1a Boyer Lake Minnewashta AddCffYOF
CHAN SEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen. Mi,155317
Administration
Phane: 952.227.1100
Fa:,:: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
..z::~::.~: 952 227.i180
Fa::: ,2522271190
Engineering
F:,c. re: 952 2211160
Fa, 952 22
Finance
Park & Recreation
;::, 952.22711!0
Fa,: 9522271404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Fz',: g52 227.!i!3
Public Works
!591 Park Roao
Fa;,:: vu,.22,', iolu
Senior Center
nn~,,~. 952.227.1125
~,,~,,~..
FCx. ,.,52.~2 ~. ti10
Web Site
. . ,
MEMORANDLTM
To: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
From: Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner
Date: September 16, 2002
Re: Final Plat to replat 13.6 acres into 10 single family lots, three outlots, one
of which is a beachlot, Boyer Lake Minnewashta Addition.
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting final plat approval to subdivide 13.6 acres into 10 single
family lots and three outlots. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family.
The average lot size is 39,149 square feet with a resulting net density of 1.25 units
per acre. The site is located south of Highway 7, west of Washta Bay Road, north
of Lake Minnewashta, and east of Dartmouth Drive. Access to the subdivision
will be provided via extensions of Dartmouth Drive and a cul-de-sac off of
Washta Bay Road (Washta Bay Court).
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance. There are three outlots shown on the plat. Outlots A and B
are remnant pieces. The applicant may consider deeding them to adjoining
properties. Outlot C contains a beachlot.
The site has mature trees, which the applicant is making an effort to preserve.
However, due to the construction of storm ponds, streets, and grading for house
pads, mature trees are being lost.
Outlot C (beachlot) contains wetlands and mature trees. Staff recommended a
preservation easement over portions of the beachlot containing wetlands and
vegetation. On August 16, 2002, vegetation was removed within the area
proposed to be preserved. The disturbed area must be restored prior to any site
construction and no later than November 15, 2002 (regardless of the plat).
In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor
revisions will be required. We are recommending that the subdivisiOn of the
property be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report.
The City of Chanhassen ', ' cro,...;:;o. ~ COrmmuni;v, with clean !.~p¢,..~. ,.,...:.~n, mi;t,, schools, a charmine~ downtown, thdvino. businesses. ,,.,., n4,_,,,,~.ns trails, and beautiful .~nark,~..A o~at~ p!ac¢ to .,iive. ,..,,,ark~ .,. and pray.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
On May 13, 2002, the City Council adopted the following:
PRELIMINARY PLAT
"The City Council approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision #02-6 for Boyer Lake
Minnewashta for 11 lots and one beach lot with variances for a 50 foot right-of-way Width, a 9%
right-of-way grade, and a 50 x 80 house pad on Lot 4, Block 2, as shown on the plans received
April 9, 2002, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall make note on landscaping plan that evergreens shall average 7' in
height, with a 6' minimum.
This condition has been met.
.
Each lot shall have a minimum of one overstory deciduous tree planted in the front yard
setback area.
This condition still applies.
,
A preservation easement shall be dedicated over the westerly 400 feet of the beach lot and
the portion located west of Lot 4, Block 2 and east of the channel.
This condition has been modified to read "A preservation easement shall be
dedicated over the westerly 400 feet of (Outlot C) the beachlot, and the portion
located east of the path on the recreational beachlot, the easternmost 70 feet of
Outlot C, south of the drainage and utility easement. Approximately 50 feet of silt
fence must be installed across the westernmost portion of the property along the
lakeshore to prevent further erosion into Lake Minnewashta. Wetland buffer areas
should be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
applicant should install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff,
before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign. Conservation
easements must be delimited by permanent conservation easement monuments. The
monuments must be approved by the City prior to installation and should be
installed on the property corners of Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 and should also be installed
every 50 feet along portions of the conservation easement not bounded by lots. All
brush piles currently existing on-site shall be removed. The brush may be chipped
and/or composted, but may not be burned."
.
In lieu of land dedication and/or trail construction, full park and trail dedication fees
should be paid. These fees are to be paid at the rate in force upon final platting and/or
building permit application. The current rate is $1,500 per single family dwelling for
parks and $500 per single family dwelling for trails. One-third of all park and trail fees
applicable to the entire plat are due at the time of final platting. The remaining two-thirds
are paid independently at the time of each building permit application.
This condition still applies.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 3
o
The easterly lot line of Lot 1, Block 2, shall be extended to the north eliminating the
finger extending to the east. The remnant parcel shall be deeded to the property to the
east. The area located south of the 50-foot cul-de-sac fight-of-way, off of Washta Bay
Road, shall be deeded to the property to the south.
This condition has been partially met. The easterly property line of Lot 1, Block 2,
has been extended to the north, creating a small triangular outlot (Outlot A). The
remnant portion located south of Washta Bay Court has been labeled Outlot B. The
condition has been amended to read "The applicant shall be responsible for
maintaining Outlots A and B".
6. The subdivision shall comply with the following table:
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Building
Area Width Depth Sel~back
Ordinance 15,000 non-riparian 90' 125'
20,000 riparian
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 37,092 102' 345'
Lot 2 36,621 96'
Lot 3 47,972 77' on curve
Lot 4 45,357 70' on curve
Lot 5 37,978 53' on curve
Lot 6 21,467 68' on curve
Lot 7 22,876 127' 215'
Lot 8 20,285 107'
Block 2
Lot 1 4gr939 33,558 9-7-' 260' 191'160'
T ~,~ ~ 24 761 .v_,~ Q< ~,,,~ <<' 30'/30'
.lat./t. ~ ,
369'
329.5'
225'
304'
220'
229'
30'/30'
30'front/rear
10' sides
30'/30
10'
30'/50'*
10'
30'/50'*
10'
30'/50'*
10'
30'/30'/60**
10'
30'/30'/60**
10'
30'/30'/60**
10'
30'/30'/60**
/30'***/10'
10'
I fi'
Lot 3
Lot 4
' ~ 1 < ~ g 141,725 (Beach Lot)
.L ...~ ,..J .1.
¢85394 88,288 riparian84' on curve 670'
30'/75'/50'
10'
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 4
The 50-foot setback includes a 10-foot average wetland buffer'in addition to a
40-foot structure setback.
The 60-foot setback includes a 20-foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40-foot
structure setback.
**"": The 30-foot bluff setback includes a 20-foot bluff impact zone.
Some lot lines have been moved and two lots in Block 2 have been combined into one lot as
recommended by City Council.
bo
do
g.
Fire Marshal Conditions:
a. An additional fire hydrant will be required at the intersection of Washta Bay Road
and the new proposed street.
This condition has been met. An additional fire hydrant is shown on the
construction plans (page 3 of 7).
A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around the fire hydrant i.e., street lamps trees,
bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
This condition still applies.
When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection is required to be installed such protection shall be installed and made
serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota
Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3.
This condition still applies.
No burning permits will be issued for trees that are removed. Trees or brush must be
either removed from site or chipped.
This condition still applies.
Submit street names to the Chanhassen Building Official and the Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
This condition has been met. The easterly cul-de-sac Washta Bay Court is
acceptable and Dartmouth Drive is an extension.
Submit cul-de-sac designs to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
review and approval.
This condition has been met.
On lots 4,5,6,7 and 8, additional address signs may be required at the driveway entrance if
address numbers on the house are not visible from the street. Contact the Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for additional information pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention Division Policy #29-1992.
This condition still applies.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 5
.
The utility and drainage easement along the northerly property line of Lots 1 and 2, Block
2, shall be increased to 10 feet, as requested in the attached memo from Reliant Energy,
Minnegasco.
This condition has been met.
.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Building Official Conditions:
a. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures.
This condition still applies.
b. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
This condition still applies.
c. Provide a water service connection for Lot 8.
This condition still applies.
d. Permits are required for the roof drainage piping on Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8.
This condition still applies.
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420).
This condition still applies.
All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer edge.
This condition still applies.
All structures shall maintain a 75-foot setback from the OHW of Lake Minnewashta.
This condition still applies.
The applicant shall obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CLIP) for the proposed recreational
beach lot and shall obtain amendments to the CLIP prior to any alterations to the beach
lot.
This condition still applies, how ever, it has been modified. On August 16, 2002, the
applicant removed vegetation located on proposed Outlot C. The site vegetation
must be restored prior to any site infrastructure or site grading construction and no
later than November 15, 2002. The restoration of the site is a matter that has to be
completed regardless of the plat. No amendment to the CUP will be needed once the
site restoration occurs.
The last catch basin prior to discharge into each pond shall be a sump catch basin.
This condition still applies.
The applicant examined the slopes near the southwest comer of Lot 8, Block 1 and
determined they meet the City's criteria for a bluff (rise of 25 feet above the toe and a
slope averaging 30% or greater). All structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the
top, toe and sides of the bluff.
This condition has been modified. The plans indicate that the slope meets the bluff
criteria. As such, the condition will read "All structures shall maintain a 30-foot
setback from the top, toe and sides of the bluff."
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 6
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Easement types and locations shall be called out on the preliminary plat.
This condition has been modified to read "Drainage and Utility easement types and
locations shall be called out on the final plat".
An encroachment agreement for the trail on Lot 3, Block 2 shall be obtained prior to trail
construction.
This condition has been modified to read "An encroachment agreement for the trail
on Outlot C shall be obtained prior to trail construction.
Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
This condition still applies.
Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 10.65 acres, the water quality
fees associated with this project are $8,520; the water quantity fees are approximately
$21,087. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are
provided to treat runoff from the site and adjacent areas. The cun'ent proposal appears to
provide water quality treatment for runoff from 4.1 acres on-site and 39.0 acres off-site.
(These figures will be finalized upon final review of the sto~Tn water calculations.) In
addition, two outlet structures are proposed. Preliminary calculations show a credit of
$39,480 against total fees of $29,609. At this time, the estimated total SWMP credit due
to the applicant for the provision of ponding for off-site areas in accordance with the
SWMP is $9,871.
This condition still applies.
The applicant must apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources)
and comply with their conditions of approval.
This condition still applies.
Approval of this application is contingent upon the City of Shorewood reviewing and
approving this application.
This condition still applies.
The existing driveway access off of Highway 7 shall be abandoned.
This condition still applies.
Lot 3, Block 2 shall be platted as an outlot.
This condition has been met. Lot 3, Block 2, has been platted as Outlot C.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 7
24.
The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards.
This condition is a duplication of condition #26. As such, it has been deleted.
25.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
This condition still applies.
26.
Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review.
The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. All of the
ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards.
Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public
storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year
flood level. The minimum utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
This condition has been modified to read "The storm sewer must be designed for a
10-year, 24-hour storm event. All of the ponds are required to be designed to
National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Drainage and utility
easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage
system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood
level. The minimum utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide."
27.
Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used around the grading perimeter of the site
and that Type llI silt fence be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands. The silt fence
shall be removed at the completion of construction. A 75-foot minimum rock
construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during
construction.' The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading would require an
easement from the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas must be sodded or
seeded and mulched within two weeks of grading completion.
This condition still applies.
28.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City's Building Department.
This condition still applies.
29.
Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction
plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will
also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 8
the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the
MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc.
This condition has been modified to read "Public utility improvements shall be
constructed in accordance with the City's latest editions of Standard Specifications
and Detail Plates. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the
City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or
cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of
final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be
obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed
District, Carver County, etc."
30.
Add all applicable 2002 City of Chanhassen Detail Plates to the plans.
This condition still applies.
31.
The proposed development will be required to meet the existing stormwater runoff rates
for the 10- and 100-year, 24-hour storm events.
This condition still applies.
32.
Revise the plans to show the following for all of the public streets: a 28-foot back-to-back
pavement width, a 50-foot right-of-way, and a 45.5-foot pavement radius for the cul-de-
sac with a 60 foot right-of-way radius. Also, the applicant must provide a uniform
transition from the existing 22-foot wide pavement of Dartmouth Drive to a new 28-foot
street section.
This condition has been modified to read "The applicant must provide a uniform
transition from the existing 22-foot wide pavement of Dartmouth Drive to a new 28-
foot street section."
33.
Abandon the existing utility lines on the east side of the site, west of the proposed
manhole connection. Also, the existing house services shall be connected to the new
utility lines and the existing driveway access realigned through the bubble of the cul-de-
sac.
This condition still applies.
34.
According to the City's Finance Department records, the underlying parcels on the east
and west sides were previously assessed for sanitm3, sewer and water. However, the
underlying parcel in the center of the site was not assessed for utilities. As such, the
proposed homesite on Lot 4, Block 2 will be required to pay a sanitary sewer connection
charge. The current 2002 lateral connection charge for sanitary sewer is $4,335 per lot.
Since the developer will be extending the lateral sewer and water mains to the remaining
lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. Sanitary sewer and
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 9
35.
water hookup charges will still be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2002 trunk
hookup charge is $1,383 for sanitary sewer and $1,802 for' watermain.
This condition still applies however, it has been revised to read "According to the
City's Finance Department records, the underlying parcels on the east and west
sides were previously assessed for sanitary sewer and water. However, the
underlying parcel in the center of the site was not assessed for utilities. As such, the
proposed homesite on Lot 1, Block 3 will be required to pay a sanitary sewer
connection charge. The current 2002 lateral connection charge for sanitary sewer is
$4,335 per lot. Since the developer will be extending the lateral sewer and water
mains to the remaining lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be
waived. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will still be applicable for each
of the new lots at the rate in effect at the time of building permit. 'The 2002 trunk
hookup charge is $1,383 for sanitary sewer and $1,802 for watermain."
36. On the utility plan:
a. Add storm sewer schedule.
b. Show the proposed utilities sewer length and slope, and revise type and class of
sewer.
c. Revise sanitary service size from 4 inches to 6 inches.
d. Relocate the fire hydrant between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1.
e. Move trail out of watermain easement fight-of-way at the north side.
f. Add a legend.
g. Revise watermain type to PVC class C-900.
h. No ponding allowed in public street fight-of-way.
i. Add a concrete valley gutter to the east access.
j. Add and show cul-de-sac draintile.
k. Show size of storm sewer culverts on Lot 4 driveway.
1. Show all existing services.
m. Revise note on connecting to existing sanitary manhole to "construct outside drop
structure on existing manhole at Inv. 945".
n. The applicant shall work with the utility company to relocate the existing electric
wires.
This condition has been met.
37.
On the grading plan:
a. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
b. Show the location of the 75-foot rock construction entrance.
c. Add a legend.
d. Revise Lot 1, Block 2 garage elevation.
e. Revise the pond high water level elevation.
f. Show Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 private driveway.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 10
g. Private driveway slope is 10% maximum.
h. Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, Block 1 shall be custom graded.
i. Add a note "Resod or seed any disturbed areas."
This condition has been met.
38.
The applicant ,,viii work with staff to establish an appropriate buffer on the east property
line of Lot 1, Block 2. This buffer shall consist of 3 spruce trees, planted 15 feet on
center, along the easterly property line. The tree size shall meet the minimum
requirements of the ordinance.
This condition has been met. The applicant submitted revised landscape plans
reflecting 3 spruce trees, 15' on center (Sheet 7 of 7).
39.
40.
The applicant shall work with staff to determine the appropriate trail mater/als.
This condition still applies.
The city will look favorably at combining Lots 1 and 2, Block 2.
This condition has been met. The applicant combined the two lots into one."
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
"The City Council approved Wetland Alteration PelTnit #02-3 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta as
shown on the plans dated received April 9, 2002 and subject to conditions.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
"The City Council approved Conditional Use Permit #02-2 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta as
shown on the plans dated received April 9, 2002 and subject to conditions.
At this point, the applicant is requesting final plat. Staff is recommending approval of this
application with conditions.
FINAL PLAT
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 13.6 acres into 10 single-family lots and three outlots,
one of which is a beach lot. All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an
average lot size of 39,149 square feet. Access to the subdivision will be provided via extensions
of Dartmouth Drive and a cul-de-sac off of Washta Bay Road (Washta Bay Court).
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. Beach lots are permitted in this district after securing a conditional use permit.
Outlot C was granted a conditional use permit to serve as a beach lot.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 11
A bluff is located on the property located southwest of the subject site. The ordinance requires
all structures to maintain a 30-foot setback from the edge of a bluff. It appears that the proposed
building pad maintains the required setback from the side of the bluff; the applicant identified the
boundaries of the bluff to ensure setbacks are met. A condition requiring setbacks be maintained
is part of the conditions of approval. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the Zoning Ordinance with conditions outlined in the
staff report.
WETLANDS
Existing Wetlands
Three wetlands exist on-site: one ag/urban wetland and two natural wetlands. Svoboda
Ecological Resources delineated the wetlands in November 1999.
Basin 1 is a Type 1 ag/urban wetland located in the center of the property. The wetland is
dominated by reed canary grass. The applicant is proposing to fill in 4 locations within Basin 1
to accommodate a regional stormwater pond; cul-de-sac; driveway to Lot 4, Block 2 and a trail to
provide access to the beach lot from the eastern portion of the property. The total proposed
impact to Basin 1 is 5,222 square feet (0.12 acres).
Basin 2 is a Type 3 natural wetland located adjacent to Lake Minnewashta along the southern
portion of the property. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and cattail. No wetland
impact is proposed to Basin 2.
Basin 3 is a Type 2 natural wetland located in the northwestern portion of the property. The
wetland is dominated by reed canary grass. The applicant is proposing to fill within Basin 3 to
accommodate a regional stormwater pond. The total proposed impact to Basin 3 is 276 square
feet (0.01 acres).
On August 24, 2001, City staff conducted an on-site review of a portion of the wetland
delineation. The on-site review raised questions about the accuracy of the delineation of Basin 1.
The City met the delineator on-site on October 26, 2001. The conclusion of that site visit was
that a portion of the wetland boundary established by the delineator was inaccurate. Staff
recommended the wetland boundary be changed to be consistent with the findings of City staff
from August 24, 2001. The wetland boundary shown on the plans is consistent with staff
recommendation.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 12
Wetland Replacement
Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant must submit a Wetland Replacement Plan
Application along with all required supporting materials. The applicant should provide proof of
recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. A wetland
replacement plan must be approved phor to wetland impacts occurring.
The applicant has proposed the construction of 6,348 square feet of new wetland credit (NWC)
adjacent to Basin 3 to mitigate for proposed wetland impacts. In addition, the applicant will
enhance 5,889 square feet of existing wetland buffer to obtain public value credits (PVC).
A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) must be maintained
around Basin 1. Wetland buffers 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet)
must be maintained around Basins 2, 3 and the wetland mitigation area. (Those buffers
considered for PVC must maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet.) Wetland buffer areas should
be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before
construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures must maintain a 40-foot
setback fi'om the wetland buffer edge.
LAKES
The proposed project is within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHW) of Lake
Minnewashta and is therefore within the lake's shoreland district. The Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) classifies Lake Minnewashta as a recreational development lake. Lot
4, Block 2 is the only riparian lot proposed. The minimum lot size for this lot is 20,000 square
feet and the minimum lot width is 90 feet. The OHW of Lake Minnewashta is 944.5.
This property includes a channel that extends northward from the north shore of Lake
Minnewashta almost to Trunk Highway 7. This channel was excavated in March 1958. Since
the OHW extends into the channel, all structures must be set back 75 feet from the OHW in
accordance with DNR standards and City ordinance.
The DNR's standards for common docking areas (such as beach lots) refer to "natural shoreline."
In the case of this property, the natural shoreline would be the shoreline prior to the excavation
of the channel. For this reason, the current shoreline of the channel is not counted toward the
natural shoreline required for individual lots and/or additional beach lot docks.
Conversations with the applicant have revealed that there may be future plans to excavate within
the existing channel to improve aesthetics and/or access. The applicant must obtain all necessary
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 13
permits from the DNR, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and/or the City prior to excavation
taking place. It is recommended that no additional excavation occur in this area since it is not a
natural part of the lake and any additional work may have a significant impact on the hydrology,
vegetation or overall quality of the lake and/or adjacent wetlands. The DNR's position on
excavation is outlined in the attached e-mail from Travis Germundson, Area Hydrologist
(Attachment 1).
SITE RESTORATION
As a result of the vegetation removal done on-site on August 16, 2002, the site must be restored
prior to any site construction and no later than November 15, 2002.
The entire disturbed area must be reseeded with the MnDOT modified seed mix, as
recommended by Wayne Jacobson in his report dated September 4, 2002. The diameter of all
trees appearing on the tree survey must be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. The City must approve the
proposed species and planting plan prior to tree replacement occurring. In addition, 24 red osier,
gray or yellow twig dogwood shrubs must be planted within the disturbed area.
Approximately 50 feet of silt fence must be installed across the westernmost portion of the
property along the lakeshore to prevent further erosion into Lake Minnewashta. Wetland buffer
areas should be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
applicant should install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before
construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign. Conservation easements must be delimited
by permanent conservation easement monuments. The monuments must be approved by the City
prior to installation and should be installed on the property corners of Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 and
should also be installed every 50 feet along portions of the conservation easement not bounded
by lots. All brush piles currently existing on-site shall be removed. The brush may be chipped
and/or composted, but may not be burned.
RECREATIONAL BEACH LOT
The applicant has proposed Outlot C as a recreational beachlot. The proposed beachlot meets the
minimum size (30,000 square feet) and shoreline (200 feet) requirements set forth in Section 20-
263 of the Chanhassen City Code. In addition, the beachlot meets the size and shoreline
requirements to support up to 3 docks, each with 3 spaces for overnight storage of watercraft, for
a total of 9 spaces. (The proposed beach lot is 141,725 square feet and incorporates 630 feet of
shoreline.) The number of watercraft may be clustered onto 1 common docking area. The
beachlot must meet all requirements set forth for recreational beach lots in Section 20-263 of the
City Code. The City Council approved the conditional use permit on May 13, 2002.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 14
Storm Water Management
The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. The applicant has
submitted drainage calculations for the development. Staff has reviewed the calculation and only
minor modifications are needed. All of the proposed ponds are required to be designed to
National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The storm sewer will have to be designed
for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on
the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and
wetlands up to the 100-year flood level.
The last catch basin prior to discharge into each pond should be a sump catch basin. This will
prolong the maintenance interval of the proposed storm water ponds.
Bluffs
It appears that a bluff exist the property located southwest of the site. The applicant examined
the slopes near the southwest corner of Lot 8, Block 1 and determined they meet the City's
criteria for a bluff (rise of 25 feet above the toe and a slope averaging 30% or greater). All
structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the top, toe and sides of the bluff.
Easements
Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. Easement types and locations should be
called out on the plat. An encroachment agreement is needed before the trail can be constructed
on Outlot C as the trail is proposed within a drainage and utility easement.
Erosion Control
Type I]/silt fence should be provided between the proposed wetland mitigation and existing
Basin 3. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used around the grading perimeter of the site and
that Type 1II silt fence be used adjacent to the lake and wetlands. A 75-foot minimum rock
construction entrance must be added to each of the entrances that will be used during
construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading would require an easement
fi'om the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas must be sodded or seeded and mulched
within two weeks of grading completion.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 15
Surface Water Management Plan
The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows two regional storm water ponds
(LM-P8.9 and LM-P8.10) on this site. Consequently, the City has required the applicant to
provide storm water facilities on-site that fulfill the requirements set forth in the SWMP.
Because the applicant will be treating more runoff than is generated by the proposed subdivision,
the project will receive compensation for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP and for the
provision of two outlet structures.
Water Quality Fees
Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for
this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $800/acre.
Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 10.65 acres, the water quality fees
associated with this project are $8,520.
Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average
citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage.
Single-family residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre.
This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $21,087 for the proposed development.
SWMP Credits
As discussed earlier, this project proposes the construction of two NURP ponds. The applicant
will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site.
This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm water calculations. Credits may
also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or
the provision of outlet structures. The current proposal appears to provide water quality
treatment for runoff from 4.1 acres on-site and 39.0 acres off-site. (These figures will be
finalized upon final review of the storm water calculations.) In addition, two outlet structures are
proposed. Preliminary calculations show a credit of $39,480 against total fees of $29,609.
At this time, the estimated total SWMP credit due to the applicant for the provision of ponding
for off-site areas in accordance with the SWMP is $9,871.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 16
GRADING~ DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL
The plans propose to grade about 75% of the site for the new house pads and proposed streets.
