CC Minutes 8-25-08City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
and we also give you the benchmarking for law enforcement compared to last year and previous
years so and, like Pete said it will be coming on in our September meeting.
Councilman Litsey: Good.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anything else? This evening. Very good. Thank you. Appreciate
it. Chief Geske’s here this evening as well. Good evening Chief.
Chief Gregg Geske: Good evening. Has been slow since the last update, which is good, and I’ll
again chalk that up to fire prevention. And speaking of fire prevention, we have started planning
for Fire Prevention Week which is the second week of October and our open house that we have.
I’ll have, next month I’ll have the dates and times for you for our open house. But during that
week we do ask for volunteers of the fire department to take time off from their job to help us
and their fire marshal to do training for, and fire prevention activities for the students in
Chanhassen so look forward to that and we’ve already started planning for that coming up here
in October so. Like I say, we had a pretty slow month last month so I don’t have a whole lot of
report for you.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Very good. Thank you. Any questions for Chief Geske?
Councilman Litsey: I was just going to bring up you know you had mentioned…appreciation at
our work session. It’s nice to see that and the good work that you’re doing out there and that the
public’s recognizing that so good job.
Chief Gregg Geske: Alright, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you Chief.
NICK’S STORAGE & PARKING, 1900 STOUGHTON AVENUE, APPLICANT,
JACQUES GIBBS: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT;
VARIANCE REQUEST.
th
Kate Aanenson: Thank you mayor, members of the council. This item was at your July 14
meeting and was tabled and the, there’s two separate property owners involved. Again Nick’s
Storage, which has an interim use and a conditional use on the site. At that time one of the
parcels was sold, Parcel A which includes Phases I and II. At that meeting there was a request
th
from Mr. Dungey who owned Parcel B to provide the ponding on the site, so since the July 14
meeting staff, including planning and engineering, met to resolve, providing through their
consultant, providing adequate stormwater and the off site property. The issue that we had there
was that there be some conveyance to make sure that that’s maintained even though it’s off site
so that has been done and that is a condition of approval in the site plan itself. I have a little bit
more detail but I, unless you have questions on that, I don’t think it’s necessary to go through,
just the fact that it does meet the conditions of approval with the letter of credit as recommended.
The other issue that was still outstanding was that we did recommend a variance on the signs.
The applicant still wants to have additional signage on the property, which we are not
supporting. So with that we are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report.
5
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Again amending the conditional use and then we did provide additional conditions specifically
regarding the stormwater ponding and letter of credit, including additional landscaping. So with
that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Just to clarify then, one of the,
this was actually tabled at the applicant’s request.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: At the last meeting. Or last time we addressed this and one of the material
changes on their part was the property owners now of Parcel A and B have come to a private
agreement for the location of the storm water management system on Parcel B for the benefit of
Parcel A.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct because really there’s two issues involved. One, having it sized
adequately and designed properly. And the second issue was to make sure that there was
security in place to make sure that that was constructed as a plan indicated and that it’s
maintained. So that’s in place now.
Councilman Litsey: So you’re comfortable with what’s been achieved here?
Kate Aanenson: With the stormwater ponding, yes.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay. And then the question is, you said there’s still a difference
between the applicant and the staff with regard to the signage.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Do you want to take a quick summary on the signage?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I can go through that.
Mayor Furlong: Because there are 4 signs, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. We did recommend, because of the visibility they’re required…on 212
that they be provided an additional sign there. Again this is the business fringe district which
does allow one monument sign per lot and 24 square feet. These are the signs that are in place
right now. I didn’t, that don’t meet the ordinance regarding height and not receiving a permit.
And then the pylon sign is certainly one that they still want to maintain so we are recommending
still the variance for the one sign, the larger sign, and the existing entrance sign which is still
permitted.
Mayor Furlong: And when you say larger sign, that is sign 2, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
6
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Mayor Furlong: So the, in the staff report there’s signs 1 through 4. Staff is recommending
Signs 1, 2 and 4 be allowed as long as they’re brought into compliance with ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: But not allowing sign 3 which is the…
Kate Aanenson: Right, and the one does give, does allow the larger sign via variance and that
was the yeah, correct. Because of the setback.
