Loading...
CC 2008 08 25 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 2008 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 McDonald STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Laurie Hokkanen, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Terry Jeffery, and Greg Sticha PUBLIC PRESENT: Liz & Ken Nystrom 8501 Tigua Lane Craig Mertz 600 Market Boulevard Gary Schneider 640 Pleasant View Road Neil Klingelhutz 9731 Meadowlark Lane PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA:Councilman Litsey 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 August 11, 2008 -City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated August 11, 2008 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated August 5, 2008 b. Approve Extension of Interim Use Permit 07-16 for Grading, Neil Klingelhutz. c. Liberty on Bluff Creek: 1) Approval of Final Plat of Third Addition, including a Replat of a Portion of the First Addition, with Site Plan Amendments, and 2) Approval of Development Contract and Plans & Specifications for Third Addition d. Beddor Registered Land Survey: Approve Registered Land Survey for Properties Located at 950 & 910 Pleasant View Road. Applicant Fortier & Associates/Marilyn Beddor e. Approval of Plans and Specifications, City Hall Generator. City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 th f. Approval of Lease Extension, Verizon Cell Tower, Water Tower on West 76 Street. g. Approval of Amendments to Chapters 5, 7, 18 & 19, Concerning Animals & Fowls, Landscape Security; Subdivision; and Water, Sewers & Sewage Disposal. h. Approval of Easement for Qwest Corporation on Outlot 1, Chanhassen Estates. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Liz Nystrom: I’m short. I’m not sure this will reach me or not. Good evening Mayor Furlong and council members. My name is Liz Nystrom and this is my husband, Ken Nystrom. Our address is 8501 Tigua Lane in Chanhassen. The reason we are here this evening is because we need your help. Our well went dry last week and as of right now we still have no water. The first thing we did is we called a well service to come to see if they could dig our existing well deeper and we cannot have it dug deeper because there’s a screen base to it. So then we started calling around for bids to have another well drilled and as we were getting the bids in we learned from someone from the city called and told us about the ordinance, Section 19-19 stating that if you have an existing well and your well goes dry, you have to hook up to the city water, which would be fine with us except for our particular situation. As we were getting then bids and finding out from people that did city connections to the well, we’ve learned that there’s no curb stop in the cul-de-sac which, as I understand this and forgive me, I’m not real up to snuff on the terminology here about this stuff but as I understand it the line comes through on Tigua but I live on a cul-de-sac and there’s no connection part there, and so that would have to be put in at a cost, and this was if my property is within 50 feet of the line. It would cost $7,500 to put in that little curb stub and connection there. The other problem I have is that my husband and I have lived in this house for 3 years. The house is about 25 years old or so, and the house is over 400 feet back from the road so I also learned that when you have to connect you are charged by the number of feet from the distance from your hook-up and so that estimate for me was going to be $10,000. So we’re up to $17,500 now. Then I learned of another issue that the line actually going into my house is a problem also because our house is built on a concrete slab which means that they need to drill through the concrete slab in order to get the city water line up into the house, and that’s the one that really scares me because of the age of the house I’m afraid that that concrete slab might crack and that’s my house. So anyway, that part of it would be probably over $6,000. And then I’ve learned that the assessments to the city to the cost to the homeowner to actually hook up is about $7,000. So I’m, if everything goes well we’re up to $30,000 and my husband’s retired and I work part time as the volunteer coordinator at the Arboretum and this isn’t something that we budgeted for. So what I’m asking is if we can have a waiver to drill our old well because of these extenuating circumstances, and I understand that this is something that we don’t want to set a precedent at because we want as many people in our city to hook up to the city well, or to the city water system if it’s available, but we’re talking major destruction to those 400 feet of my driveway and garden and rock wall and then most of all the concrete slab that my house sits on so I’m very concerned about that. Are there any questions that I can? 2 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Well my understanding is you’ve had some conversations with our city manager or… Liz Nystrom: Yeah, we’ve been trying to talk to everybody. Mayor Furlong: This came up I think last week, did it? Did it not when you first had contacted so? Liz Nystrom: Yes, last Wednesday. Mayor Furlong: Last Wednesday. Liz Nystrom: Right. Mayor Furlong: So maybe Mr. Gerhardt. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. I’ve been in contact with your husband and Roger’s been involved. We’ve had discussions with him. We do have an ordinance on the books that talks about any individual on a well or septic system and that they’re city services available, water or sewer, that the homeowner needs to hook up. But there are some exceptions to that rule and the Nystrom’s are not without water. They have a tanker. Liz Nystrom: Oh yeah. One of the well people brought us a tank of water that they hooked up to our garden hose access to the house, yeah. Todd Gerhardt: So and they you know have made a connection so they have running water in the house and so I was concerned. We talked on Saturday just to make sure that that was the case and I’ve been trying to communicate with Paul and Roger to make sure we make the right decision and it looks as though we can make that decision in house. I haven’t had a chance yet to talk with Roger to make sure that there is enough hardship here for us to allow them to put their well in. And as soon as I finish up my conversation with Roger and, we will be in contact with the Nystrom’s. Liz Nystrom: Thank you. Thank you very much. We appreciate it yeah. Water’s like liquid gold so. Todd Gerhardt: Tell me about it. We went through it last year so we know how you feel from a city wide standpoint. Liz Nystrom: Oh, I bet. Thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thanks. Anyone else for visitor presentations this evening? Okay. Very good. 3 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Peter Anderley: Good evening council, mayor. You have this month’s numbers. Kind of look through there, if there’s any questions I’d be happy to, note on that there is a couple highlights that I’ll kind of touch is our traffic accidents. They’ve gone down it seems like a little bit so we’re kind of happy with that. Hopefully the traffic education car and those deputies being out there, even the driving complaints have dropped slightly too so that’s something that’s starting to really show and with the, I’m sure with 212 being through, less traffic out on 5, we’re doing good there. A couple of things I wanted to touch on. First of all summer’s over with pretty much here. You know school’s starting next week. Just want to remind the public, the big thing about the school bus safety. The kids are going to be out in the morning walking to school. You’re going to see a lot more kids around school zones. We are going to be out heavily enforcing the school zones to make sure that our young people get to school safely and that type of thing so you’ll see increased patrol through the school zones and that through the city. Second thing I want to talk about is the senior center. We came up with a program called Donuts with the Deputies. We had our second little morning coffee, let’s see last Monday. That’s turned out really good so I’d encourage that we’re going to continue on every other month. Having any seniors that want to come in and sit down and have some donuts and some coffee with a couple of the guys and ask them questions and I’d encourage them to come on down and call the senior center and they’ll be able to tell you when the next one is and we’re going to get a couple more scheduled. The other big event we had was National Night Out was back in the beginning of August. We had 8 deputies and numerous posse in the city participating in National Night Out getting to several neighborhoods. I believe we had 43 total neighborhoods that hopefully got some law enforcement at, shake some hands and ask some questions, and again I encourage you know, it doesn’t have to be National Night Out to give us a call if you’ve got any questions. Stop in say hi. That type of thing. The other event we did was Miracles for Mitch. That understand that went off last weekend without any major incidents. Sheriff’s office assisted with closing down Powers Boulevard for a short period of time so they were able to complete their bike portion of the race. And that’s kind of what I have. