Loading...
CC Minutes 10-22-07City Council Meeting - October 22, 2007 Public Present: Name Address David Bieker 1770 Lucy Ridge Court Angell Galioto 1805 Emerald Lane Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Denali Homes has requested that Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 of Lake Lucy Ridge be combined to accommodate a proposed house, driveway and pool. In order to process the lot combination, a 5 foot wide drainage utility easement along the common property line of Lot 1 and 2 must be vacated. The subject properties are shown here. This is the plat for Lake Lucy Ridge. And again the properties are just south of Lake Lucy Road, east of Galpin, just for the general information area. The lots are located and the easements in question proposed to be vacated are again, are along the property lines between Lots 1 and 2. Gopher State One has been called and, to show that there's no existing public or private utilities within the vacated area. Proposed vacated area. Staff recommends that the approval of the vacation at this time and I stand for questions and request that a public hearing be opened. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, let's proceed with the public hearing and invite any interested parties to come forward to the podium that wish to comment on this item. Please state your name and address for the record. Seeing nobody, last call. Seeing no one then we'll close the public hearing without objection and bring it back to council for any thoughts or comments. Seems fairly straight forward given the conditions included in the staff's recommendation. Any comments or discussion? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Ernst: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Resolution #2007-65: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approve the vacation of drainage and utility easements for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Lake Lucy Ridge contingent upon simultaneous recording of the lot combination. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. SCHERLE VARIANCE: APPEAL DECISION OF DENIAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST FOR AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE TO A SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE ADDITION, 8541 FLAMINGO DRIVE, APPLICANT: DAVID & JULIE SCHERLE. 5 City Council Meeting - October 22, 2007 Public Present: Name Address David & Julie Scherle 8541 Flamingo Drive Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. As you indicated this is in Lake Susan Subdivision. Powers Boulevard is just on the side of the map. This is the subject property. 8554. The applicant was noted as putting up a garage without a permit and as noted it was in the side yard setback. The subject lot, it meets the 10 foot minimum right now. With the accessory garage it encroaches into the side yard setback. We passed an ordinance amendment a number of years ago where we had a variance for someone who had to put eaves on and how they got the variance. We don't normally count the eaves except when there is a variance because it even further encroaches. So with the eaves that added up on the variance. The nd Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on this item on October 2 and they voted on it actually 3 to 1 to deny the variance. There was a lot of discussion on the use of the property and how it would be best served. This is the garage side, so this is where the applicant who has a new motorcycle wants to be able to put that into this enclosed, covered structure. Some of the material had been removed to improve the impervious requirements and the setback itself. The structure doesn't have footings. It appeared to be some mobility to it. I did note from all the discussion on the Planning Commission about the flexibility and maybe it could be moved to meet the requirement. As noted in the staff report the Planning Commission did ask the staff to try to work with the applicant and he chose to just pursue continuation of the request, as he has a right to appeal their findings. So looking at the options that the staff we kind of considered what the Planning Commission from the back side. A storage structure has been removed if there was a possibility of moving that structure to the back side of the building. Again because it's under 120 square feet, it doesn't need a building code permit. Although it is attached to the structure, it doesn't have footings, it seemed like it would be somewhat easy to move from the structure itself. For that reason the staff is recommending denial and again with the 3 to 1 vote, the Planning Commission concurred with that. The Findings of Fact are in the staff report and then the staff is recommending the denial of the variance. So with that if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff at this time? One of the items mentioned in the initial report I believe it was that there was concern also about impervious surface coverage. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: But that that was satisfied or the changes were made to it? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. The applicant has removed quite a bit of material including some of the patio in the back and some of the driveway on the front of the house has been removed to meet that. