ctSQ) ~~~;~tdE~;E ~.~ ~!c
~.~~ ~d~~,-;8~~~ E1ij ~~~
ctS:::Jo ._coooco.-w 0_ o-Q)
-g-d>E~-'~EQ)-~dl.2? 000 ct::
~,-Q)cQ)Q)o"C,-E~~~_ ctS, 50~
g~2~~E~~~~~i.s~ ~! U~S
~ ffi 8 dl i c a. ctS - Q) Q) ~ r; ~ 'S: 0 Z. Q) en
cE~Ea~ID~~~iuE~ e~ G6c
8~~!~,~.z;'~d>Q)~Kz.~ a.~ Q).S.E
Q)_- E,-ctS>~E ._J: o~ ~ c
~E.~~~ES!~o Q)~O ;'ffi ~i~
~ < >- a5 -g 0"0 u >-~ g ~ a.~ Q).z; ~-g ll.
~~i~~~~~~i~;~~ ~g> iu!
a: 0 g. .9 :::.5 ~ 5.~ Q) 5i g ~ w 5 ~ ! .5 13
i~~~~~~!g~~~'ffi~ .g& ~!S
a:c=~-~~-o~c.Q.z;~~Q)~ ~~g
ctSctS>Cll.=Q)ucQ)a.oo+:;w :::J~o
:m -E.~.~ ~!'~.Q z.~ ~ g-; a. $ '0) -g ~ C Q)
~Q)~'~~=E~BaQ)=:::J!E~B S~~
(J)EQ)>-a.<Q)~Q)cwctS"C_-ctS~ ctSQ)
E"C'-ia. ~~J:'E:::J(J)~J:~c2 ~g-
Q)ffi~a.~~!g~2~~.Q~~i~.~~~
[Egi~~~'~dQ)~~Ctie8~'ffi~~ctSO
o<ctS-~cr..~goc"CQ)~~>-~c~oQ)Q)
~c~~:::J~cE:::J .c'-a. ~~mo'm.z;~
it ~ "E ID (J) >. ~ E 0 5 ttS ~ ~ ~ U C oS ~ .~ en!
o~Oc!.o~oO~~~Q)~Q)g~~E.5-
:!::: Q) ~.- - ~ C U ~{g.5 T""" E C S '-:!::: E"E.5
c'~B>'c.oQ)Q)occ~octS~~~ions"C
..~~ ~o~~'::<D~22en3:.E~1D~()g>~
~i!gd>E~o ,SE~~~~~~~~~~2
~~~'~.~ictS~~.9oliffi~-~noc'cgg
~ctSc.(J)-'-<D~Q)coQ) "Co"Cen_._cQ)'-
Uoa:E'~'~ctS~ctSgo~~2c~Q)"C~>-~"C!
oE (J)en~~~wQ)ctSnscJ:OIDCll.c
n. ~o_o.~ ~~ @ ~.gj-g13U5~:e ~-E e~! 8..9
~owogac.tCffi'~cctS~.~~o~~-~
.~~.~g+:;~~O'~E.~5~-3:@~8~i~~
~~~'~.~C.i~~EEo~~~~.g~~~8~
~g~~~~~~Q)~o~~~.~~E!~.~lll~~~
-en~~ctSen~SS~ ~~>c.w~ctSc. row
G .
ID
00 -0 en >
c ~ Ot .5w ~ ~
g - 5~ctS ES ~ Q) ~o
~ <D ~ ~.~ ~ ~ a ~ ~.~ ~:5 ~ ~ c
~S.~ ~~en <D$ g<~ ~~ ~.~.Q
:; ~ ~ Q) 0 ~ .z; ~ 8:2 m ~.~ .s ~ ~
c.2c EC\1mCtJ>-~ ctS..9::!g> cW IDO;,;:
ctS Q) E.o 0 <D :e.;::: . Q) c. ~ Q) ~ '- >-+:;
~~~ Od>a.~ctSO~~E- -0 ro_o
~en ~>e~n'ar:S;oa5 0- ~-:c
>.~.9 '-ron ~E~woE ,~ 513!
