CC Minutes 11-10-08City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
d. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, St. Hubert Catholic Community, 8201
Main Street.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
None.
PETERS VARIANCE, 7301 LAREDO DRIVE, APPLICANTS: RICHARD & EUNICE
PETERS: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SHORELAND SETBACK TO
EXPAND AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING DECK INTO A PORCH AND ADDING
ANOTHER DECK.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. As you recall we discussed
th
this item at your October 27 meeting. It did appear before the Planning Commission on
th
October 7 and the Planning Commission did recommend 3 to 2 to deny it. And in following up
on this item staff listened to the concerns of the City Council in reading through the minutes.
Tried to redirect the applicant in what we understood the direction that you wanted to go. Again
this property is located on 7301 Laredo Drive. The issue was the 15 foot shoreland setback.
That was for an existing deck, which they now wanted to convert to a year round facility. And in
addition to that there was a, so this would be the deck in orange, and the additional, into the year
round facility porch or living structure and then an additional deck with stairs going down. That
one the Planning Commission again denied. The closest point to the shoreland was 60 feet. So
and the compromise on that, and I want to pass something around, was that you have in your
staff report was for denial. The applicant was pursuing this application which still included the
60 foot setback from the lake and a smaller deck. As you recall from the discussion their goal
was to be able to, to be able to have a place where they could barbeque. Put that on that same
level as the structure because it’s sitting up on the second story as opposed to the walkout level.
And in looking at that and from the direction that the staff understood from, in the report, and
this is on page 2 of the cover memo but I also have a slide. Was that we felt by adding onto the
non-conformity, even though there was a variance, that there should be some compromise. The
deck would have to come down. Additional footings be put in place. So in that kind of that
mitigation, what we would do to improve this situation would actually try to move that existing
structure back. So with this would still be a 15 by 20 deck and then a smaller 6 by 8 structure for
the barbeque so what the staff’s proposal, and that was the handout I made so there’s a new
motion if that was the direction you wanted to go. And that would change it to a 10 by 20.
Again in looking at that structure you’d have to put different footings in place. And the existing
patio area would be 3.5 by 7. That’s a blue line adjacent to the structure would be staying within
that would meet the shoreland setback. The 75 feet so the 64 feet, that would be that mitigation
in order to enclose the structure. So that’s the direction the staff moved, based on what we heard
the council’s direction was to provide, try to find some way to reduce the non-conformity, even
though the deck was already approved with the encroachment. We’re expanding that deck so to
make it to the porch. So that’s what the staff is recommending. This isn’t what we’re
recommending. That’s the Planning Commission’s recommendation. What we are
recommending, and I believe the applicant still his preference would be still the 15 by 20 but
we’re recommending, and I’ve prepared, so you’ve got both motions in front of you, would be
the 10 by 20 with the smaller 3.7, 3.5 by 7 foot deck and the Findings of Fact that would match
that are also attached. So I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
2
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Litsey: I had a, going back to that drawing in the green area there. That would be
the additional for the, I guess to have an outdoor grill or whatever to accommodate that concern.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman Litsey: And then the stairs would come down and hook up with the existing
walkway then?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman Litsey: And then keeping back 75 feet from the shoreland except for the existing
variance.
Kate Aanenson: Right. So originally they, so it took off that 5 feet to make it less of a variance.
Councilman Litsey: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah Kate.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So the proposed new deck, that still needs a variance. I mean the
addition?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Because they’re adding to that. Increasing the non-conformity, right.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So they do need a variance with that still?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Were there any other scenarios or options talked about?
Kate Aanenson: This is their first choice to stay on this side without removing any of the trees or
the vegetation on the other side. That was their first proposal that came through. Let’s see if I
have some of other pictures that were on here. If you go back to looking at the structure. The
vegetation that was around there. How the structure’s sitting up. So this one shows the original
request.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And so then the request you’re, or the proposal you’re submitting is
that they take that existing deck and go back 5 feet?
3
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
Kate Aanenson: 4 feet.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: 4 feet?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I said 5. It’s 4.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And has the applicant talked to you about that at all?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. That would not be their first choice.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And so their first choice is still what was first proposed?
Kate Aanenson: The 15 by, the 15 by 20, that’s correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: With the shorter deck though.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay, yeah. I’m just making sure that I understand what everyone’s
proposing.
Mayor Furlong: And let’s, in a few minutes I’m going to have Mr. Peters and Mrs. Peters come
up if they want to so we can ask that. Just to clarify. Any other questions for staff at this point?
