CAS-10_2016-10 WAP OWNER: BRIAN LANG0
The contents of this file
have been scanned.
Do not add anything to
it unless it has been
scanned.
1/1
Document No. T199648
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Certified Recorded on -July 11. 2016 4 01 PM
Cent # 36710
1111111111111111111
199648
Fee: $46.00
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT #2016-10
Luke C Kranz
Registrar of Titles
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen
hereby grants a wetland alteration permit for the following use:
For the purpose of the proposed installation of a dock at 4060 Lakeridge Road.
2. Property. The permit is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, Highlands on Lake St. Joe.
3. Conditions. The Wetland Alteration Permit was approved subject to the following
conditions:
a. No dock shall be placed without providing written notification to the Highlands on Lake
St. Joe Homeowners' Association.
b. The dock must be installed in the shortest straight line distance through the wetland.
c. The dock and any associated watercraft must be located entirely outside of the 10-foot
dock setback areas.
d. No fill shall be placed anywhere within the wetland beyond the allowed 20 square foot de
minimis exemption.
e. No emergent vegetation shall be removed without appropriate permits from the MN
Department of Natural Resources.
f. The dock shall otherwise comply with Chanhassen City Code.
SCANNED
4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing for
violation of the terms of this permit.
5. Lapse. If within one year of the issuance of this permit the authorized construction has
not been substantially completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse, unless an extension
is granted in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance.
6. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal
misdemeanor.
Dated: June 13, 2016
N� w• • • CITY OF CHANHASSEN
tfi `Q D 's ufenbur Mayo
O E�
.. .....
jas By.
••,,, ,�..r.. JodGerhara ity Manager
STATE OF MUNNESOTA )
(ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this431�hday of --l—A nG
201 by Denny Laufenburger, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of
Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to
authority granted by its City Council.
Notary c
T. MEUWISSEN
ry PubllI#KZIM
�y cornmaabn Fspiraa Jan 31, 2020
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
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
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician
DATE: June 13, 2016
SUBJ: 4060 Lakeridge Road Wetland Alteration Permit
Planning Case 2016-10
PROPOSED MOTION
"The Chanhassen City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #2016-
10, subject to conditions within this staff report, and adopts the attached
Findings of Fact and Recommendation."
City Council approval requires a simple majority vote.
Finance
Phone:952.227.1140
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fax: 952.227.1110
The applicant is requesting a Wetland Alteration Permit under Chanhassen City Code,
P+k 8 Recreation
Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection, for the construction of a proposed dock to
Phone:952.227.1120
access Lake St. Joe from the property at 4060 Lakeridge Road.
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
The proposed placement of the dock will result in 19 square feet of impact to the wetland
2310 Coulter Boulevard
adjacent to Lake St. Joe, a Manage I wetland as classified by the City of Chanhassen.
Phone: 952.227.1400
The proposed dock would be typical wood construction supported by metal, two inch (T)
Fax:952.227.1404
diameter posts. The proposed dock would only be the length required to traverse the
cattail dominated area and reach open water (approximately 95 feet) and have one 8-foot
Planning &
Natural Resources
length cross section. Because the total impact of wetland area is 20 square feet or below,
Phone:952.227.1130
the impacts are exempt from Wetland Conservation Act sequencing and replacement
Fax: 952.227.1110
requirements, and are considered a `No -Loss'. This is consistent with Chapter 8420.0522
of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Rules.
Public Works
7901 Park Place
The proposed dock is an allowed use on a single-family residential lot. The Highlands on
Phone: 952.227.1300
Lake St. Joe Homeowner's Association (HOA) does not allow docks on private
Fax: 952.2271310
properties. This is consistent with the May 8, 1995 meeting in which it was discussed
Senior Center
that the unique character of Lake St. Joe should be preserved and that limiting docks on
Phone: 952.227.1125
the lake would serve that end. However, the City does not have jurisdiction to enforce
Fax: 952.227.1110
HOA covenants and restrictions or otherwise render the HOA ineffectual in enforcing
their covenants and restrictions.
Website
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
4060 Lakeridge Road WAP — Planning Case 2016-10
June 13, 2016
Page 2
Lake St. Joe has one public access on the east side of the lake, and is classified as a Natural
Environment Lake by the Minnesota DNR, which is the strictest classification under the DNR's
lake classification system. The classification is used to determine lot size, setbacks and, to a
certain degree, land uses on the adjacent land found in Minnesota's Shoreland Management
Program.
In addition, the City has set a maximum motor speed for Lake St. Joe of 15 mph (Chanhassen
City Code, Section 6-50. — Speed).
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 17, 2016, to review the wetland alteration
permit for the proposed dock placement. The commission voted six to 0 on a motion recommending
approval of the wetland alteration permit. Planning Commission minutes are item 13-1 in this packet.
The applicant came forward during the public hearing to present their intent for a dock on the
property, and its use.
Four residents came forward to express opposition for allowing the dock:
Mark Malinowski, 7250 Minnewashta Parkway
Sue Morgan, 4031 Kings Road
Cathy McKenna, Highlands at Lake St. Joe Homeowners' Association representative
Maren Jecha, 4080 Lakeridge Road
Concerns from residents coming forward included maintaining the nature and intent of a natural
environment lake, effects on wildlife, water quality, and character of the neighborhoods surrounding
the lake, and the covenants and restrictions of the Highlands on Lake St. Joe Homeowners'
Association, which restricts the installation of docks.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion approving the Wetland Alteration Permit
and Wetland Replacement Plan:
"The Chanhassen City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #2016-10 subject to
conditions within this staff report, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendation."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Wetland Alteration Permit 2016-10.
2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 17, 2016.
G:IPIAW016 Planning Cam12016-10 40601akeridge Road Wetland Altemtion Permit=murive summary_06_13 2016.dmx
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT #2016-10
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen
hereby grants a wetland alteration permit for the following use:
For the purpose of the proposed installation of a dock at 4060 Lakeridge Road.
2. . The permit is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, Highlands on Lake St. Joe.
3. Conditions. The Wetland Alteration Permit was approved subject to the following
conditions:
a. No dock shall be placed without permission of the Highlands on Lake St. Joe
Homeowners' Association.
b. The dock must be installed in the shortest straight line distance through the wetland.
c. The dock and any associated watercraft must be located entirely outside of the 10-foot
dock setback areas.
d. No fill shall be placed anywhere within the wetland beyond the allowed 20 square foot de
minimis exemption.
e. No emergent vegetation shall be removed without appropriate permits from the MN
Department of Natural Resources.
£ The dock shall otherwise comply with Chanhassen City Code.
E
4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing for
violation of the terms of this permit.
5. Lapse. If within one year of the issuance of this permit the authorized construction has
not been substantially completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse, unless an extension
is granted in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance.
6. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal
misdemeanor.
Dated: June 13, 2016
2
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Lo
SEAL
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
Dennis Laufenburger, Mayor
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
20� by Denny Laufenburger, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of
Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to
authority granted by its City Council.
Notary Public
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen City Council — June 13, 2016
14. A detailed plan of the filtration basins, consistent with the MN Stormwater Manual shall be
submitted with the final plat submittal for review and approval by city staff. It shall include,
at a minimum, a plan view, a profile view, all necessary elevations, any in situ soil
preparation, methodologies to be employed to protect from construction traffic, soil filter
media specifications, any plantings and any appurtenant work to be done.
15. Underdrains and drain file shall have tracer wire and cleanouts.
16. Pretreatment shall be required for all filtration basins receiving piped discharge.
17. A forebay, surge basin or other approved energy dissipation device shall be provided for the
inlet into the biofiltration feature included in the outlot. The selected practice must not create
undue maintenance burdens. The end result shall be non -erosive velocities into the basin.
18. Efforts shall be made to raise the elevations of Lots 2 through 5 to assure positive flow
towards the street and ultimately to the treatment devices.
19. The applicant, their consultant and city staff shall collaborate to minimize drainage concerns
in the back and side yards of lots 6 through 10.
20. Storm Water Utility Connection charges due at the final plat are estimated to be $58,880.00.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you very much Ms. Aanenson, Mr. Oehme and Mr. Forbord.
Terry Forbord: Thank you very much.
Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you.
4060 LAKERIDGE ROAD: APPROVE WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO BUILD
A TEMPORARY DOCK ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(RSF).
Mayor Laufenburger: Do we have a staff report?
Krista Spreiter: Yes. Thank you Mr. Mayor. As stated this is a request for a wetland alteration
permit at 4060 Lakeridge Road.
Mayor Laufenburger: And just for the record, for those in the chamber could you state your
name.
Krista Spreiter: Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician.
Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Krista.
26
Chanhassen City Council — June 13, 2016
Krista Spreiter: You're welcome. This item went before Planning Commission on May 17'b.
There were some neighborhood residents that got up and expressed a few concerns. Some of
these being increased boat traffic. Fish and wildlife. Water quality and the effect on the general
character of the lake. The property is located on the south shore of Lake St. Joe within the
Highlands on Lake St. Joe neighborhood which is a single family residential neighborhood. The
applicant is requesting a wetland alteration permit to construct a temporary dock on Lake St. Joe
to provide access to the lake. This is a view of Lake St. Joe from the property and where the
proposed dock would be placed. Just to give a little bit of background on Lake St. Joe pertaining
to docks. Lake St. Joe is classified as a natural environment lake under the DNB's classification
system. This is the most restrictive classification under that system and it mainly controls land
use around water bodies. There is a maximum speed for Lake St. Joe of 15 miles per hour and
that is set by city code. The Highlands on Lake St. Joe HOA restricts the use of docks in order to
preserve the unique character of the lake. There was quite a bit of discussion when the
development came in and at that City Council meeting and it was kind of decided that the
wetland alteration permitting process as well as the restrictions by the HOA would be used to
limit further docks on the lake. However docks are an allowed use through state rules and our
city code. Also the City does not have any jurisdiction in regards to HOA covenants and
restrictions.
Todd Gerhardt: Krista can you point out the lot on this slide?
Krista Spreiter: Sure so here I believe, I don't know for sure. I believe it's this one. Can you
see my cursor?
Todd Gerhardt: Yep.
Krista Spreiter: Okay.
Mayor Laufenburger: So very near the bottom of that picture.
Krista Spreiter: Yeah it's right there I believe.
Mayor Laufenburger: And the lot aligns kind of from the southwest to the northeast sort of
thing.
Krista Spreiter: Yep so they do have the required amount of shoreline to put a dock on and their
dock would meet the setback zone.
Todd Gerhardt: Thank you.
Krista Spreiter: The request is for a typical wood dock construction. It would be 3 'h feet wide.
Approximately 95 feet extending into the lake only to reach an accessible lake depth of 4 feet
27
y
Chanhassen City Council — June 13, 2016
and that is consistent with our city code. This is the approximate dock location. It would be
placed mainly in the area of the wetland that is composed of mainly cattails and is flooded
throughout the season. In regards to the Wetland Conservation Act, which the City complies
with and is the local government unit for, the applicant would not be required to follow the
sequencing or replacement rules under the Wetland Conservation Act which means that they
basically are exempt from the permitting process under that Act because they are under 20
square feet in a building setback zone or the shoreland zone. This meets the de minimis criteria
for that rule. So I should mention the wetland alteration permitting process for the City would be
the only permit that they would need to get. So in summary a dock is an allowed use on a single
family residential lot. The application submitted is only to determine if impacts are allowable
both under city code and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. This decision made on this
application would not play any role in the administrative of the Highlands on Lake St. Joe HOA
covenants and restrictions. Therefore staff is recommending approval with conditions for the
wetland alteration permit application.
Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Ms. Spreiter. Any questions for Krista from the council? Just
if I could clarify in laymen's terms. The application is required because of what they want to do
but if we were to approve this application or this alteration permit, this does not mean that they
can automatically put a dock because they have their, they fall under the HOA covenants and et
cetera, is that correct Ms. Spreiter?
Krista Spreiter: Correct. They still have to resolve the issue with their HOA.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, but this must be done first before they can even go to the HOA to
ask permission if they can put a dock in.
Krista Spreiter: Correct Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, ahight.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council just to add to that a little bit. The City is, doesn't have authority
over the homeowners association so it's up to the responsibility of a property owner and the
homeowners association to work out the differences that may be in their homeowners association
agreement.
Mayor Laufenburger: But essentially what they want to do falls within our ordinances. We can
issue this wetland alteration permit and it doesn't mean that we're saying that it's okay for them
to do it. They still need that permission from the HOA?
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, very well. Is there any discussion or a motion?
W.
Chanhassen City Council — June 13, 2016
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I'll make a motion.
Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Councilwoman Tjomhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I'd like to make a motion that the Chanhassen City Council approves
Wetland Alteration Permit 92016-10 subject to conditions within the staff report and adopts the
attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman McDonald: Second.
Mayor Laufenburger: 'Thank you Mr. McDonald. Any further discussion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the Chanhassen
City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #2016-10 subject to the following
conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
No dock shall be placed without permission of the Highlands on Lake St. Joe
Homeowners Association.
2. The dock must be installed in the shortest straight line distance through the wetland.
3. The dock and any associated watercraft must be located entirely outside of the 10 foot
dock setback areas.
4. No fill shall be placed anywhere within the wetland beyond the allowed 20 square foot de
minimis exemption.
No emergent vegetation shall be removed without appropriate permits from the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
6. The dock shall otherwise comply with Chanhassen City Code.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Gerhardt anything to report?
Todd Gerhardt: I've got one item. There is going to be construction work done by Carver
County at the intersection of Pleasant View and Powers Boulevard on kind of the west end of
Pleasant View as it intersects with Powers. There's some topography issues with the contours of
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PROPOSED MOTION:
PC D*: May 17, 2016
CC DATE: June 13, 2016
REVIEW DEADLINE: June 14, 2016
CASE #: 2016-10
BY: TJ, RG
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Wetland
Alteration Permit based on the conditions of the staff report"
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Wetland Alteration Permit to build a temporary dock on property
zoned Single Family Residential (RSF).
LOCATION: 4060 Lakeridge Road — Lot 4, Block 1, Highlands on Lake St. Joe.
APPLICANT: Brian Lang
PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF).
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: acres DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The city has limited discretion
in approving or denying Wetland Alteration Permits, based on whether or not the proposal
meets the permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the city finds that all the
applicable permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi-judicial
decision.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a Wetland Alteration permit in order to install a dock.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Article VI of Chapter 20
Article XII "RSF" Single -Family Residential District
BACKGROUND
Highlands on Lake St. Joe approved on May 8,1995.
Home was built in 1997.
Planning Commission • •
4060 Lakeridge Road
May 17, 2016
Page 2 of 3
DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting a Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) to allow for the installation of a
temporary dock through a Type 3/5 wetland. The proposed dock would be typical wood
construction supported by metal, two inch (2") diameter posts. The proposed dock would only
be the length required to traverse the cattail dominated area and reach open water (approximately
95 feet) and have one 8-foot length cross section.
