Loading...
1996 07 22CHANHASSEN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 1996 Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Watson, Willard Johnson and Mark Senn STAFF PRESENT: John Rask, Planner I VARIANCE FOR A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD. A 4 FOOT EAST SIDE YARD. A 5 FOOT WEST SIDE YARD AND LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCF_~ FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3705 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE, JAMES JASIN. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Watson: What is the total impervious surface, or the percent of loss? Rask: It really hasn't been reduced. He did shorten up the length of the structure. However, additional driveway will be needed then to reach the structure so we're still looking at about 51% I believe. Johnson: Do you want to comment Mr. Jasin at this time? Jim Jasin: My name is Jim Jasin. I live at 3870 Maple Shores Drive, and I guess I'd just like you to accept staff's recommendation. I've worked with staff however long, from the beginning and I've tried to take into account all their suggestions and I...so I'd just ask that you would accept what they're recommending. Johnson: Mark, any comments. Why don't you start. Senn: John, was the lot a 40 foot lot? Rask: Correct. Senn: And we don't have any minimum width? Rask: Minimum width on property would be 75 feet at the lakeshore, moving up to 90 feet for lot frontage. Frontage on a public street. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 Senn: So that was one of the things I was curious about. We're not really varying on that? Rask: Yeah, it's a non-conforming lot and a non-conforming building on there now so he's requesting a variance to do what he has proposed. Senn: ...non-conforming lot? Rask: Correct. Watson: The structure's 41 feet from the... Rask: Fourth floor currently. Senn: And there's a variance here on the surface coverage that the lot itself would require. Rask: No, because the way the ordinance, if it was a vacant lot and never contained a home or had a home on it, it would not be buildable under today's ordinance. The fact that he has a structure on there or there has been a structure on there prior to adoption of the ordinance, makes it a buildable lot. The question then comes into, what's a reasonable size home for this parcel. Under the ordinance you would be allowed, under today's ordinance he would be allowed to maintain that existing structure provided that he doesn't remove more than 50% of it. There's a 50% rule in there. So he could do just repairs to it and build it up on it's existing foundation without needing variances. It's when he takes the structure down and wants to start over, that all these other come into play. Senn: What do the neighbors think? I wasn't here. Rask: Over the past two meeting we have heard from several of the adjoining, the neighbors on both sides have submitted comments in writing and have attended the meetings and they are concerned with the impacts that the house would have on their properties. The neighbor to the northeast, they'd like to see similar variances granted on his property in the future. He also, if this one goes and gets developed into a large year round home, he would also consider doing the same thing but as currently these are more or less cottages. They were cottages at one point. Watson: There's another one down the road that wanted...the same situation but they waited. Rask: And with the other adjoining neighbor here has some concern also. I think some of those have been alleviated with shortening up the structure and reducing the height and they were here last time expressing concern. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 Senn: What is the need in relationship to the rebuilt? Rask: The need? Senn: I mean effectively what's being accomplished is they want to transform a cabin and a summer home into a permanent residence? Rask: Correct. Senn: Same owner, same occupant? Rask: No. The applicant recently purchased the lot. There's a resident in it now who I believe is renting the structure. He wants to replace it with a year round house for himself. It's I believe a retirement home. And the foundation on the existing structure is such that it wouldn't support much remodeling at all. Senn: This was in a couple months ago. Rask: Correct. Senn: But most of the discussion occurred at the last one. Rask: Yes. This would be the third revision you've seen on it. Johnson: We tabled the first one to come back with a better plan and we tabled the second one to come back with a better plan. Watson: I think the first one he wasn't here... Senn: I think this just starts and keeps going up...I don't know. Jim Jasin: Can I say something? You know I have worked with staff since day one and I've taken their recommendations all the way along and I have compromised all the way along. Each time I was asked to do something, I did it. The only thing I couldn't do of what was asked this time was from the 26 feet wide versus the 30 foot wide but I've compromised everything else that you've asked for. Even what you asked for at the last meeting. But yes, I've compromised... Johnson: Carol made a comment last time...but I can't go any smaller. Maybe less on the side lot...neighbor's property. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 Jim Jasin: Where I stand, a 1 foot difference from what she asked for on that side. Johnson: Yeah, but she asked for 7 feet on both sides. I wanted 10 because I've seen too much of this where they're sitting on top of the neighbors and you've got in the future, there's always a hassle. Jim Jasin: Well we're going to end up with 12 feet on one side and 17 feet on the other side. Watson: That's not your land. Johnson: That's not your land. Watson: See the other people can come over and do the same thing and then you don't have 12 feet on the side. Jim Jasin: Well there's been a lot of variances greater than that out there in that area. Johnson: No way. I've been on them so I know. Jim Jasin: ...Johnsons last time and said that she had 10 feet on either side of her house...she had a variance on the sidewalks so I don't know how she could get up and say that. The other thing is,...got a totally non-conforming deck that they never even came and asked for a variance for. He just built it. And I reserve saying that because...but here he's got a deck that's totally non-conforming that he never even asked for a variance. He just went and built it. And she's saying, she's got 10 feet on her side and she gets variances for side lot on her house. So I don't know. You know when people say...go back and check...on the side lots. Watson: What would be the address of that property? Approximately. Jim Jasin: 3629. Watson: 3629. They have about a 12 front yard and 3 foot side yard. And 15,000 square foot lot. Jim Jasin: So you know there she said, she didn't have any side yard and... Senn: Which one is that? Watson: 3629. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 Johnson: You're talking 13,000 square feet. Senn: Yeah, so there's no coverage... Jim Jasin: That's probably because she owns something on the back side. Not the lot itself because the lot is 40 x 151... 13,000 square feet. Watson: No, it's a 13,000 square foot area variance. Senn: Is that what that's supposed to say is lot area variance? Rask: Yes. Senn: I get it. Jim Jasin: It appears...and I'm going to be coming down with the roof length and going up with a look out where she's got a full three story. Another thing here is you look at Dave Hempel's deck, and there is no variance on the deck. It's way out from what would be allowed so I don't think that that's right. And I don't think Dave's got a problem right now with the side lot variance. When he spoke the last time he said, well if we're going to approve it, it doesn't make any difference to him whether it's 5 feet. Johnson: Well for fire sake, I feel the farther apart we keep it the better off we are. If we get a big storm out there and that place catches on fire, it will take out that whole strip. Senn: What's the address of the deck? Rask: 3707. Senn: 3707? Rask: Correct. Senn: There's a 20 foot front yard variance there for a comer lot. Rask: I don't think it's the deck. I didn't see any permits for it. I don't know if it was there before the ordinance... There's no indication as to when or where that, when that deck was constructed. Senn: When was the house constructed? Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 Rask: Boy, it was. Jim Jasin: You mean when was it remodeled? The deck was one way after they remodeled, to my understanding. Rask: We don't have any building permits for the original house either. We would on the remodel. We would on the garage addition. But we do not have any original building permits. Senn: If we have it off the remodeling, wouldn't there be some records of that deck? Rask: If it's all internal, they're not expanding the footprint, they don't have to get surveys. Senn: Okay. Johnson: If the gentleman on the other side comes up and wants to build a home the same size and we've already granted a variance for this one, we'll have a whole bunch of them sandwiched just like a sardine can. Jim Jasin' Well you'd just have two houses that way because this lot is two lots and the one over on the next side is two lots. Dave's got two lots and the one on the other side of this lot. Watson: But there's others in there that don't. Johnson: Once we set a precedent, we leave ourselves wide open. Senn: Well, you two have sat through everything so I think I'll wait for' direction. Watson: Well the only reason I'd accept those parameters...was because I felt that that was what I was going to live with. And I'm saying that I had hoped that we had to come down...and those parameters. The original footprint has put us closer to the lake obviously than we would like to be, and lots of other things that come into play that we can't really control at this point. Jim Jasin: These lots were plotted in 1916 and it's hard to apply 1980 rules to 1916 lots. Johnson: You've got to bend some on some of them. I've seen a lot in this city where the people have tried to work with the city board and the staff. I think Carol gave you a pretty good figure which we would try to live with. