CC Minutes 6-12-06
City Council Meeting - June 12,2006
NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSOCIATION BEACHLOT. OUTLOT B. REICHERT'S
ADDITION: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
THE ADDITION OF A SECOND DOCK.
Public Present:
Name
Address
J ahn & Amy Dyvik
Steve Wanek
610 Pleasant View Road
6613 Horseshoe Curve
Kate Aanenson: The Near Mountain Lake beachlot association is located on Pleasant View. The
area shown in orange. The homes that are associated with that beachlot are the gray shaded area.
The 8 homes. The Planning Commission...they voted 4-0 to deny the conditional use at their
last meeting, which was then the 16th. Their reason for the denial was setting the precedent for
more variances. And while that came from testimony from other associations that were notified
at the meeting. Increased boat traffic. Decreased safety on Lotus Lake due to increased boat
traffic. They felt the hardship was not demonstrated, and they believe that owners in the
beachlot association had reasonable use of this property. So with that, existing condition out
there today is, this is the size of the beachlot. These are the homes that are associated. Currently
there is a dock right here to provide for 3 slips. So on page 2 of the staff report, the Near
Mountain Association has over 500 feet of shoreline and approximately 27,000 square feet above
the OHW. A survey...difference of opinion on the square foot area but again anybody aggrieved
with that interpretation can go through this process too, but we believe that regardless of that, it's
still under the 50,000 square feet. Again the City code requires the 200 feet of shoreline per
dock. In addition to the shoreline requirement, they must have a 30,000 square feet plus for
another dock, which they are requesting, and additional 20,000 square feet to get you to the 50.
Therefore it does not meet that. So what they're asking for again is a variance and conditional
use. The applicable regulations for the beachlot requires the standards on the beachlot which I'll
just reiterate for the 20,000, or excuse me, 200 feet of... that 30,000 plus the 20,000 square foot
of area. .. . there is 8 homes for the Reichert's Addition that was platted in 1978, and the staff
report for 1978, the CUP it was determined that the association had 46,000. What seems to be in
question is if that area, obviously there's different times that the OHW and again a difference of
opinion on how that OHW was determined. But again that aside, they're still under the 50,000
square foot area. The applicant applied for the CUP, the CUP amendment. It was given a
conditional use in ' 87, in August and that's attached as one of the conditions for the beachlot. So
within that, I'm on page 3 of the staff report. The conditions were that as part of the zoning
ordinance that no alteration of the existing site be permitted, which if you look at the pictures on
the beachlot, that were shown, included in your packet, there is area undisturbed. That they get
one dock and one canoe rack. Again the one dock does permit the 3 boats. The original
application when they wanted an additional dock included, 4 boats per dock. They've reduced
that now in theirrequestjust to the 3, so there'd be a total of6. Again there's some other
conditions there regarding the beachlot itself. Again the analysis would then be that the original
CUP did allow for the 3. That's consistent based on area and frontage consistent with the zoning
ordinance, and in reviewing that, the variance request, the staff felt that that didn't meet, or had
recommended no, as did the Planning Commission concur. There are some other beachlots that
52
City Council Meeting - June 12,2006
were cited by the applicant and they're... I can go through all those, just for brevity, I'll just say
this. As the person who processed all those beachlots as one of my first assignments here,
they're all over the map as far as how they were used. How they applied for...A lot of these
beachlots were non-conforming. Some were put in place, as they came in for development. . .
which you're kind of comparing apples to oranges and some of them were fire lanes that were
given non-conforming rights. Some of them actually had conditional use permits, and as I
indicated, some of them were actually given through the development contracts, certain rights so
it's kind of hard to compare them all equally across. If you have specific questions, I'd be happy
to answer those. We've addressed the... So what you're looking at tonight is actually 3 requests,
and I'm on page 5 of the staff report. The first one is the conditional, the first request is for the
general issuance standards for the conditional use permit itself. We provided the findings of fact
to why we believe it doesn't meet the conditions for the beachlot itself. The second request is for
the beachlot standards. Again which we believe they don't meet and are recommending against
that. And then the third request would be for the second dock. Again that would be for the
variance for the conditional use. Again the staff is recommending against the variance for the
second dock. So with that, the other request has been eliminated and that was for the 4 boats.
