CAS-23_CHRISTOPHE AND NADINE BECK VARIANCE REQUESTThomas J. Campbell
Roger N. Knutson
Thomas M. Scott
Elliott B. Knctsch
Joel J. Jamnik
Andrea McDowell Pochler
Soren M. Mattick
John F. Kelly
Henry A. Schaeffer, III
Alina Schwartz
Samuel J. Edmunds
Cynthia R. Kirchoff
Marguerite M. McCarron
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Suite 317 - Eagan, MN 55121
651-452-SOOO
Fax 651-452-5550
www.ck-12w.com
0 0
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
Dima Dial. (651) 234-6222
E-mai/Address: snelson@ck-law.com
April 20, 2009
Ms. Kim Meuwissen
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: CHANHASSEN —MISC. RECORDED DOCUMENTS
> Variance #08-23—Christophe Beck Property
at 6250 Ridge Road
(Part of Sections 1&2, Township 116, Range 23)
Enclosed for the City's files please find original recorded Variance #08-23 for a 56
square foot detached accessory structure variance for the construction of a 250 square
foot water oriented structure on the above property. The variance was recorded with
Carver County on February 9, 2009 as Torrens Document No. T 16946 1.
Regards,
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
SRN:ms Sks-an —R.Nelson, Iegal�Assistant
Enclosure
I
0
0
CARVER COUNITY
BECORDERMEGISTRAB OF TITLES
DOCUMENT COVER PAGE
Document No. OFFICE OF THE
REGISTRAR OF TITLES
T 169461 CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Receipt #
Cert # 33390 Feei $46 00
Certified Recorded on 2/9/2009
169461
111111111111111
DOCUMENT
TITLE:
DOCUMENT
DATE:
NAMES:
at 02:00 DAM WPM
Earl W. Hanson, Jr.
Registrar of Titles
-6- C
0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 08-23
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen
hereby grants the following variance:
The Planning Commission approves Planning Case #08-23 for a 56 square -foot
detached accessory structure variance for the construction of a 250 square -foot
water -oriented structure, and denies the bluff setback and water -oriented
accessory structure size limitation variance requests on property located at 6250
Ridge Road. The decision was not appealed to the City Council pursuant to
Section 20-29(d); therefore, the granting of the variance is final.
2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver
County, Minnesota, and legally described as shown on the attached Exhibit A.
3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
a. The combined square footage of the water -oriented accessory structure (shed/deck)
may not exceed 250 square feet;
b. A building or zoning permit must be applied for and approved prior to completion of
the water -oriented structure to ensure compliance with City Code.
c. The applicant and staff will work out a re -vegetation plan for the clear-cut area to
meet the approval of staff.
4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed
construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse.
Dated: January 6, 2009
0 0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
14V
(SEAL)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss
COUNTY OF CARVER
Thomas A. Furlong,
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thio4qday of
2009 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhalsen,
a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted
by its City Council.
(JOTAk* PUBLIC
12 4KAREN J. ENGELHARDT
,'Notary Public -Minnesota
emy G�Wsm Fxpim Jan 31,2010
1 . ==
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
0
The following described land situated in the County of Carver and State of Nfinnesota:
Tract 1:
Thal
foll, par' of Sections 1 and 2, Township 116, Range 23, described as
ws.
. Beginning at a point in the East line of Section 2, Township 116,
Range 23, distant 472.00 feet South of the Northeast corner of said
Section 2; thence North along the East line of said Section 2 a distance
of 97.00 feet; thence Northeasterly on a tangential curve to the A ht
with a radius of 65.55 feet a distance of 47.76 feet; thence North Til
degrees 45 minutes East on a line tangent to said last described curve,
a distance of 78 feet; thence Northerly on a tangential curve to the left
with a radius of 152.4 feet a distance of 37.24 feet to a point which is
the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; last
described curve being hereinafter designated and referred to as "Line A";
thence North 79 degrees 45 minutes West 250.02 feet; thence at right angle
northeasterly 10 feet; thence at a right angle Southeasterly to the
intersection of said line with the Northerly extension of aforesaid
"Line A"; thence Southerly along said extension to the point of beginning.
Tract 2:
That part of Section 1 and 2, Township 116, Range 23 described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the East line of Section 2 distant 472 feet South
of the Northeast corner of said Section 2; thence North along the East Line
of Section 2 a distance of 97 feet; thence Northeasterly on a tangential
curve to the right with a radius of 65.55 feet, a distance of 47.76 feet;
thence North 41 degrees 45 minutes East on a line tangent to last described
curve, a distance of 78 feet; thence Northerly on a tangential curve
to the left with a radius of 152.4 feet, a distance of 37.24 feet; thence
North 79 degrees 45 minutes West 330 feet, more or less, to the shore
of Christmas Lake; thence Southwesterly along the shore of said Lake 150
feet to an intersection with a line bearing North 63 degrees 22 minutes
West 326 feet, more or less from point of beginning; thence South 63 degrees
22 minutes East 326 feet, more or less to the point of
beginning, excepting therefrom the following described premises, to -wit:
That part of Sections 1 and 2, Townshij) 116, Range 23, described as
follows: Commencing at a point in the East Line of Section 2, distant
472 feet South of the Northeast corner of Section 2; thence North along
the East tine of Section 2 a distance of 97 feet; thence Northeasterly
on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 65.55 feet, a
distance of 33 feet to the point of beginning; thence Southwesterly
along said curve to said East line of Section 2; thence South along said
East Line of Section 2, a distance of 97 feet; thence North 63 degrees
22 minutes West 326 feet, more or less, to the shore of Christmas Lake;
thence Northeasterly along the shore of said lake to the intersection with a
line bearing North 72 degrees 10 minutes 39 seconds West from the
point of beginning, thence South 72 degrees 10 minutes 39 seconds East
to the point of beginning.
3
LI
Excep *;g therefrom that portion, if any, which lies below the natural
ordg� low water mark, the State of Minnesota being the owner of an
of said portion, if any, lying below the natural ordinary low water
mark, it being recognized that said lake is a navigable public
body of water, provided, however, that the applicants shall have
the usual riparian rights that attach to land riparian to navigable
public bodies of water incident to the ownership thereof.
For the purposes of the descriptions of the above two tracts, the East
Line of said Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, is assumed to be a
due North and South line.
According to the Government Survey thereof.
rd
CITY OF CHANHASSET
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110
TO: Campbell Knutson, PA
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, MN 55121
WE ARE SENDING YOU
[I Shop drawings
El Copy of letter
LETTER OF TASIMITTAL
DATE
2/3/09
Sue Nelson
Document Recordi
0 Attached El Under separate cover via the following items:
El Prints El Plans E] Samples E] Specifications
El Change Order El Pay Request El -
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
1
1/6/09
08-23
Beck Variance (6250 Ridge Road)
El
FORBIDS DUE
For Recording
E]
PRINTS RETURNED AFTER
LOAN TO US
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
0
For approval
Ej
For your use
0
As requested
El
For review and comment
El
FORBIDS DUE
REMARKS
COPY TO: Christophe & Nadine Beck
copies for approval
copies for distribution
corrected prints
SCANNED
N enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
Approved as submitted
El Resubmit
Approved as noted
El Submit
E]
Returned for corrections
El Return
E
For Recording
E]
PRINTS RETURNED AFTER
LOAN TO US
copies for approval
copies for distribution
corrected prints
SCANNED
N enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
460
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 08-23
1. Perinit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen
hereby grants the following variance:
The Planning Commission approves Planning Case #08-23 for a 56 square -foot
detached accessory structure variance for the construction of a 250 square -foot
water -oriented structure, and denies the bluff setback and water -oriented
accessory structure size limitation variance requests on property located at 6250
Ridge Road. The decision was not appealed to the City Council pursuant to
Section 20-29(d); therefore, the granting of the variance is final.
2. Pr . The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver
County, Mnnesota, and legally described as shown on the attached Exhibit A.
3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
a. The combined square footage of the water -oriented accessory structure (shed/deck)
may not exceed 250 square feet;
b. A building or zoning permit must be applied for and approved prior to completion of
the water -oriented structure to ensure compliance with City Code.
c. The applicant and staff will work out a re -vegetation plan for the clear-cut area to
meet the approval of staff.
4. Law. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed
construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse.
Dated: January 6, 2009
go
(SEAL)
STATE OF MWNESOTA )
(ss
COUNTY OF CARVER
00
CITY OF CRANRASSEN
VW
Thomas A. Furlong,
Z��
AND:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this.;-NAdayofAd�A��
2009 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhalsen,
a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted
by its City Council.
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
2
6 MIAMI 01 Ma W-37-'F�
aKAREN J. ENGELHARDT
wIF NotarY Pubfic-Minnna
J. 10
*0
LEGAL DESCRUMON:
EXHIBIT A
00
The following described land situated in the County of Carver and State of Nfinnesota:
Tractl: That part of Sections I and 2, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning
at a point in the East line of Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, distant 472.00 feet South of the
Northeast comer of said Section 2; thence North along the East line of said Section 2 a distance
of 97.00 feet; thence Northeasterly on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 65.55 feet a
distance of 47.76 feet; thence North 41 degrees 45 minutes East on a line tangent to said last
described curve, a distance of 78 feet; thence Northerly on a tangential curve to the left with a
radius of 152.4 feet a distance of 37.24 feet to a point which is the actual point of beginning of
the tract of land to be described; last described curve being hereinafter designated and referred to
as "Line A"; thence North 79 degrees 45 minutes West 250.02 feet; thence at right angle
northeasterly 10 feet; thence at a right angle Southeasterly to the intersection of said line with the
Northerly extension of aforesaid "Line A"; thence Southerly along said extension to the point of
beginning.
Tract 2: That part of Section 1 and 2, Township 116, Range 23 described as follows: Beginning
at a point in the East line of Section 2 distant 472 feet South of the Northeast comer of said
Section 2; thence North along the East Une of Section 2 a distance of 97 feet; thence
Northeasterly on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 65.55 feet, a distance of 47.76
feet; thence North 41 degrees 45 rninutes East on a line tangent to last described curve, a distance
of 78 feet; thence Northerly on a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 152.4 feet, a
distance of37.24 feet; thence North 79 degrees 45 minutes West 330 feet, more or less, to the
shore of Christmas Lake; thence Southwesterly along the shore of said Lake 150 feet to an
intersection with a line bearing north 63 degrees 22 minutes West 326 feet, more or less from
point of beginning; thence South 63 degrees 22 minutes East 326 feet, more or less to the point
of beginning, excepting therefrom the following described premises, to —wit: That part of
Sections I and 2, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at a point in the
East Line of Section 2, distant 472 feet South of the Northeast comer of Section 2; thence North
along the East line of Section 2 a distance of 97 feet; thence Northeasterly on a tangential curve
to the right with a radius of 65.55 feet, a distance of 33 feet to the point of beginning; thence
Southwesterly along said curve to said East line of Section 2; thence South along said East Line
of Section 2, a distance of 97 feet; thence North 63 degrees 22 minutes West 326 feet, more or
less, to the shore of Christmas lake; thence Northeasterly along the shore of said lake to the
intersection with a line bearing north 72 degrees 10 minutes 39 seconds West from the point of
beginning, thence South 72 degrees 10 minutes 39 seconds East to the point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom that portion, if any, which lies below the natural ordinary low water mark,
the State of Mnnesota being the owner of all of said portion, if any, lying below the natural
ordinary low water mark, it being recognized that said lake is a navigable public body of water,
provided, however, that the applicants shall have the usual riparian rights that attach to land
riparian to navigable public bodies of water incident to the ownership thereof. For the purposes
of the descriptions of the above two tracts, the East Line of said Section 2, Township 116, Range
23, is assumed to be a due North and South line. According to the Government survey thereof.
Planning & The variance is valid for one year from the approval date. A building permit must
Natural Resources be applied for prior to January 6, 2010 through the City's building department. If
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110 you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132 or by email at
aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us.
Pubk Works
Off 60
1591 Park Road
January 13, 2009
CITY OF
CHMNSEN
Cluistophe and Nadine Beck
Senior Genteir
6250 Ridge Road
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, NIN 55317
PC Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
c: Jerry Mohn, Building Official
Web Site
Re: Variance for the Construction of a Water -Oriented Accessory
wwwrd.chanhassen.mn.us
Structure — Planning Case #08-23
Administration
gAplan\2008 planning ca�\08-23 b�k varianceMetter of approval.doc
Phone: 952.227.1100
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Beck:
Fax: 952.227.1110
This letter is to formally notify you that on January 6, 2009, the Chanhassen
Builifing Inspections
Pkine: 952.227.1180
Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the following motion:
Fax: 952.227.1190
"Me Planning Commission approves Planning Case #08-23 for a 56 square -foot
Engineering
detached accessory structure variance for the construction of a 250 square -foot
Phone: 952.227.1160
water -oriented structure, and denies the bluff setback and water -oriented
Fax: 952,227.1170
accessory structure size limitation variance requests on property located at 6250
Finance
Ridge Road, and adoption of the Findings of Fact with the following conditions:
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
1 . The combined square footage of the water -oriented accessory structure
(shed/deck) may not exceed 250 square feet;
Park & Romfilln
Phone: 952.227.1120
2. A building or zoning permit must be applied for and approved prior to
Fax:952.227.1110
completion of the water -oriented structure to ensure compliance with City
Reclutioll Gmter
Code.
23100oulbeirkilevand
Phone: 952,227.1400
3. The applicant and staff will work out a rr-vegetation plan for the clear-cut
Fax: 952.227 1404
area to meet the approval of staff. "
Planning & The variance is valid for one year from the approval date. A building permit must
Natural Resources be applied for prior to January 6, 2010 through the City's building department. If
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110 you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132 or by email at
aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us.
Pubk Works
1591 Park Road
Sincerely,
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
Angie Auseth
Senior Genteir
Phone: 952.227.1125
Planner I
Fax:952.227.1110
c: Jerry Mohn, Building Official
Web Site
Building Permit File
wwwrd.chanhassen.mn.us
gAplan\2008 planning ca�\08-23 b�k varianceMetter of approval.doc
SCAUNED
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Pnoviding forTodayand Planning for Tomorrow
0 0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND ACTION
IN RE: Application of Christophe and Nadine Beck for a bluff setback variance, a water -oriented
accessory structure size variance and a detached accessory structure variance for the construction
of a 480 square -foot water -oriented structure (shed/deck) in the Single -Family Residential (RSF)
District — Planning Case No. 08-23.
On January 6, 2009, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Christophe and Nadine Beck for an 11 -foot bluff setback
from the 30 -foot bluff setback, a 230 square -foot water -oriented accessory structure variance
from the 250 square -foot maximum, and a 286 square -foot detached accessory structure variance
from the 1,000 square -foot maximum for the construction of a 480 square -foot water oriented
structure (shed/deck) at 6250 Ridge Road, located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF).
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance that 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 (RSF).
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per
acre).
3. The legal description of the property is shown in the attached Exhibit A.
4. 'Me Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not
grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet these criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. While,
the applicant currently has reasonable use of the property including a single-family home, an
attached two car garage and a detached two car garage, the City code allows for a water
oriented accessory structure of 250 square feet to provide reasonable use of the shoreland.
A 250 square foot water oriented structure can be constructed within the setbacks
restrictions of the property. The limitation of the 1,000 square foot detached accessory
o S -'�)3
SCANNED
.1 0 0
structure is to preclude home occupations from being run out of them. The 56 square foot
variance is not for a single structure to exceed the 1,000 square foot maximum size
limitation, which rnmimizes the risk of a business being run out of either of the structures.
The garage is located near Ridge Road, the east side of the property and the proposed
structure is located near the lake on the west side of the property. The applicant wishes to
better utilize the lakeshore with an open deck as well as provide storage for water oriented
equipment. A 250 square foot water oriented accessory stnicture is a reasonable request as
it is permitted by City Code.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all residential
riparian properties. City Code allows for a 250 square foot water oriented structure. This
structure can be constructed within the setback requirement as outlined in the city code and
therefore, is a reasonable request. The detached accessory structure limitation was adopted
to avoid home occupations within detached accessory structures. The existing two car
garage is located near the street frontage while the water oriented structure is located near
the lake. The water oriented accessory structure allows the homeowner to better utilize the
lakeshore.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The intent of the request is not based on the desire to increase the value of the
home. The property owner's intent is to have a storage area for water -oriented equipment
and an attached deck for entertaining.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The applicant has reasonable use of the property which contains a single-family
home with an attached two -car garage and a detached two -car garage. The proposed
stnicture includes an 80 square foot shed and 170 square foot open deck, which is allowed
as part of the Shoreland Management District and is a reasonable request.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The addition of any structure near the lake may have an impact. However, the
size of the structure is consistent with City Code and DNR regulations and can be
constructed within the setback requirements. These regulations apply to all riparian lots
within the city limits, to allow for storage and utilization of property near the lake. A 250
square foot water oriented accessory structure is a reasonable request as it meets the
guidelines of the City Code and DNR regulations.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
0)
within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed shed/deck will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the
adjacent pruperty or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values within the
neighborhood, since it complies with all the required setbacks.
The planning report #08-23, dated January 6, 2009, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is
incorporated herein.
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission determined that the 480 square foot water -oriented structure was
unreasonable and that the variance requests for the setback would impair the integrity of the bluff.
A 250 square foot water -oriented structure is permitted by City Code to provide adequate storage
and use of the shoreland. The Planning Commission concluded that a 250 square foot structure was
a reasonable request and could be constructed within the required setbacks as outlined in City Code.
Therefore, Planning Commission denied the bluff setback and the water oriented accessory structure
size variance and approved a 56 square foot variance from the 1, 000 square foot limitation for
detached accessory structures.
ACTION
"The Planning Commission approves Planning Case #08-23 for a 56 square foot detached
accessory structure variance for the construction of a 250 square -foot water -oriented structure
and denies the bluff setback and water oriented accessory structure size limitation variance
requests on property legally described in the attached Exhibit A, based on these findings of fact."
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commissiqp on this 6th day of January, 2009.
Its Chair
GAPLAN\2008 Planning Cases\08-23 Beck Variance\1-6-09 Findings of Fact REVISED.doc
00 00 049 -1 10-) '�
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
23. 'Me existing drainage and utility easements and abandoned utilities must be labeled on the
plan sheet.