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any questions for Sergeant Anderley? Councilman Litsey: I was just curious just a little update on the investigative position. Is that still going well? Sgt. Peter Anderley: Yeah it, you know it is. He’s been pretty busy lately. We do have a couple of smaller cases that he was able to clear up with some thefts from vehicles. We’re going to hopefully hear in September we’re going to bring it to a work session and kind of lay out where the progress has been. Some of the benefits that we’ve seen so far. Have some discussion with the council on that. Councilman Litsey: Sounds good. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and council, just to add on to Pete’s comments there. As part of our key financial strategies for the year and goals it was to give you an update on that detective position, 4 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 and we also give you the benchmarking for law enforcement compared to last year and previous years so and, like Pete said it will be coming on in our September meeting. Councilman Litsey: Good. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anything else? This evening. Very good. Thank you. Appreciate it. Chief Geske’s here this evening as well. Good evening Chief. Chief Gregg Geske: Good evening. Has been slow since the last update, which is good, and I’ll again chalk that up to fire prevention. And speaking of fire prevention, we have started planning for Fire Prevention Week which is the second week of October and our open house that we have. I’ll have, next month I’ll have the dates and times for you for our open house. But during that week we do ask for volunteers of the fire department to take time off from their job to help us and their fire marshal to do training for, and fire prevention activities for the students in Chanhassen so look forward to that and we’ve already started planning for that coming up here in October so. Like I say, we had a pretty slow month last month so I don’t have a whole lot of report for you. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Very good. Thank you. Any questions for Chief Geske? Councilman Litsey: I was just going to bring up you know you had mentioned…appreciation at our work session. It’s nice to see that and the good work that you’re doing out there and that the public’s recognizing that so good job. Chief Gregg Geske: Alright, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Chief. NICK’S STORAGE & PARKING, 1900 STOUGHTON AVENUE, APPLICANT, JACQUES GIBBS: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; VARIANCE REQUEST. th Kate Aanenson: Thank you mayor, members of the council. This item was at your July 14 meeting and was tabled and the, there’s two separate property owners involved. Again Nick’s Storage, which has an interim use and a conditional use on the site. At that time one of the parcels was sold, Parcel A which includes Phases I and II. At that meeting there was a request th from Mr. Dungey who owned Parcel B to provide the ponding on the site, so since the July 14 meeting staff, including planning and engineering, met to resolve, providing through their consultant, providing adequate stormwater and the off site property. The issue that we had there was that there be some conveyance to make sure that that’s maintained even though it’s off site so that has been done and that is a condition of approval in the site plan itself. I have a little bit more detail but I, unless you have questions on that, I don’t think it’s necessary to go through, just the fact that it does meet the conditions of approval with the letter of credit as recommended. The other issue that was still outstanding was that we did recommend a variance on the signs. The applicant still wants to have additional signage on the property, which we are not supporting. So with that we are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. 5 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 Again amending the conditional use and then we did provide additional conditions specifically regarding the stormwater ponding and letter of credit, including additional landscaping. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Just to clarify then, one of the, this was actually tabled at the applicant’s request. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: At the last meeting. Or last time we addressed this and one of the material changes on their part was the property owners now of Parcel A and B have come to a private agreement for the location of the storm water management system on Parcel B for the benefit of Parcel A. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct because really there’s two issues involved. One, having it sized adequately and designed properly. And the second issue was to make sure that there was security in place to make sure that that was constructed as a plan indicated and that it’s maintained. So that’s in place now. Councilman Litsey: So you’re comfortable with what’s been achieved here? Kate Aanenson: With the stormwater ponding, yes. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay. And then the question is, you said there’s still a difference between the applicant and the staff with regard to the signage. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Do you want to take a quick summary on the signage? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I can go through that. Mayor Furlong: Because there are 4 signs, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. We did recommend, because of the visibility they’re required…on 212 that they be provided an additional sign there. Again this is the business fringe district which does allow one monument sign per lot and 24 square feet. These are the signs that are in place right now. I didn’t, that don’t meet the ordinance regarding height and not receiving a permit. And then the pylon sign is certainly one that they still want to maintain so we are recommending still the variance for the one sign, the larger sign, and the existing entrance sign which is still permitted. Mayor Furlong: And when you say larger sign, that is sign 2, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct. 6 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 Mayor Furlong: So the, in the staff report there’s signs 1 through 4. Staff is recommending Signs 1, 2 and 4 be allowed as long as they’re brought into compliance with ordinance. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: But not allowing sign 3 which is the… Kate Aanenson: Right, and the one does give, does allow the larger sign via variance and that was the yeah, correct. Because of the setback. Mayor Furlong: Variance. Okay. Any questions for staff? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, with sign number 3, I think that’s the, was that lit? Craig Mertz: It was. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Kate Aanenson: It looks like it was externally lit. Craig Mertz: It was internally lit. Kate Aanenson: Was it? Okay. Yep, it looks like there was something there. Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not, I see the applicant is here. Anything you’d like to address the council on this evening? Craig Mertz: Yes, Craig Mertz again speaking for the applicant. Yes, we still are seeking the outdoor storage stalls and the plan is that they would have a grass surface rather than a paved, gravel surface. The drainage, Mr. McCain is here to answer any questions that you might have about the drainage plan. Mr. Dungey is here who could tell you about two different things. One is that he’s in the loop on the drainage plans that we’ve got ready here, and he also is prepared to tell the council that that sign dates back, the pylon sign dates back to when he built the buildings at the initial, initiation of the project and we have a Certificate of Completion that was issued by the City back at that time indicating that the property was in compliance. While it doesn’t specifically mention the pylon sign, that’s what we took it to mean. That that was the approval for the whole thing. So the applicant is asking that we get the pylon sign as part of this project. The signs that are depicted on the report here, we re-faced those signs but they’re the same size and location as when we bought the property so it’s not like we snuck in and tried to put bigger signs on the property so if you would like to hear Mr. Dungey’s recollection, he is here and I do have multiple copies of the Certificate of Completion indicating that the building official and the planning department and the fire marshal and the engineering department all signed off on the property back in the summer of 1999. Mr. Gibbs, you got anything you want to add to this? Okay. Alright, thank you. 7 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Any questions for the applicant at this point? Ms. Aanenson, the Certificate of Completion, is that? Kate Aanenson: I was just made aware of that at a little after 7:00 so I can’t comment on that. Our previous record, and as stated in the staff report, said that we did research and we were not able to find any permit for that sign. Pylon sign or the other one so that’s the best information I can give you. Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, Mr. Mertz did you say it was 1999? Craig Mertz: Summer of 1999 is a Certificate of Completion for commercial properties and contains language that the building official and the planning department are certifying that the property’s been inspected and the improvements to the best of their knowledge comply with the requirements of the building and zoning ordinances of the city. Now it doesn’t specifically say signs but that’s the way we took it. Councilwoman Tjornhom: What are you reading off of? Craig Mertz: I’m reading off of a document called a Certificate of Completion on city stationary. Mayor Furlong: What were we doing in 1999? That was before my time. Kate Aanenson: Typically when there’s a financing issue, sometimes a bank will ask for compliance. A zoning compliance letter. For financing reasons. I haven’t seen that so I can’t speak to it. Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. If sign 3, and I’m not going to suggest it was either the only non-conforming or what it is, but they’re requesting a sign variance so it’s certainly within your discretion. They want the variance for the larger sign, to require the removal of sign 3 in any case. And that’s your choice. You wouldn’t have to do that. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I want to thorough that I understand what I’m reading. Kate, do you have it? Kate Aanenson: No I don’t. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So where in this paragraph, this certificate, does it state that they have sign 3 up and that it’s acceptable? Kate Aanenson: It doesn’t. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So how is this valid for the argument of sign 3? And I’m just, I’m just asking. 8 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 Ken Engel: It infers that from the… Mayor Furlong: If you could please come to the microphone sir and identify yourself for the record. Ken Engel: I’m Ken Engel. I’m counsel to Progress Valley. The Certificate of Completion commercial that many of you are looking at, the last two lines of the first paragraph. Or I should say, this is a certification by initially a building official, Douglas W., I can’t read the last name but it reads that this certifies that I’ve inspected the building, etc. and to the best of my knowledge and belief premises comply with all the requirements of the building and zoning ordinances of the city of Chanhassen. That’s an all encompassing phrase and we deem that and recommend that it be interpreted to mean that the property is in full compliance, including with all signage requirements. Craig Mertz: The last time we were before the council Mr. Dungey stood up and said that it was his recollection that he had a footings inspection by city staff in connection with the installation of the sign and this is the closest as we can come for a document that supports Mr. Dungey’s recollection. Counsel has told you that this is up as, before you as a variance request and the pylon sign when we bought the property was the key factor on how this business draws in it’s customers. That’s the sign that the commuters can see on Highway 212 at night and could actually recognize what the business was that was attempting to attract customers and we have suffered a business deficit since this sign has been taken down approximately a year ago. Councilman Litsey: Just one question before you sit down. This is very broad and general and so what we’re saying here is we have no specific documents that can show that that pylon sign was part of this? Craig Mertz: We couldn’t find a sign permit. The city couldn’t find a sign permit. We couldn’t have any evidence that there wasn’t a sign permit. We do have this document which indicates that there was a comprehensive inspection in the summer of 1999 and we know that from what Mr. Dungey told the council, that he had a footings inspection in connection with the pylon sign. The pylon sign is not a recent addition to the property. It’s been there from the beginning. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Are you saying that this was a result of the footings inspection for the? Craig Mertz: That’s the only document we could come up with that backs up what Mr. Dungey told the council. Ken Engel: Sequentially we don’t, I’m sorry. Mayor Furlong: I was just going to say, when was the sign first installed? Craig Mertz: Can Gary talk? 9 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 Gary Dungey: That sign was installed I would say 1989 or 1990. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Gary Dungey: Was about when we put it in, and I know that we had to have an inspection for the pad because of the size of the bolts for that pylon sign and the steel in the pad, but I don’t have a record of the permit. That’s just too long ago so. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mayor, I have a question for Kate while he’s still up there. Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilwoman Tjornhom: …City Manager, anybody, were pylon signs allowed in 1999? Kate Aanenson: 1999? No. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Whenever it was installed? Kate Aanenson: He said 1991. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m sorry, ’91. Gary Dungey: ’89 or ’90. Ken Engel: In fact this post dates that installation by a decade. Gary Dungey: So I would think that if that, if there was an issue with that sign when we had the occupancy, why wouldn’t they have said something? Councilman McDonald: Can we get an answer to Councilwoman Tjornhom’s question? Was it allowed in 1989 or 1990? What were the zoning ordinances? Kate Aanenson: I couldn’t tell you. It predates me being employed by the city and I don’t feel comfortable responding without doing some research on that. Councilwoman Ernst: So I have another question. When we talk about the premises of the property here, and maybe you can’t answer this question either right now Kate but I’m wondering if there was like an additional certification or an additional permit that had to be in place for signage versus the premises? This, the way I read this today, it sounds like it encompasses the premise in general. So I’m wondering if there needs to be an additional permit for that or not. Kate Aanenson: Are you asking about the Certificate of Compliance? Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah. 10 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 Kate Aanenson: Okay. It’s just saying to the best of my ability it meets zoning requirements. Roger Knutson: I’m not sure I understand the question. Councilwoman Ernst: So in this Certificate of Completion that we have in front of us now, it says that, it basically certifies that they’re in compliance with the premise. The premise, as they’ve stated today, would include the sign. So the sign, it sounds like would have already been there. So what I’m saying is it sounds like it’s encompassing of the premise with the sign there. Unless there’s something different that was required at that time, and I don’t know. Roger Knutson: I assume there is nothing. These are traditionally, as someone mentioned, requested when there’s a property transfer or whether there is financing going on or something where they want like this. And the person looked at this, looked at the property apparently and said they were, to the best of their knowledge they were no violations. Councilwoman Ernst: Right. And that’s the way I would read this as well. Roger Knutson: I would just point out, the recommendation from staff is to grant a variance for the sign conditioned upon something. In other words removal of Sign 3. That condition can stand whether or not the sign was legal when it was installed. They’re really independent issues. And if they find Sign 3 is very important to them, they don’t have to accept that condition. They can reject the sign variance and stay with Sign 3 if it were legal when it was put up. Ken Engel: The situation we have with the certificate, if I may, is that the certificate identifies the property by it’s legal description. It talks about the buildings and improvements on the property and then summarizes them by referring to them as the premises. None of us can answer the question were pylon signs permitted in 1989 or 1990. Were they were permitted in 1999? No one here can currently answer that question but one issue that I think the council needs to take a look at is the fact that, according to Mr. Dungey’s testimony, the city engineer came out to the property in 1989 or 1990 to inspect the installation of footings for that pylon sign. The only way that a city official would have come out to the property would have been based on the issuance either of a permit or a complaint, and according to Mr. Dungey’s testimony, the official was satisfied with the footings for that pylon sign. And then 10 years later we have a certificate signed by four city officials identifying that property in it’s entirety is in compliance with all zoning requirements of the city. Kate Aanenson: But for we have no record of that