CC Minutes 8-25-08
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Roger Knutson: And if you accept, if the council wants to accept the extension, then we can.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Table it?
Mayor Furlong: Table it and research the questions and I guess if that’s the direction council
wants to go, I would also ask the applicant to work with staff and so that we can kind of
complete this at our next meeting rather than raising more questions. I think that would be to
everybody’s benefit. We have raised some questions here this evening. I guess with that it
sounds like we won’t have the answers this evening so with the extension being signed, I guess
at this point it likely would be appropriate to entertain a motion to table this to a subsequent
meeting.
Councilwoman Ernst: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman McDonald: Second.
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council table
the request for an amendment to a conditional use permit and variances. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
SCHNEIDER DOCK, 640 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD (OUTLOT A, REICHERT’S
ADDITION), APPLICANT, GARY & CYNTHIA SCHNEIDER: REQUEST FOR A
VARIANCE AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO INSTALL A DOCK.
Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, councilors. I’m here tonight before you for a dock variance
request. Gary Schneider, the applicant is in the audience tonight if you have any questions for
him. The request for a variance is for the 10 foot dock setback and in conjunction with this
there’s also a wetland alteration permit which is requesting a no net loss determination, and I’ll
explain that a little bit further. The property is shown here in orange. It is off Pleasant View
Road on the northern extremes of the lot. Outlot A is south of Pleasant View and the 640
Pleasant View is to the east or north of Pleasant View. The lot was, when it was subdivided with
Reichert’s Addition, this was just Outlot A. Existing conditions that are on the site today. It was
subdivided with convergent side lot lines making it virtually impossible to put in a conforming
dock that would meet the goals of a lot, or a lakeside lot. That being access to the water for
navigational purposes. Recreational purposes, and/or other water oriented uses. The dock that is
shown to the east, to the right on the picture is Mr. Schneider’s dock. You’ll see there is a dark
dashed line. That is the lot line extended and within that is a lighter dashed line. That would be
the 10 foot setback for that dock. So it extends beyond, through the 10 foot setback. Through
the subsequent 10 foot setback for Outlot B, and into the water front in front of Outlot B. The
dock to the west is Mr. Thielen’s dock. Mr. Thielen has worked with Mr. Schneider, and vice
versa to agree upon this alignment that is shown there so that it does not impede with Mr.
Thielen’s access to his dock. Reichert’s Addition was subdivided in 1978 and this is 5 years
prior to the city’s dock ordinance going into effect which would have made this lot in non-
compliance. At the time four outlets were created. They being Outlot A, B, C and D. Outlot A
17
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
was given permission for 1 dock with 2 dockage slips, or 2 boats. Outlot B was given 1 dock
with 3 slips. Outlot C, 1 dock with 1 slip. As ownership goes, Lot 5, Block 1, which is 640 and
Mr. Schneider’s residence and Outlot A both have the same property identification number and
are in the same ownership obviously. Same lot. They are just bisected by the placement of
Pleasant View Road. The same is true of Lot 9, Block 1 and Outlot C. Those two properties are
identified as the same property. Outlot B is the Near Mountain Lake Association and the
remainder of the lots have access to that. I think you may remember last year Near Mountain
Lake Association had requested a change to their conditional use permit to allow an additional
dock to be placed on Outlot B which was denied at the time because it is a beachlot and in order
to have a second dock, the way the rules are for the first dock you must have 30,000 square feet.
For each additional dock you must have an additional 20,000 square feet, meaning they would
need 50,000 square feet at least to put up a second dock. Outlot B is only 40,000 square feet in
size. That came up at the public hearings so I just wanted to bring to that the council’s attention.
So this is just an aerial photo. The blue lines that are shown, the shaded blue lines would be if
we took away the dock setback, what would be left for Mr. Schneider to put a dock in. It would
be that little triangle dominated by sedges cattails, bulrushes. It wouldn’t be a functional dock.