oons2 ctS <D <D~ <D"'O..9::!.9t ~rn c c-
i!.~ ~.~SctS~a~~~~ TI~ ~5g
=> g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ fU ~ 0 -g
.~.o:o .Q~.o."!:>-ro~{g~cn ~o gEE
~5.~ ~~~~~Q)~o_E .2~ eno~
~ro~ ~~m;~jE~m~ ~.~ ~~c
~~= ~d~~~~8~~~ E~ ~~~
~ g ~ . ~ ~ .9.~ ~ ~ .9 .~ ~ ~ 8 en g:t ~
~ '- Q) g Q) <D.2 "0 .: E ~ "0 ~ - ctS....: 5 8..~
.Qm2~.~E~~~~Ei~.z; ~~ O~$
:5 53 8 <D i c 5. ctS - <D <D ~ ~'~ .S: 0 Z. Q) en
cE~Ea~ID~~EiuE~ e~ G6Q
O"'OCQ)=~J:.~,-ctSQ)e 0 c.~ .5
oc~sctS.~~~~Q)'-n~! o~ ~~E
~~.~U~ES~~~E<D~o ;'ffi ~-g~
~ < >- ffi -g 0"0 0 >--6 g ~ a~ Q) S g>-g ~
.SQ)i~~o~~~c~-Eo ~rn .~u~
& ~ n ~ .5 g> ~ 5.:= ~ ~ ~ 8 -55 5:6 m.5 ::::
coe-~.2oQ)gooEg.:w 8~J:<D~
~~~2S@~S5~~~~~d>a5~ ~~E
r:u ~ ~.~ g a: ~ i U @ Q) lis ~:S .~ ~ ~.~ 8
:!:::~,~'-~~~.Qz.~~~Q)c.mQ)o <DC<D
~<D~'~g=~~Bai~~~~~~ sii
-E~~t8:<~~!.~:::Jenw~'GEE ~g~
Q)53~~~~~~~2~.~,~g~i~.~~~
[E g -g ~ ~ I- '~== m ~ ~ Cti e 8 ~.(i) w ~ ctS 8
o<ctS-~cr..~grr"oQ)gs>-a.C~oQ)<D
~c.5~:::J~~E:::J .C~c. :!:::~mo.~S'-
~ ~ 'E Q5 w >-~ E 0 g ctS ~ g- ~ 0 c S ~ .~ C>>~
oll.OEQ).o~Oo+:;~~<D:!:::<D~J:&E.5-
:!:::~~.-S..9::!cO~~ET"""EcSd>~"OE"E.5
C'-5>'c.o<D<DBcc~octS'-n><Doro~
..::;)~ ~OSi!E.<::: ID22oo;;:QwQ;U;Og'ID
~i!c .~~~~~E~2~~~~w~g>~~
~cQ),QC>>c.rooenoE_.s~o~oEQ)._~u
-g c a.~:S ~ <D ~ ~- 8 g.C/)~~-5 ~.9~ E c.~
g~E'~'~ctS~rogg~~$C~<D"C"'O>-~~!
~ oE WW~'-~OOQ)ctSgc~OIDC~C
c.. 00 0 0 ,S ~ t C c. ro ~c := U5 W ~ ~ ~ g ctS <D 8..9
~ .2 ~ 0 g a8.~.~ ~.~ g .s ~.~ -g ~ ~ ~ S ~ g
.~ .~.E g>~ ~ ~ 0 ~ E .~ 5 ~ - ~ ro ~ 8 ~ ~ t: ~
>~c'-~C.Q)C.<DEEoQ)~~wcnco:::Jo-
~uoE==en~~oE c>w2.ffiID~~O~
~~ctSfr.s~Q)<Doo~.E~~ctSC~e<D~o
~oo~~~w~=6~OO~;;:aU;~~alll~w
0.. ...
