The URL can be used to link to this page

2o Kelly Dock Wetland Alteration Permit CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us ~eJ MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: January 9, 2006 SUBJ: Kelly Dock: Wetland Alteration Permit 2003-2 Oytp EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ----- The application is for a wetland alteration permit (W AP) for the installation of a boardwalk across wetland adjacent to Lotus Lake. Staff recommendation is for approval of the permit subject to conditions 1 through 6 as stated in the Planning Commission staff report. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority vote of the City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 21,2003 to review the proposed wetland alteration (Attachment 1). The Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 to approve the wetland alteration permit. The verbatim minutes are attached (Attachment 2). STA TUS UPDATE This wetland alteration permit (W AP) has been tracked by staff to ensure progress since the October 21,2003 Planning Commission meeting. At the Council meeting on November 10, 2003, the W AP was tabled by Council to give the applicant additional time to consider options available. The applicant waived their Minnesota Statute 15.99 review requirements to allow time to resolve the W AP concerns (Attachment 5). In March 2004, the applicant considered dedication options to reduce lakeshore frontage. At that time, staff requested that the applicant notify the City of their intended actions in writing. The applicant followed up with a letter from their attorney stating the applicant was planning to subdivide the north portion of their shoreline, adjacent to North Lotus Lake Park, and pursue donating it to the City as an addition to the park. The letter requested that the City postpone action on the current permit since a new permit would be needed with a revised shoreline configuration. The letter stated that staff would be contacted to proceed with the next steps in the subdivision and donation process. The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a Charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks A great place to live, work, and play. Todd Gerhardt Kelly Dock W AP 2003-2 January 9, 2006 Page 2 Staff contacted the applicant in November 2004 to inquire about the outstanding WAP. The applicant stated that they were in the process of having a survey and appraisal completed for the property. January through May 2005, staff contacted the applicant to verify progress with their survey and assessment. In June 2005, the City received a copy of the applicant's appraisal. During a November 2005 meeting, the applicant indicated they did not wish to proceed with the dedication option and requested a change in the language within the proposed agreement between the City and applicant. The applicant and their attorney were asked to submit proposed language change for consideration no later than December 9,2005 to be considered by Council at the January 9, 2006 meeting. On December 8, the City received a letter from the applicant's attorney with suggested revisions for the agreement language (Attachment 4). The language change proposed by the applicant is intended to allow the applicant to retain the right to subdivide Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates while retaining the right to have a dock. In the opinion of the City attorney, the current language prevents the applicant from subdividing Outlot B as long as the boardwalk and dock are located on Outlot B. If all or part of Outlot B changed ownership through subdivision, the applicant would be required to remove the boardwalk and dock. The applicant must sign the agreement for their dock to be considered a conforming structure. The agreement (Attachment 3) is what allows the City to grant the W AP for the dock/boardwalk and ensure that no additional docks are located on Outlot B. If the applicant does not sign the agreement and a W AP is not issued, the dock and boardwalk would be in violation of City ordinance and the dock and boardwalk would be required to be removed. The current application is a unique situation in which the applicant purchased Outlot B to obtain riparian rights, only to find out after-the fact that their dock was a non-conforming structure. The applicant attempted to combine both lots. However, Carver County was not able to combine the lots because they were located in two separate plats. The proposed agreement was developed to allow the applicant to have a conforming dock while ensuring that additional docks were not installed within Outlot B. If a W AP is approved and the approved conditions are met, the applicant's dock will be considered conforming and will be allowed as an accessory structure without a primary structure. It should also be noted that the applicant's dock will be within a drainage and utility easement on Outlot B. The applicant will be required as part of approval to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the dock within the drainage and utility easement to satisfy condition 3 of the Planning Commission's recommendation. RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends adoption of the motion approving the wetland alteration permit with conditions 1 through 6 as specified in the staff report dated October 21,2003. Todd Gerhardt Kelly Dock W AP 2003-2 January 9, 2006 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. PlanningCommission Staff Report dated October 21, 2003. 2. Verbatim Planning Commission Minutes dated October 21,2003. 3. Proposed Agreement with Applicant to Fulfill Condition #1. 4. December 8,2005 Letter from G. Korstad to D. Asleson. 5. January 5, 2004 Letter from D. Smith to S. Mattick. g:\eng\lori\wetlands\permits\kelly cc Ol0306.doc PC DATE: October21,2oo3 !j', """",... CC DATE: November 10,2003 ,CITY OF CHANHASSEN REVIEW DEADLINE: November 17, 2003 CASE#: WAP 2003-2 BY: LH STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit for Placement of a Dock LOCATION: 6539 Gray Fox Curve (Lot 13, Block 4 Fox Hollow) and the northern portion of Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates .~ Z < U I-C ~ .~ ~. < APPLICANT: Kenton and Julia Kelly 6539 Gray Fox Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 ~. \- PRESENT ZONING: PUDR - Planned Unit Development Residential 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density and Parks/Open Space ACREAGE: 152,312.97 square feet (3.5 acres) DENSITY: 1.2-4 units/acre Net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Installation of a boardwalk across a wetland to Lotus Lake. Boardwalk will be permanent to minimize impacts to wetland. This is an after- the-fact permit application. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet and alllakeshore property owners. Kelly DockWAP October 21,2003 Page 2 of 5 PROPOSAL SUMMARY This is an after,-the-fact permit application. The applicant obtained the northern portion of Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates after the property went tax forfeit. The applicant is proposing the installation of a boardwalk from the rear portion of 6539 Gray Fox Curve and across a wetland on the northern portion of Outlot B to provide permanent access to Lotus Lake. A seasonal dock will be extended from the boardwalk to provide boat access by way of a dock. 6539 Grav Fox Curve Northern portion of Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates Southern portion of Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates APPLICABLE REGUA TIONS 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 watermark 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. Kelly Dock WAP October 21,2003 Page 3 of 5 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. Sec. 20-904. Accessory structures. (c) For parcels with less than three (3) acres in any residential or agricultural district, no accessory structure or use shall be erected, constructed, or commenced prior to the erection, construction or commencement of the principal permitted structure or use, but may be erected or commenced simultaneously. BACKGROUND In April 2002, the City received a number of complaints about the placement of a dock near North Lotus Lake Park. On June 4, 2002, City staff sent a letter to Mr. Kenton Kelly regarding the boardwalk that extended from the Kelly property (6539 Gray Fox Curve) into Lotus Lake because it appeared that the boardwalk crossed property that did not belong to the Kellys (Attachment 3). Following months of investigation, staff discovered that the northern portion of Outlot B,Lotus Lake Estates had been subdivided administratively in 1986 and acquired by the KeIIys in 1997 after the property went tax forfeit. The Kellys contacted Carver County in 2002 to combine the two lots. The County was not able to combine the parcels for taxing purposes because they were under two different platted subdivisions (Attachment 4). An aerial photograph of the Kelly property (showing the boardwalk and dock) is included as Attachment 5. Kelly DockW AP October 21, 2003 Page 4 of 5 ANALYSIS The City recognizes two major issues regarding the placement of a boardwalk at this location: 1. While the Kellys own both parcels, they are not under one Property . Identification Number (Pill); and 2. The boardwalk requires a wetland alteration permit from the City under Section 20-408 of the City Code. Issue #1 : Two separate parcels. According to City Code, accessory structures (boardwalks) are not permitted on parcels without principal structures (dwellings). The KeIIys have asked the County to combine the lots to resolve this issue. However, the County is not able to combine the parcels (due to no fault of the Kellys). Resolution: The KelIys have homesteaded the properties together. Staff recommends that the City work with the KeIIys to draft an agreement to be recorded with the County that would prohibit accessory uses and/or structures on the Outlot if the adjacent property at 6539 Gray Fox Curve is not under the same ownership. . Issue #2: Wetland alteration pennit. According to City Code, installation of boardwalks requires a wetland alteration permit. This is to ensure that any wetland impacts as a result of boardwalk installation have been avoided and minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Resolution: The KelIys have applied for a wetland alteration permit. If the permit is not granted, the KeIIys will be required to remove the 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 seasonal dock should extend from the boardwalk into Lotus Lake to provide docking for watercraft. The rear portion of the lot at 6539 Gray Fox Curve 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. Kelly Dock W AP . October 21,2003 Page 5 of 5 The City has received comments on the wetland alteration permit application. The comments are included as Attachments 6 and 7. The Kellys installed a boardwalk/dock in good faith after acquiring riparian property. Because they own riparian property, they have riparian rights (Attachment 8). Staff is recommending approval of the wetland alteration permit in order to facilitate resolution of this issue. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #2003- 2 for a boardwalk across the wetland at 6539 Gray Fox Curve subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with City staff to draft and record an agreement that will prohibit accessory uses and/or structures on the Outlot if the adjacent property at 6539 Gray Fox Curve is not under the same ownership. 2. The boardwalk shall be installed across the wetland as a permanent structure and a seasonal dock shall extend from the boardwalk into Lotus Lake to provide docking for watercraft; 3. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the installation of the boardwalk across the drainage and utility easement; and 4. The dock shall be located outside of the dock setback zone. 5. Before this goes to City Council staff will establish a clear understanding what it would take to combine the outlot and the lot into one lot. 6. Staff will establish a clear understanding and make recommendation to the City Council to put a clear condition on this application that restricts further subdivision of that wetland outlot." