CC 2007 04 09
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 9, 2007
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Furlong, Councilman Litsey, Councilwoman
Ernst, Councilwoman Tjornhom, and Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Laurie Hokkanen, Kate Aanenson, Lori
Haak, Paul Oehme, and Todd Hoffman
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Mark Peterson 6330 Trapline Circle
Amy Johnson 2905 Butternut Drive
Matt Rasmussen 1026 Bluff Pass South, Chaska
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and welcome to everybody here in the council chambers and those
joining us at home as well. We're glad that you joined us. I'd like to start this evening and ask if
there are any changes or modifications to the agenda by any members of the council? If not,
we'll proceed with the agenda as published without objection.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated March 26, 2007
-City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated March 26, 2007
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated March 20, 2007
c. Gauer Addition, 3820 Lone Cedar Lane: Lot 4, Block 1, Cedar Crest; Applicant, Scott
and Laurie Gauer: Approval of a Two-Lot Subdivision with a Variance for Access Off a
Private Street.
Resolution #2007-24:
d. Lake Lucy Ridge, Project 01-03: Accept Streets and Utilities.
e. Approval of City Code Amendment to Chapter 10 Concerning 3.2 On-Sale Beer Licenses
(Housekeeping Item).
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
Resolution #2007-25:
f. Approve Purchase of Utility Vehicle.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
1(b). 2007 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 07-02: CALL ASSESSMENT
HEARING.
Mayor Furlong: Item 1(b), we'll take that now. Councilman Litsey, I understand you're going to
recuse yourself on this item.
Councilman Litsey: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: So we'll take a separate vote on that. Is there a motion to approve item 1(b)?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Ernst: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Resolution #2007-26: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to call
the assessment hearing for the 2007 Street Rehabilitation Project No. 07-02 for May 14,
2007, and approve the attached resolution. All voted in favor, except Councilman Litsey
who recused himself, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: CHANHASSEN LIBRARY ANNUAL REPORT, JANET
KINNEY, BRANCH MANAGER.
Mayor Furlong: This evening we do have with us Janet Kinney, the Branch Manager of the
Chanhassen Library here to present to the council the library's annual report so, good evening
Ms. Kinney. How are you?
Janet Kinney: I'm doing well, thank you. It's a great day at the library tonight. I think we have
about 150 people attending various meetings. Say nothing about those that are just in the
building so it's a great night at the library. And I am Janet Kinney and I am the Branch Manager
for the Chanhassen Library, and I thank you Mayor Furlong and council members for allowing
me to present the 2006 Annual Report, the Library. Tonight I would especially like to welcome,
to thank Mr. Mark Peterson for being with us tonight. He is the Chanhassen representative to the
Carver County Library Board, and it's great to have him as my support for tonight. You have all
received a written document that outlines the activities at the library in the previous year. I hope
that it captures and reflects some of our excitement, the wonderful things that are happening right
across the park here. You will see increases in our circulation and our user counts at the library.
These are the traditional measurements for a public library and they're at an all time high for
Chanhassen. Much of this activity can be attributable directly to the increase in hours that was a
2
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
funded in April, 2006. It's been a whole year now that we've been on the extended hours. And
I'm sure you're very interested in the library's activity on Sunday, which was one of the major
funding factors in that request. I'm very happy to report that the 4 hours of service on Sunday is
extremely popular, and it's use is increasing. The average per hour circulation, you know
because add that out. You have a Sunday hour during the first, the 9 months of 2006 that we had
Sunday service was about 72 items an hour, and that would be compared to 100 items per hour
on a regular day. However, even by the end of the first quarter of 2007, that per hour circulation
was up to 111 so it's above, gone above the average, and I think it's really found it's audience.
One of the things I've really noticed, and staff has also reinforced, the pace of the library on
Sunday is different. Whole families come in right at 1:00 and kind of camp out and the kids go
to the kids room and folks hang around at the computers or wherever, and then about 3:00 those
folks that didn't quite get the assignments done for Monday appear. So the activity kind of
increases with intensity. And it's not only the kids. We've been noticing an awful lot of adults
with their laptops completing that Monday morning assignment you know, so we're all there
together finishing up the week's work at the library on Sunday so, it's a really, really important
service and I really thank you for the support you gave at the library did that. In the report you
will notice the wide variety of programs and services that we provide from the Lap Sit Story
Time for caregivers of children. From moment of birth through 18 months, to the Senior Tax
Service that we offer in partnership with AARP. Let me tell you the lines on Tuesdays over
there are pretty phenomenal. The library is serving Chanhassen residents of all ages with
recreational and educational opportunities. Many of the special programs that are offered at the
library are a result of the excellent support that we receive from the Friends of the Chanhassen
Library. They continue to be there for the library for such services as free coffee in the morning.
We'd like to see more people over there drinking our free coffee. To birthday books for
preschoolers to funding the extremely interesting Great Decisions series of lectures at the library.
I would also like to recognize the continuing excellent maintenance of the building. We are so
fortunate to be able to just to call Dave when any problem arises and he's there and he takes care
of it. And this year, Todd Hoffman arranged for an exterior lighted sign to be raised at lease 18
inches, which makes it visible over the landscaping, and it really is a great improvement. It's one
of those things you don’t always notice but it really, really helps. And of course if I didn't
mention our great staff it would be a true remiss. Many of you have worked with the library,
library staff over the years and they just continue to raise the level of excellence and it's exciting
to work with them. So if I can just cheat a little bit and move on to what we're doing in 2007. I
would like to let the council know that we have, I have in the reports our goals and the main area
of new programming will be a focus on teens. This group is really unrepresented in the use of
our libraries and it's fairly typical nationwide. The libraries haven't always spoken well to the
tweens to the high school students, so the 11, 12 year olds up into the 14 and 15. So we're
looking for, one of the things that Chan has for this group is a strong support for volunteers
during the summer reading program. We've really reached out and they've come in and they do a
terrific job for us, so we're hoping to take, leverage that opportunity to develop a teen council
and advisory council and have them help us just make some decisions about, we may need to
redecorate the teen area just a little bit. I don't know the baby blue walls just aren't doing it so
we need to have some advice and clearly I'm not going to be deciding what a teen area should
look like, so we do have a half time teen library, Jeff Olmsted and we're very excited about this
opportunity that we have for this year. We're also working on our marketing and our publicity.
Those who use us, use us well but we are not penetrating deeply enough into the Chanhassen
3
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
community, so we're going to be working hard on that and if any of you have ideas or
suggestions, we'd be so welcomed of them. And the other area that I would like to just point out
is the continuing development of our collections. Over the years we were a pretty small library
and we had a pretty small budget, but that is improving and so we're going to give special
emphasis to kids materials, to make sure we have the very best materials ready for the summer
reading program, to the teen books, as I mentioned earlier, and then continue to build the non-
fiction collections for adults. We get a lot of requests and we want to make sure we can serve
them. And the last thing I want to mention is the important process that the library is handling
right now. We have started our strategic plan. As you guys are doing your comprehensive plan,
we do a strategic plan. It is required by the State of Minnesota. Our State Library, but it
coincides so nicely with the city's comprehensive planning and the Carver County so during the
summer we're going to be doing focus groups on, we're hopeful that we can include some of you
in those kinds of conversations. Usually the library has done a little bit too much internal
strategic planning. Now we want to make sure we're out in the community. So we're doing
some scanning, environmental scanning right now and then we'll be asking for your input when
it comes to kind of a focus process. So it's been a great year at the library and your continued
support has really allowed us to have the excellent hours of service that are so important in our
beautiful library, and I thank you for your support. I look forward to your questions.
