PC MinutesChanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017
Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
approval of the variance request to allow a wall sign along the east façade of the building at
th
400-416 West 78 Street and a monument sign located with the parking lot’s 10 foot
setback, subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive the required sign permits from the City.
2. The applicant must enter into an encroachment agreement with the City in order to locate
the ground low profile sign within the drainage and utility easement.
3. The wall sign on the east façade must comply with all provisions of the City Code, and
the Colonial Square Shopping Center Exterior Building Sign Plan, excepting the
provision in the later that limits signage to the south elevation.
4. The ground low profile sign must meet the sign code’s design criteria and follow the
standards for the Central Business District (CBD).
5. The ground low profile sign may not be located within the sight distance triangle depicted
in the attachment.
6. If the ash tree is removed a tree must be replaced with one shade tree. The tree shall be a
minimum size of 2 inch diameter.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LAKE LUCY RIDGE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE CREATION OF A 5 ACRE RECREATIONAL
BEACHLOT FOR THE LAKE LUCY RIDGE SUBDIVISION RESIDENTS. THE
REQUEST INCLUDES A PRIVATE SEASONAL DOCK SERVING NON-MOTORIZED
WATERCRAFT AND A CANOE RACK FOR SIX VESSELS. THE SITE IS LOCATED
SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE LUCY
ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. OWNER: LAKE LUCY
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. APPLICANT: GREG MCGUIRK.
Aller: And for the record we’ve received several emails which I know staff will discuss in their
presentation which came in after the original filing of the report. They will be received. They’ll
be made part of the record and they will be forwarded to the City Council for review as well.
Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you
today is for a beachlot. The location of the site is south of Lake Lucy Road and on the northwest
corner of Lake Lucy. It is legally described as Outlot B of Lake Lucy Ridge Addition. Just a
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017
th
brief history on this site. On May 28 of 2002 the City Council approved a final plat for a
subdivision consisting of 17 lots and 2 outlots. Outlot B, which is the subject site for this
evening is intended or contains a trail that is a regional trail and it also has a storm pond.
Typically it is the City’s policy to take ownership of such parcels, specifically when they are
along a lake and have environmental features on them mainly because we want to preserve them
in their natural state. In this case there is an easement over the trail as well as a drainage and
utility easement over the storm pond. Initially the developer had intended to deed the outlot to
the City. However the homeowners association ended up maintaining ownership of this outlot.
So as I mentioned earlier this is a conditional use permit for the creation of a recreational
beachlot. One of the things that we need to point out is that initially we advertised for both a
conditional use as well as a wetland alteration permit in the event that there was an impact to the
wetlands while reviewing the application and the construction plans. It was clear to us that there
would be a no loss in wetland function or values as defined in the Minnesota Wetlands
Conservation Act. As such there is no need for a wetland alteration permit. Just a conditional
use permit. So with the proposed layout for the site, Outlot B is intended to contain the, a dock
that would be able to allow homeowners association members for Lake Lucy Ridge to access the
lake. The area of Outlot B is 5 acres and it will serve the 17 homes within this development.