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application 2. Public hearing notice 3. June 4, 2002 letter from City staff to Kenton Kelly 4. September 24, 2002 letter from Carver County to City of Chanhassen 5. Aerial photograph of Kelly property, 2002 6. October 8, 2003 email from DNR to City of Chanhassen 7. October 13, 2003 email from Patti and David Preves to City of Chanhassen 8. August 23, 2002 letter from DNR to Kenton and Julia Kelly G:\ENG\Lori\WETLANDS\PERMITS\Kelly PC.doc I. Kenton D.. and Julia Kelly 6539 Gray Fox Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-934-5534 RECEIVED SliP 1 8 2003 CITY OF CHANHASSEN September 18, 2003 . Ms. Lori Haak Water Resources Coordinator . City of Chanhassen 7700 MaIket Blvd. ChaJ1hassen, MN 55317 Subject: Application for Wetland Alteration Permit for Dock at 6539 Gray Fox Curve Deat Ms. Haak: Thank you for meeting with us recently. Enclosed is our application for an after-the-fact wetland alteration permit for the dock on Lotus Lake at 6539 Gray Fox Curve. We have completed this application per your instructions and are please to hear that you will be supporting approval of it. As you know, prior to installing this dock we contacted the City of Chanhassen and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to obtain the necessary procedures and regulations regarding the installation of docks. The information from the City was received by fax on February 15,2002 and the installation of our dock commenced shortly thereafter. We followed all the regulations and procedures provided to us at the time by the City and . the DNR. No mention of a wetland alteration permit was made and neither the City's nor DNR's dock regulations required one to install a dock. In the process of installing this dock no digging, fi1Jin& or altering of the wetlands were done. Per the DNR, the Carver Soil & Water Conservation District and your findings, as stated in your June 14, 2002 letter, no impact to the wetlands was caused by the installation of this dock; however, we are hereby filing the enclosed wetland alteration permit per your request. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you and look forward to concluding this matter. ;r~ .1h~ Kenton D. and Julia KellY . Enclosures: Wetland Permit and check MmDesota Wetland ConservatfoJl Act/City of ChaHassen WetlaDd OnliDaace WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN APPLICATION APPLICANT INFORMATION ;(t:AI,TON IJJJLJA fi!'LLf N~s) of Applicant ~ ' 6S3Q. GRAY ,0)(. CU~'\Je ' Street Address . C<<AN~AS~(:tJ fYltJ City. State. Zip Code Name{s) Authorized Agent , .5S'611 Street Address City, S--. Zip Code CfS~ 93'1 SS3cf Telephone (Daytime) ( '15"2. ) "3'1 S;S3<! (Evening) . L..J () Telephone (Daytime) (Evening) PROPOSED IMPACTED WETLAND INFORMATION ~rl~lM 1~ . UTM Coordinates; X: ' . County NamelNumber. C Afl..j e: ~ 1/4 Y: S I T lib R .3'2.. Major Watershed NamelNumber. Wetland type: Circular 39 Topographic setting (check one): Shore1and 'I. Riverine Floodplai~ Flowtbrough Tributary Isolated ;NWl Size of entire wetland: acres Check one: C!i <50%0 5()tI/0-80% or 0> 8004 Check one: 0 Agricultural land; m Non--ag. land lvfininnun replacement ratio (check one): 0 1:1 02:1 Size of to tal wetland impact~ acres orsqft lvfinimllDl replacement needed: acres orsq ft , . Estimated me of surl'ace water drainage infO wetland: Acres If the wetland is within a shoreland wetland protection ~ne or the floodplain of a watercourse. list the distance and direction to the waterbody or watercourse: feet in a . direction. , List the dominant vegetation and land use in the impacted wetland area (ex. willows, cattails, grass. sedges, open waterlpasture. row crop, etc.) CA:-rTAIL5) of'~^, ~Mc..E: aerial photograph r accurate map of the itnpaetedwetland area showing: a.. 0 tion, and pmpose of the proposed wetland fill or drainage; b. the location of any sutiJce :inle1S or outlets dmiTIi~8 into or out of the wetlaod; c. the land use Within the immediate watel:shed within one mile otthe impacted wetland. Or. include a written description that notes the presence and location. if any. of wetland preservation regions and areas, wetland deveiopment avoidance regioDsand areas. and wetland deficient regions and areas as identified in the comprehensive water plan; (2) A soDs map of the site; , (3) EvideDCeof ownenhip -or rights to the affected area (or otherwise demonstrate to the LOU); (4) . ,A description of the avoidance and minimization alternatives~}Dld (5) Any other information required by the LGU. e.g. delineation report Page 1 of4 , PROPOSElJ PROJECT DESCRIPTION Descril)e th~ nature and purpose oftbe proposed project: / tI~1',tLL. A '):> OCl(.rl<olY\ 1M (#.Y/ttb (),: QS3'l 6AA'f Foj. CiJP..VC ,0 tQjd~ LA:K.E" (attach additional pages jfneeded) Timetable: on 1---1. (mo/da and wni be co ---1. I PRO:rOSED MmGATIONINFORMATION Mitigation will be accomplished asfollows (-check one): o Project-specific replacement only. Complete all information below. o Purchase ofWetJand Banking Credits only. Attach Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits (Exhibit J); ~ !!.!!! complete project-specific information below. and skip to ASpecial Considerations=::; on Page 4. o A ~mbfnation of the project-specific replacement and purchase ofbanldng credits. Co~plete information below for projecHpecific mitigation. and attach Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits (Exhibit J) for credit information. o Check here if excess credits are anticipated fromproject-specificreplacement above the required minimum mitigation ratio, and those credits are to be deposited into the Minnesota Wetland Bank,following Minnesota Wetland Bank procedures. Attach tbe foUowing information: (1) A reeent aerial photograph or accurate map. of the mitigation site showing: a. The location of the mitigation site; b. The location of any surface inlets or outlets draining into or out of the wetland; c. The land use of the immediate watershed within one mile of the mitigation wetland; Or include a, written description that also notes the presence and location. if any. of wetland preservation regions and areas, wetland development avoidance regions and areas, and wetland deficient regions and areas as identified in the comprehensive water plan; (2) Scale drawings of the replacement wetland showing plan and profile views and fixed photo--reference points for monitoring purposes; (3) Evidence of ownership or rights to the land affected by the proposed mitigation wetland, which includes, but is not limited to, the following; title to the land, fee owner. marital status. mortgages) and other interests in the land; (4) A sons map of the mitigation site; (5) A monitoring plan; and (6) Any other information requited by the LOU. Provide the following information: (7) Describe how the replacement wetland shall be constrncted, for example, excavation or restoration by blocking an existing tile; the type, size, and specifications of outlet structures; elevations, relative to Mean Sea Level or established bench mark, of key features, fur example, sill, emergency overflow. and strncture height; and best management practices that will be implemented to prevent erosion or site degradation; (8) For created wetlands only. list additional soils information sufficient to determine the capability of the site to produce and maintain wetland characteristics . (9) List all other local, state, and federal permits and approvals required for the activity: Page 2 of4 PROPOSED PROJ:ECT-SPECIFIC MITIGATION INFORMATION Location:, 1/4 UTM Coordinates: X: 1/4 1/4 s T R Y: County NamelNumber. Check one: 0 <500;G 0 50%-80% or 0 > 80% Major Watershed NamelNwnber: Pre-existing Wetland (ifany): Acres of Type (Complete table below for credits resulting from successful construction.) (Circular 39) Topographic setting (check one): Shoreland Riverine Floodplain Flowtbrough Tri~utary Isolated Replacement ratio: Minimum: +Out-of.kind: +Topo. Setting: +Local Public Value: -Required Ratio: , Estimated size of surface water drainage into proposed mitigation wetland: Acres If the mitigation wetland is within a shoreland wetland protection zone or the floodplain of a watercourse, list the distance and direction to the waterbody or watercourse: feet in a _ direction. List the dominant vegetation and land use in the proposed mitigation wetland area (ex. willows, cattails., grass, sedges, open water/pasture, row crop, etc.) Credit Sub-Group I NWC Acres Of Sq. Ft. Wetland Type2 Restoration or Creation .: :. "~:;~'. ,";;1:: ~~;i" .~,~.'. :!: '. ~ ...: ~":< ~ .:~ ~. /?!~~!!~:}?~i;:~!~J~~:~:~: '~~~p ,:,.",;,,:,:~ ::",:, ;,::::,::'.,i~gtJ\~~~~~i~~', PVC Acres or Sq. Ft. A. B. C. D. Totals: OCh~k here if additional credit sub-groups are part of this replacement plan and are listed on an attachment to this documenL I A separate credit sub-group shan be established for each wetland or wetland area that has different wetland characteristics. 2Circu]ar 39 types: I,lL, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8. B.U. I. 3-ropographic setting types: shoreland. riverine, floodplain, flow-throu~, tributarY, isolated. WCA Replacement Plan Application (2000) Page 3 of4 Special Considerations To the best of the applicant's knowledge, are any of the folloWing factors applicable at the impact or replaeem.ent site? Note whether present or not by indicating as t;.ollOWS: Impact nte (I), Replacement Site (R), Both (B), Neither 00. 1. Federal or state-listed endang~d species 2. Rare natural communities N 3. Special fISh and wildlife resources including: . I a. Fish passage and spawning areas ,., b. Colonial waterbird nesting colonies tJ c. Migratory waterfowl concentration areas N d. Deer winterit18 areas N e. Wildlife travel corridors J.1 Archaeological or historic sites tJ Ground water sensitive areas N Sensitive surface waters (e.g., DNR designated trout waters) N Educational or research sites tJ Waste disposal sites .JJ Is thyroject consistent with local plans (e.g., watershed management plans, land use plans, zoning and master plans)? Is the project part of a pollutant trading agreement with the MPCA? _Yes -'-No 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Replacement Assurance and Sworn Statements (Applicant) states by signature below that 1. The wetland will be replaced before or concurrent with the actual draining or filling of a wetland, OR; an irrevocable bank letter of credit or other seCurity acceptable to the local government unit has been provided to guarantee the successful completiop. of the wetland value replacement; AND, 2. The repl~cement wetland was not previously restored or created under a prior approved replacement plan; AND, 3. The replacement wetland was not drained or filled under an exemption during the previous ten years; AND, 4. The replacement wetland was not reStored with financial assistance from public conservation programs, unless the rep)acem~nt wetland qualifies under Minn. Rules Chapter 8420.0540, Subp.2.D.(3) [9 cheek here if applicable]; AND. 5. The replacement wetland was not restored using private funds other than those of the landowner unless the funds are paid back with interest to the individual or organization that funded the restoration and the individlUll or organization notifies the local government unit in writing that the restored wetland may be considered for replacement [9 check here ,uapplicable]; AND, 6. The Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for the replacement wetland will be recorded, or Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits will be cODlpleted, prior to any work to impact any wetlands,. I hereby afftrm that the information above is correct and truthful to the best of my knowledge. (applicant signature) (date) WCA Replacement Plan Application (2000) Page 4 of4 Attachment - Reference Item 4: To minimize impact to the wetland, the portion of the dock that is over the wetland vegitation witt be left in place over the winter. if 6539 Gray Fox erv A 25 0 25 50 75 100 Feet ,..- This map was created using Garver County's Geographic Infonnation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various City, County, Slate, and Federal offices. This map Is not a legally recorded document and is intended to be used as a reference. Garver Countyls not [esponsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. 1. iNOT1CE ;()F lPU:B'L'IC ,HEARING 'C'HA:N:HASSEN:P.LA'Nt~U:N,G;CO,MMISSION 'M'EETING' , ' TUES'DAY, :OCTO!131ER21,2003 AT 7:00 ,P.M. C,ITV HA1LLfCD:U;NiCIL ,CHAM,B;E'RS 77/ 0' .l\,M" A"" )R"K' 'ET"B'LV' 'D ' .j .'1,-~' -J) t ,', ! '..