PC 2002 04 16CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 16, 2002
Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Sharmin AI-Jaff administered the
Oath of Office to Steven Lillehaug.
MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Craig Claybaugh, Alison Blackowiak, Bruce Feik, Rich Slagle,
Uli Sacchet, and Steven Lillehaug
STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin A1-Jatf, Senior Planner; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; Matt
Saam, Assistant City Engineer; and Mahmoud Sweidan, Project Engineer
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON: Mayor Linda Jansen
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Linda Landsman 7329 Frontier Trail
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 13.6 ACRE SITE INTO 11 LOTS AND ONE
BEACHLOT WITH VARIANCES, A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CREATION OF A 2.5 ACRE BEACHLOT. THE
SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 7, WEST OF MINNEWASHTA BAY ROAD,
NORTH OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA AND EAST OF DARTMOUTH DRIVE. BOYER LAKE
MINNEWASHTA ADDITION, BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Wayne Holzer 2911 Washta Bay Road
Renee Zirbes 6220 Barberry Circle
Steve Hall 6221 Arbor Lane
Robert Christian 2971 Washta Bay Road
Kelly Sheehan 2951 Washta Bay Road
Mark Olsen 2961 Washta Bay Road
Bill Coldwell 3501 Shore Drive
Sue Fiedler 3121 Dartmouth Drive
Jim Ginther Jr. 3611 Ironwood Road
Rich Friedman 3601 Red Cedar Point Road
Mr. & Mrs. Mary Lorence 6230 Arbor Lane
Maren Christopher 7311 Dogwood Road
John Getsch 7500 Dogwood Road
Sharmin AI-Jaff and Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, anyone have questions of staff?
Feik: Sure, I'll start. Sharmin, I'd like to discuss with you a little bit regarding the beachlot again.
Assuming for just a moment that the beachlot was not constructed and as I understand it, we would not
have the ability to deny access to the lake to Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8, and that they would be allowed under our
guidelines, they would be allowed to cross the existing wetland to get access to the beach, is that correct?
A1-Jaff: That's correct. They would need a wetland alteration, but yes that is an accurate statement.
Feik: Okay, so either way they're going to get docks. Some shape or form of dock. Either crossing the
wetlands or putting in a group dock via the beachlot.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Feik: That's it for now, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks.
Slagle: Can I ask a follow-up question?
Blackowiak: Sure, go ahead.
Slagle: Does that mean when you ask for a wetland alteration, you're assuming that would be given
correct?
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Slagle: So I mean if it was not given, they would not have docks to the lake.
A1-Jaff: Our past experience has been to grant the wetland alteration. We would ensure minimum impact
on the wetland but yes, it's reasonable to assume that a riparian lot would have lakeshore rights.
Blackowiak: Any other questions? Uli, questions?
Sacchet: Yeah, I've got a couple of questions. First of all I want to clarify, you specified that since the
channel also counts as lake front in terms of the setback requirements, is that Lot 4, Block 2 pad with the
unusual shape, is that within the 75 feet setback that will be required from the channel? Because it appears
to me that it's not.
A1-Jaff: It meets the 75 foot setback. That's one of the reasons why they went with the 50 by 80 house
pad. It was one of two choices. Either a setback from the OHW of the lake.
Sacchet: Or the shape.
A1-Jaff: Which meant encroachment.
Sacchet: So with this shape it actually respects that setback.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: I wanted to clarify that. Then I wondered, you said, you pointed out the aspect of the custom
grading and I don't know whether I didn't look close enough but I couldn't see the condition. You said
there was actually a condition in the conditions right now that these lots would be custom graded, because I
didn't see it.
A1-Jaff: Okay. I will look through the conditions...
Sacchet: Okay, we can get to that when we actually get into the motion part. A motion detailed type of
aspect in the staff report you point out that the trail should not be extended to the shoreline, and I kind of
wonder well, how is it suppose to connect to the dock, isn't it? How does it connect to the dock if it doesn't
go the shoreline? Is the dock coming further?
Haak: I guess the concern of staff was that whatever materials we used to construct the trail would not
interfere with the quality of the lake. And so if we find a material that's, if it's a mowed trail then certainly
it can go up to the edge. If it's a paved trail, we didn't want water running down the hill into the lake. If it
was woodchips we didn't want the woodchips to run in so that's the rationale behind that.
Sacchet: So the idea it will be grass, the last part to get to the dock.
Haak: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. That's a detail question but I was curious about it. Why 3 ponds? It seems a lot of
ponds. Is that an engineering question?
Sweidan: The existing pond, a section of it, it's actually for serving most of it, ... that's coming north of
the highway.
Sacchet: So it takes water in from the other side of the highway so there's an increased need for ponding
on that basis?
Sweidan: Yes. This is a low area comparing to the highway elevation and it's gathering a lot of drainage,
surface drainage to it. And we can use the 3 ponds in a way that it will treat the drainage that's coming out
from the, or discharging out from the culvert, and the one in the west that would take care also for the
highway that's coming also from the west part of that property of the highway. And the one, this other is
taking care of the streets that is coming from the development.
Sacchet: And I think, yeah there's one more question. You touched on the preservation easement, and I'm
still not 100 percent clear, is it just a part of the beachlot that is along the lake? Does it go all the way to
the channel or it's just a part in front of the lots there?
Haak: Correct. It would be the portion of the beachlot right behind Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8, Block 1. So it
would not include the trail and the area directly adjacent to the dock and the channel.
Sacchet: That's my questions for right now. Thank you very much.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn, go ahead.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Sidney: Madam Chair, I guess following up on that question, I'm looking at condition 3. Is this accurate?
In preliminary plat then, a preservation easement shall be dedicated over the westerly 400 feet of beachlot?
We're saying the rest of that sentence is not correct or, because we're talking about the portion east of the
channel.
A1-Jaff: This portion right here.
Sidney: Oh, okay. Okay, so we do have a little bit of easement on that side of the channel.
A1-Jaff: There's a cluster of mature vegetation within this area that we wanted to preserve as well.
Sidney: Okay, good. And then, let's see I guess I had a question about approval from the City of
Shorewood. To what level would that need to be approved? Is this through the City Council in Shorewood
or...
A1-Jaff: Typically it would require, if a subdivision would take place in a neighboring community, we
would bring it through Planning Commission and City Council.
Sidney: Can we specify that? I guess I'd like to see that, I mean on the City Council approval from the
City of Shorewood. And then I guess I was interested in the fact that we have a 50 foot right-of-way
instead of 60. I'm wondering if you could comment on the benefits of that. I didn't find the portion of the
staff report that had noted that it appears to save a lot of trees, or am I mistaken?
A1-Jaff: The existing right-of-way on Dartmouth Drive is 50 feet, and this would be an extension of that
50.
Sidney: Okay.
A1-Jaff: This area that is available for right-of-way is 50 feet. And it would be, this cul-de-sac is serving
1, 2, I believe there are 3 homes here and 1 home to the south. One issue that we would want to see
resolved is the bubble surrounding the cul-de-sac, that would need to maintain the required 60 foot, and it's
for snow storage purposes. This one maintains that requirement.
Sidney: Okay. So my thought that trees would be preserved may not be accurate or, does it help at all?
A1-Jaff: Number one, there is a continuation of that existing right-of-way. The second is the combination
of the reduced right-of-way as well as the 9 percent grade. It's the combination of those two that brings the
grading limits closer to the street. We tried for the 7 percent, 60 foot right-of-way and you really take out
quite a bit more trees.
Sidney: So overall then...
A1-Jaff: Overall there is a benefit.
Sidney: Okay. Okay, that should do it for now I guess.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Any more questions of staff?
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Claybaugh: Yeah, I have a few questions. Just like to add my concern with respect to the lack of any
notes regarding the custom grading.
A1-Jaff: I did not find that condition.
Claybaugh: I didn't see anything in the conditions and also on Sheet 2 of 3, there isn't anything that
identified inside the preservation area that any of that was going to be custom graded, and with the amount
of significant trees in there that warrant a little bit more attention in my mind. I guess everything has
probably been covered with the exception of replacement of wetlands. Are they looking at banking
wetlands or I didn't see anything for replacement of wetlands on site...
Haak: They are proposing on site wetland replacement. The applicant's engineer has indicated that they
have prepared a preliminary replacement plan. The replacement is slated for that darkish blue area
adjacent to Basin 3 and that's at a 2 to 1 ratio. In addition to, well the new wetland credit is 1 to 1. A
little, I guess a 1 to 1, and then in order to receive the other portion of the wetland credit they would be
enhancing the existing buffer in that area. North and west of the replaced wetland.
Claybaugh: Okay. So the applicant will be shedding a little more information on that.
Haak: Yeah, he can certainly address that.
Claybaugh: Okay. That's all I have.
Blackowiak: Questions?
Lillehaug: Could I comment on that same issue?
Blackowiak: Yeah, if you have any questions right now. We have a comment section in a little bit but this
is kind of question.
Lillehaug: This is kind of a question to staff. In that Basin #3, they do have that created wetland area.
And that doesn't correctly show the impacts to the trees in that area, so those trees would be lost in that
area also. Would that be correct to assume?
Haak: Yes, that area would be graded.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Blackowiak: Thank you. I just actually have one question. I saw the 9 percent grade and Mac I think this
is a question for you. That seems awfully steep for any residential street. You're satisfied that there's not
going to be an issue with that at all? In terms of a safety standpoint.
Sweidan: From the City we can go sometimes up to the maximum 10 percent as safety wise, but here we
are looking also for the grade wise to protect as much as we could trees. Now we could say like you can go
down but that mean that this is going to be affected really bad.
Blackowiak: Right. So you feel this is a good trade-off in terms of what the alternative is?
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Sweidan: Yes. Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. Great, thank you. Go ahead.
A1-Jaff: Maybe a similar example to this one, Pointe Lake Lucy. It's north of Lake Lucy Road. They
have a 9 percent grade on their street, and it was used in the same manner to minimize impact on the
vegetation. And we haven't had any problems out there.
Blackowiak: Okay. You said so. That north of Lake Lucy, south of Lake Lucy Road, is that where?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Blackowiak: Right, okay. Alrighty. If there are no more questions, go ahead.
Sidney: I guess one thing I'm wondering if staff could just briefly outline the conditions that are put on
recreational beachlots, and this is for the benefit of the people in the audience just to understand, actually a
large portion of the report deals with the beachlot issue and what the city is requiring for use of a beachlot.
If you could just go over that briefly.
A1-Jaff: Sure. The conditional use permit will be recorded against the property, and I need to make that
very clear. All homeowners that purchase a lot here, and become members of this homeowners association
would have to abide by the conditions in the conditional use permit. One of the conditions requires that
beachlots meet all requirements of standards for beachlots and that would include total frontage on the lake,
total number of docks, number of slips for boats, mooring, overnight mooring. It prohibits any boats from
being launched off of this beachlot. We need to point out that if an association is in violation of a
conditional use permit, the city council can revoke that conditional use permit and take away those rights.
Right now what the applicants are proposing are a trail, dock, and I believe there is a canoe rack on site as
well. If they intended to let's assume at a sand beach, they would need to go through a conditional use
permit amendment. We do not automatically make those changes in-house administratively. So everything
that you see in front of you is what they are getting. And I don't know if that covers the basic...
Slagle: ...wait til later but I do want to ask you at this point. As I look at this property, the first question
that comes to my mind is, it's very unusual with the channel and the request by the applicant to in essence
have two divisions, or subdivisions. And a connector to those. I mean one could argue I believe somewhat
successfully that the 2 homes onto the east side could in essence be of their nature. Not connected to the
other division because what you're requiring is requiring some variances, some wetland alterations for the
access to Lot 4. One could argue that Lot 4, based upon soil concerns, the wetland alterations. Someone
might ask, why would you put a house there? It sounds like the ground isn't the best for a house. So as I,
and there's people who maybe have seen that more than I have but the question I have is, was there
discussions with the applicant about those such things? Is the ground really ideal for another house? Have
you considered the two off to their own and being connected through Washta Bay Road? And I'm asking
staff for some background. Was that discussion there? And then one last question if you can think about
it, with respect to the channel, as I see this and understand what you're saying is here, and sort of this is the
present plan, as a commission member I want to know that there's safeguards. That we're not going to see
people putting docks out over the wetland, the wetlands on Basin 2. We're not going to see people tying
up boats inside the channel, even though I think I did read that the applicant could make a request to have
that modified for dockage or something like that. I don't want to use that same word, so I'm just sitting
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
here saying, what is the alternate plan and we'll hear a little bit from the applicant but what can we do to
keep this project, I mean keeping real appreciation of the natural resources, and I don't see this so far as
having done that. And I'll be interested in hearing from the applicant as to what they're going to do to
ensure to me that they've taken that concern. So, a little background if I could. Of discussions. Was there
any discussions?
A1-Jaff: Absolutely, and I can answer some of those questions. One of the first things we do whenever we
look at subdivisions, and I believe that you've heard us often talk about this is connecting neighborhoods.
We looked at this connection. As you can see, you've got this wetland complex in this area, so this
connection was ruled out. And that was for an environmental feature. To minimize impact on this wetland.
Slagle: What kind of connection were you looking at, if I can ask? Continuation of the road?
A1-Jaff: Continuation of this road. As far as the second question, your second concern that deals with,
assuming we approve this beachlot, will those homes come in with docks across the wetland? Those homes
are not riparian lots. By extending the beachlot to the west, what we have done is created non-riparian lots.
Therefore they don't have the right to extend a dock across, from their homes to the lake. With a
preservation easement, we are further ensuring that no impact takes place over this section. So if it's a
choice between having the 5 separate riparian lots versus the beachlot, staff believes that this is a superior
alternative.
Slagle: Okay. Let me ask this though Sharmin. If one was to believe part of the letter that we received
concerning sand being brought in and dumped at other spots along this lake, the meeting that that was, that
presentation for that development, I'm going to guess there was no talk of someone volunteering saying hey
I'm bringing in dump loads of sand. It just sort of happened after the development occurred. Obviously
it's two different folks but my question is, it'd be the same thing as we just discussed with the docks. There
will be no docks because gosh you know, they can't do that. But then they might and I'm just saying what
are our, what's the enforcement is maybe what I'm looking for.
