CC Minutes 10-27-08
City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Would anybody like to submit a motion?
Councilwoman Ernst: I will.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: I make a motion that we approve the attached resolution establishing
procedures for reimbursement bond regulations under the Internal Revenue Service code.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Litsey: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion?
Resolution #2008-61: Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the
City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing reimbursement of public works
building bonds as regulated by the Internal Revenue Service. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you Greg for all your hard work on this, and for everyone else as well.
PETERS VARIANCE, 7301 LAREDO DRIVE, APPLICANTS: RICHARD AND
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 council. First I want to make sure that you
did receive Findings of Fact. In your staff report attachment #1 was supposed to be the Findings
of Fact. I apologize. They weren’t included. I have passed those out. So with that, the Peters as
you mentioned, are requesting a variance. Their address 7301 Laredo Drive. It’s part of the
Sunrise Hill Addition and is a riparian lot. They’re asking for a 15 foot shoreland setback
variance for the conversion of an existing deck into a screened porch, and addition of a new
deck. The background on this is that the site was developed in 1960 which pre-dates adoption of
the current zoning ordinance. The existing house meets the 75 foot setback line. If you’re
looking at the photograph, that would be the blue line is the existing 75 foot. So the house does
meet that. So the previous variance for the porch was granted in 1996, so that’s in orange there.
On the other side of the 75 foot, and that was for a screened in porch. It also was given a setback
from the bluff ordinance, which is shown, the bluff is shown in green there, if you can see that,
so that was given relief for 2 sections of the code to allow for the deck, which you can see in the
picture. Just would like to review the applicable regulations on this. The city ordinance does
allow for water oriented structures. In this circumstance, because there’s a patio underneath,
which I’ll show in another picture in a minute, is attached to the house. The interpretation made
by staff was that it was not a water orientated structure. When we looked at updating the code a
number of years ago we actually gave a pretty good, or I would say generous interpretation of
15
City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008
water oriented structures. We do have people that put fire pits that do, boat houses and those sort
of things so there is a mechanism in place but those are typically separated from the structure
itself is our interpretation of that. The other, the shoreland district is the, how the water
orientated structure must comply, so there’s some specifics on that too. I just want to make sure
that how we’re interpreting, how we came to the interpretation of some of the background
information. Again the bluff protection, so they did receive variance from that. They would still
stay behind the original granting of that variance. And then the other one that comes into play is,
not necessarily this one but just want to remind you when we started doing zoning permits in
2006, we had houses that were at the maximum for impervious surface coverage, but they didn’t
permit or allow or provide for a patio coming out of a back door. So we said at a minimum on
those houses, because if you’re selling it that way, the first thing the homeowner’s going to come
in and ask for is a patio. Is that they provide a minimum of 10 foot by 10 foot minimum. Often
those are larger, the hard surface coverage, so they meet the setback from the lake and the like so
the homeowner isn’t burdened with something that they have to immediately seek relief from.
So those are the background ordinances. Again with the zoning permit we ask now, there’s a lot
of things that go on properties that may not need a building permit, but we also ask now for
zoning permit and we’ve worked really hard to try to get communication on this. Often if there’s
a call for Gopher One or something like that, we also follow-up with a phone call. While it may
not need a building permit, like I mentioned, if there’s grading involved, a structure, something
like that, in an easement area or water drainage area, those sort of things, we want to catch those.
Also we find sometimes that people don’t understand what, even though they don’t need a
permit, there’s also setbacks from certain structures and those are even accessory structures
under a certain square foot so that would be another rule. Again, this house built a number of
years ago, a lot of these things don’t come into play but all those put together help us formulate
the recommendation that we had put together in the staff report. So again in summary, they’re
requesting to enclose that 3 season porch, so that would increase the setback, or the use of that.
They would like to enjoy the use of that. And they’re adding an additional deck, so the increase
from a deck to a porch is the orange structure. And then the additional deck above the patio,
which I’ll show you in a minute, is an additional encroachment. It’s into the setback.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, you’ve got to go back. I’m sorry.