Councilman McDonald: If I could ask just.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: The handout that you gave us then would be a proposed motion
incorporating what you would recommend for the reduced deck at this point. Is that right?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman McDonald: And this motion doesn’t require a variance then, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: Well it does because they’re adding to that structure. It’s not increasing the
hard cover but they’re still increasing the non-conformity.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, but they’re increasing it based upon the current footprint.
Kate Aanenson: The setback from the shoreland, yep.
4
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Well to clarify, under staff’s alternative or staff’s recommendation the footprint
would be smaller.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: But the structure itself would be and going from a deck to a.
Councilman McDonald: An enclosed room.
Mayor Furlong: And enclosed, year round room.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, they’re increasing the non-conformity by intensifying that deck, making
a four season porch.
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: That’s our interpretation.
Mayor Furlong: The footprint is smaller than what they currently have or what they requested.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And just to clarify, both proposals, the hard cover surface is not
being increased, is it?
Kate Aanenson: Well there is hard cover underneath the patio right now. Or the deck. So if you
would move it back, that could be reduced too by not making it hard cover.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But it’s not being increased to what they have right now. Existing.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. And just to be clear, I guess where we were going with that,
what we understood was that, because they’re intensifying it, that we try to find some ways to
mitigate that, and that would be to increase the setback from the shoreland.
Todd Gerhardt: And to provide more pervious. Or impervious.
Councilwoman Ernst: Pervious.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this time? We may have some others.
Anything at this point?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: One more. Underneath the deck, what’s underneath the deck right
now?
Kate Aanenson: That’s what we believe is impervious. So that’s why I’m saying.
5
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is it a slab or something or?
Kate Aanenson: It appears to be rock and hard cover so that’s why we’re saying if we can move
it back we can make that be green.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: I think we noted in that first presentation there was a lot of patio put on there
that we have no, prior to, the house goes back a number of years so there is a lot of hard cover in
the back of the house.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Mr. and Mrs. Peters, if you’d like to come forward at this time.
Rich Peters: Again I’m Rich Peters, 7301 Laredo Drive.
Eunice Peters: And I’m Eunice Peters.
Mayor Furlong: Hello again. Thank you for coming back.
Rich Peters: I’m confused a little bit here because we’re bouncing around back and forth. We
started out by the 15 by 20 foot deck, to make it a, enclose it in some respect. And we had an 8
by 31 foot deck added on. Farther away from the lake than the original deck. Okay. Okay, then
when the Planning Commission said can you just live without the deck, and I said no. Okay.
Now after the meeting 2 weeks ago you wanted a compromise so we cut off 80% of the deck.
We’re down to 6 by 8 instead of 8 by 31. Just enough room for people to stand and, around a
grill and drink a diet Coke you know. That’s all we’re asking for there. And to enclose the deck
that we have now. The proposal that the City’s coming up with, which is taking 5, chopping 5
feet off the deck would leave you with a 10 foot room. And when you start putting furniture in a
10 foot room, you don’t have much space left at all at that point. We don’t even think that’s
something we would consider. It would end up being a 10 by 20 foot hallway is all it’s going to
be. And in a 3 ½ foot wide deck wouldn’t even fit my grill on it. My grill which is nothing
fancy. It’s a 15 year old Weber. It’s 4 feet wide and you couldn’t fit that, you know a grill on it
so that’s, you know we think a 6 by 8 foot deck is adequate, at least for people to stand on. You
wouldn’t put a table or anything on it but just people stand around and have a barbeque grill
there and then finish off the 3 season porch. You asked for a compromise and that’s what we
understood was you were looking for. For something you know. And so that’s where we stand
today. Below that deck, where the deck was, as I mentioned before was a cement block patio. I
don’t think the cement blocks are there. Just dirt. Call it dirt basically what it was. That was
there with the original building was there in 1960. The patio below was there in 1962. We just
put new blocks in it, that’s all.
Mayor Furlong: So is the cement block patio taken out when the deck was put in?
Rich Peters: No. Well. The cement blocks might have been. But it’s dirt.
Eunice Peters: They’re holding down the, so the weeds don’t grow.
6
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
Rich Peters: Put your house picture up there. Yeah. Yeah, below that is, you know it’s built up
to about.
Mayor Furlong: Below the lattice.
Rich Peters: Yeah, the lattice, I would say a foot. There’s probably a foot between the deck and
the dirt.
Eunice Peters: And there’s fabric and then.
Kate Aanenson: Somewhere in here, yeah.