They struck that out from the staff report. So with that.. . for the two docks and this is the area
that's, the rest of this area is kind of left undisturbed so this would be where they would like to
put the two docks. Again the staff's opinion, as stated kind of in the cover of the memo that. . . to
the Planning Commission summarized is because we have so many different types of beachlots
that are out there, they would all be asking for something. Some have boat launches that are
non-conforming that they were granted. ... always trying to eliminate too so they're just kind of
all over the map as far as that goes. So with that, we are, as did the Planning Commission
recommending denial of the request with the findings of fact and the motion as stated on page 14
of your staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff?
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, how many, approximately how many houses are, households are
served by that one dock?
Kate Aanenson: Eight.
Councilman Lundquist: Eight. And then compare it to, I don't know, pick one of the other ones
like the comparable ones that were in the staff, or not comparable ones. The other ones in the
staff report. The Colonial Grove, Lotus Lake, Kurvers Point.
Kate Aanenson: So you're asking how many homes are in those?
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. Like if you picked Colonial Grove, Lotus Lake Estates or
Kurvers Point.
Kate Aanenson: ...to some on Minnewashta that have 80 and they only have one dock so, again
it's kind of all over the map as far as what's permitted. And some have no.
53
City Council Meeting - June 12,2006
Councilman Lundquist: But users specifically on Lotus Lake, if you take Kurvers Point and
Lotus Lake Estates.
Kate Aanenson: They would have more than 8.
Councilman Lundquist: Like a lot more or?
Kate Aanenson: Quite a bit more. Yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. More than 20?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I would think so.
Councilman Lundquist: Or somewhere in that neighborhood?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah. Even the subdivision...is larger too.
Councilman Lundquist: And then do we have on lengths of docks, do we have ordinances or
restrictions on how far away from the shore you can be?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and that's, you know there's criteria for both and that's in a separate
chapter of the city code but what it says is you can't impede the navigable water and when you
get in certain areas of the lake, because of the shape of the frontage and vegetation, that becomes
a problem where sometimes docks go into each other and we've had situations regarding that
before. We've had to mediate that. The ordinance, the boats in waterway ordinance does
regulate that you're supposed to come out parallel from your's. It also talks about you can get to
a depth of 4 feet, however long that takes. There's certain areas of the city that people have
docks out 120 feet to get to a depth of 4 feet. So again it's really variable depending on the
location. You can see up at the end of this bay, when you come up in this bay, that we've got
some pretty long docks. There's some shallow water which was a concern before when we
looked at some requests. ..just couldn't get to a depth that would work. So that's kind of another
complicating issue too. Trying to find how you can make those work. So we did propose it here.
It's not intruding. If you're moving down this way is where it becomes more difficult.
Councilman Lundquist: I was just thinking a longer dock out there gives them a spot to
temporarily hook up for the day or you know potentially add maybe a...
Kate Aanenson: And we've used that application before where we've given conditional uses on
beachlots that do meet the criteria. What we've done, in working with the DNR, instead of the
impact of 3 docks, we've worked with the DNR. If they meet all the requirements of the lot area,
they can have one dock with 6 boats on it. We've done that before too. If it meets the criteria.
First it has to do that. The area and upshoreland.
Councilman Lundquist: Sure.
54
City Council Meeting - June 12,2006
Roger Knutson: Mayor, I don't know, is the council familiar with the registration process we
went through on recreational beachlots a number of years ago?
Mayor Furlong: Perhaps you could give us a summary.