The dock is proposed to have a length of 160 feet that will be extending out onto Lake Lucy and
there will be a T-bar at the end of the, a T-bar at the end of the dock that is 25 feet wide. One of
the concerns that we have had lengthy discussions about with the homeowners association’s
representatives regarding this proposal deals with access to this proposed beachlot as well as the
dock area. So access to the beachlot is via this trail. This is a regional trail. It is owned and
maintained by the City. What we need to elaborate on with specifically with this portion of the
trail is that it is only a small section of a much larger trail system that will eventually extended
beyond Lake Ann. As the trail segments get built, and that will happen as properties in the
surrounding area develop, it will generate additional traffic and with that there is the potential
that it may general some trespassing complaints. We talked about this issue at length with the
applicants. Their proposal calls for a gate on the dock and on that gate there would be a sign that
will read private dock, no trespassing and staff pulled up some examples of gates that have been
used. One of the other elements that are proposed on the lake is a double paddleboard, canoe,
kayak rack. There will be a total of 3 of those elements and, for a total of 6 non-motorized
watercrafts. Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions. There have
been several emails that have been submitted to the City and staff would like to address them
very briefly touch on some of these elements that have been pointed out. The first one deals with
the name of the homeowners association. The public hearing notice that was mailed out stated
Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. It should have said Lake Lucy Ridge Homeowners
Association so that is one correction that staff is making on the record. There was some
discussion regarding potentially the City owning the parcel and prior to the Lake Lucy Ridge
subdivision being developed there were conversations between city staff and the homeowners, or
the landowner at the time. That acquisition did not occur. There were some concerns dealing
with the beachlot. What will happen if they choose to intensify the use of this beachlot? We
need to point out that any amendment, any changes to the beachlot will require an amendment of
the conditional use permit. What the City is approving is strictly based on plans that were
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017
submitted January 20, 2017 which show a dock as well as a canoe rack. One of the comments
that was also made in the email or question that was raised is would the approval of this
application place restrictions on the current users of the lake and the answer is no. There are no
restrictions whatsoever. Another email that was received basically pointed out that the canoes
should not exceed 6 in number and that is one of the conditions of approval. It’s what the
applicant is requesting and what staff is recommending. There was a statement that there is a
beach area that is being introduced with this request and as you saw on the plans there is no
beach proposed. Another statement dealt with a chainlink fence proposed to be erected in close
proximity to the back lots of several homes in, on Steller Court. Staff is not aware of such a
proposal. There is a statement made regarding devaluation of properties in the surrounding area
and that taxes should be lowered on these properties and potential noise complaints. And one of
the last comments in those emails deals with may be providing public access along Lake Lucy
for neighboring properties to use non-motorized canoes out on the lake and not limited to the
homeowners association requesting the conditional use permit. That summarizes the emails that
we received and I’ll be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: Thank you. I have a few. The first one is with the notice. The notices went out to the
appropriate homeowners that were within range and are impacted according to code, correct?
Al-Jaff: It went out to people within 500 feet as well as all individuals that own property along
Lake Lucy.
Aller: Okay great. Then the second thing would be is there anything that would preclude other
than our typical zoning and building codes that would stop an individual from building a fence
on this property without this request?
Al-Jaff: Meaning on Outlot B?
Aller: On Outlot B.
Al-Jaff: They will have to meet all shoreland as well as DNR requirements.
Aller: But they could do it without creating this little functionary location?
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Aller: Okay. And then with regard to access to the property, how are we treating the access to
Outlot B?
Al-Jaff: It is a public trail that the application would be using. This is the public trail and
anyone can use it. One of the things that we did state in the staff report and we’ve talked to the
applicant about this is how do they intend to build the dock because motorized vehicles are not
permitted on public trails and they are aware of that. They did contact and have a conversation
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017
with their contractor. The contractor agreed to build it without motorized vehicles on the trail.
We questioned the bid that came back. It was a little low and requested that the applicant
basically confirm that this is what they will be charging them and I had a phone conversation
with the applicant stating that, that is the case.
Aller: If this is moved forward does it impact the ability for me to go down there and use the
trail?
Al-Jaff: No.
Aller: Portage my own canoe down to the bottom or my own board to the bottom and use it.
Al-Jaff: You? There is no public access. This is a private access. The public may use the trail.
However this is a private dock and anyone that goes on the dock would be trespassing unless
they are part of the association.
Aller: Okay so my question is, the use of the regional trail is open to the public.
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
Aller: Does it allow for me, can I get down there and get access without using the dock? Or the
proposed dock. To the water.
Al-Jaff: No.
Weick: Because of natural barriers or?
Aanenson: Correct.
Weick: Okay.
Aanenson: The wetland.
Weick: Right so it’s physically difficult to drag a canoe down the trail and it’s naturally difficult
to actually get it into the water.
Aller: Right.
Weick: Okay.
Randall: We’re calling this a recreational beachlot but there’s no beach per se, correct?
Al-Jaff: Under the city code a conditional use permit is required to allow a dock.
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017
Randall: Okay. And I was just wondering because I know one of those emails they talked about
it and I was picturing you know beach balls being thrown around and you know barbeque on the
grill and that type of thing and it’s not going to be like that at all.
Aller: And that’s why I’m asking these questions. I want to get to what the actual use is as
opposed to what we’re calling it because I think that information needs to be out there to make a
proper decision one way or another so. Does it impact the use of an individual from the water
coming across the way they normally would? An individual wouldn’t be allowed to beach on
this property anyway correct?