Kate Aanenson: I’ll go back to a picture here, I think that might help. This picture here. Then
I’ll go back to the other one.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Can you go back to the orange?
Kate Aanenson: Yep. I’ll show you where that is on here.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Because that is the deck they wanted to put…
Kate Aanenson: Yep, that’s where I was going to go with this one. That’s the existing deck on
this picture here.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I know but I like the lines that.
16
City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and I’ll go back and show that. And then that patio that we have no
record of going in, that is on, so there’ll be another deck above that. Does that make sense?
Councilman Litsey: Above the patio?
Kate Aanenson: Above the patio. So the deck would be above the patio space.
Councilman Litsey: And where would that connect into the house there then?
Kate Aanenson: That will connect into the house via the screened in porch. Going in that patio
door.
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So now I’ll go back to that so you kind of get that picture, so there’s.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay so, the yellow part is the new deck that would be coming in.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Over the patio, correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And then the current patio, or the current deck is being enclosed too.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right, that I got. I just was confused. So.
Kate Aanenson: They’re on the same plane.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So the surface, there’s no surface coverage issues?
Kate Aanenson: No. Right. You are correct, and that’s the one thing, will not increase the
surface, impervious surface. Right.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So then the issue becomes, kind of looking at the shoreland regs and the like.
They’re increasing a non-conformity. So you’re right, it’s not increasing impervious, on the pros
and cons, but it is increasing the non-conformity. And then it’s not increasing the distance to the
lake, except that the new deck does. Encroaches further. That structure encroaches further, or
closer to the lake. The new deck. Not the screened in deck. Okay, and then that’s showing that
again on this side right here so. So, in looking at the reasonable use of the property, the strictest
interpretation was, it seemed to be that that was reasonable use of the property. At the Planning
th
Commission meeting on October 7 they struggled with some of these issues too. The water
orientated structures and what are the other options on the site. It’s already closer than the 75
feet. They actually offered a compromise is to improve the improvement to the existing deck,
but not encroach, or increase the additional deck. So it allowed it to be a 3 season, 4 season, but
17
City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008
not, but the applicant at that time wanted the entire request so they mulled that around and
eventually recommended 3 to 2 to deny the entire request. Any questions so far?
Councilman McDonald: Well have you had any further conversations about the compromise. Is
that still the owner doesn’t want to take it or?
Kate Aanenson: Well I think that’s for the owner to discuss with you tonight. We just left it at
face value. Again at the Planning Commission you have to have a 4/5 majority. Otherwise it
automatically goes to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Furlong: The council.
Kate Aanenson: Excuse me. Automatically goes to the council. The Planning Commission
doesn’t have a super majority so, and in comparing what’s around there, staff looked at some, 3
other riparian lots and there is again, because this is an older area, there are some that are closer
so the first one was given a setback for construction of a deck and a porch. I think that’s kind of,
you know saying well somebody else got it. So there is, the next one is a 20 foot front yard
variance. That’s a non-riparian lot so, but it was in that area. We kind of surveyed within 500
feet here. Then the 8 foot shoreland setback with a 16 foot buffer. And then the 15 foot
shoreland setback and a 25 foot buffer, which is the subject. So with that, the Planning
Commission recommended denial for the shoreland setback. And then also they base it on the
Findings of Fact which I did pass out copies to you.
Councilwoman Ernst: Kate, can you explain to me, I guess I’m not real clear on what they’re not
conforming to on this.
Kate Aanenson: The additional deck.
Councilwoman Ernst: Right.
Kate Aanenson: Well both of them. This patio was open, and you’re putting a roof over the top.
There’s a structure underneath, and now I don’t know what the original approval was. Right
now when we look at decks, if they’re not a structure underneath, we don’t count them towards
hard coverage. Because we don’t know what happened when that was originally granted.
Whether that was part of it or not. Obviously it’s not being treated as hard surface. So they’re
increasing that. But I think the Planning Commission kind of felt like there might be room for a
compromise to include that. But adding that additional deck increased the setback towards the
lake, so that’s the part they didn’t feel, because they had reasonable use with the patio on the
ground floor. Certainly the other deck provided an option to come down off that deck too the
other way, coming back down onto the patio on the ground floor.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I know the Planning Commission had talked about other options
for them. Adding on in different areas of their home, but I believe there’s some beautiful trees it
looks like…those options, is that correct?