Roger Knutson: Yes I can. It was quite a process. The City was having constant issues on
virtually, I won't say all but many, many recreational beachlots in the community. As to what
they could have and what they couldn't have. What their grandfather rights were and what they
weren't. How long they had docks there. How long would they have just met everything else
there. So when the council decided, I'll call it a current standard for what was needed for
recreational beachlots, it went through a registration process where it gave a window of time for
every recreational beachlot was inventoried. Every one came in and they registered their non-
conforming beachlots. So it was a complete record of everything that was there and we basically
drew a line in the sand and said alright, you meet the ordinance. You were here before this
ordinance and we will acknowledge what you have and you can keep it. But henceforth these are
the rules. Because we had constant issues about over crowding of lakes and did someone put out
a new dock. How long has that dock bee there? What's fair? What's right? And so this
process, I believe must have taken well over a year or two. And we went through it and
documented it as well as we could and I think for the most part we had concurrence with all the
recreational beachlot owners as to what they had. Not everyone of them but there's general
agreement that this is it. From now on anyone that comes in has to meet the new requirements.
Mayor Furlong: When did that process take place?
Kate Aanenson: I believe '91-92. But let me just, before that beach lot ordinance, I believe it
was passed in, a few years before that, and there was given, there was a conditional use put in
place but what happened is all the ones that were non-conforming were never documented for
their level, and that's what caused a lot of angst. So to be clear, there was some that did have
conditional uses. Or shortly after we passed the beachlot ordinance that came in to that process
so there was still some out there that, and some that were given development contract rights, and
those are a little tougher too.
Roger Knutson: Yeah, a lot of them come from various different situations and from points of
time. We looked at aerial photographs of various years and we documented it as well as we
could and it was, for the people doing it, it was a very difficult, painful process because there
was a lot of emotion attached whenever you're talking about docks and boats and lakes. We go
through it and that's when the line was drawn.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point?
Kate Aanenson: Can I just, I did receive one other e-mail that I passed out to you.
Mayor Furlong: Which was from Ron Harvieux?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
55
City Council Meeting - June 12,2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Any other questions for staff? If not, is there a
representative from the applicant here this evening that would like to address the council? Good
evenmg.
Jahn Dyvik: Good evening. Mr. Mayor and Council members, my name is Jahn Dyvik. I'm at
610 Pleasant View Road. I'm a member of the Near Mountain Lake Association, and I just gave
you the complete packet so I'm just going to hit a few of the slides that I want to highlight. This
is our Outlot B that we call, well refer to Outlot B, and it's 600 feet of lakeshore. As you can see
there's about, well maybe you can't see so clearly there but the southern 30 feet of it or so is
mowed out to the lakeshore. The rest of the 550 feet or so of the lakeshore there is maintained as
a natural buffer zone. If you go to slide number 3. Staff showed this already. Ijust want to
point out, there's an inset on the lower right showing the pre-1978 plat where Outlot B was
actually an extension of Lots 6, 7 and 8, and then Reichert decided to merge those into Outlot B
as a recreational beachlot and Ijust point that out now because I'm going to say something about
that in a moment. And by the way on those slides the north is to the left. If you go to, let's try
slide number 6. This again was just shown by staff but it showed the request. We have a current
existing dock with 3 boat slips on it. At the Planning Commission meeting, as was stated, we
were asking for 2 docks with 4 boat slips on each. That really required 2 variances so we backed
off on that and amended that. We're just simply asking for the 1 extra, 1 second dock with 3
boat slips on it. And to answer the question that was asked before, the requirements on length of
dock is 50 feet or as long as you need to go to get to 4 feet of depth, whichever is shorter, and
where we are here, those docks, our current dock is 50 feet. That is about 4 to 5 feet deep at the
end of the dock, and so the second dock would be no longer than that. As was stated, we need
for a second dock, we need a total of 400 feet of shoreline, and 50,000 square feet of area. We
certainly meet the requirement for shoreline length. We have 600 feet, as you can see there on
the slide number 8. And the question is how much area do we have? And here, this is another
interpretation. If we have 50,000 square feet, there would be no need for a variance. We would
just be able to operate under a conditional use permit and have 2 docks. So what is our, we have
3 reference points. In the lower left part of that slide it shows the Carver County GIS system.