Mayor Furlong: Variance. Okay. Any questions for staff?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, with sign number 3, I think that’s the, was that lit?
Craig Mertz: It was.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: It looks like it was externally lit.
Craig Mertz: It was internally lit.
Kate Aanenson: Was it? Okay. Yep, it looks like there was something there. Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not, I see the applicant is
here. Anything you’d like to address the council on this evening?
Craig Mertz: Yes, Craig Mertz again speaking for the applicant. Yes, we still are seeking the
outdoor storage stalls and the plan is that they would have a grass surface rather than a paved,
gravel surface. The drainage, Mr. McCain is here to answer any questions that you might have
about the drainage plan. Mr. Dungey is here who could tell you about two different things. One
is that he’s in the loop on the drainage plans that we’ve got ready here, and he also is prepared to
tell the council that that sign dates back, the pylon sign dates back to when he built the buildings
at the initial, initiation of the project and we have a Certificate of Completion that was issued by
the City back at that time indicating that the property was in compliance. While it doesn’t
specifically mention the pylon sign, that’s what we took it to mean. That that was the approval
for the whole thing. So the applicant is asking that we get the pylon sign as part of this project.
The signs that are depicted on the report here, we re-faced those signs but they’re the same size
and location as when we bought the property so it’s not like we snuck in and tried to put bigger
signs on the property so if you would like to hear Mr. Dungey’s recollection, he is here and I do
have multiple copies of the Certificate of Completion indicating that the building official and the
planning department and the fire marshal and the engineering department all signed off on the
property back in the summer of 1999. Mr. Gibbs, you got anything you want to add to this?
Okay. Alright, thank you.
7
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for the applicant at this point? Ms. Aanenson, the Certificate of
Completion, is that?
Kate Aanenson: I was just made aware of that at a little after 7:00 so I can’t comment on that.
Our previous record, and as stated in the staff report, said that we did research and we were not
able to find any permit for that sign. Pylon sign or the other one so that’s the best information I
can give you.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, Mr. Mertz did you say it was 1999?
Craig Mertz: Summer of 1999 is a Certificate of Completion for commercial properties and
contains language that the building official and the planning department are certifying that the
property’s been inspected and the improvements to the best of their knowledge comply with the
requirements of the building and zoning ordinances of the city. Now it doesn’t specifically say
signs but that’s the way we took it.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: What are you reading off of?
Craig Mertz: I’m reading off of a document called a Certificate of Completion on city
stationary.
Mayor Furlong: What were we doing in 1999? That was before my time.
Kate Aanenson: Typically when there’s a financing issue, sometimes a bank will ask for
compliance. A zoning compliance letter. For financing reasons. I haven’t seen that so I can’t
speak to it.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. If sign 3, and I’m not going to suggest it was
either the only non-conforming or what it is, but they’re requesting a sign variance so it’s
certainly within your discretion. They want the variance for the larger sign, to require the
removal of sign 3 in any case. And that’s your choice. You wouldn’t have to do that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I want to thorough that I understand what I’m reading. Kate, do you
have it?
Kate Aanenson: No I don’t.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So where in this paragraph, this certificate, does it state that they
have sign 3 up and that it’s acceptable?
Kate Aanenson: It doesn’t.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So how is this valid for the argument of sign 3? And I’m just, I’m
just asking.
8
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Ken Engel: It infers that from the…
Mayor Furlong: If you could please come to the microphone sir and identify yourself for the
record.
Ken Engel: I’m Ken Engel. I’m counsel to Progress Valley. The Certificate of Completion
commercial that many of you are looking at, the last two lines of the first paragraph. Or I should
say, this is a certification by initially a building official, Douglas W., I can’t read the last name
but it reads that this certifies that I’ve inspected the building, etc. and to the best of my
knowledge and belief premises comply with all the requirements of the building and zoning
ordinances of the city of Chanhassen. That’s an all encompassing phrase and we deem that and
recommend that it be interpreted to mean that the property is in full compliance, including with
all signage requirements.
