Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Minutes 4646 Dakota Street S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA March 3, 2008 6p.rn. .____ _9.i!Y_H~II__ .. Work Session 4:30 p.m. Downtown Redevelopment This meeting is open to the public. 1. CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. PUBLIC FORUM The Public Forum is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns to the City Council. The Public Forum will be no longer than 30 minutes in length. Items to be considered as part of the Council's regular agenda may not be addressed at the Public Forum. Topics of discussion are also restricted to City governmental topics rather than private or political agendas. The City Council will not take formal action on issues presented during the Public Forum. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 18,2008, MEETING MINUTES 5. CONSENT AGENDA Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and non- controversial are included as part of the Consent Agenda. Unless the Mayor, a Councilmember, or member of the public specifically requests that an item on the Consent Agenda be removed and considered separately, Items on the Consent Agenda are considered under one motion, second and a roll call vote. Any item removed from the Consent Agenda shall be placed on the City Council Agenda as a separate category. A. Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. B. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Extension of the Animal Control Services Contract for 2009 with 4 Paws Animal Control, LLC. C. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Joint Powers Agreement for Assessment Services for the City of Prior Lake. D. Consider Approval of a Resolution Appointing the Firm of Abdo, Eick and Meyers to Perform the City's Financial Audits for Fiscal Years 2008 - 2009. E. Consider Approval of 2007 Fourth Quarter Budget Summary Reports and General Fund Overview. F. Consider Approval of a Resolution Extending the Deadline for Recording the Final Plat and Development Contract for Pike Lake Meadows. 6. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 7. PRESENTATIONS A. No presentations are scheduled. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing to Consider Liquor License Fee Increase. 9. OLD BUSINESS A. Consider Approval of a Resolution Upholding the Decision of the Planning Commission to Deny an Impervious Surface Variance from the Zoning Ordinance to Allow for a Driveway Addition and an Entry Path Addition for a Home in an R-1 Low Density Residential District. B. Consider Approval of a Resolution Adopting an Advertising Signage Policy to Permit Seasonal Athletic Field Signage on Interior Facing Outfield Fences in City Parks. C. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute the City's Standardized Professional Services Contract for the Arcadia Avenue/CR 21 and Main Avenue/ TH 13/CR 44 Intersection Feasibility Studies. 10. NEW BUSINESS A. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Staff to Request Proposal for Professional Services For 2008-2009 Stormwater Planning. B. Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving a Registration Fee for the City's Online Right-of- Way Permitting Program. C. Consider Approval of a Report Regarding the Jeffers Pond Environmental Learning Center Project. 11. OTHER BUSINESS/COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS A. Community Events. 12. ADJOURNMENT City Council Meeting Minutes February 19, 2008 DRAFT CALL TO ORDER Present were Deputy Mayor LeMair, Councilors Erickson, Hedberg and Millar, City Manager Boyles, Dep- uty City Attorney Girouard, Planning Director Kansier, Planner Matzke, Public Works Director Albrecht, As- sistant City Engineer Poppler, Parks and Fleet Supervisor Friedges, Streets and Utilities Supervisor Eldred, Code Enforcement Officer Corrow, Assistant City Manager Meyer, Communications Coordinator Peterson and Administrative Assistant Green. Mayor Haugen was absent. PUBLIC FORUM The Public Forum is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns to the City Council. It is no longer than 30 minutes in length and each speaker will have a maximum of ten minutes; less if there are more than three speakers. Topics of discussion are restricted to City government topics rather than private or political agendas. Topics on the agenda may be addressed except those topics that are part of a public hearing or public information hearing. The City Council will not take formal action on Public Forum presentations. City Manager Boyles explained the concept of the public forum. Comments: No person stepped forward to address the Council. APPROVAL OF AGENDA City Manager Boyles requested removal of old business item (9A), Consider Approval of a Report with Respect to the Policy Relating to Seasonal Signage on Interior Facing Fences on City Athletic Fields and a Resolution Directing the Staff to Initiate a Zoning Ordinance Review and Amendment, from the agenda. MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS MODIFIED. VOTE: Ayes by Erickson, Hedberg, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY MILLAR, SECONDED BY HEDBERG TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 4,2008, MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Erickson, Hedberg, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA City Manager Boyles reviewed the items on the consent agenda. A. Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. B. Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report. C. Consider Approval of Building Permit Report. D. Consider Approval of Animal Warden Report. E. Consider Approval of Fire Call Report. F. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing The Purchase of: 1) One Jacobson HR9016 - Sixteen www.cityofpriorlake.com 1 Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 City Council Meeting Minutes February 19, 2008 DRAFT Foot Rotary Mower; 2) One Jacobson Turf Cat - Six Foot Rotary Mower; 3) One 23 Foot Towmaster High Deck Double Ramp Trailer; 4) One 23 Foot Towmaster High Deck Full Ramp Trailer; and 5) One 257B Cat Skid Loader. G. Consider Approval of Resolutions 08-015 Approving the Cooperative Agreement with Scott County for Maintenance of the CR 21/Franklin Trail and CR 21/Fish Point Road and Resolution 08-016 Ap- proving the Cooperative Agreement with Scott County for Maintenance of the CR 21/CR 82 Traffic Signals. H. Consider Approval of Resolution 08-017 Amending the Contract for Materials Testing Services for the Water Treatment Facility. I. Consider Approval of Resolution 08-018 Extending the Deadline for Submittal of a Final Plat for Golden Pond. J. Consider Approval of Resolution 08-019 Authorizing Execution of the Joint Powers Agreement for the Regional Public Safety Training Facility. K. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into a Joint Pow- ers Agreement for Ongoing Operation and Maintenance of the South bridge Crossings Transit Station. Councilor Hedberg requested removal of Consent Agenda item 5F, Consider Approval of a Resolution Au- thorizing The Purchase of: 1) One Jacobson HR9016 - Sixteen Foot Rotary Mower; 2) One Jacobson Turf Cat - Six Foot Rotary Mower; 3) One 23 Foot Towmaster High Deck Double Ramp Trailer; 4) One 23 Foot Towmaster High Deck Full Ramp Trailer; and 5) One 257B Cat Skid Loader. Councilor Erickson requested removal of Consent Agenda item 5K, Consider Approval of a Resolution Au- thorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into a Joint Powers Agreement for Ongoing Operation and Maintenance of the South bridge Crossings Transit Station. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS MODI- FIED. VOTE: Ayes by Erickson, Hedberg, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. Hedberg: Commented that this is a routine purchase of replacement equipment and noted that it fits into the equipment matrix that was prepared by city staff. Commented on this agenda item to note that this new equipment will be diesel and burn B5 biodiesel fuel, which is consistent with and promotes the City's con- servation and energy savings efforts. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 08-014 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF: 1) ONE JACOBSON HR9016 - SIXTEEN FOOT ROTARY MOWER; 2) ONE JA- COBSON TURF CAT - SIX FOOT ROTARY MOWER; 3) ONE 23 FOOT TOWMASTER HIGH DECK DOUBLE RAMP TRAILER; 4) ONE 23 FOOT TOWMASTER HIGH DECK FULL RAMP TRAILER; AND 5) ONE 257B CAT SKID LOADER. VOTE: Ayes by Erickson, Hedberg, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. Erickson: Complimented the previous Council on its vision in opting out of the metropolitan transit system and rather using those monies to develop a joint system between Scott County, Shakopee and the City. The new facility was built using that money and future facilities will be added. MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECONDED BY HEDBERG TO APPROVE CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RE- SOLUTION 08-020 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A JOINT 2 City Council Meeting Minutes February 19, 2008 DRAFT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR ONGOING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SOUTHBRIDGE CROSSINGS TRANSIT STATION. VOTE: Ayes by Erickson, Hedberg, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. PRESENTATION Consider Approval of the 2007 Variance Summary Report. Planner Matzke presented the report on variances for 2007. Explained the process for requesting a vari- ance and noted that three requests were received in 2007 for a total of 18 variances. Most requests were for non-conforming lots or shoreland properties and were site specific so the Planning Commission has determined that no zoning ordinance changes would be required as a result of the requests received. Comments: Erickson: Commented that he was liaison to the Planning Commission in 2007 and observed that they do a very good job. Hedberg: Noticed that the number of variances has declined over the past two years and reflected this could be due to less development, but believes it is also a sign of good work by the Planning Commission. Millar: Concurred and noted that many applications were minimized and that reflects the good work of the Commission and staff. LeMair: Believes the low number of variance requests is a positive thing as variance appeals are not pleas- ant. Believes fewer hearings reflect better communication and process. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO APPROVE THE 2007 VARIANCE SUMMARY RE- PORT. VOTE: Ayes by Erickson, Hedberg, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. Consider Approval of a Report on the 2007 Code Enforcement Activity. Code Enforcement Officer Corrow summarized the code violations and complaints for 2007. Noted that the number of complaints has increased over the previous year which may be due in part to having a full- time code enforcement officer dedicated to addressing the complaints. Noted that code violations rarely result in a citation as the City prefers to work with residents toward compliance rather than take punitive measures. Comments: Erickson: Likes to see the proactive enforcement as it puts people in an unfortunate position when they have to complain to get compliance. Millar: Asked Corrow if he handles code violations for water usage. Corrow: Replied that is typically handled by public works. Millar: Agreed it is good to have the proactivity. Complimented Corrow on a good job. Hedberg: Noted that, in general, the past code violation response has been to complaints and Corrow is being more proactive. Finds it interesting that most complaints are about appearance. Believes that most of the people in the community notice the work of the code enforcement officer. Asked if any of the thirteen open cases will result in citation. Corrow: Replied that the thirteen cases include those that have been passed on to Scott County court system and a couple of them may require his presence in court. The remainder are cases that cannot be addressed until spring when there is thaw. Hedberg: Noted that he wants the remaining open cases to cooperate with the code enforcement officer as the objective is to reach an amicable resolution to complaints. 3 City Council Meeting Minutes February 19, 2008 DRAFT LeMair: Likes the approach taken to solve problems with as little conflict as possible. Asked if Corrow brings an officer on calls. Corrow: Replied he has not, but rather uses a friendly approach, keeps a level head and keeps confronta- tions as calm as possible. If necessary, he would call upon the police. MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECONDED BY HEDBERG TO APPROVE THE 2007 CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY REPORT. VOTE: Ayes by Erickson, Hedberg, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Consider Approval of a Resolution Upholding the Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve a Driveway Width Variance and Deny an Impervious Surface Variance from the Zoning Ordinance to Allow for a Driveway Addition and an Entry Path Addition for a Home in an R-1 Low Density District. Planner Matzke informed the Council that Phillip Hines has appealed the decision of the Planning Com- mission regarding variances for impervious surface. Described the requested variances, displayed the im- pacted area and explained the decision of the Planning Commission to grant a six-foot variance to the driveway width and deny the 4.9% additional impervious surface request. Comments: Hedberg: Asked if the Planning Commission's denial required removal of pavers by the front sidewalk. Matzke: Affirmed and described the areas where paver removal would be required. Deputy Mayor LeMair declared the public hearing open at 6:33 p.m. Comments: Phillip Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road, proposed a revision to his plan in an effort to meet City require- ments. Stated the revision includes green space in four areas to align with requirements and reduces the sidewalk to three feet or less. These modifications reduce impervious surface by another 2.9% to a total of 32%. Stated the reason he wanted the work to be done is because of a grade issue from driveway to the stoop of a foot-and-a-half in elevation which makes it difficult for elderly relatives to access. Even if all pavers were removed, there would be additional work to reconstruct the old walkway. Commented that the work was done by a contractor on his behalf and he made an incorrect assumption that required permits were acquired. They were working off an old survey that indicated there was impervious surface still avail- able. Stated it was not his intention to circumvent City code or exceed impervious surface requirements. Work was complete before a stop work order was received. Hines stated that he believes it has been the City's enforcement practice that in situations where the City becomes aware of things after installation, they do not cause the landowner to remove them. Gave exam- ples with aerial photo showing neighboring properties that appear not to be compliant with impervious sur- face code. Noted that another neighbor excavated property with the intention of putting in new sidewalk with no permit and the City made no move to stop the work or inspect it. When he asked City staff about that, he received the reply that once it is in, the City does not ask them to remove it. Stated that his work is completed and he feels singled out to have to remove it. Believes he has made every attempt to reach compromise with the City. Does not want to remove it as it performs a functional service for the front of the house. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes February 19, 2008 DRAFT Hines distributed information to the Council which includes correspondence with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) noting that he submitted his revised design that would keep some of the impervious sur- face and mitigate runoff to catch basins. Stated that the response from the DNR was that they would prefer the City to change its ordinance to accommodate this type of treatment. Correspondence from the Re- gional Water Management Director states that the DNR has approved many local ordinances that allows alternative forms of stormwater treatment vs. strict compliance with impervious surface limits. Believes the DNR has opened the door for the City to address an issue in the shoreland districts for increased demand for hard surface. Believes the current disregard for City ordinances is a response to frustration with ordi- nance that does not deal with modern construction and contemporary living and restricts use of property. Described his revised proposal noting that retention basins require minimal maintenance, shrubs can be planted over them and they don't need to be cleaned out. Noted that the intention of green space is to catching the rain runoff so it doesn't reach the lake or the storm sewers; and the design that he proposes to install is sized to accept all of the hard surface run off. With that and the removal of the 120 square-foot concrete slab next to his boat house will result in less water run off than there was before construction be- gan. Requested that the Council reconsider the Planning Commission decision. Comments: Millar: Clarified that the new design results in impervious surface at 32%, which is still over the allowable maximum. Hines: Affirmed. Millar: Asked Planner Matzke if a water retention basin serve the same concept as rain gardens. Poppler: Replied that the revised design which the staff received on Friday is functioning like a rain gar- den. Noted that he has some concerns about the design, but the Council could decide if it is an allowable way to meet impervious surface and that ordinance does not address mitigation measures short of impervi- ous surface removal. Matzke: Commented that the DNR has allowed additional impervious surface and given credit for mitiga- tion in some locations (Afton, Minnetonka), but the impervious surface in the Afton community is at 20% and to go above 20% they have strict rules regarding cooperation with water districts, conditional use per- mits, variance from DNR processes as well as extensive engineering to see where the water is going and how it is handled in the basins. Annual inspections by city staff or DNR are also required to assure reten- tion areas are maintained. Commented that Minnetonka has additional retention areas so run off is not directed to the lakes. Reiterated that Prior Lake's impervious surface requirement is at 30%, which is greater than the usual DNR policy and allowed because we have a greater lakeshore setback than some of the other cities. Millar: Noted that the fact that the contractor did not follow through with proper permits is an issue for which Hines would have to seek recourse. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY ERICKSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Erickson, Hedberg, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried and the public hearing closed at 7:52 p.m. Hedberg: Expressed appreciation that Hines is seeking resolution and believes that the information in his report represents design changes. Asked if staff had chance to review them. Poppler: Replied that he reviewed the design changes and has some concerns. Hedberg: Clarified that the design revisions are intended to retain aesthetic and engineering improve- ments and that the changes would take the impervious surface down to 32%. 5 City Council Meeting Minutes February 19, 2008 DRAFT Hines: Affirmed and added that the design would accommodate the entire water run off and that the con- crete slab would also be removed. Hedberg: Asked staff what the time line requirements are for the Council to act on the appeal as he would like the staff to be able to comment on the design changes. Girouard: Replied that Minnesota Statute requires a response within 120 days, which would be April 6. Hedberg: Since staff has concerns, would prefer to table the appeal to allow time for Hines and staff to come up with an acceptable design. Poppler: Noted that mitigation of impervious surface is not part of City ordinance; Hines does not meet the hardship requirements for this variance and ordinance does nofprovide tools for mitigation. Hedberg: Clarified that reduction of impervious surface to 32% would not be in keeping with ordinance or action taken by the Planning Commission. LeMair: Affirmed that the Council has the option to deny or grant a variance, but not to mitigate. Matzke: Reiterated that the hearing is based on hardship and whether the applicant has a demonstrable hardship and is being denied the use of the property. Erickson: Asked Hines about the neighbor that was installing new