Loading...
CC 2008 11 10 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 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, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Greg Sticha, Terry Jeffery and Bob Generous Public Present: Matthew Mortensen 434 Mission Hills Way PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Thank you and welcome to everybody here in the council chambers and those joining us at home. We’re glad that you joined us this evening. I will start off by saying those residents and others that are watching at home, we are having some camera difficulties this evening so while the audio track will be broadcasted normally, the cameras that you usually see, most of them are not working. We will if there’s a power point presentation that is brought up in the council chambers, that will be broadcast at home so that people can see that as well as I think we have one camera working on the document table as well so I apologize for any inconvenience and we hope to have that fixed by our next meeting. With that I would ask members of the council if there are any modifications or changes to the agenda. If not, without objection we’ll proceed with the agenda as published. 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 October 27, 2008 -City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated October 27, 2008 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated October 21, 2008 Resolution #2008-63: b. Resolution Approving Waiver of Municipal Consent for TH 101 Mill and Overlay Project Between TH 212 and Bandimere Park. th c. Table the Cell Tower Lease, T-Mobile, West 76 Street Water Tower. City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 d. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, St. Hubert Catholic Community, 8201 Main Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PETERS VARIANCE, 7301 LAREDO DRIVE, APPLICANTS: RICHARD & 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 City Council. As you recall we discussed th this item at your October 27 meeting. It did appear before the Planning Commission on th October 7 and the Planning Commission did recommend 3 to 2 to deny it. And in following up on this item staff listened to the concerns of the City Council in reading through the minutes. Tried to redirect the applicant in what we understood the direction that you wanted to go. Again this property is located on 7301 Laredo Drive. The issue was the 15 foot shoreland setback. That was for an existing deck, which they now wanted to convert to a year round facility. And in addition to that there was a, so this would be the deck in orange, and the additional, into the year round facility porch or living structure and then an additional deck with stairs going down. That one the Planning Commission again denied. The closest point to the shoreland was 60 feet. So and the compromise on that, and I want to pass something around, was that you have in your staff report was for denial. The applicant was pursuing this application which still included the 60 foot setback from the lake and a smaller deck. As you recall from the discussion their goal was to be able to, to be able to have a place where they could barbeque. Put that on that same level as the structure because it’s sitting up on the second story as opposed to the walkout level. And in looking at that and from the direction that the staff understood from, in the report, and this is on page 2 of the cover memo but I also have a slide. Was that we felt by adding onto the non-conformity, even though there was a variance, that there should be some compromise. The deck would have to come down. Additional footings be put in place. So in that kind of that mitigation, what we would do to improve this situation would actually try to move that existing structure back. So with this would still be a 15 by 20 deck and then a smaller 6 by 8 structure for the barbeque so what the staff’s proposal, and that was the handout I made so there’s a new motion if that was the direction you wanted to go. And that would change it to a 10 by 20. Again in looking at that structure you’d have to put different footings in place. And the existing patio area would be 3.5 by 7. That’s a blue line adjacent to the structure would be staying within that would meet the shoreland setback. The 75 feet so the 64 feet, that would be that mitigation in order to enclose the structure. So that’s the direction the staff moved, based on what we heard the council’s direction was to provide, try to find some way to reduce the non-conformity, even though the deck was already approved with the encroachment. We’re expanding that deck so to make it to the porch. So that’s what the staff is recommending. This isn’t what we’re recommending. That’s the Planning Commission’s recommendation. What we are recommending, and I believe the applicant still his preference would be still the 15 by 20 but we’re recommending, and I’ve prepared, so you’ve got both motions in front of you, would be the 10 by 20 with the smaller 3.7, 3.5 by 7 foot deck and the Findings of Fact that would match that are also attached. So I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 2 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Litsey: I had a, going back to that drawing in the green area there. That would be the additional for the, I guess to have an outdoor grill or whatever to accommodate that concern. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Litsey: And then the stairs would come down and hook up with the existing walkway then? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Litsey: And then keeping back 75 feet from the shoreland except for the existing variance. Kate Aanenson: Right. So originally they, so it took off that 5 feet to make it less of a variance. Councilman Litsey: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah Kate. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So the proposed new deck, that still needs a variance. I mean the addition? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Because they’re adding to that. Increasing the non-conformity, right. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So they do need a variance with that still? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Were there any other scenarios or options talked about? Kate Aanenson: This is their first choice to stay on this side without removing any of the trees or the vegetation on the other side. That was their first proposal that came through. Let’s see if I have some of other pictures that were on here. If you go back to looking at the structure. The vegetation that was around there. How the structure’s sitting up. So this one shows the original request. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And so then the request you’re, or the proposal you’re submitting is that they take that existing deck and go back 5 feet? 3 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Kate Aanenson: 4 feet. Councilwoman Tjornhom: 4 feet? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I said 5. It’s 4. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And has the applicant talked to you about that at all? Kate Aanenson: Yes. That would not be their first choice. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And so their first choice is still what was first proposed? Kate Aanenson: The 15 by, the 15 by 20, that’s correct. Councilwoman Tjornhom: With the shorter deck though. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay, yeah. I’m just making sure that I understand what everyone’s proposing. Mayor Furlong: And let’s, in a few minutes I’m going to have Mr. Peters and Mrs. Peters come up if they want to so we can ask that. Just to clarify. Any other questions for staff at this point? Councilman McDonald: If I could ask just. Mayor Furlong: Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: The handout that you gave us then would be a proposed motion incorporating what you would recommend for the reduced deck at this point. Is that right? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman McDonald: And this motion doesn’t require a variance then, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Well it does because they’re adding to that structure. It’s not increasing the hard cover but they’re still increasing the non-conformity. Councilman McDonald: Okay, but they’re increasing it based upon the current footprint. Kate Aanenson: The setback from the shoreland, yep. 4 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Councilman McDonald: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Well to clarify, under staff’s alternative or staff’s recommendation the footprint would be smaller. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: But the structure itself would be and going from a deck to a. Councilman McDonald: An enclosed room. Mayor Furlong: And enclosed, year round room. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, they’re increasing the non-conformity by intensifying that deck, making a four season porch. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Kate Aanenson: That’s our interpretation. Mayor Furlong: The footprint is smaller than what they currently have or what they requested. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And just to clarify, both proposals, the hard cover surface is not being increased, is it? Kate Aanenson: Well there is hard cover underneath the patio right now. Or the deck. So if you would move it back, that could be reduced too by not making it hard cover. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But it’s not being increased to what they have right now. Existing. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. And just to be clear, I guess where we were going with that, what we understood was that, because they’re intensifying it, that we try to find some ways to mitigate that, and that would be to increase the setback from the shoreland. Todd Gerhardt: And to provide more pervious. Or impervious. Councilwoman Ernst: Pervious. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this time? We may have some others. Anything at this point? Councilwoman Tjornhom: One more. Underneath the deck, what’s underneath the deck right now? Kate Aanenson: That’s what we believe is impervious. So that’s why I’m saying. 5 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is it a slab or something or? Kate Aanenson: It appears to be rock and hard cover so that’s why we’re saying if we can move it back we can make that be green. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Kate Aanenson: I think we noted in that first presentation there was a lot of patio put on there that we have no, prior to, the house goes back a number of years so there is a lot of hard cover in the back of the house. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Mr. and Mrs. Peters, if you’d like to come forward at this time. Rich Peters: Again I’m Rich Peters, 7301 Laredo Drive. Eunice Peters: And I’m Eunice Peters. Mayor Furlong: Hello again. Thank you for coming back. Rich Peters: I’m confused a little bit here because we’re bouncing around back and forth. We started out by the 15 by 20 foot deck, to make it a, enclose it in some respect. And we had an 8 by 31 foot deck added on. Farther away from the lake than the original deck. Okay. Okay, then when the Planning Commission said can you just live without the deck, and I said no. Okay. Now after the meeting 2 weeks ago you wanted a compromise so we cut off 80% of the deck. We’re down to 6 by 8 instead of 8 by 31. Just enough room for people to stand and, around a grill and drink a diet Coke you know. That’s all we’re asking for there. And to enclose the deck that we have now. The proposal that the City’s coming up with, which is taking 5, chopping 5 feet off the deck would leave you with a 10 foot room. And when you start putting furniture in a 10 foot room, you don’t have much space left at all at that point. We don’t even think that’s something we would consider. It would end up being a 10 by 20 foot hallway is all it’s going to be. And in a 3 ½ foot wide deck wouldn’t even fit my grill on it. My grill which is nothing fancy. It’s a 15 year old Weber. It’s 4 feet wide and you couldn’t fit that, you know a grill on it so that’s, you know we think a 6 by 8 foot deck is adequate, at least for people to stand on. You wouldn’t put a table or anything on it but just people stand around and have a barbeque grill there and then finish off the 3 season porch. You asked for a compromise and that’s what we understood was you were looking for. For something you know. And so that’s where we stand today. Below that deck, where the deck was, as I mentioned before was a cement block patio. I don’t think the cement blocks are there. Just dirt. Call it dirt basically what it was. That was there with the original building was there in 1960. The patio below was there in 1962. We just put new blocks in it, that’s all. Mayor Furlong: So is the cement block patio taken out when the deck was put in? Rich Peters: No. Well. The cement blocks might have been. But it’s dirt. Eunice Peters: They’re holding down the, so the weeds don’t grow. 6 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Rich Peters: Put your house picture up there. Yeah. Yeah, below that is, you know it’s built up to about. Mayor Furlong: Below the lattice. Rich Peters: Yeah, the lattice, I would say a foot. There’s probably a foot between the deck and the dirt. Eunice Peters: And there’s fabric and then. Kate Aanenson: Somewhere in here, yeah. Eunice Peters: The rocks are on top of the fabric to hold it down. Mayor Furlong: Landscaping rocks? Eunice Peters: Well the squares that were the patio before. Rich Peters: Those thin square, ancient you know. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Eunice Peters: And all the hard surface that is there was there when we moved in. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m sorry, are we at questions? Mayor Furlong: No. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I got ahead of myself. I’m sorry. Mayor Furlong: Please. No, that’s fine, if that’s okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sorry. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: When you, whatever happens tonight and if you do do your addition or your porch, staff talked that you’ll have to pour footings. Is that correct? So what will you do with the concrete blocks and everything that are there now? Eunice Peters: They would be hauled away. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And just replaced with fabric or dirt? 7 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Rich Peters: Just fabric probably. I don’t know what they put underneath a crawl space you know because it would be blocked in for fertilizer. What am I thinking of? Eunice Peters: I don’t know. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Insulation? Rich Peters: Insulation, yes. You have to fill around the edge for insulation so it will be a crawl space. The crawl space we have in another place in the house is just dirt. You know below the kitchen in fact is dirt. So I would expect that but I’m not a contractor. Mayor Furlong: So to clarify, rather than just footings with posts you’re looking at putting in a 4 foot foundation block wall or something all the way around. Rich Peters: Could be, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. With a crawl space underneath. Okay. Councilman McDonald: I have a question. On the proposed compromise that the staff recommended, I understand that that’s probably not enough room for a grill but why couldn’t the grill go down on the patio? Rich Peters: Because the kitchen sits up off the deck. There’s sliding glass doors and there will be some kind of doors there out to that too. But so then you’d have to walk all the way down. Down through the, you know through the porch. Through the deck or steps to get down and then back up again. So you’d be running back up. Or, I suppose you could go out to the garage, or the basement. Walk down through the living room, which you know you can’t see here, and come out the very bottom there by the table and chairs on the bottom. It just wouldn’t be very handy. Because the dining room and living room and everything’s upstairs. Councilman McDonald: But whenever you go to eat, wouldn’t you go down to the patio anyway in the summer because this is when you’re going to be using it is mainly in the warmer weather, is that correct? Rich Peters: Yeah, I tell you we normally eat in the kitchen. You know if we have company or something, there’s more room in the kitchen. And grill outside you know. Councilman McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions. Mayor Furlong: Other questions Councilman Litsey or Councilwoman Ernst? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have one more. If you don’t have one first. Councilwoman Ernst: No, go ahead. 8 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Staff has made their proposal and you have your’s. Is there any way you guys could meet in the middle? Where you know they’re proposing 14 and you want 20. Rich Peters: I thought we gave up 80% of the deck was a huge compromise already you know. And the fact of losing 5 feet off our deck that we have now, we would just as soon leave it as a deck. Councilwoman Tjornhom: That’s what I’m saying. Is there any compromise in that number, you know between you and staff? Eunice Peters: Instead of a 10 foot wide deck you mean, or room, have a 12 foot? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right. Rich Peters: You know it’s a 12 by 20 and still, and then have a 6 by 8 foot deck. Eunice Peters: I tell you what I would do, I’d give up the deck totally. Just forget the deck and let us have a sun porch. Rich Peters: Yeah. That was one of the Planning Commission’s recommendations, or I shouldn’t say recommendation. One of the things they threw at us was can you just give up the th deck and have the porch. At this point, it’s November 10. If we’re going to do something we’ve got to do it now. You know because they’re going to want to, working on a porch and get it filled in so they can work inside and stuff like that. So you know if you want to leave a deck off, we’ll go with having a screened in, you know build a porch or a sunroom on top of the deck. And no deck. But we can’t, you know to get anything done this year we’ve got to do it now with winter approaching. Councilwoman Ernst: So just to be clear then when you’re talking about the screened in porch. Are we looking at that to be the 8 by 31? Kate Aanenson: No. Rich Peters: No, that would be. Councilwoman Ernst: The additional? Rich Peters: No, the screened in porch would be, is now 15 by 20. Councilwoman Ernst: Right. Oh, okay. I see. Rich Peters: And that’s all. In other words, the least we would take is, other than not getting anything at all is, is just give us the porch we have now. Or deck we have now and we’ll make a porch out of it. No further deck. 9 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Kate Aanenson: Mayor if I may. I don’t want to confuse the matter but just to be clear. The way that the staff had recommended the smaller deck, I’m not sure, but that would not require a variance because they’re behind the 75 foot shoreland setback. That little part of the deck so. Just so if we’re negotiating. If it stayed smaller, as long as it stayed within that 75 foot setback, they would be permitted. Mayor Furlong: Without a variance. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Eunice Peters: But a 3.5, excuse me. You could not put a sliding glass door in there. It would have to be a door that opened out. Rich Peters: Coming from the porch, for the 3 season porch. Eunice Peters: A 3.5 wide deck is, I mean you might just as well pitch over the side. That’s a pretty you know whatever deck. I’d just soon have none at all. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Litsey, you had a question regarding, or comment. Or question. Councilman Litsey: That’s alright. No, I think it’s kind of been answered so that’s okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other questions at this point? No? Okay, thank you. Okay, any follow-up questions of staff? If not, thoughts and comments. Councilwoman Ernst: Well I think that, I mean if they’re okay with that, with negotiating having the porch versus the deck, that sounds like a compromise and where you originally started, because I actually was in favor of them having the original proposal that they came up with. So I would definitely be in favor of the 15 by 20 porch. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Litsey: I do have a question of staff. So what you’re saying is it wouldn’t require a variance for the deck that is being proposed. They could go ahead and do that anyway. Kate Aanenson: Right, it would be smaller but it sounds like it doesn’t meet their needs. As long as it stayed within that 75 foot shoreland setback, that’s correct. Councilman Litsey: So we really can’t make that a condition of, that they not, I mean I appreciate the spirit of compromise but by saying you’ll do with, you could really go ahead and do it anyway. Kate Aanenson: I guess that was my point. Just to say if they wanted to come back later and put a narrow, it may not meet their needs but they could do something narrow. Yeah. Councilman Litsey: Thank you. 10 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Any other thoughts or comments? Unless somebody else wants to go. Councilman Litsey: No, I’m fine with it. The struggle with these, as we’ve all said, and last time too with allowing you know the use of your property. Reasonable use and I understand that if you start narrowing that up too much it does become more or a hallway than a living area so I guess I’d be interested to hear what other people say and then come back. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman McDonald: I’ll go ahead and jump in. Yeah as far as the 15 by 20 foot deck, converting that sunroom, I guess because it already exists I was in favor of doing that. It’s always been this other patio that I’ve had a problem with. So I mean if it comes down to enclosing the current deck into a sunroom, I’m fine with doing that because we’re really to me it’s kind of net zero effect. It still stays within the parameters of where it’s at, whether it’s a deck or an enclosed structure so I’m fine with that. What I’ve always struggled with has been the auxiliary deck that comes off of there. I understand 3 ½ feet may be unreasonable but by the same token I really don’t want to intensify the encroachment that’s currently there so that’s kind of where I’m thinking at this point. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom, thoughts. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, you know I too kind of scratched my head when I try to envision a 10 by 20 porch. It just didn’t seem to be something that would be a very comfortable room or you know you want to use it obviously and if the space is as such where you can’t use it, why have it? So it didn’t make a lot of, I mean for me as a porch goes, it didn’t make a lot of sense to do that so still am in favor of the 15 by 20 enclosure. And I try to always be really consistent when it comes to shoreland setbacks and hard surface coverage, that if they’re being affected and increased you know I’m never in favor of that and I, that’s why with this I don’t see it being increased. I understand that you got a variance to increase it in 1996, or whenever it was but so did everybody else it sounds like and so it just comes down to me to logic and what is reasonable use of your property and I feel the enclosure is a reasonable request and you know I wish that the deck could be bigger so you could have a grill. That seems reasonable too but if not having that deck, or the extra deck is going to get your porch done, then I’m in favor of that. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I guess my thoughts on this, as I had mentioned last time was, and I think as Councilman Litsey and I know others have said before and feel that these are tough requests because but for the location to the lake, putting on a porch, an addition to the house certainly is something that seems reasonable. I think the challenge here is how do we do that given the parameters for it’s setback to the lake. It was my hope and expectation that, as we have done in the past, sought compromise when there’s an increase to the non-conformity, which going from a deck to an enclosed addition, porch, sunroom, whatever we want to call it, it’s going to be a year round use. Interior use for the house. That’s an intensification and the challenge is, where is the hardship? Where is the justification for that? I’m having trouble with that. I do appreciate the applicants and staffs working together to try and compromise this. This is still a difficult, difficult call simply because, well the compromise is being proposed is, we 11 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 want to make these improvements. We won’t make quite as many improvements as a compromise. It was my hope, and I, with staff’s recommendation of a 10 foot, which would give a 4 or 5 point reduction of the encroachment in the setback and actually improving the impervious surface, I like the concept. I like the motivation. I too am, and Councilwoman Tjornhom said the 10 by 20 seems a difficult room to use and manage. I was, and in coming here I was kind of hoping you know if we could go with a 12 by 20 or not come back quite so far, and then maybe go ahead with the deck that they were looking for originally because assuming that’s a slotted deck. It’s not increasing impervious and so it doesn’t affect the impervious. We’d actually be improving the impervious. The porch itself will be bigger than staff’s alternative but not quite as big as what the applicant was saying, and yet they’d have that outside deck to use as well. It was more usable. And by here I’m talking about their alternative, the 6 by 8 structure as it was which would still be further back from the lake than the edge of even a 12 foot porch so. I see you’re nodding up and down because you’re probably understanding my, I don’t know if it’s an agreement but maybe I’ll ask that. If there can be some compromise there to try to reduce the impervious surface coverage. That’s why I think, you know there’s an email in our packet from the DNR saying that they don’t support it. I think reducing, bringing it back a little bit from the lake, and then taking those cement blocks out and replacing it with even landscaping or anything, is a reduction of the, a little bit of the reduction in the impervious surface but still provides, there’s still intensification. There’s no question you’re in the setback area but I’m, and I’m thinking about this as I’m hearing other people talk. You know is there a compromise there that might be available so maybe I’ll throw that out and see if that’s something that, and if you understand my thought rather than. Rich Peters: I’m not sure. That’s why I’m coming up here. Mayor Furlong: I guess my proposal would be, and I think you know I’m picking up a little bit on the question that Councilwoman Tjornhom said. Is there some distance on the porch between the 15 and the 10? I’m saying maybe a 12 by 20 porch but then going forward with the 6 by 8 deck that you’ve been, your reduced deck. If something like that would work for you. Rich Peters: I think, I know what you’re saying and I think at this point, if that’s what it’s going to be, let’s just drop the whole thing. Because we like what we’ve got as far as a deck now. We don’t want to give up part of that space. We’ll give up the new deck, but we’d like to keep what we got now and just make it more useful and efficient. If we’re going to cut down the size of the deck, the old deck, we’ll just drop the whole request for a variance and go back to, we’re going to do some remodeling anyway. Inside you know. And we’ll work on that instead of the, but. Still I don’t think, this impervious word comes around here all the time and I’m sorry I’m not familiar with variance process so much so I’m sure but we’re not really putting any more space, covering up any more space than we have now. That’s what I’m saying. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely, and I guess what I was looking for was to see if there was some arrangement where we could actually reduce the amount of space you’re covering up and still provide you with a porch and deck option. Rich Peters: I would just as soon you know leave the 15 by 20 and forget the deck and that way we’re 50 square feet less than we are right now. But obviously I’d prefer to have somewhere to 12 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 put the grill. You know on a 6 foot. 3 ½ won’t work. 6 by 8 would be our preference. But if that’s going to be that difficult, let’s skip that and just do the sunroom, addition, porch, whatever you want to call it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Litsey: I did have one follow up question, if I could ask it. When you talk about doing some remodeling and stuff to the house too. Is where the new structure you’re proposing abuts with the house, the existing house. Are any walls coming down there or is this all. Rich Peters: Outside? Councilman Litsey: Yeah. Rich Peters: No. Councilman Litsey: No, where the porch attaches to the house on here. If you do the porch is what I’m saying. Rich Peters: If we do the porch, yeah. Councilman Litsey: And it abuts to the house. Rich Peters: Yeah. Councilman Litsey: There’s a common wall there. Rich Peters: Well there’s a sliding glass door. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Are you proposing to take any of that… Rich Peters: The sliding glass door may be gone. You know what we’ve got is a heating problem out there too you know because you’re sticking it out there, you know what I mean? Councilman Litsey: Yeah. What I’m getting to is you’re saying it restricts. If we’re looking at bringing it down to a 12 by 20 foot porch, if you’re going to be taking out some wall, would that help that, mitigate that problem for you because you actually then would be using part of the existing house to kind of give you some more room? Rich Peters: It depends on which end of the 20 feet you would be finishing off. If you finished off the, it would make more sense if you were going to do that, which I don’t want to do. You’d do the north end, you know. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Rich Peters: But that wouldn’t work very good. 13 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Councilman Litsey: Yeah and I don’t know the inside layout of your house but it would just, there’s a difference between having a stand alone kind of room where you’re enclosed with 4 walls versus if you have some latitude to kind of bring that porch through some openness into the house itself, but I don’t know if your house… Rich Peters: This would open up into the house. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Eunice Peters: Yes, the kitchen will be, we’ll be taking out the sliding glass door so we can move from the kitchen into the porch. Councilman Litsey: So to me that means, the, you know you talk about being pretty confined if you have 4 walls around you but that would allow some openness there, even if we reduced it down a little bit, would it not? I mean. Rich Peters: We’re getting down to nit picking so much as far as square feet that you know, to me it’s not worth it anymore. You know we’ve got a nice deck and we’ll, maybe we’ll just have to stick with that. Eunice Peters: And we also want something that looks nice, and we’ve got it drawn up. We know what we want and like with that little teeny deck. That would not look nice. We would like something that looks nice and not just to have this porch. We want a porch that we can use the way we want to use it. And if we can’t, we’d just as soon not have one. Okay? Mayor Furlong: Alright. Councilwoman Ernst: So I just have one other question. So just to be clear, you would be fine with the 15 by 20 porch, because I keep hearing deck a lot and so I just want to be clear. Rich Peters: I refer to deck because that’s what it is now. Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah, right. Rich Peters: Yeah, just leaving that and making it a 3 season or a sunroom. Eunice Peters: Just enclosing what we have now. Councilwoman Ernst: And you’d be fine with that? Rich Peters: That would be the minimum we would. Eunice Peters: Enclosing what we have now. Rich Peters: Yep. Yes. 14 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Eunice Peters: We will settle for that. Councilwoman Ernst: Thank you. Eunice Peters: You’re welcome. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well maybe I’ll finish my comments, and I fully appreciate the clarification because I’m, I guess I’d like to continue hearing from members of the council. I’m just, I’m concerned about, about what the intensification of literally adding what appears to be an addition to the house, a 15 by 20 addition to the house. Even though there’s a deck there and it’s impervious, it’s still an intensification I think. Clearly I saw, I’m still concerned about being able to support it but I’m, I’d like to listen or, Councilman Litsey I don’t know if you have any thoughts having listened to others. Councilman Litsey: Well I guess what I was getting at with the applicant is if you can eliminate that wall, something to give you some more room, I think that would be helpful. That’s not just a, 4 walls around you then. So I’d like to see some movement on that if possible so we could get, I like the idea of you know cutting it down a little bit just to get some more surface there but… Councilman McDonald: I guess if I could, you know as I’ve stated, I’m okay with the 15 by 20 foot deck, but not the auxiliary deck that they want to build out because I think that’s the intensification and that’s where I would ask about, is because the 15 by 20 space already exists, the net effect is actually zero. We’re not increasing anything as far as the encroachment upon the lake. All those numbers remain the same. So that’s why, at least I’d be in favor of the 15 by 20. Now if that drives towards Councilman Litsey’s point of when you begin to look at this and if you want to give up some of that space to then add the deck that would fit in without the variance, that’s a choice that the homeowners can make once they’ve had a chance to reassess this but I guess that’s what I would ask is, how do you see the 15 by 20 as maybe, I understand that it is an intensification because we’re building a structure. Mayor Furlong: Right. That’s. Councilman McDonald: But if I look at just the raw numbers of again the setbacks and the impact, I see zero impact with just that structure because it’s already an impervious surface so we’re not increasing that. That remains constant. We’re not increasing the setbacks. We’re not increasing any encroachment into the buffer zone. So if we just stay with that, I guess I’m willing to look at that as my compromise toward all this. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I guess my thought to that is, that’s where the struggle is. From an aerial view, from just squares on a piece of paper, there isn’t a difference. Clearly from a structural standpoint, when you start looking at putting in a 4 foot high foundation wall with a crawl space underneath and the room addition effectively, porch, sunroom, whatever, that’s where the intensification. And that’s the struggle so, but that’s fine. So just, I don’t know if that helps clarify my thoughts or not because I do understand the comments that you’ve made is that, 15 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 is that strictly from a coverage standpoint, there’s no change under this. Under just going forward with the 15 by 20 porch. So I do understand that. Councilman McDonald: And then I guess what I look at there is, is again once you’ve got a defined space to work with, now there are other compromises, especially if you’re going to be doing work inside the house anyway, there may be another way around that to work at least with that space. Mayor Furlong: And I think that’s where Councilman Litsey was probing. Councilman McDonald: Right. Mayor Furlong: Is if there’s some adjustments? Is there some other options? What I heard is that, as far as what they want to do, they want 15 by 20 at a minimum. So, I don’t know if there are any other thoughts or comments. If not, is there a motion? Councilman McDonald: Doesn’t it get to be a little bit of a problem for a motion because if I’m, what I’m in favor of is the 15 by 20 and I don’t think we have anything before us that covers that because the one that staff passed out is for a 10 by 20. Councilwoman Ernst: Can’t we just change it? Councilwoman Tjornhom: You just change the name to we approve and then just leave off the deck construction. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Yes. Roger Knutson: Members of the council. If you want to do that I would just suggest you make that motion with direction to staff to bring back findings at your next meeting consistent with your discussion here tonight. You I think are going to pass the motion ahead of the findings under these circumstances. We don’t want to, if you want to do this, I’m sure you don’t want to hold anyone up unnecessarily. But the finding is to come back with approval at your next meeting. Councilwoman Ernst: So just make the motion to approve a 15 by 20. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Just read this. Councilwoman Ernst: That we approve. It’s not a variance, right? Anymore. Kate Aanenson: Yes it is. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, variance to convert an existing deck into a porch. 16 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Councilwoman Tjornhom: No… Councilwoman Ernst: I’m sorry, the existing porch and construction. Councilwoman Tjornhom: On Lot 12, Block 1. Councilwoman Ernst: On Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action, but to be a 15 by 20. Kate Aanenson: Clarification. So I believe what you want to say is, that City Council approve the Case 8-19 for a 15 foot variance allowing for a 15 by 20 deck, and then strike the next sentence. Removal of the balance of the deck because to be clear, if they stay within the setback they can do that, and then with the Findings of Fact to be attached, presented at your next regular meeting. Councilman McDonald: Okay, if you wrote that down I’d be glad to read it. Todd Gerhardt: You can reference. Councilman McDonald: What I would do is make a motion based upon what Ms. Aanenson read to us. That the City Council would be approve Planning Case 08-19 for a 15 foot shoreland setback variance to construct a 15 by 20 foot enclosed structure on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition and adopt Findings of Fact to be supplied by staff. Roger Knutson: At your next meeting. Councilman McDonald: At our next meeting. Councilwoman Ernst: Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Motion’s been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? I guess what I’m hearing is the justification is that there’s effectively no increase in the impervious surface coverage within the setback is a primary justification. Councilman McDonald: That’s the primary justification. Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, if I may. Mayor Furlong: Sure. Terry Jeffery: Councilman McDonald, the question’s arisen, is there additional impact by taking a deck and converting it to a enclosed structure, and there is in terms of if you look at the setback from the lake and the bluff that exists, in that what you’ve done is you’ve effectively taken sheet flow that would run through the deck and drop down below and then goes laterally, or flow out into the yard and created a situation where you actually have concentrated flow off of the roof through some type of down spout, to the bluff that actually exists at the top of it. Not to say that 17 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 that could not be mitigated for in the way that they lay out the roof and how they do the drainage pattern but I do think it’s important to make that clarification. There is, in addition to the additional structure, there is a drainage issue. Or potential for drainage issues that do not exist in flat deck situation. Councilman Litsey: How would you mitigate something like that then? Terry Jeffery: For instance you might look at, if you were going to have a hip facing towards Lotus Lake. Get rid of that hip. Have that be a gable end. Where are you going to have the down spouts run to? If there’s some way to do some energy dissipation before it goes to the bluff. So there are a number of different ways in which it could be done. I just think it needs to be addressed in the plan that is finalized. Councilman McDonald: And is that part of the reason why the DNR is probably not for this? Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald, yes. That’s precisely the reason. Or at least a large portion of the reason. Councilwoman Ernst: And as I understood it they planted additional, did you not? Like additional bushes and things like that also for landscaping. I mean something like that certainly helps with it being more previous, is that correct? Terry Jeffery: It will help. It isn’t the imperviousness of the feature that I’m referring to though. It is the drainage patterns that will result as, after the roof is in place and how that roof drains through the yard and to the bluff and to the lake. Councilman Litsey: So could that somehow be worked into. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I think it’d be appropriate to add a condition that we mitigate the concentrated roof runoff by looking at alternatives such as where the drainage is going gutters and the design of the roof. Councilman McDonald: I would gladly accept that onto my motion. Mayor Furlong: Who seconded it? Councilwoman Ernst: I did. Mayor Furlong: Is that okay with you? Councilwoman Ernst: Yes. I accept that. Mayor Furlong: From adding that condition. Councilman Litsey: Could I just ask one question to that? 18 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Councilman Litsey: Thank you. What enforcement capabilities do you have with that though? I mean… Kate Aanenson: Well when they issue the building permit we would check it at the time. When there’s a variance on any piece of property, then we go back to the original conditions so that, when it goes through for routing, then we would check to make sure that it’s compliant with that. The roof design and then if they have gutters and how they’re managing the drainage. Councilman Litsey: So we have some. Kate Aanenson: Right, the permit would not be issued unless it was in compliance. Councilman Litsey: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: So the condition is effectively to mitigate any, what is the condition? Terry Jeffery: It would be to design the roof such that drainage off the roof is not concentrated to create hazards to the bluff below. Mayor Furlong: Whether that’s the roof design or maybe it’s the gutter system or working with storm water runoff from the addition so. Kate Aanenson: Correct. There’s a couple different ways to manage it. Mayor Furlong: Yep. Okay, so it doesn’t have to necessarily be a roof design, because we don’t want to be designing their house but the goal, how the goal is achieved. Terry Jeffery: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: We have a motion and second. Any other discussion? I guess I will add in terms of, especially with this added addition but also looking at the issue of the impervious surface coverage. The lot to match it’s age of the development. Bottom line all things considered, I think each of these have to be addressed individually. Any request for a variance. This is a difficult one but I think all things considered I can support it as it’s been laid out in front of us this evening and I do appreciate and I want to make sure that this is on the record, that I appreciate the Peters’ willingness to work through sometimes a slow and perhaps painful process but nonetheless a process that I think ultimately, ultimately is designed to make sure that ordinances and laws are applied fairly and equally across the city as well as in this case to deal with issues relating to lake water quality and lake protection, and I know as homeowners on the lake you have no desire, or I’m assuming you have no desire to reduce the quality of the lake, and I know that’s not the case so I thank you for your patience through the process and for staff and for everybody to work together to try to find a way to make it good for all of us so, those are my final thoughts. If there’s any. 19 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Councilman Litsey: I was just going to, I agree with those comments and although again it may seem like a lengthy process, I think through this it gives everybody a comfort level and I appreciate the council’s insight on this too. It was helpful to me because I haven’t had as many of these before me as some other people on the council so this certainly did help and I think with conditions set forth, so I too support this so. Mayor Furlong: Is there any other discussion? If not we have a motion before us that’s been modified with a condition and subject to the Findings of Fact being presented in the next meeting, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there any other discussion? Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approve Planning Case 08-19 for a 15 foot shoreland setback variance to construct a 15 by 20 foot enclosed structure on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition and adopt Findings of Fact to be supplied by staff at the next City Council meeting, with the following condition: 1. Design the roof such that drainage off the roof is not concentrated to create hazards to the bluff below. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER, 7755 CENTURY BOULEVARD, KLMS GROUP, LLC: REQUEST FOR A MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A DRIVE-THRU AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES: LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER. Public Present: Name Address th Bryan Monahan 7500 West 78 Street, Edina th Andrew Ronningen 2669 West 78 Street Lynne Etling 7681 Century Boulevard Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. I’m going to pass around, there’s two letters of support that came with this project. This item appeared before the Planning nd Commission on October 22. The applicant is requesting to amend the PUD to allow for a drive thru window. The subject site is located at a neighborhood commercial zoning district, as I mentioned done as a PUD that’s located down on the northeast corner of Highway 5 and Century th Boulevard, bordered by West 78. This is one of those pocket neighborhoods that we put in place with the upgrade, or when we did the Highway 5 corridor study, to provide some convenience commercial for that neighborhood in this area. So again the applicant did appear before the Planning Commission and before I go through the slides I’ll just summarize what the 20 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Planning Commission’s discussion points were. And that was that the layout proposed, the applicant would block people on both sides of the stacking lanes, and it appeared that the parking spaces after you stack cars would not be able to back out. The Planning Commission also requested that the drive aisles…drive thru be counted. The applicant requested that the drive aisles be counted as parking space, and the Planning Commission disagreed with that interpretation. Pedestrians must cut through the travel lane to get to the building, and I’ll show a little bit more on that in a minute. And the Planning Commission also asked the applicant, the intended use to go in there, if they could go in without the drive thru window, and I think that was a concern when we look at neighborhood zoning districts as a whole. We have some other neighborhood zoning districts that we haven’t allowed that so they did spend some time on that. And also the layout that the staff had recommended. The applicant disagreed with that, although I think we could move towards some of that. There’s still some underlying concerns with that. Again in 2003, when this project did come to the Planning Commission we, the staff remained neutral in presenting a drive thru at that time and the Planning Commission had recommended no on that, so I’ll spend a little bit more time on that in a minute. And then they also, the final thing that the Planning Commission talked about when they recommended against was the one way traffic through the gas station during rush hour and Nick and Willy’s may present a problem. So with that I’ll just kind of go through the proposed project itself. This is the original site plan that came through in 2003. The applicant at that time, and I’m not sure if anybody remembers but at that time they were looking at a drive thru coffee shop and it was integrated into the back of the design. At that time, again the staff, because it was a neighborhood zoning district, took a neutral position. We actually had Findings of Fact for and against, and the Planning Commission in looking at that drive thru, even though you could see that there were 6 stacking stalls separated from the access to the gas station and the other uses itself, completely separated, they still were concerned about the precedent at that time. And actually by the time it got to the City Council, this council actually deferred on it for a couple meetings too. Spent a lot of time studying it. Asked staff to go look at some other applications so in that time, at that time it was determined that that probably was not a good use, and the use itself went even a little bit further. If you look at the architectural compatibility, and this is the use itself is that we actually put on the back side of the building, so when you’re looking from Highway 5 you wouldn’t see it. It was actually integrated into the building itself. You can see the enter, so it was architecturally compatible so you wouldn’t see it from the other side either, so it really had the least amount of visual impact. And so even at that, the Planning Commission and the council ultimately decided that they did not want to support. So here we are, a number of years later and the applicant is requesting the drive thru. And you can see on this application the drive thru again is on the north side. Again, it’s further away from the residents but it’s, as far as visual impact, it’s not the preferred choice but based on now the current layout of the business itself, how it’s function, the kitchen, the bathrooms and the like, this is what they thought was the best location for that drive thru. So we did go look at the use that wanted to go in there, how it operates in Eden Prairie. Went through the operation and this is the larger view. I’ll go to a closer view where you actually, you have segmented uses so you actually have more stacking that you’re not crossing through the traffic at the main entrance. And a close up of that would be, there’s a car wash, if you can follow the arrow here to the car wash that goes one way. I believe it goes the other way, and then to go through Milio’s, you’re coming back through the opposite way so there is, they’re not, you don’t have pedestrians crossing to get into the business on this so it’s a little bit different, and they had the segment in stacking space which this one didn’t. So right away again 21 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 in looking at doing a PUD amendment for a drive thru, we’re not limiting what type of use can go there. Obviously depending upon how much volume somebody else, marketing would look at that sort of thing but we’re not limiting it to any particular user. It just says drive thru window. So in looking at kind of worst case/best case scenario. This was the staff’s best attempt at making this work. Again the preferred alternative would have been on the back side, but trying to make this work. In replacing the additional parking stalls that were eliminated. Trying to reduce the area of conflict which would be, trying to get into the door here on this side. Where the restaurant would be. You’re crossing through the travel lane of the drive thru, and that’s where the Planning Commission struggled the most problematic portion of that. And this was the applicant’s drawing for that. Again the staff’s concern is that we had conflicting, the way this would back in here, you could actually block the traffic coming through the business itself. There wasn’t additional parking provided with this application. Again that area of concern. And then these seemed to be also difficult because you’re coming through the drive thru so you’re losing these and these may be difficult to back out of too when you’ve got accelerating traffic coming out of the drive thru itself. So here’s a little close up again kind of again highlighting exclusive stacking space for vehicles waiting to place your orders is not provided so you’re, the vehicles waiting to stack at the menu or the order place could also be blocking the traffic and then the potential for the vehicle conflict coming the other way, or people coming out because it’s narrow right through there. So again the Planning Commission did recommend denial of the application for reasons that I stated in the staff report and so with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you do have. The motion that we had for you is placed on the front page of the application. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. Councilman McDonald: Did you actually propose to the applicant your design? Kate Aanenson: Yes we did. Councilman McDonald: What kind of feedback did you get? Kate Aanenson: Well I think at the Planning Commission there was a lot of resistance but I think between now and then trying to meet all that before it went to City Council, I think they’re willing to meet some of those designs. The concern that we had is that, I think the biggest issue here is if you’re willing to go forward with the PUD amendment. We didn’t want to expend additional money that if you weren’t going in that direction. I think if you’re leaning that way and then you wanted to make some conditions, I think at this point we didn’t want to spend, have the applicant spending additional dollars on that. Councilman McDonald: And then the other question I have, with the traffic flow the way it is towards the back, isn’t that also the way you would go to get into the car wash? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. There is a couple ways to get through there but it does get a little congested. I think at the lunch hour time too when Nick and Willy’s is a little bit busier. Councilman McDonald: Okay. That’s all I have. 22 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Kate Aanenson: And Jimmy John's too. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, did I read that there are additional parking spots that are going to be created? Kate Aanenson: That’s what we had requested. The applicant at the Planning Commission didn’t want to do that. I think they’re willing to show that for you tonight and so I think that they’ll talk to that but at this point I think we wanted to get just kind of a read before we spend money and go further into that, if they’re willing to meet those, I think we can work through the design issues but I think what we wanted to get for the read is, what you’re receptiveness to the drive thru was. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But the real issue is really is the traffic flow and the stacking. Kate Aanenson: Well, there’s a couple issues. One, it’s not the preferred design because we actually, the stacking is one but you’re also taking pedestrian traffic, pedestrian movement through a travel lane for ordering food. And then it is, while it is a PUD and you could make conditions unique to this, but we’ve told other neighborhood commercial zoning that, it could be a precedent. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff at this point? And I guess clarifying at the Planning Commission they made a motion to deny the request. The applicant’s. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I see in the staff report what some of the concerns were laid out there and one of them was, this was talked about 5 years ago in 2003 when this came through and are there any other, while it’s a PUD. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: It’s a neighborhood business level of zoning effectively, correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so what else do we have in neighborhood, do we have any other restaurants drive thru in neighborhood business? Is at Galpin and 5 we have CVS and Kwik Trip. Kate Aanenson: There’s no drive thru. The only thing that we’ve offered drive thru would be the banks, drug stores, dry cleaners would be the only ones to date that we’ve allowed the drive thru. So the other two uses up there that are food related are non-drive thru’s either. That are contiguous to this. 23 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Well and didn’t we have a request for a drive thru at Chanhassen Crossings at 101 and Lyman just recently? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And we put significant limitations on it. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: What did we end up doing there? Wasn’t it, I mean that’s a coffee shop. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: It’s not necessarily a restaurant so there were expectations of. Kate Aanenson: Yes, right. Yes, correct. Correct. Mayor Furlong: You keep saying correct. Kate Aanenson: It was for a coffee shop and the circulation was different and that I think. Mayor Furlong: But there were, it wasn’t designed to be a food, or a restaurant there. Kate Aanenson: Correct. It was a very small area for what they wanted to look at was a coffee shop. But we’ve had other requests. We had requests for fast food down there and we recommended no on all that. We’ve also, there was the Subway across the street too that was looking at some of that but we had said no. That was also a PUD so. Councilman Litsey: Is it kind of, I mean I get the impression, and from reviewing this myself, that you’re kind of trying to force something into an area that really isn’t conducive to it or? Kate Aanenson: Right, well one of the staff struggle is, you know we’d like to see something successful in this building. That’s critical. Councilman Litsey: Absolutely. Kate Aanenson: You know everybody would. And other uses have struggled there. We want this business to be successful so we tried to find a way to make it work and I’m just not sure we’re there. In the design. Todd Gerhardt: And I think both the Planning Commission and staff are looking for a little direction from the council on this. You know this center has kind of struggled here for the last 5 years I think it’s been there, and they’re going on their third tenant in this building and we want to be successful. The strip retail has had multiple uses in there and you know we need something to really anchor this corner and the applicant feels as if a drive thru would help that. And one of the things, you know I haven’t had a chance to talk to Roger on this but we could give it a shot 24 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 for the one tenant and then, with the PUD amendment for Milio’s, but if for some reason Milio’s can’t make it there, that that drive thru would only exist while that tenant was there. Councilman McDonald: Well that was the question I was kind of asking you on that because if. Todd Gerhardt: I know it’s a challenge for Roger. Councilman McDonald: …if this is a PUD, if we issue it for the PUD, does that mean if this fails then a Starbuck’s can come in. They’ve got a drive thru? Roger Knutson: Without going into detail, I think we can get there but we would, due respect to the manager, we want to word it a little bit differently. Todd Gerhardt: You don’t want to take that wording huh. Roger Knutson: You can’t do a PUD amendment that’s only applicable to Milio’s. Todd Gerhardt: Right. Kate Aanenson: It would be sandwiched related. Todd Gerhardt: So can it be time related or use related. Roger Knutson: If you tried to make it an interim use within the PUD that is possible but then you’d have to start over. There are other things I think we could fruitfully discuss and how we could limit that. Kate Aanenson: Such as trip generation, those sort of things. Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Variety of factors. What I’m hearing is there may be some flexibility if that’s something we wanted to look at. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and I think still we’re still trying to struggle with the design. Mayor Furlong: But I hear, if Mr. Knutson is saying that there may be an opportunity to be a little more specific here without necessarily creating a city wide precedent, is that correct? There may be some opportunities. We might not get it done tonight but there may be some things we could do. Roger Knutson: I don’t think we could word smith it tonight but I think if the council wants to go in that direction, we could come back with something that will pin it down pretty good. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Kate Aanenson: And again just to be clear, I think there’s some struggles of how much to spend on this and so we want to get some direction on that because we think we can make it better just 25 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 design wise, not even just with the window. The location. Moving some things but obviously there’s some, I think some of the things that we are struggling with is the applicant’s ability to invest in some of those. So we kind of want to find, get a read from you and to see where to go with that. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: How’s the gas station feel about the drive thru and all the traffic that will be coming through there? Todd Gerhardt: The owner of the gas station is the applicant. Kate Aanenson: It’s the same. Councilwoman Tjornhom: It’s the same, I’m sorry. Kate Aanenson: That’s alright. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I didn’t realize that. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions of staff at this time? If not, we will invite the applicant to come forward and address the council. Is there anything you’d like to say? Good evening. Mark Leutem: Hi. My name is Mark Leutem. I am the, I’m going to say one of the owners of the gas station, which includes the car wash and the tenant space that we’re looking to fill. Just a little quick, a quick background. Family owned and operated business. It started in the fall of 2004. My family, I actually married into this thing. My wife was starting this investment at the time we were engaged and becoming married and so I’m the fix up guy anyway. But the point is that the business in that location has under performed. We’re doing about, somewhere between 28%. About 30% of what the business was originally projected to do. We are the owners of the real estate and the operator that was supposed to be in there lasted 18 months and he went bankrupt. In the restaurant space in the front there, that’s had 2 other operators. First one went bankrupt after about a year. Second one, I’m not sure where he is. I think he’s back in Mexico or something. Anyway, but the point is that we, the word struggle was used earlier and that’s a very, very solid word and I don’t mind saying we’ve probably put in about $15,000 a month on average to keep this thing going. Part of the strategy to get this business to just start to take care of itself includes putting a solid tenant into that space. Being in the real estate world we went out to find potential tenants. We talked to brokers and agents and we talked to Caribou. We talked to Starbucks. We talked to Dunn Brothers. None of those are options. They want to be on the other side of the street for their particular reasons in what they do, so unless I can bring it across the street, they’re not a consideration. We went to McDonald’s. We went to the Noodles and Company. You pick the franchise. We’ve talked to all of them, and they’re not all hard to talk to because a lot, a few brokers represent a lot of these folks. Those franchises require a square footage of at least 25,000 square feet. You may be able to squeeze them in there. Closer to 25. 28 to 30. I’m sorry, 2,800 to 3,000 square feet. 26 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Kate Aanenson: I was going to say. Mark Leutem: Yeah. We are way too small to be a McDonald’s. And so those aren’t options. We really need, and in fact as I’ve been interviewing potential tenants there, we really need to put a tenant in there that’s going to stay, and a tenant business that’s going to succeed. I’ve literally had some tenants come and look around and say, well yeah but a couple other businesses failed here and why did they. And when I explained, I don’t think thing they had real good business plans. They did, for a number of different reasons. They couldn’t get the traffic flow they needed or what not, and so the intent as the space is getting hexed. Okay so, I spoke with Mr. Moravec. Vic Moravec who has a franchise of Milio’s franchise in Eden Prairie here. He’s very excited. His company has done due diligence on it. Milio’s is a franchise name. There’s 50 stores in the Midwest. They have some name recognition in the area. Growing quickly. Very solid business. Well capitalized. Just the thing we’re looking for. Requirement is he needs a drive up in order for the business model to work and succeed. So here we are today dealing with that particular issue. In the City Council meeting, as was brought up earlier, there was some resistance. I come today with no resistance to the staff at all. In fact I’m coming today to suggest that we look to try to get approval to this concept and then I would be more than happy to work with staff and staff’s recommendations to follow a design that’s developed that they’re comfortable with. That meets the needs of our requirements of getting this accomplished and that staff could be perfectly comfortable in recommending. As was stated earlier, we can be close. I don’t think we’re quite there either. I had some disagreements before on how many cars are going to be stacked and what not. We’re not going to do any of that tonight. But like I said I would like to work with the staff. Come up with something that makes sense. Since that city planning meeting, talked to some of the architects. Other developers and some other folks and some other ideas have been tossed out that haven’t even been addressed together with myself and the staff so I think there’s a number of different options that can be developed so this thing makes sense and is consistent. There was a question earlier about the possible congestion around my pumps. We would really love to have some congestion around my pumps. As I said before, we are less than third of the capacity that this business was originally projected to do. And so you know we’d like to do that. The other part of it too is you have to keep in mind that we are a continuous building so the traffic flow and sharing of parking space and entering and exiting is not uncommon. If you look in a number of different layouts in certain businesses, they can essentially be contiguous in each other. I think I’ve addressed all relevant points. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any questions for Mr., is it Leutem? Mark Leutem: Leutem, yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Leutem. Councilman McDonald: I guess at this point then what you’re telling us is, you’re willing to work with staff as far as addressing some of these issues they have about traffic flow and the way traffic would be handled around the center. Mark Leutem: Correct. Yeah I envision that the design is what staff and I would put together and again that the staff would end up being comfortable with recommending it. 27 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Councilman McDonald: Are we close as far as what staff’s proposed design was? Is that a good starting point? Mark Leutem: If you could go to the picture that. That one there. We can be close. I just thought, actually did think about something as I was sitting in the chair here, and I have to talk with Mr. Moravec but from a space standpoint, I mean we could move that window even further down, which would shorten the access points. Still get the 6 cars in there that they want, and so then that would get away with some of the cross traffic or the stuff walking across. And then they also with working with Westwood, they had a number of different recommendations about how that parking and that handicap could be redone so the flow is a little smoother and everything lays out a little bit easier. There’s less construction. There’s less changing of the berm and stuff like that, so I think there’s a few other options again that haven’t even gotten to the table discussing how the design would go. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Mark Leutem: But generally speaking we’re you know generally going this direction. Todd Gerhardt: Is there the possibility of moving that front door over to the north side of the building? Because then it’d keep people away from that drive thru. Mark Leutem: Yeah, everything’s possible. I think. Todd Gerhardt: We’ll design it right here. Sorry. Mayor Furlong: No we won’t. Mark Leutem: One of the things, one of the things when I was with my concrete folks is that, you can see that takes away part of the sidewalk that’s like right in front. And actually when you take that out and you get on the scene and you put a tape measurer to that, there’s enough room to leave that sidewalk going all the way and still get the lane in there. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it’s the issue we had, just to be clear, you know as you’re crossing. People aren’t going to walk all the way, yeah. We can work on it. Todd Gerhardt: We won’t design it here. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions this evening for Mr. Leutem? We may have some others as you… Mark Leutem: Well yeah. Mayor Furlong: If you watched the earlier one. Mark Leutem: Yeah, I don’t have any other plans. 28 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: We never close out our right to ask questions so. Councilwoman Ernst: Well I just have a comment that when you were talking about moving the window to make the traffic flow a little easier, I see Kate shaking her head and, yes. So I’m encouraged to hear that the two of you will work something out and bring it back. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I know there was a public hearing at the Planning Commission. I don’t know if there are other members of the public here present that want to comment on this. With Mr. Herbst standing, I’m guessing the answer to my question is yes there are so we’ll take some public comment here as well. Good evening. Dan Herbst: Good evening. Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council. Professional staff. My name is Dan Herbst. 7640 Crimson Bay Road in Chanhassen and also co-owner with Ron Clark of Century Wine and Spirits. We are, before I give you points that point out, talk to you about. We are running low of wine club memberships before the holiday season so if you want to sign up tonight. Mayor Furlong: I don’t think this is an opportunity for advertisements. We’ll let this one go. Dan Herbst: First of all I apologize for not being here at the Planning Commission meeting. We would have liked to state our case as well as other people at the Planning Commission but we didn’t see it as a real issue and I think when you assume something like that, you always make mistakes so I apologize for not being here. But you know from the obvious point of view you already know there’s a road already that loops the south side of that building. From a precedent setting point of view you already have a drive thru on that PUD with the car wash. I’ve been in this business about 40 years and I, in both the commercial and the residential end and you know looking at your Findings of Fact you know this drive thru window is very, very consistent in my opinion with all of the other uses that are part of the Arboretum Center there. I see no inconsistency whatsoever. There’s also some mention in your Findings of Fact about lowering property values. I think that’s invalid also. So I think it’s consistent with your PUD. It’s going to boost all the businesses in that area. That place has been open and closed, as Mark mentioned to you, about 3 different times. I think it’s compatible with all your performance standards of your planned unit development. You know and just on a personal issue, having 8 grandchildren a drive thru is a real, real plus. When you’ve got to bail kids in and out of those seats and watch them run across the street to go into a restaurant, a drive thru is a real great thing, and all of you that have had children, and more so if you’re handicap. And so I think there’s a real advantage to a drive in window so I strongly recommend that you would approve this and I like the theory that Kate has put up, that if you approve the drive thru concept on this site, which is, and the drive up window, I think the details can be worked out with Mark and Kate and Paul as far as the parking and the traffic and everything else but I strongly would recommend that you would approve this tonight from the concept of allowing the drive and drive thru window and let the details be worked out with staff so. Are there questions? Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Herbst? No? 29 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Dan Herbst: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Lynne Etling: I would like to speak as well. Mayor Furlong: Please come forward. Lynne Etling: My name is Lynne Etling and I actually live at 7681 Century Boulevard, and I just broke your thing. I think I got it. I can’t give as eloquent a speech as he did but I would like to talk about the proposed change here. Mayor Furlong: If you could, your address again ma’am. Lynne Etling: 7681 Century Boulevard. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Lynne Etling: I live within 500 feet of the development. Mayor Furlong: Great, thank you. Lynne Etling: And I also spoke as well at the Planning Commission and I’m not going to take up your time going through everything that they have already discussed here. However, you know I do want to strongly stress that they are asking for a variance. There is a lot of if, and’s or but’s. Nothing out here is laid in factual, what they’re planning to do now and as far as what I can see, was not copied on the letter of approval from whoever supporting it. But when you talk about you have a business. Obviously it didn’t have a great business plan to begin with. The people that have been in there have been in and out. The last company that was in there actually had their children in there all the time so obviously when you have little children running around, you’re not going to do a great deal of business with your restaurant. It’s not conducive. So as far as the people that live in that area, I don’t feel that you know I’m sorry but I do feel our property values are going to go down because of this because everyone is going to go in there. There’s going to be a lot more traffic. You’re trying to pull traffic from the commuters instead of the people that live there. There’s a lot of differences to this with what they’re proposing. I mean a lot of changes to it and frankly they’re trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It just doesn’t fit. This is not made for a drive thru and the people that are going to go in there are going to come back out. Go onto the road. Do a U’y. Creating a traffic problem which is the primary concern for me and then go back out onto Highway 5. So there’s a lot of things here. I don’t think hardship is proven. My property value has gone down tremendously since when I purchased my home not even 2 years ago, but you know that’s not taken into account. There’s a lot of things here that you know I just don’t support it. I don’t want to see your business fail. However I don’t want my property value to go down even more. I don’t want to have a wreck when I’m trying to get out of the neighborhood. You’ve got one business compared to I don’t know how many homes that are there. 500 personal units? You know I don’t want to waste your time. I think you know that he’s trying to do his best that he can. However I just don’t, I still 30 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 feel that it’s a square peg in a round hole, and unless they take the drive thru out, you know I just don’t think that it’s feasible. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And if I may question. You talk about U turns. Is that traffic that exits the entrance on Century Boulevard is right-in/right-out, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Lynne Etling: Right. And they’ll come out. It’s not a one way. Mayor Furlong: There it is. That’s good. So they. Kate Aanenson: Correct. So you could come back out this way and then try to go up and around. Lynne Etling: And that’s what everyone does. Kate Aanenson: Right. Lynne Etling: That’s what they do now. Kate Aanenson: Certainly that would be one of the issues that we’d look at too is controlling some of that. If you were to consider. Councilman Litsey: Another thing you could do is like a No U Turn sign there or something. Kate Aanenson: I think there is one. Lynne Etling: There is one there now and they just don’t do it. Kate Aanenson: They still do it. Councilman Litsey: Is there one there now? Kate Aanenson: Yes there is. People ignore it. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’ve never seen it either. Mayor Furlong: If I could. Lynne Etling: Maybe there isn’t, I don’t know. But there should be. Mayor Furlong: And I think, Ms. Etling, that’s a valid point in terms of traffic flow. Not just within the development but on the streets surrounding it. If we’re already having problems, that’s an issue that we should probably be looking at, and I know Mr. Herbst is here and others and maybe I mean regardless of where we go on this, if this goes forward, at least from tonight 31 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 we’re talking about it and we haven’t even talked about it yet. There have been suggestions that we look at it from a concept and then get into the details and then bring something back. But to your point, we could all look at and evaluate. Lynne Etling: Right. Mayor Furlong: Because there really isn’t anything here but a concept at this point. Lynne Etling: Right, and I don’t see a win/win for everyone here yet. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And understand that but I’m wondering if we already are having some problems with traffic flows, and maybe we are, maybe we aren’t in terms of the U turns there. People coming out. Going up. Turning back around to get out to Highway 5. Lynne Etling: In the summer when they do the re-paving, the main thing that you see is the path for the U turn. Mayor Furlong: And as I recall this was, we were looking at pedestrian traffic as well as car traffic and when this development originally went through. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: There were some, there were concerns at that time so. Lynne Etling: Right, and this would change the platform that you have there. The footprint of that whole development. Mayor Furlong: Perhaps from a volume standpoint. Lynne Etling: Right. Well and you’re attracting metro traffic instead of urban. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Okay. Kate Aanenson: Mayor if I may just make one point, just to be clear on the process here. They’re asking for a PUD amendment, and the variance was because they didn’t want to provide the additional parking. I heard Mr. Leutem say that he was willing to meet the standards for that so the variance would go away. Not to dismiss the other concerns, but then it would just be the PUD amendment which is a little bit different standard. Lynne Etling: Right, which would be setting precedent for the. Kate Aanenson: I don’t disagree with that but I just want to make sure if, he had agreed to put the parking in. That was what the variance for. 32 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Lynne Etling: May I ask one question that I didn’t think to ask earlier at the Planning Commission? When you say that you did a study of the drive thru stack lane at the Eden Prairie location, was that a qualified, certified traffic inspector or was it just an employee? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Well City Engineer. Assistant City Engineer, correct. Who I believe is qualified to make… Lynne Etling: But not a traffic engineer through right? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Lynne Etling: Okay. Councilman McDonald: Can I ask just one question? Mayor Furlong: Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Do you feel, if we could solve the traffic problem, does that make this a little bit more attractive to coming in to the community? Lynne Etling: Well I would love to have a coffee shop to be honest with you. But I mean 3 sub shops within you know, what 500-600 feet of each other. I just don’t think that’s a good business plan. Councilman McDonald: Well that’s probably up to the individual businesses but my point is, what I’m hearing is traffic seems to be the biggest problem and if that’s something we were to concentrate on and improve, whether the business succeeds or not is up to the business. Would that make it make it more attractive as far as you know coming into the neighborhood itself? Lynne Etling: As long as it was enforced. Councilman McDonald: I beg your pardon? Lynne Etling: As long as it’s enforced. I mean that’s the biggest issue is they’re, you know it’s out there. It’s mainly for that Arboretum Village and you know I’m sorry if, I’ve been a frequent visitor of both of them. I have a membership at the Wine Club and I used to go to the restaurants since I’ve been there too. However I didn’t like the children running around while I was trying to have a quiet dinner. You know it just wasn’t good business. But to have something like that going around the whole building and blocking all the individual parking spaces, even if he does create more, you’ve still got the hazard of trying to have the cars backing in and out while someone is stacking there. I mean that’s what I’m meaning when I’m saying you’re trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It’s just you know, no matter how you design it, unless you would, you know you’d have to totally redo the whole thing. Put the driveway on the other side or something so you have more stacking lane. I don’t know. Councilman McDonald: Okay. 33 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Well thank you. I appreciate your comments. Lynne Etling: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: It’s been helpful. Thank you for your involvement. Is there anyone else who’d like to come up. Good evening sir. Brian Monahan: Hi there. My name is Brian Monahan. I’m with Ron Clark Construction. We are the owners of Lot 1, Block 1. It’s the center north of the gas station. Mayor Furlong: So I’m sorry. The one you’re highlighting now? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Just straight north. Okay, thank you. Brian Monahan: We actually favor this action. We would like to see increased traffic to our center. Currently we’re at 67% occupied in our center. We’ve been that way for about 2 years. Naturally if more folks are coming in to the center, then that’s a bigger possibility for not only our tenants to succeed better as far as our center is concerned, but also the gas station and whatever tenant they might have. We’ve found that, I’ve been with Ron Clark for 2 years and for the last 2 years we haven’t had a tenant on the end cap, which we would love to have a coffee shop as well. But unfortunately everyone wants a drive thru. That’s what we found is that everyone and a drive thru. While we might be jealous of them being able to get their drive thru, because then we won’t get our coffee shop, we would also welcome the added traffic that it would bring to the center. And I know I can speak for several of our tenants. One of them is here. That they also welcome the possibility of additional traffic to the center. Obviously traffic, whether it’s pedestrian or just regular folks getting a sub or whatever, attracts more business to their businesses. A Karate studio for instance. A Pilates class. Edward Jones is in there. It’s a financial planning company, and then of course the liquor store. I know I can speak for at least all of them that more traffic is better for us. We feel that it’s possible to work this out, being in the real estate business ourselves, and also the development and construction business. We can actually see that there’s a couple of possibilities that might be able to work out if we’re given the chance to move forward with that. And that’s pretty much our stance. As far as the real estate values. I think we can all agree that most real estate has kind of gone down from the last probably 2-3 years. I don’t live anywhere near any of this, which I would actually welcome, but my house value has gone down as well so. I mean it’s, I think that’s kind of a moot point to be honest. And the last thing I’ll say is, is that there is actually two entrances. There’s an entrance and an exit out. Whether folks move out through the entrance or in through the out-trance, or the out or what have you, you know it’s, I think it’s kind of neither here or there to be honest. Frankly if the direction of travel, which has been proposed by staff, those folks are more likely to th drive past the pumps and out the other entrance over there on whatever, West 78 Street. That to me just seems like a natural. As I’m looking at it, that’s probably the way I would go out. 34 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. One question for you, since you brought up the subject that you would have been interested in a drive thru. Brian Monahan: Sure. Mayor Furlong: If the council were to go forward with the concept this evening, would you be requesting a drive thru then at some future date for your building as well? Brian Monahan: Frankly we’ve kind of examined the possibility of a drive thru and we don’t see a possibility for adding a drive thru, unless you were to build a lane on the back side of the building. We’re not willing to do that. So the answer would be. Mayor Furlong: No. Or is the answer no? Brian Monahan: More than likely no. Todd Gerhardt: You got an engineering answer. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Monahan? Anyone else wishing to come up this evening? Andrew Ronningen: Good evening. My name is Andrew Ronningen. I am the owner of one of the business, the Fantastic Sams. It’s right in the middle essentially of the Ron Clark building, and I just wanted to, I wrote a letter but I wanted to really just highlight a couple of points that are very important. When somebody is driving up towards this center, they see that vacant building that we’re talking about for the drive thru, and obviously that’s not appealing at all, and I think that prevents people from coming into the Arboretum Center. And so having a space there for that reason alone is important. And of course we all know that a lot of businesses like that, more than half their business comes through the drive thru. It’s just the way we are with our cars and everything. We’re a convenience, walk-in business and we’re a proven business model. There are over 1,300 around the country that we’ve grown from 0 to about 80 Fantastic Sams just in Minnesota in the last 5-6 years. So they very rarely close and our salon is definitely under performing and we can see, and I can give you examples. I have other salons that I own and where there is more frequent and relevant traffic, like people coming through and being there, the salons perform much, much better so we would certainly benefit tremendously from increased traffic there. And as an owner I’m there you know 7:30 in the morning, noon, 10:30 at night. Saturday. Sunday’s. All different times and I’ve walked around. I buy my gas at the gas station and once in a while go down to the wine store. Jimmy John's and so and as a pedestrian walking around, I’ve never had an issue with traffic. There just isn’t that much traffic there now so my thought too is, even if there 50 more cars a day, you know I don’t know that anybody would really notice. Because there is quite a bit of space and I rarely see anybody driving down in that lower loop anyway. I mean rarely. So I think that the impact is low but we’re, you know we have 7 people. They’re employed and have a lot of their livelihood based on that business, and we’d like to hire more and continue that, we’d also like to keep the jobs we have so from our perspective there too it’s about keeping those jobs and filling up the center that we’re in so that 35 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 we can be viable and offer great services for the surrounding neighbors because we’re sensitive to what they need. So I appreciate being able to talk about that. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you sir. Any questions? Very good, thank you. Anyone else this evening that would like to provide public comment to the council. Yes. Mark Leutem: Just on the issue of U turns. If people are up there doing U turns, I mean that’s something I would certainly agree needs to change as well. I don’t want people doing that. I wouldn’t have any problem with facilitating the direction out of the facility for them to go and use the other entrance going out to the other road, and it could be quite simple as putting a sign out there that says you know please exit this direction so I think we could channel traffic that direction. So that would certainly be an option. I mean another idea could be just re-direct all of County Road 5 right between the strip mall and my gas station and out there. Mayor Furlong: Just run the state highway right through. Mark Leutem: Just run it right through there. Plus put a stop light right in the middle of the building. Mayor Furlong: Right by your pumps. Mark Leutem: Alright, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else? Lynne Etling: May I have one quick question? Mayor Furlong: Sure. Absolutely. If you could wait til you get to the microphone please. Lynne Etling: Sure. In order to make this more feasible to us that live right there on the corner, if you’re wanting to get increased traffic from the highway, from the commuters, is it possible for the City to plant more shrubbery, you know evergreens, whatever to buffer the noise that that would bring? Mayor Furlong: I think the answer, that was one of the things that was being discussed or laid out by staff too. If the landscaping plan might change. If this went forward, and I’ll defer to Ms. Aanenson. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think those are all the things that we want to work on. I think just to, certainly to make sure that there’s less impact. Lynne Etling: Yeah, because there’s the big track right there that’s directly across that is pretty barren that alleves all the noise then. 36 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Just so I understand Ms. Etling the, when you talk about doing some additional landscaping, where on the property would you? Is it along Highway 5? Is it along Century th Boulevard? It is along West 78? Lynne Etling: No. Actually along your wetland area there across the street so it would buffer the people that live there. Mayor Furlong: Where she’s pointing to right now with the arrow? Lynne Etling: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So you’re saying between the business and the homes to the north? Lynne Etling: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Alright. I think we can take a look at the landscaping plan if we went forward, and I know that would be a part of it and I appreciate your. Lynne Etling: Because that’s a wetland area behind me and what trees are there are pretty much dying and falling down. It’s kind of a big eyesore because they haven’t been taken care of, and that one area is all barren where trees probably were and they were taken down and nothing was replanted. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Lynne Etling: So that would help buffer the noise for us that live right there. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Lynne Etling: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you for the additional comments. Anyone else from a public comment standpoint? No? Thank you for everybody’s thoughts and ideas and suggestions as well. Any follow-up questions at this point with staff? Maybe they’ll come up as we discuss what’s before us this evening. If not, is there any thoughts or comments? Councilman McDonald: The question I’ve got, do we really have something to vote on if everybody’s willing to go back and talk to staff? Kate Aanenson: I guess we’d recommend probably tabling it. Right now the 60 days ends th November 18 so I’d probably ask for an additional 60 days. Mayor Furlong: Is that a request or is that an automatic? It doesn’t sound it like’s going to be a problem. 37 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Kate Aanenson: It’s automatic. Just to put them on notice that we’d be taking the extra 60 days and that we try to work through a design but again, in good faith with the applicant, if the council didn’t even want to go there, we didn’t want to pursue a lot of that interest. Mayor Furlong: I guess what I’m hearing is that if it’s something from a concept standpoint that we’re willing to support, and therefore would require time and effort on the part of staff as well as the property owners, the applicants, stuff like that, we could give them that direction this evening. Along with what sort of parameters we would like to see in that so they’re not just working blind but as much direction as we could give them. If it’s the council’s desire not to go forward here this evening, then I think that’s also direction that we’d want to give this evening. So that everybody knows and so it’s, you know it doesn’t drag on. Those would be my thoughts from what I’m hearing tonight and obviously I’m always open to listening what the rest of you think and I don’t have all the answers. Most of them but not all of them. And I’ll let you know which ones I have the answers to by the way so. So Councilman McDonald I think that to clarify I think what’s before us tonight, I don’t think we have enough tonight to approve something specifically. I think that was adequately raised, but more in front of us tonight is, is it a concept that we think makes sense for people to spend time on, that we’d be supportive of if certain parameters were met. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: In regards to setting a precedent. I know that was one of the concerns the Planning Commission had for other planned unit developments or developments. What are we setting ourself up for, or not setting ourself up for? Kate Aanenson: Well I think the applicant, I’ll just point out one thing. The applicant did point out the size. This is a smaller square footage area so we can quantify some of that. Because it wouldn’t fit for a lot of the other fast food users, like McDonalds and some of that because we limit, we’d cap the square footage of that, that could absorb this type of use and I’ll let the City Attorney address some other. Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. I think with careful drafting, that shouldn’t be a real concern. I think we can limit it to this, what we have here. Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts or comments? Councilman McDonald: Well I had a couple other thoughts and everything to me. I’m in favor of going forward. Anytime someone will come up and say they’re willing to work with staff, I’m willing to listen. The other thing about the traffic though, I know down at Galpin this has come up before. It’s a similar situation where you’re coming out a Snyder Drug down there and people are making U turns, and I know that it’s been addressed before and I’m not sure there’s a lot we can do about it. I don’t know what you can do about the U turns, and I guess at this point I would maybe want to consider that as something outside of the application here. It’s something I would definitely encourage staff to look at, but I don’t think we found a solution for Galpin yet, 38 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 and I’m not sure we’re going to find a solution for this one, and I wouldn’t necessarily want to tie that in to whether or not this project goes forward. Councilman Litsey: Yeah, I think any time you have a layout like this coming off a main thoroughway, and then you’re going to come in and then the tendency is to want to cut corners to get back out again. I was glad you didn’t say aggressive enforcement because I don’t think, well they have the staffing to promise that but. Kate Aanenson: Well I think some of that can be addressed if we look at the traffic being generated. The directional. I think one of the issues that you have is just traffic as a whole so I think one of, the resident raised the issue regarding doing a better traffic study. What direction is that traffic coming and going. What are the peak hours of the use of the business and how that relates too so I think we can try to manage it from there, and then get some recommendations from the City Engineer. Councilman Litsey: Yeah, I think if you could do it from an engineering standpoint, but the one that comes to mind for me is the Cub Foods in Shorewood, right across from Chan but you know there’s a no right turn there but I’ll tell you, everybody makes. I mean so signs are pretty. I mean if you can do it through engineering it’s a whole lot better. Kate Aanenson: Right. Yep. Mayor Furlong: And I guess to comment, in that particular development, the Cub Foods development, originally they didn’t allow any egress out of the parking lot by the hardware store but everybody did it anyway so they ended up building the road to accommodate what people were doing. I’m not arguing that in this case. I think you know people will find, if you don’t have a right turn lane on a busy road, they’ll drive on the shoulder to get around cars and go. I think from a traffic standpoint the two issues here are, one, what’s the traffic internal to this development if we were to go forward with this. What would be the traffic flow there, and how th could we try to direct flow up to West 78 Street to exit as opposed to coming out on Century Boulevard. You raise a good point Councilman McDonald about the Galpin and 5 where the Kwik Trip and the CVS is. As I recall that CVS drive thru empties out going back to Galpin. Councilman McDonald: Right. Mayor Furlong: Here at least we’ve got traffic going the other way so there may be some accommodations there, but I think the key is, what can we do within the development and still make it something that people are going to follow because even if you create all sorts of things, you know you can only do so much. But I think traffic flow is clearly an issue that we want to look at here. Any other thoughts or comments on this at this point? No? Councilwoman Tjornhom, your thoughts. Councilwoman Tjornhom: No. Oh I’m sorry. Councilwoman Ernst: No, go ahead. 