Eunice Peters: The rocks are on top of the fabric to hold it down.
Mayor Furlong: Landscaping rocks?
Eunice Peters: Well the squares that were the patio before.
Rich Peters: Those thin square, ancient you know.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Eunice Peters: And all the hard surface that is there was there when we moved in.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m sorry, are we at questions?
Mayor Furlong: No.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I got ahead of myself. I’m sorry.
Mayor Furlong: Please. No, that’s fine, if that’s okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sorry.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: When you, whatever happens tonight and if you do do your addition
or your porch, staff talked that you’ll have to pour footings. Is that correct? So what will you do
with the concrete blocks and everything that are there now?
Eunice Peters: They would be hauled away.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And just replaced with fabric or dirt?
7
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
Rich Peters: Just fabric probably. I don’t know what they put underneath a crawl space you
know because it would be blocked in for fertilizer. What am I thinking of?
Eunice Peters: I don’t know.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Insulation?
Rich Peters: Insulation, yes. You have to fill around the edge for insulation so it will be a crawl
space. The crawl space we have in another place in the house is just dirt. You know below the
kitchen in fact is dirt. So I would expect that but I’m not a contractor.
Mayor Furlong: So to clarify, rather than just footings with posts you’re looking at putting in a 4
foot foundation block wall or something all the way around.
Rich Peters: Could be, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. With a crawl space underneath. Okay.
Councilman McDonald: I have a question. On the proposed compromise that the staff
recommended, I understand that that’s probably not enough room for a grill but why couldn’t the
grill go down on the patio?
Rich Peters: Because the kitchen sits up off the deck. There’s sliding glass doors and there will
be some kind of doors there out to that too. But so then you’d have to walk all the way down.
Down through the, you know through the porch. Through the deck or steps to get down and then
back up again. So you’d be running back up. Or, I suppose you could go out to the garage, or
the basement. Walk down through the living room, which you know you can’t see here, and
come out the very bottom there by the table and chairs on the bottom. It just wouldn’t be very
handy. Because the dining room and living room and everything’s upstairs.
Councilman McDonald: But whenever you go to eat, wouldn’t you go down to the patio anyway
in the summer because this is when you’re going to be using it is mainly in the warmer weather,
is that correct?
Rich Peters: Yeah, I tell you we normally eat in the kitchen. You know if we have company or
something, there’s more room in the kitchen. And grill outside you know.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions Councilman Litsey or Councilwoman Ernst?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have one more. If you don’t have one first.
Councilwoman Ernst: No, go ahead.
8
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Staff has made their proposal and you have your’s. Is there any way
you guys could meet in the middle? Where you know they’re proposing 14 and you want 20.
Rich Peters: I thought we gave up 80% of the deck was a huge compromise already you know.
And the fact of losing 5 feet off our deck that we have now, we would just as soon leave it as a
deck.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: That’s what I’m saying. Is there any compromise in that number,
you know between you and staff?
Eunice Peters: Instead of a 10 foot wide deck you mean, or room, have a 12 foot?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right.
Rich Peters: You know it’s a 12 by 20 and still, and then have a 6 by 8 foot deck.
Eunice Peters: I tell you what I would do, I’d give up the deck totally. Just forget the deck and
let us have a sun porch.
Rich Peters: Yeah. That was one of the Planning Commission’s recommendations, or I
shouldn’t say recommendation. One of the things they threw at us was can you just give up the
th
deck and have the porch. At this point, it’s November 10. If we’re going to do something
we’ve got to do it now. You know because they’re going to want to, working on a porch and get
it filled in so they can work inside and stuff like that. So you know if you want to leave a deck
off, we’ll go with having a screened in, you know build a porch or a sunroom on top of the deck.
And no deck. But we can’t, you know to get anything done this year we’ve got to do it now with
winter approaching.
Councilwoman Ernst: So just to be clear then when you’re talking about the screened in porch.
Are we looking at that to be the 8 by 31?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Rich Peters: No, that would be.
Councilwoman Ernst: The additional?
Rich Peters: No, the screened in porch would be, is now 15 by 20.
Councilwoman Ernst: Right. Oh, okay. I see.
Rich Peters: And that’s all. In other words, the least we would take is, other than not getting
anything at all is, is just give us the porch we have now. Or deck we have now and we’ll make a
porch out of it. No further deck.
9
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
Kate Aanenson: Mayor if I may. I don’t want to confuse the matter but just to be clear. The
way that the staff had recommended the smaller deck, I’m not sure, but that would not require a
variance because they’re behind the 75 foot shoreland setback. That little part of the deck so.
