PC Minutes 10-21-2014Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014
Fire:
1.The new buildings will be required to have an approved fire sprinkler suppression system
installed. Plans shall be drawn by a sprinkler design professional and submitted to
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval.
2.Twelve-inch building address numbers must be installed on each end of the
building. Numbers must be of contrasting color. Contact Fire Marshal for additional
information.
3.“No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for specific areas to be
signed.
Planning:
1.The applicant 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 applicant shall create a zoning lot and recombine the two properties as one parcel.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
7015 SANDY HOOK CIRCLE: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVEWAY ON
PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT
7015 SANDY HOOK CIRCLE. APPLICANT/OWNER: RICK KOLBOW, PLANNING
CASE 2014-32.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. Again this is a hard surface coverage
variance request. Planning commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments can make a
final determination provided they have a 75 percent vote on it. The applicants are Rick and Julie
Kolbow. The property’s located at 7015 Sandy Hook Circle. This is in, what was it? Colonial
nd
Grove 2 Addition is the name of the plat. It was platted in 1980. The Colonial Grove was
actually originally platted in 1956 so it’s an older subdivision within the community. Oh I
should point out that I did hand out tonight two emails that we received after the packets went
out and also we have an alternative findings for the commission if they so desire.
Aller: Thank you and for the record we have received the two email items and the additional
Findings of Fact and Decision as an alternative.
Generous: The property owners as part of their request to get a 4.8 percent hard surface
coverage variance to expand their garage and to create a parking area next to their, to the garage.
In the future they intend to use this parking area to build an additional stall on the garage and so
they would not be increasing any of the hard surface coverage at that time. It would be currently.
They’d also like to use gravel for that parking area on the side of the garage as an interim cover.
However city code does require that a driveway be an improved surface. Asphalt, bituminous
pavers, things like that. Staff in reviewing this we determined that they actually over calculated
the hard surface coverage on the property because they included the driveway portion within the
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014
public right-of-way which we do not credit or take debit against the property itself. And also
they squared up the actual driveway area on their property and so they were a little bit high. So
basically it reduces their variance request by 2.1 percent so they’d be at a total of 27.7 percent
hard cover if they went forward with the plan that they’re proposing. Here’s the survey we
colored in. This pic area represents the driveway extension and this brown area is their parking
stall that they’d use. This is the area also that would be, could be covered up as part of a third
stall. They exceed the side setback requirements. There’s currently 26 feet to the side property
line and they’re only proposing to go out 12 feet with this expansion so we still have the 14 feet
setback, and it’s only a 10 foot side yard setback that’s required under city ordinance. The
applicant has also stated that they’re willing to do some type of a rain garden to help mitigate any
stormwater runoff that may be generated from this expansion. They are currently under
construction with an addition in the back of the property. So a pretty busy site. Oh we did look
at properties within the neighborhood to see which had 3 cars or 3 stall areas in it and we found
that within the immediate area there’s 9 different properties that have larger driveways than the
standard 2 car, 2 stall driveway area. They also noted that within this development there are
several properties that are under the 15,000 square foot minimum under the RSF district
regulations. There are 5 between 10,000 and 12,600 square feet and then 6 that were between
13,000 and 15,000 square feet. The subject property is 12,632 square feet and it’s located right
in the middle of this. There are 21 other properties that meet or exceed the minimum
requirements in the RSF district. Part of the issue with this area is Sandy Hook was installed in
1980. Their stormwater improvements and a direct, the stormwater goes right into Lotus Lake.
We overlaid the area in 2013 and this is fully developed area so it was, the City could not
provide additional stormwater treatment facilities. Again the applicant has proposed a rain
garden system to address the additional runoff that would be generated by going over the 25
percent hard cover. We wanted to point out that such systems must be engineered, designed and
constructed and be properly maintained to actually serve the function that they’re intended to,
especially in Chanhassen where we have significant soil issues. Unfortunately while we
empathize with the property owners, to be consistent we are recommending denial of the hard
surface variance request and the request for the gravel parking area and adoption of the Findings
of Fact and Decision. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: If the, if the lot was a regular lot size and not sub-standard lot size then we wouldn’t even
need the variance correct?