A dock is an allowed use on a single-family residential lot. As such, this application is not for
the dock itself but rather to determine if the wetland impacts are appropriate and allowable under
City Code and the MN Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The Highlands on Lake St. Joe
Homeowner's Association (HOA) does not allow docks on private properties. This is consistent
with the May 8, 1995 meeting in which it was discussed that the unique character of Lake St. Joe
should be preserved and that limiting docks on the lake would serve that end. The City stopped
short of asking the shoreline be placed into an outlot but rather had the developer create a
Homeowners Association and include within the covenants and restrictions a prohibition of
docks.
Any decision on this WAP would not abrogate HOA covenants and restrictions. It is not the
City's role to enforce HOA covenants and restrictions just as it is not the City's role to usurp or
otherwise render the HOA ineffectual in enforcing their covenants and restrictions. The question
is simply, if the applicant was allowed a dock, would it constitute a wetland impact?
Under the MN Wetland Conservation Act, impacts below a de minimis threshold are exempt
from sequencing and replacement rules and, with certain limitations, are allowed. A person may
impact up to 20 square feet of Type 3, 4, 5 or 8 wetland that is within the shore impact zone.
Each post is 0.26 square feet in area so up to 76 posts could be placed and still be under the 20
square foot de minimis threshold. As there are no other impacts associated with this dock, it
would be an allowed use under the WCA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit with the following conditions:
1. No dock shall be placed without permission of the Highlands on Lake St. Joe
Homeowners' Association.
2. The dock must be installed in the shortest straight line distance through the wetland.
3. The dock and any associated watercraft must be located entirely outside of the 10-foot
dock setback areas.
Planning Commission • •
4060 Lakeridge Road
May 17, 2016
Page 3 of 3
4. No fill shall be placed anywhere within the wetland beyond the allowed 20 square foot de
minimis exemption.
5. No emergent vegetation shall be removed without appropriate permits from the MN
Department of Natural Resources.
6. The dock shall otherwise comply with Chanhassen City Code.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact
2. Development Application Review
3. Narrative
4. Sketch of Location of Proposed Dock
5. Property Report Card
6. Rendering of Proposed Dock
7. Site Survey
8. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
101913
Application of Brian Lang for a Wetland Alteration Permit to install a dock — Planning Case
2016-10.
On May 17, 2016, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Brian Lang for a wetland alteration permit for the property
located at 4060 Lakeridge Road. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
proposed wetland alteration permit which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The
Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential District, RSF
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential Low Density uses.
3. The legal description of the property is — Lot 4, Block 1, Highlands on Lake St. Joe.
4. Findings:
a. The proposed dock use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. It will allow the property
owner to access the lake.
b. The proposed dock use will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive
plan and zoning code.
c. The proposed dock use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be
compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity
and will not change the essential character of that area.
d. The proposed dock use will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned
neighboring uses.
e. The proposed dock use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,
water and sewer systems and schools
f The proposed dock use will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
g. The proposed dock use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the
general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare,
odors, rodents, or trash.
h. The proposed dock use will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not
create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
i. The proposed dock use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access,
natural, scenic or historic features of major significance.
j. The proposed dock use will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
k. The proposed dock use will not depreciate surrounding property values.
1. The proposed dock use will meet standards prescribed for docks as provided in the zoning
code and the additional requirement of Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420.0230.
5. The planning report #2016-10 dated May 17, 2016, prepared by Terry Jeffery, et al, is
incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve wetland
alteration permit for a dock subject to the conditions of the staff report.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 17th day of May, 2016.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
Its Chairman
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax-. (952) 227.1110
CITY OF CghNBASSEN
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW f
Submittal Date: C j PC oar: CC Date: _ 60-Day Review Date: V�
Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply)
(Refer to the appropriate Appiketion Checldfst for required submittal information that must accompany this application)
❑
Comprehensive Plan Amendment .........................
$600
❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on -site sewers .....
$100
❑
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
❑ Single -Family Residence ................................$325
❑ All Others .........................................................
$425
❑
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
❑ In conjunction with Single -Family Residence..
$325
❑ All Others .........................................................
$425
❑
Rezoning (RFZ)
❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD)..................$750
❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD.................
$100
❑ All Others .........................................................
$500
❑
Sign Plan Review ...... :.............................................
$150
❑
Site Plan Review (SM)
❑ Administrative....:.....:..„..................................$100
❑ Commercial/Industrial Districts*......................$500
Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:
( thousand square feet)
'Include number of lax sbno employees:
'Include number of new employees:
❑ Residential Districts .........................................
$500
Plus $5 per dwelling unit (— units)
❑
Notification Sign (City to instal and remove) ..........................
❑ Subdivision (SUB)
❑ Create 3 lots or less ........................................ $300
❑ Create over 3 tots .......................$600 + $15 per lot
(_ lots)
❑ Metes & Bounds(2lots)..................................$300
❑ Consolidate Lots..............................................$150
❑ Lot Line Adjustment........................................$150
❑ Final Plat..........................................................$700
(Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs)'
'Additional escrow may be repuired for other applications
through the development contract.
❑ Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300
(Additional recording fees may apply)
❑ Variance (VAR) ................................ I.................. $200
j$ Wetiand Alteration Permit (WAP)� lx
❑ Single -Family Residence ................. 6....... ......$150
❑ All Others .......................................................$276
❑ Zoning Appeal ......................................... ,
❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500
NOTE: When multiple applcatlons am prooasaaE concurrently,
the appropriate fee shall be charged for awls appacation.
n n
❑ Property Owners' List within 500' (City to generate after preapptication meeting) .................................................. $3 per address
(— addresses)
❑ Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply) •-••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ............................$50 per document
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Agreement
❑ Vacation ❑ Variance ❑ Wetiand Alteration Permit
❑ Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) ❑ Easements( easements)
TOTAL FEE:
--Section 2: Required Information
Description of Proposal:
Property Address or Location: _
Parcel#: a53510oL40
Total Acreage: I. 6.2
Present Zoning: Select One
4060 Lwkcrr
Legal Description:
Wetlands Present?
Present Land Use Designation: Select One
Existing Use of Property SCC'. Cit:'2'4G-
ECheck box is separate narrative is attached.
Exc
PODS ek
A alor;kl . oa;41
(Yes ❑ No
I
Requested Zoning: Select One
for
,ice SS_>
Requested Land Use Designation: Select One
PropertySection 3: owner and Applicant
INEWEEN
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained
authorization from the property owner to Tile this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to
the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application
should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this
application. I will keep myself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I
further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to
any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name: Contact
Address: Phone:
City/State/Zip: Cell:
Email: Fax:
Signature: Date:
PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,
authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of
the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may
be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the
study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name: / a'+ 1L n Contact: Cc-1
Address ���o� 1 4Ke/� c nap Phone:
Clty/State/Zlp: &Y�C6104r //h.N S
15533I Cell: G(a� 10-LAas
Email: brria/1 . b/t tom""^br,4 bsq. corpn Fax:
Signature: Date:
This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist
and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural
requirements and fees.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A
written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Name: Contact:
Address: Phone:
City/State/Zip: Cell:
Email: Fax.
Section 4: Notification Information
Who should receive copies of staff reports? 'Other Contact Information:
❑ Property Owner Vla: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name:
❑ Applicant Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Address:
❑ Engineer Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip:
❑ Other` Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Email:
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your
device. PRINT .F and deliver to city along with required documents and peymeM. SUBMIT FORE to send a digital
Copy to the city for processing (required). SAVE FORM PRINT FORM _ f11BMR FORM
•
Installation and Purpose of Dock in regards to 4060 Lakeridge Road on Lake St. Joe:
1) Purpose of dock is to access the lake from property primarily to fish off the dock and use a small
boat with a trolling motor.
2) Placement of dock structure is drawn on the attached Ariel Photo with approximate dimensions
described below.
a. Dock will be approximately 75-100 feet in length of mostly walkway through the cattails
which will begin approximately 4 feet before the start of the cattails.
b. Dock portion in the water will be approximately 8 feet.
3) Dock will be professionally installed as a temporary structure and will be removed each year.
Further description below:
a. Dock will be on temporary posts that will be removed each year
b. Dock will be constructed of Wood (example of image attached)
c. Dock will be 4' wide or less
d. Dock structure will be high enough so water can freely flow beneath the structure
e. Will NOT interfere with anyone's use of the water space or a hazard to navigation
f. Will be no longer than necessary to provide intended use
g. Will NOT include a boat lift
Property Card Parcel ID Number 253510040
Taxpayer Information
�, 4"
Taxpayer Name
BR AN E LANG
=�
LINDSEY R LANG
d�M ✓11��{�r r(w-
Mailing Address
4060 LAKERIDGE RD
' L MK
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9689
a,
Property Address
Address
4060 LAKERIDGE RD
t t'
Cake
City
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
Parcel Information
Uses Res 1 unit
GISAcres 1.02
Net Acres 1.02
Deeded Acres
Plat HIGHLANDS ON LAKE ST JOE (CHAN)
Lot 004
Block 001
Tax Description
Building Information
Building Style 2 STORY
Above Grade 3336
Finished Sq Ft
Bedrooms 5
Year Built 1997
Garage Y
Bathrooms 3.25
Miscellaneous Information
School District
Watershed District
Homestead
Green Acres
Ag Preserve
0:
1 WS 062 MINNEHAHA CREEK
Y
N
N
Assessor Information
Estimated Market Value
2015 Values
(Payable 2016)
2016 Values
(Payable 2017)
Last Sale
Land
$164,900.00
$150,900.00
Date of Sale 08/23/2013
Building
$466,300.00
$426,800.00
Sale Value $485,430.00
Total
$631,200.00
$577,700.00
Tha cab provsfal l'era. :.. ; Sec W. V t.. only / EaW+a ra sJRa agna,V .efn ro raav 52.11wrvejn3 or mr+a sndw MTese C ie
m'wmMan rglli,r,EE n, T a" � .'i n an'a'+d Garva. Caaay maaea 6(A6a4or
i+wma,m rvoueatl 1w soil V° t,+tl ule mn n C'c aetl p,tsuai ro lAmese a 5W le §a55 65 enD a+a se d L+e tlMa
rxeviOW fax nacvey«ecgra mafC ver Cwwy slsa!I r+U DeiaDek/a�wtlamagas aM by us �l� tlela�ay aye ,>rassy na a ai cla,.a .ni •lu ae.ord b !r
�� Rarmiass Carver Ca nii, b oM1oeS. aRms. ayeMs. en,pni am, em 4an any eb au W,mz Gc,gM E1' a"ye^e rna u W a ax. �!onnd,c Mrna1rJ form e , s fi'�Cbyeaa w a }
CARVER mire proles vn,m ensa an d tsars a:cess By axen:an efm,6dal, e+eusaracmes re;Utrenme 9, s ECU aprcrCaaassb nDr a'y pan of D in mroU+er Prey wMossf- '-. -
COUNTY wan foe daUaecpye Evt maeU mU.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016 Carver County, MN
.1 4044i
q r
•
5
\" 962.8
°,oq'sti�C
\° 963.o
970.9
MH
.', -roa.0 40
d b
. M4•`v
3`
957.6 +
LAKE
ST. JOE
O.H.W.— 94&2
s`
2±/_ — =
OaNNG
Cjh
OP
C;
-1 �Cn.,
'Ay969.0 fie_ �Yi
o6&J v 6)
067.9
r o s GAgq * 96e: .4
ti
967.9
970.7
975.4
0
Proposed Top of Foundation Elevation- 972.3
Proposed Garage Floor Ebvation— 972.0
Proposed Lowest Floor Elevation 964.:s
Lowest Allowable Floor Elevation-
0 Denotes
Iron Monument
+ 910.0 Denotes
Existing Elevation
+(910.0) Denotes
Proposed Elevation
Denotes
Direction of Surface
Drainage
I hereby certify that
the proposed site
grades shown conform to the drainage
patterns established
on the development
plan approved by the city.
I hereby certify that this is a true
and correct
representation
of a survey of the boundaries
of:
LOT 4, BLOCK
1, HIGHLANDS ON LAKE
ST. JOE,
CARVER
COUNTY, MINNESOTA
And the location of all
buildings. if
any, thereon, and all visible
encroachments, N any,
from or on
sold land.
As surveyed by
me this W day of.
DecAmber
191k.
Minn. Lic. No. 24764
UIIL-T-I�m
hau
• 0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
April 21, 2016, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Wetland
Alteration Permit to build a temporary dock on property zoned Single Family Residential
(RSF) and located at 4060 Lakeridge Road — Lot 4, Block 1, Highlands on Lake St. Joe to
the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope
addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United
States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were
those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and
by other appropriate records.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 5 day of 12016.
71s
�,JENNIFER ANN POTTER
'Notary Public -Minnesota
Notary Public MY GMMISSIM 6Zn. Jan 3,. 2020
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start unfit
later In the evening, depending on the order of the agenda.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for Wetland Alteration Permit to build a temporary dock
Proposal:
on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF).
Applicant:
Brian Lan
Property
4060 Lakeridge Road
Location:
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public 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:
What Happens
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
at the Meeting:
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.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2016-10. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Robert Generous
by email at tiefferv(c-Dci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952-
Questions &
227-1168. If you choose to submit written comments, it is
Comments:
helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The
staff report for this item will be available online on the
project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the
Planning Commission meeting.
NEWT Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas,
packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/notifyme to sign up!
Clry Ravlew Procedure:
• Subdivisions. Manned Unit Developments, Site Ran Revlewa. Conditional and Interim Uses, Wasand Alterations, Rezonlrga,
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a pudic hearing before no Manning Commission. City
ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notated of Me application In writing. Any interested party is
invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are
available by request At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation.
The item will he opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a pars of the hearing Process. The Commission will dose Me
public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm o modify
wholly cr partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and cook, amendments lake a simple majority
the City Counal except rezcoings and land use amendments from residential to commercialAndustrial.
vote of
• Unnesola Slate Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be promised within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard.
Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the
process should check With the Manning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to
meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal, Staff Is also available m review the project with any Interested person(s).
• Because the Manning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Mnules are taken and any corespondents
regarding the application will ba included in the report to the City Councilff you wish to have something to be included In the report,
lease contact the Manning Staff person named on Me notification.
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until
'
later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda.
Location:
Cit Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for Wetland Alteration Permit to build a temporary dock
Proposal:
on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF).
Applicant:
Brian Lan
Property
4060 Lakeridge Road
Location:
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public 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:
What Happens
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. •
at the Meeting:
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.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at:
www.cl.chanhassen.mn.us/2016-10. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Robert Generous
by email at tleffery(177Ci.Chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952-
Questions &
227-1168. If you choose to submit written comments, it is
Comments:
helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The
staff report for this item will be available online on the
project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the
Planning Commission meeting.
NEW] Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas,
packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/notifyme to sign up!
