CC Minutes 9-24-07City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Okay. It's on page 259 of the pdf, if you want to put that in. The motion reads
the City Council upholds staff's decision on all five exemptions and affirms the Findings of Fact
and Technical Evaluation Panel with the exception of the 10 year deed restriction if no longer
required.
Roger Knutson: And adopt the Findings of Fact presented in your packet.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Rick Dorsey: Can I…? The information you presented as well as our record…
Mayor Furlong: I believe that's all part of the record.
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: So is that your motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Litsey: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council
upholds staff's decision on all five (5) exemptions, and affirms the Findings of the Technical
Evaluation Panel (TEP) with the exception that the 10 year deed restriction is no longer
required. All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you everyone.
PAPEDIS VARIANCE, 2101 PINEHURST DRIVE, APPLICANT: SOUTHVIEW
DESIGN, PLANNING CASE 07-19: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO HARD SURFACE
COVERAGE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Chris Moehrl 7699 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie
th
Tim Johnson 1875 E. 50 Street, Inver Grove Heights
Brian Wisdorf 2997 Hilltop Drive, Chaska
Ojars Papedis 2101 Pinehurst Drive
Jackie Holien 2101 Pinehurst Drive
14
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
Bob Generous: Thank you Mayor, council members. I handed out tonight the revision to the
staff report. Since the project originally came in, the original review for 7.4% hard surface
coverage. That included the deck. We've now interpreted to just have, the deck had weep holes,
that it was not impervious surface and can allow water through so we reduced is to 5.3%. And
then recently staff has been discussing the idea of eliminating retaining walls from the hard
surface calculation because they really generally tend to improve drainage on a site and so we're
now removing that and so now we're down to 3.3% variance.
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry I was just looking for my update. Can you, how did we get from the
5.3 to the 3.3?
Bob Generous: Well from 7.4 to the 5.3 was removing the deck which has the weep holes in
them.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Bob Generous: And the manufacturer's say they work. Sometimes it isn't. And then going to
3.3 when we removed retaining walls.
Mayor Furlong: So there are no retaining walls left?
Bob Generous: Well there are retaining walls but we don't use them as calculating for hard
surface coverage because generally they're designed to improve site drainage. They'll hold water
back so that it has time to percolate. Generally they create level areas for water to sit on rather
than the slopes that allow water to rush down them. So the city as part of our review process has
eliminated 787 square feet of hard surface coverage from their request. This property is located
within the Pinehurst development which is north of Lake Lucy Road and west of Galpin
Boulevard. As originally platted there were 43 lots. As part of our review of that development
there's a concern that the house sizes that were going in, were proposed for the development
would infringe upon the hard surface coverage. Lennar Homes came in and then replatted the
subdivision eliminating 2 of the lots and creating slightly larger lots. They were on, in this
location and also on the north. Again because they were aware that as part of their development
they had a specific home price that they were looking at and they wanted to allow for some
expansion on the site for the individual property owners. As part of the building application for
this property the applicant came in with their home, driveway, front walk, and they were at
23.2%. They had an additional 345 square feet for the homeowner to expand into the future.
One day our building inspector was out looking at the neighborhood and he noticed that there
were improvements going on this site. He then went and advised the contractor that for the type
of improvements they were proposing, the pavers and the fire pit and all of that, and retaining
walls, they needed to come in for a zoning permit application, which is something the City
adopted last year to try to forestall or void people having to come in for after the fact variances
for such things as setback or site coverage. When they provided, put their information together
they discovered that they were over the 25% hard surface coverage so instead of applying for the
zoning permit they went immediately to an application for a variance to the hard surface
coverage. All along the development's been aware that hard surface coverage was an issue as
15
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
part of this project. They replatted to provide for larger areas on the lot. When this came in for
building permit there was an expansion opportunity for the homeowner. They just went over the
maximum that they were allowed and now they're coming in requesting a variance. We believe
that they do have a reasonable opportunity to use this property without the excessive hard surface
coverage on the site. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request. This item went to
th
the Planning Commission on September 4. They voted 5 to 1 to deny the variance and so the
applicant is appealing that decision to City Council. I would note that we're recommending
denial of the variance and also we're requesting that you modify the Findings of Fact attached to
your report. Item 4(a) and add the following two sentences. The proposed use is not a
reasonable use of the property. The extra 3 1/2% impervious surface coverage will contribute to
storm water quantity and quality problems. With that I'd be happy any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: This isn't really a question regarding this item but getting back to the
retaining walls. Are we going to, is this going to be a standard practice from now on? Or has it
been?
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, what have we done historically?
Kate Aanenson: We hadn't included them in the past recently. Not that we've passed with any
variances with these but I believe that the engineering department wanted to review those as a
part of the impervious surface coverage. Internally we've had some discussions on whether or
not that made sense or not. Especially in the circumstance where you have to put a retaining
wall based on grading. Those sort of things. Sometimes they're decorative. Sometimes they're
put in place, if you wanted to add a third bay garage or need to hold something up, but lots of
times they're put in place in the development itself for rear yard to enjoy a flatter area so looking
at that, based on the 5 we felt, it seemed kind of punitive and they were in place already, or
needed to be put in place to enjoy the back yard, not to include those.
