Loading...
PC Minutes 5-17-16Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 19.The applicant, their consultant and city staff shall collaborate to minimize drainage concerns in the back and side yards of lots 6 through 10. 20.Storm Water Utility Connection charges due at the final plat are estimated to be $58,880.00. All voted in favor except for Commissioner Weick who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Aanenson: Just for clarification again this item does go to the City Council and that’s scheduled th for June 13 if anybody’s tracking this item. Aller: Correct and so any individual at home or present that wants to see the materials that we’ve been looking at again they’re on the website in the City. Please feel free to investigate them. Pull them up. We’ve tried to build a good record of the comments before us for the City Council to look at and contemplate on June 13, 2016. Thank you. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Thank you very much for your time, your commitment, and your service to the community and your review of this complicated application. We greatly appreciate it. Aller: Thank you sir. Okay we’ll move onto the second item on the agenda tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: 4060 LAKERIDGE ROAD, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT: REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY DOCK AT 4060 LAKERIDGE ROAD, EXCELSIOR (LOT 4, BLOCK 1, HIGHLANDS ON LAKE ST. JOE). APPLICANT/ OWNER: BRIAN LANG. Spreiter: Thank you Chairman Aller and commissioners. As stated this is the public hearing for the wetland alteration permit at 4060 Lakeridge Road. 4060 Lakeridge Road is located on the south side of Lake St. Joe within the, sorry I’m blanking on the neighborhood. Within the Highlands of Lake St. Joe neighborhood. The applicant is requesting a wetland alteration permit to construct a temporary dock on Lake St. Joe to utilize the lake for recreational purposes. This is the existing site and the location of the proposed dock overlooking Lake St. Joe. The applicant is requesting a wetland alteration permit in order construct a 3 ½ wide wood dock extending approximately 95 feet into the wetland to an accessible lake depth of approximately 4 feet. This is the approximate dock location in relation to the wetland boundary. The dock would be mainly located where it is primarily cattails and in a semi-permanent or permanently floodedarea. The wetland boundary is over here. There’s a slight slope that goes, well probably a 3 to 1 slope actually that goes down from the property to the wetland boundary. The dock that is constructed or would be constructed would have to allow water to free flow underneath it. The approximate impact as a result of the dock is approximately 19 square feet. That’s a result of the posts that are to be installed with the dock. This is, this meets the no loss criteria under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. The De Minimis criteria. Within there are certain maximum impacts 39 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 depending on where it is located for an area within the shoreland setback. The maximum in this case, the maximum is 20 square feet. Per city code and state shoreland rules, a dock is an allowable use on a single family residential lot. This wetland alteration permit application has been submitted in order to determine if impacts are allowable under city code and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. The decision made on the wetland alteration permit would not play any role in the administration of the Highlands on Lake St. Joe HOA covenants and restrictions or usurp any decision that they made on the matter. I believe right now that docks are restricted or not allowed within the HOA covenants and restrictions. One of the conditions of approval that was made was that the applicant must notify the HOA if the wetland alteration permit is approved before installing a dock. Staff is recommending approval with conditions for this application. In summary the impacts in this case do not require replacement plan under the Wetland Conservation Act. The dock is an allowable use under Minnesota state rules and city code. However it does require a wetland alteration permit and the issue remains to be worked out between the HOA and the homeowner. That’s all I have tonight. I’ll take any questions. Aller: Thank you. It’s pretty straight forward. Our understanding is that this is just basically granting or permission so should the HOA allow for the dock to be constructed and utilized then they already have that permission. Spreiter: Right so the dock is already allowed under our city code and state rules. Our city code and our wetland ordinance just requires a wetland alteration permit because of it so that’s the decision that you’re making tonight. Tietz: It’s just administrative but would we require a letter from the homeowners association notifying us and the owner of approvals since they currently don’t allow that to occur? Spreiter: So that was not a condition of approval because legally, as I understand it we don’t, we can’t… Aanenson: I don’t think it would hurt to let the HOA know that it’s been approved so they’re aware of it but right, we have no… Tietz: Okay. I just wouldn’t want the HOA to find out after the fact and then they object and then