It would not gain any access. So for that reason I think it’s necessary for the dock to be granted
the variance. Regarding the wetland alteration permit, the way the wetland conservation act is
written is, is that no excavation or filling may occur such that would alter the hydrology or
community that exists there. The placement of a dock in and of itself does not preclude that the
wetland habitat still exists. It would require some cutting down of vegetation to maintain access
but as long as the vegetation is not uprooted or otherwise killed, it would be there to return upon
the removal of the dock. Further, and this is the dock right now looking at it so it kind of tells
you that the vegetation will still exist without it. Now granted to maintain a dock they would
need to cut the vegetation in that area and maintain access. The posts themselves under the
wetland conservation act, the pilings for the dock would be considered wetland fill but under the
wetland conservation act a fringe wetland, such as this on the edge of the lake, within a
shoreland overlay district within the setback area can have what’s called a 20 foot diminimus
exemption. That would mean a large number of pylons, and I see no way that that many pylons
could put in that they would exceed the 20 foot. So I do want to bear in mind though that this is
a preserve manage class wetland here and DNR, our rating system with the exemption of the
outstanding, which is Seminary Fen. This is our highest rated. The reason it would fall into this
category is one, the fisheries habitat, the spawning habitat that’s provided here. Two, the
amphibian habitat. Three, it’s a relative diverse community. Not to the point where it has any
threatened species or anything of that nature but it is a nicer community. Not the monoculture
that we often see, and four and perhaps most importantly, the shoreland protection that it affords
from the wave action and boats going past, which is another reason why I would like to see the
dock extended out further rather than having to remove all the vegetation for the placement of
the boat and the boat hoist, being able to allow that vegetation to remain in place to offer that
protection. And then finally, the uptake of nutrients that occurs because of those. So in closing I
guess I am, would recommend that the council approve the request for variance and the wetland
alteration permit concluding no net loss, no net loss of function and value with the conditions as
shown on page 8. However I would like to draw one thing. Item 4 on page 8 of the conditions,
that the dock be shorten by 13 feet. I have subsequently gone back out to the property and re-
examined it. Mr. Thielen being agreeable to the alignment that is in place, and not feeling that it
impedes with his access, I feel that my recommendation to shorten it by 13 feet would actually
18
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
result in it not getting far enough beyond that wetland area to actually get the minimization of the
removal of vegetation that I was looking for when I first recommended this so upon further
consideration you may want to look at condition 4 and strike that.
Mayor Furlong: Striking 4, removing 4.
Terry Jeffery: I have nothing further at this time but I’d be happy to answer any questions you
have.
Mayor Furlong: Questions.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well, since we’re on…with the conditions.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Since we’re talking about conditions, I appreciate your report and all
the detail and the history. That really helped me a lot. Learning the knowledge of what we’re
reading about and talking about. I’m just, can you explain to me why it says number 6, no more
than 1 watercraft may be docked on the subject property. Instead of 2.
Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom. Under the original subdivision, 2
boats were allowed on that. Because of, because of the extent of wetland in that area, to put in 2
docks, or to put in 2 boat hoists or 2 dockages would require removal of additional wetland
vegetation. My goal is to remove as little as possible for the reasons I’ve cited. One, this is a
preserve manage class. Two, the protection of shoreland. Three, PCA just listed this lake and
yet another one for nutrient impairments so the more vegetation we remove, the less benefit
we’re getting from that wetland. That was my primary reason. City code does allow for up to 3
boats and 1 dock for a single family residential area. That was my logic behind number 6.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this point?
Councilman McDonald: I’ve got a couple questions. Are there existing docks down there now?
Is that, are we looking at adding additional docks? I’m a little confused.
Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald. There are currently in existence 2 docks
here. Mr. Schneider put his dock in 2 years back now I believe, and then it was determined it
was not in compliance. Mr. Thielen’s dock has been there since at least 1979. That as far as I
could go back on the aerial photos I had to see it, and it has been in that alignment for that entire
time. Outlot B does have a dock. If you see where the call out is for Outlot B, it is a couple
hundred feet further south of that, so it’s about 400 feet from Outlot A to where the dock is on
Outlot B. So there’s 3, and then Outlot C has a dock as well. So there are 4 docks in that
immediate area at this time. With one of them being Mr. Schneiders that we’re requesting a
variance for right now.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, I was just trying to put this in context because I remember when
all this came before the Planning Commission last year and the reason why it all got turned
19
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
down. Plus there was a request for another dock also in that area and I guess I’m just trying to
understand why this is going to be allowed because there are also dock restrictions on Lotus
Lake as to the number of docks that can be there. And this is just a repair of an existing dock or,
that’s what I’m trying to understand is why all of a sudden this is being allowed because last year
no docks were allowed.
Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, Councilor McDonald. I believe under the subdivision, under the
Reichert’s Addition it was reasonable for Mr. Schneider to assume, based on the language that
was in the development contract, the 1 dock with 2 slips. That he had rights to put a dock down
there. No dock was put there prior to that going into, the dock ordinance going into place. Mr.
Schneider put out his dock. At that time city staff reviewed it and said this was a non-compliant
dock. Mr. Schneider has subsequently come back requesting a variance for the dock setback so
he could place a dock on there. The areas on Lotus Lake, and I don’t believe I have enough of
an aerial photo to show that, my apologies, is the northwest side of the northern most portion of
the lake is where no docks are allowed. And then Outlot B, which is I believe what you recall
from last year requesting a second dock, they are a beachlot as opposed to a single family
residential. They have the different rules and that being that they needed at least 50,000 square
feet to put a second dock on. Outlot B was granted the one dock with 3 at the time of Reichert’s
Addition as Outlot A was afforded the one with 2 at the same time of the subdivision.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, so the big difference is within his subdivision development he
has the rights to a dock?
Terry Jeffery: That is correct.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. No more questions.
Mayor Furlong: I guess just to clarify. The first question before us, any time we’re dealing with
a variance we deal with whether there’s a hardship or not. And if I understood, really is the
shape of that parcel, the triangle shape with the point really at the lakeshore that creates the
potential. Plus potential hardship to find a dock within that, if you can move back to that. You
know which slide I’m talking about?
Terry Jeffery: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: It shows where the allowable area would be.
Terry Jeffery: That one right there.
Mayor Furlong: And what you’re saying is within the allowable area it doesn’t give a dock that
is functional for any boat, is that correct?
Terry Jeffery: That is correct. At that point there, the water is less than 2 feet at the highest.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the Thielen dock which, I mean I look at this ordinance. A 10 foot
setback from the extension of the property is a good neighbor ordinance is how I kind of look at
20
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
it. It helps manage it but that is coming across that, and that’s also in that 10 foot setback and
would, this is a question. Would that require a variance had it not been in place at the time the
ordinance was passed and therefore it’s considered non-conforming at this point?
Terry Jeffery: That is correct. This is a legally non-conforming use.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Terry Jeffery: Is that same alignment.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that’s a further potential hardship on this parcel with regard to
location.
Terry Jeffery: That is correct.
Mayor Furlong: Of the dock so, okay. So then once we, if the question before us is there a
hardship or is a variance worth granting, then it’s a question of what the condition should be
against that. With regard to some of the conditions, I guess there was, I think there was some
language added as it was coming through the process with regard to use of chemicals. I thought
in the staff report it made some mention that, does the DNR issue permits for cutting or clearing
and cutting. I want to use the right words here. They provide permits with regard to aquatic
plant management of shoreland for dock purposes, whether it’s cutting or whether it’s chemicals.
Is that correct?
Terry Jeffery: That is correct to some degree. This area right here would fall within 3 different
jurisdictions. DNR, U.S. Army Corps and the City of Chanhassen is the LGU for…, so yes.
Inasmuch as he would need to obtain a DNR permit, that is correct.
Mayor Furlong: With regard to any activities with regard to the aquatic plants.
Terry Jeffery: That is correct.
Mayor Furlong: And that would true for anybody along the shoreland on this lake? On Lotus
Lake?
Terry Jeffery: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Do we have as ordinance, do we have restrictions on uses of
chemicals or cutting as an ordinance or do we manage that or issue permits for, at this time?