18
City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. And again, kind of making the best use of coming down off that way,
over the other patio so we’ll let the applicant address that too if you have questions on that.
Mayor Furlong: The current deck was approved with the ’96 variance. Does that basically
extend straight towards the lake from the house? Is there, is that, okay.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the house is right at that 75 foot line.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: But for a little corner here it looks like so.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that was, that was the extension and that’s the 15.
Kate Aanenson: The first encroachment into the setback.
Mayor Furlong: Is that the 15 feet?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: The 15 by 20?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the proposed new deck, would that be an elevated deck?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so that’s an elevated deck. It’s going to come off the proposed new room
and that would also be 15 feet out from the house, is that. What’s the dimensions of the new
deck?
Kate Aanenson: I don’t have that dimension.
Rich Peters: It’d be about 8 feet.
Kate Aanenson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: That’s okay. 8 feet out from the house.
Rick Peters: 8 feet from, yeah. So it’d be farther from the lake than the present. 7 feet or
something like that.
19
City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Litsey: It’s more long than wide then.
Todd Gerhardt: 31 feet long.
Councilman Litsey: It’d be 8 feet by 31.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. So it will be 8 feet into the setback area.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: And the current deck is 15 foot by 20 and this would be 8 by 31.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. So it doesn’t encroach in that same plane.
Mayor Furlong: I understand, yep. Okay. Alright, and talk a little bit about the hardship or in
staff’s view lack of hardship.
Kate Aanenson: Well I guess the literal interpretation is, there’s the setback. Do you have
reasonable use of your property, and that’s the literal interpretation that the staff makes. I think
in the spirit that the Planning Commission looked at, going to what Councilwoman Tjornhom
said too, is that it’s not increasing the hard cover so they felt like maybe encroaching the feet, the
original, or the current deck.
Councilwoman Ernst: Which is pervious.
Kate Aanenson: Right. May be reasonable. So they felt good about recommending that but not
the new deck.
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Kate Aanenson: Or walkway or, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Right, and I guess what I was trying to understand, and maybe it’s in the
Findings of Fact here but basically from a hardship standpoint staff is looking at it and doesn’t
see the hardship.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, the strict interpretation, that’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Any other questions for staff? At this point. Mr. and Mrs.
Peters are here. I’d certainly invite you to come up and address the council if you’d like.
Rich Peters: Thank you. I’m Rich Peters. My wife Eunice.
20
City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Rich Peters: We have lived in Chanhassen for 32 years. Last 14 in this house on Laredo Drive,
and by the way the street’s looking good. We moved here, back into this house. We moved
away for a couple years. Came back into Chanhassen in ’94 and bought this house as a
retirement home. It’s a 2,100 square foot walkout rambler. A Schroeder model, if anyone’s
familiar with Schroeder homes, and it’s the second one we’ve lived in in 32 years. But only had
2,100 square feet, which we thought was fine. Children are grown. Well now our children are
still grown. They’re married. We have grandchildren and we need a little bit more space. And
you know just when the whole family is here, which is quite often. They live in the area here.
We can’t, the hardship part, we can’t go left or north or south because we’ve got a 100 year old
oak tree sitting on both ends of the lot. In fact on the north end there’s no room to build. The lot
is too close. The lot line’s too close. So there’s no really, and if we go to the front yard, the non-
lake yard, there we’ve got oak trees there too that we’d have to cut out to do that so we don’t
really, that’s not an option for us. We’re not going to do it. So we just want to, looking for an
extra, little extra space. 200 or 300 feet. Whatever that is. Area. Putting a deck up there, you
know even though it’s farther from the lake than the present deck is. We would have to have, we
would like to have you know some place where we could put a grill or something like that, rather
than putting it in the bottom patio. The bottom patio is not where the kitchen is. The kitchen’s
up above. And the other thing about the deck was, we built over an earth patio that was there
since the house was built in 1960, and the patio below that was there since 1960 too, so that’s
probably why there’s no record of it. But we’re just looking for a little extra floor space in our
house. We understand eco friendly, environmental friendly part of the lake. We just planted
1,200 wildflowers and indigenous plants on our lakeshore, so 20% of our lakeshore lot now is in
wildflowers.
