1k Woods Dock, WAPMEMORANDUM
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Marke! Bc,,u!evard
PO Box 147
6hanhasse~' MN 55317
Administration
P~gre 952 227116)0
Fax: 952 2271110
Building Inspections
Phone 952 2271180
Fax: 952227 1190
Engineering
Phone 952227 !160
Fax 952227 1170
Finance
Phor e: 9522271140
Fax: 952227 1110
Park & Recreation
Phone 952 227 1120
Fax: 9522?7 1110
Reo 8ation
2310 OOLJIter Bgulevard
Phone~ 952 2271400
Fax~ 952227 1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone 952227 1130
Fax 9522271110
Public Works
159I Park Road
Pnorse 952 2271300
Fax: 952 2?71310
Senior Center
Phone 9522271125
Fax; 9522271110
Web Site
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB J:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator
August 17, 2004
Wetland Alteration Permit: Woods Dock
Planning Case 04-24
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing the installation of a boardwalk from the rear portion
of 6745 Lakeway Drive and across a wetland to provide permanent access to
Lake Lucy. A permanent floating dock will extend lakeward from the
boardwalk to provide boat access by way of a dock.
ACTION REQUIRED
City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council present.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 3, 2004 to review the
proposal. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 to recommend approval of the
Wetland Alteration Permit. The verbatim minutes are attached.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the motion approving Wetland Alteration
Permit 04-24 as specified in the staff report dated August 3, 2004.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 3, 2004
2. Planning Commission Minutes dated August 3, 2004
g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-24 - woods wap-6745 lakeway drive\woods cc cxec sumdoc
The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schoois a charr]]i~ ¢ ,d :,',~,~]!.",~,'a t!xi,,in',! businesses, vvirldino trails, arid Deautiful parks A oreat place "~o iive, ~vork a~]d r/la?
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: August 3, 2004
CC DATE: August 23, 2004
REVIEW DEADLINE: August 29, 2004
CASE #: 04-24
BY: LH
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Wetland Alteration Permit for Placement of a Dock
6745 Lakeway Drive (Lot 5, Block 2 - Whitetail Cove)
Matthew and Suzanne Woods
6745 Lakeway Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING:
2020 LAND USE PLAN:
ACREAGE: 0.93 acres
RSF - Single Family Residential District
Residential Low Density
DENSITY: 1.2-4 units/acre Net
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Installation of a boardwalk across a wetland to provide access to
Lake Lucy. Boardwalk will be permanent to minimize impacts to wetland.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet and
all lakeshore property owners.
Woods Dock Wetland Alteration Permit
Planning Case No. 04-24
August 3, 2004
Page 2
PROPOSALSUMMARY
The applicant is proposing the installation of a boardwalk from the rear portion of 6745 Lakeway
Drive and across a wetland to provide permanent access to Lake Lucy. A permanent floating dock
will extend lakeward from the boardwalk to provide boat access by way of a dock.
APPLICABLE REGUATIONS
Sec. 20-404. No net loss.
To achieve no net loss of wetland, except as provided under section 20-416 of this article, or
authorized by a wetland alteration permit issued by the city, a person may not drain, grade, fill,
bum, remove healthy native vegetation, or otherwise alter or destroy a wetland of any size or type.
Any alteration to a wetland, permitted by a wetland alteration permit must be fully mitigated so that
there is no net loss of wetlands.
Sec. 20-405. Standards.
The following standards apply to all lands within and abutting a wetland:
(3) Docks or walkways shall be elevated six (6) to eight (8) inches above the ordinary high
water mark or six (6) to eight (8) inches above the ground level, whichever is greater.
(4) Access across a wetland shall be by means of a boardwalk and only upon approval of a
wetland alteration permit.
Woods Dock Wetland Alteration Permit
Planning Case No. 04-24
August 3, 2004
Page 3
Sec. 20-407. Wetland alteration.
