Loading...
071309 CC Reg MinCITY OF Sy` " -90D CITY COUN-"- 1-7 GULAR MEETING MONDAY, JULY 13, 2009 MINUTES CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Tietjen; City Administrator Heck; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; and Engineer Landini Absent: None. B. Review Agenda Administrator Heck stated under Item 9.A, County Road 19 - Smithtown Road Intersection Close Out, Council can review the cost summary information prepared by Director Brown. Brown had not received the necessary information to prepare the resolution asking for advance finding out of the City's Municipal State Aid Account in time to prepare the resolution for the meeting. Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, approving the agenda amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, June 22, 2009 Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of June 22, 2009, as amended in Item 2, Page 3, Paragraph 2, Bullet 10, delete the sentence "If the tax levy is comparable to 2009 the City should receive approximately $0.25 on every $1.00 collected on property taxes." and delete the sentence "It was noted that even a 1% decline would result in the loss of a sizable amount of revenue from property taxes." Motion passed 510. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, June 22, 2009 Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2009, as amended in Item 6.A, Page 3, Paragraph 8, Sentence 2 change "then 57 percent" to "then 67 percent" and in Item 10.B, Page 11, Paragraph 9, Sentence 1, change "the five participants" to "the four participants". Motion passed 510. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda. C UNCi , [G MINUTES July t_, Rage'2 of A, Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Accepting Low Quote and Awarding Contract for 2009 Pavement Markings (This item was moved to Item 9.1) under Engineering/Public Works.) Councilmember Woodruff stated the verified claims list contains two claims for the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) for forfeitures. He did not recollect ever seeing a claim like that before. Director Burton explained when the SLMPD confiscates a vehicle for forfeiture, by State statute the proceeds from the sale of the vehicle are split with the SLMPD receiving 70 percent and the City receiving the remainder. She noted the City acts as the fiscal agent and gives the SLMPD the share it is due. The 30 percent the City gets to keep is to offset fees for legal services. Motion passed 510. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Prairie Grass Presentation by Joe Pazandak Mayor Liz6e stated Joe Pazandak, the City's Building Inspector, was present this evening to provide an update on the City's prairie grass pilot project. Mr. Pazandak stated he would cover four areas. They are: an evaluation of current conditions; the rejection of prairie development; recommendations; and what lie learned from the City project to date. He stated some of the planted areas are exceeding expectation, some are as expected, and some were damaged by either work on the SE Area Water Tower or the dry conditions. There is some unplanned vegetation (weeds) in certain areas, but over time they will be managed. He explained the particularly dry conditions last summer and this spring and summer have slowed the growth. He indicated he appreciates hearing the feedback from residents, and he thinks the residents have been very considerate and patient. The cost for the project is on target, and it is close to payback after labor and equipment savings are taken into account. At this point the project is not costing the City anything. Mr. Pazandak showed four photographs of a prairie grass restoration site. The first was a photo of his prairie development after the spring mow, and it shows some green vegetation starting to develop. He explained the grass looks as bad as it's going to look and that look lasts about three weeks. He explained there is a section of prairie grass not shown in the photo that is anywhere from 30 inches tall to 6 feet tall; the grass is a rich tan color. He mows his grass once in the spring and that allows him access to treat the area with a pre-emergent weed control or a herbicide such as Roundup. He then showed three photos of the prairie grass taken in early fall. Prairies are known for their fall vegetation. One showed blue-stem grass which grows about three feet high. Its color is a bluish-green during the summer and is a very attractive looking grass. It's the most durable for dry conditions. The next photo was a typical seed head grass. Its color can turn red or yellow. The fourth photo was of a larger prairie area of the previous grass. It depicts what he was trying to achieve with the City project. The snow builds up on this grass and insulates the ground, and when the snow melts in the spring it soaks into the ground and waters the grass for the season. Mr. Pazandak recommended staff continue to monitor the prairies, and to allow them to develop with minimal mowing. He would like to have fall color start to develop so residents can see their beauty. The prairie will be mowed each spring prior to the plants coming out of dormancy. The area will be treated with a pre-emergent and Roundup to help the prairie grass takes over where the weeds are. Some areas will need to be repaired. If the damaged areas aren't too large, hydroseeding may be an option. He could possibly bring mulch cover from home to help with the seeding. The repair areas could have a nurse crop planted; it would provide some cover and help with weed control. Alternative vegetation could also be considered for planting. Mr. Pazandak commented there may have been some areas where prairie grass was planted that lie was overly optimistic about. For example, the area near the SE Area Water Tower where the trees come close to the road (a strip 8 - 10 feet wide and approximately 40 feet long). He suggested a different type of low- maintenance vegetation be planted there. Mr. Pazandak learned that he should not have tried to do the project too cheaply. He should have planted a nurse crop but didn't because of some dead vegetation there. He should have spent another $50 and planted some oats the first year so there would have been some type of ground vegetation. One of the prairie areas had been mowed short for a number of years and there was a heavy infestation of weeds. He should have treated the area with a pre-emergent for a couple of years before planting the prairie grass. He thought he should have been more responsive to residents' concerns. Mayor Lizee stated Council appreciated his expertise and dedication to the project. This prairie project did have a high learning curve with it, and the public did not know what to except from prairie plantings. She commended him for seeing the project through. Councilmember Bailey stated he thought Mr. Pazandak was asking people to be patient with the prairies. He asked if the planting near the Tower is considered a success or a future success. Mr. Pazandak stated if a nurse crop would have been planted the prairie plants would be much larger. He had expected the bank area under the Tower to develop better. The prairie plants are there, but a number of weeds also exist. The time to develop is going to be longer than originally thought because of the dry conditions. In four years it should be the dominant plant. Councilmember Bailey stated the area by the Tower is an eyesore. Mr. Pazandak stated the area near the fire hydrant is meeting expectations. The area on the west end is a fairly normal development. The bank area is challenged. Councilmember Bailey expressed concern that it would continue to look bad until it was relatively developed in 4 years. Mr. Pazandak commented that the City has received complaints about the area, but when he was removing weeds from the area the City also received a call from a resident who thought someone was stealing the plants. Public Works doesn't like to mow the slope area because it's challenging to drive the equipment there. He suggested a nurse crop be planted for a couple of years to help with aesthetics while the prairie plants establish themselves. Mayor Liz6e stated it was important to educate people about the project. She thanked Mr. Pazandak for his efforts. 