Eunice Peters: And grasses.
Rich Peters: And grasses. Indigenous types. So we understand that and we’re not trying to go
any farther to the lake than we are now. We’ve got a variance for the deck already from 12 years
ago. The next door neighbor’s got the same variance as we’re requesting for a patio. A porch.
And that one really goes closer to the lake than our’s, and again that’s 1960’s house. Any
questions? That’s basically.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for the Peters? At this point.
Councilwoman Ernst: I’m sorry, did you say that your kitchen is on the second level? Where
you wanted the.
Rich Peters: Where that deck is, yeah.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay.
Rich Peters: Where the present deck is.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay.
21
City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008
Councilman McDonald: The Planning Commission had offered up a compromise as far as doing
the four season porch and then not doing the deck, and as I was reading in the minutes, there was
a lot of discussion back and forth. Are you willing to consider that or is that off the table and if
so, why.
Eunice Peters: If we were to go out, we want a place to put a grill and for us to come, we have a
great big window, so if we were to put just a little, tiny deck.
Rich Peters: Go to the picture of the house. There, yeah.
Eunice Peters: So we would put just a little, tiny deck. The deck would end up coming in the
middle of that big window. I mean we tried to figure this out, how we can get across without
putting the deck right in the middle of the window. And so we have to come across. We have to
get over that door and down. That’s why we only made it 8 feet. We just want to get a grill out
there and then be able to get down. You see this big oak tree there. We can’t go that way
because that oak tree I can stand on our deck and I can almost touch that oak tree, so there’s no
place to go there, and then you come down a hill. If that is understandable.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah. I’m just trying to, in my mind okay so you’ve got it 8 feet wide and
then 32 feet long. If all you’re trying to really accomplish is a place for a grill, why that length?
Rich Peters: The other part of it was to get down, having a walkway down.
Councilman Litsey: Off the deck?
Rich Peters: You had to get past the doors, the sliding glass doors in the bottom there.
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Rich Peters: You know to get, there’s not enough room between the sliding glass doors and the
deck to get down.
Councilman Litsey: So there’d be stairs going down off of that then?
Rich Peters: There would, that’s what our proposal is. At the end of that narrow walkway.
Councilman Litsey: Okay. Is stairs.
Kate Aanenson: Can you zoom in on that Nann? This one shows a little bit more clearly… So
you can see now, so this is the deck here and then this is the stairs.
Councilman Litsey: Okay, I wasn’t really seeing that on the page.
Rich Peters: We didn’t want to, we needed to get past that door and then plus, rather than come
right back down the patio.
22
City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008
Eunice Peters: And our living room window.
Rich Peters: Which is on the second.
Eunice Peters: Which isn’t there. It’s bumped out but you can’t see it there.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we’ll go back to this other one quick just to make sure we’re on.
Councilman McDonald: So then is the only purpose for the deck so you can walk out and then
go down to the patio?
Rich Peters: And have a grill.
Councilman McDonald: And the grill would be down on the patio?
Eunice Peters: No, no. The grill’s going.
Rich Peters: No, we want it up on top because the kitchen’s up on top.
Eunice Peters: Off the kitchen.
Rich Peters: Yeah.
Councilman Litsey: How about if you created a space for the grill outside, and I’m not trying to
re-engineer this for you but use the existing stairs going down. There isn’t that big a difference
is there I mean it’s a little more inconvenient but.
Rich Peters: Putting a grill, existing space next to the.
Councilman Litsey: Well using the existing space or making that deck proposed a little bit
smaller than what you’re saying. And not incorporating stairs into it. Because you have stairs
the other way and I realize that’s not quite as convenient but.
Eunice Peters: Then we’d have to put a door on each end you mean?
Councilman Litsey: Yeah. Not as ideal I understand.
