CAS-15_SCHNEIDER, GARY J. & CYNTHIA CALHOONThe contents of this file
have been scanned.
Do not add anything to
it unless it has been
scanned.
Thomas J. Campbell
Roger N. Knutson
Thomas M. Scott
Elliott B. Knetsch
Joel J. Jamnik
Andrea McDowell Poehlcr
Soren M. Mattick
John F. Kelly
Henry A. Schaeffer, III
Alina Schwartz
Samuel J. Edmunds
Cynthia R Kirchoff
Marguerite M. McCarron
1380 Corporate Center Curd
Suite 317 • Eagan, MN 55121
651-452-5000
Fax 651-452-5550
www.ck-law.com
• � UL. f j
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
Direct Dial: (657)134-6121
E-mailAddress: snelson&k-law.com
November 4, 2008
Ms. Kim Meuwissen RECEIVE®
City of Chanhassen NOV 5 — 2008
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147 Q(TY OF CHANHASSEN
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: CHANHASSEN —MISC. RECORDED DOCUMENTS
➢ Variance #08-15 — Gary/Cindy Schneider Property
at 640 Pleasant View Road (Outlot A, Reichert's Addition)
Dear Kim:
Enclosed for the City's files please find original recorded Variance #08-15 granting a
variance from the ten (10) foot dock setback on the above property. The variance was
recorded with Carver County on September 15, 2008 as Torrens Document No.
T168225.
Regards,
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
S sanR. Nelson, Legal ssistanI
SRN:ms
Enclosure
SCANNED
'nllh'tlllnilY
OFFICE OF THE
REGISTRAR OF TITLES
CARVER COUNTY. MINNESOTA
Check # 19402
Cert.# 23392 Fee:$ 46.00
Certified Recorded on 09-15-2008 at
01-15
I1111111121108-1111111111111111111IIl
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 08-15
09.00 �AM ❑ PM
Carl W. Hanson, Jr.
Registrar of Titles
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen
hereby grants the following variance:
The City Council approves Planning Case 08-15 for a variance from the ten
(10) foot dock setback on property located in the Single Family Residential
(RSF) District, for the placement of a dock as shown on the attached Exhibit A.
The dock may extend through the dock setback zone and 51 feet beyond the
most southerly lot line extended. The decision was not appealed to the City
Council pursuant to Section 20-29(d); therefore, the granting of the variance is
final.
2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver
County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows:
Outlot A, Reichert's Addition
3. Conditions. The variance approval is 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.
4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed
construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse.
Dated: August 25, 2008
CITY OF
PW
(SEAL)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
A. Furlong,
Gerhardt, City Manager
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this W'day of &D-IeM he r ,
2008 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen,
a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted
by its City Council.
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)227-1100
_ T _
NOTARY PUULIQ
d,up.
KIM T. MEUWISSEN
_ Notary Public -Minnesota
; .
.mo My Cannnnissran Expires Jan 31, 2010
EXHIBIT A
Dock Location Sketch
06
/ Gary & Cindy Schneider
M3 f\ 640 Pleasant View Road e
w
G Chanhassen, MN 55317
I4 S \ •• LEGEND
Q Sa • e IRON MONUMENT FOUND
OUTLOT \ \ O Iron monument set and marked
vt
I -( Iron nonuse No. et23968.
and
oo I A
Q) I - ;,'� •
2 I r
BASIS OF BEARINGS
For the purpose of this survey the west line of
I --Approximate ro0'/ _- \ '9O Oullot A, REICHERT'S ADDITION, Carver Count,
edge of / - :�
wetland
N8 Serve Minnesota is assumed to bear NO2'14'00'W.
I /
i i -e� \
7 722 .65 65 "E i I Line
y
Il -
Ii r II ".fl � pd' � ^y�1 t�tit 66
Fnd Iron--
Pipe Open r �• / '.: '.. .. .. \
f_ 33±
<25t Oudot A
r --Fnd Iron
EalelieWood Pipe
Existing � -O.N.W. LMe
REICHERT'S ADDITION
-10' Doc
k setback (-Shoreline CARVER COUNTY
I ^'- Lines �l
1/ j' ---Existing Dock �� N4 Subject to easements of record, if any.
"• o
i
f
LOTUS LAKE 1 - -3.5 0 30 so
' Drow�irgofFile:
act No. 007,302E D� •
•2.3
ORDINARY HIGH WATER ELEV. = 896.3 SCALE IN FEET
(per Minnesota DNR) ,A?
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by DWuth, MN
- me or under my direct supervision and that I am o duly Registered Hun f,ske, MN
Land Sur dor under the of the Slate of Minnesota. lilbbmg MN
R T .K Minnetonk0. MN
e onk—q MN
Existing Dock -I weonrolcnreo�
4L.1
June 30, 2008 Phone: 9529330972
23968 Dote Fu: 9.dkin.153
waw.dkinc.mm
CITY OF CHANHAMEN
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110
TO: Campbell Knutson, PA
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, MN 55121
LETTER OAANSMITTAL
DATE JOB NO.
9/4/08 08-15
ATTENTION
Sue Nelson
RE:
Document Recording
WE ARE SENDING YOU ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items:
❑
Shop drawings
❑
Prints
❑
Plans ❑
Samples ❑ Specifications
❑
Copy of letter
❑
Change Order
❑
Pay Request
❑
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
1
8/25/08
08-15
Variance Schneider dock-Outlot A, Reichert's Addition
❑
FOR BIDS DUE
For Recording
❑
PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑
For approval
❑
For your use
❑
As requested
❑
For review and comment
❑
FOR BIDS DUE
REMARKS
COPY TO: Gary & Cindy Schneider
❑
Approved as submitted
❑ Resubmit
❑
Approved as noted
❑ Submit
❑
Returned for corrections
❑ Return
®
For Recording
❑
PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
copies for approval
copies for distribution
corrected prints
(952)227 -
SCANNED
L
0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MNNESOTA
VARIANCE 08-15
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen
hereby grants the following variance:
The City Council approves Planning Case 08-15 for a variance from the ten
(10) foot dock setback on property located in the Single Family Residential
(RSF) District, for the placement of a dock as shown on the attached Exhibit A.
The dock may extend through the dock setback zone and 51 feet beyond the
most southerly lot line extended. The decision was not appealed to the City
Council pursuant to Section 20-29(d); therefore, the granting of the variance is
final.
2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver
County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows:
Outlot A, Reichert's Addition
3. Conditions. The variance approval is 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.
0 0
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.
4. Lam. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed
construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse.
Dated: August 25, 2008
CITY OF
(SEAL)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
A. Furlong,
Gerhardt, City Manager
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this LAday of M he r ,
2008 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen,
a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted
by its City Council.
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)227-1100
W111WIR J",V. ,,
s KIM T. MEUWISSEN
. Notary Public -Minnesota
My Comma m Expires Jan 31, 2010
Fnd Iron --
Pipe Open
i
Existing Wood
Launch
I Lo
I�
ss
OO��F
OUTLOT
r , . ♦ .♦ , . .•
f< I 1 11 K 1
\\-)
q f,r.
• aY . j
f:•`� ••v
--Approximate 00� 1 \
i edge of
wetland
N84'58'01"E i --Surveyv •�
72.65 i i Line i 0• V4, 4 \
25t
N
LOTUS LAKE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER ELEV. = 896.3
(per Minnesota DNR)
Existing Dock—)
B r<
-Fnd Iron
Pipe
\110r-O.H.W. Line
--10' Dock Setback% ,-Shoreline
Lines _
_-- Existing Dock
3.5
In
EXHIBIT A
Dock Location Sketch
Gary & Cindy Schneider
640 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
LEGEND
• = IRON MONUMENT FOUND
O = Iron monument set and marked
with license No. 23968.
BASIS OF BEARINGS
` For the purpose of this survey the west line of
Outlot A, REICHERT'S ADDITION, Carver County,
Minnesota is assumed to bear NO2'14'30'W.
0 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered
Land Sur r under tbee4pp of the State of Minnesota.
June 30, 2008
Kisch IfN Lic. No 23968 Date
Outlot A
REICHERT'S ADDITION
CARVER COUNTY
Subject to easements of record, if any.
Drawing File:2007-302-L-712-Dock.DWG
Project No. 2007-302L
INCORPORATED
6110 Blue Circle Drive • Suite 100
Duluth, MN
Ham Lake, MN
Hibbing, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Oakdale, MN
Phone: 952 933 0972
Fax: 952 9331153
www.rlkinc.com
Letonka. MN 55343
"!' Chardrassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED
On August 25, 2008 the Chanhassen City Council met to consider your request
Administration
August 28, 2008
Phone: 952.227.1100
Gary and Cynthia Schneider
CITY OF
640 Pleasant View Road
CHANHASSEN
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: 952.227.1100
Re: Wetland Alteration Permit/Variance Request No. 08-15
7700 Market Boulevard
The City Council, upon consideration of the findings of fact, has granted your
PC Boz 147
request for the variance and has issued a determination of no net loss of wetland
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Schneider:
"!' Chardrassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED
On August 25, 2008 the Chanhassen City Council met to consider your request
Administration
for a variance from the 10 -foot dock setback as required by City code as well as
Phone: 952.227.1100
your Wetland Alteration Permit request for a determination of no net loss of
Fax:952.227.1110
wetland functions and values. The subject property is legally described as Outlot
Building Inspections
A, Reichert's Addition.
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1190
The City Council, upon consideration of the findings of fact, has granted your
request for the variance and has issued a determination of no net loss of wetland
Engineering
functions and values. This variance is for encroachment through the dock setback
Phone: 952.227.1160
zone as shown on "Dock Location Sketch for Gary & Cindy Schneider" prepared
Fax: 952.227.1170
by RLK, Inc. dated June 30, 2008. This approval is granted with the following
Fm nce
conditions:
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax 952.227.1110
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
Park &Reaeatiai
the dock, the mooring of the boat, and the navigation of the boat to open
Phone: 952.227.1120
water. The vegetation shall be cut at a height equal to the bottom of the dock
Fax: 952.227.1110
or at a depth of the propeller.
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
2• The dock shall be installed eight (8) inches above the Ordinary High Water
Phone: 952.227.1400
Elevation.
Fax: 952 227.1404
3. The dock shall be no wider than the current three and one-half (3.5) feet as
Planning &
shown on the survey submitted by the applicant.
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax:952.227.1110
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
Public works
boat.
1591 Park Rom
Phone: 952.227.1300
5. No more than one watercraft may be docked on the subject property.
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
6. No fill or excavation may occur within the jurisdictional wetland boundaries
Phone: 952.227.1125
or below the ordinary high water elevation of Lotus Lake except for the fill
Fax: 952.227.1110
associated with the minimum number of posts necessary to maintain a safe
dock.
Web Site
www ci.chanhassen.mn.us
7. The applicant shall abide by all applicable provisions of Chapter 6 and
Chapter 20 of Chanhassen City Code.
"!' Chardrassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED
Gary & Cynthia Schneider* •
August 28, 2008
Page 2
This variance will be recorded against the title for the property and is transferable with the
property. It is important to note that any mechanical or chemical removal of vegetation beyond
what is allowed in the above conditions is considered a wetland impact and will require
permissions from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the City of Chanhassen as the
Local Government Unit responsible for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act, and the
United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Your patience and cooperation with this process and the conditions of the approval is
appreciated. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 952.227.1160.
Sincerely,
CITY OF
Coordinator
TJ:ktm
gdplan\2008 planning cases\08-15 schneider variance & wap\approval_ltr_082808.doc
• • o8 -'s
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 SCANNED
0
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
was given permission for 1 dock with 2 dockage slips, or 2 boats. Outlot B was given I 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
0 0
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 fust 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 Tjomhom: Well, since we're on ... with the conditions.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: 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 maybe docked on the subject property. Instead of 2.
Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjomhom. 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 Outlet A to where the dock is on
Outlet 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
0 0
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
0 0
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
0
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 Oudot 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. hi 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
0 0
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 Tjomhom.
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
0 0
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 Tjomhom.
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
OJAI
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:
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.
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 OF
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952,227 1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1410
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning d
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
www.ci.chanhasseo.mn.us
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Terrance Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator
DATE: August 25, 2008
MP
SUBJ: Gary Schneider Dock Variance and Wetland Alteration Permit
Planning Case 08-15
PROPOSED MOTIONS:
The Chanhassen 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 Chanhassen 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 conditions shown on page 8 of the staff report.
City Council approval of Wetland Alteration Permits and Variances require a
simple majority vote of City Council.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a variance from the 10 -foot dock setback to extend his
dock through the dock setback and 51 feet over the lot line extended. In addition,
the applicant is requesting a Wetland Alteration Permit to extend his dock through
a wetland. The wetland crossing would not be considered a wetland impact under
the Wetland Conservation Act but would instead be considered a "No Loss".
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 5, 2008 to review the
wetland alteration permit and variance for the dock placement. The primary
concerns of the public and the Planning Commission with regard to this application
included the following:
SCANNED
The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play.
Todd Gerhardt • •
Schneider Dock Wetland Alteration Permit & Variance
August 25, 2008
Page 2
Issue: Conferring a right to the property owner that would not be shared by others.
Response: The original subdivision of Reichert's addition was clear that a dock for up to two boats
was a permitted use for Outlot A. Outlot A is a unique situation in that the convergent side lot lines
create a lot that could not conform to City Code while still allowing adequate access to the lake.
The lot was created prior to the dock ordinance coming into effect.
Issue: That the Near Mountain Lake Association was not allowed an additional dock in 2006.
Response: The Near Mountain Lake Association's request for an additional dock was denied based
on area of the lot. Under Section 20-266 of the Chanhassen City Code, a beach lot must have at
least 30,000 square feet of area for the first dock and 20,000 square feet for each additional dock.
Outlot B of Reichert's Addition, the Near Mountain Lake Association's beach lot, measures only
40,000 square feet in area. Under the original subdivision, this lot was granted one dock with three
slips and the existing conditions met this allowance.
Issue: Impact to the floristic diversity of the wetland — impacts to wetland due to use of chemicals.
Response: The placement of the dock will not result in dredging of the lake and the uprooting of
material nor will the use of any chemical herbicides or other means of vegetation control be
allowed.
Issue: Impedance of lake access for others, particularly the Near Mountain Lake Association.
Response: The dock has been placed with the assistance of the neighbor to the west so that it does
not conflict with his dock placement. The Near Mountain Lake Association, under the subdivision,
is not allowed to place a dock northerly on Outlot B.