The proposed grading will prepare the site for lookout and walkout-type dwellings. The street
drainage will be conveyed via storm sewer to three proposed storm water ponds for treatment
prior to discharging to the existing wetlands and channel to Lake Minnewashta.
The majority of the existing site drains to a wetland in the center of the parcel. Site drainage
from this wetland flows south into Lake Minnewashta. The proposed development will be
required to meet the existing stormwater runoff rates for the 10- and 100-year, 24-hour storm
events. The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows two regional ponds located
on this site. The applicant has followed the SWMP and included the regional ponds as a part of
the development.
The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for the development. Staff has reviewed the
calculations and only minor modifications are needed. Staff will work with the applicant's
engineer to correct the drainage calculations. All of the proposed ponds are required to be
designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The storm sewer will have to be
designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be
dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage
swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level.
Staff recommends that Type 1I silt fence be used around the grading perimeter of the site and that
Type III silt fence be used adjacent to the lake and wetlands. A 75-foot minimum rock
construction entrance must be added to each of the entrances that will be used during
construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement
from the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas must be sodded or seeded and mulched
within two weeks of grading completion.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from existing mains in Dartmouth
Drive and Washta Bay Road. There is also an existing sewer line that runs along the lake. The
applicant is proposing to extend sewer and water lines along the proposed streets to service the
proposed lots. Staff recommends that the existing sewer and water line on the east side of the
site, south of the proposed cul-de-sac, be abandoned to avoid having parallel utility lines. Also,
the existing homes, which are connected to this line, will have to be connected to the new lines.
According to the City's Finance Department records, the underlying parcels on the east and west
sides were previously assessed for sanitary sewer and water. However, the underlying parcel in
the center of the site was not assessed for utilities. As such, the proposed homesite on Lot 1,
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 17
Block 3 will be required to pay a sanitary sewer connection charge. The current 2002 lateral
connection charge for sanitary sewer is $4,335 per lot. Since the developer will be extending the
lateral sewer and water mains to the remaining lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection
charges will be waived. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will still be applicable for
each of the new lots. The 2002 trunk hookup charge is $1,383 for sanitary sewer and $1,802 for
watermain.
Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications have been submitted for review. The applicant is also required to enter into a
development contract with the City and to supply the necessary financial security in the form of a
letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of
final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including
but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDOT, etc.
STREETS
The plans propose to extend Dartmouth Drive from the west side approximately 200 feet ending
with a cul-de-sac. The plans also propose another access from the east side approximately 300
feet off of Washta Bay Road and ending with a cul-de-sac.
The required fight-of-way for a public street is 60 feet wide with a 60-foot wide radius for cul-de-
sacs. The applicant has previously received approval for a variance to construct a 50-foot wide
street right-of-way for the westerly extension of Dartmouth Drive. Likewise, on the east side a
50-foot wide street right-of-way variance has been previously granted. Each of the proposed cul-
de-sac radii and pavement widths meet the standards of 60-feet and 45.5-feet, respectively. Also,
the applicant must provide a uniform transition from the existing 22-foot wide pavement of
Dartmouth Drive to a new 28-foot street section.
PARK DEDICATION
This property lies within the service area of two neighborhood parks--Minnewashta Heights and
Herman Field. The acquisition of additional parkland in this area is not warranted. The property
borders a section of the City's Comprehensive Trail system, which exists along the south side of
State Highway 7. Residents residing in Boyer Lake Minnewashta Addition will have convenient
access to this trail from both Arbor Lane and Washta Bay Road.
The plan calls for an internal trail system to allow access to a private recreational beach lot. It is
my recommendation that this internal trail be constructed and maintained as a private amenity.
Development of this trail connector as a public amenity would duplicate the access currently
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 18
provided by the Highway 7 trail and result in unnecessary conflict between trail users and the
property owners.
TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING
Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Boyer Lake Minnewashta Addition
are as follows:
Total upland area (including outlots) 11.52 ac or 501,811 SF
Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) 5.99 ac or 260,924 SF
Baseline canopy coverage 52%
Minimum canopy coverage allowed 35% or 4.03 ac.
Proposed tree preservation 25% or 2.91 ac.
The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference is
multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings.
Difference in canopy coverage
Multiplier
Total replacement
Total number of trees to be planted
48,787 SF
1.2
58,545 SF
54 trees
A replacement planting plan that lists 64 trees to be planted has been submitted to the city for
approval. However, only 61 trees are shown on the landscape plans. The contradiction shall be
eliminated prior to recording of the final plat.
Staff recommends placing a tree preservation easement over the westerly 400 feet of Outlot C
(beachlot) and the portion of the beach lot located east of the path on the recreational beachlot.
The conservation easement will extend over the easternmost 70 feet of the beach lot south of the
drainage and utility easement.
The conservation easement agreement is attached (Attachment #1).
Buffer yard requirements are as follows:
Required Proposed
North prop. Line - buffel~ 11 overstory 5 overstory + existing
yard B, 30' width, 1088' 22 understory 19 understory + existing
length 22 shrubs existing shrubs
The developer meets buffer yard requirements.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 19
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE- RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Building
Area Width Depth Setback
Ordinance 15,000 non-riparian 90' 125' 30' front/rear
20,000 riparian 10' sides
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 37,092 102' 345' 30'/30
10'
Lot 2 36,621 96' 369' 30'/50'*
10'
Lot 3 47,972 77' on curve 329.5' 30'/50'*
10'
Lot 4 45,357 70' on curve 225' 30'/50'*
10'
Lot 5 37,978 53' on curve 304' 30'/30'/60**
10'
Lot 6 21,467 68' on curve 220' 30'/30'/60**
10'
Lot 7 22,876 127' 215' 30'/30'/60**
10'
Lot 8 20,285 107' 229' 30'/30'/60**
/30'***/10'
Block 2
Lot 1 33,558 260' 160'
Block 3
Lot 1 88,288 riparian 84' on curve 670'
30'/30'
10'
30'/75'/50*
10'
Outlot C (Beach Lot) 141,725
The 50-foot setback includes a 10-foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40-foot
structure setback.
The 60-foot setback includes a 20-foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40-foot
structure setback.
*** The 30-foot bluff setback includes a 20-foot bluff impact zone.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 20
SUBDIVISION- FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
o
o
.
o
o
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential
Single Family District.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the subdivision ordinance
with recommended conditions.
The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and sto~rn
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report
The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The site is providing storm ponds, sewer, water, streets, etc.
The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will cause some environmental damage,
however, staff is recommending some lots be custom graded to minimize impact
on trees. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate
house pads. The developer is required to restore the vegetation that has previously
been removed.
The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 21
.
The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
ao
Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
Lack of adequate roads.
Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets.
Sec. 18-22. Variances.
The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the
plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist:
o
o
.
The hardship is not a mere inconvenience
The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the land;
The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally
applicable to other property;
The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and
is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and
comprehensive plan.
Finding: The applicant is requesting multiple variances. Some were recommended by staff while
others were requested by the applicant. These variances are as follows:
Right of way width: The ordinance requires a 60 foot Right-of-Way width. The westerly 50 foot
ROW was recommended by staff to maintain the character of the neighborhood. The easterly 50
foot width was dictated by the available land.
Street Grade: The applicant submitted several options showing a street grade of 7% as required
by ordinance to 9% which requires a variance. The amount of grading and tree loss was reduced
substantially with a 9% grade. Staff is supportive of this variance since it will lessen impact on
the site.
House Pad: Lot 4, Block 2 has a 50 x 80 house pad. The ordinance requires a 60 x 60 house pad.
The applicant has submitted a house plan that will easily fit within the buildable area of the site.
Staff has always maintained that the actual houses that get built in Chanhassen are not a 60 x 60
square.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 22
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
FINAL PLAT
"The City Council approves the final plat for Subdivision #02-6 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta for
10 lots and three outlots, one of which is a beachlot with variances for a 50 foot fight-of-way .
width, a 9% roadway grade, and a 50 x 80 house pad on Lot 1, Block 3, as shown on the plans
received August 2, 2002, subject to the following conditions:
A replacement planting plan that lists 64 trees to be planted has been submitted to the city
for approval. However, only 61 trees are shown on the landscape plans. The
contradictiOn shall be eliminated prior to recording of the final plat.
,
Each lot shall have a minimum of one overstory deciduous tree planted in the front yard
setback area.
.
A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the westerly 400 feet of (Outlot C) the
beach tot, and the portion located east of the path on the recreational beach lot, the
easternmost 70 feet of Outlot C, south of the drainage and utility easement.
Approximately 50 feet of silt fence must be installed across the westernmost portion of
the property along the lakeshore to prevent further erosion into Lake Minnewashta.
Wetland buffer areas should be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The applicant should install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of
City staff, before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign. Conservation
easements must be delimited by pe~Tnanent conservation easement monuments. The
monuments must be approved by the City phor to installation and should be installed on
the property corners of Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 and should also be installed every 50 feet along
portions of the conservation easement not bounded by lots. All brush piles currently
existing on-site shall be removed. The brush may be chipped and/or composted, but may
not be bm-ned.
,
In lieu of land dedication and/or trail construction, full park and trail dedication fees
should be paid. These fees are to be paid at the rate in force upon final platting and/or
building permit application. The 2002 rate is $1,500 per single family dwelling for parks
and $500 per single family dwelling for trails. One-third of all park and trail fees
applicable to the entire plat are due at the time of final platting. The remaining two-thirds
are paid independently at the time of each building permit application.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 23
5. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining Outlots A and B.
6. The subdivision shall comply with the following table:
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot
Area Width Depth
Building
Setback
Ordinance 15,000 non-riparian 90'
20,000 riparian
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 37,092 102'
Lot2 36,621 96' 369'
Lot 3 47,972 77' on curve 329.5'
Lot 4 45,357 70' on curve 225'
Lot 5 37,978 53' on curve 304'
Lot 6 21,467 68' on curve 220'
Lot7 22,876 127' 215'
Lot8 20,285 107' 229'
Block 2
Lot l 33,558 260' 160'
125' 30'ffonffrear
10'sides
345' 30'/30
10'
30'/50'*
10'
30'/50'*
10'
30'/50'*
10'
30'/30'/60**
10'
30'/30'/60**
10'
30'/30'/60**
10'
30'/30'/60**
/30'***/10'
30'/30'
Block 3
Lot 1 88,288 riparian 84' on curve 670'
30'/75'/50*
10'
Lot 3
141,725 (Beach Lot)
The 50-foot setback includes a 10-foot average wetland buffer in addition to a
40-foot structure setback.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 24
The 60-foot setback includes a 20-foot average wetland buffer in addition to a
40-foot structure setback.
*** The 30-foot bluff setback includes a 20-foot bluff impact zone.
.
Fire Marshal Conditions:
a. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around the fire hydrant i.e., street lamps
trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to
ensure that hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant
to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.'
b. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for
fire protection is required to be installed such protection shall be installed and made
serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota
Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3.
c. No burning permits will be issued for trees that are removed. Trees or brush must
be either removed from site or chipped.
d. On Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, additional address signs may be required at the driveway
entrance if address numbers on the house are not visible from the street. Contact the
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for additional information pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992.
.
Building Official Conditions:
a. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures.
b.
Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
c. Provide a water service connection for Lot 8.
d. Permits are required for the roof drainage piping on Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8.
,
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420).
10. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer edge.
11. All structures shall maintain a 75-foot setback from the OHW of Lake Minnewashta.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 25
12.
The applicant shall obtain amendments to the CLIP prior to any alterations to the beach
lot. On August 16, 2002, the applicant removed vegetation located on the proposed
Outlot C. The site vegetation must be restored prior to any site infrastructure or site
grading construction and no later than November 15, 2002. The restoration of the site is a
matter that has to be completed regardless of the plat.
13.
14.
The last catch basin prior to discharge into each pond shall be a sump catch basin.
All structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the top, toe and sides of the bluff.
15. Drainage and Utility easement types and locations shall be called out on the final plat.
16.
An encroachment agreement for the trail on Outlot C shall be obtained prior to trail
construction.
17. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
18.
Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 10.65 acres, the water quality
fees associated with this project are $8,520; the water quantity fees are approximately
$21,087. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are
provided to treat runoff from the site and adjacent areas. The current proposal appears to
provide water quality treatment for runoff from 4.1 acres on-site and 39.0 acres off-site.
(These figures will be finalized upon final review of the storm water calculations.) In
addition, two outlet structures are proposed. Preliminary calculations show a credit of
$39,480 against total fees of $29,609. At this time, the estimated total SWMP credit due
to the applicant for the provision of ponding for off-site areas in accordance with the
SWMP is $9,871.
19.
The applicant must apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources)
and comply with their conditions of approval.
20.
Approval of this application is contingent upon the City of Shorewood reviewing and
approving this application.
21. The existing driveway access off of Highway 7 shall be abandoned.
22.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 26
23.
The storm sewer must be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. All of the ponds
are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards.
Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public
storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year
flood level. The minimum utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
24.
Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used around the grading perimeter of the site
and that Type 111 silt fence be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands. The silt fence
shall be removed at the completion of construction. A 75-foot minimum rock
construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during
construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading would require an
easement from the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas must be sodded or
seeded and mulched within two weeks of grading completion.
25.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require pe~Tnits and inspections through
the City's Building Department.
26.
Public utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest
editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant shall enter into a
development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the
form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and
the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health,
Watershed District, Carver County, etc.
27. Add all applicable 2002 City of Chanhassen Detail Plates to the plans.
28.
The proposed development will be required to meet the existing stormwater runoff rates
for the 10- and 100-year, 24-hour storm events.
29.
The applicant must provide a uniform transition from the existing 22-foot wide pavement
of Dartmouth Drive to a new 28-foot street section.
30.
Abandon the existing utility lines on the east side of the site, west of the proposed
manhole connection. Also, the existing house services shall be connected to the new
utility lines and the existing driveway access realigned through the bubble of the cul-de-
sac.
31.
According to the City's Finance Department records, the underlying parcels on the east
and west sides were previously assessed for sanitary sewer and water. However, the
underlying parcel in the center of the site was not assessed for utilities. As such, the
Todd Gerhardt
September 23, 2002
Page 27
proposed homesite on Lot 1, Block 3 will be required to pay a sanitary sewer connection
charge. The current 2002 lateral connection charge for sanitary sewer is $4,335 per lot.
Since the developer will be extending the lateral sewer and water mains to the remaining
lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. Sanitary sewer and
water hookup charges will still be applicable for each of the new lots at the rate in effect
at the time of building permit. The 2002 trunk hookup charge is $1,383 for sanitary
sewer and $1,802 for watermain.
32. The applicant shall work with staff to determine the appropriate trail materials.
33.
The applicant must submit a revised legal description of the conservation easement that
reflects changes recommended by City staff.
34. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to correct the drainage calculations."
ATTACHMENTS
,
2.
3.
4.
Conservation Easement Agreement.
Planning Commission minutes dated April 16, 2002.
City Council minutes dated May 13, 2002.
Final plat dated received August, 2002.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
INSTRUMENT made this ~ day of ., 2002, by and between
Eileen F. Boyer and Joseph N. Boyer, her husband (hereinafter refe~7'ed to as "Grantor"), and the
City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City").
Witnesseth:
The Grantor, in consideration of good and valuable consideration paid by the City, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, grant unto the City a permanent
conservation easement for the purposes set forth in this instrument, over, under, and across the
premises described in the attached Exhibit A ("subject property").
1. Grantor, for herself, her heirs, successors, and assigns, agree that the following are
prohibited in perpetuity on the subject property:
A.
Constructing, installing, or maintaining anything made by man, including
but not limited to buildings, structures, walkways, clothes line poles, and
playground equipment.
Bo
Cutting, removing, or altering trees or other vegetation, except for removal
of diseased and dead trees or branches; also except for removal of trees
and vegetation deemed hazardous or unsafe to the public; and except for
the removal of exotic and noxious herbaceous and shrub plant species
(including Common Buckthorn) by mechanical removal and chemical
Co
treatment as deemed appropriate by the City's Environmental Resources
Specialist
Excavation or filling..
D. Application of fertilizers, whether natural or chemical.
m.
Application of chemicals for the destruction or retardation of vegetation,
except as allowed elsewhere herein.
F. The deposit of waste, yard waste, or debris.
Go
The application of herbicides, pesticides, and insecticides, except as
allowed elsewhere herein or as directed by a governmental agency.
H. Outside storage of any kind.
Activity detrimental to the preservation of the scenic beauty, vegetation,
and wildlife.
2. Grantor for herself, her heirs, successors, and assigns, further grants the City the
affirmative right, but not the obligation to do the following on the Subject Property:
A°
Enter upon the subject property at any time to enforce compliance with the
terms of this instrument.
Grantor
Eileen F. Boyer
Joseph N. Boyer
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY
BY
Linda C. Jansen, Mayor
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __
2002 by Eileen F. Boyer and Joseph N. Boyer, her husband.
day of
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF CARVER
)
( ss
)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of ,
2002, by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council.
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
NOTARY PUBLIC
CONSENT TO EASEMENT
, which holds a mortgage on all or part of the
property more particular described in the foregoing Conservation Easement, which mortgage is
dated ., and recorded as Document No. with the office of
the County Recorder for Carver County, Minnesota, pursuant 'to that certain Assignment of
Mortgage from dated , and recorded
, as Document No. , for good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, do(es) hereby join in, consent, and is
subject to the foregoing Conservation Easement.
By
And
STATE OFMINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
)
( ss
)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __
20 , by
day of
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
Campbell, Knutson, Scott
& Fuchs, P.A.
1380 Corporate Center Curve, Suite 317
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
(612) 452-5000
City Council Meeting - N~,y 13, 2002
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Council, any questions for Jill?
Councilman Ayotte: Outstanding.
Mayor Jansen: It's an outstanding strategic plan. I give you kudos for having put together an
initiative like this and I believe you've already approached and shared this with the Library
Board, correct?
Jill Shipley' Correct. This is the first, this is the rough draft of our strategic plan and we wanted
to present it to the Library Board as well as to you to get any comments or feedback before we
finalize it.
Mayor Jansen: Well we appreciate everything that you have done and are looking to do in your
strategic plan. Certainly you' re more in touch with what that library needs than we are ourselves,
so we appreciate that there's so many of you that are spending your volunteer time working with
Cathy Pershman in the library. With Melissa Berchon and all of staff and being such a wonderful
support for them. I don't know if everyone's really aware of the number of volunteer hours that
are donated into the library to help, even with our current facility as far as books and helping
staff. But you're significant. It is a significant number and thank you for sharing the strategic
plan with us this evening.
Jill Shipley: Thank you for the opportunity.
Mayor Jansen: Sure.
BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION. LOCATED SOUTH OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 7~
WEST OF WASHTA BAY ROAD, NORTH OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA, ANq) EAST OF
DARTMOUTH:
A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A 13.6 ACRE SITE INTO 11 SINGLE
m.
FAMILY LOTS AND 1 BEACHLOT.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL 4,764 SQ. FT. OF WETLAND.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A BEACHLOT.
VARIANCES TO ALLOW 50 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, 9 % STREET GRADE,
AND 50 X 80 FOOT HOUSEPADS.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Sue Fiedler
Jim Ginther
Matt & Steve Keuseman
Rich Friedman
Ann Zweig
Sharrie & Scott Broin
3121 Dartmouth Drive
3131 Dartmouth Drive
3622 Red Cedar Point Drive
Red Cedar Point Drive
3601 Ironwood Road
3840 Lone Cedar Lane
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. The applicant is proposing to
subdivide 13.6 acres into 11 single family lots and one beachlot. The property is zoned
residential single family. Beachlots are permitted in this area, only they require a conditional use
permit. Variances are being requested with this application to allow 50 foot right-of-way, 9
City Council Meeting - iv, ay 13, 2002
percent street grades, and a 50 by 80 house pad. The applicant is also proposing to fill 5,498
square feet of wetland. The average lot size is 35,612 square feet. The ordinance requires 15,000
square feet minimum. The gross density with this subdivision is 0.8 units. The net density is
1.65 units per acre. All the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning
ordinance. As mentioned earlier, there is one beachlot shown on the plat, which is proposed to
serve the entire subdivision. A foot path from the bubble of each cul-de-sac will provide access
to this beachlot and eventually lead to the lakeshore where a dock with 10 boat slips is proposed.
Number of boat slips must be reduced to 9. That's the maximum permitted by ordinance. Three
wetlands occupy this site. Two of these wetlands are proposed to be impacted by this
development, while the third is proposed to remain intact. The applicant is proposing to mitigate
for the wetlands impacted at a rate of 2 to 1 as required by ordinance. The site has mature trees
which the applicant is making an effort to preserve. However, due to construction of storm
ponds, streets and grading for house pads, mature trees are being lost. Staff discussed the
possibility of custom grading some of those sites and the applicant is open to that suggestion.
There is a condition to that effect. The variance for the 50 right-of-way for the cul-de-sac is to
allow the streets to blend in with the existing neighborhood. The 9 percent grade on the westerly
cul-de-sac was discussed at length with the applicant. This grade provides the least impact on the
vegetation and staff fully supports it. The third variance deals with the size of the house pad 'on
Lot 4 of Block I. The ordinance requires a 60 by 60 house pad. The lot has an area of 1.8 acres.
The applicant is proposing a 60 by 80 house pad. There are house plans that have been submitted
on this site. The issue of the dimensions of a house pad has been discussed in the past. Staff has
always maintained that we never encounter actual house plans with dimensions of 60 by 60.
There is a buildable area on this site and there is a sizeable yard on this lot. We've been working
with the applicant for several months. We believe that we have a good plan and we are
recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. And I'll be happy to answer
any questions, thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time?
Councihnan Boyle: Not at this time.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Sharmin, now I just went through the conditions quickly and I was looking
for the custom grading. Did that definitely make it into a condition?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. I had only just overlooked it.
John Boyer: Can I make comments at this point?
Mayor Jansen: Just a minute, thank you. You're finding it?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: I'm looking for it.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Sharmin Al-Jaff: It's condition number 36(h). No, I'm sorry. 21. It should be number 37.
There is a typo.
Councilman Boyle: What page are you on?
·
City Council Meeting- b~,y 13, 2002
Sharmin Al-Jaff: If you turn to page 30. (h). Item number (h).
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: And that condition number should be 37. The overall.'
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Okay. If the applicant has anything that they would like to add. If
there's anything new, we obviously have the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting as
to the presentation that was done there. Thank you.
John Boyer: I understand that. I do have a couple things to add.
Mayor Jansen: If you could state your name and address for the record please.
John Boyer: My name is John Boyer. I live in Minnetonka. I represent the developer, Boyer
Building Corporation and more specifically my parents, Joseph and Eileen Boyer who have
owned the property for about 30 years.
Mayor Jansen: Good evening.
John Boyer: Pardon?
Mayor Jansen: Good evening.
John Boyer: Good evening. And there are just a couple comments. Now first of all, just a
clarification on the ponding and the wetland mitigation issues. Much of the ponding on the site is
regional ponding and Ijust want to point that out that it's not required by the development. It's
required because of the regional off-site water that's being brought into the site. Consequently
most of the wetland mitigation is due to that construction of the regional ponds. I want to thank
the staff for worNng hard with us on this development over the last 9 months. The first plat that
we presented to them, quite some time ago, included 4 riparian lots. Those sites extended to the
water. It was our, well working with staff we thought that it was a good idea to extend the
beachlot across the property, the entire property to further respect that wetland basin number 2, as
well as provide an opportunity for the north properties. The properties on the other side of the
street to gain access to this site. Gain access to the water. Hence we had 10 lots. We asked for
10 boat slips, thinking that the 200, 3 slips per 200 feet calculates to 667 feet which is the length
of our beachlot. As it now turns out, and I assume that as we now have clarification, that we
probably can't expect to have 10 sites. Or 10 boat slips. But it is our intention to have 1 slip per
home site. Therefore we will, we are asking to modify the plat slightly at this point to combine
Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 into one site. That will then allow us to have 1 slip per homeowner on the
west side of the channel. And 1 slip to the north. In so doing we won't be required to provide
this much, or 667 feet of lakeshore so we're asking also that the lot line here, this lot line is
receded back to the edge of the channel. That still leaves us with 630 feet of lakeshore. 30 feet in
excess of the 200 foot times 3,600 feet minimum. Am I making myself clear?