39 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think it’s something very worthy to be looking at. If it’s, you know my only concern was the pedestrian traffic crossing over into the drive thru traffic and it sounds like you and the applicant can work together with that and I’m all in favor of any business being successful and having patrons come to it in Chanhassen, especially at that front space that does seem to so far not found a niche yet or something and so I wish you the best of luck and I look forward to working with you. With this project. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: I too would be in favor of the concept and obviously we’ve had some tenants here tonight that have expressed being in favor of the business, of the drive thru and we also had a resident come in and express some concerns and it sounds like we have some possible solutions for the landscaping piece. And the fact that staff and the applicant can work together to come to a solution hopefully on the traffic flow and so I would be in favor of the concept. And moving forward. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Litsey. Thoughts. Councilman Litsey: No. I think they’ve been well stated. I think looking for some ways to direct traffic flow, other than, I mean signage helps but you know people are going to go the way they want regardless of that so you’re going to have come up with something a little better than that. And respecting the residents, I think putting up some additional buffers there is reasonable and I think the rest is pretty well in hand. If we don’t, you know if we’re not setting precedent. I think I said that right. I never say that word right but you know then we can do that legally, then I think we’re probably kind of getting there. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. I think one of the other roles that the 5 of us have is that of the Economic Development Authority, and while often that’s an entity that’s created for separate legal entity from the City for financing purposes. I always look at it as really one of our goals as a council is to promote and enhance our local economy. That’s good for our businesses. It’s good for our residents as well, and clearly I think in this development it has not achieved the potential and what many people hoped for and expected in terms of economic success. And here we have an opportunity perhaps to enhance that and do it in a way without setting precedent but at the same time do it in a way that makes some sense. So I would support the concept of going forward. I think from thoughts and comments I would tend to side towards staff’s proposed design as opposed to what was presented before and I guess some examples I’ll use is trying to separate, and here you may not be able to separate the pedestrians walking across the parking lot and through there, but perhaps with some median or something like that and a controlled crossing, or some signage you can do that. I think of the McDonald’s in Excelsior where the drive thru comes right through the middle of the parking lot, and that is, it’s a mess. It’s a mess. Compared to the McDonald’s in Chanhassen where the drive thru wraps around the perimeter and it’s separated. Here we may not have that benefit of separation but I think through some of the designs that staff was looking at to try to mitigate some of that conflict, I think helps. So I think my tendency would be let’s work with some of the outlines that staff has put together. You know from, is 6 cars, is 5 stacking and I think we can be flexible there. I think we need more than the 2 in some of the other situations so I think we can be a little flexible there. If we’ve got 40 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 some constraints here, I think 6 is a good standard overall for new development. Here we’re trying to retrofit and so there may be some other constraints that we have to work in. So perhaps a little flexibility. I know it’s not significant but perhaps moving a window can help reduce the amount of the drive thru lane and still get you your 6 cars and so looking for those accommodations. The other thing I would talk about, and I know Mr. Etling brought up the idea of landscaping. I want to make sure we don’t leave false impressions here. That we’re going to be landscaping across or requiring landscaping outside the property. I mean there’s some th limitations we have too. If we’re looking at landscaping on the north side of West 78, and there are two parcels inbetween so I think that’s something we can look at, so I don’t want to leave with false impressions that we’re going to be doing that, but I think we need to look at that. See what can be accommodated with this to try to find some solutions, and we talked about traffic already. And you know I think there’s some, what it sounds like, people smarter than I in terms of traffic flow, there are some ways to try to improve the traffic flow just naturally as well as with some other means so. But just from a standpoint of trying to assist the property owners and the local businesses there to be more successful, I think it’s worthwhile for us moving forward, especially with the guidance we have this evening. Mr. Knutson, who I always rely on, that it can be done in a way so it’s relatively specific. I think we’ve got size issues. I think you know the fact that Century Boulevard is not a major through street. It’s effectively, it drives up and th then stops at West 78 and then is a local residential street after that, unlike a lot of other neighborhood business areas where there’s actually a crossing of major through streets, and I’m not going to start talking about minor and major arterials because I’ll screw that up, but the th bottom line is, is when Century Boulevard reaches West 78 going north of there, that’s a residential neighborhood. That’s a residential street and so there are some unique features from I think, in terms of these properties, from a traffic road design and it’s location that’s unlike some of the other areas as I’m thinking through business neighborhood areas. That also I think gives us some comfort that maybe we need to do a little bit more here to enhance economic success from that standpoint. So those are my thoughts. I think the council seems to be generally unison in supporting the concept, and if other people have some thoughts, I don’t know if they’ve thought of since. Otherwise would it make sense to take a motion to table with the direction to bring it back as soon as possible but not set a specific meeting date knowing that there’s some work to be done between now. Is that acceptable sir? Mark Leutem: Yes sir. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other comments or would somebody like to make such a motion? Councilman McDonald: I’ll make a motion that we table this issue that is before us and allow staff and the applicant to work together and bring us back a detailed plan that we can evaluate. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there any discussion or is there a second? Councilman Litsey: I’ll second that. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Litsey seconds it. Any discussion on that? Very good. Thank you. I will just make the comment. Thank you everybody for your comments and input and we 41 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 will get more detail back so I know for those that are concerned about what’s coming forward, there will be that opportunity and that will come to a future council meeting. It will stay at the council level and come back to a future council meeting. We’ll bring it on unfinished business at some point so that will be available. And if anybody’s interested in being notified of that, why don’t you make sure you get your name and address and mailing information to Ms. Aanenson so you can be sure be notified. Any other discussion? If not, motion’s been made and seconded. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council table the request for a minor PUD amendment to allow a drive thru and site plan review with variances for Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center to allow the applicant and staff time to prepare a more detailed plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Without objection there’s, we’ll take a 5 minute recess, recess about 5 minutes subject to the call of the Chair here noticing the time. The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting. Mayor Furlong: Let’s call the council back to order and what I’d like to do, and propose to the council is some adjustments to our agenda this evening, given the hour of the evening. What we’d like to do, we have a gentleman here to talk to us, along with our staff, for item 4(a). I think we’d like to do that tonight. We’ll defer item 4(b), since that again is a presentation. Neither of those items are action items by the council, so we’ll defer item 4(b) to a future meeting. Go ahead with item 5 and then following our meeting this evening, our work session items, we’ll complete items B, which relate to the budget presentations, and then defer item C under our work to a future work session. So if the council is okay with that. If there are no objections. Does that make sense? It’s just that it’s getting a little late and some of these items aren’t time pressing so I’d rather take them when we’re all fresh. Is everyone okay with that? Why don’t we go ahead and proceed with that. WEST-CENTRAL LOTUS LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 08-02: UPDATE COUNCIL ON FEASIBILITY STUDY. Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, council members. In 2005 I think you remember we had the Triple Crown Estate pond, sometimes the Meadow Green Park ponds, there was a failure when we had back to back storms in 2005. In 2007 we went out for a proposal to do a feasibility study, to look at the larger, what we refer to as the West Central Lotus Lake Watershed. Todd Hubmer when he shows his presentation will have, you’ll see that area as we’re talking about. In February, upon staff’s recommendation, council did approval feasibility study with WSB and Associates to look at the larger West Central Lotus Lake area and the specific issues we have in there. WSB has come back with a feasibility study which we would like to present the findings to you tonight. In essence it breaks it down. Looks at it as three separate phases over a series of years that would address the overall issues. There are a number of different, what they’re referring to as options. I would think of them more as components within an overall solution to the problem, which can be done with some flexibility when they are, but again Todd Hubmer is here from WSB and Associates. I’ll let him present to you the findings. We would like to look 42 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 at coming back at the December meeting with the plans, a more finalized set of plans to go out for bid depending upon the council’s thoughts. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Terry Jeffery: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Todd Hubmer: Good evening Mr. Mayor, City Council and staff. It’s nice to be here tonight to present the findings of the West Central Lotus Lake Stormwater System Improvements. The feasibility study. Just by way of background, the area that we’re looking at from studying is looking at from Powers Boulevard, kind of on the west side of Lotus Lake, east towards Meadow Green Park and Meadow Green Park wetland. This is the wetland that Terry had referenced previously, and all the water drains this direction down this intermittent creek and into Lotus Lake. So this is the study area. In the 2005 storm event what we found in our study is that water had over topped Kerber Boulevard in this vicinity. Washed down this ravine and intermittent channel. Washed out the slope here between this wetland complex and existing ravine, and then washed down further into the lake, and actually caused some damage to a home located on the very east side of the project adjacent to Lotus Lake. This summer we had the opportunity to walk this site on several different occasions. We have talked to a number of homeowners in and around there that had experienced the 2005 event, so I think we have a very good understanding of the issues that presented themselves in 2005. We look at the problem areas are broken down into four specific problems. The first area is upstream of Kerber Boulevard. We have some significant flow rates that come in, in this direction. In and around Big Horn Drive and Kerber Boulevard. We also have a large wooded area that is a ravine. Debris frequently, fallen tree limbs, items that are deposited in the ravine from the neighbors, the lawn clippings and those type of things, wash down and plug up the outlet from this ravine and it over tops Kerber Boulevard. We also have some storm sewer issues. On the east side of Kerber Boulevard we have a restriction in the storm sewer. That actually causes water to come out of the storm sewer and then flow through the back yards. The City has constructed a temporary rock berm, just to the east side of Kerber that kind of controls that flood elevation a little bit and directs that. Tries to keep that flow contained in that location. That has over topped a couple of times. We did talk to the resident immediately adjacent to that berm, and they have seen water come up pretty close to their house in a couple of events and that does concern them. And some of the aesthetics of the current rock berm there are also of a concern. As we travel further east adjacent to the Meadow Green Park wetland, the berm on the south side of the wetland is the issue of concern. It has washed out I believe on more than one occasion and has been a maintenance issue for city staff over the years. And as a result the flow rates over the trail that runs between Big Woods Boulevard and Big Horn, there’s a pedestrian trail here. Water over tops that frequently and there’s some erosion problems in the channel from here to Lotus Lake. And as we travel further east, getting closer to Lotus Lake, this is the home that had some significant damage during that 2005 storm event. We spoke with this homeowner. He describes some of the issues that he’s seen out here. We also looked, there’s been a number of landscaping improvements that really constrict the channel in this location. They narrow up the channel quite a bit so I think it causes that water to elevate much quicker than it should. So we’re have some recommendations in that 43 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 area as well. Looking at sanitary sewer, this is something the City is currently undertaking in response to Met Council’s surcharge program. We do have sanitary sewer that runs through the project area. We have televised a number of it, and we’re currently, when we get to the recommendation section just for this segment that we’re recommending, just looking at manhole improvements. We found some leaky manholes and just to sort those out if we’re going to be in the project area. By way of options, or as Terry said, I think components is a good way to describe these. Looking at various improvement alternatives available. One alternative looked at, there’s an existing drainage pond called Pond 10.11. We could expand this pond in two manners. One would be just to provide water quality treatment here. An additional would be to provide additional storage and reduce discharge rates, providing smaller discharge rates downstream to Kerber Boulevard. The outlet is in, and needs some attention and some repair. It’s not an immediate attention need to date, but will need some attention in the near future. There’s some erosion there. Providing some form of protection to the inlet of this culvert is probably a high priority item. To catch some of that debris before it gets close to the culvert so that water can flow around the debris and still get under Kerber Boulevard and stay in the storm sewer system. Look at providing an additional pipe under Kerber Boulevard to provide additional capacity, and as we get to the recommendation section, this is one motion that we did not institute recommending as any time. I think the existing culvert has adequate capacity. This lower, the berm in this location. This is the berm I talked about previously that was constructed in here. And basically what we do is lower, remove this berm and move it basically to the east and then construct two more berms that would allow us to pond water to very shallow depths during very large storm events. Reducing the rate as it travels further to the east, so we can control the rate of storm water as it is traveling down this very steep slope here to the east. Now continuing further to the east, some other options for consideration. The existing outlet from Meadow Green Park wetland is a small concrete pipe. It’s in a very bad location for maintenance. It’s very difficult to even find it. When you walk out there, it took us several tries to find the other end of the pipe. There’s a number of trees that have grown up over the top of it. To the north there was, we discovered a pipe culvert that has come apart. There’s some issues with a resident here and wetland elevations and there’s some discussion we’ve had with him. I think this could be repaired easy enough with any project that would bring equipment to the site, and make some improvements here and further prevent erosion in this location due to the busted pipe culvert and re-establish normal water elevation in that wetland. Also to prevent this wetland from over topping in those large events we are suggesting to raise the berm along the east and the south portion of the project. This would allow water to bounce a little higher and protect that berm from washing out. It would also give the berm more stability so that it wouldn’t so easily be washed out in large storm events. We would remove this culvert and reconstruct the outlet in a location that can easily be maintained by city staff. Be less prone to plugging and could easily be observed when you come out and see what condition things are and do your regular inspections. And then change the culvert outlet under the pedestrian trail. There also is an option here. There’s an existing storm sewer that out falls. There’s a large ravine that’s developing a wash out area at the base of that which is contributing sediment down through the channel and to Lotus Lake. Just extend that to the bottom of the slope and provide a stable outfall in that location. Traveling further to the east, there is a number of temporary fixes that have been placed in the stream channel. You can tell which years they were placed because the rip rap varies as you walk down the channel as to which project was done. There has some steep slopes in there. There’s some large slope failures. At this time we’re not recommending 44 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 immediately improvements in this channel until we get a handle on the discharge rates that come into it. I think it’s important that we reduce the discharge rates upstream before we come down and invest in stream stabilization in this segment of the channel. And you’ll see that with our options. We did talk again with this homeowner. He’s very open to looking at some landscaping changes and things and working with the City. He was very cooperative and provided some great information for us which I thought, you always get good information when you deal with people that had to deal with the problems and I think we did that on this project. This comes to the improvement recommendations. We’re actually looking at a number of those components and the first component there is the debris catcher I talked about. This is to provide protection to that Kerber inlet culvert so that we can catch those dead materials that come down through or things that have been discarded in that ravine so it doesn’t plug up the culvert. That will control the inlet capacity at Kerber. It won’t allow the water to over top Kerber Boulevard because most of that over topping was caused as a result of that plugging. We’d like to lower the berm that’s currently east of Kerber. That rip rap berm and move that to the east. And then provide those ditch structures, as deck dams as I call