24. The utility plan must include a note regarding the connection to the existing storm sewer."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Laufenburger moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that
the City Council approves a conditional use permit for outdoor storage, subject to the
following condition:
1. The proposed development must comply with the approved site plan, plans prepared by
Oertel Architects and the City of Chanhassen, dated 12/05/08.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
BECK VARLANCE: REOUEST FOR VARIANCES FROM THE BLUFF SETBACK,
SIZE LEW[TATION OF A WATER OREENTED STRUCTURE, AND SIZE
UMITATION FOR DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE(S) FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SUED AND DECK ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RSF), LOCATED AT 6250 REDGE ROAD. APPLICANT/OWNER:
CMUSTOPHE AND NADINE BECK PLANNING CASE 08-23.
Public Present:
Name Address
Nadine Beck 6250 Ridge Road
Jens Midthun 6225 Ridge Road
Tara and Deana Wetzel 6260 Ridge Road
Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item.
Papke: Mark, we'll start with you.
Undestad: I just have one. You say when somebody went out there in October and issued the
stop work and they elected to finish the deck and things that were out there now and apply for
the variance?-
Auseth: The deck and the shed are as is when we went out there.
Laufenburger: Thank you staff. Could you just go into a little finiher explanation about the 30%
coverage removal and why, if they chose to remove a tree, that would be in violation. Can you
just explain that a little bit more for me please.
9 SCAN14ED
00 0*
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Auseth: I'll defer that over to Terry Jeffery.
Laufenburger: Okay. You understand my question?
Jeffery: Yeah. As Ms. Auseth pointed out earlier, yeah actually that slide that you have is
probably more... At some point, and in all likelihood prior to the Beck's assuming ownership of
this property, this area that you see on the slide was cleared. Which is already over the 30%
allowed by code.
Laufenburger: So more is cleared than is allowed by code?
Jeffery: Correct.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Jeffery: So really what you'd be doing is extending, you'd be further increasing that which is
already in violation.
Laufenburger: Which is already over 30% which is allowed. Okay. So the presence of the tree
actually is a good thing?
Jeffery: Yes.
Laufenburger: It provides vegetation and cover.
Jeffery: Very much so, and as Ms. Auseth pointed out, and Ms. Beck had mentioned to me in
the past, it was her desire to save that tree.
Laufenburger: Okay. As far as you know, is that still her desire?
Jeffery: To the best of my knowledge, yes. That was the conversation that she had today.
Laufenburger: That was my only question. Thanks.
Larson: I've got a question in regard to, if you could go back a couple slides. This one, okay.
Where this encroachment is on the neighbor's yard. Is this an existing building already? Or is
this.
Auseth: A different neighbor had called about this structure being built outlined in red.
Larson: Right.
Auseth: So when they called it was over the property line.
Larson: But it's not currently there now? It is there?
10
00 00
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Auseth: It is until after this meeting and then.
Larson: Okay. So what you guys are proposing, or they are proposing is to move that structure
over to where it's you know. Okay, so where the slash marks are is where it is now and the
proposed is to move it.
Auseth: Correct.
Larson: Okay. That was really my only question.
Papke: Thank you. I just have one question, and it's probably for Mr. Jeffery. Could you just
refresh all of our memories why it's so important to stay away from the toe of the bluff. What is
the justification for that? 'Me lake frontage is there. Everybody knows you've got to stay away
from the lake but why is it so important to stay away from the bottom of the blufl?.
Jeffery: Chairman Papke, we actually a discussion of this in-house and, choose my words
carefully. Under die, if you want to call it the sonar rules, Department of Natural Resources
Shoreland Rules. They are the ones that set the bluff setbacks from the side, top and toe of slope.
And it is just set to be 30 feet either way. The justification with the toe of slope, as best I can
figure is to prevent that person who is doing activities at the toe of slope from undermining that
slope, thereby creating an unstable toe of that slope.
Papke: So would that be exacerbated by the loss of vegetation at the bottom of the slope there as
well or is that compounding the situation?
Jeffery: That would be a fair assumption, yes. That would compound the situation, because you
lose that which is creating the stability of that slope area. You know in fairness it, 30 feet could
be seen as being a little more than is necessary but at the same time that is what the state rules
are. That's what the state guidelines are and our shoreland ordinances are approved by the
state...
Papke: Very good. Thank you. Okay. We have no more questions from staff. Do we have an
applicant? Step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record.
Nadine Beck: Good evening. My name is Nadine Beck. I'm coming from Switzerland. Raised
and bom in Switzerland. We bought the house at Ridge Road, 6250 in April, 2007. When we
came for a visit for one week from Switzerland to find our new home, our new life here in
Chanhassen. By the time then we didn't know what a wonderful property we were about to
acquire. We are all very sports orientated. We love water skiing. We love swimming and we
love the life on the lake. When we bought the house it was in a very good shape. Only the lake
area was in kind of a desperate situation, exactly there where we now build that shed and deck.
There were lots of waste like an old deck. An old door. Glass bottles. Just lots of waste. Piles
of waste. Nobody seemed to mind. Nobody complained that. As I wanted to have the property
in a nice, as I wanted the property to be nice and tidy as the properties left and right and all
around Christmas Lake. I started to clear the area and what was left was kind of a waste area.
There were no plants. There were no trees. Well no, there were big trees but no vegetation
I I
00
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
whatsoever so I waited and just wanted to see what would happen to the open space and all that
grew were like weeds and blackberries and just, we couldn't use the area anymore. So I started
to pull and I started to take away these plants. Trying to sow grass. Unfortunately I was very
unlucky with the project. So we looked around the lake and we saw a lot of different
possibilities. What other owners did to their lakeshore property and we did talk to a landscaper
what he would suggest to do. Unfortimately he didn't come up with a like reasonable solution
and so we thought best idea would be a deck and a shed so we could at least walk on the
property, or on a part of the property and make use of it. Well, it is a funny situation to be here
to saying not knowing is an excuse. It is not. We assumed that a removable and, removable
shed and deck would be allowed to build without allowance of the city. We did talk to several
people around the lake and that was the information we got, and it does correspond with the law
in Switzerland so it did make sense to me and when I talked to the builder we decided to make a
floating, removable deck and shed so the vegetation would not be, how I say, well it could still
grow and you would not harm the land. Saying to that the deck and shed are too close to the
neighbor. Of course when we found out that we did not respect the 10 feet, we agreed to move.
'Mere is a fence between two properties. It is a green plastic fence, and talking to the neighbors
I've asked who's fence it was and kind, they said it was the pre -owners fence because he wanted
the dogs to walk between the two properties and we assumed it was the property line because I
could not see why the pre -owners would set up a fence in the neighbor's property. And this was
the mistake that was done by not respecting the distance to the neighbor's property. We did try
to respect the 10 feet to the water, but we measured to the water and not to the high water level
line, and we did not know about the bluff. That you had to respect the bluff. Well, that's about
all I have to say. And so when a project goes amiss, I think everything goes amiss. I think Mr.
Jeffery and I had quite a couple of good talks together.
Papke: Okay. Questions.
Larson: So you're okay with moving this over?
Nadine Beck: Of course. I would not build on the neighbor's property. I mean.
Larson: Right. Now that you know I would be mortified myself So have you taken into
consideration the smaller deck that the city has proposed? Is that something that, I understand
you want to he able to use as much of the area as possible.
Nadine Beck: Of course you want to use as much of the area as possible. Talking to Mr. Jeffery
and Ms. Aanenson, we wanted to go for the bigger deck if it would be possible because it just
gives you the possibility to like have a chair and sit down with friends and have a nice evening
and maybe have, grill whereas the smaller deck, there's nothing you can do with it. I mean you
can have it but it doesn't add anything to your outdoor fife.
Larson: Right. Does the property, or the house up above, does it have some sort of a deck or
area where you can?
Nadine Beck: We have a porch.
12
00 00
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Larson: A porch?
Nadine Beck: A porch. That is like narrow and it's too small to put out a table on.
Larson: Okay. And then this building, does it have any, is it just an empty building?. Does it
have?
Nadine Beck: The small building?
Larson: Yes.
Nadine Beck: The shed?
Larson: The shed.
Nadine Beck: The shed is just empty for toys and water.
Larson: So it's just a storage shed?
Nadine Beck: It's just storage and we actually wanted to like rebuild the main house just in the
same style. It's not finished now so you can't see.
Larson: Oh okay. Alright, very good. That's all I have. Thank you.
Laufenburger: I have no questions.
Undestad: Just on what the city proposed there for the smaller deck. Can you, I mean is there
room to expand that a little bit in a couple directions and still get the clearances on there?
Nadine Beck: Well what we also could do, what I heard today first time is the thing about the
30%. That there are not enough trees and we could around we can plant trees so there are more
trees. Again to, I don't mind. I don't mind trees. I mean I just wanted to be able to use the area
so if it helps we can also plant a couple trees around the deck, or going to block whatever...
Undestad: What is, can you tell Terry, what is the brown circle up on the bluff line there just
north of the deck, orjust above the deck? Is that a tree on there?
Jeffery. That's a great question for Angie. This thing?
Auseth: It's another tree.
Undestad: 'Mat is another tree? Okay.
Nadine Beck: Well there are many other trces there. They're not the two only trees.
Papke: Anything else Mark?
13
00 00
Planning Commission - January 6,2009
Undestad: No.
Papke: Okay, thank you. Denny?
Laufenburger: Ms. Beck, welcome to the United States.
Nadine Beck: Oh, thank you.
Laufenburger: We're happy to have you here.
Nadine Beck: Well yeah, you can say what... I just wanted to say I can see you're all European
some time ago.
Laufenburger: Yeah, Black Forest area for me. Ms. Beck, did you build the home and the?
Nadine Beck: No. We bought the home as it was.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Nadine Beck: And really the only thing that was not like beautifid and perfect was that lake area
and so we just tried to adapt the lake area to the rest of the property.
Laufenburger: The other question I had, you said that you consulted with some landscape people
had made some recommendations. Did they at any time suggest that you talk with the city of
Chanhassen to see if there was any code?
Nadine Beck: No. No. And we had some, Mr. Jeffery's already explained, we had plans from
the pre -owners and there were like major constructions on there so I didn't know whether they
run out of money and didn't do it or it was just a plan or whether they had the allowance to it. I
had no idea. I didn't ask.
Latifenburger: Okay.
Papke: Okay, I just have one question for you. So the city has proposed the plan we see on the
right up here, which moves the shed and the deck into the very small area you have between the
OHW setback and the bluff setback. is your main objection to what the city is proposin& is it
simply the size of the deck because your proposal also shows the shed back in the bluff setback
here. Do you have any issues with moving the shed out to where the city is proposing.?
Nadine Beck: No. No, not at all.
Papke: Okay. So the major issue for you is the size of the deck and that's it?
Nadine Beck: Yeah. it would just be a nice size deck where you can have, that you can use.
14
00 00
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Papke: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understand what your major issue is.
Nadine Beck: We said I could become like engineer or something after drawing all these things.
I'm getting there.
Papke: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you very much.
Nadine Beck: Thank you.
Papke: Okay, at this time we'll open up the hearing to the public so if anybody sitting in the
audience today would like to comment on this case, if you'd step up to the podium and give us
your name and address and tell us what you think. We'd like to hear from you.
Jens Midthun: Hello everyone and thank you very much for having me. My name is Jens
Midthun. I live at 6225 Ridge Road, which is the property on the shoreline directly to the north
of the Beck property. As well as kind of encompasses the Beck property to the east property as
well, and I've been a long time resident of Chanhassen, along with my family and I'm speaking
on behalf of my family when we say that the only issue we ever had was with the 10 foot
setback, and as long as that rule is followed, we're strongly in support of the granting of all
variances requested by the Beck's. Just knowing how this property is. It's very similar to our's
except our's is thinner and the bluff comes right down and then you've got the lakeshore and it's
a long walk up and down. Some of our neighbors have put in trams to bring them up and down
and you know if you want to play in the water, you know the Beck's have two small children.
They've a very active water sports family. You know I'm I of 4. We're a very active family.
You want to hang out by the lake. You want to be by the lake. You want to have friends over
and have some chairs. Now I know we can sit in this room and say hey look, all we have to do is
make the deck smaller and then we've easily followed all the rules, but you know we're talking
about a deck that to the Beck family is a very big deal. You know that extra space is going to be
space they use for a long time, and redly to anybody else, and I'm speaking as the person or
group that would be most affected by this, we will be affected nothing. And the neighbors to the
south, now that it's 10 feet back, will be affected none, and none of the other neighbors will be
affected at all so you know I just wanted to come and say 1, myself and my family are strongly in
support of the granting of these variances.
Papke: Okay. Thank you very much. Just to comment on some of the things you said there.
Just so you're aware that these, the setbacks for the bluff and the lake are not to protect the
neighbors. It's to protect the lake.
Jens h&dthun: Right, and.
Papke: So I understand your concern.
Jens Nfidthun: I'm just speaking on behalf of the neighbors.
Papke: Sure.
15
00 00
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Jens Midthun: And you know, I can't say for certain but I can speculate that the reason this was
filed in the first place was a sort of neighbor thing by a neighbor who would not be affected at all
so on the neighborhood side of it.
Papke: Thank you for speaking up. I appreciate it. Anybody else like to come up to the
podium. I see a couple more people in the audience here. Anybody else? There we go.
Tara Wetzel: Hi. My name is Tara Wetzel.
Dena Wetzel: And I'm Dena Wetzel and we're the neighbors on the south. Our parents actually
are the neighbors on the south and they're very old and my dad's recovering from treatment for
prostate cancer and they just couldn't really make it here tonight so they asked us to come in.
And we weren't even really going to say anything because we're just you know happy that the
setback on the side is going to be honored and that definitely was very important to us.
Tara Wetzel: But we also wanted to say that we are neighbors in that area as well and we know
that Jens spoke for his family and we also wanted to get up and just mention that you know we
obviously feel that for them we would never want to you know have them not ever have that
space down there. I mean we have one. My father's lived at Christmas Lake now for.
Dena Wetzel: Over 55 years he's been on that property. And my sister's going to live there after
that.
Tara Wetzel: Hopefully
Dena Wetzel: We're hoping to span a whole hundred years.
Tara Wetzel: We don't quite make the, whatever, but.
Dena Wetzel: So we'd like to work out the property tax part.
Tara Wetzel: So we'd like to stay there and keep that, and you know and I think that looking
back on it, you know the Beck's really came into a situation where the prior owners clear cut the
whole hill. They clear cut the whole lakeshore and that was a huge issue for my parents because
it wasn't being addressed by the City Council and it got to the point where it really became an
issue for our family because my mother stressed a lot about it. And so I think their biggest thing
is they really want to feel that they're being justified in the sense that it's following the code and
that people are being respectfid of that� and we do appreciate that you know it is moved back. I
mean they didn't know. The green fence was our's. It was a dog. It's just a green little thing
that I bought at Home Depot to keep our dogs off of their property, and going into their, they
have a lawn and sand and the dogs like to go over there so we kept that up because the Brabeck's
were not interested in having dogs over there. And so.
Laufenburger: That was the previous owners, is that correct?
16
so
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
00
Tara Wetzel: Correct. And so we kept that up and that was our's, and I even said that I would
take it down because it is ugly but it was serving it's purpose, you know.
Dena Wetzel: The other neighbor hated dogs.
Tara Wetzel: So.
Dena Wetzel: And they like dogs and they're great neighbors because they don't, You know
they're, we're all very tolerate. More tolerate...
Tara Wetzel: And my children and their children play all the time. They have a great sandy
beach and I mean we are welcome over there and their children are welcome over to our dock as
well and so, but just we wanted to get up and just let you know that we are involved in this and
we do feel that it's important and you know that they need to have a space down there too. It is
beautiful space. I can understand why they want somewhere to put their things because we fill
our's up with a lot of plastic things that our kids now tend to use, but we just wanted to let you
know that it's, you know our parents wanted us to come and just be a present and let you know
that they are there. They may not be here but they are concerned about it and they really feel that
you know my dad spent years watering all the trees on Ridge Road during the droughts and he's
been invested in that area for a long time and he really feels that we do need to make sure that we
are holding to, so that the area, and as I said before, that the area I guess is kept in a natural state
but you know the Beck's did come into a situation that had been clear cuffed and I don't know
the erosion part coming down the hill I'm sure is also an issue for them but you know it's just,
where's the fine line? You know we don't want any ill feelings because we do enjoy spending
time with them and so we just wanted to.
Dena Wetzel: We trust you guys to make the right decision. You know we.
Tara Wetzel: And I think obviously you're talking and I drink that's what my parents would like
to know that there is a discussion between them and you and something will be resolved.
Dena Wetzel: Thanks.
Tara Wetzel: Thank you.
Papke: Thank you very much. Appreciate you coming tonight. Anybody else? Going once.
Going twice. Before I close the public hearing I'd just like to make note that the city did receive
several items of correspondence from some of the other neighbors in the area, and they were not
as supportive as the folks who came to the meeting tonight. But just so, for the record here, we
do take into account not only what's said during the public hearing but also the correspondence
that we receive before the meeting, so we take that all into consideration. With that, if there's no
one else who'd like to step up, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission
for discussion. We'll start with you.
Aanenson: Mr. Chairman if I could just make one point Just something for you to think about
through this process, which I drink caused some consternation up there and that was the clear
17
go 00
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
cutting of that lot. Obviously I think that created some feelings out there for some of the
neighbors on the lake and so whatever you're thinking about tonight for mitigation, I think that
should be something that you may want to take into consideration. The re -vegetation. It sounds
like Mrs. Beck is willing to do that. That might be something to take into consideration.
Larson: Well, gosh I tell you, after reading all this and then having it all in person I'm getting a
whole different perspective of what I got before I walked in here. The fact of the matter is, it
was an accidental, and they're trying to make it right and I think one of the questions I think
Mark was trying to get through, is there any possibility that they could go any larger on the deck
around this thing or if this is the actual maximurn that we could do.
Aanenson: Yeah, you'd have to grant a variance if you want to go bigger than that, and that's
what I'm saying. If you're going that way, then I would certainly recommend mitigation for that
would be some revegetation.
Larson: Say that again.
Aanenson: They're at the maximum for the deck that we're showing on here. I think it was 4, 3
feet. 4 additional feet.