Mayor Furlong: I guess one of the questions, I think it was in an email sent to one of the staff
members. You talked about the difference between calling it a sunroom or a porch, but it’s a.
Rich Peters: It’s a sunroom.
Mayor Furlong: Sunroom?
23
City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008
Rich Peters: Yeah. I don’t know where, in the original variance I called it a sunroom.
Somehow when it got to the documentation it was a 3 season porch.
Mayor Furlong: Porch, okay.
Rich Peters: Now is it a.
Mayor Furlong: A rose by any other name.
Rich Peters: You know that’s why I said in my email, I don’t know if this changes things but the
request was not what I asked for.
Mayor Furlong: But and in that, even with the sunroom you make a point in your email that it’s
your intention to use this year round. This is a year round expansion. Year round addition to
the home.
Rich Peters: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: Over the existing deck and then to however you’re using your current deck now
or at least some of those uses you’d want to use on the new deck.
Eunice Peters: Exactly.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. McDonald?
Councilman McDonald: No. To the, I don’t know if it’s the north side or the northwest side
where it looks as though the walkway comes out that goes around from the driveway all the way
to the patio. What is that surface there? Is that brick or?
Rich Peters: You’re talking about that curved thing?
Councilman McDonald: Right. This one that goes all the way around.
Rich Peters: Oh that one. That’s just a narrow little pathway. You know it’s stone.
Eunice Peters: It’s mulch and stone.
Councilman McDonald: Is there any room there to put a grill?
Rich Peters: There’s only about 2 feet. 3 feet. Maybe 3 feet.
Eunice Peters: That’s what you see.
Rich Peters: Yeah, that’s all you see. And there’s a big tree then there’s a lot line right by the
tree. That is the tightest to the lot line over there. That’s the north side or somewhat.
24
City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008
Eunice Peters: And it’s also the way to get around our house.
Rich Peters: Yeah. That’s the only way to get around the house on the side.
Eunice Peters: Without going on the neighbors property.
Rich Peters: The south side has more room but you two 100 year oak trees, plus you’ve got the
drainage between the lots you know. All that between our’s and…next door to us, all the
drainage goes through there so you’ve got to really, but we’re not going to take the trees out of
here.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions?
Councilman Litsey: One more quick one. Where’s the kitchen in relationship to the deck?
Rich Peters: Right.
Councilman Litsey: Right inside there?
Rich Peters: Yeah. Right inside the door.
Councilman Litsey: Okay, thanks.
Rich Peters: That’s why we didn’t want to put a barbeque grill on the patio downstairs. You’d
have to walk a long way.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything else at this point? Alright, thank you very much. Any follow
up questions for staff? If not, thoughts and discussion.
Councilwoman Ernst: I mean based on everything I’ve seen here and what the applicant has
said, I mean basically what they want to do is they want to build this deck. Where it doesn’t
interfere with impervious surface because it would be a pervious deck, and I’m going to call it a
deck because I don’t know, I think that’s what it is. And I mean they’ve been very friendly.
Very environmentally friendly by planting trees and flowers. He’s already said he wouldn’t cut
down the trees and basically I really would support that they get this variance because I, even
though there’s no hardship involved that I’ve been able to hear or see, I think that it’s still
acceptable based on the information we have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I guess when I look at variances I always, I know they’re called a
variance but I always kind of in my mind think of them as like the exception to the rule and why
would this be a good exception to the rule and tonight I think with this, and every case is
different but tonight I think I need to figure out something in the middle between the literal
interpretation and then my common sense, and we live in Minnesota and being outside at night
can get to be pretty buggy and pretty miserable so really it’s not necessarily, the seasons you can
25
City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008
use your deck. It’s sometimes just the time you can use your deck comfortably and you know I
have no problem with you adding a little comfort to your relaxation and enjoyment of your lake
by adding on a structure that would give you a little more space. And for me the deck along the
house adjoining the porch, or whatever we’re going to call it, just makes sense. It’s not intruding
on anyone’s space. It’s not, it’s just I think actually giving you reasonable use of your property
and enjoying what you have and so because of that I would recommend that we would actually
approve the variance to convert an existing deck. And add on the porch.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts.