That's their satellite view that they're showing of our outlot. They have us listed as 57,000
square feet, so when this process started we thought we had 50,000. You know that met the
minimum requirement for area. We also had that 1978 survey that was mentioned, and that
shows us as having 46,000 square feet. We recently had a survey done in March of 2005 and
when that survey came back, and you can see that in the lower right side, the ordinary high water
line kind of meanders through the lot there, and based on that reference, it shows 27,000 square
feet. But they also did measurements at the edge of the ice at the time, which gave us an area of
38,350 square feet. And then we extrapolated that, because using the edge of the ice at that time
was high. Higher than the average, and if we look at what the average level would be, it would
give us 47,000 square feet. And you see those numbers change pretty drastically and the reason
is, we have a very flat, low lying lot. If you go to the next slide, you'll see that the ordinary high
water line, level is 896.3 feet, and that's where we got the 27,000 square feet measured in our
survey. The edge of the ice measurement that they did at that same time was 895.8 elevation and
that was 38,350 square feet so you see there's a difference there of half a foot, of 6 inches made a
difference of 11,350 square feet. So if we extrapolate that further, to the average water level of
895.4, then we would calculate 47,430 square feet, which is closer to that 1978 survey that we
have. And one thing that I wished I known at the Planning Commission meeting was that there
56
City Council Meeting - June 12,2006
is no city documented policy or procedure to use the ordinary high water level for calculating
area. There is one reference in the city code that talks about using it but that's in Section 20-480
which is titled Zoning and Water Supplies/Sanitary Provisions and it's specifically for single,
duplex, triplex and quad residential lots and it's referring to sewers and sanitary provisions, but
nowhere else in the city code does it talk about what reference to use for calculating area. And
actually I spoke with the DNR, to Julie Eckman as well because the city often uses the ordinary
high water mark because the DNR uses that as a reference for certain determining setbacks for
structures and things like that. But in this kind of issue with a seasonal dock, it's going to be
sitting within the DNR area and then it's not restricted by those setbacks obviously because it has
to be out in the water. And the DNR has no jurisdiction over that, and they said that they have
no set policy on how they would calculate their. On the next slide is just showing the ordinary
high water level. There's a chart of the last 10 years of water level of Lotus Lake, and if you
look at the ordinary high water level for 10 years, that's been reached a total of 5 or 6 instances.
But if you, over those 10 years that, the level was that high or higher for less than 3% of the time.
So out of 10 years for 3 months, it was at the ordinary high water level, so we don't think that's a
reasonable reference to use when computing area when the purpose is of a seasonal dock. And
especially because it is just a matter of interpretation and that the city and staff has chosen.
Mayor Furlong: On that issue if I could Mr. Dyvik. What would you recommend would be the
appropriate measure to determine the area?
Jahn Dyvik: We contend that for the purpose of the dock, that the average water level would be
a reasonable value to use, and that average water level, as I showed here gives us, you know sets
our area at 47,000 square feet. Now granted, we're still below the 50,000 that we need, but I
think one of the reasons, well two of the reasons why the Planning Commission denied us I think
is because we were asking for 4 spots per dock. You know so there was two variances, but also
because they believe that we were so far off the requirement, the 50,000 square feet because they
were seeing the 27,000 square foot number based on the ordinary high water level.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just clarify how we interpreted that? The city ordinance is, when we do a
lot, any subdivision, riparian lot, we have to determine the OHW to make sure that it's enough
area above the OHW. That would be the same computation we would use on a beachlot, and
those standards are in the city code of how to determine. While it's not clearly stated in the
beachlot, it's clearly stated in a lot configuration. This is zoned single family residential. It'd be
the same configuration that we would use to determine the OHW. And that's our interpretation
and I think we disagree on that point, but that would be our interpretation.