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Banned Unit Developments, Site Ran Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings,
Comprehensive Ran Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before vie Planning Commission. City
ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of Me application in writing. Any Interested party is
invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application Mat includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are
available by request. At the Manning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation.
The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will dose the
public hearing and discuss the Item and make a recommendation to Me City Council. The City Council may reverse. affirm or modify
wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority
vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerdallndustrial.
• k,Nnnia la State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be promised within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard.
Some application due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person Waring to follow an item through the
process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to
meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available m review the project with any Interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence
regarding the application will be indutletl In the report to the City Coundl. 9 you wish to have something to be included in the mpgrl,
lessen.' the Rannl Staff arson named on the notification.
•
PID Taxpayer Name _
253510010 AMY M CHMIELEWSKI
253510040 BRIAN E LANG
253510150 DALE & JANET JACOBSON TRUST AGREEMENT
253510140 DAVID A & MARY A VANSANT
253510190 DAVID C & KRISTA M SCHAEFER
253510060 DAVID E & DEBORAH A CAMPBELL
253510090 DEBORAH HARTLEYTHOMASSON
6S47802501 FENG U
250082800 FRITZ W & MARILYN E LARSON
253510270 HIGHLANDS ON LK ST JOE
253510210 JEFFRER
E OE-A%
650071200 JEROLTTE250070300 JERRY N L 6S4780150 JOHN IE A
2535100 00 JONATHAN 0 NOLLER
654780170 1 KEVIN T & CELENA R KOWALSKI
253510220 LANCE B & CHRISTINE M NELSON
654780290 LOUIS J & ANNE B RIPPLE
250081400 MARK A & DONNA M MALINOWSKI
253510260 MARK A & KATHY A BONGARD
253510180 MARTIN S BLUMENREICH
650072400 MATTHEW J ERICKSON
253510070 PATRICK J & STELLA M MCKINNEY
253510230 PETER G MANGAN
253510050 RICHARD A & MAREN K JECHA
253510130 RICHARD J & SARAH M WINSHIP
258340020 RICKY & SUI F KIANG
654780300 RICKY L & KELLYJ WfTTHUS
254980020 ROBERT A & SHELLY A LENZEN
254980050 SPENCER WOLF
253510080 STACY MARTIN
654780180 STEPHEN A & JUUE KIEFER
258340010 THOMAS B & BARBARA C KINGSTON
654780350 THOMAS B KINGSTON ETAL
654780236 THOMAS L & KIMBERLY M BECKER
654780240 TIMOTHY W & KAREN F GETTY
253510250 WADE BARON
253510200 WILLIAM D KELLERJR
253510240 WILLIAM K BLANKS
Taxpayer Address _
4000 LAKERIDGE RD
4060 LAKERIDGE RD
4165 LAKERIDGE RD
4175 LAKERIDGE RD
7396 111 EHILL RD
4100 LAKERIDGE RD
4130 LAKE RIDGE RD
7406 RIDGEHILL RD
7380 MINNEWASHTA PKWY
935 EAST WAYZATA BLVD
4091 LAKERIDGE RD
7414 MINNEWASHTA PKWY
3901 GLENDALE DR
7412 TRISTAN KNOLL
4040 LAKERIDGE RD
7423 TRISTAN KNOLL
4101 LAKERIDGE RD
7421 RIDGEHILL RD
7250 MINNEWASHTA PKWY
7391 RIDGEHILL RD
4125 LAKERIDGE RD
7410 MINNEWASHTA PKWY
4110 LAKERIDGE RD
4830 EMPIRE LN
4080 LAKERIDGE RD
4105 LAKERIDGE RD
7403TRISTAN KNOLL
7411 RIDGEHILL RD
3920 MINNEWASHTA CT
3931 MINNEWASHTA CT
4120 LAKERIDGE RD
7443 TRISTAN KNOLL
7393TRISTAN KNOLL
7393 TRISTAN KNOLL
7426 RIDGEHILL RD
MIS RIDGEHILL RD
4910 W 77TH ST APT 408
7386 RIDGE HILL RD
4176 LAKERIDGE RD
4020 LAKERIDGE RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9689
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9689
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9691
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9691
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9692
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9691
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9691
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7403
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9669
WAYZATA, MN 5 3391-1849
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9690
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7763
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9763
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7404
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9689
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7404
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9691
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7403
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7762
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9692
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9691
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7763
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9691
PLYMOUTH, MN 55446-3712
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9690
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9691
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7404
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7403
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9610
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9610
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9691
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7404
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7405
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7405
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7404
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7403
EDINA, MN 55435-4816
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9692
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331-9691
IL,o
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Application of Brian Lang for a Wetland Alteration Permit to install a dock — Planning Case
2016-10.
On May 17, 2016, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Brian Lang for a wetland alteration permit for the property
located at 4060 Lakeridge Road. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
proposed wetland alteration permit which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The
Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential District, RSF
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential Low Density uses.
3. The legal description of the property is — Lot 4, Block 1, Highlands on Lake St. Joe.
4. Findings:
a. The proposed dock use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. It will allow the property
owner to access the lake.
b. The proposed dock use will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive
plan and zoning code.
c. The proposed dock use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be
compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity
and will not change the essential character of that area.
d. The proposed dock use will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned
neighboring uses.
e. The proposed dock use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,
water and sewer systems and schools
f. The proposed dock use will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
SCANNED
0
g. The proposed dock use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the
general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare,
odors, rodents, or trash.
h. The proposed dock use will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not
create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
i. The proposed dock use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access,
natural, scenic or historic features of major significance.
j. The proposed dock use will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
k. The proposed dock use will not depreciate surrounding property values.
1. The proposed dock use will meet standards prescribed for docks as provided in the zoning
code and the additional requirement of Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420.0230.
5. The planning report #2016-10 dated May 17, 2016, prepared by Terry Jeffery, et al, is
incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve wetland
alteration permit for a dock subject to the conditions of the staff report.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 17'" day of May, 2016.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chairman
2
i 0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER & HENNEPIN
COUNTIES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO. 2016-10
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission will hold a public
hearingonTuesday,, May 17, 2016at
7:00 Pan in the Council Chambers
in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700
Market Blvd. The purpose of this
hearing is to consider a request
for Wetland Alteration Permit
to build a temporary dock on
property zoned Single Family
Residential (RSF) and located at
4060 Lakeridge Road -Lot 4, Block
1, Highlands on Lake St. Joe.
Owner\Applicant: Brian Lang.
A plan showing the location
of the proposal is available
for public review on the City's
web site at wwwci.chanhassen.
mn.us/2016-10 or at City Hall
during regular business hours.
All interested persons are invited
to attend this public hearing
and express their opinions with
respect to this proposal.
Terry Jeffery, Water Resources
Coordinator
Email: tjeffery@ci.chanhassen.
mn.us
Phone: 952-227-1168
(Published in the Chanhassen
Villager on Thursday, May 5,
2016: No 4275)
Affidavit of Publication
Southwest Newspapers
State of Minnesota)
)SS.
County of Carver )
Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized
agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil-
lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows:
(A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal
newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as
amended.
(B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. Y L
was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said
Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of
the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both
inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition
and publication of the Notice:
abcdefghijklmnopgrshtvwxyz Laurie A. Hartmann
Subscribed and swom before me on
K
thisday of 2016
ove
N Public
RATE INFORMATION
Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch
Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................. $31.20 per column inch
Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $12.59 per column inch
Chanhassen Planning Coltission — May 17, 2016 •
19. The applicant, their consultant and city staff shall collaborate to minimize drainage concerns
in the back and side yards of lots 6 through 10.
20. Storm Water Utility Connection charges due at the final plat are estimated to be $58,880.00.
All voted in favor except for Commissioner Weick who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 5 to 1.
Aanenson: Just for clarification again this item does go to the City Council and that's scheduled
for June 13' if anybody's tracking this item.
Aller: Correct and so any individual at home or present that wants to see the materials that
we've been looking at again they're on the website in the City. Please feel free to investigate
them. Pull them up. We've tried to build a good record of the comments before us for the City
Council to look at and contemplate on June 13, 2016. Thank you.
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Thank you very much for
your time, your commitment, and your service to the community and your review of this
complicated application. We greatly appreciate it.
Aller: Thank you sir. Okay we'll move onto the second item on the agenda tonight.
PUBLIC HEARING:
4060 LAKERIDGE ROAD, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT: REOUEST FOR
INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY DOCK AT 4060 LAKERIDGE ROAD,
EXCELSIOR (LOT 4, BLOCK 1, HIGHLANDS ON LAKE ST. JOE). APPLICANT/
OWNER: BRIAN LANG.
Spreiter: Thank you Chairman Aller and commissioners. As stated this is the public hearing for
the wetland alteration permit at 4060 Lakeridge Road. 4060 Lakeridge Road is located on the
south side of Lake St. Joe within the, sorry I'm blanking on the neighborhood. Within the
Highlands of Lake St. Joe neighborhood. The applicant is requesting a wetland alteration permit
to construct a temporary dock on Lake St. Joe to utilize the lake for recreational purposes. This
is the existing site and the location of the proposed dock overlooking Lake St. Joe. The applicant
is requesting a wetland alteration permit in order construct a 3 '/2 wide wood dock extending
approximately 95 feet into the wetland to an accessible lake depth of approximately 4 feet. This
is the approximate dock location in relation to the wetland boundary. The dock would be mainly
located where it is primarily cattails and in a semi -permanent or permanently flooded area. The
wetland boundary is over here. There's a slight slope that goes, well probably a 3 to 1 slope
actually that goes down from the property to the wetland boundary. The dock that is constructed
or would be constructed would have to allow water to free flow underneath it. The approximate
impact as a result of the dock is approximately 19 square feet. That's a result of the posts that
are to be installed with the dock. This is, this meets the no loss criteria under the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act. The De Minimis criteria. Within there are certain maximum impacts
39
SC104V
Chanhassen Planning Co•'ssion — May 17, 2016 •
depending on where it is located for an area within the shoreland setback. The maximum in this
case, the maximum is 20 square feet. Per city code and state shoreland rules, a dock is an
allowable use on a single family residential lot. This wetland alteration permit application has
been submitted in order to determine if impacts are allowable under city code and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act. The decision made on the wetland alteration permit would not play
any role in the administration of the Highlands on Lake St. Joe HOA covenants and restrictions
or usurp any decision that they made on the matter. I believe right now that docks are restricted
or not allowed within the HOA covenants and restrictions. One of the conditions of approval
that was made was that the applicant must notify the HOA if the wetland alteration permit is
approved before installing a dock. Staff is recommending approval with conditions for this
application. In summary the impacts in this case do not require replacement plan under the
Wetland Conservation Act. The dock is an allowable use under Minnesota state rules and city
code. However it does require a wetland alteration permit and the issue remains to be worked
out between the HOA and the homeowner. That's all I have tonight. I'll take any questions.
Aller: Thank you. It's pretty straightforward. Our understanding is that this is just basically
granting or permission so should the HOA allow for the dock to be constructed and utilized then
they already have that permission.
Spreiter: Right so the dock is already allowed under our city code and state rules. Our city code
and our wetland ordinance just requires a wetland alteration permit because of it so that's the
decision that you're making tonight.
Tietz: It's just administrative but would we require a letter from the homeowners association
notifying us and the owner of approvals since they currently don't allow that to occur?
Spreiter: So that was not a condition of approval because legally, as I understand it we don't, we
can't...
Aanenson: I don't think it would hurt to let the HOA know that it's been approved so they're
aware of it but right, we have no...
Tietz: Okay. I just wouldn't want the HOA to find out after the fact and then they object and
then will come back to the City even though we don't have any authority over it. It's just, I think
it's more of a courtesy than anything else.
Aanenson: Correct.
Spreiter: Sure and we could ask to be copied on that notification letter.
Aller: Well the other thing is we don't have much discretion in listening to their objection.
Tietz: No.
40
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 17, 2016 •
Aanenson: I think you're just saying letting them know that they got approval, is that what?
Tietz: I just want, yeah.
Aanenson: Yes.
Tietz: Yeah I mean a lot of things happen then after the fact you ask for forgiveness you know.
Aanenson: Right.
Tietz: We might approve it but someone else might have an opinion.
Aanenson: Yeah I don't think it hurts to send the HOA a letter so they're aware of it.
Tietz: Yeah.
Alter: And I think it's a courtesy but as far as our decision I just want to.
Tietz: No, it's independent of.
Alter: Right decision based on the criteria that's before us and that's a question of whether or
not there's a reason to deny it.
Tietz: Agreed.
Alter: Any additional questions? Alright, the applicant like to come forward and state your
name and address for the record.
Brian Lang: Brian Lang, 4060 Lakeridge Road.
Alter: Okay Mr. Lang, tell us about the project. You're obviously thinking about putting this in.
Brian Lang: Sure, sure. So I've lived in the property for a couple of years and I've always
wanted to put a dock in and so I've explored that numerous times and I've talked to the entire
neighborhood for the most part. There's been some transition in the neighborhood and what not
and I've gotten push back maybe from like 4 or 5 people. Most of them came back and said if
it's okay under state law, city code we're fine with it so that's why I pursued this and I have
spent a lot of time thinking about, because it seems like the biggest concern for people, because I
don't want, I want to avoid like just saying like oh he can't put a dock in just because it's in the
covenants. I wanted to understand the reasoning behind it and based on the Minutes from '93-
'95 as far as how that ended up in the covenants, there was concerns regarding the wetland and
I'm not sure why they chose a mechanism to enforce that through the covenants but they did. So
41
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 17, 2016 •
I think really what I make sure that people understand is that I've taken time to think about that
and that through obviously the staffs research they've determined that it's such a small amount
of dockage that it's really immaterial. It wouldn't cause any impact to the wetland of
significance and so I've decided that I'd go forward with this or what not. And actually I was
standing on my property, you saw the picture of it. Like I have an acre. My property is an acre
and I would say 50 percent or higher is probably wetland. If you take my property along with
the other 4 potential I believe, potential docks that could go in and that cross a span of that entire
wetland area, I would guess it's probably like 2 acres. Approximately. Just looking at my
property I know it's an acre. There's at least half of that if not more is wetland and I just looked
up what how many, or how many square feet are in an acre. There's 87,000, or there's 43,000
square feet in 1 acre. 87,000 square feet in 2 acres. Assuming that the 4 people that have
shoreland property decide to move forward with putting in a dock, that would be around 1,600
square feet, assuming it's the same size as mine. That's less than 2 percent of that entire area so
based on that I felt, I don't think there's going to be any material impact along with what the
staff was saying so I moved forward with filling out this application and trying to get permission.