Councilman McDonald: Well I guess I’ll go. Yeah, I don’t have a problem as far as converting
the deck to the sunroom. I think I read through the Planning Commission and I also wrestle with
the other part of it though as far as the hardship and that’s where I’m having a problem is with
this proposed deck. When I was on the Planning Commission we fought long and hard about
variances and about encroachments and all of these things and we did look for compromises in
order to try to accommodate homeowners but, I’m having a problem with the proposed deck
because it just, it makes an encroachment more, I don’t see the hardship. That’s kind of where
I’m at at this point. I mean I’m in full agreement as far as converting the existing deck to a
sunroom but I’m a little hung up on the proposed deck portion of it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor, I have one more thing to add to my comments.
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Thank you Mr., Councilman McDonald for talking about the
hardships because usually I do look for that, and reading the Planning Commission minutes and
then listening to tonight, for me the hardship comes from the fact that they have trees around
them that really blocks their potential from doing anything else, and I guess they’re beautiful
trees. They’re 100 year old oaks and so that to me is a hardship in itself. And I forgot to add
that in my comments. Having to take those down would be a hardship.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Litsey.
Councilman Litsey: No, it is a struggle and I think the trees do create a legitimate hardship. The
same thing on my lot. I’ve got some beautiful oak trees and I’ve had to work around them or
face the decision whether to cut them down, which I don’t want to do either. So you’re boxed in
there. I think the fact, one thing that helps me through this decision is that, I think you have tried
to minimize the impact. I think if you were really trying to go where you maybe would have
liked to have gone, you’d have brought the deck out to match up with the existing deck, the
porch perhaps, I don’t know. But at least it seems like you’ve tried to do the minimal amount to
accomplish what you’re trying to do. So I do want to balance the reasonable use of your
property. I’m very sensitive to encroachment on shoreland, wetlands. I’ve been a strong
advocate of protection there but I think in this particular case, given the case that’s been laid out,
I think I’d be inclined to grant this as proposed.
26
City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I guess as I looked at this, the proposed designs seemed like a
reasonable extension of the existing home. Adding a porch on, for reasons stated, adding a,
having a deck out there are certainly reasonable requests. I think the challenge that I’m having,
and when I ever look at these, and I’m going to come at it differently than what I’m hearing the
rest of the members of the council saying, and it’s never, trust me it’s never easy to say no but
the challenge that I’m having goes right back to the beginning and a variance is an exception and
one of the primary reasons to get that exception is because of hardship. And the hardship here
seems to be, and I’m not being critical of that because everybody goes through that, is more
space. We get the house isn’t big enough for how we want to live in it, and I fully understand
that having started out, we were empty nesters when I first got married but for another reason
and now we’ve, I don’t know, well I know what happened but. We ran out of space. We ran out
of space and so that’s where I’m concerned that if the, if more space is needed becomes a
standard for the hardship and if trees are a standard for a hardship, I’m very concerned in this
city, and that that is now a new standard. Especially along the lake. Especially along a
shoreline. Lotus Lake in particular where we’re seeking to try to improve water quality. The
fact that there was an impervious surface below the existing deck back, I think we heard 1960 or
before, and that’s okay now to increase the encroachment, which is really an addition to the
house, I’m struggling with that. It’s our role to try to minimize non-conforming situations.
We’ve had other situations come to us, other proposals from residents where there’s some give
and take. Where there is a, we’d like to go into the setback her to put a porch on into the existing
setback but we’re going to come back here. We’re going to add in some more pervious surface
someplace else, and I’m thinking of some over on Lake Minnewashta where we’ve done that
where there were some back and forth, and I don’t see that here. I see this as simply a, the non-
conformity from an impervious surface doesn’t change at all, and the expansion of the non-
conformity use is simply increasing. And the reasons given, again for me. I’m just speaking for
myself. I don’t see the more space as a valid hardship from a variance request standpoint. And
again, if there was any give and take on impervious coverage or on the, and we do this, it’s all
the time. It’s, because the request, if you forget about the setback from the lake. The request to
add on a 3 season porch over an existing deck and put a deck next to it, people are doing that all
the time. That is not an unreasonable desire in terms of use or an expansion of an existing home.