Jahn Dyvik: Well and again in the city code there's only the one reference to using the ordinary
high water level for area of calculation and that's only regarding residential lots for sanitary
provisions. Nowhere else, there are plenty of other references to area calculations but none of
those are...
Kate Aanenson: It's not referenced in the sanitary. We can clarify that for you. It's how you
configure your lot area so I.
57
City Council Meeting - June 12,2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I was interrupting just to get your recommendation on where you
thought it should be, since you're raising the issue.
Jahn Dyvik: And then I just wanted to show a couple more slides. Another approach that has
been discussed is to return the outlot to it's original arrangement of being extensions of Outlot,
or of Lots 6, 7 and 8, and that would then allow us to in theory put a dock on each of those lots
for a total of 3 docks. We'd prefer not to go that route. We think a better solution is to just limit
it to 2 docks. But that's something that we have discussed. Just to summarize, then we have
more than enough shoreline length, and in fact we think that that should really be the driving
requirement because the shoreline is what determines dock density along your shore. I mean
with 600 feet of shoreline, we have 1, of the 2 docks, we have 1 dock per 300 feet of shoreline,
and that's far lower density than in residential lots on Lotus Lake. Based on our average water
level calculation, we're within 6% of the required area. And then the other point there in the
summary is just that we were practicing DNR recommended landscaping procedures for 30
years. Maintaining our natural state of the lot and a buffer zone. Almost 95% of it is preserved
that way. There was a question of parking that came up. We really don't see that as an issue
because we all live within 500 feet of the outlot and we walk over there. As far as boat traffic,
this is simply just providing overnight mooring for boats that are already using, so we're not
looking to increase the boat traffic. At the Planning Commission meeting we would have been
increasing the number of slips by 5 because we were going 4 and 4. Now we're just keeping it at
3 on our existing dock, and then 3 additional docks so we've reduced the request from 5 to 3
additional docks. And then we have letters from surrounding neighbors on Lotus Lake, on either
side of our outlot that are in support of this. We have in particular John Nicolay, Tom and Judy
Meier, and Pete and Jane Thielen, and those are in the staff report I believe.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, alright. Very good, thank you. Appreciate that. Appreciate the handout.
It's easier to follow. Any questions for the applicant at this point? No? Okay, very good.
Thank you. Any follow up questions for staff or any reaction? You asked a little bit about their
recommendation in terms of the, not that you calculate area. Any other thoughts or comments
from staff or?
Kate Aanenson: No. I'll let the City Attorney but that's how we calculate area above the OHW.
Mayor Furlong: So is that the method we'd use if this was a subdivision for a riparian lot?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct.
Mayor Furlong: We'd use ordinary high water mark?
Kate Aanenson: And that's on our syIlabus...subdivision.
Roger Knutson: Our definition, we have definition of lot area and it means the area of the
horizontal plane bounded by the front side or rear lot lines, but not including any area occupied
by water of lakes or rivers or by street right-of-ways.
58
City Council Meeting - June 12,2006
Kate Aanenson: And also if you go to the shoreland...it gives you for single family. How to
calculate above the OHW, which is what we would to determine, if it met the minimum
requirements in the lot.
Roger Knutson: I think that's the correct way to calculate it but in this case it's legally it doesn't
make any difference. They need a variance. By anyone's calculation.
Mayor Furlong: I guess the question is, if we don't determine some elevation onto which to
calculate the area in a period of a drought, we could be inundated with dock requests for
recreational beachlots. If we went to water level. Average over what period. I guess that's.
That's the natural flow. If you don't pick one, then you've got to.