Generous: That’s correct. They would be within the 25 percent.
Aller: Is their setback requirements for their plan would meet the, it would exceed the setback
requirements so they would be fine there.
Generous: That’s correct. They would comply with the ordinance for setback location issues.
Even for the driveway requirements.
Aller: With the potential for a rain garden, can it be engineered to allow for the amount that
would have, that would be the amount for the 30 percent hard cover requirement or?
Fauske: We haven’t seen any design calculations to this point Chairman Aller. Certainly the
idea of a rain garden is typically to allow for infiltration of the stormwater runoff into the soil.
However generally speaking in this area of Chanhassen, infiltration isn’t typically found in the
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014
soils there. They’re typically a more tight soil that’s not capable of a lot of infiltration and so
rain gardens in that instance can be utilized to provide a temporary holding area for some
stormwater before it discharges to the storm sewer system so it can provide some rate control but
it may not be able to infiltrate some of the water, but we don’t have any of that information at
this time.
Aller: If this were to be allowed subject to the rain garden, could we foreseeably have a better
situation than we currently, currently have? In other words if we allow for some hard cover use
but we obtain the rain gutter, could we actually pick up that rate flow reduction and the
infiltration?
Fauske: I don’t have any information to be able to tell for certain at this time. A rain garden can
be sized for a number of different impervious surfaces. It would depend if the, I think what they
were proposing was to size it based on the additional impervious surface above the 25 percent
allowable but I haven’t taken a look to see if there’s enough space to accommodate in addition to
that 2.7 percent.
Aller: So foreseeable we could approve it with a rain garden and then it would be left up to the
engineering to and the homeowner to decide whether it was actually feasible?
Fauske: Correct.
Aller: Any other questions commissioners? Commissioner.
Campion: Are there any materials that can be used for the extra, the addition that would
decrease the additional hard surface?
Fauske: There’s certainly certain materials like a porous pavement or porous concrete, porous
pavers, that sort of thing. City code does not allow for that installation to offset the additional
impervious surface. The reason, we’ve had some discussions regarding that on a staff level and
the challenge is, is the long term maintenance of that facility and likewise with a rain garden is,
they’re installed with the intention of providing that rate control and sometimes infiltration if the
soils allow for that. However in a period of time after that if the homeowner wished to go and
change that out for a traditional concrete paver or bituminous surface, we typically don’t, we
don’t have the authority to go in and, go in after the fact and make them put it back in. That’s
been the challenge that we’ve had on a staff level.
Campion: Okay.
Aller: Is there anything stopping us from requiring that they maintain it or?
Aanenson: We always put those requirements but the challenge is, is you’re relying on staff to
be out there checking it and homeowners change over time and someone might have a different
expectation. The new buyer might have a different expectation of not wanting to maintain it but
it’s there and pull it out make something simpler and it’s always the challenge. That’s why I
think we’ve been, and especially in those areas as Alyson has mentioned where we’ve got more
compact soils, it’s just puts a lot more burden on everybody else so. Keeping a rain garden or
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014
something that’s more visible to see hopefully. Even that you can still have problems with and
they change hands.
Aller: Okay, thank you. Any additional questions?
Weick: Is the addition that’s being built now factored into the part that is hard cover?
Generous: Yes it is.
Weick: It is. And then I guess in your opinion we’ve seen situations like this before and
sometimes you guys have ideas to cut corners or make it a little bit smaller or I mean is it
squeezed as much as you think?
Generous: Well to make it a functioning driveway and parking area, yes.
Weick: It is, okay.
Generous: Especially if their intention is to turn it into a third staff sometime in the future.
Weick: Okay, thank you.
Aller: And that would be consistent with at least 9 other third stall garages in that immediate
vicinity right?
Generous: Yes.
Aller: Okay. Okay. No other questions we’ll hear from the applicant if you want to come
forward and perhaps answer some additional questions. We’ll need to state your name and
address for the record.