Mayor Furlong: So clarification.
Kate Aanenson: Our ordinance doesn't specify them for the interpretation. So somebody made
that interpretation.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, the ordinance talks about impervious surfaces. Anything that impedes
the flow of storm water.
Kate Aanenson: Right. So the interpretation was that it doesn't. That those do not impede. It's
not the same as a patio or a pavers, those sort of things.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom, other questions? My question for staff dealt with
retaining walls because I believe in the past we've seen those as part of the impervious surface
calculation. But you said these are already in place?
16
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
Kate Aanenson: Correct. If you look under definition it does say any hard coverage. It's one of
those things when somebody comes in, it seems rather onerous, especially in circumstances
where they're required to put them in in order to make the, facilitate the activity that they're
trying to do. Whether it's a sport court or extra garage, and normally it's that extra half a percent
that's getting you under the circumstance, was it a half a percent wasn't it or 1%?
Mayor Furlong: These are 2% over?
Bob Generous: …however again from this site's perspective, the use of the retaining wall
actually slows down water. Provided greater opportunity to percolate into the soil. And that's
generally what we see…where water's sheeting off the property.
Councilman Litsey: It slows it down? Helps it percolate in?
Bob Generous: Yes. Provides a greater opportunity to do that.
Councilman Litsey: Right, okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, may I ask? This is something I think we're going to have to go back and
do maybe a white paper on or some research on and come back with some different scenarios for
you to take a look at this and somehow get it incorporated into our ordinances and how we're
going to view retaining walls and also maybe take a look and see what other communities do but
in the past I think we've looked at them as impervious. In this situation it looks like it may be
improving the situation but I think we need to sit down as staff to do a little bit more research
and give you a definitive read on how we're going to view retaining walls in the future.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? Is this, this
development was approved, the plat was approved how long ago?
Bob Generous: July of 2006.
Mayor Furlong: 2006. So this is the first of a few coming through?
Kate Aanenson: There's another one right behind it.
Mayor Furlong: How, you said in your presentation, the house site itself allowing with the
driveway and sidewalks was about 23%.
Bob Generous: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: A little bit more than 23% hard surface. Are we anticipating similar types of
housing sizes on lots in this neighborhood?
Bob Generous: Yes.
17
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay, any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here?
Representative. Good evening.
Tim Johnson: Good evening. I am Tim Johnson with Southview Design. We are the contractor
that's representing the owner at 2101 Pinehurst Drive. The plan that you see in front of you, just
a brief history. When we came into the Planning Commission a few weeks back, we cooperated
with the city and the building officials and we stopped the actual construction of the work on the
findings that we found out that we were unaware of. Currently the retaining wall, this fire pit,
patio application, the patio here, as well as the front walkway is currently in. We have had plans
of adding another patio space but we decided not to include that at this time. So we've been
working with the City very closely and then I presented now this plan to the Planning
Commission as well as a drainage infiltration system. At that time we were instructed that you
know they were very interested in hearing more about this infiltration system and how it can
actually improve the runoff from the property, but they weren't able to make a decision at the
time for, an educated decision on their part so since then we've been working with an engineer
who will speak on our behalf tonight, as well as a few other individuals. But I would actually
like to turn the rest of our comments over to the Brian Wisdorf who is representing the owner of
2101 Pinehurst.
Brian Wisdorf: Good evening council. My name is Brian Wisdorf. I'm with the firm Severson,
Sheldon, Dougherty and Molenda out of Apple Valley. I've been retained by Ojars Papedis, the
actual owner of the property in question. In hearing the staff's comments tonight, one thing that I
would like to point out about the fact that it's Ojars Papedis that is basically making the
application for the variance and not the developer. The developer's issues with the city, whatever
they might be, should not be, in my mind, considered as part of what knowledge or requirements
that, for part of the evaluation of my client's request for a variance. A couple of things that I
wanted to touch on. A variance gives an applicant permission to depart from the literal
enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Strict enforcement of this 25% hardship surface
requirement would create an undue hardship with regards to his reasonable use, and the reason
I'm addressing this now, even though they have addressed the retaining wall, it seems like there
may be some consideration of still incorporating that in the calculation. I would take the position
on behalf of my client that there is an undue hardship. As the Planning Commission has noted
that the topography of my client's property slopes significantly in the rear yard. 75, or excuse
me, 17.3 feet drop in a matter of 70 feet according to their report. This change in elevation
begins at the rear of the home and without the use of retaining walls to build up the back yard,
besides the impact it will create on drainage, it also allows my client to have reasonable use of
his property. The Planning Commission had recommended denial based upon the staff report,
set forth in the original staff report where they were looking at a 7.4% overage on the hard
surface coverage. They have now changed that based upon their calculations to 3.3. Have no
reason to dispute that recalculation at this point. I do believe that that recalculation was
appropriate. However, this helps address some of the hardship but it also establishes how fluid
the ordinance is, and I believe that the council has acknowledged that to a certain extent. This
same discretion should be considered in applying for determination of whether a variance should
be provided for the remaining 3.3%. When it's taken into consideration…the goal of what the
ordinance is, which I believe is to address storm water quality and quantity. The other issue that
the staff had brought up is their concern with the precedence that this would create if you grant
18
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
my client a variance in this case. I think that can be, what is going to be presented to you by
Chris Moehrl of Westwood Professional Services is something that would not create a precedent
that went against the underlying policy of the ordinance. When applying the City Council's
discretion which the staff had acknowledged gave you relatively high level of discretion in
providing and allowing a variance, is that the hard surface, hard surface coverage requirement is
typically established to preserve this storm water quality and quantity. The engineer that has
been retained at my client's expense has went through, went out and viewed the property. Came
up with a system to put in place on the property which would not only address the 3.3%, but
bring the amount or the percentage of actual affected runoff from the hard surface down to below
25%. He can go into greater detail as to how this system would be implemented and how he
came up with the numbers he came up with. The only precedence that this variance would create
is that when it is a topographical issue as there is in this case, would create an undue hardship. A
homeowner can have an engineer create a surface water runoff plan that will reduce the surface
runoff from the property to that which would be expected from a property with 25% hard surface
coverage or less. And I'll let Mr. Moehrl go into greater detail as to exactly what kind of system
he is talking about.
