Loading...
CC 2006 08 14 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman Peterson, and Councilman Lundquist COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Laurie Hokkanen, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, Paul Oehme, and Greg Sticha PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: David Jansen Chanhassen Villager Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Kurt Papke Planning Commission PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to everybody and we're glad that those of you that joined here in the council chambers came and those that are watching at home as well. We're glad that all of you joined us. At this point I would ask if there are any modifications or changes to the agenda? If not, we'll proceed with that agenda that was published with the council packet. Hearing none we'll move forward. CONSENT AGENDA; Mayor Furlong: At this point I would ask if any members of the council or others would like to have any of the items on the consent agenda removed for separate discussion. Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I'd like, I don't want to… Mayor Furlong: What purpose, yeah. And how long is it going to be or what's your question? Debbie Lloyd: 5 minutes. City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: What's your question regarding? Have you directed it to staff yet or not? Debbie Lloyd: No, it wasn't because the web site was not accessible on Saturday…and Liberty PDF was also short of some pages. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Why don't we pick that up, if that's okay Mrs. Lloyd, under unfinished business, since that's a return. Is that okay? And if I miss it when we get there, please someone remind me. Are there any other items to be removed? Okay. If not, then is there a motion to approve items 1(a) through (m), excluding item (d) as David. Councilman Peterson: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist 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 July 24, 2006 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated July 24, 2006 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated July 18, 2006 -Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated July 25, 2006 b. Chanhassen West Business Park, Project 05-15: Approve Addendum B to the Development Contract. c. Approve Quote for Lake Ann Ballfield Improvement Project. Resolution #2006-51: e. Bighorn Drive Emergency Sewer Repairs, PW 419: Approve Quote. Resolution #2006-52: f. Approval of Resolution Appointing Election Judges for the Primary/General Election and Setting Rates of Pay. Resolution #2006-53: h. TH101 Gap Project 04-06: Approve Resolution Dispensing with Statutory Requirements Authorizing Conveyance of City Owned Property to the State of Minnesota. 2 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Resolution #2006-54: i. Water Treatment Plant, Project 04-08: Approve Change Order No. 2 for Wells 2, 5 and 6. Resolution #2006-55: j. Water Treatment Plant, Project 04-08-5: Approve Quotes for Security Contract. Resolution #2006-56: k. Approve Resolution Creating a Land Use Study Area at the Southwest Corner of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. l. Accept Resignation of Councilman Steve Labatt. Resolution #2006-57: m. TH 212 Project 03-09: Approve Change Order for Turn Lane on Powers Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: WAYTEK, INC., 2440 GALPIN COURT (CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK), APPLICANT, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION: A. CONSIDER VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT. B. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 100,000 SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING (NOT A PUBLIC HEARING). Public Present: Name Address Kelly Morlock 2325 Boulder Road Joel Lehrke 2329 Boulder Road Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor. …related to the next item. This is the vacation of the utility easement and precipitated by the request for the subdivision… The subject site for Chan West Business Park is requesting a larger lot than was originally anticipated for the development. Subject site located off of Galpin Boulevard, just north of Lyman. It's this lot. This one here, so the current utilities, this was the original configuration of the lot, Lot 1… The current utilities and drainage easement runs through the middle of Lot 1. So with the reconfiguration of the subdivision, which can be done administratively, because you're not creating a new lot, you're just rearranging lot lines, will put…so this request before you is just to vacate the existing utility and drainage easement. The appropriate documentation is attached in the staff report and the staff is recommending approval. 3 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Now, I guess the question here is there may be some public comment or there are a lot of other issues we're going to talk about with regard to the site plan approval. Right now do you want us to address the vacation? Kate Aanenson: Whatever you're comfortable…if you want to hold that off, or whatever you're comfortable with. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: I can go right into the site plan. Mayor Furlong: Why don't we go into the overall project and then we'll be sure, just remind me that we don't miss the public hearing on the vacation of the easements. Kate Aanenson: I'll rely on the City Engineer to help me remember. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And part of the reason for doing that is you said the moving of the lot lines is administrative. That's just an administrative function. Kate Aanenson: As I mentioned before, there are 2 or 3 lots that could be…in this existing area. The applicant proposed a larger lot so the subdivision itself… So what the applicant's asking for is 110,000 square foot building. It says 2 stories but that's actually been…on 7.4 acres of property. The history of this is the property is guided office industrial for a number of years and the applicant…development but staff is recommending doing a PUD so… Another thing we did when we put together the PUD is increase the standards for the design…that would be in place for the office industrial. Specifically there was concern from the resident on the Trotters Ridge… The overall square footage for the entire industrial park hasn't changed… So the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this specific site plan on July 18th. They did recommend approval… One of the conditions that was added by the staff and the neighbors on that north side, they asked us to evaluate, would be condition number 11. We talked about breaks in windows based on the height, and they didn’t want that as…so we're actually going to ask the applicant to do something architecturally… That is not reflected in your conditions of approval, so if you were to turn to your staff report on page 9 of 12, condition 11. We had added based on the Planning Commission…that high overhead windows be added on that northern elevation. We'd like that changed to architectural…be added on that northern elevation so… So again there's loading docks on this side…One of the other issues that was addressed at the Planning Commission in this site plan…the trees that we saved in that one outlot, there was some concern about the canopy…so that actually, if you look on the other side of the plan has been removed so those trees will be preserved. That is a parking, there's proof of parking, if they ever need they can go back and at this point it doesn't look like that will be necessary. So with that and architectural standards…look of the building itself. A lot of architectural relief. This does meet the standards that was put in place for that industrial park. This is… There will be the concrete. There will also be the copper window elements and then the burnish block…so again, giving architectural relief on the building. So in your staff 4 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 report we went through the architectural detailing of the building itself, and that's… standards. And as the Planning Commission did concur with that. The building has downcast lighting, and that was one of the issues that we talked about regarding lighting, and…security lighting and then… So with that, the one condition that number 11 is worded to modify the…staff and the Planning Commission did recommend approval… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Great. Kate Aanenson: Any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff? Couple. With regard to lighting, you mentioned that. Will there be the down lighting for security purposes around the entire perimeter of the building? Kate Aanenson: The majority of the lighting, there are entrances on both sides. There will be lighting. There is a change in grade but I think with that. Mayor Furlong: Where the road is higher than the. Kate Aanenson: Correct. I don't think there should be a lot of spill going that way, and based on the photometrics…that shouldn't be an issue. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess the question, I know this was an issue for residents on the north side of the building. Will there be lighting there? Kate Aanenson: No. There…on the back. And the other issue that was addressed too is they're increasing the wing wall for that… Mayor Furlong: Okay, and for security purposes, is the lack of lighting there even minimum lighting, is that? Kate Aanenson: Well you've got lighting on this side here, so I think that, and then with the entrance…I think if you recall when we went through the PUD standards there was a question that was raised on whether we'd look at any lighting at all here…and we felt it was appropriate that that would be, appropriate lighting…at the Planning Commission the applicant talked about…the use of the building. Hours of operation. It seemed pretty typical. Not much…with the higher cost and… Mayor Furlong: Well and clearly wherever there's entrances, it sounds like there's security lighting. I'm not advocating lighting that's going to negatively affect the neighbors to the north. I guess the only question I raise, even though there are no windows there now, it looks like that's coming out, is whether or not some sort of lighting to avoid kids loitering in dark areas or something like that. If there's anything that will be there to. Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's why we keep… 5 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the berming I know is also an issue. You commented a little bit about that but, has that been. Kate Aanenson: Yes, at the Planning Commission we asked that that issue be resolved before it came before you. Make sure that a definitive, what the expectation was. The applicant has met with them and to satisfaction of… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Councilman Lundquist: Kate on this proposed usage here, what's the primary traffic flow in generated? Is it a retail outlet in and out kind of thing? Kate Aanenson: No, it's office. It'd be pretty typical what we have for the office showroom. Kind of office warehouse. Pretty typical… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything else at this point? If not, the applicant's here. Is there anything you'd like to address to the council or comments to make? Ben Merriman: I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have and also I have the owners of Waytek here and they'd be happy to answer any questions for the council. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions at all for the applicant or for the owners of the property? Or the business. Okay. Good. What I'd like to do then at this point is, officially open the public hearing with regard to the vacation of the easements, because of the lot line change and invite any interested parties on that particular issue to come forward and comment. And if there are others that would like to comment on something because of the change between the Planning Commission and now, we'll take up in a few minutes so at this point I'd like to just limit discussion to the official public hearing which we have to have by law with regard to the vacation of the drainage and utility easements. Any interested parties, please come forward at this time. State your name and address. Kelly Morlock: Just I may have two things. Mayor Furlong: This is only on item 2. Kelly Morlock: Yes sir. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Because we have some other ones so this is only on item 2(a) at this point, thank you. If not then we'll close the public hearing on item number 2(a) and now would invite, and the public hearing for this project, as with all projects, did occur at the Planning Commission. That's where it's appropriate for that but sometimes there are changes between Planning Commission and the council meeting, which did occur here because of the comments made at the Planning Commission, and that's part of the process, but if there is a desire by anybody to make public comment to the council based upon those changes, I would certainly invite you to come forward now. We have 6 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 all received copies of the Planning Commission minutes and had a chance to read those so there's no need to repeat that information, but if there's other information that you need us to be aware of, we'd certainly like to hear it at this time. Sir. Kelly Morlock: My name's Kelly Morlock. I live at 2325 Boulder Road in the Stone Creek Addition. I've got a number of different issues regarding this project, dating back to the beginning if I could. A lot of people are really pleased with this project, they're really happy about this project. Most of them don't live in Trotters Ridge and most of them don't live in Stone Creek. The developer is on the Planning Commission and yes, he does remove himself from the meetings but there's still an underlying influence there that I think that there is. Even though it appears that during the Planning Commission meeting, even though Kurt Papke thought that there was 150 foot barrier from the north, there was only 100 foot. The original plan was only approved on a 3 to 2 vote. It was tabled at council and then it was questionably passed back in August of 2005. …Planning Commission meetings minutes and the council meeting minutes. Recently a homeowner came to the city for a permit for a patio. They were told they didn't need a permit. They hired a contractor to build a patio and they went in for a permit and the contractor was told he didn't need a permit, so they built the patio. Well the patio changed in our impervious surface percentage. They asked for a variance of less than 5%. They were denied and they had to remove the patio, or about 25% of their… They never asked if they would need to be in compliance with the hard surface percentage or 25%. The homeowner didn't know but his contractor should have known the zoning. Mayor Furlong: Sir. Sir. I'm sorry, this is relating to this site plan approval? Kelly Morlock: Yes. I'll get back to it. Mayor Furlong: As quickly as you can then please. Kelly Morlock: Okay. I just need a few minutes. 