Julie Kolbow: We’re Rick and Julie Kolbow. We’re at 7015 Sandy Hook Circle.
Aller: Welcome. And then why don’t you tell us a little bit about why you want the
improvement and the variance.
Julie Kolbow: Well we’ve been in the neighborhood for 16 years and we now have two
teenagers. Four vehicles and we feel like our driveway just isn’t big enough to handle those
vehicles so then they’re invariably every day out into the street and we feel like that’s creating a
problem for neighbors and a safety issue with the kids driving around and especially teenage
drivers and we felt like it would be safer and neater in the community to have this extra little spot
to tuck that vehicle away so that it wasn’t obstructing the road on a daily basis.
Aller: Okay. And if I can ask you now but snow removal. With the cars on that street, are there
problems with snow removal or has it created problems having alternate cars parking?
Julie Kolbow: Well we haven’t had the vehicles that long so. I mean obviously we can’t park
overnight on the, we don’t park the cars overnight on the street. We pull them in the driveway
every night but with people coming and going and their various activities it’s in and out. In and
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014
out and on both sides of the driveway. Of course everything looks terrible right now because we
have a dumpster and you know pick-up trucks and luckily it’s going very quickly but you know
we’re just, we’re trying to figure out a way to make it good for our situation but then everyone
involved because we don’t feel like it’s a good situation for other people.
Aller: If the variance goes through and it looks like you put out a call to the neighbors to see
whether there were any problems and it looks like you have several individuals that sent in
emails in support and a neighbor that was not so pleased with the potential for a view. Had you
thought about the view and how to deal with that situation if we were to move forward and allow
for the variance?
Julie Kolbow: Well there’s two things on that. We’ve had an email communication with that
neighbor and they asked that we install kind of a buffer of shrubbery next to that and we
absolutely we would do that and we told them that we would do that but they submitted the letter
after that so I, maybe that’s not enough but we, I guess that we were surprised with the view
issue because on that side of their house there are no windows on their house so they can’t really
see from there. I suppose if they were in, you know out in the street or from the driveway they
could certainly see but I’m not sure, the cars are still there whether they’re in the driveway or
one’s parked next to the garage, they’re all, the cars are still there.
Aller: And then with regard to the potential for a rain gutter, you understand that if it was to be
granted that there’s a big concern on maintaining it and moving forward into the future and what
would your plans be with that?
Julie Kolbow: Well we would do whatever the City, we would work with the City engineers.
Rick Kolbow: Look for their ideas, right. I mean we’re no expert on exactly what needed to be
done but I think somebody Julie talked to, maybe had some ideas or couldn’t give us.
Julie Kolbow: I stopped in with Bob early on to talk about…
There were technical difficulties at this point in the meeting and a portion of the audio
recording was lost.
Rick Kolbow: We have construction going on at our house with the addition and there’s just too
many things to undertake that as well at the same time so.
Tennyson: Okay, thank you.
Aanenson: I just want to clarify too for the code. Our city code does allow for parking on your
side. That’s where people sometimes put a boat.
Aller: Or trailer.
Aanenson: Snowmobile trailers so it’s not uncommon that people would park. It’s different
when you’re looking at hard cover and kind of a more permanency thing and that’s how we
looked at that but that is where we, the code does allow for that to occur.
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014
Julie Kolbow: Does the code allow just for recreational vehicles and boats or is that for vehicles
as well?
Generous: Mr. Chairman, it does allow for those and actually in those instances you would not
have to have a hard surface.
Rick Kolbow: Recreational vehicles and/or trailers.
Aanenson: Yeah, and those are more permanent type of things that are going to sit there for the
not coming and going kind of thing.
Rick Kolbow: Well and we have a boat and that’s certainly something as an option. You know I
know I parked the trailer before there because we’re right next to Lotus Lake so we have a boat
on so we have that scenario but I’ve thought that it would sure be nice to have a nice clean paved
or surface there to park it because it just seems like that would be nice for us and our neighbors.
It would look better. It’s just like a trailer sitting in the grass.