Haak: I guess I can address the sand concerns a little bit, especially for those 4 lots. Non-riparian lots.
Specifically Lots 5 through 8 of Block 1. We would have several enforcement measures available to us at
that point. First and foremost is the Wetland Conservation Act. If you brought in sand to any one of those
4 lots you would be in violation, I would imagine it would probably be fill under the Wetland Conservation
Act and you would be looking at financial penalties as well as wetland mitigation at a 4 to 1 ratio. For
every square foot that you fill, you would need to replace 4. And so that is one of the tools we have. The
second would be that all beaches in this particular watershed district, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District, require permits from the watershed district. So for those particular things they would need permits
and I would imagine that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District does have some enforcement tool as
well. I believe some of it again would come under the Wetland Conservation Act and that would probably
be the more stringent requirement of the two, but we can certainly tap into their resources there for
enforcement measures.
Slagle: Let me just follow up one last question. My question about the discussions with the applicant, how
did they go if I may ask. Was there again the discussion of looking at one of these homes not happening
which would be four? I want to just get a sense, was that discussed and what was the thinking?
A1-Jaff: We're talking about the one home that is not going to have a dock.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Slagle: At this time it's not going to have a dock.
A1-Jaff: Correct. We had the discussion with them. They, if you'll look at the plans they are showing 10
docks. Or 10 slips, and staff basically stated that you can request it but staff is recommending against it.
Slagle: Now could they put a dock inside the channel if they applied for that?
A1-Jaff: No. They did request that, but Lori.
Haak: The number of docks is limited on this site to the site. There is only so much natural lakeshore, and
they come, I believe it was 20 feet short of being able to have an additional lot, so even if they did not
include Lot, I believe it's Lot 8, on the far west side, southwest comer, they would not be able to make that
a conforming lot. It would not be 90 feet wide. It would be 708 feet wide if they used every inch of
lakeshore, the natural lakeshore that exists on the property.
Slagle: Okay.
Haak: As far as the wetland impacts for that lot east of the channel, Lot 4 there, by law we are required to
try and avoid wetland impacts and so staff's discussions with the applicant have been that we need to avoid
and minimize wherever possible. The applicant, as well as, we have inner departmental wars about things
like that because then the planning department may say that you can't really deny access to a buildable area
like that so then it gets into the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Blackowiak: Okay Uli, you have another question?
Sacchet: Yeah, if I could just ask one more question that Commissioner Slagle brought up the question
how buildable is the soil on Lot 4, Block 2. I am actually as much concerned or even more concerned from
having been out there about Lot 2. Possibly even Lot 1 of Block 2. There is, really it's pretty, I think it's
relatively wet. It's very close and the wetland has these two arms that literally reach towards that pad.
And I'm curious to know from a City side, how do we deal with that? I mean do we, does an applicant
have to show us soil qualities or do we have a responsibility from the city on whether they're going to have
a basement full of water and what have you?
A1-Jaff: The soils report is usually submitted at the time of building permit, and it's very common for us to
have soil corrections as building permits come in.
Sacchet: So that would be an aspect addressed when a building permit comes in, so at this point we
wouldn't even really look at that sort of an aspect. Okay.
A1-Jaff: We suspect that there will be soil corrections on that site.
Sacchet: Okay.
Sweidan: May I add something?
Sacchet: Please.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Sweidan: Your building department always requests a soil testing for any building pad. And regarding Lot
4, actually it's without basement.
Sacchet: Lot 4's no basement?
Sweidan: No basement.
Sacchet: Lot 1 and 2?
Sweidan: Yes.
Sacchet: No basement either?
Sweidan: Could have basement but it's a lookout basement.
Sacchet: It's a lookout basement.
Sweidan: Yes, but for Lot 4 no basement.
Sacchet: Alright. Didn't really answer it but gave me a little bit of a context, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Okay, would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation?
Please step up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Bob Boyer: Yeah, I will. My name is Bob Boyer. I'm with Boyer Building Corporation, and I'm here
with some other gentlemen who I think will help me in the presentation. I'll introduce them now. First off
we have Troy Gamble. Troy is with Anderson Engineering and he is assisting us in the engineering of the
project. And then Pete Boyer. You're going to find this is kind of a family effort here. Pete Boyer, my
brother. And then Joe Boyer also. Brother. I want to thank you all for being here tonight and listening to
our request. This is something that we've been dealing with and working on for about 6 years now, and we
think we've got a project here that's extremely well suited for the site. What I'd like to do is do a short
presentation, or just short talk to you a little bit. It will take about 2-3 minutes and then I'm sure you'll be
opening it up for questions to the rest of the people here and I would appreciate an opportunity at that time,
as the discussion is flowing, to have an opportunity to address issues and concerns that come up. I think
the last time we were here it was kind of a, you know I had my opportunity and that was it and there was
several people came up and spoke. There was no attempt to try to resolve issues and talk things through so
if there's an opportunity to do that, I would appreciate that.
Blackowiak: Yeah, I think what we'll do is, you can make your presentation. Then I'll open it for a public
hearing and then members of the public can speak and then if you'd like a couple minutes at the end of the
public hearing to address concerns, you could do it at that time. I'm not going to do it one by one.
Bob Boyer: No, I understand. That's fine.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Bob Boyer: Appreciate that. My involvement in this project, this property dates back about 35 years when
my father purchased this land and the adjoining property that is now called Sterling Estates. Through the
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
years we've built tree homes, we've camped, fished in this parcel of property. This was home to me and
my brothers and family for many years. I tell you this to put in context the approach we went through
when planning the development of this property. We tried to envision a neighborhood we would want to
live in. Where neighbors share equally many of the assets of the site and can help bring them together.
This was our goal. It is however important in the planning of a unique piece of property like this that it be
done in such a way that all parties can benefit. The adjoining neighbors will benefit by eliminating
undesirable buildings and road accesses, and undesirable road accesses are removed. The homes are
constructed, the homes that will be constructed are unarguably going to significantly boost the market
values of the adjacent homes and the adjacent neighborhoods. The density of the housing is significantly as
we mentioned earlier, significantly less than both neighborhoods on each side, both Sterling Estates and the
Manor property. The density is 1.6 units per acre, which is significantly less than what's recommended for
the comprehensive plan in that area. The City will also benefit. By the extension of the roads and the cul-
de-sacs it will make egress easier for snowplows and emergency vehicles. By increasing the property
values means tax base increase. The proposed regional ponds, again the ponds on the north side of the
property are primarily regional ponds, will resolve some serious water quality issues in Lake Minnewashta
that have been impossible to resolve to date. The group docks and preservation of the shoreline will benefit
water fall production and overall water quality. The grouping of the houses on high ground minimize
impact since the wetland areas. The new homeowners that will occupy this property will also benefit by
having a beachlot dockage that all residents will have equal access to and enjoy the lake and the channel.
Fishermen have enjoyed the fishing in this channel for decades, and I suspect the residents will enjoy it as
well. Trails will allow maintenance free and pedestrian traffic to neighboring communities and to the
beachlot. In closing I would ask the commission while considering the two variances, to value the intent of
the ordinances not necessarily the letter of the ordinances. I would also ask you to consider that this is not
a parcel of land in the middle of a field. It is unique for many reasons and I think requires us to plan in a
unique way. I think the proposal we bring to you tonight is the best use of the site. It strikes that balance
of benefit for all parties, particularly the future homeowners. Thank you and if you have any questions
we'd be very happy to answer them.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Bob Boyer right now? Go ahead
Rich.
Slagle: I've got one. Mr. Boyer, can you just address my comments about what I'll call Lot 4. The finger
that sticks out. Again, if you're someone who walked in and saw this sitting here, I mean would you ask
yourself as a citizen or just an interested observer, is that, I mean it looks like we're barely fitting in a
house on that piece of property. And to me that's a very sensitive piece of property. I know we're within a
couple of approvals of variances and alterations, it's fine but I'm just asking you from a builder, is that sort
of on the edge?
Bob Boyer: Well that one, not at all. If you walk the property you'll see that that's, it's actually a
gorgeous view. A house looks southwest. It's a gorgeous sunset view from that lot. It's not that far from
an adjacent house right basically in this area, that was built about 40-50 years ago that had no soil
correction whatsoever. There's no reason to believe that that lot has soil correction. When that channel
was dug back in 1958 or 56, somewhere around there, there's no indication that that site, that area had soil
problems. A lot of the soils that are there now are simply soils that were removed with the channel area
and spread around and they cover over very suitable soil that's in place so, no. In fact the site I don't think
will probably even require any unnecessary soil compaction whatsoever. The lot, the site, because of the
distance from the shoreline, it does require us to get a variance to narrow the lot to I believe 50 feet as
opposed to 60 feet, but I think my brother John submitted plans that showed many, many very suitable
10
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
homes that would look very attractive in that area. Where you'd comfortably fit on a 50 foot lot. So I
wouldn't be afraid at all to live there myself. I'd love to.
Blackowiak: Uli, question.
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Boyer. Just to carry the same question up to what is Lot 2 in Block 2. When I was out
there I was actually more concerned about that because it seems a pretty low elevation there. Very close to
the wetland. You're confident that you're not going to run into a water issue there? No, Block 2. On the
other side. West side.
Bob Boyer: Oh, okay.
Sacchet: I'm talking about that one, because it's, the way I recall it, the Lot 4 that we just talked about,
it's actually slightly on an elevation. While Lot 2 and even to some extent Lot 1 up on that west side are I
consider it a little bit of a dip. A dip next to a wetland and therefore my concern.
Bob Boyer: I'm going to refer to my brother Pete to answer that one because he's much more familiar with
that site than I am.
Pete Boyer: Thank you council members. Planning committee members and I appreciate your interest in
that lot. Those lots I've owned for oh, onto 30 years now and that's upland property over here. This is
upland area over here. It's clay with about a foot and a half of black topsoil and it drains well to the west.
So it's actually the regional pond is located in a upland area partially, most of it. A little bit of it as a
wetland because we have to get a large enough size. But these two homes would be located on very
suitable ground. A lot of times you know that because Ash trees grow like mad up in here. They love
upland. They don't grow down in here, in this lowland. And the same thing goes for this property over
here. You'll see no signs of fill but lots of bit, mature trees growing. Well, box-elder trees unfortunately
grow in this area. But you know it's good ground because large trees don't grow typically in wetland
areas. That's it.
Sacchet: So in other words you're pretty confident that you're not getting in a situation there.
Pete Boyer: Yeah, these are, this is also very good buildable sites.
Sacchet: If I may ask one more question, which is somewhat related. When I went out there I was really
impressed with the beautiful evergreens which I would assume is probably mostly on Lot 1, and it looked
like you were planning to pretty much cut those all down. I wonder whether there has been any
consideration on the lot line to the west to preserve some of those evergreens as a buffer to the neighbor
because we have a unique situation with a back yard facing a side of a new house.
Pete Boyer: Exactly. I'm glad you're interested in the preservation of those trees. So are we. I planted
those trees when they were very small, because we value trees. We value the land and we value the
preservation of the land. And I planted those, we took some trees off of there and moved them around.
There's some trees right along this area over here you may have noticed as well. We're trying to, our goal
is to move these trees around the site so that we can create borders if we can, buffers from the highway.
Buffers along the wetland areas if we need to. Our goal is not to cut down those trees because they're,
we've spent some effort planting and watering those things so we want to keep them going, but we, there's
a lot of work that has to be done to create these regional ponds. This one over here. This big one over here
11
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
and this one over here. And of course this local pond here. This takes care of the water on this site itself,
so. The site has, you're right. Lot of issues. Lot of water issues and we think we've handled those water
management issues. The wetland preservation issues. We've worked hard to manage those. That's why
we gave up riparian rights for the boat docks along the lake. I mean if we go back and give those folks
access to the lake, the lot value, lot value's go up.
Sacchet: Specifically my question was whether you see any way to preserve some of these evergreens on
the west side as a buffer.
Pete Boyer: The west side.
Sacchet: Is that east or west?
Claybaugh: It's the east side.
Sacchet: That's east, sorry.
Pete Boyer: This is the east over here. Is that what you mean?
Sacchet: Okay. Because at this point you have like 3 trees there on the southern side of that lot preserved.
I wonder whether it's possibly preserve some of those evergreens too to have a little buffering there.
Pete Boyer: We intend to spade these out of here. The trees that are along here. We have a buffer along.
Sacchet: To replant some of those, is that what you're saying?
Pete Boyer: We would replant these down along the cul-de-sac side. Wherever we can plant them. We
don't want to bulldoze them out of there. We want to use them back. That's the intent. That's what we've
designed this property to do. The trees are planted there now because it's upland area and they grow well
there. They'll have to be moved into other areas as we move the houses, but that's our history. If you
guys, folks are familiar with Trillium Bay out on the other side of Lake Minnetonka on Halstead's Bay, we
planted all those trees on the back land there too and now they're towering. Huge. It's been our business
to plant trees in the land fill.
Sacchet: Thank you for addressing my question.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Do you have a question?
Claybaugh: Yeah, I have a question.
Blackowiak: Sure.
Claybaugh: Could you comment on a willingness or a commitment to doing some custom grading inside,
specifically the preliminary tree preservation plan which is identified as Sheet 4 of 5. Substantial area
within all the buildable areas on both Block 1 and Block 2 is identified as removal of trees, wholesale.
From my standpoint I would certainly be a lot more comfortable to see, I know what a custom grading
looks like. I'd like you to comment on your willingness to entertain this.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Pete Boyer: And we certainly do want to do that. That's the reason for the suggestion for the street slope
being greater.
Claybaugh: I understand that but the plan that I have in front of me right now calls for the removal of the
trees. It doesn't mention any custom grading and I don't have anything in the conditions that identifies...
by staff.
Pete Boyer: Yeah, I think the indication on your staff report was that we would, you recommended that I
think Sharmin.
A1-Jaff: Yes. I left a condition out and we need to add it in there. And if I may add regarding the grading
plans, we always ask developers to provide us with worst case scenarios as far as grading. That's how we
base our tree calc's so discussions have taken place with the applicant. They have agreed to custom
grading those sites. We should have added the condition. It's my fault.
Claybaugh: Okay, so the applicant's in agreement with that?