Craig Mertz: The last time we were before the council Mr. Dungey stood up and said that it was
his recollection that he had a footings inspection by city staff in connection with the installation
of the sign and this is the closest as we can come for a document that supports Mr. Dungey’s
recollection. Counsel has told you that this is up as, before you as a variance request and the
pylon sign when we bought the property was the key factor on how this business draws in it’s
customers. That’s the sign that the commuters can see on Highway 212 at night and could
actually recognize what the business was that was attempting to attract customers and we have
suffered a business deficit since this sign has been taken down approximately a year ago.
Councilman Litsey: Just one question before you sit down. This is very broad and general and
so what we’re saying here is we have no specific documents that can show that that pylon sign
was part of this?
Craig Mertz: We couldn’t find a sign permit. The city couldn’t find a sign permit. We couldn’t
have any evidence that there wasn’t a sign permit. We do have this document which indicates
that there was a comprehensive inspection in the summer of 1999 and we know that from what
Mr. Dungey told the council, that he had a footings inspection in connection with the pylon sign.
The pylon sign is not a recent addition to the property. It’s been there from the beginning.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Are you saying that this was a result of the footings inspection for the?
Craig Mertz: That’s the only document we could come up with that backs up what Mr. Dungey
told the council.
Ken Engel: Sequentially we don’t, I’m sorry.
Mayor Furlong: I was just going to say, when was the sign first installed?
Craig Mertz: Can Gary talk?
9
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Gary Dungey: That sign was installed I would say 1989 or 1990.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Gary Dungey: Was about when we put it in, and I know that we had to have an inspection for
the pad because of the size of the bolts for that pylon sign and the steel in the pad, but I don’t
have a record of the permit. That’s just too long ago so.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mayor, I have a question for Kate while he’s still up there.
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: …City Manager, anybody, were pylon signs allowed in 1999?
Kate Aanenson: 1999? No.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Whenever it was installed?
Kate Aanenson: He said 1991.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m sorry, ’91.
Gary Dungey: ’89 or ’90.
Ken Engel: In fact this post dates that installation by a decade.
Gary Dungey: So I would think that if that, if there was an issue with that sign when we had the
occupancy, why wouldn’t they have said something?
Councilman McDonald: Can we get an answer to Councilwoman Tjornhom’s question? Was it
allowed in 1989 or 1990? What were the zoning ordinances?
Kate Aanenson: I couldn’t tell you. It predates me being employed by the city and I don’t feel
comfortable responding without doing some research on that.
Councilwoman Ernst: So I have another question. When we talk about the premises of the
property here, and maybe you can’t answer this question either right now Kate but I’m
wondering if there was like an additional certification or an additional permit that had to be in
place for signage versus the premises? This, the way I read this today, it sounds like it
encompasses the premise in general. So I’m wondering if there needs to be an additional permit
for that or not.
Kate Aanenson: Are you asking about the Certificate of Compliance?
Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah.
10
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Kate Aanenson: Okay. It’s just saying to the best of my ability it meets zoning requirements.
Roger Knutson: I’m not sure I understand the question.
Councilwoman Ernst: So in this Certificate of Completion that we have in front of us now, it
says that, it basically certifies that they’re in compliance with the premise. The premise, as
they’ve stated today, would include the sign. So the sign, it sounds like would have already been
there. So what I’m saying is it sounds like it’s encompassing of the premise with the sign there.
Unless there’s something different that was required at that time, and I don’t know.
Roger Knutson: I assume there is nothing. These are traditionally, as someone mentioned,
requested when there’s a property transfer or whether there is financing going on or something
where they want like this. And the person looked at this, looked at the property apparently and
said they were, to the best of their knowledge they were no violations.
Councilwoman Ernst: Right. And that’s the way I would read this as well.
Roger Knutson: I would just point out, the recommendation from staff is to grant a variance for
the sign conditioned upon something. In other words removal of Sign 3. That condition can
stand whether or not the sign was legal when it was installed. They’re really independent issues.
And if they find Sign 3 is very important to them, they don’t have to accept that condition. They
can reject the sign variance and stay with Sign 3 if it were legal when it was put up.
Ken Engel: The situation we have with the certificate, if I may, is that the certificate identifies
the property by it’s legal description. It talks about the buildings and improvements on the
property and then summarizes them by referring to them as the premises. None of us can answer
the question were pylon signs permitted in 1989 or 1990. Were they were permitted in 1999?