5-10 minutes. I have… Mayor Furlong: 5 would be fine, thank you. Kelly Morlock: There's another story about a sport court. There's too much hard surface percentage and they must comply as well. Once again the contractor should have known. This is at the expense of the owners. And then there's another story going on right now about a gazebo and a fire pit up against the wetland conservation easement, but right now they haven't come to the end of that story. The developer knew a lot of things and it was stated at the commission or the council meeting that we as homeowners ask questions to get the results we want to hear. Do we need a permit for a patio? Well yeah, how much is my impervious surface percentage? We should know better or a contractor should know better. The developer…to get results that they want. They know better. We have a number of issues and concerns with this project. We all know…I'm not saying it's going to go away. We accept that and it does have a direct impact on us. But we just don't want this to be rubber stamped. It's going between two neighborhoods and once again they should know. Let me give you a little history on what we have seen and 7 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 experienced. One of our biggest concerns at the beginning and it was brought up at council and at planning and by every one of the people at Stone Creek and Trotters was traffic and safety. We asked many times to pursue an access out of Lyman. You're probably all familiar with that. We were told by the developer and then the Planning Commission and City Council that the County said no. There were traffic studies and conversations and meetings and requests and they just won't change. We should have known better. Here's what happened. At the July 19, 2005, the planning meeting last July, Dan Keefe asked about the access to Lyman. Staff said they had conversations with Bill Weckman, who was I believe the Carver County Public Works Director. Mr. Weckman said…the County prefers the access to be at Galpin. Staff said another reason was the standards where access… The access to Lyman didn't meet the standards. Asked if Galpin met the standard, the question, the answer was no but it's a lesser of two evils. Staff used the SRF 2020 comp plan, I don't know what that is… Staff also said they would ask the County Engineer what his thoughts are regarding a signal at Lyman and Galpin. Planning Commission didn't think trucks mixing with residential seemed very logical. At the same planning commission the developer said they looked at two access points and the County requested Galpin. Both were considered, but the developers said th they knew what was going to happen. At the City Council meeting on August 8 of 2005, it was asked if the design was presented to the county staff or just a verbal conversation. The developer said it was just a verbal conversation. There was no maps. There was no plans. He should have known. The developer didn't want any access off Lyman because they would have had to move a pond they had. They used trees as a hostage by moving them to Outlot C if we didn't have that access. Council requested staff to revisit the access to Lyman with the County. Lyman and Carver are both county nd jurisdictions. It was tabled until August 22. When staff approached the county on the issue, the County requested a traffic study. The applicant or the developer is the one who hired the traffic study to look at this particular development and right-in/right-out issue of Lyman. We should have known. They did another vehicle count in August. The numbers might be a little high because of postal activity we were told. So this study was done in August, not during the school year so there's no mention of traffic due to the Bluff Creek school, the proposed high school, Lifetime Fitness, school bus traffic for the neighborhoods and other schools, parents, teachers, students driving, ball games, activities before and after school, pedestrians, bikes, the proposed use of the business park. There was no mention of a possible traffic light to connect the property south of Galpin, which could be developed. The stop light will eliminate the need for an acceleration lane that would interrupt the right-in/right-out. The apartments at 41 and Hazeltine Boulevard have a stop light, and they have two access points, so it can be done with the County. Based on the study provided, the County was not supportive but if the council was to choose to pursue it, they would have significant impacts. The right questions weren't asked. We believe that the developer should have known. Now about the building we're dealing with…the PUD was to have 8 lots with mid sized buildings in the 40 to 50,000 square foot range. Lifetime is considered a large building in an th, industrial area. At the July 192005 Planning Commission meeting, the commission wanted Building 6 to be smaller than originally proposed to transition with the neighborhoods, Stone Creek and Trotters Ridge. Well now, at 110,000 square feet, this building is…the original PUD lot size. It's like putting a Wal-Mart between two 8 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 neighborhoods, and even Wal-Mart doesn't do that. It's twice the size of the Byerly's. It's 9,000 square feet. Less than Costco, Cub store. Lifetime is 109,000 square feet on two floors. Over half the size of the new, this is over half the size of the new Wal-Mart superstores. The building itself is not to exceed 30 feet. It's at 30 feet 2 inches. They should have known. You were talking about a sight line from Trotters. You can kind of see it here. This bottom line is from the edge of the lot I believe…I believe it's from the edge of the lot looking up to the top of the building. If you go to the side of the house where the walkout is, this red line here, a 6 foot person, that's their sight line. Then if you're standing on the deck over on the main floor, which is where their quality of life is, that's their sight line. It's a little different. Now is their quality of life… I don't know. Is this an undue hardship? I don't know. There's not a lot of similar buildings within 100 feet. From this, the same people up north, this is what they'll look like. The neighbors up north in Trotters Ridge are going to look like. There's no brick like the rest of the neighbors to the north, or to the east or to the west. There's no brick at all. These are tilt up concrete panels. Not in the original spirit of the PUD. They should have known that too. Tilt up concrete with exposed aggregate that's ribbed and smooth is not an urban style design. The proposed site plan for this building is 322,447 square feet. With the building at 110,000 square feet, getting back to my patio story, the green surface is 28%. The hard surface is 72%. That's not in compliance. But like Building 2 that's already been built, the impervious surface percentage to comply will come out of Outlot C. So now that leaves one of the remaining lots doesn't have a 200 minimum depth included in the PUD. There's lots combined. They should have known that, or we should have th known that. At the April 4 Planning Commission meeting the commission said the PUD standards for impervious surface is 70% between the 8 developable lots. Building 2 is about 80% right now. More than the patio. Outlot C is a permanent conservation easement. Therefore it is not developable and shouldn't be included in the impervious surface percentage like the 8 developable lots as stated. Getting to this berm issue, I'm just about through, thank you. The original berm was to be 12 feet and the setback was told at 100 feet. Now the building is higher and the berm is lower at 9 feet. The developer says it gets much higher with trees on top. Well there are plenty of high berms in the area with big trees. There's a large berm west…over by the Temple of Eck. There's a large berm between the ball parks at Lake Ann. There's a large berm west of Bluff Creek on the corner of Galpin. And there's also a large berm west of 41 by Hundtermark. The applicant should know, if he irrigates trees they probably won't die. And if they're not planning on irrigating trees, or maintain the trees in the setback, should that setback be included in the impervious surface percentage? The Planning Commission and City Council stated the applicant should preserve all trees shown on plans dated June 17, 2005. The developer has done some quality projects in Chaska and Chanhassen regarding this issue. They should have known. They should have known, so finishing off I suggest, one more page. I've got one more. Back to the traffic issue. This could be between 7:00 and 9:00 in the morning. This could be between 3:00 and 6:00 in the afternoon. This is 3 trucks going into the development. I mean here's 2 school buses planning on getting onto Galpin. We have a lot of school buses going back and forth. There's a lot of schools around there. The buses go back and forth. I'd much rather have the school buses on Galpin than with trucks on Lyman. So to finish off, I would suggest the City Council does not approve the application for a vacation of easements. I suggest 9 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 the City Council does not approve the design of Building 6. I would like more understory and overstory trees added to the east side and the north and the northwest side. On the east side all the way down to Lyman. I'd like Building 6 to be made of brick. No block, like the surrounding neighborhoods. I'd also like an updated traffic study to include the effects of the 2 schools, development, possible development south of Lyman. Employees of the business park and stop light. I know I took a little bit more time than I should have but I appreciate your time. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Ms. Aanenson, any comments on those items or questions. Kate Aanenson: Regarding the traffic study, I believe we did our due diligence as far as submitting a finalized site plan to Carver County that worked out. I think what you also have to look at is the background on traffic in this area. Just to the south of this area is a million square feet of industrial park in Chaska that also exits out onto Lyman Boulevard. We're also cognizant of working with the new high school site. That there will be additional signals and that's something that the county's looking at, the spacing. Not just of this property but the other traffic on Lyman Boulevard, including that industrial park that's also dumping a lot of traffic. As far as the additional standards of the PUD, it meets the standards of the PUD. I do believe I spoke that the applicant has raised the back of that berm to 14 feet on the back as far as the setbacks. As far as it being all brick, I don't think we have too many all, unless for office industrial, I can't think of a pure brick building. As soon as I say that there might be one that we have in town that's a brick office warehouse that's pretty, not typical. So, if it's an office maybe but not this type office industrial so. Mayor Furlong: And I guess to your point, design standards that are in the PUD. Kate Aanenson: It meets the design standards, right. Mayor Furlong: On all sides. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Exactly, and I did mention also condition number 11 that one of the things that we thought the neighbors wanted was the windows in the back, but they wanted instead of windows, they wanted architectural details so that was the condition I recommended you modify number 11. Mayor Furlong: Okay. On the impervious surface, that was an issue and a comment was made whether or not or, the opinion was made whether or not Outlot C should be included. Kate Aanenson: Of course, we always do that. That's exactly how we set up the Target PUD. Target's way over the impervious. We have green space that balances out. That's typical in a PUD where, I also want to comment on the comparison of Costco and the parking. This has office industrial parking standards. If this was a retail building of that size, it would take all that parking would be pretty much absorbed by the rest of the site. This has only 159 parking stalls. Significantly less than if you had retail. It would be 10 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 you know 2 or 3 times that for parking so the trips would be a lot different. The amount of traffic and the number of cars being parked and the trips being generated would be significantly different. If it was retail as opposed to office industrial. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the other issue raised was whether the, with the movement of the lot line, whether the, not this particular lot but the smaller lots now would be buildable under the standards of the PUD. Kate Aanenson: I don't have that in front of me to verify to check on. I'm assuming that someone on staff did but I could try to verify that quickly. While you're taking other questions. Mayor Furlong: Okay. If possible. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I'd just like to add. The point of eliminating a lot line. If you have 2 lots, you know the amount of square footage of building space is not going to change on the subdivision. We're not adding building space square footage. Overall I think we're at the same amount of building square footage that was originally approved with the subdivision. Just because the applicant is bringing one 100,000 square foot building in, he could have put two 50,000 square foot buildings in, which probably would have had the same parking requirements that the 100,000 square foot building had. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, are there any other public comments compared to the changes in the plan? Joel Lehrke: Joel Lehrke, 2329 Boulder Road, Chanhassen. Likewise with the building, I'm going to refer more to the tilt up concrete. When this came before the City Council, Brian, Mr. Lundquist you were actually one of those people that a big problem with tilt up concrete and the developer asked that it be added for a certain additive that could happen of some sort in the future. You guys all kind of nodded your head that you didn't really like tilt up concrete but you'd leave it here and you'd take a look at it when a project came before you. At this time it is finally coming before you. I can think of a handful of buildings that we think that will look pretty nice as I stated in my letter. You know the building there has got the Burnelle block and brick there, and that's located right along Highway 5. It's the Star Tribune building. And also I'd like to comment to you, as you're looking along a major roadway on one side and industrial park on still the other side, before it gets to the residential area in that area, and that area you deemed well enough with…conditions that it should look really nice to the people driving on a highway with that look of brick. But right now you're telling residential people that they should look at tilt up concrete. As I also stated in my letter, due to the fact of the way this building's going to look, that there needs to be more type of roof articulation to hide the air conditioning units. Yes, I know they're going to use low profile. Yes, I know they're going to use the color of sort that's the blue or the gray or whatever that blends into the sky, but anyway you look at it, most of what's going to happen even from Trotters, but also from Stone Creek, the people on that side are even at a higher elevation looking down, that they're going to see nothing but the roof top. Once again this is the 11 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Ridgeview building that I referred to with my letter that I sent to you. This has to do with the way a roof, brick and also some tilt up cast concrete there, but I think that has a much better break up look to it. Another thing for you to remember is that I'm...is I had been told the fire is tilt up concrete. But with a brick interface. We do have a building that's pretty large. I think that has brick on the side of it. Also more pictures of the Star Tribune building heading south, even though one of you would say that for now, for brick, this has a much better look to it than something like this that I found, and I believe this is what I could find closest in the city that was going to look something like that. The biggest thing I have with tilt up concrete is the seam factor. That anyway you put up a tilt up concrete, unless you do that brick like a Byerly's has or something like that, you're still going to have that seam effect. Also once again, you're going to have a lot of people driving by this. This is your back entrance to Chanhassen. You've got this big new school that's going up that everybody wanted to be the marquee of Chanhassen. They want it to represent so the city would have a representation of a high school that represents Chanhassen. If you've ever driven down Pioneer during the morning when kids are being dropped out at school or all the parents are coming by. Yes, I know there's a ninth grade center so there's more traffic than there will be with others, but guess what? That place is just loaded with traffic and there's going to be a ton of people coming by this area, and this is what you're going to have people looking at as they go to the new high school. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Thoughts or comments? Anybody else who would like to make a comment this evening? Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the comments made. Sir? Joel Lehrke: I'll be more than happy to let you guys have these. Mayor Furlong: What is it? Joel Lehrke: These are all pictures. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay, thank you sir. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Just a brief comment. Just so we're clear. We're here tonight, we're looking at a site plan review. A site plan review is essentially a check list to make sure there is compliance with all our ordinances. This is not a conditional use permit application. Mayor Furlong: And by the ordinances, that includes the standards set in the PUD. Roger Knutson: That's correct. So the question is, do they meet the standards in the PUD? Do they meet the other standards in the zoning ordinance? Mayor Furlong: Thank you. At this point then I would ask if there's any other comments or questions specifically here, I'm going to, unless somebody stands up now, I'm going to close the public hearing with regard to the vacation for the utility easements, since that is 12 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 something that we do have to take public comment on at the council meeting. Seeing nobody then without objection we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for additional questions or thoughts and comments. Any additional questions at this point for staff? Councilman Lundquist: So to Roger's question Kate, does it meet all the standards of the PUD and the conditional use? Kate Aanenson: No, just the site plan. Councilman Lundquist: Or the site plan. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. It meets all the conditions of a site plan. Mayor Furlong: Which is the architectural standards and. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: And all the issues there. Kate Aanenson: Correct. And there is the opportunity to, as we have in other PUD's, to balance the impervious. And it also meets that standard, correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright. And I guess the question, and again if you don't have the information you know with regard to the smaller lots, there's no relief being requested at this time for anything on those lots. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So the existing PUD standards would be required for any future site plan approval on those lots. Kate Aanenson: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Do you have any idea Kate, just the fact the envelope gets, it doesn't do us any good to create a lot that can't be built on… Kate Aanenson: I know that, Bob Generous who worked on this did ask for a footprint to be shown on that additional lot to show that… Mayor Furlong: And I guess point of clarification. Before us this evening is not a question of whether that lot line's changed. Ben Merriman: It's 185 feet. 13 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: So maybe that's a question for the applicant. Roger Knutson: A comment on lot line adjustments. By state law a lot line adjustment, that's when you're not creating any additional lots. You're just moving an existing lot line so you're making a lot smaller or bigger, is not a subdivision by definition and we are not authorized to regulate that lot line adjustment. We basically sign off saying it's not a subdivision and if you're not creating a new lot, you're just moving a lot line, it's not. So we really lack discretion. And if, and not reference to this but to any such situation, if as a result of what you're doing you create a non-conformity, that's a self created hardship and you've created yourself a real big problem. You may not get building permits for that unbuilt lot if you aren't careful. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, and so then what will happen is we'll be back in here talking about an amendment to the PUD and all kinds of other stuff when they come back to build it so, that's… Roger Knutson: They certainly could ask for that, and then it would be your decision as to whether it's appropriate or not to grant it. Mayor Furlong: And I would expect some of the residents have an opinion on that matter as well. Councilman Lundquist: As they should. Mayor Furlong: Indeed. Fully agree. Fully agree. So the question here then, and you stated it but the question is, does this site plan. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, typically when they do a, yeah I'm not sure where that 130's, or the 200's coming from. Typically when you do a PUD, once you've created the PUD, you have to have, there's a 1 acre minimum to create the zoning but after that it's, I wasn't aware of a minimum but I don't have that in front of me at this point. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. Any other questions or comments and thoughts? Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Well I guess I'm a little troubled by the potential that we might be creating a non-conforming lot or something. I can't remember the specifics of that from a year ago and I don't remember where we were at or where all that came from. I didn't study that ahead of time so that troubles me a little bit that I'd like to have an answer to that I guess. As we heard Bobber say, I guess they're kind of in a bind to bit or maybe personally I'm in a bind to bit about the tilt up concrete piece that's, there isn't anything we can do about that tonight. It meets the standards so our hands are tied there. We can't deny the building for that anyway. The higher berm and some of the other stuff I think are good pieces and overall it's good I believe to take a business that's in town right now and allow them the opportunity to expand in town. It's a wonderful thing. 14 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Keep those jobs here in town and that so I'm in favor of that. I guess really the only sticking point for me now is the rest of those issues I think that were raised this evening are issues that we talked in length about a year ago. And I do feel like we did do our due diligence on some of the traffic and things there. There's no doubt that all of our roads will have more traffic as the area grows and things happen so, but there's no doubt that you know that's going to happen all over that area and it's not just a burden of this single development but of all the development that's going on in the area, and as well with the high school I suspect that we're going to have to look at when that gets built some improvements and upgrades and all kinds of stuff is going to happen around Galpin and Lyman and Audubon and all kinds of stuff is going to happen around there when that goes on, and we've got, you know we'll deal with that at that time. So I guess I'm in favor of the development and in favor of going through with this but I'm, I don't know whether it even matters I guess or not about the possible creation of a mess to deal with down the line. I guess I'd like to have an answer on that before I would decide one way or the other. Roger Knutson: I'm a little hesitant to jump in but as I read page 7 and 8 of your planning report, it appears that you'll end up with two lots. They refer to as parcels A and B. One being 7.40 acres and one being 2.65 acres. Am I reading that right Kate? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Lundquist: What page is that Roger? Roger Knutson: That's pages, at the bottom of page 7 and top of page 8. It says you're going to end up with two parcels. Councilman Lundquist: That's in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Top of 8, 8 of 12. Electronic 305. Roger Knutson: Oh I'm sorry. Mayor Furlong: Top of page 8. Councilman Peterson: Certainly means they're buildable. Mayor Furlong: Yep. Councilman Lundquist: Then we had the question of the 200 foot and 185 foot that the. Kate Aanenson: I don't know the context of that. I'm not, you know we just have a setback but there's no generally, I'm not sure where that's coming from. I don't have the entire PUD. 15 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: I guess part of it, does this meet the standard of the PUD? I think there was an issue on the parking and they're we're allowing proof of parking in order to. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Have less impervious surface or less. Kate Aanenson: Just less parking. Not the whole park based on the use. They could put the additional 55 in if necessary. I think we always review that when we do projects, not to over park. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I guess the other comment with regard to sight lines and views, the building setback would be allowed to be 50 feet from Galpin, if I'm looking at this correctly and it's 120. The parking is up there so there's. Kate Aanenson: That's correct, and move the building back further. Mayor Furlong: And moving the building back further than where it was. Okay. Other council comments. Thoughts. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I think this has probably been through the Planning Commission twice, if I'm correct. Once last year and now this year, and so I'm not prepared to have a Planning Commission meeting here tonight and try to redesign a building and undo…Planning Commission did very well at the last meeting. My job tonight is to make sure that it does meet the standards of the PUD and we've been told that it does and so I'm willing to and ready to move forward with this project. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I feel the same way as my peers and I think there isn't much for us to decide tonight…You always want to leave a meeting with everybody being happy, and it sounds like the majority of the neighbors are. You know you'd like to have 100% and Councilperson Lundquist thoughts on the tilt up concrete, again I think what we can do here tonight is to you know at least at a minimum send a signal to the developer and the building owner to continue to work with your neighbors because they're going to be neighbors a long time, and if they can do anything, whether it's increasing the berm higher than 14 feet and/or do something that's more articulated in back is, as staff is recommending, that they do what they're already going to do, maybe there's something more that they can do. That they would voluntarily do to be good neighbors, and I guess that's what I would send them off with, with the concept of look harder for better ways to integrate the building. It's a big building you know, and there are some neighbors are going to say I'd rather look at a big building than 3 small ones, and there's going to be some that say the exact opposite so again you can't necessarily meet the needs of everybody but I think that making the big building the best it can be is what I'd like to close my comments to the developer and the building owner. 16 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Thank you, and I think that's well put. Since the Planning Commission, I know the developer has worked with residents in the neighborhood to the north to try to change the plans to accommodate. If there are some other accommodations that can be done, I think that's a reasonable request that we can make of the developer. And I think too, looking down the road, this is the second building in this development and you know continuing to look to find ways to meet and/or exceed the standards in the PUD, which I think is the desire of everyone here as well as the neighbors to the east and to the north so, other than that I think the other comments made by fellow council members with regard to the question before us is pertinent. Some of the issues raised this evening were issues that were well vented when the PUD went through and I agree with Councilman Lundquist in terms of the efforts taken both through the Planning Commission and again here at the council chambers to try to accommodate as many requests as possible when we considered the PUD and I know we made changes since then, and we asked questions that had already been asked again to try to see if we can get a different answer so, with that I think it makes sense for us to go forward with the comments with the request of the developer that was made here this evening and this summer as well to try to see if we can accommodate some of the lingering requests of the neighbors to the best of their ability. So with that, I believe our motion starts. Is there any additional comments, questions at all? If not, I think the motions start on page, bottom of page 8. And there was one request with regard to amending condition 11 to the architectural detail be added and striking the first words but with that is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I would move that the City Council approve Planning Site Plan #06-27 for two story, approximately 110,000 square foot office/warehouse prepared by Houwman Architects, subject to conditions 1 through 31 with the addition of the one noted. Mayor Furlong: Before I ask for a second, do you want to incorporate the motion for item 1(a) too with regard to the vacation? Councilman Peterson: I would love to do that. Mayor Furlong: So we don't forget that part as well, I believe, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: What page is that on? Kate Aanenson: That's a separate report. 2(a). Mayor Furlong: 380 in our electronic. Kate Aanenson: The motion on that was recommend approve the resolution vacating the drainage and utility easements, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Chanhassen West Business Park. 17 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is that the motion you made? Councilman Peterson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: As stated in the staff report, thank you. And do those two motions cover what's being requested of us this evening? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Combined motion. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the combined motions of item 2(a) and 2(b)? Resolution #2006-58: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves a resolution vacating the drainage and utility easements within Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Chanhassen West Business Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves Planning Case Site Plan #06-27 for a two story, approximately 110,000 square foot office-warehouse building, plans prepared by Houwman Architects, dated 6-16-06, subject to the following conditions: 1.The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2.The developer shall extend the sidewalk from the building to the sidewalk on Galpin Court and include pedestrian ramps at all curbs. 3.The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 4.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 5.The developer shall heighten the retaining wall on the south side of the northerly drive-in overhead door to create a wing wall that is a least 10 feet above the grade of the loading dock area. This wall shall extend from the building westerly at least 15 feet then may be stepped downward as it continues west. 6.A temporary cover of seed and mulch shall be established on all areas of exposed soils not actively worked within a 14-day time period and within 14 days of achieving final grade. 18 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 7.The plans shall show temporary inlet control details for all proposed catch basins, including beehive catch basins. Existing catch basins immediately adjacent to the project shall be protected as well. Plans shall indicate that inlet protection shall be installed within 24 hours of inlet installation. 8.All sediment tracked upon paved surfaces shall be scraped and swept within 24 hours. Plans shall include a designated concrete washout area and/or plans on how the development will handle the concrete wash water. 9.An NPDES Construction Site Permit shall be applied for and received from the MPCA by the owner/operator of the site. 10.The area in which the rain garden is proposed shall be part of a project sequencing plan that will protect the rain garden site from compaction. The rain garden shall not be built until at least 70% of the contributing area is stabilized. The applicant shall submit a planting plan for the garden. 11.Architectural detailing shall be added on the northern building elevation between the smooth bands. 12.Overstory trees shall be added every 40 feet along the north building elevation. 13.The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 39 overstory trees within the vehicular use area. Trees may be added to the west side within Outlot C if their installation does not damage root systems of existing trees within that area. 14.A row of four conifer trees shall be added north of the parking spaces in the northwest corner of the loading dock area. 15.Tree preservation fencing is required to be installed prior to any construction around existing trees along Galpin Boulevard, Outlot C and any trees preserved along the north property line. 16.All landscape plantings along Galpin Boulevard shall be field located as to not damage existing plantings. 