(a) An applicant for a wetland alteration permit shall adhere to the following principles in
descending order of priority:
(1) Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish the
wetland;
(2) Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its
implementation.
Sec. 20-408. Permit required.
Drainage, grading, filling, removal of healthy native vegetation, or otherwise altering or destroying
a wetland of any size or type requires a wetland alteration permit. Activity in a wetland requiring a
wetland alteration permit includes, but is not limited to:
(3) Installation of boardwalks.
BACKGROUND
The applicant contacted the City during Spring 2004 regarding the placement of docks/boardwalks
on the subject property. The applicant has applied for a wetland alteration permit in order to install
a boardwalk/dock across the wetland that would meet the required ten-foot (10') side yard setback.
The wetland along the south edge of the property is adjacent to Lake Lucy. It is classified by the
City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) as a natural wetland. The wetland is dominated
by cattails.
ANALYSIS
Posts and pilings for projects typically built on pilings (such as docks and boathouses) are not
classified as fill under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (Attachment 5). The applicant has
minimized wetland impacts by proposing a permanent structure across the wetland. This will
eliminate the need for crossing the wetland annually to install the dock/boardwalk.
FINDINGS
Permanent structures that minimize or avoid wetland impacts are encouraged where wetland
crossings are necessary. Boardwalks are intended to be permanent structures that provide access
across wetland areas. The boardwalk should be installed across the wetland as a permanent
structure and a dock should extend from the boardwalk into Lake Lucy to provide docking for
watercraft. This is consistent with what is proposed by the applicant.
Woods Dock Wetland Alteration Permit
Planning Case No. 04-24
August 3, 2004
Page 4
The rear portion of the lot at 6745 Lakeway Drive is encumbered by a drainage and utility
easement. An encroachment agreement is necessary for the installation of the boardwalk across
the easement.
The dock setback zone is defined in Section 6-1 of the City Code as "the area inside and running
parallel to and ten (10) feet from the extended lot lines of a lot abutting a lake." The dock should be
located outside of the dock setback zone.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the.r'~"";"~........~, r,....~;.~u..~..oo.....~;^. City Council adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Ce, m~iss;,cn City Council recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit
#04-24 for a boardwalk across the wetland at 6745 Lakeway Drive subject to the following
conditions:
1. The boardwalk shall be installed across the wetland as a permanent structure and a dock
shall extend from the boardwalk into Lake Lucy to provide docking for watercraft;
2. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the
installation of the boardwalk across the drainage and utility easement; and
3. The dock shall be located outside of the dock setback zone."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact.
2. Application received June 29, 2004.
3. Notice of Public Hearing, Chanhassen Villager.
4. Notice of Public Hearing and Affidavit of Mailing dated July 22, 2004.
5. Excerpt from Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420.0110).
6. Surveyors Certificate showing proposed dock.
g:\plank2004 planning cases\04-24 - woods wap-6745 lakeway drive\woods staff report cc.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNT[ES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE: Application of Matthew and Suzanne Woods for a Wetland Alteration Permit 2004-04.
On August 3, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting
to consider the application of Matthew and Suzanne Woods for a wetland alteration permit. The
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed wetland alteration permit
preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all
interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned RSF, Single-Family Residential.
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density (1.2 - 4.0 units
per net acre).
3. The property is located at 6745 Lakeway Drive.
4. The wetland permit meets the applicable standards from the city code:
a. Docks or walkways shall be elevated six (6) to eight (8) inches above the ordinary high
water mark or six (6) to eight (8) inches above the ground level, whichever is greater.
b. Access across a wetland shall be by means of a boardwalk and only upon approval of a
wetland alteration permit.
c. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish the
wetland.
d. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its
implementation.