-~ " j .,~_t : ,,: '. ~ ~_. PROPOSAL: 'Wetland Alteration, Permit ' APPLICANT: Kenton and Julie Kelly for Placement.of a Dock 'LOCATION: '6539 Gray Fox Curve NOTICE: You 'are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicants, Kenton and Julia Kelly are requesting a wetlandalteratiori permit for placement of a dock located at 6539 Gray Fox Curve. (", What Happensatthe Meeting: The pl:Jrpose of thispublic hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: ' 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. , 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. 'Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office 'hours, 8:00a.m. to 4:30 p.m" Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Lori at 227-11350re-maillhaak@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it .is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on October 9, 2003. Lotus Lake ~ Itlfl3 Smooth Feed Sheets ™ ~lTY OF CHANHASSEN ~/O BRUCE DEJON '700 MARKET ;HANHASS ~HI PUN LO & P YUK FUN .555 GRAY FOX CRY ;HANHASSEN MN 55317 ~RADLEY R & YELENA BODERMAN .530 GRAY FOX CRY ;HANHASSEN MN 55317 )TATE OF MINNESOTA IN TRUST ;/0 CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR >00 4TH STE ;HASKA MN 55318 rRACY L RONNING & NGE GRASDAL )553 GRAY FOX CRY :;HANHASSEN MN 55317 30BBY A & DEBRA PORTER ,551 GRAY FOX CRY :;HANHASSEN' MN 55317 :;ATHERINE A PIPENHAGEN )591 FOXTAIL CT :;HANHASSEN MN 55317 <EVEN S KILORAN )595 FOXTAIL CT :;HANHASSEN MN 55317 _EONARD H PAGE )528 GRAY FOX CRY :;HANHASSEN MN 55317 mUCE M EDWARDS .549 GRAY FOX CRY :;HANHASSEN MN 55317 '. A'.rt!!!~_tS\ A......____ . _L_.' GREGORY S CORNMAN & 'DEBORAH A KERSHAW : '6526 GRAY FOX CRY 'CHANHASSEN MN 55317 i HOY E & MARY B CARLTON ; ,6524 GRAY FOX CRY ; ,CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I 'EDWARD & CYNTHIA BATTANI ;6547 GRAY FOX CRY i CHANHASSEN MN 55317 : SCOTT W & RHONDA S KULLMAN : :6520 GRAY FOX CRY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 i ! PATRICIAD BESSER ,6518 GRAY FOX CRY I CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I THEODORE J & MARYJO L SINNEN I 6522 GRAY FOX CRY iCHANHASSEN MN 55317 ! : MICHAEL & KATHERINE DAVIS ~ :6545 GRAY FOX CRY 'CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I ,DEAN E & VERNETTE M DOW ! ,6543 GRAY FOX CRY !CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN , C/O BRUCE DEJO 7700 MA VD PO BOX 147 , CH SSEN MN 55317 , RONALD L & LILLIE MCDOUGALD : '6529 GRAY FOX CRY ' " CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ! Use template for 5160@ : JEAN E AMICK , i6541 GRAY FOX CRY 'CHANHASSEN MN 55317 i, I , I 'DONALD D & CHERRYL DEWEY 1'6531 GRAY FOX CRV I ,CHANHASSEN MN 55317 .,' ! JOHN C & RHONDA RICHMOND 16535 GRAY FOX CRY - i CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ! ! . I i ) ._u - '\ i " : 'DWIGHT LAMAR FARRIS ; '6533 GRAY FOX CRY : I !CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 ! ! i! : I; .--; I ! ,JEFFREY B & DONNA M DAHL , I !6537 GRAY FOX CRY i :CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I I I :KENTON D KELLY i'653~GRAYFQ ICHAN ,N MN i, i, I , : KENTON & JULIA KELLY' , 6539 GRAY FOX CR-V,r" : CHA~,~N"'''' MN 55317 '1 55317 i " I ! !LOTUS LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSN ! PO BOX 63 ,CHANHASSEN MN 55317 "- 1 ! I , ! i -~ i . LOIS E ANDERSON I 145 CHOCTAW CIR , I !CHANHASSEN ' MN 55317 ; i; I I" : SCOTT R & JEAN B FRANSEN ,151 CHOCTAW CIR ; 'CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Smooth feed Sheets ™ VAYNE KEINATH 55CHOCTAWCIR ;HANHASSEN MN 55317 IARVEY J & CATHERINE G GREEN 41 CHOCTAW CIR ;HANHASSEN MN 55317 OSEPH EDWARD ALEXANDER 61 CHOCTAW CIR :HANHASSEN' MN 55317 ~ICHARD P WEATHERBY JR :RISTINE A WEATHERBY 35CHOCTAWCIR ;HANHASSEN MN 55317 IARLAN & MARGARET SWANSON HUSTEES OF TRUST 31 CHOCTAW GIR ;HANHASSEN MN 55317 IEIL L1BSON & ;USAN DREVES 40 CHOCTAW CIR ;HANHASSEN MN 55317 tOBERT G HOFFNER JR '& :AREN HUGHES-HOFFNER 50 CHOCTAW CIR ;HANHASSEN MN 55317 :AREY P & SUSAN L BOHN 60 CHOCTAW CIR :HANHASSEN MN 55317 iEORGEW &PATRICIAAPOLLNOW 'I 30 CHOCTAW CIR :HANHASSEN MN 55317 EFFREY L & CAROL E KAHNKE 54 CHOCTAW CIR iHANHASSEN MN 55317 . A\II;RV@ I I I , t KENTON L & SHARON N T~~~~~-~~---'~I : : '125 CHOCTAW CIR ': :CHANHASSEN MN 55317 : ; [DOUGLAS P & LORENE K BROWN . i 1120 CHOCTAW CIR t i !CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Use template for 5160@ i I " I ; i I, "" I r' : I: -< I ! I i i ; I I 1 ! I. 'I '!. i i. . i I" \ ' . i iRICHARD A & SHERYL L TILLSON · i : !110CHOCTAW CIR 'Ii , I iCHANHASSEN MN 55317 I' t' . i, y , , i ll. , ~ iTHOMAS F & MARY S KELLY :: 1100 CHOCTAW CIR , , 'CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ! : , , ; ; :JAMES M & SARA LACEY , ! '121 CHOCTAW CIR i 'CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ! ' I! ; I! , ' ~ l i 'I' 1; ; ;! ; i' \ : ! , , , ! . ,.\: i i, . ,t, t' i; ! ; Arlrlr,,~~ I ~h~r~ .' , ! ~ ! : ~ : ; '1 t ( Ii I ! ! I, : I ~ I: , .., ! I ! J I I I I I ) ') i I I I I I .I ; I , '~I( . \ 1 i : I' ! ; ; i I ! I, : Ii I. , , i I: , , 1 I' t. I I i <) I Ii , I' 1 :1 II /, -. --! I ____ .. A "fttii\ Smooth Feed Sheets™ ~ARY J SCHNEIDER & ~YNTHIA CALHOON SCHNEIDER 40 PLEASANT VIEW RD ~HANHASSEN MN 55317 10HN P & JANE THIELEN i65 PLEASANT VIEW RD ~HANHASSEN MN 55317 10HN P & JANE THIELEN ;65 PLEASANT VIEW ~HANHASS MN -HOMAS A & JUDY R MEIER ;95 PLEASANT VIEW RD ~HANHASSEN MN 55317 ~EARMOUNTAIN LAKE ASSN INC i10 PLEASANT VIEW RD ~HANHASSEN MN 55317 )AVID B SANFORD & AARIANNE M MCCORD i440 FOX PATH ~HANHASSEN MN55317 'HOMAS M & SUSAN J HUBERTY 450 FOX PATH ~HANHASSEN MN 55317 I AtCHAEL & DEBRA HAYDOCK 460 FOX PATH I ;HANHASSEN MN 55317 ;ITY OF CHANHASSEN ;/0 BRUCE DEJONG 700 MAR ;HA SEN :ElTH M & MARY BETH HOFFMAN 470 FOX PATH :HANHASSEN MN 55317 .. -- ,!, ' , ! ; CURTIS G & CHERI L ANDERSON i : 500 PLEASANT VIEW RD 'I i i, CHANHASSEN MN 55317 II ii' - ,~~ I ' I; ROBERT L & SANDRA J POST , 489 PLEASANT VIEW RD 55317 : ,CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I , : iALAN & LINDA K KRAMER : :531. INDIAN HILL RD ',CHANHASSEN MN 55317 "! : , I' CHARLES R & JUDY L PETERSON ! 708 LAKE PT ! :CHANHASSEN MN 55317 : JOHN E NICOLAY JR '608 PLEASANT VIEW RD I CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ; : 'THOMAS M & NANCY S SEIFERT : ,600 PLEASANT VIEW RD : iCHANHASSEN MN 55317 " ; ., ; ; DENALI CUSTOM HOMES INC I 540 PLEASANT VIEW RD I'CHANHASSEN MN 55317 i' I' i i iDENNIS ZHU & :ZUO ZHI \716 LAKE PT !CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I, \:.." . I :JOHN T & RUTH E SCHEVENIUS : :570 PLEASANT VIEW RD I iCHANHASSEN MN55317 i MICHAEL A & JANET A ST ANZAK : ' 724 LAKE PT lCHANHASSEN MN 55317 i i DOUGLAS J & LANA HABERMAN L; 520 PLEASANT VIEW RD :i CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I I .1 Use template for 5160@ , TODD L & PATRICIA A FROSTAD 6728 LOTUS TRL ;' CHANHASSEN MN 55317 i I 1 t I ) I, "\ I i I TERRY D & DEBRA L VOGT 'I 732 LAKE PT i !CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ! ; ; , \ , i , EMILY H JOHNSON I .335 PLEASANT VIEW RD I 'CHANHASSEN MN 55317 i, ; : JOHN R WINDBLAD VON WALTER & : : KATHLEEN A WINDBLAD VON WALTER : 510 PLEASANT VIEW RD ; ': CHANHASSEN MN 55317 i i E TKELL Y, TRUSTEE OF TRUST I : C/O TODD ELFTMANN & S ERICKSON i 740 LAKE POINT RD '! CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I i ! . I . BARBARA L HEDLUND . '748 LAKE PT I 'CHANHASSEN MN 55317 '; ALAN W & CAROL LENHART i 6575 PLEASANT VIEW WAY ! CHANHASSEN MN 55317 i 1 MICHAEL & KATHRYN SCHWARTZ ,469 PLEASANT VIEW RD 'CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Smooth Feed Sheets ™ tARBARA L HEDLUND 48 LAKE PT ~HANHASSEN MN 55317 ANICE LANDRUS 49 PLEASANT VIEW RD :HANHASSEN MN 55317 :ARVER BEACH PROPERTIES :/0 ADRIAN JOHNSON ;322ND ST , :XCELSIOR MN 55331 ~NDY R &' RAYMA LEE SMITH , ,29 PLEASANT VIEW RD :HANHASSEN MN 55317 ~OBERT & LINDA SATHRE ~65 PLEASANT VIEW RD :HANHASSEN MN 55317 10HN R & CAROL W HAMMETT ;697 HORSESHOECRV :HANHASSEN MN 55317 :HARLESC & JANET C HURD ;695 HORSESHOE CRY :HANHASSEN MN 55317 (ENTON D KELLY i53~N<t~~~~ :HA~. MN 55317 WNALD E & LEANNE HARVIEUX -RUSTEES OF TRUST i605 HORSESHOE CRY ;HANHASSEN MN 55317 \NDREW H & KATRINAE CLEMENS ,691 HORSESHOE CRY ;HANHASSEN MN 55317 ... -- - ! ." i; : : JOSEPH M & MARGERY M PFANKUCH \: [JAMES K MCCLEARY 1\6611 HORSESHOE CRY I :6661 HORSESHOE CRY I iCHANHASSEN MN 55317 , I :CHANHASSEN MN 55317 .. ! ! 1 i Ii ,'" II! ) , ~l : IHAROLD G & KATHRYN M DAHL ,116631 HORSESHOE CRY ! i ,CHANHASSEN MN 55317 .1 : : I: I I I ......_..'..'__... " ~ [PATRICIA A PAULS I ,TRUSTEE OF TRUST ,1111010 OREGON CRY i I IBLOOMINGTON MN 55438 " , , , , ! :JOHN & BEVERLY RYAN Il6685 HORSESHOE CRY , 1 !CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 I' I> : I !JOHN D & ANN M DANIELSON 16607 HORSESHOE CRY iCHANHASSEN MN 55317 ,JEFFORIE A KVILHAUG & !JUDIL YN W KVILHAUG : 116681 HORSESHOE CRY 'I :CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I .'\ I ' .. : I 'DORIS A ROCKWELL i 116677 HORSESHOE CRY i tiCHANHASSEN MN 55317 i I! 1 ' I . ! .. " I !DAVID W & BEVERLY J KOPISCHKE .. I!TRUSTEES OF TRUST I :6675 HORSESHOE CRY 'I !CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I '\ f i - . : I !NICHOLAS J VASSALLO & 1 'CHRISTA M VASSALLO ' : 116669 HORSESHOE CRY : ! iCHANHASSEN MN 55317 Ii [ . Use template for 5160@ I " , ; :JOHN M & SANDRA L CUNNINGHAM , ;6665 HORSESHOE CRY iCHANHASSEN MN 55317 , "' _. <) I JAMES E & ELEANOR KEIPER :6615 HORSESHOE CRY I iCHANHASSEN MN 55317 ,I, i I i i : ." ~I : [PAUL F & LISA T HUBE~ , 116663 HORSESHOE CRY , I iCHANHASSEN MN 55317 ./ l' I' ! ; i " I , ; !JAMES K MCCLEARY ; !6661 HORSESHOE CRY I !CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I I: 1 \ [, I [LOTUS LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSN , PO BOX 63 ,lCHANHASSEN MN 55317 I; <' ! ' !I:LADD R & SUSAN M CONRAD , 116625 HORSESHOE CRY ! ;CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ; II , ' i: .) , \ 1 i i ., ~. , ! IRA YMONDP & ALICIA L BROZOVICH : I FRANK A & DONNA M KUZMA : \6609 HORSESHOE CRY ' , : 6651 HORSESHOE CRY 'CHANHASSEN ' MN 55317 I CHANHASSEN MN 55317 " , i i ~ : CYNTHIA ANN BRICTSON :16613 HORSESHOE CRY ; : CHANHASSEN MN 55317 " , i : PHILIP 0 & LUDMILLA J ISAACSON : 6633 HORSESHOE CRY , : CHANHASSEN MN 55317 i Smooth Feed Sheets ™ >OUGLAS J & ELIZABETH K BITNEY ;645 HORSESHOE CRY ;HANHASSEN MN 55317 )TATE OF MINNESOTA-DNR rAX SPEC. - BUREAU OF R E MGMT >00 LAFAYETTE RD )T PAUL MN 55155 .OTUS LAKE BETTERMENT ASSN 105 SANDY HOOK RD :;HANHASSEN MN55317 ~OBERT 13 & SUE MIDNESS 112 SANDY HOOK RD :;HANHASSEN MN 55317 rHOMAS & MARILYN PALMBY 114 SANDY HOOK RD :;HANHASSEN MN 55317 JAY H & SHELLEY H STROHMAIER ~o SANDY HOOK RD ::;HANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK C & NANCY A ENGASSER 7000 DAKOTA CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT IAN AMICK 581 FOX HILL DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN H & JEANNE M BA TZLI 100 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS V & DARLEEN TURCOTTE 108 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ... " i ipETER A MOSCATELLl , ! :102 SANDY HOOK RD I iCHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 f: , I 1'-. I ,'DAVID A & PATRICIA L PREVES i 1106 SANDY HOOK RD , I 'CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ; , I,: Use template for 5160@ : MARK E & MICHELLE C JOHNSON ,I 16425 MAYFIELD DR : i EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 I . I", \ I > , I ;GREG & MARIA LINDSLEY i i :10 HILL ST ; iCHANHASSEN MN 55317 . , i; I i j l !" ; I I . I' "j [ " r , I ~DANIEL A & MARILYN BOECKERMANN ' 1 :DENNIS J&TONIE FLAHERTY ,j ;104 SANDY HOOK RD : 117004 DAKOTA .I!CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ; !CHANHASSEN MN 55317 :Jil : : (CONSTANCE M CERVILLA I : 'DAVID 0, & RACHEL AIG, EL : i650 CARVER BEACH RD 1,,;6195 STRAWBERRY LN : I iCHANHASSEN MN 55317 . I :EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ,I: I I, .~ i i ! I 'WILLIAM & MARJORIE SPLlETHOFF' 1[4041 GULFSHOREBLVD tn312 . I [NAPLES FL 34103 " : , ! ~ . I' ], :HOBERT B & SUE MIDNESS, ; 11112 SANDY HOOK RD ; i !CHANHASSEN MN 55317 , ! i! I! , , I'.. I' : , !JON ALAN LANG , ; 1640 CARVER BEACH RD , iCHANHASSEN MN 55317 , i i' , ' .' I:, '1 I ; I !LOWELL A & NANCY W JOBE ,1109 SANDY HOOK RD i 'CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ; I! I' i , I 'PAUL T EIDSNESS & : :ANDREA S JOHNSON I '630 CARVER BEACH RD , ! :CHANHASSEN MN I : . I. " I !HERBERT N &GAROL YN BLOOMBERG! !: :7008 DAKOTA : I ! CHANHASSEN MN 55317 : I i; I' : I :DEAN T & SUSAN L STANTON i 11500 BIGHORN DR : I !CHANHASSEN MN' 55317 i I! ; I: , : i DONALD N & CAROL J MEHL I ;490 BIGHORN DR : I iCHANHASSEN MN 55317 I ! ; I ': : iSTEVEN M & MONICA M POSNICK '''j, , I :7010 DAKOTA l,lCHANHASSEN MN 55317 III ! I: , ".,.~ : ANNE F JONES I ! :480 BIGHORN DR I :CHANHASSEN MN 55317 i ,:, 55317 ' ! ' . : !NANCYA ENGASSER , : 7000 DAKOTA ' ~ i CHANHASSEN MN 55317 , 'I' ! ; iHENRY & SANDRA NEILS ,17012 DAKOTA :CHANHASSEN MN 55317 , , 1 Smooth Feed Sheets ™ - I ' " HANK W JR & MARGARET M HETMAN" PATRICK F & KATHRYN A PAVELKO '014 DAKOTA ' '7203 FRONTIER TRL ~HANHASSEN MN 55317 ! I,CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I; ARRY A & JULIE M KOCH f71 BIGHORN DR ~HANHASSEN MN 55317 =.VAN M NIEFEL.,D '016 DAKOTA CIR ~HANHASSEN MN 55317 ~NN HOGAN ~81 BIGHORN DR :;HANHASSEN MN 55317 _EONARD P & NANCY M KISKIS t91 BIGHORN DR :;HANHASSEN MN 55317 :;HRISTOPHER K LARUS & "-IEIDI M GARCIA 7018 DAKOTA CIR :;HANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK 0 & SUZANNE SENN 7160 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY W & MARY L BORNS 7199 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 >-.