Pete Bayer: We don't, yeah. We want to do that. Clearing all the trees is not a good thing. We want to
keep the trees. However let's remember, a lot of those trees are not trees, which trees we keep. A lot of the
trees in this bluff area right here, on this area, that used to be an old farm. The remains of which you can
see the old farm foundations right along this side here. A lot of those trees in there are boxelders and
what's the other kind of trees. Cottonwoods, that was the issue. And they're not even suggested by the city
to be desirable trees. We don't want to take out the woods. The woods is great, but maybe to take out
those boxelders and cottonwoods and plant back better trees is a better deal. In the long run it's probably a
better deal to get oaks and maples and ash in there so, but with boxelders there they'll take over everything
we can't do anything about getting better trees in there so we're of the opinion that getting the boxelders
out of there, cleaning some of that out but the good trees, the ones that you really want to keep, custom
grading around it is a significant idea.
Claybaugh: I understand that you'd do some selective removal based on the species of the trees and...
Pete Bayer: Yeah, ifyau see a big maple tree, let's keep it, yeah.
Claybaugh: I just wanted some assurance or some language in there that I had that one agreement on there.
Blackowiak: Okay excuse me, Sharmin. Could you give us an idea of what a condition like, encompassing
custom grading would read? You said it was omitted so what would you suggest or what are you.
A1-Jaff: Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 of Block 1 shall be custom graded.
Sidney: That could be added to condition 37 that's on the grading plan.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Blackowiak: Okay, great. Thank you. I'm sorry, go ahead. I just wanted to clarify that before we moved
on any farther.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Pete Boyer: There was a question that was in the staff report also about surfacing of the pathway that
connects us the, actually the two cul-de-sacs. It's a pathway that runs from this cul-de-sac around the edge
of the wetland, up in the city of Shorewood, down through this way and comes around and climbs the grade
up here to the cul-de-sac and then comes down the grade and back over and level area back over to the, it's
all in the beachlot area over to the docks. Discussion is what should that surface be, and we're not
particularly, we don't care what it is if it's blacktop, sod, wood chips. It's what do the people want. What
does the city want and what does the DNR want so we do know that the sloped area on the, going up the
grade over here, that has to be a hard surface because it won't be able to be maintained any other way.
I've spent 20 years working at the Arboretum putting in pathways for them out there, and the first thing we
did back in the 80's was blacktop their sloping pathways because they couldn't keep them maintained and
it was eroded. But on the level areas, there's no reason they can't be sod, mowed grass, or wood chips. I
mean we're not particularly definitive on that.
Blackowiak: Okay. Do you have anything else to add?
Claybaugh: No additional questions. With respect, not to him or Lot number 4 there but I understand that
you commented based on the species of trees that were present on some of the questionable lots, any idea
what the water table is out there? I'm still questioning the fact that there wasn't any soil borings done or
any test holes dug. I was out there and just from a visual standpoint it looks suspect to me in terms of the
elevation out there.
Pete Boyer: Yeah, Lot 4 is a lot that comes down into a flatter area. Still quite, the footprint where the
house sits, the pad elevation is still going to be quite a bit above any water levels. But that is down in an
area where we don't have a lot of definitive information.
Claybaugh: Well anytime that it's indicated as a slab on grade in Minnesota, that raises a flag for me with
respect to questionable soils or water tables so. You're telling me that no test holes have been dug. No soil
borings. No identification of a water table down in that area?
Pete Boyer: Well that's in undisturbed areas as well and so I don't expect it to be real unusual. Typically
what happens on an edge of a slope like that, that comes down into a narrow wetland area is, the upland
soils like the black topsoil gets thicker as you get down there and the deeper soils, the clay which it is up
above is clay. All the houses we built up along Dartmouth were in heavy clay. But that clay level comes
down, as it does over here. We've done, we've done digging and why I dig my trees, this is all heavy clay
over here with only about 6 inches of topsoil. It gets heavier down through here but the clay goes down.
The subsoil clay goes down. You can follow it down to a bottom, and that's what's in the bottom of the
lake. So you have maybe 6 feet. I don't know exactly but you'll have more black humus material above,
but the issue is if you have a home in this area, you'll find that your lower level doesn't want to get that low
or it just gets too close to the water level. Raise the home up and you do a soil compaction and that's what
the houses have underneath them over along the lake front over here, the soil compactions. It's not unusual
to do that. We know the ground, the sub-ground is good.
Claybaugh: Right. I was just specifically that particularly lot again to, reiterating what some of the other
commissioners have said, strikes me as a little more environmentally sensitive so there's a feel that with the
wetland mitigation and slab on grade and the position of that lot with respect to the channel and the lake,
that you're pushing the envelope there a little bit. If I understand you correctly, you don't feel that way?
14
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Pete Bayer: Well I don't feel, I understand what you're saying. I'm not being, I'm real familiar with the
property. I think, that's my personal feeling, we've given a lot back to wetlands or wetland mitigation and
we've created these NURP ponds to handle the water that comes in and the settlement issues and water
treatment issues. These two big guys right up here are ponds that do that. They take water from other
areas that come, and right now that's all being done by wetlands along. You don't see any trails of water
going off into that lake. These big wetlands are absorbing it all and it's filtering into the lake, but we're
going the next step further and putting these NURP ponds, and that's at our cost.
Claybaugh: Well the NURP ponds are required for the storm water.
Pete Boyer: That's right, they are required.
Claybaugh: That's part afthe development.
Pete Boyer: That's the water coming off, not from our site. We're handing our site water right here.
Claybaugh: Right, but you can't discharge the water directly into the lake. Your storm water runoff.
Pete Bayer: Right. We'll have it treated from here.
Claybaugh: ... water from the NURP ponds.
Pete Bayer: Our water from our site will be treated from here, is that what you're asking?
Claybaugh: Well what I was commenting on is that those are part afthe development design. They need to
be there. That's not, unless I misunderstand, the degree of water that you're taking on there, I heard
Highway 7 mentioned. Are they taking on additional waters from water runoffs beyond what the
development is creating? Or is this just sized for specifically for the development?
Sweidan: It's mainly the two ponds which is from the north actually for the highway treatment. On some
of it, especially the east side of it toward the street, part of it goes to this pond too.
Claybaugh: So just for clarification for my benefit, is the NURP pond to the northwest, is that over sized
to pick up some additional storm water runoff from Highway 7 that they're in essence volunteering to do to
help mitigate the problem or is that something that just goes with the territory?
Saam: I'll just comment a little. Our surface water management plan shows this property as containing a
regional pond. They split it into two, or maybe the SWMP plan does show two, so we told them they need
to put that there. In discussions with Lori, they will be compensated for doing that to some regard off other
SWMP water fees. So it's not like they're just volunteering this, no. We did tell them to do this.
Claybaugh: That's what I was wondering.
Pete Bayer: Yeah, it's something we were required to do. Our engineer can tell you how many acres of
water from across Highway 7 is coming in and pounding this property. The issue is we have to deal with
it.
Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Blackowiak: Thank you. Any further presentation by the applicants?
Bob Boyer: Not at this time.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. At this point I'm going to open this item up for a public hearing. Before
the first person comes up to speak I'd like to just add a couple items. If there are several of you, I'm
assuming to speak on this item, please try to not repeat comments if possible. Limit your comments to
about 5 minutes or so. We'll be flexible but let's try to be respectful and state your name and address for
the record when you get up there. So with that, anybody liking to speak on this issue please come up to the
microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Robert Christian: Thank you. My name is Robert Christian and I'm at 2971 Washta Bay Road. It's lot
adjacent to or connected to Lot 1 on the east side of the development. I do have a few issues with the
development. From a personal standpoint, we've been in the house 10 years now. We're not here to try
and detour anybody from doing something. Everybody has rights as property owners. We have the same
rights. One of our concerns is, this house is located very, very close to our house. It's within a minimum
distance I suppose within code, of being on my property line. It's unique in the fact that it actually, their
side faces my back. What it does do, depending on the style of home that would be put in there, it's going
to block sun, wind, view. We're going to be looking directly into their house. They'll be looking directly
into my house. It's also a big issue for anybody that's ever, or that lives on Highway 7 or close to
Highway 7, there's a huge noise issue. One of the things that I'm very, very afraid of with this is the fact
that the noise, when these trucks come down Highway 7 they're throttling down. It will literally wake you
up out of a cold sleep. This is going to create in all reality an echo chamber between our house and the
existing house. We feel, at least my family and I feel that that's going to be very detrimental to you know
us. It's also going to, I understand that they're saying, it's going to, you know everybody's trying to work
together. This is going to decrease the value of my property, not increase it. For a perspective buyer to
come in and look at my home, and have this house sitting right in my back window, that would not be
attractive to anybody. I can't see how it would be attractive to a perspective homeowner to be looking at,
you know basically shaking hands through windows. Is really the whole reality of it. What we would like
to see done is eliminate one home off of that lot. Set it back further. There needs to be a buffer between
there. It is truly deafening at times when the traffic's going down Highway 7. Seriously, you cannot, I
mean it gets so loud you have trouble talking sometimes. And I'm sure you can see how that would create
an echo chamber. If they're coming from the west it will bounce off my house back to their's. If they're
coming from the east, it will bounce off their house back to mine. And you know with the removal of a lot
of trees, the relocation of a lot of trees, that's going to even make that worst. That's a huge concern. From
a water standpoint we look at it, I mean last year in the spring we had water in our basements a good 2 to 3
inches. It came up from below. It did not come in through the walls. The water tables are relatively high
in that area. While it is a clay type soil there. Nonetheless, things stay wet there continually. That's
another concern of mine. And the impact on the lake. We certainly feel like there's compromises that can
be made so that everybody, you know the Boyer Corporation wants everybody to be happy. Well we want
everybody to be happy. Again we're not here to try and stop this from happening but you know as a
property owner I have the same rights as Boyer Corporation has as a property owner. And if this is going
to impact me, not only from a lifestyle standpoint, from a value standpoint, which it definitely will, I
believe things like that need to be taken into consideration. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Sharmin, would you quickly comment on setbacks of that lot. That's Lot 1,
Block 2. According to my table it's 10 feet. Is that a correct statement?
16
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
A1-Jaff: There is a 10 foot setback maintained by this house pad. Oh, this one?
Blackowiak: Yes, that's the one I'm talking about.
A1-Jaff: ...the existing house maintains approximately 60 feet setbacks. This lot meets all ordinance
requirements.
Blackowiak: So it does meet current ordinance?
A1-Jaff: Yes...
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Renee Zirbes: Good evening commissioners. My name is Renee Zirbes. I live at 6220 Barberry Circle.
That's located in Boyer Sterling Estates, which is directly west of this development. I have I guess several
concerns about the development. First of all, with regard to Lot 4, I believe it was noted that a variance
was required and the question I had was, what are the extraordinary circumstances which would allow for
that variance? You would need to fill something to that effect and I haven't heard what that is. There's a
lot of wildlife in this area and I'm really concerned about how that's going to affect it. My biggest concern
has to do with the dock configuration. This area of the lake is a small bay, and you increase the amount of
motor vehicles in this area, you're really going to destroy the quality of that bay. I believe, if I'm
understanding this correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that this dock configuration was proposed
in an alternative to having 5 beach front parcels. Is that correct? Okay. And you had noted that each one
of these beach front parcels would have 3 boats, is that correct? Are they allowed motorized boats or it's
one motorized boat and one canoe or what's the requirements on that in the city code?
Haak: It's not specified. They could all 3 be motorized watercraft, or non-motorized watercraft.
Renee Zirbes: Okay. Well the point I'm making is, I think it's really unlikely if these were beach front lots,
that you're going to have 5 property owners with 3 motorized boats at their dock. I mean likely they're
going to have maybe one speed boat, a canoe and a sailboat. This configuration where they're having 12
slips so it can serve everyone within the subdivision, you're increasing the amount of motorized vehicles on
this lake by quite a bit and that's really going to affect the water quality. I don't think it's a logical
conclusion to solving that issue. Another concern is that they're saying you know, well they need a wetland
alteration permit and that that would just automatically be granted. I don't think that that's true. I think
there's a lot of communities that do not automatically grant the wetland alteration permits. Many lakes are
preserving all the existing undisturbed lakeshore that they have. We could certainly do the same. So I
really am opposed to this having 5 lots that have their own dock would be better than having this
configuration because you're going to have so many more motorized vehicles on this lake and it's really
going to destroy the quality of it. Also I haven't heard anything, I've heard mention that there's a
homeowners association that's going to govern this. We had purchased property in bordering Sterling
Estates as I had stated earlier, and we have an easement and an outlot. We're not right on the lake but have
an easement and a small portion that goes out to the lake. And when the Boyer's established that they did
not establish a homeowners association. There's been a lot of issues with it. The Boyer's ultimately sold
the outlot to one of the property owners. There's 10 lots that have rights in that lakeshore parcel, in our
subdivision. They sold it to one of those individuals who then tried to terminate everyone else's lakeshore
rights. So I guess I'd like some clarification on how they're planning on doing this. Is there really a
17
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
homeowners association? How are those issues being dealt with? And then thirdly, I don't know if traffic
considerations have been considered or if there's anything in the code that would address that issue. I often
wait 5 to 10 minutes to get onto Highway 7 in the morning, and by adding this many new homes, they're
going off of Dartmouth and onto Arbor Lane and onto Highway 7, you're adding you know potential of at
least 18 more vehicles going onto Highway 7 during rush hour traffic and we're going to have cars backed
up by quite a ways. And I think that addresses all my concerns. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay. Lori, I have a quick question. Something that she just asked, and I've got
I guess maybe it's Lori or Sharmin. She said that it would be unlikely that each home would have 3
motorized boats, if they had each lake lots. Is there any restriction on people leasing slips? I know that for
example Lake Minnetonka it's fairly common if somebody has rights for 2 boats or 3 boats at their home
and only has 1 motorized boat, that they'll lease out a certain number of dock feet. Is there any kind of,
anything in place in Chanhassen about that?