Larson: So mitigation.
Aanenson: Compensation would be to allow the deck to go bigger you would recommend that
they plant additional trees. Or whatever vegetation is recommended to help stabilize the slope
for one, and I think that was some of the issues that some of the neighbors on the lake had
concern with when that got clear cut.
Larson: Well I would propose a friendly amendment then to see if the city would consider that,
or you guys. If they were to plant, you know maybe you guys could set a certain amount of trees
or a type of trees or whatever. I mean if, honestly I've got a deck that's the size that they're
proposing and it's where we spend all of our surnmer. I love it. It's my favorite place. Every
morning I go out and have my coffee. It's great. To knock that down to one halfjust really you
know certainly would cut down on the enjoyment of it I think, and if the city would be willing to
even consider that, I wish that had been written in here because.
Aanenson: We can't consider that. That's you have the ability to grant the variance and that
would be your decision, if you chose to recommend a variance. To go larger than Angie had
shown on staff's recommendation. And if you wanted to grant a variance, so the only variance,
you'd be granting one to go into the bluff setback and increasing the hard coverage. Just in the
bluff. Just the accessory structure. You remember that was already a two story, I mean, excuse
me. A separate garage.
Laufenburger: The attached -
18
00
Planning Conunission - January 6, 2009
Aanenson: That was attached, so that's what was putting them towards the top so they've
maximized the lot, so there's an issue that they only have so much square footage available. I'll
let Angie speak to that.
Auseth: According to code they can go up to 250 square feet for a water oriented accessory
structure. Due to the detached garage they're limited to 190 square feet because they would go
over that 1,000 square fect, so that would be the variance that you would be recommending.
Aanenson: So looking at that language just to be clear again, the language would be for the
variance for an accessory structure, you're allowing great than that and would it impact the bluff
setback also?
Undestad: Can I clarify? My comment on there was can they expand it and stay within the
boundaries without going into the bluff.
Aanenson: If they went longer. If they went longer instead of deeper.
Undestad: Right.
Aanenson: Correct.
Laufenburger: But in order to do that the combined square footage of, I'll use the term detached,
and it's the combined, the detached garage that's already in place, and like I said, they're not
going to cut off any of that.
Aanenson: No.
Laufenburger: So that's going to remain in place. So the only amount that they can add is
essentially about 190 square feet.
Auseth: Right.
Laufenburger: And whether it's a shed which goes vertical or a deck, it's, what you're looking
at is how many square feet if you were looking down.
Auseth: Correct.
Aanenson: That's correct.
Laufenburger: Okay. So I think if, I don't want to interpret this but I think what you were
looking at is, could that orange area get bigger? Itcould. It would remain within the ordinary
high water and the bluffs, those two setbacks. So that could get bigger and perhaps in exchange
we could say okay, we would allow you to increase that by maybe another 100 square feet or 150
square feet in exchange for doing something to replace, or revegetate that which was clear
cutted, which was done by apparently the previous owners.
19
Planning Conimission tain!ary 6,2009 00
Jeffery: Mr. Chairman, if I may. I think it's also important to note though that if we go over the
250 square foot allowed for an accessory water structure, now we're just entered into another
variance so I think I would caution you to go beyond the 250 square feet that would be allowed
for a water accessory structure.
Laufenburger: So are you saying the shed and the deck is defined as the accessory water
structure?
Jeffery: Correct. And right now what is shown is 190 square feet. So they could go an
additional 60 square feet. Just looking at that one portion of it. To answer, yeah. They could
build it entirely within that allowed zoning. It would not encroach into the shoreland setback nor
would it encroach in the bluff setback. It would become a much more linear feature than it is.
But then we get back to the other variance which is total detached structures allowed on a
property, and they only have 4 square feet. So you could, depending on how you want to go, you
could say alright, we can give them a water accessory structure within the 250 square feet. No
variance needed. We can get it outside the bluff setback. No variance needed. Outside
shoreline, no variance needed. But no matter what you will need a variance for the total allowed,
or not attached accessory structures.
Auseth: 56 square feet.
Undestad: And how big of an area do we say we had clear cut on there?
Jeffery: Oh, yeah. It's substantial. I mean that would be, to work with the Beek's to come up
with a mitigation plan that would not be an undue hardship to them for reforestation plan, but
would still offer a definite benefi� I think that could easily be worked out. Yeah, it's a
substantial area.
Undestad: So if 1, the understanding is, the deck, you could only add 60 square feet onto that
existing orange area right now.
Jeffery- Correct.
Undestad: And what that does is put them 56 square feet over the total package of detached
structures.
Auseth: Correct.
Jeffery: Well said.
Undestad: So is that 56...
Larson: Is that a different meeting to get that variance?
Aanenson: No. No, we can... There's a lot of rules in play here. But you have ... all the
variances requested so whatever you know, we're trying to steer you in the direction to
FTI
09 0*
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
minimize, I think what Mr. Jeffery is saying is that, we don't want to increase the accessory
structure of the lake. It appears if you want to go that way, you're going to increase the square
footage for accessory structures, but we don't want to increase it just for the water oriented. The
250. We want to keep that capped. Does that make sense?
Undestad: So if we let them add the 60 feet on there, then we're talking about do we allow them
56 square foot overage on the detached and is that worth the trade off on some trees and.
Aanenson: Correct. Exactly. That's kind of where we're al� yeah.
Laufenburger: Then in that case, the only variance would be the variance on the detached.
Square footage.
Aancnson: That's correct.
Papke: Mr. Jeffery, what is the best thing for Christmas Lake? Assuming these people are, you
know they're going to have barbeques down there. Okay. Are we better off with them
barbequing on a deck or barbequing on the ground? What's the best thing for the lake?
Jeffery: Chairman Papke, that's a loaded question.
Papke: I thought it was a pretty simple one actually.
Jeffery- It is. It's a good question. It's one I've struggled with because a deck by definition is
not hard cover. It's not impervious surface, but clearly it changes the drainage pattern in an area.
It changes the way the rainfall falls. It changes the way it runs off. It changes the time it takes to
get to the lake. So whenever you can minimize that hard surface, it's always got to be the
preferred thing to do. Having said that� by definition a deck is not hard cover. We don't by our
code call it a hard surface. And I think docks can be designed such that they will not, you know
design it so it doesn't drain directly towards the lake. Put screening around it. If, to go back
though then there's another thing. So if we had an open pit fire along the lake and we throw rock
around it and we've now denuded all the vegetation in the area because we're walking around on
that area, we're packing it down as we walk. We've burnt off all the vegetation. Is that a good
desirable thing? No. Absolutely not. So in the sense that having a deck actually steers people to
an area where they're no longer walking around the bluff area. They're no longer trampling
vegetation. Yeah, I think it actually is in this case an environmentally sound thing to do. You
know within limitations.
Papke: Tbank you. That's what I was looking for. From my perspective, my big concern here
is, when we break, when we start precedent.
Laufenburger. Are we in closed?
Papke: No, we're still just chatting here amongst friends.
Laufenburger: Alright.
21
is* 00
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Papke: My concern with this one is the triple jeopardy that we're kind of stepping into with
breaking three different precedents here. And as we all know lakeshore property in Chanhassen
is notorious for people asking for such things, and this is one of the few variances for a lake front
I've seen in a while where the applicant didn't say well, there's 5 other houses right up the lake
that all had it. Why can't I have it?
Nadine Beek: I could.
Papke: So from that perspective I am, it makes me nervous to think that we're going to create
more precedent for future such events, so I'd like the commissioners to take that into account
when we deliberate on that. With that said, I want to do what's right for Christmas Lake. This is
one of thejewels of Chanhassen and we should do what's right for the lake as well and for the
homeowners. I certainly think the homeowner in play here, you know I had some concerns
coming into the meeting that things were done in somewhat of a cavalier fashion and from what
I've heard tonight I think it's simply a case of someone who's coming into a new culture and
simply didn't understand the myriad of rules and regulations that unfortunately living on the lake
entails in the United States. So, what do we want to do here? I will entertain a motion.
Whatever that motion might be.
Laufenburger: So are we closed now? Is this?
Papke: Sure. Unless you want to say something else.
Laufenburger: Well I'd like to express my views. I think that, like you, water property in
Chanhassen, like Christmas Lake, that is, we have to protect that And the big picture is
protected by making lots of small picture decisions so I consider this a, this is a big decision for
the backs of those neighbors. Even though it's a small one, it still is a, you know we can start
this protection with this one good step. I'm inclined to allow the variance on the detached by
giving the property owner an opportunity to increase by 60 square feet on the deck. Remain
within the area between the ordinary high water and the bluff setback in exchange for what the
city would consider acceptable revegetation. Whether that's grass. Shrubbery. And I don't
know where that should go. If you should go at the toe of the slope or if it should go closer to
the water line but I would be inclined to do something like that. That's my inclination.
Papke: If you're so inclined, then I suggest you make a motion to that effect.
Laufenburger: So moved.
Papke: Would you like to state formally for the record what you're proposing.
Laufenburger: Mr. Chairman.
Papke: Could you state which of the variances you'd like to allow and which ones you'd like to
deny. Maybe if we start with them.
22
00
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
00
Laufenburger: Let me just do a little bit of checking before I do that. Perhaps you want to get
comments from others first.
Undestad: I guess I'd just like to throw a comment in there.
Papke: Sure, go ahead.
Undestad: What we're looking at is 60 square feet. We're going to give up, you get another 1
1/2, 2 lawn chairs or something on there. You know I don't think that's going to get the Beck's
what they're looking for on there. What that does though by us doing that then also opens up the
variance and starts that, you know what about the next one and the next one. I think if it was
more you know, and add 60 square feet onto the end of that deck out there, you know how much
landscaping, how much revegetation can we say, abight. You need to put in, you know it
doesn't make sense to make them spend $5,000 in trees for a 60 square foot deck.
Aanenson: Well it's actually 250 total of surface coverage.
Undestad: Of surface. But we're only giving them another 60 feet onto that deck. Down by the
lake and that's what I understand what they're trying to accomplish there so. So I'm not sure
we're really doing any good with that all.
Papke: So are you saying you're in a mood to deny all of the variances, that would be your
preference?
Undestad: Yes.
Papke: Debbie, you had some thoughts?
Larson: Well you know you guys are talking about setting precedence. This is kind of a unique
place, in my opinion. We're talking a property that was clear cut before they moved in. And the
fact that they want to, you know revegetate or she's tried. She's put in an effort to do things and
it just hasn't worked. And then the fact that if they want to do any kind of barbequing or having
entertainment of people down there, basically saying that it would be better to have a deck there
rather than having open space and people you know lighting fires on the grass and whatever. I
am more inclined to allow a larger deck area even, you know so then we would go into the, what
are we calling it? The accessory structure.
Laufenburger: That would be the water.
Aanenson: Water oriented. Let me just talk about that for a minute because Shorewood doesn't
allow water oriented structures so those are some of the things that causes the consternation. The
clear cutting aside really isn't affecting this. This side of the lake is very steep. As the neighbors
have indicated, there are people that have lifts. You know it is steep. We recognize that. That's
the choice on some of those lots to get that view up on top. So if we go above the 250, that
becomes an issue for some of the people on the other side of the lake too because Shorewood
doesn't allow the accessory structures. That's a DNR requirement which we've adopted. We do
23
0* 00
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
allow that but that was some of the angst that you saw in some of the other letters too. So that
was our concern in going above that for the 250. That could cause some issues so I'm just
throwing that out to you so you understand the background of that, however you feel on that.
Larson: Well you know when you say that will cause issues with another city.
Aanenson: No, with other people on the lake. That's at 250. We don't have people that are
above that 250 you know so you're giving somebody down there, because they're all in that
situation with lifts going down there, to go above that. So I'm saying the clear cutting wasn't the
issue with it. It's the square footage.
Larson: Right. No, I understand that but you were talking about the mitigation with the adding
of the trees and.
Aanenson: Yeah, I don't know. That's if you choose to do that or not choose to do that, that's
fine.
Laufenburger: Are you saying that the city of Chanhassen has no regulations regarding clear
cutting of land?
Aanenson: No. That's not what I'm saying.
Laufenburger: Do we have regulations regarding clear cutting of the land?
Aanenson: Yes.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Papke: But we're not, we're not granting a variance for performing that action tonight.
Larson: Right.
Laufenburger: And clearly had the previous owners come to us and say we want to clear cut
this.
Aanenson: Or if somebody would have called us, we would have stopped it. Clear cutting
happens and we're not always informed and aware of it until somebody calls.
Laufenburger: To the comment earlier about the City Council not doing anything about it, we
can only act on that which we know about.
Aanenson: That's correct.
Laufenburger: Yeah, okay.
24
00 0*
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Papke: So for the purposes of our discussion tonight, the vegetation is a non -issue other than the
fact that this area is more sensitive as a result of that clear cutting because of the increased
propensity for erosion.
Aanenson: That's correct.
Papke: Okay.
Larson: Do we knowwhat this path is made of? Oris itjust adirt path?
Auseth: The steps?
Aanenson: We can go back to this.
Larson: Is it steps?
Laufenburger: It's rock steps.
Larson: Does that count towards the hard surface coverage?
Auseth: It counts towards the hard surface coverage but it's not counted towards the detached
accessory structure.
Larson: Which is our issue. Ahight. Okay.
Undestad: So one more question for staffi If we deny this, the way it sits, can they come back
and talk to Terry and you and.
Aanenson: Yes.
Undestad: Possibly talk about doing some trading for some landscaping and revegetation.
Aanenson: Sure. Sure, and the first approach would be they have the right to appeal. Anybody
aggrieved of this decision has a right to appeal it so it would go to City Council, if that's the
case. And so between then and now, whatever you recommend, if they still want to offer up
some other solutions between when it goes to City Council, between your recommendation,
when it goes to City Council, that something else can be offered up, which has happened before.
Or the council could table it and ask them to work on it, or you could table it and ask them to
work on some things. You have several choices.
Papke: I would prefer not to table this one tonight I think we have plenty of information right
here, I think to make a decision. Are you ready to make a motion Denny, or would anyone else
like to jump the gun and go ahead and make one? Ready to roll?
Laufenburger- I think I can in just a moment.
25
00 00
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Larson: Okay, we'll chit chat some more.
Laufenburger: Go ahead Debbie.
Larson: I really don't have anything else to say
Jeffery: I would like to emphasize I think that many of the neighbors had pointed out tonight, I
think it is really key when they said what we do on this micro scale affects the macro scale of
this lake. Christmas Lake is unique in a number of ways but more than anything else in that it is
considered within the seven county metro area to be one of, if not the nicest lakes in terms of
water quality. Water clarity. Vegetative diversity. Plants species diversity so any small impact
made on one lot that down the road affects down the lakeshore, then we end up with no longer
having that phenomenal water body that we have.
Papke: Which is why I asked you what was the right thing to do for the lake. That did not lead
to a clear choice...
Larson: Well if they hadn't had the accessory garage on the top of the hill, they could have done
the whole thing how they would like to do it, correct?
Papke: 250 accessory structure. Water accessory structure.
Larson: Oh. Oh, A
Papke: That's why we have the triple jeopardy problem. We have three variances that all have
to be broken...
Larson: So why isn't that part of an accessory structure? I'm just killing time here while he's
writing.
Auseth: It's defined in the code as part of the water oriented accessory structure.
Larson: Okay.
Jeffery: A structure that ... we've got a lake down there and we want to be by it and use it.
Papke: This is going to be a heck of a motion, I can see it coming.
Aanenson: Just to be clear Commissioner Laufenburger, you don't have to recommend denial.
If you're just going to recommend approval on one issue, you only have to recommend that.
You don't have to, and just say denial of the other requests. You don't have to be that specific
on those if you don't,
Laufenburger: Yeah, okay.
Aanenson: If you're trying to do the math, that's all I was trying to say. Okay.
26
0*
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
0 0
Laufenburger: Yeah, okay. Mr. Chairman, I recommend the Chanhassen Planning Commission
approve Planning Case #08-23 with variance for detached accessory structure variance for the
construction of a 250 square foot water oriented structure located at 6250 Ridge Road with
conditions I and 2 on page 9 of the staff report. Condition number I modified to read 250 square
feet. And adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and action, plus. Or conditioned upon
applicant providing revegetation of the clear cut area to meet approval of city plarming
department.
Papke: So just to be clear what your motion contains here. We are denying the bluff variance.
Laufenburger: Correct.
Papke: We are denying the water oriented accessory structure variance but we are allowing a
variance on the detached accessory structure in amount of 60 feet.
Laufenburger: 56 feet. We're exceeding the detached structure variance by 56 feet.
Papke: Okay, I got it. Okay, is that clear to everyone? What we're proposing.
Aanenson: Clarification on the motion, if does go forward, that we would reflect those changes
also in the Findings of Fact.
Papke: Yes. Is there a second for this motion?
Larson: I'll second it.
Papke: Does anybody have any amendments they'd like to propose? If not I will hear a vote.
Laufenburger moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission approves Planning
Case #08-23 for a 56 square foot detached accessory structure variance for the construction
of a 250 square -foot water -oriented structure and denies the bluff setback and water
oriented accessory structure size limitation variance requests on property, 6250 Ridge
Road, and adoption of the Findings of Fact with the following conditions:
1. The combined square footage of the water -oriented accessory structure (shed/deck) may not
exceed 250 square feet;
2. A building or zoning permit must be applied for and approved prior to completion of the water -
oriented structure to ensure compliance with City Code.
The applicant and staff will work out a re -vegetation plan for the clear cut area to meet the
approval of staff. "
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
27
00 09
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Papke: Thank you very much. That was a difficult deliberation and a difficult motion and I
think we carried it out with great dispatch. Thank you Denny for a difficult assignment. With
that, that's the end of our public hearing items.
APPROVE OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 2, 2008 as presented.
Chairman Papke adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
28
00 00 08-2-5
Auseth, Angie
From: Aanenson, Kate
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:16 AM
To: Auseth, Angie; Planning Commission; Jeffery, Terry
Subject: FW: Beck Variance on Christmas Lake - Planning Case 08-23
From: Whiteman, Jeremy [maIlto:Jeremy.Whfteman@adc.com1
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:23 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Beck Variance on Christmas Lake - Planning Case 08-23
Kate:
Please share this email with the rest of the Planning commission and staff involved in the Beck Variance Request if you
are able to. Also, if appropriate, please make this part of the public record regarding this variance request. I do realize
this is coming in after the meeting last night, however I felt compelled to share my opinion after the hearing.
