CC Minutes 9-12-05
City Council Meeting – September 12, 2005
Resolution#2005-74:
d. Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Advertising for Bids
for the 2005 MUSA Improvements, Phase I, Project No. 04-05.
Resolution#2005-75:
e. Approve Consultant Contract for 2006 Street Improvement Project
No. 06-01.
Resolution#2005-76:
g. Resolution Decertifying Gateway Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
District #6.
h. Approval of Cell Tower Lease Agreement with T-Mobile.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Tom Meier: Good evening Mayor, members. I’m Tom Meier from 695 Pleasant View and I just
wanted to reiterate on the McCord issue and David Sanford on the alteration permit.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Meier, if you’d like we can pick up your comments at that time on the
agenda if that’d be okay.
Tom Meier: That’d be great.
Mayor Furlong: Do you mind waiting? That way we can take it in context.
Tom Meier: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to address the council this
evening during visitor presentations? Seeing none then, we offer this opportunity at every
meeting so people watching at home are welcome to come as well.
TH
TROY AND VIRGINIA KAKACEK, 380 WEST 86 STREET, PLANNING CASE 05-
18: HARD COVER VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This item, located on Tigua Lane, just off of 101, appeared before
the Planning Commission. There is some length of time inbetween. The applicants had
requested additional time to work through some issues and then also the time it appeared before
the Planning Commission and City Council based on length of some agendas, but this item did
appear before the Planning Commission and they recommended 6-0 denial. That is why it’s in
front of you tonight. Again subject site, this is a recently created subdivision of an existing large
lot. The applicant did appear, apply for a building permit and this was the original survey. I
have one that’s colored a little bit better but I just want to go through. This was the original
survey that was submitted. I do believe you all received a letter from Mr. Martin, the attorney
regarding some of the issues in the kind of time date issues. I do believe all of you were emailed
that. There’s a lot of he said, she said and I’m not going to go into those. I’m just going to
present the facts as the staff saw them and how we approached the permit. So it came in and the
2
City Council Meeting – September 12, 2005
porch and the driveway were recommended to be changed. It was our position it was over the
25%. Obviously there’s a different perspective on that and it was asked to be re-surveyed. And
the revised survey included the reduction of the driveway to meet the ordinance which requires
24 feet at the street and the porch was removed. So the permit was issued, and this one is
colored so it’s easier to see. Based on this survey right here which again, there was no porch or
patio and the revised driveway. As now required as-built surveys are all required on all new, or
after the home is constructed. Which when it was completed in March, so typically in March it
may not have all the things done but the survey was completed later in the summer after the
escrow was requested. At that time it was noted that this was what was shown on the survey. So
the driveway, additional concrete and a patio so again we’re over the impervious percentage. So
when it came in for the as-built survey it was noted that was a non-compliance. Sent the letter
and that’s what started the variance process. So they have made some changes and those are
noted in the staff report...the impervious surface. Specifically mulch face down the gravel
portion here. They have concrete here but then gravel around to the back. And then they still
have a concrete driveway in the back. Originally on the porch, the porch if it was raised above
grade with grass underneath that wouldn’t count towards the impervious so they still have the
ability to put a porch on that wouldn’t require a variance again because there’d be grass
underneath. Again the goal is to provide an area for that water, it’s a capacity issue. But we’re
still over 600 square feet and that’s where the Planning Commission struggled. It is onerous
obviously to take out the patio and, which is the 500 square feet approximately, and then maybe
another 170 feet of the driveway. So to get it to the 25%. So again there’s a lot of detail in the
staff report on what the staff believes was the process, and certainly the applicant believes in
their due diligence that they proceeded the right way. I’ll just rely on what we saw as the survey
as submitted and the as-built’s. So again the Planning Commission did recommend 6-no denial.
We have put conditions in the staff report. Findings and recommendations either way and I’d be
happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m not sure if this is a question for you Kate or for Lori. These
paver patios seem to always kick up trouble it seems like. People think they’re fine and now all
of a sudden they find out, no. They can’t have it. Is there a paver that they can use that you
would allow and not count against them for their hard surface coverage?