Issue: That the developer's contract be changed so that a subsequent owner does not come forward
in the future requesting a second overnight slip.
Response: The developer's contract was between the original developer and the City and cannot be
amended as such. The variance request will be recorded against the property with Carver County
and the conditions will be expressly stated there.
The Planning Commission added a condition requiring the development contract be amended to
allow storage of one overnight boat. This condition would have been consistent with the one
overnight dock right allowed by this variance. However, this is a legal document between the
original developer and the City of Chanhassen. As such, the City is unable to amend the
contract. In order to achieve the Planning Commission's goal, any conditions of approval will be
filed against the property with Carver County.
Todd Gerhardt • •
Schneider Dock Wetland Alteration Permit & Variance
August 25, 2008
Page 3
The Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 to approve the proposed wetland alteration permit and
variance. The Planning Commission minutes are item la of the August 25, 2008 City Council
agenda.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the amended motions as
specified on page 8 of the staff report dated August 5, 2008.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 5, 2008.
gAplan\2008 planning cases\08-I5 schneider variance & wap\executive sutmnaryAm
PROPOSED MOTIONS:
The Chanhassen 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.
And
The Chanhassen 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 conditions shown on page 8 of the staff report.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Variance and Wetland Alteration
Permit for a determination of No Net Loss of Wetland Value or Function to install a dock. (All
proposed setbacks are measured from the edge of the structure)
LOCATION: 640 Pleasant View Road
Outlot A, Reichert's Addition
APPLICANT: Gary Schneider & Cynthia Schneider
640 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF)
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre)
ACREAGE: 0.35 acre DENSITY: N/A
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in
approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the
standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of
discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established
standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
The City has limited discretion in approving or denying a wetland alteration permit, based on
whether or not the proposal meets the wetland alteration permit standards outlined in the Zoning
Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable wetland alteration permit standards are met,
the permit must be approved. This is a quasi judicial decision.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
Schneider Variance
Planning Case # 08-15
August 5, 2008
Page 2 of 8
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The subject property (Outlot A) is located on the north end of Lotus Lake in an area zoned Single
Family Residential District (RSF). The outlot is owned by Gary and Cynthia Schneider and is
combined with the parcel across Pleasant View Road with both parcels having the address of 640
Pleasant View Road. The outlot is noncontiguous with their residence due to the presence of
Pleasant View Road. The applicant is requesting a variance from the 10 -foot dock setback to
install a wooden dock for the purpose of overnight docking of a watercraft. A dock is currently
installed on the property.
Ap
r, ti
/
�o,
OUTLOT =_ �0�
r -o I j A
I� .. \
Z"
i; 72.65
25t sat"`!: / r .•
Pe.
30 80
g
l
LOTUS LAKE �`2 3 , N " u®
OCIIINMty HSG wAIfq f;£v - Me 3 SCALE M FEET
(per Ywmola dVM) - �ry
I een-y certifym that tegl surrey, pion or report was dulyPreparedg by
i me a under my drat super of and that f em a duly Registered
tw,d $ur�uMa les o! NeUs o! Ne Stale of uinnesota
Jura 30. 2008
K 1 Y. K'nlse N Lic. Ito 23%8 Dota
The dock is approximately 120 feet in length and extends beyond the lot line encroaching into
the waterfront for Outlot B by a length of 62 feet (see above drawing). The dock originates from
a point on the property approximately halfway between the southeast and southwest property
comers. The applicant has indicated that the adjoining property owner to the west assisted in the
placement of the dock to avoid conflicts with the existing dock on their property. The property
0 0
Schneider Variance
Planning Case # 08-15
August 5, 2008
Page 3 of 8
to the southeast is a beach lot owned by the Near Mountain Lake Association. The dock for this
beach lot is located southerly on the Outlot approximately 400 feet from the Schneider parcel.
According to the development contract, the placement of a dock northerly on Outlot B is a
prohibited use.
On June 12, 2006, the Near Mountain Lake Association requested a CUP amendment and
a variance to allow for a second dock and three (3) additional dockage rights on their beach
lot. It was determined that the lot (Outlot B) had 46,000 square feet which limited the
beach lot to one dock to maintain compliance with zoning ordinance. Additionally, Near
Mountain Lake Association is subject to the conditions of Conditional Use Permit 87-13
which was issued in August of 1987. One of the six conditions placed on the CUP stated
"the recreational beach lot is limited to the installation of 1 dock and 1 canoe rack."
The dock will cross 109 feet of wetland at a width of 3.5 feet. In total, 381.5 square feet of
wetland will be affected by the dock placement. The applicant is requesting a No -Loss
determination for the placement of the dock.
The applicant is proposing to use the current placement but has indicated a willingness to modify
as necessary per recommendations by City Staff and Planning Commission. Staff is
recommending approval of the variance request for the dock
as shown on the attached Exhibit entitled Dock Location
Sketch with the following change: The dock is to be
shortened 13 feet to allow for a minimum separation of at
least 20 feet between the nearest point of the dock on the
adjoining property to the west and the applicant's dock.
Further, staff has determined that the installation of a dock is
not a wetland impact as defined by Minnesota Rules 8420
and that the placement of the dock will result in no net loss of
wetland function or value.
APPLICABLE REGUATIONS
Chapter 6, Article II, Structures. In summary, Article II allows for the placement of one
dock which may extend into the lake for a length of 100 feet or to that point where the water
is four feet in depth and with a maximum width of eight feet. The dock shall not encroach
upon any dock setback zone (variance request) and must be elevated above the ordinary high
water elevation between six and eight inches. Council may grant a variance from the dock
requirements from this article if it is shown that by reason of topography or other physical
characteristics of the lakeshore site, strict compliance with the dock requirements could cause
an exceptional or undue hardship to the enjoyment of the use of the lakeshore site; provided
that a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect the purpose and
intent of this chapter. (Note: Approval of the variance request requires a 4/5 vote of City
Council)
• Chapter 20, Article IV, CUP — Wetland Alteration Permits follow the Conditional Use
Permit criteria. This is addressed in the attached Findings of Fact.
0
Schneider Variance
Planning Case # 08-15
August 5, 2008
Page 4 of 8
Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetlands. — No person may drain, fill or excavate in the permanent
or semi permanent flooded areas of open water wetlands. The installation of a dock is listed
as an activity which requires a Wetland Alteration Permit.
• Chapter 20, Article XII, "RSF" Single -Family Residential District — One dock is a
permitted accessory use in an "RSF" district.
The subject site consists of two lots bisected by Pleasant View Road; staff will be referring to the
northerly lot as the residence and the riparian lot as Outlot A.
NO
IL LEGEND
6 �
640 Pleasant View Road
The subject property was platted as part of the Reichert's Addition which was recorded on January
23, 1978. Outlot A was intended to remain under private ownership with the residence at 640
Pleasant View Road, with both parcels being under a single PID number. In addition to Outlot A,
three other outlots were created with this subdivision. These outlots are referred to as B, C, and D
moving southerly along Lotus Lake. Outlot B (indicated as Near Mountain Lake Association
above) was designated "to be devoted to the common use and enjoyment of the members of the said
homeowners' association". The homeowners' association is designated as "any two or more of the
members of said homeowner's association". Part of the common use was the placement of a dock
L
Schneider Variance
Planning Case # 08-15
August 5, 2008
Page 5 of 8
on what is referred to as "southerly" Outlot B. This dock allowed for the overnight mooring of up
to three boats.
Outlot A was allocated the placement of one dock with overnight mooring for up to two boats as
part of the subdivision. Outlot C is part of 608 Pleasant View Road and is allowed one dock for one
boat per the development agreement. Mr. Schneider purchased the property in 1995 and has been
using the dock since 2005 with this understanding.
REICHERT'S
ADDITION ----
N T
SEMI 93 ME 1llVIIED
DENOTES PON Ot
...:..
EDSN, EMLD INC
SUAVEVO AS
SCALE I IMDN EQUALS SO E[[T
�•
too
T
\�
-
•
�"{ _.
Near Mountain
Association
•
s
\� X 10 !
l•.
14
' �\ v?ES } .. —
Sublec[ Property
�EENMZ
DISCUSSION
Variance Request
The development contract allowed for the placement of one dock with occupancy for two (2)
moorings. On July 20, 1983, subsequent to the platting of Reichert's Addition, City Ordinance
073 went into affect which set standards for the placement and dimensions of docks on
residential lake front properties. This was amended by Ordinance 356 on December 8, 2003.
These ordinances specified that a 10 -foot setback must be maintained from the lot lines extended
into the lake.
Outlot A was platted in 1978 prior to current City ordinance. Outlot A was platted such that the
side lot lines are convergent. These side lot lines converge approximately 48 to 80 feet from the
ordinary high water water level (OHW). When the 10 -foot setbacks are deducted from the area
where the dock may be placed, the distance is reduced to between 43 and 70 feet.
•
Schneider Variance
Planning Case # 08-15
August 5, 2008
Page 6 of 8
Under the development contract and the recorded plat for Reichert's Addition, it is reasonable for
the property owner to assume that the placement of a dock was an allowed use for the parcel. The
dock, as is located, not only encroaches into the 10 -foot dock setback but continues beyond the
extended lot lines and into that area of the lake which is ancillary to Outlot B. Mr. Schneider has
approximately 630 square feet of area within the 10 -foot setbacks to place a dock which would
conform to the ordinance.
640 Pleasant View Road
10 Foot Setbad6 • •"-�
It is apparent that a dock could not be placed such that it does not encroach upon the 10 -foot setback
requirements while still providing lake access. A conforming placement would allow for a dock 30
feet in length as measured from the water's edge. The depth of water at this point would be less
than 2 feet during normal water conditions and would restrict the navigation of the boat. Further,
operation of a motor at this water depth would disturb the lake substrate and re -suspend sediment,
further degrading water quality. This placement would require that any watercraft be navigated
through the aquatic vegetation. This activity would be, in staffs opinion, more disturbing to the
wetland habitat than the actual placement of the dock.
Mr. Schneider has indicated that he has worked with his neighbor to the west at 665 Pleasant
View Road (Mr. Thielen) to align the dock so that the neighbor has adequate access to his dock.
Mr. Thielen has contacted staff via email indicating his support for this alignment. A copy of
this email is included. The proposed dock alignment would not protrude into the open water of
0
Schneider Variance
Planning Case # 08-15
August 5, 2008
Page 7 of 8
0
Lotus Lake and should not, therefore, pose a safety hazard or obstruction to normal boat traffic
on the Lotus Lake.
Near Mountain Lake Association maintains a dock on the southern end of Outlot B. This dock is at
least 430 feet south of the applicant's dock and should not be adversely impacted by the proposed
alignment. According to the development contract, the placement of a dock on the northerly portion
of Outlot B is a prohibited use.
Wetland Alteration
The applicant will need to place the dock through a Manage 1 Wetland. Under MN Rules Chapter
8420, a wetland impact is defined as:
8420.0110, Subp. 23. Impact. "hnpact'means a loss in the quantity, quality, or biological
diversity of a wetland caused by draining, filling, or excavating, as described in part
8420.0105.
Placement of the dock does not preclude the growth of aquatic vegetation. Nor does it require the
dredging of any soil materials or the placement of any fill materials within the wetland. Further, by
placing the dock per the standards set forth in Chapter 6, Article 2, the dock placement would not
result in a loss of biological diversity as it would be far enough above the water surface to allow for
adequate sunlight and space for plant growth.
The proposed placement of the dock would not result in the removal of vegetation and would not
constitute a wetland impact as defined in Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420. Therefore, the dock
placement would be considered a No -Loss under 8420.0220 of Minnesota Rules. The installation
of the posts for the dock would constitute fill within a wetland. The posts are 3 inches in diameter
which equates to 0.1 square feet of impact per post. Minnesota Rules 8420.0155 Subp. 9 De
minimis. A. (4)(b) allows for up to 20 square feet of wetland impact regardless of type, inside the
building setback zone, as defined in the local shoreland management ordinance.
Placement of the dock entirely within the conforming area as shown above would require the
removal of additional vegetation to create a route for the boat to navigate in and out of the open
water. This vegetation would experience continued disturbance due to the navigation of the boat
through the corridor. In staffs opinion, this would be more detrimental to the wetland than
extending the dock to navigable waters.
OTHER AGENCIES
The applicant is responsible for obtaining any permits or approvals from the appropriate
regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. The Carver County SWCD
has indicated that they have no issues with the dock as long as no fill is placed in the wetland nor
any dredging of the lake occurs. The Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District turned
back permitting authorities to all municipalities within their jurisdiction as of January 1, 2008.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Gemmiss City Council adopt the following motion:
0
Schneider Variance
Planning Case # 08-15
August 5, 2008
Page 8 of 8
E
"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 Planning Geninission reoewAneads 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:
No aquatic vegetation is to be removed by uprooting of the vegetation. Neither shall any
Chemicals be applied for the control of aquatic 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 dock shall be shortened by thirteen (13) feet from what is shown on the survey to allow
for a minimum separation between docks of twenty (20) feet.
5. 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.
6. No more than one watercraft may be docked on the subject property.
7. 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.
8. The applicant shall abide by all applicable provisions of Chapter 6 and Chapter 20 of
Chanhassen City Code."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Email from Pete Thielen dated 7/24/08.
4. Registered Land Survey.
5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List.
gAplan\2008 planning cases\08-15 schneider variance & wap\staff report_cc_082508.doc
E
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE:
The application of Mr. Gary Schneider for a Variance from the 10 -foot dock setback zone and a
Wetland Alteration Permit to request a No -Loss determination for wetlands on site.
On August 5, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting
to consider the application of Mr. Gary Schneider for variance and wetland alteration approval.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development preceded by
published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested
persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential, RSF.
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density use.
3. The property is Outlot A of the Reichert's Addition Plat recorded on January 23, 1978.
4. The Ordinance directs that a variance may be granted by the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals or the City Council only if the following criteria are met. The six (6) criteria and
our findings regarding them are:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of
the definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods preexisting
standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing
downward from them meet these criteria.
