Loading...
PC Minutes 8-3-04 ó4·¿LÌ- -. - CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES AUGUST 3, 2004 Chairman Slagle called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, Bethany Tjomhom, Dan Keefe and Kurt Papke MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet, Craig Claybaugh and Steve Lillehaug STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff; Senior Planner, Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet Paulsen 7302 Laredo Dri ve 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A BOARDW ALKlDOCK ACROSS AN AG/URBAN WETLAND TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO LAKE LUCY. THE SITE IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND IS LOCATED AT 6745 LAKEWAY DRIVE, MATTHEW AND SUZANNE WOODS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-24. Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Keefe asked if the dock was going to be straight or have a T section. Commissioner Papke asked staff to review what the city code calls for and exactly how long this dock is and how it meets those requirements. Commissioner Tjomhom asked if DNR requires a specific type of material for docks. Matt Woods, the applicant explained their request and answered questions from the commission. Chairman Slagle asked for clarification on the length and location of this proposed dock in relation to neighboring properties. After a brief discussion, the following motion was made. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #04-24 for a boardwalk across the wetland at 6745 Lakeway Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. The boardwalk shall be installed across the wetland as a permanent structure and a dock shall extend from the boardwalk into Lake Lucy to provide docking for watercraft. 2. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the installation of the boardwalk across the drainage and utility easement. - - Planning Commission ~ulllmary - August 3,2004 3. The dock shall be located outside of the dock setback zone. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: FRONTIER SECOND ADDITION, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 2.61 ACRES INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF FRONTIER TRAIL AND WEST 77TH STREET, CHARLES R. STINSON, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-26. Public Present: Name Address Charles Thiss Charles R. Stinson Ralph Burrell Kay Touchette 5090 Greenwood Circle 4733 Eastwood Road 7555 Frontier Trail 7541 Frontier Trail Sharmeen Al-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on how the bluff line and setbacks are determined, an explanation of the drainage and piping patterns for the pond, and placement of the retaining walls. Commissioner Tjornhom asked about the condition asking that the lot lines be shifted to meet lot size requirements and if that is being done at the expense of tree loss. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification on building and driveway setbacks. Chairman Slagle asked for clarification on the driveway access and placement of the homes on the sites. The applicant, Charles Stinson explained his project and addressed issues relating to the bluff line, house placement and drainage. Chairman Slagle opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Papke moved, Tjornhom seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case #04-26 for Frontier Second Addition for 5 lots as shown on the plans received July 2, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to any construction. Fencing shall be maintained until construction is completed. 2. The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction on three of the five lots. Two lots are exempt from these charges due to the existing single-family homes on the property. The park fee on three single family homes 2 ()ti .j /,./ --, r - -. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 3, 2004 Chairman Slagle called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, Bethany Tjornhom, Dan Keefe and Kurt Papke MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet, Craig Claybaugh and Steve Lillehaug STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen AI-Jaff; Senior Planner, Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A BOARDWALKlDOCK ACROSS AN AGIURBAN WETLAND TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO LAKE LUCY. THE SITE IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND IS LOCATED AT 6745 LAKEWAY DRIVE, MATTHEW AND SUZANNE WOODS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-24. Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Slagle: Questions of staff. Keefe: Yeah, I have a question. Slagle: Go ahead Dan. Keefe: Just in regards to the dock portion, is the dock going to be straight out as well, like it's depicted on, or is it going to T at the end or, is there any mention of that? Haak: No. The information that staff has at this time is that it's going to be a straight dock, so you may want to address the applicant with that question for more detail. Keefe: Great. That's the only question I have. Papke: How long is the dock? We had a very similar case to this, I don't recall exactly how long ago it was. Maybe 9 months or so ago, and I don't recall the details of the debate but I remember there being quite a bit of discussion around how to define the maximum/minimum length of the dock. Could you please briefly review what the city code calls for and exactly how long this dock is and how it meets those requirements. -. - Planning Commission :tY.L",eting - August 3, 2004 Haak: Certainly. In many cases it's difficult to determine