No one here can currently answer that question but one issue that I think the council needs to
take a look at is the fact that, according to Mr. Dungey’s testimony, the city engineer came out to
the property in 1989 or 1990 to inspect the installation of footings for that pylon sign. The only
way that a city official would have come out to the property would have been based on the
issuance either of a permit or a complaint, and according to Mr. Dungey’s testimony, the official
was satisfied with the footings for that pylon sign. And then 10 years later we have a certificate
signed by four city officials identifying that property in it’s entirety is in compliance with all
zoning requirements of the city.
Kate Aanenson: But for we have no record of that inspection so did someone from Chaska
inspect it? We don’t know.
Councilman Litsey: I’m just curious, why don’t we have records? I mean normally would we
have records back that far as part of our record retention…
Kate Aanenson: Yes, we should. We should.
Councilman Litsey: Normally those are kept on file.
11
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman McDonald: Can I ask a question that kind of goes to this? If at the time all of this
was put in place those signs were legal and nothing’s been changed, why wouldn’t it be alright to
continue? Why do they need a variance? If everything was in compliance at the time they were
put up. The sizes. The heights and everything. Why do we need a variance at this point?
Kate Aanenson: Not all those signs were in place.
Councilwoman Ernst: Which signs weren’t, I’m sorry.
Councilman McDonald: Yeah. Well, that’s the question. Which signs were not in place?
Which are the new ones?
Todd Gerhardt: I think you know, to try to provide some clarity to this that back in ’87 they did
the first phase of the mini-storage. Then at that time on the site plan it did not show any location
of signs. And we have no records of sign permit going in, and then in 1990 you came in for the
second addition. Put an expansion where this certificate. You did some additional work then to
get this certificate, correct?
Ken Engel: That’s not correct.
Todd Gerhardt: Then why did you get the certificate in 1999?
Gary Dungey: ’99. That would have been I think for the last two buildings.
Todd Gerhardt: So you did work and our engineers went in there and told them right here on the
bottom, need to pave the driveway, so they inspected those 2 additional buildings. Whatever was
on site, they didn’t look at. They were just looking at the new construction that was approved,
and now you’ve seen ownership change. Angie found the signs not to be in compliance with
ordinance. They’re coming through the process asking for the variance and you’re within your
rights to kind of give and take as a part of that variance process. So that’s where we are today.
Councilman Litsey: So you’re saying then the inspection in 1999 really focused on those
improvements and not the entire property?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. I mean this may kind of lead you to believe that we inspected the entire
site but I believe my staff went out there and looked at whatever the new improvements that
occurred.
Councilman Litsey: That was the focus.
Todd Gerhardt: They didn’t look at the over site, the entire site because we didn’t look at the
drainage issue. The stormwater pond. You know there’s another thing that we probably should
have at that time. We’re kind of cleaning things up now and that’s kind of where we’re at.
12
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Ken Engel: With all due respect, the certificate does not give us any indication of was there any
limitation on the review by the four officials who signed this. We don’t know that there was any
limitation. We don’t know whether or not they did or didn’t walk the entire site. All we have is
the certification before us which states that the property was fully in compliance.
Councilman Litsey: But conversely, you could also make the same argument that it did focus on
that. You’re saying you know you want it, and I understand why. You’re saying it was,
encompassed the whole properties but you could make a case for that, but you can also make a
case that they came in and probably just looked at the improvements. Focused on that and that
was the extent.
Gary Dungey: The sign sits right by the last two buildings.
Councilman Litsey: I’m sorry.
Gary Dungey: I say that sign sits right by the last two buildings.
Councilman Litsey: But that was already there, right?
Gary Dungey: Yeah.
Councilman Litsey: So the case could be made, they perhaps didn’t focus on that because it’s
already been there. They just looked at the improvements and just kind of discounted it. You
know we’re, it’s speculation.
Gary Dungey: I know. Virtually it was there you know 10 years prior to that.