Finding: Of the eleven lots within 500 feet of the subject property with lake frontage,
five have docks. It is reasonable, based upon the plat and the development contract, for
the property owner to assume they have rights to install a dock. Oudot A has convergent
side lot lines which preclude having adequate area to install a dock while meeting current
ordinance setback requirements and having the water depth for adequate draft to operate
most motorized watercraft.
b. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable,
generally, to other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The creation of Outlot A with the Reichert's Addition Plat is a unique
situation. Outlot C, which is owned by 608 Pleasant View Road, has a similar situation
and has installed a dock. Outlot C does not, however, have the same constraints imposed
upon it by the convergent side yard lot lines which create an area which is not conducive
to the placement of a dock which conforms to current ordinance setback requirements.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: Although a dock will increase the value of the property, it is not the sole intent
for requesting this variance. The property owner wishes to have overnight dockage
rights and under the development contract for the outlot, conditions were allocated for
the placement of one dock with overnight mooring for up to two boats as part of the
subdivision.
d. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The lot was created in 1978, prior to Ordinance 073 which set standards for the
dimension and placement of docks. The lot was created with divergent side lot lines which
does not allow for the placement of a dock which would conform to current ordinance. The
development contract for the subdivision allocates one dock with mooring for up to two
boats.
e. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
Finding: Mr. Schneider has indicated that he has worked with the property owner to the
west of the subject site to align the dock in a manner which does not obstruct their access
to and from the lake. Mr. Thielen has corroborated this in an email to staff dated
7/24/08. Outlot B (Near Mountain Lake Home Owners Association) has a dock on the
southerly portion of the parcel per the 1978 development contract. The placement of Mr.
Schneider's dock will not obstruct access to and from Outlot B, nor will it extend into the
area of the lake where normal lake traffic operates. Therefore, the dock will not create an
obstruction or safety issue to normal lake traffic.
f. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or decrease
visibility or site distances, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or
substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
Finding: The dock will not be located near any homes or public streets and is a typical
use of lakefront property. By installing the dock eight inches above the Ordinary high
Water elevation, without the placement of any additional fill or the excavation of any
materials from the laketwetland, no impact to the wetland will occur. Further, by extending
the dock away from the shoreline, the existing vegetation will be maintained and will not be
disturbed as a result of boat traffic to and from the dock.
0 0
5. Wetland Alteration (follows Conditional Use Permit criteria):
a. The proposed project will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
b. The proposed project will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive
plan and the zoning chapter of the City Code.
c. The proposed project will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be
compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity
and will not change the essential character of that area.
d. The proposed project will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned
neighboring uses.
e. The proposed project will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,
including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water
and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and
services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the
proposed use.
f. The proposed project will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
g. The proposed project will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the
general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare,
odors, rodents, or trash.
h. The proposed project will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create
traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
i. The proposed project will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access,
natural, scenic or historic features of major significance.
j. The proposed project will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
k. The proposed project will not depreciate surrounding property values.
1. The proposed project will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in the
City code.
6. The placement of the dock does not meet the standards for definition as a wetland impact.
The placement of the dock would result in no net loss of wetland function or value.
0 0
7. The placement of posts for the anchoring of the dock would constitute a wetland impact
under Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420. However, total impact from these posts would be less
than the 20 square feet of impact which is allowed under the De minimis exemption as
described in Chapter 8420.0155 and does not require a wetland replacement plan.
8. The planning report #08-15, dated August 5, 2008 prepared by Terrance Jeffery, et al, is
incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Variance #08-15
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; and approve Wetland Alteration Permit $08-15 to issue a Decision of No Net
Loss of Wetland Function and Values subject to the recommended conditions of approval
contained within the staff report.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 51h day of August 2008.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
W
Its Chairman
4
PLEASE PRINT
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
Name and
Contact: &A4 --f
Phone: 95,E 97/ je7/ Fax:
Email: ScNn1f�DGS�A1snl ,COilt
Planning Case No. U "
Owner Name and Address:
Contact:
Phone: Fax:
Email:
CITY OF C�ANHASSEN
FrEM-M
JUN 11 Z008
EN NO oar.
NOTE: Consult tion with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development
plans s7Z-,—,,/,-P u/, -P f ,4A S,4RFifTLQ-
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
Non -conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Rezoning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review (SPR)*
Subdivision*
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC)
7� Variance (VAR)
J (Armee. *c tr4
7 Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
O���NotificationSign00
(City to install and remove
<O /
MAIj-To AtfA 1%ff/6-k A5
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Aftomey Cost"
$4pP/SPRNAC ZIMetes & Bounds
xu50 Minor SUB
TOTAL FEE $,*
An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant
prior to the public hearing.
*Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11"
reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format.
**Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for
each application.
SCANNED
0 0
PROJECT NAME: bflGV— A�Y �Pqo P0Z45'4xtj' (/!£W 0
LOCATION:P/Q��} tl�✓D cf� 16-r03 tAr-t- n
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SiO`T -ol 7WP-116 PW6i -0)-3 l-T-1C14f1J i ,M&4j�4
—oo! r)OZm,✓a>, <liuS,;,/cor- -t-
TOTAL ACREAGE: rPlLlAAj-a I sr
WETLANDS PRESENT:QQ � YES NO
PRESENT ZONING: F -5-
REQUESTED ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: i2f5TIJ5^Fn.
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REASON•R- • MAY
OX
M !r
f 1, •.�: '-- i
• _��/
r .
� _. i//fes .
i l
sA
• ,y kA-kxf
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
myknowledge.
Signature of Applicant
Siefhature ofrt Owner
Date
6-6-08
Date
G1pLANVorms0evelopment Review Application.DOC °. �4.ED Rev. 12/05
0 0
Jeffery, Terry
From: J. P. Thielen [thie1002@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:05 PM
To: Jeffery, Terry
Subject: Gary Sneider's dock
We've talked with and worked with Gary on his dock. We are in full agreement and urge the city to allow it.
Pete & Jan Thielen
665 Pleasant View Road
Chan
Dock Location Sketch
• •
a
6
•�OsB-
r ,
i
Gary &Cindy Schneider
I 4
I
640 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
i';W G
LEGEND
O 6's
• IRON MONUMENT FOUND
OUTLOT ,� y./ \
an •
\
and
Q Iron monument eel and mpkad
with license No. et23968.
T
NN
I a /t t�,t t •
I< r:•: i
Z^
I , • �_ v • V
/ • / 6\
BASIS OF BEARINGS
I e- r',` p� 4-
I of •' -Approximate J' __�-_
• 6 -' �� \
o
'9
Q
Far the purpose of this survey the wxl line ofou
Outlot A. REICHERT'S ADDITION. carver Cnty.
Minnesota Is assumed to e00r N021e'30'W.
I so,e of
w
'S8'01"E y0
-Sana
N84_L
_ewey /� D a
72.65 i I Line 01�
FntlIron-_,
2P(f.�gv
PIDe Oben
4
253 ;1,6/__ al -��
Outlot A
\
Existing Wood
Pipe
.-0.H.W.
••0 �.
Line
REICHERTf S ADDITION
Laanch__
__Lin D«k setEaak -�-Shoreline
ro Lines l
CARVER COUNTY
c __-Ezlatlnq Dad, -�-_
I
/ J �7
lV0
Subject to easements of record, if any.
"A
0 30 60
�a DwG
•
LOTUS
LAKE
2.3 3.a
2007-302L
Project No3
ORDINARY HIGH WATER
ELEV. s 896.3
SCALE IN FEE(
(par Minnesota DNR).
I I hereby certify that this surveyplan or report was prepared by
Duluth, MN
\
`'h�`�'rzN
' me or under my direct supervision and that I am o duly Registered
, ibbInHarn
Land Sur r under the a
of the State of Minnesota.
RT o°� MN
•`
.K
Existing Dock-' •H�
June 30, 2008
wconeosArea Pho«:9529330972
Pu: 1
952933153
33
52191/53
K rl M. Kisch Ir N Lic. No 23968 Dale
v ww
6110111.c Citcic Drive • Suite 100 • Minnetoalpl MN 55343
e No
0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
0
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on July
24, 2008, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that
on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for
Schneider Dock Variance and Wetland Alteration Permit — Planning Case 08-15 to the
persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope
addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United
States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were
those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and
by other appropriate records.
WME
Subscribed and sworn to before me
thlilay of , 2008. _
I • , V r 4 KIM T. MEMISSEN
Notary Publ c , Notary Public -Minnesota
/ a
MY Comm scion E,0,, Jen 31.2010
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start
until later in the evening, depending on the order of thea enda.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Proposal:
Request for a Variance and Wetland Alteration Permit to install a
dock
Applicant:
Gary & Cynthia Schneider
Property
640 Pleasant View Road (Outlot A, Reichert's Addition)
Location:
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps:
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the Citys projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/08-15.htmi. If you wish to
talk to someone about this project, please contact Terry
Questions &
Jeffery by email at tieffery(a)ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone
Comments:
at 952-227-1168. If you choose to submit written comments, it
is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of
the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
The staff report for this item will be available online on
the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the
Planning Commission meeting.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerclallindustrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Plannina Staff person named on the notification.
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start
until later In the evening, depending on the order of theagenda.
Location:
ity Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Proposal:
Request for a Variance and Wedand Alteration Permit to install a
dock
Applicant:
Gary & Cynthia Schneider
Property
640 Pleasant View Road (Outlot A, Reichert's Addition)
Location:
A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps:
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/08-15.html. If you wish to
talk to someone about this project, please contact Terry
Questions &
Jeffery by email at tieffery( ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone
Comments:
at 952-227-1168. If you choose to submit written comments, it
is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of
the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
The staff report for this item will be available online on
the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the
Planning Commission meeting.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alteration
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested parry is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent information and a recommendation,
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industnal.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be Included In the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Plannina Staff person named on the notification.
- .._.._. _ `_._, _.._.........,a...._k
usetl as one. This map is a do then son of records, information antl Esta nd is t in various city, reference state ars faideronly.
l offices and other sources at Me G the area shown, and is to be used for referent¢
Purposes only. The Gry or free
not warrant that the Geographic Information System Data
Data used or
Prepare this map are emor hoe, and the City umn not represent sure the GIS Dale can be used M
navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring wetting measurement of distance le )unction a
pretisi 7- in the depiction of geographic ie is min. a errors ort to FAnneso are tend please coded
21 (20 0), an. The ser of chi disclaimer er is edgeed Pursuant to hall hot
liable
Statutes f §any da Sue).
21 ehipr), and the user of this map adnawto deft teal the Cify shall not ha mles for any damages,
and expressly waives all dams, and agrees so or age, ts, or ily, and ed) harmless the City, e u any
and all Or use brougof data by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arse Out of cue users
access or use of data proNtlM.
used as one. This map is a d oche sou of records, ig We
and data locate) in vaneus city, open.
scree ars only.federal offices and other sources regaling she area sham, and is to be used for a used
Purposes only. The Gry or free
not and
the that d e Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used
ro
Prepare tris map are emor hoe, antl po Gry does eros represent sure lee GIS Gate distance o b i usetl far
navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring m= or measurement ore oudle direction or
Precision in Ne tle prec of geographic ie is ores.) erors a t to Myr esot are found please , Subd.
21 (2 DO), an. TheMe ser of Mi Email a k o pedges t pursued y Memeeota Statutes §466.03, Sue).
21 expre, and see user of this map agrees Wtlg fe that the City shall holt ha liable for any damages.
and expressly waives all User and agrees S or age, intlemniry, and es , harmless me Cory from any
and all drums f data hh User, its employees or agents, or third parties whiU arise out of cue users
access a use of data prortleE.
0
0 0
BARBARA L HEDLUND DENNIS ZHU &
10014 INDIGO DR 105 LAKELAND SHORES RD
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347-1206 LAKELAND, MN 55043-9601
MICHAEL & KATHRYN SCHWARTZ DAVID FRANKLIN LABADIE &
469 PLEASANT VIEW RD 489 PLEASANT VIEW RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9576 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9576
ANTHONY G & SALLY A HEARD DOUGLAS J & LANA HABERMAN
510 PLEASANT VIEW RD 520 PLEASANT VIEW RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9437 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9437
MARK LOREN OLSON & MICHAEL R & JODY SCHEPERS
536 PLEASANT VIEW RD 540 PLEASANT VIEW RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9437 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9437
JOHN T & RUTH E SCHEVENIUS THOMAS M & NANCY S SEIFERT
570 PLEASANT VIEW RD 600 PLEASANT VIEW RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9437 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327
JAHN A DYVIK NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSN INC
610 PLEASANT VIEW RD 610 PLEASANT VIEW RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327
SEAN & MELINDA FITZGERALD MIKEAL G BYSTROM JR
630 PLEASANT VIEW RD 6300 SUMMIT CIR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9138
RONALD D DEJONGH & BRIAN & JERILYN D HOOKS
6310 SUMMIT CIR 6311 SUMMIT CIR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9138 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9139
SUSAN W DAMMEN ROBERT M & ANETTE R BARNHART
6321 SUMMIT CIR 6330 SUMMIT CIR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9139 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9138
JOHN W SCHNEIDER JR JOHN A & SARAH A WAY
6340 SUMMIT CIR 6341 SUMMIT CIR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9138 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9139
TODD R MAGILL &
20433 CHERYL DR
TORRANCE, CA 90503-1815
CURTIS G & CHERI L ANDERSON
500 PLEASANT VIEW RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9437
ALAN & LINDA K KRAMER
531 INDIAN HILL RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9533
TODD L & PATRICIA A FROSTAD
561 INDIAN HILL RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9533
JOHN E NICOLAY JR
608 PLEASANT VIEW RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327
KEVIN A & LEANNE M BENSON
620 PLEASANT VIEW RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327
EUGENE A & KATHLEEN A GAGNON
6306 SUMMIT CIR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9138
BRUCE H & DEBRA J HOMAN
6320 SUMMIT CIR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9138
DERRICK J BILDERBEEK &
6331 SUMMIT CIR
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-9139
MICHAEL & SARAH WENTZIEN
6350 SUMMIT CIR
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-9138
MICHAEL P JONIKAS & JOSEPH J & CHRISTINE K STONE MICHAEL A & CYNTHIA A COLSON
6368 OXBOW BND 6370 OXBOW BND 6373 OXBOW BND
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9109 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9109 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128
DANIEL L ROBBINS & JOHN P & SUZANNE D BOHN JAMES R & KATHRYN A DREESEN
6375 OXBOW BND 6377 OXBOW BND 6379 OXBOW BND
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128
ALEXANDER C & KARENEA LAI THOMAS F III & KAREN M CONBOY MARK E & KRISTEN O HANSBERRY
6381 OXBOW BND 6383 OXBOW BND 6385 OXBOW BND
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128
ROBERT F & DIANA L DAVIS
BRENT G & KAREN J BLACKEY
KEVIN & KATHERINE WORMS -
6387 OXBOW BND
6389 OXBOW BND
LYNCH
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128
6391 OXBOW BND
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128
GARY J SCHNEIDER &
CHRISTOPHER S PELLETIER &
CRAIG N HANSEN &
640 PLEASANT VIEW RD
6420 FOX PATH
6430 FOX PATH
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8327
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9277
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9277
CHRISTIAN G & LISA P OLSEN THOMAS M & SUSAN J HUBERTY MICHAEL & DEBRA HAYDOCK
6440 FOX PATH 6450 FOX PATH 6460 FOX PATH
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9277 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9277 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9279
KEITH M & MARY BETH HOFFMAN SAMUEL G & LAURIE J CURNOW JOHN P & JANE THIELEN
6470 FOX PATH 650 PLEASANT VIEW RD 665 PLEASANT VIEW RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9279 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9509 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9509
DAVID R & VALERIE L ROSSBACH PAUL L & DESTINI MOLITOR GARY M SCHELITZCHE
670 PLEASANT VIEW RD 6725 IROQUOIS CIR 680 PLEASANT VIEW RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9509 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55439-1014 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9509
CHARLES R & JUDY L PETERSON MICHAEL A & JANET A STANZAK DAVID S & DEBRA M TOOLE
708 LAKE PT 724 LAKE PT 732 LAKE PT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9284 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9284 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9284
EILEEN T KELLY BEVERLY C THOMAS CHUNYI LIN &
740 LAKE PT 745 PLEASANT VIEW RD 800 FOX CT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9284 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9509 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9283
Public Hearing Notification Area (500+ feet)
Schneider Dock Variance and Wetland Alteration Permit
640 Pleasant View Road (Outlot A, Reichert's Addition)
Planning Case 2008-15
6391 dp
w
0
ao
D
¢ 6383 6300
ppfi % Q0
6311
Plea9arlt View Road (Ml m Lan C6aQC�
�.