Haak: I believe the qualification, it basically turns into a marina if you're leasing spaces. The current state
requirements and the city's requirements are that the watercraft be owned by the resident or a blood relative
of the owner. Or excuse me, the property owner or a blood relative of that owner. So you would not be
able to lease to a friend, or something like this. And just as a side note, watercraft does include things like
jet skis. It's fairly common I believe on lakes when I've been out on Lotus Lake and Lake Minnewashta to
see a pontoon, a speed boat and a jet ski, or 2 jet skis and something else so I don't think it's really
stretching it all that far to say that you could potentially have 3 motorized watercraft on each of those lots.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Sorry, thanks. Go ahead.
Kelly Sheehan: Good evening. My name is Kelly Sheehan. I live at 2951 Washta Bay Road. That'd be
this home property right here. I purchased my house from Pete Boyer oh I think it was 1989 or so, and one
of my main concerns is when I bought that home I planted a row of beautiful Colorado Blue evergreen trees
there and they're real close to the easement that's going in there. And first of all I'd like to make sure they
stayed intact and weren't damaged. I'd like that on the record. Secondly, I presume that the property lines
are going to staked and surveyed, is that correct?
Blackowiak: That's a fair assumption, yes.
Kelly Sheehan: They have or haven't done that?
Blackowiak: I don't know that they've done anything yet. As far as I know they haven't. But that would
be.
Kelly Sheehan: My reason for asking is, when they're done, Pete Boyer owns a certain amount of this
property that's adjacent to mine where they existing, there's an existing driveway there. And when they're
done I would like to make sure that was fully completed and not neglected because it has been neglected for
the lastl2 years. I mowed his lawn the last 12 years and I know there's a certain amount of neglect in that
regard so I have a concern over it looking right because my property's adjacent to it. And then last, and not
least, the 9 docks here. Just a question. Who determines who can have dock rights? How do they do that?
Is that a state law, city law? Property owner's rights?
Blackowiak: I believe that would be homeowners associations. Sharmin, is that?
18
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Blackowiak: So that would be determined by the association when lots were sold and I guess that would be
an applicant question.
Kelly Sheehan: So it's the property owners?
Blackowiak: Well I wouldn't say property owners necessarily, no. I would say developer and association
and I think we should ask the developer when he comes back up.
Pete Boyer: Would you rephrase your question? I'm a little confused. Who determines the rules regarding
putting...
Kelly Sheehan: Yeah, how do you determine who gets dock rights on a property?
Claybaugh: Lori, do you want to come back to the shoreline? Lineal footage there that translates into the
number of dock slips they can have.
Kelly Sheehan: There's 9 docks there in front of here?
Blackowiak: Yes. That's what's proposed.
Kelly Sheehan: So who determines who gets a dock there?
Blackowiak: I would assume it's the developer but let's, when he comes back up let's ask him.
Kelly Sheehan: I mean I have, when I was sold that house I was sold a bit of a bill of goods because I was
told I had lake rights. And they said I could put a, Boyer's sales person, I believe his name was Brian, said
that, and I mean this may be an argument for a different day but he said I had dock rights and in reality I
had lake access, so I was, and it's my fault because I didn't check on it, but if anybody can have a lake
rights, why can't we if we're that close to the lake?
Blackowiak: Okay. This may be a separate issue but what's the definition.
Kelly Sheehan: Well it's relative because it's a quality of life issue.
Blackowiak: Well exactly. I'll just ask, what's the definition of lake rights versus dock access. Can you
clarify that?
Kelly Sheehan: Access means you can walk to the lake. Lake rights mean you can put a dock and a boat
there.
Blackowiak: Right. Sharmin, correct from a city standpoint?
A1-Jaff: That is correct, and as far as who will be able to use those docks, it would be those 11 homes.
Now of course there will be one homeowner that.
Blackowiak: Or 2.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
A1-Jaff: Or 2, that won't be able to. But that is a decision that both the developer, as was stated earlier,
both the developer and the homeowners association together would have to make.
Kelly Sheehan: Well if they can put a dock, I mean everybody would like to have a dock and a boat on that
lake. I mean how do we get to do that? I mean I'm closer probably than all these people on that back lot.
Those back 4 lots.
Slagle: You could buy Lot 4.
Kelly Sheehan: I'll pay cash for it. No, is there some way that I can appeal that or go through the city to
do that? If they can do it, why can't we?
Blackowiak: Well I think that's a separate issue and I think.
Feik: They're taking a parcel of land and creating an association similar to a condominium association.
Kelly Sheehan: Yeah, but it's not lakeshore property though. Their lots aren't lakeshore property.
Feik: ...to this parcel. You would have to buy into this condominium association of sorts.
Kelly Sheehan: Okay, so then I'm voicing my disapproval that they have 9 docks there when they only
have 4, actually 5 lakeshore lots.
Claybaugh: But they do have a number of riparian lots that do have dock rights.
Kelly Sheehan: Have what? Lake bearing lots?
Blackowiak: Riparian. Lake lots.
Kelly Sheehan: Where are they?
Blackowiak: Well they could be is the issue. 5 through 8 could be.
Claybaugh: 5 through 8, and through the association they're basically pooling that ability.
Kelly Sheehan: Yeah, so they've got, we've got 4 lake lots and you're saying that they've got 9 docks
down with 4 lake lots.
Blackowiak: Correct.
Kelly Sheehan: So how does that compute? My math doesn't compute. I mean you've got 9 docks,
you've got 4 lots.
Blackowiak: Okay Sharmin, would you go through the math on that please.
Kelly Sheehan: No, I understand the math but what I'm saying is you've got 4 lots, lake lots. These
people aren't on the lake.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Blackowiak: They don't have 9 docks. There are 9 slips.
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Kelly Sheehan: It's kind of the same thing. You've got 9 boats out there.
Feik: They're assembling a private association for access to the.
Kelly Sheehan: All that is is a play on words. I mean it's.
Feik: I'm sure from a homeowners association they will need is for the cost, maintenance and repair, dock
installation, insurance, what have you. They're essentially taking and creating much like a condominium
association of sorts with.
Kelly Sheehan: This isn't a condominium here.
Blackowiak: No.
Feik: With the rights.
Kelly Sheehan: These are private homes and they don't have.
Feik: But what I'm trying to explain is, it's similar to a condominium association with the only right that
that condominium association has is to dock. And of course the access to the dock or the beachlot.
Kelly Sheehan: So they've got, you're saying they get 9 boat slips, which to me is 9 docks, for 4 homes?
Feik: Potentially.
Blackowiak: Let's bring this back to staff. Okay, Sharmin can you help us out here? Or Lori. Okay,
thank you Lori. Now are there going to be physically 9 docks?
Haak: They are proposing, what they've shown us here.
Blackowiak: Okay, let's walk us through that please.
Haak: Is one dock.
Blackowiak: Okay, one dock.
Haak: Here they have shown, I believe it's still 10 in this plan. We've told them that that doesn't fly.
That it is 9 slips. I believe where the confusion is coming in is that city ordinance allows an association to
have, or a development to propose a beachlot. Under a conditional use permit to govern the types of
activities that can go on on that lot. So the association would have exactly right Bruce, all the maintenance
responsibilities for the beachlot. These 4 lots, Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 would not be riparian lots. They do not
have direct lake access. There is about 100 feet between their rear property line and the ordinary high
water level of the lake. So they could not extend docks in that area. They are not riparian. They have,
21
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
they belong to the association but they do not have dock rights absolutely intrinsic to their property. Those
are determined by the homeowners association that manages the beachlot. So if the association, for
whatever reason decides that these 9 slips are going to Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, Lots 1 and 2 here, that gives us 6,
and 3 of the lots here, Lot 8 would not have a slip, and it would not have that right. And that is up to the
association and the developer.
Blackowiak: Okay. Conversely, let's say that Lots 5 through 8 became lake lots. Okay, what could each
of those lots have? What is the alternative?
Haak: Each of those lots could have 1 private dock for up to 3 watercraft.
Blackowiak: Right. So instead of 1 dock with spaces for 9 boats, we could have 4 docks with each space
up to 3 boats.
Haak: Correct.
Blackowiak: Correct, okay. Thank you. So I hope that clarifies a little bit.
Kelly Sheehan: The response to that though is, how many homeowners are going to have 3 boats?
Audience: A lot of people do.
Kelly Sheehan: Not that I've seen.
Blackowiak: I don't know. I guess 3 watercraft, and I shouldn't say boats necessarily. I think she was
defining it as potentially motorboat, jet ski, sailboat. That would be 3 watercraft, so up to 3 watercraft per
dock potentially.
Kelly Sheehan: So then I own the easement that goes down to the lake, so what's keeping I and my
neighbor Bob Christiansen from going down to the lake and putting a dock down there? I own that road
that goes to the lake. I mean why can't we do that?
Blackowiak: So you're talking personally?
Kelly Sheehan: Personally I own that road that the city uses. I pay taxes on it.
Blackowiak: I'm not sure about that. That sounds like you need to sit down with city staff, Lori or
Sharmin or something and talk about your particular situation, yeah.
Kelly Sheehan: I will do that. I will call them up. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Steve Hall: My name is Steve Hall. I live at 6221 Arbor Lane which on this map, the back of my
property...look out this way. I have an observation to make. There's a difference in these 2 maps where
here we have water. On this one they have the water over here. I'm not saying there's a discrepancy.
Probably either is correct. But I'd like to point out, I guess I would ask, it's obvious that all the agencies,
the personnel involved are concerned with wetlands. We talk about buffer replacement areas, whatever,
22
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
and Commissioner Slagle mentions what's the future enforcement for issues involving the wetlands. Can I
point out that in the past there's not only no enforcement, there's not even any awareness or observation.
This area here or here on this map is presently a fairly active motocross area with bikers, off-road bikers
going through there summer evenings. If it becomes annoying at 9:00 or 9:30 at night, I don't know how
they see in the dark but I guess they develop good night vision, my wife and I just close our windows
because they're having their fun, but I wouldn't have known that there was anything there as far as
wilderness or wildlife or water to be observed because no one seems to be aware of that. We don't make
phone calls regarding it because we can close our windows. And if one, if whatever commissioner was
mentioning looking there you'll see trees that either have been felled by man or redirected and are
positioned by man so that they provide challenging barriers for the bikes to leap over. It's quite an
elaborate area of trails there. You'll see mud paths, whatever so when I hear about concerns for the
wetland or wildlife, did that begin a couple weeks ago? Will it go away a couple weeks from now? It
almost doesn't seem to the real world. The real world is, there's an active area where outdoor enthusiasts
have plenty of fun there now. In the winter there are snowmobilers going through there but obviously with
the snow and the ice, that doesn't impact the land the same way and I think a lot of the wildlife is
hibernating at that time. But whoever's going there to observe, please look at that active area. I'm sure I
would prefer to see the back yards proposed here than the motocross track that goes often times on
Saturday and Sunday afternoons with the enthusiasts, evenings as I mentioned until a fairly late hour, and
I'm not even objecting to that. It's just that going on, no one being aware of it or observing it or giving a
toot about it, seems to fly in the face of words about the concerns about the trees and how they'll do after
we're all passed away. So thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Rich Friedman: Good evening. My name is Rich Friedman. I don't live on the plat here. I'm at 3601 Red
Cedar Point. It's on the end of the point that kind of bisects the lake over by Camp Tanadoona. I guess I
have some other concerns, and I appreciate the opportunity to express my concern along with my wife's for
the proposed Boyer Building project adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. As stated by the Minnetonka
Department of Natural Resources, water resources are one of the most valuable assets of Minnesota.
These natural resources along with the rest of our natural environment provide many benefits to people and
wildlife. You might imagine how the proposed building project, adding yet another neighborhood
association to the numerous associations.., pyramid money making scheme, how do you maximize the value
of a marshy, natural wetland stretch of shoreland? The answer is build 11 huge homes. Wipe out the
natural vegetation. Replace wetland basins with array of room ponds. Clear a beach and add a 98 foot
dock for 10 or more boats to race around this natural area of the lake. Behold 11 new homes now have a
new lake access in an area so marshy that it has stayed natural up to this time, but money talks. In fact
somebody already mentioned it. Expensive homes pay a lot more taxes than vacant lands, cattails or
wetlands. Regardless of the assurances made by the developers of their intent to maintain the natural
habitat, the history does not bear out these promises. The Durr project was not presented as one that would
destroy the natural shoreline. And habitat, but the reality is quite different. As it would be hard to find a
more pristine area on the lake today. The DNR suggest that citizens become active participants in
providing, in protecting our natural resources. They say as a habitat for birds, animals and plants, it's
important to protect and preserve our wetlands. Vegetation is part of the aesthetic and ecological value of
shoreland property. The natural vegetation gives you the clues about the suitability of intended use. If you
want a sandy beach, look for a lot that has one. That's what they said. Has anyone ever studied the lake
capacity? Is there a people/lakeshore ratio? How many motorized boats allowed before the water is
affected? And did the milfoil really drop from the sky? While the city and the region has created a regional
park and added Roundhouse public park, has the city added additional financial support to aid in the fight
23
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
against milfoil? And just how many more homes in the million dollar range do we need in the Chanhassen
area? Can we really believe that the fish, fowl and wildlife in this area will not be affected by more
development? Is Chanhassen trying to become another Celebration, Florida filled with manicured lawns,
replacing natural habitat. Groomed ponds replacing wetlands, and over development causing wildlife to
flee and destroying the natural environment we all cherish. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Bob Wertz: My name's Bob Wertz. I live at 6230 Arbor Lane. Steve Hall's my neighbor across to the
east. I've been here about 2 years. Lived here many, many years ago and I can go back to 1963 when you
had people like.., and Art Stockwell that served on the same commission. I don't think any of you are old
enough to have been their contemporaries. As I looked at purchasing this lot 2 years ago I visited with
Sharmin and some of the other people here at the government center and asking questions about the
property and lakeshore because I've been involved in the use of what to me was important as Outlot
number 1 in Boyer's Sterling Estates. This development was developed many years ago, and surprisingly
if you go back to your minutes of your commission going back as early as 1963, they labored very, very
long and very, very vehemently arguing the same thing you're talking about tonight. What are the
restrictions? Who's in control? Who's going to make the decisions? I will assure you that your
responsibility comes back to you because it is not the association, as I know it, nor the developer as I know
it who calls the shots in regard to these outlots. In fact the document that would apply in this case to
Boyer's Sterling Estates has been recorded and you specifically will find in the documentation that whereas
the use of easement for this premise became subject in terms of conditions set forth in a non-conforming
use permit, and I'm sure Sharmin can tell us what this is all about. And was recorded September 7, 1993,
Document Number 154734. The limitation on the outlot in Boyer Sterling Estates is 1 dock, 2 boats, 1
swimming beach. It may have been amended but this is documentation I have. That is for 16 property
owners. We are limited to no more than 2 boats overnight, and you're looking at 8 lots with a total of 24
motorcrafl? We can have 2 out there and we're 16 owners. There's 6 people on the lake so you can say
well, 10 are offshore and those are the people who really have to fight for those extra spots. We are in a
different situation. Our association has taken the bull by the horns, and we have a rotation basis bringing
boats in, putting them back in. You might want to consider that. The second question is in this case that I
would like to ask is, who owns the outlot? Since you have responsibility, are you going to call the shots
and took the photos out there. I'm a bit confused because I thought I owned it. In fact I have the
documentation that says that I own Outlot Number 1. But in 1999 that outlot was sold. Now if you have a
responsibility and you call the shots and you give us the quotas, how can we have an outlot sold? Thank
you.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Bill Coldwell: Hello. My name's Bill Coldwell. I live at 3501 Shore Drive. I'm familiar with this
property because one of your laborer's, Estaos and my son used to be good friends and would run around
on that property and it's a very nice piece of property. I just have a couple comments. One is, I do support
the idea of a common boat area. You can debate whether 12 boats or 18 boats or 24 is the right number
but I think one of the beauties of having a lake is for a lot of people to enjoy and I think not having single
lots with big houses, lakeshore lots, even though I'm a lakeshore owner, fortunate enough to be one, I think
I can speak for the Durr properties. It smacks of elitism and those kind of huge houses and that kind of
environment does not, doesn't fit with the rest of the lake. Everybody may be tearing down double 40 foot
lots in Minnetonka and building mansions but it doesn't fit with what Minnewashta has for the most
become over the years. And trust me, I've got a 50 year old house and it's nowhere near being a tear down,
24
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
and it's not going to be for a long time. So I support that because I think it lets a lot of people use the lake.
