Loading...
CC 2008 10 27 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2008 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Litsey, Councilwoman Ernst, Councilwoman Tjornhom, and Councilman McDonald STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Greg Sticha, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, and Todd Hoffman PUBLIC PRESENT: Mike Rogers, Centerpoint Energy 540 Summerfield Drive Alex Dalsin High School Student Erik Elton High School Student Anthony Reznick High School Student Taylor Van Clay High School Student Dominique Kirchner High School Student David Bussey High School Student Charlie Felmalie High School Student Kevin Fafinski High School Student Richard & Eunice Peters 7301 Laredo Drive Tony Hallen 7764 Village Street Peter Westahaus High School Student Cari Chadderdon High School Student Charlie McCulloch High School Student Jack Brady High School Student PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Thank you and welcome everyone. Glad that you joined us. Those here in the council chambers as well as those watching at home. I see we do have a number of students here this evening and you’re very welcome. I would encourage you to sign in on the pad that’s going around to make sure that your presence here is noted in the official minutes. And there are also agendas on the table for those wishing to pick one up and follow along. This evening I guess I would ask members of the council if there are any modifications or changes to the agenda that was distributed. If not, we’ll proceed as published. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated October 13, 2008 -City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated October 13, 2008 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated October 7, 2008 -Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated September 16, 2008 Resolution #2008-55: b. 2009 Street Improvements: Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Study. c. Set Special City Council Meeting Date: Canvass Election Results. Resolution #2008-56: f. Approve Quotes for Portable Generators for Utility Department. Resolution #2008-57: g. Audubon Road Watermain Project 08-13: Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertising for Bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: I would like to invite Mr. Mike Roger from Centerpoint Energy to come forward for a presentation this evening. Good evening Mr. Roger. Mike Rogers: Good evening Mayor, council members. I’m Mike Rogers with Centerpoint Energy. I’m also a resident here in Chanhassen. It is with great pleasure that I’m here tonight to present the City with a Community Partnership Grant. This grant offers an opportunity for Centerpoint Energy to partner with local fire and police departments supporting our shared commitment to safety. Through this program we’re able to help cities purchase needed safety equipment and support safety projects that are important to the communities that Centerpoint Energy serves. My understanding in your grant application, that included a request for 3 automated external defibulators, or AED’s and I believe the City’s initial plans include one to be placed into service by the fire department. There’s another one for the rec center and then one for the main lobby here at City Hall. The deployment of these AED’s will undoubtedly increase the safety of Chanhassen residents and it’s guests. So in closing I just want to thank the City for it’s commitment to safety by presenting you with a check for $2,500. That’s not a giant cardboard check. Actually a real check here, and unless anyone has any questions I just want to say thank you and appreciate the time. Mayor Furlong: Well thank you and since it’s a real check I’ll have you give it to Mr. Gerhardt right away. No sense in coming to anybody else. Thank you Mr. Rogers. Mike Rogers: Appreciate it. 2 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Mayor Furlong: And thank you and please extend our thanks to your firm, to your company for helping us with this. These AED’s, I know that we have been promoting it and Councilman Litsey and his work promotes it as well and all of us appreciate really the safety factor that they add and we all know stories when they’ve been used and they’re stories of survival so we appreciate…very much. Mike Rogers: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Anyone else for visitor presentations this evening? LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Mayor Furlong: Good evening Sergeant. Sgt. Peter Anderley: Good evening Mayor, council. First of all I’ll start with, you get the August and September reports attached. If there’s any questions, be happy to answer them at this time. As far as everything else goes, it’s been pretty quiet lately. Halloween’s coming up though and as far as remind everybody to you know pay attention to suspicious activity. Report that and be very wary of the kids out on trick or treat night and hopefully everybody will have a fun time and it will be uneventful for us. What I would like to do is at the work session last month I went over the investigator position and the benefits it has to the city and I’d like to kind of touch on some of that again and share that with the public here that’s here tonight and what, and the ones watching. The benefits to the city again, since we added the detective position in March. They’re getting a lot better customer service. The City. The citizens are. The level of service has gone up and just overall it’s helped with the policing in the city. Detective Zydowsky is the detective that was assigned to the City of Chanhassen to mainly focus on the misdemeanor crimes. Your thefts. Your damage to properties. The more I want to say the minor and less dollar value crimes that are out there. I did throw a, this is a graph of the felonies that are assigned to the city detective and also with the county wide detective gets these felony cases. You can see 2007 and 2008, they’re staying fairly steady. We did have a little bit of increase in July as that moved up. When we look at the misdemeanors assigned, this is where the big, the big upkeep was in here. Before the detective was assigned to the city of Chanhassen, we added that. A lot of misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor crimes basically got looked at. We didn’t have the resources to investigate and follow through with all of those cases, and a lot of them would get assigned back to the patrol deputies. Now with the detective they’re assigned, all misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases get assigned to him. He takes a look at them. He calls the citizens back. Make sure that they haven’t missed anything or know of new information has come about. Basically just touches base with those people and you can see in the gross misdemeanor graph here there’s a lot more cases assigned that weren’t assigned before, and the same with the misdemeanors. One of the I guess big pluses to this is the patrol deputies used to do all the investigating of the misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor crimes before the detective position. Now that the detective position is in there it allows the patrol guys to be out in the neighborhoods, driving the streets, following up with their active calls. The calls that are being called in by the citizens. And based on this, we’ve got some kind of 2 year comparising here on the percentages that I’d like to go over. The biggest thing is the patrol relief. The guys are out in the squads more. They’re being more visible in our community. On the highways. Things like 3 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 that. That’s kind of shown here. If you look at some of the decreased activities. Driving complaints is a big issue for a lot of citizens. Is the traffic concerns in the city with the driving, the speeding, that type of thing. So the guys are able to spend more time on the road focusing on those issues. In turn from ’07 to ’08 the driving complaints dropped 15%, along with the property damage. Accidents have dropped 18% and injury accidents have also dropped 18% from 2007 to 2008. On the other hand the deputies are also out there at night patrolling neighborhoods. They’re getting out of their cars. They’re doing some business checks. They’re checking for those open doors that some business owner or homeowner maybe forgot to shut you know in the busy lifestyle they have and we’re out there looking for more of those, and you can see that it’s shown in the open doors actually increased by 32%. The deputies are out there and that was a pretty good increase. It shows that they’re out there really actively preventing crimes before they happen and relieving that crime of opportunity if they’re leaving a door open. Burglaries also are way down. Our burglaries dropped 57% from ’07 to 2008. Again it’s hard to capture that number about the deputies driving through a neighborhood or driving through the business, an industrial park. Just by driving through the neighborhood, what they prevent from happening. That’s a hard number to capture but what we can capture is actual calls we have responded to, and that’s what this graph kind of shows so. So far the investigator position obviously when you talk to the patrol guys is really helping them out. We’ve also had a couple incidents where Detective Zydowsky’s been able to go right to the scene. Start investigating it and he’ll witness information that’s fresh in their mind. They still remember what they saw and he’s able to start working on it right away instead of having a couple day turnaround before it gets assigned to an investigator down at the sheriff’s office. That’s what I have. Is there any other questions about anything that you thought of over the last few weeks about this? Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Sergeant Anderley? Councilman Litsey: Maybe just a comment that I appreciate you presenting this this evening. I think it’s important for people to hear how this investigator position is working. I think from a customer service standpoint it’s certainly helpful. People can come right here to City Hall to talk to an investigator. Freed up time for the patrol deputies. I see the DWI enforcement’s up. That’s a good thing. I think they’re out there. It’s just being able to have time to go out there proactively to detect where the drunk driving’s taking place and they’re there to take action so I think that’s good too so. And then like you said, having someone to be able to focus on that, those crimes that are taking place that perhaps before you know the deputies didn’t have time to do so I’m really glad we implemented this. Commend the council for moving forward with this and appreciate the feedback and the benchmark to know where we’re at with this position. In my mind anyway I think it was a good value for the money that we put out there with this additional investigator position. Sgt. Peter Anderley: And again, overall in the customer service, Detective Zydowsky’s really taken it to the next step. You know it’s something when we first kind of came into this, we weren’t sure how we were going to focus everything and he’s really taken and given the people a call back and just making sure that, and we’ve had comments, you know they know that they weren’t going to ever find the guy that took the $5 out of their car that they reported but it was nice to know that somebody looked into it and it was actually followed up on and that type of thing. 4 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Other questions. Councilwoman Ernst: Sergeant Anderley, thanks for bringing this information to us tonight. I know it’s something we talked about and I appreciate you bringing the information. I’m wondering if you could back up to the slide that showed the felonies that were assigned. Right there. Sgt. Peter Anderley: The felonies, okay. Councilwoman Ernst: I’m sorry, it must have been the misdemeanors. Can you tell me, so in 2008 were all of those, and maybe you talked about this in the work session but were all of those assigned to the investigator? To the new investigator in 2008. Sgt. Peter Anderley: Yes. All of the cases, all of your gross misdemeanor/misdemeanor cases got assigned out to the Chanhassen detective. They’re, and I’ll kind of back it up. How we do this is, we have a county based investigator that handles your felonies and your major crimes in the city of Chanhassen. We also have now Bob Zydowsky that works in the, underneath the contract strictly in the city based out of city hall here. The baseline investigator does get a couple of misdemeanors simply because if we have, oh let’s say there was a burglary that occurred at a business, and right next door there was some damage to a building where somebody tried to break in to one building and maybe caused $100 worth of damage to the door but didn’t get in, and next door they actually got into the business and caused a burglary. That would be a felony. The damage to the property would be a misdemeanor. Instead of having you know one detective work on the damage to property, one work on the actual burglary, we’re pretty sure those two are going to be related because they happened the same night. That type of thing so we’ll assign that misdemeanor along to the base investigator along to the base investigator so he can work on both of them. We’re not doubling the work. Having two people work on the same thing, and it’s the same thing that happens with Detective Zydowsky that does the misdemeanor stuff. If we have 5 car break in’s on a street that were all misdemeanor crimes, and then all of a sudden a car gets stolen on that street the same night and within the same timeframe, we’re probably safe to say that it was the same person that committed all these criminal acts and you know there’s two different, one’s a felony and five misdemeanors. Well he may investigator the misdemeanor crimes. He’ll also get the felony crime to investigate just because we’re looking probably for the same person. Councilwoman Ernst: So out of 2008 misdemeanor, gross misdemeanors and the felonies, how many of those have been resolved? Sgt. Peter Anderley: Putting those numbers together, and I hope to bring it, actually I’ll have it for you at the next council meeting. Some clearance rates that the State gets from our office about what has been investigated. What actual are the founded crimes and unfounded crimes of each call and I’ll break that down a little more at the November council meeting. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, great. Thank you. 5 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? No? Okay, very good. Thank you. Appreciate the information. Chief Geske is here with our Chanhassen Fire Department. Good evening Chief. Chief Gregg Geske: Good evening. We did have a, October of course had Fire Prevention Week and our, were updated with what we did a lot during Fire Prevention Week with all the classes and stuff. We also had our open house which went well this year. We had, it’s tough to guess how many people show up for it but I’m guessing about, probably about 1,000 people show up and we had weather cooperated until the end of the day and the rain held off. Had a real good turnout and a good time at the open house. I guess with Fire Prevention Week and Fire Prevention Month, our calls were down for the year starting this month so I can only attribute it to Fire Prevention Week and Fire Prevention Month doing it’s job and no fire calls at all. Or not house fires or anything in the last month here so pretty slow month with call numbers being down and we’re happy. That’s all I have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the Chief this evening? Councilman McDonald: I have one question. I believe I read some place, aren’t you all starting a recruitment drive? Chief Gregg Geske: Yeah. We did, we had, took on 3 fire fighters just recently, or probationary one. One took a job out of the city so we’re down to 2. But we’d like to start applications in for another class that we’d be starting up so it’s been on the cable TV and we’re looking for people so if anybody’s interested, feel free to get an application. You can do that at the city web site and turn one in so. Always looking for a few more people so. Councilman McDonald: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Anything else? Councilman Litsey: Just a comment on the open house. I just think it’s, first I appreciate you doing that every year. And second, it’s one of those community events where it draws people together and people can get out and see each other and meet each other and, for a good cause and see what the fire department does so thanks for doing that. Chief Gregg Geske: You bet. Like I’ve said in the past, most of the time we only get a chance to see people in the middle of the night when their smoke alarms are going off or a house fire accidents and stuff so it is a good opportunity for us to meet with the citizens in a nice environment and a happy environment so we enjoy doing it and like I say, in the calls we report, we get a lot of fire fighters that take time off during the week to teach classes and stuff and do a great job of that so. Councilman Litsey: Plus you have really neat stuff. Chief Gregg Geske: Yeah. That’s what gets the people to join too. 6 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING ON CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS AND CODE VIOLATIONS. Greg Sticha: Thank you Mayor and council. Before you this evening are two resolutions which we will hold public hearings on shortly as you mentioned. The first of which is to certify delinquent utility accounts. The second of which to certify delinquent code violations. First in discussion of the certification of delinquent utility accounts, this process starts early in the summer. Any utility account that is past due as of their billing date, depending on the section of the city that they live in, they are sent a letter letting them know that they are past due on their ststnd account, either on August 1, September 1 or September 22. That letter is followed up by an st additional letter on October 1 letting them know again that their account is still past due. We then publish in the paper more than 2 weeks before the public hearing the list of accounts that are delinquent and then this evening they’re given the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in regards to the delinquent accounts. That would cover the discussion on the utility accounts. Just th to kind of note on the utility accounts. The list that was sent to you on October 14 when the council packet was sent out, since that list was sent to you, we’ve had an additional 50 accounts that have been paid totaling almost $17,000 so that list has already been reduced since the list has st been sent to you. They still have until November 1 to pay their delinquent account. Since st November 1 falls on Saturday this year, we’re allowing the opportunity to pay til Monday, rd November 3 to eliminate the possibility of a certification taking place on the property. In regards to the code violations, this would be with items such as nuisances such as grass cutting, weeds, or plants that may be on the property that are not in guidance with city ordinances. Duplicate letters have been sent out to the property owners in this case as well. They’ve received the same notices as the delinquent utility accounts and at this point in time there are 9 accounts th that are still outstanding when you received the packet as of October 14, and I do not believe any of those 9 accounts have been paid since then. The same process will be followed with these accounts. They will be certified to the property taxes on or before the end of the year. Again rd they have until November 3 to come and pay these to avoid certification. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions at this point? Just for clarification. The resolution that we’ll be considering tonight refers to an Exhibit A, so that Exhibit A would be the one that was in our council packet, less any properties that have paid by the end of business on November rd 3. rd Greg Sticha: Correct. Correct, all the properties that are on there that will pay by November 3 will be removed. Mayor Furlong: Will be removed prior to being submitted to the county. Greg Sticha: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions at this time? For staff. If not then let’s go ahead and open up the public hearing with regard to the delinquent utility accounts. Anyone interested in addressing the council on this matter, I would invite you to come forward to the 7 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 podium at this time, stating your name and address for the record. No one? Alright. Without objection we’ll close that public hearing and move on and open the public hearing with regard to certification of delinquent code violations. Again any interested parties please come forward stating your name and address for the record. No one here either. Without objection then we’ll close the public hearing with regard to that matter and move forward to consideration of the resolution on item 2.5(c). Are there any questions? Discussion. Comments on this. If not, is there a motion to adopt the resolution? Is everybody with me? On 206 of the electronic. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m having technical difficulties. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Do you have a paper copy? Councilman McDonald: Are you looking for a motion? Mayor Furlong: A motion at this point to adopt the resolution that’s in the packet. Greg Sticha: There is not a box with an actual motion. The motion would be to adopt the certification of delinquent utility accounts to the property taxes for the properties listed. Todd Gerhardt: The heading of the resolution is appropriate as a motion. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. At this point I’ll take any motion. Councilman Litsey: I’ll make a motion certifying the delinquent utility accounts to the county auditor as presented. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Litsey: Does that work? Mayor Furlong: That works just fine for me. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on that motion? To adopt the resolution on the delinquent utility accounts. Resolution #2008-58: Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adopt the resolution certifying the delinquent utility accounts to the County Auditor as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Resolution #2008-59: Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adopt the resolution certifying the delinquent code enforcement accounts to the County Auditor as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 8 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 NEW PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING: A. AWARD OF SALE, $7.5 MILLION IN GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS. Greg Sticha: Thank you again Mayor and council. This evening we’ll be awarding bid on the new public works facility 2008A public improvement bonds. Just to give a little background on the process that we underwent, just a brief summary. Earlier this summer council directed staff to look into financing options for a new public works facility. We did that in September. We presented council with the option of issuing CIP bond, GO-CIP bonds for the facility. At that point in time, in the first council meeting in September we presented a 5 year CIP plan in order to authorize the $7.5 million in general obligation debt for the facility. During that time after that we had a 30 day I would guess waiting period to see if a reverse referendum petition would have been forwarded to the city requiring a reverse referendum on this item. We did not receive a petition in regards to that. Earlier this previous week we went, underwent the rating process, which is essentially going to your bank and getting a credit rating for issuing debt. Our rating agency’s a Standard and Poors. During that process we were informed late last week that our bond rating had been upgraded two notches from AA- to AA+. We were very pleased with that. AA+ bond rating is one rating from the highest bond rating that a city can achieve. Today we opened the bids for the awarding of the bonds and what I will do at this point in time, Dave Callister from Ehlers and Associates is here and he will present the information on the opening of the bids that took place earlier today. Dave Callister: Mayor and council members, Dave Callister with Ehlers and Associates. As Greg mentioned we were in the market on behalf of the City of Chanhassen this morning and we received 9 bids, which given the circumstances of the last 3 weeks, we were very impressed with 9 bids. What that does tell us is that the market is first of all corrected back to where it was probably a couple weeks ago, before all this happened. And two, they’re looking for highly rated or very credit worthy type of debt, so that’s the reason that there were 9 bidders on your particular bond issue. The low bidder was Morgan Keegan and Company from Memphis and if you look at the handout that I have for you, if you look at the second page you’ll see the 9 actual bids that we received this morning. And because of the size and again the AA+ credit rating of the City of Chanhassen, you can see that there was national interest in this particular bond issue and obviously the more bids and the more national interest you get, the lower the interest rate is so we were very, very pleased with the actual rates that we received. The low true interest cost from Morgan Keegan was 4.384 percent, which was slightly lower than what was estimated back th on September 8 when the pre-sale report was presented before the council. As Greg mentioned the City has been upgraded two notches from AA- to AA+. I’ll talk about that in a few minutes a little bit further. The other factors in the center of the memo just kind of go what the pre-sale th report was on September 8 and what the actual results of the sale. You can see that the discount taken by the broker underwriter was less than what they had figured and the issuance costs are lower than what was calculated at that particular time as well, and so those factors are there. The coupon rates are just the rates for each year. You can see the range of those but it was a little bit lower overall interest rates than what were calculated or projected in September. We’re th scheduled to close on November 18 with this particular issue. And just wanted to cover a couple of things on the bond rating itself because it’s probably one of the, well it may not seem 9 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 like a big deal to a lot of people. It has a lot to do with how your city has been managed over the years and in the credit world it’s worth gold because obviously it saves you money every time you go into the market, and in fact they’ve upgraded all of your existing debt to the AA+ as well and that doesn’t mean anything for dollars and cents to you today, but as your debt trades on the secondary market it carries that higher rating so it’s something definitely to be proud of. There are only 7 AAA cities in the State of Minnesota. There are 14 AA+ or AA1, which is comparable with Moody’s. So you’re in pretty exclusive company when it comes to your credit rating, and it didn’t happen overnight. It happens because you’ve implemented first of all fiscal controls. Good budgeting practices, and then you’ve also done with your general fund and your utilities you’ve done a lot of long range planning and Standard and Poors was very, very impressed on the rating call with the planning that you had done. With the money that you are setting aside for street improvements in the future, and you can see from reading the report which is attached there as well, that you have a lot going for you in demographics but strong leadership and management is also very, very key and that’s probably the number one thing when they look at credit for your community. As far as the rating call, we sat down with Standard and Poors and had a great rating call, and I want to thank Greg and Todd because they provided a lot of good information for the rating agency. And as far, just to give you an idea of what does this mean? AA- versus AA+. On this particular bond issue, if you put a dollar to that lower interest, we took a look at the market today for a AA- versus a AA+ and on this size of an issue, we ran a sample run and we figured about $160,000 was saved just because of that upgrade. So I think that’s again something to be very, very proud of as a community. It shows good financial planning and budgeting. I’ve attached the bond runs and some, the credit report in your packets here and I’d be more than happy to answer any questions that you might have. The actual bond issue is $7.55 million and it’s a 20 year bond issue. And again the net, or the true interest cost is 4.384 percent. And I believe you have a resolution in front of you that we would recommend adoption of. Mayor Furlong: Was that included with this or is that just a resolution? Greg Sticha: No, in the memo in the packet for 3(a) there is a resolution. The to be announced at the meeting evening part would be Morgan and Keegan, is that correct? Would be the lowest bidder in this case. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Callister? Just one, in today’s th environment, the closing date is on the, I think you said the 18, is that correct? Greg Sticha: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Of November. Any risk of they’re not being able to close? Dave Callister: Don’t see any risk of that. No. As soon as you sign the contract tonight, it should be set to go. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Any other questions? For this. Okay, very good. Thank you. 10 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m sorry Mr. Mayor, I was thinking slower than you were talking. I’m sorry. Mayor Furlong: No, that’s okay. That’s okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You did an excellent job explaining everything. Thank you for the good news and the preparation but I had a talk with our city manager today and he really explained in more layman’s terms how we arranged, or how we arrived at this rating so I was wondering if Todd just wanted to talk a little bit about our community and the good things that are going on and how this happened. If that’s okay Todd. Todd Gerhardt: Sure. Not a problem. A lot of things they look at is growth. The opening of 312. The residential development that’s gone on. Our economic and social make-up of the community. Our long range planning. The revolving assessment fund that we have in place for our street reconstruction. Good staff and great leadership from the City Council has really led to this rating increase and the long range planning I think was key like Dave mentioned, and reserves. You know the catastrophic fund I think was a key factor. Having that money there for a rainy day so all those factors really led to this bond rating and making two jumps was a real surprise for us. We were hoping for one. Praying for two and we got the two, and you know I think the last time that we saw this was 4 years ago and we jumped 2 spots then. So I think they have a lot of confidence in us and I think they’ve watched us grow these last 6 years and seen that we’ve been consistent in how we manage our money and that we are re-investing back into the community. Into our roads. Into water treatment plants and we have a equipment replacement fund so they’ve seen our CIP. Our long range planning. They’ve seen our 5 year budgeting process and they know that we’re being good leaders by looking out and having a vision and sticking to that vision. Providing for today and planning for tomorrow is our vision and that’s what we do. Mayor Furlong: Good. Thank you. Any other questions? If not I certainly want to give members of the council an opportunity to make comments as well on what’s before us this evening and the purpose here so. Any other questions at this time? Very good. Mr. Callister, thank you. We may call you back up if our comments turn into questions, which they often do. Thoughts or comments. Discussions on this. Councilman Litsey, want to start? Councilman Litsey: It’s kind of been said already but great job by everyone involved and this is a much needed facility. It’s great we got our rating upgraded so we can save some dollars and move forward with this, so this will be a nice community asset. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Other comments. Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: No, I just agree with Councilman Litsey and congratulations to Todd and Greg in doing such a great job and it’s nice to be part of that so thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. 11 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I want to say when I think I got the news on Friday from our City Manager Mr. Gerhardt, the tone in his voice was so happy I thought perhaps he had won the lottery. It was kind of. Todd Gerhardt: It wasn’t the 52 million. Councilwoman Tjornhom: It wasn’t the 52 million. Todd Gerhardt: It was 160. Councilman Litsey: We wouldn’t have seen him then. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I, wherever we can work, and we have obviously as a council and certainly as city staff in the past to save money that has helped us now coming to this point which will reduce our costs for this facility which I think is good news and think of, in the future I think we will continue to strive for the same kind of action to happen. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Well I just want to say again congratulations on all of this. I know that there was a lot of hard work that goes into it but I think part of what it shows is that if we do pay attention to our city and we keep it running and working the way it should, instead of deferring cost to take care of it at some future date, the payback comes back in the fact that other people outside of the community recognize what it is we’re doing, and I think that this is great. Especially in this day and age where we’re at with interest rates and banks and you know bonds being able to sell and everything. It says a lot for the city so my hats off to staff and thanks very much for all your hard work. And also to the council. I can’t take as much credit for this because I’ve only been here a little while but I want to say as a citizen, thanks to all of you also. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. It is, it’s been a while since there’s been some good news coming out of the financial markets and for the City of Chanhassen, we did get some good news and we’re hearing it tonight here again. The result of not only the upgrade in the rating, which is an overall assessment of how we’re doing over time and how have we done over time, but also just with that on top of the popularity or the interest I should say of 9 bids coming in on this particular bond. I mean these are, this is going to help in the overall planning process, which we talked about, and it’s going to free up some future money that we don’t have to collect or that we have available to spend on other services, and that’s really what it’s all about. Trying to plan for the future and as Mr. Gerhardt said, providing for today’s needs but planning for tomorrow’s and it’s nice to see the third party affirmation of some of the work that we’ve been doing, and it’s nice to know that that affirmation has actually turned into a dollars and cents benefit to the taxpayers of the city as well so congratulations to all involved and all that have been involved. That have contributed to this. This is a needed project. It is our current public works facility, as we’ve talked about before, is about half the size we need it to be and this project itself, which I think is just, speaks to what we just talked about, is going to be sized to support our city once we’re fully developed so even with this project we’re planning for the future. Not just building what we need today and leaving it for another council to put on a major addition or figure out 12 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 and solve some problem in the future, but trying to solve future problems today by planning ahead so. It will be fun to be involved and watch this come to fruition as we go forward here. We’re going to have a lot of items on our agenda relating to this as we go through the contracts but that will be fun. That will be fun to be involved so thank you to everyone and congratulations to all involved. Any other discussions or comments on this? If not, the motion then would be, is that a proposed motion, is that correct? At the beginning of item 3(a). Is that the one we’re going to deal with first? Greg Sticha: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Would somebody like to make that motion and the low bidder would be inserted as Morgan Keegan and Company, Incorporated of Memphis, Tennessee. Is that correct? Greg Sticha: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Would someone like to make that motion? Councilwoman Ernst, are you ready? Would you like to or if somebody else would like to. Councilwoman Ernst: Is it the one I’m looking at here. Mayor Furlong: Is it 3(a)? Councilwoman Ernst: This one right here? Mayor Furlong: Nope. You’re one ahead. There you go. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. I make a motion that we award the bid for issuance of $7,550,000 General Obligation CIP bonds for the city’s public works facility to the low bidder of Morgan Keegan and Company Incorporated of Memphis, Tennessee. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Litsey: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Resolution #2008-60: Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council award the bid for issuance of $7,550,000 General Obligation CIP bonds for the city’s public works facility to the low bidder of Morgan Keegan and Company Incorporated of Memphis, Tennessee. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: While we’re completing the signing of those papers, let’s move on to item number. Oh, I’m sorry. Oh, absolutely. Mr. Callister. 13 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Dave Callister: Thank you Mayor and council members. On behalf of our company, Ehlers and Associates we would like to recognize our, the communities that we work with for their financial excellence and you’ve heard all the compliments tonight about the great job that the past council and staff and the current council and staff have done with regards to this, but I just have, kind of a certificate here that recognizes that, that you can put up in a conference room or in an office area. And basically it’s recognizing the bond, or the credit rating increase and kind of cites everything that’s in the credit report so I won’t go over that again, but just, I want to present this to the City of Chanhassen. Mayor Furlong: Thank you very much Mr. Callister and we appreciate all the services that Ehlers and Associates has provided to us. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I’d just like to thank Ehlers and Associates too. You know Dave and his staff, Mark Ruff, Jessica Cook have played a big role in this too. Helping us with key financial strategies in the beginning and that was kind of the springboard to do the rate study. 5 year budgeting so big thanks to Dave and his firm for helping us to get to this point. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Well said. Thank you very much. Okay. 3(b) now. Let’s start with the staff report. B. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REIMBURSEMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING BONDS. Greg Sticha: Mayor and council. Item 3(b), as part of the bonding process or any bonding process, typically you will have expenses that will be incurred before you actually issue the bonds, as is the case with this project. The following resolution provides for procedures for reimbursement of those costs that we’ve already incurred to date on the public works building. If there are any questions about the actual procedures or the resolution I can certainly answer those at this point. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is this essentially an administrative process whereby we’re approving the use of the funds for the bonds that we’re going to be letting here, to cover some of the costs that we’ve already incurred out of other funds? Is that the process we’re going through? Greg Sticha: Correct. We’re adopting a resolution that puts a process into place to do exactly that. Mayor Furlong: To do that. Greg Sticha: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions on this? No? Any comments? Concerns. Thank you. If not, is there a motion. Did you have something? Councilman Litsey: Oh, I’m sorry. No, it’s just very straight forward. 14 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Would anybody like to submit a motion? Councilwoman Ernst: I will. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: I make a motion that we approve the attached resolution establishing procedures for reimbursement bond regulations under the Internal Revenue Service code. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Litsey: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Resolution #2008-61: Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing reimbursement of public works building bonds as regulated by the Internal Revenue Service. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Greg for all your hard work on this, and for everyone else as well. PETERS VARIANCE, 7301 LAREDO DRIVE, APPLICANTS: RICHARD AND EUNICE PETERS: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SHORELAND SETBACK TO EXPAND AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING DECK INTO A PORCH AND ADDING ANOTHER DECK. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. First I want to make sure that you did receive Findings of Fact. In your staff report attachment #1 was supposed to be the Findings of Fact. I apologize. They weren’t included. I have passed those out. So with that, the Peters as you mentioned, are requesting a variance. Their address 7301 Laredo Drive. It’s part of the Sunrise Hill Addition and is a riparian lot. They’re asking for a 15 foot shoreland setback variance for the conversion of an existing deck into a screened porch, and addition of a new deck. The background on this is that the site was developed in 1960 which pre-dates adoption of the current zoning ordinance. The existing house meets the 75 foot setback line. If you’re looking at the photograph, that would be the blue line is the existing 75 foot. So the house does meet that. So the previous variance for the porch was granted in 1996, so that’s in orange there. On the other side of the 75 foot, and that was for a screened in porch. It also was given a setback from the bluff ordinance, which is shown, the bluff is shown in green there, if you can see that, so that was given relief for 2 sections of the code to allow for the deck, which you can see in the picture. Just would like to review the applicable regulations on this. The city ordinance does allow for water oriented structures. In this circumstance, because there’s a patio underneath, which I’ll show in another picture in a minute, is attached to the house. The interpretation made by staff was that it was not a water orientated structure. When we looked at updating the code a number of years ago we actually gave a pretty good, or I would say generous interpretation of 15 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 water oriented structures. We do have people that put fire pits that do, boat houses and those sort of things so there is a mechanism in place but those are typically separated from the structure itself is our interpretation of that. The other, the shoreland district is the, how the water orientated structure must comply, so there’s some specifics on that too. I just want to make sure that how we’re interpreting, how we came to the interpretation of some of the background information. Again the bluff protection, so they did receive variance from that. They would still stay behind the original granting of that variance. And then the other one that comes into play is, not necessarily this one but just want to remind you when we started doing zoning permits in 2006, we had houses that were at the maximum for impervious surface coverage, but they didn’t permit or allow or provide for a patio coming out of a back door. So we said at a minimum on those houses, because if you’re selling it that way, the first thing the homeowner’s going to come in and ask for is a patio. Is that they provide a minimum of 10 foot by 10 foot minimum. Often those are larger, the hard surface coverage, so they meet the setback from the lake and the like so the homeowner isn’t burdened with something that they have to immediately seek relief from. So those are the background ordinances. Again with the zoning permit we ask now, there’s a lot of things that go on properties that may not need a building permit, but we also ask now for zoning permit and we’ve worked really hard to try to get communication on this. Often if there’s a call for Gopher One or something like that, we also follow-up with a phone call. While it may not need a building permit, like I mentioned, if there’s grading involved, a structure, something like that, in an easement area or water drainage area, those sort of things, we want to catch those. Also we find sometimes that people don’t understand what, even though they don’t need a permit, there’s also setbacks from certain structures and those are even accessory structures under a certain square foot so that would be another rule. Again, this house built a number of years ago, a lot of these things don’t come into play but all those put together help us formulate the recommendation that we had put together in the staff report. So again in summary, they’re requesting to enclose that 3 season porch, so that would increase the setback, or the use of that. They would like to enjoy the use of that. And they’re adding an additional deck, so the increase from a deck to a porch is the orange structure. And then the additional deck above the patio, which I’ll show you in a minute, is an additional encroachment. It’s into the setback. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, you’ve got to go back. I’m sorry. Kate Aanenson: I’ll go back to a picture here, I think that might help. This picture here. Then I’ll go back to the other one. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Can you go back to the orange? Kate Aanenson: Yep. I’ll show you where that is on here. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Because that is the deck they wanted to put… Kate Aanenson: Yep, that’s where I was going to go with this one. That’s the existing deck on this picture here. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I know but I like the lines that. 16 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and I’ll go back and show that. And then that patio that we have no record of going in, that is on, so there’ll be another deck above that. Does that make sense? Councilman Litsey: Above the patio? Kate Aanenson: Above the patio. So the deck would be above the patio space. Councilman Litsey: And where would that connect into the house there then? Kate Aanenson: That will connect into the house via the screened in porch. Going in that patio door. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So now I’ll go back to that so you kind of get that picture, so there’s. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay so, the yellow part is the new deck that would be coming in. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Over the patio, correct. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And then the current patio, or the current deck is being enclosed too. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right, that I got. I just was confused. So. Kate Aanenson: They’re on the same plane. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So the surface, there’s no surface coverage issues? Kate Aanenson: No. Right. You are correct, and that’s the one thing, will not increase the surface, impervious surface. Right. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So then the issue becomes, kind of looking at the shoreland regs and the like. They’re increasing a non-conformity. So you’re right, it’s not increasing impervious, on the pros and cons, but it is increasing the non-conformity. And then it’s not increasing the distance to the lake, except that the new deck does. Encroaches further. That structure encroaches further, or closer to the lake. The new deck. Not the screened in deck. Okay, and then that’s showing that again on this side right here so. So, in looking at the reasonable use of the property, the strictest interpretation was, it seemed to be that that was reasonable use of the property. At the Planning th Commission meeting on October 7 they struggled with some of these issues too. The water orientated structures and what are the other options on the site. It’s already closer than the 75 feet. They actually offered a compromise is to improve the improvement to the existing deck, but not encroach, or increase the additional deck. So it allowed it to be a 3 season, 4 season, but 17 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 not, but the applicant at that time wanted the entire request so they mulled that around and eventually recommended 3 to 2 to deny the entire request. Any questions so far? Councilman McDonald: Well have you had any further conversations about the compromise. Is that still the owner doesn’t want to take it or? Kate Aanenson: Well I think that’s for the owner to discuss with you tonight. We just left it at face value. Again at the Planning Commission you have to have a 4/5 majority. Otherwise it automatically goes to the Planning Commission. Mayor Furlong: The council. Kate Aanenson: Excuse me. Automatically goes to the council. The Planning Commission doesn’t have a super majority so, and in comparing what’s around there, staff looked at some, 3 other riparian lots and there is again, because this is an older area, there are some that are closer so the first one was given a setback for construction of a deck and a porch. I think that’s kind of, you know saying well somebody else got it. So there is, the next one is a 20 foot front yard variance. That’s a non-riparian lot so, but it was in that area. We kind of surveyed within 500 feet here. Then the 8 foot shoreland setback with a 16 foot buffer. And then the 15 foot shoreland setback and a 25 foot buffer, which is the subject. So with that, the Planning Commission recommended denial for the shoreland setback. And then also they base it on the Findings of Fact which I did pass out copies to you. Councilwoman Ernst: Kate, can you explain to me, I guess I’m not real clear on what they’re not conforming to on this. Kate Aanenson: The additional deck. Councilwoman Ernst: Right. Kate Aanenson: Well both of them. This patio was open, and you’re putting a roof over the top. There’s a structure underneath, and now I don’t know what the original approval was. Right now when we look at decks, if they’re not a structure underneath, we don’t count them towards hard coverage. Because we don’t know what happened when that was originally granted. Whether that was part of it or not. Obviously it’s not being treated as hard surface. So they’re increasing that. But I think the Planning Commission kind of felt like there might be room for a compromise to include that. But adding that additional deck increased the setback towards the lake, so that’s the part they didn’t feel, because they had reasonable use with the patio on the ground floor. Certainly the other deck provided an option to come down off that deck too the other way, coming back down onto the patio on the ground floor. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I know the Planning Commission had talked about other options for them. Adding on in different areas of their home, but I believe there’s some beautiful trees it looks like…those options, is that correct? 18 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Kate Aanenson: Yeah. And again, kind of making the best use of coming down off that way, over the other patio so we’ll let the applicant address that too if you have questions on that. Mayor Furlong: The current deck was approved with the ’96 variance. Does that basically extend straight towards the lake from the house? Is there, is that, okay. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the house is right at that 75 foot line. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: But for a little corner here it looks like so. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that was, that was the extension and that’s the 15. Kate Aanenson: The first encroachment into the setback. Mayor Furlong: Is that the 15 feet? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: The 15 by 20? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the proposed new deck, would that be an elevated deck? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so that’s an elevated deck. It’s going to come off the proposed new room and that would also be 15 feet out from the house, is that. What’s the dimensions of the new deck? Kate Aanenson: I don’t have that dimension. Rich Peters: It’d be about 8 feet. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: That’s okay. 8 feet out from the house. Rick Peters: 8 feet from, yeah. So it’d be farther from the lake than the present. 7 feet or something like that. 19 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Litsey: It’s more long than wide then. Todd Gerhardt: 31 feet long. Councilman Litsey: It’d be 8 feet by 31. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. So it will be 8 feet into the setback area. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: And the current deck is 15 foot by 20 and this would be 8 by 31. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. So it doesn’t encroach in that same plane. Mayor Furlong: I understand, yep. Okay. Alright, and talk a little bit about the hardship or in staff’s view lack of hardship. Kate Aanenson: Well I guess the literal interpretation is, there’s the setback. Do you have reasonable use of your property, and that’s the literal interpretation that the staff makes. I think in the spirit that the Planning Commission looked at, going to what Councilwoman Tjornhom said too, is that it’s not increasing the hard cover so they felt like maybe encroaching the feet, the original, or the current deck. Councilwoman Ernst: Which is pervious. Kate Aanenson: Right. May be reasonable. So they felt good about recommending that but not the new deck. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Kate Aanenson: Or walkway or, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Right, and I guess what I was trying to understand, and maybe it’s in the Findings of Fact here but basically from a hardship standpoint staff is looking at it and doesn’t see the hardship. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, the strict interpretation, that’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Any other questions for staff? At this point. Mr. and Mrs. Peters are here. I’d certainly invite you to come up and address the council if you’d like. Rich Peters: Thank you. I’m Rich Peters. My wife Eunice. 20 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Rich Peters: We have lived in Chanhassen for 32 years. Last 14 in this house on Laredo Drive, and by the way the street’s looking good. We moved here, back into this house. We moved away for a couple years. Came back into Chanhassen in ’94 and bought this house as a retirement home. It’s a 2,100 square foot walkout rambler. A Schroeder model, if anyone’s familiar with Schroeder homes, and it’s the second one we’ve lived in in 32 years. But only had 2,100 square feet, which we thought was fine. Children are grown. Well now our children are still grown. They’re married. We have grandchildren and we need a little bit more space. And you know just when the whole family is here, which is quite often. They live in the area here. We can’t, the hardship part, we can’t go left or north or south because we’ve got a 100 year old oak tree sitting on both ends of the lot. In fact on the north end there’s no room to build. The lot is too close. The lot line’s too close. So there’s no really, and if we go to the front yard, the non- lake yard, there we’ve got oak trees there too that we’d have to cut out to do that so we don’t really, that’s not an option for us. We’re not going to do it. So we just want to, looking for an extra, little extra space. 200 or 300 feet. Whatever that is. Area. Putting a deck up there, you know even though it’s farther from the lake than the present deck is. We would have to have, we would like to have you know some place where we could put a grill or something like that, rather than putting it in the bottom patio. The bottom patio is not where the kitchen is. The kitchen’s up above. And the other thing about the deck was, we built over an earth patio that was there since the house was built in 1960, and the patio below that was there since 1960 too, so that’s probably why there’s no record of it. But we’re just looking for a little extra floor space in our house. We understand eco friendly, environmental friendly part of the lake. We just planted 1,200 wildflowers and indigenous plants on our lakeshore, so 20% of our lakeshore lot now is in wildflowers. Eunice Peters: And grasses. Rich Peters: And grasses. Indigenous types. So we understand that and we’re not trying to go any farther to the lake than we are now. We’ve got a variance for the deck already from 12 years ago. The next door neighbor’s got the same variance as we’re requesting for a patio. A porch. And that one really goes closer to the lake than our’s, and again that’s 1960’s house. Any questions? That’s basically. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for the Peters? At this point. Councilwoman Ernst: I’m sorry, did you say that your kitchen is on the second level? Where you wanted the. Rich Peters: Where that deck is, yeah. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Rich Peters: Where the present deck is. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. 21 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Councilman McDonald: The Planning Commission had offered up a compromise as far as doing the four season porch and then not doing the deck, and as I was reading in the minutes, there was a lot of discussion back and forth. Are you willing to consider that or is that off the table and if so, why. Eunice Peters: If we were to go out, we want a place to put a grill and for us to come, we have a great big window, so if we were to put just a little, tiny deck. Rich Peters: Go to the picture of the house. There, yeah. Eunice Peters: So we would put just a little, tiny deck. The deck would end up coming in the middle of that big window. I mean we tried to figure this out, how we can get across without putting the deck right in the middle of the window. And so we have to come across. We have to get over that door and down. That’s why we only made it 8 feet. We just want to get a grill out there and then be able to get down. You see this big oak tree there. We can’t go that way because that oak tree I can stand on our deck and I can almost touch that oak tree, so there’s no place to go there, and then you come down a hill. If that is understandable. Councilman Litsey: Yeah. I’m just trying to, in my mind okay so you’ve got it 8 feet wide and then 32 feet long. If all you’re trying to really accomplish is a place for a grill, why that length? Rich Peters: The other part of it was to get down, having a walkway down. Councilman Litsey: Off the deck? Rich Peters: You had to get past the doors, the sliding glass doors in the bottom there. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Rich Peters: You know to get, there’s not enough room between the sliding glass doors and the deck to get down. Councilman Litsey: So there’d be stairs going down off of that then? Rich Peters: There would, that’s what our proposal is. At the end of that narrow walkway. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Is stairs. Kate Aanenson: Can you zoom in on that Nann? This one shows a little bit more clearly… So you can see now, so this is the deck here and then this is the stairs. Councilman Litsey: Okay, I wasn’t really seeing that on the page. Rich Peters: We didn’t want to, we needed to get past that door and then plus, rather than come right back down the patio. 22 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Eunice Peters: And our living room window. Rich Peters: Which is on the second. Eunice Peters: Which isn’t there. It’s bumped out but you can’t see it there. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we’ll go back to this other one quick just to make sure we’re on. Councilman McDonald: So then is the only purpose for the deck so you can walk out and then go down to the patio? Rich Peters: And have a grill. Councilman McDonald: And the grill would be down on the patio? Eunice Peters: No, no. The grill’s going. Rich Peters: No, we want it up on top because the kitchen’s up on top. Eunice Peters: Off the kitchen. Rich Peters: Yeah. Councilman Litsey: How about if you created a space for the grill outside, and I’m not trying to re-engineer this for you but use the existing stairs going down. There isn’t that big a difference is there I mean it’s a little more inconvenient but. Rich Peters: Putting a grill, existing space next to the. Councilman Litsey: Well using the existing space or making that deck proposed a little bit smaller than what you’re saying. And not incorporating stairs into it. Because you have stairs the other way and I realize that’s not quite as convenient but. Eunice Peters: Then we’d have to put a door on each end you mean? Councilman Litsey: Yeah. Not as ideal I understand. Mayor Furlong: I guess one of the questions, I think it was in an email sent to one of the staff members. You talked about the difference between calling it a sunroom or a porch, but it’s a. Rich Peters: It’s a sunroom. Mayor Furlong: Sunroom? 23 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Rich Peters: Yeah. I don’t know where, in the original variance I called it a sunroom. Somehow when it got to the documentation it was a 3 season porch. Mayor Furlong: Porch, okay. Rich Peters: Now is it a. Mayor Furlong: A rose by any other name. Rich Peters: You know that’s why I said in my email, I don’t know if this changes things but the request was not what I asked for. Mayor Furlong: But and in that, even with the sunroom you make a point in your email that it’s your intention to use this year round. This is a year round expansion. Year round addition to the home. Rich Peters: Sure. Mayor Furlong: Over the existing deck and then to however you’re using your current deck now or at least some of those uses you’d want to use on the new deck. Eunice Peters: Exactly. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. McDonald? Councilman McDonald: No. To the, I don’t know if it’s the north side or the northwest side where it looks as though the walkway comes out that goes around from the driveway all the way to the patio. What is that surface there? Is that brick or? Rich Peters: You’re talking about that curved thing? Councilman McDonald: Right. This one that goes all the way around. Rich Peters: Oh that one. That’s just a narrow little pathway. You know it’s stone. Eunice Peters: It’s mulch and stone. Councilman McDonald: Is there any room there to put a grill? Rich Peters: There’s only about 2 feet. 3 feet. Maybe 3 feet. Eunice Peters: That’s what you see. Rich Peters: Yeah, that’s all you see. And there’s a big tree then there’s a lot line right by the tree. That is the tightest to the lot line over there. That’s the north side or somewhat. 24 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Eunice Peters: And it’s also the way to get around our house. Rich Peters: Yeah. That’s the only way to get around the house on the side. Eunice Peters: Without going on the neighbors property. Rich Peters: The south side has more room but you two 100 year oak trees, plus you’ve got the drainage between the lots you know. All that between our’s and…next door to us, all the drainage goes through there so you’ve got to really, but we’re not going to take the trees out of here. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilman Litsey: One more quick one. Where’s the kitchen in relationship to the deck? Rich Peters: Right. Councilman Litsey: Right inside there? Rich Peters: Yeah. Right inside the door. Councilman Litsey: Okay, thanks. Rich Peters: That’s why we didn’t want to put a barbeque grill on the patio downstairs. You’d have to walk a long way. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything else at this point? Alright, thank you very much. Any follow up questions for staff? If not, thoughts and discussion. Councilwoman Ernst: I mean based on everything I’ve seen here and what the applicant has said, I mean basically what they want to do is they want to build this deck. Where it doesn’t interfere with impervious surface because it would be a pervious deck, and I’m going to call it a deck because I don’t know, I think that’s what it is. And I mean they’ve been very friendly. Very environmentally friendly by planting trees and flowers. He’s already said he wouldn’t cut down the trees and basically I really would support that they get this variance because I, even though there’s no hardship involved that I’ve been able to hear or see, I think that it’s still acceptable based on the information we have. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I guess when I look at variances I always, I know they’re called a variance but I always kind of in my mind think of them as like the exception to the rule and why would this be a good exception to the rule and tonight I think with this, and every case is different but tonight I think I need to figure out something in the middle between the literal interpretation and then my common sense, and we live in Minnesota and being outside at night can get to be pretty buggy and pretty miserable so really it’s not necessarily, the seasons you can 25 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 use your deck. It’s sometimes just the time you can use your deck comfortably and you know I have no problem with you adding a little comfort to your relaxation and enjoyment of your lake by adding on a structure that would give you a little more space. And for me the deck along the house adjoining the porch, or whatever we’re going to call it, just makes sense. It’s not intruding on anyone’s space. It’s not, it’s just I think actually giving you reasonable use of your property and enjoying what you have and so because of that I would recommend that we would actually approve the variance to convert an existing deck. And add on the porch. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts. Councilman McDonald: Well I guess I’ll go. Yeah, I don’t have a problem as far as converting the deck to the sunroom. I think I read through the Planning Commission and I also wrestle with the other part of it though as far as the hardship and that’s where I’m having a problem is with this proposed deck. When I was on the Planning Commission we fought long and hard about variances and about encroachments and all of these things and we did look for compromises in order to try to accommodate homeowners but, I’m having a problem with the proposed deck because it just, it makes an encroachment more, I don’t see the hardship. That’s kind of where I’m at at this point. I mean I’m in full agreement as far as converting the existing deck to a sunroom but I’m a little hung up on the proposed deck portion of it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor, I have one more thing to add to my comments. Mayor Furlong: Sure. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Thank you Mr., Councilman McDonald for talking about the hardships because usually I do look for that, and reading the Planning Commission minutes and then listening to tonight, for me the hardship comes from the fact that they have trees around them that really blocks their potential from doing anything else, and I guess they’re beautiful trees. They’re 100 year old oaks and so that to me is a hardship in itself. And I forgot to add that in my comments. Having to take those down would be a hardship. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Litsey. Councilman Litsey: No, it is a struggle and I think the trees do create a legitimate hardship. The same thing on my lot. I’ve got some beautiful oak trees and I’ve had to work around them or face the decision whether to cut them down, which I don’t want to do either. So you’re boxed in there. I think the fact, one thing that helps me through this decision is that, I think you have tried to minimize the impact. I think if you were really trying to go where you maybe would have liked to have gone, you’d have brought the deck out to match up with the existing deck, the porch perhaps, I don’t know. But at least it seems like you’ve tried to do the minimal amount to accomplish what you’re trying to do. So I do want to balance the reasonable use of your property. I’m very sensitive to encroachment on shoreland, wetlands. I’ve been a strong advocate of protection there but I think in this particular case, given the case that’s been laid out, I think I’d be inclined to grant this as proposed. 26 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I guess as I looked at this, the proposed designs seemed like a reasonable extension of the existing home. Adding a porch on, for reasons stated, adding a, having a deck out there are certainly reasonable requests. I think the challenge that I’m having, and when I ever look at these, and I’m going to come at it differently than what I’m hearing the rest of the members of the council saying, and it’s never, trust me it’s never easy to say no but the challenge that I’m having goes right back to the beginning and a variance is an exception and one of the primary reasons to get that exception is because of hardship. And the hardship here seems to be, and I’m not being critical of that because everybody goes through that, is more space. We get the house isn’t big enough for how we want to live in it, and I fully understand that having started out, we were empty nesters when I first got married but for another reason and now we’ve, I don’t know, well I know what happened but. We ran out of space. We ran out of space and so that’s where I’m concerned that if the, if more space is needed becomes a standard for the hardship and if trees are a standard for a hardship, I’m very concerned in this city, and that that is now a new standard. Especially along the lake. Especially along a shoreline. Lotus Lake in particular where we’re seeking to try to improve water quality. The fact that there was an impervious surface below the existing deck back, I think we heard 1960 or before, and that’s okay now to increase the encroachment, which is really an addition to the house, I’m struggling with that. It’s our role to try to minimize non-conforming situations. We’ve had other situations come to us, other proposals from residents where there’s some give and take. Where there is a, we’d like to go into the setback her to put a porch on into the existing setback but we’re going to come back here. We’re going to add in some more pervious surface someplace else, and I’m thinking of some over on Lake Minnewashta where we’ve done that where there were some back and forth, and I don’t see that here. I see this as simply a, the non- conformity from an impervious surface doesn’t change at all, and the expansion of the non- conformity use is simply increasing. And the reasons given, again for me. I’m just speaking for myself. I don’t see the more space as a valid hardship from a variance request standpoint. And again, if there was any give and take on impervious coverage or on the, and we do this, it’s all the time. It’s, because the request, if you forget about the setback from the lake. The request to add on a 3 season porch over an existing deck and put a deck next to it, people are doing that all the time. That is not an unreasonable desire in terms of use or an expansion of an existing home. The difference here is you can’t ignore the lake. You can’t ignore the setback and you can’t ignore the impervious surface and that’s where you get into the variance request and I think what we need to walk carefully on is, even while the proposed addition seem reasonable in the normal course, when the variance is there, we have to make sure that these are the same standards we’ll apply to future variances. That’s where I’m struggling, and having listened I know I’m on the opposite end here from the rest of you, and that’s fine, but I would give some caution and maybe suggest that what we haven’t looked at here is any of that, you know there was a proposal, something offered up at the Planning Commission which wasn’t really accepted. They had a small compliment. They didn’t have the full compliment of commission members there. There’s really been no change between there and here, and so it’s, you know is there some compromise? Is there some give and take that can occur that we can evaluate? At this point there hasn’t been, and again to the Peters, I’m not saying that what you’d like to do with your house is in any way unreasonable. The issue is, because it’s expanding within a setback that it is, and it’s not improving any of the non-conformity. In fact we’re kind of just, what I’m hearing a little bit is, it’s okay to expand the house over the deck because the deck underneath it is 27 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 impervious. That’s a non-conformity and so we’re