Lori Haak: I’m not particularly familiar with this site, but at present there isn’t a paver that staff
counts against that hard surface coverage so at this time no, there is not.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate do we have dates on those surveys or revised surveys somewhere
that references in the permit which drawing was used to generate the permit?
rd
Kate Aanenson: Sure. The original survey is October 23 and then the revised ones that were
th
signed off were November 17.
th
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And does it somewhere reference that, November 17?
3
City Council Meeting – September 12, 2005
Kate Aanenson: There’s two places that we would sign on a permit. One would be on the
survey and then one would actually be on the building permit itself.
th
Councilman Lundquist: So the signed survey is the 17 one?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. The one that was approved that went around. And then also there’s
also a routing form that goes around. And additional comments. There’s some changes that
were made when the house, the original survey came in and it was slid, moved an arboretum is
shown up on here. That was the only thing that was added. But there was some mulch when the
building inspector that went out that it was noted that that porch was not approved so the
building inspector went out and noted that there was an arboretum that was shown on the site
plan that was not, or shown on the survey that was not noted so there’s some notes to that effect.
thth
That was all dated the 11. Excuse me the 7 of November. That the permit was issued, and
th
then again the final, the Certificate of Occupancy were given in March 25 of ’04 but again since
it’s springtime, typically the as-builts and the concrete work doesn’t typically happen til later.
Councilman Lundquist: Sure.
Kate Aanenson: So when the inspector went out those things, probably not, because if they were
under snow or were not in place, correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson, the survey that the permit was issued on, and then the as-built,
and particular the size, the building itself. Size of house. The home and then the driveway. It
looked like, if I saw that correctly that that really was, that the permit was issued on a driveway
in place. No sidewalks from the driveway to the front of the house.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Did the actual driveway that was built a different size than the driveway that
was on this plan? I mean it looks like it’s going different ways but was the driveway area larger
built than what was in the plan for what the survey showed for the permit?
Kate Aanenson: It’s probably a little bit wider. I think the engineering had it tapering on this
side a little bit more so on this one it just cuts across here. Better to just calculate that. That
triangle there so it may be a little bit larger there. I didn’t look at the original calculation. The
survey’s in the staff report how big it is.
Mayor Furlong: The staff report shows that the home and driveway together slightly exceed the
25 limit so that’s why I was wondering if the permit…
Kate Aanenson: Right, I believe this driveway was a little bit narrower. The original survey
one.
4
City Council Meeting – September 12, 2005
Mayor Furlong: The one that the permit was issued on.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Right, it’s tapering back over here. They actually tapered it from the
other side. You can see this is a straight line with a taper and then this cuts over.
Mayor Furlong: So the question then is the width where it tapers and such but. Alright. Thank
you. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not, is the applicant here? If they’d like to.
Larry Martin: Good evening Mayor and Council members. My name is Larry Martin and I’m
here on behalf of Ginger and Troy Kakacek. Ginger and Troy are my niece and nephew. Or
niece and nephew in law and I’m here on their behalf this evening to kind of explain the history
of this, although in the interest of time I did send out a letter. I don’t know if it got to everybody
and if you had a chance to look at it. It had, I’ve got a long version. I’ve got a short version.
I’ve got a just get right down to the point version and I saw some heads nodding so I’ll try to,
limit to the short version.
Mayor Furlong: I think that’s fine. We did have the advantage of the Planning Commission
minutes as well so.