Terry Jeffery: We do not specifically state chemicals or cutting, harvesting of plant. What we
do say is that the placement of the dock or other water accessory structures cannot be detrimental
to significant fish, wildlife habitat or protected vegetation. But no, we have no language that
specifies chemical or mechanical removal of plants. If I may Mayor Furlong, I think I know
where you’re going to. Condition 1. Would your preference be to say, without approval from the
appropriate agencies?
21
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Well I’m not sure where my preference is right now, I’ll be honest with that. I
guess what I think we all try to look at here is, whenever we’re dealing with variances, and
we’ve dealt with, as members of the council know and certainly staff, we’ve dealt with other
types of wetland alteration permits and dock permits in the past on Lotus Lake and in this area,
and I think the most recent one was the request from Outlot B to expand their dockage rights in
that case. But we’ve also dealt, I remember there was further down the shoreline here there was
another dock that went in place where again they were coming out through the wetlands, through
the cattails and extended the dock out so that they had a navigable portion, and they required a
variance and I believe that was granted so I’m trying to understand what the rules are for
everybody else and whether, how those compare to what some of these conditions are here as a
part of the line in my question. Other questions at this point?
Councilman Litsey: Well so to that point then, on number 1, has that restriction been placed on
other property owners as far as variances or don’t know?
Terry Jeffery: Probably not specifically in variance language. Well no, yes. In fact it has. It
was, because I actually swiped this from a staff report that Lori Haak had done in the past but I
apologize because I cannot recall that.
Councilman Litsey: Well that’s okay but.
Terry Jeffery: However, I think really what I want to speak to is the fact that to place that dock,
it’s going to be necessary to cut some vegetation for the placement of the dock. It does not, I
don’t want it to infer to the applicant that he therefore has a right to remove all the vegetation
and create a sand blanket beach or something of that nature there. I believe he has a right to put
a dock in to access the lake and to have reasonable access to that lake. Now how far we take
that.
Councilman Litsey: And that condition you’ve talked with the applicant about and these are
acceptable, agreed upon this? You’re okay with that?
Councilwoman Ernst: If I could just make a comment. In the staff report it talks about the
applicant has been very willing to work with city staff on their recommendations and so I mean I
would support the proposal. Based on what I’ve seen in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Is there, okay, thank you. I know the applicant is here. Is there anything you’d
like to address the council on?
Gary Schneider: I’m Gary Schneider, the owner of 640 Pleasant View Road and the outlot in
question. Just one comment I would make is that the position of Mr. Thielen’s dock, which is
shown with the L here, even though it’s non-conforming and it’s grandfathered in, in all fairness
I have to say the reason for it’s positioning is because it is, it is the channel there that’s able to be
navigated. And if you will fairly open. So even though Mr. Thielen, and Pete Thielen’s been a
neighbor and friend of mine for the 13 years I’ve lived there. Even though he wasn’t willing to
you know flip his L or move his dock, which I can understand for many reasons, when I wanted
22
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
to place the, the placement of this dock we did together and by the way the dock’s never been
used because the purpose was to get frankly to get Pete to agree that this is something both of us
could live with. And the way my dock is placed at the moment, which Terry’s been nice enough
to come out and see at least twice, is right now I’m kind of, one edge of my dock is on the
wetland side if you will, or you know has bull rushes around it, and one edge of it is kind of
open. My point is, is that currently I feel comfortable if Terry wants to limit that dock to one
boat because candidly if you put one modest fishing boat or something in there, you could
probably cut no more than oh, 40 or 50 square feet of vegetation to get it to fit in properly. And
really beyond that you would, I would say there’d be, would it be fair to say Terry there’d be a
very modest need to do any cutting of any sort, and I have no plans on doing any chemical
treatment of anything other than I think, I can’t speak for my neighbor Pete but I think every
other year or so he does some treating of lily pads with chemicals that are approved and you
know advertised and distributed in the area. So minimal impact is what I’m interested in too.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Alright, well let’s
bring it back to council then for discussion and comments. Councilwoman Ernst you made some
comments already. I don’t know if you want to amend those at all or if somebody else can go.
