CC Minutes 1-24-05
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
MnDot to allow that to working, but with this being just conceptual, you know that gives staff
the time and the energy and resources to work with the developer on it. It comes back to us for
preliminary and I do like it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I think comments were well made. Overall I think it’s a good
concept. It’s nice to see the variety in a mixed use development like this. The access up along
Lake Susan Drive is going to be an issue as Councilman Labatt said, not just for this property
owner but for the property owner to the north as well, and I know staff is aware of that. The
owner there spoke at the public hearing and that issue has to be taken care of. Again, I think it’s
going to add some services. Some business neighborhood services to this part of town. I think
as Councilwoman Tjornhom said, you know as a PUD we get a chance to really make sure it gets
done right and I think that’s what everybody would be looking for here so this really adds to the
quality of our city which I think it has a great potential to do that and there’s a lot of work to do
but I’m in favor of, from a concept standpoint, of moving forward. That might mean that some
things get moved around if Councilman Lundquist’s comment about traffic with apartments up
there is bad, then we need to do some shifting and such to make things work but ultimately it’s
got to work for this property owner as well as neighboring property owners as well. And I’m
confident that we’ll be able to get that done, so I would support it from a concept standpoint.
Any other comments? If not, is there a motion?
Councilman Lundquist: I’d move that the City Council approve the concept PUD with the
recommendations as outlined in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we’ll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approve the concept PUD, Planning Case 05-01 with the recommendations outlined in the
staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL BUILDING AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR AN LED MONUMENT SIGN; LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
TH
MARKET BOULEVARD AND WEST 79 STREET (AMERICANA BANK BUILDING)
WALGREENS; SEMPER DEVELOPMENT, LTD AND ROBERT DITTRICH,
PLANNING CASE 05-03.
Public Present:
Name Address
Neil Tessler CEI Engineering
18
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
John Kohler 821 Marquette Avenue #600, Minneapolis
Allen W. Obernolte 106 Tanager Road, Mankato
Robert Dittrich 106 Tanager Road, Mankato
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. As you indicated, Walgreen’s is going for a site plan review with
variances and a conditional use for a reader sign. The subject site is located on West 79th and
Market Boulevard. As you stated, the existing Americana Bank is. Sharmeen Al-Jaff on our
staff has worked with Walgreen’s over the last few months to really get a high quality design.
The bank itself is two stories. The Planning Commission struggled a little bit with the size of the
footprint of this building. While it’s one story compared to the two stories, there is office space
in the existing bank building that is leased because the existing footprint is 5 so it’s really closer
to 10,000 square feet. And this is 15 so it’s obviously a bigger footprint. The request for the
variance is driven by the fact that the impervious surface…is a little bit lower impervious district.
65 percent so the direction the staff took on that was to get a higher quality design so we’ll go
through that in a minute but we believe that it was pretty, worked really well with the applicants
to get what we believe is a superior design look to the building. Again the Planning Commission
th
heard this, through a public hearing on January 4. Did recommend approval 5-0. There was
two areas that the Planning Commission discussed that the staff had a different perspective on
and one was the drive through window. Walgreen’s does have a drive through window. The
existing bank does. There is traffic that comes through off of Market Boulevard that’s allowed
to cut through. There is a shared parking agreement with the Applebee’s, Tires Plus and
Chipotle, kind of a shared parking. We believe it makes sense to continue to allow that. There
was a traffic study that was done on that that said there’s two ways to approach it. One you can
mark it one way, or observe it for a while. Obviously Walgreen’s choice is to have someone
come in, as opposed to go through the drive through and capture that customer in a better
method, and actually the drive through on this is significantly lower so our recommendation is
that we continue to monitor it for a while and if it presents itself as a problem, which we don’t
anticipate, then we could mark it one way. The Planning Commission also kind of went beyond
what we had recommended for impervious surface because they felt was appropriate to actually
put a bench out front and I’ll go through the location on that. So with that, again as I, a little
over an acre and a half. 15,000 square foot building. Materials are shown on here. It’s a brick
building. Again we had them put windows all the way down. If you look at some of the other
surrounding communities, the windows are really kind of shoulder above high. We had them put
windows all the way down so it really has that curb appeal all the way around the building.