6. PUBLIC HEARING None. 7. PARKS No report was given. The next Park Commission meeting is scheduled for July 14, 2009. 8. PLANNING Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission meeting of July 7, 2009, was cancelled due to the lack of a quorum. A. Front Yard Setback Variance Request Applicant: Mark Themig and Bradley Heppner Location: 21780 Lilac Lane Director Nielsen stated that Mark Themig and Brad Heppner own the property located at 21780 Lilac Lane. They propose a substantial addition and remodeling of the existing home that require setback variances and a variance to expand the nonconformity of a nonconforming structure (the owners' house). The property is located in the R-IA, Single Family Residential zoning district. This district requires lots to be a minimum of 40,000 square feet of area, and the front and rear yard setback requirements are 50 feet. Nielsen explained the property contains 56,180 square feet of area, and it is occupied by the owners' house and attached garage. The house is currently situated back from the Lilac Lane right-of-way approximately 34.4 feet, encroaching 16 feet into the required front setback area. The property is substantially wooded. There is a steep ravine that extends north and south on the west side. It slopes from south to north into a wetland area on the north side. The existing house sits on the high portion of the lot. Nielsen then explained the applicants propose to demolish the garage on the east end of the house and replace it with a larger garage with a second story addition above it. The first floor will be extended to the west by 20 feet with a second story being added to the entire structure. A small dormer addition currently exists above the main part of the house. The initial report included a porch, five to eight feet in depth, which would wrap the entire first level. The applicant has clarified that the porch on the south side, which is where the setback issue exists, would be six feet in depth. C AR CC = - - _ _tl~dtlTF S July 1 Page of Nielsen went on to explain the existing home contains 1071 square feet on the main level, plus approximately 240 in the dormer for a total of 1311 square feet. The existing garage contains 280 square feet. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the City's Zoning Code addresses noneonformities. A number of years ago the Code stipulated nonconforming structures could not be expanded. The City relaxed the Code to allow for the expansion of nonconforming, single-family structures as long as the addition meets the setback requirements. That is not the case in this request; therefore, the applicants are asking for a 22-foot variance from that requirement. With regard to variance requests, Nielsen explained the first thing Staff considers is whether or not the property can be put to reasonable use without the variance. In this case Staff suggests there is room within the buildable area of the lot to easily accommodate an expansion of the structure. There is ample room to the northwest of the existing house that is relatively flat; the site would not have to be drastically altered. Nielsen highlighted the drawings showing the building elevations of the proposed expanded structure, including the new garage. He noted some of the drawings were submitted after the public hearing was held. He explained the structure will be substantially larger then the existing structure that is already too close to the street. The footprint would be increased by the expansion to the west and the wrap-around deck and porch system. Nielsen stated during the public hearing for this request there was discussion about building mass not being a criterion for variances. He explained it is an important factor in this case because the nonconformity itself would be expanded; there would be more building that would be nonconforming. He stated there was also discussion about changing statutes for variances. He explained there is a different standard at the county level. The county goes by something called practical difficulties. The language for cities remains undue hardship, and this gets into reasonable use. He stated Staff suggests very reasonable use can be made of this property. The applicants can easily maintain what they have today and still expand to the northwest. Nielsen stated Staff recommends not to approve the variance. The Planning Commission was split on this case on a 2/2 vote. Nielsen stated Mark Themig, one of the applicants, was present this evening. Mr. Themig stated Brad Heppner, the other applicant, could not be in attendance this evening. He commented earlier in this meeting there was a presentation about a City project for developing a prairie that probably existed in the City at one time. He stated as part of their proposed project they are trying to conserve what already exists on their property rather than disturb it. Mr. Themig provided Council with a copy of a PowerPoint presentation he had prepared (a copy of which is on file). Mr. Themig highlighted his presentation as follows: Mr. Themig stated their current structure was built in 1934, noting it was one of the original homes in the area. Their lot is the reason they are asking for a variance request. They are trying to conserve the existing natural resources on their property by building within the disturbed area. He noted that a few years ago as part of the Apple Ridge development the City required the developer to put a conservation easement on the property directly west of their property. He noted the area they are trying to protect in their variance application has topography very similar to that of conservation easement. He displayed an aerial _~)D1__ Ju _ Page 6 of photograph showing the houses in the surrounding area. He displayed a survey of the property showing the dimensions of the proposed porch, the expansion, and an area of nonconformity that will be removed. Mr. Themig stated they thought they satisfied all of the variance criteria identified in the City's Zoning Code. They thought there are special circumstances that make their proposed project unique when compared to other projects in the City. Their house was built prior to current zoning regulations. It was there when they purchased the property. To build in the buildable area property will require significant disruption of natural resources. The City is looking at doing things different in the fixture; therefore, this project would be a great opportunity to preserve resources rather than destroy them and then try to recreate them in the future. Their property has a significant number of trees. To build in the buildable area would result in more trees being lost then what would occur with their proposal. They consulted with an arborist about different layouts for an expanded house. If they changed the direction for the house to go north and south versus east and west, not only will trees located around the house be impacted there will also be trees impacted to the north of the house. Mr. Themig stated he agreed that they did have room to expand on their property. Their situation is not an economic one. It would cost more to expand their existing structure than it would to tear the structure down and build a new one. To expand into the buildable portion of their property would have an impact on the topography, the land forms, the trees and the natural resources there. They believe it makes a great deal more sense to utilize the already disturbed area of their property for them and for the City long term. With regard to massing, Mr. Themig explained Lilac Lane is a dead-end road that will never be extended. Their property is located at the dead-end of Lilac Lane. Massing is not addressed in the City Code. The massing of other homes on Lilac Lane and in the neighborhood is substantially greater than what would occur with their proposed addition. He displayed two examples of such in their neighborhood. He explained their expanded house would not be a huge structure, but it would be larger than what it is. There are seven houses on what they call their block. Of the four