Mayor Jansen: You're making adjustments that, did you have this conversation with staff?
John Boyer: No we didn't, and the reason I'm making the adjustment is because I'm anticipating
you vote us down on the 10 slips. We are still requesting the 10 slips, but...
Mayor Jansen: Okay, because even coming through.
City Council Meeting- N~,~y 13, 2002
John Boyer: ...9 slips I'm trying to let it be known that we intend to make this change along the
way so if we have to re-submit with a different plat, so be it. But we are going to want to
eliminate this section of the beachlot since there' s no need for it. It does not even connect unless
through wetlands to this side.
Mayor Jansen: Sharmin, that part of the beachlot, is that in the conservation easement?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Yes it is.
Mayor Jansen: So we're impacting the conservation easement by making any of these changes.
By reducing the 2 lots to 1 lot, does it then even relate to this conservation easement?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: No.
Mayor Jansen: All it relates to really are the number of slips, correct? Or docks.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: And that would make the numbers even at that point because you will have 9
lots that don't have direct access to the lake, and there will be 9 slips.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So if what he's suggesting, let's take this in steps. That we combine the 2
lots, is there anything that we need to do differently here this evening?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: No, that's something that we can work with the applicant on.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So as long as we're not impacting the conservation easement, we're not
making a major change and you would be able to work with that? With the applicant.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: So we could approve it as it is this evening, and you could still work with the
applicant as far as making that lot adjustment.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: They're just coming down to the number of docks to be equal to homes. Okay.
John Boyer: Okay. To the issue of the conservation easement. Everything else is fine but the
conservation easement is not going to work for us. That was not part of our original plat. Was
not part of our conditions and it got thrown at us. We are not going to, and I' 11 show you why.
Mayor Jansen: Well and if I may, it was communicated very clearly to you that if in fact there
was going to be a major change made, which this is, that this proposal would need to go back to
the Planning Commission so that you could have your public hearing, because we're
circumventing the public process for you to change it here with council because the public
hearing was noticed and held at the Planning Commission. So that would be my first concern.
Making a major change here. And for you to bring forward these major changes, you know staff
has ah'eady had the conversation with you so we're not going to make them this evening. What
we have before us is what we have to consider as far as approval or not.
John Boyer: I understand. The issue is that it's not a change. The conservation was not part of
our proposal. It was not part of our plat.
City Council Meeting-/v~ty 13, 2002
Mayor Jansen: It was part of what the Planning Commission approved. It was part of the
proposal before the Planning Commission that was approved by the Planning Cormnission.
John Boyer: But I understand that the City Council does not necessarily always approve what the
Planning Commission approves. '
Mayor Jansen: We're pretty consistent, and that's why it was related to you that if you make a
major change, that it would...
John Boyer: What I'd like to have then is a reading from the council because frankly, if we have
to go with a conservation easement, we're going to have to go back to riparian lots on that site. I
mean I'll show you why. I've got some pictures here. Okay, this is a view at the east end of the
easement which is on the west side of the channel, looking westerly. You can see there's a sewer
easement right down through. There's currently a sewer line right down through your
conservation easement. In addition, we're going to have to connect to that sewer line in 2 spots.
Consequently we're going to be adding man made, artificial disruption in that conservation
easement, which is totally against the wording of the easement. If that sewer line has to be dug
up, once again you're going to be impacting that conservation easement, which is contrary to
what the wording is in the conservation easement. I'm assuming you've all read the conservation
easement.
Mayor Jansen: Yes, thank you and in fact if I may, staff it's not uncommon for us to end up with
utility, word in these areas, correct?
Sharmin Al-Jag: That's correct.
Mayor Jansen: And then the best is done to try to put it back into it's natural state. The point is
that the remainder of the conservation easement, which is primarily protecting the shoreline, and
we're not doing utilities in the shoreline.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Mayor Jansen: It stands protected. I think we understand the conservation easement.
John Boyer: Yeah, the conservation easement is not protecting the shoreline. The conservation
easement is protecting the trees that are off the shoreline, and on the shoreline, but it's protecting
tile trees. The wetlands already protected and what more protection do we need? The trees, as
you can see, this is a typical scenario with the trees right here. How are we going to dean this
up? How can we sell these lots with this ~nd of vegetation on them? Look at that. This is what
you're asking us to protect.
Mayor Jansen: I in fact walked the property. I know very well what it is that we are protecting.
John Boyer: We cannot sell those lots if we have, if the homeowners are forced to look through
that to look at their lake. That's the view. That's the view on Lot 5 which is one of the premium
Sots. That's the view on the walkout side of Lot 5, out across the lake. You can't see the lake.
There's more fallen trees. This is the east side of the channel. How are we going to take care of
these dead trees if there's a conservation easement and we can't touch them? That's the property
directly to the west. On tile west property line. That is the property. Why are we not allowed to
have that kind of view? More vegetation that's shown. This is again looking to the east along the
easement.
10
City Council Meeting- May 13, 2002
Mayor Jansen: Anything else?
John Boyer: I just want to point out, this is Part I7[ of the conservation easement. This grants the
City the right to preserve, improve and enhance slope, trees, vegetation and natural habitat by
altering, clearing and removing trees or other vegetation. By changing the contour of the land
and by planting trees or other vegetation. It prohibits the owners of the land from doing that, but
allows the city to do that. How can that be...?
Mayor Jansen: Well if you think we're going to go in there and clean it up, I think you're
suggesting something that we've in fact just let the safeguard for us to be able to go in and do
what might be necessary, correct Sharmin?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Absolutely. There are diseased trees we would remove.
John Boyer: I think you have that safeguard without the conservation easement as well.
Mayor Jansen: Anything else this evening?
John Boyer: I guess I'm just asking your indulgence one more time to understand what I'm
trying to portray here and be honest with what really is going on. 7[ don't think the vegetation
there is significant enough to create an additional burden on the property that's not required on
any other properties anywhere really along the lake other than state or regional parks.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
John Boyer: If I could get a reading on it tonight, I'd appreciate it because it's going to affect
how.
Councihnan Ayotte: Oh you're going to get a reading Mr. Boyer.
Mayor Jansen: You're going to get a reading. Okay, thank you. This is not a public hearing.
However, I anticipate that there might be a couple of people here who might have a couple
comments to make. I' m going to keep it limited, so if there is someone here with something new
that was not presented to the Planning Commission as far as any comments, you are welcome to
approach the podium. If you could keep it to under 5 minutes in your comments, I would
appreciate it. But do come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record.
Steve Keuseman: Hi. My name is Steve Keuseman and I live at 3622 Red Cedar Point Drive and
I'm here actually on this Boyer development. I live directly across the lake. The big bay, I guess
it'd be southwest of it and I am totally against this thing. To hear this guy talking, I mean this
guy wants the moon. I mean I' ve never heard of anything they're going to build on where they're
going to do so much filling and cutting and then he's complaining, how can he sell these lots?
Well if he can' t sell them, maybe he should buy some property somewhere' s else. I mean this
property, I' ve lived on Lake Minnewashta since 1963 and I've always enjoyed this property. It's
right along side the trails where you walk. It' s the only place you can see Lake Minnewashta
from Highway 7 now and I would imagine that once he builds homes he's probably going to put a
berm up or something there by the highway because otherwise these people are going to, they're
going to have to have their air conditioner on all summer long because they're going to hear
nothing but trucks going down Highway 7. And then this beachlot stuff. What makes everybody
think that they' re within walking distance of the lake, they have property rights? I have lakeshore
property. I'm on the lake. I mean I don't feel anybody that doesn't have lakeshore property
11
City Council/Meeting - M~ty 13, 2002
that's on the lake has right to lakeshore. I mean these people, a lot of them have more rights than
I do. Some of these lakeshore lots have their own accesses. I have to use the park and pay to
launch and take my boat out. And these beachlots that we have, not only that, we have ones that I
can tell you for now the Minnewashta Creek one, they don't even, they're not even supposed to
have a dock. They're not supposed to have any overnight boat parking, but they moor boats out
in the water to buoys. They anchor, they have at least 3 boats in the water in the summer.
Stratford Ridge, the way I understood that when that was built, it's only supposed to have canoe
racks. Now they have 5 boat slips out there. I'd like to know what's going on. I don't want no
more beachlots. I want stricter enforcement of the ones we already got. Minnewashta's a small
lake. Minnewashta's a small lake. Water patrol is just about, is non-existent on the lake. It's an
accident waiting to happen. Now when you put 10 lots in there, you're putting, you're giving 10
homeowners. It's not like, you know I can understand these 4 homes here. They have lakeshore
privileges because they have property that borders the lake, but not 10. I mean you get 10
homeowners out there. Okay, they're not only going to have 1 boat I can tell you right now.
They're going to get personal watercraft if they' ve got teenagers, you can bet your life on that.
And they get personal watercraft, they're going to say oh we can't tie it up at our dock. We
already got a boat. They'rejust going to pull it up on shore. Or they're going to have fishing
boats for their kids...so you could end up possibly there with 20-25 boats. It's too much for the
lake. I mean we've got to put an end to it. No more beachlots. If you give them one, or if you let
them build here, if Ches Mar Farm or something gets sold, what are you going to tell the next
developer. He wants a beachlot. You're going to say okay9 It's got to stop somewhere and it
stops here. ·
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. One of the issues that was covered at tile Planning Commission
meeting, which is part of why we don't hold a second public hearing here, was tile issue of the
dockage and how many homes in fact would have docks and how many boats would be al/owed.
The reason that we have brought forward, or staff has brought forward the common beach is to
limit the best we can the impact on the lakeshore by only having tile i dock and then the 9 slips
available. So 9 boats. If you had the 4 docks, you could have 12 boats. And that goes to the
point of how many could actually end up out on the lake. So it was staff working with our lake
resource specialist that came up with this proposal to both protect the shoreline and do the best
that we can as far as, it just worked out that way. We can't really limit tile number of boats that
are on the lake, but with all of the calculations of lakeshore, this is the maximum amount of boats
that would be allowed. Did I say that okay Sharmin?
Sharmin Al-Jarl: You said that perfect, yeah.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And that was in tile minutes from tile Planning Commission meeting that
we all received. Yes sir.
Steve Keuseman: Can I mention something? You know when you talk about in 4 docks, you're
talking about 4 homeowners then.
Mayor Jansen. But to your point sir, and I do live on a lake and I am aware of how many of the
families end up with all of the boats or jet skis and so forth out on the hake at the same time,
because you do have family members that end up taking the multiple craft out so.
Steve Keuseman: I disagree.
/Mayor Jansen: Well.
12
City Council Meeting- M~y 13, 2002
Steve Keuseman: That's 4 homeowners versus 10 homeowners.
Mayor Jansen: Understood.
Steve Keuseman: It's a whole different ballgame.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, and again this issue was covered in the public hearing at the Planning
Commission meeting and I certainly understand that we would all love to limit the amount of, I
shouldn't say all. I'm in agreement with wanting to limit the amount of development on our lakes
and on our lakeshores. You can't keep people from developing their property. They have the
legal right to build what they're building. We can't stop them. Otherwise it's a taking and we
have taken their property rights. What we have are zoning and code and ordinances that we can
apply to this property and staff, and you just heard the argument trying to back us down from the
conservation easement. It's there for the very reason that we all appreciate our lakes and it's
trying to preserve that lakeshore front. Andone of the pictures that was shown was perfectly
manicured, mowed up to the lakeshore and why can't we have that on these lots? We'd like to
think that we' ve learned from some of the mistakes and this is a pristine lakeshore and staff has
put forward the conservation easement and then the shared dock for the reason of trying to
preserve it the best that they can. And I certainly understand it's an emotional issue to see
lakeshore developed, and that's why I walked the property. To see exactly what was going on out
there and it is difficult, but it is a limited number of homes at this point. If there' s anyone, and
I' m going to say again, with something new that was not discussed at the Planning Commission
meeting, certainly come forward. Otherwise we have all read the minutes from the Planning
Co~mnission and that is what we' re considering here this evening. Otherwise come forward and
state your name and address for the record.
Rich Friedman: My name is Rich Friedman, 3601 Red Cedar Point Road. The concern that I
think that a number of people have is just not this property. Because before you in a few more
weeks you' re going to have another development just like this.- And that was the concern that a
number of residents around this lake have. You have this one situation where you're going to
have 10 residents that will have access to the lake. Across on the other side, on the east side Of
the lake you're going to have in front of you another challenge because they are gerrymandering
the land again with one beachlot and multiple back lots that are not on the lake. And they're
going to be asking the same Und of thing. And I guess the frustration that a number of us have
that live on the lake is that you, the regional park is there. You've approved a public beach with a
fishing.
Audience: Pier.
Rich Friedman: Pier, thank you. I'm not a fisherman so I don't go out there, but the fact of the
matter is, is when is this going to stop? And while maybe allowed by law, isn't there a sense of
common sense amongst you all that says that how many more of these beachlots will you allow?
Even though it's within code and she can do her homework and she's probably done a very nice
job. The fact of the matter is that it' s practicality and since the mayor has walked the current lot,
she noticed that an awful lot of that lot is currently under water. Now the concern is basically
when is enough enough and that' s all we ask you. To use your good judgment to ask that same
question of the developers. Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
13
City Council Meeting- M,y 13, 2002
Councilman Boyle: Sir, may I ask you a question regarding beachlots. Why the, what's, I'm
missing something on the beachlot. I can understand the boat slips and more activity on the lake
but why the.
Rich Friedman....concern.
Councilman Boyle: Yeah, on beachlots.
Rich Friedman: Well there's a couple concerns. First of all, if you take a look at the way this
property is set up. At the Planning Cormnission they discussed who is responsible for the
beachlot, number one. Who's going to pay taxes on it? And are in fact the lots number 8, 7, 6
and 5, are they going to disregard going out to the beachlot to do their boating, or will they be
launching kayaks and canoes and a number of other kinds of things, which is contrary to what
you're trying to establish with a beachlot itself. The other concern of course is that you just add
to tile number of people. If in fact you want to give access to the people in the community for a
lake, you've done so. You've ah'eady built a public beach. You have a regional park on the other
side. You already have existing community beaches. You're going to be adding one over here.
You have another one on the planning stages right now, and people have mentioned Ches Mar
Farms. They're also concerned about tile Girl Scouts, so you're really impacting the number of
people when in fact the facilities are already there. Why not use, why not ask those people to go
around tile lake and either use the regional park or the existing beach? I don't understand it. If in
fact you want to buy beach front land, then buy one of these lots. But just by virtue of being
within 100 or 200 or 300 yards from a lake, it doesn't give you automatically rights and
privileges. Certainly you're not going to pay the same taxes as any of us, so I just don't
understand why the commission continues to entertain these kinds of thoughts when in fact
they' ve already made provisions for the citizens of the community.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Sharmin, I realize this is more Lori's area of expertise, but could you
just reiterate to us what the reason is for not wanting to put the multiple docks out across this
area?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Absolutely. There's a wetland located south of the site. If we had individual
riparian lots, each one of those parcels will require a wetland alteration permit. They will clear
vegetation to be able to access the lake. So environmentally, this is a clearer scenario. The
number of watercraft to individual lots is higher than what you would get with a beachlot. So
those are the two main reasons.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Councihnan Boyle. Sharmin. What is the current ordinance on slips or docks and overnight
storage in a situation like this where the homeowner doesn't actually own that slip or land? And
who will maintain that dock or those slips?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: The homeowners association will be required to maintain the beachlot.
Councihnan Boyle: The beachlot and the slips.
Sharmin A14aff: The beachlot and the slips. Only individuals who own property within this
subdivision will be allowed to use the beachlot.
Councilman Boyle: Okay. And they'll each have one slip, if there's 9 lots.
14
City Council Meeting - Iv,,~y 13, 2002
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Boyle: Can they park their boat there overnight obviously?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: No.
Councihnan Boyle: No they cannot?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Well, they will be allowed to moor them overnight. They won't be allowed to
launch boats from the beachlot.
Councilman Boyle: Understand but the boat can stay at the slip overnight, is that correct?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Yes, yes. Yes it can.
Councihnan Boyle: Is there not a law that says you can't in a situation like that? No?
Mayor Jansen: No. No, that's part of the purpose. It's just like a private dock except it's 1
instead of 4 so it would be treated the same.
Councilman Boyle: So the homeowners will pay the insurance and everything for that?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: That's correct.
Councihnan Boyle: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Alright. If there's anyone else that has comments, if you could come
forward and state your name and address for the record, and then I am going to close this to any
further comments.
Audience: Could I just ask you a question?
Mayor Jansen: We're going to move on sir, thank you.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. My only comment is I've heard that this
meets the ordinance and I want to remind everyone there are 3 variances, and I haven't seen in
the report that all the conditions have been applied. I haven't seen that logic. I've worked
through that logic before and it would be comforting to see it. Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. You did present findings on all of the variances, correct?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: That's correct. It's on page 22.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. That also was brought up at the Planning Commission meeting so
everything is there as we need it as far as the variances and what, 2 of the 3 were proposed by
staff and the ones that, and it is to prevent more degradation.
Sharmin Al-Jaff: That's correct.
15
City Council Meeting - M,y 13, 2002
Mayor Jansen' It would be worst if we didn't give them the variance. You would have more
impact to the property as far as you've reduced the width of the right-of-way and you've let them
increase the street grade in order to preserve more of the trees and the vegetation.
Sharmin Al-Jarl: That's correct.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Teresa Burgess. Madam Mayor, if I could also address those two since they are engineering
variances. One of the justifications that we used as staff, we struggled internally with the right~
of-way and also with the street grades, and one of the justifications that we came to with agreeing
to that and not holding a little bit stronger was that in obtaining the conservation easement we felt
that this was something that, by doing these 2 things in combination with a conservation easement
we were preserving the property and working in that same vein. But also by going to less
invasive grading and going to the lesser wide right-of-way, we were also allowing the property
owner a little bit more freedom and ability to develop the property because we were taking less
right-of-way. There's more space for them to put in those building lots and so we felt it was a
trade-off in a way for the conservation easement which was very important to the city to protect
the lakefront area and avoid those manicured lawns all the way up to the waterways.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. I'll take one more co~runent from the public and then I'll be
closing this. Ma'am, you can approach tile podium and state your name and address for the
record please.
Sharrie Broin- Sharrie Broin, 3840 Lone Cedar Lane and I guess I have one question for tile City
Council with regard to budgeting. With all tile additional increase of traffic with watercraft on
the lake. how are the children being protected at Camp Tanadoona and at the beaches? Are we
increasing staff water safety out there?
Mayor Jansen: Sham-fin, do we have anything to do with Camp Tanadoona?
Sharrie Broin' Or the public beaches with the regional park. Because watercrafts, are increasing
with tile public access and with the additional lots that are being sold with slips, there's going to
be a lot of additional traffic and are we looking out for tile children on the lake?
Mayor Jansen' Okay, thank you.
Sharrie Broin: And we need safeguards.
Mayor Jansen' Appreciate it.
Sharmin Al-Jarl: There is DNR staff that usually mo'nitors tile lakes.
Todd Gerhardt: Carver County. Mayor, Carver County Sheriff's Office does the water patrol for
the City of Chanhassen on the lakes and I know each year it's an issue with the number of lakes
in Carver County for patrol time so we will share that information with the County Sheriff again
when we meet with him.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. I'm going to bring this back to council. Council, any questions
for staff?
16
City Council Meeting - M,,y 13, 2002
Councilman Boyle: I've got some comments but I'll wait.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, any questions at this time? Okay, then we can move right into comments if
you wanted to start Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. First off, I appreciate your comment made about the safety and I
really, here's my point. The staff has done a phenomenal job, along with the Planning
Commission getting it up to this point and they've given leeway to try to accommodate the
developer and we've given and as a result of the presentation I see a desire to change scope. Put
my back to the wall as a councilman and I will not entertain an approval as is without the thought
of bringing it back to the Planning Commission to address that scope change. I don't appreciate
being put on the spot without having the opportunity of really measuring the impact of that scope
change. The technical aptitude lies with the staff and the Planning Commission and for that
reason I would feel much more comfortable with the Planning Commission taking a look at those
changes.
Mayor Jansen: Councilman Ayotte, if I may.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm not voting I know.
Mayor Jansen: Right now the staff report, we can approve as is which is the recommendation that
came through the Planning Commission. There is no proposal formally before us from staff for
approval so you can vote on the recommendation with the knowledge that that is what came
through the Planning Commission and what the staff is recommending.
Councilman Ayotte: What Mr. Boyer presented did get in front of the Planning Commis'sion?
Mayor Jansen: He would like us to make a change. You need to decide if you would like to make
the change. If not, then we stay with what is before us in the recommendation and staff is
recommending the conservation easement. The Planning Commission approved this with the
conservation easement and that is what's before us.
Councilman Ayotte: And what my question is, is whether or not the changes that were presented
that would be a requirement to go back to the Planning Commission and measure it's impact,
con'ect?
Mayor Jansen: If we wanted to decide to do that.
Roger Knutson: Mayor. Point out one item of timing. The review deadline on this is 5-14. So
unless we have an extension your options are limited. One of the options is not returning it to the
Planning Commission because you don't have that time to do that. So you could approve it as
presented by the staff in your reports in front of you. You could, if you chose, if you thought it
was appropriate, eliminate the one, combine those 2 lots into one lot. If you don't think that's
appropriate, you don't have to. As a part of the conservation easement, I'll just point out, the
actual conservation easement has not been written. That's a sample. There will need to be a
conservation easement, but the exact wording of it has not been done. That will be done in
conjunction with the final plat.
Councilman Ayotte: Would you need an extension in order for that easement to be?
17
City Council Meeting - N,~y 13, 2002
Roger Knutson: No. That would be part of the final plat. The exact wording will be part of the
final plat process. To get excited right now, why, if someone was excited you'd think you would
have called and had some discussions about it. But there's no need to get excited about the exact
wording of a conservation easement now. Obviously, I think it's pretty obvious, you're not going
to tell someone to pull out a sanitary sewer line out of the ground. I mean that's, I think that's
pretty obvious. So that kind of detail can be worked out at final plat approval so we get
something that's acceptable to the council at that time. But you can, again the one thing you can't
do without an extension of time is send it back because you don't have the time to do that.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any other comments?
Councilman Ayotte: No ma'am.
Councilman Peterson: How do you feel about the conservation easements?
Councilman Ayotte: I think the imposition of a conservation easement, I think the idea of
keeping what we can as much as possible is an absolute necessity. I personally, and I'll state it
the way with respect to what's going on, that there's more push than pull and I don't feel
comfortable with how this has evolved. The Planning Commission has been handed a plate full
and it sounds like the city staff and the Planning Commission has bent over backwards, yet there
doesn't seem to be satisfaction on the part of the developer so that raises a concern for me and I
think we should do everything we can to maintain the environment as much as possible for the
obvious reasons stated. Most of which quite frankly go back to the lady who made the co~mnent
about public safety because I think if we do sustain to retain the environment, that the likelihood
of having as much traffic as we have in our lakes will diminish somewhat. I'm also concerned
that xve haven't had an opportunity to have Public Safety take a good look in terms of a template
to see the implications of yet another 9 slips, and an additional beach. I think there's till some
work to be done so I'm somewhat concerned about having my back to the wall with respect to the
suspense date and the need to approve or disapprove with what I think is not all the information
on the table. Not to take anything away from staff or the Planning Commission. I just think
there's some points that have not yet surfaced, percolated to the top but with respect to the
environmental issue, I think we should do everything we can to keep the environment as
untouched as possible.
Mayor Jansen: Appreciate your comment and just so you're aware, there was no concern raised
at the Planning Comn-dssion with the conservation easement. Any concern that was raised by the
developer was raised after that meeting.
Councilman Ayotte: I understand.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And we can always direct staff to take a look at the safety issues. That
wouldn't necessarily, that would not hold this up. It would be a...
Councilman Peterson: ...motivated to approve the report as presented tonight with the
recommendations presented by staff. Where I'm at in the conservation easement, you know I
think that has to be carefully worded. I don't think it means to leave it untouched. You know it
has to be cleaned up. Does it have to be a green lawn? Absolutely not but I don't, I'm not
motivated to say that it's got to be untouched so there's, you know there's a big, broad sweep
there of inbetweenness but I'm probably more motivated to clean it up. Make it more
presentable. Otherwise they don't have a lake lot so there's a struggle there between a
conservation easement and giving them the ability to build a lake lot.