Again we think that makes for a superior look. One of the other things that we had them do is all
the trash is inside the building, so again that added to kind of the footprint of the building was
another reason we felt was a reason for granting the impervious surface requirement. This is the
front door which actually doesn’t face Market but actually faces kind of the Applebee’s, West
th
79 Street. Again we think that has really nice curb appeal. This is the back side. This is the
drive through window. Again, based on the traffic counts, pretty low turn out. This is the reader
board that asks for the conditional use on. The way our ordinance is set up is that you have to
get a conditional use. We think it’s appropriate. One of the things that they said that they’d like
to use it for also is the Amber Alert. It’s another cuing thing so we did put findings in there for
the conditional use and we are recommending approval of that.
Councilman Lundquist: Is that Market Boulevard right in front of there then?
19
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
Kate Aanenson: Yes it is. Yeah…let me go back to the trash enclosure… Here we go. That’s
the trash enclosure slide, so we have spando windows, so yeah. Again this is a much superior
building because we have the 3, 2 corners, significant corners coming in to make, to get to the
downtown so I mean, we’re really pleased with the way the applicant worked with the staff to get
a nice design and kind of that compromise for the variance requirement. So with that we do have
conditions of approval for the variance, the conditional use and the site plan approval.
Councilman Labatt: Did you want to talk about that bench?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, the bench I just mentioned briefly. This one right here. It’d be out in
this area here. On the site plan. That’s the main entrance so the Planning Commission wanted
that, so that would add additional impervious surface.
Mayor Furlong: Just a quick question. What’s the incremental increase?
Kate Aanenson: I knew you were going to ask me that.
Matt Saam: …is 5 percent. So it’s.
Mayor Furlong: Wait a minute. 5 percent of the impervious surface? How many square feet?
Applicant: For the bench? Oh I mean it’s, I thought you meant the whole. The incremental
difference is almost is, I mean yeah. .00 something. Of 1,000 square feet it’s probably 12.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: So the plan that you saw, the first site plan there was additional requirements
for landscaping. Those have all been modified. The plan they just showed so it does meet all the
requirements.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any questions for staff?
Councilman Lundquist: Kate question on the condition about the drive aisle and one way, two
way, monitor. If it’s monitored, who’s going to monitor it? How you going to determine if it’s a
problem or not? How long are you going to monitor it? When are you going to say whether
something needs to be done or not and how do we make this so it’s not 25 years from now
somebody decides this is an issue?
Kate Aanenson: Well I think a lot of what we have to do is complaint driven. I think
Walgreen’s as the owner of the property is the first one to complain. If they’re having problems.
They’ve indicated to us that they have similar situations where they have a Wal Mart next to a
Walgreen’s, is that correct? Yeah, and it works fine so they’re comfortable with it. We wouldn’t
want to force them to have something that would be a detriment to them. We think it’d be a lot
of two ways in and out of something that’s to the positive so.
20
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: And I’m not against it. I just don’t, it seems like something that has the
potential to you know.
Kate Aanenson: People are using it that way now. I guess that’s part of it. We’re not changing
something so that to me would have been the concern. We’re not re-cuing people. That’s how
it’s functioning today. People are used to using that as an alternative to get back to those
businesses, especially in sometimes a busy, busy lunch hour rush. People take that cut through
to get to Applebee’s. Dinner Theater, movie, whatever, so they’re used to being cued that way
so we felt leaving it that way wouldn’t be a problem. Obviously Walgreen’s as a tenant would
be the first one to complain about it.
Councilman Lundquist: Realistically if you were going to make it a one way, I mean.
Kate Aanenson: It has to come out. Out, yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, but then all you’re going to do is put a sign up there and.
Kate Aanenson: Do not enter. One way.
Councilman Lundquist: Right, and people are going to drive there anyway.
Mayor Furlong: Because they go over the curb? I mean what’s with it?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, well that’s kind of what we’re saying. People are cued to using it that
way and as long as they actually have less drive through traffic. The only concern was,
because…the site plan’s laid out. If you look at how it’s laid out. Going through the drive
through. It’s just the sight line as you bump out here so there is two way traffic. If someone…
it’s tight. That’s the only place it’s a problem. You have plenty of sight distance through here.
Mayor Furlong: But that’s the situation now.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: But you’re going to put a sign up there on a piece of private property
that says one way, and.
Kate Aanenson: They would be enforcing it, correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Right, but realistically people are just going to drive there anyway.
Mayor Furlong: Question. Yeah, questions? I have a question Kate. We’ll get to you in just a
minute sir. Is there a public interest for having that a two way route because of the cross parking
easements and the access to the other businesses nearby?