closet homes, two comply with the front-year setback and two do not (one being theirs). On the south side of Lilac Lane there are very large homes on relatively small lots with no trees to soften the massing. Because moving the house to north and west will result in additional loss of trees, they believe that would alter the character of neighborhood. Mr. Themig stated that during the public hearing for their request they did not have enough detail about their proposed six-foot-wide porch. The proposed porch would not extend any further from the house then the existing concrete stoop leading into an old entry way into the existing house. There will not be any pillars on the porch. The porch will be suspended from the structure. The grade will be raised slightly to help provide a stable base. The visual impact of the porch will be minimal. He displayed two examples of porches that are similar to what they would like to have. Mr. Themig highlighted a few items the Planning Commission discussed during the public hearing. The Commission asked if they were going to reuse much of the existing house. They plan to restore and reuse as much of the house as possible. The Commission had a significant amount of discussion about Lilac Lane being a dead-end road and that impact on emergency vehicles. That situation exists whether or not the variance is granted. He explained when a visitor at their home had a medical emergency, two fire trucks, a police car and an ambulance came to their home. There was discussion about their neighbor's visibility of the structure. At this time of the year very little of the structure is visible from the neighbor's house. There was also discussion about whether or not they would be amenable to placing a conservation easement over what is being called the buildable portion of the lot in exchange for the variance. They would be willing to do so; it would match the easement adjacent to their property. The Chair of the Planning Commission indicated the Commission was constrained by the existing policy about not increasing the amount on nonconformity and noted that Council has the authority to consider the request. JB ' 13,200S Page 7 of 22 Some of the Commissioners indicated their project was a forward thinking project. It was a project where a concerted effort was being made to conserve natural resources rather than destroy them. Mr. Themig noted all of their neighbors on Lilac Lane either spoke at the public hearing or conveyed via e-mail that they are in support of their proposed project. Their neighbor located in the City of Chanhassen indicated that anything they would do to their house would help improve the overall character of the neighborhood. In summary, Mr. Themig stated he and Mr. Heppner want to reuse the existing structure and the existing disturbed areas of land. They want to respect the current natural resources and incorporate them into the design. They believe they have a demonstrable hardship in that they would avoid the need for additional excavation, fill and changes in the landform by expanding to the area they proposed. They would avoid additional tree removal and disruption of natural resources and native plant species. They would protect land similar to land the City required be protected a few years ago. They have a strong desire to invest in the City and their neighborhood. Mr. Themig thanked Council for its time and consideration. Councilmember Bailey stated he appreciated Mr. Themig's presentation and thought it was well done. He explained that he had been a member of the Planning Commission for nine years. During that time the Commission considered many requests that appeared to be reasonable on the surface and were difficult to say no to, but the Commission did. All requests to expand a house, either vertically or horizontally, in the setback area were denied unless the entire house was located in the setback area. Quite often they were denied because there was an option to expand into the non-setback area. Many times the applicants indicated that would be unreasonable, and what they were really saying was the hardship was economic because it was expensive to do the alternative. That was not an acceptable reason for the variance. He appreciates the applicants' desire to minimize tree loss and the disruption of natural resources. Unfortunately, the City Code does not factor in conservation issues when considering a setback variance. He would be willing to discuss a possible amendment to the City Code so that conservation issues are considered at another time. He understands that will not help the applicants right now, but if that is a reasonable tradeoff to have then it should be considered. In the current Code conservation is not a hardship; it's not a reason for a variance. Councilmember Bailey then stated the fact that all of the neighbors are in support of the applicants' proposed project should not factor into the decision. The decision must be made on whether or not it satisfies the criteria for granting a variance. The location of the structure at the end of a dead-end street is not a criterion unless it would cause a problem for other residents in the area. He then stated he finds it difficult to find a true hardship that would allow Council to take the variance ordinance and apply it in a different way then the Planning Commission and Council have done for many other similar variance requests. He explained there are changes that could be made to the Code that could affect this case in the future. Unfortunately, the way the Code is written today this is a relatively straight forward application of the variance ordinance and it would be a disservice to all of the similar applicants that have been denied in the past. He stated it would also make it very difficult for the Planning Commission going forward because they would basically be without any guidance. Approving this variance request would be similar to saying Council does not care what the variance criteria are and they are going to grant a variance in this one situation. The Planning Commission has acted consistently with how it applies the variance ordinance. He then stated he cannot support the request. .I C _ ,A C'OtJNCI'=J ES J11- Page 8 of Councilmember Zerby clarified if Council granted the variance it would not be going against the Planning Commission's recommendation; the Commission was split on its recommendation with two in favor and two against. Granting the request would not make it difficult for the Commission. He stated he did not think it was as black and white as protecting the variance ordinance and following through on how variances have been handled in the past. The variance process allows for Council to consider a number of things when considering the variance. He agreed that the City Ordinance may not take things into consideration, such as conservation, that it should. He recollected from his previous Council tenure when he was a liaison to Commission where exceptions were made to protect natural resources, noting one of the situations was with a lakefront property. The applicants' proposal would be better for the community as a whole as well as for the character of the neighborhood. The residents in the neighborhood all think it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. The area Staff recommends the structure be expanded into appears to be the majority, if not all, of the applicants' level space on their property that could be used as recreational space. The style of the house is in character with the area. He did not think there would be a negative impact of allowing the expansion as proposed. Also, the house is an anchor at the end of a dead-end road. He did not think it would be fair and applicable to only consider the ordinance when considering this request. He expressed his support for granting the variance request. Councilmember Turgeon stated she understood Director Nielsen to have stated the City's Code and the city's statute deal with undue hardship which is different from the county's statute. She also understood that the Planning Commission had not been provided with detail information about the proposed porch. Nielsen indicated both of