I understand the homeowners association and the fact that there is a covenant in there for no
docks. Like I said I'm not sure exactly other than the wetland impact why it ended up in there
because there's 2 other docks in the lake already outside of our homeowners association. Just as
a comparison one of the docks is, the dock that I would install is probably one-third, no more
than one-third the size of a dock that's currently in the lake. On the one end of the lake. So I
just feel like it's appropriate that I'd be able to put a dock in rather than the homeowners
association just saying just because it's in there. I just want to say that based on my
interpretation the reason why it's in there is concerns over the wetlands and I feel like, like I said
through the staff report and through like math it's not a significant portion of dock that could
possibly go in the footprint of that area. And so like I said I have talked to a majority of the
homeowners association, the actually members and there's a handful of people that are opposed
and they probably sent in emails. There's probably a couple people here and I understand that
but you know overall I just think it's appropriate. I looked up on the DNR website. There is just
shy of a mile of shore length around the inside of Lake St. Joe and adding 4 additional docks at
the most I feel like is appropriate.
Aller: Well we're only going to deal with your application.
Brian Lang: Sure, sure.
Alley: Your particular, this particular dock that you made your request for so.
Brian Lang: Yeah, yeah, sure. Sorry. I'm not ... but anyway and I understand the I believe
there's a condition to get the homeowners association's approval or that something coming back
to the City regarding that. Like we had talked about I feel like the differences between myself
and the homeowners association resides outside of the actual wetland alteration permit approval
and I think you can be assured that if a majority of the association disapproves of it, I won't be
allowed to put that dock in there. They won't allow that to happen so I just feel like putting that
42
Chanhassen Planning Co •ssion — May 17, 2016 •
condition in there is unnecessary and that's my standpoint on that. And I'm just asking you to
consider that. If you end up leaving it in there I'm still obviously going to pursue it because I
know I've talken to like a majority of the neighborhood and I'm not concerned about that but it's
just another thing that 4 or 5 people can focus on and obstruct and change that I believe is
appropriate and I'm free to answer any questions.
Aller: Anyone have questions at this point?
Aanenson: Can I give a little bit more background onto that subdivision since I worked on it. So
those lots abutting Lake St. Joe are over, are approximately an acre because the shoreland district
those had to be larger lots because that is a more pristine wetland. There were 2 existing docks
at the time. Those are significantly older so when this subdivision went in that was something
that we talked about. The pristine nature of it and that's how it got put into the HOA
requirements. Yes there were existing docks but they weren't, so when we add, as we change
just as we talked about tonight things change over time. Regulations and so this is something
that we had looked at and that homeowners association put into their covenants to restrict it that
way so that was the thought given behind that at the time. They were larger lots and to keep the
lake pristine, that was the thought behind it.
Brian Lang: Just as another comparable I was just, I drive around obviously Chanhassen a lot
and I see docks all over the lakes and ponds and I was just, last week I was driving by actually
Highway 41 and Lake Lucy Road and I noticed in Brendon Pond, and I'm not sure of the size but
there's literally 11 docks in there. In Brendon Pond and I don't know the acreage of it but if
something like that is appropriate I feel like adding 4 docks to a 15 acre lake seems appropriate
in my estimation as well so that's another standpoint.
Aller: Great, thankyou.
Brian Lang: And I can sit down if anybody has any questions or wants to come up I'll respond
to any questions. Thank you.
Alley: Wonderful thanks.
Aanenson: I'm just going to clarify a couple more things. So we're talking a couple different
things here. We only have so many natural environment lakes in the city. That's why this is a
different classification so we're talking about ponds versus some other you know. There's
different criteria for different lakes. We have general recreational lakes. I think we have 3
classifications. Natural environment. Which one am I missing? So anyways so they have
different classifications. We have some that you can use motorized. Some you can't use a
motorized on the lake so there's different classifications so that's how the ordinance came about.
I'm not talking about the merits of the wetland alteration permit. I'm just talking about how we
got to this place and what the conditions, what our thought process was because I've had a
43
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 17, 2016 0.
couple of residents send my quotations from when we did the subdivision and that's how we
looked at that time because it was a natural environment lake and it was of good quality.
Brian Lang: Can I respond?
Aller: One second. We're going to go ahead and open up the public hearing portion so we can
hear and then if you want to respond we can see whether or not there's any responses at that
point in time so I'll open up the public hearing portion of this matter before and if someone
wishes to come forward and speak either for or against the application can do so at this time.
Please come forward. State your name and address for the record ma'am.
Sue Morgan: Yes, my name is Sue Morgan and I live at 4031 Kings Road which is directly
across from this property and we're 1 of the 2 grandfathered in docks on the property. It's the
longest one that Mr. Lang was talking about. We moved onto this property, well we owned the
property since 1985. When we purchased the property we were informed by the City, and also I
did some investigating to find out what kind of lake Lake St. Joe was and I found out that it's a
natural environment lake and what that meant was that access on Lake St. Joe was supposed to
be restricted but there is a public access on Lake St. Joe so that's questionable. Also the area,
size of the lake. The depth of the lake and also the just the overall nature of the lake defines it as
such and the access to the lake is supposed to be limited. When the Highlands was being built I
did some additional research and actually tried to limit the development of the Highlands
because of the nature of the lake. If you look through the Met Council, Linda and I have been
kind of keepers of the lake since we've lived on the lake so we do lake monitoring for clarity and
for consistency and quality overall and what's important is not just the wetlands but also the lake
itself. If you look on that website you'll find that Lake St. Joe is Chanhassen's only grade A lake
which means it's the highest grade lake in Chanhassen. That is up until 2009 when the quality
has dropped to a B and part of that is the impact that all the development and all these houses in
the Highlands have had on Lake St. Joe. So my concern is that, our concern when the Highlands
was built was that access would be limited to the lake and it wasn't just because we wanted to be
the only guys on the block with a dock. There's also another dock that's grandfathered in but we
were told when we purchased the property in 1985 that our dock was grandfathered in. If we
took our dock out we could not put another dock in so we've maintained that dock since 1985
and we've been under the auspices that we could not build another dock so when the Highlands
came in it was important to us that they were limited in how many docks they could put on Lake
St. Joe and we were told that they couldn't build any docks onto St. Joe which was fine. Now it
seems as though I guess the quality of the lake isn't important anymore and the wetlands aren't
important anymore and we just continue to build and build more and more on it and allow more
access so you know we're talking originally about 1 dock and then 4 docks keep being thrown
into the conversation so it seems like perhaps the tides have turned and now Highlands want
more than just 1 dock on the lake. My concern would be if this is approved then we have 8 acres
on Lake St. Joe which is the last large parcel as far as I know on Lake St. Joe so if we decide to
subdivide that and put 3-4 houses on it, then are we setting precedence that we can ask for
additional docks for those properties if subdivided? So again my concern is that we kind of look
44
Chanhassen Planning Commission —May 17, 2016 •
at long term, water quality is important. The only grade A lake in Chanhassen is now becoming
a grade B because of access. Not to say that one more dock on Lake St. Joe is going to be an
issue but if it gets passed and the HOA regulations get changed then that kind of opens the door
and who knows what happens with the water quality on Lake St. Joe. So that's it for me, thank
you.
Aller: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Any other individual wishing to come forward at this time
please do so.
Cathy McKenna: My name is Cathy McKenna. I live at 4150 Lakeridge Road in the Highlands
on Lake St. Joe property. I'm one of the original owners of the property there and when we
purchased the house we were given covenants. Covenants that we've had for 18 years that say
no docks. When we bought the house we knew we could not build a dock on Lake St. Joe.
Everyone who has lived there for the last 18 years and buys a house there knows that it says no
dock, wharf and where it should be built or installed on or from any adjacent to any part of the
lot that adjoins Lake St. Joe so that was a given. So we have a homeowners association and we
also have a method in that association on how to amend these covenants and there is a process.
You need two-thirds of the owners to vote and if it's not the owners I believe it's the bank that
owns the property and you can change that and I think if we want to change that, that's the way it
should be done by the process that is here. We did have one homeowners association meeting
when Mr. Lang was talking about the dock and there is resistance to changing our covenants
because if we change the docks what do we change next? And if we don't enforce the dock we
can't enforce anything. I feel if this wetland permit is granted and a dock attempts to go in that
our homeowners association will be unfairly burdened with enforcing this and how we do that
I'm really not sure. We're 33 homes. We don't have a legal fund. I don't know what we would
do but there is a principle I think and a process here. And Lake St. Joe as they talked about in
1995 they mentioned, and if you could bear with me they said that staff felt that based on the
extensive all the wetlands that it really wasn't appropriate to have additional docks there.
Certainly they could try to get through the wetland alteration permit you know to try to get a
common dock but there is a public access there. We felt based on the sensitivity of the area that
it shouldn't be allowed and Lundgren Brothers indicated to us that they would put it in their
restrictive covenants that no docks be permitted. That was our original position. When it went
to the Planning Commission most recently the Planning Commission wanted to say that if the
covenants did change, which they certainly have the control to do outside of the City Council,
then they would just be on notice that they would have to be required to have a wetland alteration
permit. I guess my preference would be they try to keep the covenants to prohibit docks based
on the sensitivity of that area. That really they shouldn't have docks and there is a public access
to use that. The Mayor said Lake St. Joe as it is is sort of a pristine lake in itself and they
answered yes, correct. It is a natural lake. And I think there is a majority of homeowners in our
association that do just want to keep it like it is. It's beautiful. It's been that way for 18 years
and as you've already mentioned we're trying to maintain that. So I don't know where 4 docks
came from but you know we were trying to keep our covenants in effect and I feel that if this
45
Chanhassen Planning Commission —May 17, 2016 •
permit is granted that we would be unduly forced to try to make that happen. Thank you very
much.
Alley: Thank you Ms. McKenna. Any additional individuals wishing to come forward at this
time? Yes sir, state your name and address for the record please.
Mark Malinowski: My name is Mark Malinowski. I live on 7250 Minnewashta Parkway. I
guess Brian you did have, say we could address you with questions?
Brian Lang: Sure.
Mark Malinowski: Were you aware.
Aller: Sir, sir. Why don't you just talk to me first because we're.
Mark Malinowski: Is this a court sir?
Aller: It is not a court. That's why I want you to just.
Mark Malinowski: It's just with respect that I speak to the individual that I'm addressing.
Aller: Well but the process is you talk to us. Yeah. So you address the question. We'll get it
answered by him or by staff, okay?
Mark Malinowski: Yes Andrew.
Aller: Thank you.
Mark Malinowski: Brian were you aware in the homeowners association that docks were
prohibited?
Brian Lang: Yes.
Mark Malinowski: Thank you. I have another question. Kate you had mentioned that there
were, at the time 2 docks on Lake St. Joe when Highlands went in. There were actually 3.
Aanenson: Yeah I said 2 or 3. I can't remember.
Mark Malinowski: Well let me I do.
Aanenson: Okay, thank you.
46
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 17, 2016 • mi
Aller: Sir I want you to continue to address me. State your position please and keep it to about 2
to 3 minutes.
Mark Malinowski: I don't think I can sir. 2 or 3 minutes won't cover it.
Aller: We're going to try.
Mark Malinowski: Okay, thank you. As the, a question came up regarding the other
development and Terry I think Forbord, and I believe Tent' Forbord also was a representative
from Lundgren Brothers that had said to the Planning Commission I will handle that in a
covenant or homeowners association that we will not have docks okay and I caught him out here.
He has no recollection of it but I believe the Minutes of the meetings will show that. The City
Council I understand, Planning Commission probably has no say in whether this alteration can
be done or not because it meets a state statutes, et cetera. However I think that when developers
come in and they assure Planning Commission, City Council that these will be covered in the
homeowners association the same individual that covered it Terry is here addressing the other
sub -development to take caution because he has no recollection of that when I spoke to him in
the hall. Now I have another question about 4 docks possibly added to the, 4 docks added to the
lake in addition to this 1 that's proposed by Brian. I guess I'm not sure why it's going to be
much more than 4 because if the land, it doesn't necessarily matter I don't think if the land
because I believe some of these lots actually go into the wetland right to the shoreland so there
could be possibly much more than only the 4 docks. Again my position is I don't own the land.
You know all I know is what we were told as citizens when we came here in 1993 and were
concerned. One thing too that I would say, I'm pretty much done Andrew but with the exception
of there are beaver on the lake and my dog got bit by a beaver about 14 days ago and they can be
pretty nasty and as far as, can I say one thing about trees as long as I'm up here.
Aller: Sure.
Mark Malinowski: Trees are very important. I own a farm in Wisconsin. I protect a forest. I
have a lot of trees on my property but when it comes to a tree as a Planning Commission, there's
something in inventory. Now I do have a question on the inventory of a lot. Do they state the
type of tree that it is?
Aanenson: Yes.
Mark Malinowski: Okay. So I guess the quality of trees, whether they're cottonwood, aspen or
whatever, when you replace a tree perhaps 1 red oak or 1 beautiful maple is worth more than
several cottonwoods or trees that are possibly decimated by ash borer, thank you.
Aller: Thank you for your comments. Any last individuals coming forward? There we go.
Come on up. State your name and address for the record.
Eli
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 17, 2016 •
Maren Jecha: Hi my name is Maren Jecha. Last name is spelled J-e-c-h-a. I live at 4080
Lakeridge Road, adjacent to Brian's property.
Aller: Welcome.
Maren Jecha: We are the second homeowners of our place and when we purchased the property
we enjoyed the idea of having to look out onto a lake, onto a wetland area without restrictions.
The idea of listening to the deer as they walk through the wetland area. To the raccoons that
come up to eat off my birdfeeders. To the pheasants that are in the backyard. To the coyotes
that have been in the back yard. A lot of that has been disappearing as I've noticed as
development has taken place through this area and we've lived here for 16 years now. My other
concern is to, even though my property is not actually attached to the lake but the idea of looking
out onto the lake without the restriction of a dock to look at of people going out onto the dock.
The restriction of the animals walking through this wetland. Having to encounter this dock in
the night time as they walk through the wetland areas to get to their feeding or to hunt or to
escape as prey. My also other concern is the children in the neighborhood and Brian's children
too in that they are young. I've had, I have 5 children of my own. I lived on lake property. I've
lived, I have a lake cabin with marsh areas and tall grasses to restrict kids from getting into the
lake and falling in and my concern is safety. My concern is safety that way not only for his but
for other children in the development because this is a development for children. The houses are
big for large families. And my other concern is the idea of allowing a dock when the covenants
and homeowners association says that there are no docks. This is what we looked at. We were
given the covenants before purchasing the property knowing that docks are not allowed along
with other things like clotheslines and things like that which would deteriorate our home values.
That's all, thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Any other public comments?
Sue Morgan: I just have one added. Sue Morgan from 4031 Kings Road.
Aller: Welcome back.
Sue Morgan: Thanks. Just wanted to add that it's not, for Brian it's not an easy lake to have a
dock on. It's a muck bottom lake so you need mud feet about this big because your poles sink
and because of the last 2 years the rain events we've had, and we have a very busy beaver, our
dock resides under water three-quarters of the summer so you know it sounds like a grand idea
but it's not an easy lake to have a dock on so that's it.