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 Watson: We've got a couple neighborhoods like this... Johnson: Yeah, we've got three neighborhoods in this city that could just like a snowball it could affect the neighborhoods too. Well you did it for this guy, you've got to do it for us. Watson: Well you know. I mean if, on one side of the house we have a 4 foot from the side yard, right? Or 6 feet on the one side and 4 on the other. Johnson: I still say it should be 7 and 7 at least. I wanted 10 but I'll go along with 7 and 7 but I won't go with less. And there are homes that would fit on there. Watson: Do we have any statistics John? John, do we keep any statistics about where are smallest side lot line variances are? You know, what have we done. Where have we done them. What was our reasoning when we allowed 4 feet... I'm just wondering what, if we've done that. Rask: No we haven't. Watson: Do we have any 4 foot side yard? Rask: That, I'm sure we probably do somewhere. They're existing. Watson: They're existing but nothing that we have actually done. Rask: Yeah, that I can't speak to. I don't think you see any that close on the variances granted on Red Cedar Point. Jim Jasin: There's an 8 foot side yard variance they granted, 3906. Rask: Okay. Yep. Jim Jasin: There is a 4 foot granted to 3605. There's a 4.5 foot granted to 3725. There's a 4 foot 8 inch side yard on 3624. Watson: Well I guess for 3624 that was a garage so the structure's not going to be nearly as large. Jim Jasin: So there was an 8 foot on... Watson: For a deck and porch. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 Jim Jasin: 4.5 foot on 3725. If you want to go 5 and 5, that's fine with me. That's not an issue. I know Dave Hempel said last time that 5 and 5 was okay with him. Johnson: But you've got to get back to the back yard and you'll be walking on the neighbor's property. You've got to get to the back yard and that's a pretty slim area. 5 foot on either side is too close. 7 is too close. 10 is even marginal. Watson: What do you think Mark? Give us a new look here. Senn: Well I think if you two have kind of set the parameter and you've done it twice, you know 7 foot. I mean it's up to you I think whether you want to stick to your guns or not. If you want to stick to your guns, well I'll support it with you. My biggest problem with this, from my standpoint, the thing that bothers me the most about it is the coverage. Watson: The 51%. That's what bothers me too... Senn: We can sit here and 12 feet here and 12 feet there from the side yard is all we want or from... Watson: But more than half of this lot is impervious surface and no matter how hard we try to run the water off that, the runoff to the street, we're going to be running runoff straight into that lake regardless of how we do it simply because the coverage is so high. Jim Jasin: But Carol we're only talking about a 40 by 44 foot section that would all go forward. Everything else is going back to the street. Watson: Well I understand that. Jim Jasin: And how much water is there in 40 x 44? That's less than half the size of this room. It's not that big a yard. Watson: Not assuming that every bit of the rest of it goes to the street, that's probably true. If it all makes it to the street. Jim Jasin: That's my plan and I know that I can do that. Watson: Well I'm not going to make the motion this time. I did it last time. Jim Jasin: Staff recommends approval. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 Watson: We understand that. Senn: We don't even allow that kind of a coverage ratio is any type of a commercial investor situation, and even there we've got storm sewers that can trace them all over the place. Watson: Right, we don't have that here. Johnson: The folks down the street that have that low spot across the road. It will look like a hockey rink, with an island in the middle out there. Senn: The thing that, when lots were created on the basis of 40 feet by whatever you said this was. 150 feet I think. Nobody ever anticipated, or I can guess even imagined that this size of a structure would ever be put on a lot this size. As far as coverage goes. Watson: Well, when I came down here in 1979 either did I. It never occurred to me. In fact it was that very issue that started this whole thing for me. Senn: I mean as you all know, I'm probably one of the most liberal benders on variances... Well I mean most the time when we're dealing with these things, I mean to allow somebody to add on something to stay in their house or something like that. I mean those get to be hard decisions. Do it this way and let them stay or do you tell them it's time to move on. I don't know. But I mean all the years I've been sitting on this I don't remember any record near 50% impervious and that's what I guess I keep coming back to. Jim Jasin: There's a lot of them out there, I'll address your point, that are way over... Watson: Yeah but we didn't do that specifically. I mean we know we're sitting here with a proposal that's going to cover 51% of this piece of ground. We know that. You know the figures are in front of us. Johnson: Technically the non-conforming one is smaller. Watson: Technically my 7 feet on each side isn't going to solve that problem for us. I mean I picked it but it's not going to significantly change. Johnson: But still our problem the situation is much of this...and I know what Mark is saying too. 51% to put your house up. Then you put a walkway around the house and you've covered the whole lot. Jim Jasin: Well I'll trim the side of the driveway with lilacs. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 Watson: I'm ready for a motion. Johnson: I make a motion that we deny the variance at 3705 South Cedar Drive. House is too large. Too much coverage, over 51%. Senn: I'll second that. Johnson: Any more discussion? Johnson moved, Senn seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals deny the 4 foot west side yard variance, 6 foot east side yard variance, 34 foot lakeshore setback variance, and a variance from the maximum impervious surface requirement of 25% for the construction of a single family home on the basis that the house is too large and there's too much impervious coverage at 51°/~ All voted in favor and the motion carried. Johnson: You can appeal this to the Council. Senn: I think it's important that you understand...Staff tried to work with you to come up with the best workable solution...you can go to Council because the Council can make any decision they want...and that's really the best place for a decision such as this. If there's any way that staff... ZONING APPEAL FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO ALLOW A BOAT LIFt ON THE BOYER'S STERLING ESTATF3 BEACHLOT AT OUTLOT 1, BOYER'S STERLING ESTATES, MARY J. MOORE. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Johnson: Does the ordinance specifically say anything about boats...? Rask: No. No, we don't address that. We have a separate section of the Code that deals with recreational beachlots and we don't refer to boat lifts specifically anywhere in that. It just states that all structures need to meet that 10 foot setback. No place anywhere in our ordinance do we deal with boat lifts. Even on an individual lot. We state there's only three boats moored on a site but we don't say if they can be tied to a dock or boat lift or pulled on shore. Johnson: The only thing I was referring to is all the literature I read here, there's no referring to the boat lift whatsoever. That's the reasoning of course. 10 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 Watson: I walked down there earlier, I walked down again at 5:30 tonight and it looks okay...weeds around the dock area, but I mean other than that. I had to chuckle at this part though. This beachlot is larger than a lot of the houses going in... From the letter we have in here from Mary Moore, there's a lot of talk about mess, which I realize is not our problem at this point but it's gone, outside of there being a couple dock sections which are very neatly laid on the one side and there's some piece of metal or some such thing next to it, but other than that, there wasn't. I walked out on the dock. It's crooked but it's perfectly safe. It's not rotted or in any way hazardous. It's just like...but basically I didn't think the property was in bad condition or anything. I was curious how many people use it. Do they use it a lot? Rask: It appears there are two boats. It does allow two for the homeowners. Watson: One boat was out and waterskiing. Rask: I don't know how often it's used on weekends. Watson: As far as swimming goes and that kind of thing. I was just curious about that but I actually felt that the property was in pretty good condition. I don't know if it just got cleaned up. I certainly can testify to that part of it. Rask: We did contact a homeowner association last year regarding some dock pieces that were left down there and those were cleaned up. There are a few down there now. Watson: And what do we, with these association lots, what normally is done with the dock for instance when it's pulled out in the winter time. Is that left on that property? Rask: Sure. Watson: I can't imagine how you'd have a raffle and the one with the shortest straw would have to take the dock home or what. Rask: It's just last year when we contacted the homeowners association, it seemed to be pieces that weren't being used so we simply requested that if you aren't going to use these pieces, please remove them from the property. Watson: The Mayor was going to join us this evening. He was concerned about the location of the dock. Whether there was the 10 feet and that maybe the dock should be centered a little better. Not take it out now but maybe next year so that there was even more spacing on each side. I didn't walk that off and try to figure all that out but that was his desire. 11 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 Senn: It's not our consideration anyway. Johnson: ...the boat lifts on the lake, as I look around the lake... Watson: Well I could make a motion. Mary Moore: Are you going to allow for comments? Watson' Is this a public hearing John? Rask: Yes it is. Johnson: Go ahead. State your name and address please. Mary Jo Moore: Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive .... brought the appeal. This ordinance which I've been involved with for 16 years was established because of the nuisance of...these outlots. This is definitely an intensification of this outlot. They tried to get boat lifts in there before and it was denied. I don't know why your records don't reflect that. As I pointed out in my letter, the section of the city ordinances as to why they did it. I think a boat lift is another structure. It's not a dock, no. But it is another structure and that was never the intent of the ordinance. Now this ordinance did not just apply to outlots. It applies to lakeshore owners also. As an offset to this ordinance, the lakeshore owners are not restricted to three boats. My husband parked a boat there because it wasn't registered in my name. There are other restrictions that have been going on with this ordinance that everybody else abides by. I have Minnewashta Shores to the west of me. Every year they review at their annual meeting what the ordinance provisions are. If there have been any new changes. There's been no abuse. They keep their property clean and neat and they don't allow other people using it...over here has allowed other people using this as a public facility. They aren't even residents of the area. I have motorcycles, trucks, cars running on this ramp. I'd also like to know if you allow this to stay, where it will be stored. If I have to look at this all winter, it can't be taken out unless they use a truck...It was put in by a big truck. It's not just the fact that it's there. There's