will come back to the City even though we don’t have any authority over it. It’s just, I think it’s more of a courtesy than anything else. Aanenson: Correct. Spreiter: Sure and we could ask to be copied on that notification letter. Aller: Well the other thing is we don’t have much discretion in listening to their objection. Tietz: No. 40 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Aanenson: I think you’re just saying letting them know that they got approval, is that what? Tietz: I just want, yeah. Aanenson: Yes. Tietz: Yeah I mean a lot of things happen then after the fact you ask for forgiveness you know. Aanenson: Right. Tietz: We might approve it but someone else might have an opinion. Aanenson: Yeah I don’t think it hurts to send the HOA a letter so they’re aware of it. Tietz: Yeah. Aller: And I think it’s a courtesy but as far as our decision I just want to. Tietz: No, it’s independent of. Aller: Right decision based on the criteria that’s before us and that’s a question of whether or not there’s a reason to deny it. Tietz: Agreed. Aller: Any additional questions? Alright, the applicant like to come forward and state your name and address for the record. Brian Lang: Brian Lang, 4060 Lakeridge Road. Aller: Okay Mr. Lang, tell us about the project. You’re obviously thinking about putting this in. Brian Lang: Sure, sure. So I’ve lived in the property for a couple of years and I’ve always wanted to put a dock in and so I’ve explored that numerous times and I’ve talked to the entire neighborhood for the most part. There’s been some transition in the neighborhood and what not and I’ve gotten push back maybe from like 4 or 5 people. Most of them came back and said if it’s okay under state law, city code we’re fine with it so that’s why I pursued this and I have spent a lot of time thinking about, because it seems like the biggest concern for people, because I don’t want, I want to avoid like just saying like oh he can’t put a dock in just because it’s in the covenants. I wanted to understand the reasoning behind it and based on the Minutes from ’93- ’95 as far as how that ended up in the covenants, there was concerns regarding the wetland and I’m not sure why they chose a mechanism to enforce that through the covenants but they did. So 41 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 I think really what I make sure that people understand is that I’ve taken time to think about that and that through obviously the staff’s research they’ve determined that it’s such a small amount of dockage that it’s really immaterial. It wouldn’t cause any impact to the wetland of significance and so I’ve decided that I’d go forward with this or what not. And actually I was standing on my property, you saw the picture of it. Like I have an acre. My property is an acre and I would say 50 percent or higher is probably wetland. If you take my property along with the other 4 potential I believe, potential docks that could go in and that cross a span of that entire wetland area, I would guess it’s probably like 2 acres. Approximately. Just looking at my property I know it’s an acre. There’s at least half of that if not more is wetland and I just looked up what how many, or how many square feet are in an acre. There’s 87,000, or there’s 43,000 square feet in 1 acre. 87,000 square feet in 2 acres. Assuming that the 4 people that have shoreland property decide to move forward with putting in a dock, that would be around 1,600 square feet, assuming it’s the same size as mine. That’s less than 2 percent of that entire area so based on that I felt, I don’t think there’s going to be any material impact along with what the staff was saying so I moved forward with filling out this application and trying to get permission. I understand the homeowners association and the fact that there is a covenant in there for no docks. Like I said I’m not sure exactly other than the wetland impact why it ended up in there because there’s 2 other docks in the lake already outside of our homeowners association. Just as a comparison one of the docks is, the dock that I would install is probably one-third, no more than one-third the size of a dock that’s currently in the lake. On the one end of the lake. So I just feel like it’s appropriate that I’d be able to put a dock in rather than the homeowners association just saying just because it’s in there. I just want to say that based on my interpretation the reason why it’s in there is concerns over the wetlands and I feel like, like I said through the staff report and through like math it’s not a significant portion of dock that could possibly go in the footprint of that area. And so like I said I have talked to a majority of the homeowners association, the actually members and there’s a handful of people that are opposed and they probably sent in emails. There’s probably a couple people here and I understand that but you know overall I just think it’s appropriate. I looked up on the DNR website. There is just shy of a mile of shore length around the inside of Lake St. Joe and adding 4 additional docks at the most I feel like is appropriate. Aller: Well we’re only going to deal with your application. Brian Lang: Sure, sure. Aller: Your particular, this particular dock that you made your request for so. Brian Lang: Yeah, yeah, sure. Sorry. I’m not…but anyway and I understand the I believe