Loading...
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