Loading...
CC 2008 02 11CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2008 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Litsey, Councilwoman Ernst, and Councilwoman Tjornhom STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Laurie Hokkanen, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, and Terry Jeffrey PUBLIC PRESENT: Tom Devine 7640 South Shore Drive Steve Donen 7341 Frontier Trail Mohamed R. Mumin 1759 Valley Ridge Place PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Litsey seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated January 28, 2008 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated January 28, 2008 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated January 15, 2008 -Park and Recreation Commission Summary Minutes dated January 22, 2008 b. Approve Vacant Land Purchase Agreement for Chanhassen Estates Park and Well #13 Improvements, Project #08-05. c. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, Harvest Festival, St. Hubert’s Catholic Community. Resolution #2008-09: d. Approve Condemnation Resolution for Lyman Boulevard Improvements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 BUSINESS IMPACT GROUP/SNAP FITNESS: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 50,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING; LOCATED AT 2411 GALPIN COURT (LOT 1, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK). APPLICANT: EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. This item, a site plan approval, was th presented to the Planning Commission on January 15. The Planning Commission unanimously, 4 in favor and none against, recommended approval of the site plan, and the commission minutes are included in your packet. The only area of discussion really on the site plan revolved around some additional landscaping, which I’ll speak to in a minute. But overall the Planning Commission did recommend approval with conditions in the staff report. The subject site, is located at the intersection of Galpin and Lyman Boulevard. The overall project is part of a PUD and I’m going to take a minute to talk about PUD’s, since in our work session we were just talking about the application of a PUD and this is a good opportunity to kind of revisit that and help explain the application of that. So this PUD was given because we have a residential area to the north which provided that 100 foot buffer, and this circumstance was residential with a street so we have a 50 foot buffer on this side. The other thing we did with this PUD in order to preserve the significant stand of trees in that area was to allow some of those lots to go over the impervious surface. So if you look on your table, we do track these and I know we get this question asked a lot by residents and developers, which would be in our staff report starting on page 10. We keep track of the impervious coverage so they don’t exceed the overall but again this is an application of why we would use a PUD to preserve area. Preserving that area still allows for development of those parcels without being penalized but they all benefit from the preservation of that green space, in addition providing that, the benefit from a buffer which is kind of towards the green space too. So with this PUD, all the lots except for Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 3 have been built on, so this is the next lot to go forward. Block 2, Lot 1. On the corner as I mentioned. Access was given on this site as we looked at the overall access, because of the County’s concern on Lyman Boulevard and turn movements, all access is coming off of Galpin Court so that was kind of laid out the framework for the design issues. The project itself, there is a significant stand of trees in this area right here, and a recommendation that came out is to move the sidewalk so we’re not working underneath the trees itself in saving that stand. In addition the Planning Commission did comment on landscaping in that corner, which would be the southeast corner providing additional buffer there, which is where their sign is located too. The building itself is very well designed. I do have the materials. If you want to see those, I’ll put those on the screen but I think they’re pretty well represented based on the clarity of that picture themselves. It is a taller building. We did ask for additional windows be put on the site, which was reflected, and the columns going all the way up with the parapet. One change that was recommended that did come from the Planning Commission was, an additional windows on this side over here, plus one more column in this area on this side. Those are the two faces on Galpin and Lyman which have the most visibility. The rest is interior and those have a little bit different standard. So with that it does meet all the design standards, including the transparency requirement, articulation, colors and materials itself. This site was massed graded when we did the entire parcel, so there should be minimum grading. There is some stockpile on the site that will be removed and the one issue that did come up compared to this building and the Waytek building, this one is much more visible which one of the reasons we asked for a little bit more detail on the landscaping articulation because it’s right at that corner. A little more prominent. 2 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 Will actually cover the Waytek building to the rear which is actually pretty recessed because of the change of grade coming off of Galpin Boulevard. There was a small retaining wall kind of around the loading docks that was shown on the plans. There’s just some notes on that. And with that, it meets all the standards of the site plan itself with a few modifications that were made by staff and the Planning Commission. We, and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of the site plan with the condition of approval in the staff report and I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Litsey: I guess just that you’re comfortable now with where the landscaping has ended up? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes, we’ve worked through those issues and again it’s just preserving. There’s some significant trees. I can show you on the landscaping real quick. It’s a little bit different scale but this is one of those, this mature stand of trees and the sidewalk comes through here so that was a request. Just to move, and actually it lines up better with the door anyway so with that sidewalk to come over here. We do want to provide an access out onto that trail for people on their lunch hour so that can be resolved and changed on the plan. And then the other issue was, just putting some more shrubs in this area because of the high visibility. Councilman Litsey: Because of the visual there? Kate Aanenson: Yep, and then the fact that you’re looking at the cars. You know to provide that screen so that has been done…a condition that the applicant has agreed to. Councilman Litsey: I mean I agree with the comments in the staff report. I think it’s a very attractive building. It should go in there very nicely. With those taken into account, what you just stated with the landscaping and paying attention to the visuals on that corner, I think it will be a nice addition. Mayor Furlong: Okay, any other questions for staff at this time? Ms. Aanenson, a couple questions. Before I ask the question, how tight are they on the parking? Are they right up next to the edge or do they have a couple? Kate Aanenson: Um parking. Mayor Furlong: And as you’re looking for that, I’m sorry go ahead. Kate Aanenson: PUD says 96. They are providing 111 so there is some flexibility. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And obviously we’ll want to allow them to provide enough parking for the businesses but one of the issues I remember that we looked at when Park Nicollet, when it came in, we had some big oak trees and they were putting the parking stalls right up next to the root system and we pushed them away and I guess my question is, do we have in the conditions 3 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 that, in terms of the final location of the parking place and the curb cuts and such, that they’ll work with our City Forester to make sure they don’t disturb those? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, there was one regarding the sidewalk. Mayor Furlong: Well the sidewalk absolutely moved to the point, if it works, to, you don’t want to be cutting through the trees there. Kate Aanenson: No, but if you look on kind of conditions 9, 10, 11. I think somewhere in there we can modify one of those to state that we may be able to, we can work with the developer maybe to eliminate one of those stalls right in there, or two, whichever. Mayor Furlong: And maybe if they can pick it up someplace else. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Mayor Furlong: I just want to make sure that. Kate Aanenson: Understood. Mayor Furlong: That you understand the point is that we don’t grade and/or cut in closer than we have to there. Is there a retaining wall or anything there or what are the elevations? Kate Aanenson: No, there’s no. There’s a change in grade coming around the back of the building. It looks like more, almost more like a wing wall for the loading docks in this area here. If you’re looking at the plans with the change in grade, it’s like 3 feet here. At 960 here and 957, it’s kind of more like a wing wall. Mayor Furlong: But on the east side there, the grade is right about where the grade of the natural cut is for the trees? Kate Aanenson: You’re at 959, correct. It’s pretty close. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay. Kate Aanenson: But you’re right. You’re still disturbing it to put in concrete and. Mayor Furlong: Do you want to look at conditions and maybe come up with some wording for us when we get to that point? Todd Gerhardt: Kate, don’t we typically fence that off at the drip line? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and that’s in here. It says that, but I think we need to look at where that drip line is and maybe just re-examine that and that would be under condition 12. Tree protection or elimination of parking stalls to ensure in that area, to ensure tree protection. 4 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and hopefully we can work with staff to. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: For the location of the parking stalls or curb, for tree protection. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it does say fencing on there but whether or not that addresses that adequately, we’ll make sure. Mayor Furlong: And with the landscaping, the report said they were short on the shrubs. Are they over on the trees? I mean is there… Kate Aanenson: No, there is a statement about that. It meets the standards for the trees. Just shortage on the shrubs. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And they’re getting the benefit of the caliper on the existing ones. Mayor Furlong: For the existing trees? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other questions for staff at this time? Is the applicant here? Any comments or thoughts at this point? No? Any questions for the applicant? Councilwoman Tjornhom: It seems pretty cut and dry. Mayor Furlong: Since nobody came to the public hearing so I’m assuming there are no issues with the neighborhood. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, nobody showed up on that. Mayor Furlong: So with that, let’s bring it back to council comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom you just kind of made one. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I did. Mayor Furlong: Back up the tape and repeat. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know reading through everything, he’s met all the requirements and I think that the building is a beautiful building. I don’t know if beautiful is a good word. It’s certainly architecturally appealing. I think he’s done a good job trying to fit into the rest of the development and so I see no problem with it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Ernst, thoughts. 5 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 Councilwoman Ernst: I think it’s a great building. As I, I was concerned about some of the trees too that you mentioned and as I see this it says, any of the trees killed or damaged will be replaced at a rate of 2 to 1 diameter inches. Kate Aanenson: Right. Councilwoman Ernst: So that was my biggest concern and it looks like you’re going to go back and make sure… Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: To that point the biggest thing is let’s make sure we don’t get in that situation so. Councilwoman Ernst: Right. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Litsey. Councilman Litsey: I already jumped ahead but I like the additional attention paid to the existing trees and protecting that. Whatever the wording is right for that and. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I guess I’d like to ask one more question. This is going to be where it’s 24 hours? Is that right? Is that the Snap Fitness building where it’s 24 hours? Kate Aanenson: This is an office building. Todd Gerhardt: Their corporate headquarters. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Oh, their headquarters, okay. Kate Aanenson: It’s not open. It could, I think that question got asked by the neighbors about when we originally said could we put conditions on there to limit uses, but as the City Manager indicated, it is an office building so if someone was in there late at night, we wouldn’t close them down. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Mayor Furlong: So the hours of use just follows the PUD that was approved? Kate Aanenson: Correct, yeah. 6 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Okay. We have, no reason for me to reiterate. I concur with what’s been said. Good design. It will look nice on that corner and I’m confident that we’ll be able to work out the issue with the trees and make sure they can keep those nice trees on the corner. Do you have some suggested language for us on a condition? Kate Aanenson: Sure. On number 12. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Before you get to any trees killed, I would say. Councilman Litsey: That’s probably a good place to put it before. Kate Aanenson: Prior to that, in that same sentence just, to ensure tree protection, parking, a few parking spaces may be eliminated and replaced somewhere else. Mayor Furlong: Work with city staff? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, to preserve trees. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. With that, is there a motion which begins on page 13. 11, of the staff report. Councilman Litsey: I’d be happy to make the motion that the City Council approve Planning Case 07-27, approving a site plan for a 50,000 square foot, one story office/warehouse building, plans prepared by Ahman Architects dated November 6, 2007, subject to the following conditions which would be in the staff report, 1 through 31 with the amendment that was just noted under number 12. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And approving the Findings of Fact? Councilman Litsey: And approving the Findings of Facts. Roger Knutson: I got off a plane 2 hours ago. Councilman Litsey: I have no excuses so. Todd Gerhardt: He’s still on the island time. Mayor Furlong: And adopting the staff report as well. With that is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? 7 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council s approve Planning Case #07-27 approving a site plan for a 50,000 square-foot, one-story office warehouse building, plans prepared by Houwman Architects, dated November 06, 2007, subject to the following conditions: 1.The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 2.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3.The plan must be revised to meet the 50-foot setback from the property line (on Galpin Boulevard) to the parking lot. 4.Site lighting shall be revised to incorporate high-pressure sodium vapor lamps. 5.Architectural lighting shall be down cast only. 6.Two upper level windows shall be added on the west end of the south building elevation. 7.A column shall be added in the middle of the north building elevation. 8.The developer shall provide a pedestrian connection from the site to Lyman Boulevard. 9.The proposed sidewalk shall not be located within the existing group of protected trees. The sidewalk shall be located either north or south of this area with City approval. 10.Pedestrian ramps shall be provided at all curbs for trail and sidewalk connections. 11.All plantings along Galpin Boulevard shall be field located so as to not damage existing trees. No trees or shrubs shall be planted within the protected area of trees without City approval. 