those things were correct, noting there had been a recent legal ruling upholding the county's statute on practical difficulties. She then stated Councilmember Zerby's rationale for supporting this variance has anything to do with the ordinances in effect. She asked why Zerby thinks this request should be granted based on the current ordinance relating to variances, nonconformance and so forth. Zerby stated if the process was as simple as going down a list without consideration of anything else, then Director Nielsen may as well fill out a form and give it to Council. Turgeon stated that from her vantage point, the Planning Commission denied the variance. Zerby clarified the Commission did not approve it, but it also did not deny it. Turgeon then stated it may be appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider amendments to the Code that would take things such as natural resource conservation into consideration. Unfortunately, that does not exist today and based on the current ordinance this does not satisfy the variance criteria. Turgeon stated that the footprint of the proposed structure will be larger than the footprint of the existing structure. The applicants do have a very buildable area on the back of their property where the house could be expanded with the expansion being in conformance. There are two large oak trees on the back of the property and one in the front near the house that will have to be removed. The one in the front is very close to the existing house and garage and should probably be taken down before it falls on the structures. She finds it difficult to find an issue of hardship, other than there being an economic one because it would be cheaper to expand the way the applicants propose and an economic hardship cannot be considered. From her vantage point, to expand the way Staff recommends would require a little more foundation and no less trees being removed. Mayor Lizee clarified the applicants did not make any economic argument when presenting their request. She stated it costs more to extensively refurbish and expand than to rebuild. Mayor Lizee asked Councilmember Woodruff if he had any further comments. Woodruff responded Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon and Zerby have covered anything he would have had to say. Mayor Lizee stated the applicants have asked for the variance because Council has the opportunity to make a judgment call. She thought Mr. Themig had addressed a number of things. She also thought there I;_ A F Page 9 of 22 are some things that are unique to this property and are suffice for a variance approval. The buildable space to the north and northwest is accessible. But, the impact to the natural habitat and natural resources, the use of fill, the damage to the trees and the possible damage to the wetland below the property have to considered. Each property is unique. The subject property is at the very end of a dead-end road. The area next to the property has a large conservation easement on it and a ditch on it that water flows through, so it is not a buildable lot. She commended the applicants for their plans and thoughtfulness about reusing components of the existing structure, and for not enlarging the footprint too much in order to make it a more usable space. She thought the applicants made a good argument in support granting the variance. She asked Council to consider granting the request. She stated there is more emphasis being placed on respecting the environment, reusing construction materials and so forth. She thought the City code and ordinances should reflect that. Councilmember Zerby highlighted the following components of the current variance ordinance. b) A variance from the terms of this chapter shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that: (1) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land...: (a) Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record narrowness, shallowness or shape of the property; Zerby stated the way he interprets the above statements it would defend the granting of the variance Councilmember Turgeon stated nonconformity, reasonable use and hardship must also be considered. The request must satisfy all variance criterion not just select criterion. Although the property was beautiful and unique, she did not think it was any more unique than many other properties in the City. The variance should not be granted because they can make reasonable use of the property without granting a variance and there is no hardship. Councilmember Bailey stated the applicants have to satisfy all variance criteria. He noted Subd.l .b in the ordinance which is "Variances from the literal provisions of this chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and to grant the variances only when it is demonstrated that the actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter." The request has to satisfy this hardship feature. There is always the option to do nothing to the structure. There is no inherent right in the Code to expand the property when it doesn't satisfy all the provisions. Two people are living on the property now; therefore, it can be put to reasonable use. The expansion would make it better structure. It's also difficult to prove there would be a hardship by denying the request. Over the years the Planning Commission has had a relatively consistent set of criteria and exceptions for granting variances. He commented that the Commission has always operated under the principal that having a one car garage is a hardship. He stated Council should exercise caution if it's going to establish another precedent. Unfortunately, he did not think this situation was unique enough to warrant setting a precedent. Mr. Themig stated they currently have a tiny one-car garage. He then stated he and Mr. Heppner have been very careful not to go down the road of what the City done in the past because they thought every variance application has to be viewed on its own merits. They believe they have demonstrated its merits, and they are not comparing it to what has happened in the past. He expressed his disappointment that is what is being discussed by Council. He stated the Planning Commission stayed clear of that; it wanted Council to make the policy decision. He then corrected some of the comments made by Councilmember Turgeon. Regarding the financial implications, he explained it would cost them more to refurbish and r 3, Page 10 o ` expand, noting they have to make improvements to the foundation and they have to demolish parts of the house and save parts of it. Regarding the loss of trees, an arborist indicated that by expanding to the north there would be an additional loss of trees. The arborist is confident the trees on the north side of the house will be preserved under their proposal because the canopy is outside of the construction limits of where the expansion would be. They are basing their variance request on the criteria Councilmember Zerby pointed out. He thought this was a great opportunity for the City to have a conservation project. If Council was not going to consider variance requests on a case-by-case basis, he questioned why they would consider them at all. He noted the City is trying to restore a prairie. He questioned why Council would not want to try and preserve what already exists, rather than recreate something. Councilmember Turgeon stated she did not disagree with Mr. Themig. She explained there are two parts to this issue; a nonconformance and a variance. The City Code contains an ordinance on conformity. She stated it would be easier for her to consider the request if there was not any expansion on the front side of the house; the amount of nonconformity would not be increased then. The proposal is to expand in all directions. She cited an example of when she was on the Planning Commission when the Commission denied a request because of an eighteen inch nonconformance issue on a second story expansion. She stated she would not have a problem with having the Planning Commission reconsider this request which now includes specifications about the porch. She cannot approve the proposal as submitted. Councilmember Zerby asked what Council's options are. Director Nielsen explained if the Planning Commission were to reconsider this then another public hearing would have to be held. The City would also need a waiver for the 60-day/120-day rule, noting Mr. Themig had already authorized the extension to the 60-day rule. Mayor Liz6e asked if Mr. Themig would like to bring this back before the Planning Commission for a recommendation from the full Commission. Mr. Themig stated they would be willing to go back before the Planning Commission, and maybe this request could be used as an example of where it may be appropriate to consider changes to the City Code in order to make projects like theirs doable. It would be contingent on the Council being willing to consider revisions to the ordinance. He commented that any construction would likely occur in 2010. He thought requests similar to theirs will become more common as properties start to age. If Council is going to adhere strictly to the current ordinance and not consider conservation issues, he did not think there was any benefit in going back before the Commission. Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, denying the request for a setback variance and a variance to expand a nonconforming structure for Mark Themig and Brad Heppner, 21780 Lilac Lane. Councilmember Bailey stated he thought it was appropriate to deny the request. He explained there is nothing that prohibits the applicants for going before the Planning Commission with a request to amend the City Ordinance. Councilmember Woodruff stated the proposal submitted is not acceptable. The applicants can submit a revised plan to the Planning Commission for consideration. He thought the Planning Commission would be very confused if Council asked the applicants to go back before the Commission with the same proposal. That is one of the reasons he made his motion. Councilmember Zerby stated the City Ordinance is subject to interpretation. Sending it back without a vote should convey the message that Council is unclear about the Planning Commission's position. Motion passed 3/2 with Lizee and Zerby dissenting. - - - - - _ __t C01JNC1b.. v A' . gage : S Mr. Themig expressed extreme disappointment that the City does not have the tools to look at creative ways to do business different in the City than it has done in the past. He suggested Council give the Planning Commission clear direction to look at those opportunities. He stated they would love to resubmit their plan if Council gave the Commission the flexibility to look at things differently than they have been done in the past. Councilmember Turgeon stated she would have no problem with Director Nielsen bringing this up at the next Planning Commission meeting when there hopefully will be a quorum present. Director Nielsen stated a few years ago the Planning Commission did consider if a criterion could be added where there could be tradeoffs rather than just undue hardship. The Planning Commission was not in support of that, but maybe it could be re-examined again. He explained the setback requirements are to establish a minimum amount of open space on each lot. Councilmember Zerby stated setback requirements on property that was developed 70 - 80 years ago are different. He recommended the Commission discuss the county variance statute and maybe consider adopting similar language. 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. County Road 19 - Smithtown Road Intersection Close Out and Resolution Requesting Advanced Funding from State Aid Administrator Heck stated Director Brown had prepared a memorandum for Council regarding the close out of the Country Road 19 and Smithtown Road Intersection project. It describes the proportional cost for the City of Shorewood, the City of Tonka Bay and Hennepin County based on the cooperative agreement. It identifies what costs are eligible for Municipal State Aid reimbursement, with the total amount being slightly more than $1.6 million for Shorewood. In 2007 the then Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City to request an advance in MSA funding for an amount of close to $900,000. During its next meeting Council will be asked to consider a resolution authorizing the City to ask for another advance in the approximate amount of $411,000. That would be the projected amount of MSA funding the City would hopefully receive over a three year period based on its current allocation of MSA. He explained MSA is funded by tine state gas tax. Because gas consumption is down there may be less MSA funds available. The City has received payment from Hennepin County for the amount it owed the City. Tonka Bay has been invoiced for what it owes the City. The City has received a payment from Tonka Bay for approximately 50 percent of the amount due. The City owes Hennepin County for Shorewood's costs. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Administrator Heck stated the Council had adopted a resolution authorizing a City Requested Facilities Surcharge (CRFS) of $79,500 to pay for most of the City's $84,500 portion of the electrical undergrounding costs. The City still has $5,000 of that expense to pay. In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Administrator Heck explained the City has an outstanding invoice payable to Hennepin County. Director Burton explained the City needs the MSA advance to pay the invoice. Heck stated according to Director Brown's reconciliation information the City owes Hennepin County more than $438,000. Bailey questioned how tine City was going to pay that amount if it was only asking for a MSA advance of $411,000. In response to a comment from Councilmember Turgeon, Administrator Heck explained the resolution adopted in 2007 asking for the original MSA advance would use up the City's MSA funding through 2011 and the new request would use it up for another three years beyond that. CITY Of,' - --A COO CI- ~w m' S July i Rage 12 of l Council e ber Woodruff requested Staff prepare a chart that depicts who the City owes what to, who owes what to the City and where the funds are going to come from to pay what the City owes. There was consensus to continue this to the next meeting. B. Authorize Ad for Bid for Harding Lane, Harding Avenue and Smithtown Lane Engineer Landini stated the meeting packet for this evening includes a resolution ordering the reconstruction of Harding Avenue and Harding Lane and the reclamation of Smithtown Lane. The resolution also approves the plans, specifications and Engineer's estimate for the projects as well as authorizes the advertisement for bid for the projects. The projects have been combined to take advantage of the economies of scale. Councihnember Turgeon stated the bids will not be opened until August 19t". She asked when the projects would be started. Engineer Landini explained the City would accept the bid during its August 24`x' meeting and the work would begin in September. Landini stated the City has to advertise for a specified number of weeks and the public hearing for this project was held during the June 22, 2009, Council meeting. Turgeon questioned if it would be better to postpone the reconstruction of Harding Avenue and Harding Lane until 2010, noting the Councilmember Zerby has recommended the upfront project work for roadway improvements be done in one calendar year and the actual construction work in another. Landini stated watermain is not going to be extended as part of the reconstruction effort; therefore, the depth of excavation will probably only be three feet versus eight to ten feet deep if watermain were installed. This reconstruction project should be much quicker, and less of the very bad soils that exist six feet down will be exposed. The first level bituminous overlay should be down before the bituminous plants close either after the first snow fall for the season or around Thanksgiving Day. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Engineer Landini explained the reconstruction and reclamation projects have to be bid as one project. Councilmember Woodruff stated during the neighborhood meeting held about the project four weeks ago there were a number of comments made. The project includes the creation of a cul-de-sac at the end of Smithtown Lane. He asked if the City had obtained the necessary land. Engineer Landini stated the affected property owner has been in support of the creation of a cul-de-sac from the very beginning of project discussions, and verbally agreed to grant the necessary easement. Landini then stated the surveyors are drawing up the easement specifications, and that should be completed before bids are opened. Woodruff stated during the meeting residents made comments about a culvert that didn't seem to be working correctly. Landini explained the plans specify a new culvert will be installed under Smithtown Lane. Woodruff stated a resident on Harding Lane asked about drainage on the east side of the road. He related the resident had indicated there is only one storm water pickup, and the resident thought there should be more. He stated the plan only reflects one. Landini stated there is only going to be one. Councilmember Zerby stated lie thought projects should be planned over an 18-month timeframe. He asked which two roads were next highest on the 20-year Pavement Improvement Plan for improvements. Engineer Landini stated Nelsine Drive and Meadowview Lane. Requests for proposals for the feasibility study were sent out the previous week to firms in the City's engineering pool. He hoped to the have the RFPs for Council at its next meeting. Landini noted that based on the decision tree diagram both of these roadways should be candidates for reclamation. Zerby asked when the first public meetings would be held about the projects, to which Landini stated after the feasibility study is complete. He would not have cost information for residents prior to that. J P. J`a`i PQ ; C. Authorize Request for Proposal for the Lake Mary Outlet Project Feasibility Study Engineer Landini stated Staff would like direction from Council regarding the 2009 Capital Improvement Program Lake Mary Outlet Drainage Improvement Project feasibility study. He noted that during the 2009 Budget process Council commented it would like to discuss this project before starting any work. He explained the 2009 budget has $457,000 earmarked for this project. This project would require a loan from another fund, and the current plan is to have the Sewer Fund be the lending fund. Landini explained there are five drainage problem areas associated with the high water elevation of outlet. The Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood report indicates the area numbers are 24, 25, 30, 37 and 39. The conditions stated in report list an emergency overflow elevation of the Lake Mary Outlet of 957.1 with a low floor opening elevation of an adjacent home at 957.5; this provide four- tenths of a foot of buffer. There are 87 properties located in the contributing drainage area. Landini stated Staff recommends Council direct Staff to collect proposals for the Lake Mary Drainage Improvement project feasibility study. Councilmember Bailey stated he is not convinced it's a worthwhile project because the cost per property in the area is extremely large. He suggested other alternatives be considered. He is not in support of doing anything with this project this year. Councilmember Turgeon concurred with Bailey's comments. Councilmember Woodruff stated Council would only be approving the feasibility study. He asked what the cost of the study would be. That will influence his decision. Landini stated the cost for the study is estimated to be approximately $30,000 - $40,000 because of the project's size and complexity. Councilmember Turgeon stated she thought there was a lot of feasibility type information available. Mayor Lizee stated there is some property identification information available. Engineer Landini stated there are five pages in the Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood report explaining the drainage issues, but they do not go into the depth of the outlet pipe. Landini stated Director Brown would have the location of all the pipes and hoses. Councilmember Woodruff asked what it would cost to mitigate the problem today. He stated the City could pump the outlet many times for the cost to correct the problem. Engineer Landini stated the City owns the pump to pump the outlet. Councilmember Bailey stated he is not confident Staff has explored all of the options. He thought at one time the outlet was basically draining itself because the City punched a hole in the bottom of the outlet. This was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Turgeon's request. Councilmember Turgeon asked how often the roadways had to be striped. Engineer Landini stated Smithtown Road and Yellowstone Trail need it more than once a year. Landini noted the roadways were re-striped in 2008. He explained if Council wants striping that lasts longer then it will cost three times as much and last twice as long. Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLU'T'ION NO. 09-036 "A Resolution Accepting Quote and Awarding Contract for 2009 Pavement Marking Project." Motion passed 5/0. 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Support of Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Optic Stimulus Grant Application Councilmember Woodruff stated the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (the LMCC) has been discussing enhanced communications for its seventeen member cities. It began discussing fiber optics to the home about one year ago. He is the chair of a LMCC committee that has been investigating fiber to the home (FTTH). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provides for $7.2 billion in funding to further broadband communications throughout the United States. The LMCC is trying to determine if it's possible to develop a broadband network throughout its seventeen member cities and the City of Mound. Woodruff gave a presentation about the LMCC's FTTH grant application for a stimulus grant. The highlights of the presentation are as follows. ➢ A fiber optic network is a network that provides data, television and telephone services. The network would have virtually unlimited capacity and speed. The network would be available to all residents, businesses and organizations within the eighteen cities. The network would be a physical infrastructure. The network would be operated for the public benefit; it would be a non-profit organization. The network would be an investment in the communities' futures. ➢ Studies have shown the United States is currently ranked as number seventeen in the world with regard to its broadband capabilities. ➢ There are a lot of communities in Minnesota and the US that either have built or are building FTTH networks. Some examples are Monticello, Minnesota; Northfield, Minnesota; Dalton, Georgia; Lafayette, Louisiana; and Lake Forest, Illinois. Most of the FTTH efforts to date have been highly successful, in part due to good planning and execution. 10 REGULA J - - _ . J --'ES Ju j t. Page 15 o ' f ➢ A wide variety of financing methods and operating models are being used. The LMCC's plan is to use federal grant funding and revenue bonds. ➢ There are federal stimulus grants totaling $7.2 billion. Of that, ARRA provides at least $4.35 billion in funding for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the Department of Commerce to distribute under the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) for broadband deployment. ➢ The first grant application window closes August 14, 2009. It's anticipated that the first grants will be awarded November 7, 2009. There are supposed to be two more rounds of grant awards. All the funds are supposed to be issued by September 2010. ➢ The grants are to fund construction and capital costs. The federal share of a project's cost can't exceed 80 percent, but applicants can petition for a waiver of their required 20 percent. ➢ LMCC's intent is to request 100 percent funding, or $47 million, for these costs. ➢ The remaining portion of the $60 million project cost ($13 million) will come from LMCC issued revenue bonds. There would not be any obligation to the cities. The $13 million is needed for operations until the FTTH network becomes cash flow positive; that is expected to occur by the end of the second year