610 pp 6320 % 6331
P
i35 660 pea 6330
]45
FOx 0 fi50 04 6361
6361 6340
NO Od
OzboW
pl9 6350 N�
630
ps pn pp
69TD p0 63]0
63)5
sox
so
pre
6410
naso SUBJECT \ �
3 PROPERTY
GopM1 64W fi00 7
Fox 5313
9 W1 pt
]16
sro 540
]24
SPA 53fi
7 ret Sap
540
]Q Lotus Lake =3s
520
]46 500
bes
]56 ban
09
Ne, r
O
r
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
The application of Mr. Gary Schneider for a Variance from the 10 -foot dock setback zone and a
Wetland Alteration Permit to request a No -Loss determination for wetlands on site.
On August 5, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting
to consider the application of Mr. Gary Schneider for variance and wetland alteration approval.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development preceded by
published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested
persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential, RSF.
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density use.
3. The property is Outlot A of the Reichert's Addition Plat recorded on January 23, 1978.
4. The Ordinance directs that a variance may be granted by the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals or the City Council only if the following criteria are met. The six (6) criteria and
our findings regarding them are:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of
the definition of undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods preexisting
standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing
downward from them meet these criteria.
Finding: Of the eleven lots within 500 feet of the subject property with lake frontage,
five have docks. It is reasonable, based upon the plat and the development contract, for
the property owner to assume they have rights to install a dock. Outlot A has convergent
side lot lines which preclude having adequate area to install a dock while meeting current
ordinance setback requirements and having the water depth for adequate draft to operate
most motorized watercraft.
b. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable,
generally, to other property within the same zoning classification.
SCANNED
0 0
Finding: The creation of Outlot A with the Reichert's Addition Plat is a unique
situation. Outlot C, which is owned by 608 Pleasant View Road, has a similar situation
and has installed a dock. Outlot C does not, however, have the same constraints imposed
upon it by the convergent side yard lot lines which create an area which is not conducive
to the placement of a dock which conforms to current ordinance setback requirements.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: Although a dock will increase the value of the property, it is not the sole intent
for requesting this variance. The property owner wishes to have overnight dockage
rights and under the development contract for the outlot, conditions were allocated for
the placement of one dock with overnight mooring for up to two boats as part of the
subdivision.
d. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The lot was created in 1978, prior to Ordinance 073 which set standards for the
dimension and placement of docks. The lot was created with divergent side lot lines which
does not allow for the placement of a dock which would conform to current ordinance. The
development contract for the subdivision allocates one dock with mooring for up to two
boats.
e. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
Finding: Mr. Schneider has indicated that he has worked with the property owner to the
west of the subject site to align the dock in a manner which does not obstruct their access
to and from the lake. Mr. Thielen has corroborated this in an email to staff dated
7/24/08. Outlot B (Near Mountain Lake Home Owners Association) has a dock on the
southerly portion of the parcel per the 1978 development contract. The placement of Mr.
Schneider's dock will not obstruct access to and from Outlot B, nor will it extend into the
area of the lake where normal lake traffic operates. Therefore, the dock will not create an
obstruction or safety issue to normal lake traffic.
f. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or decrease
visibility or site distances, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or
substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
Finding: The dock will not be located near any homes or public streets and is a typical
use of lakefront property. By installing the dock eight inches above the Ordinary high
Water elevation, without the placement of any additional fill or the excavation of any
materials from the lake/wetland, no impact to the wetland will occur. Further, by extending
the dock away from the shoreline, the existing vegetation will be maintained and will not be
disturbed as a result of boat traffic to and from the dock.
2
5. Wetland Alteration (follows Conditional Use Permit criteria):
a. The proposed project will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
b. The proposed project will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive
plan and the zoning chapter of the City Code.
c. The proposed project will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be
compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity
and will not change the essential character of that area.
d. The proposed project will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned
neighboring uses.
e. The proposed project will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,
including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water
and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and
services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the
proposed use.
L The proposed project will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
g. The proposed project will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the
general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare,
odors, rodents, or trash.
h. The proposed project will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create
traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
i. The proposed project will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access,
natural, scenic or historic features of major significance.
j. The proposed project will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
k. The proposed project will not depreciate surrounding property values.
1. The proposed project will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in the
City code.
6. The placement of the dock does not meet the standards for definition as a wetland impact.
The placement of the dock would result in no net loss of wetland function or value.
0 0
7. The placement of posts for the anchoring of the dock would constitute a wetland impact
under Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420. However, total impact from these posts would be less
than the 20 square feet of impact which is allowed under the De minimis exemption as
described in Chapter 8420.0155 and does not require a wetland replacement plan.
8.. The planning report #08-15, dated August 5, 2008 prepared by Terrance Jeffery, et al, is
incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Variance #08-15
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; and approve Wetland Alteration Permit $08-15 to issue a Decision of No Net
Loss of Wetland Function and Values subject to the recommended conditions of approval
contained within the staff report.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 56' day of August 2008.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
Im
Its Chairman
4
Planning Commission Me! Ring - August 5, 2008
Keefe moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
attached Registered Land Survey referred to as RLS 123. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PLEASANT VIEW ROAD (OUTLOT A, REICHERT'S ADDITION). APPLICANT:
GARY & CYNTHIA SCHNEIDER, PLANNING CASE 08-15.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gary & Cynthia Schneider 640 Pleasant View Road
Dave & Valerie Rossbach 670 Pleasant View Road
Jeffery: Chair Papke, members of the commission, thanks. I am before you tonight with a
request for a dock variance from the 10 foot setback requirement from the lot line, as well as a
wetland alteration permit in this case issuing a decision of what is called no net loss of wetland
function and value. The property is located at 640 Pleasant View Road. It is shown in the red
and orange crosshatch before you. Mr. Schneider is the property owner. He and his wife are
present tonight should you have any questions for them. The lot was created with the Reichert's
Addition which was subdivided, the subdivision went through in 1978. At this time the
development contract had created, or the subdivision rather had created 4 outlots. Outlot A was
intended to be used, which is the triangular piece. Outlot A was part of 640 Pleasant View Road
and was intended or was given rights for one dock with two slips to be put in there. Subsequent
to that city ordinance 37 was passed which created conditions for dock placement. That a dock
be no more than 8 feet wide. That it be no, that it can be 100 feet long or to that point at which
the lake is 4 feet in depth and that it be setback from the lot lines as they are extended into the
water 10 feet, and that is the variance request that is before you tonight. Chapter 6, Article II
which is on page 3 of the staff report, talks about those govemances of dock placement. How it
could be. And it further goes on to state the council may grant a variance from the dock
requirements from this Article if it is shown that by reason of topography or other physical
characteristics of the lakeshore site, strict compliance with the dock requirements would cause an
exceptional or undue hardship to the enjoyment of the use of the lakeshore. Also Chapter 20,
Articles IV, VI and XII apply to this, or being CUP for the wetland alteration permit. VI being
wetland itself. Where installation of a dock or a boardwalk is required to get a wetland alteration
permit and that this is zoned single family residential. One dock is permitted as an accessory
structure. Yeah actually, before you right here, this is a picture taken by W. Schneider last
winter. So this is in the same location that it is. What's interesting about this, if you look at
where the dock is terminated in this picture, that's approximately what a conforming dock would
look like on this site. That would be within the setbacks. Clearly it would not get you out to the
point where you can navigate into the open water. This is a picture of the site today. The dock is
extended through to the end of the cattails. Clearly to maintain operation through there, you
need to cut the cattails. We'll come to this in a little bit but the plants themselves are clearly not
3 se*xneo
Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 2008 •
going to be impeded and that's where we get into our no net loss. You can cut them. If you
were to remove the dock in the future, those plants would come back, especially with the other
requirements for dock placement that we have before us. As I stated, this lot was, or this
subdivision was created. 73 went into effect. City Ordinance 73 which set the 10 foot setbacks.
Outlot A was platted such that it had the convergent side lot lines which is a unique characteristic
that would not allow the conforming dock to be placed. That would actually provide access to
that of the water. Were the dock to be placed within that conforming area, two things would
happen. One, the actual operation of the outboard motor, it's less than 2 feet in depth there so
the actual operation of the outboard motor would, if not cut ruts in the bottom in the lake, disturb
the substrate suspending sediment and therefore actually creating a water quality issue and the
navigation of the boat in and out would probably result in more damage to the wetland than
would simply extending the dock to the end of that wetland. Mr. Schneider, who is here, has
worked with his neighbor to the north. Can we go back to the power point, or to the. Actually I
guess it would be the neighbor to the west. Mr. Thielen who has a dock on the site as well. Mr.
Thielen has emailed me that he is in agreement with the placement as is. In fact he helped Mr.
Schneider choose this placement and it still allows access to and from his dock without any
impediment. He did send me an email which is included in your packet under discovery items.
Outlot B which is that large piece where the hand is right now, is Near Mountain Lake
Association and they have, with the same subdivision, were granted rights for one dock with 4
slips. 3 slips. Excuse me. That, within that same document a dock in the northern portion of
that lot is a prohibited use, so the current dock placement is at least 430 feet just by scaling off of
the aerial photography and the GIS from the current dock placement. So again Mr. Schneider's
dock placement would not impede with Outlot B with the Near Mountain Lake Association.
Outlot C and D are similar situations to Mr. Schneider's where one dock is allowed for a private
residence. The alteration permit itself, the wetland alteration. Under 8420 of Minnesota Rules, a
wetland impact is clearly defined as wetland fill or excavation or removal of all the vegetation
that would result in loss in quality or quantity of wetland habitat or biological diversity.
Placement of the dock does not preclude this and does not require placement of fill nor does it
require excavation within the wetland. The vegetation that is present today or would be present
without the dock there will still be present if the dock is placed. The placement of the posts
themselves do count as wetland fill. If you think of a 3 inch post though, you're talking one-
tenth a square foot per post. Under the new rules which were adopted last June, within a
shoreland, a wetland that is within a shoreland setback, which this is, is allowed to have up to 20
square feet of diminimus impact. Diminimus just meaning that it does not need to be mitigated
for after the fact. So unless he is going to put in 201 posts, it's pretty clear that we will be under
the diminimus impact for this site. In closing, I have spoke with Carver County Soil and Water
Conservation District. As long as there is no excavation or fill placement... they have no issues.
Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek has remanded all of their permitting authority back to the cities
within their jurisdiction as of January 151 of this year. Staff is recommending the Planning
Commission adopt the motion as shown on page 7, and extending onto page 8 with the
conditions that are shown on page 8. Is there any questions that you have at this time? Mr.
Schneider is here also if you have any questions for him.
Papke: Kathleen, start with you.
Thomas: No, I don't think I have any questions right at this very second yet.
4
Planning Commission Meeirng - August 5, 2008 •
Laufenburger: None.
Dillon: So when the diagrams that we've been given, it shows the location of the existing dock
you know. Do you have one that's penciled in that shows where the proposed one's going to go?
Jeffery: The proposed dock will be, I'm sorry Chairman Papke, Commissioner Dillon. The
proposed dock will be in the same alignment of the existing dock because he's already worked
that out with Mr. Schneider and, however I am recommending that the dock be shorten by 13
feet, which would always leave a 20 foot clear zone, 20 foot navigable area between the two
docks at it's closest point. So it would remain the same length. On page 2 of the planning
packet, it doesn't show up well but you can see where I've made a couple of marks on the dock
that is located to the right or easterly on the plan. Where the dock would be shorten too so, the
number you can't read on the right is 13 and the number between the docks is 20. My apologies
for that.
Dillon: That's the only question I have
Larson: I was just curious, looking at the picture that's on page 6. It kind of appears that the
property next door comes over, or it comes very close to the property line of this property. Are
they in compliance or is there any issue with that? I mean obviously since they are in agreement,
I guess they don't have an issue but I was just curious.
Jeffery: Chairman Papke, Commissioner Larson. It is a non -conforming use. It's a legally non-
conforming use though it has been in place since before the ordinance went into effect, therefore
it would remain. So if you were to take it and remove it for a year, then you would have to place
it in a conforming matter on this site. I believe Mr. Schneider's actually had discussions with
them, because one of the things we're allowed to do is within the setback zone, if two adjoining
properties wish to share a dock and have two slips off it, then you can be in the setback zone for
that. He did approach the neighbor and he was not receptive to that.
Larson: That's all I have
Keefe: Yeah, I don't remember what, I think it was Outlot B which was in here before, is that
correct? And we were trying to determine, I mean B serves what? Lots 6, 7, 8. 6, 7 and 8 or is
it?
Jeffery: I will actually defer that question to Mr. Schneider but yes, it is intended for anybody
within the Reichert's Division to be a part of it.
