01-21-2014 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 21, 2014 Page 2 of 8 Council Member Nelson asked about why Hartman Homes pulled permit and the Springborns are here. It was explained that Hartman Homes was the general contractor building the home. Sub-contractors do not pull permits individually on new homes. The Springborns did the driveway themselves. Council Member Smith asked about other driveways that would not comply. She does not want to force the Springborns to have to comply now when others do not. Mr. Klatt explained that other driveways would be considered legal non-confirming uses and not required to comply until they are changed. Council Member Reeves noted that just the apron is being discussed. He also pointed out another benefit to pavement is to protect any abutting road. Mr. Griffin confirmed this. The paving reduces the tracking of mud etc on the road. Mr. Klatt noted Council is being asked to consider the interpretation of the city code. If Council disagrees with staff interpretation of code, it will have impact on future applications. Whether the code will need to be changed was discussed. Mayor Pearson asked for confirmation that Hartman Homes was aware of the hot-mix requirement. Mr. Nelson asked for Mr. Griffin’s opinion on the material. Mr. Griffin explained that it is a milled material and used as a base in the city. It is more like a gravel. However the city then adds the hot mix top layer pavement. Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Springborn about why he used the material. He got it free. Mr. Springborn claimed that it was a better material than class 5 gravel. Mr. Bloyer asked why Sunfish Lake Entrance used same millings. Mayor Pearson confirmed that new millings were used. Mr. Zuleger stated that the city used the same type of milling like Springborn because they were free. He added that the City is intending on paving the entrance for the reasons staff claims. Ms. Smith stated that she does not think it is appropriate to punish the petitioner if they complied with the standard they were given. In their opinion, they did comply with the information staff provided, and she believes they are honorable. Mr. Springborn stated that it was an existing driveway for over 100 years and it has lasted so far. City Administrator Zuleger noted that the negotiations have been an amicable. Mr. Reeves clarified that the issue is not the entire driveway, just the apron. Mr. Springborn claimed T.A. Schifsky’s quoted over $3,550 for a 15x40 apron. Mr. Reeves thinks that it would set a bad precedent to reverse staff decision. Permit included language at time permit was pulled. Mr. Bloyer said it was not his intent to include a ROW larger than 5 feet. The driveway was existing. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved TO APPROVE THE SPRINGBORN APPEAL. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. Council Member Smith also believes that the ordinance is vague and the driveway is an existing driveway. Council Member Bloyer wants the language amended, so is not concerned with precedent. Mayor Pearson is opposed to the motion. A farm easement is not the same as a driveway. It is not the city’s responsibility to transfer the info from the builder to another party. Have to believe that the builder should have known. City needs to protect the roads and this is part of doing that. Mr. Bloyer said that if the position is to hold the residents to this standard, then City needs to lead by example vis-à-vis Sunfish Lake Park. Mr. Reeves pointed out that the City is going to do the same to the park that it is demanding from the Springborns. Mr. Reeves is not in support of approving appeal. Council Member Nelson doesn’t want to punish petitioners for what he believes is an honest mistake. He wants the paved requirement to be only five feet. Council Member Bloyer called the question. MOTION PASSES 3-2 (PEARSON/REEVES – NAY). CONSENT AGENDA 3. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll in the amount of $1,282,261.76