Brian Lang: I just wanted to.
Aller: Keep it to 1-2 minutes.
Brian Lang: Oh yeah sure.
48
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 17, 2016 • mi
Aller: And respond to just issues that have presented.
BrianLang: Okay. I just wanted to respond to a couple items. I've been told that a number of
times as far as when people have moved in they purchase their home based on the homeowners
association covenants and I understand that but they also purchase a home under the
understanding that the homeowners association covenants also say that if two-thirds a majority
of the community agrees to change a covenant then that's a possibility. So I just wanted to make
a comment on that. And then the second thing as far as, I think there was a reference as far as
how the process goes as far as getting approval and the mention the fact that you have to contact
your, the way the language is written and that's up to subject because it's, some folks in the
association making the assumption of that's what it means without having the appropriate
credentials to determine that and using that as an obstruction saying that you know we're not
even going to try because everyone's got to go to the bank to get approval to have a covenant
changed and that might be the case. I'm just saying that I don't believe the people saying that
have the credentials to determine the language in the covenants to assume that. And the second
thing is we actually looked up, and I guess this is even, this part doesn't matter so I won't even
say it. And then the last thing was as far as, oh the 4 docks. I was just saying that. There was no
intention as far as my knowledge of the way I'm looking at the property lines and how the
shoreline ends up being. That's the way I determined that that I believe there's a maximum
potential for 4 more docks. That's all I was saying. I wasn't saying that anybody told me they
were going to put docks in. I realize that potential is there. I just wanted to call that out. That
the people, the other 3 households didn't say you know what if you get this permit approved or
what not and we get the covenants changed I'm putting in a dock too. I just wanted to make that
clear because folks were getting kind of worked up about the 4 dock thing. And then lastly I
understand the impacts that docks can cause. I read a lot about it. We all clearly know there is,
you couldn't even count the amount of docks on lakes in the state and what I have proposed is
the most limited amount of dock that I would need in order to actually access the water. There'd
be a small amount of dockage actually in the water and the actual proposed length of the dock is
what I need to just get through the cattails part and honestly I was out there on Sunday walking
through and I can actually walk through probably like 70 percent of that so I probably wouldn't
even need even that much dock and the reality is what I'm trying to do is just to be able to access
the lake without going to the public access which is on the far northeast comer of the lake and
you'd have to take the road to get there. I'm just trying to put the minimal amount of dock in in
order to use non -engine propelled watercrafts for example canoes, kayaks and what not and I feel
like as a shoreline property owner regardless of the covenants I have just as much of a right as
someone on the, any other part of the lake to put a dock in. If they're okay with having a dock
and they don't feel like there's a concern with their dock and an impact to the lake, the wildlife,
what have you, then I don't think I should have any moral or I shouldn't feel guilt because I want
to put a dock in and that's my stance on that. If others were that passionate about it they would
also take their docks regardless if they're grandfathered in. Regardless or not the reality is we're
both shoreline property owners of this lake and the both, everybody who is should have the equal
49
Chanhassen Planning Co•ssion — May 17, 2016 •
amount of rights regardless if you've been there 20 years before a wetland ordinance or not.
Thank you.
Alter: Thank you.
Mark Malinowski: I have one more comment.
Alter: Sir just.
Mark Malinowski: One minute.
Alter: One minute, alright.
Mark Malinowski: When Lundgren Brothers built Lake St. Joe another stipulation is they were
to remove the third dock that was on the Boley property. That dock has not been removed yet
and it is right, there's poles left there. All they did was cut off the top of it and I propose that the
City go to Lundgren Brothers or whoever and have them remove the rest of that dock as he
promised they would do. Dane.
Alter: Thank you. Any additional comments from the gallery? None. We're going to close the
public hearing at this point in time and open it up for discussion. Interesting situation.
Madsen: Are there rules about dock availability for different types of lakes that the City has?
Alter: So Lake St. Joe in particularly, are there rules and regulations which would restrict the
use oV
Spreiter: Our ordinances follow the state shoreland ordinances which for each of the different
classifications it has more to do with the land use and the development around the lake than it
does the actual use. That includes motors, docks so to in short to answer your question no.
There's no different, it doesn't differentiate between this lake and any other lake in regards to
docks.
Aanenson: Could I just add to that a little bit. So Lake St. Joe is, because it's a natural
environment lake. It doesn't have, different lakes have different restrictions on it so this is a 15
miles an hour or less for boats, for speed on the lake.
Madsen: Okay.
Alter: Any additional comments? The question is putting, in my eyes is it putting the cart before
the horse but is it up to me to decide that? I have reviewed the conditions and I would be hard
pressed to find a reason to deny the permit and, but I do agree now with condition 1 which would
say that he would have to have percussion because there's enough there for me to say let's move
50
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 17, 2016 •
forward with this because I think we have to but I think we're putting a reasonable condition on
it to say or at least take it to the City Council for final action. Let the City Attorney look at it and
he can make a request that that condition be removed at that time but that way we're not
interfering or interlocking with the potential for the homeowners association to have it's rights
enforced.
Aanenson: Chairman Aller I did ask the City Attorney that question today. I think clearly you
can kind of see the direction this is going. The homeowners association feels like if a dock goes
up they're left to forced to sue which puts them in a tough situation but we have no jurisdiction
over the association so we really wanted to soft peddle that. Just say I think other requests that
we, we certainly would send out a letter to the association's president to say that the City, if
that's the way the City goes was to approve a wetland alteration. Just put them on notice on that.
Aller: So that would be altering then condition number 1.
Aanenson: Yeah I think Krista did say that instead of the word was we notify them. Not to get
approval from.
Spreiter: So I'm sorry, that condition was changed actually today after we spoke with the city
attorney and I, maybe Kate can elaborate a little bit but basically the message was we can't
legally put that condition in there because we do not have jurisdiction over HOA's.
Aanenson: ... we'd just say notification.
Aller: Notification and that's fine because that was my first blush indication but I would rather
leave it to him at council but if we're getting that information already.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Aller: Then that's fine. And I would ask staff to look into that extra dock.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Aller: The existence violation, lack of violation, whatever. So any other comments? Questions.
Yusuf. I have a question.
Aller: Yes, Commissioner Yusuf.
Yusuf. Please can you guys educate me on the Grade A versus Grade B difference in the lake
and just kind of talk about the impact that one dock would have on the pristineness of the lake I
guess.
Ul
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 17, 2016 •
Spreiter: Sure I don't know if I can answer all that but she was referring to, we participate in the
Met Council's camp program. It's a citizen monitoring program. We have citizens on almost
every lake in Chanhassen. They provide data on a bi-weekly basis and then the data is compiled
and then the lakes are given a grade based on water quality. So I didn't know that one of, and
correct me if I'm wrong but she was saying that it was a grade A lake and since the increased
development around the lake it has dropped to a grade B. As far as the impact of docks
themselves I would say it would be more use and use on the lake and land use that would be an
impact but I guess I don't have the research so I can't answer accurately.
Yusuf: Thank you. Just one more question on that. When you're looking at the grading what
parameters are taken into account? Are they testing for different mineral contents or something
or is it just the clarity?
Spreiter: It's a combination of things but they send in samples to a lab and then they also
measure yes water clarity. They take some just objective observations but then they also test for
chlorophyll A, phosphorus, total phosphorus and total nitrogen and those 3 parameters kind of
make up the overall water quality of the lake.
Yusuf: Thank you.
Alter: Additional comments, questions. I'll entertain a motion if someone would like to make
one.
Yusuf: I'll make the motion.
Aller: Commissioner Yusuf.
Yusuf: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
wetland alteration permit based on the conditions of the staff report.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Hokkanen: Can you note the change of the.
Yusuf: Oh I'm sorry.
Aller: As amended.
Yusuf: Yes please. As amended please.
Hokkanen: Thank you. Second.
52
Chanhassen Planning Co • sion — May 17, 2016 •
Aller: Having a motion and having a second. Commissioner Yusuf made a motion which has
been seconded by Commissioner Hokkanen on her last official night. Any further discussion?
Yusuf moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the wetland alteration permit for 4060
Lakeridge Road subject to the following conditions:
1. No dock shall be placed without notification to the Highlands on Lake St. Joe
Homeowners' Association.
2. The dock must be installed in the shortest straight line distance through the wetland.
3. The dock and any associated watercraft must be located entirely outside of the 10-foot
dock setback areas.
4. No fill shall be placed anywhere within the wetland beyond the allowed 20 square foot de
minimis exemption.
5. No emergent vegetation shall be removed without appropriate permits from the MN
Department of Natural Resources.
6. The dock shall otherwise comply with Chanhassen City Code.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Aller: Moving onto administrative presentations.
Aanenson: This item, can we just clarify this item 2 also goes to the City Council on the 130'.
Aller: Yes it does.
Aanenson: So if anybody's following this item. Anything presented, we did receive some
emails, those will be also included in the packet.
Aller: Yes Monday, June 131.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 19, 2016 as presented.
53
June 15, 2016
cl l l OF
Brian and Lindsey Lang
ll[i1�DHJkI
C�N�SSEN
4060 Lakeridge Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box147
Re: Planning Case #2016-10, Wetland Alteration Permit
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lang:
Administration
Phone:952.227.1100
This letter is to inform you that on June 13, 2016, the Chanhassen City Council approved
Fax:952.227.1110
a Wetland Alteration Permit for your property at 4060 Lakeridge Road for the purpose of
installing a temporary dock, subject to the following conditions:
Building Inspections
Phone:52,227.11900
Fax:952.2271190
1. No dock shall be laced without providing written notification to the Highlands on
P P g !�
Lake St. Joe Homeowners' Association.
Engineering
Phone: 952,227,1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
2. The dock must be installed in the shortest straight line distance through the wetland.
Finance
3. The dock and any associated watercraft must be located entirely outside of the 10-
Phone:952.227.1140
foot dock setback areas.
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
4. No fill shall be placed anywhere within the wetland beyond the allowed 20 square
Phone:952.227.1120
foot de minimis exemption.
Fax: 952.227.1110
5. No emergent vegetation shall be removed without appropriate permits from the MN
Recreation Center
Department of Natural Resources.
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone:952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
6. The dock shall otherwise comply with Chanhassen City Code.
Natural Pllnning & es
The City will record the Variance and the Wetland Alteration Permit on the property with
Phone: 952.227.1130
Caner County. The applicant must comply with Chapter 8420.0522. of the Wetland
Fax: 952.227.1110
Conservation Act Rules.
Public Works If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 227-
7901 Park Place 1173 or by email at kspreiter@ci.chanhassen.mn.us.
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax:952.227.1310 Sincerely,
Senior Center
Phone:952.2271125 �Y
Fax: 952.227.1110 Krista Spreiter
Natural Resources Technician
weksite
www.ci.chanhassen.mo us ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director SCANNED
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator
G:IPLAN\2016 Planning C w\2016-1040601akoidge Road Wetland Alteration Pennit\apMval lenuAm
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
• kc-lo
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 17, 2016
19. The applicant, their consultant and city staff shall collaborate to minimize drainage concerns
in the back and side yards of lots 6 through 10.
20. Storm Water Utility Connection charges due at the final plat are estimated to be $58,880.00.
All voted in favor except for Commissioner Weick who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 5 to 1.
Aanenson: Just for clarification again this item does go to the City Council and that's scheduled
for June 13'" if anybody's tracking this item.
Aller. Correct and so any individual at home or present that wants to see the materials that
we've been looking at again they're on the website in the City. Please feel free to investigate
them. Pull them up. We've tried to build a good record of the comments before us for the City
Council to look at and contemplate on June 13, 2016. Thank you.
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Thank you very much for
your time, your commitment, and your service to the community and your review of this
complicated application. We greatly appreciate it.
Aller: Thank you sir. Okay we'll move onto the second item on the agenda tonight.
PUBLIC HEARING:
4060 LAKERIDGE ROAD, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT: REOUEST FOR
INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY DOCK AT 4060 LAKERIDGE ROAD.
EXCELSIOR (LOT 4. BLOCK 1. HIGHLANDS ON LAKE ST. JOE). APPLICANT/
OWNER: BRIAN LANG.
Spreiter: Thank you Chairman Aller and commissioners. As stated this is the public hearing for
the wetland alteration permit at 4060 Lakeridge Road. 4060 Lakeridge Road is located on the
south side of Lake St. Joe within the, sorry I'm blanking on the neighborhood. Within the
Highlands of Lake St. Joe neighborhood. The applicant is requesting a wetland alteration permit
to construct a temporary dock on Lake St. Joe to utilize the lake for recreational purposes. This
is the existing site and the location of the proposed dock overlooking Lake St. Joe. The applicant
is requesting a wetland alteration permit in order construct a 3 Y: wide wood dock extending
approximately 95 feet into the wetland to an accessible lake depth of approximately 4 feet. This
is the approximate dock location in relation to the wetland boundary. The dock would be mainly
located where it is primarily cattails and in a semi -permanent or permanently flooded area. The
wetland boundary is over here. There's a slight slope that goes, well probably a 3 to 1 slope
actually that goes down from the property to the wetland boundary. The dock that is constructed
or would be constructed would have to allow water to free flow underneath it. The approximate
impact as a result of the dock is approximately 19 square feet. That's a result of the posts that
are to be installed with the dock. This is, this meets the no loss criteria under the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act. The De Minimis criteria. Within there are certain maximum impacts
RE
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 17, 2016 •
depending on where it is located for an area within the shoreland setback. The maximum in this
case, the maximum is 20 square feet. Per city code and state shoreland rules, a dock is an
allowable use on a single family residential lot. This wetland alteration permit application has
been submitted in order to determine if impacts are allowable under city code and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act. The decision made on the wetland alteration permit would not play
any role in the administration of the Highlands on Lake St. Joe HOA covenants and restrictions
or usurp any decision that they made on the matter. I believe right now that docks are restricted
or not allowed within the HOA covenants and restrictions. One of the conditions of approval
that was made was that the applicant must notify the HOA if the wetland alteration permit is
approved before installing a dock. Staff is recommending approval with conditions for this
application. In summary the impacts in this case do not require replacement plan under the
Wetland Conservation Act. The dock is an allowable use under Minnesota state rules and city
code. However it does require a wetland alteration permit and the issue remains to be worked
out between the HOA and the homeowner. That's all I have tonight. I'll take any questions.
Aller: Thank you. It's pretty straight forward. Our understanding is that this is just basically
granting or permission so should the HOA allow for the dock to be constructed and utilized then
they already have that permission.
Spreiter: Right so the dock is already allowed under our city code and state rules. Our city code
and our wetland ordinance just requires a wetland alteration permit because of it so that's the
decision that you're making tonight.
Tietz: It's just administrative but would we require a letter from the homeowners association
notifying us and the owner of approvals since they currently don't allow that to occur?
Spreiter: So that was not a condition of approval because legally, as I understand it we don't, we
can't...