an abuse to this lot. There's no way to put it in or take it out unless you take a truck. That's another abuse of the ordinance. I just don't understand when you pass an ordinance...how you can now back off and allow this to start all over again. I will stop...if that's going to be the case. I wouldn't allow my son to park his boat at my dock because of this ordinance. You know where's it going to stop? Do we start all over again? And I'd like to know if you want this to go through, where this is going to be stored .... again like the dock is, I'll be very upset. That's all I have to say. Johnson: Anyone else wish to address this. 12 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 Senn: I have a question if I could for Ms. Moore. Are you contending then that under the ordinance, individual lake owners can have up to three boats with no boat lifts? Mary Jo Moore: No. I'm saying that...I have not had a boat there...not registered in my nalIle. Senn: No I understand that but you just said. Mary Jo Moore: No, I can have a boat lift. Senn: Okay, why can you have a boat lift and why can't they? Mary Jo Moore: Because the ordinance restricts the abuses of these recreational beachlots where development came in with a large parcel of land and stuck 40 feet aside for everybody to access the lake... Senn: ...the number of boats. Mary Jo Moore: ...the ordinance says they maintain what they have and they have two. They cannot enhance it. They cannot add other structures and only two boats. Now I feel a boat lift is a structure. It's not going to be driven around the lake. It's a structure. Senn: So are you willing to apply that same standard to individual homeowners? Mary Jo Moore: What? Watson: No boat lifts. Mary Jo Moore: There is no requirement on boat lifts for individual homeowners. I have 122 feet of lakeshore. I can have three boats. They have 40 feet and they can have two boats and a dock, a boat lift and... Senn: Well you could have three boat lifts. You could have. Mary Jo Moore: No I can't. Senn: Under the current ordinance you can. Watson: There wouldn't be anything to stop you in the ordinance. 13 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 Senn: Well I mean, the basic thing that bothers me is I don't think this is a matter of ordinance interpretation. The ordinance pure and simply does not address it. If we want to get into addressing whether boat lifts are or aren't docks or structures or whatever, then I suggest we send it back and look at the ordinance all the way through the process again and look at it and decide whether it's something that should be included or not included but I don't know .... because it's going to be a real interesting argument when we start coming into individual lake owners. Watson: Individual lakes and lakeowners and properties are closer together and further apart. Senn: Yeah, because one neighbor doesn't like looking at the boat lift that the other one has and I see that as kind of just basically becoming another contention for...back and forth but to me again that's a separate issue. I think again, I don't see. Watson: ...is not addressed at all. Senn: I don't know how you could look at this ordinance in any way, shape or form and contend that boat lifts were ever addressed. Because not once are they mentioned anywhere, nor are they even referenced as it relates to the ordinance. So I don't know why you know, from our standpoint I don't think it's a matter of interpretation. Watson: Do we have any other, just out of curiosity, beachlots with boat lifts on them? Rask: Yes, quite a few. Watson: So are they all conforming or are some of them also where they do like this one and not? Rask: Oh, there's a lot of non-conforming with boat lifts. Mary Jo Moore: Those were grandfathered in at the time of the survey. Senn: We have a lot of new recreational beachlots that were created with developments that weren't even there before and they all have rules attached to them in terms of the number of docks and numbers of boats but again, nowhere in any of those does it address boat lifts nor does it in relationship to development agreements or PUD agreements or whatever as they may deem, which get pretty specific by the way. I mean some of them come down and say you can't even put a gazebo down there and you can't put this and it gets very specific of all that you can do and not do, and there's no reference anywhere to boat lifts. So I think it's an overall issue that if. 14 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 Mary Jo Moore: It needs to be stored. Senn: The same place every lakeowner stores them. lakeshore. Again, the ordinance does not tell us that. On their property adjacent to the Mary Jo Moore: How are they going to get it out? Senn: Well, I don't know. Watson: Well how do private dock owners get their boat lifts out of the water? Senn: Do you have a boat lift? Mary Jo Moore: No. Senn: Do any of your neighbors have a boat lift? Mary Jo Moore: Yes. Senn: Where do they store their boat lifts? Mary Jo Moore: I'm not sure. I mean they aren't close neighbors. I don't know where they store them. I don't see them in the winter. Senn: I would guess everybody does on the lake. Watson: Just pulls them up out of the water. Senn: I mean that's the problem of what you're suggesting we get into because every place you have one neighbor who has one and one neighbor who doesn't have one, we're going to like I say get into arguments over can they be there. Can't they be there. Can they be stored there. Can't they be stored there. Johnson: I