18
City Council Meeting- M,,y 13, 2002
Councilman Boyle: Thank you. That's part of my own comments too. Conservation easements
should not be intended to say okay we're going to, this is the way it is and it looks terrible so
we're going to keep it that way. Many times you can make it look a heck of a lot better with a
few changes, but you've got to have the flexibility to change it and that doesn't mean that you
tear out all the trees and put a lawn down to the lake. It can be more attractive with some
landscaping and improvement of the area so I think, I agree. It has to be worded quite carefully.
Regarding safety, I definitely think we should look into the safety and it' s not just Lake
Minnewashta. It's Lotus and every other lake that's gaining more traffic. As the Mayor stated,
we really can't deny a person to develop their own property. We're just, we don't have that
power. We can put codes and restrictions and ordinances to try to guide it in the right direction
but we can't stop it. That's all I have.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. I concur with the comments that have been made. My
understanding of the conservation easement is the protection of that wetland off the shore so
certainly where there are things that are unsightly, those can be better maintained. However, to
keep the natural vegetation as is, I understand is the primary goal of having that easement in
place. And certainly we' ve had multiple conversations about safety issues on the lakes and what
we can do with traffic and conversations with the sheriff' s department that does patrol the lakes
for us so we will continue those conversations. They certainly come up as, on an annual basis so
we will make sure that we've identified that as a concern as well. And again, it is difficult to see
property like this develop, and unfortunately to hold the property owner hostage and say that
we'd like to see it remain natural just isn't something that you know conceivably you can do as a
government. You take away property rights. And what staff has done, and I know the Planning
Commission thanked you for your work with the developer. We appreciated the developer
coming in and working with staff to do as much conservation on this land as we could, and it
certainly is a great proposal I think that's in front of us. The best that we could expect under the
circumstances, trying to maintain the integrity of this property the best that we can. What I did
like that you proposed this evening was combining those 2 lots. It is so close to the existing
property owner, that it's right in the back yard 10 feet from the property line. If we can combine
and move that house, I very much like that proposal on, what was it, Block 2, Lots 1 and 2.
Combining those. So I would not mind hearing that as part of the motion if council agrees.
Those are my comments. If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor, I make a motion the City Council approve preliminary
plat for Subdivision 0-6 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta for 11 lots and one beachlot with variances
for a 50 foot right-of-way and a 9 percent right-of-way grade, and a 50 to 80 house pad, Lot 4,
Block 2 as shown on plans received April 9, 2002 subject to conditions 1 through 39 with the 40th
being added that we would look favorably upon the 2 lots mentioned tonight combining into 1.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Do I have a second?
Councilman Boyle: I'll second it.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, just to clarify. That includes adopting the Findings of Fact concerning
the variances as set forth in the planning staff' s report.
Councilman Peterson: Affirmative.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, any discussion of the motion?
19
City Council Meeting- N~,y 13, 2002
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve the preliminary plat
for Subdivision ~)2-6 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta for 11 lots and one beachlot and with
variances for a 50 foot right-of-way width, a 9 % right-of-way grade, and a 50 x 80 house
pad on Lot 4, Block 2, as shown on the plans received April 9, 2002, adopting the Findings
of Fact for variances, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall make a note on the landscaping plan that evergreens shall average 7
feet in height with a 6 foot minimum.
.
Each lot shall have a minimum of one overstory deciduous tree planted in the front yard
setback area.
.
A presentation easement shall be dedicated over the westerly 400 feet of the beachlot and
the portion located west of Lot 4, Block 2, and east of the channel.
In lieu of land dedication and/or trail construction, full park and trail dedication fees
should be paid. These fees are to be paid at the rate in force upon final platting and/or
building permit application. The cun'ent rate is $1,500 per single family dwelling for
parks and $500 per single family dwelling for trails. One-third of all park and trail fees
applicable to the entire plat are due at the time of final platting. The remaining two-thirds
are paid independently at the time of each building permit application.
.
The easterly lot line of Lot 1, Block 2 shall be extended to the north eliminating the
finger extending to the east. The remnant parcel shall be deeded to the property to the
east. The area located south of the 50 foot cul-de-sac right-of-way off of Washta Bay
Road shall be deeded to the property to the south.
6. The subdivision shall comply with the following table:
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Home
Area Width Depth Setback
Ordinance 15,000 non-riparian 90' 125' 30' fl'ont/rear
20,000 riparian 10' sides
BLOCK 1
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 4
Lot 5
Lot 6
37,092 102' 345' 30'/30'
10'
36,621 96' 369' 30'/50'*
10'
47,972 77' on curve 329.5'
10'
45,357 70' on curve 225'
10'
37,978 53' on curve 304'
10'
21,467 68' on curve 220'
10'
30'/50'*
30'/50'*
30'/30'/60**
30'/30'/60**
2O
City Council Meeting- May 13, 2002
Lot 7 22,876
Lot 8 20,285
127' 215' 30'/30'/60**
10'
107' 229' 30'/30'/60**
/30'***/10'
BLOCK 2
Lot 1
Lot 2
18,929
24,761
Lot 3 151,518
(Beach Lot)
68' on curve 220'
10'
185' 156' 30'/30'
10'
30'/30'
Lot 4 78,394 riparian
84' on curve 670' 30'/75'/50"*
10'
The 50-foot setback includes a 10 foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40
foot structure setback.
The 60-foot setback includes a 20 foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40
foot structure setback.
The 30-foot bluff setback includes a 20-foot bluff impact zone.
7. Fire Marshal Conditions:
An additional fire hydrant will be required at the intersection of Washta Bay
Road and the new proposed street.
A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around the fire hydrant, i.e. street
lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer
boxes. This is to ensure that hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated
by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
C.
When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for
fire protection is required to be installed such protection shall be installed and
made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997
Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3.
d.
No burning permits will be issued for trees that are removed. Trees or brush
must be either removed from site or chipped.
Submit street names to the Chanhassen Building Official and the Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for review and approval.
Submit cul-de-sac designs to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
go
On Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, additional address signs may be required at the driveway
entrance is address numbers on the house are not visible from the street. Contact
21
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
.
.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for additional information pursuant to Chanhassen
Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992.
The utility and drainage easement along the northerly property line of Lots 1 and 2, Block
2, shall be increased to 10 feet, as requested in the attached memo from Reliant Energy,
Minnegasco.
Building Official Conditions:
a. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures.
b. Final grading plans and soil reports must be subn~tted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
c. Provide a water service connection for Lot 8.
d. Permits are required for the roof drainage piping on Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Deleted.
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420).
All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer edge.
All structure shall maintain a 75 foot setback from the OI4~V of Lake Minnewashta.
The applicant shall obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed recreational
beachlot and shall obtain amendments to the CUP prior to any alterations to the beachlot.
The last catch basin prior to discharge into each pond shall be a sump catch basin.
The applicant examined the slopes near the southwest comer of Lot 8, Block 1 and
determined they meet the City's criteria for a bluff (rise of 25 feet above the toe and a
slope averaging 30% or greater). All structures shall maintain a 30 foot setback from the
top, toe and sides of the bluff.
Easement types and locations shall be called out on the preliminary plat.
An encroachment agreement for the trail on Lot 3, Block 2 shall be obtained prior to trail
construction.
Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 10.65 acres, the water quality
fees associated with this project are $8,520; the water quantity fees are approximately $
21,087. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided
to treat runoff from the site and adjacent areas. The current proposal appears to provide
water quality treatment for runoff from 4.1 acres on-site and 39.0 acres off-site. (These
figures will be finalized upon final review of the storm water calculations.) In addition,
two outlet structures are proposed. Preliminary calculations show a credit of $39,480
22
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
against total fees of $29,609. At this time, the estimated total SWMP credit due to the
applicant for the provision of ponding for off-site areas in accordance with the SWMP is
$9,871.
The applicant must apply for and obtain permits from the approPriate regulatory agencies
(e.g. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources)
and comply with their conditions of approval.
Approval of this application is contingent upon the City of Shorewood reviewing and
approving this application.
The existing driveway access off of Highway 7 shall be abandoned.
Lot 3, Block 2 shall be platted as an outlot.
The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review.
The storm water will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. All of the
ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Programs (NURP) standards.
Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public
storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year
flood level. The minimum utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used around the grading perimeter of the site
and that Type III silt fence be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands. The silt fence
shall be removed upon completion of construction. A 75 foot minimum rock
construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during
construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading would require an
easement from the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas must be sodded or
seeded and mulched within two weeks of grading completion.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City's Building Department.
Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction
plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will
also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from
the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the
MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc.
Add all applicable 2002 City of Chanhassen Detail Plates to the plans.
23
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
The proposed development will be required to meet the existing stormwater runoff rates
for the 10 and 100 year, 24 hour storm events.
Revise the plans to show the following for all of the public streets: a 28 foot back-to-
back pavement width, a 50 foot right-of-way and a 45.5 foot pavement radius for the cul-
de-sac with a 60 foot right-of-way radius. Also, the applicant must provide a uniform
transition from the existing 22 foot wide pavement of Dartmouth Drive to a new 28 foot
street section.
Abandon the existing utility lines on the east side of the site, west of the proposed
manhole connection. Also, the existing house services shall be connected to the new
utility lines and the existing driveway access realigned through the bubble of the cul-de-
sac.
According to the City's Finance Department records, the underlying parcels on the east
and west sides were previously assessed for sanitary sewer and water. However, the
underlying parcel in the center of the site was not assessed for utilities. As such, the
proposed homesite on Lot 4, Block 2 will be required to pay a sanitary sewer connection
charge. The current 2002 lateral connection charge for sanitary sewer is $4,335 per lot.
Since the developer will be extending the lateral sewer and watermains to the remaining
lots, the sanital3, sewer and water connection charges will be waived. Sanitary sewer and
water hookup charges will still be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2002 trunk
hookup charge is $1,383 for sanitary sewer and $1,802 for watermain.
On the utility plan:
a. Add stoma sewer schedule.
b. Show the proposed utilities sewer length and slope, and review type and class of
sewer.
c. Revise sanitary service size from 4 inches to 6 inches.
d. Relocate the fire hydrant between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1.
e. Move trail out of watermain easement right-of-way at the north side.
f. Add a legend.
g. Revise watermain type to PVC class C-900.
h. No ponding allowed in public street right-of-way.
i. Add a concrete valley gutter to the east access.
j. Add and show cul-de-sac draintile.
k. Show size of storm sewer culverts on Lot 4 driveway.
1. Show all existing services.
m. Revise note on connecting to existing sanitary manhole to "construct outside drop
structure on existing manhole at Inv. 945".
n. The applicant shall work with the utility company to relocate the existing electric
wires.
On the grading plan:
a. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
b. Show the location of the 75-foot rock construction entrance.
c. Add a legend.
d. Revise Lot 1, Block 2 garage elevation.
e. Revise the pond high water level elevation.
24
City Council Meeting- May 13, 2002
f. Show Lot 1, Block I and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 private driveway.
g. Private driveway slope is 10% maximum.
h. Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, Block 1 shall be custom graded.
i. Add a note "Resod or seed any disturbed areas.
38.
The applicant will work with staff to establish an appropriate buffer on the east property
line of Lot 1, Block 2. This buffer shall consist of 3 spruce trees, planted 15 feet on
center, along the easterly property line. The tree size shall meet the minimum
requirements of the ordinance.
39. The applicant shall work with staff to determine the appropriate trail materials.
40. Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 shall be combined into one lot.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 3 to 1.
Mayor Jansen: Next motion please.
Councilman Peterson: I just lost my page.
Mayor Jansen: Page 30.
Councihnan Peterson: I would recommend City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #02-
3 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta as shown on the plans received April 9, 2002 subject to
conditions 1 through 7.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Boyle: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve Wetland Alteration
Permit//02-3 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta as shown on the plans dated received April 9,
2002 and subject to the following conditions:
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall submit a Wetland Replacement Plan
Application along with all required supporting materials. The applicant shall provide
proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement
Wetland. A wetland replacement plan shall be approved prior to wetland impacts
occurring.
.
A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be
maintained around Basin 1. Wetland buffers 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum
average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Basin 2, 3 and the wetland mitigation area.
(Those buffers considered for PVC must maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet.)
Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the
City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the
direction of city staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
3. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the Wetland buffer edge.
25
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
,
,
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
Type III silt fence shall be provided between wetland and upland areas where work is
proposed adjacent to wetland areas or areas to be preserved as buffer. If no buffer is to
be preserved, Type III silt fence shall be provided at the delineated wetland edge. All silt
fences shall be removed upon completion of construction.
Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDot seed mix 25 A or a similar
seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Army Corps of Engineers) and comply, with their conditions of approval.
All voted in favor, except Councihnan Ayotte who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 3 to 1.
Mayor Jansen: Next motion please.
Councilman Peterson: I'd recommend City Council approve Conditional Use Permit #0-2 for
Boyer Lake Minnewashta as shown on plans dated April 9th subject to conditions 1 through 11.
Roger Knutson: And also adopting the findings.
Councilman Peterson: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: A second please.
Councilman Boyle: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve Conditional Use
Permit #02-2 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta as shown on the plans dated received April 9,
2002, adopting the Findings of Fact, and subject to the following conditions:
.
.
The beachlot shall contain no more thart 3 docks with no more than 9 spaces for
overnight watercraft storage. The plat shall be revised to show 9 spaces, the maximum
allowed on a single beachlot by city ordinance.
The beachlot shall meet all requirements set forth for recreational beachlots in Section
20-263 of the City Code.
A conservation easement shall be placed over the portion of the beachlot ti'tat includes
Basin 2.
The applicant shall specify the materials used for trail construction.
The trail shall not be extended to the shoreline.
26
City Council Meeting- May 13, 2002
The beachlot shall not be used as a boat launch and the City will post the appropriate
signage.
.
The applicant shall explore the feasibility of avoiding wetland fill for the trail along the
north side of Basin 1 by installing a boardwalk or similar structure.
.
The proposed trail shall be located within the drainage and utility easement between Lots
4 and 5 on Block 1.
.
A cross access easement shall be granted for the trail from the owners of Lots 4 and 5,
Block 1 in favor of all the homeowners in the homeowners association.
I0.
The number of non-motorized watercraft storage racks shall not exceed the amount of
storage necessary to permit 1 rack slip per lot served by the beachlot. The plans shall
reflect the capacity and location of the proposed storage rack(s).
11.
An amendment to the Conditional Use Permit shall be required for any changes to the
beachlot including but not limited to: dock configuration, installation of portable
chemical toilets, placement of boat racks and placement of structures.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 3 to 1.
Mayor Jansen: I think those were all of the motions. The variances were included in the first
motion. Okay, thank you.
UPDATE FROM MEDIACOM.
Mayor Jansen: Agenda item number 5 is an update from Mediacom. Do we have a Mediacom
representative here this evening? Do I hear a no7 Did we move too quickly?
Todd Gerhardt: No. I told him to be here at 8:00 so I guessed the agenda pretty good.
Mayor Jansen: We can always come to that if need be so we will move onto agenda item number
6.
27
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 16, 2002
Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Sharmin AI-Jaff administered
the Oath of Office to Steven Lillehaug.
MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Craig Claybaugh, Alison Blackowiak, Bruce Feik, Rich
Slagle, Uli Sacchet, and Steven Lillehaug
STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; Matt
Saam, Assistant City Engineer; and Mahmoud Sweidan, Project Engineer
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON: Mayor Linda Jansen
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen
Debbie Lloyd
Linda Landsman
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
7329 Frontier Trail
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 13.6 ACRE SITE INTO 11 LOTS AND ONE,
BEACHLOT WITH VARIANCES~ A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT~ AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CREATION OF A 2.5 ACRE BEACHLOT. THE
SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 7~ WEST OF MINNEWASHTA BAY ROAD~
NORTH OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA AND EAST OF DARTMOUTH DRIVE. BOYER LAKE
MINNEWASHTA ADDITION~ BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION
Public Present:
Name Address
Wayne Holzer 2911 Washta Bay Road
Renee Zirbes 6220 Barberry Circle
Steve Hall 6221 Arbor Lane
Robert Ctn'istian 2971 Washta Bay Road
Kelly Sheehan 2951 Washta Bay Road
Mark Olsen 2961 Washta Bay Road
Bill Coldwell 3501 Shore Drive
Sue Fiedler 3121 Dartmouth Drive
Jim Ginther Jr. 3611 Ironwood Road
Rich Friedman 3601 Red Cedar Point Road
Mr. & Mrs. Mary Lorence 6230 Arbor Lane
Maren Christopher 7311 Dogwood Road
John Getsch 7500 Dogwood Road
Sharmin A1-Jaff and Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, anyone have questions of staff?
Feik: Sure, I'll start. Sharmin, I'd like to discuss with you a little bit regarding the beachlot again.
Assuming for just a moment that the beachlot was not constructed and as I understand it, we would not
have the ability to deny access to the lake to Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8, and that they would be allowed under our
guidelines, they would be allowed to cross the existing wetland to get access to the beach, is that correct?
A1-Jaff: That's correct. They would need a wetland alteration, but yes that is an accurate statement.
Feik: Okay, so either way they're going to get docks. Some shape or form of dock. Either crossing the
wetlands or putting in a group dock via the beachlot.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Feik: That's it for now, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks.
Slagle: Can I ask a follow-up question?
Blackowiak: Sure, go ahead.
Slagle: Does that mean when you ask for a wetland alteration, you're assuming that would be given
correct?
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Slagle: So I mean if it was not given, they would not have docks to the lake.
A1-Jaff: Our past experience has been to grant the wetland alteration. We would ensure minimum
impact on the wetland but yes, it's reasonable to assume that a riparian lot would have lakeshore rights.
Blackowiak: Any other questions? Uli, questions?
Sacchet: Yeah, I' ve got a couple of questions. First of all I want to clarify, you specified that since the
channel also counts as lake front in terms of the setback requirements, is that Lot 4, Block 2 pad with the
unusual shape, is that within the 75 feet setback that will be required from the channel? Because it
appears to me that it's not.
A1-Jaff: It meets the 75 foot setback. That's one of the reasons why they went with the 50 by 80 house
pad. It was one of two choices. Either a setback from the OHW of the lake.
Sacchet: Or the shape.
A1-Jaff: Which meant encroachment.
Sacchet: So with this shape it actually respects that setback.
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Sacchet: I wanted to clarify that. Then I wondered, you said, you pointed out the aspect of the custom
grading and I don't know whether I didn't look close enough but I couldn't see the condition. You said
there was actually a condition in the conditions right now that these lots would be custom graded,
because I didn't see it.
A1-Jaff: Okay. I will look through the conditions...
Sacchet: Okay, we can get to that when we actually get into the motion part. A motion detailed type of
aspect in the staff report you point out that the trail should not be extended to the shoreline, and I kind of
wonder well, how is it suppose to connect to the dock, isn't it? How does it connect to the dock if it
doesn't go the shoreline? Is the dock coming further?
Haak: I guess the concern of staff was that whatever materials we used to construct the trail would not
interfere with the quality of the lake. And so if We find a material that' s, if it's a mowed trail then
certainly it can go up to the edge. If it's a paved trail, we didn't want water running down the hill into
the lake. If it was woodchips we didn't want the woodchips to run in so that's the rationale behind that.
Sacchet: So the idea it will be grass, the last part to get to the dock.
Haak: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. That's a detail question but I was curious about it. Why 3 ponds? It seems a lot of
ponds. Is that an engineering question?
Sweidan: The existing pond, a section of it, it's actually for serving most of it ....that's coming north of
the highway.
Sacchet: So it takes water in from the other side of the highway so there's an increased need for ponding
on that basis?
Sweidan: Yes. This is a low area comparing to the highway elevation and it's gathering a lot of
drainage, surface drainage to it. And we can use the 3 ponds in a way that it will treat the drainage that's
coming out from the, or discharging out from the culvert, and the one in the west that would take care
also for the highway that's coming also from the west part of that property of the highway. And the one,
this other is takdng care of the streets that is coming from the development.
Sacchet: And I think, yeah there's one more question. You touched on the preservation easement, and
I'm still not 100 percent clear, is it just a part of the beachlot that is along the lake? Does it go all the
way to the channel or it's just a part in front of the lots there?
Haak: Correct. It would be the portion of the beachlot right behind Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8, Block 1. So it
would not include the trail and the area directly adjacent to the dock and the channel.
Sacchet: That's my questions for right now. Thank you very much.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn, go ahead.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Sidney: Madam Chair, I guess following up on that question, I'm looking at condition 3. Is this
accurate? In preliminary plat then, a preservation easement shall be dedicated over the westerly 400 feet
of beachlot? We're saying the rest of that sentence is not correct or, because we're talking about the
portion east of the channel.
A1-Jaff: This portion right here.
Sidney: Oh, okay. Okay, so we do have a little bit of easement on that side of the channel.
A1-Jaff: There's a cluster of mature vegetation within this area that we wanted to preserve as well.
Sidney: Okay, good. And then, let's see I guess I had a question about approval from the City of
Shorewood. To what level would that need to be approved? Is this through the City Council in
Shorewood or...
A1-Jaff: Typically it would require, if a subdivision would take place in a neighboring community, we
would bring it through Planning Commission and City Council.
Sidney: Can we specify that? I guess I'd like to see that, I mean on the City Council approval from the
City of Shorewood. And then I guess I was interested in the fact that we have a 50 foot right-of-way
instead of 60. I'm wondering if you could comment on the benefits of that. I didn't find the portion of
the staff report that had noted that it appears to save a lot of trees, or am I mistaken?
A1-Jaff: The existing right-of-way on Dartmouth Drive is 50 feet, and this would be an extension of that
50.
Sidney: Okay.
A1-Jaff: This area that is available for right-of-way is 50 feet. And it would be, this cul-de-sac is serving
1, 2, I believe there are 3 homes here and 1 home to the south. One issue that we would want to see
resolved is the bubble surrounding the cul-de-sac, that would need to maintain the required 60 foot, and
it's for snow storage purposes. This one maintains that requirement.
Sidney: Okay. So my thought that trees would be preserved may not be accurate or, does it help at all?
A1-Jaff: Number one, there is a continuation of that existing right-of-way. The second is the
combination of the reduced right-of-way as well as the 9 percent grade. It' s the combination of those two
that brings the grading limits closer to the street. We tried for the 7 percent, 60 foot right-of-way and you
really take out quite a bit more trees.
Sidney: So overall then...
A1-Jaff: Overall there is a benefit.
Sidney: Okay. Okay, that should do it for now I guess.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Any more questions of staff?
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Claybaugh: Yeah, I have a few questions. Just like to add my concern with respect to the lack of any
notes regarding the custom grading.
A1-Jaff: I did not find that condition.
Claybaugh: I didn't see anything in the conditions and also on Sheet 2 of 3, there isn't anything that
identified inside the preservation area that any of that was going to be custom graded, and with the
amount of significant trees in there that warrant a little bit more attention in my mind. I guess everything
has probably been covered with the exception of replacement of wetlands. Are they looking at banking
wetlands or I didn't see anything for replacement of wetlands on site...
Haak: They are proposing on site wetland replacement. The applicant's engineer has indicated that they
have prepared a preliminary replacement plan. The replacement is slated for that darkish blue area
adjacent to Basin 3 and that's at a 2 to 1 ratio. In addition to, well the new wetland credit is 1 to 1. A
little, I guess a 1 to 1, and then in order to receive the other portion of the wetland credit they would be
enhancing the existing buffer in that area. North and west of the replaced wetland.
Claybaugh: Okay. So the applicant will be shedding a little more information on that.
Haak: Yeah, he can certainly address that.
Claybaugh: Okay. That's all I have.
Blackowiak: Questions?
Lillehaug: Could I cormnent on that same issue?
Blackowiak: Yeah, if you have any questions right nov,,. We have a comment section in a little bit but
this is kind of question.
Lillehaug: This is kind of a question to staff. In that Basin #3, they do have that created wetland area.
And that doesn't correctly show the impacts to the trees in that area, so those trees would be lost in that
area also. Would that be correct to assume?
Haak: Yes, that area v,,ould be graded.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Blackowiak: Thank you. I just actually have one question. I saw the 9 percent grade and Mac I think
this is a question for you. That seems awfully steep for any residential street. You're satisfied that
there's not going to be an issue with that at all? In terms of a safety standpoint.