5. The planning report #2004-24, dated August 3, 2004, prepared by Lori Haak, is incorporated
herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve thc Wetland Alteration
Permit.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 3rd day of August, 2004.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Uli, Sacchet, Chairman
g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-24 - woods wap-6745 lakeway drive\findings of fact.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: ~Y~c~¥~'~ ~ S~c~ ~JooO.5
ADDRESS: G,"'/~5' L~,~:t,o~,,/ '~)~.
TELEPHONE(DayTime) (q~'~' ~'"/q "~q~
CiTY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
JUN 2 9 20D¢
CHANHASSEN PLANNING
OWNER: I'~ TTdE~ ~ ~Z~n~ ~/oo0.5
ADDRESS: G~q~' L~.~:~c~,./
TELEPHONE: (~J
__ Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
__ Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Rezoning
__ Sign Permits
__ Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review*
Subdivision*
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements
Variance
X Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign
X
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
- $50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds
- $400 Minor SUB
TOTAL FEE $ ~.. O0.0 e
Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included
with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be
invoiced to the applicant.
If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box ~
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
*Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy for
each plan sheet.
**Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME: VN/o o 0 ~ -
LOCATION: ~, "'/"~ 5' ~-~ ~e o ~7
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
C -7
TOTAL ACREAG E:
WETLANDS PRESENT:
YES NO
PRESENT ZONING:
REQUESTED ZONING: ~' S.' P~' ,~ '7',
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: ~--,~
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REASON FOR REQUEST: Co~s+r
7
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable Oity Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Depadment to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that if development revi/ew cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review, the .c~-~l, requires an automatic 60-day extension for development review. Development
review shall be completed within 120 days~ unless add!tFo~al r?view extensions are approved by the applicant.
Signature of Applicant / ' '~ // "x' ~ ~ ~ Date
8i~nmure of Fee Owner ~,,~ ~ ~ Dine
Application Receivedon (z~/2.-~/0%/
Fee Paid
Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
G:~plan\forms\Development Review Application. DOC
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO. 04-24
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Tuesday, August 3, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen
City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a Wetland
Alteration Permit for the placement of a boardwalk/dock across a natural wetland to provide access
to Lake Lucy. The site is zoned Residential Single Family and is located at 6745 Lakeway Drive.
Applicant: Matthew and Suzanne Woods.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall
during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and
express their opinions with respect to this proposal.
Loft Haak, Water Resources Coordinator
Email: lhaak @ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Phone: 952-227-1135
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on July 22, 2004)
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on July
22, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that
on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for
Planning Case No. 04-24 - Woods Wetland Alteration Permit to the persons named on
attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner,
and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage
fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such
by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate
records.
KarelyIJ. Enge~arc}t, Depu{~} Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this~iday of .At., i,/ ,2004.
Notary Public/
Nolary Public-Minnesota
CARVER COUNTY
I:
0 ~-
Z m
0
~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~m~ ~ ~o ~ o= ·
E
~ E o~_ ~ o ~ E o~ _~ ~ ~g
~ ~ ~: ~ .~ ~e
~ ~ E~= ~'~ '~ .~ o~ o ~= ~*'- > ~--~
-- ~ 0 Q ~ - .~ % 0 ~ ~% 0 ~ DoB
__ ~ o .~E o._ > ~
~~.-- ~s~=:= o=~o ~=,,=,~o,~.=o~o=_=.~ .~
~ ~ ~O~o.-~ --
~--.- · ~ E= ~ ~ ~'~ ~--
OO E -- ~ '--
- ~ o = o ~ ~
~ ~ m~ ~ O0 o .....
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is
a compilation of records, information and data located in vadous city, county, state and federal offices and
other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not
warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the
City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose
requinng exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features.
If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107, The preceding disclaimer is provided
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §46603, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the
City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify,
and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third
parties which arise out of the useCs access or use of data provided.
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is
a compilation of records, information and data located in vadous city, county, state and federal offices and
other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not
warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the
City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose
requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features.