Larry Martin: Great. Here’s the issue as I see it. As it boils down. I give you kind of a factual
background of the problem or the genesis from Ginger and Troy’s perspective. And of course
their concern is you know they tried, you know after they had tried to move forward on the
landscaping, their viewpoint is well, they came to the City 3 times to ask about the permits for
the pavers and the response was that there is no permits that are necessary for a patio within the
city as part of a landscaping project. And that’s true. There is no permit that’s necessary to put
in a patio. And I see that as kind of a procedural glitch within the city’s protocol for reviewing
landscape applications or approvals. Staff has noted within their report that well, what you
should have done is come in for a planning and zoning, or another kind of review. That doesn’t
necessarily require a permit but it’s a kind of review process. But that didn’t get communicated
to Ginger and Troy and so they moved forward and they made this mistake. Okay, well that’s
one way of looking at it. Another way that I think is important for you to look at it, as the policy
decision makers for the city is that things have been changing in terms of how you regulate this
paver problem, and hard surface problem. I came in to take a look at the record, the building file
this afternoon to kind of check to see you know how things were checked over time and the
calculations for impervious material don’t actually show up in the file for the city until the as-
built drawing was requested, and so if you take a look at the file and you take a look at the
checklist, it never comes up you know any kind of warning that there is a hard surface issue or
that you may run afoul of going over that hard surface issue until you get done building. And so
I think that’s another procedural point that creates some confusion, some ambiguity. And I think
it’s fair to say that it’s not Ginger and Troy’s fault. It’s not that contractor’s fault or that sub-
contractor’s fault. It’s, and it’s my understanding that that procedural glitch has been corrected
and now when those calculations are done, they’re done early in the process so there is no
confusion. But here’s the significance of it and I think the Mayor kind of pointed that out in the
earlier questioning that when you take a look at the, just the home and the driveway, and in this
particular survey drawing, this is the one that was approved. They come very close to if not
exceeding the hard surface requirement before they even get a sidewalk. You know arguably it
5
City Council Meeting – September 12, 2005
should have shown up there. Arguably somebody should have anticipated that a sidewalk was
going to be needed also. Otherwise you’ll have just grass between the driveway and the stoop,
but everybody puts a sidewalk in eventually. There should have been some sort of alert to that
effect. But that question doesn’t even come up or did not at that time even come up within the
city process, if you take a look at the permit approval checklist. There is a checklist marked
there for drainage but there is no checklist for the 25% hard surface requirement. I think it’s fair
to say that in the end there was some honest miscommunication that went there. You know I
don’t want to say that it was staff’s fault, but I also don’t think it was Troy and Ginger’s fault,
and so here’s kind of where the rubber hits the road. You know the point that I think that’s
important for you is, and the question is, how harsh do you have to be in this setting? Staff has
given you an alternative, two alternative resolutions to pass. One, opposed to the variance
request and one in favor of it. In a situation where the landowner really isn’t at fault, and I don’t
think that they are and I think it’s fair for you to conclude that they aren’t. You know there’s
really no reason to be strict or harsh, especially in a situation like this where they’re actually
going to suffer financial harm because of it, unless somebody else is hurt. The staff has listed
out 6 variables for you to consider in a variance situation and you know probably the most
important one is, is whether or not there’s going to be any harm to the neighborhood or any
adjoining property owners if you decide to grant this variance. Staff has suggested a finding that
well you know we could, it really could generate some harm but not for 600 square feet. You
know that’s really not a fair finding. I don’t think Paul actually made that comment but he’s the
one who has to be questioned and I suspect that somebody will probably ask him that question, is
600 square feet really the kind of hard surface that’s going to cause any damage to anyone of the
neighbors if you had a significant rainfall event. When the Planning Commission looked at it
they thought, and when they were measuring the order of magnitude they thought well 5% is a
lot. I’d say well, you know we started out with a little over 6% variance. We took out the
sidewalk. We took out the gravel. We took out some hard surface to bring it down below 5%.
About, in fairness to Ginger and Troy and other property owners that might in this situation some
day, I think 5% is the wrong way to take a look at it. 5% for a million square foot is a lot of land
area. Now all of a sudden you’re talking about 50,000 an acre of hard surface, but 600 square
feet is not a lot of area and it’s not going to do any damage to anyone. Another thing, you know
things for you to balance I think that’s important as the policy deciders for the city is, you know
whether or not anybody is really opposed to it and I don’t think anybody’s going to speak in
opposition to this proposal tonight. And we do have neighbors that are in favor of it. Have
commented and the letter from the neighbors is in the record and they’ve even mentioned that
they’ve got a site that is far in excess of what they need and they’re under their 25% hard surface
requirement and so there’s plenty of land that’s not under hard surface to absorb rainfall, so it
kind of balances out within the neighborhood. That’s the key point that I wanted to make.
There’s two alternatives before you. I think it’s fair to say that there’s no reason to be harsh.