-.".-. '" -~. ..~. STEVENT MESTITZ & PEGGY L NAAS 7200 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317- ROLF G ENGSTROM & LAWRENCE P LEEBENS 7201 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ... I' , -~....__.. ~' " : [ALFRED A & SUSAN K HENDERSON ~ i I !7330 KURVERS POINT RD I IICHANHASSEN MN 55317 I,! ' I ,I, ,1'- ---'~ I: : I :DOUGLAS R & JEANNE E MACLEAN II ; ROBERT H GREELEY ' ! !7280KURVERS POINT RD ! :'7341 FRONTIER TRL , : fCHANHASSEN MN 55317 ! I 'CHANHASSEN MN 55317 'II I I; · i! 1-/ I"" 11 !RICHARD J & EUNICE M PETERS -: I (ROBERT H &, SALLY S HORSTMAN ! I f7301 LAREDO DR' ; I '7343 FRONTIER TRL i I jCHANHASSEN MN 55317 ' I iCHANHASSEN 'MN 55317 11 i I'; I, .... I, , I 'FRANKLIN J & MYRNA A KURVERS ! ;TRUSTEES OF TRUST : ; 17220 KURVERS POINT RD I 'CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I: , I _ '_.u.___ - ; I 'SUNRISE HILLS , I :C/O CHARLES ROBBINS } i7340 LONGVIEW CIR ,I !CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I' }'" , ; ! ,ALAN & ANNABEL FOX : :7300 LAREDO DR : I iCHANHASSEN I, I: MN 55317 ,I i 1'- ! : !DANNY J & BRENDA L VATLAND t :7290 KURVERS POINT RD , , I !CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I , I I '\ I ' ! I :DAVID M & JOANNA POINAR i i :7303 LAREDO DR . I 'CHANHASSEN MN 55317 : , , I Use template for 5160@ ; NEIL & BARBARA GOODWIN , ;7310 KURVERS POINT RD i lCHANHASSEN MN 55317 ,I I I. "'., I!- , 'ARLlS A BOVY, I '7339 FRONTIER TRL : I :CHANHASSEN , MN ' 55317 'I, r: "\ .l," , ! 1 ;CARMELA V RICHARDS ! I 17320 KURVERS POINT RD ; I :CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I; I, '! : , II i : : jRONALD C & SHAWN P HAINES , 1:7340 KURVERS POINT RD : IICHANHASSEN MN 55317 Ii I: , ! i- ; I iCHARLES ALLEN APPLEGATE & : liSUSAN RAPPLEGATE : i 11484 GORMICAN LN , (!NAPL!=S FL 341,10 , I, , i ,KURVERS POINT HOMEOWNER ASSN i : 'GEORGEJ & DIANNE H PRIEDITI~- '" "~ , ! 'CIO MELVIN KURVERS I 11401 FRONTIER TRL I I 7240 CHANHASSEN RD I :CHANHASSEN MN 55317 i ( , CHANHASSEN MN 55317 II i '\1 ) I ' -" -, -<'j ~ CHARLES ALLEN APPLEGATE & - , I: SUSAN R APPLEGATE 55317 ' : 1484 GORMICAN , ; NAPLES, FL 34110 , ' : ! JOHN C LEE : ~ 7337 FRONTIER TRL ; CHANHASSEN MN Smooth Feed Sheets ™ iEYMOUR S RESNIK 370 KURVERS POINT RD ~HANHASSEN MN 55317 ;ORNA G TARNOWSKI '405 FRONTIER TRL PO BOX 382 ~HANHASSEN MN 55317 ~LAIR PETER ENTENMANN & ~ANCY ENTENMANN '407 FRONTIER TRL ~HANHASSEN MN 55317 )AVID M & LAURIE C SUSLA 7409 FRONTIER TRL :;HANHASSEN MN 55317 ':JAT H FITZSIMMONS & =>>ATRICIA L FITZSIMMONS 7400 CHANHASSEN RD ~HANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS W HAROLD 7411 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROGER & MARJORIE L KARJALAHTI 7413 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHELE M KOPFMANN & DENNIS 0 KOPFMANN 7415 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL J & KARl J ROMPORTL 7417 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ~,_.,-,-,. .-, PETER J & KATHERINE S DAHL 220 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 .. A' 1r....,,16\ ; : :FREDERIC OELSCHLAGER ETAL ; 17410 CHANHASSEN RD , ; !CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I . <" ;>~ 'I' I !I'GREGORY DEAN CRAY i ,200 FRONTIER CT ; IlCHANHASSEN MN . I; 55317 ", ! I~' ... . ! I iWILLlAM & IVY KIRKYOLD , i 1201 FRONTIER CT . i !CHANHASSEN MN , , i: ! i 55317 : : !FRONTIER TRAIL ASSN , : IC/O WILLIAM KIRKYOLD ; [201 FRONTIER CT , fCHANHASSEN MN 55317 ! ' , .. I, : I DAVID E & CAROLYN M WETTERLlN i I i7420CHANHASSEN RD i ,ICHANHASSEN MN 55317 I I: ; I,: : IIIRVING RAYMOND i i7440 CHANHASSEN RD : IICHANHASSEN MN 55317 : I i' , : :SCOTT & JULIE MAEY AERT ; 17506 ERIE AVE , ; jCHANHASSEN MN 55317 I: " I \ ; iTIMOTHYJ & DIANE A MCHUGH li7450 CHANHASSEN RD i !CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ; : .! ; '; , 'i' " -', I .. 'LARRY P MON i '7470 CHANHASSEN RD I ;CHANHASSEN MN : ; 55317 : [CATHERINE S HISCOX : :7500 ERIE AVE ; iCHANHASSEN MN 55317 ^~~._.._ I _L._I!.. I I I , .. '''1 : '~ENNIS C & JANIS I FISHER , '7501 ERIE AVE ; ; lCHANHASSEN MN 55317 Use template for 5160@ : _ i ~ , , : I: ,'\ I," , : I !HARVEY L JR & CAROL PARKER , ! 17480 CHANHASSEN RD I CHANHASSEN MN 55317, I! I: ! ' , I ; I I , I' i 1 !NANCY A SULLIVAN I !7490 CHANHASSEN RD ! iCHANHASSEN MN ! : 55317 \ i I I I i : 1 Ii I' I; ; iMARY C MAURICE & 'ISANDRA M SEDO ' : 17644 SOUTH SHORE DR I iCHANHASSEN MN 55317 , ! '\ i I I; , I ; I, illLOUIS S TESLER i I 17500 CHANHASSEN RD ! ! !CHANHASSEN " MN 55317 III II, ~ :' II~REGORY J UNDSLEY & IIMARIAJ STOFFEL ! 1110 HILL ST i I !CHANHASSEN MN 55317 :!! . , I 1\ : !STEVEN A & BETH A MCAULEY I 120 HILL ST : !CHANHASSEN MN 55317 II "\ I I i I 1 I I / !! : ; i ~\ . . ""~l It' . - ,,---, .. i I iSCOTT J & DENISE B SMITH ! I 130 HILL ST : I !CHANHASSEN MN 55317' .1 ! I' I' .. ", I 11 ;ROBERT FLYNN & .. i !VALERIE FLYNN I 140 HILL ST , I iCHANHASSEN '! ; MN 55317 .J '~ : !THOMAS W & PAMELA C DEVINE -,._-- <, . PO BOX714 I ; CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I I t I I !', . -- --- ..... ;",,(i\ @)09tS J9se, ITY OF CHANHASSEN /0 BRUCE DEJ 700 MA lVD PO BOX 147 HA SSEN MN 55317 TEVEN A & CAROL K DONEN 536 SOUTH SHORE DR HANHASSEN MN 55317 INDA WilKES 532 SOUTH SHORE DR HANHASSEN MN, 55317 , i i I I: , " 'I i ! ' i, I; I ' ! : ); r I: I J i I: , , I ! ; 1 : I; I I: ! ' I, i r I, I; J: 'I j I i, , I:" I' } ; slaqel SS9JpPV @AHaAV. , i: I' I' I' I: I ,. ; ~,.':,;, , ....i...._ '.':~;.".;'';:'; '\ I 'I I ) : I; I j , ') I I I i L I I I' I' I I, ,I \ ' I: I: i; f '\ I I i ! i CITYOF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 , Administration " Phone: 952,227.1100 FaX: 952,227,1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952,227.1180 Fax: 952,227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952,227,1170 Finance Phone: 952,227,1140 Fax: 952,227,1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952,227.1120 Fax: 952,227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952,227.1400 Fax: 952,227,1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227,1130 Fax: 952,227,1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952,227,1300 Fax: 952227,1310 Senior Center Phone: 952,227,1125 Fax: 952,227,1110 Web Site www.cj.chanhassen.mn.us ~i"- June 4; 2002 Mr. Kenton Kelly 6539 Gray Fox Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Dock on Lotus Lake at 6539 Gray Fox Curve Dear Mr. Kelly: This letter is to inform you that it was recently discovered that a dock extends from the property at 6539 Gray Fox Curve into Lotus Lake. This dock does not conform to the City's shoreland ordinance. The lot at 6539 Gray Fox Curve does not abut Lotus Lake and is not part of a homeowner's association with a beach lot. For this reason, this property does not have the right to a dock on Lotus Lake. In addition, it appears that the vegetation of the wetland adjacent to Lotus Lake was altered in order to install the dock. Chanhassen's City Code Section 20-408 requires a wetland alteration pemlit for the removal of healthy native vegetation. A wetland alteration permit was not obtained for work in this area. To mitigate for the effects of the removal of healthy native vegetation, a vegetation restoration plan may need to be developed. Please rel1!ove the dock by Monday, June 17, 2002. In addition, please contact me by Monday, June 17, 2002 to arrange a site visit to detennine whether vegetative restoration must be undertaken or an after-the-fact wetland alteration pennit must be secured. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me at 952.227.1135. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN ~/ '~tftl //->>' fJtu J W , " ...'- Lori Haak Water Resources Coordinator G:\ENG\LORl\l-ETfERS\Kelly dock.doc <<: ~ ' ':CEIVED SEP .2 6 2002 '".J It OF CHA ' , NHASSEN - ....- Office of County Auditor Carver County Government Center Administration Building 600 East Fourth Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2102 Phone (952) 361-1910 Fax (952) 361-1919 WWW.co.carver.mn.us CARVER COUNTY September 24, 2002 City of Chanhassen Attn: Jason Angell PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147 HE: Combination of Kelly Parcels Dear Mr. Angell, If. Mark Lundgren County Auditor Phone: (952) 361-1905 Email: mlundgren@co.carver.mn.us Laurie Engelen Assistant County Audilor Phone: (952) 361-1907 Email: lengelen@co.carver.mn.us , We have considered your request on the behalf of the City of Chanhassen to combine the two parcels of land belonging to the Kelly's. ' We regret that we will not be abie to combine these two parcels of land fqr taxing , purposes because they fall within two different platted subdivisions If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to call Kay Lemke at my office. Sincerely, 1I?1hk~ ' Mark,Umdgren ,~Kar~ Carver County Auditor , kml .- -{ ,I ,~., I/O" "<.";";. -.;. ,:,"':::.' ~:i <~ "-f:: ..'. i "'~~: ~:~ ~:::. ,<' '". . - ~ ! . .,'" ,.. .' -"~' :, '-" . "-~ ... "":':" ;~:; ~'::r; :"":" ;. .., "."...... . - .~. ,. : '. Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on 30% Post-Consumer Recycled Paper , ' <M""_" ' ; ~:'~ ,,~~.". "-~ '. . ~ .. .~ :Haak, ,Lori ,From: Sent: To: ,Subject: Julie Ekman Dulie.ekman@dnr.state.mn.us] Wednesday, October 08,20032:20 PM Ihaak@cLchanhassen.mn.us ' Review of application for dock at 6539 Gray Fox Curve , Lori, No DNR Waters concerns. Assuming aquatic vegetation was not removed for installation of the dock, there wouldn't be an APM(Aquatic Plant Management) permit needed from DNR Fisheries, either. Julie Ekman, Area Hydrologist West Metro, Central Region 3 ,Mn Department of Natural Resources-Waters 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 f651) 772-7919 (651) 772-7977 fax julie.ekman@dnr.state.mn.us Visit DNR Waters' website at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/ 1 *I. (Haak, Lori 'From: , ;Sent: To: Subject: Patpreves@aol.com Monday, October 13, 2003 4:55 PM Ihaak@ci.chanhassen.mn.us public hearing Oct. 21 , 2003 Dear Lori, We would very much like to be at the meeting on Oct. 21, 2003 regarding the Wetland Alteration Permit for Placement of a Dock at 6539 Gray Fox Curve for Kenton and Julie Kelly. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend. We would like to give our input via email if you will be so kind as to forward our concerns. We live on Lotus Lake and are greatly concerned about the quality of the water in this lake, the number of water craft that use the lake already, the deterioration of the shore line and the preservation of the existing wetlands. While we understand the desire of the Kelly's to have a dock, we cannot endorse it simply because it would set a precedent that would give others in a similar position to do the same thing. If the planning commission says yes, now, will the members be saying yes to others in the future? Please consider the issues very carefully before granting this permit. Lotus Lake is already in a very fragile state. Much wildlife depends on the continued protection of what little wetland area still exists on this lake. If you say yes to everyone who makes this kind of a request, Lotus Lake will lose a lot. Thank you for passing on our concerns. Patti and David Preves ) 1 -~f' ! ~.. '.,4A~~, " ,~... ,"~~.. .,' "f' '\ If' ,,'," \ ' i1ti1 " " " r~} ~""',"',""'" '~" .' . . . " pP~ M~nllf.!RQrfl ,~t'JT.rien1: of fiiilt.tiriij iC:e.'k)U~~ . .'.;" ~ .' ~"'.' - '. . . '. ." QN,~ W~, l~~W~~~:>l.~,N!'i~~~Uo ~{til)m-79l~ ,P~{~1)7n7m August 23~ 2002 Kenton and Julia Kelly 6539 Gray Fox Cuzve CbJl''hassen, MN 55317 RB: Lotus Lake, Riparlatl Rigbts for 1m 13, Block 4, Fox Hollow, PID No. 25-2730680 Dear Mr. and Ms. KeDy: I have received your letter regarding ripatian rights on the above referenced parcel and have the following response. Based on the infotmati.onthat you sent and oar discussions~ it appears that your lot (Lot 13) is riparian to, Lotus Lake. A pan:el that abuts a,1ake is referred to as rlparlan. As stated on the DNR web-site' (www.dnt.state.mn.ust riparian owne.m,have certain tights. "Riparian rights ate ptOperty rights arising from. owning ,shorehuid They include the right to wharl'out to a Davigable depth; to take water for dome5tic 'and agricu1tu:raJ purposes; to use land added by acoretion. or exposed by telic1ion; , to take,ice; to ~ bo~ hunt. swim; tc sucl1 o1her uses as water bodies are nonna11yput (see Sanbom v. ~eople'sJcoCo. 82Minn43~ 84NW641 [1900] andLampreyv. State. S2 Minn 181. 