Keefe: But this is, 5 is not part of that? Doesn't have access to B. They just have access to A,
right? They're not part of the association or they are a part of the association?
Jeffery: They are a part of the association but they do not have dock rights.
Keefe: But they also have dock rights on the outlot?
5
Planning Commission Meet - August 5, 2008 •
Audience: No .... to the dock.
Jeffery: They could, yeah. Chairman Papke, Commissioner Keefe, they could go onto the dock
but they have no dockage rights. They could not put in.
Keefe: Okay, no overnight boating.
Jeffery: Correct.
Keefe: Okay. So as I recall we got into the discussion of well, so each 6, 7 and 8 then is allowed
one equivalent of one boat overnight at a dock that's on the south end of Outlot B, is that
correct?
Jeffery: There are 3 slips. Correct.
Keefe: Okay. So in this case we would be approving that A would get an overnight privileges,
but they get privileges for 2 docks. Or 2 boats, correct?
Jeffery: Actually we're only recommending privileges for 1. Under the original subdivision
they were allowed 2 dockage rights but.
Keefe: So is it in the, you know, yeah. Not everything has to be fair and equal but you know it
seems like it was platted out in such a way that you know people would be able to have a boat
out there and these people apparently have been restricted from having a boat. Do we run the
risk of the residents that are associated with Outlot B coming back and saying well wait a
minute. Now that you've done that, we should have our own dock out there. Has there been
anything along those lines?
Jeffery: Chairman Papke, Commissioner Keefe. I think there's always that risk. I mean it's
human nature to look at what somebody else gets and say well I want some of that as well.
However I think it is fairly clear that it was intended under the subdivision for there to be a dock
dedicated to this lot, so I do not think it's taking away a right from Outlot B and giving
something to the Schneiders that isn't rightfully theirs. Alright let me, and then it does look like
the dock goes, this dock actually goes over Outlot B, does it not?
Jeffery: That is correct. It extends 52 feet onto Outlot B. Shorten that by 10 feet so, or 60 feet
rather so it'd be 50 feet extended over the property line.
Keefe: And that requires, is that part of the variance then?
Jeffery: Yes. Yes. Yeah, and.
Keefe: Does it require consent from the homeowners associated with Outlot B?
Jeffery: I will defer that question. Bob, if you would.
Planning Commission Met - August 5, 2008 •
Generous: Chairman, Commissioner. It does not because it is the riparian portion of the
property. It's an extended lot line. It's not an actual.
Keefe: So where it goes over the lot it's actually over the water.
Generous: Right. It's on public land.
Keefe: Alright. That's the only questions for now.
Papke: Kind of following on Dan's lines of questions here. Is there any precedent? You know
whenever we look at granting variances we're always concerned about setting precedence, and
my memory is a little hazy but I remember seeing diagrams like this before so has the Planning
Commission and the City Council ever granted similar variances to this one before or is this a
first time?
Jeffery: Chairman Papke, I can only speak to the time that I have been here, and I have never
brought a variance forward like this. However, prior to my being here I know Lori has handled a
number of dock variances. As to whether or not they were granted, I cannot speak to that.
Generous: If I may Chairman, this is a unique circumstance. This was a lot that was created to
permit this property to extend a dock out.
Papke: Right.
Generous: It doesn't infringe on anyone else's right and enjoyment to use the lake. The other
comment, there was one on the north end of Lotus Lake. It was, the only way they could do it
was to extend the dock so that either one or the other of the neighbors wouldn't lose any dock
rights. And then we have you know for wetland alteration permits, we've permitted that because
we have a lot of shallow lakes.
Papke: Right. Right. Just one last question. You're proposing to shorten the dock. Is the
applicant willing to do that? Are there any issues there or?
Jeffery: Chair Papke. The applicant has been very amenable to whatever suggestion staff or...
council has had to make.
Papke: Okay. That said, if the applicant would like to start off at the podium. State your name
and address for the record and maybe color in some of the lines for us.
Gary Schneider: Thanks. I'm Gary Schneider and my wife, Cindy Schneider and I own the
property at 640 Pleasant View Road which includes the Outlot A in question. You know in view
of the positive recommendation by the commission, you know my comments are going to be
brief and really only to I think address, flush out, clarify some of the questions that have been
here. This, Cindy and I lived in the original Reichert house, and at some point in the past the
Reichert's owned 8 or more lots along the lakefront, and there was a document created
Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 2008 •
approximately 30 years ago to create this Outlot B and this homeowners association. And I can't
speak for the Reichert's but I think the intent was let's solidify the sale of these lots and try to
create a little sense of community here. So the city granted 3 overnight spaces on that
community dock. Cindy and I are members of that association. We have dock rights in the
sense of day docking or whatever there but we have no overnight dock rights. And those 3
overnight spots went to the homes that are, what do I call that?
Generous: Northeast.
Gary Schneider: Northeast of me. So for some reason this Outlot A was drawn in a kind of odd
shape if you will. The neighbor to the west, Pete Thielen has a non -conforming dock that is
grandfathered in and I've spoken to Pete several times in the last 2 years about would he be
willing to flip the L, just the L on the end of the dock, which he's not willing to do. At the same
time I became aware, I'm just being very candid with you. At the same time I became aware of
his intent to sell his property at some point in the future, which it is now for sale, and for a
variety of reasons Cindy and I just never pursued putting a dock out there because of other
priorities, expenses, etc. So this Outlot A was written in this city planning, association document
as having I dock. Overnight space with 2 boats. So then when I began to work with Terry and
the Planning Commission. Basically his attitude was, you need to research it and you need to see
what's fair to everybody. So I think what we've come up with is a way that we can have 1
overnight docking space. Not 2. We'll have a somewhat shorter dock but we understand we can
trim some vegetation only as needed. Pete Thielen seems to be okay with the situation. He in
fact helped me, I placed the dock candidly not to get away with anything but because then we
would have a physical representation of what we were agreeing to. The dock's been out for over
2 years. It's never been used. Other than for just placement idea with Pete and the did give his
okay to where it's at. My motivation for asking him to flip his L was hoping that there would be
no encroachment at all, you know on Outlot B, which is the association land, even though we're
all the way to the one end. I think other than that, that's it in a nutshell. If there's further
questions or something I should elaborate on.
Thomas: No. I'm okay.
Laufenburger: None.
Keefe: How do you have a 1 boat dock? You know, I'm thinking of the configuration of the
other association. I mean they maybe just limited just sort of the physical size of it and then it
can only accommodate 3, maybe 4 if they come out during the day but in the case here I mean
how do you, you know and maybe that goes to the city as well. How do you enforce that?
Gary Schneider: Well I think in my mind, I have not placed a boat out there yet. I mean the
dock simply has not been used and it's overgrown, as Terry has showed you the current photo.
One boat, meaning you know a small fishing boat or something. With some you know modest
trimming, I think one boat could be you know perpendicular to the end of the dock or parallel to
one side as far out as possible. Right now there's about, I think I'm correct, there's about 12 to
14 feet between the outer edge of my dock and the corner of Pete Thielen's L you know, and this
is one of the rationales Terry has for me bringing my dock back a little bit I think. Not only to
Planning Commission Mee mg - August 5, 2008 •
not restrict Pete in any way. Well I'm not but you know, give any appearance of that. But also
have room for the boat. Yeah.
Papke: Okay. Thank you very much.
Gary Schneider: Thank you.
Papke: Alright, at this time if there's anyone from the audience that would like to voice their
opinion on this matter, please step up to the podium and state your name and address for the
record. Tell us what you think.
Dave Rossbach: My name's Dave Rossbach. I live at 670 Pleasant View Road. like 3 houses
away. My concern is, that end of the lake is really heavy with vegetation and any dock that's put
out there has to be, there has to be tons of chemicals put in the water to even get to a dock.
Okay. My concern is what happens? I mean the dock that he has there is way in from the water.
From where you could even put a boat. I mean Thielen's got a dock there and he has to put in a
lot of chemicals in the water in order to even get to his dock. I'd be down there kayaking and
you can barely kayak through there. And my concern is, I mean how much is a person allowed
to do, to put chemicals in the water in order to get to your dock? I mean how many feet is he
going to be allowed to go out because I think he'd probably have to go out 100 feet or whatever
to get to the water. Maybe even more. And I'm just curious as to, because it's going to kill all
the vegetation in that area.
Papke: When you ask the question, you know how far he'd be allowed, how far out he'd be
allowed to go. The drawings stipulate how far his dock can go so I'm not quite sure what your
question is.
Dave Rossbach: Well my concern is with the chemicals that are going to have to be put in the
water in order to clear a path for him to even put a boat there. I mean doesn't that kill
vegetation?
Papke: Terry, can you comment on any chemical application regulations?
Jeffery: Chairman Papke, commissioners. Yes I can. Under the conditions of approval he
would not be allowed to do anything other than cut the cattails down at the elevation of the
water. There can be no mechanical removal or chemical removal of vegetation. The placement
of the dock actually will bring him within the end of the vegetation but he will not be allowed to
go in there and mechanically grub out or chemically spray vegetation. In order to do that it
actually requires a DNR permit for vegetation management within the lake. Now clearly there
are individuals that do not always follow and get the DNR management, and I am aware of
those. But in this case those are recommendations that we put in there. Other than to create the
path to get out there and place his boat and then it's only cut as much as necessary. So for
instance where the dock is, he can cut it at the lake level to place the dock because it has to be 8
inches above it. So in the event that you were to move the dock, the vegetation would still be
there to come back. Whereas if you mechanically excavated it.
0
Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 2008
Dave Rossbach: Right.
Jeffery: Or chemically sprayed it, then yes. Then it would be a wetland impact. We'd need to
go through mitigation. Do you have?
Dave Rossbach: That was it. Thanks.
Gary Schneider: Could I just comment on...
Papke: Sure. Maybe step up to the podium.
Gary Schneider: Yeah. I'm sorry, go ahead Val.
Valerie Rossbach: No, you can comment on that.
Gary Schneider: Oh, okay. This is just what I know so far. Not from an expert standpoint but
what I think I'm observing. My dock currently does touch the end of the open water. So in other
words if I put a boat at the end of the dock right now, I'd be just barely in open water. Pulling
the dock back 13, 15 feet, I might have to do, candidly I might have to do some trimming. Pete
Thielen, who has this large non -conforming dock next to me, that area around his dock is open
today, and I know certain times of the season, because of the lower water. Like last year I
believe Pete said that was the worst water level he had seen in 30 years. Things do get low and
you know quite overgrown. But it was even modestly open last year, even in the worst time of
the summer. You know in August. Highest vegetative time now. And I think Pete does put
some chemicals in and I believe that he does that every other year or so. And I don't want to
speak for him but I also believe that there is a, and maybe this just goes to speak to lily pads. I
don't know. But there is some kind of approved, I get the mailings. I haven't paid attention to
them until now but they come out and there is some chemicals that can be used to ... lily pads and
that so again, the Rossbach's know I'm not a heavy duty outdoor guy so I wouldn't be trimming
anything unless it was needed to be done.
Valerie Rossbach: My name is Valerie Rossbach. I live at 670 Pleasant View Road. I am part
of the Near Mountain Lake Homeowners Association. I want to clarify a few things. I mean
he's talking about right now if he gets these variances and he won't cut the weeds and he won't
put a big boat out there but if he plans to sell his house, the next owner's going to go in and say, I
can cut these. I can have a big boat because I have rights. That's my first issue with the last
conversation that we've had here. Secondly we have been, he's been a member of our
association for quite a few years. When we wanted to have a second dock put in for the usage of
all 8 parties in that household we vote you know, they voted against it. They didn't want that
second dock put in. Another thing about that property there. Outlot A initially was not put there
by Reichert to use it. It did not belong to these people and that lot. Years later David Bodine
owned that original household. That house on 640 Pleasant View Road. Outlot A was a separate
property owned by Reichert. It did not belong to that property. It was not intended to be part of
that property. Years later David Bodine bought the property from Reichert who was off living in
Arizona or someplace. So then he acquired that land, which is fine. He never used it. He moved
away and I think that the problem lies here, we had a Dr. Rockwell come out and she discerned
10
Planning Commission Meeg - August 5, 2008 •
that this was wetlands. When we came in a year ago as an association with all our paperwork
and all our investigation. I don't know if you recall at all, we were turned down because they
said it wasn't a hardship and we didn't need it, because we were able to use that outlot. We have
600 feet of lakeshore. We have a common area that's grass. We have picnic tables. A fire pit.
It's walking distance. I live beyond his house. I walk down there just fine and use the property,
and as far as the lakeshore goes he, and another issue that I have with him. Putting this dock out
here.
Gary Schneider: My name's Gary Schneider. Gary Schneider.
Valerie Rossbach: Yeah I know Gary. I know what your name is. I'm sorry.
Gary Schneider: Thank you.
Valerie Rossbach: I'm a little nervous here, alright?
Gary Schneider: That's okay ... but you can use my name.
Valerie Rossbach: Sorry. I didn't mean to insult anybody. I'm just saying that, now I lost my
train of thought.
Gary Schneider: You have another issue besides the potential future holder use.
Valerie Rossbach: Do you mind if he not speak to me. He needs to be at the podium doesn't he?
Okay. Now I've lost my train of thought. As far as, oh. This is where I go with this with the
dock. Last spring, a year ago spring he put this dock out there. I've been there 25 years. There
was no dock. I've never seen a dock there and now he's telling you that he just put it out there to
see how it looks. He didn't get permission from anybody. Can you do that? Can you just put a
dock out there like 100 feet to see if it's going to look right or if you're going to be able to use it?
I find that questionable. I think that that was wrong. That's just my opinion. But as far as the
homeowners association, he has ample access to that lake. He can use it anytime he wants. Just
like us he can dock at the dock. We do that. We have a pontoon, and the 3 people that have
overnight dockage, they use it and we've all been fine with it for as long as I've been there, and I
was there before most of those people. They build new houses and they were vacant lots and
whatever. So what I'm trying to say is, I don't believe, and he's never used the lake. He doesn't
have a boat. He has no interest in it. Even when we had the association, he never wanted to use
it so I'm questioning his motives as far as, I mean I think he's just doing this, my opinion, just so
he can sell his land and have dock rights or make his property value more valuable. But that
goes against my knowing this lake that all these years we were told we couldn't use it because it
was wetlands. We've protected it. We keep two-thirds of our property by his. We keep it
natural for wildlife and we don't cut things down. We, all 8 houses share our common area
which is about 200 feet. We share the dock. We share expenses. Our dues are like $50 a month
that we've had for 25 years. It's not a hardship for him to pay $50 a month I wouldn't think.