them, further to the east and let that water kind of move slowly through that back yard area. Pond up. Take some of the rate and energy out of it, and then you drop it a couple of feel and then it doesn’t have all that energy to erode the stream channel and it provides some stability to the ground stream system. Reconstruct that pond outlet I discussed that had fallen apart on the north. And that back yard area and re- establish that wetland area, normal water elevation north of the Meadow Green wetland. And then raise that berm that we discussed on the south and east side of the Meadow Green wetland and remove the existing outlet and move that to the east near the pedestrian trail and reconstruct it in that location. And then also we’ll make some changes there. Right now it kind of comes into a pipe. Comes out of a pipe. Goes back into a pipe under the trail. We’ll make that a pipe all the way underneath the trail and collect that drainage. It will be more stable outlet structure in that location. And much easier to maintain and inspect and less prone to plugging. And then extend the storm sewer out fall at the low point where I discussed we have an erosion problem. While we’re there with the equipment it makes a lot of sense to be there and fix that problem instead of coming in twice. And then the sanitary issue I discussed briefly was correcting the man holes that are present in that back yard area. There’s a sanitary that runs that whole ravine length and the segment that we’d be working on from Kerber to the pedestrian trail, what we’d try to do is fix all the man holes in that location. They’re leaking and when we have high water in that channel, they’re going to be inundated so you want to make sure that they’re water tight for those large rainfall conditions. Now we have right now a total estimated cost of $414,000. What I want to mention to you is I think that cost is, it’s based on pulling out any component and constructing it individually so there’s mobilization costs apparently built into all those components. I think if you bid these as one project you’re going to see that price come down considerably and I think with the bidding environment we have today, we’re probably going to look closer to something around $300,000 for construction out here because the bidding environment is very aggressive from what we’ve seen recently. Todd Gerhardt: Todd, could you go back and show the map of those areas you just talked about. Is that the first phase you talked about for those? Todd Hubmer: There’s a combination. It is, in this phase, I’ll go all the way up to the headwaters. It’s providing this debris structure in this location. It’s lowering this berm. And 45 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 then it’s constructing these three ditch checks or ditch dams, and then providing this in an elevated berm to protect from over topping. Basically removing this culvert and moving it to this location where we can maintain it and provide something that doesn’t plug, and then repair this wetland out fall and establish a normal water level and then fix the erosion problem that’s here. That’s currently what’s contained in the recommendation for 2008 and 9. What I might add, if I can go back. Since I have the figure here, we’re not recommending any changes in this part of the project at this time for really one of two reasons. One is, we think Lotus Lake is currently an impaired water for nutrients and volume, and there’s a TMDL process that’s going to be undertaken for Lotus Lake. This is probably an ideal location for the city to respond to any waste load reduction you’re required to have in nutrients or volume, so until you have your waste load allocation, I think it would be premature to spend money in this location because when you get your waste load allocation you should be able to reduce a number of nutrients and some of the runoff volume with this site and the size of the site may be dictated by the findings of that TMDL report so we’re holding off on that recommendation at this time. And as we move to the east, this section of the channel we’re not recommending any improvements here right away because we think it’s important to get those rate control items upstream completed first so that we know what the defined rate is going through this channel and that way we can minimize the expenses to the City and perhaps the adjacent residents on the landscaping improvements. There is a large amount of landscaping. Retaining walls. Boulder walls. Decorative walls. Rock walls. Plantings at the very east end of this project, so working with the homeowners is going to take some time and I think it’s going to be a process that we need to work with them and then determine cost splits and who’s going to be responsible for what. So at this time these are the options for 2008 and 9. We currently propose some of those other ones I talked about. The stream length and the rock veins. The area east for next year. That may even be a little aggressive at this time but I think it’s certainly something you want to keep in the schedule. There are a couple of areas in that stream channel from the pasturing trail to Lotus Lake where we have very steep slopes and there are some failures and there’s large trees that are down, and there may be some concerns with your existing facilities. Your sanitary sewer are things that you want to make sure you protect, as well as those slopes. They’re starting to get farther away from the stream channel and that does present some problems for a couple of homeowners too I believe. And then obviously the pond issues I discussed. I think we should wait until the TMDL is worked out for Lotus Lake before until we determine what waste load allocation you’re going to have to meet and then how much benefit you can get from those improvements and credits towards that TMDL. With that I would entertain any questions. Mayor Furlong: Could you just quickly go back to that slide on the schedule. Todd Hubmer: Sure, the schedule. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Could you just explain that? Todd Hubmer: Sure. The schedule. Based on tonight’s meeting, if the council decided to move forward with the plans and preparation of the specs and advertisement for bid, what we’d like to th do is on November 14 we will mail out the neighborhood meeting notices, and these would be mailed to residents so many feet within the total project length. The neighborhood meeting would be held on the first of December. We would also have the plans close to complete at that 46 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 time. We can incorporate any comments received. Come back to the council to consider the ndth final plans and authorize the bid at that point. On December 22 and 29 would be our th publication in the construction bulletin on the 26 and the Chanhassen Villager. We’d open bids thth on the 12 of January and City Council would consider the award on the 26 and construction would begin in February and continue through April, or final restoration in June. This project lends itself very well to a winter work type of program. We don’t have a lot of storm flows through that channel over the winter months and contractors are typically hungry for work. Mayor Furlong: Good. Thank you. Any questions? Councilman Litsey: Just a couple questions on the pond. Is it, could you put up that map again? That one. The Meadow Green. I think that’s going to give you extra water capacity control there or versus making the pond larger? I mean did you look at the possibility of enlarging the pond versus raising the berm? Todd Hubmer: We looked at enlarging the pond. Raising the berm, there’s two problems with enlarging the pond. One is, it is a wetland so alterations there are going to be perceived as altering the type of function of that wetland and we would have to mitigate. And the other is that, I think with raising the berm we provide adequate protection to that location. It’s not so much that there’s enough, not enough storage there but we don’t have enough free board and the storm we received on 2005 was a very extreme event. It was about 6.3 inches in 6 hours. That’s something that really exceeds a 100 year design event, but in this location I think adding that additional free board protection, it’s happened more than once in this particular location and it will allow that pond to bounce and we’re being able to see, we can actually get a little more than 100 year protection with what we’re proposing here. Councilman Litsey: The other thing that Big Woods development, they talked about putting that, you know that holding pond in there. I know it hasn’t gone in yet. Is there still plans that that would then empty into that holding pond? Paul Oehme: The development, is it Lotus Woods I think? Terry Jeffery: Yeah, Lotus Woods. Councilman Litsey: Is it Lotus Woods? I thought it was Big Woods. Paul Oehme: Yeah we had previously envisioned that drainage going into the Meadow Green wetland area. That has now been defined as a wetland so it’d be very difficult for us to dump and discharge development impervious drainage into that area now so I think we will have to, if that development would come through, there would have to be a pond or some other storm water mitigation improvement on their property. Councilman Litsey: So that probably wouldn’t be a possibility then to dump into that pond? Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Litsey. They could but not without some prior pre- treatment. 47 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Councilman Litsey: So you’d still need some kind of pond there? Terry Jeffery: Some kind of pond or some other alternate treatment. Councilman Litsey: Step it down in there? Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Councilman McDonald: On the schedule you showed us with the different costs, the first one. What, 418 for the first phase. That’s the schedule you initially presented from February through the end of June. Todd Hubmer: Correct. Councilman McDonald: Okay. And then each of the succeeding phases would then be bid out at what point in time as needed or do you see this as a continuing project once we finish Phase I we go into Phase II or do we wait and see? Todd Hubmer: We are proposing right now to go from Phase I and then Phase II would be the 09 and 10 program, and then the 010 or even 011 program would be the construction of that pond. I really feel pretty strongly about saving that pond until you’re sure you can get credits against your waste load allocation for Lotus Lake. I would sure hate to see the city expend the funds and then lose the credit for that management. Councilman McDonald: And then just for my own edification. Where do the funds for this come from? I mean we’re in the middle of the budgeting. Is that something that’s in the CIP or is this something new or where’s this at? Todd Gerhardt: Yep. These projects are included in your CIP program. This comes out of your storm water management funds, either through the utility or through credits that developers would pay back to the city. Councilman McDonald: Okay. I have no more questions. Terry Jeffery: Councilman McDonald, Mayor Furlong, if I may. One other point I’d like to make, or two actually. Todd had talked about the waste load allocation that would come with the TMDL implementation plan for Lotus Lake. Something else that would come along with that implementation plan, much like what we have at Bluff Creek is, it opens up a series of grant funds that are available to water bodies that have a TMDL implementation so it might be possible, not only would we know what our waste load allocation would need to be for that. We might be able to get Clean Water Legacy grant funds as well. And we will continue to request partner agencies work with us on this project. In other words I’m not overly optimistic just by prior conversations realizing where their priorities seem to be as opposed to our priorities at this time, but I will continue to work with the watershed district to see if this is something that they would cooperate with us on. 48 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Todd Hubmer: Mr. Mayor, City Council if I might add a little bit to the funding question. You’ll know that there was a recent amendment passed to the Minnesota Constitution in regards to clean water. There is a real strong push by the League of Minnesota Cities and others to ensure that the portion that’s dedicated to water quality, at least 75% of that would be dedicated to physical, on the ground construction projects and not be lost in management or studies. So if you’re interested in that, those funds would be probably be available for the ponding improvements and some of the slope stabilization improvements here at some point in the near future. But I would encourage you to follow up on that too, to ensure that that goes into on the ground improvements across the state. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions? None. Councilwoman Ernst, anything? Couple questions. I’m probably going to have you bouncing back and forth. If you go to, in the mid section, I think it was your Option B’s, looking down the. Move back. Further, oh this is B. I’m looking at the flow behind. Todd Hubmer: This one here? Mayor Furlong: No. Further upstream. Towards the pond by Kerber. There we go. Where we’re putting in those 3 berms there. What are those going to do in terms of, the purpose of those berms is to slow down water flowing through that area, correct? Todd Hubmer: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And by slowing I assume it’s going to pool behind those berms. Todd Hubmer: The water will pool behind there and then what we do is we use an outlet structure to drop that water. Essentially take all the energy out of it and drop it 3 or 4 feet and then let it come back out again in a very slow manner, and then go to the next one. Pool up a couple of feet and then take the energy out. What that does is it reduces our discharge rate as it travels down that ravine. Eliminates the potential for erosion and it’s ability to carry sediment and energy, and to pick up debris along the way and carry it to a location where it can jam up an outlet structure. We do have a lower outlet plus an overflow protection on those devices so that, if one does get plugged, there’s a back-up system and they’re very stable. Mayor Furlong: And that’s part of my question. What, is there concern for anyone who’s yard backs up to that runoff area that these might be backing up into their property? Todd Hubmer: We certainly are going to look at that. Yeah, I mean one of our charge is not to make a condition worst or to impound water on private property. We’ll make sure that we’ve done some preliminary survey work out there and we’re certain we can try to keep that in there. There’s a large utility easement back there. Mayor Furlong: And so that’s through the design and the design of the berms and their location along that way. 49 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Todd Hubmer: Correct, and any grading work that needs to be done in that location. Mayor Furlong: And then if you could move forward to the Meadow Green Park wetland. That one right there with that berm. Same question. As the berm goes up, it’s going to increase the holding capacity of that wetland. Is that correct? Todd Hubmer: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and so the question is, is that going to back up to the north and west? Todd Hubmer: It won’t. There’s a significant elevation change between the pond to the north and this pond. There’s about 3 or 4 feet, and this pond does not bounce such that it backs into that wetland to the north. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And then I guess the overall question with these improvements, a lot of these things deal with the rate. Are we also dealing with, will these help the quality of the storm water runoff going into Lotus Lake? Todd Hubmer: We will have a minor impact on water quality, although the impact that we’re going to see is that you’re going to see a more stable channel between Kerber and the south fall. We’re also going to lessen the potential for massive failure and deposits of sediment downstream into Lotus Lake like we saw in 2005. It will also assist or minimize that erosion in that last channel segment because we’re going to control the rate that water’s coming through there. We won’t have those large flash flows anymore because it will be contained with those ditch checks and in this wetland and we shouldn’t have that over topping at Kerber Boulevard either, so we won’t have this big rush of water running through there. It will be more regulated and controlled, so we shouldn’t have those large sediment. Mayor Furlong: So it may not, and I’m going to screw up all the acronyms so I’m not even going to try. Todd Hubmer: That’s okay. Mayor Furlong: But the quality improvement that you might get out of a storm water pond, you may not see that level of improvement but you are going to see less sediment being picked up because the rate is slower and there is more opportunities along the way for that, for the sediment to be applied. If it is picked up, to be deposited along the way rather than getting into the lake. Todd Hubmer: That’s true. Mayor Furlong: Is that a fair? Todd Hubmer: Yep. That’s a fair assessment, yep. 50 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: And with that, I know one of the issues that happened with that storm event was the bounce in the lake level of Lotus Lake itself. Will these improvements help minimize at least for this sub-watershed area, minimize the effect on the rate at which the water gets into the lake? Todd Hubmer: We are definitely slowing the water down. It’s not going to come through in such a flash pattern. As we, as you look at those ponding improvements upstream of Kerber, you’ll have the potential to even do a greater impact on reducing discharge rates and reducing sediment load and waste load allocation. Mayor Furlong: And I guess in that question, if you go back to your very first picture. You have the red line around an area. Is that the sub-watershed that flows into, through this channel at some point in time? Todd Hubmer: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And it looks like the pond you were talking about is kind of near the middle of that. So is that drawing in most from the west? The north? The south? How much of this inside the red area is likely to go through there. I’m sure obviously not all of it does but a substantial portion? Todd Hubmer: Almost a segment here from Kerber down through the park. Come into here and then areas to the west come into this location. There may be the potential when you expand this to grab another watershed to the south and bring that in as well. There is one more component but we didn’t put it in the report because we haven’t talked with the landowner but there may be, at some point in time we would, we’d love to discuss how the property west of Powers Boulevard for maybe some wetland amenities to reduce any, reduce rates further from the west side of Powers Boulevard. Right now you can see it’s mostly green space so there isn’t a great deal of development there but it’d be a good place for say a large wetland complex or something to provide some amenity and clean the water even more before it comes under Powers and goes to Lotus Lake. Mayor Furlong: So all these collective improvements along the way ultimately are going to improve the, slow down the rate significantly. Improve the quality and ultimately affect Lotus Lake. Todd Hubmer: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Litsey: Just one more quick question. When you have those step down dams or whatever you want to refer to them as, when you’re not having obviously rain and so forth, those will be dry? It’s just when you have a significant rain that that will back up a little bit to slow the rate? But then they’ll go dry afterwards... Todd Hubmer: Correct. Most the time we design those that within a 24 hour period or less, that they’re dry. And there’s two reasons for that. One, you don’t want the stagnant water in that 51 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 location. And two, it kills any vegetation that you have growing, and we want vegetation because that keeps this channel stable. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Thank you. Councilman McDonald: Can I just a follow-up? You talked about the event we had in, what? Todd Hubmer: 2005. Councilman McDonald: 2005. What is this being designed for? To stop that type of event or is it even a more, I don’t want to say catastrophic but even a more intense rain event. Todd Hubmer: Well actually we did two things. One, our standard design, fully the City’s standard design is looking at the 100 year rainfall event. What we refer to the 100 year. It’s kind of a bad acronym but I won’t get into that. And that’s about a 6 hour storm event. Or 6 inch storm event over 24 hours. And about 4 inches of that falls in a one hour time period. Now, if we look at the event that occurred in September of 2005, we had about 6.3 inches over a 6 hour period. So in a way we’re designing something that’s very similar to that event, but we also did run a 6.3 event in 6 hours over this and I think the biggest thing that we saw is that had the outlet, inlet at Kerber not plugged, and Kerber not overflowed with a very large rate of water, we might have prevented some of those catastrophic issues downstream. Councilman McDonald: Okay. So a larger event than 2005, this would survive. It may swamp it out but we’re not going to have something that’s washed away? Todd Hubmer: You would probably need some repairs. Councilman McDonald: Right. Okay. Okay, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? Everybody comfortable with them going forward as they recommended? I know there’s no action required on this this evening but it seems to make sense to go forward with the schedule that’s laid out and proceed. As they’ve recommended, unless there’s any objection. None? Okay. Very good. Thank you. Appreciate your time this evening and useful information. Let’s move forward on our agenda then. As I mentioned earlier we will defer item 4(b) to a future council meeting. CONSIDER FINAL ADOPTION OF THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Well we’re pleased to present, we’re ready to make our final resolution for the comprehensive plan and appreciate all your input. The Council. The Planning Commission and the participation of all the staff. And of course most importantly our residents who were very active. I just want to give a brief background and then kind of just give a few summary points. Again not just only for the council but to those people that may be watching, kind of the importance of this vision document. So back in October we submitted our draft through adjacent communities and jurisdictions for them to comment. That comment period ended in April. While that comment period was open the Planning Commission held 3 hearings. 52 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Public hearings be broken down into components. And those were in October and November and December. Then in January they recommended approval. We did spend some time with the Planning Commission, excuse me, the City Council again going through the comp plan in bite size pieces. Going through the different elements so in May you also recommended submittal of the comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council. So we actually had 3 hearing dates before the Metropolitan Council. The first one would be the Metropolitan Environmental Committee which recommended adoption. Bob Generous and myself did go down to the Metropolitan Council for the Community Development, which is really the big public hearing and input. nd There really wasn’t too many questions at that point. And then on October 22 they did recommend final approval, and I did include the letter and I did want to state that they were pleased with the overall layout of the plan and we are one of the first communities to go through so we’re pretty excited about that too. So what they asked us to do, submit a copy of the adopted resolution and then we have to submit two final hard copies to the Met Council and then any ordinances. Now we’ve sharing those ordinances with you as we moved through. We had a very successful neighborhood, a couple of neighborhood meetings down in the Lyman, excuse me. Yeah, the Lyman/101 area and we’ll be working, as we talked about, in the downtown. Just talking to people. What’s changed in the last couple years and what they can anticipate and I think our residents feel very appreciative of keeping them in the loop of what’s going on and what they can anticipate. And we want to do the same thing in the downtown area as we’ve talked about some of the commercial potential. So with that, I just want to take a couple minutes and kind of go through the comp plan again. Not only for your, but just for our residents too. But the vision statement is our planning for today, providing for tomorrow. And the community goals were all the goals of all the different sections, whether it be transportation, sewer, water. Those are the community goals, and the strategic goals is really the council sets forward as the financial information, all those kind of are fiduciary things so again they’re all put in the comprehensive plan. And this is a little bit different. We actually structured this a little bit different than we had our last iteration so I think it’s very complete about somebody reading that just itself understands where the City’s going. Land use is really kind of considered the meat and potatoes of the comprehensive plan because that’s really again the vision of where we’re going, and I just want to share with you again some of the things that we changed. One of the things that we looked at. You can see in front, these are where we increased. We added more office industrial and excuse me, we reduced that. We actually added more commercial. 116 acres so we increased that. We increased the amount of pure office space and I think we found some areas that we think have high value, so those are the biggest changes. And then also when we got with this GIS and we took out the area below old 212, we were able to look at taking out some of that large lot and gave it a different land use, so I think that’s been very helpful. This is one of the changes that the Met Council did ask us to make. They actually wanted to see what we were at. Instead of the 2020. We liked looking at where we were in the 10 year snapshot, between this and last time but they actually wanted to look at our current and where we were going, so this was modified in the comp plan to show 2008 land use figures and 2020, where we’re going. But I think it’s important for us to look at the bigger snap shot, and that’s obviously reflected in the land use plan and this is on line. We already have people looking at, kind of looking at some of the information. Where we’ve dual guided. We’ve talked about some of that. The biggest change again is the potential for the additional commercial. Resource protection. This is again is a new chapter where we added historic preservation where we’re working with the county and the solar and then we also looked at the aggregate where we had the 53 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 old Moon Valley site, and I think the main thing we mentioned there, we want to continue to track funding so we can clean up that site. They’ve gotten most the lead out but we also think that’s an application for adaptive re-use of that property, so we identified that in the comp plan, so that was embellished a little bit. Housing, the goals that we have there would be that we really have a diversified housing stock. If you look at some of the things we’ve put in there, we have all different types of housing prices and types of housing, which is one of our strengths. If you look at, even in the financial. We looked at the future demand, which is very helpful again. We thanked Carver County for providing that. Using the Maxfield Study to give us where we are. What we anticipate for additional senior housing. We also gave a project report, the Livable Communities Act which we’re still involved. And then there’s also a discussion of demographic. What, so we can have an understanding again. I think we pointed out and you’re aware of that we have a little discrepancy in how the Met Council calculated our person per household, and so we’ll see what happens when we do the next census of where we’re at. We were right but we’ll see where we’re at next time. It just, we still think there’s a lot more young families in the community. Natural Resources. This part is kind of broken into the forestry part and the water. Water includes the wetlands, creeks and corridors. Ground water protection. I did want to mention for most cities that the storm water management is a big part of their comprehensive plan. That was actually done when Lori Haak was still here and because we were at our 10 year expiration date so that was done ahead of time, so that saved us a lot of work in putting this together. But again this is another reason why our residents enjoy the city, is our protection, or preservation of how we manage our natural resources. And that even includes going back and doing the streetscape. Those things that we do. Doing those joint projects on 101. Those are the things that we’ve identified. Parks and open space. Again this is showing our current park system. Where our future demands are. Where additional needs are. Connection of trails and sidewalks. Again another thing that makes it a great place to live. Those little connections that help people get to and from and enjoy their neighborhood. Transportation. This is one area, if you’ve seen our draft, that we didn’t get a lot of comments on and when it came back from the Met Council that they actually, we had a little bit more information on the light rail and this is, the County caught in the middle of the Met Council’s transportation plan so they had us take out some things on light rail and the Met Council is taking the lead on that and not MnDot. So we had clarified some things on there but so if you look on the staff report, we did, from your original draft, we showed you where we took some, kind of back peddled some language because Hennepin County’s taking the lead on the light rail transit. It’s stopping at Eden Prairie. We just made note of that. That there might be some pressure for some of that, so we softened that up a little bit. Then again the biggest change is we showed on the MUSA. We had originally had the 5 year increments. 2010. 2015. 2020. Really the only two additional lift stations, so we’re looking at sewer and water. The biggest issue there is, we have in our capital improvement plan provided for an additional lift station in that 2010 area, which we talked about potentially if Fairview goes forward, that would be tied into that type of project. So really what’s going to be the impetus for that to develop is demand from the property owners and then the ability to get it through somebody else’s property, and that does include the Bluff Creek Golf Course coming in for potential development. And then the yellow area of the 2015 area, the southern end of the city would require another lift station. Again the biggest impediment to this that we talked about in the transportation plan, which is a priority, is getting 101 upgraded for us to be able to service that, so all these things tie together. Transportation. Bob and I talked about. Sewer, water and transportation really all could be tied together because all the infrastructure is 54 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 important for us to continue to develop into the future. So you know we looked at that 2005 it seemed far off and it’s pretty much behind us now. Now we’re going to that next area. Capital improvements. Again we do a 5 year capital improvements. We set our 5 year up and we needed to include a 10 year so we took a stab at that. You know it’s hard to go that far forward. We do that, some of our financial planning but we did put the 10 year plan in there. So with that, we have a resolution for you to adopt the comprehensive plan. Again as we noted in there, we do have to send some information back, and again this is the vision statement. The implementation tool. The zoning ordinance, and there’s still some things that we’re working on that we shared with you but I think for the most part what we’re left is probably the commercial part and then ultimately some of those things regarding hard surface coverage and those sort of things and where we’re going with that. With that, be happy to answer any other questions. Otherwise we’re just looking for the approval and adoption of the resolution. Mayor Furlong: Thank you very much. Any questions for Ms. Aanenson or Mr. Generous? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor if I could just you know make a comment here. I want to thank Kate and Bob for taking the lead on this and all the department heads for the effort they put forth. I mean most of this was done in-house. A few graphics were outsourced but I mean we’ve been working on this for a good 2 years and had a lot of neighborhood input and public meetings. Roger was just pointing out that some of his other clients haven’t even gotten out of Step 1 here yet and I think the Mayor and I were at the 112 Leadership Group and we were the only community that has gotten Met Council approval so you know Kate’s done a great job of coordinating this and taking a real leadership role on it so. I just want to thank my staff and the City Council for putting up with us for the last year and sitting through all these meetings but it’s always nice to get Met Council’s blessing on this and some communities aren’t seeing the same so, and that’s about relationships too that Kate has built with staff at Met Council and our new commissioner over there has helped us out and so having those connections and relationships are good. Mayor Furlong: Any other thoughts or comments? I would echo similar comments and extend our thanks and appreciation obviously to staff and for their leadership and coordination and detailed analysis, but also to the residents that were participants involved, and I know that we had a number of open houses. There were a lot of other forms of communication but just from a, the open houses were good just to educate people. All of us who participated and public hearings at the Planning Commission. There was a lot of involvement and this was very much a plan that’s been put together by the citizens of Chanhassen, and that’s important. It’s always important to remember this is a plan. It’s a plan in process. It’s important, we don’t want ultimately to be, to be dictating the plan, the final result but this is our plan on where we think we’re going to go and how we’re going to get. This is how we’re going to get there. This is the road map. Mayor Furlong: It’s our vision. Mayor Furlong: Not the final destination. The vision and so it is going to be helpful to all involved and so thank you to everybody that was involved. We all appreciate their efforts. With that, is there a motion to adopt the resolution? 55 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Councilwoman Ernst: I’ll make a motion. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Ernst: I make a motion that we approve the resolution adopting the City of Chanhassen’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan . Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: She beat you. We’ll give the second to Councilwoman Tjornhom. Any discussion? Resolution #2008-64: Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve the resolution adopting the City of Chanhassen’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I just want to say thank you to Todd and to Karen and to Kim who spent a lot of time typing this, and we have it on line. Our residents love it that it’s on line because they can look up information. A lot of developers. They can download our maps so anybody that’s looking, what are your senior housing needs, we can direct them to that site so I think it’s, you know not a lot of cities have that capability so we find that very consumer friendly. We really get a lot of compliments on that so I want to thank Karen and Kim who’ve really worked hard to get it in this, what I think is a really nice format from where we’ve moved 10 years ago to the, it’s a very nice layout and I think that’s some of the compliments we got too so. Thank you. Councilman Litsey: I was truly impressed with the professional guidance that we received through city staff in working through this process. It was truly a team effort by all that we’ve talked about here, but you were the guiding force behind this, everyone here so thank you very much. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Move on to council presentations. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Litsey: I was just going to congratulate Councilmember McDonald and Councilmember Tjornhom for being victorious in the election and I’m looking forward to working with you for at least 2 more years. On my end of it. You’ve got 4 so. 56 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Very good. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Thank you. Councilman McDonald: Thanks very much. I look forward to working with you for a good 2 years and plus. Councilman Litsey: We’ll see. Thank you. Councilwoman Ernst: I would echo that. Congratulations to both of you. Councilman McDonald: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other presentations? Councilman Litsey: No group hug by the way. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: Paul had informed me that Lyman Boulevard is open between Audubon and Galpin. Supposedly opened at 5:00 this evening so if you want to go to Holasek’s to get your poinsettias, go for it. Mayor Furlong: So Lyman is opened all the way across now? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Past the new high school. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. From Audubon all the way over to Galpin. Mayor Furlong: It will be that way at least til next spring? Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Then they’ve got a little bit more work, I think August I think is what Paul said it will be closed again probably June, July and August so. And then we’ve been working hard, the public works crew in correcting the soils for the new public works facility. I drove out there today and the larger dirt piles are gone now so the building pad area has been corrected. We still have a little bit more work for the parking lots, but we’ve got the work that we wanted done before the frost hit so it looks good out there. Councilman Litsey: You didn’t get stuck? Todd Gerhardt: Nope. Nope, I stayed in the cul-de-sac today. But other than that, pretty quiet. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Anything from the correspondence packet? No? Okay. 57 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Todd Gerhardt: One more thing. We should really thank Karen Engelhardt on the elections and all the judges. Knock on wood that everything went without a hitch. We had a little tabulator that you know the checks and balances she had in, we had a reserve tabulator that came in so she did a great job, and all the election judges and volunteers and that program just did a fantastic job. Mad rush in the morning but from what I’ve been told, there were no lines after the first two hours. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you for bringing that up. Appreciate that. Well said. Anything else this evening for the council meeting? If not, we will complete just the item B on our work session immediately following. Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Litsey 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 9:50 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 58