If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107, The preceding disclaimer is provided
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the
City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify,
and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third
parties which adse out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Public Hearing Notification Area
(500 Feet + Riparian)
Woods Dock Wetland Alteration Permit
6745 Lakeway Drive
City of Chanhassen
Planning Case No. 04-24
Lake Lucy
Lake
ALAN ROBERT & MARY E
WEINGART
1685 STELLER CT
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9080
ANTHONY D & GRETCHEN A
ROEPKE
6735 LAKEWAY DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7579
BONNIE S MCCOSKEY
6720 POINTE LAKE LUCY
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8434
BRIAN J WARPINSKI &
KELLY A CYSKIEWICZ
4625 CASCO AVE
EDINA MN 55424-1128
DENALI CUSTOM HOMES
18283 MINNETONKA BLVD
SUITE B
WAYZATA MN 55391-3346
DENNIS E & SUSAN J SCHEPPMANN
TRUSTEES OF TRUST
6740 LAKEWAY DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7579
DONALD J & NANCY L GIACCHETTI
6679 LAKEWAY DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7578
EDWIN & CORREEN G NEWINSKI
6930 UTICA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9201
ERIC MICHAEL RIVKIN
1695 STELLER CT
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9080
GERALD F HOFFMANN
6830 UTICA TER
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9557
GLORIA J & DALE E CARLSON
TRUSTEES OF TRUST
6900 UTICA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9201
HEIDI J CARISCH
7000 UTICA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9214
JACK J & KATHRYN K RANDALL
1571 LAKE LUCY RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9022
JAMES & CLAUDETTE G SCHLUCK
6800 UTICA TER
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9557
JAMES H & GWEN M WILDERMUTH
6672 LAKEWAY DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7578
JOSEPH J & D GAYLE MORIN
1441 LAKE LUCY RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8405
KRIS E & LISA T BERGLY
6687 LAKEWAY CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7578
LAKE LUCY RDG HOMEOWNERS
ASSN
C/O RANDALL R NOECKER
8315 PLEASANT VIEW DR
MOUNDS VIEWN MN 55112-6139
LAWRENCE H & NANCY S
MCDOWELL
6663 LAKEWAY DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7578
LOSCHEIDER CUSTOM HOMES INC
1607 FLORIDA AVE N
GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55427-4205
MATTHEW L & SUZANNE C WOODS
6745 LAKEWAY DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7579
MAX C & JAN M GLENN
6712 LAKEWAY DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7579
MICHAEL KRAUSE &
KRESSIN KRAUSE
7050 UTICA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9214
PATRICK A MOHR &
MAUREEN D LORD MOHR
6890 UTICA TER
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9557
PRINCE R NELSON
7801 AUDUBON RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8201
ROCKFORD R WALDIN
JUDY M CHRISTENSEN
7100 UTICA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9528
ROGER M & E ELAINE SAMPSON
6710 POINTE LAKE LUCY
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8434
RONALD C & MARY ELLEN
KNUDTEN
6850 UTICA TER
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9557
SCOTT E & TAMARA G SATHER
7090 UTICA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9214
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN TRUST
C/O AUDITOR - DNR WITHHELD
600 4TH ST E
CHASKA MN 55318-2184
THOMAS A & JEAN B HOGHAUG
6713 LAKEWAY DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7579
WILLIAM B & PATRICIA C WARD
6960 UTICA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9201
WILLIAM D LAMBRECHT &
JOANNE M LAMBRECHT
6990 UTICA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9201
RICH SLAGLE
7411 FAWN HILL ROAD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
1 Subp. 12. Day. "Day" means a calendar day unless
2 specified otherwise. The day of the event shall not be used in
3 counting any time period.
4 Subp. 13. Repealed, 22 SR 1877
5 Subp. 13a. Degraded wetland. "Degraded wetland" means a
6 wetland that provides minimal wetland function and value due to
7 human activities such as drainage, diversion of watershed,
8 filling, excavating, pollutant runoff, and vegetative or
9 adjacent upland manipulation.