My name is Jeremy Whiteman and I am part of the family that owns the property at 6240 Ridge Road. We are a couple of
neighbors to the North of the Beck property. My family has owned this property since the mid 1960's. We have enjoyed
the use of this property and consider ourselves stewards of the lake. Our lot is very similar to the Beck lot, in dimension,
bluff consideration and shoreline. Since the initial building of our property, we have never removed a tree (unless dead),
re -landscaped our yard, requested any deviation from code that is written to protect the lake. We have been able to enjoy
the lake for well over 50 years without altering the landscape - tough grass and steep shoreline and all. That said, our
property does have a structure on it that was built before current regulations existed.
I was in attendance at the meeting last night, but choose not to address the committee. I applaud the Chair of the
Planning Commission's (Kurt?) comments when at the conclusion of presentations he simply asked, "what is the best
thing for the lake?" My only fear and concern is that any variance granted to any homeowner on the lake
could potentially negatively impact the lake in any way. This could be a direct impact such as altering the shoreline, or an
in -direct impact such as altering the bluff that keeps the hillside at bay from the lake. It takes only one major rain -storm to
send an un -vegetated bluff running into the lake. It takes one faulty deck footing to have a portion of the shoreline
destroyed. I have great concern that the issue of one variance will quickly snowball into the issuance of another variance,
and another, and so on. These types of decisions could dramatically impact the viability of the lake as a recreational spot
and the jewel of Chanhassen. That is a precedence that I hope the Planning Commission considers at great length
before taking any further actions.
Again, I wish to repeat that my only fear and chief concern is that any variance granted to any homeowner on the lake
could potentially negatively impact the lake in any way. Like the Chair of the Commission requested last night, I too ask
the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider first and foremost Hwhat is best for the take." My only
opinion on the Beck Variance is that the Planning Commission consider the lake and only the lake when taking further
actions. 6250 Ridge Road is a beautif ul lot, with a beautiful house and two car detached garage. The lot has amazing
views of the lake, a nice shoreline similar to the one I enjoy and the lake -front is readily accessible in an as -is condition
(prior to the current construction). Any further development should not come at the cost of the lake.
Thank you for your time and consideration
Jeremy Whiteman
SCA14HED
Auseth, Angie
From: Auseth, Angie
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:20 AM
To: 'HENRY A+JR GRAEF'
Subject: RE: Beck lakeshore property Christmas Lake
0
Thank you for your email, Ms. Graef. I will forward a copy to the Planning Commissioners as well as have copies
available at the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, January 6, 2009. Please feel free to attend the meeting.
Sincerely,
Angie
Angie Auseth
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct dial: 952-227-1132
Fax: 952-227-1110
email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
From: HENRY A+JR GRAEF [mailto:sharongraef@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 8:30 PM
To: Auseth, Angie
Subject: Beck lakeshore property Christmas Lake
As a neighbor of the Beck lakeshore property, I question how these property owners can
go ahead and ignore the city's regulation, get no permits and build a structure that does not
follow the Chanhassen city ordinances. There is no obvious hardship to that property in following city
requirements. There are set back dimensions and rules to follow for keeping lake property
in accordance with surrounding properties.
It seems extremely presumptuous to proceed with construction without permits and then request
varinances
that are not necessary. The neighborhood follows city requirements, they are not meant for some and
not others.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter.
Sharon Graef
Family cabin
Christmad Lake
6240 Ridge Road
Chanhassen
Auseth, Angie
From: Auseth, Angie
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 2:19 PM
To: 'GORDON JR WHITEMAN'
Subject: RE: Beck Variance
Thank you for your email, Mrs. Whiteman. I will forward a copy to the Planning Commissioners as well as have copies
available at the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, January 6, 2009. Please feel free to attend the meeting.
Sincerely,
Angie
Angie Auseth
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct dial: 952-227-1132
Fax: 952-227-1110
email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Website: www.ei.chanhassen.mn.us
From: GORDON JR WHITEMAN [mailto:whitemangp@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 2:13 PM
To: Auseth, Angie
Subject: Beck Variance
I am a property owner,6240 Ridge Road, it is a family owned cabin so there are actually multiple owners.
We are in a unique position as our cabin would never be built today, the codes were extrememly different
fifty years ago (however, I would like to mention that we are probably the only ones that have not
removed any other than dead trees, have never used any chemicals -tried to maintain a minimal
footprint). I understand that, I so I am speaking from a different point of view.. I have sympathy for
anyone wanting to utilize their property, however, we have set standards and need to follow them. We
have learned a great deal about how we treat the land does directly affect our lake. I am particularly
frustrated by the removal of trees and ignoring the bluff set backs. You only have to go around the lake
after a major storm to see the effects of changing the bluffs. Properties are quite narrow and bunched
together in this area and guidelines are critical. Time after time people just go ahead and do what they
want, not considering the impact or the codes either expecting not to get caught or that they will get their
way after the fact. That is extremely frustrating for long time owners, taxpayers, who have a stake in the
future of Christmas Lake.
I hope that thoughtful reasoning can prevail and keep the standards that were set for good reason and
thoughtful planning for the future.
Patricia Whiteman
2272 Stone Creek Lane East
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission denies Planning Case #08-23
for a bluff setback and vegetation removal variance, a watcr-oricnted accessory structure variance
and a detached accessory structure variance for the construction of a 480 square -foot water -
oriented structure, located at 6250 Ridge Road, with conditions I and 2 on page 9 of the staff
report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action."
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting an I I -foot bluff setback variance
from the 30 -foot bluff setback and removal of vegetation, a 230 square -foot water -oriented
accessory structure variance from the 250 square -foot maximum and a 286 square -foot detached
accessory structure variance from the 1,000 square -foot maximum for the construction of a 480
square -foot water oriented structure (shed/deck).
LOCATION: 6250 Ridge Road (Legally described in Exhibit A)
APPLICANT: Christophe and Nadine Beck 0�0_
6250 Ridge Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF)
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (1.5 — 4 units per acre)
ACREAGE: 0.78 acres; 32,241 square feet DENSITY: N/A
ADJACENT ZONING: The properties to the north, south, and east are zoned Single Family
Residential (RSF). Christmas Lake is located to the west.
WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer service is available to the site.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
'Ihe City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a
relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation
from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
SCANNED
Beck Variance Request 00 00
Planning Case 08-23
January 6, 2009
Page 2 of 9
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting an after -the -fact area and setback variance for the construction of a
water -oriented accessory structure located near the shoreline of Christmas Lake. The water -oriented
structure consists of an 80 square -foot shed and a 400 square -foot deck, to be referred to as the
"shed/decle'or I.struc,
'ture,'.
The property, with an area of 32,241 square feet, is a riparian lot, zoned Single Family Residential
(RSF), and located on the east side of Christmas Lake. It contains a bluff located within the
westerly portion of the site.
Staff received a phone call in October 2008. The caller was concerned that the construction of the
structure was being done without a permit. Staff conducted an inspection on October 17, 2008 and
issued a stop work order at the site as a building permit had not been applied for, nor did the
structure meet City Code requirements for a water -oriented structure.
Beck Variance Request
Planning Case 08-23
January 6, 2009
Page 3 of 9
Staff met with the applicant and explained all of the options to bring the structure into compliance.
As a result, the applicant submitted a variance application which included a survey. The survey
denoted all property lines, structures, the toe of the bluff and the Ordinary High Water (OHW)
mark. City Code requires structures to maintain a minimum setback from these features.
When the surveyor marked the property Imes, it was noted that the structure not only encroached
into the required side yard setback, but it was located over the property line, encroaching into the
neighboring property. The applicant has agreed to move the shed/deck to meet the required 1 0 -foot
shorcland setback, measured from the OHW, as well as the I 0 -foot side yard setback, off the
neighbor's property.
While the structure will meet the side and shoreland setback requirements, the proposed structure
does not comply with the following City Code requirements:
• It exceeds the 250 square -foot size limitation for a water -oriented structure by 230 square feet
• It encroaches I I feet into the required 30 -foot toe -of -bluff setback;
• It includes removal of vegetation beyond the 30% within the shoreline and bluff impact zone; and
• It exceeds the 1,000 square -foot detached accessory structure size limitation by 286 square feet, as
an 806 square -foot detached garage is currently located on the property.
The applicant has reasonable use of the property, which includes a single-family home and two two -
car garages. Additionally, a 194 square -foot water oriented structure can be constructed on the site
in compliance with all City Code requirements. Therefore, this request is a self-created hardship, as
defined by the City Code. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 20, Article 11, Division 3, Variances.
Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District.
Chapter 20, Article XII, Single Family Residential (RSF) District.
Chapter 20, Article =11, Section 20-904. Accessory Structures.
Chapter 20, Article XXVIII, Bluff Protection.
Beck Variance Request
Planning Case 08-23
January 6, 2009
Page 4 of 9
BACKGROUND
The property is
located at 6250 Ridge
Road, and is an
unplafted lot zoned
Single Family
Residential (RSF).
The lot has an area of
32,241 square feet
(0.78 acres). The
minimum lot area for
a riparian lot in the
RSF district is 20,000
square feet. In
addition to the
lakeshore, there is a
bluff located in the
400
*0
rear yard of the property.
Several of the homes on the neighboring properties were constructed in the 1950's and '60's.
However, the original home on the subject site was demolished and the new home was built in
2002. The 806 square -foot detached garage was later constructed in 2003. The current home,
detached garage and site conditions (23% hard surface coverage) are in compliance with City
Code.
ANALYSIS
The intent of the applicant's proposal
is to provide storage for their water -
oriented equipment; rather than carry
it up and down the bluff. The shed is
built on a floating slab, so it can be
moved to meet the side yard and
shoreland setback requirements. The
80 square -foot shed meets the intent of
the water -oriented structure and size
limitations of the City Code.
The applicant states that the area near
the lake does not grow grass due to the
canopy coverage of the trees. After
researching various landscaping
Beck Variance Request 00
Planning Case 08-23
January 6, 2009
Page 5 of 9
options, their solution was to construct the 400 square -foot deck. The deck is constructed in
sections and is not permanently affixed to the ground, so it can be removed if necessary. The
additional square footage of the deck exceeds the size limitation for water -oriented accessory
structures and, combined with the existing detached garage and proposed shed, exceeds the size
limitation for detached accessory structures on a parcel or property.
Compfiance
The applicant is requesting an I I -foot bluff setback and vegetation removal variance, a 230
square -foot water -oriented accessory structure variance, and a 286 square -foot detached
accessory structure variance for the construction of a 480 square -foot water oriented structure
(shed/deck). However, a 194 square -foot water -oriented structure can be constructed and
comply with the required setback and accessory structure size limitations. This would permit the
proposed 80 square -foot shed and a deck, not to exceed 114 square feet.
The picture on the right
illustrates the existing
clearing within the
shoreline impact zone.
The current clearing
appears to meet or exceed
what is permitted by
ordinance.
Section 20-482 (2)(b)(4)
states that: "The clearing
shall be limited to a strip
30 percent of lot width or
30 feet, whichever is
lesser, parallel to the
shoreline and extending
inward within the shore
and bluff impact zones."
The applicant's proposal requires the removal of an additional tree within the shoreline impact
zone, thus necessitating an additional variance from the above-mentioned ordinance.
Beek Variance Request
Planning Case 08-23
January 6, 2009
Page 6 of 9
I**
Location
00
As shown in the survey on the left the proposed water oriented -structure (in yellow) encroaches
significantly into the bluff setback and into the bluff impact zone, which is the first 20 feet
adjacent to the toe of the bluff With the placement of the applicant's proposed structure, a large
hardwood tree would need to be removed.
However, as shown in the survey on the right a water -oriented structure (in orange) can be
constructed which complies with the bluff, shoreland, and property line setbacks, complies with
the size limitations of water -oriented structures and detached accessory structures limitations,
and saves the tree from being removed. The shed is 80 square feet, which is consistent with the
applicant's proposal. The deck shown is I 10 square feet (I V x 10). The area of the deck may
not exceed 114 square feet in size to maintain compliance with City Code.
Beck Variance Request
Planning Case 08-23
January 6, 2009
Page 7 of 9
In staff s illustration, the combined area of the shed and deck is 190 (up to 194) square
'c
feet total. While this is less than the 250 square -foot water -oriented structur
allowed by the Shoreland Management District; the combi
footage of the existing 806 square -foot detached garage an
shed/deck may not exceed the 1,000 square -foot detached
accessory structure limitation. The more restrictive
ordinance takes precedent.
500 Feet
Staff surveyed the properties within 500 feet of the
subject site to determine if there were pre-existing
conditions in the neighborhood that would wan -ant granting
a variance.
Several of the neighboring homes were built prior to the adoption of the Shoreland District
Regulations, some of which have water -oriented structures that do not meet current zoning
ordinance. Staff researched the neighboring properties' building files and past aerial photographs
to try and determine the status of the adjacent water -oriented structures. It is unclear when they
were constructed.
Beek Variance Request 00 00
Planning Case 08-23
January 6, 2009
Page 8 of 9
Bluff
For lands within a Shoreland Management District, the "bluff impact zone" is the first 20 feet of
the 30 -foot setback for structures proposed to be built in bluff areas that are located immediately
adjacent to an 18 percent or steeper slope. This 20 -foot bluff impact area should not be disturbed
either by removing the vegetation or by excavation. Diseased or dying vegetation may be
removed, and selective pruning of branches is permitted to allow a view.
Shoreland Management
The shoreland management district has been in effect since 1986 and, generally, follows DNR
standards for riparian lots. The ordinance was amended in 1994, consistent with DNR
regulations, including the current guidelines for water -oriented structures.
Water -oriented accessory structure orfacility means a small, above -ground building or other
improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls which, because of the
relationship of its use to a surface -water feature, reasonably needs to be located closer to public
waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and facilities include
boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, and detached docks.
Sec 20-481 (e)
(2) Water -oriented accessory structures. Each lot may have one water -oriented accessory
structure not meeting the normal structure setback in subsection 20-481 (a) if this water -
oriented accessory structure complies with the following provisions:
a. The structure or facility shall not exceed ten feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and
cannot occupy an area greater than 250 square feet. Detached decks shall not exceed
eight feet above grade at any point.
b. The setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level shall be at least
ten feet;
f. As an alternative for general development and recreational development waterbodies,
water -oriented accessory structures used solely for watercmft storage, and including
storage of related boating and water -oriented sporting equipment, may occupy an area of
up to 400 square feet provided the maximum width of the structure is 20 feet as measured
parallel to the configuration of the shoreline.
The purpose of the limitations to the size of a structure and the proximity to lake is to minimi e
the disturbance in the shoreline impact or buffer area. A more natural buffer area reduces runoff
which in turn causes less erosion and sediment deposition, as well as more wildlife habitat. The
increased volume of runoff into the lake as well as the amount of sediment and other pollutants
Beck Variance Request 100 00
Planning Case 08-23
January 6, 2009
Page 9 of 9
decrease the water quality of public waters. Therefore, any increased disturbance and hardcover
due to the construction of the shed/deck will result in an impact to Christmas Lake. As stated
previously, the vegetation removed within the shoreline impact zone appears to meet or exceed
what is permitted by the Shoreland Management District; any additional removal requires an
additional variance request.
The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance.
According to criteria outlined in the City Code for granting a variance, reasonable use within the
RSF district is defined as a single-family home and a two -car garage. As such, the applicant has
a reasonable use of the property with the existing home, an attached two -car garage and a
detached two -car garage. Additionally, a water -oriented structure can be constructed to comply
with City Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and the attached
Findings of Fact and Action:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission denies Planning Case #08-23 for a an I I -foot bluff
setback and vegetation removal variance; a water -oriented accessory structure variance; and a
detached accessory structure variance for the construction of a 480 square -foot water -oriented
structure, legally described in Exhibit A; adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action
with the following conditions:
1. The combined square footage of the water -oriented accessory structure (shed/deck) may not
exceed 194 square feet;
2. A building or zoning pernrit must be applied for and approved prior to completion of the water -
oriented structure to ensure compliance with City Code."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Action.
2. Email from John Gleason, Area Hydrologist, NIN DNR Waters dated December 23,2008.
3. Development Review Application.
4. Development Review Deadline Waiver.
5. Reduced copies of lot survey (2).
6. Exhibit A (Legal Description of Subject Site).
7. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing.
gAplan\2008 pimning casm\08-23 beck varimce\staff report.dw
00
so
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND ACTION
IN RE: Application of Christophe and Nadine Beck for a bluff setback and vegetation removal
variance, a water -oriented accessory structure variance and a detached accessory structure
variance for the construction of a 480 square -foot water -oriented structure (shed/deck) in the
Single -Family Residential (RSF) District — Planning Case No. 08-23.
On January 6, 2009, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Christophe and Nadine Beck for an 11 -foot bluff setback
and vegetation removal variance from the 30 -foot bluff setback, a 230 square -foot water -oriented
accessory structure variance from the 250 square -foot maximum, and a 286 square -foot detached
accessory structure variance from the 1,000 square -foot maximum for the construction of a 480
square -foot water oriented structure (shed/deck) at 6250 Ridge Road, located in the Single Family
Residential District (RSF). The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
proposed variance that 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 (RSF).
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per
acre).
3. The legal description of the property is shown in the attached Exhibit A.
4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not
grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet these criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The
applicant currently has reasonable use of the property including a single-family home, an
attached two car garage and a detached two car garage. The applicant can construct a water
oriented structure in compliance with the shoreland, bluff, setback and structure size
limitation as well as save trees on the site. Therefore, the variance request is a self-created
hardship.
00
00
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all residential
riparian properties. A water oriented structure can be constructed on the site in compliance
with all zoning regulations.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The intent of the request is not based on the desire to increase the value of the
home. The property owner's intent is to have a stomge area for water -oriented equipment
and an attached deck. The applicant can construct the proposed 80 square -foot shed, as well
as a deck, not to exceed 114 square feet, in compliance with the City Code.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The applicant has reasonable use of the property, as a single-family home with an
attached two -car garage and a detached two -car garaged are currently located on the site.