And I just feel that it's not fair that you turned us down and we had really, we did our research.
We had the lake like when it recedes or when it comes up in the spring and what have you, we
did all of that and presented it to you. You turned us all down. Now the same place, just right at
11
Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 2008 •
the end of our lot, our Lakeshore area, now you're going to say it's okay to put a dock in there? I
don't understand that. And as far as him being grandfathered in, that property was not part of his
property when, until right before he purchased the house. So that's all I have to say. Thank you.
Papke: Thanks for speaking up. Much appreciated. Anybody else? Okay. Seeing no one come
to the podium, close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion.
Comments. Thoughts.
Keefe: Yeah. Well you know I was here a year ago and I do, you know it's kind of coming
back. A little bit hazy but it is coming back and yeah, I do remember us turning it down even
though it was a pretty well prepared presentation. You know one of the issues I think that I'm
struggling with is, there seems to be you know a lack of agreement amongst the neighbors here
and I'm struggling with that a little bit. It does seem like there is some access from this property
to the association, but it's not overnight access. I'm struggling a little bit just with, with you
know not all the neighbors kind of agree to this and it seems like perhaps there should be.
Dillon: They're not all here either because there's only ... the person that just spoke, spoke on
behalf of the association or themselves. But if the association had an issue with this, you'd think
they'd be here in force if they were that well organized the last time around.
Papke: If I can kind of paraphrase your main issue seems to be that you are not convinced of the
hardship clause perhaps?
Keefe: Yeah.
Papke: Would that be a succinct...
Keefe: Yeah, I think so. Yeah.
Papke: There's an alternative here.
Keefe: Yeah. I think that probably would sum it a little bit more. You know if I were to go with
it, and one other thing that I would want to see is I would want to see an amendment to the
development contract as well, because you're going to have a conflict here. I mean you allow it
through the variance to have one boat, but the development contract which stays on with the
property will allow for two boats so you really want to make sure those are synced up so I would
want an amendment to that as well before.
Papke: Okay. Good comments.
Undestad: Yeah I think you know regardless of who purchased which lots and who's owned on
both sides, maybe the previous owner purchased that piece down there from Reichert so that he
could eventually have access to his, get a dock in there and get his boat on the lake down there.
The association, again I'm not exactly sure how all that came together but I agree with Kevin,
you know if everybody was in agreement then it might be a little different out here but I think
12
Planning Commission Meeg - August 5, 2008 •
they're separate issues. They don't have rights to overnight docking. They live on a lake but
they can't have a boat on the lake. I guess I might probably be in favor of it like this.
Larson: I kind of remember the argument last year as well and it seems to me there was an issue,
and I could be mistaken but because the water level was so low, I'm thinking it was the opposite.
Why was I thinking the water was high on that beach? It seemed like it was eroding away which
was the reason why they weren't wanting to allow to have dockage for 3 more boats on that
property. And again I mixing this up with something else but that seems to be sticking in my
mind. Like Mark said too, I'm inclined to think that no matter who owned it and how long, it
doesn't matter. The person who, Mr. Reichert that owned property across the street, if he bought
that for the purpose of possibly putting in a dock, I guess I don't see a problem with that. The
association encompasses the other Outlot B and that's a whole separate issue and I don't think
that has anything to do with this.
Papke: Good comments. Kevin.
Dillon: So I do remember this being on the docket last year. Unfortunately I was out that day so
could someone just recap with me real quick the difference with why that was you know, the
rationale for why that was you know denied.
Papke: Do you guys have access to that? I think all of our neurons are ... I'm sorry, the public
hearing is closed.
Gary Schneider: Oh, I'm sorry.
Jeffery: I can speak to a few items on that. First of all the Near Mountain Lake Association
would fall under the beachlot rules, whereas this falls under single family residential zoning
rules. But secondly, much as the original subdivision contract confers a dock and 2 slip rights to
Outlot A, it confers 1 dock and 3 outlots, or 3 slips to Outlot B. So they were asking to go
beyond what was approved in subdivision whereas Outlot A is just actually going less than what
is approved in the subdivision. But as to the actual discussion that night, I was not party to that.
Papke: Yeah, appreciate that clarification.
Dillon: So then you know this is a public hearing and if people really have a burr in their saddle
blanket about this, they should be here. Everyone was notified. You know the one family that
would seem to be affected most by this seems to be supportive. Some of the other reasons that
were put forth in the public hearing tended to focus on more personal attack and motive really
than, than really what's at issue here. It seems to me the applicant and staff have followed good
process. Come up with some good recommendations. Tried to mitigate some of the negative
stuff that could possibly come from this, so in light of all that I'm inclined to support the
variance.
Laufenburger: I was not here a year ago so I don't know what happened with the other situation.
I assume that staff work was done properly at that time and the council, or the Planning
Commission made a good decision based on that facts at that time. I'd also like to say I'm
13
Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 2008 •
pleased that the public, members of the public did come forward but based on the facts that I see,
and taking the emotion and the potential enforcement of wetland regulations which is clearly
outside of our boundary, I'm most concerned I think that Mr. Jeffery satisfied this. That the
wetland will not be impaired by this so I tend to approve.
Thomas: Well I too was here a year ago and I do slightly remember the case but kind of hard to
remember but I am, there's been great comment and I am in agreeance with pretty much
everyone else saying that it makes sense that Outlot A would like to have dock rights to be able
to have an overnight boat. I mean it makes sense. I would think that's very reasonable and
logical so I'm in agreeance.
Papke: Thank you. I guess my only perspective on this that I can add is, this is obviously a very
unusual situation. Outlot A is almost triangular in shape here and the way the lot lines are
extended into the lake makes it pretty much impossible to put a dock out there without a variance
so I think this is a highly unusual situation where the rules we have you know kind of tie the
property owner's hands behind his or her back and I think this is the kind of case that clearly a
variance application is designed for because the city code just doesn't fit this one very well. But
very good comments. I appreciate all the comments and questions from the commissioners on
this one. This is obviously a very tough case. Okay with that said I will entertain a motion for
approval or denial of this variance. Would anyone like to make a motion?
Dillon: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
approve a variance from the 10 foot dock setback zone for the placement of a dock on a lot
zoned single family residential which will extend through the 10 foot dock setback zone and 51
feet past the lot line extended, and the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
approve 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
through 8. And Dan, did you have something else that you were thinking of?
Keefe: Yeah well I'd make a, I think you have to have a second before you.
Papke: Yeah.
Dillon: Oh, okay.
Papke: Is there a second to the motion?
Larson: I'll second.
Keefe: For a friendly amendment to incorporate an amendment to the development contract.
think that's what it's referred to in here is the development contract to only allow for one.
Papke: We can't really amend the development contract.
Keefe: Require the amendment of the development contract.
14
Planning Commission Meeg - August 5, 2008 •
Papke: Okay.
Keefe: To coincide with approval of this so that we have a consistent look because what will
happen is, the development contract says 2. Well now we've got a variance for 1. It'd be nice if
they kind of lined up so that they're both there so that when somebody comes in and buys it, they
understand it's 1 overnight. Instead of saying well what is it? Is that 2 boats or is it 1 boat?
Papke: So the staff recommendation says nothing about 1 boat, is that the?
Keefe: No, it says 1 boat overnight.
Papke: Okay.
Keefe: The development contract allows for 2. The development which runs with the property
allows for 2.
Papke: Right.
Keefe: So what I'm saying is that if we're going to allow a variance for 1 overnight, we should
also amend the development contract to allow for only 1 overnight so that they're consistent.
Papke: Bob or Terry, is this, how administratively would this, does that work? Do we actually,
can we actually force a change in that or maybe you can comment on whether stipulation,
condition number 6 here has enough teeth to allay any concerns about this or.
Generous: Well, Mr. Chairman I'm not sure that we can actually the DC because who's it
between? Development contracts are for physical development of a property. It puts in a will of
at the time of the subdivision. I think we have more teeth with this variance and CUP that
specifically relates to this property and these are the conditions of approval and we can enforce
that against this property in the future.
Papke: Okay.
Generous: The problem with one dock, how are we going to find out unless the neighbors...
because we don't have a shore patrol in our staff right now. Of course we have people who'd
probably like to do it.
Papke: So Dan you want to withdraw that or do you want to try to keep that in there even though
it doesn't sound like it's legally viable?
Keefe: I don't know if it's legally viable or not. You know contracts get amended all the time.
Undestad: Well more so they get amended during the process. During the development, but like
he said it's, the agreement could have been between somebody how many years ago that.
Keefe: Yeah.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 2008
Undestad: They're not around anymore...
Keefe: Just trying to run out the potential... in the future which you know the next owner comes
in. I mean he's going to put this property on the market. He gets approved and the next guy
reads the contract, I'm approved for 2 boats here.
Papke: Yeah but, are you willing to go with city staff's recommendation that this has enough
teeth to be able to do that without changing the development contract or do you.
Generous: This will be recorded against this property.
Papke: Okay.
Generous: It will be in the chain of title.
Keefe: Right. My preference would be to leave it in but I mean if it's not accepted then it's.
Papke: It's your motion.
Dillon: I understand. I mean you know I think it's fine to leave it in. You know I mean we'll let
it sort of self out you know with the City Council and all that.
Papke: Okay. Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. We have a friendly amendment.
All in favor of all three of those say aye.
Larson: Two or three?
Papke: Huh?
Larson: Two or three? I'm not in favor of Dan's friendly. So how do you do that because you
said all three.
Papke: You, unless.
Keefe: It's kind of all or nothing.
Larson: Okay.
Dillon moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve 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; and that the Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve 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:
16
Planning Commission Meefing - August 5, 2008 •
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 dock shall be shortened by thirteen (13) feet from what is shown on the survey to
allow for a minimum separation between docks of twenty (20) feet.
5. 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.
6. No more than one watercraft may be docked on the subject property.
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.
8. The applicant shall abide by all applicable provisions of Chapter 6 and Chapter 20 of the
Chanhassen City Code.
9. Require an amendment to the development contract to allow storage of one
overnight boat.
All voted in favor, except for Commissioner Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried
with a motion of 6 to 1.
Laufenburger: So we have a motion to approve the staff recommendation?
Papke: Yes. And we have a friendly amendment.
Laufenburger: And we have a friendly amendment. Does that friendly amendment.
Keefe: Which was accepted.
Laufenburger: Does that friendly amendment require second prior to voting on the friendly
amendment?
Papke: No.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 2008 •
Laufenburger: Okay. So the friendly amendment, by the agreement of the person who made the
motion.
Papke: Yes.
Laufenburger: Is incorporated into the motion.
Papke: That's correct.
Laufenburger: So we're not voting twice.
Papke: No, because one vote.
Laufenburger: The inclusion of the friendly amendment is subject only to the person who made
the motion. That would be Mr. Chair, Commissioner Dillon.
Papke: That's correct, if he accepted it.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Dillon: I accepted it.
Papke: Okay.
Larson: Can we do this again?
Papke: So we have one nay?
Keefe: That's correct.
Papke: One nay, okay. Alright, motion carries. Okay, thank you very much.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISION AND CHAPTER 20,
ZONING.
Generous: As you stated, this is a public hearing to provide some amendments to the
Chanhassen City Code to Chapter 18, which is the subdivision ordinance, and Chapter 20, which
is the City's zoning ordinance. The first one deals with the subdivision ordinances. Part of the
ordinance, we're recommending that the city provide standards for a 1 foot separation between
emergency overflow areas and the lowest floor openings on buildings. This came to light as part
of the review of the Lakeside subdivision. There's a parched wetland in the northwest corner of
the site that had an emergency overflow behind the buildings and we wanted to make sure that
when they build in there, if there's a super storm event, that those houses don't get flooded and
so as a condition of approval for that subdivision we added the language that they had to
maintain that 1 foot separation. We just want to codify that so everyone who comes in will know
W
PROPOSED MOTIONS:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve 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.
And
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve 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 conditions shown on page 8 of the staff report.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Variance and Wetland Alteration
Permit for a determination of No Net Loss of Wetland Value or Function to install a dock. (All
proposed setbacks are measured from the edge of the structure)
LOCATION: 640 Pleasant View Road
Outlot A, Reichert's Addition
APPLICANT: Gary Schneider & Cynthia Schneider
640 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF)
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre)
ACREAGE: 0.35 acre DENSITY: N/A
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in
approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the
standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of
discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established
standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
The City has limited discretion in approving or denying a wetland alteration permit, based on
whether or not the proposal meets the wetland alteration permit standards outlined in the Zoning
Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable wetland alteration permit standards are met,
the permit must be approved. This is a quasi judicial decision.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
SCANNED
0 9
Schneider Variance
Planning Case # 08-15
August 5, 2008
Page 2 of 8
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The subject property (Outlot A) is located on the north end of Lotus Lake in an area zoned Single
Family Residential District (RSF). The outlot is owned by Gary and Cynthia Schneider and is
combined with the parcel across Pleasant View Road with both parcels having the address of 640
Pleasant View Road. The outlot is noncontiguous with their residence due to the presence of
Pleasant View Road. The applicant is requesting a variance from the 10 -foot dock setback to
install a wooden dock for the purpose of overnight docking of a watercraft. A dock is currently
installed on the property.
all
LOTUS LAKE `23 .
aRaeeARy 14 H WATER E,£V =996 S
for Wn.,. min)
[aYnnq aerA-i
h•�_,_dDr.
twee
-OMK UW
_.fialF9 Oxl ��-_
V" ..� .. \
Eli
0 30 so
SCALE IN FEET
I hweby awlily that this surwy. plop or report was prepared by
me w under my direct aapeMiian and that I am a duly Regislwad
ton d Sur yor uMw Ue s o! the Slate of Yinnesoto.
,wee 30. 2008
K 1 Y. Kell, . WN Lk. No 2398E Dole
The dock is approximately 120 feet in length and extends beyond the lot line encroaching into
the waterfront for Outlot B by a length of 62 feet (see above drawing). The dock originates from
a point on the property approximately halfway between the southeast and southwest property
comers. The applicant has indicated that the adjoining property owner to the west assisted in the
placement of the dock to avoid conflicts with the existing dock on their property. The property
to the southeast is a beach lot owned by the Near Mountain Lake Association. The dock for this
beach lot is located southerly on the Outlot approximately 400 feet from the Schneider parcel.
1
1
.
1
_ o$I
0 s
C4
u.