Kate Aanenson: That’s the staff’s position that it is kind of in the public interest. You know we
always try to tie properties together. I’ll give you a similar example, if you look at Byerly’s. We
21
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
tied TCF, Office Max so you don’t have to get back onto a public street. Wait through a line. If
you want to go from one to the other, same as we did M&I Bank is also tied to Richfield. If you
want to go back, so you don’t always have to get onto a public street you know for those kind of,
those convenience kind of things so we saw this really as a convenience. We don’t want to do
anything to the detriment of Walgreen’s but we believe people are patterned to go that way and
it’s not hurting anything. It’s not the majority of the traffic but it does provide that alternative.
Mayor Furlong: I guess one of my questions, following up on Councilman Lundquist’s question.
If there isn’t even a public interest to making sure that’s two way, then should we be dictating
traffic flow on a private property, and I don’t know if that’s where you were going or not but
that’s part of my question. You know if we were silent on it, in terms of the conditions, then if it
became a problem we couldn’t, and the property wanted to just go one way, is there a public
interest for us having that condition there?
Kate Aanenson: I’d leave that to the City Attorney because we’ve had these discussions before
about can you force somebody to have an access. I don’t believe you can force them to combine
onto a commercial piece but most people that we’ve worked with want that relationship, and
because of the shared parking. Again they’re comfortable with it. The applicant or we wouldn’t
be forcing the issue. That’s how it’s functioning today so. They’d be the one to enforce it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Because you’re right. Could we remain silent on it and leave it that way? Sure.
I believe that’s something that may be more…
Mayor Furlong: By having it in the condition as staff is recommending, or as the Planning
Commission recommended, then the property owner would have to come to the City to get a
change either way. If it’s silent, then they could monitor it themselves. Is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: So it’s a question whether we want to have some say in what happens. If they
come out and say we really want this one way, but we believe there’s a public interest to keeping
it two way, we’re not necessarily, I’m having trouble believing that the property owner would
put an unsafe traffic flow through their property but. I guess that’s my question.
Kate Aanenson: Sure, leaving it silent would be a solution, certainly.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Other questions for staff?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have a question, or at least a comment. Well I don’t know,
question/comment about the shared parking agreement. That area is so compressed the way it is.
Who’s going to monitor that as far as you know, if Applebee’s all of a sudden has a rush and
22
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
they’re in Walgreen’s and Walgreen’s customers are trying to park and, oh I think he’s got it.
He’s got an answer.
Kate Aanenson: Well it’s functioning today that way with all the uses that are at the bank which
probably has more uses at the bank than Walgreen’s would at any peak time because of the
office that’s rented there so. They obviously want to protect their interest and provide as much
parking as they need, and the other uses there are bound to what they have in place right now
because they don’t have expansion capabilities but it functions based on peak hours. That they
would use them.
Todd Gerhardt: They’ve all entered into private contracts for parking amongst each other so it’s
up to them if they have issues to go through the proper channels in enforcing that so it’s a private
matter. We encouraged it and they’ve agreed to that through a private contract between the two
parties. Or in this case 5 parties.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Back tracking to the two way traffic. Was there any
condition with the plan that went through for the existing property. The existing building with
regard to…
Kate Aanenson: …you know it probably was silent.
Mayor Furlong: It was silent?
Kate Aanenson: It probably was. We had to cross through between the businesses and they had
the shared parking but when this project came forward we actually did a traffic study and that
was a finding that came up in that.
Mayor Furlong: Of the traffic study with the two options. Did the traffic study recommend an
option or did they just present the two?
Kate Aanenson: No, it said one way or to monitor it. You know it said either could work.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay, any other questions for staff at this point? If not, I see the
applicant is here. If you’d like to come forward. Be happy to listen to your comments.
John Kohler: My name’s John Kohler. I’m an architect with Semper Development. To address
your question on the parking. What we’ve worked out is there are some very specific spaces and
those would be these spaces right here that are to be shared with Applebee’s. So and Walgreen’s
feels that the remainder of parking, which is the closest to their front door is more than adequate
in those time periods where it is shared, and it’s not a 24 hour day basis. Applebee’s is allowed
to use those on weekends and then on later hours in the evening, I believe after 5:00 so it’s not a
constant. And in the meantime Walgreen’s is allowed to use some parking over here although I
don’t think they’ll ever get to a point where they need it.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Will this Walgreen’s be a 24 hours?
23
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
John Kohler: It is not set now to be a 24 hour but you know, there’s always, it’s always possible.
They do have 1 in 12 stores are 24 hours.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Do we have a 24 hour pharmacy in Chanhassen?