Al-Jaff: It’s private property so.
Aller: So no, it’s not impacting my ability to go out there and boat and canoe and paddleboard
and it’s not changing anything that I normally would do or be allowed to do?
Al-Jaff: Correct. You will not be able to use the dock to access the lake but other than that
everything else should remain the same.
Aller: Right.
Al-Jaff: You want the trail then if you want to access the trail you will be able to do so.
Aller: Okay.
Weick: But if I wanted to walk down the path and walk through 100 whatever 40 feet of cattails,
could I go swimming? And I’m not a resident of that area. I’m not going down the dock. I’m
just coming down the path and I want to go for a swim. Could I walk through 150 feet of cattails
and jump in the lake? Legally.
Al-Jaff: You will be, based on what we have seen on all of our maps you would be trespassing.
Weick: You would be, okay.
Al-Jaff: You would be trespassing.
Weick: On the lake side.
Al-Jaff: On the lake side.
Weick: Of the path, okay.
Al-Jaff: Because the trail is limited.
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017
Weick: Got it.
Al-Jaff: To an area within an easement. Anything beyond that is outside the trail way easement
and you are on private property.
Weick: I just wanted to clarify that.
Aller: And so far edification an easement is really a permissive use. We’re being granted
permission to use that property for the purpose of ingress and egress for the trail to walk, to view,
to see, to enjoy nature but not to run around the yards next to it?
Al-Jaff: That is correct.
Aller: Any additional questions at this time?
Madsen: I have a question.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: So the section that addresses recreational beachlots can also allow sailboats. A certain
number for the length of the shore length. Now none are proposed here so if someone wanted to
moor sailboats in the future would they have to come back and get approval?
Al-Jaff: Right now we are, yes. Yes they will have to come in and get approval. Everything
would have to be amended. Right now we are limiting it to 6 canoes. If they chose to use
paddleboards.
Madsen: Okay because sailboat mooring is different. That would be away from the dock.
Al-Jaff: You are correct.
Madsen: And that is not getting approved in this plan.
Al-Jaff: That is correct.
Madsen: Okay thank you.
Al-Jaff: Sure.
Aller: Any additional questions based on the staff report at this time? Hearing none if the
applicant would like to come forward and make a presentation they can do so. Welcome sir. If
15
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017
you can state your name and address and your representational capacity if any that would be
great.
John Butcher: Yep, good evening. I’m John Butcher. I live at 6915 Lucy Ridge Lane and I’m
part of the Lake Lucy Ridge HOA. The President is traveling and can’t be here tonight so I’m
representing the group. Just to be clear on a couple of points. I think you guys understand
exactly what we’re intending. I think the notice scared some people. It sounds aggressive like
we are creating 5 acres worth of beach. Our intention all along is to just provide safe and
consistent access for the people of the HOA to the lake. There are currently people as part of our
neighborhood that try and take a canoe out into the water and it’s pretty dangerous when you go
through the cattails because all of a sudden you’re walking on cattails then you sink a couple of
feet and so we’ve had a couple of kids that had some close calls and it got us, I’ve only been in
this neighborhood for a year and a half, just asking well our HOA owns the property that goes to
the lake. How come we haven’t ever looked at a dock and everyone said oh it’s just too many
hurdles so we decided to start trying to gently and gradually clear hurdles and understand what
they might be and so we’ve been working with the City for the better part of about 8 months now
to make sure that we are doing this in a safe and responsible way. We love this lake. We love
this part of the lake. It’s very serene and part of why we chose this house is because it is so, it’s
a wonderful place to be. I’ve lived in Chanhassen for 15 years and we love where we’re located
so we don’t want to do anything that would in any way disrupt the wetland. So we’re
minimizing and you heard the City say that we now have zero impact to the wetland. That was
intentional and it took us a while to get to that point because we don’t want to disrupt anything
either. We just want a way to go from the existing paved path to the lake and onto the lake in a
way that we know that we can let our families go down there and not have to worry about it. The
gate is proposed to, we’ve talked about a lot of different ways to keep people off of the dock who
shouldn’t be on there because obviously we want that too. From a liability standpoint we don’t
want someone coming onto the dock that shouldn’t be there and then have something you know
happen to them. The way that has been proposed to us that we think might be best is to, because
it’s very shallow along the cattails for a while is to a few feet into the dock place a gate that will
not allow anyone to go beyond that section of the dock and then our kayaks, canoes, everything
else would be stored at the end to prevent any dragging on and through the wetlands and also we
thought that was just kind of a one size fits all solution to keep people off and keep anything else
from having to be moored up on the shore so anyway that’s I just wanted to make sure everyone
understood our intentions and what we’re hoping to get out of this and I’m happy to answer any
questions that you guys might have or anyone else here for that matter because I know that there
are people that probably are wondering what this is all about.