The other point that of course reason for strictness would be if the property owner were
flagrantly violating, knowingly violating the ordinance of the hard surface requirement, and
that’s not the case here either. There’s plenty of facts in the record for you to find alternate good
facts and to adopt the resolution approving the variance and that’s what our request is. Be happy
to address any other facts that are in the letter or any supplemental facts or answer any questions.
Ginger and Troy and one of the reasons for the delay in asking for the continuance is they just
had a new little baby that’s in the hallway too. She will not be commenting but.
6
City Council Meeting – September 12, 2005
Mayor Furlong: She did already.
Larry Martin: Yeah, that’s right. Thank you very much.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions? For Mr. Martin.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Martin, have your clients ever talked to any of the neighbors with
the excess land about purchasing 700 or 2,800 square feet to bring them back under the amount?
th
Larry Martin: You know we looked at it. We sat down with staff before the July 19 meeting to
explore that issue and to look at some surveys to see if we drew a straight line and tried to make
a cut there, to make it work but there’s a pool structure, what do you call it? A pump. Filter
kind of thing that’s in their back yard that’s, creates a problem in making a nice, clean cut. Nice,
clean property line. We did talk to staff too about maybe a variance but. Not a variance, an
easement. Transferring that kind of density but I don’t know if Kate ever heard about that
suggestion but at least at a junior staff level that was considered to be inappropriate. However
we’d certainly be willing to ask the adjoining property owners about the easement issue. I think
asking them for a transfer of land that interferes with their existing improvements is a problem.
Councilman Lundquist: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions of Mr. Martin. In terms of, I asked a question of staff with
regard to the two surveys and my question was, recognizing now that the house and driveway
exceed the allowable limit, was the driveway built bigger than the original permit survey?
Larry Martin: I think that it was. I saw a drawing in the permit file that kind of demonstrated the
overlay a little bit bigger on one side and a little bit smaller on the other side. Is there a
significant difference? I don’t think that’s true but I think there is a difference. It clearly, I mean
when I looked at it what I did see was that there’s, even if the old driveway, the driveway, the
house and the garage together prevented us from putting a sidewalk in.
Mayor Furlong: So what was submitted with the permit would have met the requirement without
any additional impervious surface addition?
Larry Martin: That, I don’t know if that’s true.
Mayor Furlong: Or at least not, there wouldn’t be enough to allow a sidewalk.
Larry Martin: There definitely would not have been enough to allow a sidewalk. The other
thing that I should have mentioned too is that with respect to the porch, that was pulled for
financial reasons. We never received any information related to hard surface or requirements for
pulling improvements because of hard surface requirements.
Kate Aanenson: There wouldn’t be, no. As I indicated before, a porch because it’s raised up off
the ground and if there’s grass underneath, it wouldn’t count towards the hard surface coverage.
A deck wouldn’t. A porch would.
7
City Council Meeting – September 12, 2005
Larry Martin: Actually I think our plans didn’t call for an elevated porch. It was actually we had
some footing problems that they asked us to correct on the drawings so we at the time we
anticipated a crawl space.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other questions at this time? Ms. Aanenson, you made
some comments. Any comments that you have?
Paul Oehme: No.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. There was, as I recall there was a public hearing at
the Planning Commission.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: So I know that we’ve received the Planning Commission minutes. If there’s
somebody that, based upon some additional information or would like to provide public
comment I’d certainly be willing to listen to that at this time too. If anybody’s interested. Okay,
thank you. With that, are there any additional questions for staff or should we bring it back to
council for discussion and see what it generates. Thoughts.
Councilman Peterson: Related question I guess. Kate, can you give me some sense as to what
other cities have as their impervious surface percentage. I mean this has come up more in the
last couple years than it has in my 15 years of hanging around here and I don’t know whether
we’re just pure luck of the draw that I’m getting faced with this recently or are we pretty much
right on the, right on the average of being 25 or is that due to a DNR thing?