inspection so did someone from Chaska inspect it? We don’t know. Councilman Litsey: I’m just curious, why don’t we have records? I mean normally would we have records back that far as part of our record retention… Kate Aanenson: Yes, we should. We should. Councilman Litsey: Normally those are kept on file. 11 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman McDonald: Can I ask a question that kind of goes to this? If at the time all of this was put in place those signs were legal and nothing’s been changed, why wouldn’t it be alright to continue? Why do they need a variance? If everything was in compliance at the time they were put up. The sizes. The heights and everything. Why do we need a variance at this point? Kate Aanenson: Not all those signs were in place. Councilwoman Ernst: Which signs weren’t, I’m sorry. Councilman McDonald: Yeah. Well, that’s the question. Which signs were not in place? Which are the new ones? Todd Gerhardt: I think you know, to try to provide some clarity to this that back in ’87 they did the first phase of the mini-storage. Then at that time on the site plan it did not show any location of signs. And we have no records of sign permit going in, and then in 1990 you came in for the second addition. Put an expansion where this certificate. You did some additional work then to get this certificate, correct? Ken Engel: That’s not correct. Todd Gerhardt: Then why did you get the certificate in 1999? Gary Dungey: ’99. That would have been I think for the last two buildings. Todd Gerhardt: So you did work and our engineers went in there and told them right here on the bottom, need to pave the driveway, so they inspected those 2 additional buildings. Whatever was on site, they didn’t look at. They were just looking at the new construction that was approved, and now you’ve seen ownership change. Angie found the signs not to be in compliance with ordinance. They’re coming through the process asking for the variance and you’re within your rights to kind of give and take as a part of that variance process. So that’s where we are today. Councilman Litsey: So you’re saying then the inspection in 1999 really focused on those improvements and not the entire property? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. I mean this may kind of lead you to believe that we inspected the entire site but I believe my staff went out there and looked at whatever the new improvements that occurred. Councilman Litsey: That was the focus. Todd Gerhardt: They didn’t look at the over site, the entire site because we didn’t look at the drainage issue. The stormwater pond. You know there’s another thing that we probably should have at that time. We’re kind of cleaning things up now and that’s kind of where we’re at. 12 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 Ken Engel: With all due respect, the certificate does not give us any indication of was there any limitation on the review by the four officials who signed this. We don’t know that there was any limitation. We don’t know whether or not they did or didn’t walk the entire site. All we have is the certification before us which states that the property was fully in compliance. Councilman Litsey: But conversely, you could also make the same argument that it did focus on that. You’re saying you know you want it, and I understand why. You’re saying it was, encompassed the whole properties but you could make a case for that, but you can also make a case that they came in and probably just looked at the improvements. Focused on that and that was the extent. Gary Dungey: The sign sits right by the last two buildings. Councilman Litsey: I’m sorry. Gary Dungey: I say that sign sits right by the last two buildings. Councilman Litsey: But that was already there, right? Gary Dungey: Yeah. Councilman Litsey: So the case could be made, they perhaps didn’t focus on that because it’s already been there. They just looked at the improvements and just kind of discounted it. You know we’re, it’s speculation. Gary Dungey: I know. Virtually it was there you know 10 years prior to that. Councilman Litsey: It’s speculative and so we really don’t know. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I don’t know if it’s speculative because I’m sure, I mean you go back to our web site, you can go onto a council agenda for 1997 and so I’m sure we have to have a record as to if we allowed pylon signs in the early 90’s. I just can’t believe we don’t have somewhere in our city hall vaults something. Councilman Litsey: I agree. I agree. I think this document perhaps is speculative but if we could get a better definitive answer, I think that’s a good suggestion. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sure. But I mean that would probably answer the question is where they allowed or weren’t they. 13 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 Councilman Litsey: Yes. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know because if they weren’t allowed then, then why, you know. Todd Gerhardt: Well even if they were allowed, we didn’t get a permit for them and we don’t have a record of a permit. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So we have no records at all for anything that happened there? Ken Engel: You have a record before you… Todd Gerhardt: For the buildings but not the signs. Ken Engel: …in 1999 the property was fully compliant. Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson, have you seen this document before this evening? Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Furlong: I don’t know when you, did you try to get this to staff to make them aware of this at any time? Ken Engel: We only found it recently. Just came across records that were delivered to us by Mr. Dungey and Mr. Brown. And we can provide an original, that’s not a problem. Mayor Furlong: It’s not a question of original. It’s just make sure that staff has the same information prior to the meeting that you have I guess is part of my question. I guess the question of whether or not, what was our sign ordinance at the time and whether or not these being in compliance is a question that could be researched as well as whether or not sign permits were required at that time. Could also be researched, because that sounds like it’s a question that the council like to hear to find out, but both of those could be researched I assume. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Because I want to make a fair choice you know based upon the facts that I have in front of me I guess. Not to make sure that it’s being, obviously we don’t have them now but if at one point there was a time in 1990 when we did, then I need to know that to understand what the history is. Craig Mertz: Could I ask the question of city manager? Mr. Gerhardt, in the 18, in the late 1980’s, weren’t we keeping the city archives in the barn out at Lake Ann Park and we lost a bunch of records because of water damage? Todd Gerhardt: No. Craig Mertz: Okay. 14 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 Todd Gerhardt: Not our building permits. Councilwoman Ernst: So I would like to make another comment in terms of, I keep going back to this premise. So even if we did have an ordinance that did not allow pylon signs at that time, this verbiage that’s in here, unless it would say excludes something, it says premises. And so I would keep coming, I keep coming back to that. We’re talking about premise. Mayor Furlong: And as I continue to read this, and one of the I think, a little research that staff could also do is find out for what purposes was this certificate issued. I assume that may also be in the file. Because here it describes the premises, Councilwoman Ernst and you’re right, to be occupied as a storage building. It’s not talking about the property and size and everything but it’s premises as a storage building so you know I guess the question is, for what purpose was this certificate issued and what work was completed to that end. However, I guess I ask the question, I know that the last time we worked with this there was an extension required of the applicant. Is our time frame such, do we have any time available to us with the current extension? Kate Aanenson: No, we need another extension. Todd Gerhardt: Roger’s working on a letter. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions at this point with regard to the applicant or staff? Councilman McDonald: If I could Mr. Mayor. Were signs 1 and 2 the ones that are the new ones that are definitely are not in compliance? When you put that slide up there. So signs 1 and 2 definitely are not in compliance because they would be newer. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman McDonald: So those would require either a variance or need to be removed. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman McDonald: Okay. So the issue becomes signs 3 and 4, is that correct? Councilwoman Ernst: Or is it just 3? Mayor Furlong: Well I guess to clarify. Mr. Mertz, is it the applicant’s contention that these signs have not increased in size or dimension at all? What originally. That these new signs are identical? Craig Mertz: If the planner can go back to, can you go back one? Okay. Our under, the sign number 1 and sign number 2, and Jake can look at me if I’m saying this incorrectly, they were of that height and of those dimensions when we took possession of the property. What we did is we ordered new letters and images on the signs. So we didn’t change it’s height or it’s width or altitude above the ground. We just put it, we ordered a new face, and if you can go to screen number, next. Oops. There was, and in the materials that we submitted we showed you a picture 15 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 of the face, faces plural, that were on each side of that pylon when we took possession of the property. It advertised the site as being Progress Valley, and one of the faces was damaged in a weather related incident and it was, when the face was damaged it was decided at that time that we would start doing business as Nick’s Storage rather than Progress Valley, and we ordered the replacement faces that would fit in that 6 foot by 10 foot space at the top of the pylon and those faces are in one of the storage garages out at the site right now so yes, we were proposing to change the images but we weren’t changing the sizes from the way we found the property when we bought it. Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mertz then, are you saying signs 1 and 2 are also older signs with just new faces? I’m just trying to get a. Craig Mertz: That’s all we did was we ordered new faces for those locations. They are the same dimensions and the same heights. Mayor Furlong: The posts and the foundation haven’t been replaced? Gary Dungey: No. Councilman Litsey: Do those date back to 1999? Gary Dungey: Prior. Councilman Litsey: Or prior to that. Gary Dungey: …those in 1987. Councilman Litsey: Right, but this document you produced on a Certificate of Completion, were all four of those signs in place with the dimensions that you’re now? Gary Dungey: 1, 2 and 3 were, yep. Number 4 was not. That’s a new one. Councilman Litsey: That is a new one. Ken Engel: That’s sitting right on Stoughton Avenue and 212. On the ground. Councilman Litsey: Yep. Ken Engel: That’s the only one that’s different. Or new. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson, do we have an agreement for any extension this evening? Roger Knutson: I don’t know. I prepared something very quickly. I don’t know if he’s. Craig Mertz: We’ve signed the extension agreement. 16 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 Roger Knutson: And if you accept, if the council wants to accept the extension, then we can. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Table it? Mayor Furlong: Table it and research the questions and I guess if that’s the direction council wants to go, I would also ask the applicant to work with staff and so that we can kind of complete this at our next meeting rather than raising more questions. I think that would be to everybody’s benefit. We have raised some questions here this evening. I guess with that it sounds like we won’t have the answers this evening so with the extension being signed, I guess at this point it likely would be appropriate to entertain a motion to table this to a subsequent meeting. Councilwoman Ernst: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman McDonald: Second. Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council table the request for an amendment to a conditional use permit and variances. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. SCHNEIDER DOCK, 640 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD (OUTLOT A, REICHERT’S ADDITION), APPLICANT, GARY & CYNTHIA SCHNEIDER: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO INSTALL A DOCK. Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, councilors. I’m here tonight before you for a dock variance request. Gary Schneider, the applicant is in the audience tonight if you have any questions for him. The request for a variance is for the 10 foot dock setback and in conjunction with this there’s also a wetland alteration permit which is requesting a no net loss determination, and I’ll explain that a little bit further. The property is shown here in orange. It is off Pleasant View Road on the northern extremes of the lot. Outlot A is south of Pleasant View and the 640 Pleasant View is to the east or north of Pleasant View. The lot was, when it was subdivided with Reichert’s Addition, this was just Outlot A. Existing conditions that are on the site today. It was subdivided with convergent side lot lines making it virtually impossible to put in a conforming dock that would meet the goals of a lot, or a lakeside lot. That being access to the water for navigational purposes. Recreational purposes, and/or other water oriented uses. The dock that is shown to the east, to the right on the picture is Mr. Schneider’s dock. You’ll see there is a dark dashed line. That is the lot line extended and within that is a lighter dashed line. That would be the 10 foot setback for that dock. So it extends beyond, through the 10 foot setback. Through the subsequent 10 foot setback for Outlot B, and into the water front in front of Outlot B. The dock to the west is Mr. Thielen’s dock. Mr. Thielen has worked with Mr. Schneider, and vice versa to agree upon this alignment that is shown there so that it does not impede with Mr. Thielen’s access to his dock. Reichert’s Addition was subdivided in 1978 and this is 5 years prior to the city’s dock ordinance going into effect which would have made this lot in non- compliance. At the time four outlets were created. They being Outlot A, B, C and D. Outlot A 17 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 was given permission for 1 dock with 2 dockage slips, or 2 boats. Outlot B was given 1 dock with 3 slips. Outlot C, 1 dock with 1 slip. As ownership goes, Lot 5, Block 1, which is 640 and Mr. Schneider’s residence and Outlot A both have the same property identification number and are in the same ownership obviously. Same lot. They are just bisected by the placement of Pleasant View Road. The same is true of Lot 9, Block 1 and Outlot C. Those two properties are identified as the same property. Outlot B is the Near Mountain Lake Association and the remainder of the lots have access to that. I think you may remember last year Near Mountain Lake Association had requested a change to their conditional use permit to allow an additional dock to be placed on Outlot B which was denied at the time because it is a beachlot and in order to have a second dock, the way the rules are for the first dock you must have 30,000 square feet. For each additional dock you must have an additional 20,000 square feet, meaning they would need 50,000 square feet at least to put up a second dock. Outlot B is only 40,000 square feet in size. That came up at the public hearings so I just wanted to bring to that the council’s attention. So this is just an aerial photo. The blue lines that are shown, the shaded blue lines would be if we took away the dock setback, what would be left for Mr. Schneider to put a dock in. It would be that little triangle dominated by sedges cattails, bulrushes. It wouldn’t be a functional dock. It would not gain any access. So for that reason I think it’s necessary for the dock to be granted the variance. Regarding the wetland alteration permit, the way the wetland conservation act is written is, is that no excavation or filling may occur such that would alter the hydrology or community that exists there. The placement of a dock in and of itself does not preclude that the wetland habitat still exists. It would require some cutting down of vegetation to maintain access but as long as the vegetation is not uprooted or otherwise killed, it would be there to return upon the removal of the dock. Further, and this is the dock right now looking at it so it kind of tells you that the vegetation will still exist without it. Now granted to maintain a dock they would need to cut the vegetation in that area and maintain access. The posts themselves under the wetland conservation act, the pilings for the dock would be considered wetland fill but under the wetland conservation act a fringe wetland, such as this on the edge of the lake, within a shoreland overlay district within the setback area can have what’s called a 20 foot diminimus exemption. That would mean a large number of pylons, and I see no way that that many pylons could put in that they would exceed the 20 foot. So I do want to bear in mind though that this is a preserve manage class wetland here and DNR, our rating system with the exemption of the outstanding, which is Seminary Fen. This is our highest rated. The reason it would fall into this category is one, the fisheries habitat, the spawning habitat that’s provided here. Two, the amphibian habitat. Three, it’s a relative diverse community. Not to the point where it has any threatened species or anything of that nature but it is a nicer community. Not the monoculture that we often see, and four and perhaps most importantly, the shoreland protection that it affords from the wave action and boats going past, which is another reason why I would like to see the dock extended out further rather than having to remove all the vegetation for the placement of the boat and the boat hoist, being able to allow that vegetation to remain in place to offer that protection. And then finally, the uptake of nutrients that occurs because of those. So in closing I guess I am, would recommend that the council approve the request for variance and the wetland alteration permit concluding no net loss, no net loss of function and value with the conditions as shown on page 8. However I would like to draw one thing. Item 4 on page 8 of the conditions, that the dock be shorten by 13 feet. I have subsequently gone back out to the property and re- examined it. Mr. Thielen being agreeable to the alignment that is in place, and not feeling that it impedes with his access, I feel that my recommendation to shorten it by 13 feet would actually 18 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 result in it not getting far enough beyond that wetland area to actually get the minimization of the removal of vegetation that I was looking for when I first recommended this so upon further consideration you may want to look at condition 4 and strike that. Mayor Furlong: Striking 4, removing 4. Terry Jeffery: I have nothing further at this time but I’d be happy to answer any questions you have. Mayor Furlong: Questions. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well, since we’re on…with the conditions. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Since we’re talking about conditions, I appreciate your report and all the detail and the history. That really helped me a lot. Learning the knowledge of what we’re reading about and talking about. I’m just, can you explain to me why it says number 6, no more than 1 watercraft may be docked on the subject property. Instead of 2. Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom. Under the original subdivision, 2 boats were allowed on that. Because of, because of the extent of wetland in that area, to put in 2 docks, or to put in 2 boat hoists or 2 dockages would require removal of additional wetland vegetation. My goal is to remove as little as possible for the reasons I’ve cited. One, this is a preserve manage class. Two, the protection of shoreland. Three, PCA just listed this lake and yet another one for nutrient impairments so the more vegetation we remove, the less benefit we’re getting from that wetland. That was my primary reason. City code does allow for up to 3 boats and 1 dock for a single family residential area. That was my logic behind number 6. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this point? Councilman McDonald: I’ve got a couple questions. Are there existing docks down there now? Is that, are we looking at adding additional docks? I’m a little confused. Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald. There are currently in existence 2 docks here. Mr. Schneider put his dock in 2 years back now I believe, and then it was determined it was not in compliance. Mr. Thielen’s dock has been there since at least 1979. That as far as I could go back on the aerial photos I had to see it, and it has been in that alignment for that entire time. Outlot B does have a dock. If you see where the call out is for Outlot B, it is a couple hundred feet further south of that, so it’s about 400 feet from Outlot A to where the dock is on Outlot B. So there’s 3, and then Outlot C has a dock as well. So there are 4 docks in that immediate area at this time. With one of them being Mr. Schneiders that we’re requesting a variance for right now. Councilman McDonald: Okay, I was just trying to put this in context because I remember when all this came before the Planning Commission last year and the reason why it all got turned 19 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 down. Plus there was a request for another dock also in that area and I guess I’m just trying to understand why this is going to be allowed because there are also dock restrictions on Lotus Lake as to the number of docks that can be there. And this is just a repair of an existing dock or, that’s what I’m trying to understand is why all of a sudden this is being allowed because last year no docks were allowed. Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, Councilor McDonald. I believe under the subdivision, under the Reichert’s Addition it was reasonable for Mr. Schneider to assume, based on the language that was in the development contract, the 1 dock with 2 slips. That he had rights to put a dock down there. No dock was put there prior to that going into, the dock ordinance going into place. Mr. Schneider put out his dock. At that time city staff reviewed it and said this was a non-compliant dock. Mr. Schneider has subsequently come back requesting a variance for the dock setback so he could place a dock on there. The areas on Lotus Lake, and I don’t believe I have enough of an aerial photo to show that, my apologies, is the northwest side of the northern most portion of the lake is where no docks are allowed. And then Outlot B, which is I believe what you recall from last year requesting a second dock, they are a beachlot as opposed to a single family residential. They have the different rules and that being that they needed at least 50,000 square feet to put a second dock on. Outlot B was granted the one dock with 3 at the time of Reichert’s Addition as Outlot A was afforded the one with 2 at the same time of the subdivision. Councilman McDonald: Okay, so the big difference is within his subdivision development he has the rights to a dock? Terry Jeffery: That is correct. Councilman McDonald: Okay. No more questions. Mayor Furlong: I guess just to clarify. The first question before us, any time we’re dealing with a variance we deal with whether there’s a hardship or not. And if I understood, really is the shape of that parcel, the triangle shape with the point really at the lakeshore that creates the potential. Plus potential hardship to find a dock within that, if you can move back to that. You know which slide I’m talking about? Terry Jeffery: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: It shows where the allowable area would be. Terry Jeffery: That one right there. Mayor Furlong: And what you’re saying is within the allowable area it doesn’t give a dock that is functional for any boat, is that correct? Terry Jeffery: That is correct. At that point there, the water is less than 2 feet at the highest. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the Thielen dock which, I mean I look at this ordinance. A 10 foot setback from the extension of the property is a good neighbor ordinance is how I kind of look at 20 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 it. It helps manage it but that is coming across that, and that’s also in that 10 foot setback and would, this is a question. Would that require a variance had it not been in place at the time the ordinance was passed and therefore it’s considered non-conforming at this point? Terry Jeffery: That is correct. This is a legally non-conforming use. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Terry Jeffery: Is that same alignment. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that’s a further potential hardship on this parcel with regard to location. Terry Jeffery: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: Of the dock so, okay. So then once we, if the question before us is there a hardship or is a variance worth granting, then it’s a question of what the condition should be against that. With regard to some of the conditions, I guess there was, I think there was some language added as it was coming through the process with regard to use of chemicals. I thought in the staff report it made some mention that, does the DNR issue permits for cutting or clearing and cutting. I want to use the right words here. They provide permits with regard to aquatic plant management of shoreland for dock purposes, whether it’s cutting or whether it’s chemicals. Is that correct? Terry Jeffery: That is correct to some degree. This area right here would fall within 3 different jurisdictions. DNR, U.S. Army Corps and the City of Chanhassen is the LGU for…, so yes. Inasmuch as he would need to obtain a DNR permit, that is correct. Mayor Furlong: With regard to any activities with regard to the aquatic plants. Terry Jeffery: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: And that would true for anybody along the shoreland on this lake? On Lotus Lake? Terry Jeffery: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Do we have as ordinance, do we have restrictions on uses of chemicals or cutting as an ordinance or do we manage that or issue permits for, at this time? Terry Jeffery: We do not specifically state chemicals or cutting, harvesting of plant. What we do say is that the placement of the dock or other water accessory structures cannot be detrimental to significant fish, wildlife habitat or protected vegetation. But no, we have no language that specifies chemical or mechanical removal of plants. If I may Mayor Furlong, I think I know where you’re going to. Condition 1. Would your preference be to say, without approval from the appropriate agencies? 