there’s a condition to get the homeowners association’s approval or that something coming back to the City regarding that. Like we had talked about I feel like the differences between myself and the homeowners association resides outside of the actual wetland alteration permit approval and I think you can be assured that if a majority of the association disapproves of it, I won’t be allowed to put that dock in there. They won’t allow that to happen so I just feel like putting that 42 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 condition in there is unnecessary and that’s my standpoint on that. And I’m just asking you to consider that. If you end up leaving it in there I’m still obviously going to pursue it because I know I’ve talken to like a majority of the neighborhood and I’m not concerned about that but it’s just another thing that 4 or 5 people can focus on and obstruct and change that I believe is appropriate and I’m free to answer any questions. Aller: Anyone have questions at this point? Aanenson: Can I give a little bit more background onto that subdivision since I worked on it. So those lots abutting Lake St. Joe are over, are approximately an acre because the shoreland district those had to be larger lots because that is a more pristine wetland. There were 2 existing docks at the time. Those are significantly older so when this subdivision went in that was something that we talked about. The pristine nature of it and that’s how it got put into the HOA requirements. Yes there were existing docks but they weren’t, so when we add, as we change just as we talked about tonight things change over time. Regulations and so this is something that we had looked at and that homeowners association put into their covenants to restrict it that way so that was the thought given behind that at the time. They were larger lots and to keep the lake pristine, that was the thought behind it. Brian Lang: Just as another comparable I was just, I drive around obviously Chanhassen a lot and I see docks all over the lakes and ponds and I was just, last week I was driving by actually Highway 41 and Lake Lucy Road and I noticed in Brendon Pond, and I’m not sure of the size but there’s literally 11 docks in there. In Brendon Pond and I don’t know the acreage of it but if something like that is appropriate I feel like adding 4 docks to a 15 acre lake seems appropriate in my estimation as well so that’s another standpoint. Aller: Great, thankyou. Brian Lang: And I can sit down if anybody has any questions or wants to come up I’ll respond to any questions. Thank you. Aller: Wonderful thanks. Aanenson: I’m just going to clarify a couple more things. So we’re talking a couple different things here. We only have so many natural environment lakes in the city. That’s why this is a different classification so we’re talking about ponds versus some other you know. There’s different criteria for different lakes. We have general recreational lakes. I think we have 3 classifications. Natural environment. Which one am I missing? So anyways so they have different classifications. We have some that you can use motorized. Some you can’t use a motorized on the lake so there’s different classifications so that’s how the ordinance came about. I’m not talking about the merits of the wetland alteration permit. I’m just talking about how we got to this place and what the conditions, what our thought process was because I’ve had a 43 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 couple of residents send my quotations from when we did the subdivision and that’s how we looked at that time because it was a natural environment lake and it was of good quality. Brian Lang: Can I respond? Aller: One second. We’re going to go ahead and open up the public hearing portion so we can hear and then if you want to respond we can see whether or not there’s any responses at that point in time so I’ll open up the public hearing portion of this matter before and if someone wishes to come forward and speak either for or against the application can do so at this time. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record ma’am. Sue Morgan: Yes, my name is Sue Morgan and I live at 4031 Kings Road which is directly across from this property and we’re 1 of the 2 grandfathered in docks on the property. It’s the longest one that Mr. Lang was talking about. We moved onto this property, well we owned the property since 1985. When we purchased the property we were informed by the City, and also I did some investigating to find out what kind of lake Lake St. Joe was and I found out that it’s a natural environment lake and what that meant was that access on Lake St. Joe was supposed to be restricted but there is a public access on Lake St. Joe so that’s questionable. Also the area, size of the lake. The depth of the lake and also the just the overall nature of the lake defines it as such and the access to the lake is supposed to be limited. When the Highlands was being built I did some additional research and actually tried to limit the development of the Highlands because of the nature of the lake. If you look through the Met Council, Linda and I have been kind of keepers of the lake since we’ve lived on the lake so we do lake monitoring for clarity and for consistency and quality overall and what’s important is not just the wetlands but also