Kate Aanenson: I’ll let Lori answer some of that but the first part, I don’t think we have a rash
of these. I think we try really hard to communicate. I think obviously there’s a
miscommunication and I would agree with Mr. Martin that while it may have been on our part,
some of it may have been on their part. I won’t disagree with that but the proportionality of the
impervious relates to lot size. Every city has a different lot size and so our 25% is what’s tied
into our comp plan is what we managed to try to reduce the volume of water that’s coming off
and try to capture it in some of the yards. I don’t think we have that many problems within. We
really work hard to site the home. You know we talked about some of the bigger homes that we
do but the ones that we recently approved, some of the larger homes that are going in, we looked
at the bigger lot sizes and we know that anticipating 3 cars is standard now. 3 car garage. Some
have gone to 2 car garage at 15,000 so we always work with the developer when they come in to
try to figure out what their average square footage of home would be. Again this is pretty
comparable. I think most of the ones that we’re looking at, that’d be 72. 73 maybe by 40 is a
pretty comparable square footage so I don’t think that’s out of whack. It’s those other things that
go on afterwards that we don’t always have control. They change the garage. They add a patio.
That may not have been on the survey or those sort of things. Want to put a hot tub in. A fire
pit. Those are kind of the specific issues that kind of come after the fact. Or once the builder is
up. This builder has done other work in the city. I think that was some of the Planning
Commission’s frustration. The communication. What did the builder know that maybe wasn’t
8
City Council Meeting – September 12, 2005
communicated to the homeowner so it’s kind of a two way thing and that happens a lot too. A
lot of finger pointing. Who told, who got the information and who didn’t, you know I’m not
going to dispute that. I think that goes all the way around again for a lot of people’s blame but
again it’s related to lot size so. Plymouth has a different standard for their impervious, as they
have a different lot size requirement, as with Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. Shakopee, they’re
all different but I don’t think our’s is more restrictive than anybody else’s. Again it’s related to
each zoning district has a different impervious requirement too. I don’t know if you want to add
anything to that Lori.
Lori Haak: I’m not particularly again familiar with the specific requirements of a municipality
but generally it’s tied into velocities, water qualities and runoff volume so generally the research
most, actually 25 is pretty high for water quality for urban streams. They recommend no more
than about 15 to 20 in those sensitive areas so I think again I think we’re kind of right in the
ballpark but I don’t have any specific examples that I can cite.
Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts or discussion. Councilman Lundquist. Told me to pass.
Councilman Lundquist: Well it’s an interesting dilemma. With all of the things going on, Kate I
think you said the he said, she said going on. I’m encouraged that the applicants had taken some
steps to correct a piece of that. I think that shows good faith. Good will and wanting to do the
right thing. I mean clearly they didn’t invest $1,000 to do that maliciously or you know
intentionally to go over that so, I don’t see any malice there. But then the other side is, you
know generally speaking ignorance or not being aware of ordinances and statutes and things like
that is not an excuse to not follow them so…going over the speed limit you get a ticket. So I
guess I’m torn between what we do with this and you know it might only be 4.2. It might only
be 600 square feet but the fact is where do you draw the line. You’ve got to draw the line
somewhere. Is it 2%? 5%? 10%? What’s the number you have to draw it somewhere but I’m
not a real big fan of, you know I’ve seen the house out there. There’s a lot of, you know a
couple of new ones out in the area as well that will compliment. I’m not a big fan of asking
people to tear up you know well done landscape here so I’m not exactly sure, if there’s another
alternative as Mr. Martin will ask about the land acquisition and obviously that’s going to be
several thousand dollars as well so that’s another investment, but not really sure that I’m in favor
of having it tore up but I’m not sure I’m in favor of leaving it the way it is either so, how’s that?
Mayor Furlong: Well you’ve defined the issues I think and…politician. Other thoughts.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah I too feel similar in that the ultimately the responsibility for
following the ordinances is the onus is on the homeowner. I think that unfortunately happened in
a negative fashion this way just not understanding and not getting the right questions asked or the
questions answered and certainly there is, ultimately you still have to go back to that they are
responsible but, and again I agree with Councilman Lundquist. Is there another way to do this?
If it was 1% you know I’d be more amenable to do it, right? And we’re talking about ranges
now so, and I’d maybe pause, maybe push it back to the staff and/or let the applicant and staff
work together to find another alternative other than yes or no. I’m open to not being firm at 25%
but, and we’ve had other people in here that have asked for that kind of range and we said no.