Just so if we’re negotiating. If it stayed smaller, as long as it stayed within that 75 foot setback,
they would be permitted.
Mayor Furlong: Without a variance.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Eunice Peters: But a 3.5, excuse me. You could not put a sliding glass door in there. It would
have to be a door that opened out.
Rich Peters: Coming from the porch, for the 3 season porch.
Eunice Peters: A 3.5 wide deck is, I mean you might just as well pitch over the side. That’s a
pretty you know whatever deck. I’d just soon have none at all.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Litsey, you had a question regarding, or comment. Or question.
Councilman Litsey: That’s alright. No, I think it’s kind of been answered so that’s okay.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other questions at this point? No? Okay, thank you.
Okay, any follow-up questions of staff? If not, thoughts and comments.
Councilwoman Ernst: Well I think that, I mean if they’re okay with that, with negotiating having
the porch versus the deck, that sounds like a compromise and where you originally started,
because I actually was in favor of them having the original proposal that they came up with. So I
would definitely be in favor of the 15 by 20 porch.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Litsey: I do have a question of staff. So what you’re saying is it wouldn’t require a
variance for the deck that is being proposed. They could go ahead and do that anyway.
Kate Aanenson: Right, it would be smaller but it sounds like it doesn’t meet their needs. As
long as it stayed within that 75 foot shoreland setback, that’s correct.
Councilman Litsey: So we really can’t make that a condition of, that they not, I mean I
appreciate the spirit of compromise but by saying you’ll do with, you could really go ahead and
do it anyway.
Kate Aanenson: I guess that was my point. Just to say if they wanted to come back later and put
a narrow, it may not meet their needs but they could do something narrow. Yeah.
Councilman Litsey: Thank you.
10
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Any other thoughts or comments? Unless somebody else wants to go.
Councilman Litsey: No, I’m fine with it. The struggle with these, as we’ve all said, and last
time too with allowing you know the use of your property. Reasonable use and I understand that
if you start narrowing that up too much it does become more or a hallway than a living area so I
guess I’d be interested to hear what other people say and then come back.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman McDonald: I’ll go ahead and jump in. Yeah as far as the 15 by 20 foot deck,
converting that sunroom, I guess because it already exists I was in favor of doing that. It’s
always been this other patio that I’ve had a problem with. So I mean if it comes down to
enclosing the current deck into a sunroom, I’m fine with doing that because we’re really to me
it’s kind of net zero effect. It still stays within the parameters of where it’s at, whether it’s a deck
or an enclosed structure so I’m fine with that. What I’ve always struggled with has been the
auxiliary deck that comes off of there. I understand 3 ½ feet may be unreasonable but by the
same token I really don’t want to intensify the encroachment that’s currently there so that’s kind
of where I’m thinking at this point.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom, thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, you know I too kind of scratched my head when I try to
envision a 10 by 20 porch. It just didn’t seem to be something that would be a very comfortable
room or you know you want to use it obviously and if the space is as such where you can’t use it,
why have it? So it didn’t make a lot of, I mean for me as a porch goes, it didn’t make a lot of
sense to do that so still am in favor of the 15 by 20 enclosure. And I try to always be really
consistent when it comes to shoreland setbacks and hard surface coverage, that if they’re being
affected and increased you know I’m never in favor of that and I, that’s why with this I don’t see
it being increased. I understand that you got a variance to increase it in 1996, or whenever it was
but so did everybody else it sounds like and so it just comes down to me to logic and what is
reasonable use of your property and I feel the enclosure is a reasonable request and you know I
wish that the deck could be bigger so you could have a grill. That seems reasonable too but if
not having that deck, or the extra deck is going to get your porch done, then I’m in favor of that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I guess my thoughts on this, as I had mentioned last time
was, and I think as Councilman Litsey and I know others have said before and feel that these are
tough requests because but for the location to the lake, putting on a porch, an addition to the
house certainly is something that seems reasonable. I think the challenge here is how do we do
that given the parameters for it’s setback to the lake. It was my hope and expectation that, as we
have done in the past, sought compromise when there’s an increase to the non-conformity, which
going from a deck to an enclosed addition, porch, sunroom, whatever we want to call it, it’s
going to be a year round use. Interior use for the house. That’s an intensification and the
challenge is, where is the hardship? Where is the justification for that? I’m having trouble with