really not making it worst, but we’re not making it any better either. I think whenever we have these opportunities seeking to try to make it better, it’s something that we should do. So I’ll throw that back to the council and see if there are thoughts or comments or reaction in that regard. Councilman McDonald: Well I guess Mr. Mayor, I mean that’s part of my problem. When I was on the Planning Commission we dealt with a lot of homes over on Lake Riley and Lake Minnewashta and again you have small lots. You have lots of different shapes and people are trying to use those as they exist and one of the things that happened in most of those cases is we did reach compromise, and that’s something that’s why I asked the question and why I’m having a problem with the proposed deck portion of this. And that’s why I’m kind of leaning toward, I don’t see the hardship and I also do not feel that we should be granting variances as a matter of course, so without a compromise or something along those lines, I mean where I’m leaning is not to approve this. And again it comes from, I look at equal treatment of everyone that comes in here and we’ve had a lot of people that have come in and have had, they want to expand for living space but the rules and the ordinances are such that we have to meet certain criteria and if that criteria is not met, I really cannot in good conscience vote for it because the hardship hasn’t been identified as to what it is to you and there’s no, I guess spirit of compromise to make this a lesser situation than what it currently is so that’s kind of where I’m at. I mean I’ll always, I feel for you and I understand where you’re at but I just feel that if we start granting variances, then we have no leg to stand upon and at that point we might as well throw the ordinances out and it’s just everybody can do whatever they want to with their property. So based upon that I’m leaning to vote no. Councilman Litsey: Is the suggestion then that it go back to the Planning Commission or before the Planning Commission and see if they can work out a compromise? Councilman McDonald: Was it the Planning Commission or with staff? Kate Aanenson: If I can just offer up a suggestion. I think in the past when we have had, as you are mentioning Councilman McDonald is that, sometimes they’ve looked at mitigation. They have commented that they have done some plantings and you know some of those sort of things so if we can kind of get some ideas of some of the other things that they’ve already done or spend a little bit more time looking at other options based on the design of the house. We haven’t spent a lot of time doing that because they weren’t, wanted to kind of see what their options were here. Mayor Furlong: Sure, I understand that and I think, you know I fully understand the, well it’s even more than a hesitancy but a design not to take down some big trees on the property. I fully appreciate that. What we do know though is trees don’t last forever and variances do so I think trying to make sure that we find, that we look at everything. Every alternative because again I think, to be fair to others that have been in these chambers before as well as those that will come in the future, we want to make sure that we’re treating people fairly and for, and applying reason consistently, and that’s where again given the lack of hardship that has been stated, and the lack of compromise, I mean I’m not even sure where that would go but the fact that those discussions haven’t even taken place I think gives me significant pause at this point in time. 28 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 Councilman Litsey: I think you bring up a good point that I didn’t fully recognize when we were talking here but it sounds like it would be worth to have staff work with the homeowner and see some of the things, or articulating some of the things that have been done, that you’ve done already and then perhaps some areas that may be adjusted to be more in conformity with where you would like to be in terms of our ordinances and bring it back. I hate to delay it but I think in the interest of trying to work this through, that might be a good route to go. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we’d be happy to work with them. See if there’s some other options or something that’s workable for the applicant. Just to be clear we’re at the end of 60 days in November so we’d ask for an additional 60 days to work through that. But obviously we’d like to do it as expediently as possible but. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Absolutely. Let’s hear if there are any other thoughts or comments from members of the council. Councilwoman Ernst, thoughts. Councilwoman Ernst: Well Mayor, I heard you mention something about, and this keeps coming back as the impervious issue. So are you saying that, from what you see here you think that there is an impervious issue or not? Mayor Furlong: There is not an overall. There’s not a, as I understand it from the staff report, there’s not a, they’re not at or above the limit of the lot from an impervious surface standpoint. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Because I thought that you were under the impression, and I wasn’t seeing it here, that there was additional impervious surface, and I wasn’t seeing that, so I just wanted to be clear on that. Mayor Furlong: Alright. And I’m, that wasn’t my thought. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. You know we constantly need to be looking at our ordinances and reviewing them and I agree that we should be treating all equally, but they have come here and requested a variance. And I’m not, and I’m just hearing this periodically where people just go ahead and do these things without even coming to the city. And so I respect the idea that they’re coming here and asking for permission to do this. And again based on what I’ve seen, and I certainly understand where you’re coming from. But based on what I’m hearing and what I’m seeing, I would still support the variance. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other thoughts or comments? Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I think I’m kind of still where I was before. I just, I think as long as I’ve been on the Planning Commission, the council, I have certainly taken our ordinances very seriously. But then I’ve also tried to weigh that out with common sense and what seems to be right for the situation and I think the standard of reasonable use that were applied and defined years ago have changed a little bit from today and what is a reasonable use and so you know I 29 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 will certainly go along with giving them more time to work it out with staff. See if they can find a compromise, but I would be fully, I would certainly be willing tonight to vote for them to get their variance and enjoy their lake property. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other thoughts or comments or is there a motion? Councilman McDonald: Well I guess I would make a motion that this be tabled and turned back over to staff to work with the applicant and kind of explore some other areas as far as compromise or coming up with something that does not increase the encroachment. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Litsey: Well having talked it through, I’m willing to second that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Motion’s been made to table and refer to staff to work with the applicant to look for some additional alternatives. Is there any discussion? Additional discussion on that. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council table the variance request from the shoreland setback to expand an existing non-conforming deck into a porch and adding another deck at 7301 Laredo Drive. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Ernst who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Furlong: So that motion, was it 4 to 1? Councilwoman Tjornhom did say, yep. Okay. So that motion prevails 4 to 1. Thank you. And thank you and hopefully we can find something that works for everybody. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: I only have one item, and unless you’ve been in an igloo for a while there’s an election coming up a week from tomorrow. With that said I would encourage voters to learn about council candidates. City Council candidates. We have two seats open and as well as candidates for Minnesota State House and the federal candidates as well. That is a week from th tomorrow, November 4. And if people are looking for polling information or where they are supposed to vote, they should check, is it the city web site? Todd Gerhardt: City web site. Or come into City Hall. Mayor Furlong: Come into City Hall. Carver County web site would have that information. There’ll be a lot of information out there. I don’t believe there’s been any changes in the polling locations for precincts since last, since 2 years ago, is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And if you have any information on registration, you can get that from the county or call city hall as well and we’ll get you the information that you need. So thank you. Anything else for council presentations? If not, Mr. Gerhardt. 30 City Council Meeting - October 27, 2008 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: I had one item. Last Thursday Met Council approved our comp plan so all your hard work. Mayor Furlong: We’ll make one change. Todd Gerhardt: Sure. Kate will not have a problem with us making one change to the comp plan. Kate Aanenson: What? Councilman Litsey: You shouldn’t have left the room. Mayor Furlong: That’s good. Todd Gerhardt: The procedure in that is, once Met Council approves it, then the council will take official action so we’re just waiting for the resolutions that they need to sign and then we’ll put that on a future council agenda item for your consideration so. Great job again by Kate. All the department heads in doing the comp plan. It was a long process. You guys sat through quite a few meetings this summer and we appreciate your efforts and the support we got from Met Council and how we’ve guided our community so thank you. Mayor Furlong: Good. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? No? CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Mayor Furlong: We have some unfinished business in our work session. We’ll pick those up immediately following this meeting. If there’s nothing else to come before the council this evening, is there a motion to adjourn? Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 31