Aller: Great. Any questions of the applicant at this point?
Weick: No.
Aller: Not at this time but we might have a couple later.
16
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017
John Butcher: I’m sticking around.
Aller: Stick around.
Randall: I have one question.
John Butcher: Oh yes.
Randall: Do you have any concerns with the proposed trail development coming around Lake
Lucy with more traffic in the future?
John Butcher: There have been some concerns just in general. You know the path obviously
stops at Prince’s land and.
Randall: And with the situation changing with that property there might be more development
sooner than later with that.
John Butcher: Yeah we anticipate that which is why the gate was so important to us.
Randall: Okay.
John Butcher: You know there’s already quite, I mean it’s surprising but, because our lot
actually is one that abuts the trail so on one side you have a trail and the other side you have the
lake. There’s already, there’s a lot of people that go and just walk to that dead end and then turn
back around. And many people, as I’m sure you know walk all the way through that land
because Prince just didn’t care. He shared it with everybody so our chief concern, and actually I
think I personally I would love for the trail to be extended down to Lake Ann because I just think
it’d be great to be able to access more of the west side of those lakes. Our biggest concern was
just how to keep people if there are hundreds of people a week on the trail, how to keep them off
the dock and so we’ve been assured by, we’ve talked to multiple people who install docks and
gates and this seems like the best way because there are potential overhangs that would hang
over the top of the cattails and prevent someone from going over or around the gate to get onto
the dock and so we thought the combination of that and then posting a sign to make sure people
understand that it’s private should be enough.
Randall: And one more question. Where is your, what’s your plan for off season storage for the
dock? Is it going to be a year round dock or are you?
John Butcher: We’ve talked about a couple of different options. One would be if we, if we
don’t think it, we think that this lake is small enough that we might just be able to leave it in in
the winter and then minimize some of the other disruption of in and out. I don’t think there’s
going to be a lot of heaving. My neighbor who uses this lake regularly has watched and he feels
that that’s probably the case. If we have to take it out we can store it off site.
17
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017
Randall: Okay. Alright.
John Butcher: Yeah most of them do what? Leave it in or take it out?
Aller: They take them out.
John Butcher: They don’t, okay.
Aller: Based on those responses and questions any additional comments or questions? Hearing
none thank you very much. I’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. This is an
opportunity for those individuals present to come forward and speak either for or against this
item. Please state your name and address for the record when coming forward. Welcome sir.
Barry Dallavalle: Hello. My name is Barry Dallavalle. I’m at, live at 6960 Utica Lane and I’m
representing the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association which is the other homeowners association
on the lake that we have about 12 members that basically reside on the eastern and northern sides
of the lake. On the face of it, on the face of this request we really don’t, we do find it to be a
reasonable one and a modest one and pretty much in line with how other lots are being used but
we do have 2 concerns. One is that while the request is modest and this was brought up by some
of you already, that as a recreational beachlot designation there are a lot more uses that it could
have and we wanted to be sure that any expansion of what is asked for would require another
public hearing so that we have a chance to weigh in on it, and that seems to be the case here.
You know there are things in the city code that allows you to put gazeboes on there or put
motorized boats on there so we would want to make sure that that amendment I think has been
suggested by staff to stay with this proposal.
Aller: You had two concerns? What was the second one?
Barry Dallavalle: Yeah there’s another. Another issue is probably the bigger one is that this lot
is unlike any other lot that we have on the lake. All the other lots are privately owned and are
owned by people who reside on that lot. This lot is kind of a, we see it as a kind of quasi public
lot. It is restricted we understand to apparently 17 households that belong to the HOA. I don’t
know if that membership is restricted to those 17. Would it ever be expanded? But it’s 17.