Campion: Bob was the hard cover, the 2.7 percent addition assuming the gravel section is
paved?
Generous: We include gravel as hard cover anyway because once it’s compacted it doesn’t
allow percolation.
Campion: Okay. So if they did and they left that as grass and parked a boat there instead, what
would the hard cover total be?
Generous: We didn’t calculate that separately because their intention would be to cover this area
eventually with a garage stall.
Campion: Right.
Generous: But it looks like it’s 12 by 26. That’s my math.
Aller: Okay. Do you have any additional questions for the applicant?
Rick Kolbow: I mean ultimately we’re trying to.
Julie Kolbow: So that spot would be 312. So it’s very close to how much. I think it’s, is it 341
square feet that we’re over? 341.4. So we’re not trying to go crazy with what we’re doing.
We’re just trying to be reasonable.
Rick Kolbow: We didn’t realize we had this, we were that tight until we started pursuing it. I
mean we’re adding on to our kitchen and our home but then when you start looking at this and
we’re like oh, as long as the guys are out there maybe we can make this spot we’ve been talking
about and all of a sudden our lot is, there’s a lot of room over there but our lot is smaller than
what we realized because our whole neighborhood is filled with these circle driveways and kind
of get this.
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014
Julie Kolbow: And here we didn’t know how good we had it with lawn mowing for so long.
Aller: Okay, thank you. With that I’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting so anyone
coming forward can speak either for or against this item before us. Seeing no one come forward
I will close the public hearing and open it up for comments.
Undestad: I’ve got a question too. I mean in the rain garden issue your comment about you
know how do you protect it and maintain it. Who keeps an eye on it? I know we can’t do it
from a staff level and keep policing all the rain gardens but is there a way to put some sort of a
permanent easement or something into it? Where once it’s defined that it will work, assuming it
works. They get the variance that then you can put that on to the parcel of land and it stays
there?
Fauske: There are mechanisms that do allow for that. However the challenge, as Kate had
mentioned is that you have future property owners that perhaps don’t want that amenity
associated with the property and so it becomes a balance of trying to find some accommodations
to accomplish what they want to do with the property today while still being cognizant of
potential future homeowners that may not want that feature.
Hokkanen: But if it’s an easement or if it’s attached to the property it would be then disclosed
and carried to the next homeowner.
Fauske: Correct. Correct it would be. It’s just, it’s a challenge from a staff perspective and I,
just going in and having you know somewhat of the heavy hand of government so to speak,
that’s typically viewed upon very positively so that’s been the challenge that we’ve been faced
with.
Aller: Well I hate to see somebody not be able to use their property in the way that they want to
when it’s smaller than everybody else’s and everybody else has 3 car garages. Everybody else
has the ability to use their property in that fashion. It’s, this wouldn’t alter the conditions. I
think the neighbors are obviously in tune because they’ve contacted us, most of them in favor.
The one sounds like that one neighbor would be very keen on letting us know if the rain garden
was not working or was replaced or terminated by subsequent homeowners so based on the
number and the amount and the fact that it sounds like that would, if we make it conditioned it
would have to be dealt with before, before this gets done and it kind of puts it in the hands of the
engineers and the homeowner to see whether they can accomplish it and then it’s to me a better
result because then they can make that decision and it’s not the heavy hand of government telling
them they can’t use their property in a reasonable fashion for this particular area.
Undestad: Well I agree with this platted back in the 50’s like that and you kind of look at the
neighborhood when you buy it and assume you can do certain things and a couple thousand feet
of green area makes a big difference on a lot size.
Weick: I would say though the current driveway serves the current purpose. If you had 2 extra
cars you could park them in the driveway without parking them on the side of the garage. So
that’s one other way to look at it. The other is, and I mean we hear this more and more and it
starts to get me thinking about these rain gardens. It feels to me like we should stop considering
them as offsets to hard cover because there just isn’t a permanence to them. And although
15
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014
they’re nice as a to do, there is no guarantee that they’re going to be there in the future so it feels
like we shouldn’t continue using them as offsets. And it’s fine, I don’t necessarily mean that I
oppose this but it feels good to say we’re going to put a rain garden in and it might work for a
few years but there’s, that feels like sort of a hollow offset to me so those are the only two things
I would note about the current situation.