Kate Aanenson: Mayor can I just address a couple things really quick about the interpretation?
If that's okay? Regarding percentage. We started off with 7.4% variance. And in good faith,
just so it doesn't appear like we're trying to change our whole position on this, in good faith we
took the interpretation after a lot of contentious negotiations to interpret the patio as having a
space. And that was very difficult conversations to finally get to the 5.3%. As far as the
interpretation of the retaining wall, that could be something you can interpret based on
topography to grant a portion of that for a variance to give that additional 2% to make that, to
make reasonable use of the property if you felt inclined. As far as the additional amount of
pavers we saw no relationship to that based on the topography or the layout of the property itself.
So we weren't trying to go down this slippery slope. We were trying to work with the applicant
and what we felt were some pretty contentious and onerous conversations. So I don't want you
to think that we were just throwing it in and kind of making this, now we're going to end up at
zero tonight kind of discussion. So I wanted to make sure that was clear what we were trying to
accomplish is trying to find some reasonable based on their interpretation of the spacing of the
boards on the deck. And then our interpretation of some reasonable use, if you wanted to make
that a rational basis for your variance. Of the retaining walls.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Brian Wisdorf: And just so we're clear, that really wasn’t my contention of, even though it may
have came across that way. My only point was, that the fact that the calculation seems
somewhat fluid, it is my belief that the court or the council should keep in mind that fluidness in
determining whether or not a variance should be granted given their broad discretion and the fact
that what our client, my client is proposing actually goes to the intent of what the ordinances are
put in place to address. Thank you.
Chris Moehrl: Mayor, council members. My name is Chris Moehrl with Westwood Professional
Services, and actually the original engineer on the Pinehurst project so I've got some history with
this job. Tim Johnson had given me a call and kind of explained the situation on the lot and
19
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
wanted to see if there were some different storm water techniques we can implement to basically
address the overage on the impervious area, seeing that the intent of the code of the 25% is to
maintain drainage so you're not overwhelming downstream facilities and ponds. Our first
approach to the site, what we wanted to do is first of all mimic what a typical lot would be with a
25% coverage. And then in that approach we calculate the runoff from the additional impervious
area and then we calculate that same runoff if it were sod. And that was kind of our first step and
what we wanted to do on this project is be very conservative so instead of taking that difference,
we actually went to the level of infiltrating 100% of the roof drainage that exceeds that 25% and
we added in an additional, oh I think an additional 100 square feet and again this was all before
the change with the retaining walls so the credit in the retaining walls is not taken into account in
the calculations on the…and I'll try not to make this too technical. So in putting together the
whole infiltration concept again what we're trying to do is maintain the downstream storm water
runoff to what it would exist with the 25% coverage building. Part of that, and if we can, can
you zoom in on this a little bit? So this detail right here is basically the underground infiltration
well that we're proposing. Basically what that does is as the additional runoff comes from a roof,
it stores that water underground in a fairly course material. What that does is basically allow that
water time to drain into the in place soils. Over time. As you know one of the questions that
might come up, Chanhassen largely clay soils. Does infiltration make sense? To give you an
idea, the initial guidelines we used are from Carver County. Based on soil type on the site, they
use .23 inches per hour. Typical sand sites you might get infiltration rates in the range of 5 to 10
inches, just to give you a feel for what we're using. Carver County also bases their design on the
average storm event in the metro area of .34 inches, which is also based on that storm occurring
every 3 days. So the combination of those two numbers, you come up with your infiltration rate.