Mayor Furlong: Great, thank you. Mr. Gerhardt, any additional comments?
Todd Gerhardt: No.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Questions for Ms. Kinney.
Councilman Litsey: I just want to compliment the great job you do there. As a regular user of
the library.
Janet Kinney: It's fun to see your face.
Councilman Litsey: The staff does a great job and it's a very welcoming environment and the
extended hours have been nice too.
Janet Kinney: Aren't they wonderful.
Councilman Litsey: Keep up the good work and I like these initiatives, especially with the teens
so I commend you for trying to be more…
Janet Kinney: And we're so glad the skateboard park is right nearby. We're always talking to
Todd about doing some advertising over there and they're not…
Mayor Furlong: The skateboard collection will be over there. Ms. Kinney, a question for you
and I certainly concur with regard to your desire to focus more on teens. I think that's great.
Explain a little bit about the resources you have for businesses.
Janet Kinney: Okay.
4
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
Mayor Furlong: And then how much, or what level of use our local businesses are making of
your resources.
Janet Kinney: Not enough may I say, but we're going to work on that. We are building quite a
good business library. We have a lot of things on CD's or tapes so you can use them in your
cars, whatever format you might need. So a lot of the current business literature we're getting in
that format and we've got a nice collection that's not being used as well as I wish it were so that's
part of our marketing emphasis too. We do have a tremendous number of databases that are only
available through the library's web site. We're beginning to notice some use there but truthfully
we need to do a much better job of letting the business community know the resources that we
have, and also finding out from the business community what we don't have or what they do
want. So I am a very new member of the Rotary. Thank you Todd, and I'm a member of the
Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce and we really hope that through those relationships we
might increase our visibility in the business community.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any other questions?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, Mr. Mayor I'd like to say thank you for everything. The
librarian also announced that Mark Peterson is here tonight and he is on the Carver County
Library Commission and he's one of the newest members so I'd like to welcome him here tonight
and thank him for his willing to serve. And we also, my daughter, I was in the library about 3
hours ago for a book on Betsy Ross.
Mayor Furlong: Report's due tomorrow?
Janet Kinney: I hope it was in.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: It was in. Thank you.
Janet Kinney: Thank you very much.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Very good. We'll move on now to next items of business on our
agenda.
T-MOBILE CELL TOWER, OUTLOT A, HALLA MARYANNE ADDITION:
APPLICANT, T-MOBILE: CONSIDER SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 145 FOOT CELL TOWER WITH A 4 FOOT LIGHTNING
ROD AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A FENCE OVER 6 1/2 FEET.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. As you indicated Mayor, this application is a conditional use for a
cell tower. I just want to clarify at the Planning Commission there was some ambiguity about
the process itself and the location at this site. The subject site that is before you tonight is just
north of Creekside, or south of Pioneer Trail on 101, just south of the Halla Nursery site. It is a
conditional use which means that we would attach conditions to mitigate the impact but we
wouldn't deny it. We did look at other opportunities for a cell tower in this area, but based on
5
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
their needs and the opportunity that we would have with our property, there wasn't another
option at the time. So the pole itself is 145 feet, which does meet ordinance. There was a
lightning rod that does need to be applied and there was a request for a conditional use to go
higher with the fence and that was to accommodate barbed wire, but the staff at this time is
recommending that the barbed wire be removed, and I'll talk about that in a minute. This item
th
did appear before the Planning Commission on March 20 and there were several questions that
were raised by the residents. I just want to go through those just to make sure that we, the
residents feel comfortable that we did address them. One was the climbability of the cell tower
and there's extension ladders so the highest point to be putting it onto a ladder is 20 to 25 feet.
Again the blinking light, it doesn't appear that needs to be put in place right now by FAA
standards. Again the barbed wire is a conditional use. It is permitted in that district that it is but
we're recommending no, and the reason for it is this property can be subdivided in the future. It
would become legal non-conforming and we didn't want to have to deal with that at a future date.
T-Mobile has done other sites in the city. The last one you saw was at the Murray Hill, the water
tower there. If you remember we put a taller fence there. There was no barbed wire and again a
residential area so we just want to make sure that we don't have a legal or a non-conforming
situation in the future when this property could be subdivided. So going to the 6 feet would take
away the requirement for the variance. So the fence would just be 6 feet with no barbed wire,
and that would be modified in a condition which remind me to make sure I go back to. Again I
talked a little bit about the service area, and I've got a map to show that in a minute when I go
through those, and then how many antennas. This does provide for additional antennas and I'll
go through that too. So the tower itself is 145 feet. The units will be placed at the bottom. I've
got a better site plan on that so there is an application or the ability to provide additional
receivers on the site itself without going taller. Again once the tower's been approved
administratively, those would just come in place. We did provide at the Planning Commission,
we asked the applicant to show the perspective of the surrounding properties, so this would be
Bluff Creek Golf Course looking across. The color itself is also blue, which you saw in the
original one, and that's what you're seeing here. Which is called out in the staff report. This is
looking from the golf course drive going, this would be looking north. Halla Nursery entrance.
And these are the units on the base. Again they won't be in a building but there will be a fence
around it. So this is what you would see, and this is the fence around again without the barbed
wire, the tower itself and then the units. So this originally when this appeared before the
Planning Commission we did ask the applicant to table because we were in the middle of
finishing up the 101 corridor study. The ordinance does say that you have to be so far from a
right-of-way. Because we had picked a preferred alignment, the applicant worked with us and
actually while this site plan doesn't reflect it, it is in the conditional approval to move the site
back.
Mayor Furlong: Which way is back?
Kate Aanenson: Sorry, this way. Here's 101. I'm sorry, I had it upside down. So it would be
moved this way. The other request, the staff had originally that it would come through a shorter
distance to the Halla Nursery site. There's issues regarding ownership of the underlying
property. Mr. Halla's in control over it, coming off of Creekwood, so the driveway would come
in this way. Again, the current cell tower would be moved in about 25 feet to the west. Okay, so
the issue then is the expansion of the, well why don't we just show this one too. There was a
6
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
request regarding, I'm sorry. Where the location of the homes are. So this has got the distance
of all the homes. This is the closest home which is 430 feet from the tower, and that's the
historic home in the city right here. That would be the closest house to the property. Otherwise
they're in excess of 600 feet. Again as required in our ordinance, we did look at the service area.
They met all the standards for that as far as location. The ability to service that, the site itself.