I a
OUTLOT
I�
ear•
A ''
I
1
--Appowmmb
I
1
1.
e
d La-_
,Hoe ns.•'
,d""
�
Er
rwlM w.a
all
LOTUS LAKE `23 .
aRaeeARy 14 H WATER E,£V =996 S
for Wn.,. min)
[aYnnq aerA-i
h•�_,_dDr.
twee
-OMK UW
_.fialF9 Oxl ��-_
V" ..� .. \
Eli
0 30 so
SCALE IN FEET
I hweby awlily that this surwy. plop or report was prepared by
me w under my direct aapeMiian and that I am a duly Regislwad
ton d Sur yor uMw Ue s o! the Slate of Yinnesoto.
,wee 30. 2008
K 1 Y. Kell, . WN Lk. No 2398E Dole
The dock is approximately 120 feet in length and extends beyond the lot line encroaching into
the waterfront for Outlot B by a length of 62 feet (see above drawing). The dock originates from
a point on the property approximately halfway between the southeast and southwest property
comers. The applicant has indicated that the adjoining property owner to the west assisted in the
placement of the dock to avoid conflicts with the existing dock on their property. The property
to the southeast is a beach lot owned by the Near Mountain Lake Association. The dock for this
beach lot is located southerly on the Outlot approximately 400 feet from the Schneider parcel.
0 s
OUTLOT
'=_.
ear•
A ''
--Appowmmb
b0'/ �__
e
all
LOTUS LAKE `23 .
aRaeeARy 14 H WATER E,£V =996 S
for Wn.,. min)
[aYnnq aerA-i
h•�_,_dDr.
twee
-OMK UW
_.fialF9 Oxl ��-_
V" ..� .. \
Eli
0 30 so
SCALE IN FEET
I hweby awlily that this surwy. plop or report was prepared by
me w under my direct aapeMiian and that I am a duly Regislwad
ton d Sur yor uMw Ue s o! the Slate of Yinnesoto.
,wee 30. 2008
K 1 Y. Kell, . WN Lk. No 2398E Dole
The dock is approximately 120 feet in length and extends beyond the lot line encroaching into
the waterfront for Outlot B by a length of 62 feet (see above drawing). The dock originates from
a point on the property approximately halfway between the southeast and southwest property
comers. The applicant has indicated that the adjoining property owner to the west assisted in the
placement of the dock to avoid conflicts with the existing dock on their property. The property
to the southeast is a beach lot owned by the Near Mountain Lake Association. The dock for this
beach lot is located southerly on the Outlot approximately 400 feet from the Schneider parcel.
0 0
Schneider Variance
Planning Case # 08-15
August 5, 2008
Page 3 of 8
According to the development contract, the placement of a dock northerly on Outlot B is a
prohibited use.
The dock will cross 109 feet of wetland at a width of 3.5 feet. h► total, 381.5 square feet of
wetland will be affected by the dock placement. The applicant is requesting a No -Loss
determination for the placement of the dock.
The applicant is proposing to use the current placement but has indicated a willingness to modify
as necessary per recommendations by City Staff and Planning Commission. Staff is
recommending approval of the variance request for the dock as shown on the attached Exhibit
entitled Dock Location Sketch with the following change: The dock is to be shortened 13 feet to
allow for a minimum separation of at least 20 feet between the nearest point of the dock on the
adjoining property to the west and the applicant's dock. Further, staff has determined that the
installation of a dock is not a wetland impact as defined by Minnesota Rules 8420 and that the
placement of the dock will result in no net loss of wetland function or value.
APPLICABLE REGUATIONS
Chapter 6, Article II, Structures. In summary, Article II allows for the placement of one
dock which may extend into the lake for a length of 100 feet or to that point where the water
is four feet in depth and with a maximum width of eight feet. The dock shall not encroach
upon any dock setback zone (variance request) and must be elevated above the ordinary high
water elevation between six and eight inches. Council may grant a variance from the dock
requirements from this article if it is shown that by reason of topography or other physical
characteristics of the lakeshore site, strict compliance with the dock requirements could cause
an exceptional or undue hardship to the enjoyment of the use of the lakeshore site; provided
that a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect the purpose and
intent of this chapter. (Note: Approval of the variance request requires a 4/5 vote of City
Council)
• Chapter 20, Article IV, CUP — Wetland Alteration Permits follow the Conditional Use
Permit criteria. This is addressed in the attached Findings of Fact.
Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetlands. — No person may drain, fill or excavate in the permanent
or semi permanent flooded areas of open water wetlands. The installation of a dock is listed
as an activity which requires a Wetland Alteration Permit.
• Chapter 20, Article XII, °'RSF" Single -Family Residential District — One dock is a
permitted accessory use in an "RSF" district.
BACKGROUND
The subject site consists of two lots bisected by Pleasant View Road; staff will be referring to the
northerly lot as the residence and the riparian lot as Outlot A.
Schneider Variance
Planning Case # 08-15
August 5, 2008
Page 4 of 8
0 0
KRONORInventory i
I i
1, 640 Pleasant View Road
The subject property was platted as part of the Reichert's Addition which was recorded on January
23, 1978. Outlot A was intended to remain under private ownership with the residence at 640
Pleasant View Road, with both parcels being under a single PID number. In addition to Outlot A,
three other outlots were created with this subdivision. These outlots are referred to as B, C, and D
moving southerly along Lotus Lake. Outlot B (indicated as Near Mountain Lake Association
above) was designated "to be devoted to the common use and enjoyment of the members of the said
homeowners' association". The homeowners' association is designated as "any two or more of the
members of said homeowner's association". Part of the common use was the placement of a dock
on what is referred to as "southerly" Outlot B. This dock allowed for the overnight mooring of up
to three boats.
Outlot A was allocated the placement of one dock with overnight mooring for up to two boats as
part of the subdivision. Outlot C is part of 608 Pleasant View Road and is allowed one dock for one
boat per the development agreement. Mr. Schneider purchased the property in 1995 and has been
using the dock since 2005 with this understanding.
rA
Schneider Variance
Planning Case # 08-15
August 5, 2008
Page 5 of 8
Subject Property
Variance Request
The development contract allowed for the placement of one dock with occupancy for two (2)
moorings. On July 20, 1983, subsequent to the platting of Reichert's Addition, City Ordinance
073 went into affect which set standards for the placement and dimensions of docks on
residential lake front properties. This was amended by Ordinance 356 on December 8, 2003.
These ordinances specified that a 10 -foot setback must be maintained from the lot lines extended
into the lake.
Outlot A was platted in 1978 prior to current City ordinance. Outlot A was platted such that the
side lot lines are convergent. These side lot lines converge approximately 48 to 80 feet from the
ordinary high water water level (OHW). When the 10 -foot setbacks are deducted from the area
where the dock may be placed, the distance is reduced to between 43 and 70 feet.
Under the development contract and the recorded plat for Reichert's Addition, it is reasonable for
the property owner to assume that the placement of a dock was an allowed use for the parcel. The
dock, as is located, not only encroaches into the 10 -foot dock setback but continues beyond the
extended lot lines and into that area of the lake which is ancillary to Outlot B. Mr. Schneider has
approximately 630 square feet of area within the 10 -foot setbacks to place a dock which would
conform to the ordinance.
F -I
Schneider Variance
Planning Case # 08-15
August 5, 2008
Page 6of8
11
It is apparent that a dock could not be placed such that it does not encroach upon the 10 -foot setback
requirements while still providing lake access. A conforming placement would allow for a dock 30
feet in length as measured from the water's edge. The depth of water at this point would be less
than 2 feet during normal water conditions and would restrict the navigation of the boat. Further,
operation of a motor at this water depth would disturb the lake substrate and re -suspend sediment,
finther degrading water quality. This placement would require that any watercraft be navigated
through the aquatic vegetation. This activity would be, in staff's opinion, more disturbing to the
wetland habitat than the actual placement of the dock.
�l 640 Pleasant View Road
10 Foot Selbacks • •M�
Mr. Schneider has indicated that he has worked with his neighbor to the west at 665 Pleasant
View Road (Mr. Thielen) to align the dock so that the neighbor has adequate access to his dock.
Mr. Thielen has contacted staff via email indicating his support for this alignment. A copy of
this email is included. The proposed dock alignment would not protrude into the open water of
Lotus Lake and should not, therefore, pose a safety hazard or obstruction to normal boat traffic
on the Lotus Lake.
Near Mountain Lake Association maintains a dock on the southern end of Outlot B. This dock is at
least 430 feet south of the applicant's dock and should not be adversely impacted by the proposed
alignment. According to the development contract, the placement of a dock on the northerly portion
of Oudot B is a prohibited use.
0 •
Schneider Variance
Planning Case # 08-15
August 5, 2008
Page 7 of 8
Wetland Alteration
The applicant will need to place the dock through a Manage 1 Wetland. Under MN Rules Chapter
8420, a wetland impact is defined as:
8420.0110, Subp. 23. Impact. "Impact" means a loss in the quantity, quality, or biological
diversity of a wetland caused by draining, filling, or excavating, as described in part
8420.0105.
Placement of the dock does not preclude the growth of aquatic vegetation. Nor does it require the
dredging of any soil materials or the placement of any fill materials within the wetland. Further, by
placing the dock per the standards set forth in Chapter 6, Article 2, the dock placement would not
result in a loss of biological diversity as it would be far enough above the water surface to allow for
adequate sunlight and space for plant growth.
The proposed placement of the dock would not result in the removal of vegetation and would not
constitute a wetland impact as defined in Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420. Therefore, the dock
placement would be considered a No -Loss under 8420.0220 of Minnesota Rules. The installation
of the posts for the dock would constitute fill within a wetland. The posts are 3 inches in diameter
which equates to 0.1 square feet of impact per post. Minnesota Rules 8420.0155 Subp. 9 De
mininds. A. (4)(b) allows for up to 20 square feet of wetland impact regardless of type, inside the
building setback zone, as defined in the local shoreland management ordinance.
Placement of the dock entirely within the conforming area as shown above would require the
removal of additional vegetation to create a route for the boat to navigate in and out of the open
water. This vegetation would experience continued disturbance due to the navigation of the boat
through the corridor. In staffs opinion, this would be more detrimental to the wetland than
extending the dock to navigable waters.
OTHER AGENCIES
The applicant is responsible for obtaining any permits or approvals from the appropriate
regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. The Carver County SWCD
has indicated that they have no issues with the dock as long as no fill is placed in the wetland nor
any dredging of the lake occurs. The Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District turned
back permitting authorities to all municipalities within their jurisdiction as of January 1, 2008.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve 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;
And
Schneider Variance
Planning Case # 08-15
August 5, 2008
Page 8 of 8
The Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve 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 dock shall be shortened by thirteen (13) feet from what is shown on the survey to allow
for a minimum separation between docks of twenty (20) feet.
5. 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.
6. No more than one watercraft may be docked on the subject property.
7. 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.
8. The applicant shall abide by all applicable provisions of Chapter 6 and Chapter 20 of
Chanhassen City Code."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Email from Pete Thielen dated 7/24/08.
4. Registered Land Survey.
5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List.
g7\plan\2008 planning c \08-15 Schneider variance & wap\staff report -doe
0 0
Affidavit of Publication
Southwest Newspapers
State of Minnesota)
)SS.
County of Carver )
CITY OF CHANHASSEN Lauri A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized
CARVER & ANHASSIN agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen V-11-
COUNTIES lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO. 08-15 (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as
that the Chanhassen Planning amended
Commission will hold a public
hearing on Tuesday, August 5, 2008, (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. 1101"o
at7:00p.m. inthe CouncilChambers was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said
in Chanhassen City Ball, 77GO Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of
Market Blvd. The purpose of this
hearing is to The
a request for the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both
a Varianceanda Wetland Alteration inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition
Permit to install a dock on property and publication of the Notice:
located at 640 Pleasant View Road
(Outlet A, Reichert's Addition). abcdefghijklmnopgrstu
Applicant: Gary & Cynthia
Schneider.
A plan showing the location of �
the proposal is available for public By
review on the City's web site at Laurie A. Hartmann
www ci.chanha en mn / rv/
plan/08.15 html or at City Hall
during regular business hours. All
interested persons are invited to Subscribed and sworn before me on
attend this public hearing and
express their opinions with respect
to this proposal.
Terry Jeffery, Water this a y q Aday of 0 �l I , 2008
Resources Coordinator
Email:
0effery@cf.chanhassen.mmus GWEN M. RADUENZ
Phone: 952-227-1168 NOTARY iU&C - MINNESOTA
(Published in the Chanhassen _ .Convneskn E>yires IN 37 x710
Villager on Thursday, July 24,2008; 7
No. 4086)
Notary Public
c
RATE INFORMATION
Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $40.00 per column inch
Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ............................... $40.00 per column inch
Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $12.19 per column inch
SCANNED
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
P O BOX 147
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
08/26/2008 9:46 AM
Receipt No. 0079555
CLERK: bethany
PAYEE: GARY/CYNTHIA SCHNEIDER
640 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Planning Case #08-15
-------------------------------------------------------
GIS List 120.00
Total
Cash
Check 11010
Change
120.00
0.00
120.00
0.00
SCANNED
• 0
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
My OF (952) 227-1100
To: Gary Schneider & Cynthia Calhoon Schneider
640 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Invoice
SALESPERSON
DATE
TERMS
KTM
7/24/08
upon receipt
60 Property Owners List within 500+ feet of 640 Pleasant View Road (60
labels)
Less overpayment of application fee (Check No. 10896)
TOTAL DUE
$3.00 1 $180.00
($60.00)
$120.00
NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the
Addressee shown above (copy attached) and must be paid prior to the public hearing scheduled for August 5,
2008.
Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen
Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #08-15.
If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!
SCANNED
Date: July 7, 2008
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)227-1100
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department
By: Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator
Subject: Request for a Variance and Welland Alteration Permit to install a dock on property located on Outlot A,
Reichert's Addition (640 Pleasant View Road). Applicant: Gary & Cynthia Schneider.
Planning Case: 08-15
The above-described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Department on July 3, 2008. The 60 -day review period ends September 1, 2008.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and
proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on August 5, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Ball. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than July 28,
2008. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is
greatly appreciated.