The difference here is you can’t ignore the lake. You can’t ignore the setback and you can’t
ignore the impervious surface and that’s where you get into the variance request and I think what
we need to walk carefully on is, even while the proposed addition seem reasonable in the normal
course, when the variance is there, we have to make sure that these are the same standards we’ll
apply to future variances. That’s where I’m struggling, and having listened I know I’m on the
opposite end here from the rest of you, and that’s fine, but I would give some caution and maybe
suggest that what we haven’t looked at here is any of that, you know there was a proposal,
something offered up at the Planning Commission which wasn’t really accepted. They had a
small compliment. They didn’t have the full compliment of commission members there.
There’s really been no change between there and here, and so it’s, you know is there some
compromise? Is there some give and take that can occur that we can evaluate? At this point
there hasn’t been, and again to the Peters, I’m not saying that what you’d like to do with your
house is in any way unreasonable. The issue is, because it’s expanding within a setback that it is,
and it’s not improving any of the non-conformity. In fact we’re kind of just, what I’m hearing a
little bit is, it’s okay to expand the house over the deck because the deck underneath it is
27
City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008
impervious. That’s a non-conformity and so we’re really not making it worst, but we’re not
making it any better either. I think whenever we have these opportunities seeking to try to make
it better, it’s something that we should do. So I’ll throw that back to the council and see if there
are thoughts or comments or reaction in that regard.
Councilman McDonald: Well I guess Mr. Mayor, I mean that’s part of my problem. When I
was on the Planning Commission we dealt with a lot of homes over on Lake Riley and Lake
Minnewashta and again you have small lots. You have lots of different shapes and people are
trying to use those as they exist and one of the things that happened in most of those cases is we
did reach compromise, and that’s something that’s why I asked the question and why I’m having
a problem with the proposed deck portion of this. And that’s why I’m kind of leaning toward, I
don’t see the hardship and I also do not feel that we should be granting variances as a matter of
course, so without a compromise or something along those lines, I mean where I’m leaning is not
to approve this. And again it comes from, I look at equal treatment of everyone that comes in
here and we’ve had a lot of people that have come in and have had, they want to expand for
living space but the rules and the ordinances are such that we have to meet certain criteria and if
that criteria is not met, I really cannot in good conscience vote for it because the hardship hasn’t
been identified as to what it is to you and there’s no, I guess spirit of compromise to make this a
lesser situation than what it currently is so that’s kind of where I’m at. I mean I’ll always, I feel
for you and I understand where you’re at but I just feel that if we start granting variances, then
we have no leg to stand upon and at that point we might as well throw the ordinances out and it’s
just everybody can do whatever they want to with their property. So based upon that I’m leaning
to vote no.
Councilman Litsey: Is the suggestion then that it go back to the Planning Commission or before
the Planning Commission and see if they can work out a compromise?
Councilman McDonald: Was it the Planning Commission or with staff?
Kate Aanenson: If I can just offer up a suggestion. I think in the past when we have had, as you
are mentioning Councilman McDonald is that, sometimes they’ve looked at mitigation. They
have commented that they have done some plantings and you know some of those sort of things
so if we can kind of get some ideas of some of the other things that they’ve already done or
spend a little bit more time looking at other options based on the design of the house. We
haven’t spent a lot of time doing that because they weren’t, wanted to kind of see what their
options were here.
Mayor Furlong: Sure, I understand that and I think, you know I fully understand the, well it’s
even more than a hesitancy but a design not to take down some big trees on the property. I fully
appreciate that. What we do know though is trees don’t last forever and variances do so I think
trying to make sure that we find, that we look at everything. Every alternative because again I
think, to be fair to others that have been in these chambers before as well as those that will come
in the future, we want to make sure that we’re treating people fairly and for, and applying reason
consistently, and that’s where again given the lack of hardship that has been stated, and the lack
of compromise, I mean I’m not even sure where that would go but the fact that those discussions
haven’t even taken place I think gives me significant pause at this point in time.