the lake itself. If you look on that website you’ll find that Lake St. Joe is Chanhassen’s only grade A lake which means it’s the highest grade lake in Chanhassen. That is up until 2009 when the quality has dropped to a B and part of that is the impact that all the development and all these houses in the Highlands have had on Lake St. Joe. So my concern is that, our concern when the Highlands was built was that access would be limited to the lake and it wasn’t just because we wanted to be the only guys on the block with a dock. There’s also another dock that’s grandfathered in but we were told when we purchased the property in 1985 that our dock was grandfathered in. If we took our dock out we could not put another dock in so we’ve maintained that dock since 1985 and we’ve been under the auspices that we could not build another dock so when the Highlands came in it was important to us that they were limited in how many docks they could put on Lake St. Joe and we were told that they couldn’t build any docks onto St. Joe which was fine. Now it seems as though I guess the quality of the lake isn’t important anymore and the wetlands aren’t important anymore and we just continue to build and build more and more on it and allow more access so you know we’re talking originally about 1 dock and then 4 docks keep being thrown into the conversation so it seems like perhaps the tides have turned and now Highlands want more than just 1 dock on the lake. My concern would be if this is approved then we have 8 acres on Lake St. Joe which is the last large parcel as far as I know on Lake St. Joe so if we decide to subdivide that and put 3-4 houses on it, then are we setting precedence that we can ask for additional docks for those properties if subdivided? So again my concern is that we kind of look 44 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 at long term, water quality is important. The only grade A lake in Chanhassen is now becoming a grade B because of access. Not to say that one more dock on Lake St. Joe is going to be an issue but if it gets passed and the HOA regulations get changed then that kind of opens the door and who knows what happens with the water quality on Lake St. Joe. So that’s it for me, thank you. Aller: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Any other individual wishing to come forward at this time please do so. Cathy McKenna: My name is Cathy McKenna. I live at 4150 Lakeridge Road in the Highlands on Lake St. Joe property. I’m one of the original owners of the property there and when we purchased the house we were given covenants. Covenants that we’ve had for 18 years that say no docks. When we bought the house we knew we could not build a dock on Lake St. Joe. Everyone who has lived there for the last 18 years and buys a house there knows that it says no dock, wharf and where it should be built or installed on or from any adjacent to any part of the lot that adjoins Lake St. Joe so that was a given. So we have a homeowners association and we also have a method in that association on how to amend these covenants and there is a process. You need two-thirds of the owners to vote and if it’s not the owners I believe it’s the bank that owns the property and you can change that and I think if we want to change that, that’s the way it should be done by the process that is here. We did have one homeowners association meeting when Mr. Lang was talking about the dock and there is resistance to changing our covenants because if we change the docks what do we change next? And if we don’t enforce the dock we can’t enforce anything. I feel if this wetland permit is granted and a dock attempts to go in that our homeowners association will be unfairly burdened with enforcing this and how we do that I’m really not sure. We’re 33 homes. We don’t have a legal fund. I don’t know what we would do but there is a principle I think and a process here. And Lake St. Joe as they talked about in 1995 they mentioned, and if you could bear with me they said that staff felt that based on the extensive all the wetlands that it really wasn’t appropriate to have additional docks there. Certainly they could try to get through the wetland alteration permit you know to try to get a common dock but there is a public access there. We felt based on the sensitivity of the area that it shouldn’t be allowed and Lundgren Brothers indicated to us that they would put it in their restrictive covenants that no docks be permitted. That was our original position. When it went to the Planning Commission most recently the Planning Commission wanted to say that if the covenants did change, which they certainly have the control to do outside of the City Council, then they would just be on notice that they would have to be required to have a wetland alteration permit. I guess my preference would be they try to keep the covenants to prohibit docks based on the sensitivity of that area. That really they shouldn’t have docks and there is a public access to use that. The Mayor said Lake St. Joe as it is is sort of a pristine lake in itself and they answered yes, correct. It is a natural lake. And I think there is a majority of homeowners in our association that do just want to keep it like it is. It’s beautiful. It’s been that way for 18 years and as you’ve already mentioned we’re trying to maintain that. So I don’t