53 NW 1139 [1883J). The riparian owner has the right to make use of the lab over its entire surface (see JOhnson v. Seifett251 MUm.lS9. lOONW 2d689 [1960])." Even though it is my opinion that the 0WDa' of Lot 13 would have the right m access the lake by virtue of their riparlanrigbts, they would be wise 10 obtain an easement (or some other legal means) for ingress and egress across the outlotifitwentmtosomeonceIse's oWl1e.rShip. This may prevent an extensive 'conflict over access in the :future. , Please call your Area Hydrologist, Julie 'Hbnan or me if you have further questions. c;: Julie Ekman DNa lDformation: 651~296-6157 · 1-888--646-6367 · TIY: 651-296-5484 · 1...s00-657-39Z9 AnSqual ~ ~ A. PriIWldCUl~f'ap&tCor\'talWlg a Who Viduc:s DiveQ\:k,y ,..,. kIitliftlurIl of_ ~Waste AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this _ day of , 2003 by and between Kenton D. Kelly and Julia Kelly (the "Owners"), and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"). RECITALS A. The Owners are the owners of a residence and real estate located at 6539 Gray Fox Curve, Chanhassen, Minnesota which is legally described as: Lot 13, Block 4, Fox Hollow, Carver County, Minnesota ("Parcel A") B. The Owners also own a vacant parcel adjacent to Parcel A, which is legally described as: That part of Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, Carver County, Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the most westerly corner of Lot 31, Block 2, of said Lotus Lake Estates; thence on an assumed bearing of North 61 degrees East, along the northwesterly line of said Lot 31, a distance of 145.01 feet to the most northerly corner of said Lot 31, said point being the point of beginning of a line to be described; thence North 60 degrees West, 194 feet, more or less, to the shoreline of Lotus Lake, and said line there terminating ("Parcel B") C. The Owners have installed a dock on Parcel B. D. The City does not allow accessory structures, such as a dock, on a parcel without a primary structure. E. The City notified the Owners that they were required to combine Parcel A and Parcel B if they desired to maintain the dock em Parcel B. F. The Carver County Auditor's office was not able to combine Parcel A and B because they are in separate plats. G. The Owners have homesteaded the properties together. H. The parties desire to permit the Owners to have a dock on Parcel B subject to the terms and conditions set forth below. AGREEMENT Now, therefore; on the basis of the mutual covenants and agreements herein provided, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. The Owners shall be permitted to have a dock on Parcel B provided Parcel A and B remain under the same ownership. 2. The Owners shall comply with all Chanhassen City Code provisions regarding the dock. 3. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their successors and assigns. IN WITHNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf and its seal to be hereunto duly affixed and the Owner has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf on or as of the date first above written. CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager 108919 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2003, by , the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public KENTON D. KELLY JULIA KELLY STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2003, by Kenton D. Kelly and Julia Kelly. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 1380 Corporate Center Curve Suite 317 Eagan,MN 55121 Telephone: 651-452-5000 SMM:dmo 108919 3 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21,2003 Sacchet: We have a second. Claybaugh moved, Tjornhom seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance #2003-14 for a 26 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland buffer setback requirement with the following conditions: 1. An Encroachment Agreement shall be signed by the applicant allowing him to construct the patio within the easement. 2. The applicant shall plant a minimum of three native overstory trees within the easement as replacement plantings. The applicant shall revegetate all disturbed areas. 3. The fire pit clearing shall be seeded and allowed to grow back to it's previous wooded state. 4. No further encroachments or alterations shall be permitted within the tree preservation easement. 5. The applicant shall work with city staff to install plantings to mitigate any further impact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PLACEMENT OF A DOCK LOCA TED AT 6539 GRAY FOX CURVE. KENTON AND .JULIE KELLY. Public Present: Name Address Kent and Julie Kelly Jeff Dahl Ron & Leanne Harvieux Susan & Ladd Conrad Dave Susla 6539 Gray Fox Curve 6537 Gray Fox Curve 6605 Horseshoe Curve 6625 Horseshoe Curve 7409 Frontier Trail Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Lori. Questions from staff. Lillehaug: Sure, one real easy one. Recommendation, or condition number 2. You indicate that a boardwalk shall be installed across the wetland as a permanent structure. I guess before I put my yes on this vote, are we sure we want it as a permanent structure? And maybe you can just discuss why we would want that a permanent structure. Haak: Absolutely. Papke: Could you also clarify whether the existing one is a permanent structure or whether this is a change to what's there. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21,2003 Haak: I certainly will. My understanding is that the boardwalk is a permanent structure at this point, and the purpose behind that is to minimize the annual impact. If you were putting in a dock every year you would have far more impact to the wetland than putting it in, letting it stay and installing it in that fashion, so that's why that recommendation is in there and actually when these permits have been issued in the past, that's been a standard condition so, and we have, staff has talked to the applicant and I believe they'll come up in a minute and relay that that's absolutely their intent is to leave that in permanently. Lillehaug: So the boardwalk holds up well over the winter months? Haak: That',s correct. Yeah, it's designed to do that. Sacchet: Questions? Tjornhom: I do, and I could be confused but hopefully you can straighten me out here. In the letter that the City of Chanhassen wrote to Mr. Kelly, it stated the lot at 6539 Gray Fox Curve does not abut Lotus Lake and is not part of a homeowners association with a beach. So does that mean that this dock or this whatever, it's butting up to a private association's beach? Haak: That is how it appeared initially. If we go back to this diagram. The lot that the Kelly's home is on is at 6539 Gray Fox Curve, and it's the northeastern one here. This northern portion of Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, up until 1986 was combined withthis southern piece that I've indicated here at the southern portion of Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates. And that is a beacWot, so when staff initially received a complaint, because we couldn't find record of the subdivision, it appeared that that was all one parcel. .. .that the dock had been extended across private property that was not their's. However since then we've learned that they did acquire it through tax forfeit. Tjornhom: But they aren't using any part ofthe association's beach? Haak: That's correct. Tjornhom: Okay. And in another letter, I think from someone who couldn't be here tonight, their concern was that if we do this, everybody will start doing it. Now is this true? That if we allow them to keep their dock all of a sudden there will be other neighbors thinking hey, I want one too. Haak: Well certainly anyone who lives around the lake I believe would want that sort of ability. In this instance it's a very, very unique situation and I don't believe that there are any such situations out there. Now going on record saying that, someone will bring one up tomorrow, and I realize that but it is very unique. To be a non-lake shore lot and with a parcel like this adjacent to you, that is subdivided and then goes tax forfeit. In speaking with the attorneys to try to resolve this issue, they had never seen anything like it so staff is quite confident that this is a one of a kind situation. Tjornhom: Okay. Would you recommend other people being allowed to do this? Have a dock like they have done in the neighborhood? Haak: Certainly not. Again, this is a unique situation. Exactly. If they do own lakeshore property they do have that right, and the Kelly's obtained that lakeshore property after the fact. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21,2003 After they had built their original residence. But no, certainly if you don't own that property, you don't have that right. Tjornhom: Okay. Sacchet: Okay. Papke: Yeah, the staff report is a little bit confusing at times because it appears that there's actually, we're talking about two structures here. We're talking about a permanent boardwalk and a seasonal dock, is that correct? Haak: Sure, yes. Papke: So in recommendation 2, we're only speaking of the permanent boardwalk, and in recommendation 4 we're talking about only the seasonal dock, is that correct? Haak: Correct. Papke: Now to clarify recommendation number 4, is the boardwalk where it currently sits, and positioned, when the seasonal dock is constructed off that existing boardwalk, is it outside of the dock setback zone...? Haak: Yes it is. Papke: So to satisfy recommendation number 4, there are no changes required to the structure? Haak: Correct. Papke: Okay, that's all. Thank you. Sacchet: Craig. Claybaugh: Just want to clarify Lori. Through the riparian rights, that's what enables this particular applicant to have the, right to put that boardwalk across the property they acquired, is that part of their riparian rights? Do they have that or is this, is that a stretch? Haak: No. Riparian rights are quite difficult, and as you might imagine, quite contentious in the state of Minnesota. And there are certain riparian rights that arise from having a wetland adjacent to a lake abut your property. That being said, it does not give an individual necessarily a right to put a dock across someone else's property. The letter from the DNR was primarily because it was something that we had on file and something that the Kelly's believe was quite important, and to show that the DNR had reviewed this and had been taking a look at it, so there was some right originally. Of course when they acquired the northern part of Outlot B, they actually owned the property between their house and the lake, which basically in legal opinion we see as a slam dunk sort of a deal because they do own the property from their back door out to Lotus Lake. Claybaugh: Were they in that dialogue with the DNR in advance of putting in this boardwalk, or was that after the fact? Haak: No, that particular letter was written after the fact, and I'm not certainly whether or not the applicant was in contact with the DNR before that time. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21,2003 Claybaugh: And then the wetland alteration permit, that's a function of the LGU? Haak: Correct. Claybaugh: So it has nothing to do with the DNR or any other governmental agency? Haak: That's right. That's something that we require as a city. Claybaugh: Okay. And then last item, on page 4 or 5 under findings. The rear portion of the lot, at such and such address is encumbered by a drainage and utility easement. An encroachment agreement is necessary. That's going to be in place? Haak: Absolutely, yes. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Real quickly Lori. We're talking about riparian rights and I w~uld think some of the people here probably hear that for the first time tonight. Could you just in a couple sentences tell us what riparian rights are? Haak: Well again, it's quite complicated. Most simply it is the right to access public bodies of water, and the rights associated with that. Sacchet: And it goes with having land adjacent to the body of water. Haak: Correct. Sacchet: Now the challenge here is that we have legally two lots. We have one lot that is not a riparian lot that the house sits on and then we have that huge piece of wetland that abuts the lot and also abuts the lake. What happens if they would not stay under the same ownership? Haak: Well, that's why staff is recommending that first condition in the recommendation for the wetland alteration permit. That is one of staff s fears in going, in proceeding with this permit. And basically the fear is this, that it is against city ordinance to have an accessory use on a property that doesn't have a primary use. And by. Sacchet: Okay, so we have regulations that make that very clear? Haak: Exactly. Exactly. And the Kelly's have shown great intent to get these parcels combined, and that shows to staff that they're not intending to sell these lots. Now ifthey sell it to someone who has another idea, then we would have this recorded agreement on file with both properties. Sacchet: The letter that the Kelly's sent to you states that prior to installing the dock they contacted City of Chanhassen and tried to find out what the regulations framework are. Do we have a record of that? Haak: The City receives a number of calls every year, I personally, and we may not have a specific record of the conversation. Sacchet: Okay, that's fine. And what part ofthat dock is seasonal? 