that. I do appreciate the applicants and staffs working together to try and compromise this. This
is still a difficult, difficult call simply because, well the compromise is being proposed is, we
11
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
want to make these improvements. We won’t make quite as many improvements as a
compromise. It was my hope, and I, with staff’s recommendation of a 10 foot, which would give
a 4 or 5 point reduction of the encroachment in the setback and actually improving the
impervious surface, I like the concept. I like the motivation. I too am, and Councilwoman
Tjornhom said the 10 by 20 seems a difficult room to use and manage. I was, and in coming
here I was kind of hoping you know if we could go with a 12 by 20 or not come back quite so
far, and then maybe go ahead with the deck that they were looking for originally because
assuming that’s a slotted deck. It’s not increasing impervious and so it doesn’t affect the
impervious. We’d actually be improving the impervious. The porch itself will be bigger than
staff’s alternative but not quite as big as what the applicant was saying, and yet they’d have that
outside deck to use as well. It was more usable. And by here I’m talking about their alternative,
the 6 by 8 structure as it was which would still be further back from the lake than the edge of
even a 12 foot porch so. I see you’re nodding up and down because you’re probably
understanding my, I don’t know if it’s an agreement but maybe I’ll ask that. If there can be some
compromise there to try to reduce the impervious surface coverage. That’s why I think, you
know there’s an email in our packet from the DNR saying that they don’t support it. I think
reducing, bringing it back a little bit from the lake, and then taking those cement blocks out and
replacing it with even landscaping or anything, is a reduction of the, a little bit of the reduction in
the impervious surface but still provides, there’s still intensification. There’s no question you’re
in the setback area but I’m, and I’m thinking about this as I’m hearing other people talk. You
know is there a compromise there that might be available so maybe I’ll throw that out and see if
that’s something that, and if you understand my thought rather than.
Rich Peters: I’m not sure. That’s why I’m coming up here.
Mayor Furlong: I guess my proposal would be, and I think you know I’m picking up a little bit
on the question that Councilwoman Tjornhom said. Is there some distance on the porch between
the 15 and the 10? I’m saying maybe a 12 by 20 porch but then going forward with the 6 by 8
deck that you’ve been, your reduced deck. If something like that would work for you.
Rich Peters: I think, I know what you’re saying and I think at this point, if that’s what it’s going
to be, let’s just drop the whole thing. Because we like what we’ve got as far as a deck now. We
don’t want to give up part of that space. We’ll give up the new deck, but we’d like to keep what
we got now and just make it more useful and efficient. If we’re going to cut down the size of the
deck, the old deck, we’ll just drop the whole request for a variance and go back to, we’re going
to do some remodeling anyway. Inside you know. And we’ll work on that instead of the, but.
Still I don’t think, this impervious word comes around here all the time and I’m sorry I’m not
familiar with variance process so much so I’m sure but we’re not really putting any more space,
covering up any more space than we have now. That’s what I’m saying.
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely, and I guess what I was looking for was to see if there was some
arrangement where we could actually reduce the amount of space you’re covering up and still
provide you with a porch and deck option.
Rich Peters: I would just as soon you know leave the 15 by 20 and forget the deck and that way
we’re 50 square feet less than we are right now. But obviously I’d prefer to have somewhere to
12
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
put the grill. You know on a 6 foot. 3 ½ won’t work. 6 by 8 would be our preference. But if
that’s going to be that difficult, let’s skip that and just do the sunroom, addition, porch, whatever
you want to call it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Litsey: I did have one follow up question, if I could ask it. When you talk about
doing some remodeling and stuff to the house too. Is where the new structure you’re proposing
abuts with the house, the existing house. Are any walls coming down there or is this all.
Rich Peters: Outside?
Councilman Litsey: Yeah.
Rich Peters: No.
Councilman Litsey: No, where the porch attaches to the house on here. If you do the porch is
what I’m saying.
Rich Peters: If we do the porch, yeah.
Councilman Litsey: And it abuts to the house.
Rich Peters: Yeah.
Councilman Litsey: There’s a common wall there.
Rich Peters: Well there’s a sliding glass door.
Councilman Litsey: Okay. Are you proposing to take any of that…
Rich Peters: The sliding glass door may be gone. You know what we’ve got is a heating
problem out there too you know because you’re sticking it out there, you know what I mean?
Councilman Litsey: Yeah. What I’m getting to is you’re saying it restricts. If we’re looking at
bringing it down to a 12 by 20 foot porch, if you’re going to be taking out some wall, would that
help that, mitigate that problem for you because you actually then would be using part of the
existing house to kind of give you some more room?