So I can’t in good conscience say alright, yes to this one because they’ve done similar kinds of
9
City Council Meeting – September 12, 2005
things. There’s been some confusion and there’s been some after the fact accomplishing tasks
and putting in patios and we’ve asked them to tear it up so. But in most of those situations we’ve
found somewhere inbetween. I don’t see that I’ve got that right now so whether or not we can
create that tonight. It’s only 7:30 and we’ve got plenty of things, plenty of time to deal with
what we’ve done tonight so I’d be well certainly willing to hear other alternatives.
Mayor Furlong: Talk about creating a camel out of committee when you’re trying to run your
race horse. Ms. Aanenson, a quick question for you. In our ordinance right now, we have what
is considered impervious. Is there anything within our ordinance that would allow somebody to
gain a credit by some other feature, and I don’t even know what that would be. To make the
surface more pervious. Is there anything in our ordinance right now that allows that? There’s no
credit calculation that goes into either, I mean we do I guess, we don’t count some things such as
landscaping and maybe I’ll swing back to the attorney, since everybody’s pointing that way. Mr.
Knutson.
Roger Knutson: I apologize I have not seen this lot so I don’t know… In other communities
when you want extra impervious surface, you do something to absorb more water, for example a
rain garden. And I don’t know whether or not this makes sense in this location but if you were to
have a rain garden here that would absorb more water than just normal industrial yard would,
you offset the impervious surface. There are things like that.
Mayor Furlong: From a concept standpoint, because I know we’ve talked about rain gardens and
they might have limited affect here with our clay because even if you get down, you know what
you’re saying is other cities look at it.
Roger Knutson: Yeah, do an offset. Can you do anything to capture more water on the lot?
Councilman Peterson: We did something similar with a lot on Lake Riley way back, and I can’t
remember the address.
Kate Aanenson: That was lakescape.
Lori Haak: And actually that homeowner came back later in the process to request relief from
that so actually that was something that was approved by council for a variance and then was
repealed by City Council so I guess that’s maybe. I’m not sure how long ago it was, so I
couldn’t say.
Mayor Furlong: There’s the politician. The issue I think, the issue that we’re looking at here
and one of the questions was where’s the harm? Where’s the foul? It’s 600 feet. I think the
issue is as much we look at it as a council is putting ordinances in place. Asking residents to
adhere to those with some sense of fairness and justice and you know the 600 feet doesn’t sound
like that much but where then is our new line? Is our new line at 30? By default. Is our new
line at 35 for the next person that comes in and says well you know, I’m just a little bit over and
what I’m struggling here, I’m not, and Councilman Lundquist you raise a good point. I don’t
think anybody up here likes the idea here that a decision against or to deny the variance request
means they might have to take something out. What about our residents that do come in and
10
City Council Meeting – September 12, 2005
maybe build something less than what they wanted to because they’re adhering to the ordinance?
You know with these after the fact variances they’re tough because you already see what’s there
and yet as much as we can I think we have to look at these as if would we have approved this
before the fact? Would we have approved this additional hard surface coverage before the fact if
they came in asking for the variance and as much as possible put ourselves in that position. I
mean as I look at this, you know I’ve asked about the driveway. It was kind of surprising when I
read the report and even the, Mr. Martin’s letter that the house and the driveway already
exceeded that. This is a standard lot in our city and I’ve always looked at this 25% relative to
our standard lots as a way to measure that and so you know, I think from a compromise
standpoint, but for changing the way we do something, and I don’t think we necessarily should
do that without investigating the ramifications of that, whether that’s the ordinance or some other
credit or something like that. You know the, if we hold them to the 25, as a council and deny the
variance, they’re going to have to reduce some of the driveway and take everything out. I mean
they’ve got some nice landscaping. The real issue is the sidewalk along the house to me and the
patio. Because of that nice retaining wall that they have around the front and landscaping, that’s
12 feet and probably wouldn’t show up. Likewise with the driveway. Having somebody take
100 feet off their driveway. It bothers me that a plan submitted and the permit was issued on,
and they expanded beyond that. That bothers me and to me I think that’s the fault of the builder
ultimately and the contractor but again as a property owner that should have control over that
process. I know that as you’re building houses, things change and there’s you know let’s move
this here. Let’s move this there so, so I find it difficult based upon what other residents have
done, both beforehand and Councilman Peterson, as you have said, even from an after the fact.