As opposed to using average storm event on this project we actually designed this for the 100
year storm event so again what we wanted to be is very conservative. We want to make sure that
the systems work and really meet the intent of the code. In putting together that number, if you
back calculate that, again 100 year event we use .23 inches. If you run the average storm event
through that, you're actually having an infiltration rate of .013 inches per hour. Again just to
give you an idea of how conservative this is. I also wanted to mention too, in our first approach
where we were just going to mimic the 25% coverage lot, when we went to the more
conservative approach it about doubled the footprint of the infiltration runoff. With that said
again, just another thing to give you an idea of that .013 inches per hour, that's about 17 times
more conservative than Carver County based on that average storm event. And I know staff has
issues with maintenance. How do we maintain these things? Definitely you know it's for
consideration when reviewing these. Not really defined a very conservative approach to the
system. We've also proposed a monitoring well so you can easily go out and just stick a stick in
that well to determine what the water levels are in the system. We also have emergency
overflow pipes so you can physically see hey, there's something clogged up. It's easy to see that
water coming out of the system and that can be addressed. The other issue with maintenance,
how do we, or how does the City enforce that? How do they make that happen? What kind of
assurances can you get from that? My thought is that you could record a legal document that
would give the city legal right to enforce that, which would make the homeowner maintain the
system as it is in place, which would also go with the lots so if this current homeowner were to
sell the lot, that document would reside with the lot and not with the owner, so the next person
that comes to purchase the property, that document would show up during a title search and they
20
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
would be aware of it. With that, I can open it up to any questions that you guys might have or
concerns that the staff might have. Technical questions.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for Mr. Moehrl? Thoughts? Okay. How about, thank you.
How about Mr.?
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I have a question. Have you used this system anyplace else in the Twin
Cities?
Chris Moehrl: You know I have not personally. Typically what we've seen in Carver County
we're doing large scale infiltration basins and then we'll plant those with vegetation. I see those
as being a bigger maintenance problem. You've got to maintain the vegetation which is a big
part of that. Weed it out. You know in my mind they take probably 2 to 5 years of some care to
really get the vegetation established as it needs to be. I haven't personally done any of these
underground, smaller scale infiltration systems but really when you're talking this kind of
treatment, in my mind they're more effective if they're based on smaller drainage areas. So if
you have one large infiltration basin that maybe requires a lot of maintenance. In lieu of that you
could propose kind of a lot treatment basis. You know more smaller treatment systems and I
think maintenance with those is a lot lower and the chances of those systems failing are lower
too. Plus we also have an underground system so you're not dealing with a lot of vegetation. A
lot of unknowns on you know what is it going to take to get that vegetation going. It's based on
really volume and geometry, well defined…
Todd Gerhardt: Have you thought about the freeze thaw cycle in Minnesota? If this froze over.
Chris Moehrl: Freeze thaw on this, what we've done here is basically the bottom, the bottom of
the basin, to give you an idea is about 4 1/2, 5 feet in the ground, so we're getting down below
that frost depth. Obviously if you had a really cold winter, it's quite possible that that depth is
going to go down here. Might move the rock around a little bit. I don't see that as a big issue,
especially granted that most of your runoff doesn't occur in the middle of winter when you're
going to have your colder temperatures. You know if we were proposing something that was
maybe 2-3 feet in the ground I'd be more concerned with it. But we're getting a little bit deeper
than that. Typically footings on a house, you're going to be down in the neighborhood of 4 feet
to do a lot of those footings. Watermain which is probably the other extreme, you're watermain
is typically underneath the street. That's plowed and most of the cold to get down in the ground
further, those type of things are usually 7 1/2 feet in the ground so. At 5 1/2 feet you know I
think we're in the ballpark.
Todd Gerhardt: That's all I had Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions at this point?
Councilman Litsey: I just had a quick question on the ordinance. It doesn't allow for this type
credit though does it?
Kate Aanenson: It hasn't…
21
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
Councilman Litsey: Yeah I know we've had discussions about some of these applications and
how they might be beneficial and how we might apply them as part of the ordinance but as the
ordinance currently exists, that is not in there.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Litsey: Okay so, I applaud your efforts to try to help with the situation but the
bottom line is, it's not in the ordinance at the present time and therefore in my mind you would
have to stay within the ordinance. And, well I'll go on later but I'll leave it at that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? Councilwoman Tjornhom, did you have a
question for the applicant or for their attorney?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I don't, I think a way back when we were looking at the plan, if we
can go back…variance, I can ask the question.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay. I did have one question for the attorney, if I could Mr., was it
Wizard? Wisdorf?
Brian Wisdorf: Wisdorf.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sorry.
Brian Wisdorf: Not a problem.
Mayor Furlong: You talked about the, there is a hardship because strict adherence to the 25%
would not allow reasonable use. Help me understand how you're considering reasonable use of
that, see if I understood you correctly.
Brian Wisdorf: What I was taking from the comments that were brought up before we got up to
present our part was the conversation that had taken place with regards to the staff's calculation
of the overage at this point and I, what I was taking from that was that there may be a concern
with the council with regards to giving credit or not calculating into the hard surface coverage
the retaining walls and my point being, as part of whether or not you grant a variance, part of that
hardship is you look at the, whether to grant a variance, you look at whether or not there's an
undue hardship and I think it's clear, it's been clearly articulated as part of an undue hardship is a
person's ability to use the land in a reasonable manner and what I was saying is with regards to
change in elevation in the back yard to get a reasonable use of a parcel, especially one that's
shaped in the manner that this is, when even beyond the retaining walls that have been built on
this property, there's a vast area of the property which remains unaffected that to prevent the
property owner from maintaining those and keeping those retaining walls in place would create
an undue hardship and therefore if not taking out, if not excluded from the calculation would
create an undue hardship.
Mayor Furlong: Because of the topography and the.