We’re only 12 so you can see that it’s greatly expanding. Almost doubling the amount of users
on Lake Lucy. Probably the biggest thing though is that since no one resides on that lot it’s
probably going to be difficult to police it. Self police it as to who’s using it. Who’s doing
anything on that dock. Who are the people that are accessing it. I know that you know there’s a
security gate that’s being ahead. That’s primarily for the vandalism or the access from the trail
but you know anybody can go down there and I don’t know if it’s these 17 homeowners, you
know is it their family, their friends, the relatives also have access to it so we have some
concerns there about if something is going on there who would we contact? You know who
18
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017
would be the responsible party if there is one? What would be any recourse if there’s some
unusual activity going on there? We hope that doesn’t happen but that’s a concern that we have.
Aller: Great, thank you.
Barry Dallavalle: You’re welcome.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair can I answer that question? That was a good question.
Aller: Please.
Aanenson: Yep, we have a number of beachlots in the city that actually have kind of this
situation where they’re not attached to a property. If you were to go up on Minnewashta
Parkway there’s a number on Minnewashta Parkway. I know these very well because that was
one of the first things I did when I came to the City is permitted all those because they didn’t
limit the association size and so while, or the number of docks on the, they were tied to a
subdivision but not necessarily how many. What was the expectation of how many slips could
be put on at any one time so they were all given permits and then that was after we created this
ordinance that we’re looking at now. So we do have other situations where there’s not direct,
you’re accessing something public. A public street to get down. Again Minnewashta comes to
mind. There’s a couple other ones that are also on Lotus Lake. Same situation. You’re coming
off of a public street and there’s common, so the one key thing they have is they’re tied to
association and they’re limited. In this circumstance as Sharmeen has pointed out, the
association owns this property all of which is a wetland so you can’t have a beach on a wetland.
You can’t put a structure on a wetland but for a dock so all those would require a permit so yes.
This is tied to that association. We also do inspect beachlots. That’s part of our, the planning
department’s job so we do check those annually and also if there’s complaints we’ll follow up on
those. Often complaints go to the sheriff’s office or just come in directly to the City and we’ll
follow up on those and that again is part of our job but the association will manage the beachlot
and is tied to that number of homes. As far as someone else that might be, have access to using
it they’re still restricted to the 6 boats so that’s up to the association how they manage it as long
as it doesn’t exceed the number of boats and their following any other rules of the lake and good
behavior. Any other city nuisance issues that’s how that’s policed.
Aller: Great. Any additional questions based on that? Alright hearing none, we’re still in the
public hearing portion so anyone wishing to come forward can still do so at this time. Thank you
sir. Please state your name and address for the record.
Scott Sather: Hi Scott Sather, 7090 Utica Lane.
Aller: Welcome.
19
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017
Scott Sather: Hi. So one of my biggest concerns is somebody accessing Lake Ann through the
public launch and there’s a beaver dam now that’s plugged up Lake Ann and the lake waters are
a lot higher and we’ve had people, it’s non-motorized Lake Ann but it’s motorized on Lake Lucy
and they’re pushing their boats through the channel and then they’re accessing Lake Lucy and
it’s, it can get really crowded on the weekends and my concern is somebody pushing a boat
through and then maybe tying up to the new dock and people coming on and off the dock all
weekend and then basically using the lake, not can they shore the boats at night? Tie them up.
Can they jump on and off that sort of thing? That’s one of my biggest concerns because it gets
really crowded fast and we’re noticing that is a little bit of a problem lately.
Aller: No and I appreciate your concerns. Living on Lake Lotus myself so I understand the
wake and the slow wake and the motorized versus non-motorized and the desire to keep your
property and to use your property and then at the same time to share it with everyone else on the
lake and having public access there so there’s that constant tension there that we all enjoy
hopefully. Any additional comments or questions or concerns from the community at this point?
Okay I’ll close the public hearing portion of this item and open it to commissioner discussion
and comments. Comments? Concerns?
Yusuf: Seems straight forward to me.