I've got a more detailed sheet on that but I think that's pretty self explanatory. The issue then that
we wanted to address was the expansion. One of the conditions was that we had a stipulation
agreement regarding use of the retail nursery site, so this is the original conditions. If you look
now as it's expanded into this area here and if you look in more detail, it's being used as a storage
area. This is the approximate area of the cell tower. So because that's expanded outside the
stipulation agreement of the non-conforming use, we've made a condition of approval of the cell
tower that before a permit's issued, that this, the nursery business, the equipment that's being
stored, and now some of those cars are not operational. That those cars be removed and that he
comply with the original conditions. So we have two uses on that site. One being the non-
conforming. So with that we are recommending approvals and I do have a couple modifications
starting on page 12. And the condition regarding the site plan would just be for a 6 foot chain
link fence, and you can strike the barbed wire. That would be just in the motion. And then the
last condition, well let's see. Well I guess that's it. The last condition is the one that relates to
the nursery itself, the cleaning up of the site. There's a question that was asked. Condition it
was. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I just have one. On condition 9. No, no. Yeah. The driveway off
Creekwood Drive may not be used to service nor access the Halla Nursery. How is that going to
be enforced or why is that an issue?
Kate Aanenson: Well, the neighbors were concerned about that because of the amount of truck
traffic that's associated with the nursery. Has been an issue. Again the current nursery has a
main entrance off of 101, so now you're coming off of a more residential street, and they wanted
to make sure since they're so close, that that doesn't become a secondary outlet. The sight lines
are, it's 30 miles an hour right through there. It's slower speeds so sight lines a little poorer so we
just wanted to make sure that that doesn't become a secondary access for the nursery is all.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Can we and how do we enforce that?
Kate Aanenson: Well it's not built to you know be a dirt road. I guess we'd have to just manage
it and cite them for that. You have a conditional use. It's not always the best way to go back and
revoke it if they're in violation of the terms of the conditional use also.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Councilman Peterson: Do you know any other towers we have that tall around town, just to give
me a perspective?
7
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
Kate Aanenson: The tallest one we have is the one that's off of Lyman Boulevard. That was
probably 200 feet. That's the one that's on the corner of Stone Creek Drive. That would be the
tallest one. I do have a list of.
Councilman Peterson: I'm thinking of the one at Brown's.
Kate Aanenson: That one, I don't think that one's that tall. There's one on Park Road that's
behind an industrial building. South. Well, on the same side of the street as the city's public
works. That's up against the railroad tracks. That's 150. Don't have heights on all of these.
Councilman Peterson: That's fine. I just.
Kate Aanenson: Actually a lot of them are on our water tower. The only, the most recent free
standing ones would be, there's one up on Quattro Drive that we put in an industrial park. Then
the other one would be on the Park Road. Otherwise most of them we've been lucky to get on
water towers because we don't have public utilities. That obviously would have been our first
choice, and I think that residents were hoping that too. South of Lyman but we don't have
utilities in that area yet.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions.
Councilman Litsey: Just a couple. One is, has there been any feedback from residents on the
proposal here?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, they were concerned about just the fact that, why did this site get picked?
Again we did look at our city park. The grades didn't work as well there and with the 101
shifting, probably would have been equally as visible so.
Councilman Litsey: I mean no one's pursued anything further than inquiries?
Kate Aanenson: Well I wouldn't say that they're happy that it's going up. I don't think anybody's
happy when a cell tower goes up in their neighborhood. So I think, because it is a conditional
use, again what we try to do is mitigate the impacts regarding, there will be a fence and trees
planted around the structure itself. We tried to pick the color, and that's called out in the
conditions of approval to blend that into the sky as much as possible, and that was the other
reason to get the perspectives on the distance from the homes there too. Those are larger lots in
that area but it's still a visual impact.
Councilman Litsey: The other thing, you talk about re-positioning the tower and that it probably
won't need to get, need FAA approval. I mean there won't be a requirement by the FAA to have
a light on the top of the tower?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
8
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
Councilman Litsey: But we don't know that for certain or?
Kate Aanenson: Well we did with the current location because they're moving it 25 feet to the
east, I'm pretty confident that you're underneath the FAA requirements so more than likely it
wouldn't be, and that was just another beacon that was a concern.
Councilman Litsey: I just want to make sure that, I realize it's a very short distance but I don't
want to see that happen and then you know have that light blinking at night irritating people. But
I guess at this point there's no way to get assurance on that, or is that part of the approval?
Kate Aanenson: Well I don't know if you'd want to see it again for that reason. Again we can't
control it. That's a FAA requirement. It would still meet the height standards because under the
150, even with that, it still is, it's just that kind of nuisance factor.
Councilman Litsey: Okay, thanks.
Councilwoman Ernst: Kate, this is, is this like a collaboration between T-Mobile and Cingular?
I mean it sounds, I see mention of Cingular throughout here and it sounds like.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Typically when you build one, you try to get other users on there to pay for the
cost so, and we have that similar on our water towers. We have multiple users on those too.
Councilwoman Ernst: So bottom line, this is going to increase our.
Kate Aanenson: Reception.
Councilwoman Ernst: Our reception throughout the area.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I have a map showing the service area. This is going to be hard to read
too based on the scale, but this is one of the things that we do ask them to show. This is, at this
scale it's hard to read but we're in this service area right here. So it increases the service area to
here, over here. Yeah, so it significantly increases the service area. If you look at the
topography there, it's also a challenge too as you go towards Hesse Farms and it's changing. So
it does provide a significant service area in town towards the river. So as we provide sewer and
water expansion, we'll have other opportunities with our infrastructure to meet some of the other
needs that hopefully we can put them on our utilities and not duplicate other sites. Other free
standing sites. We try to combine those uses so they're not such a nuisance.
Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson, conditional use permit versus interim use permit. Is this
allowed as an interim use permit?
9
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
Kate Aanenson: No, it's allowed as a conditional use which runs with the property forever,
which is one of the reasons why I wanted to make sure that we take the barbed wire off now
because we do put homes in there, then we've got a situation that we couldn't revoke that so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then with regard to the materials of the fence versus a chain link
and again thinking ahead. Would a privacy fence…
Kate Aanenson: You know the last one we did, if you recall on Murray Hill where we actually
ended up doing a pretty tall wood fence? So there are other applications. As we looked at some
of the ones that we have on our, next to our water towers, we actually have them in penthouses in
this location. Not all of them. The one up on 41. There's two actual structures with roofs. The
one that we just approved on Murray Hill is just fenced around the perimeter, so what we try to
do is show some consistency, where they're located. Nobody can see that part of it. But I would
agree, there's other applications for fences and security and further subdivision.
Mayor Furlong: Well I know, if I'm recalling the same one you are on Murray Hill, there was a
desire of a local resident to have the fence exceed the 6 feet high standard.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And we have the opportunity here because there aren't necessarily residents
with that view to go with the 6 foot high, but to use materials such as a privacy fence versus the
chain link in anticipation so I guess, was that given some thought or were there any concerns
about that?
Kate Aanenson: You know honest, that part of it, I think we could have taken a couple different
approaches on that. So certainly wood is an option. It has another maintenance issue, but wood
certainly would be an option. Then you have to worry about the landscaping because that's a
maintenance issue too. That someone's taking care of that landscaping.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I don't know that it necessarily would void the landscaping option
but again from a material standpoint versus…
Kate Aanenson: Right, it's a conditional use so you can attach whatever you want for screening,
so wood is certainly an option and we've used it predominantly. Again to be clear, if you look at
where we have it up on Quattro, because it's behind an industrial building, those tend to be chain
links but when you're in a residential areas, I would agree. You know typically we've gone.