22
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
Brian Wisdorf: Shape of the lot.
Mayor Furlong: The shape of the lot.
Brian Wisdorf: And it's topography.
Mayor Furlong: And with regards to the shape of the lot.
Brian Wisdorf: My point being that, on the parcel here, the retaining wall goes out to here. It
appears that the property indicated by the exterior line, my point being that change in elevation
start in this area and if you take out the retaining walls, you're going to have an undue hardship
on the property owner which would give rise to a reason to grant the variance if you decided to
leave the retaining walls in the calculation.
Kate Aanenson: Mayor? I was just going to say, well there's two ways to look at it. One, you
could put the retaining wall and meet the requirement but you have to take out all the other stuff.
It's the other stuff that's causing the problem. The patio. The fire pit ring. So even if you're
looking at some of those retaining walls. If you look on page 5 of the staff report, it gives you a
breakdown of all those square footages of what's pushing you over. See the table?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Councilman Litsey: But that was one of my questions. What needs to be taken out?
Kate Aanenson: Right, I think that's kind of, you do kind of a menu of what choices that, what's
pushing it over the top.
Councilman Peterson: What page are you on?
Kate Aanenson: It's on page 5 of the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Well, in the handout?
Kate Aanenson: It's on there too.
Mayor Furlong: There's a revised schedule.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, if you look at that.
Mayor Furlong: And the difference there, just has to do with the upper wall and lower wall?
Kate Aanenson: So if they're at 23.2% right now and you were to add just the retaining walls,
which would be 365, you've be over by 20 square feet. So if you added the retaining walls, plus
or minus eliminating 20 square feet, you would still be at that, just slightly over the 25%. So you
wouldn't need a variance just by putting the retaining walls in, but for 20 feet. 20 square feet.
23
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
Mayor Furlong: And just to clarify then the table that we're looking at on page 5 as revised and
actually this is consistent. The first 3 items. The house, garage, porch, driveway, front walk.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Furlong: Those are the items that were included in the building permit and total 23. how
much percent?
Todd Gerhardt: 2.
Mayor Furlong: And I'm correct in saying those first 3 line items Mr. Generous were part of
the?
Bob Generous: Those were part of the original building permit application.
Mayor Furlong: 23, okay.
Councilman Peterson: How many square feet do they have to eliminate to get down to the 25?
Todd Gerhardt: 195.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: 195?
Todd Gerhardt: 95.
Kate Aanenson: I think it's a little more than that.
Todd Gerhardt: Also 381.
Bob Generous: After the original approval they had 345 square feet of expansion that they could
have done.
Councilman Litsey: Could have done.
Bob Generous: Without a variance.
Mayor Furlong: 345 square feet.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Furlong: Plus the original would get you to the 25%.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. So what that allowed you to do is put the retaining walls in, if that was
your choice to use for your hard cover, or to put in a front, the patio paver sidewalk. The other
choices that they selected from.
24
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And again for clarification, if the upper and lower walls were included,
if I'm adding correctly is 365 square feet.
Kate Aanenson: And they had 345.
Mayor Furlong: And they have available 345.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Brian Wisdorf: I think that still goes to the issue of whether or not the retaining walls are
necessary in order to avoid an undue hardship. Yes you could include the, from what I'm
understanding you could include the retaining walls and still come under the 25%. It is my
position that with regards to the improvements to the property, any improvement necessary in
order to get the, get use out of the back yard should not be considered in that calculation. That
for to the extent that it is considered in that calculation, that amount of coverage should be
considered as part of the variance because that is what creates the undue hardship. And what my
client is proposing to do, which isn't required to do by ordinance, is to address the two things that
are left on the property that are, create the largest problems and that's the patio and the fire. Let's
see, upper patio and fire pit I believe are probably your two major issues. And what they're
proposing to do would not only alleviate the concern that the ordinance was put in place to
address, but it more than compensates for it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Litsey: Well maybe this is too simplistic but at the time this was platted it was
made clear right that there's a 25% maximum hard cover requirement?
Brian Wisdorf: I was not involved with the builder at the time.
Councilman Litsey: Well that's what I asked, in my staff report it's saying that and so now you're
claiming a hardship but yet all along that expectation was made clear from the time it was platted
apparently. And perhaps you're trying to get too much into the size of the lot that it just can't
accommodate that to meet the ordinance. Because some of the other things that are being talked
about doing here are nice and they're you know cutting edge maybe applications and things like
that, but we haven't gotten to the point where we've adopted it in ordinance so, to me it seems
like it goes back to when this was originally platted and it was made clear what the expectation
was and then you have to live with that. I don't know how you can come back later and then
claim a hardship when it was made clear from the onset that this is the requirement.
Brian Wisdorf: Well Mr. Papedis was not involved in the originally platting. His knowledge of
this issue first came to his attention when the inspector came to the site and spoke to the
contractor who then proceeded to inform my client that the issue that's on his property.
25
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
Councilman Litsey: So would the issue not be then to go back to the contractor and talk
between, have that dialogue rather than here?