Aanenson: I don't think it would hurt to let the HOA know that it's been approved so they're
aware of it but right, we have no...
Tietz: Okay. I just wouldn't want the HOA to find out after the fact and then they object and
then will come back to the City even though we don't have any authority over it. It's just, I think
it's more of a courtesy than anything else.
Aanenson: Correct.
Spreiter: Sure and we could ask to be copied on that notification letter.
Aller: Well the other thing is we don't have much discretion in listening to their objection.
Tietz: No.
40
Chanhassen Planning C401mission — May 17, 2016 •
Aanenson: I think you're just saying letting them know that they got approval, is that what?
Tietz: I just want, yeah.
Aanenson: Yes.
Tietz: Yeah I mean a lot of things happen then after the fact you ask for forgiveness you know.
Aanenson: Right.
Tietz: We might approve it but someone else might have an opinion.
Aanenson: Yeah I don't think it hurts to send the HOA a letter so they're aware of it.
Tietz: Yeah,
Aller: And I think it's a courtesy but as far as our decision I just want to.
Tietz: No, it's independent of.
Aller: Right decision based on the criteria that's before us and that's a question of whether or
not there's a reason to deny it.
Tietz: Agreed.
Aller: Any additional questions? Ahight, the applicant like to come forward and state your
name and address for the record.
Brian Lang: Brian Lang, 4060 Lakeridge Road.
Aller: Okay Mr. Lang, tell us about the project. You're obviously thinking about putting this in.
Brian Lang: Sure, sure. So I've lived in the property for a couple of years and I've always
wanted to put a dock in and so I've explored that numerous times and I've talked to the entire
neighborhood for the most part. There's been some transition in the neighborhood and what not
and I've gotten push back maybe from like 4 or 5 people. Most of them came back and said if
it's okay under state law, city code we're fine with it so that's why I pursued this and I have
spent a lot of time thinking about, because it seems like the biggest concern for people, because I
don't want, I want to avoid like just saying like oh he can't put a dock in just because it's in the
covenants. I wanted to understand the reasoning behind it and based on the Minutes from '93-
'95 as far as how that ended up in the covenants, there was concerns regarding the wetland and
I'm not sure why they chose a mechanism to enforce that through the covenants but they did. So
41
Chanhassen Planning Commion — May 17, 2016 •
I think really what I make sure that people understand is that I've taken time to think about that
and that through obviously the staffs research they've determined that it's such a small amount
of dockage that it's really immaterial. It wouldn't cause any impact to the wetland of
significance and so I've decided that I'd go forward with this or what not. And actually I was
standing on my property, you saw the picture of it. Like I have an acre. My property is an acre
and I would say 50 percent or higher is probably wetland. If you take my property along with
the other 4 potential I believe, potential docks that could go in and that cross a span of that entire
wetland area, I would guess it's probably like 2 acres. Approximately. Just looking at my
property I know it's an acre. 'There's at least half of that if not more is wetland and I just looked
up what how many, or how many square feet are in an acre. There's 87,000, or there's 43,000
square feet in 1 acre. 87,000 square feet in 2 acres. Assuming that the 4 people that have
shoreland property decide to move forward with putting in a dock, that would be around 1,600
square feet, assuming it's the same size as mine. That's less than 2 percent of that entire area so
based on that I felt, I don't think there's going to be any material impact along with what the
staff was saying so I moved forward with filling out this application and trying to get permission.
I understand the homeowners association and the fact that there is a covenant in there for no
docks. Like I said I'm not sure exactly other than the wetland impact why it ended up in there
because there's 2 other docks in the lake already outside of our homeowners association. Just as
a comparison one of the docks is, the dock that I would install is probably one-third, no more
than one-third the size of a dock that's currently in the lake. On the one end of the lake. So I
just feel like it's appropriate that I'd be able to put a dock in rather than the homeowners
association just saying just because it's in there. I just want to say that based on my
interpretation the reason why it's in there is concerns over the wetlands and I feel like, like I said
through the staff report and through like math it's not a significant portion of dock that could
possibly go in the footprint of that area. And so like I said I have talked to a majority of the
homeowners association, the actually members and there's a handful of people that are opposed
and they probably sent in emails. There's probably a couple people here and I understand that
but you know overall I just think it's appropriate. I looked up on the DNR website. There is just
shy of a mile of shore length around the inside of Lake St. Joe and adding 4 additional docks at
the most I feel like is appropriate.
Aller: Well we're only going to deal with your application.
Brian Lang: Sure, sure.
Aller: Your particular, this particular dock that you made your request for so.
Brian Lang: Yeah, yeah, sure. Sorry. I'm not ... but anyway and I understand the I believe
there's a condition to get the homeowners association's approval or that something coming back
to the City regarding that. Like we had talked about I feel like the differences between myself
and the homeowners association resides outside of the actual wetland alteration permit approval
and I think you can be assured that if a majority of the association disapproves of it, I won't be
allowed to put that dock in there. They won't allow that to happen so I just feel like putting that
42
Chanhassen Planning Arnission — May 17, 2016 •
condition in there is unnecessary and that's my standpoint on that. And I'm just asking you to
consider that. If you end up leaving it in there I'm still obviously going to pursue it because I
know I've talken to like a majority of the neighborhood and I'm not concerned about that but it's
just another thing that 4 or 5 people can focus on and obstruct and change that I believe is
appropriate and I'm free to answer any questions.
Aller: Anyone have questions at this point?
Aanenson: Can I give a little bit more background onto that subdivision since I worked on it. So
those lots abutting Lake St. Joe are over, are approximately an acre because the shoreland district
those had to be larger lots because that is a more pristine wetland. There were 2 existing docks
at the time. Those are significantly older so when this subdivision went in that was something
that we talked about. The pristine nature of it and that's how it got put into the HOA
requirements. Yes there were existing docks but they weren't, so when we add, as we change
just as we talked about tonight things change over time. Regulations and so this is something
that we had looked at and that homeowners association put into their covenants to restrict it that
way so that was the thought given behind that at the time. They were larger lots and to keep the
lake pristine, that was the thought behind it.
Brian Lang: Just as another comparable I was just, I drive around obviously Chanhassen a lot
and I see docks all over the lakes and ponds and I was just, last week I was driving by actually
Highway 41 and Lake Lucy Road and I noticed in Brendon Pond, and I'm not sure of the size but
there's literally I 1 docks in there. In Brendon Pond and I don't know the acreage of it but if
something like that is appropriate I feel like adding 4 docks to a 15 acre lake seems appropriate
in my estimation as well so that's another standpoint.
Aller: Great, thankyou.
Brian Lang: And I can sit down if anybody has any questions or wants to come up I'll respond
to any questions. Thank you.
Aller: Wonderful thanks.
Aanenson: I'm just going to clarify a couple more things. So we're talking a couple different
things here. We only have so many natural environment lakes in the city. That's why this is a
different classification so we're talking about ponds versus some other you know. There's
different criteria for different lakes. We have general recreational lakes. I think we have 3
classifications. Natural environment. Which one am I missing? So anyways so they have
different classifications. We have some that you can use motorized. Some you can't use a
motorized on the lake so there's different classifications so that's how the ordinance came about.
I'm not talking about the merits of the wetland alteration permit. I'm just talking about how we
got to this place and what the conditions, what our thought process was because I've had a
43
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 17, 2016 •
couple of residents send my quotations from when we did the subdivision and that's how we
looked at that time because it was a natural environment lake and it was of good quality.
Brian Lang: Can I respond?
Aller: One second. We're going to go ahead and open up the public hearing portion so we can
hear and then if you want to respond we can see whether or not there's any responses at that
point in time so I'll open up the public hearing portion of this matter before and if someone
wishes to come forward and speak either for or against the application can do so at this time.
Please come forward. State your name and address for the record ma'am.
Sue Morgan: Yes, my name is Sue Morgan and I live at 4031 Kings Road which is directly
across from this property and we're 1 of the 2 grandfathered in docks on the property. It's the
longest one that Mr. Lang was talking about. We moved onto this property, well we owned the
property since 1985. When we purchased the property we were informed by the City, and also I
did some investigating to find out what kind of lake Lake St. Joe was and I found out that it's a
natural environment lake and what that meant was that access on Lake St. Joe was supposed to
be restricted but there is a public access on Lake St. Joe so that's questionable. Also the area,
size of the lake. The depth of the lake and also the just the overall nature of the lake defines it as
such and the access to the lake is supposed to be limited. When the Highlands was being built I
did some additional research and actually tried to limit the development of the Highlands
because of the nature of the lake. If you look through the Met Council, Linda and I have been
kind of keepers of the lake since we've lived on the lake so we do lake monitoring for clarity and
for consistency and quality overall and what's important is not just the wetlands but also the lake
itself. If you look on that website you'll find that Lake St. Joe is Chanhassen's only grade A lake
which means it's the highest grade lake in Chanhassen. That is up until 2009 when the quality
has dropped to a B and part of that is the impact that all the development and all these houses in
the Highlands have had on Lake St. Joe. So my concern is that, our concern when the Highlands
was built was that access would be limited to the lake and it wasn't just because we wanted to be
the only guys on the block with a dock. There's also another dock that's grandfathered in but we
were told when we purchased the property in 1985 that our dock was grandfathered in. If we
took our dock out we could not put another dock in so we've maintained that dock since 1985
and we've been under the auspices that we could not build another dock so when the Highlands
came in it was important to us that they were limited in how many docks they could put on Lake
St. Joe and we were told that they couldn't build any docks onto St. Joe which was fine. Now it
seems as though I guess the quality of the lake isn't important anymore and the wetlands aren't
important anymore and we just continue to build and build more and more on it and allow more
access so you know we're talking originally about 1 dock and then 4 docks keep being thrown
into the conversation so it seems like perhaps the tides have turned and now Highlands want
more than just 1 dock on the lake. My concern would be if this is approved then we have 8 acres
on Lake St. Joe which is the last large parcel as far as I know on Lake St. Joe so if we decide to
subdivide that and put 3-4 houses on it, then are we setting precedence that we can ask for
additional docks for those properties if subdivided? So again my concern is that we kind of look
IV
Chanhassen Planning C• ission —May 17, 2016 •
at long term, water quality is important. The only grade A lake in Chanhassen is now becoming
a grade B because of access. Not to say that one more dock on Lake St. Joe is going to be an
issue but if it gets passed and the HOA regulations get changed then that kind of opens the door
and who knows what happens with the water quality on Lake St. Joe. So that's it for me, thank
you.
Aller: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Any other individual wishing to come forward at this time
please do so.
Cathy McKenna: My name is Cathy McKenna. I live at 4150 Lakeridge Road in the Highlands
on Lake St. Joe property. I'm one of the original owners of the property there and when we
purchased the house we were given covenants. Covenants that we've had for 18 years that say
no docks. When we bought the house we knew we could not build a dock on Lake St. Joe.
Everyone who has lived there for the last 18 years and buys a house there knows that it says no
dock, wharf and where it should he built or installed on or from any adjacent to any part of the
lot that adjoins Lake St. Joe so that was a given. So we have a homeowners association and we
also have a method in that association on how to amend these covenants and there is a process.
You need two-thirds of the owners to vote and if it's not the owners I believe it's the bank that
owns the property and you can change that and I think if we want to change that, that's the way it
should be done by the process that is here. We did have one homeowners association meeting
when Mr. Lang was talking about the dock and there is resistance to changing our covenants
because if we change the docks what do we change next? And if we don't enforce the dock we
can't enforce anything. I feel if this wetland permit is granted and a dock attempts to go in that
our homeowners association will be unfairly burdened with enforcing this and how we do that
I'm really not sure. We're 33 homes. We don't have a legal fund. I don't know what we would
do but there is a principle I think and a process here. And Lake St. Joe as they talked about in
1995 they mentioned, and if you could bear with me they said that staff felt that based on the
extensive all the wetlands that it really wasn't appropriate to have additional docks there.
Certainly they could try to get through the wetland alteration permit you know to try to get a
common dock but there is a public access there. We felt based on the sensitivity of the area that
it shouldn't be allowed and Lundgren Brothers indicated to us that they would put it in their
restrictive covenants that no docks be permitted. That was our original position. When it went
to the Planning Commission most recently the Planning Commission wanted to say that if the
covenants did change, which they certainly have the control to do outside of the City Council,
then they would just be on notice that they would have to be required to have a wetland alteration
permit. I guess my preference would be they try to keep the covenants to prohibit docks based
on the sensitivity of that area. That really they shouldn't have docks and there is a public access
to use that. The Mayor said Lake St. Joe as it is is sort of a pristine lake in itself and they
answered yes, correct. It is a natural lake. And I think there is a majority of homeowners in our
association that do just want to keep it like it is. It's beautiful. It's been that way for 18 years
and as you've already mentioned we're trying to maintain that. So I don't know where 4 docks
came from but you know we were trying to keep our covenants in effect and I feel that if this
45
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 17, 2016 •
permit is granted that we would be unduly forced to try to make that happen. Thank you very
much.
Aller: Thank you Ms. McKenna. Any additional individuals wishing to come forward at this
time? Yes sir, state your name and address for the record please.
Mark Malinowski: My name is Mark Malinowski. I live on 7250 Minnewashta Parkway. I
guess Brian you did have, say we could address you with questions?
Brian Lang: Sure.
Mark Malinowski: Were you aware.
Allen. Sir, sir. Why don't you just talk to me first because we're.
Mark Malinowski: Is this a court sir?
Aller. It is not a court. That's why I want you to just.
Mark Malinowski: It's just with respect that I speak to the individual that I'm addressing.
Aller: Well but the process is you talk to us. Yeah. So you address the question. We'll get it
answered by him or by staff, okay?
Mark Malinowski: Yes Andrew.
Aller: Thank you.
Mark Malinowski: Brian were you aware in the homeowners association that docks were
prohibited?
Brian Lang: Yes.
Mark Malinowski: Thank you. I have another question. Kate you had mentioned that there
were, at the time 2 docks on Lake St. Joe when Highlands went in. There were actually 3.
Aanenson: Yeah I said 2 or 3. I can't remember.
Mark Malinowski: Well let me I do.
Aanenson: Okay, thank you.
]s
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 17, 2016 •
Aller: Sir I want you to continue to address me. State your position please and keep it to about 2
to 3 minutes.
Mark Malinowski: I don't think I can sir. 2 or 3 minutes won't cover it.
Aller: We're going to try.
Mark Malinowski: Okay, thank you. As the, a question came up regarding the other
development and Terry I think Forbord, and I believe Terry Forbord also was a representative
from Lundgren Brothers that had said to the Planning Commission I will handle that in a
covenant or homeowners association that we will not have docks okay and I caught him out here.