Mayor Furlong: And we don't know how this area will develop but it could.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Right now it's guided large lot. Again with the comprehensive plan
update, we're looking at, you know it was given large lot because the underlying owner at that
time had a 1 per 10 density that he wanted to transfer forward. Now things have changed. That
density's gone away. That we may want to look at just going with a more traditional residential
zoning on that as we update the comp plan so, there could be more housing units there.
10
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Is the applicant
here? Anything you'd like to address the council on sir?
Steve Edwards: No. Staff has already…
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Councilwoman Ernst: I have another question Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Councilwoman Ernst: So is the recommendation that we approve just that as a chain link fence
as part of this or not?
Mayor Furlong: What I heard staff saying is, the variance. Somebody will correct me if I'm
wrong, usually Mr. Knutson. The ordinance allows for a 6 foot high fence without a variance, is
that correct?
Roger Knutson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: And what the variance was for was to exceed our variance up to 7. Now what
staff was saying is, stay at 6 so basically there's no variance associated with the fence to stay at 6
with no barbed wire.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And the only issue I raised was materials of the fence.
Councilwoman Ernst: So we're going with the 6 foot versus the 7?
Mayor Furlong: That's what staff's recommending.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, not to complicate it but I guess, the units themselves are probably closer
to 8 feet in height, so if you know, since you noticed it with a variance and if you wanted to
switch to other material, you could still go 7 foot wood and you would cover, you would screen
more. I think we were just recommending that, we don't think it's appropriate when it could be
developed. Put that barbed wire in long term. What I'm saying, since we noticed it with a
variance, if you wanted to go to 7 to add more security, and visual block, you certainly could that
too since it was noticed for 7 feet.
Councilwoman Ernst: But we're striking barbed wire and we're.
Kate Aanenson: Right. That would be my recommendation.
Mayor Furlong: And you're also recommending no variance required in terms of height.
11
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
Kate Aanenson: Unless you wanted to.
Mayor Furlong: Unless we wanted to.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, any other questions? Okay, any questions for the applicant at this
point? If not, thoughts, comments. Any thoughts? I guess my, to follow up on Councilwoman
Ernst's line of questioning. I don't see any reason to go above 6 feet. I don't think that's
necessary. Keep that within our ordinance. The chain link versus another privacy material, I
guess my preference would be to go with some sort of privacy fence of material, if there's a
maintenance issue that comes up and have staff work with them in terms of approving that. Just
in anticipation. I don't think it's our, we need to necessarily block the potential view of anybody
ever from seeing these. At least it's going to be there when homes are ever built but putting that
privacy fence up now, and continue with the landscaping plan over time, the landscaping will
also soften and cover and screen as well but, that will give us screening currently. Depending on
what they do. So that was my only thought there. But from a, looking at the findings of fact and
with staff's recommendation on the fence, avoiding the 7 foot high and certainly aborting the
barbed wire, I think that makes sense. The other conditions seemed reasonable. Any other
thoughts?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Councilwoman Ernst: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Approve what?
Councilman Peterson: Deleting the barbed wire and maintaining our ordinance on the fence with
some kind of inferring the view so, privacy fence.
Mayor Furlong: Is that on the site plan that we need to have that condition then Ms. Aanenson?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Or is that the conditional use permit?
Kate Aanenson: It's under, it's actually under both.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, where do you want it?
Councilman Peterson: Both.
Mayor Furlong: Keep it in both?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
12
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So rather than chain link, insert the words privacy? Under both. So 6
foot high privacy fence and strike the words barbed wire on both the site plan and the conditional
use permit?
Councilman Peterson: Affirmative.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, that was the motion made.
Councilman Peterson: Adopting the findings of fact as submitted. And as changed.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. And there was a second on that as well? Okay. Motion
made and seconded. Does everybody understand the motion made? Any discussion on that?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council
approves Site Plan Review #07-04 for a 149-foot telecommunication tower and a 6-foot
privacy fence as shown on the site plan received January 19, 2007, subject to the following
conditions:
1.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement and submit financial security to guarantee
the improvements.
2.Clearing for the tower and equipment pad shall be no greater than 15 feet from the edge of
the pad.
3.A maximum of 25 feet is allowed for clearing the access road to the site. Trees shall be
preserved to the greatest extent possible.
4.The applicant shall install a minimum of eight Black Hills spruce around the equipment
platform. Trees shall be at least six feet in height.
5.Site grading and vegetation removal shall be minimized to the greatest extent practical. If
any excess material is anticipated to be generated as a result of access road construction, the
disposal location must be approved in writing by City staff prior to road construction.
6.A rock construction entrance complying with the City’s standard detail (#5301) shall be
included on the Erosion and Grading Plan and shall be constructed prior to the remainder of
the gravel road.
7.If applicable, the applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. (Watershed district and MPCA permits
are necessary if the total disturbed area is in excess of 1.0 acres).
8.The monopole/tower shall be moved 25 feet to the west for a total setback of 175 feet and
maintain a minimum of 150-foot setback from the north, west and south property lines.
13
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
9.The driveway off of Creekwood Drive may not be used to serve nor access the Halla Nursery
commercial operation.
10.Building Official Conditions:
a.A building permit is required to construct the tower and equipment platform; the tower
must be designed for a wind load of 90 MPH for 3 seconds (ref. 2000 IBC, Sec. 1609)
and include the effect of one-half inch of radial ice (ref. MSBC 1303.1800).
b.The plans (tower and platform) must be signed by a professional engineer licensed in the
State of Minnesota.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council
approves Conditional Use Permit #07-04 for a 149-foot telecommunication tower and a 6-
foot privacy fence as shown on the site plan received January 19, 2007, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a conditional use permit agreement and submit financial
security to guarantee the improvements.
2. The tower shall comply with the requirements in ARTICLE XXX. TOWERS AND
ANTENNAS of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The tower shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not display strobe lights
unless such lighting is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other
federal or state authority for a particular tower.
4. No signage, advertising or identification of any kind intended to be visible from the ground
or other structures is permitted, except applicable warning and equipment information
signage required by the manufacturer or by Federal, State, or local authorities.
5. The applicant shall submit documentation at the time of building permit application showing
the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located antennas and the
minimum separation distances between antennas. A description of the tower’s capacity,
including the number and type of antennas that can be accommodated should also be
provided.
6. The monopole color shall be the brand “Tnemac” and the color “Blue Elusion”.
7. All outdoor storage associated with the Halla Nursery and located within Outlot A, Halla
Maryanne Addition, shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for the tower and
the area shall be revegetated.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
14
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
Todd Gerhardt: And the minutes will reflect that was for both issues. The site plan and the
conditional use.
Mayor Furlong: Site plan, yes. Yes, that was both motions as amended in the staff report.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION, SENIOR
COMMISSION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
Mayor Furlong: The City Council has authorized four standing commissions whereby residents
are appointed to assist the council on various matters throughout the year. The commissions
include the Planning Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, Senior Commission, and
Environmental Commission. Appointments to the 7 member commissions are for 3 year terms
beginning with April of each year and are staggered such that 2 or 3 positions expire each year.