sidewalk and whether Hines knew if that work was in violation of ordinance or exceeded impervious surface. Hines: Replied he is aware that no permit was obtained for the work. Erickson: Asked staff if they were aware of the situation described. Matzke: Replied that it is standard practice for staff to advise citizens that they can file a complaint; and that staff does not act on all phone calls if no formal complaint is filed. Noted that if staff observes work being done, they are proactive. In the Hines case, an inspector observed the work while it was still being done and ordered a stop work order. In some cases, no permit may be needed. In the case of the drive- ways on neighboring properties, those houses are much older and the driveways have existed for some time and are allowed to keep the current impervious surface until they tear down the house or make changes to it. When new houses are constructed they must be in compliance. Erickson: Commented that he has relayed information to staff on some situations that he believed were code violations and they were acted upon. Would expect such reports to be passed on to the code en- forcement official and not need a formal complaint to take such action. Poppler: Responded that when staff met with Hines, he mentioned another situation going on near him but did not provide an address or name, nor want to make a complaint. Erickson: Commented that he just wants to assure that everyone is treated the same. Noted that when developers come to the Planning Commission and present a proposal, it is continuously reworked until it is satisfactory. Suggested directing the changed design back to the Planning Commission for review. LeMair: Asked if that action was an option. Boyles: Replied there are different criteria for different kinds of action and criteria for variances are spe- cifically defined in ordinance. One variance criterion is hardship and applicants must meet all the hardship criteria to meet the eligibility for that variance. There are different standards for plats and developments. It would not be appropriate to refer it back to the Planning Commission unless specific direction is provided with the referral. Erickson: Asked if the new design and information from the DNR were adequate referral to take it back to the Planning Commission. Boyles: Replied there would still have to be hardship. The redesign does not reduce the space to the im- pervious surface requirements and how he wants to handle that is problematic with the City's ordinances. Erickson: Asked if a hardship is the safety of access to the house as it is not safe to back out onto Spring Lake Road and more space is needed to turn a vehicle and access the road going forward. Kansier: Replied that the Planning Commission did approve a six-foot wider driveway during the variance process. 6 City Council Meeting Minutes February 19, 2008 DRAFT Girouard: Agreed that the staff report addressed that hardship and the Planning Commission found that the driveway warranted the variance and six feet was granted. Noted that if a changed design was brought that was below the 30% impervious surface requirement, no variance would be required. Erickson: Stated that it is unfortunate, but it appears there is no flexibility to go beyond the 30% impervi- ous surface requirement. LeMair: Clarified that Hines designed and built the home and asked if variances were requested at that time. Hines: Responded that he wanted to move the front of garage closer to front of property line in order to have a bigger garage. leMair: Asked if the contractor was asked to come to this meeting. Hines: No. LeMair: Asked if the contractor "washed their hands of it." Hines: Replied that they promised to take some action to address some issues and see what they can do to make this work. LeMair: Noted that the Council has to deal with situation at hand. Can see that the neighbors have con- siderable impervious surface, but that is not the situation we are dealing with. Difficult at times to follow all of the rules we have in place. Asked if the pavers are floating. Hines: Replied they are installed on compacted sand. LeMair: Noted that in the past pavers have been approved with the impervious surface requirements and asked if that has changed. Kansier: Replied that had only been approved with the Crystal Bay project which is a larger project with a management plan for the pavers with special installation requirements to render them pervious. Noted that staff has discussed whether pavers should be considered, but wondered whether the DNR would then re- quire the City to go to the 20% rule for impervious surface. Commented that it is easier for the City to in- spect and enforce development projects than it is to do so for individual projects. LeMair: Stated he would be open for future discussion on the paver and impervious surface issue for commercial projects. Kansier: Noted that in the Commerce Avenue project, pavers were part of a stormwater management pro- ject. Poppler: Added that the Commerce Avenue project was not in the shoreland district and pavers were used there to meet volume control guidelines. Erickson: Restated that there are two separate items; the six