Where’s the affect? We’ve said no. We can’t, there should be a hardship there to justify the
variance. I don’t see it here. I think the, especially coming off the storm we had last week,
storm water runoff is an issue that we have to look at and make sure we manage and this is what
this is dealing with. It’s only 600 feet here. But what about the next one and the next one and
next one. Those are the longer term ones that I’m concerned about by going forward. I’d like to
see another alternative. Councilman Lundquist had a good one and that’s increasing the lot size
somehow so that the current improvements reduces a percentage overall.
Councilman Peterson: Well, and to Roger’s point. I mean I’m not adverse to that either because
the 25%, it’s a bit squishy in that, I’ve got to set an example but we wouldn’t have allowed a
structure, a paver, I mean a wood or a structure patio and now with current technology you put
those not wood ones right up against each other. That forms an impervious surface just equal to
a paver patio because they don’t separate those. They put them, they butt them right up against
each other so water is going totally off versus even seeping into the pavers so I question whether
or not we could even in good conscience say you can put a structure like that on there too. So I
mean there’s, yeah I think there’s some things that we can do. Whether or not it will work, some
kind of feature that’s going to be better. If we see the water is going, whether it’s the front of the
lot or the back of the lot and put in some kind of water garden or whatever that would be that
would act better than grass, then you’re gaining something. I don’t know. At the end of the day
I just, and maybe I’m over reacting because we’ve had 2 or 3 of those in the last year but you
know I think that we need to update this or at least look at it and talk about the ramifications of
25% and what are the different options that people can do.
11
City Council Meeting – September 12, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Well and in response to that, if there are right now staff is interpreting our
ordinance, where certain things are 100% impervious and other things are 100% pervious.
Obviously the more black and white the ordinance is, the easier it is for residents to know what
the rules are and the easier it is for staff to interpret those rules and to apply them because every
day is different. So try to keep that but I think we’re reviewing our storm water management
plan right now. I know I’m going to be interested in getting an update on that later this evening
as we talk about it. Given the event of last week, and this may be a time to incorporate that in
there as well. So I guess the question is, do we defer the decision on this until that discussion
can be had or do we move forward tonight not knowing the length of time it will take to do that
and to make some decision as to whether we want to make any changes there or not. And our
ramifications if you change the hard surface coverage I assume in terms of our storm water
management plan and the capacity and volume and such like that. And I’m assuming all that
goes into the engineering studies and the equations for that. I see heads going up and down so let
the minutes reflect that is correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Being on Planning Commission this has come up a couple times in
the years that I, not long but some of the years I was on the Planning Commission. My biggest
beef with this is residents come in and say we asked what we were supposed to do. They said
nothing and so you know we tried and we tried. And when they come in and they ask whoever is
across the counter, you know do I need a permit for this patio and they said no. And then as an
average citizen I wouldn’t then go onto know to ask well, how about hard surface coverage and
how about this and that because I’m not thinking that way. I’m just thinking oh good, I can get
the permit. But we still I don’t think have a sheet that we go oh look it. They want to do a deck
or a patio here. Look at this. You know here are the check off’s you have to cover before you
go ahead and do this. I guess that’s my biggest beef with this is that it is hard to know what
you’re supposed to do if you don’t know what you’re supposed to do. And if they did come in 3
times and tried to do the right thing and they went and thought they did the right thing, I guess I
have a hard time telling them now to undo what they thought they had done right the first time.
We don’t have one of those lists yet do we?
Kate Aanenson: Yes we do, as a matter of fact. I’m not going to get into the he said, she said.
What conversations…
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right, exactly.
Kate Aanenson: I’m sympathetic to them. You know the first issue was the sidewalk not being
to the driveway. That’s one thing I think, that’s one error that I think is very obvious that we
missed. There should have been a driveway, a sidewalk connecting the front porch to the
driveway. In my mind that was an error on our part not to because that’s always standard that we
would check that. But as far as the conversations that were, you go to 3 different departments.