12.All trees shown as preserved on plans dated 09/16/07 shall be protected by tree protection fencing before any construction activities begin. The applicant will work with staff to review and modify if needed, the parking plan to ensure that any trees killed or damaged shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 13.Shrub quantities shall be increased to meet minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings. 14.Wood chip mulch shall be used around trees in all landscape peninsulas in place of sod or rocks. 15.Applicant must comply with the following Fire Prevention policies: a.40-1995 Fire Sprinkler requirements. b.07-1991 Pre-fire plan drawings. 8 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 c.29-1991 Premises identification. d.34-1993 Water service installation. e.36-1994 Combination Fire/Domestic water service line. Combustible Storage and High Pile Combustible Storage 16.Applicant must fill out the form. 17.No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and scrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 18.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 19.The park fees payable with the building permit shall be $42,416.00. 20.Sheet C1 shall be amended to show inlet protections on all existing storm sewer inlets. 21.Sheet C1 shall be amended to extend the erosion control blanket in the northeast corner of the lot to cover all soil until the proposed grading matches the existing grade. 22.Sheet C4 item #2 shall be amended to insert the construction of rain gardens as item #11 in the sequencing of construction activities and “inspect site” shall be amended so that it is #12 in the sequence. 23.Sheet C4 item #5.1 shall have language added to the effect that the SWPPP, all amendments and the NPDES permit shall be kept on site in a readily accessible location known to all relevant individuals. 24.Sheet L1 the rain gardens shall be designed so that water runoff from the parking area will travel through some form of filter BMP. 25.The rain gardens shall be designed to drain within 48 hours and not be inundated to a depth greater than one foot during a 10-year storm event. Calculations need to be provided supporting this. 26.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 27.The complete existing contours must be shown on the east side of the property. 28.The proposed contours must tie into the existing contours shown on the plan. 29.Retaining walls four feet high or higher require a building permit and must be designed by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 30.Eight-inch watermain must be looped around the building. This watermain shall be privately owned and maintained. 9 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 31.A cross-access agreement must be dedicated and a copy provided to the City before the building permit is issued.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF DISTRIBUTION OF MS4 PERMIT NON- DEGRADATION. Terry Jeffrey: Mayor Furlong, council members. Appreciate the opportunity to be before you again tonight. I know we met a couple weeks back and I gave you a very brief overview of this. I am here tonight with Diane Specter from Wenck Associates who put together the non- degradation report implementation plan for us. As you’re all aware, the City of Chanhassen is a MS4 permit city or Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit. That permit went into effect in June of 2006 which required us, along with 29 other cities, to develop a non-degradation st plan. And this plan was due to the Pollution Control Agency on February 1. I have since had th discussions with the Pollution Control Agency and that has been extended to February 12, or tomorrow. Again as I said, Wenck Associates put this together. They were contracted in October of 2006 to begin this and we’re at this point now. A public hearing was held before the th Planning Commission on January 15, as per required. Plans have been submitted to all the local water authorities, be it Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek, Minnehaha Creek, Carver WMO as well as the Met Council for their review. Thus far we’ve only received comments from the Metropolitan Council and the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, as well as seven Chanhassen residents. Non-degradation requirements, and I’ll let Diane get into more detail but really it’s to look at the three loading parameters or 3 pollutant parameters that we talked about the other night. Total suspended solids. Total phosphorus and total storm water volume. Generally speaking our findings were that for total suspended solids and total phosphorus the activities, the best management practices that have already been put in place by the City of Chanhassen have been effective and we are meeting non- degradation requirements for those two pollutants. Total suspended solids and total phosphorus. Where we are not meeting the non-degradation requirements will be the storm water volume. What the implications for this are is that we will need to move forward and look at our storm water pollution prevention plan, which is a portion of our NPDES or National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. And within that SWPPP, or Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, we’ll need to look at our BMP’s and decide are there ways to change these or to incorporate some of the things that we’re already doing within the city within this SWPPP to meet the non-deg requirements. I want to remind you that I permit directive, the City must consider alternatives. Explain which alternatives have been studied. What rejected and why, and propose alternatives that are reasonable and practical. And our last point, you know as well, the report must give high priority to BMP’s that address impacts of future growth such as ordinance for new developments so they are aware of the fact that as we look at developed areas, there’s going to be very limited opportunities so it as we move forward, what can we do. And again tonight with the approval of this, if this plan were to be approved for distribution to the PCA, we’re only suggesting that we will start looking at our storm water prevention pollution plan and how we can modify that. I did work with Manager Gerhardt today on addressing some of the language within the non-degradation report to allow more flexibility for the city as we 10 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 move forward and really deciding how it is that we want to do that. With that I would like to turn it over to Diane and then I will be available for questions afterwards. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Diane Specter: Mr. Mayor, council members. For something that has to do with water, this is an awfully dry subject but I’ll try my best to make it at least somewhat interesting. What we’d like to do this evening is just very briefly talk a little bit more about the non-degradation assessment and what it’s purpose is. What it is. What it isn’t and then to just briefly go through how we came to the conclusions that we did and the recommendations that we did, and then talk a little bit more about what Mr. Jeffrey just went through with you which is, what does this result mean for the city. First of all the non-degradation studies, they’re a very special purpose study. This is not a big picture policy document, nor is it a detailed listing of specific projects and programs that you’re going to run out and start implementing. The sole purpose of going through this non- degradation assessment is to look at how pollutant loading and storm water runoff has changed since 1988, and if it has increased or negatively impacted those water resources, what plan does the city have for addressing those impacts. There’s nothing really magic about the year 1988. That doesn’t mean that 1988 was the best conditions or the optimal conditions or what we should strive for or go back to. It just simply means that that’s the year that the law, the statute requiring non-degradation of waters came into effect, so that’s the only magic about 1988. The slide before you shows that that group of 30 cities that were selected to undergo this assessment. The MPCA selected those cities on the basis of the population and land use change since 1988, so those cities that experienced the most change in the MPCA’s estimation were those that were most likely to have negatively