Sweidan: From the City we can go sometimes up to the maximum 10 percent as safety wise, but here we
are looking also for the grade wise to protect as much as we could trees. Now we could say like you can
go dov,,n but that mean that this is going to be affected really bad.
Blackowiak: Right. So you feel this is a good trade-off in terms of what the alternative is?
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Sweidan: Yes. Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. Great, thank you. Go ahead.
A1-Jaff: Maybe a similar example to this one, Pointe Lake Lucy. It's north of Lake Lucy Road. They
have a 9 percent grade on their street, and it was used in the same manner to minimize impact on the
vegetation. And we haven't had any problems out there.
Blackowiak: Okay. You said so. That north of Lake Lucy, south of Lake Lucy Road, is that where?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Blackowiak: Right, okay. Alrighty. If there are no more questions, go ahead.
Sidney: I guess one thing I'm wondering if staff could just briefly outline the conditions that are put on
recreational beachlots, and this is for the benefit of the people in the audience just to understand, actually
a large portion of the report deals with the beachlot issue and what the city is requiring for use of a
beachlot. If you could just go over that briefly.
A1-Jaff: Sure. The conditional use permit will be recorded against the property, and I need to make that
very clear. All homeowners that purchase a lot here, and become members of this homeowners
association would have to abide by the conditions in the conditional use permit. One of the conditions
requires that beachlots meet all requirements of standards for beachlots and that would include total
frontage on the lake, total number of docks, number of slips for boats, mooring, overnight mooring. It
prohibits any boats from being launched off of this beachlot. We need to point out that if an association
is in violation of a conditional use permit, the city council can revoke that conditional use permit and take
away those rights. Right now what the applicants are proposing are a trail, dock, and I believe there is a
canoe rack on site as well. If they intended to let' s assume at a sand beach, they would need to go
through a conditional use permit amendment. We do not automatically make those changes in-house
administratively. So everything that you see in front of you is what they are getting. And I don't know if
that covers the basic...
Slagle: ...wait til later but I do want to ask you at this point. As I look at this property, the first question
that comes to my mind is, it's very unusual with the channel and the request by the applicant to in
essence have two divisions, or subdivisions. And a connector to those. I mean one could argue I believe
somewhat successfully that the 2 homes onto the east side could in essence be of their nature. Not
connected to the other division because what you're requiring is requiring some variances, some wetland
alterations for the access to Lot 4. One could argue that Lot 4, based upon soil concerns, the wetland
alterations. Someone might ask, why would you put a house there? It sounds like the ground isn't the
best for a house. So as I, and there's people who maybe have seen that more than I have but the question
I have is, was there discussions with the applicant about those such things? Is the ground really ideal for
another house? Have you considered the two off to their own and being connected through Washta Bay
Road? And I' m asking staff for some background. Was that discussion there? And then one last
question if you can think about it, with respect to the channel, as I see this and understand what you're
saying is here, and sort of this is the present plan, as a commission member I want to know that there' s
safeguards. That we're not going to see people putting docks out over the wetland, the wetlands on
Basin 2. We're not going to see people tying up boats inside the channel, even though I think I did read
that the applicant could make a request to have that modified for dockage or something like that. I don't
want to use that same word, so I'm just sitting here saying, what is the alternate plan and we'll hear a
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
little bit from the applicant but what can we do to keep this project, I mean keeping real appreciation of
the natural resources, and I don't see this so far as having done that. And I'll be interested in hearing
from the applicant as to what they're going to do to ensure to me that they've taken that concern. So, a
little background if I could. Of discussions. Was there any discussions?
A1-Jaff: Absolutely, and I can answer some of those questions. One of the first things we do whenever
we look at subdivisions, and I believe that you've heard us often talk about this is connecting
neighborhoods. We looked at this connection. As you can see, you've got this wetland complex in this
area, so this connection was ruled out. And that was for an environmental feature. To minimize impact
on this wetland.
Slagle: What kind of connection were you looking at, if I can ask? Continuation of the road?
A1-Jaff: Continuation of this road. As far as the second question, your second concern that deals with,
assuming we approve this beachlot, will those homes come in with docks across the wetland? Those
homes are not riparian lots. By extending the beachlot to the west, what we have done is created non-
riparian lots. Therefore they don't have the right to extend a dock across, from their homes to the lake.
With a preservation easement, we are further ensuring that no impact takes place over this section. So if
it's a choice between having the 5 separate riparian lots versus the beachlot, staff believes that this is a
superior alternative.
Slagle: Okay. Let me ask this though Sharmin. If one was to believe part of the letter that we received
concerning sand being brought in and dumped at other spots along this lake, the meeting that that was,
that presentation for that development, I'm going to guess there was no talk of someone volunteering
saying hey I'm bringing in dump loads of sand. It just sort of happened after the development occurred.
Obviously it's two different folks but my question is, it'd be the same thing as we just discussed with the
docks. There will be no docks because gosh you know, they can't do that. But then they might and I'm
just saying what are our, what's the enforcement is maybe what I'm looking for.
Haak: I guess I can address the sand concerns a little bit, especially for those 4 lots. Non-riparian lots.
Specifically Lots 5 through 8 of Block 1. We would have several enforcement measures available to us
at that point. First and foremost is the Wetland Conservation Act. If you brought in sand to any one of
those 4 lots you would be in violation, I would imagine it would probably be fill under the Wetland
Conservation Act and you would be looking at financial penalties as well as wetland mitigation at a 4 to
1 ratio. For every square foot that you fill, you would need to replace 4. And so that is one of the tools
we have. The second would be that all beaches in this particular watershed district, the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District, require permits from the watershed district. So for those particular things they would
need permits and I would imagine that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District does have some
enforcement tool as well. I believe some of it again would come under the Wetland Conservation Act
and that would probably be the more stringent requirement of the two, but we can certainly tap into their
resources there for enforcement measures.
$1agle: Let lne just follow up one last question. My question about the discussions with the applicant,
how did they go if I may ask. Was there again the discussion of looking at one of these homes not
happening which would be four? I want to just get a sense, was that discussed and what was the
thinking?
A1-Jaff: We're talking about the one home that is not going to have a dock.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Slagle: At this time it's not going to have a dock.
A1-Jaff: Correct. We had the discussion with them. They, if you'll look at the plans they are showing 10
docks. Or 10 slips, and staff basically stated that you can request it but staff is recommending against it.
Slagle: Now could they put a dock inside the channel if they applied for that?
A1-Jaff: No. They did request that, but Lori.
Haak: The number of docks is limited on this site to the site. There is only so much natural lakeshore,
and they come, I believe it was 20 feet short of being able to have an additional lot, so even if they did
not include Lot, I believe it's Lot 8, on the far west side, southwest corner, they would not be able to
make that a conforming lot. It would not be 90 feet wide. It would be 708 feet wide if they used every
inch of lakeshore, the natural lakeshore that exists on the property.
Slagle: Okay.
Haak: As far as the wetland impacts for that lot east of the channel, Lot 4 there, by law we are required
to try and avoid wetland impacts and so staff' s discussions with the applicant have been that we need to
avoid and minimize wherever possible. The applicant, as well as, we have inner departmental wars about
things like that because then the planning department may say that you can't really deny access to a
buildable area like that so then it gets into the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and the City
Council.
Blackowiak: Okay Uli, you have another question?
Sacchet: Yeah, if I could just ask one more question that Commissioner Slagle brought up the question
how buildable is the soil on Lot 4, Block 2. I am actually as much concerned or even more concerned
from having been out there about Lot 2. Possibly even Lot 1 of Block 2. There is, really it' s pretty, I
think it's relatively wet. It's very close and the wetland has these two arms that literally reach towards
that pad. And I'm curious to know from a City side, how do we deal with that? I mean do we, does an
applicant have to show us soil qualities or do we have a responsibility from the city on whether they're
going to have a basement full of water and what have you?
A1-Jaff: The soils report is usually submitted at the time of building permit, and it' s very common for us
to have soil corrections as building permits come in.
Sacchet: So that would be an aspect addressed when a building permit comes in, so at this point we
wouldn't even really look at that sort of an aspect. Okay.
A1-Jaff: We suspect that there will be soil corrections on that site.
Sacchet: Okay.
Sweidan: May I add something?
Sacchet: Please.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Sweidan: Your building department always requests a soil testing for any building pad. And regarding
Lot 4, actually it's without basement.
Sacchet: Lot 4's no basement?
Sweidan: No basement.
Sacchet: Lot 1 and 2?
Sweidan: Yes.
Sacchet: No basement either?
Sweidan' Could have basement but it's a lookout basement.
Sacchet: It's a lookout basement.
Sweidan: Yes, but for Lot 4 no basement.
Sacchet: Alright. Didn't really answer it but gave me a little bit of a context, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Okay, would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation?
Please step up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Bob Boyer: Yeah, I will. My name is Bob Boyer. I'm with Boyer Building Corporation, and I'm here
with some other gentlemen who I think will help me in the presentation. I'll introduce them now. First
off we have Troy Gamble. Troy is with Anderson Engineering and he is assisting us in the engineering
of the project. And then Pete Boyer. You're going to find this is kind of a family effort here. Pete
Boyer, my brother. And then Joe Boyer also. Brother. I want to thank you all for being here tonight and
listening to our request. This is something that we've been dealing with and working on for about 6
years now, and we think we've got a project here that's extremely well suited for the site. What I'd like
to do is do a short presentation, or just short talk to you a little bit. It will take about 2-3 minutes and
then I'm sure you'll be opening it up for questions to the rest of the people here and I would appreciate
an opportunity at that time, as the discussion is flowing, to have an opportunity to address issues and
concerns that come up. I think the last time we were here it was kind of a, you know I had my
opportunity and that was it and there was several people came up and spoke. There was no attempt to try
to resolve issues and talk things through so if there's an opportunity to do that, I would appreciate that.
Blackowiak: Yeah, I think what we'll do is, you can make your presentation. Then I'll open it for a
public hearing and then members of the public can speak and then if you'd like a couple minutes at the
end of the public hearing to address concerns, you could do it at that time. I'm not going to do it one by
one.
Bob Boyer: No, I understand. That's fine.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Bob Boyer: Appreciate that. My involvement in this project, this property dates back about 35 years
when my father purchased this land and the adjoining property that is now called Sterling Estates.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Through the years we' ve built tree homes, we' ve camped, fished in this parcel of property. This was
home to me and my brothers and family for many years. I tell you this to put in context the approach we
went through when planning the development of this property. We tried to envision a neighborhood we
would want to live in. Where neighbors share equally many of the assets of.the site and can help bring
them together. This was our goal. It is however important in the planning of a unique piece of property
like this that it be done in such a way that all parties can benefit. The adjoining neighbors will benefit by
eliminating undesirable buildings and road accesses, and undesirable road accesses are removed. The
homes are constructed, the homes that will be constructed are unarguably going to significantly boost the
market values of the adjacent homes and the adjacent neighborhoods. The density of the housing is
significantly as we mentioned earlier, significantly less than both neighborhoods on each side, both
Sterling Estates and the Manor property. The density is 1.6 units per acre, which is significantly less
than what's recommended for the comprehensive plan in that area. The City will also benefit. By the
extension of the roads and the cul-de-sacs it will make egress easier for snowplows and emergency
vehicles. By increasing the property values means tax base increase. The proposed regional ponds,
again the ponds on the north side of the property are primarily regional ponds, will resolve some serious
water quality issues in Lake Minnewashta that have been impossible to resolve to date. The group docks
and preservation of the shoreline will benefit water fall production and overall water quality. The
grouping of the houses on high ground minimize impact since the wetland areas. The new homeowners
that will occupy this property will also benefit by having a beachlot dockage that all residents will have
equal access to and enjoy the lake and the channel. Fishermen have enjoyed the fishing in this channel
for decades, and I suspect the residents will enjoy it as well. Trails will allow maintenance free and
pedestrian traffic to neighboring communities and to the beachlot. In closing I would ask the commission
while considering the two variances, to value the intent of the ordinances not necessarily the letter of the
ordinances. I would also ask you to consider that this is not a parcel of land in the nfiddle of a field. It is
unique for many reasons and I think requires us to plan in a unique way. I think the proposal we bring to
you tonight is the best use of the site. It strikes that balance of benefit for all parties, particularly the
future homeowners. Thank you and if you have any questions we'd be very happy to answer them.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Bob Boyer right now? Go ahead
Rich.
Slagle: I've got one. Mr. Boyer, can you just address my comments about what I'll call Lot 4. The
finger that sticks out. Again, if you're someone who walked in and saw this sitting here, I mean would
you ask yourself as a citizen or just an interested observer, is that, I mean it looks like we're barely fitting
in a house on that piece of property. And to me that's a very sensitive piece of property. I know we're
within a couple of approvals of variances and alterations, it's fine but I'm just asking you from a builder,
is that sort of on the edge?
Bob Boyer: Well that one, not at all. If you walk the property you'll see that that's, it's actually a
gorgeous view. A house looks southwest. It' s a gorgeous sunset view from that lot. It' s not that far f~om
an adjacent house right basically in this area, that was built about 40-50 years ago that had no soil
correction whatsoever. There's 'no reason to believe that that lot has soil correction. When that channel
was dug back in 1958 or 56, somewhere around there, there's no indication that that site, that area had
soil problems. A lot of the soils that are there now are simply soils that were removed with the channel
area and spread around and they cover over very suitable soil that's in place so, no. In fact the site I
don't think will probably even require any unnecessary soil compaction whatsoever. The lot, the site,
because of the distance from the shoreline, it does require us to get a variance to narrow the lot to I
believe 50 feet as opposed to 60 feet, but I think my brother John submitted plans that showed many,
10
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
many very suitable homes that would look very attractive in that area. Where you'd comfortably fit on a
50 foot lot. So I wouldn't be afraid at all to live there myself. I'd love to.
Blackowiak: Uli, question.
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Boyer. Just to carry the same question up to what is Lot 2 in Block 2. When I was
out there I was actually more concerned about that because it seems a pretty low elevation there. Very
close to the wetland. You're confident that you're not going to run into a water issue there? No, Block
2. On the other side. West side.
Bob Boyer: Oh, okay.
Sacchet: I'm talking about that one, because it's, the way I recall it, the Lot 4 that we just talked about,
it's actually slightly on an elevation. While Lot 2 and even to some extent Lot 1 up on that west side are
I consider it a little bit of a dip. A dip next to a Wetland and therefore my concern.
Bob Boyer: I'm going to refer to my brother Pete to answer that one because he's much more familiar
with that site than I am.
Pete Boyer: Thank you council members. Planning committee members and I appreciate your interest in
that lot. Those lots I've owned for oh, onto 30 years now and that's upland property over here. This is
upland area over here. It's clay with about a foot and a half of black topsoil and it drains well to the
west. So it's actually the regional pond is located in a upland area partially, most of it. A little bit of it as
a wetland because we have to get a large enough size. But these two homes would be located on very
suitable ground. A lot of times you know that because Ash trees grow like mad up in here. They love
upland. They don't grow down in here, in this lowland. And the same thing goes for this property over
here. You'll see no signs of fill but lots of bit, mature trees growing. Well, box-elder trees unfortunately
grow in this area. But you know it's good ground because large trees don't grow typically in wetland
areas. That's it.
Sacchet: So in other words you're pretty confident that you're not getting in a situation there.
Pete Boyer: Yeah, these are, this is also very good buildable sites.
Sacchet: If I may ask one more question, which is somewhat related. When I went out there I was really
impressed with the beautiful evergreens which I would assume is probably mostly on Lot 1, and it looked
like you were planning to pretty much cut those all down. I wonder whether there has been any
consideration on the lot line to the west to preserve some of those evergreens as a buffer to the neighbor
because we have a unique situation with a back yard facing a side of a new house.
Pete Boyer: Exactly. I'm glad you're interested in the preservation of those trees. So are we. I planted
those trees when they were very small, because we value trees. We value the land and we value the
preservation of the land. And I planted those, we took some trees off of there and moved them around.
There's some trees right along this area over here you may have noticed as well. We're trying to, our
goal is to move these trees around the site so that we can create borders if we can, buffers from the
highway. Buffers along the wetland areas if we need to. Our goal is not to cut down those trees because
they're, we've spent some effort planting and watering those things so we want to keep them going, but
we, there's a lot of work that has to be done to create these regional ponds. This one over here. This big
one over here and this one over here. And of course this local pond here. This takes care of the water on
11
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
this site itself, so. The site has, you're right. Lot of issues. Lot of water issues and we think we've
handled those water management issues. The wetland preservation issues. We've worked hard to
manage those. That' s why we gave up riparian rights for the boat docks along the lake. I mean if we go
back and give those folks access to the lake, the lot value, lot value's go up..
Sacchet: Specifically my question was whether you see any way to preserve some of these evergreens on
the west side as a buffer.
Pete Boyer: The west side.
Sacchet: Is that east or west?
Claybaugh: It's the east side.
Sacchet: That's east, sorry.
Pete Boyer: This is the east over here. Is that what you mean?
Sacchet: Okay. Because at this point you have like 3 trees there on the southern side of that lot
preserved. I wonder whether it' s possibly preserve some of those evergreens too to have a little buffering
there.
Pete Boyer: We intend to spade these out of here. The trees that are along here. We have a buffer along.
Sacchet: To replant some of those, is that what you're saying?
Pete Boyer: We would replant these down along the cul-de-sac side. Wherever we can plant them. We
don't want to bulldoze them out of there. We want to use them back. That' s the intent. That' s what
we' ve designed this property to do. The trees are planted there now because it's upland area and they
grow well there. They'll have to be moved into other areas as we move the houses, but that's our history.
If you guys, folks are familiar with Trillium Bay out on the other side of Lake Minnetonka on Halstead' s
Bay, we planted all those trees on the back land there too and now they're towering. Huge. It's been our
business to plant trees in the land fill.
Sacchet: Thank you for addressing my question.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Do you have a question?
Claybaugh: Yeah, I have a question.
Blackowiak: Sure.
Claybaugh: Could you comment on a willingness or a commitment to doing some custom grading
inside, specifically the preliminary tree preservation plan which is identified as Sheet 4 of 5. Substantial
area within all the buildable areas on both Block 1 and Block 2 is identified as removal of trees,
wholesale. From my standpoint I would certainly be a lot more comfortable to see, I know what a custom
grading looks like. I'd like you to comment on your willingness to entertain this.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Pete Boyer: And we certainly do want to do that. That's the reason for the suggestion for the street slope
being greater.
Claybaugh: I understand that but the plan that I have in front of me right now calls for the removal of
the trees. It doesn't mention any custom grading and I don't have anything in the conditions that
identifies.., by staff.
Pete Boyer: Yeah, I think the indication on your staff report was that we would, you recommended that I
think Sharmin.
A1-Jaff: Yes. I left a condition out and we need to add it in there. And if I may add regarding the
grading plans, we always ask developers to provide us with worst case scenarios as far as grading. That's
how we base our tree calc's so discussions have taken place with the applicant. They have agreed to
custom grading those sites. We should have added the condition. It's my fault.
Claybaugh: Okay, so the applicant's in agreement with that?
Pete Boyer: We don't, yeah. We want to do that. Clearing all the trees is not a good thing. We want to
keep the trees. However let's remember, a lot of those trees are not trees, which trees we keep. A lot of
the trees in this bluff area right here, on this area, that used to be an old farm. The remains of which you
can see the old farm foundations right along this side here. A lot of those trees in there are boxelders and
what's the other kind of trees. Cottonwoods, that was the issue. And they're not even suggested by the
city to be desirable trees. We don't want to take out the woods. The woods is great, but maybe to take
out those boxelders and cottonwoods and plant back better trees is a better deal. In the long run it's
probably a better deal to get oaks and maples and ash in there so, but with boxelders there they'll take
over everything we can't do anything about getting better trees ill there so we're of the opinion that
getting the boxelders out of there, cleaning some of that out but the good trees, the ones that you really
want to keep, custom grading around it is a significant idea.
Claybaugh. I understand that you'd do some selective removal based on the species of the trees and...
Pete Boyer: Yeah, if you see a big maple tree, let's keep it, yeah.
Claybaugh: I just wanted some assurance or some language in there that I had that one agreement on
there.
Blackowiak: Okay excuse me, Sharmin. Could you give us an idea of what a condition like,
encompassing custom grading would read? You said it was omitted so what would you suggest or what
are you.
A1-Jaff: Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 of Block 1 shall be custom graded.
Sidney: That could be added to condition 37 that's on the grading plan.
Al-Jarl: Correct.
Blackowiak: Okay, great. Thank you. I'm sorry, go ahead. I just wanted to clarify that before we
moved oll any farther.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Pete Boyer: There was a question that was in the staff report also about surfacing of the pathway that
connects us the, actually the two cul-de-sacs. It' s a pathway that runs from this cul-de-sac around the
edge of the wetland, up in the city of Shorewood, down through this way and comes around and climbs
the grade up here to the cul-de-sac and then comes down the grade and back over and level area back
over to the, it's all in the beachlot area over to the docks. Discussion is what should that surface be, and
we're not particularly, we don't care what it is if it's blacktop, sod, wood chips. It's what do the people
want. What does the city want and what does the DNR want so we do know that the sloped area on the,
going up the grade over here, that has to be a hard surface because it won't be able to be maintained any
other way. I' ve spent 20 years working at the Arboretum putting in pathways for them out there, and the
first thing we did back in the 80's was blacktop their sloping pathways because they couldn't keep them
maintained and it was eroded. But on the level areas, there's no reason they can't be sod, mowed grass,
or wood chips. I mean we're not particularly definitive on that.
Blackowiak: Okay. Do you have anything else to add?
Claybaugh: No additional questions. With respect, not to him or Lot number 4 there but I understand
that you commented based on the species of trees that were present on some of the questionable lots, any
idea what the water table is out there? I'm still questioning the fact that there wasn't any soil borings
done or any test holes dug. I was out there and just from a visual standpoint it looks suspect to me in
terms of the elevation out there.
Pete Boyer: Yeah, Lot 4 is a lot that comes down into a flatter area. Still quite, the footprint where the
house sits, the pad elevation is still going to be quite a bit above any water levels. But that is down in an
area where we don't have a lot of definitive information.
Claybaugh: Well anytime that it's indicated as a slab on grade in Minnesota, that raises a flag for me
with respect to questionable soils or water tables so. You're telling me that no test holes have been dug.
No soil borings. No identification of a water table down in that area?
Pete Boyer: Well that's in undisturbed areas as well and so I don't expect it to be real unusual.
Typically what happens on an edge of a slope like that, that comes down into a narrow wetland area is,
the upland soils like the black topsoil gets thicker as you get down there and the deeper soils, the clay
which it is up above is clay. All the houses we built up along Dartmouth were in heavy clay. But that
clay level comes down, as it does over here. We've done, we've done digging and why I dig my trees,
this is all heavy clay over here with only about 6 inches of topsoil. It gets heavier down through here but
the clay goes down. The subsoil clay goes down. You can follow it down to a bottom, and that's what's
in the bottom of the lake. So you have maybe 6 feet. I don't know exactly but you'll have more black
humus material above, but the issue is if you have a home in this area, you'll find that your lower level
doesn't want to get that low or it just gets too close to the water level. Raise the home up and you do a
soil compaction and that's what the houses have underneath them over along the lake front over here, the
soil compactions. It's not unusual to do that. We know the ground, the sub-ground is good.
Claybaugh: Right. I was just specifically that particularly lot again to, reiterating what some of the other
commissioners have said, strikes me as a little more environmentally sensitive so there's a feel that with
the wetland mitigation and slab on grade and the position of that lot with respect to the channel and the
lake, that you're pushing the envelope there a little bit. If I understand you correctly, you don't feel that
way?
14
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Pete Boyer: Well I don't feel, I understand what you're saying. I'm not being, I'm real familiar with the
property. I think, that's my personal feeling, we've given a lot back to wetlands or wetland mitigation
and we've created these NURP ponds to handle the water that comes in and the settlement issues and
water treatment issues. These two big guys right up here are ponds that do that. They take water from
other areas that come, and right now that's all being done by wetlands along. You don't see any trails of
water going off into that lake. These big wetlands are absorbing it all and it's filtering into the lake, but
we're going the next step further and putting these NURP ponds, and that's at our cost.
Claybaugh: Well the NURP ponds are required for the storm water.
Pete Boyer: That's right, they are required.
Claybaugh: That's part of the development.