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so that has, these pictures were taken before that. 6 City Council Meeting - October 22, 2007 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, because I believe that was the modifications to the roof itself as far as the metal roof. That seemed to a concern for the staff too, especially for some of the neighbors that may have aesthetic…to that. Typically a structure like that may be found more in the rear of the principle structure. Mayor Furlong: If the structure is moved, is there sufficient impervious surface coverage with what's, right now it's sitting on sideway so if it's moved off the sidewalk to another location, do they have sufficient space for impervious surface to be able to do that without removing other, or would they have to remove more hard surface coverage? Kate Aanenson: We do have a chart of what's been removed. I believe they're in compliance now. They moved it back. Some of the patio on the back was, I think what we had recommended, it's hard to look at it this way. This, in order to meet the hard cover to put it on the back, this would have to be narrowed up again and there's still the encroachment into the easement. We did check with Gopher One. There is no utilities in that easement but to meet the impervious this would have to be reduced down to the current pavement just would move to the back side. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Mrs. Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: The last time we had someone here for a variance was a couple weeks ago or, I think Bob was dealing with it. They didn't count the retaining walls. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And so how come we're doing it this time? Kate Aanenson: They're still, they would be, we're not counting the retaining wall on this one. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But I thought they had to remove some of the retaining wall? Kate Aanenson: He removed some of it to level out, to get the setback. What we've done now is we've researched some of this stuff. We have researched what other communities are doing with retaining walls and what our interpretation, and have we denied anybody from the last 2 years. We went back and looked through all the ordinances. We haven't been using it except for the last 2 years. We haven't denied anybody on that so we're not including it so he's still okay and that would still make it whole by bringing in part of the driveway and moving it to the back. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this time? No? Is the applicant here this evening? Any thoughts or comments? Mr. Scherle, good evening. David Scherle: Hi. My name's David Scherle, 8541 Flamingo Drive. We'd like to thank you for hearing us on this appeal of the variance of the shed. We appreciate the time of taking to hear our appeal. And see about the, I don't know this is the first time I heard about that we didn't have to do the retaining wall. Yeah, that's something new to me because that's what we took down a 7 City Council Meeting - October 22, 2007 big part of the retaining wall to help do the hard cover so that's something new to us. It would have been nice to know that but that's the way it goes. But there's some. Kate Aanenson: Just for the record, it's 27 square feet so I'm not sure. The total affect of that. It's pretty nominal of the overall percentage of what you were over with. David Scherle: Oh, okay. We'd like to address some of the points the Planning Commission made after we were unable to address what they were talking about. They were talking about the hard rains might fall on the next door neighbor but the shed is downhill from the neighbors so it really wouldn't cause any flooding problems. And with all the rain we've had, we wouldn't have had any problems with it at all. And then they were talking about everybody in the neighbor would want a variance you know like this but you have to really address every situation you know separately. Let's see. Our previous motorcycle was in our garage and that one we were able to make work, you know fit in the garage and then I had a back problem so we ended up getting this bigger motorcycle and we had to, we couldn't fit it in with the garage with our cars and stuff so that's why we need the shed where it's at. And moving the shed to the back of the garage we were figuring how we'd need 3 feet of sidewalk to go along side of the garage and with that hard cover and the 6 by 9 foot garage, or the shed behind the garage we would be over the hard cover so that's why, we were working with Angie on, at the Planning Commission about the complying with the hard cover and putting the shed back there and between the, oh the sidewalk width and the turn around we'd need back there for the motorcycle, and the 6, the smallest size we could have for the shed would be 6 foot by 9 foot and between all of that it'd be over the hard cover so that's why it wouldn't work behind the garage. And yeah, there's no problem with the septic system or the utilities at all. And with the lake and the adequate light and air for adjacent properties, it's still down a ways from the neighbor's property so we didn't think there was no problem with that. And let's see. I think that's it. So thanks for considering, of hearing us for the appeal of the shed and hopefully we can work things out. Do you have any questions or concerns that I could help answer? Mayor Furlong: Any questions for Mr. Scherle? Was there a reason that you didn't want to work with staff initially to try to find a solution or do you think you've exhausted that at this time? David Scherle: I think we've exhausted, yeah. Because I did call and talk to her and then I tried measuring it out for the hard cover and that's not going to work out. Otherwise yeah, we were trying to work as much as we can with the city as to how we could make this work out. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Scherle? Councilman Litsey: Is there anyway to come off the back side of the garage so you could actually have as part of the interior of the garage so you could kind of move the motorcycle up in front of the cars like I do at my house or? I don't have an extra extension on my garage but that's where I put it. David Scherle: That's a possibility if we put a door. 8 City Council Meeting - October 22, 2007 Councilman Litsey: There you could access it from the interior of the garage. I mean part of your, but I don't know if that's permissible. Kate Aanenson: That was one of our suggestions. There is a door, you can see it over here. There's a door, if you crank that out and just push the fence along the back side so you wouldn't have to have this back sidewalk. Just have it as part of the back yard and go through the garage. Councilman Litsey: To me that'd be almost more convenient. Kate Aanenson: That was one of our suggestions. Councilman Litsey: To set off part of your garage and aesthetically it would be to the back side of the house. David Scherle: I don't know if that'd be possible. But possibly to put a door on the side of the garage, that's maybe a possibility because otherwise if you put it, you know extend onto the garage, you're still having a problem trying to get it in and out with cars and everything so it is a possibility of putting a garage door on the side. Councilman Litsey: And go out through that door. David Scherle: Yeah, then we could use the sidewalk to drive it on. That would be a possibility. Councilman Litsey: I guess that would be my thought is perhaps you could work with staff on that idea rather than having to go through the, because the setback's 10 feet and you're just trying to force something… Mayor Furlong: Any other questions of Mr. Scherle? Okay, thank you. David Scherle: Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Any follow-up questions for staff or discussion? Thoughts and comments. Councilman Litsey: Just one and Kate, you could go off the back of the garage right? Kate Aanenson: That was our suggestion too. Councilman Litsey: Oh, okay. Kate Aanenson: No, I appreciate your suggesting it. Councilman Litsey: So it wasn't my. Kate Aanenson: No, I think you know somehow it seemed like it would work. There's two issues going on. One was the impervious which Mr. Scherle worked very hard to get in compliance and we appreciate those efforts. He's been very cooperative. Secondly, it's just the 9 City Council Meeting - October 22, 2007 aesthetic of having some more of these, it doesn't have a footing, it's not architecturally integral to the house and certainly it performs a function of keeping the motorcycle covered, which we understand but I think we wouldn't want to see a lot of them built to this kind of style just because it's, it looks more temporary in nature and maybe that would be best served on the back side is where Councilman Litsey was going. That's kind of what we thought too. And it serves a purpose of providing cover that's not architecturally seen. Seeing the same format. Mayor Furlong: Well with the, there is room on the back of the garage with regard to setbacks, where there isn't room on the side. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Is part of it too which is where your idea was, even though they had the idea first. Councilman Litsey: I'll yield to them. Mayor Furlong: You can run it a lot of different ways. I was coming out the back door. You had a different slant on it so I think you know, somehow working that approach would be best served. Mayor Furlong: Find a way to work it within the existing restrictions I guess is what I hear you saying Councilman Litsey. Councilman Litsey: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Any other thoughts or comments? Other thoughts or comments? Councilwoman Ernst: Sounds like a good solution. Yeah, it sounds like they're complying. I think that's… Mayor Furlong: Well I think Mr. Scherle was continuing to want it on the side of the house is what I heard. David Scherle: And we're going to put the same garage door as the garage door itself, I forgot to mention. It will look like it's part of the garage. Same siding. Same color of overhang and we're going to put the regular shingles that are on the house right now on the garage too so it will really fit well in the neighborhood. Kate Aanenson: The siding does match. Our concern was that originally it just had the metal on the roof and now he's explaining, he's willing to put the shingles on but that was some of our concern. It does not have permanent footings so. Mayor Furlong: There are architectural issues that I'm hearing but the issue before us is really the setback. The location of it. I think versus the design of the construction materials, so that's what. 10 City Council Meeting - October 22, 2007 Kate Aanenson: Correct. But if you were to approve it, one of the mitigation strategies was it had to be architecturally compatible is what I would recommend if you were to, yep. Mayor Furlong: I see. Kate Aanenson: Just so it looks like it's part of the house and not just an appendix that doesn't match in. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, I see. Kate Aanenson: And I think that was what the neighbors expectations or their concern was, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts or comments? Councilman Litsey: Have there been any comments by neighbors so far? Kate Aanenson: There was some at the Planning Commission that did support it. Councilman Litsey: Oh yeah, that's right. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, but there was some that we received that were a little concerned about. Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts? Councilman Peterson. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilman Peterson: Well you know as far as variances go I don't see a compelling reason to grant this one over the other ones which we've historically denied. You know I clearly don't see a defined hardship so I, as it stands and as requested presented, I can't support it but I certainly support being creative with staff to try to do it without a variance. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom, anything? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I would concur. I always start these processes out by saying that they're never easy because nothing's ever black and white. I don't think the applicants decided to put a shed in and make sure the setback wasn't correct and I think he was trying to make legal use of the property in his eyes and protect his investment, which I totally understand but unfortunately I have to look at it more ordinance wise and what we do. What the rules are for setbacks. And clearly he's over the limit for setbacks and that has a couple implications. Drainage was one of them. Perhaps not the neighbors but perhaps for himself, in his own yard backing up. And also it's encroaching on other people's property or just at least the, the lots of separation that was going to be occurring between his property and his neighbors. And so because of that too I also have to support staff's position and will not be supporting this request. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. My thoughts are similar. Whenever we look at these, it's part of the process to try to solve the problem. You know and often we try to look for, how can it be 11 City Council Meeting - October 22, 2007 solved and that's the nature of a number of our questions, as you probably heard this evening. You know what are the alternatives besides granting the variance. It sounds like there are some. They may not be necessarily preferable to the applicant, to the property owner, but there certainly are some that would fit within the ordinance. To Councilman Peterson's point, you know is there a compelling reason here to grant this? Is there something so unique here that really creates that hardship, and that's really one of the hurdles and I think it's a tough hurdle to get over but what I'm okay with having it be tough because the variances should be the exception. I think this is, from what I’m hearing here the desire here is much more of a convenience versus a hardship. Whether or not certainly desires to do it, I haven't been convinced again that there's a compelling reason for that. So my position would be not to grant the variance but to continue to look for and encourage Mr. and Mrs. Scherle to work with staff and say how can something else be done within the ordinance. Is there a way to locate this so that you can protect your personal property? But at the same time do it in such a way that we fit within the setbacks and we fit within the impervious surface coverage requirements. My sense is there's probably, it may not be initially the desired way but there's probably a way and so I would encourage you to work with them and would ask staff, and I know they will, try to cooperate with you as they do always with property owners to find ways to get it to work within the ordinance and that's what we always like to see so. Other thoughts and comments at this point. If not, is there a motion with regard to the request for the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the variance request. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I'll make a motion. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: The City Council denies Planning Case 07-22 for a 7 foot, 3 inch side yard setback variance from the required 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of a th shed on Lot 4, Block 1, Lake Susan Hills West 5 Addition based upon the Findings of Fact in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: You can sit back Roger. Councilwoman Tjornhom: The Council also further directs that the applicant must move the shed and comply with the Zoning Ordinance and the applicant must re-vegetate all removed hard surface areas with grass seed or sod. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Litsey: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion? On that. Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council denies Planning Case 07-22 for a 7 foot, 3 inch side yard setback variance from the required 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of a shed on Lot 4, Block 1, Lake 12 City Council Meeting - October 22, 2007 th Susan Hills West 5 Addition, based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report. The City Council further directs that: 1. The applicant must move the shed and comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The applicant must re-vegetate all removed hard surface areas with grass seed or sod. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. DISCUSSION OF KURVERS POINT SPEED LIMITS. Mayor Furlong: The next item on our agenda was, staff had conducted a speed limit study for Kurvers Point Road and at the request of the residents we scheduled it for tonight's council meeting to discuss it. We received notification, staff received notification earlier today that, at the request of those same residents, that they did not want to proceed with the discussion this evening so unless anybody is here to discuss that, I don't know if anybody is. If you raise your hand if you are. If not I would recommend that I think the staff's report was pretty complete and there's no action required at the council so, unless there is any desire to go forward, we can just bypass item number 5 this evening. Without objection we'll do that. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: th Todd Gerhardt: Just want you to put down on your calendar November 29. It's the ribbon cutting for Highway 312 and you'll be seeing a special invitation for that but I just wanted you to keep that date open on your calendar. And Roger's also informed me that the Court ruled in our favor for the Arild Rossavik suit against the City so that was good news. And that's all I have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any discussion or questions for Mr. Gerhardt or staff? Has that meeting been moved again? The ribbon cutting. Todd Gerhardt: Oh, did I say the wrong date? Laurie Hokkanen: I haven't received notification on the final date. I didn't know if you had gotten something. Todd Gerhardt: What date did you have? Laurie Hokkanen: I don't know. Todd Gerhardt: Okay. Mayor Furlong: I had heard the Monday. The first Monday in December. I had heard that as recently as 2 weeks ago but that could have changed. Laurie Hokkanen: I'll check tomorrow and email everyone. 13