know where 4 docks came from but you know we were trying to keep our covenants in effect and I feel that if this 45 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 permit is granted that we would be unduly forced to try to make that happen. Thank you very much. Aller: Thank you Ms. McKenna. Any additional individuals wishing to come forward at this time? Yes sir, state your name and address for the record please. Mark Malinowski: My name is Mark Malinowski. I live on 7250 Minnewashta Parkway. I guess Brian you did have, say we could address you with questions? Brian Lang: Sure. Mark Malinowski: Were you aware. Aller: Sir, sir. Why don’t you just talk to me first because we’re. Mark Malinowski: Is this a court sir? Aller: It is not a court. That’s why I want you to just. Mark Malinowski: It’s just with respect that I speak to the individual that I’m addressing. Aller: Well but the process is you talk to us. Yeah. So you address the question. We’ll get it answered by him or by staff, okay? Mark Malinowski: Yes Andrew. Aller: Thank you. Mark Malinowski: Brian were you aware in the homeowners association that docks were prohibited? Brian Lang: Yes. Mark Malinowski: Thank you. I have another question. Kate you had mentioned that there were, at the time 2 docks on Lake St. Joe when Highlands went in. There were actually 3. Aanenson: Yeah I said 2 or 3. I can’t remember. Mark Malinowski: Well let me I do. Aanenson: Okay, thank you. 46 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Aller: Sir I want you to continue to address me. State your position please and keep it to about 2 to 3 minutes. Mark Malinowski: I don’t think I can sir. 2 or 3 minutes won’t cover it. Aller: We’re going to try. Mark Malinowski: Okay, thank you. As the, a question came up regarding the other development and Terry I think Forbord, and I believe Terry Forbord also was a representative from Lundgren Brothers that had said to the Planning Commission I will handle that in a covenant or homeowners association that we will not have docks okay and I caught him out here. He has no recollection of it but I believe the Minutes of the meetings will show that. The City Council I understand, Planning Commission probably has no say in whether this alteration can be done or not because it meets a state statutes, et cetera. However I think that when developers come in and they assure Planning Commission, City Council that these will be covered in the homeowners association the same individual that covered it Terry is here addressing the other sub-development to take caution because he has no recollection of that when I spoke to him in the hall. Now I have another question about 4 docks possibly added to the, 4 docks added to the lake in addition to this 1 that’s proposed by Brian. I guess I’m not sure why it’s going to be much more than 4 because if the land, it doesn’t necessarily matter I don’t think if the land because I believe some of these lots actually go into the wetland right to the shoreland so there could be possibly much more than only the 4 docks. Again my position is I don’t own the land. You know all I know is what we were told as citizens when we came here in 1993 and were concerned. One thing too that I would say, I’m pretty much done Andrew but with the exception of there are beaver on the lake and my dog got bit by a beaver about 14 days ago and they can be pretty nasty and as far as, can I say one thing about trees as long as I’m up here. Aller: Sure. Mark Malinowski: Trees are very important. I own a farm in Wisconsin. I protect a forest. I have a lot of trees on my property but when it comes to a tree as a Planning Commission, there’s something in inventory. Now I do have a question on the inventory of a lot. Do they state the type of tree that it is? Aanenson: Yes. Mark Malinowski: Okay. So I guess the quality of trees, whether they’re cottonwood, aspen or whatever, when you replace a tree perhaps 1 red oak or 1 beautiful maple is worth more than several cottonwoods or trees that are possibly decimated by ash borer, thank you. Aller: Thank you for your comments. Any last individuals coming forward? There we go. Come on up. State your name and address for the record. 47 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Maren Jecha: Hi my name is Maren Jecha. Last name is spelled J-e-c-h-a. I live at 4080 Lakeridge Road, adjacent to Brian’s property. Aller: Welcome. Maren Jecha: We are the second homeowners of our place and when we purchased the property we enjoyed the idea of having to look out onto a lake, onto a wetland area without restrictions. The idea of listening to the deer as they walk through the wetland area. To the raccoons that come up to eat off my birdfeeders. To the pheasants that are in the backyard. To the coyotes that have been in the back yard. A lot of that has been disappearing as I’ve noticed as development has taken place through this area and we’ve lived here for 16 years now. My other concern is to, even though my property is not actually attached to the lake but the idea of looking out onto the lake without the restriction of a dock to look at of people going out onto the dock. The restriction of the animals walking through this wetland. Having to encounter this dock in the night time as they walk through the wetland areas to get to their feeding or to hunt or to escape as prey. My