Councilwoman Ernst: I’m fine.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry. Okay. Other thoughts and comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sure. You know I think when these situations come before me, at
least I come with for intent and if it was a self created hardship and I think that the property
owners were just trying to exercise their right to reasonable use of their lakeshore property. I
think the problem is that the development contract and the way the lot was created is clashing
with the ordinance that was created later on, and I think that’s the problem and I think the
ordinance you know does have good intentions but sometimes there has to be those exceptions to
those rules and I think this is probably one of those times where we need to be flexible and allow
the applicant to have proper use of his property. And I don’t think this was a self created
hardship obviously and that for $710, which I guess was the cost of being in front of, or being
here tonight for this meeting, I’d hope that we could allow you some relief and allow you enjoy
your property the way you were meant to enjoy it.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: Well I guess you know the objection that I had to that was, goes back
to what’s fair for everybody else on the lake but as long as you know I’ve always voted on these
things based upon rights and, or negotiated deals and everything and I’ve been real reluctant to
grant any kind of variances, especially upon Lotus Lake. But in this particular case I mean it
does appear that the right existed so again, you know he would be entitled to the dock and I
guess as you stated on your, it looks like condition 4, maybe eliminating the shortening of that by
13 feet and allow the additional 13 feet again to have full use of the dock. It sounds as though
your neighbors are in compliance with all this. You’ve worked together to put something up so I
don’t think we have a problem there and again it gets back to a good neighbor policy and
everything so I would support it with the elimination of the requirement for the 13 feet.
23
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Litsey.
Councilman Litsey: I agree with everything that’s been said. Good job working together on
making this work and I’m ready to move ahead.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Yeah, I think you know one of the things that was, we need to look
at with these and there are differences in the applications. I think we’ve seen it here in parcels
that are right next to each other. In one case there was a request for an expansion of dockage
rights. In this case it’s a request for preservation of existing rights and clearly there’s a hardship
here based upon the design of the parcel. I think going back to the original intent of the
subdivision, it was clear that this parcel would be allowed to have a dock with two watercrafts,
two boats there. I think the, it was also given the restriction of a dock placement on Outlot B,
which we haven’t talked about, in this same area. Also tells me that there was fore thought in
terms of providing these rights to this parcel and also to preventing a squeezing out if you will of
those rights by virtue of the location of the dock on the Outlot B. I guess when I look at these,
you know in one of our roles as a council is to make sure that we don’t, when there’s a hardship
in place, that we don’t add further burdens on top of somebody coming here for an application
because of a hardship than what other residents enjoy who don’t have a hardship and therefore
can live within it. And so as we look at some of these conditions, we want to be mindful of the
environmental factors but we also have to be mindful of the property rights and that’s where you
know in some of these I think we might, I’m concerned that we might be going further and
putting further restrictions here on this application because of the hardship that exists than what
other residents might be able to use for their enjoyment of their property. So that is my concern
here and if, you know even though it’s stated intention is not to use chemicals, if we don’t, you
know if other residents don’t have that restriction, should we be placing it here in a permanent
manner? I would certainly support removing 4 since staff is recommending that, and I think you
know that comment about the chemicals in item 1, you know if the DNR can manage that for the
rest of the lake and that should be a bigger discussion. Not just one that gets applied here as a
condition when neighboring property owners don’t have a similar type of restriction on their
rights as well. So that is my concern. I’m absolutely in favor of granting the variance because it
is a preservation of a right that exists, and there is a hardship here. I just, my challenge to the
council is to make sure that we’re not imposing conditions that are overly, or more burdensome
here because a hardship exists than what might be in place for just all of our residents so. So
those are my thoughts. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So Mayor, are you suggesting that perhaps we strike the sentence,
neither shall any chemicals be applied for the control of aquatic vegetation on condition number
1?
Mayor Furlong: That would be my recommendation. I think that was added in and subsequent
now, it sounds like it’s not going to be done anyway but I think there are, the DNR manages that
as well, and it sounds like something’s being done with the neighboring property anyway. I
assume he’s following all the requirements.