Pete Boyer: That's the water coming off, not from our site. We're handing our site water right here.
Claybaugh: Right, but you can't discharge the water directly into the lake. Your storm water runoff.
Pete Boyer: Right. We'll have it treated from here.
Claybaugh: ...water ffo~n the NURP ponds.
Pete Boyer: Our water FFO1TI OUr site will be treated from here, is that what you're asking?
Claybaugh: Well what I was comn-tenting on is that those are part of the development design. They need
to be there. That's not, unless I n'fisunderstand, the degree of water that you're taking on there, I heard
Highway 7 mentioned. Are they taking on additional waters from water runoffs beyond what the
development is creating? Or is this just sized for specifically for the development?
Sweidan: It's mainly the two ponds which is from the north actually for the highway treatment. On
some of it, especially the east side of it toward the street, part of it goes to this pond too.
Claybaugh: So just for clarification for my benefit, is the NURP pond to the northwest, is that over sized
to pick up some additional storm water runoff from Highway 7 that they're in essence volunteering to do
to help mitigate the problem or is that something that just goes with the territory?
Saam: I'll just comment a little. Our surface water management plan shows this property as containing a
regional pond. They split it into two, or maybe the SWMP plan does show two, so we told them they
need to put that there. In discussions with Lori, they will be compensated for doing that to some regard
off other SWMP water fees. So it's not like they're just volunteering this, no. We did tell them to do
this.
Claybaugh: That's what I was wondering.
Pete Boyer: Yeah, it's something we were required to do. Our engineer can tell you how many acres of
water from across Highway 7 is coming in and pounding this property. The issue is we have to deal with
it.
Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Blackowiak: Thank you. Any further presentation by the applicants?
Bob Boyer: Not at this time.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. At this point I'm going to open this item up for a public hearing. Before
the first person comes up to speak I'd like to just add a couple items. If there are several of you, I'm
assuming to speak on this item, please try to not repeat comments if possible. Limit your comments to
about 5 minutes or so. We'll be flexible but let's try to be respectful and state your name and address for
the record when you get up there. So with that, anybody liking to speak on this issue please come up to
the microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Robert Christian: Thank you. My name is Robert Christian and I'm at 2971 Washta Bay Road. It's lot
adjacent to or connected to Lot 1 on the east side of the development. I do have a few issues with the
development. From a personal standpoint, we"de been in the house 10 years now. We're not here to try
and detour anybody from doing something. Everybody has rights as property owners. We have the same
rights. One of our concerns is, this house is located very, very close to our house. It's within a minimum
distance I suppose within code, of being on my property line. It's unique in the fact that it actually, their
side faces my back. What it does do, depending on the style of home that would be put in there, it's
going to block sun, wind, view. We're going to be looking directly into their house. They'll be looking
directly into my house. It's also a big issue for anybody that's ever, or that lives on Highway 7 or close
to Highway 7, there's a huge noise issue. One of the things that I'm very, very afraid of with this is the
fact that the noise, when these trucks come down Highway 7 they're throttling down. It will literally
wake you up out of a cold sleep. This is going to create in all reality an echo chamber between our house
and the existing house. We feel, at least my family and I feel that that's going to be very detrimental to
you know us. It's also going to, I understand that they're saying, it's going to, you know everybody's
trying to work together. This is going to decrease the value of my property, not increase it. For a
perspective buyer to come in and look at my home, and have this house sitting right in my back window,
that would not be attractive to anybody. I can't see how it would be attractive to a perspective
homeowner to be looking at, you know basically shaking hands through windows. Is really the whole
reality of it. What we would like to see done is eliminate one home off of that lot. Set it back further.
There needs to be a buffer between there. It is truly deafening at times when the traffic's going down
Highway 7. Seriously, you cannot, I mean it gets so loud you have trouble talking sometimes. And I'm
sure you can see how that would create an echo chamber. If they're coming from the west it will bounce
off my house back to their's. If they're coming from the east, it will bounce off their house back to mine.
And you know with the reinoval of a lot of trees, the relocation of a lot of trees, that' s going to even
make that worst. That's a huge concern. From a water standpoint we look at it, I mean last year in the
spring we had water in our basements a good 2 to 3 inches. It came up from below. It did not come in
through the walls. The water tables are relatively high in that area. While it is a clay type soil there.
Nonetheless, things stay wet there continually. That's another concern of mine. And the impact on the
lake. We certainly feel like there's compromises that can be made so that everybody, you know the
Boyer Corporation wants everybody to be happy. Well we want everybody to be happy. Again we're
not here to try and stop this from happening but you know as a property owner I have the same rights as
Boyer Corporation has as a property owner. And if this is going to impact me, not only from a lifestyle
standpoint, from a value standpoint, which it definitely will, I believe things like that need to be taken
into consideration. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Sharmin, would you quickly comment on setbacks of that lot. That's Lot 1,
Block 2. According to my table it's I0 feet. Is that a correct statement?
16
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
A1-Jaff: There is a 10 foot setback maintained by this house pad. Oh, this one?
Blackowiak: Yes, that's the one I'm talking about.
A1-Jaff: ...the existing house maintains approximately 60 feet setbacks. This lot meets all ordinance
requirements.
Blackowiak: So it does meet current ordinance?
AI-Jaff: Yes...
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Renee Zirbes: Good evening commissioners. My name is Renee Zirbes. I live at 6220 Barberry Circle.
That's located in Boyer Sterling Estates, which is directly west of this development. I have I guess
several concerns about the development. First of all, with regard to Lot 4, I believe it was noted that a
variance was required and the question I had was, what are the extraordinary circumstances which would
allow for that variance? You would need to fill something to that effect and I haven't heard what that is.
There's a lot of wildlife in this area and I'm really concerned about how that's going to affect it. My
biggest concern has to do with the dock configuration. This area of the lake is a small bay, and you
increase the amount of motor vehicles in this area, you're really going to destroy the quality of that bay.
I believe, if I'm understanding this correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that this dock
configuration was proposed in an alternative to having 5 beach front parcels. Is that correct? Okay. And
you had noted that each one of these beach fi'ont parcels would have 3 boats, is that correct? Are they
allowed motorized boats or it's one motorized boat and one canoe or what's the requirements on that in
the city code?
Haak: It's not specified. They could all 3 be motorized watercraft, or non-motorized watercraft.
Renee Zirbes: Okay. Well the point I'm making is, I think it's really unlikely if these were beach front
lots, that you're going to have 5 property owners with 3 motorized boats at their dock. I mean likely
they're going to have maybe one speed boat, a canoe and a sailboat. This configuration where they're
having 12 slips so it can serve everyone within the subdivision, you're increasing the amount of
motorized vehicles on this lake by quite a bit and that's really going to affect the water quality. I don't
think it's a logical conclusion to solving that issue. Another concern is that they're saying you know,
well they need a wetland alteration permit and that that would just automatically be granted. I don't
think that that's true. I think there's a lot of communities that do not automatically grant the wetland
alteration permits. Many lakes are preserving all the existing undisturbed lakeshore that they have. We
could certainly do the same. So I really am opposed to this having 5 lots that have their own dock would
be better than having this configuration because you're going to have so many more motorized vehicles
on this lake and it's really going to destroy the quality of it. Also I haven't heard anything, I've heard
mention that there's a homeowners association that's going to govern this. We had purchased property in
bordering Sterling Estates as I had stated earlier, and we have an easement and an outlot. We're not right
on the lake but have an easement and a small portion that goes out to the lake. And when the Boyer's
established that they did not establish a homeowners association. There's been a lot of issues with it.
The Boyer's ultimately sold the outlot to one of the property owners. There's 10 lots that have rights in
that lakeshore parcel, in our subdivision. They sold it to one of those individuals who then tried to
terminate everyone else's lakeshore rights. So I guess I'd like some clarification on how they're planning
17
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
on doing this. Is there really a homeowners association? How are those issues being dealt with? And
then thirdly, I don't know if traffic considerations have been considered or if there's anything in the code
that would address that issue. I often wait 5 to 10 minutes to get onto Highway 7 in the morning, and by
adding this many new homes, they're going off of Dartmouth and onto Arbor Lane and onto Highway 7,
you're adding you know potential of at least 18 more vehicles going onto Highway 7 during rush hour
traffic and we' re going to have cars backed up by quite a ways. And I think that addresses all my
concerns. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay. Lori, I have a quick question. Something that she just asked, and I've
got I guess maybe it's Lori or Sharmin. She said that it would be unlikely that each home would have 3
motorized boats, if they had each lake lots. Is there any restriction on people leasing slips? I know that
for example Lake Minnetonka it's fairly common if somebody has rights for 2 boats or 3 boats at their
home and only has 1 motorized boat, that they'll lease out a certain number of dock feet. Is there any
kind of, anything in place in Chanhassen about that?
Haak: I believe the qualification, it basically turns into a marina if you're leasing spaces. The current
state requirements and the city's requirements are that the watercraft be owned by the resident or a blood
relative of the owner. Or excuse me, the property owner or a blood relative of that owner. So you would
not be able to lease to a friend, or something like this. And just as a side note, watercraft does include
things like jet skis. It's fairly common I believe on lakes when I've been out on Lotus Lake and Lake
Minnewashta to see a pontoon, a speed boat and a jet ski, or 2 jet skis and something else so I don't think
it's really stretching it all that far to say that you could potentially have 3 motorized watercraft on each of
those lots.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Sorry, thanks. Go ahead.
Kelly Sheehan: Good evening. My name is Kelly Sheehan. I live at 2951 Washta Bay Road. That'd be
this home property right here. I purchased my house from Pete Boyer oh I think it was 1989 or so, and
one of my main concerns is when I bought that home I planted a row of beautiful Colorado Blue
evergreen trees there and they're real close to the easement that's going in there. And first of all I'd like
to make sure they stayed intact and weren't damaged. I'd like that on the record. Secondly, I presume
that the property lines are going to staked and surveyed, is that correct?
Blackowiak: That's a fair assumption, yes.
Kelly Sheehan: They have or haven't done that?
Blackowiak: I don't know that they've done anything yet. As far as I know they haven't. But that would
be.
Kelly Sheehan: My reason for asking is, when they're done, Pete Boyer owns a certain amount of this
property that's adjacent to mine where they existing, there's an existing driveway there. And when
they' re done I would like to make sure that was fully completed and not neglected because it has been
neglected for the lastl2 years. I mowed his lawn the last 12 years and I know there's a certain amount of
neglect in that regard so I have a concern over it looking right because my property's adjacent to it. And
then last, and not least, the 9 docks here. Just a question. Who determines who can have dock rights?
How do they do that? Is that a state law, city law? Property owner's rights?
Blackowiak: I believe that would be homeowners associations. Sharmin, is that?
18
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Blackowiak: So that would be determined by the association when lots were sold and I guess that would
be an applicant question.
Kelly Sheehan: So it's the property owners?
Blackowiak: Well I wouldn't say property owners necessarily, no. I would say developer and
association and I think we should ask the developer when he comes back up.
Pete Boyer: Would you rephrase your question? I'm a little confused. Who determines the rules
regarding putting...
Kelly Sheehan: Yeah, how do you determine who gets dock rights on a property?
Claybaugh: Lori, do you want to come back to the shoreline? Lineal footage there that translates into
the number of dock slips they can have.
Kelly Sheehan: There's 9 docks there in front of here?
Blackowiak: Yes. That's what's proposed.
Kelly Sheehan: So who determines who gets a dock there?
Blackowiak: I would assume it's the developer but let's, when he comes back up let's ask him.
Kelly Sheehan: I mean I have, when I was sold that house I was sold a bit of a bill of goods because I
was told i had lake rights. And they said I could put a, Boyer's sales person, I believe his name was
Brian, said that, and I mean this may be an argument for a different day but he said I had dock rights and
in reality I had lake access, so I was, and it's my fault because I didn't check on it, but if anybody can
have a lake rights, why can't we if we're that close to the lake?
Blackowiak: Okay. This may be a separate issue but xvhat's the definition.
Kelly Sheehan: Well it's relative because it's a quality of life issue.
Blackowiak: Well exactly. I'll just ask, what's the definition of lake rights versus dock access. Can you
clarify that?
Kelly Sheehan' Access means you can walk to the lake. Lake rights mean you can put a dock and a boat
there.
Blackowiak: Right. Sharmin, correct from a city standpoint?
Al-Jarl: That is correct, and as far as who will be able to use those docks, it would be those 11 homes.
Now of course there will be one homeowner that.
Btackowiak: Or 2.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
A1-Jaff: Or 2, that won't be able to. But that is a decision that both the developer, as was stated earlier,
both the developer and the homeowners association together would have to make.
Kelly Sheehan: Well if they can put a dock, I mean everybody would like to have a dock and a boat on
that lake. I mean how do we get to do that? I mean I'm closer probably than all these people on that
back lot. Those back 4 lots.
Slagle: You could buy Lot 4.
Kelly Sheehan: I' 11 pay cash for it. No, is there some way that I can appeal that or go through the city to
do that? If they can do it, why can't we?
Blackowiak: Well I think that's a separate issue and I think.
Feik: They're taking a parcel of land and creating an association similar to a condominium association.
Kelly Sheehan: Yeah, but it's not lakeshore property though. Their lots aren't lakeshore property.
Feik: ...to this parcel. You would have to buy into this condominium association of sorts.
Kelly Sheehan: Okay, so then I'm voicing my disapproval that they have 9 docks there when they only.
have 4, actually 5 lakeshore lots.
Claybaugh: But they do have a number of riparian lots that do have dock rights.
Kelly Sheehan: Have what? Lake bearing lots?
Blackowiak: Riparian. Lake lots.
Kelly Sheehan: Where are they?
Blackowiak: Well they could be is the issue. 5 through 8 could be.
Claybaugh: 5 through 8, and through the association they're basically pooling that ability.
Kelly Sheehan: Yeah, so they've got, we've got 4 lake lots and you're saying that they've got 9 docks
down with 4 lake lots.
Blackowiak: Con'ect.
Kelly Sheehan: So how does that compute? My math doesn't compute. I mean you've got 9 docks,
you've got 4 lots.
Blackowiak: Okay Sharmin, would you go through the math on that please.
Kelly Sheehan: No, I understand the math but what I'm saying is you've got 4 lots, lake lots. These
people aren't on the lake.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Blackowiak: They don't have 9 docks. There are 9 slips.
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Kelly Sheehan: It's kind of the same thing. You've got 9 boats out there.
Feik: They're assembling a private association for access to the.
Kelly Sheehan: All that is is a play on words. I mean it's.
Feik: I'm sure from a homeowners association they will need is for the cost, maintenance and repair,
dock installation, insurance, what have you. They're essentially taking and creating much like a
condominium association of sorts with.
Kelly Sheehan: This isn't a condominium here.'
Blackowiak: No.
Feik: With the rights.
Kelly Sheehan: These are private homes and they don't have.
Feik: But what I'm trying to explain is, it's similar to a condominium association with the only right that
that condominium association has is to dock. And of course the access to the dock or the beachlot.
Kelly Sheehan: So they've got, you're saying they get 9 boat slips, which to me is 9 docks, for 4 homes?
Feik: Potentially.
Blackowiak: Let's bring this back to staff. Okay, Sharmin can you help us out here? Or Lori. Okay,
thank you Lori. Now are there going to be physically 9 docks?
Haak: They are proposing, what they've shown us here.
Blackowiak: Okay, let's walk us through that please.
Haak: Is one dock.
Blackowiak: Okay, one dock.
Haak: Here they have shown, I believe it's still l0 in this plan. We've told them that that doesn't fly.
That it is 9 slips. I believe where the confusion is coming in is that city ordinance allows an association
to have, or a development to propose a beachlot. Under a conditional use permit to govern the types of
activities that can go on on that lot. So the association would have exactly right Bruce, all the
maintenance responsibilities for the beachlot. These 4 lots, Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 would not be riparian lots.
They do not have direct lake access. There is about 100 feet between their rear property line and the
ordinary high water level of the lake. So they could not extend docks in that area. They are not riparian.
They have, they belong to the association but they do not have dock rights absolutely intrinsic to their
property. Those are deternfined by the homeowners association that manages the beachlot. So if the
21
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
association, for whatever reason decides that these 9 slips are going to Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, Lots 1 and 2 here,
that gives us 6, and 3 of the lots here, Lot 8 would not have a slip, and it would not have that right. And
that is up to the association and the developer.
Blackowiak: Okay. Conversely, let's say that Lots 5 through 8 became lake lots. Okay, what could each
of those lots have? What is the alternative?
Haak: Each of those lots could have 1 private dock for up to 3 watercraft.
Blackowiak: Right. So instead of 1 dock with spaces for 9 boats, we could have 4 docks with each space
up to 3 boats.
Haak: Correct.
Blackowiak: Correct, okay. Thank you. So I hope that clarifies a little bit.
Kelly Sheehan: The response to that though is, how many homeowners are going to have 3 boats?
Audience: A lot of people do.
Kelly Sheehan: Not that I've seen.
Blackowiak: I don't know. I guess 3 watercraft, and I shouldn't say boats necessarily. I think she was
defining it as potentially motorboat, jet ski, sailboat. That would be 3 watercraft, so up to 3 watercraft
per dock potentially.
Kelly Sheehan: So then I own the easement that goes down to the lake, so what's keeping I and my
neighbor Bob Christiansen from going down to the lake and putting a dock down there? i own that road
that goes to the lake. I mean why can't we do that?
Blackowiak: So you're talking personally?
Kelly Sheehan: Personally I own that road that the city uses. I pay taxes on it.
Blackowiak: I'm not sure about that. That sounds like you need to sit down with city staff, Lori or
Sharmin or something and talk about your particular situation, yeah.
Kelly Sheehan: I will do that. I will call them up. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Steve Hall: My name is Steve Hall. I live at 6221 Arbor Lane which on this map, the back of my
property...look out this way. I have an observation to make. There's a difference in these 2 maps where
here we have water. On this one they have the water over here. I'm not saying there's a discrepancy.
Probably either is correct. But I'd like to point out, I guess I would ask, it's obvious that all the agencies,
the personnel involved are concerned with wetlands. We talk about buffer replacement areas, whatever,
and Commissioner Slagle mentions what's the future enforcement for issues involving the wetlands. Can
I point out that in the past there's not only no enforcement, there's not even any awareness or
observation. This area here or here on this map is presently a fairly active motocross area with bikers,
22
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
off-road bikers going through there summer evenings. If it becomes annoying at 9:00 or 9:30 at night, I
don't know how they see in the dark but I guess they develop good night vision, my wife and I just close
our windows because they're having their fun, but I wouldn't have known that there was anything there
as far as wilderness or wildlife or water to be observed because no one seems to be aware of that. We
don't make phone calls regarding it because we can close our windows. And if one, if whatever
commissioner was mentioning looking there you'll see trees that either have been felled by man or
redirected and are positioned by man so that they provide challenging barriers for the bikes to leap over.
It' s quite an elaborate area of trails there. You'll see mud paths, whatever so when I hear about concerns
for the wetland or wildlife, did that begin a couple weeks ago?' Will it go away a couple weeks from
now? It almost doesn't seem to the real world. The real world is, there's an active area where outdoor
enthusiasts have plenty of fun there now. In the winter there are snowmobilers going through there but
obviously with the snow and the ice, that doesn't impact the land the same way and I think a lot of the
wildlife is hibernating at that time. But whoever's going there to observe, please look at that active area.
I'm sure I would prefer to see the back yards proposed here than the motocross track that goes often
times on Saturday and Sunday afternoons with the enthusiasts, evenings as I mentioned until a fairly late
hour, and I'm not even objecting to that. It's just that going on, no one being aware of it or observing it
or giving a toot about it, seems to fly in the face of words about the concerns about the trees and how
they'll do after we're all passed away. So thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Rich Friedman: Good evening. My name is Rich Friedman. I don't live on the plat here. I'm at 3601
Red Cedar Point. It's on the end of the point that kind of bisects the lake over by Camp Tanadoona. I
guess I have some other concerns, and I appreciate the opportunity to express my concern along with my
wife's for the proposed Boyer Building project adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. As stated by the
Minnetonka Department of Natural Resources, water resources are one of the most valuable assets of
Minnesota. These natural resources along with the rest of our natural environment provide many benefits
to people and wildlife. You might imagine how the proposed building project, adding yet another
neighborhood association to the numerous associations...pyramid money making scheme, how do you
maximize the value of a marshy, natural wetland stretch of shoreland? The answer is build 11 huge
homes. Wipe out the natural vegetation. Replace wetland basins with array of room ponds. Clear a
beach and add a 98 foot dock for 10 or more boats to race around this natural area of the lake. Behold 11
new homes now have a new lake access in an area so marshy that it has stayed natural up to this time, but
money talks. In fact somebody already mentioned it. Expensive homes pay a lot more taxes than vacant
lands, cattails or wetlands. Regardless of the assurances made by the developers of their intent to
maintain the natural habitat, the history does not bear out these promises. The Durr project was not
presented as one that would destroy the natural shoreline. And habitat, but the reality is quite different.
As it would be hard to find a more pristine area on the lake today. The DNR suggest that citizens
become active participants in providing, in protecting our natural resources. They say as a habitat for
birds, animals and plants, it's important to protect and preserve our wetlands. Vegetation is part of the
aesthetic and ecological value of shoreland property. The natural vegetation gives you the clues about
the suitability of intended use. If you want a sandy beach, Rook for a lot that has one. That's what they
said. Has anyone ever studied the lake capacity? Is there a people/lakeshore ratio? How many
motorized boats allowed before the water is affected? And did the milfoil really drop from the sky?
While the city and the region has created a regional park and added Roundhouse public park, has the city
added additional financial support to aid in the fight against milfoil? And just how many more homes in
the million dollar range do we need in the Chanhassen area? Can we really believe that the fish, fowl and
wildlife in this area will not be affected by more development? Is Chanhassen trying to become another
Celebration, Florida filled with manicured lawns, replacing natural habitat. Groomed ponds replacing
23
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
wetlands, and over development causing wildlife to flee and destroying the natural environment we all
cherish. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Bob Wertz: My name's Bob Wertz. I live at 6230 Arbor Lane. Steve Hall's my neighbor across to the
east. I've been here about 2 years. Lived here many, many years ago and I can go back to 1963 when
you had people like...and Art Stockwell that served on the same commission. I don't think any of you
are old enough to have been their contemporaries. As I looked at purchasing this lot 2 years ago I visited
with Sharmin and some of the other people here at the government center and asking questions about the
property and lakeshore because I' ve been involved in the use of what to me was important as Outlot
number 1 in Boyer's Sterling Estates. This development was developed many years ago, and surprisingly
if you go back to your minutes of your commission going back as early as 1963, they labored very, very
long and very, very vehemently arguing the same thing you're talking about tonight. What are the
restrictions? Who's in control? Who's going t6 make the decisions? I will assure you that your
responsibility comes back to you because it is not the association, as I know it, nor the developer as I
know it who calls the shots in regard to these outlots. In fact the document that would apply in this case
to Boyer's Sterling Estates has been recorded and you specifically will find in the documentation that
whereas the use of easement for this premise became subject in terms of conditions set forth in a non-
conforming use permit, and I'm sure Sharmin can tell us what this is all about. And was recorded
September 7, 1993, Document Number 154734. The limitation on the outlot in Boyer Sterling Estates is
1 dock, 2 boats, 1 swimming beach. It may have been amended but this is documentation I have. That is
for 16 property owners. We are limited to no more than 2 boats overnight, and you're looking at 8 lots
with a total of 24 motorcraft? We can have 2 out there and we're 16 owners. There's 6 people on the
lake so you can say well, 10 are offshore and those are the people who really have to fight for those extra
spots. We are in a different situation. Our association has taken the bull by the horns, and we have a
rotation basis bringing boats in, putting them back in. You might want to consider that. The second
question is in this case that I would like to ask is, who owns the outlot? Since you have responsibility,
are you going to call the shots and took the photos out there. I'm a bit confused because I thought I
owned it. In fact I have the documentation that says that I own Outlot Number 1. But in 1999 that outlot
was sold. Now if you have a responsibility and you call the shots and you give us the quotas, how can
we have an outlot sold? Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Bill Coldwell: Hello. My name's Bill Coldwell. I live at 3501 Shore Drive. I'm familiar with this
property because one of your laborer' s, Estaos and my son used to be good friends and would run around
on that property and it's a very nice piece of property. I just have a couple comments. One is, I do
support the idea of a common boat area. You can debate whether 12 boats or 18 boats or 24 is the right
number but I think one of the beauties of having a lake is for a lot of people to enjoy and I think not
having single lots with big houses, lakeshore lots, even though I'm a lakeshore owner, fortunate enough
to be one, I think I can speak for the Durr properties. It smacks of elitism and those kind of huge houses
and that kind of environment does not, doesn't fit with the rest of the lake. Everybody may be tearing
down double 40 foot lots in Minnetonka and building mansions but it doesn't fit with what Minnewashta
has for the most become over the years. And trust me, I've got a 50 year old house and it's nowhere near
being a tear down, and it's not going to be for a long time. So I support that because I think it lets a lot of
people use the lake. One comment I had, somebody talked about value and I think value is in the eyes of
the beholder. I don't think that building big, huge houses next to 50 year old, 2,500 homes increases the
value of those 2,500 square foot homes necessarily. I think it just, it doesn't fit. And that follows on my
24
Planning Commission Meeting- April 16, 2002
last comment. I hope you've read Sarah Susankas, The Not So Big House, and you're familiar with
those. One thing I haven't seen anything tonight is what these proposed houses are going to look like.