1. City Departments:
a. City Engineer
b. City Attorney
c. City Park Director
d. Fire Marshal
e. Building Official
f. Water Resources Coordinator
g. Forester
2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District
3. MN Dept. of Transportation
4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
7. Carver County
a. Engineer
b. Environmental Services
8. Watershed District Engineer
a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek
b. Lower Minnesota River
c. Minnehaha Creek
9. Telephone Company (Qwest or Sprint/United)
10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley)
11. Mediacom
12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
SCANNED
Location Map
(Subject Property Highlighted in Yellow)
Schneider Dock Variance and Wetland Alteration Permit
640 Pleasant View Road
Planning Case 2008-15
VA
0
0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO. 08-15
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Tuesday, August 5, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen
City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a Variance
and a Wetland Alteration Permit to install a dock on property located at 640 Pleasant View Road
(Outlot A, Reichert's Addition). Applicant: Gary & Cynthia Schneider.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web
site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/seI2/plan/08-15.html or at City Hall during regular business
hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions
with respect to this proposal.
Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator
Email: tieffery@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Phone: 952-227-1168
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on July 24, 2008)
ac"NEO
Fnd Iron -
Pipe Open
i
Existing Wood
Launch --
LOTUS LAKE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER ELEV
(per Minnesota DNR)
I r'/
lin
I�
1 �t
ss.
r
BGOO��
% • ,0 �s
OUTLOT -
r
!� ' ♦ /s
♦ ,--Approximate
edge of
'1 wetland
N84'58'01' E i --Survey /// O"J♦♦ qy,� \
72.65 i i Line 0 r3 �
A ♦� P
II , 1 1 /1 7• y
*OPO O
O
rob
33±-
6' c- !� C:
'11=25± �<
` -Fnd Iron \
Pipe /
r-O.H.W. Line
896.3 _
♦
Existing Dock-�
0 � ♦
--Shoreline
--10' Dock Setback ' \�
Lines
,__-Existing Dock
3.5
0 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered
Land Sur r under the JaV of the State of Minnesota.
June 30, 2008
K rt M. Kisch I N Lic. No 23968 Dote
Dock Location Sketch
ko�
Gary & Cindy Schneider
640 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
OXCIA I
• = IRON MONUMENT FOUND
O - Iron monument set and marked
with license No. 23968.
BASIS OF BEARINGS
For the purpose of this survey the west line of
Outlot A. REICHERT'S ADDITION, Carver County,
Minnesota is assumed to bear N0214'30"W.
Outiot A
REICHERT'S ADDITION
CARVER COUNTY
Subject to easements of record, if any.
Drowing File:2007-302-L-712-Dock.DWG
Project No. 2007-302L
RT K
INCORPORATED
6110 Blue Circle Drive
Duluth, MN
Ham Lake, MN
Hibbing, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Oakdale, MN
Phone: 952 933 0972
Fax: 952 933 1153
www.r&inc.com
Suite 100 • Minnetonka, MN 55343
SCANNED
:
896.3 _
♦
Existing Dock-�
0 � ♦
--Shoreline
--10' Dock Setback ' \�
Lines
,__-Existing Dock
3.5
0 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered
Land Sur r under the JaV of the State of Minnesota.
June 30, 2008
K rt M. Kisch I N Lic. No 23968 Dote
Dock Location Sketch
ko�
Gary & Cindy Schneider
640 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
OXCIA I
• = IRON MONUMENT FOUND
O - Iron monument set and marked
with license No. 23968.
BASIS OF BEARINGS
For the purpose of this survey the west line of
Outlot A. REICHERT'S ADDITION, Carver County,
Minnesota is assumed to bear N0214'30"W.
Outiot A
REICHERT'S ADDITION
CARVER COUNTY
Subject to easements of record, if any.
Drowing File:2007-302-L-712-Dock.DWG
Project No. 2007-302L
RT K
INCORPORATED
6110 Blue Circle Drive
Duluth, MN
Ham Lake, MN
Hibbing, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Oakdale, MN
Phone: 952 933 0972
Fax: 952 933 1153
www.r&inc.com
Suite 100 • Minnetonka, MN 55343
SCANNED
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECESWED
JUN 11 2008
Y'
Y
Q)
C3
NO
s
O9c p
OUTLOT
%06,�,
I�
a
I � -
I /
r
\ Y;
o b
I, rr� Lneeyury
ury
i/
l N84'58'01E /I nn'� '�� PP{�` cob
Fnd Iron--,�� ,-—72.65��' J n•^jun
Pipe Open
33t-c--C.�� ::
i `/s
25t , \
,1 \
r-Fnd Iron
Pipe
r-O.H.W. Line
-�� LOTUS LAKE -. ;-Shoreline
ENGINEERING DEPT. ORDINARY HIGH WATER ELEV. _
(per Minnesota DNR)
Outlot A
REICHERT'S ADDITION
CARVER COUNTY
Subject to easements of record, if any.
896.3
� 1
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered
Land Surveyor under the la%s of the State of Minnesota.
zJuly 17, 2007
Michael E. Ca non, MN Lic. No 40035 Date
Certificate of Survey
\o�
Gary & Cindy Schneider
640 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
r
LEGEND
• = IRON MONUMENT FOUND
0 = Iron monument set and marked
with license No. 23968.
BASIS OF BEARINGS
For the purpose of this survey the west line of
Outlot A, REICHERTS ADDITION, Carver County,
Minnesota is assumed to bear NO2'14.30'W.
N�
0 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
Drawing FIIe:2007-302—L-712.DWG
Project No. 2007-302L
RLK�
Y
INCORPORATED
6110 Blue Circle Drive • Suite 100
Duluth, MN
Ham Lake, MN
Hibbing, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Oakdale, MN
Phone: 952 933 0972
Fax: 952 933 1153
www.rlkinc.com
MN 55343
611 \
Fnd Iron-.
Pipe Open
Existing Wood
Launch
LOTUS LAKE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER ELEV. = 896.3
(per Minnesota DNR)
I Ln
v
I
XT,
0O_/
A
r
r
AY /
♦ I^ v
♦
--Approximate
edge
edge of /
/
i wetland
IN84-5801"E i Survey / %
72.65 i i Line a, u41
re��
_ ^ ✓ l! F,
fff
33f -c L•
-Fnd Iron
Pipe /
` C ;-O.H.W. Line
_ AN -�
10 . Shoreline
_ --Lin Dock Setback \ _
-Lines
I IV o
� --
Existing Dock
C,
rIL
h®
Existing Dock-
0 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
' I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered
Land Sur r under the/a�of the State of Minnesota.
.,s/ June 30, 2008
K rt M. Kisch I N Lic. No 23968 Date
a
Dock Location Sketch
ko
i
Gary & Cindy Schneider
640 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
LEGEND
• = IRON MONUMENT FOUND
O - Iron monument set and marked
with license No. 23968.
BASIS OF BEARINGS
For the purpose of this survey the west line of
Outlot A, REICHERT'S ADDITION, Carver County,
Minnesota is assumed to bear NO2'14'30"W.
Outiot A
REICHERT'S ADDITION
CARVER COUNTY
Subject to easements of record, if any.
Drawing File:2007-302-L-712-Dock.DWG
Project No. 2007-302L
RIX
INNCORPORATFID
V
6110 Blue Circle Drive -'Suite 100
Duluth, MN
Ham Lake, MN
Hibbing, MN
Minnetonka, MN
Oakdale, MN
Phone: 952 933 0972
Fax: 952 933 1153
www.rlkinc.com
etonka, MN 55343
areuucn
main • • Page 1 of I
File Edit View Insert Selection Tools Help
4(at ni46♦CP0lka
http://carvergiswebI.co.carver.mn.us/arcims/gis/government/general/landservices/main.htm 6/16/2008
H
\i
OUTLOT
A
CITY OF C;'RNHASSEN
HECS , ED
JUN 1 1 2008
ENGINEERING DEPT.
Fnd Iron-_`
Pipe Open
i
I
--Survey
Line
Line84
25±
e
.r -Fnd Iron
� Pipe
/esota
ORDI Y HI(1HfEV.
er MinNR)
Outlot
REICHERT'S ADDITION
CARVER COUNTY
Subject to easements of record, if any.
EShoreline
896.3 _
I hereby certify that this s
me or under my direct sup
Land Surveyor under the la
ichael E. Conon, MN Lic.
0
NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSOCIATION MEMBERS
�L , 0wrV6�Vi*u//-d
Jahn Dyvik 610 PVR 410-3747
Kevin & Leanne Benson
Sean & Melinda Fitzgerald
Gary & Cindy Schnieder
Sam & Lourie Cumow
I" pi�✓�
Dave & Val Rossbach
Gary & Peg Schelitzche
620 PVR, 474-0528
630 PVR, 470-9577
640 PVR, 474-1871
650 PVR, 474-0789
660PVR, 470-5858
670 PVR, 474-4865
680 PVR, 470-0399
SCANNED
Taxable
Market Value: $456,000 $410,000
Your taxable market value for property tax payable in 2008 was sent to you in
the spring of 2007. The period to discuss possible changes has passed and _-
changes can no longerbe made to your pronertryaluation. It isinduMd-dere foc—
c.,r.....,.,k
your In 1 Y
�2G8c=�F- ��✓Ntt.-skip
•
Mailing Addresses andActual
CARVER COUNTY
our Propposed r et Tax for 2008
TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT
•
• •
Laurie Engelen, Manager
600 East 4th Street, P.O. Box 69
IMPORTANT INFORMATION IS PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM
wax Chaska. MN 55318-0069
Locations and Dates
CARVER COUNTY -ADMINISTRATION
952-361-1910 • www.co.carvecmn.us
Property ID:
p rty
825.7300050
CARVER COUNTY
Property Address:
640 PLEASANT VIEW RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8327
CHASKA, MN 55318-2102
Legal Description:
Sea -01 Twp -116 Range -023
4TH ST E
REICHERTS ADDITION
Bb°
5142 1AV0312
ID#p3772
C I
HTSAD-Lc�'
80UTL0TAREC^
GARY J SCHNEIDER 8
_
S5142
Taxes Payable Taxes Payable
CYNTHIA CALHOON SCHNEIDER
$ 1,082.39
in 2007 in 2008
640 PLEASANT VIEW RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8327
Property
RESIDENML405ESTEAD RESUFNTIAL4101.ESTW
Itltlttl.ltt.lltttyl111ttllt,I,rrllttrlrlitttltittlllrtttltirl
Classification:
Taxable
Market Value: $456,000 $410,000
Your taxable market value for property tax payable in 2008 was sent to you in
the spring of 2007. The period to discuss possible changes has passed and _-
changes can no longerbe made to your pronertryaluation. It isinduMd-dere foc—
c.,r.....,.,k
your In 1 Y
Mailing Addresses andActual
(1)2007
Proposed 2008
Budget and Tax Hearing
Telephone Numbers
Property Tax
Property Tax
Locations and Dates
CARVER COUNTY -ADMINISTRATION
$
1,728.37
S 1,542.95
CARVER COUNTY
GOVT CENTER -602 4TH ST E
DEC. 6, 2007 - TOOPM
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
CHASKA, MN 55318-2102
4TH ST E
(952) 361-1510
C H ASKA MN
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
$
1,247.57
$ 1,082.39
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEC 3, 2007 - TOOPM
PO BOX 147
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CHANHASSEN,AIN 55317-0147
7700 MARKET BLVD
(952) 227-1104
CHANHASSEN, MN
STATE GENERAL TAX
$
0.00
$ 0.00
NO MEETING REQUIRED
SD 0276. ATTN: FINANCE & OPER
IF THE REFERENDUM FOR YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS
SCHOOL DISTRICT 276
5621 COUNTY HIGHWAY 101
APPROVED AT THE NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION, THE
DEC 11, 2007 - 7:OOPM
MINNETONKA.MN 55345-4214
VOTER APPROVED TAX FOR
2008 MAY BE HIGHER THAN THE
SERVICE CENTER -COMMUNITY ROOM
(952) 401-5024
PROPOSED AMOUNT SHOWN ON THIS NOTICE.
5621 CO HWY 101
MINNETONKA, MN
VOTER APPROVED LEVY
$
1,265.26
$ 1,082.12
OTHER LOCAL LEVIES
$
615.78
$ 472-91
METRO SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICTS
_
NO MEETING REQUIRED
MET COUNCIL DATA CENTER
$
121.89
$ 106.26
390 N ROBERT ST
-- ---- ---
ST PAUL, MN 55101
OTHER SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT
$
112.13
$ 119.37
NO MEETING REQUIRED
TOTAL
Excluding special assessments
$
5,089.00
$ 4,406.00
Percent of Change -13.4%
SCANNED
0 0
Location Map
(Subject Property Highlighted in Yellow)
Schneider Dock Variance and Wetland Alteration Permit
640 Pleasant View Road
Planning Case 2008-15
SCANNED
CITY of
CllANHASSEN
7701 Market Boulevard
PO Boz 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Plwne: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952227.1120
Fax 952227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park R*
Phone: 952.22KM
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
wxw.d.chanhassen.w.us
June 19, 2008
Mr. Gary Schnieder
640 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Variance -Wetland Alteration Permit
Dear Mr.Schnieder:
This letter is to inform you that we are in receipt of your variance -wetland alteration
permit application, located 640 Pleasant View Road.
Per our meeting, after review of data submitted, two items appear to be missing.
The first deals with the location and dimensions of the dock. The second pertains
to the location of the wetland on your property.
We will not be able to review your application until these items have been
submitted. This also means that the 60 -day deadline to process an application will
not begin until we have received all the necessary information to review the
application request as permitted under MN STAT. 15.99. The next submittal date
is July 3, 2008. If a complete application is submitted to the City by that date,
your application will appear before the Planning Commission for a Public
Heating on August 5, 2008.
If you have any
Terry,
Water
Coordinator
free to contact me at (952) 227-1168.
G:\ENG\Teny\Planning\2018\nocks\Gary SchniedeAincomplete_062008Aoc
SCANNED
The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding bails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play.
0 0
SCHNEIDER VARIANCE & WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT - PLANNING CASE 08-15
$200 Variance
$150 Wetland Alteration Permit
$200 Notification Sign
$60 GIS Fee
$100 Recording Escrow
$710 TOTAL
Gary Schneider paid $710 Check No. 10896
S',6Nt; o
E
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
P O BOX 147
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
07/03/2008 4:04 PM
Receipt No. 0075511
CLERK: katie
PAYEE: GARY SCHNEIDER
SCHNEIDER VARIANCE & WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
PLANNING CASE 08-15
0
-------------------------------------------------------
Use & Variance
200.00
Sign Rent
200.00
Recording Fees
100.00
Wetland
150.00
GIS List
60.00
Total
Cash
Check 10896
Change
710.00
0.00
710.00
0.00
SCANNED