realize the fact that it says no vehicles but you can't tell them, I don't think we can tell them how to take that boat lift out of the water. If you just take the truck. Mary Jo Moore: It says...motorized vehicles. That's in the ordinance. Senn: Then they can put it in and out with a winch. They don't need a vehicle to get it. 15 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 Mary Jo Moore: It was a pretty big truck to put it in. Johnson: There's a gentleman over here who wants to speak. Do you want to speak? Ted Bigos: My name is Ted Bigos and I've lived at the house where the outlot is for 15 years...and sometimes he'd use it all the time.,.pump out the water and my boat sunk a couple times so I bought this new boat. This time I wanted to make sure I bought a lift and before I bought the $2,000 lift I talked to people in the city and asked if it would be a problem to have a boat lift. The people who cut my grass also maintain the grass there, the lawn service. I don't see why I shouldn't be able to have a boat lift when everybody else on the lake had boat lifts. It doesn't seem fair. I've got some pictures here, if you look from her back yard, there's a couple trees. You can even see where my boat lift is so it doesn't seem an issue... Johnson: Anybody else wish to address this? State your name and address please. Paula Roettger: My name is Paula Roettger and I live at 3221 Dartmouth Drive. I live adjacent also to that outlot and I don't see a problem with having a boat lift down there. I've lived for almost 20 years. I think it's just more of a harassment on her part not to have a boat lift down there. She's tried every year to restrict that property as much as possible. I guess I'm in favor of having a boat lift down there. I, myself had a boat lift on my property. I stored it on my shoreline. I store my boats, or my dock, I'm sorry, on the outlot for several years before and now she's made it virtually impossible to even work with that property. She does not maintain it. She doesn't have any rights to it. She doesn't even pay taxes for it and frankly I don't even know why we're listening to her. I guess that's pretty much all I have to say. I'm in favor for having a boat lift down there. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? John Webbed: from the outlot. Thank you. My name is John Webbed and I live at 3220 Dartmouth Drive, right across I keep my boat down there with Ted's and the boat lift isn't a problem at all. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? Senn: What are we doing? Watson: How do we do this? We're not going to address the... 16 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 Rask: The recommendation that we've made here is for the Board to find that the City staff made a correct interpretation of the ordinance. We list 1 through 4 there specifically why we felt the boat lift was an allowed use for the property. Senn: Okay. Well I'll move approval that staff administratively correctly interpreted the current ordinance and the current ordinance finds no definition to nor references in any way, shape or form to boat lifts and under the current ordinance it would be very difficult...real difficult for us to render an opinion otherwise. And I would just suggest as an adjunct to that, if somebody feels that there's a need to regulate them, then it ought to be addressed as part of an ordinance. Not as part of the interpretation of an existing ordinance without any reference to them. Watson: I'll second that. Do we want to ask Roger? This was an appeal of a Planning Department's decision to allow a boat lift on a non-conforming beachlot. And the ordinance doesn't address boat lifts pro or con. Is this, what we've done okay? I mean is it enough? Roger Knutson: Yes. Johnson: Thank you Roger. Any more discussion? Senn moved, Watson seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals finds that city staff made a correct interpretation of the City Code and the non-conforming use permit for Boyer's Stealing Estates Beachlot when allowing a boat lift to remain adjacent to the dock. More specifically the Board finds the following: o The intent of the non-conforming beachlot permit was to limit the number of boats, size of the dock, location of dock, swimming beaches, and use of the shoreland, and not to set specific standards on how boats were to be moored or the size or type of boat. . Staff did not inventory boat lifts at the time of permit application, nor did the Planning Commission or City Council request this information. Therefore, no record exists on the number or location of boat lifts on any beach lot within the City. 3. The Board does not consider the boat lift to be an intensification of the use because no additional boats will be moored or docked on the beachlot. 4. The 40 feet of lake frontage appears to have sufficient area for a boat lift while maintaining the 10' setback from the extended lot lines. Ail voted in favor and the motion canied. 17 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 Johnson: If you wish to you can appeal to the City Council. Mary Jo Moore: Thank you. Watson moved, Johnson seconded to close the public hearings. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals dated June 24, 1996 as presented. All voted in favor, except Senn who abstained, and the motion carried. Watson moved, Johnson seconded to adjoum the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion carded. The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Submitted by John Rask Planner I Prepared by Nann Opheim 18