Campion: Is there an alternative to rain gardens that you know would be something like gravel
or rock bed that serves a similar function of the rain garden but doesn’t require such
maintenance?
Aller: With the pavers or?
Fauske: I mean certainly there’s, there’s porous pavements and porous pavers that are out there.
That’s a technology that’s available. There’s a higher, we’ve seen higher bid costs for those
types of technologies because of the, there’s not as many contractors that are available to do that
work so it’s a little bit of a specialty. That certainly is a technology though that it would be
available to provide that. Again the idea being there is some engineering involved with that
because you have to have a certain layer of material underneath that surface in order for the
water to go in and soak through there and then infiltrate if it can or else get to a storm sewer
system and discharge. So the challenge with the porous pavement or porous asphalt is that you
have to have a storm sewer discharge, a storm sewer to discharge that to versus a rain garden that
you can just, it can just flow through it from, through the street.
Aller: And I guess I’m not approaching it as an alternative per se because I see this coming in as
a use issue for the third car garage in the future and that we’re going to see this come back so
whether or not we use a gravel or an alternative or re-engineered to go somewhere else. I look at
this as a stop gap measure if we just say we’re going to use those materials as opposed to
allowing for the variance. If we’re going to allow for the variance so that they can get where
they want to get in a couple years which is to have that third car garage without coming back to
ask for even more which would be the request maybe if they re-think their design.
Campion: Right and what I was throwing out was just if there’s an alternative to a rain garden
where the rain garden would go that could perform the same function and not, not be subject to
maintenance of homeowners and future homeowners.
Weick: To me it feels like there’s a difference between an enclosed, like the third stall garage
and an open, just place to park a car and so to me it’s, I think it’s a different consideration if
they’re actually enclosing it right now so I would actually oppose approving it on the basis that
someday it’s going to be enclosed. Well let’s cross that bridge when it happens. That would be,
that’s my opinion. Because it’s not going to be enclosed today and it doesn’t have to be if we
were to pass this variance today. It could stay like this forever.
Aller: That’s correct.
Weick: So those are just things to consider. I would propose waiting until it actually gets
enclosed and then dealing with the variance at that point but, because I think it is a different story
as a structure instead of just a driveway.
16
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014
Tennyson: When you need the third car, when you need the third stall then it would be more
appropriate as a variance.
Weick: Right.
Tennyson: At that point.
Weick: That’s my opinion, yeah.
Aller: But I see the, when we look at the science behind what’s been presented to us and the
facts that are presented to us, it’s a difference without a distinction really or distinction without a
difference because the variance would be for the same amount. And right now we’re making
sure that it’s limited to what is actually being used.
Weick: But I think there’s a visual difference between the uses.
Aller: Sure.
Tennyson: I do too.
Weick: So and I, yeah. It’s too bad the other neighbors aren’t here. It’d be interesting to ask if
the next door neighbor if there’s an issue with an extension of the current garage or a car sitting
there because I think there is a visual difference.
Aller: Okay, anything else?
Julie Kolbow: Can I comment?
Aller: Further comments.
Julie Kolbow: We’ve talked about that visual difference. However the question here is really a
variance for hard cover. It’s not a question of a variance for visual or aesthetics in the end. I
mean the 4 cars are in the driveway somewhere regardless of whether or not we have the
variance or not and we’re just trying to you know, use our property.
Aller: Okay.
Julie Kolbow: Thanks.
Rick Kolbow: The other comment about the visual, sorry. Is we have other neighbors and
they’ve written letters. If our cars are parked over the side of the garage, they’re not in the street.