Each department gives their information and sometimes you ask the question to get the answer
you want too, so you know, and I’m not dismissing that sometimes people don’t probe further in
12
City Council Meeting – September 12, 2005
that specific division. If you went to building…no, they’d say talk to planning…We do have
handouts. We now require all impervious to be shown on the original permit. That’s been done
for a number of years so we have corrected those issues. We’re always going to have people
asking for variances… Things happen you know.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table this issue to give the applicant
and staff a chance to consider other alternatives and I think they’ve got some opinions and
thoughts about you know some kind of direction to what we might be looking for given the
chance to do that before we make a hard and fast decision and bind them to something that there
might be another alternative to.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Motion’s been made. Mr. Knutson.
Roger Knutson: …know the time line issue.
Mayor Furlong: That was going to be my question so.
Kate Aanenson: They asked if they can get an extension.
Mayor Furlong: We need an extension in writing from them.
Kate Aanenson: They’re fine with that.
Mayor Furlong: Can we get that tonight?
Larry Martin: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Do you want to write something up? Do we need to get that? What is the
timeframe here?
Kate Aanenson: I believe it was…tomorrow.
Mayor Furlong: Tomorrow, so we should get something now. Mr. Lundquist, if that’s okay.
Councilman Lundquist: Absolutely.
Mayor Furlong: Before we consider your motion. First, let me ask if there’s a second to
Councilman Lundquist’s motion.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: It’s been seconded so we’re in discussing the motion now at this time. Is there
any discussion on this motion? Actually a motion to table. We’ll hold off discussion.
Councilman Peterson: We can talk about the table.
13
City Council Meeting – September 12, 2005
Roger Knutson: I’m satisfied they’re going to sign it.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. There you go. I like the parliamentary order. The motion’s been
made to table. It’s been seconded to give staff and the applicant time to work out some
alternatives, given the comments this evening.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to table Planning Case
th
#05-18, hard cover variance request for Troy and Virginia Kakacek at 380 West 86 Street
in order to give staff and the applicant time to explore alternative solutions. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
MARIANNE MCCORD & DAVID SANFORD, 6440 FOX PATH, PLANNING CASE 05-
22, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WALKWAY AND DOCK.
Public Present:
Name Address
David Sanford 6440 Fox Path
Michael P. & Debbie Haydock 6460 Fox Path
Mary Hoffman 6470 Fox Path
Tom & Sue Huberty 6450 Fox Path
Terry Vogt 732 Lake Point
Charles Brown 1439 Tennessee, Minneapolis
Tom Meier 695 Pleasant View Road
Lori Haak: Thank you Mayor Furlong and council members. As the mayor indicated this is an
application for the wetland alteration permit at 6440 Fox Path, which is Lot 9, Block 1, Fox
Chase Subdivision. The applicant is for the construction of a dock through a wetland area to
access Lotus Lake. You can see the subject property on the map. On the north side of the lake is
Pleasant View Road. Just off the west side of, or the left side of the paper is Powers Boulevard
so just to orient folks. Typically wetland alteration permits that we see here are straight forward.
However as is quite common with a planned unit development such as this one, a conservation
easement has been recorded on several of these properties. The conservation easement covers all
of the land within the subdivision below 900 feet which is shown on one of our other
attachments. There’s one, sorry. Okay, pull it down. The conservation easement, the 900 foot
elevation is shown in green on this survey. And the ordinary high water mark for Lotus Lake
which is 896. Actually this is the 896 contour. It’s not actually the ordinary high water mark, is
shown in blue on that plan sheet there. As I indicated the conservation easement covers all the
land below 900 feet and encumbers parts of Lot 7 through 19. And again the subject property is
Lot 9, which is indicated in orange. The easement prohibits docks except on Lots 16 through 19
which are on the southern part or the bottom part of the plan. Lot 16 has a dock that’s shared by
7 properties. Lots 10 through 16, and that’s basically the lots south of the subject property and
the next 6 lots. So there’s a shared dock that is used by 7 property owners, and then Lots 17, 18,
and 19, which are the final 3 lots there, each have their own docks and if we can pull up the
aerial photo I believe we can see why. The wetland, actually if you orient it so north is at the
14