The applicant can construct up to a 194 square -foot water -oriented structure (shed/deck)
within the requirements of the City Code. This request is a self-created hardship.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The purpose
of the size limitations of water -oriented structures is to minimize the disturbance in the
shoreline and bluff impact areas. A more natural buffer, or impact area, reduces runoff
which in turn causes less erosion and sediment deposition, as well as more wildlife
habitat. An increased volume of runoff into the lake as well as the amount of sediment
and other pollutants decrease the water quality of public waters. Therefore, any increased
disturbance and hardcover due to the construction of the shed/deck will result in an
impact to Christmas Lake.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
withm the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed shed/deck will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safbty or diminish property values within the
neighborhood.
The planning report #08-23, dated January 6, 2009, prepared by Angie Auseth, et al, is
incorporated herein.
2
00
ACTION
00
"Me Planning Commission denies Planning Case #08-23 for a bluff setback and
vegetation removal variance, a water -oriented accessory structure variance and a detached
accessory structure variance for the construction of a 480 square -foot water -oriented structure on
property legally described in the attached Exhibit A, based on these findings of fact."
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 6th day of January, 2009.
CHANHASSEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Its Chair
gAplan\2008 planning cases\08-23 bwk variance\1 -"9 findings of facLdoc
96 00
Auseth, Angie
From: John Gleason [John.Gleason@dnr.state.mn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 1:01 PM
To: Auseth, Angie
Subject: Beck Variance
Ms. Auseth:
I am writing this letter in response to the letter from you dated December 8 regarding the
Beck variance application for their property at 6250 Ridge Rd.
In general we oppose setback variances from bluffs. The intent of a setback from bluffs to
offer some consumer protection as bluffs are prone to erosion. I have included a excerpt
from the DNR Waters website with some more detailed information on development on bluffs and
associated technical issues. The website is:
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/permits/water/answers.html#bluff
Please review the following information. I have provided it to assist the City in your
review of this variance application.
"For lands within a Shoreland Management District, a "bluff" is defined as land draining
toward a water body, which rises more than 25 feet above the water body and exceeds more than
30 percent rise in grade. A "steep slope" within the Shoreland Management District is land
that exceeds 12 percent in grade. Any land that exceeds 12 percent in grade is poorly suited
for either agricultural activity or development if its natural vegetation is removed because
precipitation on an exposed slope that steep will erode. Agriculture experts recommend that
land above 6 percent grade not be tilled because of erosion probabilities. Architects claim
that homes can be built in slopes that approach 18 percent grade if proper geo-technical
precautions are followed.
To provide for some consumer protection, the rules for lands within a Shoreland Management
District state that building sites should be located 30 feet either above or below the top or
toe of a bluff (defined as that point where the grade becomes less than 18 percent). In
situations where land slopes exceed 22 percent, expertise should be obtained to ensure that
any proposed development meets requirements, does not create erosion during construction, and
does not lead to problems from gravitational slippage after construction (i.e., when soils
become saturated with precipitation and gravitational forces on the structure move it down
slope). City or county planning/zoning officials should be contacted for district boundaries,
requirements, and best management practices before undertaking any construction activity in
these areas that will be highly vulnerable to erosion and soil slippage.
For lands within a Shoreland Management District, the "bluff impact zone" is the first 20
feet of the 30 -foot setback for structures proposed to be built in bluff areas that are
located immediately adjacent to an 18 percent or steeper slope. This 20 -foot bluff impact
area should not be disturbed either by removing the vegetation or by excavation. Diseased or
dying vegetation may be removed, and selective pruning of branches is permitted to allow a
view. Local officials should be contacted for district boundaries and requirements before
undertaking these types of activities."
Regards,
Jack
John (lack) Gleason,
1
Area*Hydrologist -West Metroeq 0 0
MN DNR Waters
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
651-259-5754 (W)
651-772-7977 (F)
John.Gleason(@dnr.state.mn.us
Visit our website at:
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/`index.html
00
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100
041,lanning Case No. ()S- ';L3
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
and Address:
Contact: �r,�
Phone: 2J2 204,519�/ Fax:
Email:
Owner Name and Address:
rl')12 4Ay-Y_- ca-�/ 21a::;�
Contact:
Phone: (2 201 e4 11 9,�' Fax:
Email: ��
t)L-rk 'Cc-y�)
NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development
plans
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
Non -conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Rezoning
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Sign Permits RECEIVED
Sign Plan Review
OCT 3 1 2008
HANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
Site Plan Review (SPR)*
Subdivision*
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAG)
Variance (VAR)
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
X Notification Sign — $200
(City to install and remove)
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
- $50 CUP/SPR/VACNARNVAP/Metes & Bounds
- $450 Minor SUB
TOTAL FEE $ Li 60. 00 p8 c_" ZL4A20
An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant
prior to the public hearing.
*Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11"
reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital cop in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format.
"Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for
each aoDlication.
SCA14NFD
00 400
PROJECTNAME: (,21-r�
LOCATION: 62'(0
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: -25-00? 0 100
TOTALACREAGE: ze
WETLANDS PRESENT: YES X NO
PRESENT ZONING: /-::7
REQUESTED ZONING: —P- (� /--
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:
'AEASON FOR REQUEST: I-jp_t, aj4dCn_eAUj
FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: include number of existing employees: and new employees:
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
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.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to (his application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this, application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
10/130/09>
Signature of Applicant Date
Signature of Fee Owner Date SCANNED
G.IPLAMForms0evelopment Review Application.DOC Rev. 1/08
Igo so
PROJECT NAME:(, 2 Fr, P PC,
LOCATION:— 6220 /L�� /?C/
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: — 2S-00 ? 0 /00
TOTALACREAGE: 0.
WETLANDS PRESENT: YES X NO
PRESENT ZONING:
REQUESTED ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REASON FOR REQUEST: '-w-f. wdink�l
FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: include number of existing employees:
and new employees:
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
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.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to (his application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Tide, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
'Ij-, - t: . �' 4 , ,
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
-:!�-
Signature of Applicant
Signature of Fee Owner
10/130/09>
Date
10 / 13 NO S?
Date SCANNED
GAPLAN\Fonns\Deve1opmmt Re�iew Application.130C Rev. 1/08
00
410
Applying for variance at our property at Christmas Lake,
6250 Ridge rd. parcel Nr. 250020100 for:
Removable, floating Shed (8'x 10'= 80sf)
Removable, floating Deck (400sf, exact shape see drawing)
While
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
OCT 3 1 2008
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
- reducing the distance to the bluff from the required 30 feet to 15 feet due to
narrow shape of the lake shore area.
- respecting the distance to the water high level line of 10 feet
In July 2007 coming from Germany we moved in our House on Christmas Lake. Being
passionate water skiers we were really happy to discover Christmas Lake one of the
most beautiful lakes of the area.
Taking over our property we found the wooded area down by the shore piled with
wooden debris and all sorts of waste like
-old dock
- Big metal pieces
- Plastic fencing
- Gas canister
- etc ....
- old door
- Glass bottles
- soda canes
- pieces of old carpet
The use of about 40% of our anyway small shore area was impossible.
(The steep wooded bluff of the property goes far down to the shore and takes about
70% of the space facing the lake. This reduces the usable space (inclusive wooded
part) down by the lake to 3950 square feet (= 11 % of the entire property))
After cleaning up the area (hauling the waste up the bluff) we tried to enlarge the lawn
by adding dirt, sowing with grass seed multiple times and sprinkling regularly.
410 0*
Unfortunately the grass did not grow and weeds and stinging plants took over the area
which made any recreational use especially for the children impossible.
Pulling out and cutting the weeds for two seasons did not show any results and the use
of herbicide at the lake shore was in my opinion not an option.
Additionally we had wasps making their nests in some old tree trunks which made the
area dangerous for ours' and the neighbors' children to play. My son's long planed
birthday swimming party could not be held due to the sudden appearance of two new
wasp's nests in the area.
In order to being able to fully enjoy our wonderful lake property we had to find a solution
We decided to consult a landscaper. To his judgment it was a costly (dig out several old
tree trunks and even out the surface) and not promising project to have lawn grow
under these big trees which we did not want to remove. He also highly recommended
the installation of an automatic sprinkler system.
Still we could not use a big part of our shore area and it also looked poorly compared to
the usually well kept and organized properties around Christmas Lake.
We studied some landscaping books, magazines and other properties around the lake.
But we did and do not want to unnecessarily cut down trees, pour concrete or do any
further degradation to the shoreline. We figured the only option would be a deck and
shed.
Consulting a carpenter we tried to best use the area without cutting sound trees (beside
one being damaged by storm), respect the nature and solve all of the above mentioned
problems.
The solution was a floating, removable shed and deck. The deck is built of separate
pieces which could be moved in case of necessity. This structure allows the rain and the
water running down from the bluff to penetrate the area.
The shed being 80sf instead of the 120sf allowed, will make life at the beach much
easier. We will be able to store the child ren's' toys, water skis and furniture cushions
etc. instead of carrying them down and up the steep bluff every day. The design of the
shed is a copy of our house and will greatly add to the properties' appearance.
We truly hope that you will support all our efforts to make of our shore the best we could
to preserve the natural aspect of this magnificent area as well as allowing our family to
enjoy the beautiful lake.
SCANNED
so 00 6>8-�O
City of Chanhassen
Planning Commission
Appliance for variance at our property at Christmas Lake, 6250 Ridge rd.
Parcel Nr. 250020100
Please remove my items from the December 2 Planning Commission meeting agenda and reschedule for
the January 4, 2008 meeting. I also waive the 120 day development review deadline.
Yours sincerely
z
Nadine Beck
6250 Ridge rd.
Chanhassen, MN, 55317
CITY OF CH,�fj�14SSSN
RECEIVED
NOV 1 0 2008
CHMHASSEN PLANMNG Djpj-
8CAjVjjEj)
0
�92
2.0-
!a zo�.4 J-.
:::-.m . A 3----
�z sfi 5 c -.,o
z - E I �.
. .221.
ays
vEz
soz. i -v
K 08-
.6. .3 29 Wit
C
gp� D'- -0 IE:�
- s�j:sl
0 V P�-
E-U; 0-. -f
a-.*- 0
z
-.9-0 '00 -MAS
so
jf�
0.0
. a
a .0�.
Z. I V a- -
a.. Z'Z 3-
0!
Z-2 -.0-to.
A.;t
�FF
0
oz a- so
i I z
3
3 m Ee 2a f
19 &A -
. % 9
.0:. F...
-a-9.0
.:Br
, z
z z a
0
0
, 6,- -
0*
z
z
z
T
0
VV
2�'
E
was
I -M
o mwooe
Z ozo
5- � P
Ujo, A
>
zo
AM
2,
LLJ w
F- y
V)
WO
Z vi
ZED.,
z
0
x
,ONG
w�
oz
CD 62
Of -
m M!Q
P W�m
U) za,
Xwo
00,01
-3.0o'gi.01N
o..Z
6
oy, C04
'9T
vor 4v
4nv,, as
a
R�
tV
a
"1 +1
AOL,
soct W
"Y
S AFORV4YO
0
wmwi�
PAM
6A,
.7,44, i �-727-
�' 5-474,%
�t-
-- IF-\, - -_
00 00
00 00
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
The following described land situated in the County of Carver and State of Minnesota:
TTactl: That part of Sections I and 2, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning at a point
in the East line of Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, distant 472.00 feet South of the Northeast comer of
said Section 2; thence North along the East line of said Section 2 a distance of 97.00 feet; thence
Northeasterly on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 65.55 feet a distance of 47.76 feet; thence
North 41 degrees 45 minutes East on a line tangent to said last described curve, a distance of 78 feet;
thence Northerly on a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 152.4 feet a distance of 37.24 feet to a
point which is the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; last described curve being
hereinafter designated and referred to as "Line A"; thence North 79 degrees 45 minutes West 250.02 feet;
thence at right angle northeasterly 10 feet; thence at a right angle Southeasterly to the intersection of said
line with the Northerly extension of aforesaid "Line A"; thence Southerly along said extension to the point
of beginning.
Tract 2: 'Mat part of Section I and 2, Township 116, Range 23 described as follows: Beginning at a point
in the East line of Section 2 distant 472 feet South of the Northeast comer of said Section 2; thence North
along the East Line of Section 2 a distance of 97 feet; thence Northeasterly on a tangential curve to the
right with a radius of 65.55 feet, a distance of 47.76 feet; thence North 41 degrees 45 minutes East on a line
tangent to last described curve, a distance of 78 feet; thence Northerly on a tangential curve to the left with
a radius of 152.4 feet, a distance of37.24 feet; thence North 79 degrees 45 minutes West 330 feet, more or
less, to the shore of Christmas Lake; thence Southwesterly along the shore of said Lake 150 feet to an
intersection with a line bearing north 63 degrees 22 minutes West 326 feet, more or less from point of
beginning; thence South 63 degrees 22 minutes East 326 feet, more or less to the point of beginning,
excepting therefrom the following described premises, to —wit: That part of Sections I and 2, Township
116, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at a point in the East Line of Section 2, distant 472 feet
South of the Northeast comer of Section 2; thence North along the East line of Section 2 a distance of 97
feet; thence Northeasterly on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 65.55 feet, a distance of 33 feet
to the point of beginning; thence Southwesterly along said curve to said East line of Section 2; thence
South along said East Line of Section 2, a distance of 97 feet; thence North 63 degrees 22 minutes West
326 feet, more or less, to the shore of Christmas lake; thence Northeasterly along the shore of said lake to
the intersection with a line bearing north 72 degrees 10 minutes 39 seconds West from the point of
beginning, thence South 72 degrees 10 minutes 39 seconds East to the point of beginning. Excepting
therefrom that portion, if any, which lies below the natural ordinary low water mark, the State of
Minnesota being the owner of all of said portion, if any, lying below the natural ordinary low water mark,
it being recognized that said lake is a navigable public body of water, provided, however, that the
applicants shall have the usual riparian rights that attach to land riparian to navigable public bodies of
water incident to the ownership thereof. For the purposes of the descriptions of the above two tracts, the
East Line of said Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, is assumed to be a due North and South line.
According to the Government survey thereof
09 00
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MRIJNESOTA)
)ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
1, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
December 24, 2008, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing for the Beek Variance – Planning Case 2008-23 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.
Karen J. Engelhardt, Deputy Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this — day of 2008.
Notary Public
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start
until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for Variances from the bluff setback, size limitation of a
water -oriented structure, and size limitation for detached
Proposal:
accessory structure(s) for the construction of a shed and deck
on property zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF).
Applicant:
Christophe and Nadine Beck
Property
6250 Ridge 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
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps:
at the Meeting:
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/serv/i)lan/08-23.html. If you wish to
talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie
Auseth by email at aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by
Questions &
phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written
Comments:
comments, it is 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.
City Review Procedure;
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
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 be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the 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 commercialrindustrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed 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 Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spoliespersonlrepresentative 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 to 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 included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. _
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not stah
until later In the evening, depending on the order of the agenda.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for Variances from the bluff setback, size limitation of a
water -oriented structure, and size limitation for detached
Proposal:
accessory structure(s) for the construction of a shed and deck
on property zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF).
Applicant:
Christophe and Nadine Beck
Property
6250 Ridge 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
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps:
at the Meeting:
1 . Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the volect.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/i)lan/08-17.html. It you wish to
talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie
Auseth by email at aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by
Questions &
phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written
Comments:
comments, it is 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.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the,
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 teat of the subject site to be notifi,
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 be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the 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 commercial/industrial
• Minnesota State Statute 519,99 requires all applications to be processed 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 Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood stookesperson/representative 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 to 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 applicartion will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. —
00
00
JOHN S FESS KEITH D & SUSAN J JONES JAMES J & KAREN M MEYER
6280 RIDGE RD 6265 RIDGE RD 6230 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9438 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9438 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9438
GORDON M & DOLORES I SPRENGER
6244 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9438
WILLIAM P CUNNINGHAM
C/O P WHITEMAN
2272 STONE CREEK LN E
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7412
JERRY W & KATHERINE M SNIDER
6270 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9438
RONALD H & JANICE M MASON
800 PLEASANT VIEW RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9545
STEVEN J & MARY F MIDTHUN
6225 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9438
MOLLY V & SCOTT R SILAS
TRUSTEES OF TRUST
6201 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN. MN 5M17 -9438
IRENE Y JOSEPH
6290 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9438
HENRY & APHRODITE BERTOLDI
6285 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9438
CHRISTOPHE BECK
6250 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9438
DEAN E WETZEL REVOCABLE TRUST
C/O DEAN WETZEL TRUSTEE
6260 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9438
GINA M SCHMIDT
790 PLEASANT VIEW RD
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9509
CM OF
Date: December 8,2008
00 City of Chanhassen 00
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department By: Angie Auseth, Planner I
o � - 2�)
Subject: BECK VARLANCE: Request for Variances from the bluff setback and size limitation of a water -
oriented structure, for the construction of a shed and deck on property zoned Single -Family Residential
(RSF) located at 6250 Ridge Road. ApplicantlOwner: Christophe and Nadine Beck
Planning Case: 08-23 PID: 25-0020100
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Department on October 31, 2008. The applicant has waived the 120 -day review period.
In order for us 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.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on January 6, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than December
24, 2008. You may also appear at the Planning Cormnission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is
greatly appreciated.
1. City Departments:
a. City Engineer
b. City Attorney
c. City Park Director
d. Fire Marshal
e. Building Official
E Water Resources Coordinator
g. Forester
2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District
3. MN Dept. of Transportation
4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources -Jack Gleason
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
7. Carver County
a. Engineer
b. Environmental Services
8. Watershed District Engineer
a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek
b. Lower Minnesota River
c. Minnehaha Creek
9. Telephone Company (Qwest or Sprint/United)
10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley)
11. Mediacom
12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
SCANNED
64
00
Location Map
(Subject Property Highlighted in Yellow)
Beek Variance Request
6250 Ridge Road
Planning Case 2008-23
SCANNED
00
MEMORANDUM
TO: Angie Auseth, Planner I
FROM: Jerritt Mohn, Building Official
DATE: December 8, 2008
00
SUBJ: Review of request for variances: bluff set -back, size limitation on
water oriented structures, size limitation on detached accessory
structures on property located at 1425 Bluff Creek Dr.