impacted or degraded waters. The process and the steps that we went through undergoing this analysis was, really was 4 steps. The first is looking at how land use has changed from 1988 to the present, and then from the present to 2020. And part of that land use change is looking at how imperviousness within the city changed. We then looked at estimating the pollutant loading from the land, again from 1988 to the present and then from the present to 2020. And then also the increase in the runoff water volume. Identified those kinds of things, those best management practices or BMP’s that the city has been undertaking and then those that could potentially be undertaken in order to return to those 1988 conditions or better, and then what does that mean for your storm water pollution prevention plan. Generally what kind of modifications ought you be thinking about considering for amending that SWPPP. So the first step is looking at land use change and the growth in impervious area and you see in this figure before you that we divided the city up into sub-watersheds that drain to a specific water body, so that area that you see in kind of a dark green in the central part of the city, is that part of the city that drains directly to Bluff Creek and kind of the purple up in the northwestern area drains to Lake Minnewashta, etc. And we divide that up into those major sub-watershed areas because we’re interesting in knowing how the change in land use and pollutant loading might impact that individual water resource. For purposes of the non-degradation requirement, we’re really looking at the city as a whole but we also wanted to preserve the opportunity to look at an individual sub-watershed basis to see how an individual body might be impacted. So you can see that we’ve looked at those 3 time periods and because we had better data available for 1990 than we did for 1988, and all of this you’ll see that we used 1990 as being the baseline rather than 1988…the MPCA and they’re fine with that because the land use really isn’t that much different in 1990 than what it was in 1988. And we looked at the area of the non-water body 11 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 area within each of those watersheds and then estimated the impervious coverage within each one of those sub-watersheds and how that was in 1990. How it is currently and how it’s projected based on the old comprehensive plan. The one that looked at the conditions in 2020. You can see that city wide that there was a change in imperviousness across the city from 16% to 20% and then based on that expected land use in 2020, that that percent of impervious area would increase to 28%. And that is different across all the different sub-watersheds and some of these sub-watersheds you see that those that were developed prior to 1988, like the Lotus Lake sub-watershed, you see that there’s very little change expected in imperviousness. On the other hand there are some of these sub-watersheds where there’s an expected amount of development to be occurring between now and 2020. For example that area that drains directly to Bluff Creek, which was at 10% impervious in 1990, would be expected to be, to triple to 30% in 2020. So that’s our first step in the process, which is looking at the land use change to estimate the amount of impervious coverage. Then the second step is to model using, it’s literature values that are accepted for the amount of pollutant loading, the amount of storm water runoff from each one of those land uses, given the amount of impervious coverage, and that gets us what we call our raw increase. In the absence of doing any BMP’s, what kind of change might you expect in pollutant loading and storm water runoff? The third step, and this is important, is that Chanhassen has already undertaken a number of BMP’s. You do have ordinances in place that regulate new development. Would require storm water treatment and management. You’re already retrofitting with projects. You’re already constructing projects. You’ve got a forestation program. So you’re already doing things to limit that increase, so that next step then is to calculate what the impact of those BMP’s are so you can take credit for them, and then net those out so that what we end up with is a net change in pollutant loading and storm water runoff volume. What we find is that for total suspended solids, which is primarily sediment coming off of the land, that there is projected to actually be a decrease over 1988 levels by the time the development in 2020 occurs. How can that be, you ask. Because we are intending on intensifying our uses and increasing our impervious surface. The reason why that occurs is because you, those areas that are undeveloped, currently undeveloped, are currently untreated. So as development occurs, all this new development is putting in storm water ponds and doing things like preserving their trees, like in the site plan earlier tonight, and that’s increasing the level of treatments. You’re actually ending up providing more treatment and ending up with less pollutant loading coming off the land than what you did before development. Now city wide offer that the parameter total suspended solids in every sub-watershed except that area that drains to Lake Ann, you’re seeing, we’ll be expected to see a decrease in that total suspended solids. The Lake Ann sub-watershed we modeled a very small increase. The reason why that is, is because it’s a very, very small sub-watershed so if there’s any change at all in land use in that area, there’s not a lot of opportunity for treatment in there so any change in land use will make an impact in pollutant loading. We find something very similar with total cost versus runoff is again, a decrease over those 1988 levels except for a couple of sub-watersheds. Again Lake Ann, but then also in the Riley-Purgatory Creek sub-watershed which is a very large sub- watershed with a lot of development expected, and the primary BMP’s that we have in place for development of your storm water ponds are really pretty good at removing sediment at TSS. They’re not quite as good at removing phosphorus so that’s why we’re ending up being just a little bit of an increase in the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek sub-watershed. So you meet that non- degradation requirement city wide but those two sub-watersheds we’ll want to look at separately. And then as Mr. Jeffrey mentioned in his introduction, that the most significant result of this 12 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 modeling effort was documenting an increase in runoff volume from, I didn’t do anything. It wasn’t me. Thank you. Is documenting an increase from 1988 to the present day and then also an expected increase from the present day to 2020. So, and that occurred in every sub-watershed so city wide you don’t meet that non-degradation runoff volume requirement. So again, the purpose of going through this assessment was to determine as to identify if there was pollutant loading or volume increases and then if that has occurred, to plan for what you’re going to do about it. So the study findings are basically that the concern for the City of Chanhassen is dealing with the increase in storm water volume and to a lesser extent in a couple of locations within the city, dealing with those increases. Those expected increases in total phosphorus. You’ve got a couple of additional considerations here. One of the things we do need to look at are our special waters. Special waters are those waters that are impaired. They don’t meet, currently meet state standards, or they’re special high value waters. And in this case Bluff Creek, as you know, is an impaired water for turbidity and impaired fish community. Both Lotus Lake and Lake Riley are impaired for excess nutrients. And then two other high value waters are Seminary Fen, which is a restricted discharge water, and then Assumption Creek which Seminary Fen, as you know, is the head waters, is a designated trout stream. So part of the non- degradation analysis is should we find an increase in pollutant loading or storm water runoff, that might impact one of those special waters. We do need to look at how that might impact those special waters. So how do we go forward with the results of these findings? Well, the purpose again for doing this is to identify things that could be done within the city that you will in the future