Councilman Litsey: It’s speculative and so we really don’t know.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I don’t know if it’s speculative because I’m sure, I mean
you go back to our web site, you can go onto a council agenda for 1997 and so I’m sure we have
to have a record as to if we allowed pylon signs in the early 90’s. I just can’t believe we don’t
have somewhere in our city hall vaults something.
Councilman Litsey: I agree. I agree. I think this document perhaps is speculative but if we
could get a better definitive answer, I think that’s a good suggestion.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sure. But I mean that would probably answer the question is where
they allowed or weren’t they.
13
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Councilman Litsey: Yes.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know because if they weren’t allowed then, then why, you
know.
Todd Gerhardt: Well even if they were allowed, we didn’t get a permit for them and we don’t
have a record of a permit.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So we have no records at all for anything that happened there?
Ken Engel: You have a record before you…
Todd Gerhardt: For the buildings but not the signs.
Ken Engel: …in 1999 the property was fully compliant.
Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson, have you seen this document before this evening?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Mayor Furlong: I don’t know when you, did you try to get this to staff to make them aware of
this at any time?
Ken Engel: We only found it recently. Just came across records that were delivered to us by Mr.
Dungey and Mr. Brown. And we can provide an original, that’s not a problem.
Mayor Furlong: It’s not a question of original. It’s just make sure that staff has the same
information prior to the meeting that you have I guess is part of my question. I guess the
question of whether or not, what was our sign ordinance at the time and whether or not these
being in compliance is a question that could be researched as well as whether or not sign permits
were required at that time. Could also be researched, because that sounds like it’s a question that
the council like to hear to find out, but both of those could be researched I assume.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Because I want to make a fair choice you know based upon the facts
that I have in front of me I guess. Not to make sure that it’s being, obviously we don’t have
them now but if at one point there was a time in 1990 when we did, then I need to know that to
understand what the history is.
Craig Mertz: Could I ask the question of city manager? Mr. Gerhardt, in the 18, in the late
1980’s, weren’t we keeping the city archives in the barn out at Lake Ann Park and we lost a
bunch of records because of water damage?
Todd Gerhardt: No.
Craig Mertz: Okay.
14
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Todd Gerhardt: Not our building permits.
Councilwoman Ernst: So I would like to make another comment in terms of, I keep going back
to this premise. So even if we did have an ordinance that did not allow pylon signs at that time,
this verbiage that’s in here, unless it would say excludes something, it says premises. And so I
would keep coming, I keep coming back to that. We’re talking about premise.
Mayor Furlong: And as I continue to read this, and one of the I think, a little research that staff
could also do is find out for what purposes was this certificate issued. I assume that may also be
in the file. Because here it describes the premises, Councilwoman Ernst and you’re right, to be
occupied as a storage building. It’s not talking about the property and size and everything but
it’s premises as a storage building so you know I guess the question is, for what purpose was this
certificate issued and what work was completed to that end. However, I guess I ask the question,
I know that the last time we worked with this there was an extension required of the applicant. Is
our time frame such, do we have any time available to us with the current extension?
Kate Aanenson: No, we need another extension.
Todd Gerhardt: Roger’s working on a letter.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions at this point with regard to the applicant or staff?
Councilman McDonald: If I could Mr. Mayor. Were signs 1 and 2 the ones that are the new
ones that are definitely are not in compliance? When you put that slide up there. So signs 1 and
2 definitely are not in compliance because they would be newer.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman McDonald: So those would require either a variance or need to be removed.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. So the issue becomes signs 3 and 4, is that correct?
Councilwoman Ernst: Or is it just 3?
Mayor Furlong: Well I guess to clarify. Mr. Mertz, is it the applicant’s contention that these
signs have not increased in size or dimension at all? What originally. That these new signs are
identical?