Planning Case: 08-23
Building permits are required for any structures governed by the building code.
G:\pIan\2008pImning �\08-23 bmk varimce\buiIdingofflciaIco=mts.dm
.LEGAL
DESCRIPTION:
0 qjTV)t4 �7-
00" W
Op N F-EET
82 ORTH DEED LINE
CERT
The
following described
land situated in the County
of Carver and State
of Minnesota:
WOOD FEN
N UES F;?ow CE:
/I 3.5
Tract lt That part of Sections 1 and 2, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning at a Point In
472.00 feet South of the Northeast corner of sold Section 2; thence North along the East line of sold Seaton
tangential curve to the right with a radius of 65.55 feet a distance of 47.76 feet; thence North 41 degrees 45
a distance of 78 feet, thence Northerly on a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 152.4 feet a distance
beginnin of the tract of land to be described; last described curve being hereinafter designated and referred tc
250.02 ?set; thence at right angle northeasterly 10 feet; thence at a right ongle Southeasterly to the intervectic
A"; thence Southerly along said extension to the point of beginning.
Tract 2: That part of Section 1 and 2, Township 116, Range 23 described as follows: Beginning at a point In tl
Northeast comer of sold Section 2; thence North along the East Line of Section 2 a distance of 97 feet; thenc
radius of 65.55 feet, a distance of 47.76 feet; thence North 41 degrees 45 minutes East on a line tangent to
on a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 152.4 feet, a distance of 37.24 feet; thence North 79 degree
Christmas Lake; thence Southwesterly along the shore of said Lake 150 feet to an intersection with a line beari
from point of beginning; thence South 63 degrees 22 minutes East 326 feet, more or less to the point of beg!
to—wit: That part of Sections 1 and 2, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at a point I
Northeast comer of Section 2; thence North along the East line of Section 2 a distance of 97 fact; thence Not
65-55 feet, a distance of 33 fest to the point of beginning; thence Southwesterly along said curve to sold East
Section 2, c distance of 97 feet; thence North 63 degrees Z2 minutes West 326 feet, more or less, to the shl
said lake to the intersection with a line bearing North 72 degrees 10 minutes 39 seconds West from the point
East to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom that portion, if any, which lies below the natural ordinary lo
of said porrion, if any, lying below the natural ordinary low water mark, it being recognized that said lake is a
applicants shall have the usual riparian rights that attach to land riparian to navigable public bodies of water in
descriptions of the above two treicts, the East Line of sold Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, is assumed to
Survey thereof.
FS
I
CV*
0)
Cv
6
tv
2-0
01
OU TBUILDiNG OS
SOUTHERLYM T CORNER OF.
NORTH IS 0.1
IN
00" W
Op N F-EET
82 ORTH DEED LINE
N79-45,01
\NAIL IN R(
WOOD FEN
N UES F;?ow CE:
/I 3.5
71.40
F�5 112 INCH IRON
' �
tLLj 0
FIEET TO 15
Pl� 0,
W/ CAP 017003 — /
41
.LLJ
ir
ROCK SIEPS
p d
LO
LINE.
0
Cb
f - --q
I N .918* 4 -
/RON 1/Z
CAP . W/
112 INCH jj�
`V CAP I ON PIPE
N 7.9 ,#1 70o3
OU TBUILDiNG OS
SOUTHERLYM T CORNER OF.
NORTH IS 0.1
IN
00" W
Op N F-EET
82 ORTH DEED LINE
N79-45,01
\NAIL IN R(
WOOD FEN
N UES F;?ow CE:
/I 3.5
71.40
F�5 112 INCH IRON
' �
tLLj 0
FIEET TO 15
Pl� 0,
W/ CAP 017003 — /
a 0
.LLJ
SOUN'OF
Pq DEED
ROCK SIEPS
p d
LO
LINE.
0
Cb
9846 )V7
O(j Z010 3,9.
AE1q',.k,�4EV, W
7-0 0.2
QUN 7h 0,
:'V�t
PREPA
"YON 1tv NADINE
C'1 P PIPE C/Y 6250 RI
CHANHA!
1()q
09
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 94pnic)N -1- 00 CERTI
The following described land situated in the County of Carver and State of Minnesota:
Tract 1, That part of Sections 1 and 2, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning at a point in
472.00 feet South of the Northeast comer of said Section 2; thence North along the East line of said Sectlon
tangential curve to the right with a radius of 65.55 feet a distance of 47.76 feet; thence North 41 degrees 45
a distance of 78 feet; thence Northerly on a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 152.4 feet a distance
baqlnninq of the tract of land to be described; lost described curve being hereinafter designated and referred to
250.02 feet; thence at right angle northeasterly 10 feet; thence at a right angle Southeasteriy to the intersectiot
A'; thence Southerly along said extension to the point of beginning.
Tract 2, That part of Section 1 and 2, Township 116, Range 23 described as follows: Beginning at a point in tl�
Northeast comer of sold Section 2; thence North along the East Une of Section 2 a distance of 97 feet; thenc
radius of 65.55 feet, a distance of 47.76 feet; thence North 41 degrees 45 minutes East on a line tangent to
on a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 152.4 feet. a distance of 37.24 feet; thence North 79 degree
Christmas Lake; thence Southwesterly along the shore of acid Lake 150 feet to an intersection with a line bearit
from point of beginning; thence South 63 degrees 22 minutes East 326 feet, more or less to the point of begil
to—wit: That part of Sections 1 and 2, Township 1116, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at a point ii
Northeast comer of Section 2; thence North along the East line of Section 2 a distance of 97 feet; thence Nor
65.55 feet, a distance of 33 feet to the point of beginning; thence Southwesterly along said curve to acid East
Section 2, a distance of 97 feet; thence North 63 degrees 22 minutes West 326 feet, more or less, to the shc
said lake to the Intersection with a line bearing North 72 degrees 10 minutes 39 seconds West from the point
East to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom that portion, if any, which lies below the natural ordinary loy
of said portion, if any, lying below the natural ordinary low water mark, it being recognized that sold lake Is a
applicants sholl have the usual riparian rights that attach to land riparian to navigable public bodies of water im
descriptions of the above two tracts, the East Line of said Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, is assumed to I
Survey thereof.
Lu
112 114CH IRON P
W1 CAP #17003 /PC — SOIJT�'ERLYM
OUTBUILDINGOS7 CORNER DF
C'j N79o45, NORTq OF- NDIS D., F-EEr
'47 4113,00"W
00 W
1 8 DEED LJNE'
8 1\ *�� L -qN
#?O/v 1/Z C� )i
Pjxje/fqc�y '�'
C4P , W/ , 11
D
iES FENCE
FROM 3_5
TO 7. 5
SA"
X
71.40
112 INCH
W/ CAIRON p/pE
P #1 70o.1
rTH DTH OF
'��SVEPS
EiD Fito—c"—,
UNE.
6 #
0 -4-4 _Z�
/_ W
M
-Q846 JP A17
01ire1j, I Z*Jopjg,,
PCC� 70ING W
1.2 YCj AND
ij�� %04f
�ou ho Q2
'IQ �_
N ClF.
U *__J ID
e CP 15
'PON '12 /N
PIPE. CH
CAP P W/
"P *19"'10\
109l*
6
IN(
N790450 0C
NAIL IN TREC RC
Li
C)
.P 6
PREPAR
NADINE 1
6250 R11
CHANHAS
BECK
SCANNED
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
P 0 BOX 147
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
11/03/2008 2:19 PM
Receipt No. 0085183
CLERK: katie
PAYEE: CHRISTOPHE AND NADINE BECK
6250 RIDGE ROAD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Planning Case 08-23
00
-------------------------------------------------------
Use & Variance 200.00
Sign Rent 200.00
Recording Fees 50.00
Total
Cash
Check 5400
Change
-----------
450.00
0.00
450.00
-----------
0.00
SCAW4ED
Print Labels
JOHN S FESS
6280 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9438
GORDON M & DOLORES I SPRENGER
6244 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9438
MOLLY V & SCOTT R SILAS
TRUSTEES OF TRUST
6201 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9438
IRENE Y JOSEPH
6290 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9438
HENRY & APHRODITE BERTOLDI
6285 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9438
0*
KEITH D & SUSAN J JONES
6265 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9438
STEVEN J & MARY F MIDTHUN
6225 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9438
DEAN E WETZEL REVOCABLE TRUST
C/O DEAN WETZEL TRUSTEE
6260 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9438
GINA M SCHMIDT
790 PLEASANT VIEW RD
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9509
00
JAMES J & KAREN M MEYER
6230 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9438
WILLIAM P CUNNINGHAM
C/O P WHITEMAN
2272 STONE CREEK LN E
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7412
JERRY W & KATHERINE M SNIDER
6270 RIDGE RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9438
RONALD H & JANICE M MASON
800 PLEASANT VIEW RD
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9545
Page I of I
http://carvergiswebl.co.carver.mn.us/arcims/gis/-ovemment/general/parce1—buffer/print—Iabels-asp 12/5/2008
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER & HENNEPIN
COUNTIES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO. 08-23
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission will hold a public
hearing on Tuesday, January 6,
2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
ChambersinChanhassenCityllall,
7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of
this hearing is to consider a request
for Variances from the bluff setback,
size limitation of a water -oriented
structure, and size limitation for
detached accessory structure(s) for
the construction of a shed and deck
on property zoned Single-Farrdly
Residential (RSF) located at 6250
Ridge Road. Applicant/Owrier:
Christophe and Nadine Beck.
A plan showing the location of
the proposal is available for public
review on the City's web site at
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/sery/
Plarx/08-23.html or at City Hall
duringregularousinesshours. All
interested persons are� invited to
attend this public hearing and
express their opinions with respect
to this proposal.
Angie Auseth, Planner I
Email:
aauseth@ci.chanhassen.rrm.us
Phone: 952-227-1132
(Published in the Chanhassen
VillageronThursday,December25,
2008; No. 4149)
00 00
Affidavit of Publication
Southwest Newspapers
State of Minnesota)
)SS.
County of Carver )
08 -,D3
Mark Weber, being duly swom, on oath says that he is the publisher or the authorized agent of the
publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Villager and has
full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows:
(A)Ibesc newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal
newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 33 IA.02, 33 IA.07, and other applicable laws, as
amended.
(B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. -�// Y?
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
die 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:
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
By-.(4�
Mark Weber
Subscribed and sworn before me on
this �� 5 day of �� 2008
NNOTAJYMME J. BARK
RY, PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
t4CO, 1
40. t4 Commission Expires 01/31/2013
RATE INFORMATION
Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space .... S40.00 per column inch
Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ............................... $40.00 per column inch
Rate actually charged for the above matter ..................... . ....................... $12.19 per column inch
SCANNED
N14,11blic
NNOTAJYMME J. BARK
RY, PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
t4CO, 1
40. t4 Commission Expires 01/31/2013
RATE INFORMATION
Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space .... S40.00 per column inch
Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ............................... $40.00 per column inch
Rate actually charged for the above matter ..................... . ....................... $12.19 per column inch
SCANNED
00 06 (08-23
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO. 08-23
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Tuesday, January 6, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen
City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for Variances
from the bluff setback, size limitation of a water -oriented structure, and size limitation for detached
accessory structure(s) for the construction of a shed and deck on property zoned Single -Family
Residential (RSF) located at 6250 Ridge Road. Applicant/Owner: Christophe and Nadine Beck.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web
site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/08-23.html 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.
Angie Auseth, Planner I
Email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Phone: 952-227-1132
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on December 25, 2008)
SCANNFO
CITY OF CHANHASSEN 00
P 0 BOX 147
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
01/06/2009 2:39 PM
Receipt No. 0090161
CLERK: katie
PAYEE: CHRISTOPHE AND NADINE BECK
6250 RIDGE ROAD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Planning case #08-23
-------------------------------------------------------
GIS List 39.00
Total
Cash
Check 5429
Change
-----------
39.00
0.00
39.00
-----------
0.00
SCANNED
00 00
TO: Christophe & Nadine Beck
6250 Ridge Road
Chanhassen, MIN 55317
Invoice
SALESPERSON DATE
City of Chanhassen
TERMS
7700 Market Boulevard
Property Owners List within 500'of 6250 Ridge Road (13 labels) $3.00
P.O. Box 147
TOTAL DUE
Chanhassen, MN 55317
CM OF
(952) 227-1100
CM&EN
TO: Christophe & Nadine Beck
6250 Ridge Road
Chanhassen, MIN 55317
Invoice
SALESPERSON DATE
DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE
TERMS
KTIVI 12/24/08
Property Owners List within 500'of 6250 Ridge Road (13 labels) $3.00
upon recei
Pod
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
13
Property Owners List within 500'of 6250 Ridge Road (13 labels) $3.00
$39.00
TOTAL DUE
$39.00
NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the
Addressee shown above (copy attached) and must be paid prior to the public hearing scheduled for January 6,
2009.
Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen
Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #08-23.
If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!
f,
60 John S. Fess
Christmas Lake
6280 Ridge Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
952-474-0045
November 12, 2008
City of Chanhassen
Planning Commission
7700 Market Blvd.
P. 0. Box 147
Chanhassen MN 55317
Dear Planning Commission:
This letter is in response to a request for a variance at 6250 Ridge Road, Case Number B-23, for
an out building and deck on the shore of Christmas Lake.
Please let me introduce myself. My name is Jack Fess and I live three lakeshore properties
south, or within 500 lakeshore feet of the proposed variance request. I purchased a similar lot in
1982 with almost equal lake front, with an almost equal bluff overlooking the lake, and an
irregular lot relative to street frontage and side property lines. In fact, of the seven lakeshore
homes on the Chanhassen portion of Ridge Road, all properties are on a bluff and all properties
are irregular.
I have been a long-time member of the Christmas Lake Homeowners' Association for 28 years
and a board member for our association for over ten years. I have also been involved in
countless lakeshore management meetings put on by city and state agencies relative to
Christmas Lake. The goal of each and every meeting is to convince all homeowners that natural
vegetation at the lakeshore is critically important for the long-term well being of our lakes.
The cities of Shorewood and Chanhassen and their staffs, along with the Minnesota DNR and our
local governing county watershed districts, have spent countless time and money trying to
preserve the natural setting of our lakeshore.
If one looks at the 21 lakeshore homes on Christmas Lake in the City of Chanhassen, one will see
that they are all different and, without exception, decks of any type, whether ground or elevated
DO NOT EXIST near the bluff or anywhere near the high water mark of lakeshore property. I
only know of one exception, which is close to the property in question, and which was
constructed in the last six years; whether a Chanhassen building permit was obtained is
unknown.
It is my understanding that at this property, 6250 Ridge Road, a Chanhassen building permit was
not in existence during the time of construction, during late September and into October.
SCANNED
00 City of Chanhassen Planning mission
November 12, 2008
Page 2
00
It is my position, as a neighbor and as a board member of the Christmas Lake Homeowners'
Association, that no variance whatsoever be granted and that the homeowner be forced to
conform to all rules and regulations as it relates to lakeshore structures, lot lines and bluff
restrictions in the City of Chanhassen.
Every property owner is entitled to build according to city building codes, and I am deeply
depressed that one of my neighbors would build any lakeshore structure without first contacting
the city for proper guidelines, purchasing a building permit and meeting all city lakeshore codes.
This example of a lakeshore homeowner not following city regulations and building codes is
exactly why our lakeshore has been altered over the years and our local lakes are in distress.
In looking over the application for a variance, the homeowner uses examples of not being able to
use 80% of their lakeshore. They do not tell you that this home was listed for $2.2 million when
they arrived from Europe and that the previous owner professionally paid for lakefront rock and
professional lakefront landscaping the previous year. This property and the bluff are no different
than their neighbors' properties. There is plenty of room to construct according to city building
codes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Si"ely,
ko
lack Fess Deanne Sheeley
6280 Ridge Road 6280 Ridge Road
09
Auseth, Angie
From: Jeffery, Terry
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:38 PM
To: Auseth, Angie
Subject: FW: December 2 Planning Commission Meeting
Attachments: image003.jpg; City of Chanhassen.docx
Terry Jeffery, WDC
Water Resources Coordinator
City of Chanhassen
9')2.-'-"7.1160
t efferv@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
From: Christophe and Nadine Beck [mailto:family.beck@hotmaii.com]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:18 PM
To: leffery, Terry
Subject: RE: December 2 Planning Commission Meeting
Dear Terry,
enclosed the letter, I hope it is okay for you
best regards
nadine
From: Tleffery(&ci.chanhassen.mn.us
To: family. beck(cbhotmaii.com
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:00:31 -0600
Subject: December 2 Planning Commission Meeting
00
Nadine,
Per our phone conversation, I am emailing you the language for use in your letter. It should read
as follows:
"Please remove my items from the December 2 Planning Commission meeting agenda and
reschedule for the January 4, 2008 meeting. I also waive the 120 day development review
deadline."
We will need a letter with your signature but you can email it, fax it or mail it to us. Thank you for
your attention to this matter. Please call with any questions.
Terry Jeffery, WDC
Water Resources Coordinator
*( 1-1 � OF UI I \V I
7700 Market Blvd
PO Box 147
1
Chanhassen, MN 55317 00
952.227.1168
tieffery@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
00
Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live Click here
00 00 68 -Z3
October 20, 2008
My OF
Christophe Beck
1 1 MNSEN
6250 Ridge Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Fax:952.227.1110
record of a permit for this construction on file. All structures require either a
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Re: City Code Violation
Chanhassen, MN 55317
compliance with all building and zoning requirements.
Fax: 952,227.1190
Dear Mr. Beck:
Mininistraillon
It has come to the City's attention that there is a structure being constructed at
Phone: 952.227.1100
6250 Ridge Road, near the shoreline of Christmas Lake. The City does not have
Fax:952.227.1110
record of a permit for this construction on file. All structures require either a
Building Inspections
Building Permit or Residential Zoning Permit prior to construction, to ensure
Phone: 952.227,1180
compliance with all building and zoning requirements.
Fax: 952,227.1190
Resources Coordinator, at 952-227-1168.
Natural Resources
This property is located within the Single -Family Residential IRSF) zoning
Engineering
district. It is also within the Shoreland Management District. The Shoreland
Phone: 952.227.1160
Management District encompasses additional setback requirements for structures
Fax: 952.227.1170
near the lake. I have enclosed the Shoreland Management District regulations for
Hnance
your use.