Appointments for mid-term vacancies, if any, can occur at any time and such appointments are
for the unexpired portion of that vacancy's term. Over the last 3 weeks the City Council has
interviewed a number of candidates for open positions on all the commissions. At our last
meeting we appointed 3 members to the Planning Commission. This evening we will consider
the Senior, Park and Rec and Environmental Commissions. The City Council is grateful to all
who applied and we recognize that each applicant is willing to offer a substantial commitment of
their time and energy for the benefit of all of us, and we appreciate that. Unfortunately there are
a high number of high quality, qualified candidates that exceeded the number of available
positions and as such we were not able to appoint some applicants of whom we are confident
would have served well. After full consideration of each applicant's background, skills, desires,
the current and anticipated issues facing the various commissions and the City Council, it's the
City Council's intention to make the following appointments. To the Senior Commission. Curt
Robinson and Charlie Robbins for terms expiring in March of 2010. Carol Buesgens for a term
expiring March of 2008. Park and Recreation Commission. Tom Kelly and Thor Smith, terms
expiring in March, 2010 and Daniel Campion for a term expiring in March of '09.
Environmental Commission. Dennis Hansen and Rose Kircher, both for terms expiring in March
of 2010. At this time I would hereby move these nominations and ask for a second from the
council.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion on
these appointments? I took that as a second.
Councilman Peterson: We're just not used to having you move.
Mayor Furlong: I know. It's rare. Any discussion on these appointments or comments on the
process.
Mayor Furlong moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council make the
following appointments:
15
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
Senior Commission:
Curt Robinson and Charlie Robbins, terms expiring in March of 2010.
Carol Buesgens, term expiring March of 2008.
Park and Recreation Commission:
Tom Kelly and Thor Smith, terms expiring in March of
2010. Daniel Campion, term expiring in March of 2009.
Environmental Commission:
Dennis Hansen and Rose Kircher, terms expiring in March of
2010.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Again, thank you to all who submitted their applications for appointments to
the various commissions but were not appointed at this time. We're very grateful for your
willingness to serve and encourage you to consider to apply again in the future. Thank you very
much.
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE REGARDING WETLAND BUFFERS
AND SETBACKS.
Lori Haak: Good evening Mayor Furlong and council members. As you are well aware, this
Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan was approved by the City Council on
August 28, 2006. As you are also aware, that plan contained a number of goals and policies, as
well as recommended standards for surface water management within the city of Chanhassen.
Since the adoption of the plan staff has been working with the council and the Planning
Commission on implementing those recommendations as part of this Chanhassen City Code. To
that end the Chanhassen Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 5, 2006 to
recommend the proposed changes to the city code. The council amended the city code on
th
February 12 of 2007. However withheld several items for further discussion, one of which was
the discussion of impervious surfaces and the second was the revised wetland ordinance. The
council has considered additional information on both of those items at work sessions and
continues it's discussion on impervious surfaces. However, I believe we've made substantial
progress in our discussion of wetlands and wetland buffer setbacks and so we're bringing that
before you this evening for your consideration. The proposed revisions to the wetland protection
article, which is Article VI of Chanhassen City Code, Chapter 20 is basically repealing all of that
portion of the code and what that will allow us to do is really restructure the code in a way that
makes a lot more sense to both individual property owners as well as developers and even city
staff. I think it will be a much more user friendly code as proposed. One of the, there are several
major revisions that are proposed in the code, the first of which is a change in the classification
system for wetlands within the city. And actually from this map it's been modified even further
open discussion by the City Council and staff. There will actually be 5 wetland classifications. I
guess the nexus for those classifications will be the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for
Wetlands, with the added category of Outstanding Wetlands, which will include waters that are
outstanding resource value wise. And those would include primarily the Seminary Fen wetland
complex. Down in this, the southern portion of the city because that is a very rare and well,
outstanding natural community. The revisions to the city code also outline requirements for
wetland delineations. Explain the process for the classification of wetlands, and set new wetland
16
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
buffer and setback requirements. One of the things that we've had some discussion about, and
incorporated into the proposal for revision to the City Code would be allowing accessory
structures within the last 50 feet, or I'm sorry, 50% of the principal structure setback and that's
something that does not currently exist in Chanhassen City Code. So at the work session on
th
March 12 the council requested that staff provide those recommendations for buffer widths as
well as defensible ranges of buffer widths for each wetland classification, and those are included
in your staff report and I've highlighted those here. And again as I mentioned earlier, that does
include a new class of wetlands, the outstanding wetlands. Staff recommendation for a buffer
width on outstanding wetlands is 50 feet. And then I've included for your reference a
comparison that includes the Board of Water and Soil Resources Draft Management Standards.
Again because the outstanding wetlands are a new category that weren't anticipated through that
process, those are not addressed by the Board of Water and Soil Resources. However, based on
literature we've used in general management practices, it's felt that about 50 to 100 feet plus
would be an acceptable range for those wetlands, and that's the plus on the 100 end is simply due
to the fact that wildlife really use a wide corridor and the research on wildlife has found that even
buffer widths of 300 feet are really necessary for some of those wildlife benefits. I don't think
that that's a necessary step that the city needs to take, but this table does recognize that. So with
that I've changed, and this would be the table that would appear then in the city code. Again
adding that outstanding wetland classification, and if you'll notice the accessory structure setback
from the buffer edge, staff is recommending a 50 foot setback for those accessory structures, and
that is different than the 50% encroachment that we're allowing for other wetlands, and that's
primarily due to the fact that outstanding wetlands are highly sensitive to both site disturbances
and runoff, so staff felt that it was appropriate to keep those structures, even the accessory
structures such as parking lots or sheds further back, so that is staff's recommendation. Your
packets also include several examples of current lots and how this would play out in, on those
lots and with that staff recommends the City Council adopt the motions as laid out in the staff
report. I will remind you that because we're looking at publicizing summary ordinances, for
publishing summary ordinances Chapters 1 and 20, that does require a 4/5 majority of City
Council. With that I'd be more than happy to take any questions you might have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for staff. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I mean you probably can't answer mine but do you have a, you have
the one example of the change that would occur in the back yard. I think it's right there. Do you
have another example of what it would have been as far as their uses of other back yards would
be? And how that will change now. I don't know, maybe you don't have that.
Lori Haak: These are probably the best examples. I think this is what you're looking for.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes.
Lori Haak: And these were included in a staff report. Let's see if I can get, it's been a while
since I've looked at these. Okay. This would be the wetland edge and this would be the wetland
buffer. And the current requirement is a 40 foot setback from the edge of the buffer. And the 20
foot setback, okay. For some reason…
17
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I don't mean to make this complicated.
Lori Haak: Well basically there would be additional space in here.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Oh, I see.
Lori Haak: The new buffer would be this width because they do have to dedicate additional
buffer width in some locations, so here they would meet that 20 foot buffer requirement. Or 25
foot, I'm sorry. But over on this side of the property they would not be able to meet that so they
would need to dedicate some additional buffer in order to gain the encroachment that's between
the blue and orange lines. So they're dedicating this triangle, and really what they've gained is all
of this.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I just felt it was important for people to actually see that. That
this was a benefit to them when it comes to their property.
Councilman Peterson: Lori, would you take a few minutes and just walk through, you
mentioned outstanding is the fen. You also said primarily the fen. Is there another area that
you're thinking about making outstanding?