24
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Terry Jeffery: Mayor, if I may. In spite of all the DNR’s best intentions, unfortunately they
don’t have the staff to monitor all of these lakes. I can certainly follow up and find out if the
neighboring properties are in compliance but it is, it’s not common practice to remove vegetation
first. The DNR come by later and tell me I couldn’t do that. I understand your reason for not
wanting, and you’re right. It shouldn’t infer a condition that somebody else wouldn’t have. It
would be an alteration of a wetland and under our wetland alteration permit I guess it would be
addressed anyway so in that case maybe that language would be stricken out. That already exists
in our ordinance.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So we already have ordinances in place to address that then?
Terry Jeffery: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Then that adds some comfort that we’re not again, we’re not
providing any benefit that doesn’t already exist, so. Those are my thoughts. I’m absolutely in
support of it again. If anything I want to make sure that we’re not overly burdensome when
someone does indeed have a hardship, which I think we all agree exists here on that so. Any
other thoughts or comments?
Councilman Litsey: I’m okay with those changes.
Mayor Furlong: If there’s a motion.
Councilman McDonald: I’ll make a motion Mr. Mayor. I would make a motion that the City
Council approves a variance from the 10 foot dock setback zone for the placement of a dock on a
lot zoned single family residential, RSF, which will extend through the 10 foot dock setback
zone and 51 feet past the lot line extended as shown in plans prepared by Kurt M. Kisch dated
June 30, 2008. And the City Council approves a Wetland Alteration Permit to issue a Decision
of No Net Loss of Wetland Function and Values based upon the attached Findings of Fact and
subject to the following conditions. And then I would amend the conditions, number 1 to strike
the lettering in bold. Neither shall any chemicals be applied for the control of aquatic vegetation.
So strike that sentence. And also strike condition number 4. The dock shall be shortened by 13
feet from what is shown on the survey to allow for a minimum separation between docks of 20
feet.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves a variance from the 10 foot dock setback zone for the placement of a dock on a lot
zoned single family residential, RSF, which will extend through the 10 foot dock setback
zone and 51 feet past the lot line extended as shown in plans prepared by Kurt M. Kisch
25
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
dated June 30, 2008. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of
5 to 0.
Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves a Wetland Alteration Permit to issue a Decision of No Net Loss of Wetland
Function and Values based upon the attached Findings of Fact and subject to the following
conditions:
1. No aquatic vegetation is to be removed by uprooting of the vegetation. The applicant
may cut only that vegetation which is necessary for the placement of the dock, the
mooring of the boat, and the navigation of the boat to open water. The vegetation shall
be cut at a height equal to the bottom of the dock or at a depth of the propeller.
2. The dock shall be installed eight (8) inches above the Ordinary High Water Elevation.
3. The dock shall be no wider than the current three and one-half (3.5) feet as shown on the
survey submitted by the applicant.
4. The boat shall be docked as close to the lakeside end of the dock as possible so as to
minimize the disturbance of aquatic vegetation for the docking of the boat.
5. No more than one watercraft may be docked on the subject property.
6. No fill or excavation may occur within the jurisdictional wetland boundaries or below the
ordinary high water elevation of Lotus Lake except for the fill associated with the
minimum number of posts necessary to maintain a safe dock.
7. The applicant shall abide by all applicable provisions of Chapter 6 and Chapter 20 of
Chanhassen City Code.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you for everyone’s effort and as was mentioned earlier, for people
working together to find a common solution so we appreciate that. Thank you very much.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS.
Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor, if I could. The only thing I would like to bring to
everyone’s attention is that the city does sponsor a farmers market on the weekends and one of
the things I would like to just bring up is that over the past couple of years I have watched it
grow and get better, and I think right now what we have is a very good selection at this point on
the farmers market and I would encourage everyone to use it. I think the gentlemen who are
running that are doing an excellent job. It’s all Chanhassen grown. It’s self policed to make sure
that everybody that comes in adds something of value from the community so I would just like to
put out there that I think that that has worked out quite well for the city.
26