the exact length of the dock until you start to install it. Simply because you don't know what the depth of the water at that point is until you've worked your way out to it. So with this application, as with all other docks that we consider or other people with whom I discussed docks at the staff level, the length of the dock really varies, so the criteria are this. The first is that the dock cannot exceed 50 feet in length, unless it takes more than 50 feet to get into 4 feet of water, and that's the city's criteria. Now the other component of the city code that comes into play at that point is that the dock cannot be an obstruction on the lake or to other property owners access to their property so let's say Mr. Woods in this case is the middle property of 3 properties in that subdivision. There is one person to his west that also has a dock. If Mr., if the man, the property owner excuse me, to the west were to call the city and complain about the length of the Woods' dock, we would ask the Woods' to remove sections of their dock so as to not obstruct navigation. Papke: So how do we check compliance of that? Is the dock inspected after it's constructed? Haak: Typically it's not. Unless there is some sort of a complaint. Typically we don't, unless we receive complaints about it, navigation or something of that nature. Papke: Okay. Keefe: I just have one follow-up question. In regards to the setback. The setback is from the dock itself to the edge of the property line, or the extended property line out to the lake. Haak: That's right. Keefe: It's not, it wouldn't be, so you could still have a boat on, within the 10 foot area, is that correct? Haak: That's right. Keefe: Okay. So it is just the structure itself. Haak: That's correct. Keefe: Right, okay. Good enough, thanks. Tjomhom: Does the DNR require a type of material to be used for the dock? I mean is there like a set it has to be wood or could it be? Haak: No. No, they don't really, the DNR has given those types of considerations over to the municipalities and we don't have anything that determines that. 2 - - Planning Commission :tv...veting - August 3, 2004 Slagle: I don't have any questions. Is the applicant here? And if they'd like to, come up and state your name and address and share with us your application. Matt Woods: Thank you members of the commission. My name is Matt Woods, along with my wife Suzanne I'm the applicant for this application. My wife and I moved into the neighborhood about 2 years ago. Built a house in White Tail Cove and thankfully we're able to get onto Lake Lucy. A very beautiful property. Beautiful area and for a number of years now we've been eyeing being able to access the lake. We've talked to both our neighbors on both sides. We are using the same dock installation company that both the neighbors had used. It's a company by the name of Fine Line. Commissioner, to address your concern and your question, the materials being used are a combination of metal, for the permanent aspect of the structure and then on, a polymer type for the decking and that is comparable with what the neighbors on both sides have used. With respect to the length, it is estimated about 150 total. Not just the dock portion but the formal boardwalk portion, given all the setbacks from a tangible or solid point of land to the one out to reach that depth of water. I tried myself to walk out there several times and it's really, it's really marsh over the area that we're considering the boardwalk. I personally believe we're going to be well within the guidelines that have been laid out here. But if I can answer any specific questions the commission may have. Keefe: I just have a question. Actually it's a question I should ask staff. The dock itself, is it going to be just straight out or are you going to T it or what are you thinking? Matt Woods: Right now all we're applying for is the straight line. The company that's offered it as a proposed to us a 6 foot crossing of the T so to speak. So at the end of there commissioner, there would be like a 6 foot on so 3 foot on both sides. Candidly, until you had raised the issue I didn't know that that was an issue. It's not critical to us but it had been proposed by the company. For us it's not important one way or another. Keefe: I guess I'd go back to staff in regards to the setback, would it, if they T'd at the end, would the 3 feet technically then be within the setback? Haak: Yes. Then it would need to be setback 13 feet from the side. Or the main portion of the dock rather. Matt Woods: And with respect to that, the angle, what the company is telling us, because of the lay of the land, I'm sorry I don't know how the overhead camera. Oh there they are. That in fact the dock might actually angle a little bit away from the neighboring property in order to take advantage of the most, there's certain sections there that are more solid than others. In order to get, to minimize the impact and to create the shortest distance to open water. They were proposing taking with that line area, adjusting it slightly so it's coming out that way. Also keeping in mind the 10 foot setback. Slagle: Okay, any questions? I've got one. And Lori, if you wouldn't mind putting up that geographical overhead. And it's maybe a staff and an applicant question but if you use your neighbor to the west as a measuring point and his or her dock, where would 3 - - Planning Commission :tv...veting - August 3, 2004 your's be in relationship to that as far as length goes? Do you anticipate it being any further out? Matt Woods: Our's, the total length commissioner will be shorter