Lori Haak: No. It wouldn't be those areas that are classified as outstanding resource value
waters, which is a very narrow classification and it's actually a State classification so the
definition that's proposed in the staff report outlines it, it says outstanding wetlands means
wetlands that are classified as outstanding resource value waters by the State of Minnesota, so
that's a very narrow definition.
Councilman Peterson: And staff determines that and selects it or do you work with the DNR?
Who do you work with?
Lori Haak: It is the DNR that establishes those.
Councilman Peterson: Okay. So with that in mind, just, we know what outstanding is because
that's the fen. Can you just use examples or walk through preserve and then 1, 2, 3, just general
examples of what they are?
Lori Haak: Absolutely. I'd be happy to. Most of the remaining preserve wetlands would be
wetlands that are actually I believe this would cover all of the preserve wetlands. They're going
to be one of two classes. They'll be either riparian wetlands or wetlands adjacent to lakes. So on
Lotus Lake you'll have the one on the northwest corner of the lake. There's one down off Sandy
Hook, and one, this is actually Kurvers Point I believe. Lake Minnewashta Regional Park would
contain a good amount of this preserve and then the property near the Arboretum. Across the
street from the Arboretum. The other preserve wetland would be wetland mitigation areas that
have been created, and I'm trying to think of a good example of that.
Councilman Peterson: Around Rice Lake maybe?
18
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
Lori Haak: Actually there aren't any there. I'm seeing this one here. I'm sorry, oh here.
Actually you can't, you won't be able to pick it up on the screen but there's actually a couple
mitigation basins that are adjacent to another wetland that were created by the city as a part of a
trail project, so those would be included.
Kate Aanenson: The 101 trail.
Lori Haak: Right. There's also one over here that was created in conjunction with the
Arboretum Village subdivision. The Manage 1 wetlands would be, again the green on this site
so it'd be one. The other wetlands that are lakes. The larger wetland complexes. The Manage 2
wetlands are going to be most visible probably examples are the ones adjacent to Bluff Creek.
Again behind Arboretum Village. Behind Vasserman Ridge. The city owns pieces off of
Century Boulevard. And the Manage 3 wetland would be those that have been degraded heavily
by agricultural activities and probably the most visible would be the wetland adjacent to the
school site. However of course that is, now that we've approved alterations to that basin, that
would probably be reclassified because it is being restored by the Department of Transportation.
And then there are some wetland, I should also mention that we do not currently have
classification for. One's that the consultant was not able to gain access to during the assessment
process. Wasn't included. Most notably this large wetland west of Lake Ann and Lake Lucy.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry. I was distracted a little bit. The Manage 1 and Manage 2. Could you
repeat those on the map? Are they the purple or blue ones?
Lori Haak: Sure. The green ones are the Manage 1's, so those would be again fairly large and
predominantly unaffected. Fairly natural basins like the ones around the north side of Lake
Lucy. This is a basin that was actually restored by the city. The wetland basin around Rice
Marsh Lake. The Manage 2 wetlands are those probably in most cases they're heavily infested
with reed canary grass, so it'd be the ones along the Bluff Creek corridor. This larger one.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sorry to interrupt Councilman Peterson, continue.
Councilman Peterson: No, I'm done.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions?
Councilman Litsey: I had a question. When we talked about the buffers on the classifications
for outstanding and the preserve. We're on the low end of buffers on that and those are some of
our most valued wetlands. And on the others we're kind of in the middle. What's staff's rationale
for not increasing those buffers more if those are our most valued wetlands?
Lori Haak: Sure. I guess what the outstanding resources there are a number of other
management practices and actually staff internally is talking about some of those with the
comprehensive plan update. Potentially things like overlay districts or something like that.
Some other tools that could also be very beneficial. Certainly the buffers would be beneficial,
19
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
but there may be some other tools that are equally, if not more beneficial. And restoration in
those outstanding wetlands is going to be very important. As far as the preserve wetlands, those
are areas that staff feels it's really touchy because those are areas, as you saw with those wetlands
around lakes that people want that access to the resource and in most cases we're looking at uses
that are single family and so if we can protect that buffer, that's going to provide adequate
function. So that's why those are generally at the lower end of those. It's just that fine balance in
policy.
Councilman Litsey: I understand that the preserve portion, you know there's conflicting uses
there and you might want to help people out a little bit there but on the outstanding, at this point
there's really no drawback to making that more is there?
Lori Haak: No. Again it would be, you know the usability of the property, but I think you know
definitely the science would support a larger buffer there as I mentioned earlier. If you're
looking at those wildlife benefits, you can go up to 300 feet and that's really what the literature is
saying. For water quality you do get the benefit at 50 feet, and so it becomes I think more of a
habitat and less of a water quality discussion at that point.
Councilman Litsey: That's the only one I have a concern with, and perhaps hear some other
thoughts on increasing that particular one. I can understand the preserve one and maybe that's
striking a balance there.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions. How do, with the Manage 1 and Manage 2, I guess a couple
questions I have. One, and it's a relative question in terms of the setback requirement. In the
comparison table that was in the packet that we've looked at before between Chanhassen and
other cities, I believe our setback requirements, and I'm looking for it quickly here. Exceed,
thank you. We're at 40 on this list. Everybody else is, I think the next highest is 25. This is the
setback from whatever the buffer is. Why should we be 15 feet beyond the next highest city in
terms of setback? Now, without a wetland, if I understand, a rear yard setback, which most of
these would be rear yard, is 30 feet. So why, why that much more than everybody else
relatively, and again more than our standard?
Lori Haak: Sure. I think there's a couple reasons for that. The first would be that if you look
way back to the beginning of our wetland ordinance, there was a flat setback for all wetlands and
it was 75 feet from the edge of the wetland. And staff recognized in the early 1990's that there
would be more benefit if there was a buffer dedicated and so that setback width went down from
75 feet to 40 feet if a buffer was dedicated. So at that point I believe the average for most of the
wetlands would have been a 50 foot net distance from the edge of the wetland, including the
buffer, and then the 40 foot setback. So the 40 feet is consistent with the history of Chanhassen
wetland regulations. The second would really be that the 30 foot setback would be typical of just
your standard residential lot. But in cases where you have an outstanding resource, not
outstanding in the way that we're using it for wetland classification. I'm sorry. But for other
resources, natural resources in particular, such as the Bluff Creek Overlay District. That actually
also has that 40 foot setback. So when you have lots backed up to lots, when there would be that
30 foot rear yard setback. Sorry I'm not a planner so I have to check in with the planning side,
and for natural resource related I guess rear yard amenities it would be 40 feet.
20
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So what we've done then is if we increase the buffer area keeping that 40
then we're, you mentioned 50 at one point, we're basically increasing that overall distance
between primary structure and the edge of the wetland.
Lori Haak: That is correct and it's staff's perspective that again I think the encroachment into the
setback for accessory structures is a step in the right direction as part of mitigating that. Because
there is really a need to have that, both the buffer and the setback I think. But I think as you've
alluded to, and as staff noticed when we were reviewing those setbacks, they are quite a bit
larger and I think this is definitely a step in the right direction.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Talk a little bit about, and I don't know that this has come up before but
talk about, in the table, this is on, I think it's under the ordinances, page 8 of 14. Is a table with
the recommended setback buffer, and then the percent of native vegetation in the different areas,
and I think you know in terms of the outstanding and preserve and the Manage 1, the ordinance
will require 100% native vegetation. And then over 50% for the other two. You had mentioned
earlier about the desire for recreational use and access to bodies of water as people do. How do
you accommodate that when you're expecting 100% of that buffer to be native vegetation?