One comment I had, somebody talked about value and I think value is in the eyes of the beholder. I don't
think that building big, huge houses next to 50 year old, 2,500 homes increases the value of those 2,500
square foot homes necessarily. I think it just, it doesn't fit. And that follows on my last comment. I hope
you've read Sarah Susankas, The Not So Big House, and you're familiar with those. One thing I haven't
seen anything tonight is what these proposed houses are going to look like. How big they are, and I just
encourage you to be sensitive to the rest of the lake and what's happening and let's face it, I mean those
Durr Homes are right on top of each other, neck to neck. For me, a million bucks would be a lot better
spent on a 3,500 square foot house with a nice lot and some green buffer around it and I hope you'll
consider doing something in the honor of like Kyle Hunt is going with his Cottagewood homes and
something a little bit more right sized for those lots. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
John Getsch: My name is John Getsch and I have property at 7500 Dogwood Road, just down on the
southeast side of the lake. The issue of outlots has come up before on the lake, and it's a lot of concern
people that have property on the lake and the use of the outlots. There's several over on the west side that
are, I consider abuse their right to use the lake. Parking motor homes, holding parties down there. I don't
know how many boats they're entitled to have there but they keep bringing more and more in and then with
personal watercraft coming in, they consider those freebies. The issue here is, you've got 9, supposedly 9
slips with this outlot. And somebody mentioned something about putting in canoes. Not being able to put
in, having a canoe rack but then saying we're not supposed, you're not allowed to launch boats, does a
canoe fit in that equation or not? Then the next thing is, if it's canoes, what about personal watercrafts?
There's a lot of homes already abusing that on the lake where they have 2, 3 personal watercrafts, pontoon
boat, row boat, canoe, all on one lot. If you're going to, you know are you going to enforce it here and not
there? The next issue that I see as a problem with the way this is laid out is, one. The taxation. You've
got land. You're separating the value of the lakeshore from the lot. It's being put in an association. Is the
association going to pay the equivalent tax of what that's worth to those homeowners? In other words, are
you taking the value away from the tax base? Putting it some place where it can't be taxed. It's a big
issue. And to me it's almost like gerrymandering. Come along and well that was easy, we'll just put this in
an easement. We'll strip it off and those homes don't have lake rights so they can't be taxed that way, but
in essence they do. You're going to see a path coming off the back of all those going right down, all 4 of
those homes are going to have paths coming off the back of them going right down to that thing. They're
not going to walk out the front of their house, out to the cul-de-sac, down a path around a circle. They're
not going to go that way. They're going to walk right down there. And so in essence you're just creating a
legal way to get around it. And you're going to have people starting to haul stuff up through the wetlands,
so it's just a, I think it's, the way that that's laid out, it doesn't make any sense to strip. If you want to
have an outlot, make it come right down here. Give them what they can have for that, but this has to stay
with those lots because otherwise you're just gerrymandering. Why not just take a 50 foot wide strip along
there, so those are my comments. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Mark Olsen: Hello. My name's Mark Olsen and I live at 2961 Washta Bay Road. In the plan here I own
this entire lot from here on down. My house sits right here. There is a, this piece, as you get in closer, is a
driveway to my house. The couple questions I have, I'm not opposed to this development as long as I
would suggest that they keep current architectural guidelines consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
This plan does not address how my driveway ties in with this particular cul-de-sac arrangement. Right now
25
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
this is my driveway, which is an easement from the Boyer's and I provide an easement from the Boyer's
from here on in to an out building that they have here. There is also overhead power lines that feed my
house up this drive, which I don't know what the ramifications of this development will have on that if they
direct bury it. How that service would still be directed into my house. Thirdly, this outlot number 4, would
this particular driveway be joint use or joint access for other people? My observation would be is that
people from these lots would tend to utilize this to get down to the lake. And one other area that I'm
concerned about, I really don't, from my perspective, I have a dock out here. To see a 9 or 10 dock
arrangement stuck out there is cluttering and I would prefer to see something consideration done to an
individual docks off each lot out there with maybe a community dock out here for the other homes.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Sue Fiedler: My name is Sue Fiedler and I live at 3121 Dartmouth Drive which is just 2 houses in from
just west of the entrance, and my concern is simple but I need to know if there's any plans to widen
Dartmouth Drive. I think someone said it's 50 feet right now and I feel that's probably going to be
crowded with the heavy equipment, and I'm not recommending that it be widened. And I'm wondering
also, if that road is damaged from the heavy equipment, are we responsible as homeowners, the people who
live along here, or is that something that the Boyer's will absorb the cost? And in looking at this, I'm
assuming that this Lot 4, that emergency equipment can get down there and turn around and get to that
house. I would assume that's been considered because I know previously that was an issue in here,
whether a fire truck can be able to get in there and turn around, and that looks crowded for that lot there.
Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Matt or Max, can you talk about equipment damage on a road? Who's normally
responsible if something like that happens during construction?
Sweidan: ... responsible for it, but if there is any damage due to their equipment, to abuse the road, they
are going to be responsible to it. But this is a public street so the city's responsible for it.
Blackowiak: Okay, and so what does it mean, you say the city's responsible. So it has to be repaired, the
city would repair it? Are costs passed along to adjoining property owners? Benefiting property owners?
How does that happen?
Sweidan: Let's say whenever they are tying with the streets together, that they did the damage let's say
beyond that they have to repair it due to their construction or tie in, but overall it's a public street and it's
the city responsibility. They would not be responsible.., of anything. And the widening, regarding the
widening or the you know, increase the width of the street or right-of-way, no. There is no plan for
increasing the width of the street.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Jim Ginther: Good evening. My name is Jim Ginther and I reside at 3611 Ironwood Road, which is some
of the older homes that came out of the Durr Development when they closed off 7. And a couple comments
I have. Mostly mine is around lake usage and the activity on the lake and having grown up there since
1970, now living on that lake, I've had the opportunity to see how that has grown, and I guess one thing I
want to state is, I have just a general concern and the idea of creating additional outlots on the lake. Kind
of to Rich's comments earlier, I see this one and I see potentially it looks like maybe another one down the
road off Camp Tanadoona, and my concern is that we're just basically creating additional lake activity out
26
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
there, which is already with young children getting a little bit scary, especially with the personal watercraft
that are out there. And we take a look at the numbers. While they say lots are allowed to have 3 boats, I
guess I question which is true, and I have 3 boats and I have a lot, but I'm not using all 3 at one time. And
I think usage on the lake is defined as when you're using them, not necessarily when they're sitting at the
dock, and a concern here is that there's 4 homes with 3 boats. Maybe there's 4 people using the boats on
the lake at a given time versus 9 so you're more than...the usage and that's just a concern I want to state.
So usage I think is a little bit different than storage. I also would like for clarification purposes, understand
Lot 4's access to the lake and it doesn't show a dock here, but for the record can we state, do they have a
right and is there going to be a dock that's built there? I also from a standpoint of shoreline preservation
understand, the other part I liked about it is, and I guess I have to go with change of times but that's always
been a nice piece of property to look and not have to see it all developed. Again living right next to the
Durr lots, that lakeshore was drastically changed versus what was originally proposed and they basically
demolished the entire lakeshore, and refit that and it looks great on the paper as far as that piece but I know
that there are some mature trees right along the shoreline and I'd just like to understand, if that's considered
wetland, does that mean that those trees are untouchable and they'll remain there. And if so, I question the
views from Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8, and will those trees remain? There maybe will be potential issues there and
will we see those trees removed in the future? That's all I have to say, thanks.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Staff, could you comment on Lot 4 dock rights? Even though the dock is not
shown on the plans, they do have the right to a dock there, correct? As proposed.
Haak: That is correct. It is actually shown on one of the plan sheets so they are proposing it.
Blackowiak: Okay, but not on the color rendering.
Haak: No.
A question was asked from the audience which was not picked up by the microphone.
Debbie Lloyd: Hello. My name's Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive, and I live in an association
on Lotus Lake. So I'm somewhat familiar with associations and beach rights and all that. My issue is
more with the 50 foot right-of-way. When you've got a 50 foot right-of-way, you're giving in essence the
builder I believe, I could be wrong, an additional 10 feet. And I'd like to know if by giving them an
additional 10 feet along all these drives if in essence you're making a lot buildable which otherwise
wouldn't be in terms of the setback. Because you are dealing with wetland setbacks as well. And the other
point I'd like to make is, in the staff report I did not see any variance justifications. Typically there are
conditions that you must work through and for both variances, both on the street and on the 60 by 60 1 did
not see that indicated. So I'd like you to go through that process as well. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Sharmin, could you speak to the first issue regarding the 50 foot versus 60 foot.
And whether or not the homes would meet, if there was 60 foot, would they still meet the requirements we
have?
A1-Jaff: Absolutely. If you look at page 13. 12 and 13 of your staff report. That indicates the lot depth
on those parcels. Typically we require, or by ordinance we require 125 feet, and these parcels range, I
mean there are some in the 300's, 250's. In fact the shortest that I can find on this table is 156, and that is
for Lot 2 of Block 2. 30 foot front yard setback. 30 foot rear yard setback. There is plenty of room for
that house pad.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Blackowiak: So in essence that there's no advantage to the developer at this point in time of getting the 50
foot right-of-way versus 60 foot?
A1-Jaff: No.
Blackowiak: Not creating any additional buildable lots based on the change.
A1-Jaff: No.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Sacchet: May I question that?
Blackowiak: Sure.
Sacchet: If you look specifically at Lot 2, Block 2, it's really the setback from the cul-de-sac that
determines where the house, building pad will locate and I'm not sure whether I'm reading this correctly. If
the land towards Highway 7 to the north. Is there really an additional 10 feet that it could move that
building pad? ... Sharmin if you don't mind. Because there's a lot of... and I'm not sure which ones go
with which...
A1-Jaff: ... referring to and the setback is from this right-of-way. Now the city is not granting a variance to
the 60 foot radius. That.
Sacchet: So that is actually 60? Okay. That answers my question.
A1-Jaff: That has to maintain a 60 foot radius.
Sacchet: Excellent, thank you.
A1-Jaff: This is the 50 foot right-of-way.
Sacchet: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
A1-Jaff: The second one was variance findings.
Blackowiak: Ah yes. I guess that was a question too.
A1-Jaff: On page 22.
Blackowiak: So you've got the 3 findings but normally you go through the 6 steps or.
A1-Jaff: These are subdivision variances. They are not zoning ordinance variances. It's a different criteria
than that.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Blackowiak: You don't have to go through the steps.
A1-Jaff: No.
Blackowiak: In this. In the subdivision variance.
A1-Jaff: Correct. You only, you're only looking at those 4 findings rather than the zoning variance finding.
They're two separate types of findings.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Okay, is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this issue? Okay, seeing
no one I will let Mr. Boyer come up and if you'd like to take just a couple minutes to highlight some of the
comments or to respond to a couple of the comments, you certainly may.
Bob Boyer: Thank you. Really there's only a couple of comments I have relative to some of the concerns
some of the neighbors have. The first one has to do with the lot offWashta Bay Road. I think the first
gentleman came up here, I forgot his name. At any rate, his concern was that there was a proximity from
his house to the lot behind him. And again, I think what needs to be remembered and understood is that this
is a lot pad. In other words it's the location where the lot, where the buildable area on the lot is going to be.