BOYER BUILDING CORP
3435 COUNTY ROAD 101
MINNETONKA, MN 55345-1017
CHANDA R LYONS
2931 WASHTA BAY RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7823
DONALD K & CHERL YN SUEKER
3111 DARTMOUTH DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8843
GARY A & KATHLEEN A MUSGJERD
6420 TANAGERS PT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7833
JEROME E COVENY
2921 WASHTA BAY RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7823
MARK A & YOMARIE OLSEN
2961 W ASHT A BAY CT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7848
OLlVEWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSN
6475 TANAGERS PT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7833
PETER A & MARY Z KNOLL
3131 DARTMOUTH DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8843
STEPHEN C & KAREN A MARTIN
3211 DARTMOUTH DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8844
THOMAS JOSEPH MERZ
3201 DARTMOUTH DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8844
BRUCE J & JEANNINE T HUBBARD
2841 WASHTA BAY RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7821
CHRISTINE J LUDTKE
6480 TANAGERS PT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7833
DONALD M NICHOLSON
2901 WASHTA BAY RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7823
GAYLE H & DOUGLAS DEHAAN
3071 DARTMOUTH DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7850
JOHN F & MARY C SCHUMACHER
2941 WASHTA BAY RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7823
MICHAEL HUGH GILMORE
2911 W ASHTO BAY RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7823
PAUL R & MARY K JOHNSTON
6485 TANAGERS PT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7833
ROBERT F & SANDRA K LAPRADE
6470 TANAGERS PT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7833
SUSAN I FIEDLER
3121 DARTMOUTH DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8843
WILLIAM C & JUDITH L BRITT
6460 TANAGERS PT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7833
CARVER COUNTY
600 4TH ST E
CHASKA, MN 55318-2102
DAVID G & STACEY R HURRELL
3081 DARTMOUTH DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7850
ESTATE OF HARRY/LOUISE AHRENS
178 SPRING LAKES PKWY
INGRAM, TX 78025-4408
HERBERT J & PATRICIA L PFEFFER
2850 TANAGERS LN
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7830
KRISTEN L ORTLlP
2831 WASHTA BAY RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7821
MINNEWASHTA HOME OWNERS
ASSN
2851 TANAGERS LN
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7819
PER & E LAURIE JACOBSON
2840 TANAGERS LN
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7830
STACEY R & MICHELLE R RICKERT
6440 TANAGERS PT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7833
THOMAS & JULIE FERGUSON
17645 48TH AVE N
PLYMOUTH, MN 55446-2012
ALAN C & CHRISTINE L LEIDING
6331 DOGWOOD AVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8850
DAVID M DRESSLER
6341 DOGWOOD AVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8850
GARY L OLSON
6301 DOGWOOD AVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8850
HENRY & DOLORES A ARNESON
13791 TONBRIDGE CT
BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135-3456
JUSTIN TOWNER
6311 DOGWOOD AVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8850
L WINSTON & ELAINE G HAGEN
6300 CYPRESS DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8841
L YNNEA MARYSE FORSETH
6350 DOGWOOD AVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8867
MINNEWASHTA SHORES INC
6341 CYPRESS DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8842
PAUL D QUARBERG &
3311 SHORE DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7815
PETER B & PAMELA J STROMMEN
3221 DARTMOUTH DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8844
BARBARA DIANE WINTHEISER
3321 SHORE DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7815
DOROTHY L SPENCER
6340 DOGWOOD AVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8867
GREGORY A & ROBIN M NIEMANN
3231 DARTMOUTH DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8844
JOHN L & LORI A WEBER
3220 DARTMOUTH DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7828
KATHLEEN F OESTREICH
PO BOX 624
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-0624
LADD N & SIA BLANGUM
6331 CYPRESS DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8842
MARK L & ELIZABETH A NELSON
3230 DARTMOUTH DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7828
NANCY J VAN EPS
6251 DOGWOOD AVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8849
PAUL DAVID COFFEY &
6351 DOGWOOD AVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8850
RACHEL MARY LIVINGSTON
3331 SHORE DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7815
BRIAN N & NANCY L TICHY
6240 CYPRESS DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8839
GARY C & KELLI R BHOJWANI
3301 SHORE DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7815
HAZEL C JOHNSON
6231 CYPRESS DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8840
JONATHAN D & KRISTI K HARRIS
3241 DARTMOUTH DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8844
KYLE R & TANYA M LOGSLETT
6330 DOGWOOD AVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8867
LARRY B & MARY CAROL
OPPEGAARD
6310 CYPRESS DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8841
MICHAEL A SR & TONI L HALLEEN
3351 SHORE DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7815
NATHANIEL C MALEN &
6321 DOGWOOD AVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8850
PAUL L & VIRGINIA L RICHIE
3342 SHORE DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7814
ROBERT M & SUSAN S MACUNA
6340 CYPRESS DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8841
SCOTT A & CHERYL L STURM
6230 CYPRESS DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8839
WILLIAM J & CATHRYN L FOSSING
6330 CYPRESS DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8841
STEVEN G & JEAN K WOOD
6341 CYPRESS DR
EXCELSIOR, MN55331-8842
WILLIAM & JEAN M MCDANIEL
3341 SHORE DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7815
Legend
Bhojwani Dock Variance Request
3301 Shore Drive
Public Hearing Notification Areas
D Subject Property
_ Properties within 500 feet
_ Additional Properties
Minnewashla
I // W~ih:~ik~~IHleiglh~'IP"k~l ~I \\ /:1-- J[J
k'j{: :-.'1<1' ':f \-\ ~t - ~ 'p;J ~ h rd 'I~ b.., I
~_~..~:d'/~I' Wrm:' ~ "[1' .~~1:~11
/f\~~ 1!- ;~~ \ s e; ( " w~ Fi~~rm;~rk' r.