Aller: I think most of the concerns that are being voiced are good concerns as I said. I think that
the staff report addresses most of them. If we go back in and we look at them I think based on
the Findings of Fact and knowing that the delineation of this property and the wetland, it’s
already been delineated. It’s already been filed. Notices have been provided to the appropriate
agencies for the Wetland Conservation Act and none of those agencies have come forward to
appeal those findings. It gives me a comfort level and the fact that we’ve in the past had
conditional permits. Use permits revoked for misuse and abuse here in Chanhassen. I think we
do a good job. I think it’s the public’s, it’s on the public’s dime to go ahead and call people and
say this is what we see. This is what we’re concerned about and I think the City will act on that.
I think any expansion of this is clearly something that would have to come back to us and the
City Council for approval so I’m going to vote in favor. Any additional comments, questions?
Weick: I believe the intent is to you know for these families to use the lake and I think in the
spirit of that intent it makes sense. I would like to address on the record though a comment that
was made in one of the emails. I don’t think I necessarily have to identify the email but it was
noted in there that there’s a concern that these, in quoting the hearing is a formality and the City
has made up it’s mind and I just want to go on the record as saying that these are not formality
hearings and we do hear both, all of the neighbors and all of the concerns both for and against
proposals. Whether it is in favor or not of what the City is recommending. This body is
independent of that and I do want to put it on the record that these meetings are not mere
formalities for the City.
Aller: Your umbrage is noted.
20
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017
Weick: Thank you.
Aller: Yes Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: I do appreciate that there are specific restrictions on this outlot and that not, they don’t,
it does not allow for all recreational beachlot possible uses. It is restricted and it, they are trying
to preserve the wetlands and I think that they’ve done a good job in trying to do that.
Aller: I agree. Additional comments? If not I’ll entertain a motion or further action.
Weick: I’ll propose a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval
of the Conditional Use Permit for the creation of a recreational beachlot. This is Planning Case
17-04 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Randall: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion or comment?
Weick moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the creation of a Recreational Beachlot as
shown in plans dated Received January 20, 2017, Planning Case 17-04 and subject to the
following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision:
1. The beachlot shall contain no more than one dock with no more than 3 racks for the
storage of 6 non-motorized watercrafts.
2. The beachlot shall meet all requirements set forth for recreational beachlots in Section
20-263 of the City Code.
3. The beachlot shall not be used as a boat launch and the City will post the appropriate
signage. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of signage and installation.
4. An amendment to the Conditional Use Permit shall be required for any changes to the
beachlot including but not limited to: dock configuration, installation of portable
chemical toilets, placement of boat racks, and placement of structures.
5. To the extent feasible the City may impose such conditions even after approval of the
beachlot if the City finds it necessary.
21
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017
6. It should be noted that the only access to the private dock is via a public pedestrian trail
owned and operated by the City of Chanhassen and open to the public.
7. Prior to construction verification shall be received that the dock contractor is going to
deliver twenty (20) sections of 4’ x 10’ dock by hand a distance of 1,000 feet and install
the dock, canoe racks and security gate for a fee of $500.
8. Motorized vehicles cannot be utilized to deliver or retrieve watercraft or association gear
to or from the dock.
9. There shall be no chemical or physical removal of emergent vegetation.
10. Emergent vegetation may be cut no lower than the normal water elevation from the
centerline of the dock to a point no more than five (5) feet from the edge of the dock on
either side.
11. The cross section of the wetland shall not be altered to accommodate placement of the
dock or the approach to the dock.
12. No materials shall be stored within the wetland buffer except as allowed on the dock
itself.
13. The applicant shall contact the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and insure
compliance with DNR regulations governing shoreland.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTE: Commissioner Yusuf noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 7, 2017 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS.
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Aanenson: Thank you Chair. I think we included in your packet the, kind of the annual report
and that report will also be the genesis of your discussion when you have the joint meeting with
the City Council on, it’s in your calendar too so you want to make note of that. It is. I just had it
th
here. It is the 24 of April. Monday night. So that’s a meeting so we’ll have our Planning
Commission in place then and so then that meeting we’ll talk about what the Planning
Commission’s been doing. So again as part of the charge of the commission to do an annual
st
report by the end of March and so as we do every year here it is. We estimate as of April 1 our
population will be at 25,273 so this is a number that we use. We put it on the website. Again a
lot of the information, the planning staff generates a lot of statistical information that people
22