It doesn't necessarily we're going to fill the pad up with a house. But it means those are the borders with
which the house could be built. So it's unlikely that on his easterly side of that Lot 1 that there'd be an
entire wall of house right up against the lot, buildable lot area. More than likely it might be a garage with
just filling a portion of that so at any rate I think his concern about having some bleak wall that believe me
fills that lot area is probably not going to happen. And also we're certainly willing to be good neighbors
and if going together with him on some kind of plantings along there to mitigate the sound, I'm sure we're
willing to do that. The other issues regarding Sterling Estates. I think a number of people brought up
issues about Sterling Estates, the dockage issues there which is, has nothing to do with this development
whatsoever. It just so happens it was the same developer. My father developed those back 35 years ago
and the ordinances and things that have occurred since then regarding lake usage and lake lots have
changed since then so what may have been doable back 35 years ago, absolutely is not doable today. So
the opportunity for the use of that access that was provided has been taken away and not by Boyer. It was
taken away by the City. So if people are upset about that they should contact the city, but not complain
about us to us. Then when it comes to dockage on this property I just want to make sure there's clarity as
to what we're asking for. And the reason why we're asking for it. Lot 4, we are requesting that that lot, it
does have a 90 foot frontage. We are asking that that lot would have it's own dock. On the westerly side
we are requesting 10 docks on that side. The reason for that is we would, you know the whole idea of
grouping the docks together here was to eliminate this sense of caste system where you have the people on
the lake that have everything and the people off the lake have nothing, and I think you can go around the
lake and see a number of communities that are like that. We wanted to avoid that and the reason we
grouped the docks on the beachlot was two-fold. One is to preserve the lakeshore, for one. But also to
allow the people in the back an opportunity to have a boat, if they want to. We don't want to leave
someone out. What that basically is saying is, someone's going to be left out. Now, in our calculations we
think 10 lots or 10 docks fit the requirements of the city code. City ordinance. And essentially it's this. If
you measure from the far westerly end, over to the edge of this lot, you'll come to 667 feet shoreland.
According to the city ordinance the lot has to have at least 200 feet of frontage in order to be allowed as a
dock lot. Once it exceeds that 200 feet, what we did was we divided the number of boats by the feet per
boat. In other words, if you take 10 boats times the 667, you end up with 1 boat for every 66 feet. And if
you divide, or multiply that by 10 you come up to, what 666 feet, right? So in our minds, it fits. We're not
29
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
further encumbering the property with 10 lots, or 10 boats. We're using the exact number of boats per foot
that is recommended by the ordinance. So we really think it's important to be able to get those 10 docks.
Again, I think those are the only two issues that we needed to address. The planners really did a good job
of addressing the other issues. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Audience: Just one clarification. You say lake front...can have 200 feet of lake front has a dock, or did I
misunderstand you?
Bob Boyer: No. According to the beachfront issue, a beachlot has to have 200 feet of frontage in order to
be considered a beachlot. And then once it has 200 feet, you can put 3 boats on that beachlot. Then every
additional 200 feet you can put 3 more boats.
Audience: 3 boats but not 3 docks, is that correct?
Bob Boyer: 3 boats, yeah. Right.
Audience: ...just west of that channel is not 200 feet.
Bob Boyer: Over here you mean?
Audience: Yes.
Bob Boyer: That's basically 667 feet.
Audience: For Lot 4. So none of them are 200...
Bob Boyer: Right. Each of them could have their own dock.
Blackowiak: Okay, excuse me. We're getting into like another issue. Sharmin, do you want to clarify that
again.
A1-Jaff: Individual lots, riparian lots have to have a minimum of 90 foot frontage. Beachlot.
Blackowiak: In order to get a dock for that property, 90 feet. Correct.
A1-Jaff: And to meet riparian lot standards today.
Blackowiak: Yes.
A1-Jaff: Beachlots have to have a minimum of 200 foot lake frontage.
Blackowiak: And for each 200 feet, if they had 200 feet they can have.
A1-Jaff: One dock with 3 watercraft.
Blackowiak: One dock with 3 watercrafts.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
A1-Jaff: Or boat slips.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Okay, with that I'm going to close the public hearing. Comments. Rich,
would you like to.
Slagle: I can start.
Blackowiak: Go right ahead.
Slagle: First, and I've just got this down in no order of importance but the Shorewood vote, just a question
of why were we first? And maybe there's a valid reason versus Shorewood going first.
A1-Jaff: The majority of the site is in Chanhassen.
Slagle: Fair enough. Talking about the outlot, and I don't remember the gentleman's name who raised the
question about outlots and who pays for them and how they're administered and is there value to the city
from a tax base. Is there not? All I can tell this commission is this, when I lived in Woodbury I was Vice
President and President for 2 years as a leader of an association, homeowners association of 400 and some
homes, and I can tell you no matter how much the association wants to enforce things, nothing short of
going to court, it's difficult to get all members to adhere to things so please, from my experience, when the
issue of homeowner associations are brought up, they are not as you know solid in keeping track, in
keeping their members in order. The beach outlot, I'm going to ask this question to Sharmin. What would
happen ifI raised this question, ponder it for a sec, what if Lots 8, 7, 6 and 5 all got their docks? Okay.
There was no beachlot, okay. And Lot 4 got their dock. Is there, could that decision be voted on by this
commission? In other words, can that result based upon what we're looking at voting on, or denying, can
that be an end result within our call it rights or what have you? And I'm just saying, whether the applicant
is in agreement now or could be or wouldn't be in the future, can we get to that point as a voting body?
Because a gentleman raised the question about taxes and I'll tell you, if Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 were considered
lakefront, they would pay more taxes, and if they're not, then they have to get a special permit to have a
dock. And they have to apply for that permit, if I understand things right because they're crossing a
wetland. Okay.
A1-Jaff: If you look at page 2 of your staff report, under city discretion for conditional uses. Basically
what it says is, look at the applicable conditional use permit standards and are they being met. If they are
met, then we have to approve, then we recommend approval of the conditional use permit. And in this case,
based upon our findings, the conditional use standards are being met for a beachlot. And I know that didn't
answer your question, would you.
Slagle: Well it did in a way but I mean there's other issues that we're also in essence going to vote on that
require approval.
A1-Jaff: Absolutely.
Slagle: Okay. Let's see here. The other thing is about the soil sampling, and this is, I'm using this
because this is what's in front of us but going forward, when I hear that soil samples and what not are
really done at the time of final, the building permit, I would, I'm just asking you and asking engineering for
future, we are in essence being asked to approve a subdivision and we're not even sure what it's going to
31
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
take to build those homes. And I'm just wondering if in the future we can have some type of a discussion
because I'm surprised there hasn't been soil sampling taken on some of those lots to be honest with you.
So I'm just asking more for the future, and that's it. Right now, I'll just share with my commissioners, I'm
doubtful on this. Just to be honest with you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, comments.
Sacchet: Yeah. I, unfortunately have to support Commissioner Slagle's notion that neighborhood
associations aren't a very convincing institution from my experience. I do share his concern about the soil
sampling. About the viability. I think I expressed that in my questions. However, and I don't know
whether I'm not taking enough into this, at least on the surface this proposal looks pretty good. To address
some of the concerns that came up, the responsibility of us as a commission, Planning Commission is to
evaluate does this meet our city ordinances and our code. And in terms of our code and ordinances, it does
meet pretty well. As a matter of fact, the lots are pretty spacious in comparison with what could be done
based on the zoning of that place. I do believe that there is a reasonable trade-off being made by having
one beachlot versus making 4, or possibly 5 riparian lots. Now can that be enforced? I'm a little uneasy
about that to be honest with you. If it can, I think it's very sensitive to the environment. We're preserving
that stretch of beach that is wetland. Not only do we preserve, we actually put a preservation easement on
it. I think that's a good value. In terms of the taxing aspect, I'm not a tax expert but I would think that the
value of that lake access will have to be reflected in the value of these lots that beach access is associated
with. Yes we won't have 4 riparian lots which would be very high value, but we have what is it? 10, 11
lots that are going to all of them get a kick in value. So I would assume, and again I might be naive, that in
terms of taxes that it's becoming somewhat balanced. Having 9 slots, or whatever we call it on 1 dock, to
me is much preferable to potentially 12 or 15. To have those 9 slots in one spot seems much more sensitive
to the environment than having 4 or 5 going through a wetland. I mean we're talking a very sensitive
environment there. So it's a trade-off, but I think the trade-off is actually relatively well balanced. In
terms of the way the applicant presents their case, I mean if we don't trust people we can't work together,
and the applicant definitely made a clear statement that they're trying to be sensitive to the environment as
far as possible. Now, it's difficult. I mean can we really trust them? We don't have a choice. They're
meeting code. They're meeting the zoning code. They're meeting the ordinances. So we'd better trust
them and build up some good will and work together. That's where I'm at with that. In terms of some of
the specific concerns of the neighbors, I do think the one neighbor, Mr. Olsen has a concern that's very
valid about his driveway. With how that's going to work out. The other gentleman right to the east I think
has a very valid concern in terms of buffering, and I believe the applicant has expressed a willingness to
work with that. Now is he going to do it? I hope so. Can we enforce it? Probably not. In terms of the
variances, I do believe the variances are reasonable because they're all for the benefit of making this more
sensitive to the environment so I think from our end as a Planning Commission, I feel very hard pressed to
oppose this. Wouldn't it be better to just have nature and space for the deer and the ducks and all that? I'd
love that too, but that's a little too idealistic. So that's my comment.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn.
Sidney: When I first looked at this application I thought well, this really has had a lot of thought put into
it. It looks like a lot of work has been put into this application. And today, well tonight we heard several
points brought up about how things could be changed and wouldn't that be better. I guess I agree with my
previous speaker Uli in that really this is a very well developed application that's before us. A number of
variances have been requested, such as the 9 percent right-of-way grade and in that case we're seeing some
preservation of trees. Also we have a 50 foot right-of-way which helps a bit in bringing the houses more
32
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
toward the street again to preserve trees. And also a variance for a 50 by 80 house pad which seems to fit
the topography better than a 60 by 60. So there's been a lot of work between the applicant and staff on this
application I believe. Like Commissioner Sacchet said, I think the buffer issues and easement issues that is
for the trees to the east side of the property line and that house, and the easement for the driveway need to
be addressed. But I believe this really is a well thought out proposal. I do appreciate the beachlot idea. I
think it really compacts the usage into one area. You have more natural shoreline that's going to be
available to everyone. I do support that idea. I do have reservations about homeowners associations and
what I would like to see the commission do is attach more conditions to the conditional use permit so that
really what we have before us tonight in the conditional use permit is part of what the homeowners would
receive when they purchase their property in this area. I guess one other thought here, and I'll probably
think of some other things along the way is that the staff might contact Shorewood to understand how or to
what level they might approve this application. So at least for now those are my comments.
Blackowiak: Thanks, Bruce.
Feik: Generally I agree with much of what Uli in particular said tonight. As it relates to the soils though,
it's my understanding that the building developer, once something is platted has the responsibility to make
sure that the soils underneath a particular are sound, which means he can rip out as much as he needs to
and bring in corrected soils. Do compactions. Do whatever. So whether or not a lot is buildable is really
none of this body's concerns. It's really the concern of when they pull the permit and when they go through
...of that and to make sure that that is indeed a buildable lot. As long as they are not, and correct me if I'm
wrong. I'm framing this as a statement but it's really a question. If they find for example that Lot 4, Block
2 is suspect, so long as they are not impacting the wetlands and other areas which are out of bounds with
the various reserve areas, preserve areas, wetland mitigation or whatever, they can excavate to the depth
necessary.
A1-Jaff: That's correct. To correct the soils.
Feik: And bringing in corrected soils from another project which they may have additional soils left over
from. And that's normal course of building a house, is it not?
A1-Jaff: Yes it is.
Feik: So that being said, I guess I don't have any concern with the soils. My real concern is with the
outlot. We've had a lot of discussion the last few months about outlots, and I guess my questions are the
long term definition as posed by one of the neighbors across the lake regarding who is going to own that
outlot?
A1-Jaff: The homeowners association.
Feik: It will be deeded in common to the homeowners association?
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Feik: And the homeowners association will pay applicable taxes on that outlot?
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Slagle: Can I throw one thing in here about associations?
Feik: Please.
Slagle: I believe that we would at least have the right to ask the applicant that they participate as a
shareholder or as a member of that association. Where I have been before, the actual applicant, developer
actually ran or was the majority owner and responsible to an escrow for a certain number of years. So one
thing that we might be able to do, just to ensure because of the sensitivity of the natural resources, is to say
hey. We want something in escrow over x number of years, 2 years, 3 years, so what happened further
down the lake doesn't happen again. And I'll leave that up to staff to work with but I think it's a protection
that maybe some of the citizens would feel comfortable with.
Feik: Well that dove tails back to something else... At what point will you see the association documents?
A1-Jaff: It would be part of the recording of the plat.
Feik: Of the plat?
A1-Jaff: And the conditional use, and it all goes together as one package.
Feik: Right. So I guess my concern is making sure that those association docs do encompass the concerns
that have been expressed and give the property owners within that association the rights and privileges they
deserve as well as guidance regarding what their limitations are. Other than that I think the applicant has
obviously been working with this parcel a good number of years, and I generally support it.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Craig, comments.
Claybaugh: Yeah, I had some comments here. I guess the first comment I'd like to make is that the plan
does seem well thought through, well conceived. Granted not everyone's going to agree with some of the
premises that are set forth but overall in general terms I'm impressed with the thought that's gone behind it.
I like the idea of distributing the lake benefits. However, I do assign a fair amount of weight to the uses
versus storage of watercrafts, which translates into the number of slips. Some of the concerns that are
brought up here this evening are broad in nature and are outside of the limited jurisdiction of the Planning
Commission. It's not that we're empathetic to it or don't hear it but it doesn't translate in us having
jurisdiction over some of those concerns. The lot size. The lot sizes are encouraging. I do have concerns, I
agree with Commissioner Feik with respect to the soil corrections. That that is an issue to be addressed
during, at the point of pulling permit for it. However I do take that into consideration when I look at that in
conjunction with wetland mitigation to access it and assign a certain degree of weight into the degree of
effort that's being set forth to make that a buildable lot. I don't know if it's appropriate at this point in
time to question the developer's math in terms of calculating the number of slips that are there, or if that's
something that we are just saddled with to vote one way or the other this evening.
A1-Jaff: The ordinance is very clear. It says for every 200 feet you have up to 3.
Claybaugh: I understand.
Blackowiak: So you can't take an increment of 200 feet and get 1 ?
34
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
A1-Jaff: No.
Blackowiak: Okay. So then it sounds like we're at 9.
Claybaugh: Okay, but coming back to the alternative that Lots 7, 8, or 5 through 8 and Lot 4 would have
to apply for wetland alteration permits or, as part of the shoreland management act, 10 foot egress out to
access that, that they would have the 3 boats. That's coming back to the argument that some of the
neighbors made versus usage versus storage of the watercraft. And I think there is some validity and some
weight that needs to be assigned to that. So is there any room for negotiation with respect to that to the
developer or is that just flat out what we.