Phone: 952.227.1140
Planner I
Fax:952.227.1110
Staff conducted an inspection of the construction on Friday, October 17, 2008 and
posted a Stop Work Order on the site. Construction may not proceed until a
Park & Recreation
permit has been applied for, reviewed for compliance with building and zoning
Rm:952.227.1120
standards, and approved by the City.
Fax:952.227.1110
Recreation Center
A complete copy of the Chanhassen City Code can be viewed on our website at
2310 Coulter Boulevard
www.ci.chanhassen.nm.us.
Phone: 952,227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Your anticipated cooperation on this matter is greatly appreciated. Should you
have any questions, please contact me at 952-2,27-1132 or Terry Jeffery, Water
Planning &
Resources Coordinator, at 952-227-1168.
Natural Resources
Rue: 952.227.1130
F8052.227.11110
nce rp
Putawaft
1591 Park Pad
Angj Ause
Phone: 952.227.1300
Planner I
Fax: 952,227.1310
Senior Center Enclosure
Phone: 952,227.1125
Fax:952.227.1110 ec: Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator
Kate Aimenson, Community Development Director
Web Site Jerry Mohn, Building Official
www.d.chanhassen.anus
cc: Building Permit File
gApIm\"\code erdorcemnAangie's letters & photm\6250 ridge rc%rd\6250 ridge rmdAm
SCANNED
Chanhassen is a Comm unity for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
00
00
ARTICLE VIL SHORELAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT*
*Editor's note: Section I of Ord. No. 217, adopted Aug. 22, 1994, repealed former Art.
VU, §§ 20-476--20-478 and § 4 of the ordinance enacted a new Art. VII as herein set out
in §§ 20-476--20486. Prior to repeal, former Art. VH pertained to the Shoreland Overlay
District and derived from Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 23, adopted Dec. 15, 1986.
Sec. 20-476. Statutory authorization and policy.
(a) Statutory authorization. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authorization and
policies contained in M.S. ch. 103F, Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 through
6120.3900, and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in M.S. ch. 462.
(b) Policy. The uncontrolled use of shorelands of Chanhassen affects the public health,
safety and general welfare not only by contributing to pollution of public waters, but also
by impairing the local tax base. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the public health,
safety and welfare to provide for the wise subdivision, use and development of
shorelands of public waters. The legislature of Minnesota has delegated responsibility to
local governments of the state to regulate the subdivision, use and developmentof the
shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters,
conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for
the wise use of waters and related land resources. This responsibility is hereby recognized
by Chanhassen.
(Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 377, § 51, 5-24-04)
See. 20-477. General provisions.
(a) Jurisdiction . The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to the shorelands of the
public waters as classified in section 20-479 of this ordinance. Pursuant to Minnesota
Regulations, parts 6120.2500 through 6120.3900, lakes, ponds, or flowage less than ten
acres in size are exempt from this ordinance. A body of water created by a private user
where there was no previous shoreland is exempt from this ordinance.
(b) Compliance . ne use of any shoreland of public waters; the size and shape of lots;
the use, size, type and location of structures on lots; the installation and maintenance of
-water supply and waste treatment systems, the grading and filling of any shoreland area;
the cutting of shoreland vegetation; and the subdivision of land shall be in full
compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations.
(c) Enforcement - The community development director is responsible for the
administration and enforcement of this ordinance. Any violation of the provisions of this
ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of
00 00
conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or
conditional uses) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by
law.
(d) Interpretation . In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this
ordinance shall be held to be minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed in
favor of the city and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers
granted by state statutes.
(e) Abrogation and greater restrictions . It is not intended by this ordinance to repeal,
abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However,
where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this ordinance shall
prevail. All other articles inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the
extent of the inconsistency only.
(Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 377, § 52, 5-24-04)
Sec. 20-478. Administration.
(a) Permits. A permit authorizing an addition to an existing structure shall stipulate that
an identified nonconforming sewage treatment system shall be reconstructed or replaced
in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance.
(b) Variances. The board of adjustments and appeals or city council shall hear and
decide requests for variances in accordance with the rules that it has adopted for the
conduct of business. When a variance is approved after the department of natural
resources has formally recommended denial in the hearing record, the notification of the
approved variance required in subsection (c) herein shall also include the summary of the
public record/testimony and the findings of facts and conclusions which supported the
issuance of the variance. For existing developments, the application for variance shall
clearly demonstrate whether a conforming sewage treatment system is present for the
intended use of the property. The variance, if issued, shall require reconstruction of a
nonconforming sewage treatment system.
(c) Notifications to the department of natural resources. Copies of all notices of any
public hearings to consider variances, amendments, or conditional uses under local
shoreland management controls shall be sent to the commissioner's designated
representative and postmarked at least ten days before the hearings. Notices of hearings
to consider proposed subdivisions/plats shall include copies of the subdivision/plat. A
copy of approved amendments and subdivisions/plats, and final decisions granting
variances or conditional uses under local shoreland management controls shall be sent to
the commissioner's designated representative and postmarked within ten days of final
action.
(Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94)
0 0
00
Sec. 20-479. Shoreland classification system and land use districts.
(a) Shoreland classification system . The public waters of Chanhassen have been
classified below consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Regulations, Part
6120.3300, and the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Carver/Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
(b) Shoreland area defined. The shoreland area for the waterbodies listed below shall
be as defined in section 1-2 and as shown on the official zoning map.
(c) Lakes.
(1) Natural environmental lakes:
TABLEINSET:
(2) Recreational development lake:
TABLEINSET:
Inventory I.D. Number
Ordinary High Water
Harrison
10-8W
993.6
Rice Lake
27-132P
699.2
Rice Marsh Lake
10-11'
877.0
St. Joe
10-111,
945.2
Silver
27-136P
898.1
(2) Recreational development lake:
TABLEINSET:
(d) Rivers and streams.
(1) Agricultural:
Inventory I.D. Number
Ordinary High Water
Ann
10-12P
955.5
Christmas
27-137P
932.77
Hazeltine
10- 14P
916.8
Lotus
10-6P
896.3
Lucy
10-7P
956.1
Minnewashta
10-913
944.5
Riley
10-2P
865.3
Susan
10-13P
881.8
Virginia
10-15P
929.8
(d) Rivers and streams.
(1) Agricultural:
00
X
Minnesota River --From west city boundary to east city boundary.
(2) Tributary streams:
Bluff Creek --From Basin 10-209W to Basin 27-132P (Rice Lake).
Riley Creek from Lake Ann (10-12P) to Lake Susan (10-13P).
Riley Creek from Lake Susan (10-13P) to Rice Marsh Lake (10-1P).
Lake Minnewashta (10-9P) to Lake Virginia (10-15P).
Basin 10-212W to Lotus Lake (10-61)).
Purgatory Creek --From Lotus Lake (10-6P) to east city boundary.
Assumption Creek --From west city boundary to Minnesota River.
All protected watercourses in Chanhassen shown on the Protected Waters Inventory Map
for Carver County, a copy of which is hereby adopted by reference, that are not given a
classification herein shall be considered "tributary" streams.
(Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 377, § 53, 5-24-04; Ord. No. 409, § 2, 1-9-06)
See. 20-480. Zoning and water supply/sanitary provisions.
(a) Lot area and width standards. The lot area (in square feet) and lot width standards
(in feet) for single, duplex, triplex and quad residential lots created after the date of
enactment of this ordinance for the lake and river/stream classification are as follows:
(1) Sewered lakes --Natural environment:
TABLEINSET:
(2) Sewered lakes --Recreational development:
TABLEINSET:
Riparian Lots
Nonripari an Lots
Area
Width
Area
Width
Single
40,000
125
15,000
90
Duplex
70,000
225
35,000
180
Triplex
100,000
325
52,000
270
Quad
130,000
425
65,000
360
(2) Sewered lakes --Recreational development:
TABLEINSET:
of
go
Unsewered lakes --Recreational development:
TABLEINSET:
Riparian Lots
Nonriparian Lots
Tributary
Area
Width
Area
Width
Single
20,000
90
15,000
90
Duplex
35,000
135
26,000
135
Triplex
50,000
195
38,000
190
Quad
65,000
255
49,000
245
Unsewered lakes --Recreational development:
TABLEINSET:
(3) River/stream lot width standards. There is no minimum lot size requirement for
rivers and streams, except those specified in the underlying zoning district. The lot width
standards for single, duplex, triplex and quad residential developments for the six
river/strrarn classifications are as follows:
TABLE INSET:
Riparian Lots
Nonriparian Lots
Tributary
Area
Width
Area
Width
Single
40,000
1125
15,000
190
(3) River/stream lot width standards. There is no minimum lot size requirement for
rivers and streams, except those specified in the underlying zoning district. The lot width
standards for single, duplex, triplex and quad residential developments for the six
river/strrarn classifications are as follows:
TABLE INSET:
(4) Additional special provisions. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densities
exceeding those in the tables in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be allowed if
designed and approved as residential planned unit developments. Only land above the
ordinary high water level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards, and lot
width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line.
The sewer lot area dimensions in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be used if publicly
owned sewer system service is available to the property.
Agricultural
Tributary
Tributary
No Sewer
Sewer
Single
150
100
90
Duplex
225
150
115
Triplex
300
200
150
Quad
375
250
190
(4) Additional special provisions. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densities
exceeding those in the tables in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be allowed if
designed and approved as residential planned unit developments. Only land above the
ordinary high water level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards, and lot
width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line.
The sewer lot area dimensions in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be used if publicly
owned sewer system service is available to the property.
00
00
(Ord. No. 217, § 4,8-22-94; Ord. No. 240, § 13,7-24-95; Ord. No. 240, § 13,7-24-95;
Ord. No. 377, § 54, 5-24-04)
Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure.
(a) Placement of structures on lots. When more than one setback applies to a site,
structures and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and onsite sewage
treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as
follows:
TABLE INSET:
Classes of
Public Waters
Structures
Unsewered
Structures
Sewered
Sewage
Treatment
System
Lakes
30
(2) Unplatted cemetery
50
Natural environment
150
150
150
Recreational development
100
75
75
Rivers/streams
Agricultural and tributary
100
50
75
One water -oriented accessory structure designed in accordance with subsection 20-
482(e)(2)(b) of this ordinance may be setback a minimum distance of ten feet from the
ordinary high water level for lakes.
(b) Structure setbacks. The following structure setbacks apply, regardless of the
classification of the waterbody.
TABLE INSET:
Setback (in
Setback From:
feet)
(1) Top of Bluff
30
(2) Unplatted cemetery
50
(3) Right-of-way line of federal, state, or county highway
50
(4) Right-of-way line of town road, public streets, or other roads or streets
20
not classified
00
go
(c) Bluff impact zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and
landings, shall not be placed within bluff impact zones.
(d) Nonresidential uses without water -oriented needs. Uses without water -oriented
needs shall be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on
lots or parcels with public waters frontage, shall either be set back double the normal
ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water
by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions.
(e) Design criteria for structures.
(1) High water elevations. Structures shall be placed in accordance with any
floodplain regulations applicable to the site. Where these controls do not exist, the
elevation to which the lowest floor, including basement, is placed or floodproofed
shall be determined as follows:
a. For lakes, by placing the lowest floor at a level at least three feet above
the highest known water level, or three feet above the ordinary high water
level, whichever is higher;
b. For rivers and streams, by placing the lowest floor at least three feet
above the flood of record, if data are available. If data are not available, by
placing the lowest floor at least three feet above the ordinary high water
level, or by conducting a technical evaluation to determine effects of
proposed construction upon flood stages and flood flaws and to establish a
flood protection elevation. Under all three approaches, technical
evaluations shall be done by a qualified engineer or hydrologist consistent
with Nlinnesota. Rules, parts 6120.5000 to 6120.6200 governing the
management of floodplam areas. If more than one approach is used, the
highest flood protection elevation determined shall be used for placing
structures and other facilities; and
c. Water -oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed
lower than the elevation determined in this item if the structure is
construed of flood -resistant materials to the elevation, electrical and
mechanical equipment is placed above the elevation and, if long duration
flooding is anticipated, the structure is built to withstand ice action and
wind -driven waves and debris.
(2) Water -oriented accessory structures. Each lot may have one water -oriented
accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setback in subsection 20-
481(a) if this water -oriented accessory structure complies with the following
provisions:
00 00
a. The structure or facility shall not exceed ten feet in height, exclusive of
safety rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than 250 square feet.
Detached decks shall not exceed eight feet above grade at any point.
b. The setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water
level shall be at least ten feet;
c. The structure or facility shall be treated to reduce visibility as viewed
from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography,
increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions;
d. The roof may be used as a deck with safety rails, but shall not be
enclosed or used as a storage area;
e. The structure or facility shall not be designed or used for human
habitation and shall not contain water supply or sewage treatment
facilities; and
f. As an alternative for general development and recreational
development waterbodies, water -oriented accessory structures used solely
for watercraft storage, and including storage of related boating and water -
oriented sporting equipment, may occupy an area of up to 400 square feet
provided the maximum width of the structure is 20 feet as measured
paraHel to the configuration of the shoreline.
(3) Stairway, lifts and landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative
to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and
steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways and lifts shall meet the following design
requirements:
a. Stairways and lifts shall not exceed four feet in width on residential
lots. Wider stairways may be used for commercial properties, public open -
space recreational properties, and planned unit developments;
b. Landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots shall not exceed 32
square feet in area. Landings larger than 32 square feet may be used for
commercial properties, public open -space, and recreational properties;
c. Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings;
d. Stairways, lifts, and landings maybe either constructed above the
ground on posts or pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are
designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion;
0 0
00
e. Stairways, lifts, and landings shall be located in the most visually
inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public
water assuming summer, leaf -on conditions, whenever practical; and
L Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for physically
handicapped persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas,
provided that the dimensional and performance standards of this section
are met in addition to the requirements of Mnnesota Regulations, Chapter
1341.
(4) Significant historic sites. No structure shall be placed on a significant
historic site in a manner that affects the values of the site unless adequate
information about the site has been removed and documented in a public
repository.
(5) Steep slopes. The planning director shall evaluate possible soil erosion
impacts and development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for
construction of sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures, or other
improvements on steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions shall be
attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation
screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of
public waters, assuming summer, leaf -on vegetation.
(f) Height of structures. All structures in residential districts, except churches and
nonresidential agricultural structures, shall not exceed 35 feet in height.
(Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 322, § 1, 6-25-01; Ord. No. 377, §§ 55-57, 5-24-
04)
Sec. 20-482. Shoreland alterations.
(a) Generally . Alterations of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to prevent
erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic
values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. Vegetation shall
include but not be limited to grasses, forbs, shrubs, trees and vines.
(b) Vegetation alterations .
(1) Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage
treatment systems and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by
section 20-484 of this ordinance are exempt from the following vegetation
alteration standards:
(2) Removal or alteration of vegetation is allowed subject to the following
standards:
00 00
a. Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones
and on steep slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest
land conversion to another use outside of these areas is allowable if
permitted as part of a development approved by the city council if an
erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed and approved by the
soil and water conservation district in which the property is located.
b. In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing
of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed
to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling site and to
accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas,
access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water -
oriented accessory structures or facilities, provided that:
1. The screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from
the water, assuming leaf -on conditions, is not substantially reduced;
2. Along rivers and streams, existing shading of water surfaces is
preserved;
3. The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs,
or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards; and
4. The clearing shall be limited to a strip 30 percent of lot width or 30
feet, whichever is lesser, parallel to the shoreline and extending inward
within the shore and bluff impact zones.
c. In no case shall clear cutting be permitted.
(Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 251, § 1, 4-8-96; Ord. No. 377, § 58, 5-24-04)
Sec. 20-483. Topographic alterations/grading and filling.
Connections to public waters. Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a
public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, shall be controlled by this
ordinance and chapter 7, article 111. Permission for excavations may be given only after
the commissioner has approved the proposed connection to public waters.
(Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 377, § 59, 5-24-04)
Sec. 20-484. Placement and design of roads, driveways, and parking areas.
(a) Public and private roads and parking areas shall be designed to take advantage of
natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public
waters. Documentation shall be provided by a qualified individual that all roads and
parking areas are designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public
00
go
waters consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water
conservation district, or other applicable technical materials.
(b) Roads, driveways, and parking areas shall meet structure setbacks and shall not be
placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible
placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these
areas, and shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts.
(c) Public and watercraft access ramps, approach roads, and access -related parking areas
may be placed within shore impact zones provided the vegetative screening and erosion
control conditions of this subpart are met.
(Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94)
See. 20-485. Stormwater managemenL
Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot area, except as
follows:
(1) Tbirty-five percent for medium/high density residential zones; and
(2) Seventy percent in industrial zones within the Lake Susan Shoreland District.
(Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94)
Sec. 20-486. Sewage treatment.
Any premises used for human occupancy shall be provided with an adequate method of
sewage treatment, as follows:
(1) Onsite sewage treatment systems shall be set back from the ordinary high water level
in accordance with the setbacks contained in subsection 20-481(a) of this ordinance.
(2) A nonconforniing sewage treatment system shall be upgraded, at a minimum, at any
time a permit or variance of any type is required for any improvement on, or use of, the
property. For the purposes of this provision, a sewage treatment system shall not be
considered nonconforming if the only deficiency is the sewage treatment system's
improper setback from the ordinary high water level.
(3) Ile city council has by formal resolution notified the commissioner of its program
to identify nonconforming sewage treatment systems. Chanhassen will require upgrading
or replacement of any nonconforming system identified by this program within a
reasonable period of time that will not exceed three years. Sewage systems installed
according to ail applicable local shoreland management standards adopted under M.S. §
10317.22 1, in effect at the time of installation may be considered as conforming unless
they are determined to be failing, except that systems using cesspools, leaching pits,
seepage pits, or other deep disposal methods, or systems with less soil treatment area
00
0*
separation above groundwater than required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's
Chapter 7080 for design of onsite sewage treatment systems, shall be considered
nonconforming.
(Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 377, § 60, 5-24-04)
Secs. 20-487--20-500. Reserved.