21 Planning Commission Meeting -October 21,2003 Haak: It would be the portion that extends from the edge of the wetland into the lake. So the boardwalk, the permanent portion of the boardwalk would be from the high ground near the back of the primary . Sacchet: Okay, that's all my questions. Thanks Lori. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and state your case. Tell us your name and address for the record. Kent Kelly: Good evening. I'm Kent Kelly and this is my wife Julie. We live at 6539 Gray Fox Curve and I guess I'm afraid maybe it's why we're here is why the big crowd. Sacchet: We'll find out before long. Kent Kelly: I think the report that city staff put together summarizes the situation quite well. I would just, Iwas going to point out Exhibit 8, which is in front of you which does talk about the riparian rights that this property has, but counsel has already discussed that with Lori and there's little I can add to that. I would like to comment that no damage was done to the wetlands during the construction of this dock, and that's attested to by the city staff who came out right after they were aware that it was put in and they wrote us a letter to the effect that no damage was done. We asked Carver County Soil and Water to come out and they too came out and inspected it and found no damage to be done to the wetlands, and we've talked to the DNR and they have no problems with what we've done. Back in my first contact, well we bought the property in, we bought the northern part of the outlot in '97, many years after we bought our house. And in '98 I did contact, or my wife contacted the city and the DNR to get the regulations at that time. And as Lori said, that far long ago we don't really have any record of it, but in early 2002 we contacted both the DNR and the City a second time, just to make sure that there were no changes and we didn't know anything about a wetland alteration permit, and in our discussions with the city and the DNR, that subject never came up. We got the regulations for putting in a dock and also the city web site talks about a dock. There's no mention of any wetland alteration requirement, so we went ahead and put the dock in according to the dock regulations. And then as Lori kind of mentioned briefly, a whole lot of other issues came up once the city was aware of it. We worked with Lori and the city staff and we think we've resolved all the issues. What you have in front of you is a wetland application permit which really we haven't done any alterations to the wetland. We put a dock. The dock extends from the back yard of our house property, across the wetlands and if your question, how much extends into the open water, 32 feet extends into the open water. Sacchet: And is that seasonal or permanent? Kent Kelly: Yes, and so what our intention is, all along and this is in agreement with staff, our intention is to leave the part in effect the application states it. There's a little, just a one or two sentence attachment to the application. To minimize impact to the wetland, a portion of the dock that is over the wetland vegetation will be left in place over the winter. So all but that part of the dock that extends into the open water will stay. Julie Kelly: And in regard to is there a record, I have the original fax from Lori with it's date on it about wetland dock regulations. And we talked and she said what's happening and we told her and didn't realize you know the extend of what it was when we got that. Sacchet: But you should have the record? Julie Kelly: I do have the record. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21,2003 Sacchet: And you brought it with you. Julie Kelly: I have a lot of things.. .but yeah, we have the original fax and it wasn't in there. It was a surprise to us. We didn't think we were altering anything but we realize now it's the city's way of protecting the wetlands so it's a good thing. Kent Kelly: And we're aware of the four conditions, or recommendations or requirements. Okay, the four itemized recommendations that the city has in their report and we're in agreement with those. So to keep matters brief, if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer those. Sacchet: Thank you. Any questions from staff. I mean from the applicant. Claybaugh: I don't have any. Sacchet: No questions? Questions from the applicant? Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: I try to make this brief. The outlot or portion of property that was tax forfeited, my assumption was is that would have been a part of the association or the homeowners association and it was all one. Do you know? Julie Kelly: It never was part of it. Lillehaug: It never was part of it, okay. Kent Kelly: I don't know what the term tax forfeiture means. If it means that the property went through the procedure where back taxes were not paid for many years. If that terms means that it went through the legal procedure where it gets, goes up to auction or that, it didn't get that far. I bought it before it got that far. Julie Kelly: We bought it and paid taxes on it. Kent Kelly: And the other part of your question was sir? Lillehaug: I guess my underlying question was, was it previously part of the homeowners association and their beach front property? Kent Kelly: It never was. Lillehaug: Okay, and let me kind of preface that with something because when they figure out how many boats or docks they can put on that beach property, they take into the amount of shoreline here so. Julie Kelly: They always showed the smaller amount of the southern portion so it doesn't appear they're in violation. Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. That's it. Julie Kelly: In what we calculate, because we know how much we own. We know how much they own. We know how much the whole thing is, and all their documentation always seemed to be appear to the small area. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003 Lillehaug: Okay. Kent Kelly: Over the years Outlot B has had two definitions. The original definition was the entire parcel. It extends from the northern part here, and then goes around in a serpentine fashion and ends here. During the period ,where the homeowners association bought the property, Outlot B, this portion was platted and approved but the plat was never acted upon and never filed. And at that time the parcel Outlot B took on different naming. And it was the southern part, this part right here that the homeowners association did purchase and if you look at their conditional use permit application, all of the maps and documents and records on file at the city, at the City Hall, clearly shows the southern part, and it does not show the northern part. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Now we'll find out how many of you are here to talk about this. This is a public hearing. 1'd like to open the hearing. I'd like to invite you to come forward, if you have comments about this particular item. This is your chance. Any takers? Wow. There's one. Alright. Welcome Ladd. You may still want to state your name and address though. Ladd Conrad: Ladd Conrad. Live on Lotus Lake. 6625 Horseshoe Curve. Now that I'm back, I thank you for doing what you're doing. Variances are a pain. I've got several thoughts. I think there's a bottom line here. I do have a bottom line. The thoughts don't take you any place so I tried to weave a logical step here but I was around when we subdivided, granted this subdivision and I think the intent, which is always important. The intent or the logic was that this is going to be a wetland. When we looked at it, it probably said outlot and we're thinking, we sort of saved some land and granted, or kept the integrity of the wetland, and you find the integrity of a wetland's real important. You break it and you lose much of what you've got, from a filtration standpoint so whether we knew that at the time, and whether I made some of this stuff up between then in '86 and right now, I'm not sure but I'm just, I find it interesting. In your job that you really have to think some of this stuff through. Who would have guessed that when we were preserving something, that it could have defaulted. Goes to Ducks Unlimited, well not defaulted but I think they gave it Ducks Unlimited and maybe the ducks didn't like it so they now. Claybaugh: Ducks limited. Ladd Conrad: And obviously somebody has the right to buy it, and we weren't wise enough with staff to figure that out back then. So a message here. The intent statement, and we didn't do, and going back 20 years or whatever, 15 years to figure out if we really documented our intent, but I think the logic was, we wanted to keep the integrity. I don't know if that counts today. I really don't. As I look at the ordinance, and as I look at what you're looking at, I really don't see a reason you have to grant it. It's two different properties. The issue, which is beyond me, is the legal implication. It's just confusing so now they don't own the lot, or it's not a, it's a contiguous lot but they have two parcels so it's just very confusing. So parcels like this in the future and maybe there will be none, but would have the right to do this. I guess I'd ask you that you make sure the legal folks give you the straight. That make sure they look at it and they've been involved with, you know they've been involved but make sure that you're not really setting a precedent because it's sort of like this whole deal. Who would have guessed this would have happened. A couple things bother me about wetlands and what the DNR allows you to do. They really do have the right on a lake, the DNR will grant 15 percent of the lakeshore. 15 ofthe lake, as I recall, and I make up stuff. You can destroy, you can use a herbicide to eradicate the wetland to provide access. And that's just the truth. It happens on Lotus Lake and there are people that do it, because there are rules that the DNR follows, so all of a sudden you put a dock in, and so 24 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003 that's one of those other things. You put this dock hi, and a boardwalk, which I think boardwalk is fine. The ordinance allows it and you've got, but all of a sudden you're opening something else up that they literally I think would have the right to go to the DNR and petition. They're not asking for that in their, but again as somebody who lives there, we try to protect the lake a little bit, and we probably damage it as much as people who have riparian rights right now are doing things that aren't right. And they're not sensitive, whatever, and you trust everybody but the only, the one thing I would hope you would do on this one, so my bottom line is, just a lot of... deals and you say wow, how did this happen but the bottom line is, could they subdivide this? Because there are two other landowners that abut this, and I'd really like to make sure you don't allow that to happen. I'd really like, and conditions that kind of give your intent may not be what the staff needs in there for execution, but they sure tell people in the future what your intent was. Whether they were needed or not. I would really appreciate that you make sure that this lot, it's 3 acres. Why couldn't you subdivide it? Why couldn't you attach it to the other two lots that abut this and go to the lake? That would be abusive and I don't think you want to do that. Sacchet: Let me clarify what you just said Ladd. It would be, what would be abusive? Ladd Conrad: If you allow, I think they bought this in good faith. They wanted access but if they could duly subdivide. . . Sacchet: Right, I understand that part. Ladd Conrad: So all of a sudden, now we've got multi docks and I think as you try to protect wetlands. Sacchet: So it'd be abusive to the wetland? Ladd Conrad: Yeah. Why would you want more in there? Sacchet: Yep, got it. Thanks. Ladd Conrad: Thanks. Sacchet: Thank you very much Ladd. Anybody else wants to address this item? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Let us know what you have to say about this. Jeff Dahl: Hi. I'm Jeff Dahl. Address is 6537 Gray Fox Curve. I live next to the Kelly's. It does sound like an unusual situation. The way this came about. But nevertheless the situation is that they do own that land that adjoins their property and reaches the lake. I guess my point in being here tonight is just give some testimony to their interest in preserving wetland. If you look at a lot of lake owners, not all owners are really careful about nature and it's preservation and the Kelly's are certainly not those kind of people. They take good care to preserve the area and the wetland, and from my observation that the dock was carefully put in with the intention of preserving that wetland. They're not going to be running speed boats or anything around on that dock. It would further endanger that wetland. On the future of course is when they leave and who would, it's always a consideration but from what I can see in an application to be able to alter that wetland, there's really very little damage that has been done and I assume that you've already checked that out yourselves. I guess that's all I have to say. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21,2003 Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate your cOimrtent. Anybody else wants to address this item. This is your chance. Are there any takers? If not, I'm closing the public hearing and I'll bring it back to the commissioners. Want to start on this one Craig? Claybaugh: I guess thoughts I'd open up with the gentleman's question here to staff with respect to, in their discussions with the attorney, exactly how do you rope this in and exactly how many openings are left in this agreement with respect to specifically the herbicide and the potential to subdivide for those other two contiguous lots. Was that discussed at all with the city attorney by any chance? Haak: Well we have talked at length with the attorney over the year or so that this has been going on, and in most recent conversations with the attorney, and that was my initial question about the condition, number one I believe that we added was if we could prevent the subdivision or the sale of these lots if they were not bound together. And it was the attorney's opinion, the way I understood it that it was very difficult to make that as a condition, and certainly the Planning Commission can make whatever comments they'd like but. Claybaugh: It's not intended to be an exercise in futility. I was just interested in what could actually be done. Haak: Understood. Yeah, I couldn't say for certain. We haven't posed that specific question about subdivision of that lot splitting it off to adjacent lots. Claybaugh: How about with respect to using herbicides to defoliate for the dock area. Do we have the ability to restrict that or is that outside of our jurisdiction? Haak: I'm not certain. Claybaugh: Not certain about that. Sacchet: Okay. Kurt, any questions? Papke: Are we in questions or comments? Sacchet: Comments. Papke: Just one comment to my fellow commissioners. We've heard from staff that they believe that the Kelly's have made good faith efforts to combine the lots and that signals their intent to keep this as a unified whole, and we've heard from a neighbor that he believes that the Kelly's are good custodians of the lake. But we do need to keep in mind that this property will not be in the hands of the Kelly's forever. Eventually it will move onto someone else, and I think we have to kind of, for all the good, I think we have to disregard those statements in our deliberations. With that said I'm in support of this particular application. I think it's the right thing to do. Clearly there's, the only limitation here,is the County's or the City's inability to combine the two lots and I don't think that should prevent the landowner from being able to enjoy their property. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany. Tjornhom: Well this is an issue where I'm going to be talking out of both sides of my mouth. We own a lake home on a lake that is untouched. There are probably 10 cabins on it. Well someone across the street sold the farm, and subdivided the farm into lots and so all of a sudden 26 Planning Commission Meeting -October 21,2003 on our lake we have docks. We probably have 5 more docks and you know, I don't want them there but it's their legal right to purchase the property and put a dock on the lake. Is Lotus like that? Does it have a public access to it? So, whether they have one boat and dock, if it's a nice day, 10 people can come and drive their boats on the lake, is that correct? Audience: Hundreds it would be. Tjornhom: Okay. Well Iguess we have a small lake so I'm thinking small. I agree with what has been said so far with the Kelly's intent to make a good, safe shot at doing the right thing with the DNR. And I think they're within their legal rights obviously to do this and because this property has been purchased by them, whether or not we allow them to do it now, and if it someday changes hands, it's still going to happen. That's I guess, if I'm understanding it correctly. So whether they have their dock, if we allow them not to have it, someone's going to have a dock there sometime anyway I guess. So I also am in favor ofthem and I'm sorry, but... Sacchet: That's alright. Thanks Bethany. Steve, do you have any comments? Lillehaug: Before I make my comments, I would like to discuss with staff the property that we're talking about the outlot or tax forfeiture property. Is that fully encompassed by a wetland easement boundary? Or is it designated by theDNR as a wetland? Haak: Yeah, it meets the three criteria. Lillehaug: Okay. So it is a DNR wetland. Haak: That's correct. Lillehaug: What is the policies of subdividing property fully encompassed by DNR wetland? I mean would the city ever support...I don't see myself doing that I guess. Haak: ... that a portion of each, a portion of the shoreline could be allocated to each lot. So not necessarily that there would be a subdivision on the wetland, because certainly that's prohibited by city code, as well as state law and even federal law. Lillehaug: But that's what you would have to do though to attach that to other properties is subdivide that because it's an individual property? Haak: But you wouldn't necessarily have a home standing on the wetland. You could parcel out the, it's just about 2 acres or so. Little more than that maybe, of that wetland complex. Let me show you. Lillehaug: Sure. This is really my only hang-up on it and I want to make sure that we're covering everything here. Haak: Sure. And maybe Ladd you can correct me if I'm incorrect, but I believe that the concern is that this portion, the southern, southwestern portion highlighted in blue could be divided somehow like this. Giving additional property owners riparian land. Is that correct? Lillehaug: So they do have the right to subdivide then? Generous: By state statute it wouldn't be a subdivision. It would be a lot line change. 27 Planning Commission Meeting -October 21,2003 Claybaugh: By whatever name you'd like to give it, could they in a way subdivide riparian rights to this contiguous land? Lillehaug: I don't see how we can prevent that though. Sacchet: Can we prevent it? Lillehaug: How can we prevent it? I mean how small of parcels can they divide this property into because that's what they're going to be doing. They're going to be dividing this property into different parcels. Generous: They would still have to meet the dock setback. Haak: And the width requirement for riparian lots. Lillehaug: So they could divide this.. .20 docks? I mean what standards would we hold them to on dividing this and breaking down this property? You can't put a structure on the property. It's in a wetland. Sacchet: If I may jump in. It seems like there's really only 2 or 3 lots that also abut that wetland property. I mean most of it, the big stretch, and you may want to show that on the picture for everybody to see. The big stretch of abutting land is wetland, is that accurate? Haak: Sorry. Sacchet: The big stretch abutting that wetland is also wetland. How many properties actually touch on that wetland lot? Could you just clarify that Lori? I think that's very crucial. Claybaugh: Mr. Chair? The acreage of those lots may be an issue as well, because those could potentially be further subdivided if they're of adequate acreage. Sacchet: Accurate. Haak: And the lots would have to meet the city's requirements. It appears that there's 1, 2, 3 that abut this particular parcel. This is also wetland, back in this area so certainly it's something that staff would take a close look at with the city attorney. Hearing the concern that we're having from the Planning Commission. Because I think there's some question among staff, at least my questions about it haven't been. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: I think the applicant has shown due diligence to combine these lots. Not being of the same plat I think is the only hold up here, so I appreciate that. I'm not one to table things. Definitely not one to table things, but I don't think we have a clear understanding on how we can prevent, if we can prevent this lot from being subdivided, and I would like to do everything that we can to prevent that, and I don't think we have a took right now or understand how we can do that. And I think I would like to table this upon further discussion of the city attorney to figure out what tool we can use. Sacchet: Okay, Craig. You want to add something? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2003 Claybaugh: Yeah. Actually I skipped over my comments and that was it. That I would prefer to table it. Not only do you have the 2 or 3 contiguous lots, but they appear, at least on the plat, to have some substantial acreage. So until we know what their drop dead response is to the potential to subdivide it, I'd definitely be in favor of tabling it. Sacchet: How we doing with the time line on this? And this not an application that is on a short time line, or that we impact by tabling is it? Haak: No. Sacchet: The dock is there and winter's coming so. Haak: Right, right. They wouldn't, you know the dock's been in for some time. Go ahead. Generous: Well statutorily we could take an additional 60 days. November 17th is their initial 60 day review period. If you can require additional information, we can take another 60 days. Sacchet: It does appear like we have some fuzzy areas, in a rather crucial area here in terms of can we, what tools do we have available to make such this stays contiguous. That we can perfect it at least to the maximum possible that is still there. Do you want to add to that? Claybaugh: I'd just like to comment that my concern with this is no reflection on the current applicant. It'sjust a concern down the road if the property's sold and someone doesn't pursue it with the due diligence that this particular applicant has to this point, so. Sacchet: Right, but it's certainly in line with the applicant's attempt to.. . so there is no contention with the applicant at all. Claybaugh: ... very straight forward. It's my concern lies beyond that. Sacchet: Right. Do you want to add something? Generous: Mr. Chair if I could. You could always add that as a condition that these two properties be combined and between now and council, we could get that decision. If that's the only thing that's holding it up. Sacchet: Yes, this has to go to council. This is not a variance. This is a wetland alteration permit, so we're only making a recommendation so I would concur with you. Lillehaug: A point of clarification. I thought the report indicated that they can't combine the two lots. Haak: The County will not combine the two parcels as is. If there is a very cumbersome way that they could potentially be combined through platting the outlot with the lot, they could be combined, and that would require the standard requirements for the platting procedure. That is one way that the two parcels could be combined, if they were combined as a separate addition because it is an outlot and, well basically a lot. Lillehaug: They could still subdivide then even if they combine them though so we still would have the issue. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21,2003 Sacchet: My comments basically, I would be willing to recommend approval on this with an additional condition that before this goes to council, these questions are cleared up. What it would take to combine the lots. What the possibility is with that. I think that'd be the preferred solution.. . open for the subdivision. And in addition therefore, to be clear what kind of restrictions we can anchor in as conditions. Not as statements of intent but as clear conditions on this application to restrict further subdivision of that wetland. Of that outlot. I think that's very much in the interest of the city and it's very important. I do believe since this has to go to council that it would be reasonable to pass this tonight and have staff work on that before it gets to council, so that's my comment. With that, I'm willing to take a motion. Lillehaug: Okay, I'll make a motion. I changed my mind. I put the confidence in the staff and I think they can deal with it so I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #2003-2 for a boardwalk across the wetland at 6539 Gray Fox Curve subject to the following conditions 1 through 4. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? We have to make amendments after the second. Papke: I'll second that. Sacchet: So we have a second. Do we have friendly amendments? I would like to make a friendly amendment. That'd be ,condition number 5. Staff, before this goes to council, staff will establish a clear understanding what it would take to combine the outlot and the lot into one lot. And in addition, maybe make that a sixth condition, just to be real clear. Staff will establish a clear understanding and make recommendation to the City Council to put clear condition on this application that restricts further subdivision of that wetland lot. Of that outlot. Is that acceptable? Lillehaug: Yes. Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion. We have a second. We have a friendly amendment. Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #2003-2 for a boardwalk across the wetland at 6539 Gray Fox Curve, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with city staff to draft and record an agreement that will prohibit accessory uses and/or structures on the outlot if the adjacent property at 6539 Gray Fox Curve is not under the same ownership. 2. The boardwalk shall be installed across the wetland as a permanent structure and a seasonal dock shall extend from the boardwalk into Lotus Lake to provide docking for watercraft. 3. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the installation of the boardwalk across the drainage and utility easement. 4. The dock shall be located outside of the dock setback zone. 5. Before this goes to City Council staff will establish a clear understanding what it would take to combine the outlot and the lot into one lot. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21,2003 6. Staff will establish a clear understanding and make recommendation to the City Council to put a clear condition on this application that restricts further subdivision of that wetland outlot. All voted in favor, except Claybaugh who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Sacchet: We have one opposed and 4 in favor. Do you want to add why you're opposed briefly. Claybaugh: Sure. Why I'm opposed is in the event that, from a legal standpoint we're not able to restrict the further subdivision, and that's still out there a question to be answered, I would not approve the boardwalk so. Sacchet: In order to summarize for council. We struggled with this application, not in terms of whether the applicant is in their right to have that dock. We also have high confidence that the applicant is a good steward of that wetland. Our concern is what happens with that big wetland outlot. We are concerned if that would be further subdivided, that it would give rights to additional landowners to cut into that wetland, which would defmitely start degrading it very significantly and we'd like staff to have a very clear picture how that can be prevented so that a condition to that effect can be added to this application should the council choose to approve this. This will go to council on November 10th, is that accurate? And we wish you luck with this. Thank you for your comments too. Those that spoke up. With that, we're moving on. Actually we're moving on to a short break. We'll take a 5 minute break as I mentioned in my opening comments. I do intend to enforce our curfew of being closing this meeting at 10:30. We'll assess during the break time to get a sense whether we'll be able to address all the remaining items on the agenda or not, and we will let you know when we come back from the break at 5 to 9:00 we'll reconvene. Thank you. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. Sacchet: Before we continue, I would like a show of hands. How many of you are here for the, I don't think there's that many for the next one. The Datalink. Is there any people for the Datalink hearing here? There's the applicant, yes. I'm more curious, how many are here for the Walnut Grove development. Alright, there's a fair amount here. Okay. How many are here for the Park Nicollet public hearing? There are a couple here, okay. How many are here for the Halla hearing. Okay. We will not get to the Halla tonight. That's very clear so I would like to ask you to be patient til our next meeting, which is on, now with the Park Nicollet. Considering it's a relatively big application to go through. I think it's going to be a significant amount of questions to address. To really do that justice, considering how many people we have here for the Walnut Grove application, there is no way we'd get through by 10:30. So I would also like Park Nicollet to come back next time, rather than wait here and then sort of maybe get to it or not. I think it would be fair to you if we postponed that to the next time. You will be on as the first thing. That's according to our framework if we push you back to the next meeting, so I'd rather tell you now then at 11:00 when we're trying to stay awake. If you wouldn't mind coming back next time, we'd greatly appreciate it. Audience: When's next time? Sacchet: Next time is November 18th since on the 4th it's election night so we will not have a Planning Commission meeting on the 4th. In terms of when actually those applications will go to 31 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this _ day of , 2006 by and between Kenton D. Kelly and Julia Kelly (the "Owners"), and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"). RECITALS A. The Owners are the owners of a residence and real estate located at 6539 Gray Fox Curve, Chanhassen, Minnesota which is legally described as: Lot 13, Block 4, Fox Hollow, Carver County, Minnesota ("Parcel A") B. The Owners also own a vacant parcel adjacent to Parcel A, which is legally described as: That part of Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates, Carver County, Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the most westerly corner of Lot 31, Block 2, of said Lotus Lake Estates; thence on an assumed bearing of North 61 degrees East, along the northwesterly line of said Lot 31, a distance of 145.01 feet to the most northerly corner of said Lot 31, said point being the point of beginning of a line to be described; thence North 60 degrees West, 194 feet, more or less, to the shoreline of Lotus Lake, and said line there terminating ("Parcel B") C. The Owners have installed a dock on Parcel B. D. The City does not allow accessory structures, such as a dock, on a parcel without a primary structure. E. The City notified the Owners that they were required to combine Parcel A and Parcel B if they desired to maintain the dock on Parcel B. F. The Carver County Auditor's office was not able to combine Parcel A and B because they are ih separate plats. G. The Owners have homesteaded the properties together. H. The parties desire to permit the Owners to have a dock on Parcel B subject to the terms and conditions set forth below. AGREEMENT Now, therefore; on the basis of the mutual covenants and agreements herein provided, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. The Owners shall be permitted to have a dock on Parcel B provided the land containing the dock, including all required dock setbacks, is under the same ownership as Parcel A. 2. The Owners shall comply with all Chanhassen City Code provisions regarding the dock. 3. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their successors and assigns. IN WITHNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf and its seal to be hereunto duly affixed and the Owner has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf on or as of the date first above written. CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2006, by , the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public KENTOND. KELLY JULIA KELLY ST ATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2006, by Kenton D. Kelly and Julia Kelly. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 1380 Corporate Center Curve Suite 317 Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: 651-452-5000 SMM:dmo Larkin HO~i!M Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd. 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431-1194 GENERAL: 952-835-3800 FAX: 952-896-3333 WEB: www.larkinhoffman.com December 8, 2005 Don Asleson City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Millnesota 55317 REC!e:~\,ff,' ~,"""',,,F,; .,ll,." . t;~ .r ~r'" K,)' DEe 0 9 2005 erN Of CHANHASSEN Re: Kenton and Julie Kelly Wetland Alteration Permit Dear Don: Thanks for discussing the process the City proposes to use for review and approval of the Kelly dock on their Lotus Lake property. It is important to the Kellys that this matter be resolved; however it is also important that they not be required to relinquish their rights as riparian landowners in order to have the same benefits enjoyed by others. We have, accordingly, discussed this matter with the Kellys and believe we have a way to resolve the City's concern about not having accessory uses on Outlot B, Lotus Lake Estates unless tied to the primary use. Our proposal is to tie the use to the Kelly's home and require that during the term of the use, Kelly's ownership extend all the way to the lake. Therefore we propose paragraph 1 of the draft agreement require the owners shall be permitted to have a dock on Parcel B providing the land containing the dock, including all required dock setbacks, be under the same ownership as Parcel A. If this proposal is acceptable, I would welcome the opportunity to revise the draft agreement and put a more detailed presentation before the Council. . Korstad, for ffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd. 952-896-3292 952-842-1722 Email: gkorstad@larkinhoffman.com cc: Kenton and Julie Kelly 1046845.1 THOMSEN&NYBECK, EA. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3300 Edinborough Way, Suire No, 600 Minneapolis (Edina),MN55435c596Z (952) 835-7000 . FAX: (952) 835-9450 GORDON v. JOHNSON JOHN K BOUQUET MARK G, OHNSTAD DONALD D, SMITH MARSH J. HALBERG WILLIAM E, SJOHOLM THOMAS R KELLEY JOHN E, RODE ROBEHT D, LUCAS DAVID J,N1cGEE DENN1S M, PATRICK GEETCHEN S, SCHELLHAS CHRISTOPHER R RENZ ~LA.RK A. HORTON tvlATIHEW A. DREWES OF COUNSEL: JACK W. CARLSON TODD R. ILIFF RETIRED: HELGE THOMSEN GLENN G, NYBECK JAlvIES Vp'-1'\! VALKENBURG January 5, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION & UNITED STATES MAIL FACSIMILE NO. (651) 452-5550 Mr. Soren M. Mattick Campbell Knutson 1380 Corporate CenterCurve, Suite 317 Eagan, MN 55121 REceIVED JAN 0 6 2004 CITY OFCHANHASSEN ' Re: City of Chanhassen/Mr. and Mrs.Kenton Kelly Controversy Regarding Dock on Lotus Lake Our File No. 02-3-237F Dear Mr. Mattick: After our recent conversation regarding my Jetter of December 29,2003, I discussed the provisions and requirements of Minnesota Statutes 15.99 with my clients. After discussing the requirements of that statute, they are with this letter waiving any objections, claims or requirements under that statute with respect to their Wetland Alteration Permit Application. , Weare requesting that consideration oftheir AWP be extended over to the first City Council meeting in April. ' Very truly yours, DDS/wcm P.A.fQ",,', ) , { / , cc:Ms.LoriHaak"via facsimiletransmissiori& U.S. Mail Mr. and Mrs. Kenton Kelly - via facsimile transmission & U.S. Mail Kenton D. and Julia Kelly 6539 Gray Fox Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-934-5534 ~ "'.fi!?"~~ "iFr;-, f::'~' ~ :r,. ~;.~ 11' i,.'1 ,1'b~fl"J;l,,:J L:..~"';;"-' : ~ ~""i C ,~ 2.1:,\}G ..... " . .. ~ ~ January 4, 2006 CITY OF CHP.NHASSHl Ms. Lori Haak Water Resources Coordinator City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Subject: Application for Wetland Alteration Permit for Dock at 6539 Gray Fox Curve Dear Ms. Haak: We have reviewed your staff report and the revised agreement. We would be happy to execute this agreement when approved by the Council. We look forward to concluding this matter. Would it be possible to have the encroachment agreement prepared as soon as possible so we can review it prior to the Council meeing? smlJ!J~ Kenton D. and J~ ~ 1k/dfr- Enclosure