28
City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008
Councilman Litsey: I think you bring up a good point that I didn’t fully recognize when we were
talking here but it sounds like it would be worth to have staff work with the homeowner and see
some of the things, or articulating some of the things that have been done, that you’ve done
already and then perhaps some areas that may be adjusted to be more in conformity with where
you would like to be in terms of our ordinances and bring it back. I hate to delay it but I think in
the interest of trying to work this through, that might be a good route to go.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we’d be happy to work with them. See if there’s some other options or
something that’s workable for the applicant. Just to be clear we’re at the end of 60 days in
November so we’d ask for an additional 60 days to work through that. But obviously we’d like
to do it as expediently as possible but.
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Absolutely. Let’s hear if there are any other thoughts or comments
from members of the council. Councilwoman Ernst, thoughts.
Councilwoman Ernst: Well Mayor, I heard you mention something about, and this keeps coming
back as the impervious issue. So are you saying that, from what you see here you think that
there is an impervious issue or not?
Mayor Furlong: There is not an overall. There’s not a, as I understand it from the staff report,
there’s not a, they’re not at or above the limit of the lot from an impervious surface standpoint.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Because I thought that you were under the impression, and I
wasn’t seeing it here, that there was additional impervious surface, and I wasn’t seeing that, so I
just wanted to be clear on that.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. And I’m, that wasn’t my thought.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. You know we constantly need to be looking at our ordinances and
reviewing them and I agree that we should be treating all equally, but they have come here and
requested a variance. And I’m not, and I’m just hearing this periodically where people just go
ahead and do these things without even coming to the city. And so I respect the idea that they’re
coming here and asking for permission to do this. And again based on what I’ve seen, and I
certainly understand where you’re coming from. But based on what I’m hearing and what I’m
seeing, I would still support the variance.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other thoughts or comments? Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I think I’m kind of still where I was before. I just, I think as
long as I’ve been on the Planning Commission, the council, I have certainly taken our ordinances
very seriously. But then I’ve also tried to weigh that out with common sense and what seems to
be right for the situation and I think the standard of reasonable use that were applied and defined
years ago have changed a little bit from today and what is a reasonable use and so you know I
29
City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008
will certainly go along with giving them more time to work it out with staff. See if they can find
a compromise, but I would be fully, I would certainly be willing tonight to vote for them to get
their variance and enjoy their lake property.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other thoughts or comments or is there a motion?
Councilman McDonald: Well I guess I would make a motion that this be tabled and turned back
over to staff to work with the applicant and kind of explore some other areas as far as
compromise or coming up with something that does not increase the encroachment.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Litsey: Well having talked it through, I’m willing to second that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Motion’s been made to table and refer to staff to work with the applicant
to look for some additional alternatives. Is there any discussion? Additional discussion on that.
Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council table the
variance request from the shoreland setback to expand an existing non-conforming deck
into a porch and adding another deck at 7301 Laredo Drive. All voted in favor, except
Councilwoman Ernst who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Furlong: So that motion, was it 4 to 1? Councilwoman Tjornhom did say, yep. Okay.
So that motion prevails 4 to 1. Thank you. And thank you and hopefully we can find something
that works for everybody.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Furlong: I only have one item, and unless you’ve been in an igloo for a while there’s an
election coming up a week from tomorrow. With that said I would encourage voters to learn
about council candidates. City Council candidates. We have two seats open and as well as
candidates for Minnesota State House and the federal candidates as well. That is a week from
th
tomorrow, November 4. And if people are looking for polling information or where they are
supposed to vote, they should check, is it the city web site?
Todd Gerhardt: City web site. Or come into City Hall.
Mayor Furlong: Come into City Hall. Carver County web site would have that information.
There’ll be a lot of information out there. I don’t believe there’s been any changes in the polling
locations for precincts since last, since 2 years ago, is that correct?
Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And if you have any information on registration, you can get that from
the county or call city hall as well and we’ll get you the information that you need. So thank
you. Anything else for council presentations? If not, Mr. Gerhardt.
30