10 Subp. 14. Ditch. "Ditch" means an open channel to conduct
11 the flow of water, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section
12 103E.005, subdivision 8.
13 Subp. 15. Drain or drainage. "Drain" or "drainage" means
14 any method for removing or diverting waters from wetlands. The
15 methods shall include, but are not limited to, excavation of an
16 open ditch, installation of subsurface drainage tile, filling,
17 diking, or pumping.
18 Subp. 16. Drainage system. "Drainage system" means a
19 system of ditch or tile, or both, to drain property, including
20 laterals, improvements, and improvements of outlets.
21 Subp. 17. Excavation. "Excavation" means the displacement
22 or removal of substrate, sediment, or other materials by any
23 method.
24 Subp. 18. Fill. "Fill" means any solid material added to
25 or redeposited in a wetland that would alter its cross-section
26 or hydrological characteristics, obstruct flow patterns, change
27 the wetland boundary, or convert the wetland to a nonwetland.
28 It does not include posts and pilings for linear projects such
29 as bridges, elevated walkways, or powerline structures, or
30 structures traditionally built on pilings such as docks and
31 boathouses. It does include posts and pilings that result in
32 bringing the wetland into a nonaquatic use or significantly
33 altering the wetland's functions and values, such as the
34 construction of office and industrial developments, parking
35 structures, restaurants, stores, hotels, housing projects, and
36 similar structures. It does not include slash or woody
37 vegetation, if the slash or woody vegetation originated from
38 vegetation growing in the wetland and does not impair the flow
39 or circulation of water or the reach of the wetland.
40 Subp. 18a. 50 to 80 percent area. "50 to 80 percent area"
41 means a county or watershed with at least 50 percent but less
42 than 80 percent of the presettlement wetland acreage intact.
43 Subp. 19. Floodplain wetland. "Floodplain wetland" means
44 a wetland located in the floodplain of a watercourse, with no
45 well defined inlets or outlets, including tile systems, ditches,
46 or natural watercourses. This may include the floodplain itself
47 when it exhibits wetland characteristics.
48 Subp. 20. Flow-through wetland. "Flow-through wetland"
49 means a wetland with both a well defined outlet and one or more
50 well defined inlets, including tile systems, ditches, or natural
51 watercourses.
52 Subp. 20a. Greater than 80 percent area. "Greater than 80
53 percent area" means a county or watershed where 80 percent or
54 more of the presettlement wetland acreage is intact and:
55 A. ten percent or more of the current total land area
56 is wetland; or
57 B. 50 percent or more of the current total land area
58 is state or federal land.
59 Subp. 20b. Hayland. "Hayland" means an area that was
60 mechanically harvested or that was planted with annually seeded
61 crops in a crop rotation seeded to grasses or legumes in six of
62 the last ten years.
63 Subp. 21. Hydric soils. "Hydric soils" means soils that
7001 73rd Avenue North
.k
Establiehed in 196~
iNVOiCE NO, 58308
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, iNC. F.B.NO 881-7o
LAND SURVEYORS SCALE: 1" = 3o'
REGISTERED UNDER THIil LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA,~[_~. Denotes Iron Monument
~ ~-560-3093 o Denotes Wood Hub Sot
Fax No. 580-3522 for excavation only
TC
969.69
Minneapolis, Mizmeeota 55420
DICK LOSQiEIDFI{ LtOMF~
Property located in Sectio~
2, Township 116, Range 23,
Carver County, Minnesota
TC
PROPOSED
RESIDENCE
AP~
The only easements shown are from plats of record or information
provided by client.
We hereby certify th0t this Is o true end correct representati0h o~
a survey of the boundaries of the obeys described land end the
Ioeotlon of ell buildings end visible encroachments, if any,from or on
i s~id land.