Brian Wisdorf: Well that, ultimately my client is the one who owns the property. Just bought
and built a very large and expensive home on the property and doesn't have any intentions on
moving and I don't know to what extent a financial settlement with the builder is going to
alleviate the hardship. I mean obviously that doesn't go to necessarily the issuance of an
ordinance but it still doesn't address the hardship that it would create for my client with regards
to the taking of, for building this size of house, this nice of a house and then not being able to
build a patio off of it seems to be, create somewhat of a hardship for the client as well as the fact
that you know his plan is, as you can see from his plan, to develop the number of trees and plants
he's also planning to plant around his property is all tied into what he's currently got.
Councilman Litsey: Okay, I still think your issue's more with the builder than before this
governing body and I'm sympathetic to what you're saying. Don't get me wrong but I'm not sure
we're the proper authority to resolve it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, any other questions for the applicant? Or
anything else from the applicant? Comments?
Ojars Papedis: Council, my name is Ojars Papedis. I am the homeowner. I'm the one who owns
this piece of property and the situation I'm presented with here so if I may express my views as a
new citizen of Chanhassen, coming from Bloomington. I'd also, the aspirations that I have for
this house when I bought it. I think you'll find this to be true with many of the owners in the
Pinehurst development. None of us were told explicitly that there was a 25% hard cover
ordinance in the city of Chanhassen and that the houses that were being put on it, and more
importantly, nearly consumed the entire hard cover issue and when Brian was speaking about
hardships, I don't think we're talking about a hard, black and white hardship. We're talking about
an owner, such as myself and some of the others that are in my neighborhood, who bought so to
speak the house of their dreams and would love to have put reasonable outside conveniences
such as a patio for entertaining and enjoying the property. And I can tell you that when Mr.
Johnson of Southview and I came up with this plan we did not think that we were covering the
entire lot with bricks and pavement and parking spaces. In fact we even went a little less
aggressive than what you see today so. And I personally as a homeowner think that I have no
desire to break the ordinance or have the ordinance change but I do think that with the help of
Southview and the professional over here, we've come up with a plan that would still meet the
spirit of the ordinance which is to limit runoff and still have the ability to enjoy this fine house
that I now own so, that's my point and I think that's the issue that faces myself and the other
homeowners in that particular development. We were very shocked to find that we couldn't do
more than put in a 20 by 20 foot patio. Not for the kind of lots that we have and the houses that
we have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Ojars Papedis: Thank you.
26
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Any questions of the property owner?
Councilman Peterson: I've got a couple more. Not for you sir but for staff probably or the
landscaper. Kate when we, or Bob, when we figured the impervious surface, did you factor in
anything for the stone steppers or is that?
Kate Aanenson: That was added. If you look at the sheet that shows the original survey.
Councilman Peterson: Oh the steppers were on the bottom. That's the stone steppers?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Councilman Peterson: Okay. And then for the landscaper itself, in the areas around the house,
are you using fabric or are you using plastic?
Tim Johnson: We're using neither. We're actually going to be installing a pine bark mulch that's
going to be installed on top of the soil. There's going to be no rock or poly installed on the site at
all. As far as one question of concern that I've had with Angie a couple times is, you know the
stepping stones are individual. There's you know large gaps inbetween it. It's not a pathway. I
mean we're not going to be considering outcroppings but we do consider stepping stones so those
are I guess in gray areas within what needs to be considered. It seems like that can be a little bit
of more of an opinion as far as hardscape stepping stones and individually, they're not touching
each other…you know so it's no rock. No poly so. Can I make one comment? You Todd had
mentioned have we used the system before that Chris has brought up. We're currently nearing an
end of the development in Minnetonka where we've used a similar situation. Actually the depth
of the dry well and infiltration system is much smaller that we're actually installing. It's used for
ground protecting some lower townhomes from the runoff and the drainage from the newer
development homes so this is a system that is being used you know real close by here in the city
of Minnetonka.
Todd Gerhardt: But it hasn't gone through a freeze thaw cycle yet?
Tim Johnson: The development's probably 3 or 4 years old.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay.
Councilman Litsey: And is that to meet their ordinance standards or, here we're talking about
trying to basically give you some credit for that technology. Are they getting credit in
Minnetonka for that technology?
Tim Johnson: That basically is just protecting the lower properties from you know receiving the
amount of runoff from the much larger homes and the townhomes so basically it's doing the
same activity that we're asking it to do by collecting the runoff from the home and you know
allowing that to go into the system.
27
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
Councilman Litsey: But they're meeting the hard cover, as far as you know they're already
meeting the hard cover surface?
Tim Johnson: Their hard cover in the city of Minnetonka is I believe 30 or 31 percent so they're
much higher percentage than the city of Chanhassen.
Councilman Litsey: Okay, but…my question was they are meeting the ordinance currently
without that system in place?
Tim Johnson: That system that we installed there was more or less just to allow, I'm not sure
how that came into play. I think that was developed through the engineer that actually provided
that system to go in place.
Mayor Furlong: Was that part of the platting of the development or was it for an individual
home?
Tim Johnson: It was, some of the homes on the hillside, like what we have right here, were, our
lots are sitting up much higher. That was put in for those homes that sit above the other.
Mayor Furlong: The developer did that as part of the subdivision of the plat?
Tim Johnson: I believe it was the developer and the city would review that as a whole.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff or the applicant?
Roger Knutson: Mayor, not to complicate things. Just to comment on.