modify your storm water pollution prevention plan to incorporate, so you want to modify your SWPPP to identify the, to come up with a plan that identifies strategies for mitigating those volume and pollutant loading increases. Isn’t that a bureaucratic way of saying, you’re going to plan to plan. So really the first step of the SWPPP modification is really to continue doing what you’ve been doing. Because what you have been doing has been very effective. Having those regulations on new development in place. Street sweeping. Planting trees. Preserving trees. Retrofitting BMP’s on city projects where you can. Those things have all helped in mitigating those increases so stay on track with that. You’ll be very far down the road towards meeting these requirements. The second is, looking at really a two step process and the first is, reviewing where you’re at so looking at your regulatory program. Your ordinances to determine if there are any kind of modifications that ought to be considered to strengthen what’s being done already. And then the second step of that obviously would be to go through the public process to review and consider amending those ordinances. The second part then is looking at your current practices and programs to determine if there are some new things that you can be undertaking, and if so, how effective might they be and then coming up with a plan for considering making those changes. Now one of the things that I want to really stress here is this non-degradation report in and of itself does not commit you to do anything specific other than to go through that review process, and to commit to go through that review process. But that, the part of that SWPPP modification process is adopting a plan for evaluating what are the best types of BMP’s that could address the findings within this report and mitigate those increases. For example some of the things that you might look at in your systematic review would be, under the area of volume management because at this point the city does not meet the non-degradation requirements for volume and we do know that there are some issues. Within the community there are erosion issues on Bluff Creek. Obviously there’s with the impairments on Bluff Creek, some of that excess storm water volume may be contributing to those issues and that the TMDL that’s now underway may very well require volume management in the watershed. Some of the 13 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 things that you might want to consider as you’re going through this review process would be things like a volume management requirement on new development. Currently you require new development to provide storm water treatment and to control the rate that it’s discharged from the site, but you don’t have regulations in place that require a certain amount of that storm water volume to stay on site. Something that that’d be called abstraction, and the most common form of abstraction is something you’re familiar with and that’s infiltration. Although that’s not the only way that you can abstract and keep volume on site. The majority of storm water runoff on an annual basis within Minnesota comes from very small events so considering an abstraction requirement for very small events. For example, the first half inch of precipitation can significantly decrease the annual runoff volume that leaves a site. It also has the benefit of reducing pollutant loading as well. If you have less water leaving the site, it’s carrying fewer pollutants with it. Just some examples of physical types of volume management. Infiltration swales, rain gardens, planting trees. Trees are some of our best friends for storm water management. So again, some of these things as you’ve going through your systematic review to be considered would be looking at volume management regulations, either at the city level or else working with the watershed districts to incorporate that on a watershed wide level. Encouraging the use of low impact design principles like you currently have in your Bluff Creek Overlay ordinance. To encourage the kinds of things that, the PUD that you looked at earlier tonight with the preservation of some mature trees on the site. That’s you know a prime example of how you can manage storm water runoff by using your site design principles. And then looking at some of your programs and practices. Here are some other examples that you’d be considering in the future. Educating your residents on things that they can do on their own property. Planting trees. Putting in rain barrels. Doing small practices individually, or even with your commercial property owners. And then looking at the potential for capital projects to retrofit volume management or to mitigate. I will point out that it’s that retrofitting for volume management is very expensive. It’s not particularly cost effective as a stand alone project. So the opportunity’s there to achieve some significant volume reduction in those developed areas of the city are going to be pretty limited. So one of the things that you can do instead is mitigate the effects, and that is looking at stabilizing stream banks or correcting erosion that might occur. And in some of the areas of the pollutant loadings like TSS, just simply like, as I said earlier, managing the storm water volume will reduce some of that pollutant loading down to the point where, especially in some of those smaller sub-watersheds where there’s a slight increase over those 1988 levels, just simply volume management may be able to achieve all of the reduction that’s necessary. So what does this mean? Generally is that the City is already doing a lot of things that are very effective and things that you ought to consider continuing doing. There are some things that as you’re going through this review process that you will need to spend some time considering. Again it doesn’t have to be part of this report. It’s part of this future SWPPP modification process, and that is considering for example a volume management standard. Encouraging more wide spread low impact development. Stabilizing stream banks. Promoting tree planting. Incorporating BMP’s. That whole suite of things that we looked at just as some examples. And then finally, some of the next steps. What happens next? Well, we went through a public comment period. We sent out to the review agencies. Got a few comments back. Had some comments from the public, especially regarding the area around Lotus Lake, and one thing I do want to point out is that some of the concerns that were raised in the public comment process about Lotus Lake are separate from this issue. It’s really related to the Lotus Lake Improvement Plan and a future Lotus Lake TMDL rather than the non-degradation plan. As this 14 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 is submitted to the MPCA, at some point in the future that the MPCA will return comments, and I say at some point in the future because one of the cities that I assisted with their non- degradation plan, the City of Eden Prairie was one of the first to submit their plans in September and we haven’t gotten any comments back yet, so it may be a few months or it may be several months before you get comments back from the MPCA. And those comments then will really guide how you have to go forward with revising the SWPPP and that may be a few months from now. It may be several months from now. So that’s really the next steps. So what we’re doing this evening is, I’d be happy to answer any questions that you might have as you’re discussing this non-degradation plan. It’s presented tonight for your approval to submit to the MPCA. And it’s really being submitted in a draft form to receive their comments before it comes back for finalization. With that I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you, any questions? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have a couple questions I guess. You say that one of the things we could be doing is reviewing our current practices and programs, and do you have any suggestions on how we would implement that or is that something we discuss on more of a city level that they’re doing to review those things? Diane Specter: Mr. Mayor. That’s really an ongoing process that the city undergoes with the staff. It happens in a couple different ways. One is as part of just your annual NPDES report, where you go through that every year to review what it is that you’ve done and what it is that you plan to do and then as you periodically update your storm water management plan. Terry Jeffrey: Mr. Mayor, we will, we’ve already started to discuss this amongst the staff about how we want to move forward. We know that there’s not going to be a panacea. Something that we can just say alright, well this is what we’ll do and it will be great in the whole city. We’re going to have to come up with a suite of ideas that will be applicable to different situations, depending on where we’re at. I mean in some places we’re certainly not going to be able to look at anything that would approach a half inch to a inch infiltration on the site. Other places where we do have soils more conducive, we could look at that. You know and it’s going to be different depending on whether it’s a commercial property or residential development. Depending on the water features that are on it, so what I guess what I had envisioned is that at the staff level we would start to work through these and start to come back with different ideas for the council to consider and then continue moving forward that way, so at the end of this process we can have something that is practical to implement from the city’s standpoint as well as you know from the PCA and every other, and other agencies standpoint so, I see it as being an ongoing process at the staff level that we’ll continuously bring back to the council and the Planning Commission to get others input. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But many of these things that have been described, we’re already doing. Whenever a development does come in, it is reviewed and checked and looked at to make sure that we are holding up to these standards. Is that correct? Terry Jeffrey: That is correct. To holding up to the standards that we already have in place, and those standards that we have in place are adequate for total phosphorus and total suspended solid 15 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 reduction. At this time, total volume is where we have an issue. What we’re getting is from the NURP basins that we have on site, we get, we get rate control but we don’t get volume control so the same amount of water that falls on the site is still being discharged off the site. It’s just the rate at which it gets discharged off, so we’ll have to start looking at it as, is there something else we can do? In some places like Bluff Creek, if we get there and we find that well in this areas the soils aren’t conducive, we might need to, it might still be a matter of rate control but that rate control might be increased and how quickly that it ends so, it will depend on the site and yes, a lot of this will be things that we’re already doing that we may just take and go alright, take this. Put it into the. Councilwoman Tjornhom: …making it better? Terry Jeffrey: Yeah, and how could we make it more efficient. Or is it already efficient? And if so, then that’s what we come back and say is look. We’re doing this. It is effective. We see no reason to change this policy or this practice. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Councilwoman Ernst? Councilwoman Ernst: As we continue to grow, and I’m glad that you touched on some of the things that you did this evening. One of the things that you mentioned was educating the citizens on using more pervious surface. Whether that is rain gardens or whatever that may be and I’m curious to know, I’m assuming this is whether it’s commercial or residential, is that correct? I mean we’re looking at the big picture here and not just a single issue but my question is, is what is your opinion on using things such as pervious surfaces to help mitigate this issue? And I say that in terms of like pavers. Parking lots. That sort of thing. Diane Specter: Mr. Mayor, the principle behind low impact development, better site design, integrated site management, there are a lot of different names for it now, is really, is to keep as much of the storm water on site to deal with it on site as possible. And volume management, practical volume management is really a combination of things. It’s looked, it’s not I’m going to install this one best management practice and this is going to take care of all of my volume management needs. It is how can I reduce the amount of impervious surface? Can I, that impervious surface that I have, is there an alternative to it? Can I plant some trees? Can I keep this native grass? Councilwoman Ernst: Except to use them… Diane Specter: So what you’re doing is, you’re really trying to combine a number of practices to maximize the amount of, or to minimize the amount of storm water that runs off. So as many of those individual practices as can be combined on a particular site, the more the better. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Councilman Litsey, any questions? Councilman Litsey: Yeah, just I wanted to compliment both of you on the assessment. I thought it was done well and informative and this power point helps too tonight. The one thing I just wanted to mention was some, although it’s an ongoing process, the partnerships too that we need 16 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 to develop. I mean we already have some partnerships with the watershed districts and those kind of things but is that, I’m sure that’s taken into account here. Terry Jeffrey: Yeah, and that will be part of our ongoing commitment Mayor Furlong. It will be part of our ongoing process to work with the different local water authorities that we have. In our case there’s 4 of them. Part of the director of Minnesota Rules with our surface water management plan is that it has to be consistent with the other surface water management plans of those local water authorities. So on that level alone, there will always need to be that level of cooperation. And then I think anything that is tried, that you try to implement, you’re always going to meet with more success if you can get collaboration and cooperation from a number of different agencies. Especially where political boundaries overlap. If there’s inconsistencies, even taking Chanhassen out of the picture, if there’s an inconsistency say between Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Riley-Purgatory, well what do we are a city do then? Because we have both of those to deal with so yeah, I would encourage us to continue to work with all of the local water authorities as much as possible to keep it a consistent and cohesive. Councilman Litsey: Good. Mayor Furlong: One of the things that I saw was that there is, you mentioned some sub- watershed districts that have some, potentially some issues. Obviously we’re modeling this so we’re using best estimates. And some that don’t, and the question is whether we, the MPCA is going to look at the city or the individual sub-watershed districts. Within that, some of the sub- watershed districts showed no degradation simple because I think you mentioned they’re already developed, and you brought up Lotus Lake and that’s obviously one that’s brought to our attention. Nothing in this plan precludes us from trying to improve water quality in Lotus Lake, is that a fair statement? Diane Specter: Oh absolutely Mr. Mayor. As I said at the beginning, there’s nothing magic about 1988. Mayor Furlong: And the arbitrariness of that year is something that kind of catches me too. Diane Specter: Right. No, it’s a year that a statute went into effect. No, certainly just because you may be meeting you know the TP and the TSS, non-degradation requirements say across the city doesn’t mean that if you’re able to, and if it’s a priority for you, that you shouldn’t strive to achieve more. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any other questions? Other thoughts? No? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. With that, I guess at this point any comments or thoughts from council. We have until tomorrow to submit this, as I understand, so you don’t want to wait too long. We do have 4 hours. If we’re still talking in 4 hours, something’s gone wrong… That being said, it is being submitted in a draft. We’re being asked to authorize to submit the draft and I guess if there’s any thoughts or discussions? It seems to be, go ahead Councilwoman Tjornhom. 