How big they are, and I just encourage you to be sensitive to the rest of the lake and what's happening
and let's face it, I mean those Durr Homes are right On top of each other, neck to neck. For me, a million
bucks would be a lot better spent on a 3,500 square foot house with a nice lot and some green buffer
around it and I hope you'll consider doing something in the honor of like Kyle Hunt is going with his
Cottagewood homes and something a little bit more right sized for those lots. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
John Getsch: My name is John Getsch and I have property at 7500 Dogwood Road, .just down on the
southeast side of the lake. The issue of outlots has come up before on the lake, and it' s a lot of concern
people that have property on the lake and the use of the outlots. There's several over on the west side
that are, I consider abuse their right to use the lake. Parking motor homes, holding parties down there. I
don't ~ow how many boats they're entitled to have there but they keep bringing more and more in and
then with personal watercraft coming in, they consider those freebies. The issue here is, you've got 9,
supposedly 9 slips with this outlot. And somebody mentioned something about putting in canoes. Not
being able to put in, having a canoe rack but then saying we're not supposed, you're not allowed to
launch boats, does a canoe fit in that equation or not? Then the next thing is, if it's canoes, what about
personal watercrafts? There's a lot of homes already abusing that on the lake where they have 2, 3
personal watercrafts, pontoon boat, row boat, canoe, all on one lot. If you're going to, you know are you
going to enforce it here and not there? The next issue that I see as a problem with the way this is laid out
is, one. The taxation. You've got land. You're separating the value of the lakeshore from the lot. It's
being put in an association. Is the association going to pay the equivalent tax of what that's worth to
those homeowners? In other words, are you taking the value away from the tax base? Purling it some
place where it can't be taxed. It's a big issue. And to me it's ahnost like gerrymandering. Come along
and well that was easy, we'll just put this in an easement. We'll strip it off and those homes don't have
lake rights so they can't be taxed that way, but in essence they do. You're going to see a path coming off
the back of all those going right down, all 4 of those homes are going to have paths coming off the back
of them going right down to that thing. They're not going to walk out the front of their house, out to the
cul-de-sac, down a path around a circle. They're not going to go that way. They're going to walk right
down there. And so in essence you're just creating a legal way to get around it. And you're going to
have people starting to haul stuff up through the wetlands, so it's just a, I think it's, the way that that's
laid out, it doesn't make any sense to strip, if you want to have an outlot, make it come right down here.
Give them what they can have for that, but this has to stay with those lots because otherwise you're just
gerrymandering. Why not just take a 50 foot wide strip along there, so those are my comments. Thank
you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Mark Olsen: Hello. My name's Mark Olsen and I live at 2961 Washta Bay Road. In the plan here I own
this entire lot front here on down. My house sits right here. There is a, this piece, as you get in closer, is
a driveway to my house. The couple questions I have, I'm not opposed to this development as long as I
would suggest that they keep current architectural guidelines consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood. This plan does not address how my driveway ties in with this particular cul-de-sac
arrangement. Right now this is my driveway, which is an easement from the Boyer's and I provide an
easement from the Boyer's from here on in to an out building that they have here. There is also overhead
power lines that feed my house up this drive, which I don't know what the ramifications of this
development will have on that if they direct bury it. How that service would still be directed into my
25
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
house. Thirdly, this outlot number 4, would this particular driveway be joint use or joint access for other
people? My observation would be is that people from these lots would tend to utilize this to get down to
the lake. And one other area that I'm concerned about, I really don't, from my perspective, I have a dock
out here. To see a 9 or 10 dock arrangement stuck out there is cluttering and I would prefer to see
something consideration done to an individual docks off each lot out there with maybe a community dock
out here for the other homes.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Sue Fiedler: My name is Sue Fiedler and I live at 3121 Dartmouth Drive which is just 2 houses in from
just west of the entrance, and my concern is simple but I need to know if there's any plans to widen
Dartmouth Drive. I think someone said it's 50 feet right now and I feel that's probably going to be
crowded with the heavy equipment, and I'm not recommending that it be widened. And I'm wondering
also, if that road is damaged from the heavy equipment, are we responsible as homeowners, the people
who live along here, or is that something that the Boyer's will absorb the cost? And in looking at this,
I'm assuming that this Lot 4, that emergency equipment can get down there and turn around and get to
that house. I would assume that's been considered because I know previously that was an issue in here,
whether a fire truck can be able to get in there and turn around, and that looks crowded for that lot there.
Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Matt or Max, can you talk about equipment damage on a road? Who's
normally responsible if something like that happens during construction?
Sweidan: ...responsible for it, but if there is any damage due to their equipment, to abuse the road, they
are going to be responsible to it. But this is a public street so the city's responsible for it.
Blackowiak: Okay, and so what does it mean, you say the city's responsible. So it has to be repaired, the
city would repair it? Are costs passed along to adjoining property owners? Benefiting property owners?
How does that happen?
Sweidan: Let's say whenever they are tying with the streets together, that they did the damage let's say
beyond that they have to repair it due to their construction or tie in, but overall it' s a public street and it' s
the city responsibility. They would not be responsible...of anything. And the widening, regarding the
widening or the you know, increase the width of the street or right-of-way, no. There is no plan for
increasing the width of the street.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Jim Ginther: Good evening. My name is Jim Ginther and I reside at 3611 Ironwood Road, which is
some of the older homes that came out of the Durr Development when they closed off 7. And a couple
comments I have. Mostly mine is around lake usage and the activity on the lake and having grown up
there since 1970, now living on that lake, I've had the opportunity to see how that has grown, and I guess
one thing I want to state is, I have just a general concern and the idea of creating additional outlots on the
lake. Kind of to Rich's comments earlier, I see this one and I see potentially it looks like maybe another
one down the road off Camp Tanadoona, and my concern is that we're just basically creating additional
lake activity out there, which is already with young children getting a little bit scary, especially with the
personal watercraft that are out there. And we take a look at the numbers. While they say lots are
allowed to have 3 boats, I guess I question which is true, and I have 3 boats and I have a lot, but I'm not
using all 3 at one time. And I think usage on the lake is defined as when you're using them, not
26
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
necessarily when they're sitting at the dock, and a concern here is that there's 4 homes with 3 boats.
Maybe there's 4 people using the boats on the lake at a given time versus 9 so you're more than...the
usage and that's just a concern I want to state. So usage I think is a little bit different than storage. I also
would like for clarification purposes, understand Lot 4's access to the lake and it doesn't show a dock
here, but for the record can we state, do they have a right and is there going to be a dock that's built
there? I also from a standpoint of shoreline preservation understand, the other part I liked about it is, and
I guess I have to go with change of times but that' s always been a nice piece of property to look and not
have to see it all developed. Again living right next to the Durr lots, that l'akeshore was drastically
changed versus what was originally proposed and they basically demolished the entire lakeshore, and
refit that and it looks great on the paper as far as that piece but I know that there are some mature trees
right along the shoreline and I'd just like to understand, if that's considered wetland, does that mean that
those trees are untouchable and they'll remain there. And if so, I question the views from Lots 5, 6, 7
and 8, and will those trees remain? There maybe will be potential issues there and will we see those trees
removed in the future? That's all I have to say, thanks.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Staff, could you comment on Lot 4 dock rights? Even though the dock is not
shown on the plans, they do have the right to a dock there, correct? As proposed.
Haak: That is correct. It is actually shown on one of the plan sheets so they are proposing it.
Blackowiak: Okay, but not on the color rendering.
Haak: No.
A question was asked from the audience which was not picked up by the microphone.
Debbie Lloyd: Hello. My name's Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive, and I live in an
association on Lotus Lake. So I'm somewhat familiar with associations and beach rights and all that.
My issue is more with the 50 foot right-of-way. When you've got a 50 foot right-of-way, you're giving
in essence the builder I believe, I could be wrong, an additional 10 feet. And I'd like to know if by giving
them an additional 10 feet along all these drives if in essence you're making a lot buildable which
otherwise wouldn't be in terms of the setback. Because you are dealing with wetland setbacks as well.
And the other point I'd like to make is, in the staff report I did not see any varia~.ce justifications.
Typically there are conditions that you must work through and for both variances, both on the street and
on the 60 by 60 1 did not see that indicated. So I'd like you to go through that process as well. Thank
you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Sharmin, could you speak to the first issue regarding the 50 foot versus 60
foot. And whether or not the homes would meet, if there was 60 foot, would they still meet the
requirements we have?
A1-Jaff: Absolutely. If you look at page 13. 12 and 13 of your staff report. That indicates the lot depth
on those parcels. Typically we require, or by ordinance we require 125 feet, and these parcels range, I
mean there are some in the 300's, 250's. In fact the shortest that I can find on this table is 156, and that
is for Lot 2 of Block 2. 30 foot front yard setback. 30 foot rear yard setback. There is plenty of room for
that house pad.
Blackowiak: So in essence that there's no advantage to the developer at this point in time of getting the
50 foot right-of-way versus 60 foot?
27
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
A1-Jaff: No.
Blackowiak: Not creating any additional buildable lots based on the change,
A1-Jaff: No.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Sacchet: May I question that?
Blackowiak: Sure.
Sacchet: If you look specifically at Lot 2, Block 2, it' s really the setback from the cul-de-sac that
determines where the house, building pad will locate and I'm not sure whether I'm reading this correctly.
If the land towards Highway 7 to the north. Is there really an additional 10 feet that J.t could move that
building pad? ...Sharmin if you don't mind. Because there's a lot of,..and I'm not sure which ones go
with which...
A1-Jaff: ...referring to and the setback is from this right-of-way. Now the city is not granting a variance
to the 60 foot radius. That.
Sacchet: So that is actually 60? Okay. That answers my question.
A1-Jaff: That has to maintain a 60 foot radius.
Sacchet: Excellent, thank you.
A1-Jaff: This is the 50 foot right-of-way.
Sacchet: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
AI-Jaff: The second one was variance findings.
Blackowiak: Ah yes. I guess that was a question too.
A1-Jaff: On page 22.
Blackowiak: So you've got the 3 findings but normally you go through the 6 steps or.
A1-Jaff: These are subdivision variances. They are not zoning ordinance variances. It's a different
criteria than that.
Blackowiak: You don't have to go through the steps.
A1-Jaff: No.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Blackowiak: In this. In the subdivision variance.
A1-Jaff: Correct. You only, you're only looking at those 4 findings rather than the zoning variance
finding. They're two separate types of findings.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Okay, is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this issue? Okay,
seeing no one I will let Mr. Boyer come up and if you'd like to take just a couple minutes to highlight
some of the comments or to respond to a couple of the comments, you certainly may.
Bob Boyer: Thank you. Really there's only a couple of comments I have relative to some of the
concerns some of the neighbors have. The first one has to do with the lot off Washta Bay Road. I think
the first gentleman came up here, I forgot his name. At any rate, his concern was that there was a
proximity from his house to the lot behind him. And again, I think what needs to be remembered and
understood is that this is a lot pad. In other words it's the location where the lot, where the buildable area
on the lot is going to be. It doesn't necessarily we're going to fill the pad up with a house. But it means
those are the borders with which the house could be built. So it's unlikely that on his easterly side of that
Lot 1 that there'd be an entire wall of house right up against the lot, buildable lot area. More than likely
it might be a garage with just filling a portion of that so at any rate I think his concern about having some
bleak wall that believe me fills that lot area is probably not going to happen. And also we're certainly
willing to be good neighbors and if going together with him on some kind of plantings along there to
mitigate the sound, I'm sure we're willing to do that. The other issues regarding Sterling Estates. 1 think
a number of people brought up issues about Sterling Estates, the dockage issues there which is, has
nothing to do with this development whatsoever. It just so happens it was the same developer. My father
developed those back 35 years ago and the ordinances and things that have occurred since then regarding
lake usage and lake lots have changed since then so what may have been doable back 35 years ago,
absolutely is not doable today. So the opportunity for the use of that access that was provided has been
taken away and not by Boyer. It was taken away by the City. So if people are upset about that they
should contact the city, but not complain about us to us. Then when it comes to dockage on this property
I just want to make sure there's clarity as to what we're asking for. And the reason why we're asking for
it. Lot 4, we are requesting that that lot, it does have a 90 foot frontage. We are asking that that lot
would have it's own dock. On the westerly side we are requesting 10 docks on that side. The reason for
that is we would, you know the whole idea of grouping the docks together here was to eliminate this
sense of caste system where you have the people on the lake that have everything and the people off the
lake have nothing, and I think you can go around the lake and see a number of communities that are like
that. We wanted to avoid that and the reason we grouped the docks on the beachlot was two-fold. One is
to preserve the lakeshore, for one. But also to allow the people in the back an opportunity to have a boat,
if they want to. We don't want to leave someone out. What that basically is saying is, someone's going
to be left out. Now, in our calculations we think 10 lots or 10 docks fit the requirements of the city code.
City ordinance. And essentially it's this. If you measure from the far westerly end, over to the edge of
this lot, you'll come to 667 feet shoreland. According to the city ordinance the lot has to have at least
200 feet of frontage in order to be allowed as a dock lot. Once it exceeds that 200 feet, what we did was
we divided the number of boats by the feet per boat. In other words, if you take 10 boats times the 667,
you end up with 1 boat for every 66 feet. And if you divide, or multiply that by 10 you come up to, what
666 feet, right? So in our minds, it fits. We're not further encumbering the property with 10 lots, or 10
boats. We're using the exact number of boats per foot that is recommended by the ordinance. So we
really think it's important to be able to get those 10 docks. Again, I think those are the only two issues
that we needed to address. The planners really did a good job of addressing the other issues. Thank you.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Blackowiak: Okay.
Audience: Just one clarification. You say lake front...can have 200 feet of lake front has a dock, or did I
misunderstand you?
Bob Boyer: No. According to the beachfront issue, a beachlot has to have 200 feet of frontage in order
to be considered a beachlot. And then once it has 200 feet, you can put 3 boats on that beachlot. Then
every additional 200 feet you can put 3 more boats.
Audience: 3 boats but not 3 docks, is that correct?
Bob Boyer: 3 boats, yeah. Right.
Audience: ...just west of that channel is not 200 feet.
Bob Boyer: Over here you mean?
Audience: Yes.
Bob Boyer: That's basically 667 feet.
Audience: For Lot 4. So none of them are 200...
Bob Boyer: Right. Each of them could have their own dock.
Blackowiak: Okay, excuse me. We're getting into like another issue. Sharmin, do you want to clarify
that again.
A1-Jaff: Individual lots, riparian lots have to have a minimum of 90 foot frontage. Beachlot.
Blackowiak: In order to get a dock for that property, 90 feet. Correct.
A1-Jaff: And to meet riparian lot standards today.
Blackowiak: Yes.
AI-Jaff: Beachlots have to have a minimum of 200 foot lake frontage.
Blackowiak: And for each 200 feet, if they had 200 feet they can have.
A1-Jaff: One dock with 3 watercraft.
Blackowiak: One dock with 3 watercrafts.
A1-Jaff: Or boat slips.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Okay, with that I'm going to close the public hearing. Comments. Rich,
would you like to.
3O
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Slagle: I can start.
Blackowiak: Go right ahead.
Slagle: First, and I've just got this down in no order of importance but the Shorewood vote, just a
question of why were we first? And maybe there's a valid reason versus Shorewood going first.
A1-Jaff: The majority of the site is in Chanhassen.
Slagle: Fair enough. Talking about the outlot, and I don't remember the gentleman's name who raised
the question about outlots and who pays for them and how they're administered and is there value to the
city from a tax base. Is there not? All I can tell this conmxission is this, when I lived in Woodbury I was
Vice President and President for 2 years as a leader of an association, homeowners association of 400
and some homes, and I can tell you no matter how much the association wants to enforce things, nothing
short of going to court, it' s difficult to get all members to adhere to things so please, from my experience,
when the issue of homeowner associations are brought up, they are not as you know solid in keeping
track, in keeping their members in order. The beach outlot, I'm going to ask this question to Sharrrdn.
What would happen if I raised this question, ponder it for a sec, what if Lots 8, 7, 6 and 5 all got their
docks? Okay. There was no beachlot, okay. And Lot 4 got their dock. Is there, could that decision be
voted on by this commission? In other words, can that result based upon what we're looking at voting
on, or denying, can that be an end result within our call it rights or what have you? And I'm just saying,
whether the applicant is in agreement now or could be or wouldn't be in the future, can we get to that
point as a voting body? Because a gentleman raised the question about taxes and I'1i tell you, if Lots 5,
6, 7 and 8 were considered lakefront, they would pay more taxes, and if they're not, then they have to get
a special permit to have a dock. And they have to apply for that permit, if I understand things right
because they're crossing a wetland. Okay.
A1-Jaff: If you look at page 2 of your staff report, under city discretion for conditional uses. Basically
what it says is, look at the applicable conditional use permit standards and are they being met. If they are
met, then we have to approve, then we recommend approval of the conditional use permit. And in this
case, based upon our findings, the conditional use standards are being met for a beachlot. And I know
that didn't answer your question, would you.
Slagle: Well it did in a way but I mean there's other issues that we're also in essence going to vote on
that require approval.
A1-Jaff: Absolutely.
Slagle: Okay. Let's see here. The other thing is about the soil sampling, and this is, I'm using this
because this is what's in front of us but going forward, when I hear that soil samples and what not are
really done at the time of final, the building permit, I would, I'm just asking you and asking engineering
for future, we are in essence being asked to approve a subdivision and we're not even sure what it's
going to take to build those homes. And I'm just wondering if in the future we can have some type of a
discussion because I'm surprised there hasn't been soil sampling taken on some of those lots to be honest
with you. So I'm just asking more for the future, and that's it. Right now, I'll just share with my
commissioners, I'm doubtful on this. Just to be honest with you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, cormnents.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Sacchet: Yeah. I, unfortunately have to support Commissioner Slagle's notion that neighborhood
associations aren't a very convincing institution from my experience. I do share his concern about the
soil sampling. About the viability. I think I expressed that in my questions. However, and I don't know
whether I'm not taking enough into this, at least on the surface this proposal, looks pretty good. To
address some of the concerns that came up, the responsibility of us as a commission, Planning
Commission is to evaluate does this meet our city ordinances and our code. And in terms of our code and
ordinances, it does meet pretty well. As a matter of fact, the lots are pretty spacious in comparison with
what could be done based on the zoning of that place. I do believe that there is a reasonable trade-off
being made by having one beachlot versus making 4, or possibly $ riparian lots. Now can that be
enforced? I'm a little uneasy about that to be honest with you. If it can, I think it's very sensitive to the
environment. We' re preserving that stretch of beach that is wetland. Not only do we preserve, we
actually put a preservation easement on it. I think that's a good value. In terms of the taxing aspect, I'm
not a tax expert but I would think that the value of that lake access will have to be reflected in the value
of these lots that beach access is associated with. Yes we won't have 4 riparian lots which would be very
high value, but we have what is it? 10, 11 lots that are going to all of them get a kick in value. So I
would assume, and again I might be naive, that in terms of taxes that it' s becoming somewhat balanced.
Having 9 slots, or whatever we call it on 1 dock, to me is much preferable to potentially 12 or 15. To
have those 9 slots in one spot seems much more sensitive to the environment than having 4 or 5 going
through a wetland. I mean we're talking a very sensitive environment there. So it's a trade-off, but I
think the trade-off is actually relatively well balanced. In terms of the way the applicant presents their
case, I mean if we don't trust people we can't work together, and the applicant definitely made a clear
statement that they're trying to be sensitive to the environment as far as possible. Now, it's difficult. I
mean can we really trust them.? We don't have a choice. They're meeting code. They're meeting the
zoning code. They're meeting the ordinances. So we'd better trust them and build up some good will
and work together. That' s where I'm at with that. In terms of some of the specific concerns of the
neighbors, I do think the one neighbor, Mr. Olsen has a concern that's very valid about his driveway.
With how that's going to work out. The other gentleman right to the east I think has a very valid concern
in terms of buffering, and I believe the applicant has expressed a willingness to work with that. Now is
he going to do it? I hope so. Can we enforce it? Probably not. In terms of the variances, I do believe
the variances are reasonable because they're all for the benefit of making this more sensitive to the
environment so I think from our end as a Planning Commission, I feel very hard pressed to oppose this.
Wouldn't it be better to just have nature and space for the deer and the ducks and all that? I'd love that
too, but that's a little too idealistic. So that's my comment.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn.
Sidney: When I first looked at this application I thought well, this really has had a lot of thought put into
it. It looks like a lot of work has been put into this application. And today, well tonight we heard several
points brought up about how things could be changed and wouldn't that be better. I guess I agree with
my previous speaker Uli in that really this is a very well developed application that's before us. A
number of variances have been requested, such as the 9 percent right-of-way grade and in that case we're
seeing some preservation of trees. Also we have a 50 foot right-of-way which helps a bit in bringing the
houses more toward the street again to preserve trees. And also a variance for a 50 by 80 house pad
which seems to fit the topography better than a 60 by 60. So there' s been a lot of work between the
applicant and staff on this application I believe. Like Commissioner Sacchet said, I think the buffer
issues and easement issues that is for the trees to the east side of the property line and that house, and the
easement for the driveway need to be addressed. But I believe this really is a well thought out proposal.
I do appreciate the beachlot idea. I think it really compacts the usage into one area. You have more
natural shoreline that's going to be available to everyone. I do support that idea. I do have reservations
32
Planning Commission Meeting- April 16, 2002
about homeowners associations and what I would like to see the commission do is attach more conditions
to the conditional use permit so that really what we have before us tonight in the conditional use permit is
part of what the homeowners would receive when they purchase their property in this area. I guess one
other thought here, and I'll probably think of some other things along the way is that the staff might
contact Shorewood to understand how or to what level they might approve this application. So at least
for now those are my comments.
Blackowiak: Thanks, Bruce.
Feik: Generally I agree with much of what Uli in particular said tonight. As it relates to the soils though,
it's my understanding that the building developer, once something is platted has the responsibility to
make sure that the soils underneath a particular are sound, which means he can rip out as much as he
needs to and bring in corrected soils. Do compactions. Do whatever. So whether or not a lot is
buildable is really none of this body's concerns. It's really the concern of when they pull the permit and
when they go through ...of that and to make sure that that is indeed a buildable lot. As long as they are
not, and correct me if I'm wrong. I'm framing this as a statement but it's really a question. If they find
for example that Lot 4, Block 2 is suspect, so long as they are not impacting the wetlands and other areas
which are out of bounds with the various reserve areas, preserve areas, wetland mitigation or whatever,
they can excavate to the depth necessary.
A1-Jaff: That's CO~Tect. To correct the soils.
Feik: And bringing in corrected soils from another project which they may have additional soils left over
from. And that's normal course of building a house: is it not?
A1-Jaff: Yes it is.
,:
Feik: So that being said, I guess I don't have any concern with the soils. My real concern is with the
outlot. We've had a lot of discussion the last few months about outlots, and I guess my questions are the
long term definition as posed by one of the neighbors across the lake regarding who is going to own that
outlot?
A1-Jaff: The homeowners association.
Feik: It will be deeded in common to the homeowners association?
A1-Jaff: Con'ect.