Craig Mertz: If the planner can go back to, can you go back one? Okay. Our under, the sign
number 1 and sign number 2, and Jake can look at me if I’m saying this incorrectly, they were of
that height and of those dimensions when we took possession of the property. What we did is we
ordered new letters and images on the signs. So we didn’t change it’s height or it’s width or
altitude above the ground. We just put it, we ordered a new face, and if you can go to screen
number, next. Oops. There was, and in the materials that we submitted we showed you a picture
15
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
of the face, faces plural, that were on each side of that pylon when we took possession of the
property. It advertised the site as being Progress Valley, and one of the faces was damaged in a
weather related incident and it was, when the face was damaged it was decided at that time that
we would start doing business as Nick’s Storage rather than Progress Valley, and we ordered the
replacement faces that would fit in that 6 foot by 10 foot space at the top of the pylon and those
faces are in one of the storage garages out at the site right now so yes, we were proposing to
change the images but we weren’t changing the sizes from the way we found the property when
we bought it.
Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mertz then, are you saying signs 1 and 2 are also older signs with
just new faces? I’m just trying to get a.
Craig Mertz: That’s all we did was we ordered new faces for those locations. They are the same
dimensions and the same heights.
Mayor Furlong: The posts and the foundation haven’t been replaced?
Gary Dungey: No.
Councilman Litsey: Do those date back to 1999?
Gary Dungey: Prior.
Councilman Litsey: Or prior to that.
Gary Dungey: …those in 1987.
Councilman Litsey: Right, but this document you produced on a Certificate of Completion, were
all four of those signs in place with the dimensions that you’re now?
Gary Dungey: 1, 2 and 3 were, yep. Number 4 was not. That’s a new one.
Councilman Litsey: That is a new one.
Ken Engel: That’s sitting right on Stoughton Avenue and 212. On the ground.
Councilman Litsey: Yep.
Ken Engel: That’s the only one that’s different. Or new.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson, do we have an agreement for any extension this evening?
Roger Knutson: I don’t know. I prepared something very quickly. I don’t know if he’s.
Craig Mertz: We’ve signed the extension agreement.
16
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Roger Knutson: And if you accept, if the council wants to accept the extension, then we can.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Table it?
Mayor Furlong: Table it and research the questions and I guess if that’s the direction council
wants to go, I would also ask the applicant to work with staff and so that we can kind of
complete this at our next meeting rather than raising more questions. I think that would be to
everybody’s benefit. We have raised some questions here this evening. I guess with that it
sounds like we won’t have the answers this evening so with the extension being signed, I guess
at this point it likely would be appropriate to entertain a motion to table this to a subsequent
meeting.
Councilwoman Ernst: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman McDonald: Second.
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council table
the request for an amendment to a conditional use permit and variances. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
SCHNEIDER DOCK, 640 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD (OUTLOT A, REICHERT’S
ADDITION), APPLICANT, GARY & CYNTHIA SCHNEIDER: REQUEST FOR A
VARIANCE AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO INSTALL A DOCK.
Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, councilors. I’m here tonight before you for a dock variance
request. Gary Schneider, the applicant is in the audience tonight if you have any questions for
him. The request for a variance is for the 10 foot dock setback and in conjunction with this
there’s also a wetland alteration permit which is requesting a no net loss determination, and I’ll
explain that a little bit further. The property is shown here in orange. It is off Pleasant View
Road on the northern extremes of the lot. Outlot A is south of Pleasant View and the 640
Pleasant View is to the east or north of Pleasant View. The lot was, when it was subdivided with
Reichert’s Addition, this was just Outlot A. Existing conditions that are on the site today. It was
subdivided with convergent side lot lines making it virtually impossible to put in a conforming
dock that would meet the goals of a lot, or a lakeside lot. That being access to the water for
navigational purposes. Recreational purposes, and/or other water oriented uses. The dock that is
shown to the east, to the right on the picture is Mr. Schneider’s dock. You’ll see there is a dark
dashed line. That is the lot line extended and within that is a lighter dashed line. That would be
the 10 foot setback for that dock. So it extends beyond, through the 10 foot setback. Through
the subsequent 10 foot setback for Outlot B, and into the water front in front of Outlot B. The
dock to the west is Mr. Thielen’s dock. Mr. Thielen has worked with Mr. Schneider, and vice
versa to agree upon this alignment that is shown there so that it does not impede with Mr.
Thielen’s access to his dock. Reichert’s Addition was subdivided in 1978 and this is 5 years
prior to the city’s dock ordinance going into effect which would have made this lot in non-
compliance. At the time four outlets were created. They being Outlot A, B, C and D. Outlot A
17