And if they’re in the street then they’re an issue for the other neighbors across the street. Then
there’s an issue so it becomes a whole other issue so I think the point that Julie made is, it’s
really an issue of hard cover. And the other issue is, it’s the same hard cover whether it be a
structure or cement slab. Bituminous. Gravel. It’s still 2.7 percent over. I mean that’s really, I
guess that’s a point because otherwise if you bring in the visual there’s too many factors because
it’s in our opinion we’re trying to do the right thing by all the neighbors as a whole. And it’s a
17
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014
safety hazard if we’ve got cars out there and kids running out behind a car and there’s a lot of
little kids in our neighborhood too.
Aller: Okay, thank you. Based on the comments any.
Undestad: You know I mean I still think it just comes back to the old platting. You know old
school. Old 50’s and things don’t work today. That’s my opinion.
Aller: Alright. And that went to my question about originally if the size of the lot was a
standard size lot we wouldn’t be here and other people that have standard size lots have 3 car
garages and 9 of them in that vicinity do and I just think for the amount of hard cover we’re
looking at the ability to grant them a reasonable use which is what I think we should be looking
for. Under these particular circumstances so, any other comments? Questions? Anyone wishing
to make a motion either for or against the item?
Undestad: I’ll make a motion but on this do we have the, yeah the alternative but the one that
adds the language for the, if the rain garden or the pond or whatever they end up doing, if it
works do we want to put it in there or are we looking at the variance…
Aller: Well that goes back to Commissioner Weick’s comments. Are we using it as a stop gap
or are we just going to grant them the variance.
Undestad: Yeah I don’t think it’s a stop gap. I think even if they just put a pond there that you
know, dug a hole in there is going to take some rain water before it runs off so rate.
Aller: Yeah.
Undestad: Anything is better than nothing and I think maintaining a rain garden, yeah. Who’s
going to police that but.
Aller: So you can just go ahead and add a condition that it’s subject to the rain garden meeting
the standards to allow for the 2.7. To offset the 2.7 percent right?
Fauske: Certainly or if your comfort level is to mitigate for the additional hard surface coverage
to the maximum extent possible. If that gives your concern some, so that we’re trying to
mitigate the 2.7. If I’m understanding the commissioners’ concerns here with, is there ability to
size that rain garden for the additional impervious surface.
Undestad: I’m just thinking.
Aller: Or do you want to leave it as is?
Undestad: Yeah. Yeah I mean we can leave it as is. I’ll make a motion. I make a motion the
Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve
Planning Case 2014-32 for a 2.7 percent hard surface coverage variance to allow parking area
and driveway expansion on property zoned Single Family Residential District.
Aanenson: Do you want to add subject to the Findings?
18
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014
Aller: Subject to the Findings of Fact and Decision.
Aanenson: We say revised.
Generous: Or alternate.
Aanenson: Alternate.
Undestad: Subject to the alternate Findings of Fact and Decision.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Campion: Second.
Aller: Having a motion by Commissioner Undestad and a second by Commissioner Campion.
Any further discussion?
Undestad moved, Campion seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as
the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve Planning Case 2014-32 for a 2.7 percent
hard surface coverage variance to allow parking area and driveway expansion on property
zoned Single Family Residential District subject to the alternate Findings of Fact and
Decision.Undestad, Campion and Aller voted in favor. Weick, Hokkanen and Tennyson
voted against the motion. The motion was tied with a 3 to 3 vote.
Aller: So it goes to the City Council and that would be, for those of you that want to follow this
item would be November 10, 2014 not having passed by a super majority.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 7, 2014 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS.
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
th
Aanenson: On Monday, October 13 the Shops at Chanhassen, which you looked at which
included the Noodles and another restaurant was approved so that will proceed with final plat
and some other things that need to occur with the site plan agreement in closing so hopefully that
will all be closed. Their goal is to have that done in December. That also includes Target being
th
at the closing so we’re on track with that. And then the Fretham 19 Addition was also approved
and so now we’re working through all the issues on that to go for final plat so that will be.
Aller: And those are all the easements.
Aanenson: Yeah, a little bit more challenging on that. Hopefully they can, lot of discussion on
that at the council. I think about an hour’s worth of discussion if anybody was following that so
I think we, council worked their way through the weeds on that one so. That’s all I had for
updates.
19