Rich Peters: It depends on which end of the 20 feet you would be finishing off. If you finished
off the, it would make more sense if you were going to do that, which I don’t want to do. You’d
do the north end, you know.
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Rich Peters: But that wouldn’t work very good.
13
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
Councilman Litsey: Yeah and I don’t know the inside layout of your house but it would just,
there’s a difference between having a stand alone kind of room where you’re enclosed with 4
walls versus if you have some latitude to kind of bring that porch through some openness into the
house itself, but I don’t know if your house…
Rich Peters: This would open up into the house.
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Eunice Peters: Yes, the kitchen will be, we’ll be taking out the sliding glass door so we can
move from the kitchen into the porch.
Councilman Litsey: So to me that means, the, you know you talk about being pretty confined if
you have 4 walls around you but that would allow some openness there, even if we reduced it
down a little bit, would it not? I mean.
Rich Peters: We’re getting down to nit picking so much as far as square feet that you know, to
me it’s not worth it anymore. You know we’ve got a nice deck and we’ll, maybe we’ll just have
to stick with that.
Eunice Peters: And we also want something that looks nice, and we’ve got it drawn up. We
know what we want and like with that little teeny deck. That would not look nice. We would
like something that looks nice and not just to have this porch. We want a porch that we can use
the way we want to use it. And if we can’t, we’d just as soon not have one. Okay?
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Councilwoman Ernst: So I just have one other question. So just to be clear, you would be fine
with the 15 by 20 porch, because I keep hearing deck a lot and so I just want to be clear.
Rich Peters: I refer to deck because that’s what it is now.
Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah, right.
Rich Peters: Yeah, just leaving that and making it a 3 season or a sunroom.
Eunice Peters: Just enclosing what we have now.
Councilwoman Ernst: And you’d be fine with that?
Rich Peters: That would be the minimum we would.
Eunice Peters: Enclosing what we have now.
Rich Peters: Yep. Yes.
14
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
Eunice Peters: We will settle for that.
Councilwoman Ernst: Thank you.
Eunice Peters: You’re welcome.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well maybe I’ll finish my comments, and I fully appreciate the
clarification because I’m, I guess I’d like to continue hearing from members of the council. I’m
just, I’m concerned about, about what the intensification of literally adding what appears to be an
addition to the house, a 15 by 20 addition to the house. Even though there’s a deck there and it’s
impervious, it’s still an intensification I think. Clearly I saw, I’m still concerned about being
able to support it but I’m, I’d like to listen or, Councilman Litsey I don’t know if you have any
thoughts having listened to others.
Councilman Litsey: Well I guess what I was getting at with the applicant is if you can eliminate
that wall, something to give you some more room, I think that would be helpful. That’s not just
a, 4 walls around you then. So I’d like to see some movement on that if possible so we could
get, I like the idea of you know cutting it down a little bit just to get some more surface there
but…
Councilman McDonald: I guess if I could, you know as I’ve stated, I’m okay with the 15 by 20
foot deck, but not the auxiliary deck that they want to build out because I think that’s the
intensification and that’s where I would ask about, is because the 15 by 20 space already exists,
the net effect is actually zero. We’re not increasing anything as far as the encroachment upon the
lake. All those numbers remain the same. So that’s why, at least I’d be in favor of the 15 by 20.
Now if that drives towards Councilman Litsey’s point of when you begin to look at this and if
you want to give up some of that space to then add the deck that would fit in without the
variance, that’s a choice that the homeowners can make once they’ve had a chance to reassess
this but I guess that’s what I would ask is, how do you see the 15 by 20 as maybe, I understand
that it is an intensification because we’re building a structure.
Mayor Furlong: Right. That’s.
Councilman McDonald: But if I look at just the raw numbers of again the setbacks and the
impact, I see zero impact with just that structure because it’s already an impervious surface so
we’re not increasing that. That remains constant. We’re not increasing the setbacks. We’re not
increasing any encroachment into the buffer zone. So if we just stay with that, I guess I’m
willing to look at that as my compromise toward all this.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I guess my thought to that is, that’s where the struggle is. From an
aerial view, from just squares on a piece of paper, there isn’t a difference. Clearly from a
structural standpoint, when you start looking at putting in a 4 foot high foundation wall with a
crawl space underneath and the room addition effectively, porch, sunroom, whatever, that’s
where the intensification. And that’s the struggle so, but that’s fine. So just, I don’t know if that
helps clarify my thoughts or not because I do understand the comments that you’ve made is that,
15
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
is that strictly from a coverage standpoint, there’s no change under this. Under just going
forward with the 15 by 20 porch. So I do understand that.