because our property is, it's a diamond shape. It juts out. The property itself juts further out as you enter it. See approximately here whereas our neighbor property had to start his deck from here and his juts out approximately from there to the open water area right about here. The total length will be shorter. We anticipate that we would stop at the same approximate point along a latitudinal line so to speak. Slagle: Okay, where, if I can ask, is the property to the east as far as their dock goes? If someone can just show me roughly. Matt Woods: The best, there is actually a white line commissioner, maybe you'll be able to see it. I believe that that is in fact. Haak: That was the pre-existing dock. Prior to the subdivision. Slagle: Okay. About there? Matt Woods: About there. Slagle: Okay. So it, in essence it's not on their western border with this applicant's spot? Haak: No. It's further toward the eastern end of the property. Slagle: Okay. Okay. No other questions? Dan, you have? Keefe: Just one quick follow-up. The e-mail that we received, is that, is it Jack Randall. Is that correct? Is he to the east or to the. Matt Woods: The Randall's are up the hill. Up approximately, and I can't tell the exact plots here but they're approximately up in this area. They also have a dock I believe it's this white one here. Slagle: Okay. Wow. You're crossing, I mean safe to say you're crossing a lot of wetland before you reach open water. Is that a correct statement? Matt Woods: I would have to say commissioner a lot is somewhat of a. Slagle: How about greater than 100 feet? Matt Woods: There clearly is a substantial amount of cattails and material there. In terms of actual amount, I honestly couldn't say because I haven't done the express measurements but I mean clearly there's a lot as you can see from the photo itself. There is a fair amount. 4 - - Planning Commission :tY.l¡;;eting - August 3, 2004 Keefe: And that lake has, was started out kind of low this year. It's come up some. Matt Woods: Yeah. Over the 2 years that we've been there commissioner, it's been all over and it's actually probably, from what we've seen in our short time there, probably average at this point but it did start out low, yeah. Keefe: So in some years you get a lot of wetland and other years not so much. Yeah. Matt Woods: This is at the bottom of a big bowl so there's a lot of... Slagle: Okay, thank you very much. Matt Woods: Thank you. Slagle: Lori I have one last question. There's been no discussion on, and again correct me if I'm wrong but there's been no discussion of a community dock or any. Haak: No. Something of that nature would have needed to be done with the subdivision. Slagle: Okay. Okay, well. We'll bring it up for the commission. Any discussion that folks want to share? Keefe: It looks to be pretty consistent with the other docks that are in that area and it sounds like Fine Line's put, installing all the same dock company. I'm alright with it. Slagle: Bethany. Tjornhom: Yeah, I have no problem with it if the city has no problem with it. Slagle: Okay. Well then I'll entertain a motion. Papke: I make a motion that we recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #04- 24 for a boardwalk across the wetland at 6745 Lakeway Drive, subject to the conditions 1 through 3 as listed in the staff report. Slagle: Is there a second? Keefe: Second. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #04-24 for a boardwalk across the wetland at 6745 Lakeway Drive, subject to the following conditions: 5 - - Planning Commission l\.l¡;;eting - August 3, 2004 1. The boardwalk shall be installed across the wetland as a permanent structure and a dock shall extend from the boardwalk into Lake Lucy to provide docking for watercraft. 2. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the installation of the boardwalk across the drainage and utility easement. 3. The dock shall be located outside of the dock setback zone. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: FRONTIER SECOND ADDITION, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 2.61 ACRES INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF FRONTIER TRAIL AND WEST 77TH STREET, CHARLES R. STINSON, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-26. Public Present: Name Address Charles Thiss Charles R. Stinson Ralph Burrell Kay Touchette 5090 Greenwood Circle 4733 Eastwood Road 7555 Frontier Trail 7541 Frontier Trail Sharmeen AI-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Slagle: Start down here. Any questions for staff Kurt? Papke: Yeah. When I look at the topographical drawing, I know one of the original issues was setback from the bluff line, and according to our definition of where the bluff begins and ends laterally on the topographical map, how precisely are those boundaries determined? I mean if I look at the topographical drawing, I don't know that I could pick out very well where the bluff begins and ends, so could you comment on how precisely that beginning and ending of the bluff is determined? If at all. Saam: The definition of the bluff per our city ordinance I believe is a 25 foot elevation change, or drop and the slope has to be 30 percent or greater, so basically a 3 to 1 or greater. Using that criteria and the applicant's surveyor, and staff reviewing the site, that's how we do it. Sharmeen, do you want to add anything else, but typically staff goes out there and we kind of both agree that this is the top of the bluff. This is kind of where it starts and this appears to be the bottom. Have it surveyed. Give us the slope percentage and let's see if it qualifies. 6