21 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Well I’m not sure where my preference is right now, I’ll be honest with that. I guess what I think we all try to look at here is, whenever we’re dealing with variances, and we’ve dealt with, as members of the council know and certainly staff, we’ve dealt with other types of wetland alteration permits and dock permits in the past on Lotus Lake and in this area, and I think the most recent one was the request from Outlot B to expand their dockage rights in that case. But we’ve also dealt, I remember there was further down the shoreline here there was another dock that went in place where again they were coming out through the wetlands, through the cattails and extended the dock out so that they had a navigable portion, and they required a variance and I believe that was granted so I’m trying to understand what the rules are for everybody else and whether, how those compare to what some of these conditions are here as a part of the line in my question. Other questions at this point? Councilman Litsey: Well so to that point then, on number 1, has that restriction been placed on other property owners as far as variances or don’t know? Terry Jeffery: Probably not specifically in variance language. Well no, yes. In fact it has. It was, because I actually swiped this from a staff report that Lori Haak had done in the past but I apologize because I cannot recall that. Councilman Litsey: Well that’s okay but. Terry Jeffery: However, I think really what I want to speak to is the fact that to place that dock, it’s going to be necessary to cut some vegetation for the placement of the dock. It does not, I don’t want it to infer to the applicant that he therefore has a right to remove all the vegetation and create a sand blanket beach or something of that nature there. I believe he has a right to put a dock in to access the lake and to have reasonable access to that lake. Now how far we take that. Councilman Litsey: And that condition you’ve talked with the applicant about and these are acceptable, agreed upon this? You’re okay with that? Councilwoman Ernst: If I could just make a comment. In the staff report it talks about the applicant has been very willing to work with city staff on their recommendations and so I mean I would support the proposal. Based on what I’ve seen in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Is there, okay, thank you. I know the applicant is here. Is there anything you’d like to address the council on? Gary Schneider: I’m Gary Schneider, the owner of 640 Pleasant View Road and the outlot in question. Just one comment I would make is that the position of Mr. Thielen’s dock, which is shown with the L here, even though it’s non-conforming and it’s grandfathered in, in all fairness I have to say the reason for it’s positioning is because it is, it is the channel there that’s able to be navigated. And if you will fairly open. So even though Mr. Thielen, and Pete Thielen’s been a neighbor and friend of mine for the 13 years I’ve lived there. Even though he wasn’t willing to you know flip his L or move his dock, which I can understand for many reasons, when I wanted 22 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 to place the, the placement of this dock we did together and by the way the dock’s never been used because the purpose was to get frankly to get Pete to agree that this is something both of us could live with. And the way my dock is placed at the moment, which Terry’s been nice enough to come out and see at least twice, is right now I’m kind of, one edge of my dock is on the wetland side if you will, or you know has bull rushes around it, and one edge of it is kind of open. My point is, is that currently I feel comfortable if Terry wants to limit that dock to one boat because candidly if you put one modest fishing boat or something in there, you could probably cut no more than oh, 40 or 50 square feet of vegetation to get it to fit in properly. And really beyond that you would, I would say there’d be, would it be fair to say Terry there’d be a very modest need to do any cutting of any sort, and I have no plans on doing any chemical treatment of anything other than I think, I can’t speak for my neighbor Pete but I think every other year or so he does some treating of lily pads with chemicals that are approved and you know advertised and distributed in the area. So minimal impact is what I’m interested in too. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Alright, well let’s bring it back to council then for discussion and comments. Councilwoman Ernst you made some comments already. I don’t know if you want to amend those at all or if somebody else can go. Councilwoman Ernst: I’m fine. Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry. Okay. Other thoughts and comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sure. You know I think when these situations come before me, at least I come with for intent and if it was a self created hardship and I think that the property owners were just trying to exercise their right to reasonable use of their lakeshore property. I think the problem is that the development contract and the way the lot was created is clashing with the ordinance that was created later on, and I think that’s the problem and I think the ordinance you know does have good intentions but sometimes there has to be those exceptions to those rules and I think this is probably one of those times where we need to be flexible and allow the applicant to have proper use of his property. And I don’t think this was a self created hardship obviously and that for $710, which I guess was the cost of being in front of, or being here tonight for this meeting, I’d hope that we could allow you some relief and allow you enjoy your property the way you were meant to enjoy it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Well I guess you know the objection that I had to that was, goes back to what’s fair for everybody else on the lake but as long as you know I’ve always voted on these things based upon rights and, or negotiated deals and everything and I’ve been real reluctant to grant any kind of variances, especially upon Lotus Lake. But in this particular case I mean it does appear that the right existed so again, you know he would be entitled to the dock and I guess as you stated on your, it looks like condition 4, maybe eliminating the shortening of that by 13 feet and allow the additional 13 feet again to have full use of the dock. It sounds as though your neighbors are in compliance with all this. You’ve worked together to put something up so I don’t think we have a problem there and again it gets back to a good neighbor policy and everything so I would support it with the elimination of the requirement for the 13 feet. 23 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Litsey. Councilman Litsey: I agree with everything that’s been said. Good job working together on making this work and I’m ready to move ahead. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Yeah, I think you know one of the things that was, we need to look at with these and there are differences in the applications. I think we’ve seen it here in parcels that are right next to each other. In one case there was a request for an expansion of dockage rights. In this case it’s a request for preservation of existing rights and clearly there’s a hardship here based upon the design of the parcel. I think going back to the original intent of the subdivision, it was clear that this parcel would be allowed to have a dock with two watercrafts, two boats there. I think the, it was also given the restriction of a dock placement on Outlot B, which we haven’t talked about, in this same area. Also tells me that there was fore thought in terms of providing these rights to this parcel and also to preventing a squeezing out if you will of those rights by virtue of the location of the dock on the Outlot B. I guess when I look at these, you know in one of our roles as a council is to make sure that we don’t, when there’s a hardship in place, that we don’t add further burdens on top of somebody coming here for an application because of a hardship than what other residents enjoy who don’t have a hardship and therefore can live within it. And so as we look at some of these conditions, we want to be mindful of the environmental factors but we also have to be mindful of the property rights and that’s where you know in some of these I think we might, I’m concerned that we might be going further and putting further restrictions here on this application because of the hardship that exists than what other residents might be able to use for their enjoyment of their property. So that is my concern here and if, you know even though it’s stated intention is not to use chemicals, if we don’t, you know if other residents don’t have that restriction, should we be placing it here in a permanent manner? I would certainly support removing 4 since staff is recommending that, and I think you know that comment about the chemicals in item 1, you know if the DNR can manage that for the rest of the lake and that should be a bigger discussion. Not just one that gets applied here as a condition when neighboring property owners don’t have a similar type of restriction on their rights as well. So that is my concern. I’m absolutely in favor of granting the variance because it is a preservation of a right that exists, and there is a hardship here. I just, my challenge to the council is to make sure that we’re not imposing conditions that are overly, or more burdensome here because a hardship exists than what might be in place for just all of our residents so. So those are my thoughts. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So Mayor, are you suggesting that perhaps we strike the sentence, neither shall any chemicals be applied for the control of aquatic vegetation on condition number 1? Mayor Furlong: That would be my recommendation. I think that was added in and subsequent now, it sounds like it’s not going to be done anyway but I think there are, the DNR manages that as well, and it sounds like something’s being done with the neighboring property anyway. I assume he’s following all the requirements. 24 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 Terry Jeffery: Mayor, if I may. In spite of all the DNR’s best intentions, unfortunately they don’t have the staff to monitor all of these lakes. I can certainly follow up and find out if the neighboring properties are in compliance but it is, it’s not common practice to remove vegetation first. The DNR come by later and tell me I couldn’t do that. I understand your reason for not wanting, and you’re right. It shouldn’t infer a condition that somebody else wouldn’t have. It would be an alteration of a wetland and under our wetland alteration permit I guess it would be addressed anyway so in that case maybe that language would be stricken out. That already exists in our ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So we already have ordinances in place to address that then? Terry Jeffery: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Then that adds some comfort that we’re not again, we’re not providing any benefit that doesn’t already exist, so. Those are my thoughts. I’m absolutely in support of it again. If anything I want to make sure that we’re not overly burdensome when someone does indeed have a hardship, which I think we all agree exists here on that so. Any other thoughts or comments? Councilman Litsey: I’m okay with those changes. Mayor Furlong: If there’s a motion. Councilman McDonald: I’ll make a motion Mr. Mayor. I would make a motion that the City Council approves a variance from the 10 foot dock setback zone for the placement of a dock on a lot zoned single family residential, RSF, which will extend through the 10 foot dock setback zone and 51 feet past the lot line extended as shown in plans prepared by Kurt M. Kisch dated June 30, 2008. And the City Council approves a Wetland Alteration Permit to issue a Decision of No Net Loss of Wetland Function and Values based upon the attached Findings of Fact and subject to the following conditions. And then I would amend the conditions, number 1 to strike the lettering in bold. Neither shall any chemicals be applied for the control of aquatic vegetation. So strike that sentence. And also strike condition number 4. The dock shall be shortened by 13 feet from what is shown on the survey to allow for a minimum separation between docks of 20 feet. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves a variance from the 10 foot dock setback zone for the placement of a dock on a lot zoned single family residential, RSF, which will extend through the 10 foot dock setback zone and 51 feet past the lot line extended as shown in plans prepared by Kurt M. Kisch 25 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 dated June 30, 2008. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves a Wetland Alteration Permit to issue a Decision of No Net Loss of Wetland Function and Values based upon the attached Findings of Fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. No aquatic vegetation is to be removed by uprooting of the vegetation. The applicant may cut only that vegetation which is necessary for the placement of the dock, the mooring of the boat, and the navigation of the boat to open water. The vegetation shall be cut at a height equal to the bottom of the dock or at a depth of the propeller. 2. The dock shall be installed eight (8) inches above the Ordinary High Water Elevation. 3. The dock shall be no wider than the current three and one-half (3.5) feet as shown on the survey submitted by the applicant. 4. The boat shall be docked as close to the lakeside end of the dock as possible so as to minimize the disturbance of aquatic vegetation for the docking of the boat. 5. No more than one watercraft may be docked on the subject property. 6. No fill or excavation may occur within the jurisdictional wetland boundaries or below the ordinary high water elevation of Lotus Lake except for the fill associated with the minimum number of posts necessary to maintain a safe dock. 7. The applicant shall abide by all applicable provisions of Chapter 6 and Chapter 20 of Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you for everyone’s effort and as was mentioned earlier, for people working together to find a common solution so we appreciate that. Thank you very much. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor, if I could. The only thing I would like to bring to everyone’s attention is that the city does sponsor a farmers market on the weekends and one of the things I would like to just bring up is that over the past couple of years I have watched it grow and get better, and I think right now what we have is a very good selection at this point on the farmers market and I would encourage everyone to use it. I think the gentlemen who are running that are doing an excellent job. It’s all Chanhassen grown. It’s self policed to make sure that everybody that comes in adds something of value from the community so I would just like to put out there that I think that that has worked out quite well for the city. 26 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other presentations from the council? ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: Well we’re in the middle of road construction season and the project we’ve been watching closely is Laredo, for a couple of reasons. We’ve got school opening next week and a big hats off to the contractor, our inspection engineers, Paul Oehme and his staff in coordinating th that project. If you remember we had the 4 of July parade that went up through Chan View and. Is it Chan View in that area? Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Saratoga and Laredo? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, and so we asked the contractor not to start construction in there so we could keep the parade on schedule and in that area. So he worked on the northerly piece of Laredo and so due to his flexibility and his construction schedule, we were able to keep the parade going and then had him hop out of the middle of Laredo and work on kind of the south end of Laredo by the bank and the post office and the fire station so we can get the school open here in the next week so he’s been very accommodating and we really appreciate the efforts of both of our consulting engineers and the contractor and Paul’s staff in making sure this project stays on schedule. And we will be paving Laredo here on Wednesday morning and the school then can bring in their food for the kids the following week and get everything scheduled and orientation will also occur on Wednesday so hats off to the contractor for being flexible in the construction schedule so. Councilwoman Ernst: Todd, just to add to that. I actually have talked to some of those neighbors and they are very, very pleased with the contractors, and I promised them I would pass that on to Paul, so Paul I apologize for not passing this on earlier but they’re very satisfied with how that project is going. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah I mean I’m very pleased and Paul is too. We’re making good progress and we had a great construction season. Could use a little rain but that would slow the process down but you know it’s going well and that’s always good to see. Councilman Litsey: Along those same lines, my 5 year old likes to monitor their progress along there so I get, I go down the road quite regularly and I’ve stopped and talked to some people too and I’ve heard good comments and just for my own observations it looks like the project went really well so I was wondering, it was good to hear if you’re going to make it time for school with that last segment but it looks like everything’s leveled out and ready to go so good job. Todd Gerhardt: And that’s all I have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt or his staff? No? CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. 27 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008 Mayor Furlong: The council will be continuing our work session items immediately following the meeting but if there’s nothing else to come before the council this evening, is there a motion to adjourn? Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Litsey 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 8:25 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 28