~V~ /~ ~~:,J- ~
:t., rLJ If::: '/
'7'_w'-Y
e - F--::-\ l~
~J
~J~~I~ ~
ffi!3 h f- ' 17---'1\ \--:
enaae~~ ~~II ~
II L k ,'\,
. a e )'~tc~
. 'y:!/ ~. l-C
0; fJ Minnewashta : 'A
II-NI NiL f'iJi<>,' 'I
l~J r Sf;.::t- ,~ -r'>.
~~ous\ OHW944.5 j.Jt;. :;.
lR:aad oun' fi.JA' ~ '
L ... f-;; Hf.-...~ il '
k i:!i ~~ ~~""~~~~.~f>ir:~H"'~~.~
11l-J!; "Till-! ~~ fL' : '/sf, l~, !~~ r
J!/I-=7~~~ I 'I . ~~~
~ d1J!?-lU'e\\j ~~ ~7~f- ~ -"S ,\. ~~ ~
r~ Ijl~' t~~ \0
~~I[ ~ A~~fu~' ~
~ ~ ~ '~Tf,J;~< /: . I f":
_ ~"Drt~ '5J IT .
;;-!..l 1!1 \----l : -<-'Ii ~'r- CD: \ 0'
~~ ~ \'\5o'. . ~;~~l~
1~~rJ 'I-'lrJ -q:innesota lCoachCourl J m' .t:. '-J o;~ ,-
. ille Q 2 Coach Lane III R ~.. ),
. . '1i~ ,~Landscape ~8g~g~b~ace . _ . ~ --
. /;; Arboretum 5 Village Street:::: .-......, .-:>, ~ ~
" '." ~ L n~~;fu~~$.~ageT I .... ~~ 7rn~~
~o~--.' Arboretum~ ~l
Q"- --"1 I IU [ I -'AUI:~ R~e CI'II--
~ [~. 5 Aulumn Ridge In V
j7 11 6 AU,lumn Rodge WaYc ~ @lflJ
I I 7 If ,,,.,~~~_l
)
~; \U'\62lll6\010\l2l85l1lQ _llec 2 U.Ql:OO 1M 9Sl'IEV elM/WI I ~.il
-. -~IQ
II i ~ g
~~ ~ ~. F
:~i~l~
~pl.g:
~ ~~~~
$ - a ~ r;
~~~~~ I
II PLAT 60 ..
~
~~
Ii
z
In
~F
t~
i!
f~
-i.
~~
d
-.-
I
'l.a~u~~o~,:;c~~'~%~.~2~~~~~!~'~~P .@ I'p':J ;
[rI[Hi'HiHii'[mFiiiiiiiiiiimi i i' M~t
,t..Uman.r.W:iHmmmmU t i [.i
. limHl.m.l'mwmfn~J~ i ~ JI!~l
. % '" ~. ! ," ~ t '~i.t · ~ .ltu
1 ~ ' ~ ~gJ " .I.~" ',I. ·
I . " \ 1 · . <. ..." 'l
. ~ I l I,.f,:
, ' ~' ,
@" J ~!Ih
~ to., r'
~ i' i [ ~r~
it' il(
il . "'1
i ~ ~ ~ll
:r:
)> 0
z =i
:r: )>
)> -<
UJ \J ::00
UJ ::::0
m mOl
z 00
-u /-l mI
r-
)> -1 -)>
z: <2
~ I'..) mI
z: = O}>
G) (fJ
= (fJ
CJ !..O m
m Z
-u
-s
s;:
^
('T'J ,,~
s::
z ~~
z ~
fT1 ~'9-.
~
(J) (9.
I
);!
~
il
;;;
;;
A'"
-<
r
rr1
:r:
c
2
-t
l1:>
-U
}>
;;0
-t
Z
rr1
;;0
y>
z
0
~i%~.f.: Ii
,8"~':i, ~
118;.... a
j'ilih r "
o g r-J t
"'p ..
HIli
~. h ~
Ii 1f ~
.! f {I
ag:. :I
li' oA
~.... ,^
~~
~$
..p
'<y"
('
,-
5 U
()
~
0
() z
:r: r
}> .
z [;
V>
~ :r: ~
}> ."
(j) i
"1l (j) l <'
rr1
AI Z i ~ ~ -....
0 ; .. =--
c... " ?
rTl
~ ~ ,... ,.-:"
Z Z
9 z
rr1
0> (j)
!:1 0 H~ I
Ul ~ LAKE MINNEWASHTA
(') 0> - ;J~ I
0>
)> I i! oin
z ~ III
Z I 0:;<
m 0
c ) ;C