Councilman McDonald: And then I guess what I look at there is, is again once you’ve got a
defined space to work with, now there are other compromises, especially if you’re going to be
doing work inside the house anyway, there may be another way around that to work at least with
that space.
Mayor Furlong: And I think that’s where Councilman Litsey was probing.
Councilman McDonald: Right.
Mayor Furlong: Is if there’s some adjustments? Is there some other options? What I heard is
that, as far as what they want to do, they want 15 by 20 at a minimum. So, I don’t know if there
are any other thoughts or comments. If not, is there a motion?
Councilman McDonald: Doesn’t it get to be a little bit of a problem for a motion because if I’m,
what I’m in favor of is the 15 by 20 and I don’t think we have anything before us that covers that
because the one that staff passed out is for a 10 by 20.
Councilwoman Ernst: Can’t we just change it?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: You just change the name to we approve and then just leave off the
deck construction.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Roger Knutson: Members of the council. If you want to do that I would just suggest you make
that motion with direction to staff to bring back findings at your next meeting consistent with
your discussion here tonight. You I think are going to pass the motion ahead of the findings
under these circumstances. We don’t want to, if you want to do this, I’m sure you don’t want to
hold anyone up unnecessarily. But the finding is to come back with approval at your next
meeting.
Councilwoman Ernst: So just make the motion to approve a 15 by 20.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Just read this.
Councilwoman Ernst: That we approve. It’s not a variance, right? Anymore.
Kate Aanenson: Yes it is.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, variance to convert an existing deck into a porch.
16
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No…
Councilwoman Ernst: I’m sorry, the existing porch and construction.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: On Lot 12, Block 1.
Councilwoman Ernst: On Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition and adoption of the attached
Findings of Fact and Action, but to be a 15 by 20.
Kate Aanenson: Clarification. So I believe what you want to say is, that City Council approve
the Case 8-19 for a 15 foot variance allowing for a 15 by 20 deck, and then strike the next
sentence. Removal of the balance of the deck because to be clear, if they stay within the setback
they can do that, and then with the Findings of Fact to be attached, presented at your next regular
meeting.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, if you wrote that down I’d be glad to read it.
Todd Gerhardt: You can reference.
Councilman McDonald: What I would do is make a motion based upon what Ms. Aanenson
read to us. That the City Council would be approve Planning Case 08-19 for a 15 foot shoreland
setback variance to construct a 15 by 20 foot enclosed structure on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills
Addition and adopt Findings of Fact to be supplied by staff.
Roger Knutson: At your next meeting.
Councilman McDonald: At our next meeting.
Councilwoman Ernst: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Motion’s been made and seconded. Is there any further
discussion? I guess what I’m hearing is the justification is that there’s effectively no increase in
the impervious surface coverage within the setback is a primary justification.
Councilman McDonald: That’s the primary justification.
Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, if I may.
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
Terry Jeffery: Councilman McDonald, the question’s arisen, is there additional impact by taking
a deck and converting it to a enclosed structure, and there is in terms of if you look at the setback
from the lake and the bluff that exists, in that what you’ve done is you’ve effectively taken sheet
flow that would run through the deck and drop down below and then goes laterally, or flow out
into the yard and created a situation where you actually have concentrated flow off of the roof
through some type of down spout, to the bluff that actually exists at the top of it. Not to say that
17
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
that could not be mitigated for in the way that they lay out the roof and how they do the drainage
pattern but I do think it’s important to make that clarification. There is, in addition to the
additional structure, there is a drainage issue. Or potential for drainage issues that do not exist in
flat deck situation.
Councilman Litsey: How would you mitigate something like that then?
Terry Jeffery: For instance you might look at, if you were going to have a hip facing towards
Lotus Lake. Get rid of that hip. Have that be a gable end. Where are you going to have the
down spouts run to? If there’s some way to do some energy dissipation before it goes to the
bluff. So there are a number of different ways in which it could be done. I just think it needs to
be addressed in the plan that is finalized.
Councilman McDonald: And is that part of the reason why the DNR is probably not for this?
Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald, yes. That’s precisely the reason. Or at
least a large portion of the reason.
Councilwoman Ernst: And as I understood it they planted additional, did you not? Like
additional bushes and things like that also for landscaping. I mean something like that certainly
helps with it being more previous, is that correct?
Terry Jeffery: It will help. It isn’t the imperviousness of the feature that I’m referring to though.