17.The bufferyard plantings along the north property line shall be spread out between the property line and the building to provide screening in depth. 18.Areas proposed for the preservation of existing trees shall not be sodded. 19.The developer must install a storm sewer stub south of CBMH 6. 20.The storm sewer downstream of CBMH 6 will not be owned or maintained by the City since it will not convey runoff from a public right-of-way. 19 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 21.The developers of Parcels A and B must enter into a maintenance agreement for this segment of storm sewer. 22.The outstanding balance of the Park Dedication Fees for Parcels A and B must be paid with the building permit. The amounts are $82,600.14 for Parcel A and $29,579.78 for Parcel B. 23.The height of the berm shall be increased and extended to the west to provide additional screening for the existing single-family homes to the north. 24.A revised grading plan must be submitted with the building permit application. 25.Retaining walls four feet high or higher require a building permit and must be designed by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 26.Eight-inch watermain must be looped around the building. This watermain shall be privately owned and maintained. 27.Sanitary sewer and water hookup are due for this site. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain. These fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. 28.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 29.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 30.Builder must comply with Fire Prevention policies numbers 4, 6, 7, 29, 84, 36, 40, 49 and 52. 31.Drive aisle widths shall be a minimum of 26 feet.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER VACATION OF ROADWAY EASEMENT WITHIN LOTS 29-31, BLOCK 1, RED CEDAR POINT, LAKE MINNEWASHTA. Public Present: 20 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Name Address Gary A. Peterson 3632 Hickory Greg & Peg Bohrer 3706 Hickory Lane Alfred W. Smith 3714 Hickory Road Richard Comer 3800 Red Cedar Point Drive, Excelsior Paul Oehme: The applicant, shown on this drawing here, shaded in, has submitted a request of staff for vacation of right-of-way. The address is 3715 Hickory Road. It's Lot 29 through 31 of Block 1. Red Cedar Point, Lake Minnewashta. The existing 30 foot right-of-way is shown here in blue. That's proposed to be vacated… It's existing right-of- way is 30 feet wide, or the property owner's requesting the vacation of 30 feet of right-of- way. The 30 foot right-of-way was originally platted during the Red Cedar Point, Lake Minnewashta Hancock Place for future development. Hancock Place was never developed and therefore, and there is no plans for the future for any development in this area. Currently Lots 29 through 31 are unbuildable because of the setbacks to the right- of-way. Vacation is requested to meet the rear yard setback and allow for a new construction. The existing sanitary sewer, or the center line of the platted Hancock Place requires a drainage and utility easement to be dedicated. A 15 foot drainage utility easement shown on the submitted survey and would be sufficient for the future maintenance of that sanitary sewer. Gopher State One has been contacted for private and public utilities. That issue has been looked at as well. At this time I request that the council hold a public hearing for the vacation of the right-of-way and I stand for questions. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for staff currently? Just a quick point of clarification Mr. Oehme. The recommendation in the staff's report, approves a resolution. Does that resolution place that 15 foot utility easement over the top at the same time? Paul Oehme: No it does not but when it comes in for an application for, when it comes in for the paperwork it administratively can handle the drainage utility easement in that… Mayor Furlong: So that's not something we have to include in this motion? Even though that's expected to be required. Paul Oehme: Yeah, that would have to be done at the same time. When the paperwork's taken care of. Audience: So how much is being vacated? Paul Oehme: 15 feet. Councilman Lundquist: What, 15 feet back essentially? 21 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Paul Oehme: Yes. It's basically a right-of-way vacation for roadway purposes. We do put utilities under streets, or a road that's never going to exist. Then we're going, just so staff does not see a problem with vacating the roadway. I do feel we maintain our sewer that's out there and we are requesting a 15 foot wide drainage utility easement in this same exact footprint that we're vacating roadway for the dedicated… Audience: The City owns the other 15 feet? Mayor Furlong: Is the right-of-way 30 feet wide? Currently. Paul Oehme: 30 feet wide. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and this property owner is requesting their half of that 30 or 15 feet to be vacated? Paul Oehme: Exactly. If we didn't need. Mayor Furlong: And over that 15 feet the easement will be placed. The 15 feet that is vacated. Audience: The City has the other 15 feet of it. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I'll get to you. Resident questions in just a minute here sir, and you'll have a chance so, but for clarification Councilman Lundquist's questions, we have a 30 foot right-of-way. This would vacate 15 feet of that and instead of right-of- way we would take back and easement, a utility easement because we have utilities under there. Paul Oehme: That's correct. Councilman Lundquist: So then there's a 15 foot road right-of-way left out there? Mayor Furlong: Yes. Paul Oehme: Yeah, there's 15 foot with where the road, bring back this drawing here. …show in blue, there's another 15 feet that's not shaded in and there's still roadway right- of-way that's still platted out here that is not shaded in so the property owner who lives here, he still can come in and request that additional right-of-way be vacated. Councilman Lundquist: So the other 15 feet belong to that pie shaped, or that triangle lot that's on the south side there. Paul Oehme: Yeah, it's this property here. Councilman Lundquist: Gotch ya. 22 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and council, just for clarification. Let's include in the motion a contingency that the easement is given contingent upon the vacation so we want the easement, just so there's no question down the line. Mayor Furlong: The vacation's given on the condition that the easement be replaced with an easement. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Audience: Who decides…the vacated part of that. Mayor Furlong: What I'm going to do is open up a public hearing right now and allow people to come up. Please state your name and address. Audience: I think it's pretty important… Mayor Furlong: Absolutely and your time to come up right now. I just want to make sure sir we get your name on the record and that, so everybody can hear you at home. So at this point I'll open up the public hearing and invite interested parties to come forward. Ask questions or address the council on matters. I really don't care who goes first. As long as someone does. Richard Comer: I'm a little uncertain about what this pond is supposed to mean. This project looks pretty interesting. Mayor Furlong: If you could state your name and address sir. Just for the record so that our recorder can have it. Just your name and address. Richard Comer: I'm a 15 year resident of here. Richard Comer, C-o-m-e-r. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Richard Comer: I'm in favor of this whole thing but we aren't getting the complete information and how much of this is on the plot that is now in possession of, and then how much is the area increased after the vacation of that? It's not shown on here. Mayor Furlong: Go ahead please and answer the questions. Paul Oehme: The vacated right-of-way again is this portion here. That goes back to the property line. But you require, are requiring a drainage and utility easement to take place over that, over that segment of right-of-way that's being vacated so the existing property line is right here currently. That's maintained by the property owner. The right-of-way, center of right-of-way is right here and the other half of the right-of-way is right here, so the new property corner is the center line of the 30 foot roadway right-of-way. So this is 23 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 the new property corner here and here. So, but we are requiring a 15 foot drainage utility easement at this location. Councilman Lundquist: So it's 15 feet wide by how long is that piece of property? Councilman Peterson: 81? Councilman Lundquist: About 1,200 square feet or something like that, in the neighborhood of. Mayor Furlong: And I guess the question, the effect of this, if it's approved, would be to move the rear property line 15 feet back, which then would be used for calculating building setback purposes. Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Furlong: For the rear yard setback. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Lundquist: I think your question sir, you asked, he's getting 1,200 square feet added to his lot. Richard Comer: What is the lot to begin with? That he has. Mayor Furlong: Why don't we work on getting the answer to that question. Keeping moving it. If there are other, if you could come forward. If somebody would like to comment, please come forward. State your name and address please. Gary Peterson: My name is Gary Peterson. I own the rest of the lots around… I own the rest of these lots here but this lot here is owned by the City… The question I would have here, is where does this outlot, what will happen to this road gets vacated so where does this utility… It used to be 30 foot from that, from where this road does, and that's why it was not buildable before. If you're not going to vacate both halves of that road, you have…part of the city's, that doesn’t move his property rights up 30 feet or up to within 10 feet of him, so what's his, how much of this is being vacated? Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme? What's the request and Mr. Knutson. Paul Oehme: The property in question again is this, these 3 pieces. 29 through 31. This is city property here. This is the 30 foot easement so the vacation again is 15 feet of the 30 feet, so it's half of the right-of-way here. So that's the. Gary Peterson: Does the setbacks remain 30 feet from the center of this road now or does that go, come down to a 10 foot? Kate Aanenson: Right, center of the road. Goes to the property, street right-of-way line which would be 15 feet. 24 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Gary Peterson: Which one? Which street? Goes down to this one or is this thing still. Kate Aanenson: Still shows as a right-of-way, right. 15 feet of right-of-way. Gary Peterson: But right-of-way is now where you're, is not where the 30 feet is considered to be. For building purposes. You have to be 30 feet back from the road and you have to be 10 feet back from the property line, and those are not exclusive. Kate Aanenson: I believe what the ordinance says is 30 feet from a right-of-way. Whether it's. Mayor Furlong: Which would be the property line. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Whether it's improved or not, it just says from the right-of-way line. Mayor Furlong: And would it not be, and I thought this was the question. Because if that right-of-way is vacated then the rear property line I think is shown on the map with the blue there, Mr. Oehme? Right, can we zoom in on that? That blue section is, if I'm understanding correctly, is now, it would be now part of the existing property. And therefore that line that runs down is now the middle of the right-of-way. If vacated that would be the rear property line, and that would be used for setback calculation purposes. Gary Peterson: So why don't you vacate the whole road? Why are you vacating one little chunk at a time? Mayor Furlong: That's come up before and I'll defer to the city attorney on that. Roger Knutson: The practice is to ask, we consider vacations when someone petitions us and asks for it. We don't go around looking for vacations. When a property owners says I have an issue or I'd like this vacated, we deal with it. I think that's the City's practice. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anybody else that would like to speak at the public hearing? Provide comments. Greg Bohrer: Yeah, my name is Greg Bohrer. I've got the lots adjacent right to this property. I was wondering, I think on the property lines itself, they did a survey and then they said they found, they had to put in iron monument sets. Well right after they did this, 2 months after I spent a considerable amount of money to have a survey done on this lot line too. What we had to do is we had to find these monuments. We did find them, which were buried in the ground about a foot. And so I don't know why they came out with this survey saying that he said anything because the ground was not disturbed. We had to spend like 6 hours digging for these monuments, so now he's giving a survey to you people saying that he set a monument which he didn't. So I mean these lot lines are not… 25 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: I guess I don't understand the question. Are you questioning the accuracy of the survey that he submitted? Greg Bohrer: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Greg Bohrer: That's why I'm rejecting the proposed assessment. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Mr. Oehme, Mr. Knutson. Comments. Thoughts. Paul Oehme: In going through the application process, I mean the survey was signed by a registered land surveyor, and that's what we typically go by for accuracy. It's his reputation on the line for making sure that these property corners are properly placed so I can only assume that it was done correctly. Roger Knutson: Mayor, as far as tonight's action, you're not here to resolve a dispute between surveyors. You really aren't resolving that. You're just deciding whether it's appropriate to vacate that 15 foot of the right-of-way. Greg Bohrer: But the 15 feet has to do with property lines because I don't know if that 15 feet property line might be different. Roger Knutson: There may be a dispute at the end of the day about where that 15 feet takes you, but all you're doing, if you decide to do this, is you're vacating that 15 feet closest to his property. Wherever that is. Greg Bohrer: Now you're only requesting a easement for sanitary sewer. It turns out that there is no storm sewer there and there's a culvert that goes over this piece of property that runs the water down…and does this give him the right to pull that culvert out of there now? Roger Knutson: Mayor, I think what we're requesting is, which is our standard easement. It's an easement for drainage and utility purposes is what he'd be receiving. Greg Bohrer: That is not what he said. He very carefully said sanitary sewer. Paul Oehme: No, there is a sanitary sewer that runs down the middle of the current right- of-way line there. We know that there is drainage issues out here too but the easement that we will be placing over the top of the vacated right-of-way will be specifically for drainage and utility easements. Mayor Furlong: The city standard. Paul Oehme: …correct. 26 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Councilman Lundquist: So if it's a drainage utility then the answer is no. He can't pull the culvert out without replacing it with something else or some other method to relieve that drainage. Paul Oehme: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to provide public comment at tonight's hearing? Richard Comer: Am I going to get an answer to my question? How big is the lot? Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme? Paul Oehme: Yeah, I could look up the plat after the public hearing and try to answer those questions. Mayor Furlong: I guess the answer is, it is whatever it is. Whatever he legally owns, that's what he owns, so. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to address the council on this matter? If not, this has been a public hearing. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Furlong: I appreciated residents comments and questions. These are always unusual and fact specific circumstances so it's good that we get those clarified. With that, at this point, are there any additional questions for staff? Points of clarification. Councilman Lundquist: Is there any reason why we haven't vacated the city half of the right-of-way on that piece that we own adjacent to that? Mayor Furlong: I guess since it reverts to the property owner, we'd be getting our own right-of-way to our own property. Gary Peterson: You'd move the setback. Mayor Furlong: Well I think yeah. The specific request here is to vacate half the right- of-way to 15 feet so. We're going to. Councilman Lundquist: We'll do that when Mr. Peterson comes in and requests the vacation on all of his lots in there. I was just curious. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other comments or questions of Mr. Oehme? Okay, any comments or discussion points? My only thought is we deal with these all the time. I know we look at whether or not there's any plan ever to include a road here before we do 27 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 that, and I'm pretty sure we also look for a trail or public access would be a possible public purpose before we vacate these. I assume that we're not looking at connecting these roads by trail for any means but I know that that's something that we've looked at in the past and we should always look at from a public use standpoint. But based upon the information received tonight, this seems fairly straight forward, unless I'm missing something. I'll defer to my council members there. Any other thoughts on this? Is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as submitted by staff. Mayor Furlong: And conditioned upon the placement of the drainage and utility easement, standard easement over the top? Councilman Peterson: That's affirmative. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Resolution #2006-59: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves a resolution vacating fifteen (15) feet of Place right-of-way located along the southwest property line of Lots 29 through 31, Block 1, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTS, 6541 & 6561 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, KEVIN FARRELL. Public Present: Name Address Kevin & Maureen Farrell 6541 Minnewashta Parkway th Ken Rennick 32670 195 Avenue, New Prague Dean Simpson 2590 Arrowhead Lane Paul Oehme: The property owner again at 6541 Minnewashta Parkway is requesting a lot line between his lot and Lot 2, Block 1 Washta Bay Court be adjusted. But we're not here to talk about that but the actual vacation of the current drainage utility easement. The applicant has shown on this drawing here, the north parcel. What he is requesting is shown on this drawing here. The vacation of the existing drainage utility easement. 6 foot on his property and 6 on the adjacent property owner, shown here in blue. Vacated and dedicating, we'll be dedicating a 6 foot drainage utility easement on the lot line as shown on… Gopher State One has been called in to locate any public or private utilities 28 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 that are out here, have been located. Again it's, I think it's for the setback purposes for addition to the house. Staff is recommending approval of the easement vacation contingent upon simultaneously recording of the lot line adjustment, easement vacation and easement dedication. At this time I'd request the public hearing be open and I'd stand for questions. Mayor Furlong: Is the lot line changing between these two properties? Paul Oehme: Yes. Mayor Furlong: It is? Okay. And so the existing drainage and utility easement follows the old property line and what's being requested is that the new one be recorded over the new property line. Paul Oehme: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? If not I'll open up the public hearing and invite interested parties to come forward and address their comments and concerns to the council with this matter. Please come forward to the podium. State your name and address. Okay, seeing nobody, without objection then we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. Any follow up questions? Of staff. If not, is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. All those in favor? Or any discussion on the motion? Resolution #2006-60: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves the vacation of drainage and utility easements for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Washta Bay Court, contingent upon simultaneous recording of the lot line adjustment, easement vacation and easement dedication. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. (Councilwoman Tjornhom was not present during the vote.) AWARD OF BID: CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT PUMPER. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Sherri Walsh: Good evening. Mayor Furlong: How are you? 29 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Sherri Walsh: Good. Mayor, council. I'm here on behalf of the fire department tonight to ask for your approval to award the bid to Crimson Fire for our next engine. Our truck committee has over the last few years been working very hard at specifications and it th went out for bid back in May. We opened bids on June 15 and since that time have gone through both bids with Crimson Fire and General Fire. Worked very closely also with…Fire, although they did not submit a bid for the pumper. In reviewing these with the truck committee we did note that General Fire took a very large exception to our specs in the amount of $160,000. They were asking for pre-payment of the chassis when it was delivered to the manufacturer and that was not specified in our spec and because of that reason, we need to reject, the City has to reject the General bid. Therefore leaving Crimson Fire with our only remaining… This engine, in the council packet we went ahead and detailed the price differences. This engine is being placed out at our west fire station at Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7. It will be considered the main pumper for fires and for personal injury accidents over on our west side. The reserve pumper, or our existing pumper was built in 1981. It's 25 years old. We have been planning in the CIP for replacement of the engine. The existing pumper that's out there will be held or will be put as a reserve engine for fire extinguishing only, and hopefully in the future will be utilized at a third station. Mayor Furlong: Hint, hint. Sherri Walsh: We also have the CIP was $400,000 last year. We very graciously gave up $30,000 with the understanding that Waterous Company for the pump component would supply us a pump that they consider an identical unit and we are taking approximately $50,000? …probably more than that. Our total bid is coming in at $339,900. That was for the actual truck and then the pumper is above and beyond that which is 29,567. So with that I'm asking for your approval to go ahead and award the bid… Mayor Furlong: Thank you Assistant Chief Walsh. Comments or questions at all? Councilman Lundquist: What's the catch with the demo pump? Sherri Walsh: There is no catch. It's actually, they build pumps and they use them as demonstrations when they're out touring the country trying to sell their pumps to other fire departments. The option, it was opened up on the..company that any employee that works with Waterous that would be currently by chance building an engine, could buy this at a very significant reduced rate. Otherwise they tear it apart and sell parts to be used so we capitalized on that. Councilman Lundquist: So we have an employee that works for them? Sherri Walsh: Yes. 30 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Will it come with a warranty like if you were buying a brand new one? Sherri Walsh: Yes, and it is certified. Mayor Furlong: What does one of the new pumps cost? You said this was about 30? Sherri Walsh: The other is, came in at $107,000-$108,000. Mayor Furlong: And that would be, oh I'm sorry. Go ahead. Sherri Walsh: They took a 21% discount for so it's be $86,000. Mayor Furlong: So that would be the equivalent, so about $50-60,000 reduction. Sherri Walsh: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Any other questions? No? Discussions. Thoughts. Comments. Councilman Peterson: Good work. Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve. Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. I'm going to discuss one thing though and that, because I've got the gavel. I guess I want to make sure that the members of the fire department that serve on the truck committee are extended the thanks of the council and the staff. I know they put in a lot of time. You said over a 2 year period and we appreciate that because that is voluntary time above and beyond and the other comment I wanted to make is that, it's my understanding in the past often these equipment for the fire department hasn't always had the same priority as other equipment purchases within our CIP and I thank Mr. Gerhardt and department heads working together. I know when we set a budget we establish how much we want to spend on equipment each year. This year it was about $800,000 so this one item here was about half that. I know it's been in the CIP and planning for it but nonetheless that meant that other departments requests had to be moved and often cases back in future years, but working together we're able to meet that so thank you to the fire department and their members of the truck committee. Thank you Mr. Gerhardt and all the staff members, the Chief and everyone for working together to work this into the CIP within our budget as well. Sherri Walsh: I'd also like to… Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. 31 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I'd just like to thank the truck committee too. They do put in a variety of different hours when they work in the fire department and one of the task is potentially to be on a truck committee. They spend a lot of time working on the specifications and looking at the detail and it's amazing you know just one truck may have a drawer that another truck doesn't have and that's huge when you're in the fire department to have that storage. And the design of the trucks using angle iron versus cubed iron gets you another 3 to 4 inches and that's, that makes a big difference when you're trying to store things so placement of winches and things like that, so they do get into a lot of detail and look at the specifications to what their needs are and I thank them for doing that extra work. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. With that, is there any other discussion on the motion to approve the purchase? If not, we'll proceed with the vote. Resolution #2006-61: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve the purchase of the replacement engine from Crimson Fire in the amount of $339,990 and from Waterous Company for the pump system and accessories in the amount of $29,567 for a total bid of $369,557.05. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. MODIFY HIGHCREST MEADOWS STORM WATER POND DESIGN, GRADING AND LANDSCAPING IN THE AREA. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. I've met with some of the Highcrest Meadows people and we'd ask that you table this item to give staff, the developer and members of the Longacres Association additional time to sit down and go through the numerous items that are before you tonight. I'd also ask that 2 council members that could sit in on a meeting to discuss these things. I think it's going to take a while tonight if we were to try to go through all them now. I'd like to have kind of a work session with 2 council members, the Longacres Association and the Highcrest Meadow developer. If 2 council members could be available this Wednesday at 10:00 to sit down and go through those issues, I'd appreciate it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Do I have any volunteers? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I'll do it. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom, okay. Others? Councilman Peterson: I can't do it at 10:00. I could do it at probably 11:00. Todd Gerhardt: I think we could probably make 11:00 work. Mayor Furlong: Does that still work with you? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes. 32 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, so Councilman Peterson and Councilwoman Tjornhom will work with you on that. Okay. Todd Gerhardt: So the item would be to table this. Mayor Furlong: The action would be a table? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, and work with the neighborhood and the developer to work out the issues. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a motion to table? Councilman Peterson: So moved. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to table action on the Highcrest Meadows storm water pond design, grading and landscaping. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. ND CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM (d). LIBERY ON BLUFF CREEK 2 ADDITION: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND APPROVAL OF PLANS SPECIFICATIONS & AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. Mayor Furlong: So Ms. Lloyd, if you'd like to at this time come forward and you said you had a question or some comments. Debbie Lloyd: Very short. Mayor Furlong: That's fine. Debbie Lloyd: Actually wrote it down tonight…the city web site was not accessible on Saturday…very frustrated. The PDF wasn't working…did not contain all of the report so again, very frustrating. And it was so frustrating to have so little time to review items on the agenda, then when the resources are not available, and the information incomplete, it doesn't allow for emails prior to the meeting… Relative to the final plat…the report th when presented to the City Council on October 10 mentions projects 04-05. …until that is finalized. So I hunted and hunted and I didn't find it. Rather I found a project 06-05 which I think is pertinent instead. And if indeed Project 06-05 is the correct project, I do have a question about why the Lyman Boulevard, Audubon Road intersection was eliminated from this project at this point in time. Considering the AUAR for those two applied MUSA required that it be constructed continuously between Audubon Road and Powers. Before the full buildout of Town & Country. And I guess the…that project was 33 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 like $688,000 project. I'm wondering who's going to pay for the cost of this if it wasn't part of the 06-05 plan, and will you be assessing the Town & Country development at this point since the final plat is approved? Also the improvements denoted on here were to include…turn lanes to go south on Audubon. An additional lane and a traffic signal. The AUAR calls for this improvement because right now it's called an F category. This intersection is already bad and then you're building all these new additional home sites so…create a safety issue for the city. So would you therefore call this premature or I guess what are you plans? And kind of pertinent to a safety issue you have Washington and Commonwealth, you have that one long cul-de-sac which I know Craig loves those long cul-de-sacs and it only has one in and one out now. There's you know no egress to get out if there's something major that happens there… And then apart from that the typical question about the private street, and I know it's too late but 20 foot private street…and allowing parking on it. …Minnetonka that the developer with Pemtom always mentions. You should see that street. It is a wonderful private street, but it's not in keeping with this type of private street. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, I guess… Kate Aanenson: I can answer those questions. Sure. We did order the project. It's underway. Actually the improvements on Audubon Way are also, they actually poured the curb last Friday, so those turn movements, the project that was tied to, and that's in the original conditions of approval which we tie back, so these projects could not proceed until we ordered our project. Our project is well underway. Let Paul give an update, kind of where we are on that. But this project is the second phase of the Bluff Creek Boulevard, which is a public street, so they will have access to that and we should be out there paving so I'll let Paul give you an update on where we are on that road. Mayor Furlong: And again the project in question was what's been referred to historically as the east/west collector. Kate Aanenson: Correct, Bluff Creek Boulevard. Mayor Furlong: And that again, assuming the status of that project, and has that condition been met and. Paul Oehme: Yeah, we're working on that. All the sewer and water is, I would say 85% of the sewer and water is in at this time. They are back filling the street segment now. They're approximately 40% done with the entire project. We do anticipate having curb and gutter and paving that street before winter, so we will have a drivable surface you know come next year, and into this year so. We are actually a little bit ahead of schedule from what we anticipated earlier when we let the project. There will be a signal at the intersection of Audubon and Bluff Creek Boulevard as well so, I mean that level of service F that she had mentioned, that will be handled by the signal so that definitely is an improvement there. And then we would anticipate another access down to Pioneer Trail the end, the development plan that you will come in this year yet, so there, we anticipate two access points there in the very near future. 