Kate Aanenson: Right. That's why we use the OHW, right. To be consistent because it does,
when we try to use the ordinary high water mark, which is designated on our lakes. And that's
kind of tested over time. It's not, while water level changes. The OHW should be consistent.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. It's interesting a few weeks ago we were talking about high water levels
on the lake and now we're talking about low water levels. So, other questions for staff or
questions of clarification?
Councilman Lundquist: The one slide Roger or Kate, on separating Outlot B back into it's
extension of 6, 7 and 8. What's the process for that? Possibilities of that.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. They certainly can apply for anything they
choose to apply for. My first initial reaction anyway is they'd have to go through a replatting
process to combine those outlots with the other lots. And they could certainly apply for that, if
they chose to do that, and that would be judged against our ordinances at the time. I haven't
done the analysis as to whether.
Kate Aanenson: I haven't either.
Roger Knutson: How it works but it certainly is a possibility. I won't say yes. Just does it meet
your ordinance requirements making a new plat.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? If not then, let's open up council discussion. On the
request here. Thoughts and comments.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I never like turning down reasonable people. However, you
know lake lots and docks are possibly one of the things that are one of the most heated and
talked about items in front of us. I bet you if we talk about the number of times that we've talked
about those things, it's a pretty high percentage. You know so I think what that says is that we
have to be consistent and part of what I look at this, and is what Roger keeps telling us is there a
hardship, and I can't see a hardship in this case. By not having a dock. It's kind of the luck of
the draw that the homes that they bought and built and/or moved into don't have but one dock, so
it's a self created hardship. So I can't support it.
59
City Council Meeting - June 12,2006
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any thoughts?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think it's interest that when docks and lake issues come up, we have
more people here than Truth in Taxation hearings. I think Councilman Peterson's right. It's a
passionate issue and people do love their lakes and enjoy their summers on the lakes, but I have
to agree that... always have to remain consistent with this issue because there are several people
that come in I think during the year wanting more dockage or wanting, usually more dockage I
guess and I think I would just.. . because we do to stay consistent with our ordinances.. .
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Little bit tom mostly because you know living on a lake certainly you
want to have as much access and as much use of that as you can. So when I first read through
this, you know a couple of things went through my mind like you know adding extra feet onto
the dock or an extra or something to find that compromise. The fact that we have other
associations on Lotus Lake that have considerably more houses or members to dock spaces
available is one important thing for me. Again the only thing we're talking about here is the
overnight mooring of boats.
Kate Aanenson: That's right.
Councilman Lundquist: Because during the day they can all 8 be on the dock out there so I mean
given that it's not always the most convenient thing to do to put your boat in and out every day,
there is ability to use the dock there. Just not moored overnight, so and the fact that I think
there's potential, possibility, if they were really serious about that, split some things up as well
and that, but I think the overwhelming thing is the fact that we have other associations out there
that have more homes with less slips per house ratios is probably what's going to sway me to
leave it at that, and stay with what was guided in for the you know, as Roger stated, the things
that we've gone back to in the past and where do we go and I would have been in favor of
probably of extending that dock and giving one more space in there for a total of 4 but it sounds
like that's a long drawn out process as well and would go against that ordinance too, so at this
time I'd be in favor of.. .request and keeping the current situation there with the 3 slips as is.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. My thoughts I think are similar. I think Councilman Lundquist just
stated my thoughts with regard to the condition of whether or not they have reasonable use.