It is the drainage patterns that will result as, after the roof is in place and how that roof drains
through the yard and to the bluff and to the lake.
Councilman Litsey: So could that somehow be worked into.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I think it’d be appropriate to add a condition that we mitigate the
concentrated roof runoff by looking at alternatives such as where the drainage is going gutters
and the design of the roof.
Councilman McDonald: I would gladly accept that onto my motion.
Mayor Furlong: Who seconded it?
Councilwoman Ernst: I did.
Mayor Furlong: Is that okay with you?
Councilwoman Ernst: Yes. I accept that.
Mayor Furlong: From adding that condition.
Councilman Litsey: Could I just ask one question to that?
18
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely.
Councilman Litsey: Thank you. What enforcement capabilities do you have with that though? I
mean…
Kate Aanenson: Well when they issue the building permit we would check it at the time. When
there’s a variance on any piece of property, then we go back to the original conditions so that,
when it goes through for routing, then we would check to make sure that it’s compliant with that.
The roof design and then if they have gutters and how they’re managing the drainage.
Councilman Litsey: So we have some.
Kate Aanenson: Right, the permit would not be issued unless it was in compliance.
Councilman Litsey: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: So the condition is effectively to mitigate any, what is the condition?
Terry Jeffery: It would be to design the roof such that drainage off the roof is not concentrated
to create hazards to the bluff below.
Mayor Furlong: Whether that’s the roof design or maybe it’s the gutter system or working with
storm water runoff from the addition so.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. There’s a couple different ways to manage it.
Mayor Furlong: Yep. Okay, so it doesn’t have to necessarily be a roof design, because we don’t
want to be designing their house but the goal, how the goal is achieved.
Terry Jeffery: Absolutely.
Mayor Furlong: We have a motion and second. Any other discussion? I guess I will add in
terms of, especially with this added addition but also looking at the issue of the impervious
surface coverage. The lot to match it’s age of the development. Bottom line all things
considered, I think each of these have to be addressed individually. Any request for a variance.
This is a difficult one but I think all things considered I can support it as it’s been laid out in
front of us this evening and I do appreciate and I want to make sure that this is on the record, that
I appreciate the Peters’ willingness to work through sometimes a slow and perhaps painful
process but nonetheless a process that I think ultimately, ultimately is designed to make sure that
ordinances and laws are applied fairly and equally across the city as well as in this case to deal
with issues relating to lake water quality and lake protection, and I know as homeowners on the
lake you have no desire, or I’m assuming you have no desire to reduce the quality of the lake,
and I know that’s not the case so I thank you for your patience through the process and for staff
and for everybody to work together to try to find a way to make it good for all of us so, those are
my final thoughts. If there’s any.
19
City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008
Councilman Litsey: I was just going to, I agree with those comments and although again it may
seem like a lengthy process, I think through this it gives everybody a comfort level and I
appreciate the council’s insight on this too. It was helpful to me because I haven’t had as many
of these before me as some other people on the council so this certainly did help and I think with
conditions set forth, so I too support this so.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any other discussion? If not we have a motion before us that’s been
modified with a condition and subject to the Findings of Fact being presented in the next
meeting, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there any other discussion?
Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council
approve Planning Case 08-19 for a 15 foot shoreland setback variance to construct a 15 by
20 foot enclosed structure on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition and adopt Findings of
Fact to be supplied by staff at the next City Council meeting, with the following condition:
1. Design the roof such that drainage off the roof is not concentrated to create hazards to the
bluff below.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER, 7755 CENTURY BOULEVARD, KLMS GROUP,
LLC: REQUEST FOR A MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A DRIVE-THRU AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH
VARIANCES: LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER.
Public Present:
Name Address
th
Bryan Monahan 7500 West 78 Street, Edina
th
Andrew Ronningen 2669 West 78 Street
Lynne Etling 7681 Century Boulevard
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. I’m going to pass around,
there’s two letters of support that came with this project. This item appeared before the Planning
nd
Commission on October 22. The applicant is requesting to amend the PUD to allow for a drive
thru window. The subject site is located at a neighborhood commercial zoning district, as I
mentioned done as a PUD that’s located down on the northeast corner of Highway 5 and Century
th
Boulevard, bordered by West 78. This is one of those pocket neighborhoods that we put in
place with the upgrade, or when we did the Highway 5 corridor study, to provide some
convenience commercial for that neighborhood in this area. So again the applicant did appear
before the Planning Commission and before I go through the slides I’ll just summarize what the
20