foot variance and the impervious surface variance. Asked if the Council has the option of going over the 30% impervious surface guideline. Girouard: Replied that the Council can approve a variance but there has to be specific findings of fact to support the hardship. LeMair: Reiterated that the Council would need to have justification for allowing it. Millar: Commented that Hines has changed his plans and the Council is not addressing the changed plans, but what was brought to the Planning Commission. Encouraged Hines to work with the staff with any plan changes. Hines: Replied that he presented the concept of catch basins at the Planning Commission meeting. Be- lieves the safety issue of the front steps was not fully contemplated as a three-foot width does not allow help for elderly relatives. The hardship criteria is safety. LeMair: Noted that even if the sidewalk were wider, it would not help with the pavers. Hines: Replied that what would be granted is a variance for impervious surface. LeMair: Noted that a safe situation is subject to interpretation. Hedberg: Reiterated that the ordinance does not allow for mitigation of impervious surface. 7 City Council Meeting Minutes February 19, 2008 DRAFT Kansier: Confirmed that ordinance specifies 30% and there is no discretion to waive under any conditions except hardship and that is the only process the City has to exceed the amount. Hedberg: Assumes that is why the DNR indicated they would prefer the City change its ordinance. Kansier: Agreed. Hedberg: Asked if the purpose of a limit on impervious surface is to control excess stormwater. Kansier: Replied that it is a lake water quality issue and more impervious surface allows more runoff; and secondly it tries to maintain as much green space as possible. Hedberg: Stated that Hines' new plans have not been considered by staff or the Planning Commission and the Council needs to either deny the impervious surface resolution or else table it as there is no option except to act on what was brought before the Council. Stated he is intrigued by DNR comments as it seems one of primary purposes of impervious surface is to control runoff to the lake; and if basins catch the runoff, he is inclined to approve it because it fits the intent of impervious surface. Believes the issue should go back to the Planning Commission and would support tabling both resolutions. Hines: Noted the new design was structured to fit within the six foot variance requirement. Millar: Commented this doesn't change the hardship requirements and Hines is still asking for a variance of the impervious surface. Hedberg: Replied that the DNR has suggested they would prefer a different ordinance. LeMair: Assumes there are also other things that the DNR disagrees with. Matzke: Responded that the DNR indicate ordinance change could avoid some variance requests, but it would be a difficult process. Hedberg: Clarified that he believes that ordinance is missing something regarding intention about the pur- pose of impervious surface which is to manage stormwater and believes the ordinance ought to address that. Would entertain a plan that had an impervious surface variance if it resulted in less runoff. Millar: Would support approval of the first resolution, tabling the second resolution and discussing Hed- berg's suggestions. Erickson: Believes no action is needed on the first resolution because the Planning Commission allowed a six-foot variance and this action would just confirm their action. Hines is not looking for anything different so don't need to act on it. Asked staff if credit towards impervious surface is given for a rain garden. Matzke: Replied there is no credit for going above impervious surface requirements. Erickson: Agreed with Hedberg that if there are things that will allow for more run off to be managed, it should be considered. Will support the Planning Commission on the six-foot variance and sending the re- vised plan back to the Planning Commission for review. LeMair: Commented that unless ordinance will be changed, there is no hardship. Many people have not been able to have projects done because we have existing ordinance. Does not see how this can go back to the Planning Commission as a hardship and will uphold the Planning Commission decision. Millar: Agrees the hardship has not changed and asked if there would have to be an ordinance change to move forward on Hines' revised plans. Kansier: Replied the logistical issues would be: 1) based on Planning Commission findings, don't know if they would change their decision because there still would not be a hardship and if the City wants to make this a broader issue, it would require ordinance change. 2) The time line for replying to an appeal will ex- pire so a waiver of that time line would be required from Hines. Hines: Responded that he would be willing to do that. LeMair: Believes the Planning Commission decision should be upheld and if the Council wants to consider ordinance change, then it should be brought back to the Council. Erickson: Asked if it is necessary for the Council to address the six-foot waiver. Matzke: Affirmed that is so because Hines has appealed that decision of the Planning Commission. 8