00 EXHIBIT A 0 0
LEGAL DESCRTPTION:
The following described land situated in the County of Carver and State of Minnesota:
Tractl 1 That part of Sections I and 2, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning at a point
in the East line of Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, distant 472.00 feet South of the Northeast comer of
said Section 2; thence North along the East line of said Section 2 a distance of 97.00 feet; thence
Northeasterly on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 65.55 feet a distance of 47.76 feet; thence
North 41 degrees 45 minutes East on a line tangent to said last described curve, a distance of 78 feet;
thence Northerly on a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 152.4 feet a distance of 37.24 feet to a
point which is the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; last described curve being
hereinafter designated and referred to as "Line A"; thence North 79 degrees 45 minutes West 250.02 feet;
thence at right angle northeasterly 10 feet; thence at a right angle Southeasterly to the intersection of said
line with the Northerly extension of aforesaid "Line A"; thence Southerly along said extension to the point
of begirming.
Tract 2: That part of Section I and 2, Township 116, Range 23 described as follows: Beginning at a point
in the East line of Section 2 distant 472 feet South of the Northeast comer of said Section 2; thence North
along the East Line of Section 2 a distance of 97 feet; thence Northeasterly on a tangential curve to the
right with a radius of 65.55 feet, a distance of 47.76 feet; thence North 41 degrees 45 minutes East on a line
tangent to last described curve, a distance of 78 feet; thence Northerly on a tangential curve to the left with
a radius of 152.4 feet, a distance of37.24 feet; thence North 79 degrees 45 minutes West 330 feet, more or
less, to the shore of Christmas Lake; thence Southwesterly along the shore of said Lake 150 feet to an
intersection with a line bearing north 63 degrees 22 minutes West 326 feet, more or less from point of
beginning; thence South 63 degrees 22 minutes East 326 feet, more or less to the point of beginning,
excepting therefrom the following described premises, to —wit: That part of Sections I and 2, Township
116, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at a point in the East Line of Section 2, distant 472 feet
South of the Northeast comer of Section 2; thence North along the East line of Section 2 a distance of 97
feet; thence Northeasterly on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 65.55 feet, a distance of 33 feet
to the point of beginning; thence Southwesterly along said curve to said East line of Section 2; thence
South along said East Line of Section 2, a distance of 97 feet; thence North 63 degrees 22 minutes West
326 feet, more or less, to the shore of Christmas lake; thence Northeasterly along the shore of said lake to
the intersection with a line bearing north 72 degrees 10 minutes 39 seconds West from the point of
beginning, thence South 72 degrees 10 minutes 39 seconds East to the point of beginning. Excepting
therefrom that portion, if any, which lies below the natural ordinary low water mark, the State of
Minnesota being the owner of all of said portion, if any, lying below the natural ordinary low water mark,
it being recognized that said lake is a navigable public body of water, provided, however, that the
applicants shall have the usual riparian rights that attach to land riparian to navigable public bodies of
water incident to the ownership thereof For the purposes of the descriptions of the above two tracts, the
East Line of said Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, is assumed to be a due North and South line.
According to the Government survey thereof.
LEGAL QESQRIPTIQN.�** 00 CERTIFICATE OF SURVE)** *0
The following described land situated in the County of Carver and State of Minnesota:
Tract 1 - That part of Sections I and 2, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the East line of Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, distant
472.00 feet South of the Northeast comer of sold Section 2; thence North along the East line of said Section 2 a distance of 97.00 feet; thence Northeasterly on a
tangential curve to the right with a radius of 65.55 feet a distance of 47.76 feet; thence North 41 degrees 45 minutes East on a line tangent to said lost described curve.
a distance of 78 feet; thence Northerly on a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 152.4 feet a distance of 37.24 feet to a point which is the actual point of
beginning of the tract of land to be described; lost described curve being hereinafter designated and referred to as *Une A*; thence North 79 degrees 45 minutes West
250.02 feet; thence at right angle northeasterly 10 feet; thence at a right angle Southeasterly to the intersection of sold line with the Northerly extension of aforesaid *Une
AO; thence Southerly along said extension to the point of beginning.
Tract 2- That part of Section 1 and 2, Township 116, Range 23 described as follows: Beginning at a point In the East line of Section 2 distant 472 feet South afthe
Northeast comer of sold Section 2; thence North along the East Line of Section 2 a distance of 97 feet; thence Northeasterly on a tangential curve to the right with a
radius of 65.55 feet, a distance of 47.76 feet; thence North 41 degrees 45 minutes East on a line tangent to lost described curve, a distance of 78 feet; thence Northerly
on a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 152.4 feet. a distance of 37.24 feet; thence North 79 degrees 45 minutes West 330 feet, more or less, to the shore of
Christmas Lake; thence Southwesterly along the shore of said Lake 150 feet to an intersection with a line bearing North 63 degrees 22 minutes West 326 feet, more or less
from point of beginning; thence South 63 degrees 22 minutes East 326 feet, more or less to the point of beginniing. excepting therefrom the following described promises,
to—wit: That part of Sections 1 and 2, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at a point in the East Une of Section 2. distant 472 feet South of the
Northeast comer of Section 2; thence North along the East line of Section 2 a distance of 97 feet; thence Northeasterly on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of
65.55 feet, a distance of 33 feet to the point of beginning; thence Southwesterly along sold curve to said East line of Section 2; thence South along said East Line of
Section 2, a distance of 97 feet; thence North 63 degrees 22 minutes West 326 feet, more or less, to the shore of Christmas Lake; thence Northeasterly along the shore of
said lake to the intersection with a line bearing North 72 degrees 10 minutes 39 seconds West from the point of beginning, thence South 72 degrees 10 minutes 39 seconds
East to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom that portion, if any, which lies below the natural ordinary low water mark, the State of Minnesota being the ownerof all
of said portion, if any, lying below the natural ordinary low water mark, It being recognized that said lake is a navigable public body of water, provided, however, that the
applicants shall have the usual riparian rights that attach to land riparian to navigable public bodies of water incident to the ownership thereof. For the purposes of the
descriptions of the above two tracts, the East Line of said Section 2, Township 116, Range 23. is assumed to be a due North and South line. According to the Government
Survey thereof.
k
Co 0)
4u
112 INCH 'RON PIpC SOUTHERLrM
W/ CAP #1
N7,9-4 #7003 OUTBUILDIN,OST CORNER
5 00"W NORTH OF. (� I OF
NORS F 'ET -
'V N 0" T� , �IFAD LIN
TH D EET
82 EED UNE
71 -4
COD ',E -N C .40
/if UE" C 112 INCH /eON
S FROM
FEET To 3.5
F��Eir I's W/ CAP PIPE
S #17003
NORTH UTH OF' jTEPS
DEED :51
C, p
"RON
C,1P 74..
e9a Cv
OU 71,
DecIVU/0INC W
1,2
'Z�7- er 7.0 OA4
SOU SOUN 0.2
N OF
IN5H61fIR
ON In ** TOP OF 112
N79-45,0 IPE —_ 9;'6.41
0 It W 6A (NGvD 29)
AIL IN MEE ROOT
Pj
C) 0
.P CS
6P1hCN_
V
Tz�l
A�t�ckej
V
444
'RON
"V
IV PIP,
9`31 "P 11,9840
109
4CIC4_,w,�
PREPARED FOR:
NADINE BECK
6250 RIDGE ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
Uj
LI:
sctrle, in Feet
0 20
LEGEND:
FOUND SURVEY MARKER
(AS NOTED)
_.��WOOD FENCE
NOTES:
1) THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE INSURANCE
COMMITMENT.
2) ADDRESS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: 6250 RIDGE ROAD, CHANHASSEN, MIN
55317
P.I.D.:250020100
3) BEARING BASIS IS ASSUMED.
it
Q
CQ CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me
or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land
Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota.
Z
SVNED
Travis W. Van Neste, Minnesota Professional S r,144109
al Su=
Michigan Profession r 6695
JOB # 2008033 ISSUED: 11-05—iH�
DRAWN BY: T" REV:
SCALE I' — 20 FEET
VAN NESTE SURVEYING
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING SERVICES
85 WILDHURST ROAD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 VNS
PHONE (952) 686-3055 TOLL—FREE FAX (866) 473-0120
WWW.VANNESTESURVEYING.COM SHEEr I OF 1
0
>
Af
40
co
N.79 o45 �,� ,,,
R
SEP4CHAjA
F?k
4
00
//X 990.3
\",(/990.1
C)
EXISTING H(
0
Z 0
F:
P pp
P
9 8 1 Z-
8 1
L=1 .76
L =JJ. 00 R=65.55 L=4776
A --2,R '50'419
A--- 12'54 A
3.
/7
A
160
-985.8
APPROWL)
BY: --p f -4 -
DEPT.: f� Iq 4
DATE:
BY; 1��
DEPT ': flc-�
DATE: 7/7/11%-f
BY; 'y'
DEPT.:
INSTALL TyPt'A EROSION CONTROL '-R
FENCING AS tgo vN ON THE PLAN AND, -
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PRIOR To
EXCAVATION AND MAINTAIN UNTIL L,N 15
FULLY VEGETATED., DURING WINTER
CONSTRUCTION STAKED HAY BALES MAY
,E UM IN LIEU OF FENCING
BENCHMARK
Top of building offset iron as noted
Elevation = 976.41 (N.G.V.D-1929)
GENERAL NOTES
1. Bearings shown are based on the east line of
Section 2 having an assumed bearing of North.
Denotes
DATE
BY
GENERAL NOTES
iv
12/13/02
I-
�Ij
DRM
1 Orientation of the bearings used for this
2
10/30/03
B A
LPB
survey is based on an assumed datum
PROPOSED
HARD COVER AREA.w
Denotes
2. 0 - Denotes iron monument.
ROTATED STORAGE GARAGE
4
06
23ZO4
3. 0 - Denotes iron monument set
HOUSE
2,291 Sq.
Ft.
4. x89O.O - Denotes existing spot elevation.
9-'2.4
6
0
Q
SCREEN PORCH
�Czl
Ft.
6.-.-�- Denotes direction of surface drainage.
CONCRETE
284 Sq.
932.5
7. Proposed garage floor = 981.0
DRIVEWAY
932.4
Ft
2 24
8. Proposed top of foundation = 981.5
0
>
Af
40
co
N.79 o45 �,� ,,,
R
SEP4CHAjA
F?k
4
00
//X 990.3
\",(/990.1
C)
EXISTING H(
0
Z 0
F:
P pp
P
9 8 1 Z-
8 1
L=1 .76
L =JJ. 00 R=65.55 L=4776
A --2,R '50'419
A--- 12'54 A
3.
/7
A
160
-985.8
APPROWL)
BY: --p f -4 -
DEPT.: f� Iq 4
DATE:
BY; 1��
DEPT ': flc-�
DATE: 7/7/11%-f
BY; 'y'
DEPT.:
INSTALL TyPt'A EROSION CONTROL '-R
FENCING AS tgo vN ON THE PLAN AND, -
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PRIOR To
EXCAVATION AND MAINTAIN UNTIL L,N 15
FULLY VEGETATED., DURING WINTER
CONSTRUCTION STAKED HAY BALES MAY
,E UM IN LIEU OF FENCING
BENCHMARK
Top of building offset iron as noted
Elevation = 976.41 (N.G.V.D-1929)
GENERAL NOTES
1. Bearings shown are based on the east line of
Section 2 having an assumed bearing of North.
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC
ENGINEERS * SURVEYORS * PLANNERS
SOIL TEsnNG * ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 1
MINNETONKA, MN 55305
(952) 546-7601 FAX:(952) 546-9065
OIWM,G�S. 1:1 C0P)1?1CHTo2004
or
NO.
Denotes
DATE
BY
GENERAL NOTES
1_
12/13/02
0 BE.B.2
DRM
1 Orientation of the bearings used for this
2
10/30/03
B A
LPB
survey is based on an assumed datum
PROPOSED
HARD COVER AREA.w
Denotes
2. 0 - Denotes iron monument.
ROTATED STORAGE GARAGE
4
06
23ZO4
3. 0 - Denotes iron monument set
HOUSE
2,291 Sq.
Ft.
4. x89O.O - Denotes existing spot elevation.
6
5. x(890.0) - Denotes proposed spot elevation.
SCREEN PORCH
198 Sq.
Ft.
6.-.-�- Denotes direction of surface drainage.
CONCRETE
284 Sq.
Ft.
7. Proposed garage floor = 981.0
DRIVEWAY
3,113 Sq.
Ft
8. Proposed top of foundation = 981.5
9. Proposed basement floor = 973.0
BRICK WALKWAY
335 Sq.
Ft.
30
10. House is a Walkout
ACCE-SORY--STRLJC-TU1RES- N Sq.
Ft.
11. Date of last field survey.
STORAGE GARAGE
806 Sq.
Ft.
12. x(890.0)CP - Denotes critical point elevation.
ROCK -WALLS---
-44--Sq.
Ft.
BITUMINOUS ROADWAY
494 Sq.
Ft.
982 � Denotes proposed contour line
-982- Denotes existing contour line
TOTAL HARD COVER
7,656 Sq.
Ft. 23.8 %
PP
-0- Denotes Power Pole
LOT AREA
32,241 Sq.
Ft.
C>C=)� Denotes Proposed Retaining Wall
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC
ENGINEERS * SURVEYORS * PLANNERS
SOIL TEsnNG * ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 1
MINNETONKA, MN 55305
(952) 546-7601 FAX:(952) 546-9065
OIWM,G�S. 1:1 C0P)1?1CHTo2004
or
NO.
Denotes
DATE
BY
REVISIONS I
DESCRIPTION CK'D
1_
12/13/02
0 BE.B.2
DRM
ADDED REAR COVERED ENTRY
2
10/30/03
B A
LPB
ADDED STORAGE GARAGE
3
11/19/03
Denotes
LPB
ROTATED STORAGE GARAGE
4
06
23ZO4
GS
NEW GARAGE, REVISE HARDCOVER
5
Pine
6
This drawing has been checked and
reviewed this Z4-rg day of
, /U' -r , 20 �e<-
by � 7-? 61 /,/
JOB BOOK NUMBER: (122-11)
FIELD BOOK: 578 PACE: 60
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this survey was
orepared under my supervision and thal.
I am a Licensed Land Surveyor under Ihe
laws of the State of Minnesota.
A OLJ -�- �-k� -
DANIEL G. NICKOLS
Date:/,/Z4/ZeP4f License No. 1983�)
LOCATION
20 0 20 40 60
Scale in Fee+.
rot
DESCRIPTION I S E
Tract 1:
That part of Sections 1 and 2-116-23, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the
East line of Section 2-116-23, distant 472.00 feet South of the Northeast comer of said
Section 2; thence North along the East Line of said Section 2 a distance of 97.00 feet;
thence Northeasterly on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 65.55 feet a
distance of 47.76 feet; thence North 41*45' East on a line tangent to said last
described curve, a distance of 78 feet; thence Northerly on a tangential curve to the left
with a radius of 152.4 feet a distance of 37.24 feet to a point which is the actual Point cf
beginning of the tract of land to be described; lost described curve being hereinaftef.
designated and referred to as "Line A"; thence North 79*45' West 250.2 feet;
thence at right angle northeasterly 10 feet; thence at a right an%le Southeasterly �o
intersection of said line with the Northerly extension of aforesaid Line A"; thence
Southerly along said extension to the point of beginning.
Tract 2:
That part of Section 1 and 2, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Beglrr"KN
at a point in the East Line of Section 2 a distant 472 feet South of the Northeast �,vrrle-
of said Section 2; thence North along the East Line of Section 2 a distance of 97 feet;
thence Northeasterly on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 65.55 feet a
distance of 47.76 feet; thence North 41'45' East on a line tangent to last described
curve, a distance of 78 feet; thence Northerly on a tangential curve to the left with a
radius of 152.4 feet, a distance of 37.24 feet; thence North 79*45' West 330 feet,
more or less, to the shore of Christmas Lake; thence Southwesterly along the shore of
said Lake 150 feet to an intersection with a line bearing North 63*22' West 326 feet,
more or less, from point of beginning; thence South 63*22' East 326 feet, more or
less to the point of beginning, excepting therefrom the following described premises, to -
wit: That part of Sections 1 and 2, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows:
Commencing at a point in the Eost Line of Section 2, a distant 472 feet South of the
Northeast comer of Section 2; tlience North along the East line of Section 2 a distance
of 97 feet; thence Northeasterly on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 65.55
feet; a distance of 33 feet to tite point of beginning; thence Southwesterly along said
curve to said East fine of Secticit 2; thence South along said East Line of Section 2, a
distance of 97 feet; thence Norill 63*22' West 326 feet, more or less, to the shore of
Christmas Lake; thence Northeasterly along the shore of said Lake 75 feet; thence
easterly on a straight line to the point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom that portion, if any, which lies below the natural ordinary low
watermark, the State of Minnesota being the owner of all of sold portion, if any, lying
Lelow the natural ordinary low water mark, it being recognized that sold lake is a
navigable public body of water, provided, however, that the applicants shall have the
usual riparian rights that attach to land riparian to navigable public bodies of water
iioicident to the owner-h1p thereof.
For the ourposes of the descriptions of the above two tracts, the East Line of said
Section �, Township 116 -Range 23, is assumed to be a due North and South Line.
'rREE LEGEND
Number following abbreviation dcootes estimated diameter
in inches, three feet ak;ove ground level. The second
number (if any) denotes the number of trunks at that
location (1 denotes a dead tree).
0
Denotes
deciduous tree.
Example:
0 BE.B.2
-i *--
Denotes
coniferous tree.
B A
Denotes
Basswood
M
Denotes
Maple
0
Denotes
Oak
Denotes Tree to be removed
PI
Denotes
Pine
SPECIAL NOTES
1he call of "thence northeasterly along the shore of said Lake 75 feet" contained in
the desciption is ambiguous.
Wehave established this as the point of tangency of a straight line from the point
ofbeginring of the described exception with an arc having a radius of 75.00 feet
onl centered at the west end of a line described as having a bearing of North
6322' West and a length of 326 feet.
Werecommend that a qualified real estate attorney be consulted to determine a
prper remedy to this issue.
Th, survey upon which this map is based was
peformed without benefit of either an attornejs title
op4on or a title commitment.
6250 RIDGE ROM
CHANHASSEN, MINNEMTA
_CLIEN T
COTTAGEWOOD PARTNEINR��
S.M.l. PROJECT NO. 63883-001