.~Surveyed by us this_ 22nd day of_ November _ 2(1 O0 .
xO00. O DenOtes Existing Elevation
~ Denotes Proposed Elevation
~ Denotes Surface Drainage
NOTE: Proposed grades ore subject
to resuts of so tests.
Proposed bulldln~ Information
must be checked with oppreve~
building plan and development c
grading plan before excavation
~- end construction.
~J,~,c~, Proposed Top of Black
~ Proposed Garage Floor
~{b4,fL' Proposed Lowest Floor
Type of Building
NOTE:Check sanitary sewer service depth
basement floor elevation may be
below service invert.
~ -- Contonr Line
Proposed Contour Line
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DE(; 2 1 ~OOO
ENGINEERING DEPL
~ Charles F. AndersOn, Minn. Reg. No.21753 o
-~' Gregory R. Prosch, Minn Rag No. 24992
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 3, 2004
Chairman Slagle called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, Bethany Tjomhom, Dan Keefe and Kurt Papke
MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet, Craig Claybaugh and Steve Lillehaug
STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jeff; Senior Planner, Lori Haak, Water Resource
Coordinator; and Matt Seam, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
7302 Laredo Drive
7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd
Janet Paulsen
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A
BOARDWALK/DOCK ACROSS AN AG/URBAN WETLAND TO PROVIDE
ACCESS TO LAKE LUCY. THE SITE IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY AND IS LOCATED AT 6745 LAKEWAY DRIVE~ MATTHEW AND
SUZANNE WOODS~ PLANNING CASE NO. 04-24.
Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item.
Slagle: Questions of staff.
Keefe: Yeah, I have a question.
Slagle: Go ahead Dan.
Keefe: Just in regards to the dock portion, is the dock going to be straight out as well,
like it's depicted on, or is it going to T at the end or, is there any mention of that?
Haak: No. The information that staff has at this time is that it's going to be a straight
dock, so you may want to address the applicant with that question for more detail.
Keefe: Great. That's the only question I have.
Papke: How long is the dock? We had a very similar case to this, I don't recall exactly
how long ago it was. Maybe 9 months or so ago, and I don't recall the details of the
debate but I remember there being quite a bit of discussion around how to define the
maximum/minimum length of the dock. Could you please briefly review what the city
code calls for and exactly how long this dock is and how it meets those requirements.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004
Haak: Certainly. In many cases it's difficult to determine the exact length of the dock
until you start to install it. Simply because you don't know what the depth of the water at
that point is until you've worked your way out to it. So with this application, as with all
other docks that we consider or other people with whom I discussed docks at the staff
level, the length of the dock really varies, so the criteria are this. The first is that the dock
cannot exceed 50 feet in length, unless it takes more than 50 feet to get into 4 feet of
water, and that's the city's criteria. Now the other component of the city code that comes
into play at that point is that the dock cannot be an obstruction on the lake or to other
property owners access to their property so let's say Mr. Woods in this case is the middle
property of 3 properties in that subdivision. There is one person to his west that also has
a dock. If Mr., if the man, the property owner excuse me, to the west were to call the city
and complain about the length of the Woods' dock, we would ask the Woods' to remove
sections of their dock so as to not obstruct navigation.
Papke: So how do we check compliance of that? Is the dock inspected after it's
constructed?
Haak: Typically it's not. Unless there is some sort of a complaint. Typically we don't,
unless we receive complaints about it, navigation or something of that nature.
Papke: Okay.
Keefe: I just have one follow-up question. In regards to the setback. The setback is
from the dock itself to the edge of the property line, or the extended property line out to
the lake.
Haak: That's right.
Keefe: It's not, it wouldn't be, so you could still have a boat on, within the 10 foot area,
is that correct?
Haak: That's right.
Keefe: Okay. So it is just the structure itself.
Haak: That's correct.
Keefe: Right, okay. Good enough, thanks.
Tjornhom: Does the DNR require a type of material to be used for the dock? I mean is
there like a set it has to be wood or could it be?