also other concern is the children in the neighborhood and Brian’s children too in that they are young. I’ve had, I have 5 children of my own. I lived on lake property. I’ve lived, I have a lake cabin with marsh areas and tall grasses to restrict kids from getting into the lake and falling in and my concern is safety. My concern is safety that way not only for his but for other children in the development because this is a development for children. The houses are big for large families. And my other concern is the idea of allowing a dock when the covenants and homeowners association says that there are no docks. This is what we looked at. We were given the covenants before purchasing the property knowing that docks are not allowed along with other things like clotheslines and things like that which would deteriorate our home values. That’s all, thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any other public comments? Sue Morgan: I just have one added. Sue Morgan from 4031 Kings Road. Aller: Welcome back. Sue Morgan: Thanks. Just wanted to add that it’s not, for Brian it’s not an easy lake to have a dock on. It’s a muck bottom lake so you need mud feet about this big because your poles sink and because of the last 2 years the rain events we’ve had, and we have a very busy beaver, our dock resides under water three-quarters of the summer so you know it sounds like a grand idea but it’s not an easy lake to have a dock on so that’s it. Brian Lang: I just wanted to. Aller: Keep it to 1-2 minutes. Brian Lang: Oh yeah sure. 48 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Aller: And respond to just issues that have presented. Brian Lang: Okay. I just wanted to respond to a couple items. I’ve been told that a number of times as far as when people have moved in they purchase their home based on the homeowners association covenants and I understand that but they also purchase a home under the understanding that the homeowners association covenants also say that if two-thirds a majority of the community agrees to change a covenant then that’s a possibility. So I just wanted to make a comment on that. And then the second thing as far as, I think there was a reference as far as how the process goes as far as getting approval and the mention the fact that you have to contact your, the way the language is written and that’s up to subject because it’s, some folks in the association making the assumption of that’s what it means without having the appropriate credentials to determine that and using that as an obstruction saying that you know we’re not even going to try because everyone’s got to go to the bank to get approval to have a covenant changed and that might be the case. I’m just saying that I don’t believe the people saying that have the credentials to determine the language in the covenants to assume that. And the second thing is we actually looked up, and I guess this is even, this part doesn’t matter so I won’t even say it. And then the last thing was as far as, oh the 4 docks. I was just saying that. There was no intention as far as my knowledge of the way I’m looking at the property lines and how the shoreline ends up being. That’s the way I determined that that I believe there’s a maximum potential for 4 more docks. That’s all I was saying. I wasn’t saying that anybody told me they were going to put docks in. I realize that potential is there. I just wanted to call that out. That the people, the other 3 households didn’t say you know what if you get this permit approved or what not and we get the covenants changed I’m putting in a dock too. I just wanted to make that clear because folks were getting kind of worked up about the 4 dock thing. And then lastly I understand the impacts that docks can cause. I read a lot about it. We all clearly know there is, you couldn’t even count the amount of docks on lakes in the state and what I have proposed is the most limited amount of dock that I would need in order to actually access the water. There’d be a small amount of dockage actually in the water and the actual proposed length of the dock is what I need to just get through the cattails part and honestly I was out there on Sunday walking through and I can actually walk through probably like 70 percent of that so I probably wouldn’t even need even that much dock and the reality is what I’m trying to do is just to be able to access the lake without going to the public access which is on the far northeast corner of the lake and you’d have to take the road to get there. I’m just trying to put the minimal amount of dock in in order to use non-engine propelled watercrafts for example canoes, kayaks and what not and I feel like as a shoreline property owner regardless of the covenants I have just as much of a right as someone on the, any other part of the lake to put a dock in. If they’re okay with having a dock and they don’t feel like there’s a concern with their dock and an impact to the lake, the wildlife, what have you, then I don’t think I should have any moral or I shouldn’t feel guilt because I want to put a dock in and that’s my stance on that. If others were that passionate about it they would also take their docks regardless if they’re grandfathered in. Regardless or not the reality is we’re both shoreline property owners of this lake and the both, everybody who is should have the equal 49 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 amount of rights regardless if you’ve been there 20 years before a wetland ordinance or not. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Mark Malinowski: I have one more comment. Aller: Sir just. Mark Malinowski: One minute. Aller: One minute, alright. Mark Malinowski: When Lundgren Brothers built Lake St. Joe another stipulation is they were to remove the third dock that was on the Boley property. That dock has not been removed yet and it is right, there’s poles left there. All they did was cut off the top of it and I propose that the City go to Lundgren Brothers or whoever and have them remove the rest of that dock as he promised they would do. Done. Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments from the gallery? None. We’re going to close the public hearing at this point in time and open it up for discussion. Interesting situation. Madsen: Are there rules about dock availability for different types of lakes that the City has? Aller: So Lake St. Joe in particularly, are there rules and regulations which would restrict the use of? Spreiter: Our ordinances follow the state shoreland ordinances which for each of the different classifications it has more to do with the land use and the development around the lake than it does the actual use. That includes motors, docks so to in short to answer your question no. There’s no different, it doesn’t differentiate between this lake and any other lake in regards to docks. Aanenson: Could I just add to that a little bit. So Lake St. Joe is, because it’s a natural environment lake. It doesn’t have, different lakes have different restrictions on it so this is a 15 miles an hour or less for boats, for speed on the lake. Madsen: Okay. Aller: Any additional comments? The question is putting, in my eyes is it putting the cart before the horse but is it up to me to decide that? I have reviewed the conditions and I would be hard pressed to find a reason to deny the permit and, but I do agree now with condition 1 which would say that he would have to have permission because there’s enough there for me to say let’s move 50 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 forward with this because I think we have to but I think we’re putting a reasonable condition on it to say or at least take it to the City Council for final action. Let the City Attorney look at it and he can make a request that that condition be removed at that time but that way we’re not interfering or interlocking with the potential for the homeowners association to have it’s rights enforced. Aanenson: Chairman Aller I did ask the City Attorney that question today. I think clearly you can kind of see the direction this is going. The homeowners association feels like if a dock goes up they’re left to forced to sue which puts them in a tough situation but we have no jurisdiction over the association so we really wanted to soft peddle that. Just say I think other requests that we, we certainly would send out a letter to the association’s president to say that the City, if that’s the way the City goes was to approve a wetland alteration. Just put them on notice on that. Aller: So that would be altering then condition number 1. Aanenson: Yeah I think Krista did say that instead of the word was we notify them. Not to get approval from. Spreiter: So I’m sorry, that condition was changed actually today after we spoke with the city attorney and I, maybe Kate can elaborate a little bit but basically the message was we can’t legally put that condition in there because we do not have jurisdiction over HOA’s. Aanenson: …we’d just say notification. Aller: Notification and that’s fine because that was my first blush indication but I would rather leave it to him at council but if we’re getting that information already. Aanenson: Yeah. Aller: Then that’s fine. And I would ask staff to look into that extra dock. Aanenson: Yeah. Aller: The existence violation, lack of violation, whatever. So any other comments? Questions. Yusuf: I have a question. Aller: Yes, Commissioner Yusuf. Yusuf: Please can you guys educate me on the Grade A versus Grade B difference in the lake and just kind of talk about the impact that one dock would have on the pristineness of the lake I guess. 51 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Spreiter: Sure I don’t know if I can answer all that but she was referring to, we participate in the Met Council’s camp program. It’s a citizen monitoring program. We have citizens on almost every lake in Chanhassen. They provide data on a bi-weekly basis and then the data is compiled and then the lakes are given a grade based on water quality. So I didn’t know that one of, and correct me if I’m wrong but she was saying that it was a grade A lake and since the increased development around the lake it has dropped to a grade B. As far as the impact of docks themselves I would say it would be more use and use on the lake and land use that would be an impact but I guess I don’t have the research so I can’t answer accurately. Yusuf: Thank you. Just one more question on that. When you’re looking at the grading what parameters are taken into account? Are they testing for different mineral contents or something or is it just the clarity? Spreiter: It’s a combination of things but they send in samples to a lab and then they also measure yes water clarity. They take some just objective observations but then they also test for chlorophyll A, phosphorus, total phosphorus and total nitrogen and those 3 parameters kind of make up the overall water quality of the lake. Yusuf: Thank you. Aller: Additional comments, questions. I’ll entertain a motion if someone would like to make one. Yusuf: I’ll make the motion. Aller: Commissioner Yusuf. Yusuf: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the wetland alteration permit based on the conditions of the staff report. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Hokkanen: Can you note the change of the. Yusuf: Oh I’m sorry. Aller: As amended. Yusuf: Yes please. As amended please. Hokkanen: Thank you. Second. 52 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Aller: Having a motion and having a second. Commissioner Yusuf made a motion which has been seconded by Commissioner Hokkanen on her last official night. Any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the wetland alteration permit for 4060 Lakeridge Road subject to the following conditions: 1.No dock shall be placed without notification to the Highlands on Lake St. Joe Homeowners’ Association. 2.The dock must be installed in the shortest straight line distance through the wetland. 3.The dock and any associated watercraft must be located entirely outside of the 10-foot dock setback areas. 4.No fill shall be placed anywhere within the wetland beyond the allowed 20 square foot de minimis exemption. 5.No emergent vegetation shall be removed without appropriate permits from the MN Department of Natural Resources. 6.The dock shall otherwise comply with Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: Moving onto administrative presentations. th Aanenson: This item, can we just clarify this item 2 also goes to the City Council on the 13. Aller: Yes it does. Aanenson: So if anybody’s following this item. Anything presented, we did receive some emails, those will be also included in the packet. th Aller: Yes Monday, June 13. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 19, 2016 as presented. 53 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. th Aanenson: Thank you Chairman. On the April 25 the City Council approved Mr. Randall’s appointment to the Planning Commission. He has sat through the meeting. He is observing. And also I just want to acknowledge that this is Lisa Hokkanen’s, Commissioner Hokkanen’s th last meeting so round of applause, thank you. On Monday, May 9 the City Council did approve Chick-fil-A so that one’s still working through some stormwater issues too. The underground tank there. That one actually goes, does that go south underneath Highway 5. Aller: It crosses over right? Aanenson: Yeah so we’re trying to manage that still. We’re still working through that but they’re getting ready. Would hopefully be open this fall but got to work through their site plans. Again just to be clear on that the site plan we don’t approve any construction until every plan meets the requirements so that’s kind of the, and the site plan agreement or the development contract so that’s where that sits. I would like to go through with you schedule then for th upcoming meetings. We do have on the June 7 meeting we do have the Wilson Nursery subdivision. That’s also going to be an interesting subdivision. Challenging topography so I will say you know we’ve brought in subdivisions, the last 2 subdivisions we’ve brought in are larger lots so you know we’ve been doing a lot of smaller lots so we could have done smaller lots on that one too but we’re really trying to accommodate what, you know there’s different markets. Trying to hit the different market points on that so we also have a variance on Red Cedar Point. Just removal and reconstruction of a home which is actually improving stormwater issues and some sight lines so I think that’s a very positive one. We’ll give the oath of office to Mr. Randall when he’s here and then we have another variance on Leslee Curve and that’s for an additional shed over the 1,000 square feet. And then finally I’m going to do a summary of the visioning that you did. I’m presenting that to the Park and Rec on Tuesday but your next meeting I’ll just share with you some of the findings and then kind of look at the analytics as we look at our population growth. How many jobs in what sectors and how that, you know how we think about that as we move forward in some of our recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan so with that Chairman that’s all I had. Aller: Great. Alright I think that’s it for our agenda tonight. So with that I would just say Lisa I personally have enjoyed working with you and the vibrancy that you brought here and the professionalism that you brought to the commission and especially your passion to serve the residents of Chanhassen and just making it what could be a tedious process a little bit more fun. Hokkanen: Tried to. Aller: So thank you and I also look forward to Mr. Randall joining us at the next meeting and getting his unique perspective as we move forward. With that I’ll make a motion to adjourn or entertain a motion to adjourn. Would you like to? 54 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Hokkanen: Motion to adjourn for the last time. Yusuf: Second. Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 55