Haak: That's actually both a state and a city requirement so that is prescribed in the DNR's rules. And it
clearly states that any areas such as this can have up to 3 docks, each containing up to 3 watercraft. So
we're held fairly close to the letter of the law on this one. I don't see that we have a whole lot of options.
Claybaugh: Okay. Alright, that's the extent of the questions I have. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any comments?
Lillehaug: Yes I do. First I'd say I'd like to, I'll be limiting my comments. I'd like to abstain from voting
on this due to my short time on the commission here, but I do have one comment here. I do agree with
Commissioner Claybaugh on the usage versus storage of the slips. It can be very subjective and we'll get
many different opinions from many different people, and that will be subjective. But I'd like to comment
on the right-of-way south of Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Block 2. To the south of the cul-de-sac, the throat of the
cul-de-sac there. There is that parcel of land that will be dedicated as public right-of-way, is that correct?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Lillehaug: So the maintenance of that parcel would be by the adjacent property owners? I guess that'd be
more of a statement that if that is dedicated as public right-of-way, that that will be required to be
maintained by the parcel owner to the south of that right-of-way, correct?
A1-Jaff: Typically that's what happens with right-of-way, yes.
Lillehaug: And then another comment I have is on the 60 foot radius of the right-of-way for that same cul-
de-sac, that does need to be shifted to the north to maintain that 60 foot right-of-way on the south property
line.
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Lillehaug: So will that still maintain a buildable lot size for Lot 2?
A1-Jaff: That will be the responsibility of the developer.
Lillehaug: Okay, and that would end my comments, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you very much. I have a few comments. Let's start out with the beachlots.
It's a huge issue. It's something I didn't even think about before I came tonight. Who owns the outlots?
35
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
It's an interesting question. Ownership is huge. Taxation, that's another issue. It's I guess not the
Planning Commission's area to look at taxation but I'm sure the council will have a discussion about that
when it comes to them as to whether beachlots versus actual direct access onto the lake makes more sense
for the city standpoint. One thing that I would like to ask I guess Sharmin, is there any way to assign a
share of ownership in a beachlot to properties? In other words, let's say each lot owns 1/11 share of that
beachlot. That outlot, as opposed to.
A1-Jaff: I can find out.
Blackowiak: Okay. It's just something that as the discussion was going on tonight, you know you don't
want a beachlot sold. You don't want something happening or the status changing when a person buys into
an area being told that they're going to have a beachlot, so I think that, and I guess I don't know if it could
happen or not but if each lot had a certain, an equal share, I think it would be difficult to change ownership
so that's just a comment. I was, it just kind of came to me this evening. Could be way out there, who
knows. Second, homeowner associations, enforcement is none by the city basically. The city, unless
there's some kind of a violation, the city will get involved. Otherwise it's the homeowners responsibility so
just so everybody understands that and they need to govern themselves. I think the general enforcement
issues are a problem with homeowner associations and just a lot of things in general you see around town
and you kind of go gee, we need to enforce this and it doesn't happen. And it might not be a huge issue but
for people who live by and are directly affected by those issues, it is huge. So that's something I do always
have a concern about when you talk about associations. Variances. Generally I support all 3. They make
sense to me. The 50 foot right-of-way. The street grade, and even the 50 by 80 house pad makes sense and
I think that I would support all those. Some of the concerns of the neighbors. Screening and trees. I think
those are very important. Specifically the lot directly to the east which I've got notes here, I believe was
Mr. Christian. I think the developer really needs to work with the neighbors and specifically those on the
east and kind of the southeast, to make sure that there's some screening done. The driveway issues, the
overhead power lines, those issues need to be resolved before this goes to council I would hope. That they
could sit down and talk about it. Tree calculations near Pond 3. I think it was brought up that there's
going to be some additional removal there that wasn't really reflected in the plan so I hope that before this
item goes to council that those are re-visited and we get accurate numbers. Yeah, especially near that pond
number 3. The second issue I would have would be tree removal on Lots 5 through 8. The developer was
talking about them being boxelders and cottonwoods down there. Granted they might not be the prettiest
but they are there right now and if he's talking about removing them, then we need to make sure that the
calculations reflect that potential. And you know you say you always look for worst case scenario, well
let's say worst case scenario they're taken out of there and let's make sure the calculations do in fact reflect
that. My major, I guess I don't know ifI tipped it off, my major problem is with the beachlot. I don't
know if that's the way to go for this or not. That being said, somebody else gets to make a motion so we'll
just leave it with that.
Feik: Well I'd be happy to make the motion.
Blackowiak: Go right ahead. Or several motions I should say.
Feik: I'll begin with the first one. I would move that the Planning Commission approve, that the approval
of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #02-6 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta for 11 lots and one beachlot
with variances for a 50 foot right-of-way width, a 9 percent right-of-way grade, and a 50 by 80 house pad
on Lot 4, Block 2 as shown on the plans received April 9, 2002, subject to the following conditions,
number 1 through 37. An additional item (h). 37. Lot 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 shall be custom graded.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Slagle: Block 17
Feik: Excuse me, thank you. Block 1 shall be custom graded. We might as well put in here Uli's removal
of the silt fence.
Sacchet: Thank you. I wasn't going to do it today.
Feik: Oh, I've got it in here a couple times for you. And I would be willing to accept any additional
changes or discuss any additional changes.
Sacchet: First I second it and then I would like to add some friendly amendments, or at least try. I would
like to put something in about those specific neighbor's concerns. I would like to suggest a condition 38
that Lot 1, Block 2 maintains some of that evergreen buffer towards the east property line.
Sidney: How about work with staff to establish a.
Sacchet: Work with staff to establish, okay.
Sidney: The appropriate buffer.
Sacchet: That's fine. Work with staff to establish a buffer on the east property line. And then I would like
to add another one, I guess that would be 39. And we could use the same wording. The applicant work
with staff to resolve the driveway issue to the Olsen property. And now I might be stretching it. There's
one more that I'd like to add. Should we accept them one at a time?
Blackowiak: Do you accept those 2 so far?
Feik: I would like to discuss number 1 if we could please.
Sacchet: Let's do that.
Feik: Only to the extent that it would be... phraseology. I would prefer to say either making or replace or
install regarding, not. I don't want to.
Sacchet: It sounds to me that's what there has to stay but there is.
Feik: No, we're fine. You're fine.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay. The intent is that there's something done to work with the neighbors to make this a
happy solution for everybody as much as possible.
Feik: Good so far.
Sacchet: Alright. Now the last one, and maybe that shouldn't be a condition. Maybe that should be a
comment to staff. I'd like to see staff researching the issue of the ownership of the beachlot before it gets
to council to be possibly, knowing what the possibilities are in that context. Actually that's not a condition.
That would be just a direction.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Blackowiak: A direction for staff, okay.
Sacchet: Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay. Been a motion and a second.
Sidney: One more friendly amendment?
Blackowiak: Oh, go ahead.
Sidney: Okay. I guess I would like to see as a condition 40.
Sacchet: We're up to 40, yep.
Sidney: Okay. That the applicant shall work with staff to determine the trail materials.
Feik: Appropriate trail materials.
Sidney: Right, before City Council.
Blackowiak: Okay, is that accepted? Okay. Okay, anybody else? Okay.
Feik moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary
plat for Subdivision/t02-6 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta for 11 lots and one beachlot with variances
for a 50 foot right-of-way width, a 9 percent right-of-way grade, and a 50 by 80 house pad on Lot 4,
Block 2 as shown on the plans received April 9, 2002, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall make a note on the landscaping plan that evergreens shall average 7 feet in
height with a 6 foot minimum.
2. Each lot shall have a minimum of one overstory deciduous tree planted in the front yard setback
area.
3. A presentation easement shall be dedicated over the westerly 400 feet of the beachlot and the
portion located west of Lot 4, Block 2, and east of the channel.
4. In lieu of land dedication and/or trail construction, full park and trail dedication fees should be
paid. These fees are to be paid at the rate in force upon final platting and/or building permit
application. The current rate is $1,500 per single family dwelling for parks and $500 per single
family dwelling for trails. One-third of all park and trail fees applicable to the entire plat are due
at the time of final platting. The remaining two-thirds are paid independently at the time of each
building permit application.
5. The easterly lot line of Lot 1, Block 2 shall be extended to the north eliminating the finger
extending to the east. The remnant parcel shall be deeded to the property to the east.
6. The subdivision shall comply with the following table:
38
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Home
Area Width Depth Setback
Ordinance 15,000 non-riparian 90' 125' 30' front/rear
20,000 riparian 10'sides
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 37,092 102' 345' 30'/30'
10'
Lot 2 36,621 96' 369' 30'/50'*
10'
Lot 3 47,972 77' on curve 329.5' 30'/50'*
10'
Lot 4 45,357 70' on curve 225' 30'/50'*
10'
Lot 5 37,978 53' on curve 304' 30'/30'/60**
**** 10'
Lot 6 21,467 68' on curve 220' 30'/30'/60**
10'
Lot 7 22,876 127' 215' 30'/30'/60**
10'
Lot 8 20,285 107' 229' 30'/30'/60**
/30'***/10'
BLOCK 2
Lot 1 18,929 68' on curve 220'
Lot 2 24,761 185' 156'
Lot 3 151,518
(Beach Lot)
Lot 4 78,394 riparian 84' on curve 670'
30'/30'
10'
30'/30'
10'
30'/75'/50"*
10'
The 50-foot setback includes a 10 foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40 foot
structure setback.
The 60-foot setback includes a 20 foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40 foot
structure setback.
The 30-foot bluff setback includes a 20-foot bluff impact zone.
The width of Lot 5, Block 1 must be adjusted to maintain 90 feet at the 30 foot setback
line.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
10.
11.
Fire Marshal Conditions:
An additional fire hydrant will be required at the intersection of Washta Bay Road and the
new proposed street.
A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around the fire hydrant, i.e. street lamps, trees,
bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection is required to be installed such protection shall be installed and made serviceable
prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire
Code Section 901-3.
No burning permits will be issued for trees that are removed. Trees or brush must be
either removed from site or chipped.
Submit street names to the Chanhassen Building Official and the Chanhassen Fire Marshal
for review and approval.
Submit cul-de-sac designs to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
review and approval.
On Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, additional address signs may be required at the driveway entrance
is address numbers on the house are not visible from the street. Contact the Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for additional information pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention Division Policy #29-1992.
The utility and drainage easement along the northerly property line of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, shall
be increased to 10 feet, as requested in the attached memo from Reliant Energy, Minnegasco.
Building Official Conditions:
a. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures.
Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
c. Provide a water service connection for Lot 8.
d. Permits are required for the roof drainage piping on Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8.
The lot width for Lot 5, Block 1 shall be adjusted to maintain 90 feet at the 30 foot setback line.
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation
Act (MR 8420).
40
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
12. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer edge.
13. All structure shall maintain a 75 foot setback from the OHW of Lake Minnewashta.
14.
The applicant shall obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed recreational beachlot and
shall obtain amendments to the CUP prior to any alterations to the beachlot.
15. The last catch basin prior to discharge into each pond shall be a sump catch basin.
16.
The applicant shall examine the slopes near the southwest comer of Lot 8, Block 1 and determine
whether or not they meet the City's criteria for a bluff(rise of 25 feet above the toe and a slope
averaging 30% or greater). If the slopes meet the bluff criteria, all structures shall maintain a 30
foot setback from the top, toe and sides of the bluff.
17. Easement types and locations shall be called out on the preliminary plat.
18.
An encroachment agreement for the trail on Lot 3, Block 2 shall be obtained prior to trail
construction.
19. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
20.
Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 10.65 acres, the water quality fees
associated with this project are $8,520; the water quantity fees are approximately $ 21,087. The
applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from
the site and adjacent areas. The current proposal appears to provide water quality treatment for
runoff from 4.1 acres on-site and 39.0 acres off-site. (These figures will be finalized upon final
review of the storm water calculations.) In addition, two outlet structures are proposed.
Preliminary calculations show a credit of $39,480 against total fees of $29,609. At this time, the
estimated total SWMP credit due to the applicant for the provision of ponding for off-site areas in
accordance with the SWMP is $9,871.
21.
The applicant must apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) and comply
with their conditions of approval.
22.
Approval of this application is contingent upon the City of Shorewood reviewing and approving
this application.
23. The existing driveway access off of Highway 7 shall be abandoned.
24. Lot 3, Block 2 shall be platted as an outlot.
25. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards.
26.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must
sign all plans.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
27.
Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The
storm water will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. All of the ponds are
required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Programs (NURP) standards. Drainage and
utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system
including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum
utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
28.
Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used around the grading perimeter of the site and that
Type III silt fence be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands. The silt fence shall be removed at
the completion of construction. A 75 foot minimum rock construction entrance must be added to
the entrance that will be accessed during construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-
site grading would require an easement from the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas
must be sodded or seeded and mulched within two weeks of grading completion.
29.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the
City's Building Department.
30.
Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest
editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the
form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the
conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be
obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District,
Carver County, etc.
31. Add all applicable 2002 City of Chanhassen Detail Plates to the plans.
32.
The proposed development will be required to meet the existing stormwater runoff rates for the 10
and 100 year, 24 hour storm events.
33.
Revise the plans to show the following for all of the public streets: a 28 foot back-to-back
pavement width, a 50 foot right-of-way and a 45.5 foot pavement radius for the cul-de-sac with a
60 foot right-of-way radius. Also, the applicant must provide a uniform transition from the
existing 22 foot wide pavement of Dartmouth Drive to a new 28 foot street section.
34.
Abandon the existing utility lines on the east side of the site, west of the proposed manhole
connection. Also, the existing house services shall be connected to the new utility lines.
35.
According to the City's Finance Department records, the underlying parcels on the east and west
sides were previously assessed for sanitary sewer and water. However, the underlying parcel in the
center of the site was not assessed for utilities. As such, the proposed homesite on Lot 4, Block 2
will be required to pay a sanitary sewer connection charge. The current 2002 lateral connection
charge for sanitary sewer is $4,335 per lot. Since the developer will be extending the lateral sewer
and watermains to the remaining lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be
waived. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will still be applicable for each of the new lots.
