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