17 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, I don’t mean to interrupt you at all Mayor. I just, lately I’ve been having this bug in my head that we have these commissions filled with such talented people and this is another opportunity to really get the Environmental Commission fired up about something. You know this is an issue that I don’t think we should ever tire from looking at or kind of go on auto pilot saying well we met this standard so we’re okay. You know let’s go have lunch. I think you know I just, so we have all these people that come apply for these commissions and they’re talented and they’re passionate and they want to do something. I think this is a perfect opportunity. You know you mentioned education and that’s what the Environmental Commission does and I think they’ve done a wonderful job of Arbor Day and tree planting and now maybe they can move onto rain gardens and maybe they can move on to all those things that we need to learn more about and so I just would mention that. That I think we have many positive opportunities to really do something to protect our lakes and to bring them up to even a better quality. I don’t know if there is such a thing as a perfect quality so I think we should strive for that. I don’t know if it’s attainable or not but you know it’s certainly something to strive for so. These reports always educate me on what’s good and what can be better and so thank you. Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts, comments? Councilwoman Ernst: No, I just want to thank you for the information. It’s very good information and I think as you had mentioned earlier, we shouldn’t just accept that where we are today is where we should be. We need to constantly be looking at where we are, and particularly as we continue to develop and I think that that’s really an important aspect of where we need to be, when we need to be there. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any comments? Councilman Litsey: I agree with the comments that have already been made and good job on the report and we’ll move forward. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Yeah, for me one of the things that I looked at is it reaffirms that some of the policies and procedures and regulations that we currently have in place are effective. Are achieving some results and yet the plan, which I appreciate, maintains flexibility, local control and it recognizes that we can have priorities outside of what’s within this plan. These are things that we have to look at but we’re not limited to. And to hear you say that one size does not fit all and to recognize that. There’s no silver bullet for this. There’s no, if we just do this, everything will be solved. That’s not the case so we need to keep moving forward and see what makes sense and continue to look to make strides forward so. With that, unless there’s any other comments, is there a motion for the council to authorize distribution of the non-degradation assessment plan? Councilwoman Tjornhom: So moved. Councilwoman Ernst: Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Made and seconded. Any discussion? 18 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council authorizes the distribution of the Nondegradation Assessment Plan on February 12, 2008 to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency per NPDES Phase II requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. Appreciate your hard work. APPOINTMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. th Mayor Furlong: Move on now to the next item on our business on December 26, or effective th December 26 former council member Craig Peterson issued his resignation. He was appointed to the Metropolitan Council to represent the District that includes Scott County and Carver County, and with that we’ve had an open council seat, as anybody that’s been watching the meetings can tell. The council made a decision at our first meeting in January to move forward with an appointment to refill that position. The term on former Councilman Peterson’s seat is, runs through the end of this year so now effectively it’s about 10 ½-11 months remaining. We had 14 individuals submit applications. Residents. And of those the council invited 6 to come in for interviews. Those interviews were held last Thursday. One seat, many qualified candidates I think will sum up pretty clearly the sentiments that all of us had and it was not an easy decision. It was a difficult decision. Where we had a number of people with, could certainly effectively serve. That being said, and I’ll pick up on a comment that Councilwoman Tjornhom made just earlier and that is our commissions. Each of our commissions, the Planning Commission, Environmental, Park and Recreation, Senior Commission all have seats that are coming due to reappointment or for appointment beginning the first of April. Those applications are due the end of this month I believe, and applications can be found on the city web site. And I would encourage those that got a peak of interest in serving the city to consider looking at one of the commissioner positions because there might be a good opportunity for them to serve in that capacity as well. That being said, based upon the council’s discussions tonight, our discussion really focused on filling simply the remaining part of Councilman Peterson’s term. We looked at the issues that the council is facing in the coming year. Looked at experience. Service both in the city and within city government, and I’ll certainly open it up to comments by other members of the council but it was the decision of the council to appoint Jerry McDonald to the open seat. Jerry is the Chair of our current Planning Commission, which he’s serving his fourth year. He’s a 22 year resident. He’s an attorney with his practice here in town. He’s been active in Rotary and other organizations and it was again, not a quick decision by any means. One that was very thoughtful but I want to thank all those that applied first of all. It takes some effort and we all can appreciate it up here to raise your hand and say I’m willing to serve, and we are grateful for that. At the same time there is only one seat and so the decision had to be made. With that, before we do a motion with regard to that appointment, I’ll certainly open it up to comments or thoughts from other members of the council that want to comment at all on the process or the candidates. Councilman Litsey: Yeah, I’d be more than happy to start. You summed it up very well. It was a really difficult process. There was a wonderful field of candidates, which was great to see so many people willing to step up to the plate and serve the city. Yet it made it difficult obviously 19 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 to make a choice, and only appoint one. So there are some vacancies on commissions. I hope people didn’t get the appointment, take a look at that. For me the final decision really boiled down to who was in the best position to hit the ground running. There’s less than a year remaining on the term that was vacated by Craig Peterson, and the City Council’s in the midst of this comprehensive plan update, and that’s a very important document. A road map for the city and who was best able to do that. And it was a close call but I think in the end Jerry McDonald was the best candidate to serve those particular needs. He’s a long term resident of the city. He’s been on the Planning Commission now for a number of years. Chair of that commission. He’s a member of the Rotary Club in town. I think he understands city government well and knows what it takes to get things done, and he also in the last election came very close to filling one of the, or being elected to one of the two open seats that were up a year ago so, taking all those things into account, that’s what made the decision for me, but again it was a tough decision to make. I’ve been on a lot of selection processes and this was one of the harder ones in terms of picking a candidate. I also just want to compliment my colleagues here on the council. Again like I just said, I’ve been on a lot of selection processes and I thought this one was run well. I think that everyone did a good job of asking insightful questions to get the best answers to make a decision from. Took it seriously. Great group to work with on this process and in the end, although there were a number of qualified candidates, I think we’ll be well served by having Jerry on the council. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts, comments. Councilwoman Ernst? Councilwoman Ernst: I just wanted to congratulate all the candidates that applied. All 14. I think that we had a wonderful pool of candidates to choose from and I say congratulations just because I know that it took a great deal of courage and thought to come forth and apply for this position. And for the 6, you had to go through the process. You had to go through the process. It was one that’s not always a comfortable process to go through, particularly for those that are being interviewed. But I want to thank you for taking the time and taking such an interest in our city and the final decision was Jerry McDonald and I want to congratulate Jerry McDonald and I’m anxious to get our council fully on board and move forward. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well on a lighter note, I think I’ve learned that I’ll never judge a beauty contest. You know we have a lot of qualified applicants that were very, very suited for the position but for me I wasn’t looking for a candidate. I actually was looking for someone to sit here in this chair by me and that was someone, these are big shoes to fill right here and I felt that Jerry McDonald, soon to be Councilman McDonald, put the time in and he had been 4 years on the Planning Commission. Chairman I think 3 of those 4 years. He had done his due diligence. He has a real history with the city, obviously for the 4 years and he has a good demeanor and he I think will do well with the public and I know he’ll do well with the rest of the council so. And as the Mayor and Councilman Litsey, I think Councilwoman Ernst said also, the Planning Commission is going to have a huge vacancy now. Huge vacancy and we need to fill those shoes and so hopefully we’ll have some good applicants that will come and step into those shoes. So welcome. 20 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Very good. And I won’t reiterate the comments. Tough decision but I think we set out a process that we wanted to move expeditiously yet with proper diligence and make sure that we have an open and fair process. I’m very confident that we did that and I think while there may be some that are disappointed, I would encourage them not to be because it was simply again you know, there was 1 seat available, 14 applicants and there just was only opportunity for 1. I’m looking forward to serving with Jerry. I think he’ll do well. I think as Councilwoman Tjornhom said, we’ll have another seat open on the Planning Commission and that is a very important commission for this city and the council relies on them, as we rely on all the commission members and so I would encourage again, applications are available through the end of this month. I know we’re advertising in the Villager and on the web site and if you’re interested in serving, commissions are a great way to get involved and get an introduction as well so. With that at this time I would entertain a motion to appoint Jerry McDonald to the open council seat. Councilman Litsey: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? It’d be our expectation that he would be sworn into the seat immediately prior to our next meeting at the end of this month. Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to appoint Jerry McDonald to fill the open council term of Councilman Craig Peterson. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members, I just want to thank you for the additional hours that you put in to go through the whole selection process. I know it was a big time commitment and time away from your family and friends and I appreciate your efforts and there was at least a minimum of 3 additional meetings for you so I appreciate that. Mayor Furlong: Well thank you as well to the staff. Their work in responding to inquiries and helping us with the organization and scheduling of the interviews. I think we had 6 interviews that I think we, 3 days away after we decided who was coming in and it worked very efficiently and I think that helped also. Thank you as well to the staff for your efforts. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: Any comments or discussions? Council members. 21 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 Councilman Litsey: I was just going to bring up one thing that I could have said before but I’ll just say it now. During the process, because it was such a good group of applicants and very, you know had a lot of things to offer, there was just 5 things actually that I kind of noted that I thought really made sense that I heard from the applicants. One was run good government, which is important. Manage the change, because we’re going through a change in this community. Be there for your constituents. Be truthful and then stand up for what is right. Those were some of the key things that I kind of jotted down and wanted to make sure I remember in moving forward. There are a lot of other things that were said too that were very helpful. I learned a lot from that process. It also made me feel good that again that so many people were willing to stand up and help us out on the council by filling that seat. So I just wanted to add that. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Anything else from council presentations this evening? Mr. Gerhardt, administrative presentations. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: Well, update you on February Festival. We sold 1,200 tickets and we had probably 600 to 700 people participate in the fishing contest, and that’s up a little bit more than we had the previous year, but I think weather may have had a factor with that. Little cold a year ago and the largest fish that won the contest was a little over 2 pound northern so they got that individual a fish house. Portable fish house. So I think everybody had a good time. Appreciate the Rotary, Friends of the Library, all the volunteers that did a wonderful job in making winter in Minnesota fun. It’s always fun to get out there and see everybody have a good time. The little kids. The adults, so it’s a great time and it’s a good tradition for my son and myself to get out there and try to fish and try to catch a fish and we could still be out there and I don’t know if we’d get one but it was a good time and Todd and his staff did a wonderful job in getting it ready and cleaning up afterwards so thank you to everybody that participated in that event. Mayor Furlong: Yeah I thank you for bringing that up. Everybody did a great job and I’ll just say you know some people have the goal of catching fish. I personally have a goal of having all children with a line in the water at the same time. Different set of goals and I was successful with mine. Up until my youngest actually stepped in a hole and then her activity for that day was over. She had to go home. Todd Gerhardt: There’s line management in everything. Just one other thing I wanted to bring the council up to date on. We have started our test wells for our two new wells going in. They’re in the Chan Estates area. Once they complete that one then they’ll move over to South Lake. We’re expecting the permanent wells to go in in the next couple of weeks and we are also accepting bids this Friday on the raw water line that will be going in over by Minnetonka Middle School West so once we get those bids in, we’ll probably bring that back to your next meeting for award of bid. So we’re on schedule. Everything’s moving ahead. No issues really to date. A few little concerns out there on locations and I think Paul’s done a great job in managing the project and I think we’re moving ahead. That’s all I have. 22 City Council Meeting - February 11, 2008 Mayor Furlong: I will mention too because I forgot too, and I apologize but another recreation activity was the Daddy-Daughter Date Night this last week. Friday and Saturday. A number of fathers with their daughters ages 4 to 10 were at the Rec Center and had a great time. I was a little concerned when the cameras started flashing when I was doing the hokey pokey, but better that than the chicken dance I guess so I’ll accept that. Todd Gerhardt: We already have pictures of that. Mayor Furlong: You’ve got the chicken dance pictures? Yeah. Councilman Litsey: One of my co-workers was there and said you did okay. Mayor Furlong: Maybe something for Channel 8. Councilman Litsey: Keep running it. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion or any questions for Mr. Gerhardt or his staff? CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 23