He has no recollection of it but I believe the Minutes of the meetings will show that. The City
Council I understand, Planning Commission probably has no say in whether this alteration can
be done or not because it meets a state statutes, et cetera. However I think that when developers
come in and they assure Planning Commission, City Council that these will be covered in the
homeowners association the same individual that covered it Terry is here addressing the other
sub -development to take caution because he has no recollection of that when I spoke to him in
the hall. Now I have another question about 4 docks possibly added to the, 4 docks added to the
lake in addition to this 1 that's proposed by Brian. I guess I'm not sure why it's going to be
much more than 4 because if the land, it doesn't necessarily matter I don't think if the land
because I believe some of these lots actually go into the wetland right to the shoreland so there
could be possibly much more than only the 4 docks. Again my position is I don't own the land.
You know all I know is what we were told as citizens when we came here in 1993 and were
concerned. One thing too that I would say, I'm pretty much done Andrew but with the exception
of there are beaver on the lake and my dog got bit by a beaver about 14 days ago and they can be
pretty nasty and as far as, can I say one thing about trees as long as I'm up here.
Aller: Sure.
Mark Malinowski: Trees are very important. I own a farm in Wisconsin. I protect a forest. I
have a lot of trees on my property but when it comes to a tree as a Planning Commission, there's
something in inventory. Now I do have a question on the inventory of a lot. Do they state the
type of tree that it is?
Aanenson: Yes.
Mark Malinowski: Okay. So I guess the quality of trees, whether they're cottonwood, aspen or
whatever, when you replace a tree perhaps 1 red oak or I beautiful maple is worth more than
several cottonwoods or trees that are possibly decimated by ash borer, thank you.
Aller: Thank you for your comments. Any last individuals coming forward? There we go.
Come on up. State your name and address for the record.
47
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 17, 2016 •
Maren Jecha: Hi my name is Maren Jecha. Last name is spelled J-e-c-h-a. I live at 4080
Lakeridge Road, adjacent to Brian's property.
Aller: Welcome.
Maren Jecha: We are the second homeowners of our place and when we purchased the property
we enjoyed the idea of having to look out onto a lake, onto a wetland area without restrictions.
The idea of listening to the deer as they walk through the wetland area. To the raccoons that
come up to eat off my birdfeeders. To the pheasants that are in the backyard. To the coyotes
that have been in the back yard. A lot of that has been disappearing as I've noticed as
development has taken place through this area and we've lived here for 16 years now. My other
concern is to, even though my property is not actually attached to the lake but the idea of looking
out onto the lake without the restriction of a dock to look at of people going out onto the dock.
The restriction of the animals walking through this wetland. Having to encounter this dock in
the night time as they walk through the wetland areas to get to their feeding or to hunt or to
escape as prey. My also other concern is the children in the neighborhood and Brian's children
too in that they are young. I've had, I have 5 children of my own. I lived on lake property. I've
lived, I have a lake cabin with marsh areas and tall grasses to restrict kids from getting into the
lake and falling in and my concern is safety. My concern is safety that way not only for his but
for other children in the development because this is a development for children. The houses are
big for large families. And my other concern is the idea of allowing a dock when the covenants
and homeowners association says that there are no docks. This is what we looked at. We were
given the covenants before purchasing the property knowing that docks are not allowed along
with other things like clotheslines and things like that which would deteriorate our home values.
That's all, thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Any other public comments?
Sue Morgan: I just have one added. Sue Morgan from 4031 Kings Road.
Aller: Welcome back.
Sue Morgan: Thanks. Just wanted to add that it's not, for Brian it's not an easy lake to have a
dock on. It's a muck bottom lake so you need mud feet about this big because your poles sink
and because of the last 2 years the rain events we've had, and we have a very busy beaver, our
dock resides under water three-quarters of the summer so you know it sounds like a grand idea
but it's not an easy lake to have a dock on so that's it.
Brian Lang: I just wanted to.
Aller: Keep it to 1-2 minutes.
Brian Lang: Oh yeah sure.
48
Chanhassen Planning C• ission — May 17, 2016 •
Aller: And respond to just issues that have presented.
Brian Lang: Okay. I just wanted to respond to a couple items. I've been told that a number of
times as far as when people have moved in they purchase their home based on the homeowners
association covenants and I understand that but they also purchase a home under the
understanding that the homeowners association covenants also say that if two-thirds a majority
of the community agrees to change a covenant then that's a possibility. So I just wanted to make
a comment on that. And then the second thing as far as, I think there was a reference as far as
how the process goes as far as getting approval and the mention the fact that you have to contact
your, the way the language is written and that's up to subject because it's, some folks in the
association making the assumption of that's what it means without having the appropriate
credentials to determine that and using that as an obstruction saying that you know we're not
even going to try because everyone's got to go to the bank to get approval to have a covenant
changed and that might be the case. I'm just saying that I don't believe the people saying that
have the credentials to determine the language in the covenants to assume that. And the second
thing is we actually looked up, and I guess this is even, this part doesn't matter so I won't even
say it. And then the last thing was as far as, oh the 4 docks. I was just saying that. There was no
intention as far as my knowledge of the way I'm looking at the property lines and how the
shoreline ends up being. That's the way I determined that that I believe there's a maximum
potential for 4 more docks. That's all I was saying. I wasn't saying that anybody told me they
were going to put docks in. I realize that potential is there. I just wanted to call that out. That
the people, the other 3 households didn't say you know what if you get this permit approved or
what not and we get the covenants changed I'm putting in a dock too. I just wanted to make that
clear because folks were getting kind of worked up about the 4 dock thing. And then lastly I
understand the impacts that docks can cause. I read a lot about it. We all clearly know there is,
you couldn't even count the amount of docks on lakes in the state and what I have proposed is
the most limited amount of dock that I would need in order to actually access the water. There'd
be a small amount of dockage actually in the water and the actual proposed length of the dock is
what I need to just get through the cattails part and honestly I was out there on Sunday walking
through and I can actually walk through probably like 70 percent of that so I probably wouldn't
even need even that much dock and the reality is what I'm trying to do is just to be able to access
the lake without going to the public access which is on the far northeast comer of the lake and
you'd have to take the road to get there. I'm just trying to put the minimal amount of dock in in
order to use non -engine propelled watercrafts for example canoes, kayaks and what not and I feel
like as a shoreline property owner regardless of the covenants I have just as much of a right as
someone on the, any other part of the lake to put a dock in. If they're okay with having a dock
and they don't feel like there's a concern with their dock and an impact to the lake, the wildlife,
what have you, then I don't think I should have any moral or I shouldn't feel guilt because I want
to put a dock in and that's my stance on that. If others were that passionate about it they would
also take their docks regardless if they're grandfathered in. Regardless or not the reality is we're
both shoreline property owners of this lake and the both, everybody who is should have the equal
m
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 17, 2016 •
amount of rights regardless if you've been there 20 years before a wetland ordinance or not.
Thank you.
Aller: Thank you.
Mark Malinowski: I have one more comment.
Aller: Sir just.
Mark Malinowski: One minute.
Aller: One minute, alright.
Mark Malinowski: When Lundgren Brothers built Lake St. Joe another stipulation is they were
to remove the third dock that was on the Boley property. That dock has not been removed yet
and it is right, there's poles left there. All they did was cut off the top of it and I propose that the
City go to Lundgren Brothers or whoever and have them remove the rest of that dock as he
promised they would do. Done.
Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments from the gallery? None. We're going to close the
public hearing at this point in time and open it up for discussion. Interesting situation.
Madsen: Are there rules about dock availability for different types of lakes that the City has?
Aller: So Lake St. Joe in particularly, are there rules and regulations which would restrict the
use of?
Spreiter: Our ordinances follow the state shoreland ordinances which for each of the different
classifications it has more to do with the land use and the development around the lake than it
does the actual use. That includes motors, docks so to in short to answer your question no.
There's no different, it doesn't differentiate between this lake and any other lake in regards to
docks.
Aanenson: Could I just add to that a little bit. So Lake St. Joe is, because it's a natural
environment lake. It doesn't have, different lakes have different restrictions on it so this is a 15
miles an hour or less for boats, for speed on the lake.
Madsen: Okay.
Aller: Any additional comments? The question is putting, in my eyes is it putting the cart before
the horse but is it up to me to decide that? I have reviewed the conditions and I would be hard
pressed to find a reason to deny the permit and, but I do agree now with condition I which would
say that he would have to have permission because there's enough there for me to say let's move
W11
Chanhassen Planning C• ission — May 17, 2016 •
forward with this because I think we have to but I think we're putting a reasonable condition on
it to say or at least take it to the City Council for final action. Let the City Attorney look at it and
he can make a request that that condition be removed at that time but that way we're not
interfering or interlocking with the potential for the homeowners association to have it's rights
enforced.
Aanenson: Chairman Aller I did ask the City Attorney that question today. I think clearly you
can kind of see the direction this is going. The homeowners association feels like if a dock goes
up they're left to forced to sue which puts them in a tough situation but we have no jurisdiction
over the association so we really wanted to soft peddle that. Just say I think other requests that
we, we certainly would send out a letter to the association's president to say that the City, if
that's the way the City goes was to approve a wetland alteration. Just put them on notice on that.
Aller: So that would be altering then condition number 1.
Aanenson: Yeah I think Krista did say that instead of the word was we notify them. Not to get
approval from.
Spreiter: So I'm sorry, that condition was changed actually today after we spoke with the city
attorney and I, maybe Kate can elaborate a little bit but basically the message was we can't
legally put that condition in there because we do not have jurisdiction over HOA's.
Aanenson: ...we'd just say notification.
Aller: Notification and that's fine because that was my first blush indication but I would rather
leave it to him at council but if we're getting that information already.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Allen. Then that's fine. And I would ask staff to look into that extra dock.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Aller: The existence violation, lack of violation, whatever. So any other comments? Questions.
Yusuf. I have a question.
Aller: Yes, Commissioner Yusuf.
Yusuf. Please can you guys educate me on the Grade A versus Grade B difference in the lake
and just kind of talk about the impact that one dock would have on the pristineness of the lake I
guess.
51
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 17, 2016 •
Spreiter: Sure I don't know if I can answer all that but she was referring to, we participate in the
Met Council's camp program. It's a citizen monitoring program. We have citizens on almost
every lake in Chanhassen. They provide data on a bi-weekly basis and then the data is compiled
and then the lakes are given a grade based on water quality. So I didn't know that one of and
correct me if I'm wrong but she was saying that it was a grade A lake and since the increased
development around the lake it has dropped to a grade B. As far as the impact of docks
themselves I would say it would be more use and use on the lake and land use that would be an
impact but I guess I don't have the research so I can't answer accurately.
Yusuf: Thank you. Just one more question on that. When you're looking at the grading what
parameters are taken into account? Are they testing for different mineral contents or something
or is it just the clarity?
Spreiter: It's a combination of things but they send in samples to a lab and then they also
measure yes water clarity. They take some just objective observations but then they also test for
chlorophyll A, phosphorus, total phosphorus and total nitrogen and those 3 parameters kind of
make up the overall water quality of the lake.
Yusuf: Thank you.
Aller: Additional comments, questions. I'll entertain a motion if someone would like to make
one.
Yusuf: I'll make the motion.
Aller: Commissioner Yusuf.
Yusuf The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
wetland alteration permit based on the conditions of the staff report.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Hokkanen: Can you note the change of the.
Yusuf: Oh I'm sorry.
Aller: As amended.
Yusuf Yes please. As amended please.
Hokkanen: Thank you. Second.
52
Chanhassen Planning C•mission — May 17, 2016 •
Aller: Having a motion and having a second. Commissioner Yusuf made a motion which has
been seconded by Commissioner Hokkanen on her last official night. Any further discussion?
Yusuf moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the wetland alteration permit for 4060
Lakeridge Road subject to the following conditions:
No dock shall be placed without notification to the Highlands on Lake St. Joe
Homeowners' Association.
2. The dock must be installed in the shortest straight line distance through the wetland.
The dock and any associated watercraft must be located entirely outside of the 10-foot
dock setback areas.
4. No fill shall be placed anywhere within the wetland beyond the allowed 20 square foot de
minimis exemption.
5. No emergent vegetation shall be removed without appropriate permits from the MN
Department of Natural Resources.
6. The dock shall otherwise comply with Chanhassen City Code.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Aller: Moving onto administrative presentations.
Aanenson: This item, can we just clarify this item 2 also goes to the City Council on the 13`s.
Aller: Yes it does.
Aanenson: So if anybody's following this item. Anything presented, we did receive some
emails, those will be also included in the packet.
Aller: Yes Monday, June 136
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 19, 2016 as presented.
53
Chanhassen Planning Co •ion — May 17, 2016 •
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Aanenson: Thank you Chairman. On the April 25' the City Council approved Mr. Randall's
appointment to the Planning Commission. He has sat through the meeting. He is observing.
And also I just want to acknowledge that this is Lisa Hokkanen's, Commissioner Hokkanen's
last meeting so round of applause, thank you. On Monday, May 9a' the City Council did approve
Chick-fil-A so that one's still working through some stormwater issues too. The underground
tank there. That one actually goes, does that go south underneath Highway 5.
Aller: It crosses over right?
Aanenson: Yeah so we're trying to manage that still. We're still working through that but
they're getting ready. Would hopefully be open this fall but got to work through their site plans.
Again just to be clear on that the site plan we don't approve any construction until every plan
meets the requirements so that's kind of the, and the site plan agreement or the development
contract so that's where that sits. I would like to go through with you schedule then for
upcoming meetings. We do have on the June 7te meeting we do have the Wilson Nursery
subdivision. That's also going to be an interesting subdivision. Challenging topography so I
will say you know we've brought in subdivisions, the last 2 subdivisions we've brought in are
larger lots so you know we've been doing a lot of smaller lots so we could have done smaller lots
on that one too but we're really trying to accommodate what, you know there's different
markets. Trying to hit the different market points on that so we also have a variance on Red
Cedar Point. Just removal and reconstruction of a home which is actually improving stormwater
issues and some sight lines so I think that's a very positive one. We'll give the oath of office to
Mr. Randall when he's here and then we have another variance on Leslee Curve and that's for an
additional shed over the 1,000 square feet. And then finally I'm going to do a summary of the
visioning that you did. I'm presenting that to the Park and Rec on Tuesday but your next
meeting I'll just share with you some of the findings and then kind of look at the analytics as we
look at our population growth. How many jobs in what sectors and how that, you know how we
think about that as we move forward in some of our recommendations in the Comprehensive
Plan so with that Chairman that's all I had.
Aller: Great. Alright I think that's it for our agenda tonight. So with that I would just say Lisa I
personally have enjoyed working with you and the vibrancy that you brought here and the
professionalism that you brought to the commission and especially your passion to serve the
residents of Chanhassen and just making it what could be a tedious process a little bit more fun.
Hokkanen: Tried to.
Aller: So thank you and I also look forward to Mr. Randall joining us at the next meeting and
getting his unique perspective as we move forward. With that I'll make a motion to adjourn or
entertain a motion to adjourn. Would you like to?
54
Chanhassen Planning Commission — May 17, 2016 •
Hokkanen: Motion to adjourn for the last time.