Councilman Labatt: No. The nearest one is 7 and Blake.
Kate Aanenson: St. Louis Park.
Councilman Labatt: 7 and Blake.
Councilman Lundquist: Isn’t there one at Eden Prairie Road and Highway 5?
Councilman Labatt: I don’t think that’s 24 hours anymore. I’ve made some midnight runs there,
I know. And I use the drive through window.
Mayor Furlong: At 2:00 in the morning?
Councilman Labatt: There has been.
John Kohler: I’d be happy to answer any other questions you have.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? No? Thank you. Alright, bring it back to council for
discussion, unless there are follow-up questions with staff.
Councilman Labatt: It certainly would be a nice addition to the downtown area. Speaking in the
past. It will be. I think you get where I’m going. While it’s Americana Bank will be relocated
in the city, they’re not moving out, it is good to see kind of an upgrade to that corner. It’s a high
visibility corner and it will be nice to have it right there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other thoughts. Comments. If any. My concern when I first heard that
this was in the works, we’ve got a nice looking building, the Americana Bank building and
because of the proximity and the entryway into our downtown, my concern was that we might go
down in terms of building quality and I don’t think we have. Nothing to the detriment of the
Americana Bank building but this is a nice building as well and especially relative to our relative
basis so I commend the architect and staff for working together to create a nice building that the
City can be proud of and again a good service for our citizens as well. If there’s no other
comments, is there.
Councilman Labatt: Can we just talk about 24 quick, and I think you want to remain silent on it.
Is that, assuming to be a deletion of 24?
Mayor Furlong: For my personally. If the council thinks there’s a need for the city to be
informed, if they ever want to go to a one way, we keep it in. I don’t know that we need to do
that unless staff is telling us that they’d like to have a hand in that. My sense is that if there are
problems there, that the property owner will take steps to make sure that their customers are safe
24
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
in terms of traffic through signage or making sure sight lines are visible, so being silent on it,
that’s the way it’s working right now with the bank. I’m not aware of any problems. I haven’t
heard of any and I’m sure that the property owner, the business owner can monitor it. If we want
to stay silent, I’d be comfortable with that. Unless there’s a sense that we want to be informed if
they ever want to change it to one way to make sure there’s access going through. That would be
th
the only reason I’d say to keep it in there because there is access through but West 78 is so
th
close, or 79 excuse me. So close, I don’t know that we need that so I would defer to fellow
council members if they want to keep it in there, but otherwise I’d say just take it out.
Councilman Labatt: I’m okay with the deletion of it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, other comments? That’s fine. Somebody want to make a motion then.
Councilman Labatt: Well I would move that we approve Site Plan 05-3 for 15,000 square foot
building to house a retail building and pharmacy with a variance to allow 70.4% hard surface
coverage and reduction in parking based upon the findings of fact in the staff report, subject to
the following conditions 1 through 23. The deletion of number 24 and keeping 25 as is.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Nothing on that bench?
Councilman Labatt: Good place to rest Tom.
Mayor Furlong: Good place to rest and we’re going to give them the hard surface cover. I think
that’s a good addition. If there’s no other discussion, is there, proceed with the motion.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve
Site Plan #05-3 for a 15,000 square foot building to house a retail building and pharmacy,
with a variance to allow a 70.4% hard surface coverage and reduction in parking, based on
the findings of the staff report, and as shown on the plans dated received December 3, 2004,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall increase landscape plantings to meet minimum requirements. A revised
landscape plan shall be submitted to the City prior to final approval.
2. Landscape islands shall have a minimum inside width of 10 feet.
3. Add the latest City standard detail plate Nos. 5207, 5300, and 5301.
4. On the utility plan:
a. Revise the proposed inverts for catch basin No. 1 to 949.25 and 949.19,
respectively.
b. Label the existing water stub to the site off Market Boulevard as 8" DIP.
25
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
5. On the grading plan:
a. Add a benchmark.
b. Show the proposed storm sewer.
c. Increase the rock construction entrances to a minimum of 75-feet in length.
d. Show the parking lot stall locations and striping.
e. Show the missing 954 contour elevation along the north side of the property.
6. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City’s Building Department.
7. The applicant must show the location/elevation of an emergency overflow point for catch
basin No. 2 that is 1.5-feet lower than the proposed building elevation.
8. Storm sewer sizing calculations will be required at the time of building permit
application. The proposed storm sewer must be sized for a 10-year storm event.
9. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for the new building. The
2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,955 per unit for
watermain. The 2005 SAC charge is $1,525 per unit. All of these charges are based on
the number of SAC units calculated by the Met Council. Since there is an existing
building, only hook-up charges for the additional SAC units will be charged. These
charges will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. Sanitary sewer and
watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel.
10. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
11. Permits from the MPCA, Watershed District and Railroad will be required for the site
grading.
12. All drive aisle widths within the parking lot must be 26-feet wide per City Code and the
existing driveway aprons must be upgraded to current City standards per Detail Plate No.
5207.
13. The existing assessment for the recent 2004 Street Overlay Project, totaling $11,436.83
plus interest, must be paid prior to building permit issuance.
14. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates and meet NURP water
quality standards.
15. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
26
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a
curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other
natural or manmade systems that discharge to a surface water.
16. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as-needed.
17. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for
dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.
18. Fire Marshal Conditions
a. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., streetlamps, 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).
b. Indicate on utility plans the location of PIV (post indicator valve). Fire Marshal must
review and approve.
19. Building Official Conditions:
a. The building is required to be protected by automatic fire extinguishing systems.
b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
c. A demolition permit must be obtained prior to beginning demolition activities on the
site.
d. The site must be protected with an 8 foot high fence during demolition and
construction activities.
e. Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are
submitted.
f. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon
as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
20. All rooftop equipment shall be screened.
21. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the
necessary financial securities.
27
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
22. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed
sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff, should be provided
prior to requesting a sign permit.
23. The Planning Commission recommends the withdrawal of approval of Site Plan 92-1 for the
Americana Community Bank building, concurrently with the approval of Planning Case 05-
3. The applicant shall file the notice of withdrawal against the property at Carver County."
24. Allow additional hard surface variance coverage for an additional bench on the southwest
corner.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: There’s also a conditional use permit.
Councilman Labatt: And I’ll also move that we approve Conditional Use Permit 05-03 for an
LED display with, in a monument ground low profile sign.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. All those, or any discussion on that motion?
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve
Conditional Use Permit #05-03 for the LED display within a monument ground low profile
sign. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Peterson: Kate, can you quickly just share what, and I think I was part of this but
the LED. The LED as a conditional use. It seems like a lot of work for a slam dunk. Nothing
regarding you guys.
Kate Aanenson: You know it came up on the Legion one. Sometimes it’s like it can be a
nuisance. I think the things we’re trying to regulate, and maybe we can build it into the
ordinance if you have to look at is color. Frequency of flashing.
Roger Knutson: Illumination.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, some of those kind of things can be a nuisance so if we can build that in
and make it prescriptive, instead of trying to always make it a conditional use.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I mean it just seems like more work for you guys…
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and you know sometimes in a neighborhood it can be, you know
depending on the location. Certainly in this location, it’s in the core of downtown. It makes
28
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
more sense. But I think we looked at some on 5, sometimes it an issue for traffic and distractions
but yeah, we can look at making it more prescriptive.
Councilman Peterson: Well it’s up to you. Your discretion but it just, it seems like it’s a lot
more work than it’s worth.
Kate Aanenson: If it’s tied in with the project, it always makes it easier too. Kind of one notice.
One thing. When it comes in separately.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Moving on with our agenda.
APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
th
Mayor Furlong: On Monday, January 10 the City Council interviewed 4 of the 5 applicants for
2 vacancies on the Planning Commission. Jerry McDonald was selected to complete the term
that expires in April, 2007 and he was appointed by council action at our previous meeting. The
Council wanted to interview the remaining applicant before a final selection on the other
vacancy. This evening the council met with Debra Larson who was interviewed and it was the
determination from the council at that time to appoint Debra Larson to the term that expires in
March of 2006. So it will be one year. Fulfilling the vacancy at this point so I would ask from
the council a motion for such an appointment.
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to appoint Debra Larson to the one year term which expires in
2006.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to appoint Debra
Larson to a one year term as Planning Commissioner which will expire March, 2006. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: I’d like to thank everybody that did express an interest in the Planning
Commission. Just by work of information, we will have vacancies I believe on all of our
commissions, Planning, Park and Rec, Environmental and Senior Commission most likely those
terms are expiring at the end of March of this year so just in a couple months. Do we know Mr.
Miller or Mr. Gerhardt when applications for the various commissions, when we’re going to be
soliciting those? Probably in the next couple weeks.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: And looking for people to get their applications in probably by the middle of
February, so if people are interested, check the city web site. Call city hall. They can put you in
29