Haak: No. No, they don't really, the DNR has given those types of considerations over
to the municipalities and we don't have anything that determines that.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004
Slagle: I don't have any questions. Is the applicant here? And if they'd like to, come up
and state your name and address and share with us your application.
Matt Woods: Thank you members of the commission. My name is Matt Woods, along
with my wife Suzanne I'm the applicant for this application. My wife and I moved into
the neighborhood about 2 years ago. Built a house in White Tail Cove and thankfully
we're able to get onto Lake Lucy. A very beautiful property. Beautiful area and for a
number of years now we've been eyeing being able to access the lake. We've talked to
both our neighbors on both sides. We are using the same dock installation company that
both the neighbors had used. It's a company by the name of Fine Line. Commissioner,
to address your concern and your question, the materials being used are a combination of
metal, for the permanent aspect of the structure and then on, a polymer type for the
decking and that is comparable with what the neighbors on both sides have used. With
respect to the length, it is estimated about 150 total. Not just the dock portion but the
formal boardwalk portion, given all the setbacks from a tangible or solid point of land to
the one out to reach that depth of water. I tried myself to walk out there several times and
it's really, it's really marsh over the area that we're considering the boardwalk. I
personally believe we're going to be well within the guidelines that have been laid out
here. But if I can answer any specific questions the commission may have.
Keefe: I just have a question. Actually it's a question I should ask staff. The dock itself,
is it going to be just straight out or are you going to T it or what are you thinking?
Matt Woods: Right now all we're applying for is the straight line. The company that's
offered it as a proposed to us a 6 foot crossing of the T so to speak. So at the end of there
commissioner, there would be like a 6 foot on so 3 foot on both sides. Candidly, until
you had raised the issue I didn't know that that was an issue. It's not critical to us but it
had been proposed by the company. For us it's not important one way or another.
Keefe: I guess I'd go back to staff in regards to the setback, would it, if they T'd at the
end, would the 3 feet technically then be within the setback?
Haak: Yes. Then it would need to be setback 13 feet from the side. Or the main portion
of the dock rather.
Matt Woods: And with respect to that, the angle, what the company is telling us, because
of the lay of the land, I'm sorry I don't know how the overhead camera. Oh there they
are. That in fact the dock might actually angle a little bit away from the neighboring
property in order to take advantage of the most, there's certain sections there that are
more solid than others. In order to get, to minimize the impact and to create the shortest
distance to open water. They were proposing taking with that line area, adjusting it
slightly so it's coming out that way. Also keeping in mind the 10 foot setback.
Slagle: Okay, any questions? I've got one. And Lori, if you wouldn't mind putting up
that geographical overhead. And it's maybe a staff and an applicant question but if you
use your neighbor to the west as a measuring point and his or her dock, where would
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004
your's be in relationship to that as far as length goes? Do you anticipate it being any
further out?
Matt Woods: Our's, the total length commissioner will be shorter because our property
is, it's a diamond shape. It juts out. The property itself juts further out as you enter it.
See approximately here whereas our neighbor property had to start his deck from here
and his juts out approximately from there to the open water area right about hem. The
total length will be shorter. We anticipate that we would stop at the same approximate
point along a latitudinal line so to speak.
Slagle: Okay, where, if I can ask, is the property to the east as far as their dock goes? If
someone can just show me roughly.
Matt Woods: The best, there is actually a white line commissioner, maybe you'll be able
to see it. I believe that that is in fact.
Haak: That was the pre-existing dock. Prior to the subdivision.
Slagle: Okay. About there?
Matt Woods: About them.
Slagle: Okay. So it, in essence it's not on their western border with this applicant's spot?
Haak: No. It's further toward the eastern end of the property.
Slagle: Okay. Okay. No other questions? Dan, you have?
Keefe: Just one quick follow-up. The e-mail that we received, is that, is it Jack Randall.