Mayor Furlong: I'm ready for that.
Roger Knutson: There's several criteria that have to be met for a variance. I'm not going to
address them all. They're addressed in the staff report. I'm just going to address one of them.
One of them is, does the ordinance prevent a reasonable use of the property? Not any reasonable
use but a reasonable use so the question you have to ask is what they want reasonable. When
considering that criteria you can, if you choose to, consider only offsets that the applicant is
offering to reduce the negative aspects of what they're proposing. So in this example, what did
they call them? I'll call them sand pits. If the sand pits reduce, are effective and do reduce
runoff, you can consider that in determining whether, if that were a condition, whether that is a,
helps creates a reasonable use of the property. You're allowed to do that. Again that's just one of
the criteria you have, is something unique about the property and all the other criteria. So you
can factor that in if you choose to, if you find that it's effective.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Litsey: Well I have a question for staff. Are we anticipating other requests for
variances in this development based upon?
28
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Bob Generous: There's one in the works right now.
Councilman Litsey: And perhaps more. You don't have a crystal ball to tell us that but your
sense is that there will be more. And is that due in part then to the, how this was platted?
Kate Aanenson: Well again, we asked the developer, if you recall we've made a couple changes.
One on these larger homes that put a patio in and they're at, we've had them come in at 24.5,
24.9. We've asked them if they have a patio door, that they have to at minimum, we've amended
the code to say they have to have a minimum, put a 10 by 10 landing pad out there. So that they
have to put a buffer in there. We've had developers try to leave off front sidewalks. Didn't meet
that impervious. We said that's not a reasonable expectation. We did inform, we did mention to
Lennar, we were deeply concerned of how they were platting these lots and the size homes they
were putting on the lot. We've had a lot of negotiations when these plans come in. When they
show them at the maximum, we circle that. Tell them unfortunately that the homeowner doesn't
always look. You know we carefully noted on this, this is towards the top end and there's
expectation of, that they're looking at that when they come in. That the landscaper or whatever's
going to call us to see what they can do.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this point? Other than that, thoughts or comments.
Consider the request here before us.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I'm happy to tackle this one. You know I don't even know
how many years I've been doing this now. I've kind of lost track but it's been 15 or 16 I guess
that we've had variances come before the Planning Commission and City Council and it's
frustrating to say the least and I think that you know to support what the city attorney said, is it
you know, is it a hardship to have grass over a brick paver patio. I would be hard to say that that
would be the case. We put the ordinance in at 25% for all the right reasons and it's reinforced by
the difficulties we've had with the development that sits below this one for the 100 year storm we
had last year, the year before so. We saw intimately what the impacts of runoff can do to homes
and to parks and to everything else that we had, which is substantial. So do I see a compelling
reason to grant a variance in this case? I don't but what I do see, which I haven't seen before is a
creative idea of ways to mitigate it. I don't think I'm ready to, and certainly staff isn't ready to
say a dry well is a reasonable alternative but I can say from personal experience I have one. I
draintiled my house on the outside 3 years ago and put in a dry well about 5 feet down. I happen
to look at it and dig it out this year because I was curious to see whether it required any
maintenance, and it hasn't in 3 years. And it's working wonderfully and so, although I am not
comfortable approving this tonight, I would offer that I think the dry well concept has a lot of
merit and probably much more merit than in the discussions we've had over this last year about
pervious pavers and impervious asphalt. I think, and I don't know why I didn't think about it
before because I…3 years ago but it wasn't for impervious surface issues. For different reasons
but you know Todd to your point, the cycle of the seasons hasn't seem to do that, having pause or
a negative affect to it. At least mine worked well. So that being said, you know I don't really see
the reason to say yes to this. I think we've been pretty aggressive to try to make it as small a
variance as we can, and I guess, I applaud staff for trying to get down to close to 25 as we can,
29
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
but we're not there and I've turned down a lot of people that weren't there, and I feel bad about it
but I'm doing it for the right reasons and that's the reason why I recommend that we deny it
tonight.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts and comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, these are, these are the cases that I really always struggled a lot
and it's very easy to just be reasonable and say it's 3.3%. You're doing something good to your
home. You're adding value. You're making our neighborhoods and our city a better place to
live. But the problem is you have homes all around you and they all had to live with this same
criteria of 25% hard coverage surface, and there's a reason for that because we all have seen what
water runoff does. I believe there was a neighbor in Manchester who called in saying that his
basement had flooded. Well you know the 25% protects everybody and if we all tried our best to
keep to that 25%, I think we've shown that that works and so I also am inclined to go with staff's
recommendation of not granting a variance due to the fact that we've been consistent so far as a
council with our coverage and I would like to stay on that same track.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Litsey.