Yusuf: Second.
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
611
s •
CITY OF MEMORANDUM
CHMNSEN
TO: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147 `
Chanhassen, MN 55317 FROM: Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator /
Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician
Administration
Phone:952.227.1100 DATE: May 17, 2016
Fax:952.227.1110
SUBJ: 4060 Lakeridge Road Wetland Alteration Permit
Building Inspections Planning Case No. 2016-10
Phone:952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1190
The applicant is requesting a Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) to allow for the
Engineering installation of a temporary dock through a Type 3/5 wetland. The proposed dock
Phone: 952.227.1160 would be typical wood construction supported by metal, two inch (2") diameter
Fax: 952.227.1170
posts. The proposed dock would only be the length required to traverse the cattail
Finance dominated area and reach open water (approximately 95 feet) and have one 8-foot
Phone:952.227.1140 length cross section.
Fax:952.227.1110
Park & Recreation A dock is an allowed use on a single-family residential lot. As such, this
Phone:952.227.1120 application is not for the dock itself but rather to determine if the wetland impacts
Fax:952.227.1110 are appropriate and allowable under City Code and the MN Wetland Conservation
Recreation Center Act (WCA). The Highlands on Lake St. Joe Homeowner's Association (HOA)
2310 Coulter Boulevard does not allow docks on private properties. This is consistent with the May 8,
Phone: 952.227.1400 1995 meeting in which it was discussed that the unique character of Lake St. Joe
Fax: 952.227.1404 should be preserved and that limiting docks on the lake would serve that end. The
Planning & City stopped short of asking the shoreline be placed into an outlot but rather had
Natural Resources the developer create a Homeowners Association and include within the covenants
Phone:952.227.1130 and restrictions a prohibition of docks.
Fax: 952.227.1110
Any decision on this WAP would not abrogate HOA covenants and restrictions.
Public Works
7901 Park Place
It is not the City's role to enforce HOA covenants and restrictions just as it is not
Phone:952.227.1300
the City's role to usurp or otherwise render the HOA ineffectual in enforcing their
Fax: 952.227.1310
covenants and restrictions. The question is simply, if the applicant was allowed a
dock, would it constitute a wetland impact?
Senior Center
Phone:952.227.1125
Fax:952.227.1110
Under the MN Wetland Conservation Act, impacts below a de minimis threshold
are exempt from sequencing and replacement rules and, with certain limitations,
Website
are allowed. A person may impact up to 20 square feet of Type 3, 4, 5 or 8
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
wetland that is within the shore impact zone. Each post is 0.26 square feet in
area so up to 76 posts could be placed and still be under the 20 square foot de
minimis threshold. As there are no other impacts associated with this dock, it
would be an allowed use under the WCA.
G9ENG\Terry\WCA\201644060 Lakeridge Rd WAP\20160507 Memorandum to PC.docx
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Kate Aanenson •
4060 Lakeridge Road WAP
May 17, 2016
Page 2
Article VI of Chapter 20 makes it clear that the goal is to achieve no net loss of wetland
functions and values while still allowing for reasonable use of property. As the proposed dock
would not appreciably reduce storage within the wetland, diminish habitat or decrease water
quality, staff feels the dock meets these goals. This is in keeping with City practices.
Staff recommends approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit with the following conditions:
1. No dock shall be placed without permission of the Highlands on Lake St. Joe
Homeowners' Association.
2. The dock must be installed in the shortest straight line distance through the wetland.
3. The dock and any associated watercraft must be located entirely outside of the 10-foot
dock setback areas.
4. No fill shall be placed anywhere within the wetland beyond the allowed 20 square foot de
minimis exemption.
5. No emergent vegetation shall be removed without appropriate permits from the MN
Department of Natural Resources.
6. The dock shall otherwise comply with Chanhassen City Code.
G:\ENG\Tcny\WCA\2016\4060 Lakeridge Rd WAP\20160507_Memomdum to PC.dmx
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAMENT
Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227-1130 / Fax: (952) 227-1110
AGENCY REVIEW REQUEST
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
71TY OF CHANHASSEN
Please review and respond no later than the review response deadline
Agency Review Request Date:
April 19, 2016
Agency Review Response Deadline:
May 5, 2016
Date Application Filed:
Aril 15, 2016
Contact:
Contact Phone:
Contact Email:
Terry Jeffery
952-227-1168
geffery@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Water Resources Coordinator
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
60-Day Review Period Deadline:
May 17, 2016 at 7:00 p.m.
June 13, 2016 at 7:00 p.m.
June 14, 2016
Application:
Wetland Alteration Permit request for installation of temporary dock at 4060 Lakeridge Road, Excelsior (Lot 4, Block 1,
Highlands on Lake St. Joe). A licant\Owner: Brian Lang.
Planning Case: 2016-10 1 Web Page_ www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2016-10
In order for staff to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and
proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and
City Council. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated.
City Departments:
❑
Attorney
®
Building Official
®
Engineer
®
Fire Marshal
®
Forester
❑
Park Director
®
Water Resources
❑
Law Enforcement
Federal Agencies:
❑ Army Corps of Engineers
❑ US Fish & Wildlife
Watershed Districts:
❑
Carver County WMO
❑
Lower MN River
❑
Minnehaha Creek
❑
Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek
Carver County Agencies:
Utilities:
❑
❑
Community Development
Engineer
❑
Cable TV — Mediacom
❑
Environmental Services
❑
Electric — Minnesota Valley
❑
Historical Society
❑
Electric —Xcel Energy
❑
Parks
❑
Magellan Pipeline
El
&Water Conservation District
❑
Natural Gas — CenterPoint Energy
❑
Phone — CenturyLink
State Aaencies:
❑ Board of Water & Soil Resources
❑ Health
❑ Historical Society
❑ Natural Resources -Forestry
❑ Natural Resources -Hydrology
❑ Pollution Control
❑ Transportation
Adjacent Cities:
❑
Chaska
❑
Eden Prairie
❑
Jackson Township
❑
Minnetonka
❑
Shorewood
❑
Victoria
Adjacent Counties:
❑ Hennepin
❑ Scott
School Districts:
❑ Eastern Carver County 112
❑ Minnetonka 276
Other Aaencies:
❑ Hennepin County Regional Railroad
Authority
❑ MN Landscape Arboretum
❑ SouthWest Transit
❑ TC&W Railroad
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227-1300 I Fax: (952) 227-1110
CITY OF CgANgASSEN
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Submittal Date: C PC Date: CC Date: 60-0ay Review Date: ZP / /
Section 1: Application apply)
(Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application)
❑
Comprehensive Plan Amendment .........................$600
❑
Subdivision (SUB)
❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on -site sewers.....
$100
❑ Create 3 lots or less........................................$300
El
Conditional
ElCreate over 3 lots.......................$600 + $15 per lot
Use Permit (CUP)
lots)
❑ Single-FamilyResidence................................$325
El &Bounds (2 lots)..................................$300
❑ All Others .........................................................$425
❑ Consolidate Lots .............................................. $150
El
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
❑ Lot Line Adjustment.........................................$150
❑ Final Plat
❑ In conjunction with Single -Family Residence..
❑ All Others
$325
..........................................................$700
(Includes S450 escrow for attorney costs)'
.........................................................
$425
*Additional escrow may be required for other applications
❑
Rezoning (REZ)
through the development contract.
❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ..................
$750
❑
Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300
❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD.................
$100
(Additional recording fees may apply)
❑ All Others .........................................................$500
❑
Variance (VAR) .................................................... $200
❑
Sign Plan Review .......... :..........................................
$150
Wetland Alteration Penn it (WAP) , ...�
❑
Site Plan Review (SPR)
❑ Single -Family Residence .............................. $150
❑ Administrative ............... A..: ................................
$100
❑ All Others ....................................................... $275
❑ Commercial/Industrial Districts*......................$500
El
.. ; ';
.
Zoning Appeal $100
Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:
......................................,.... ...........
( thousand square feet)
❑
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500
Include number of existing employees:
Include number of new employees:
❑ Residential Districts ........................
"""' ' ' ' """"""
$500
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed eoneumentty,
Plus $5 per dwelling unit (_ units)
the
appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
❑
Notification Sign (city to install and remove)......................................................................................................................
$200
❑ Property Owners' List within 500' (city to generate after pre -application meeting) .................................................. $3 per address
( addresses)
❑ Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply) ......................................... ...................... $50 per document
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Agreement
❑ Vacation ❑ Variance ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit
❑ Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 does.) ❑ Easements( easements)
TOTAL FEE:
Description of Proposal:
Property Address or Location: _
Parcel #: 0Z6351 OUZO
Total Acreage: ) � 0�
Present Zoning: Select One
L106o Lc karf-raa«. QmS
Legal Description: IL-OT 'J 3 w t"�
Wetlands Present? ZYes ❑ No
Present Land Use Designation: Select One
Existing Use of Property: sCC C,�4C,
XCheck box is separate narrative is attached.
EXcl.tr,ior
Ss331
Requested Zoning: Select One
Requested Land Use Designation: Select One
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained
authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to
the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application
should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this
application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I
further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to
any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Email:
Signature: _
Contact:
Phone:
Cell:
Fax:
Date:
PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,
authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of
the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may
be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the
study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name: Gt:a, mot--`
Address: 140U) LQ6
City/State/Zip:
Email: be icv%
Signature:
Contact: U C-
Phone:
Cell: 310-4a4S
Fax:
Date: Li -13- l6
This application must be competed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist
and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural
requirements and fees.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A
written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Name: Contact:
Address: Phone:
City/State/Zip: Cell: _
Email: Fax: _
Section 4: Notification Information
Who should receive copies of staff reports?
'Other Contact Information:
❑
Property Owner Via:
❑ Email
❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name:
❑
Applicant Via:
❑ Email
❑ Mailed Paper Copy Address:
❑
Engineer Via:
❑ Email
❑ Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip:
❑
Other' Via:
❑ Email
❑ Mailed Paper Copy Email:
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your
device. PRINT Fob o and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FO, to send a digital
copy to the city for processing (required).
SAVE FORM PRNT FORM SUBMR FORM
• 0
Installation and Purpose of Dock in regards to 4060 Lakeridge Road on Lake St. Joe:
1) Purpose of dock is to access the lake from property primarily to fish off the dock and use a small
boat with a trolling motor.
2) Placement of dock structure is drawn on the attached Ariel Photo with approximate dimensions
described below.
a. Dock will be approximately 75-100 feet in length of mostly walkway through the cattails
which will begin approximately 4 feet before the start of the cattails.
b. Dock portion in the water will be approximately 8 feet.
3) Dock will be professionally installed as a temporary structure and will be removed each year.
Further description below:
a. Dock will be on temporary posts that will be removed each year
b. Dock will be constructed of Wood (example of image attached)
c. Dock will be 4' wide or less
d. Dock structure will be high enough so water can freely flow beneath the structure
e. Will NOT interfere with anyone's use of the water space or a hazard to navigation
f. Will be no longer than necessary to provide intended use
g. Will NOT include a boat lift
'16
4! �
o J �vC:9-
S33`
Property Card i
Parcel ID Number *510040
Taxpayer Information
Taxpayer Name
BRIAN E LANG
LINDSEY R LANG
Mailing Address
4060 LAKERIDGE RD
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331-9689
1
,
�•
`1
Property Address
14
fir
+
Bern s Rn
�,
Address'
4060 LAKERIDGE RD
City
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
ee"'
Parcel Information
Uses Res 1 unit
GIS Acres 1.02
Net Acres 1.02
Deeded Acres
Plat HIGHLANDS ON LAKE ST JOE
(CHAN)
Lot 004
Block 001
Tax Description
Building Information
Building Style 2 STORY
Above Grade 3336
Bedrooms 5
Finished Sq Ft
Year Built 1997
Garage Y
Bathrooms 3.25
Miscellaneous Information
School District Watershed District Homestead Green Acres Ag Preserve
0276 WS 062 MINNEHAHA CREEK Y I N I N
Assessor Information
Estimated Market Value
2015 Values
(Payable 2016)
2016 Values
(Payable 2017)
Last Sale
Land
$164,900.00
$150,900.00
Date of Sale 08/23/2013
Building
$466,300.00
$426,800,00
Sale Value $485,430.00
Total
$631, 200.00
$577, 700.00
The cars provided herewith is for reference purposes only This data is not suitable for legalengineering surveying Or other similar purposes. Carver County Wes not guarantee the amuracy of the
m entrahat contained herein. This data is furnished on an as is basis and Carver County makes no representations or warranties. either expressed or implied for the merchantadlay or fitness of the
form inaLm provided for any purpose. This disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §4 03 and the user of the data
provided herein acknowledges that Carver County shall not bit liable for any damages. and by using this data in any way expressly waives all claims. and agrees to defend, ndempey. and hold
harmless Carver County, M1s oRiaals, oRversagents. employees, etc from any andall claims brought by anyone who uses the information provided for herein, its employees or agents, or
CARVER trnd parties which arse wt of users access By acceptance of Arta data the user agrees not to trensma Nis data or provide access to it a any pan of tl to another party unless the user includes
COUNTY with the data a copy of this disclaimer.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016 Carver County, MN
0
0
ED l
6Y: +
DEP
DATE: 111 6
"' 'D �{L
DEPT.: r n 9
DATE:ihl,a /ai
v11 I.: 1 c L
DATE / Z- Z(o--/
5
OJ,•S� S \> 962.8
F
e
�o
963.0
970.9
E9
r
14� 957.6 }
ss
6.16
969.0 +
S
04
96�9 \35\
96
8 MH
� .00
1'
969.0
.. d
-; 1712+/
I,
4 q -
/
OR�NP� W0
\F
\
tivo u7k/7r \
1196�y
LAKE
ST. JOE
O.H.W.= 845.2
/ I
r
- 967.9
\3.00 ?0
96
44)
Proposed Top of Foundation Elevation- 972.3
\ Proposed Garage Floor Elevation= 972.0
Proposed Lowest Floor Elevation 964.3
Lowest Allowable Floor Elevation=
;'ail
3
45967.9
;0I
ti n
970.7 / o�°GSF c
4
/ 975.4 \ \
i
0 Denotes Iron Monument
+ 910.0 Denotes Existing Elevation
+(910.0) Denotes Proposed Elevation
Denotes Direction of Surface
Drainage
I hereby certify that the proposed site
grades shown conform to the drainage
patterns established on the development
plan approved by the city.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation
of a survey of the boundaries of:
LOT 4, BLOCK 1, HIGHLANDS ON LAKE ST. JOE,
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
And the location of all buildings, if arty thereon, and all visible
encroachments, if any, from or on said land. As surveyed by
me this 6f}i day of. Decjrmber 1921.
GARY R. GERWOND
Licensed Land Surveyor, Minn. Lic. No. 24764
N
0
O
O
p
a
1.1
lZ
Ix
f0-
o_
W
U
=
3