The 2002 trunk hookup charge is $1,383 for sanitary sewer and $1,802 for watermain.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
36. On the utility plan:
a. Add storm sewer schedule.
b. Show the proposed utilities sewer length and slope, and review type and class of sewer.
c. Revise sanitary service size from 4 inches to 6 inches.
d. Relocate the fire hydrant between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1.
e. Move trail out of watermain easement right-of-way at the north side.
f. Add a legend.
g. Revise watermain type to PVC class C-900.
h. No ponding allowed in public street right-of-way.
i. Add a concrete valley gutter to the east access.
j. Add and show cul-de-sac draintile.
k. Show size of storm sewer culverts on Lot 4 driveway.
1. Show all existing services.
m. Revise note on connecting to existing sanitary manhole to %onstruct outside drop structure on
existing manhole at Inv. 945".
37. On the grading plan:
a. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
b. Show the location of the 75-foot rock construction entrance.
c. Add a legend.
d. Revise Lot 1, Block 2 garage elevation.
e. Revise the pond high water level elevation.
f. Show Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 private driveway.
g. Private driveway slope is 10% maximum.
h. Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, Block 1 shall be custom graded.
38.
The applicant will work with staff to establish an appropriate buffer on the east property line
of Lot 1, Block 2.
39. The applicant shall work with staff to determine the appropriate trail materials.
40. The applicant work with staff to resolve the driveway issue to the Olsen property.
All voted in favor, except Slagle and Blackowiak who opposed. Lillehaug abstained. The motion
carried with a vote of 4-2-1.
Blackowiak: Okay Rich, your reason. Nothing to add?
Slagle: Simple very, very delicate piece of property and I mean my one year on this commission, this is
probably the most delicate area that I've looked at from a natural resource standpoint and I guess I'm just
wondering about the outlot and wondering if it's more applicable to have the 4 homes, or actually 5 lots
have their own docks and that would be something that comes in.
Blackowiak: Yep, and that's the reason for my no vote too. I'd like the council just to take a look at it.
They've got to decide what's best for this piece of property. Okay, so we'll need the next amendment
please. Or the next motion please for the wetland alteration permit.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Feik: I'd move the Planning Commission recommends.
Blackowiak: It'd be on that page 29.
Feik: Oh excuse me, I was going to skip that one. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval
of the Wetland Alteration Permit 02-3 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta as shown on the plans dated received
April 9, 2002 and subject to the following conditions, 1 through 7 with the adjustment on number 5 to
remove the silt fence upon completion of the project.
Blackowiak: Okay. Been a motion, is there a second?
Sidney: Second.
Blackowiak: Moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Feik moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Wetland
Alteration Permit #02-3 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta as shown on the plans dated received April 9,
2002 and subject to the following conditions:
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation
Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall submit a Wetland Replacement Plan Application along with
all required supporting materials. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration
of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. A wetland replacement plan shall be
approved prior to wetland impacts occurring.
A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained
around Basin 1. Wetland buffers 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall
be maintained around Basin 2, 3 and the wetland mitigation area. (Those buffers considered for
PVC must maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet.) Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved,
surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install
wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and shall pay
the City $20 per sign.
3. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer edge.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
Type III silt fence shall be provided between wetland and upland areas where work is proposed
adjacent to wetland areas or areas to be preserved as buffer. If no buffer is to be preserved, Type
III silt fence shall be provided at the delineated wetland edge. All silt fence shall be removed
upon completion of construction.
Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDot seed mix 25 A or a similar seed mix
that is approved for wetland soil conditions.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps
of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.
All voted in favor, except Slagle and Blackowiak who opposed, Lillehaug abstained, and the motion
carried with a vote of 4-2-1.
Blackowiak: Same reasons I'm assuming?
Slagle: Same reasons.
Blackowiak: Okay. Next, conditional use permit.
Feik: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit
#02-2 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta as shown on the plans dated received April 9, 2002 and subject to the
following conditions 1 through 11. However on number 9, where we talk about cross easements and the
homeowners association for Lots 4 and 5, I guess I'm not, don't know how we should do this but I would
like to make it very clear that the staff should be comfortable with the language as presented in the
homeowners association prior to going to final approval with the council.
Blackowiak: Okay there's been a motion, is there a second?
Sidney: A second with a friendly amendment or two.
Feik: Okay.
Sidney: I guess I'd suggest a condition 12 that the applicant shall include a copy of the conditional use
permit in the homeowners covenants. Then also a modification to condition 6. I guess I would like to see
this, well the beachlot should not be used as a boat launch and posted as such, and I guess I'm leaning
towards more posting of things that will be part of what will be enforced in terms of city code on this
beachlot.
Feik: Would you want to limit that to trailered boats to be specific? Does that make a difference?
Blackowiak: Minutia.
Feik: It doesn't matter to me. That's your.
Sidney: Work with staff for the appropriate language. But posted as such for whatever craft shall not be
launched.
Haak: We'll take a look at the code.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Feik: Accepted.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Feik moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional
Use Permit #02-2 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta as shown on the plans dated received April 9, 2002,
and subject to the following conditions:
The beachlot shall contain no more than 3 docks with no more than 9 spaces for overnight
watercraft storage. The plat shall be revised to show 9 spaces, the maximum allowed on a single
beachlot by city ordinance.
The beachlot shall meet all requirements set forth for recreational beachlots in Section 20-263 of
the City Code.
3. A conservation easement shall be placed over the portion of the beachlot that includes Basin 2.
4. The applicant shall specify the materials used for trail construction.
5. The trail shall not be extended to the shoreline.
6. The beachlot shall not be used as a boat launch and the City will post the appropriate signage.
The applicant shall explore the feasibility of avoiding wetland fill for the trail along the north side
of Basin 1 by installing a boardwalk or similar structure.
The proposed trail shall be located within the drainage and utility easement between Lots 4 and 5
on Block 1.
A cross access easement shall be granted for the trail from the owners of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 in
favor of all the homeowners in the homeowners association. Staff shall review and approve this
language prior to City Council approval.
10.
The number of non-motorized watercraft storage racks shall not exceed the amount of storage
necessary to permit 1 rack slip per lot served by the beachlot. The plans shall reflect the capacity
and location of the proposed storage rack(s).
11.
An amendment to the Conditional Use Permit shall be required for any changes to the beachlot
including but not limited to: dock configuration, installation of portable chemical toilets, placement
of boat racks and placement of structures.
12. The applicant shall include a copy of the conditional use permit in the homeowners covenants.
All voted in favor, except Slagle and Blackowiak who opposed, Lillehaug abstained, and the motion
carried with a vote of 4-2-1.
Blackowiak: Alrighty. This, I'm sorry. Okay, I'm sorry. This item will go to City Council on May 13th
so anyone wishing to follow that to City Council, please do so and thank you all for your comments this
evening. And there's been a request that we take a brief recess right now, so we'll take a 5 minute recess.
We'll reconvene at 9:40.
(The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
46
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Blackowiak: Before we go to new business, Uli asked if he could make a brief comment so go ahead.
Sacchet: Yeah, I just wanted to make a comment for the record that I was really impressed, and I want to
commend staff for how much work that obviously went into that report for that proposal we just worked
on. I want this to be on the record. I think you guys did an incredible job negotiating, balancing it and it's
a very sensitive place and I think you did an excellent job.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Claybaugh: I second it.
A1-Jaff: Thank you. It was a joint effort.
ELECT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR.
Blackowiak: The annual.
Sidney: Let's see if you can do it better than I did it last year.
Blackowiak: I missed it. I was out of town last year. Do you want to do it again? Rich.
Slagle: I have a question. Do we have any interest in doing a rotating chair? And when I say rotating, I'm
thinking like whoever we pick goes for 6 months and then someone else for 6 months, just so we mix the
leadership and everybody gets to experience so Alison isn't always, if you're chosen, isn't always at the
burden. She can actually sit back like the rest of us. I don't know, I just throw that out if there's any
interest.
Sidney: Well I guess I kind of discussed that with Alison in our current situation, if that were to continue
that possibly we could just kind of trade off occasionally. It wouldn't have to be always chair an issue or
something like that so it might be just an agreement between the chair and vice-chair. And then if you want
to have, I don't know what the by-laws are even on this but you know, it could be that we could reassess
the election of chair and vice-chair after 6 months if we wanted to.
Slagle: I just throw it out as an option.
Blackowiak: Currently by-laws say that the chair and vice-chair are elected for one year terms. That's
what current by-laws state.
Sacchet: Now don't we review the by-laws every year around this time of the year? I think there was.
Blackowiak: Yes, and I.
Sacchet: But my point is, they could possibly be amended.
Blackowiak: Yes. If we wanted to amend by-laws, then we would have to probably, then it might be
prudent to do that before we elect a chair and vice-chair, if that's a direction that people want to take, and
I'm you know.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Slagle: I'd rather not.
Blackowiak: Well I'm just saying that that's, you know.
Claybaugh: No, I think we have other issues. We don't need to create more.
Slagle: Well I'll open it up. I nominate Alison.
Sidney: So do I.
Slagle: So is there a second?
Sidney: No actually it's opening it up for nominations.
Slagle: Exactly.
Blackowiak: And I would accept the nomination but I would certainly be open to anybody else doing it too.
I mean if anybody has a desire.
Claybaugh: Okay, I would like to nominate Uli.
Sacchet: I'd be happy to do it if that's the way it tums out, but I'm very happy to have Alison do it.
Blackowiak: So easy going.
Slagle: Anybody else?
Blackowiak: Like I say, jump in.
Sacchet: Well I'd nominate also LuAnn.
Feik: Well Rich, you haven't been nominated yet. Are you feeling left out... ?
Slagle: Not at all. I'm fine where I am.
Feik: How about down here?
Claybaugh: Just fine. Outstanding here. What's next up?
Slagle: We vote.
Blackowiak: Yeah, I guess we have to vote on, assuming, 1 of 3. Uli, LuAnn, Alison. We need to
nominate a chair and a vice-chair and we can either.
Claybaugh: Do one at a time.
Blackowiak: Do one at a time or we can.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Slagle: Can I just throw out a suggestion?
Blackowiak: Sure.
Slagle: ...last year.
Blackowiak: I wasn't here last year. I'm so sorry.
Sacchet: We don't vote against.
Slagle: Yeah, we don't vote against and I would just say, let's say it's Alison. All those in favor of Alison
raise your hand. All those in favor of Uli raise your hand and whoever's got the most. If it's a tie then
we...
Blackowiak: Okay. Sounds good to me.
A vote was taken and Alison Blackowiak was elected as Chair for the next year.
Blackowiak: I will accept that and now we need a vice-chair. Yes, and I would like to say too, if it's
something that other commissioners would feel, you know talking about rotating, if we want to do a vice-
chair, I would certainly alternate or agree to swap some meetings so we can get some more experience in a
chairing position if that's what, am I hearing that Rich, that you were saying.
Slagle: Yeah, I just want it out, yeah.
Blackowiak: Okay. I mean that's, I don't have a problem with that either. Or I can just leave. Go on
vacation a lot. Okay.
Sacchet: It's one way to make me talk less.
Blackowiak: Oooh. There's a thought. Okay.
Slagle: I nominate Uli.
Blackowiak: Uli for vice-chair.
Claybaugh: Second the nomination.
Blackowiak: Alrighty. I would nominate LuAnn for vice-chair. Anyone else?
A vote was taken and LuAnn Sidney was elected as Vice-Chair.
Blackowiak: So LuAnn is the vice- chair and I'll try to take more vacations so LuAnn can have more fun.
Slagle: How about a secretary?
Claybaugh: I nominate Rich.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Feik: Second.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated
March 19, 2002 as presented.
ONGOING ITEMS.
Blackowiak: I'll just jump in. I went to the City Council meeting on Monday, April 8th and just a brief
overview. I was going to send out an email. I meant to but, didn't happen but I did my little notes here.
Issues that we looked at. Wellhead protection plan passed. Vacation of a drainage and utility easement for
St. Hubert Catholic Church passed. And then for Villages, to increase the maximum institutional building
area, that passed. Also the site plan review for St. Hubert's. That all passed. Preliminary plat at the
Noecker development, east of Ashling Meadow. The land use and the rezoning, they all passed 4-1.
Preliminary plat for Hidden Creek Estates, which is at the end of Pipewood Curve, north of Highway 7
passed. Preliminary plat at Knob Hill Lane passed. And passed 5-0 on the denial of the private street.
That was about it for the issues that we had looked at at that last meeting. Sharmin, do you have any
ongoing items?
A1-Jaff: The application for Powers Office Building, which is on the comer of 5 and Powers Boulevard
came in today. It should be on the next Planning Commission meeting.
Blackowiak: Okay, that's the southeast comer of 5 and.
A1-Jaff: Southeast comer of 5 and Powers, correct. It's a two phased building. First phase is going to be
one story. Second phase, two story. I think it's a nice looking building, and much needed on that comer.
It will anchor that comer. The City Council approved the subdivision that Planning Commission reviewed
not too long ago for Noecker's development and we are going forward with a final plat on that subdivision.
One thing I would like to point out on this subdivision, on the Noecker subdivision. There were changes
between the Planning Commission and City Council. Additional vegetation was saved on that site, so I
believe that these changes had an effect on the City Council's decision. There has been numerous phone
calls, individuals interested in developing properties. Meanwhile staff is working very hard on code
amendments and you should be seeing those in the very near future.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Feik: Where are we at with the church? The cross, the church next to the Chan Rec.
Blackowiak: Family of Christ Church?
Feik: Yeah. Where's that in the process now?
A1-Jaff: They did not appeal the decision of the Planning Commission.
Sacchet: They turned off the spotlight.
Feik: Okay.
50
Planning Commission Meeting - April 16, 2002
Blackowiak: So that time has lapsed and if they wanted to re-apply or do that again.
A1-Jaff: Then they have to go through the process again.
Feik: Okay, thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Comments? No? Alright with that I'm going to
adjourn the meeting and we'll meet down here for open discussion regarding Timber Lake.
Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:55 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
51