Lori Haak: Well that would be, it's basically the protection of the vegetation in the wetland, and
this would primarily be the case in areas where you're establishing a new buffer. When you
actually have the opportunity to go in there and do that. If you have invasive non-native
vegetation in the buffer, it is going to affect the overall quality of the wetland so the goal of those
standards would be to prevent those from encroaching. Now in instances where you have a
preserve wetland adjacent to a lake or something like that, I don't see that, or I guess this
provision currently exists in ordinance. I should clarify that. For preserve wetlands and.
Mayor Furlong: We had three classifications before, right?
Lori Haak: Correct, and it does exist, it's 100% for preserve wetlands for certain. And I believe
it's over 50% for the natural and the ag urban wetlands. And basically staff has yet to see an
instance where the city would actually pursue someone you know who's putting in the dock
through a wetland buffer like that for not maintaining that 100%. I think 100% is definitely
something to strive for but it's very, I don't know that that would necessarily, in my opinion as a
staff person, if I'm looking at it and they have 100% except where a dock goes through, I say
that's 100%. So in instances where you have that, that's how I would interpret it as a staff person
I guess.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And, because I think, at that point then I guess we're looking at
interpretation there and I'm wondering if it makes sense to allow reasonable access or something
to the wetland. In some cases they showed on there, there may be no desire to do that, or there
may be no navigable body of water that would support a dock, or something. Or even, there
might be a walkway desire or something like that.
Lori Haak: Well in, and thinking about this, I'm sorry you've caught me a little off guard.
21
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
Mayor Furlong: And I apologize for that.
Lori Haak: But in thinking about this further, any dock through a wetland would require a
wetland alteration permit, so then you would be able to.
Mayor Furlong: Right. Which would then require a variance to this so I guess.
Lori Haak: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: That would be a part of that so, do you require a variance when you know they
have a right to put a dock in. You know to put it forward, and I guess maybe there's, I don't
know how to address that. Maybe it's not a material item but I think it's something to look at. To
make sure we're not creating a situation where we know we're going to have to be granting
variances because I think you know, to say you can't have access to your dock on the other side
of the buffer would be difficult. Okay. And then just a point of clarification. And then this is on
the next page. It's in bold. It talks about the, that it's the, under d(1) I believe it is which talks
about, or e(1), excuse me. It talks about the access for the accessory structures. And if I'm
reading that right, it says can be placed within the last. Now here it says 20 feet or 50%,
whichever is less. So we've been talking generally about 50. We've been using 20 because
we've been using examples of the 40 foot setback. Why wouldn't we just say 50% there? Was
there a reason to say the 20 or 50?
Lori Haak: I have to cop out and say yes, I think there is a reason but I can't…
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and usually there is. I mean rarely do things get in there just because so.
Lori Haak: No, and I did sit with one of our planners and work on this actually extensively. It's
difficult to word it in the way that we want, but we can certainly.
Mayor Furlong: So there was a purpose behind the 20 feet so that…and I guess the other
question I have here is, and relating to this, for the outstanding wetlands, the table above it
speaks to the setback there would be 50 feet.
Lori Haak: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: But it was not, would you be, is the ordinance allowing accessory structures
within the last 50% of the outstanding wetlands or did I hear you say?
Lori Haak: No, it is not. That chart does reflect what I mentioned in the staff report. I just
neglected to put that in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the recommended ordinance. Okay, so the item under 1, or e(1) there
under that section, excludes specifically excludes the outstanding classifications?
Lori Haak: Correct. In the first part of e, it does talk about in compliance with subparagraph (b)
above. And so that refers back to that table that you were just discussing.
22
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
Mayor Furlong: So that's not an inconsistency or you're comfortable with that?
Roger Knutson: Mayor, as I understand it, if your wetland setback is more, the requirement is
more than 40 feet, but for the, whichever is less, then you could potentially have a 25 foot
encroachment with your accessory structure.
Mayor Furlong: And the way I read this, since whatever the 20 feet would be less than 50%.
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Of a 50 foot setback.
Roger Knutson: But if you only had 50%, then theoretically it could be 25 so they aren't, I think
you need.
Mayor Furlong: But the table also is saying that in those 50 foot setbacks, for those that are 50
or above 40 as being recommended, okay. I'm with you. Alright, any other questions for staff?
Thank you. Thoughts. Comments. Suggestions.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I have been struggling with this over the last few months and
you know one of the things that concerns me I guess, and I'd like to hear other thoughts on it. As
we look at the comparisons of other cities, and it's, we talked about this at a couple work
sessions. You know the changes that we're talking about here put us probably in the most
aggressive position as it goes to setbacks and buffers. And in and of itself it doesn't bother me
but when you add that to, if we take this more aggressive stand, that's going to be ultimately
going back to the cost of the homeowner that you know, land prices, one of the things we've all
talked about before as we struggle with it, prices of land out here and the affordability of
housing. And I am concerned that, and this may be a small thing, but if we do this, you know it
is going to raise the price of land. It is going to raise the price of housing. And we're going to be
at the top of the cities that are around us as far as aggressiveness in the setbacks and buffers. So
yeah, I think Bryan specifically to your point, I understand that but we're taking away
developable land then from a property owner that has reasonable rights to use the land. And so I
struggle with keeping the environment as clean as we can, you know and I use the phrase
consistently, have we swung the pendulum too far? And that's really where I'm struggling with
is, should we be somewhere inbetween where we were and where we are asking to be. I'm
concerned about the environment. I'm concerned about land owner rights. I'm concerned about
residents prices for the land they buy, and having reasonable use of the same. So I would
probably recommend something less than what we're talking about. Not by probably a lot but
you know if we get, I go back to that page where we talked, the initial one where it says, on page
164 of the, 165 of the packet. Outstanding and preserve, I guess I'd recommend keeping that as
it is, and because of the small number of spaces that we have in this city. Manage 1, Mange 2
and Manage 3, I would probably recommend that we drop those a bit. Manage 1 from 30 to 25.
Manage 2 from 25 to 20 and bring Manage 3 back to where we, our minimum is at 16 1/2. You
know the other aspect of my recommendation would probably be to leave the buffer and the
setback from 40 back to 30. I just don't want to put so much onus on the homeowner and the
23
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
developers to not develop their land. I don't think we're hurting the environment by adjusting
those numbers that way. I think it's, and if we need to, if I'm seeing something wrong or a couple
years down the road other cities are doing the same thing, we can go back and address it then but
I think let's swing the pendulum a little more than halfway but not all the way to the right. That
would be my humble thoughts for the evening.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts? Discussion. Councilwoman.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No Bryan, you go ahead.