Feik: And the homeowners association will pay applicable taxes on that outlot?
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Slagle: Can I throw one thing in here about associations?
Feik: Please.
Slagle: I believe that we would at least have the right to ask the applicant that they participate as a
shareholder or as a member of that association. Where I have been before, the actual applicant,
developer actually ran or was the majority owner and responsible to an escrow for a certain number of
33
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
years. So one thing that we might be able to do, just to ensure because of the sensitivity of the natural
resources, is to say hey. We want something in escrow over x number of years, 2 years, 3 years, so what
happened further down the lake doesn't happen again. And I'll leave that up to staff to work with but I
think it' s a protection that maybe some of the citizens would feel comfortable with.
Feik: Well that dove tails back to something else... At what point will you see the association
documents?
A1-Jaff: It would be part of the recording of the plat.
Feik: Of the plat?
A1-Jaff: And the conditional use, and it all goes together as one package.
Feik: Right. So I guess my concern is making gure that those association docs do encompass the
concerns that have been expressed and give the property owners within that association the rights and
privileges they deserve as well as guidance regarding what their limitations are. Other than that I think
the applicant has obviously been working with this parcel a good number of years, and I generally
support it.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Craig, comments.
Claybaugh: Yeah, I had some contrnents here. I guess the first comment I'd like to make is that the plan
does seem well thought through, well conceived. Granted not everyone's going to agree with some of the
premises that are set forth but overall in general terms I'm impressed with the thought that's gone behind
it. I like the idea of distributing the lake benefits. However, I do assign a fair amount of weight to the
uses versus storage of watercrafts, which translates into the number of slips. Some of the concerns that
are brought up here this evening are broad in nature and are outside of the limited jurisdiction of the
Planning Commission. It's not that we're empathetic to it or don't hear it but it doesn't translate in us
having jurisdiction over some of those concerns. The lot size. The lot sizes are encouraging. I do have
concerns, I agree with Commissioner Feik with respect to the soil corrections. That that is an issue to be
addressed during, at the point of pulling permit for it. However I do take that into consideration when I
look at that in conjunction with wetland mitigation to access it and assign a certain degree of weight into
the degree of effort that's being set forth to make that a buildable lot. I don't know if it's appropriate at
this point in time to question the developer' s math in terms of calculating the number of slips that are
there, or if that's something that we are just saddled with to vote one way or the other this evening.
A1-Jaff: The ordinance is very clear. It says for every 200 feet you have up to 3.
Claybaugh: I understand.
Blackowiak: So you can't take an increment of 200 feet and get 17
A1-Jaff: No.
Blackowiak: Okay. So then it sounds like we're at 9.
Claybaugh: Okay, but coming back to the alternative that Lots 7, 8, or 5 through 8 and Lot 4 would have
to apply for wetland alteration permits or, as part of the shoreland management act, 10 foot egress out to
34
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
access that, that they would have the 3 boats. That's coming back to the argument that some of the
neighbors made versus usage versus storage of the watercraft. And I think there is some validity and
some weight that needs to be assigned to that. So is there any room for negotiation with respect to that to
the developer or is that just fiat out what we.
Haak: That's actually both a state and a city requirement so that is prescribed in the DNR's rules. And it
clearly states that any areas such as this can have up to 3 docks, each containing up to 3 watercraft. So
we're held fairly close to the letter of the law on this one. I don't see that we have a whole lot of options.
Claybaugh: Okay. Alright, that's the extent of the questions I have. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any comments?
Lillehaug: Yes I do. First I'd say I'd like to, I'll be limiting my comments. I'd like to abstain from
voting on this due to my short time on the commission here, but I do have one comment here. I do agree
with Commissioner Claybaugh on the usage versus storage of the slips. It can be very subjective and
we'll get many different opinions from many different people, and that will be subjective. But I'd like to
comment on the right-of-way south of Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Block 2. To the south of the cul-de-sac, the
throat of the cul-de-sac there. There is that parcel of land that will be dedicated as public right-of-way, is
that correct?
AI-Jaff: Yes.
Lillehaug: So the maintenance of that parcel would be by the adjacent property owners? I guess that'd
be more of a statement that if that is dedicated as public right-of-way, that that will be required to be
maintained by the parcel owner to the south of that right-of-way, CO~Tect?
Al-Jarl: Typically that's what happens with right-of-way, yes.
Lillehaug: And then another comment I have is on the 60 foot radius of the right-of-way for that same
cul-de-sac, that does need to be shifted to the north to maintain that 60 foot right-of-way on the south
property line.
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Lillehaug: So wilt that still maintain a buildable lot size for Lot 2?
A1-Jaff: That will be the responsibility of the developer.
Lillehaug: Okay, and that would end my comments, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you very much. I have a few comments. Let's start out with the beachlots.
It's a huge issue. It's something I didn't even think about before I came tonight. Who owns the outlots?
It's an interesting question. Ownership is huge. Taxation, that's another issue. It's I guess not the
Planning Commission's area to look at taxation but I'm sure the council will have a discussion about that
when it comes to them as to whether beachlots versus actual direct access onto the lake makes more
sense for the city standpoint. One thing that I would like to ask I guess Sharrnin, is there any way to
assign a share of ownership in a beachlot to properties? In other words, let's say each lot owns 1/11
share of that beachlot. That outlot, as opposed to.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
A1-Jaff: I can find out.
Blackowiak: Okay. It's just something that as the discussion was going on tonight, you know you don't
want a beachlot sold. You don't want something happening or the status changing when a person buys
into an area being told that they're going to have a beachlot, so I think that, and I guess I don't know if it
could happen or not but if each lot had a certain, an equal share, I think it would be difficult to change
ownership so that's just a comment. I was, it just kind of came to me this evening. Could be way out
there, who knows. Second, homeowner associations, enforcement is none by the city basically. The city,
unless there's some kind of a violation, the city will get involved. Otherwise it's the homeowners
responsibility so just so everybody understands that and they need to govern themselves. I think the
general enforcement issues are a problem with homeowner associations and just a lot of things in general
you see around town and you kind of go gee, we need to enforce this and it doesn't happen. And it might
not be a huge issue but for people who live by and are directly affected by those issues, it is huge. So
that's something I do always have a concern ab6ut when you talk about associations. Variances.
Generally I support all 3. They make sense to me. The 50 foot right-of-way. The street grade, and even
the 50 by 80 house pad makes sense and I think that I would support all those. Some of the concerns of
the neighbors. Screening and trees. I think those are very important. Specifically the lot directly to the
east which I've got notes here, I believe was Mr. Christian. I think the developer really needs to work
with the neighbors and specifically those on the east and kind of the southeast, to make sure that there' s
some screening done. The driveway issues, the overhead power lines, those issues need to be resolved
before this goes to council I would hope. That they could sit down and talk about it. Tree calculations
near Pond 3. I think it was brought up that there's going to be some additional removal there that wasn't
really reflected in the plan so I hope that before this item goes to council that those are re-visited and we
get accurate numbers. Yeah, especially near that pond number 3. The second issue I would have would
be tree removal on Lots 5 through 8. The developer was talking about them being boxelders and
cottonwoods down there. Granted they might not be the prettiest but they are there right now and if he' s
talking about removing them, then we need to make sure that the calculations reflect that potential. And
you know you say you always look for worst case scenario, well let's say worst case scenario they're
taken out of there and let's make sure the calculations do in fact reflect that. My major, I guess I don't
know if I tipped it off, my major problem is with the beachlot. I don't know if that's the way to go for
this or not. That being said, somebody else gets to make a motion so we'll just leave it with that.
Feik: Well I'd be happy to make the motion.
Blackowiak: Go right ahead. Or several motions I should say.
Feik: I' 11 begin with the first one. I would move that the Planning Commission approve, that the
approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision g02-6 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta for 11 lots and one
beachlot with variances for a 50 foot right-of-way width, a 9 percent right-of-way grade, and a 50 by 80
house pad on Lot 4, Block 2 as shown on the plans received April 9, 2002, subject to the following
conditions, number 1 through 37. An additional item (h). 37. Lot 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 shall be custom graded.
Slagle: Block 17
Feik: Excuse me, thank you. Block 1 shall be custom graded. We might as well put in here Uli's
removal of the silt fence.
Sacchet: Thank you. I wasn't going to do it today.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Feik: Oh, I've got it in here a couple times for you. And I would be willing to accept any additional
changes or discuss any additional changes.
Sacchet: First I second it and then I would like to add some friendly amendments, or at least try. I would
like to put something in about those specific neighbor's concerns. I would like to suggest a condition 38
that Lot 1, Block 2 maintains some of that evergreen buffer towards the east property line.
Sidney: How about work with staff to establish a.
Sacchet: Work with staff to establish, okay.
Sidney: The appropriate buffer.
Sacchet: That's fine. Work with staff to establish a buffer on the east property line. And then I would
like to add another one, I guess that would be 39. And we could use the same wording. The applicant
work with staff to resolve the driveway issue to the Olsen property. And now I might be stretching it.
There's one more that I'd like to add. Should we accept them one at a time?
Blackowiak: Do you accept those 2 so far?
Feik: I would like to discuss number 1 if we could please.
Sacchet: Let's do that.
Feik: Only to the extent that it would be...phraseology. I would prefer to say either making or replace or
install regarding, not. I don't want to.
Sacchet: It sounds to me that's what there has to stay but there is.
Feik: No, we're fine. You're fine.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay. The intent is that there's something done to work with the neighbors to make this
a happy solution for everybody as much as possible.
Feik: Good so far.
Sacchet: Alright. Now the last one, and maybe that shouldn't be a condition. Maybe that should be a
comment to staff. I'd like to see staff researching the issue of the ownership of the beachlot before it gets
to council to be possibly, knowing what the possibilities are in that context. Actually that's not a
condition. That would be just a direction.
Blackowiak: A direction for staff, okay.
Sacchet: Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay. Been a motion and a second.
Sidney: One more friendly amendment?
37
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Blackowiak: Oh, go ahead.
Sidney: Okay. I guess I would like to see as a condition 40.
.
Sacchet: We're up to 40, yep.
Sidney: Okay. That the applicant shall work with staff to determine the trail materials.
Feik: Appropriate trail materials.
Sidney: Right, before City Council.
Blackowiak: Okay, is that accepted? Okay. Okay, anybody else? Okay.
Feik moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
preliminary plat for Subdivision #02-6 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta for 11 lots and one beachlot
with variances for a 50 foot right-of-way width, a 9 percent right-of-way grade, and a 50 by 80
house pad on Lot 4, Block 2 as shown on the plans received April 9, 2002, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall make a note on the landscaping plan that evergreens shall average 7 feet in
height with a 6 foot minimum.
2. Each lot shall have a minimum of one overstory deciduous tree planted in the flont yard setback
area.
3. A presentation easement shall be dedicated over the westerly 400 feet of the beachlot and the
portion located west of Lot 4, Block 2, and east of the channel.
4. In lieu of land dedication and/or trail construction, full park and trail dedication fees should be
paid. These fees are to be paid at the rate in force upon final platting and/or building permit
application. The current rate is $1,500 per single family dwelling for parks and $500 per single
family dwelling for trails. One-third of all park and trail fees applicable to the entire plat are due
at the time of final platting. The remaining two-thirds are paid independently at the time of each
building permit application.
5. The easterly lot line of Lot 1, Block 2 shall be extended to the north eliminating the finger
extending to the east. The remnant parcel shall be deeded to the property to the east.
6. The subdivision shall comply with the following table:
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Home
Area Width Depth Setback
Ordinance 15,000 non-riparian 90' 125' 30' front/rear
20,000 riparian 10' sides
38
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 37,092 102' 345' 30'/30'
10'
Lot 2 36,621 96' 369' 30'/50'*
10'
Lot 3 47,972 77' on curve 329.5' 30'/50'*
10'
Lot 4 45,357 70' on curve 225' 30'/50'*
10'
Lot 5 37,978 53' on curve 304' 30'/30'/60'*
**** 10'
Lot 6 21,467 68' on curve 220' 30'/30'/60'*
10'
Lot 7 22,876 127' 215' 30'/30'/60'*
10'
Lot 8 20,285 107' 229' 30¥30¥60**
/30'***/10'
BLOCK 2
Lot 1
Lot 2
18,929 68' on curve 220' 30'/30~
10'
24,761 185' 156' 30'/30'
10'
Lot 3 151,518
(Beach Lot)
Lot 4 78,394 riparian 84' on curve 670' 30'/75'/50"*
10'
The 50-foot setback includes a 10 foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40 foot
structure setback.
The 60-foot setback includes a 20 foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40 foot
structure setback.
The 30-foot bluff setback includes a 20-foot bluff impact zone.
The width of Lot 5, Block 1 must be adjusted to maintain 90 feet at the 30 foot setback
line.
7. Fire Marshal Conditions:
An additional fire hydrant will be required at the intersection of Washta Bay Road and
the new proposed street.
b.
A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around the fire hydrant, i.e. street lamps, trees,
bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
39
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
,
,
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
that hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
c. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection is required to be installed such protection shall be installed and made
serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota
Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3.
d. No burning permits will be issued for trees that are removed. Trees or brush must be
either removed from site or chipped.
e. Submit street names to the Chanhassen Building Official and the Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
f. Submit cul-de-sac designs to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal
for review and approval.
g. On Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, additional address signs may be required at the driveway
entrance is address numbers on the house are not visible from the street. Contact the
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for additional information pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992.
The utility and drainage easement along the northerly property line of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2,
shall be increased to 10 feet, as requested in the attached memo from Reliant Energy.
Minnegasco.
Building Official Conditions:
a. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures.
b. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division Before
building permits will be issued.
c. Provide a water service connection for Lot 8.
d. Permits are required for the roof drainage piping on Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8.
The lot width for Lot 5, Block 1 shall be adjusted to maintain 90 feet at the 30 foot setback line.
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420).
Ail structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer edge.
All structure shall maintain a 75 foot setback from the OHW of Lake Minnewashta.
The applicant shall obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed recreational beachlot and
shall obtain amendments to the CUP prior to any alterations to the beachlot.
40
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
The last catch basin prior to discharge into each pond shall be a sump catch basin.
The applicant shall examine the slopes near the southwest comer of Lot 8, Block 1 and determine
whether or not they meet the City' s criteria for a bluff (rise of 25 feet above the toe and a slope
averaging 30% or greater). If the slopes meet the bluff criteria, all structures shall maintain a 30
foot setback from the top, toe and sides of the bluff.
Easement types and locations shall be called out on the preliminary plat.
An encroachment agreement for the trail on Lot 3, Block 2 shall be obtained prior to trail
construction.
Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
Based on the proposed developed area Of approximately 10.65 acres, the water quality fees
associated with this project are $8,520; the water quantity fees are approximately $ 21,087. The
applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from
the site and adjacent areas. The current proposal appears to provide water quality treatment for
runoff from 4.1 acres on-site and 39.0 acres off-site. (These figures will be finalized upon final
review of the storm water calculations.) In addition, two outlet structures are proposed.
Preliminary calculations show a credit of $39,480 against total fees of $29,609. At this time, the
estimated total SWMP credit due to the applicant for the provision of ponding for off-site areas
in accordance with the SWMP is $9,871.
The applicant must apply for and obtain permits frcm the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) and comply
with their conditions of approval.
Approval of this application is contingent upon the City of Shorewood reviewing and approving
this application.
The existing driveway access off of Highway 7 shall be abandoned.
Lot 3, Block 2 shall be platted as an outlot.
The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota
must sign all plans.
Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The
storm water will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. All of the ponds are
required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Programs (NURP) standards. Drainage and
utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system
including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum
utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used around the grading perimeter of the site and that
Type III silt fence be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands. The silt fence shall be removed
41
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
at the completion of construction. A 75 foot minimum rock construction entrance must be
added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. The applicant should be aware
that any off-site grading would require an easement from the appropriate property owner. All
disturbed areas must be sodded or seeded and mulched within two weeks of grading completion.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the
City's Building Department.
Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the
form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the
conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be
obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District,
Carver County, etc.
Add all applicable 2002 City of Chanhassen Detail Plates to the plans.
The proposed development will be required to meet the existing stormwater runoff rates for the
10 and 100 year, 24 hour storm events.
Revise the plans to show the following for all of the public streets: a 28 foot back-to-back
pavement width, a 50 foot right-of-way and a 45.5 foot pavement radius for the cul-de-sac with a
60 foot right-of-way radius. Also, the applicant must provide a uniform transition from the
existing 22 foot wide pavement of Dartmouth Drive to a new 28 foot street section.
Abandon the existing utility lines on the east side of the site, west of the proposed manhole
connection. Also, the existing house services shall be connected to the new utility lines.
According to the City's Finance Department records, the underlying parcels on the east and west
sides were previously assessed for sanitary sewer and water. However, the underlying parcel in
the center of the site was not assessed for utilities. As such, the Proposed homesite on Lot 4,
Block 2 will be required to pay a sanitary sewer connection charge. The current 2002 lateral
connection charge for sanitary sewer is $4,335 per lot. Since the developer will be extending the
lateral sewer and watermains to the remaining lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection
charges will be waived. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will still be applicable for
each of the new lots. The 2002 trunk hookup charge is $1,383 for sanitary sewer and $1,802 for
watermain.
On the utility plan:
a. Add storm sewer schedule.
b. Show the proposed utilities sewer length and slope, and review type and class of sewer.
c. Revise sanitary service size from 4 inches to 6 inches.
d. Relocate the fire hydrant between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1.
e. Move trail out of watermain easement right-of-way at the north side.
f. Add a legend.
g. Revise watermain type to PVC class C-900.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
h. No ponding allowed in public street right-of-way.
i. Add a concrete valley gutter to the east access.
j. Add and show cul-de-sac draintile.
k. Show size of storm sewer culverts on Lot 4 driveway.
1. Show all existing services.
m. Revise note on connecting to existing sanitary manhole to "construct outside drop structure on
existing manhole at Inv. 945".
37. On the grading plan:
a. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
b. Show the location of the 75-foot rock construction entrance.
c. Add a legend.
d. Revise Lot 1, Block 2 garage elevation.
e. Revise the pond high water level elevation.
f. Show Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 private driveway.
g. Private driveway slope is 10% maximum.
h. Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, Block 1 shall be custom graded.
38.
The applicant will work with staff to establish an appropriate buffer on the east property
line of Lot 1, Block 2.
39. The applicant shall work with staff to determine the appropriate trail materials.
Ail voted in favor, except Slagle and Blackowiak who opposed. Lillehaug abstained. The motion
carried with a vote of 5-2-1.
Blackowiak: Okay Rich, your reason. Nothing to add?
Slagle: Simple very, very delicate piece of property and I mean my one year on this commission, this is
probably the most delicate area that I' ve looked at from a natural resource standpoint and I guess I'm just
wondering about the outlot and wondering if it's more applicable to have the 4 homes, or actually 5 lots
have their own docks and that would be something that comes in.
Blackowiak: Yep, and that's the reason for my no vote too. I'd like the council just to take a look at it.
They've got to decide what's best for this piece of property. Okay, so we'll need the next amendment
please. Or the next motion please for the wetland alteration permit.
Feik: I'd move the Planning Commission recommends.
Blackowiak: It'd be on that page 29.
Feik: Oh excuse me, I was going to s'kip that one. I move the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit 02-3 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta as shown on the plans
dated received April 9, 2002 and subject to the following conditions, 1 through 7 with the adjustment on
number 5 to remove the silt fence upon completion of the project.
Blackowiak: Okay. Been a motion, is there a second?
43
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Sidney: Second.
Blackowiak: Moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Feik moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Wetland
Alteration Permit ~02-3 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta as shown on the plans dated received April
9, 2002 and subject to the following conditions:
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall submit a Wetland Replacement Plan
Application along with all required supporting materials. The applicant shall provide proof of
recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. A wetland
replacement plan shall be approved prior to wetland impacts occurring.
A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained
around Basin 1. Wetland buffers 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet)
shall be maintained around Basin 2, 3 and the wetland mitigation area. (Those buffers
considered for PVC must maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet.) Wetland buffer areas shall be
preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant
shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction
begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
3. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer edge.
.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing Wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
o
Type III silt fence shall be provided between wetland and upland areas where work is proposed
adjacent to wetland areas or areas to be preserved as buffer. If no buffer is to be preserved, Type
III silt fence shall be provided at the delineated wetland edge. All silt fence shall be removed
upon completion of construction.
,
Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDot seed mix 25 A or a similar seed mix
that is approved for wetland soil conditions.
,
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps
of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.
All voted in favor, except Slagle and Blackowiak who opposed, Lillehaug abstained, and the motion
carried with a vote of 5-2-1.
Blackowiak: Same reasons I'm assuming?
Slagle: Same reasons.
Blackowiak: Okay. Next, conditional use permit.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Feik: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit
#02-2 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta as shown on the plans dated received April 9, 2002 and subject to the
following conditions 1 through 11. However on number 9, where we talk about cross easements and the
homeowners association for Lots 4 and 5, I guess I'm not, don't know how we should do this but I would
like to make it very clear that the staff should be comfortable with the language as presented in the
homeowners association prior to going to final approval with the council.
Blackowiak: Okay there's been a motion, is there a second?
Sidney: A second with a friendly amendment or two.
Feik: Okay.
Sidney: I guess I'd suggest a condition 12 that the applicant shall include a copy of the conditional use
permit in the homeowners covenants. Then als0 a modification to condition 6. I guess I would like to
see this, well the beachlot should not be used as a boat launch and posted as such, and I guess I'm leaning
towards more posting of things that will be part of what will be enforced in terms of city code on this
beachlot.
Feik: Would you want to limit that to trailered boats to be specific? Does that make a difference?
Blackowiak: Minutia.
Feik: It doesn't matter to me. That's your.
Sidney: Work with staff for the appropriate language. But posted as such for whatever craft shall not be
launched.
Haak: We'll take a look at the code.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Feik: Accepted.
Feik moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional
Use Permit g02-2 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta as shown on the plans dated received April 9, 2002,
and subject to the following conditions:
The beachlot shall contain no more than 3 docks with no more than 9 spaces for overnight
watercraft storage. The plat shall be revised to show 9 spaces, the maximum allowed on a single
beachlot by city ordinance.
The beachlot shall meet all requirements set forth for recreational beachlots in Section 20-263 of
the City Code.
3. A conservation easement shall be placed over the portion of the beachlot that includes Basin 2.
4. The applicant shall specify the materials used for trail construction.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
5. The trail shall not be extended to the shoreline.
6. The beachlot shall not be used as a boat launch and the City will post the appropriate signage.
,
The applicant shall explore the feasibility of avoiding wetland fill for the trail along the north
side of Basin I by installing a boardwalk or similar structure.
The proposed trail shall be located within the drainage and utility easement between Lots 4 and 5
on Block 1.
,
A cross access easement shall be granted for the trail from the owners of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 in
favor of all the homeowners in the homeowners association. Staff shall review and approve
this language prior to City Council approval.
10.
The number of non-motorized watercraft storage racks shall not exceed the amount of storage
necessary to permit 1 rack slip per lot served by the beachlot. The plans shall reflect the capacity
and location of the proposed storage rack(s).
11.
An amendment to the Conditional Use Permit shall be required for any changes to the beachlot
including but not limited to: dock configuration, installation of portable chemical toilets,
placement of boat racks and placement of structures.
12.
The applicant shall include a copy of the conditional use permit in the homeowners
covenants.
All voted in favor, except Slagle and Blackowiak who opposed, Lillehaug abstained, and the motion
carried with a vote of 5-2-1.
Blackowiak: Alrighty. This, I'm sorry. Okay, I'm sorry. This item will go to City Council on May 13th
so anyone wishing to follow that to City Council, please do so and thank you all for your comments this
evening. And there's been a request that we take a brief recess right now, so we'll take a 5 minute recess.
We'll reconvene at 9:40.
(The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
Blackowiak: Before we go to new business, Uli asked if he could make a brief comment so go ahead.
Sacchet: Yeah, I just wanted to make a comment for the record that I was really impressed, and I want to
commend staff for how much work that obviously went into that report for that proposal we just worked
on. I want this to be on the record. I think you guys did an incredible job negotiating, balancing it and
it's a very sensitive place and I think you did an excellent job.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Claybaugh: I second it.
A1-Jaff: Thank you. It was a joint effort.
ELECT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR.
46