Is that correct? Is he to the east or to the.
Matt Woods: The Randall's are up the hill. Up approximately, and I can't tell the exact
plots here but they're approximately up in this area. They also have a dock I believe it's
this white one here.
Slagle: Okay. Wow. You're crossing, I mean safe to say you're crossing a lot of
wetland before you reach open water. Is that a correct statement?
Matt Woods: I would have to say commissioner a lot is somewhat of a.
Slagle: How about greater than 100 feet?
Matt Woods: There clearly is a substantial amount of cattails and material them. In
terms of actual amount, I honestly couldn't say because I haven't done the express
measurements but I mean clearly there's a lot as you can see from the photo itself. There
is a fair amount.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004
Keefe: And that lake has, was started out kind of low this year. It's come up some.
Matt Woods: Yeah. Over the 2 years that we've been there commissioner, it's been all
over and it's actually probably, from what we've seen in our short time there, probably
average at this point but it did start out low, yeah.
Keefe: So in some years you get a lot of wetland and other years not so much. Yeah.
Matt Woods: This is at the bottom of a big bowl so there's a lot of...
Slagle: Okay, thank you very much.
Matt Woods: Thank you.
Slagle: Lori I have one last question. There's been no discussion on, and again correct
me if I'm wrong but there's been no discussion of a community dock or any.
Haak: No. Something of that nature would have needed to be done with the subdivision.
Slagle: Okay. Okay, well. We'll bring it up for the commission. Any discussion that
folks want to share?
Keefe: It looks to be pretty consistent with the other docks that are in that area and it
sounds like Fine Line's put, installing all the same dock company. I'm alright with it.
Slagle: Bethany.
Tjornhom: Yeah, I have no problem with it if the city has no problem with it.
Slagle: Okay. Well then I'll entertain a motion.
Papke: I make a motion that we recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #04-
24 for a boardwalk across the wetland at 6745 Lakeway Drive, subject to the conditions 1
through 3 as listed in the staff report.
Slagle: Is there a second?
Keefe: Second.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of Wetland Alteration Permit #04-24 for a boardwalk across the wetland at 6745
Lakeway Drive, subject to the following conditions:
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 2004
The boardwalk shall be installed across the wetland as a permanent structure and
a dock shall extend from the boardwalk into Lake Lucy to provide docking for
watercraft.
The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the
installation of the boardwalk across the drainage and utility easement.
3. The dock shall be located outside of the dock setback zone.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
FRONTIER SECOND ADDITION~ PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 2.61
ACRES INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
INTERSECTION OF FRONTIER TRAIL AND WEST 77TM STREET, CHARLES
R. STINSON~ PLANNING CASE NO. 04-26.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Charles Thiss
Charles R. Stinson
Ralph Bun:ell
Kay Touchette
5090 Greenwood Circle
4733 Eastwood Road
7555 Frontier Trail
7541 Frontier Trail
Sharmeen AI-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item.
Slagle: Start down here. Any questions for staff Kurt?
Papke: Yeah. When I look at the topographical drawing, I know one of the original
issues was setback from the bluff line, and according to our definition of where the bluff
begins and ends laterally on the topographical map, how precisely are those boundaries
determined? I mean if I look at the topographical drawing, I don't know that I could pick
out very well where the bluff begins and ends, so could you comment on how precisely
that beginning and ending of the bluff is determined? If at all.
Saam: The definition of the bluff per our city ordinance I believe is a 25 foot elevation
change, or drop and the slope has to be 30 percent or greater, so basically a 3 to 1 or
greater. Using that criteria and the applicant's surveyor, and staff reviewing the site,
that's how we do it. Sharmeen, do you want to add anything else, but typically staff goes
out there and we kind of both agree that this is the top of the bluff. This is kind of where
it starts and this appears to be the bottom. Have it surveyed. Give us the slope
percentage and let's see if it qualifies.
6