Councilman Litsey: Well I was just going to say, I appreciate those comments and I know it is a
struggle to balance these things out but you know once these are set, we can always modify them
in terms of, we can't go the other way and I guess what I'm saying is, once the structure and
things are in, we have those setbacks in place. We can always make them a little more liberal
down the road, but we can't do it the other way so, I guess I'm comfortable with what we've
worked through with staff. I'd like to see a little more of a buffer on the outstanding, but make a
good point so I think maybe we can work on that through the comprehensive plan in terms of
some other options there and, so I'm comfortable I guess with what's been recommended and
moving forward.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, other thoughts.
Councilwoman Ernst: I'm going to agree with Councilman Peterson as he was referring to being
more aggressive. I would lean more towards being a little bit more conservative on our 40 and
going more to the 30 side of it. And I also think that as we do this we can certainly gives us
some room to monitor and evaluate as we go into it and maybe come back and re-visit it but for
now I would lean more towards Councilman Peterson's ideas.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom, thoughts?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: My thoughts are, I'm never for more government restrictions, and it
is an aggressive position that we're taking. I served on the Surface Water Task Force when this
was all being discussed and I'm certain most of them if they're watching now are stamping at the
dog saying, don't change what we've done. You know they felt very passionately and strongly
about the work they had done and they were very pleased about what they had come up with. I
don't know if I'm comfortable just throwing numbers out at staff tonight saying I'd like to reduce
40% to 30%. I think Lori, you've worked with staff and planning to kind of devise these
numbers and figure out formulas and how they work, and so I'm not sure if I feel comfortable as
a council person changing those numbers for you because I really am a lay person here so I can't
go about setting city policy when it comes to environmental standards. So I don't know what my
opinion is at this point but I know I don't feel comfortable just re-setting the formula that's
already been set. So I say we either adopt it tonight or go back and work with staff and have
more work sessions regarding the numbers.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. If I look at, Councilman Peterson maybe you could clarify your
thoughts. On page 3 of the staff report, at the top of the page it talks about generally acceptable
24
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
ranges. This is in terms of the wetland buffer strip. And what I understood, and this follows up
on the original question I think Councilman Litsey asked. In terms of the staff's recommendation
for the outstanding, preserve at 50, 40, you're comfortable keeping those where they are?
Councilman Peterson: Correct, yeah. Outstanding and preserve, leaving them where they are
and changing 1, 2 and 3.
Mayor Furlong: 1, 2 and 3 and basically you're recommending in the left column there is the
generally acceptable range at being at the numbers at the low end of those ranges, the 16.5, 20,
and 25.
Councilman Peterson: And noting that there are still cities that are a lot less than that, so.
Mayor Furlong: Right. Right. I think I would certainly concur with those wetland buffers I
think in part because, in looking at where we've been and where this is taking us, in our current
classifications we've got pristine, natural and ag urban and we're moving those into this
outstanding, preserve, Manage 1, 2 and 3. First of all I only support the classification of the
outstanding and preserve because I think there are some special, unique characteristics with those
wetlands and outstanding that are even separate and above what we might do with preserve. But
I did notice that in the classification of our existing ordinance, as 70% of the wetlands in the ag
urban, which is this current 16 1/2% and then the next 30 is in the natural, which is a 20%, 20
foot buffer. And the classifications here, the Manage 3 only includes 5% so we're really pushing
up as much as 60%, 65% of our overall number of wetlands out of the ag urban, up into the
Manage 2 and 3 and you know there's 55% in 2 and 19% in 1. And so by adding the much
bigger buffers there, I think that's going to continue to push us relative to other cities, even
further along and make that difference even more so, and I look a little bit to the comments from
the developer in terms of the cost of this and where that's going to be born so. Being a little
more moderate in terms of the increases on the buffer, we're still going to be, for 60 to, actually
for almost 95% of our property, if Manage 3 is in, is 5% of the wetlands and we keep that the
same, the rest are going to be increasing under this proposal. Under Councilman Peterson's
proposal. And given the source there in terms of the acceptable ranges, we're not moving outside
of, by definition, acceptable ranges I think, but we are through this process re-classifying a
number of the total wetlands. Before it was 70%. Now we're saying only 5% falls in that
Manage 3, so we're taking the other 65% and moving them up and increasing a lot of them so I
guess a little more methodical in the step in terms of doing that, I would, on the buffers I think
that does make sense and I can be comfortable with that. Same with 16 1/2 on 3, 20 on 2 and 25
on the Manage 1. With regard to the setbacks, you know that's one that I also agree with
Councilman Peterson on in terms of philosophy and it's just a question of how we manage that.
In a large part what I'm looking at is, we're already at or above many of the cities in the buffer
zone. Or buffer area. You know being that much more on the setback and so I guess that, you
know I fully understand that desire to move the setback down from 40 to 30 because of the
increasing buffers that we're creating across the vast majority of the wetlands. So, those are my
thoughts and reactions. There's a lot of moving pieces here, moving parts that we've been
dealing with over the weeks and it's trying to find balance among the many issues so, but I guess
those would be my thoughts with regard to this. Other ideas or any reaction?
25
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
Councilman Litsey: I agree with Bethany. Then I mean if we're going to not take staff's
recommendation, we need to go back and look at this. I don't want to keep on and on. I think at
some point we're just going to have to make a decision but I don't feel comfortable making that
change right now. I'm willing to talk about it but I think we need to go back into a work session
and deal with it personally. Personally I feel that way.
Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts. I think Councilwoman Tjornhom you would agree with
continuing the discussions?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Absolutely.
Mayor Furlong: In a work session format?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: (Yes).
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Other thoughts. Do you want to move forward now or should we
continue to discuss in a work session format?
Councilwoman Ernst: I'm fine with discussing it in a work session.
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Councilman Peterson: Todd, have we got time in the next work session?
Todd Gerhardt: Maybe not the next one. We're going to try to fit in a tour I think at our next
council meeting of the water treat plant, so our first meeting in May. We're already getting into
May, so and I think that's when we're going to bring back the impervious surface coverage issue
too.
Councilman Peterson: First meeting in May I'm probably out of town.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Can you push the tour off on the water treatment plant?
Todd Gerhardt: Maybe after the regular council meeting we can get it in there.
Mayor Furlong: Why don't we take a look at the schedule. By the question you'd like to do it
sooner rather than later?
Councilman Peterson: Well I think staff would like it…off their plate.
Mayor Furlong: …to get it done so we can start working on some projects as well so.
Todd Gerhardt: Well we do have a set of rules out there that we're enforcing right now so.
26
City Council Meeting - April 9, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, what we're talking about is making it more stringent and so it's not that
we're running naked here. We've got ordinances in place and we're looking to evaluate those so
with that, is there a motion to, I guess we want to table this item? Would that be the appropriate
thing to do? To be brought back up in a work session. Is there a motion to that effect?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I make a motion Mr. Mayor that we table this.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Litsey: Second that motion.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Litsey seconded to table consideration of
amendment to the City Code regarding wetland buffers and setbacks. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
'
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you. Thank you to staff for continuing efforts on this. That
completes our items of new and unfinished business.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
None.
ADMNISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
None.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
None.
Todd Gerhardt: You have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission right now so if you
could go in there and take care of the issues.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Quick question Mr. Hoffman I see is here. The event on Saturday,
how well did that go? The Easter Egg Candy Hunt.
Todd Hoffman: Very well received even though the cold weather, the numbers were a little bit
down…Still held it outside…
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City
Council meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
27