Councilman Litsey: I agree with what's already been said here. I think it's been well put in my
comments and what I've already said is…so I'm comfortable with supporting what's been said.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. These are difficult, especially when work has already begun and
there's improvements being made to the property and then a stop work occurs and that is a
challenging situation that I can empathize with. I think also I can empathize with the comments
made by Mr. Papedis earlier with regard to expectations of buying a home in the city. This is a
great place to live and people want to move here. They want to build nice homes. We have seen
time and again the size of the homes relative to the lots generally increasing and this is a
situation that I don't think will change in the near future, or at least from what I've heard and seen
in this neighborhood and development. The issue comes down to reasonable use. What's
reasonable use? One person's use is different than another's. What is reasonable? We try to find
that in our ordinance and to Councilwoman Tjornhom's point, we try to hold everybody to the
same standard and that standard includes a type of home in terms of structure and some
components but it also includes the size of the home and other impervious surface coverage
relative to the lot size. We heard this evening on topography and shape of the lot were part of
the hardship here. I'll deal with the last one first. Shape of lot I struggle with. We spent a lot of
time during the platting process to make sure we don't have lots that make, that create an
unreasonable use situation or that put us into a situation that would justify a hardship or a
variance. With regard to topography, Chanhassen is not on a plain. We're not flat. We have that
everywhere and I'm a little concerned with regard to, to the retaining wall issue. I think that is
something that we need to spend some time on and make sure that we treat people fairly and
equally. That is our role and the, to that end there are a number of developments that don't have
flat back yards and retaining walls are used to create that but they may provide a benefit, as we
heard here this evening but that is not something that we looked at in the past. In this case I'm
relying on staff's interpretation that this is an improvement for this particular situation but I don't
know that that's a question that we're comfortable taking at this point.
30
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: That leads me to my other point and that is for instance in making sure that
what we do for any property owner we're willing to do for others and I'm not sure that at this
point I am too intrigued by the technology that is being presented here as an opportunity. I don't
think that I'm willing to support it tonight through the variance process, but that too is something
that we can talk about and if it is something that we want to adopt in ordinance, then we would
always have that opportunity outside of the variance process for any property owner in the city to
utilize that type of technology at their home and at their property when and if that time comes so
I think that's something that this is going to be an ongoing issue. Storm water management is a
challenge for this city. We heard the 100 year storm mentioned earlier this evening. We had two
of those in about a year period so we got at the end of the 100 years and beginning of 100 years I
guess but, and this particular area of town was very hard hit in a couple of those and to your
point, we saw what happened. And so I am at this point I too don't see a compelling reason to
provide a variance from a hardship standpoint. I believe reasonable use is available here and I
believe that with regard to the adjustments that have been made already, with the retaining walls,
that still provides some additional improvements that can be made, if I'm understanding that
correctly and so I think staying with the 25% as has been interpreted and calculated by staff is a
correct thing to do in this situation. So I feel and empathize for the property owner. I don't think
you're going to be alone. I know that probably doesn't help but I think the issue comes back to,
as was mentioned earlier, what was identified back at the time that the subdivision occurred, and
that was storm water. Storm water management. We spent a lot of time talking about the size of
ponds in this particular part of the development I recall in particular and that the nature of the
runoff and so I think that was clearly an issue that we saw going in. So unfortunately for the
property owner I believe we have to deny the variance. I'm grateful for the work that was done
to try to find some accommodations, which I think has been done given the situation and then I
think at this point given what we have and what our ordinance says, this is what we can do. To
the extent that we proceed in the future and seek to adopt some different standards to our
ordinances, and those again would be available to everyone in the city and would be the proper
way to go so at this point I guess, unless there's any other comments from the council at this
point, is there a motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor I make a motion that the City Council deny variance #07-
19 for a 3.3%.
Kate Aanenson: I believe that was 5 point.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is it 5.0?
Roger Knutson: 3.3 in the revised.
Kate Aanenson: Okay.
31
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2007
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. 3.3 hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum
nd
hard surface coverage for the addition of hardscape in Pinehurst 2 Addition based on the
findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions, number 1.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, does that also include the extra finding that Bob read? That would
include a correction of that finding which currently says 5.3. Now it's 3.3.
Mayor Furlong: And the condition is that it shall not exceed 25%. Okay.
Councilman Litsey: As stated I second that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council
denies Variance #07-19 for a 3.3% hard surface coverage variance from the 25%
nd
maximum hard surface coverage for the addition of hardscape in Pinehurst 2 Addition
based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following condition:
1. The hard surface coverage of the site shall not exceed 25%.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: The only thing I had to add is that we have made ground with MnDot and have
received deeds for the southern fire station property off of Lyman. You'll see that probably on
our next City Council agenda for you to approve the deeds.
Mayor Furlong: Other discussion items?
Councilman Peterson: The only other one, I don't know where this is appropriate but in this last
staff report, the narrative describes that it's the developer and the real estate's agent duty to
inform perspective homeowner. I guess as a matter of future, it's not the real estate agent's duty
to inform from a legal perspective, just to clarify. Protecting those real estate agents…
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? I guess one thing, I'll use this as an
opportunity to point out, Mr. Oehme is here. Tonight in our consent agenda, one of the requests
from Mr. Oehme and our engineering department was to approve a joint powers agreement for
the scoping study for Highway 5 from Highway 41 west through the cities of Victoria and
Waconia and out to Norwood-Young America. That was the first step that is actually a joint
agreement between those four cities, the County of Carver as well as MnDot who will be
providing some in kind services as part of those studies and that's something that I think has been
an issue for a number of our residents and with that study it will start moving us along towards
being able to make some improvements, safety improvements as well as capacity improvements
32