34 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Kate Aanenson: And that's the Pioneer Pass project that would tie into Lyman Boulevard. We left the other segment off. We talked about that earlier tonight. Actually the area that we're going to put into study area, but there is adequate circulation for the western half of the 2005 to develop. Again this buildout is going to be a number of years. It's not going to happen all at once. Probably 2 to 3 year buildout. Maybe longer. So we believe there's adequate infrastructure and they're both tracking together. Paul Oehme: And as far as assessments too, the developer has waived his rights to the assessment appeal so, and we are, will be assessing the majority of the east/west collector road, Bluff Creek Boulevard in November. To be recorded at the County so, payable in 2007. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any follow up questions? Okay. Were there any other items to be discussed on this item? Item 1(d). If not, is there, sorry. I heard murmuring. Is there additional questions? Janet Paulsen: Street? Is that wide enough? Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry. Janet Paulsen: The 20 foot street? Mayor Furlong: Well I guess the issue of the street, I guess, I assume that was considered as part of the preliminary plat approval. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so. And I know we discussed parking, both on street and off street parking at length. Kate Aanenson: And there's a condition that the City Engineer added regarding as you get towards the intersection, that that parking can't be as close so there's better sight lines, but again that's guest parking. It's not permanent parking. There's also, there's a condition in here regarding winter conditions. Overnight parking so those are all standard for street, private streets. And they're not all private streets. Those looping streets are public streets. The only private streets are the ones that go between the small units. Otherwise the rest of them are public streets, and we believe, we've learned from experience that keeping those larger looping streets public, they get plowed sooner and that issue and so, but there is guest parking a lot on those streets, as there are on other public streets in the city. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or items? If not, is there a motion to approve staff's recommendations for item 1(d), both 1 and 2. Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve. 35 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City nd Council approve Liberty on Bluff Creek 2 Addition: 1) Final Plat Approval. 2) Resolution #2006-62: Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Move now to item number 6 under new business. Looking at the hour, let's take, unless there's objection, let's take a 5 minute recess subject to the call of the Chair. LOREN VELTKAMP, 6724 LOTUS TRAIL, PLANNING CASE 06-25: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE SECOND LEVEL OF A HOME WITH NON-CONFORMING SETBACKS. TWO SETBACK VARIANCES WILL BE REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS A CORNER LOT ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. Public Present: Name Address Jeff King 767 Carver Beach Road Pat & Keith Gunderson 6661 Mohawk Drive Bruce Johansson 6711 Mohawk Drive Matt & Liz Tibbetts 6699 Mohawk Drive Don & Sig Sennes 6680 Mohawk Drive Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. This item…interpretation of staff's…staff interpretation and I'll go through that in a minute. This item first th appeared before the Planning Commission back on June 20 and at that time staff… There was concern with the Planning Commission the direction…and how the property was being used so they asked us to look a little deeper into actually how the property was being used so I'll go through that in a minute too. But the critical thing that you're here tonight to discuss is the variance, and there's some other…issues that I'll touch on too. …and the subject property is located here. There's an existing house that recently burned, but ordinance does allow to build to the existing structure. There are some non- 36 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 conforming setbacks. They have requested to go higher in those areas that… I'm not going to go into the building plan unless you have specific questions tonight but just for…the area in blue doesn't meet the setback requirements and therefore…residential height…35 feet. The area shown in pink does not meet the setback requirements from Tamarack… have to stay with the existing structure… So therefore that's the request. The 22 foot and the 15 foot setback on that setback…just some questions about, based on some testimony, of how the property was being used and the existing conditions so staff did a little bit more research on that, and that item did go back to the Planning th Commission on July 18. At that time the staff also had some additional information that we shared, and also I included in your packet some information from the residents as part of their testimony as to the condition of the property and some complaints that may have been researched on regarding…to the property itself. So what I wanted to mention is that one of the issues that the staff also faced on the evidence that resulted in the investigation on how the fire, on how the property was being used, we made the interpretation that that property was being rented, and if you look at your staff report on page 6 of 8, that's the first interpretation so as a part of the normal code process, anybody aggrieved of the decision of administrative…to the planning department or myself, the planning th director… And part of the testimony, as it is in your staff report, again dated July 18, there is one of the Planning Commissioners was specifically asked…so that was one of the findings the Planning Commission felt comfortable…Having said that, if the property is being rented, and the applicant's request, again kind of going through…information that the Planning Commission asked based on some of these questions and information provided by the residents, that they felt that the additional height was also to allow for additional income for the rental property. Again…and also the testimony the residents felt like the existing height…add to that and so that was some of the problems that the Planning Commission felt was a reason to deny…not demonstrated a hardship. That there's an alternative...in the staff report where we outlined that should the applicant choose to honor the city code, there is a process if the applicant applies for a variance that would allow a single family situation… The Planning Commission did discuss this… more of a dependent, elderly relative that they need to provide a basement or maybe over a garage…and there is a process for that and we felt that if the applicant chose that as a way to provide that…we included the information from the neighbors. There's some other ongoing issues on the property and I wanted to stay focused on the issue of the variance so…to know that Josh Metzer on our planning staff did meet with some of the residents to try to assimilate some of their questions… the variance and what we're here for tonight. The Planning Commission and the staff did recommend denial of the variance and that the interpretation that the property is being rented…So with that, you have… Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. At this point. Okay. We may have some other ones in the future. Okay. At this point, I see the applicant is here. You're appealing the Planning Commission so why don't you come forward and give us the information. Loren Veltkamp: Hi, I'm Loren Veltkamp. 37 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Loren Veltkamp: Good evening. 6724 Lotus Trail. My house was built in 1926 or started I should say. It's been worked on ever since I think. It's more like a question of when wasn't it being built. I've been there about 15 years. I've doubled the size of the house roughly and I see an opportunity now, totally unexpected, to make it a little better. Perhaps a little bigger. But not much. I don't plan to increase my footprint or anything like that. I don't want to encroach on anybody. I don't see any need for that. What I have, and I don't know, it's a little different than what she showed you or what I had before the fire. If I can just point this out here. As you can see, this little thing here is a dormer and this is basically the blue part that she had before whereas this is the part that we're talking about. This is the part that's controlled by setbacks so towards the front of the house here I had a large room and truss it's called, which is a storage area. And this was a dormer and this was a deck that came out about 6 feet. Beyond the house here so the deck survived the fire but the dormer was lost, but I have the right now to rebuild this dormer so I've already done so. The main issue for me tonight is this little square here which is about 12 feet by 12 feet. This is behind the dormer here and it's going to go to waste if I just put a roof over it. I would like to use it for storage or maybe to expand a bedroom. It's a small area and it doesn't involve anyone's view that I can see. This house here, this house here is about 44 inches from my property line. It encroaches upon my property greatly. And it also goes 2 feet into Tamarack Road. This is a rental unit and has been a rental unit for most of the 15 years that I've been there. Been a wide variety of people living there. The only other thing on this Tamarack Road is perhaps a garage. It's a 2 stall garage which is across the road there so this is looking… This garage, I haven't exactly measured this but if the road here is about 40 feet. I think this road is about 40 feet. The garage is probably within 2 or 3 feet of this road, so the point I'm making here is that these other properties are either on the road, or they're right next to the road. Now these are the only, there's only 3 properties involved here because it's a really short street. This one, this one and this one. And I went to the law library down in Chaska to research this. I just got on West Law and when you punch in setbacks, do a search on setbacks, I have 32 cases from the Supreme Court, and I looked through all the cases to see if there's a case like mine and there was a case exactly like mine called Aurora vs. Burnet. And there's different ways to interpret these cases I know but just briefly, what happened in this case is that somebody was being set back more than other people on a street, and a guy that Burnet. The city had him do setbacks and he didn't want to be set back because he would be set back further than everybody else, and he just went ahead and built and he defied the city and the city took him to court, as you would expect, and he won because the Supreme Court ruled that well, you know the proper thing to do in this situation is to set back the people all the same, you know, and not set anybody back any farther than anybody else so he won the case. And this seems to me to be very similar to what we're dealing with here because I'm being put under a new code here, you know 30 foot setback, which I was never put under before. Now Carver Beach is a very old area. The oldest housing association in Minnesota, built back in 1898. So the housing association is still active. It's 108 years old. My house was built in 1926. I built this deck here against Tamarack Road in the setback, I built this. I got, I think in 2001 I got the approval to build this deck, which is further out than what I'm asking for now, and that 38 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 was just 5 years ago. So from 1926 to 2001, I had different setbacks on my property. I had a 30 foot setback with, I'm pointing this out. My house was facing this way for 81 years. Now I find out, after my house is burned, my house is facing this way. Okay. And this way. This has never happened before and my question to the council is, how can these setbacks be switched you know in midstream like this. All of a sudden this is not fair to me because I've been building one way and now all of a sudden it's illegal. And who knew? So the reason my house was facing south originally is because there was a road going up like this. And the people who designed this house spaced the garage and the front door and the 30 foot front yard setback was all faced to a road called Willow Road. And Willow Road was never built, and I guess that's because Lotus Trail became the main road but Lotus Trail separates my house from the lake. Okay, it runs between my house and the lake so they wanted to put that road in there because they didn't want a road between them on the lake but eventually it happened, you know. So Willow Road was abandoned and Lotus Trail became the main road because of some decision somewhere along the line. Now I am forced to put my driveway out to Lotus Trail then, so then that makes my house face a different direction, through no fault of my own or the original builders or anything, but my feeling is that, because the house is so old, that the setbacks should be grandfathered in along with the house, because I can't have my setbacks switched every 5 years when I'm trying to develop this property. I don't think that's fair to anyone. I think the city should just stick with a 81 year setback that we've got going here and then we have no problems. Then I have no building problems whatsoever. But it's because of that switch that we got into this jam and I clearly question the legality of that because you know if the city takes control over a new property that they didn't have before, now they're supposed to compensate the owner or work something out, and in this particular case I'm kind of being deprived here you know through no fault of anyone really. It's just you know, it's just the way of the neighborhood has evolved, so I'm just asking for consideration here because it is an older house. But anyway, getting back to this Supreme Court case, which is very similar to mine. In this case the Supreme Court ruled that the fair way to do this is to set everybody back according to the average distance that you know the people are away from the road. So if we're looking for an average here, this house here is 2 feet over and this house is probably 2 feet off. So the average would be right on the road, and I'm 16 1/2 feet off of that, and I'm not even asking for that 16 1/2 feet. I'm just trying to build over my existing footprint so it's very minimal what I'm asking for. It's not even what the Supreme Court would get by a long shot, so I think this is very fair and it's not blocking anyone's views because the view this way is already blocked by the dormer and the view this way is blocked by this part so I don't see that it would have… And the other point I want to make here is that this road here is not a road. It's just a paper street, like we were talking about earlier tonight. So I feel like I'm being set back 30 feet from absolutely nothing when everybody else is over the street. And particularly this part of the street up here. I've never even been able to use this. It's supposed to be public property but it's been blocked by trailers for almost the entire 15 years I've lived there, and I've been physically harassed when I've gone over there to you know kind…about this. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. 39 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Loren Veltkamp: So other people are using the road a lot. I'm using it a little, and just trying to you know make use of this little square here, and that's, this just concerns the setback to Tamarack Road so. So you're talking about Tamarack Road setback number. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Can I just make a point of clarification? If you go to page 3 of the staff report, the way we determine setbacks is any public right-of-way. In this circumstance there's two public right-of-way. One that's the improved and one is not but it's still determined as a public right-of-way. So there would be two. Even if you were to vacate Tamarack, as just suggested, the public street would still be Lotus. There'd still non- conforming setbacks so the fact that you have two public streets, which we have corner lots all over town. There's still, we call it two fronts so it'd be 30-30 is a general single family residential district and then 10 on the other two sides. So, which would be if you had a front and a back, it'd be 30 in the front, 30 in the rear so in this circumstance we have two, a corner lot, it'd be the 30-30 so that's been a long, been along for quite a while. Then also as far as the building permit, I just also wanted to point out, that does go back to 1998 and the one in 2002, and someone made that incorrect interpretation on those and those were pointed out in the staff report that those were issues in error. So just wanted to point that out for the record. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Loren Veltkamp: That is another issue that she brings up. See staff now says that the allowance of this, the allowance of this deck being built, which I built as a fire egress for this bedroom up here basically, but they said the permit to build this was given in error. I'm like, where's the error? I got the same setback for 81 years. There's no error. Now the staff 5 years ago was simply respecting the original setbacks for this property which I think is totally proper because you can't just be switching people's orientation on a house like that developing the property. It's just throws everything up in the air. You can't, you don't know what to do anymore. So the Carver Beach and these older neighborhoods, and I would ask the council to you know be understanding to that because it can really lead to problems when you're trying to build. You have to plan for the house and building the house…and you can't do it, so it screws up a lot of stuff. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Loren Veltkamp: Alright, so we're done with, that's my proposal, request on Tamarack. I also requested a setback from Lotus. The same argument applies to Lotus is that it was not the original front of my property. What I actually have there from the street, if you take a measuring tape from the corner of my house, which would be here, out to the street, which is in this area here. If I measure on a slope going down okay from you know just chest level to the corner of the house, there's a slope there, I get about 24 feet. Okay. So there's quite a bit of grass and that's at the closest corner. If you look down here, it is at the 30 feet. So the average, I don't know what the average would be, it'd be somehow around 27 feet I am from the street right now. Now, the reason that this, 40 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 they're setting me back so far here is because there is a right-of-way in addition to the physical pavement and the way the street, you know you've got right-of-way which is much wider than the street. In this case the street is slammed all the way over to the left side so I've got like 20 feet of right-of-way and before we even begin to measure the 30 feet, so I'm perfectly willing to stay 30 feet away from the physical road. This is a dead end road. You know it's never going to be increased or enhanced or anything like that. I'm perfectly willing to stay 30-35 feet away from that road but putting me 50 feet away from the curb, you know coming up over the top of my property like this, you're coming up over my living room and pushing me back 50 feet from the road because they changed the road. You know I just don't think it's fair. I'm willing to stay 30 feet plus from the physical road, which if anybody walks down the road they can even look up and they will not be able to see the second story. They won't see the roof or the second story. I can put a little deck along here. You know set back. Make this 30 feet here, the closest corner. You know set that back a little. Nobody would see it and I think that's, you know being discreet. I feel it's pretty reasonable considering that these setbacks have been jerked around through the years you know. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Loren Veltkamp: That's about all I've got to say about the setback. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Loren Veltkamp: Then there's one other request that I just have to ask you. This is a little more involved. For the last 6 years I've been renting my property. This has been an issue of great debate. I just can't believe how much debate we've had over this, but I've been renting my property to roommates since I had a divorce, and during my divorce it was discovered that I had a handicap. A rare mental handicap so I've not really been able to work, so what I resorted to was, was renting out my property to roommates, and that was the way I sustained myself for the most part. And at first the city didn't have codes about this because this was 6 years ago, and then eventually I called the city because I was wondering if they had any codes, and they said well no, we don't have codes but we're making some right now you know. So I said okay, I'll wait and send them to me when you got them, and then they did send them to me. And then there was some confusion with the city because they felt that I really built apartments in my house and that I wasn't just having roommates. And you can imagine how you know upset the planning department was when they thought I was building you know a duplex or triplex or having apartments in the house, which I never wanted to do. But on the other hand I want to make my roommates happy, and have space and privacy and all this other stuff so, I'm kind of caught in the middle here. And anyway, after considerable debate or whatever, and many letters to the city, I got a letter from the city say it's okay for me to rent if I didn't have doorways between these different areas of my house. You know so that it was all one house. Not a rental units but one single house, okay and that was the way we resolved it. And I got a letter to this effect and they inspected everything and everything was okay, and we went on this way until the fire. Now after the fire, the planning department took a new look at it and they felt strongly that I really had 41 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 apartments in this house after all you know and then they're back on my tail about this. What I would like to do, I'm not telling you how to resolve this tonight, okay. It's too complicated of an issue here tonight…this is impossible to do now. What I'm asking for is just some way to have 3 roommates so I can stay in my house. That's what I want. Just 3 people living with me, and I want to go back to what I had before. And the planning department has started chipping away at what I had before, which was 3 kitchens and a large, good driveway. You know they started, they don't want me to go back to that even though it was approved, but it was approved. Just like my original setback was approved, so I think I should be able to go back to this time. You know without being evicted from my house. I mean I'm going to lose my house if I can't get my roommates and I don't want to you know do anything shady or efaithful about this you know. I just want to find a way to do it and a few years ago during this debate I did write a letter to the council, a 8 page letter and after quite a few months I got a note back, and they said thank you for the letter. You know so at least somebody read it but I don't know if it was any of you but in this 8 page letter I made a point that having roommates in a house is good for people, especially for the handicap. You know there's a way to keep a house and I think it's also a way to keep the low cost housing affordable, you know because my rents are cheaper than anybody's. I can beat any price and you know the cheapest rooms we have for people are the ones that already exist. So businesses like it you know because they don't have to pay the employees so much, and you know businesses benefit from having these people around. There may be some stress on the neighborhood if you have too many roommates or allow cars, something like that. I mean I know there's a down side too and I don't want to be any part of that down side. I can tell you what the down side is sometime, we can sit down and talk about it. But anyway, it's a very involved question and I'd like to see this area looked at of, and come up with a viable way for people in Chanhassen to have a few roommates, you know that's not going to bother anybody. It's just done nicely. And I'd really like to have the council look at that now. Last time we were together, you know she got the planning department, or is it the planning. Kate Aanenson: Commission. Loren Veltkamp: Commission, to agree that my house should be inspected, and I actually did have, I actually was written. They asked me if I was renting and I said yes, I'm renting. I'm charging rent and I don't think that means that I have, I'm admitting to having rental units. Okay. As far as I know I've never had rental units. Never wanted them. Just some roommates. And so yeah, I said yes you know. I have you know I was renting and I want to continue renting… So what I'm asking for now is that this area is looked at before you know I'm refused the right to have renters, or refused to have a kitchen or driveway or anything like that. I would just like to have this help at this point. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Loren Veltkamp: Not decided or undecided. I just would like to have it…the legal questions here are so difficult that I'm having a hard time with it myself, and I've been thinking about this for 4 years. 42 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Loren Veltkamp: Suspended and find a good way for, you know to go back to what I had. I don't want to lose what I had so… Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any questions for the applicant at this point? Kate Aanenson: I'd just like to comment, if I may Mayor. Council members. Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Kate Aanenson: Just to kind of, we did believe that there was rentals. We had received complaints from the neighbors so building inspections went up. The planning department never investigated that property. They just relied on the approval of the inspections. Again at that time I think there was some ambiguity if the doors weren't locked. Whether he's renting or whether the units, they're tenants. They're being charged rent and that's what the definition in the city code is so. The other concern that we had was that there was at least 6 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms and there were 3 separate levels with a kitchen without a permit so to us, that kind of creates the levels, 3 kind of apartment areas, whatever you want to call it, but there was exchange of payment for tenancy and that, by our definition meets a rental. So for us to try to solve that rate of problem through this, we finally had, you know what we would call prima facia evidence to say this is how it's being used. While we tried to find it before, because we had received complaints, and I think that's some of the angst with the neighbors but I'm not sure in this format, we did provide another mechanism for the applicant to go through, which we would with anybody else to try to resolve. He can have so many people at this point. I think we really need to take that through a separate process, which is allowed by the code, under a variance. Economic hardship, to come through that process and that's what the staff would recommend. I think the Planning Commission really listened hard. It was a long hearing. I think the neighbors would testify. Several hours, twice to really go through and dissect exactly how the property was being used and I rely on their wisdom to, how they formulated, based on the information, the testimony from the residents and the questions that they asked of how the property was being used. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the, I guess the question is, the effect that would result. If the first requested motion and to recognize that he meets the definition. What's the effect of that? Kate Aanenson: That's a good question and the fact that we have a zoning ordinance is really to protect property rights. The surrounding properties. When you buy into a residential district, your expectation is that you have some protection of how the neighboring properties are being used. So if we were to say anybody, I think that's why, I know that's one of the reasons why we came up with this rental license as we had some of the older properties around town. People were starting to rent them and some of them were nuisances. So we came up with the property maintenance, in combination with the 43 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 rental license so not only can we go after property that's in ill repair, but we also have some control of tenants that are in properties and they can lose their ability to rent property if they're not managing their tenants and the property. It was kind of a two pronged approach on that, so it would have implications if you're trying to solve that, for this application and not look at it city wide because there is an expectation of protecting neighbor's properties. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Knutson. Roger Knutson: Mayor, just quickly point out. I'm not going to, under a rental dwelling license, revision to the city code, a dwelling, rental dwelling is, the term rental dwelling means any rental dwelling with one or more living units, so even though you have one living unit, not multiple living units, you can be a rental dwelling. To be a rental dwelling that means you charge someone, or receive other forms of compensation for the use of the dwelling. So whether you live there or not is, doesn't matter. Mayor Furlong: Doesn't matter. It doesn't exclude. Roger Knutson: If you receive rent from someone or if you receive vegetables from someone for living there, any kind of compensation, that makes it a rental dwelling. The fact that you're living there does not change it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Ms. Aanenson, follow up on the comments, both on the setbacks. There was suggestions made that the setbacks were changing over time. And the difference between the setback from the street. I know we've heard this, this has been an issue and point of confusion with a number of people between the street and the right- of-way. Kate Aanenson: Right. The setback is taken from the right-of-way, not the improved surface. Mayor Furlong: Do you have that picture again? Is that the box that goes across there? So by that picture, I think that hatched area that goes around the north, east and south part, is that the deck? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: On the building. Does that go up and touch the right-of-way at this point, or approximately touch the right-of-way? Kate Aanenson: Close. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Kate Aanenson: Again, that goes back to some of the older part… 44 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the request here is essentially to build a second story over the entire pink area? Kate Aanenson: The area in pink is the area that doesn't meet the setbacks. You're not…to this point. …does not allow you to go into the 35 feet maximum height. Again there was some concern with the residents that he was, that the applicant was building higher. That does meet the setback. When the home was destroyed, you can meet whatever the zoning ordinance allows, 35 feet. It's this area in pink that doesn't meet the setbacks. I guess the same with the non-conforming portion. Mayor Furlong: And what, even though it is, his home was non-conforming within setbacks, because it burned he can still replace what was there. Kate Aanenson: In the area that meets, correct. Meets all the setback requirements and that's the... Mayor Furlong: Okay, but the request here is to build higher within the pink area. Kate Aanenson: Right. He came in a little bit higher and that was the one we recently said no, there's… Mayor Furlong: On the blue he's going higher as well? Kate Aanenson: Correct… Mayor Furlong: Okay, but that is not restricted because of any setback issue. It's the area in the pink where he's requesting to go higher than what was there before, and that's where, am I understanding that correctly? Kate Aanenson: Correct. And that doesn't meet, it doesn't meet setbacks so you have to stay with what was… Mayor Furlong: Okay, so he can replace what was there before the fire but. Kate Aanenson: …the apartment's non-conforming, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions of staff? If not, discussion. Comments. Alright, I'm going to start calling names. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Got the short straw huh. Comments. I think the, my inclination is to side with staff and Planning Commission. Carver Beach is one, it's hard for us it seems like to go a month without seeing something. That's an old area of the city and the lots are small and there's a lot of existing non-conformances and things out there that, I think myself, you know I look at each one of those individually and the circumstances surrounding it when they come in for whatever those variances or requests or things are, and the, whether or not you know in 1929 or whichever what the circumstances were, the 45 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 fact is that we're allowing this applicant to build to replace what was there. To build what burned down seems reasonable. Within that footprint. You want to change the inside? You know lots of options you can do there within that existing footprint, and you know there's right-of-ways there that define where those setbacks have to be and you know if the right-of-way's there, that's where you've got to measure from so, you know I believe my view is that there's some opportunity to increase the height of what's there now in some areas that are within the setback so that's even in addition to what's there now. For those areas that were previously non-conforming, I'm not inclined to increase that non-conformance out there, especially given that essentially he can rebuild the house in the existing footprint and there is potential to do more than that currently out there that I'm inclined to deny the variance because I believe that there's reasonable use of the property and you know in fact can be again made bigger in certain areas of that property. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Lundquist. I guess I could repeat everything he said but I'm really not in favor of taking a non-conforming situation and amplifying it. And I think he does have the right to rebuild what he does have and he has reasonable use of that property and when he does rebuild it the way it was. So I also am going to side with the staff and go on the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny this. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: I concur. I think there's been a lot of discussion about definition of rental. I guess as I read that and as you listen to our city attorney, there isn't a question. He's renting. And you can ask a lot of what if's. Well what if he wasn't renting? Would that change our perspective? No. The fact is, he is and so I'm not going to even think about that. You know in, it creates issues and we have an opportunity now to correct some of the issues that it creates and if he'd like to come back and request the variance for, to get the zoning variance to do rentals, to do that route as Kate mentioned, he certainly has every right to do that. But as far as expanding a non-conforming, I don't see a compelling reason to do it at all. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I would concur. I think the issues of reasonable use have been stated. He has reasonable use with rebuilding the property as it was within the non-conforming area. I think the other issues, having read through the verbatim minutes of the Planning Commission, actually 2 meetings where this was discussed, I think the questions and the discussion were very pointed. Very appropriate and revealed information on how the property's being used, to Councilman Peterson's point, and it is being rented. I think that is clear. I think you know if we approved that first request, we'll be stating the obviously on what's been agreed to. And I think the other issue, because it's being rented, improving the non-conforming creates the opportunity and in some cases it looks like the desire to increase income on the property as well, which is another factor that came out in the Planning Commission meeting. And for those reasons I think it's important for us not to go forward with approving and increasing the non- 46 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 conforming aspect of it. Being able to rebuild what he had, that is reasonable and I'm glad that our state statutes allow that because I think that would be a reasonable request. But to increase the non-conforming and to build more, I think that's unreasonable and doesn't meet the standards. I think the findings of fact in the staff report are consistent with what I've heard here and support the Planning Commission's and the staff's recommendation to deny so. I would concur with other comments and for reasons additionally stated, that it would not be appropriate for us to go forward with approving this requested variance. Any other thoughts or comments? If not, is there a motion? We have 2 motions I believe. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I'll make the first motion. The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and planning staff's interpretation that the owner of the property at 6724 Lotus Trail, Loren Veltkamp has been renting the property as defined in the City Code Article VIII, Rental Dwelling Licenses, Section 10-217, Rental Dwelling. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on that motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and planning staff's interpretation that the owner of the property at 6724 Lotus Trail, Loren Veltkamp has been renting the property as defined in the City Code Article VIII, Rental Dwelling Licenses, Section 10-217, Rental Dwelling. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Motion 2. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mayor I recommend that the City Council deny the variance for 22 foot and 15 foot front yard setback area for the expansion of the second level of a home with non-conforming setbacks in the single family residential district at 6724 Lotus Trail based on the Findings of Fact contained in the staff report and the following 1 through 3? Okay. Roger Knutson: Mayor, just to be clear. You're adopting the Planning Commission finding as your own findings. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Did I read the wrong one? Roger Knutson: No, you did it just fine. I'm just amplifying. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. 47 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on that motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council denies the variance for 22 foot and 15 foot front yard setback variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with non-conforming setbacks in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 6724 Lotus Trail, based on the Findings of Fact contained in this staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 3. There is an alternative process to secure a rental license. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you everyone. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: Memory serves, we had, I think this is our first council meeting since stth National Night Out on August 1. Since we're on the 14, and I want to thank staff for their work in organizing it. I also want to recognize and thank members of the Carver County Sheriff's Department, and particularly the posse who serve on a volunteer basis and came out in force to meet with our residents and various neighborhood parties. I think we had, I know we had a presentation at our last council meeting, but it rained that night. The following night and yet attendance was still very strong and I think that speaks volumes of not only our residents but also the organization efforts. …staff and. Councilman Lundquist: We also had the ladder truck and members of the fire department. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely, thank you. Fire department was out there. Councilman Lundquist: One of our other assistant. Mayor Furlong: I think we had 3 trucks out there in total from the fire department so thank you for naming that. But it was a good night. A lot of enthusiasm. A lot of good questions were raised. So I think everybody. Todd Gerhardt: Neighborhoods made some makeshift tents between ladders and tarps and so they had a place to gather to get out of the rain. That was pretty creative. Mayor Furlong: So congratulations to everybody and especially to those 40 neighborhoods, for all the people that hosted the party. For their efforts and for everyone that attended, appreciate it. Any other comments or discussion for council members? If not, Mr. Gerhardt. 48 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: First item we have is discussion regarding the council seat vacancy by Councilmember Steve Labatt. The City Council really has two options. First one is you do not have to fill the vacancy. Because Councilmember Labatt's term is less than 2 years left on that, there's no need for a special election. Second option, what we've done in the past is advertised the vacancy and interviewed potential candidates and then make a selection. You know staff has reviewed future agenda items and that has led us to believe that there is nothing coming down the line that would need a 4/5 vote. Based on that, it's staff's recommendation just to keep status quo. Because of the time it would take to interview candidates and advertise, we would probably see that potential candidate start the first week in October and be here for two council meetings. And then the th election would be November 7, and so at that time if you should desire, you could select whoever was the high vote getter or wait until January to have a full council. So you know based on only having one meeting in September, you know that would probably be the first time you could interview candidates would be the second meeting in September and make the selection at that time for appointment in October. And for 2 meetings, and based on some of the future agenda items, staff doesn't see the need to go through all that. Councilman Lundquist: Did you say we do have the option of appointing after the th November 7 elections. The vote getter. That is an option? Todd Gerhardt: Yep. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Councilman Peterson: We can appoint anybody after, anytime we want to. Councilman Lundquist: Right. Mayor Furlong: I guess that's the answer. Up til the end of the term, we can appoint anybody at any time. Todd Gerhardt: In the past we've done the interview process but if you would want, you could appoint somebody you know even tonight I would think if you modify your agenda and include that. Councilman Peterson: I don’t want the job. Todd Gerhardt: Any enemies out there you want to appoint? So staff's recommendation is to keep status quo and wait until after the election. Mayor Furlong: Any questions? Comments. 49 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I think that certainly is reasonable. I think particularly reinforced by the fact that the number one thing that we do in the fall, which is the budget and the levy, as reinforced by tonight's work session, we're almost all the way there. I don't think we're going to have much argument on how to get it done. So to that end, reinforced by Todd's comment that we don't have that much coming in for the end of the year, and the levy is done essentially, it certainly seems reasonable to wait and then we can decide in November what to do for November-December. Mayor Furlong: Yeah I think it's, other thoughts. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Lundquist. Well I think it's all our desires, everyone's desire to have a full compliment serving on the council. You know whenever possible. All the people sitting in these chairs should be elected, accepted by the voters. It's only if we need to, in the case of a vacancy…and to Todd's point you know, and also Councilman Peterson stated, you know the need isn't there right now for us to have to do that. The option always remains but I think the prudent thing to do, given our proximity to the election, is to continue with the vacancy as recommended so. So at this point I think that's you know, we don't really need any action at this point. Todd Gerhardt: No. Mayor Furlong: No action required unless someone would like to make a motion but didn't hear that in anyone's comments so, okay. Todd Gerhardt: Onto other items, I wanted to thank the Rotary for the number of th Rotarians that volunteered this past Friday and Saturday. Well not this past, August 4 th and 5 in helping the city paint old Village Hall. I think on Friday we had 13 volunteers and on Saturday about 25, so you drive by old Village Hall and see the paint job there. It looks great. Hard working group. Grilling hamburgers and potato salad. Didn't grill the potato salad but…and just wanted, it was a good group of people and it was a great community project. My son helped out. Tom's kids were there and Todd Hoffman's, who's the lead project manager from the city on this project, and came with volunteers and leading the paint and coordinating. Did a great job and I know his kids put a lot of time and effort in and some of our employees helped scrape on Friday, to get it started. So that was a nice project and I appreciate the Rotary's efforts. And then we had the Barkus Parade this past Saturday. If you don't know what the Barkus Parade is, it's Friends of the Library coordinated a little parade where you dress up your dog in your favorite book character or cartoon character and parade them in front of family and friends. We probably had 37 entries and probably about 75 people that came to watch the event so, it's kind of nice to see those public events that we're not too heavily with, unless your wife is on that committee and you got to help. But it was a fun event and had characters like Prince and Mary Poppins and a couple little princesses and it was pretty neat. So they do a great job. Their third year in doing it so, it looks like they're going to do it again next year. And that's all I have. Oh! I've got to introduce Laurie Hokkanen. Councilman Peterson: Oh, by the way. 50 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Forget about Laurie. Laurie is our new Assistant City Manager and she comes to us from the City of Dekalb and Laurie, want to make a few comments and tell them about your education and background. Laurie Hokkanen: Sure. As Todd said, my name is Laurie Hokkanen. I did my undergrad at St. Cloud State. Got a bachelors in public administration. While I was there had the opportunity to intern in Becker for 2 years. They had a small staff. I got to work on a library project. Community and economic development and then the assistant administrator. And then moved to Illinois to pursue my masters at Northern Illinois University. Interned for a year with the City of Dekalb and then moved into a full time position. Kind of wore two hats. I was the only full time staff for a regional planning organization, and then also the transportation planner for the city. Entailed a lot of project management and grant management. Very happy to be here. I'm looking forward to working here and thanks for having me. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you and welcome. Kate Aanenson: It's a long first day. Mayor Furlong: …utility easement vacations. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I didn't hear if she had a resume on handling the whole like sound system and… Roger Knutson: I don't think they told her about that. Todd Gerhardt: I don't know if any of our candidates have that kind of experience. Get your masters and go to school, AV is probably not one of the required classes. Mayor Furlong: Well welcome. We look forward to working with you. Anything else or questions for Mr. Gerhardt or staff? Any discussion on the correspondence packet? CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 51