What's a reasonable expectation for a beachlot, and to me I think that reasonable expectation is
that it would have a dock. That there would be a few of the properties that are associated or
have, or their association owns that beachlot, would be able to moor boats overnight. But there
would be no expectation that all of the homes within that association necessarily do that, unless
of course there were simply 3 homes and they had 1 dock, or if they met the criteria for however
many docks there were and it worked out with the number of homes. This is a challenging one
in part because I think it's clear that these homeowners have been good stewards of our
lakeshore, which is something that as a city we want all our residents to do. The request on it's
surface, can we add, increase the, our ability to enjoy the lake that we see out of our front
window and front door every day? That's a very reasonable request. I think the issue is, do they
meet the standards necessary and first is do they meet the ordinance requirements? If they did,
60
City Council Meeting - June 12, 2006
we probably wouldn't be talking about it tonight under any measure, even under the
recommended measure, a variance is still required and then based upon the need for a variance,
is there a hardship and are they enjoying reasonable use? And I think Councilman Lundquist
spoke to the reasonable use and Councilman Peterson spoke to the hardship, and I have to concur
with them. I don't see it here. Are there other alternatives? If they're within our ordinances,
then that would be available to any property owner as well. But I think here, I don't see a
justification for granting the variance. Consistent I think the Planning Commission did a good
job of questioning and articulating the reasons for it's, you'd like to be able to allow people to do
the things they want to do and to enjoy the lake. Lakes are an asset and they're for recreation use
but I think there are reasonable limitations that we as a city place on that access, and that's what
this is. It's an access limitation and so for that reason, I would also support denying it at this
time for those reasons I should say. I fail to see the hardship and I think they have a reasonable
use of the property at this time. Any other thoughts or comments on this? If there are none,
there is a motion, recommended motion in the staff report on which we can, which speaks to the
findings of fact, as well as other conditions. It is on page 14 of the staff report. 447 of the
electronic report. Is there a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve, to support staff position denying the request for
variance subject to the findings of fact as submitted by staff.
Mayor Furlong: Within the staff report and the following motion in the staff report? 1 through
4?
Councilman Peterson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council denies
the request for a Conditional Use Permit amendment and variances for the lot area
requirement necessary for the second dock, based on the findings of fact in the staff report
and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
3. A revised conditional use permit with intensified use may reduce public safety due to
parking on the sub-standard streets and poor sight lines.
4. If this variance is approved, other recreational beachlots in Chanhassen will likely seek
variances from lot area restrictions.
61
City Council Meeting - June 12,2006
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
COUNCIL PRESENT A TIONS: None.
ADMINISTRA TIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: I have one item. I'd like to publicly thank Justin Miller for four outstanding
years of service with the City of Chanhassen. This is kind of a bittersweet week for us. This is
Justin's last week with the city. He's going to be moving on to be the administrator at Falcon
Heights. That's over by the Fairgrounds for those people that have never been to Falcon
Heights.
Councilman Peterson: .. . fairgrounds.
Todd Gerhardt: I think it is the fairgrounds.
Councilman Lundquist: Do they have homestead, market value homestead credit?
Todd Gerhardt: They'll probably get some. Probably a little fiscal disparities and everything so.
He's going to a city with lots of money. Roger will continue to see him every other Monday
though because Roger represents Falcon Heights so, I told Roger to do everything he could do to
not help Justin but. No, Justin's done a great job for this city. Accomplished a lot of things you
know both on the economic development side, personnel and lots of newsletter items. The
Mayor's letter is just great. It's a team effort, right? So he's going to be missed. I remember
four years ago interviewing oh probably 10 or 12 people and we could have gone in a variety of
different directions but Justin just stood out among those people and I think we were really lucky
to get him so, thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: I bet it was that power tie that he had on that day.
Todd Gerhardt: It was. That and I made him sit in a restaurant for an hour and not use the
bathroom after drinking two large sodas too. But we wish him the best and we told him we
know what Falcon Height's phone number is so when we have certain questions, we'll give him
a call. Thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: Being the cynical one, I have to add the only, among the miles of
accomplishments that Justin's made, the only thing he hasn't licked is this cable TV system.
Todd Gerhardt: But Craig will probably call him every once in a while and remind him...
Councilman Lundquist: No, congratulations Justin.
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely, and on behalf of this council and former council members that have
worked with you, thank you. We appreciate your professionalism and always your willingness
to help us any way that we ask questions and Lord knows we need help so, but you were always
62