Loading...
PC Minutes 8-5-08 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 5, 2008 Chairman Papke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kurt Papke, Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Denny Laufenburger, and Dan Keefe STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator PUBLIC HEARING: BEDDOR REGISTERED LAND SURVEY: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A REGISTERED LAND SURVEY FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 950 & 910 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD. APPLICANT: FORTIER & ASSOCIATES, INC./ MARILYN BEDDOR, PLANNING CASE 07-13. Al-Jaff: Thank you Chairman Papke, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is for the approval of a registered land survey. The site is located south of Christmas Lake, north of Pleasant View Road. It consists of two parcels. The addresses on those parcels are 910 and 950 Pleasant View Road. Both parcels are under single ownership. What the applicant is proposing to do is shift a property line. Currently if you look at those two layouts, the before and after, currently the driveway that leads to the home located on 910 is located on Parcel 950. There is also a tennis court on 950. What the applicant wishes to achieve is locate both of the driveway as well as the tennis court on the same parcel as 910 Pleasant View Road. Typically we process applications such as this one administratively. However there is a registered land survey that accompanies this application and under state statute the registered land surveys would need to be processed in the same manner required for approval of a subdivision plat which means the Planning Commission would have to hold a public hearing. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the registered land survey as stated on page 3 of the staff report. Both parcels will meet all ordinance requirements. I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Laufenburger: I do just one. Is there any tax implications on this at all? Just wondering. Are they doing this because they’re interested in having the 950 lot possibly sold? Or is that even in question? Al-Jaff: No. They really just wanted to clean it up and there shouldn’t be any. Laufenburger: Okay. Thomas: No questions. Laufenburger: None. Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 2008 Papke: I’m having déjà vu on this one? Al-Jaff: Yes you are. Papke: Could you explain what we are approving this time that we didn’t approve last time? Why are we seeing this again? Al-Jaff: All plats have to be recorded within one year of the date of approval by the City Council, and a year and a month has passed by. As such that approval has expired. Papke: Okay. Al-Jaff: So it’s before you again to give it. Papke: Okay. Dillon: What caused the delay? Al-Jaff: Pardon? Dillon: What was the cause of the delay of taking more than a year? Al-Jaff: I honestly don’t know. Papke: It was due to the applicant? Al-Jaff: Correct. It wasn’t the city. Papke: Okay. Al-Jaff: We sent them a letter explaining that it needs to be recorded. Papke: Alright. Do we have an applicant present this evening that would like to state their case? Seeing none, we’ll bypass that section and go to public comment. Would anyone from the audience like to comment on this particular case before us? Seeing none, I close the public hearing on this item and bring it back. Any discussion? Concerns? Issues? Anybody want to bring up anything on this one? If not, I will take a motion. Keefe: Chair, I’ll make a motion that staff recommends Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached Registered Land Survey referred to as RLS 123. Papke: Is there a second? Thomas: Second. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 2008 Keefe moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached Registered Land Survey referred to as RLS 123. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: SCHNEIDER DOCK: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO INSTALL A DOCK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 640 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD (OUTLOT A, REICHERT’S ADDITION). APPLICANT: GARY & CYNTHIA SCHNEIDER, PLANNING CASE 08-15. Public Present: Name Address Gary & Cynthia Schneider 640 Pleasant View Road Dave & Valerie Rossbach 670 Pleasant View Road Jeffery: Chair Papke, members of the commission, thanks. I am before you tonight with a request for a dock variance from the 10 foot setback requirement from the lot line, as well as a wetland alteration permit in this case issuing a decision of what is called no net loss of wetland function and value. The property is located at 640 Pleasant View Road. It is shown in the red and orange crosshatch before you. Mr. Schneider is the property owner. He and his wife are present tonight should you have any questions for them. The lot was created with the Reichert’s Addition which was subdivided, the subdivision went through in 1978. At this time the development contract had created, or the subdivision rather had created 4 outlots. Outlot A was intended to be used, which is the triangular piece. Outlot A was part of 640 Pleasant View Road and was intended or was given rights for one dock with two slips to be put in there. Subsequent to that city ordinance 37 was passed which created conditions for dock placement. That a dock be no more than 8 feet wide. That it be no, that it can be 100 feet long or to that point at which the lake is 4 feet in depth and that it be setback from the lot lines as they are extended into the water 10 feet, and that is the variance request that is before you tonight. Chapter 6, Article II which is on page 3 of the staff report, talks about those governances of dock placement. How it could be. And it further goes on to state the council may grant a variance from the dock requirements from this Article if it is shown that by reason of topography or other physical characteristics of the lakeshore site, strict compliance with the dock requirements would cause an exceptional or undue hardship to the enjoyment of the use of the lakeshore. Also Chapter 20, Articles IV, VI and XII apply to this, or being CUP for the wetland alteration permit. VI being wetland itself. Where installation of a dock or a boardwalk is required to get a wetland alteration permit and that this is zoned single family residential. One dock is permitted as an accessory structure. Yeah actually, before you right here, this is a picture taken by Mr. Schneider last winter. So this is in the same location that it is. What’s interesting about this, if you look at where the dock is terminated in this picture, that’s approximately what a conforming dock would look like on this site. That would be within the setbacks. Clearly it would not get you out to the point where you can navigate into the open water. This is a picture of the site today. The dock is extended through to the end of the cattails. Clearly to maintain operation through there, you need to cut the cattails. We’ll come to this in a little bit but the plants themselves are clearly not 3