of operating. ➢ The grant application rules were released July 1, 2009. The document was 121 pages long. ➢ The LMCC retained two consultants to prepare information for the grant application. Their report was completed by the end of June. ➢ The LMCC Executive Committee will discuss the grant application process during it July 2lst meeting. Woodruff explained the LMCC asks each of the cities to adopt a resolution that indicates it's committed to supporting the process. A copy of the resolution was included in the meeting packet for this meeting. The resolution basically states the LMCC is intending to ask for federal stimulus money and if it is awarded a federal grant the City will cooperate per the City's regulations for granting right-of-way access, and that the City understands the project will be done by the LMCC using finding from a federal grant and revenue bonds and that there will be no obligation to the City. It was clarified that the grant application is to fund the development of a FTTH network. Councilmember Zerby stated the City would be giving away right-of-way access. He asked if there would be any cost to the City. Council member Woodruff stated the current plans assume the network will be entirely undergrounded. He also stated the City has its process for granting right-of-way access, and that process has to be followed. If there are any fees the LMCC would have to pay them. The LMCC would also have to pay any expenses to restore the right-of-way. Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 09-039 "A Resolution to Support the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) in its Application for Federal Stimulus Funding for Construction of a Fibre-to-the-Home Network." Motion passed 510. Mayor Liz& stated this is exciting. B. City Hall Landscape Preliminary Concept Plan Director Nielsen stated the City has received a preliminary concept plan for landscaping around City Hall. The focus has been on the foundation plantings around the building. His memorandum contained in the meeting packet details the types of plantings being proposed. Staff continues to work with the consultant Cl . _ )L3 REGULAR IG MINUTES to identify some type of a low blooming plant alternative to grass on the west side of the building adjacent to Country Club Road as well as down the slope in the front of the building. The majority of the plantings are native to Minnesota. There has been discussion about the berm area on the north side of the parking lot. The landscape architect will identify a location for the sign in the berm, and it's proposed that a garden be placed around the sign and have it be maintained by the local gardeners. He noted Staff continues to work with Metro Bloom on the rain garden proposed for the City-owned property next to City Hall. Director Nielsen asked if any of the Councilmembers would like to meet with the consultant about the plantings. Mayor Lizee stated she would like to have that opportunity. Councilmember Turgeon stated the plan indicates Techny Arborvitae will be planted in places. She suggested something else be planted as deer like eat her Arborvitae. Director Nielsen stated to date the City has not had that problem. Councilmember Woodruff stated when Council discussed landscaping a year ago it talked about wanting landscaping that was sustainable, low maintenance, demonstrated green concepts and so forth. The concept plan does not reflect much of that. He expressed the landscaping is not in sync with the direction provided by Council. Council wanted to demonstrate to residents that the City is doing what Council preaches, and that there are examples for residents to come and look at. He then stated the majority of the proposed plantings are not native to Minnesota. They are commonly used and available in Minnesota. If the objective is to show residents how to use plants native to Minnesota, the current recommendation for plants will not accomplish that. He explained the recommended plant of Walkers Low Nepeta is an invasive plant, but it may not be a problem based on where it will be located. He stated no information has been provided about how the plantings will be watered, or what maintenance or drainage will be required. He thought the City was a long way from having a plan it should implement. He commented the plan does recommend very reasonably priced plants. Director Nielsen stated if Council wants a demonstration project where residents can come and look at plantings they can plant in their yards, this is not the plan. It's not an innovative plan. The consultant was told to focus on low maintenance plantings. The consultant claimed the recommended plantings were primarily native plants. Mayor Lizee stated she would like to meet with Director Nielsen and the landscape designers to get more information. She expressed concern about drainage. She stated she would prefer to use native plants that are a little more creative. One of Council's objectives was to show people how to have a low maintenance, sustainable garden. Although the plan does that, it's not very exciting. She recommended the plan be phased in because of the cost. Director Nielsen stated whatever plan is agreed to will be one that can be phased in. Director Nielsen stated the focus has been on landscaping for the entry area, the berm on the north side of the parking lot and the west side of the building. Councilmember Zerby asked if the volunteer gardeners could help with the actual planting activities. C. Council Procedures and Policies Administrator Heck stated this item was continued from the June 22, 2009, Council meeting agenda. CITY - € JIB REGULAR COUNCIL v . E 17 Co__-cilmember Woodruff stated he is very enthusiastic about having the policies and procedures for council operations complete. He then reviewed the changes he recommended be made to the document included in the meeting packet for this meeting. The recommended changes are as follows. ➢ Item 3.1 Agenda - change unanimous vote to majority vote. ➢ Item 3.3 Delivery of Agenda - change Friday to Thursday. ➢ Item 3.5 Varying Order - after discussion there was agreement to change it to better reflect when public hearings are started. ➢ Item 3.7 Consent Agenda - change may abstain to may abstain or recuse. ➢ Item 4.1 Presiding Officer - add something to indicate how many council members must vote to approve an alternate. ➢ Item 4.3 Maintenance of Order - after discussion about the protocol for asking questions there was agreement to leave it the way it is. ➢ Item 4.4 Powers - the statement about appealing to the council should be expanded to include a reference to the specific appeal process that would be followed. ➢ Item 5.9 Limitation of Debate - insert the word member after council. ➢ Item 6.3 Limitations regarding Public comments and Reports - in the sentence about an appeal procedure being available clarify what authority the mayor has to not allow oral communication outside of that procedure. ➢ Something needs to be added about the City's policy for video recording of meetings and their availability on Cable television. ➢ Item 10.1 Ordinances/Introduction - after discussion there was consensus to leave it the way it is. ➢ Item 11.1 Committee Designated - expand it to explain how committee members are chosen and eliminate the reference to specific committees. ➢ Item 11.2 Referrals and Reports - add commission when there is a reference to committee. Woodruff stated he thought the policies and procedures document is wonderful. Councilmember Zerby state lie thought this was a great step forward. The policies and procedures add a lot of clarity. He then stated he could support Councilmember Woodruff's recommended changes. He noted Council can modify this document if it decides it's necessary. Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, adopting the policies and procedures for council operations subject to the changes recommended above. Councilmember Bailey reviewed changes he recommends be made to the policies and procedures document. ➢ Item 3.6 Public Comments - in addition to the mayor the majority of the council should be able to recognize someone from the public. Clarify the second paragraph to indicate it's about matters from the floor. ➢ Item 6.2 Addressing the Council after Motion is Made - in addition to the mayor the majority of the council should be able to grant permission. ➢ Items 5.13 Amendment of Rules and Item 7.7 Motion to Suspend Rules - both refer to two-thirds of the actual council membership; four-fifths may more accurately reflect the super-majority of the council. ➢ Item 6.3 Limitations Regarding Public Comments and Reports - in addition to the mayor the majority of the council should be able to not allow oral communication. CITE c1F : _ ..'u v. _--AR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES .Tarty 13, Po -3 E 2 Item 7.6 Motion to Fix Hour of Adjournment - having midnight as the time a meeting must end is too late. Item 7.10 Motion to Amend - the intent of this is unclear. It was clarified this is indemnification language. Item 11.1 Committees Designated - eliminate the reference to specific committees. Without objection by the seconded, the maker of the motion withdrew the motion. There was Council consensus to change the time by which a meeting must end from midnight to 11.00 P.M. There was Council consensus to consider adopting the rules after it has been provided the opportunity to review the modified document. D. Southshore Community Center Improvement Funding Request Kristi Anderson, Managing Director of the Southshore Community Center (the Center), stated she has been in her role for slightly less than two weeks. This past week she has taken the time to assess the needs of the Center. She noted CRR's original RFP response identified a few immediate needs that should be addressed in the relatively near future. She explained there are places where the wallpaper in the Center is taped together. There are many large stains in the carpet, particularly in the dining area, that cannot be removed with cleaning. The environment in the Center is very sterile. To be competitive against other facilities the Center has to be marketed against it needs a facelift. She displayed photographs she took of other facilities she visited. She visited the Minnetonka Community Center, the Chanhassen Legion, the Chanhassen Recreation Center, the Plymouth Creek Center and the Maple Grove Community Center. Director Anderson stated she thought it prudent to make an investment in the Center. It would demonstrate to the community that the City is committed to making the Center a success. She has received a professional estimate in the amount of approximately $8,000 to paint the entire Center including the metal doors and to remove the wallpaper. She also received an estimate to replace the carpet and install a wood dance floor for an amount of approximately $18,000. She thought it would be difficult to justify a higher rental rate structure without making any improvements. Director Anderson requested Council authorize her to obtain more detailed quotes from contractors to repaint and re-carpet the Center and install a wood dance floor in the Center. Councilmember Bailey stated he appreciated Director Anderson's perspective. But, he wants to be assured that Director Anderson is committed to running the Center as a solid business. He wants the Center to be profitable enough to pay back the funds. Anderson stated in the scope of services she identified in the CRR proposal it stated her number one objective is to successfully market and rent the Center. She recommended the improvements be made before she prepares marketing materials which will contain photographs of the Center. Councilmember Turgeon commented that she was responsible for renting the Center for one year a few years ago. She stated she agreed the Center needs new carpet and it needs to be painted, but she is not sure it needs to be done right now. She stated during her tenure as the rental agent she did not receive complaints about the look of the Center. The most significant problem in trying to market the Center is its size; it can only accommodate approximately 150 people. Director Anderson stated it can accommodate 175 people seated at tables. Turgeon stated only three parties had wanted a dance floor when she was renting the Center, and she noted the Friends had discussed possibly installing a wood dance floor when CITY 01 E NO qG Mir J - Jul, gar the carpet was replaced. She thought the counter next to the kitchen could use improvements. She suggested the improvements be delayed until there were more rental commitments booked. She noted the Center lost rental opportunities while its future was being discussed. She stated there are other important things the Center needs such as a keyless entry system, access to the internet, a projection screen as well as other amenities needed by businesses. She recommended the replacement carpet for the Center be similar to that installed in City Hall. Mayor Lizee stated that although she appreciated Councilmember Turgeon's comments Turgeon had not been the rental agent for a few years. She stated the market conditions for facilities like this have changed over the years, and the Center is three or more years older then when Turgeon was the rental agent. She thought the Center looked tired and it needs to be updated. She stated the Center has to be competitive against other facilities. She noted that Council had indicated that it wanted to make the necessary investments in the Center so it could be a success. She acknowledged it would be nice to add other amenities, but she thought the appearance of the interior needs to be improved first. She thought it prudent to get more detailed information about the costs to make Director Anderson's recommended improvements. Councilmember Zerby stated if improvements aren't made to the Center the number of rentals will be negatively impacted. He explained the market conditions have changed; there are more facilities for rent then there were when Councilmember Turgeon was the rental agent. He stated he would support having Director Anderson obtain more detailed estimates. Councilmember Turgeon asked if the oversight committee for the Center operations has prepared a prioritized list of all of the things that should be done or added to the Center and the cost to do so, along with a list of what the competition is. Councilmember Zerby stated the committee toured the facility, and it discussed the keyless entry system and the need for internet access which Administrator Heck is working on. He thought the projection screen and white boards are not priorities, with which Director Anderson agreed. He did not think the list of what needs to be done in the next twelve months is complete. Councilmember Woodruff stated the committee discussed the longer list that Anderson has. He and Councilmember Zerby did give Administrator Heck direction to pursue getting an internet connection installed along with a printer; that along with the keyless entry system is a cost of doing business. Councilmember Woodruff stated he supports having Director Anderson obtain detailed quotes. Council needs to have a serious discussion about how to pay for the improvements. He requested Administrator Heck and Director Anderson prepare a proforma on the Center for the rest of 2009. The City has resources to cover the costs, but it's prudent to know what the City's committing to. Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, directing Southshore Community Center Managing Director Anderson to obtain quotes for the installation of new carpet and flooring, as well as the interior painting of the facility. Motion passed 510. Director Anderson encouraged Council to strongly consider authorizing the recommended improvements. She informed the Southshore Center working group who considered her RFP of the need to replace the carpet, install wood flooring, paint the interior, provide internet access and a printer, and possibly install shelving and improve the sound system. Now that she has had the opportunity to look at the Center more closely she is even more convinced of the need to make the much needed improvements. E. Planning Commission Vacancy Cl : _ 1 I July 1 Page 20 a Administrator leck stated the City had received notice from two individuals interested in the open Planning '`o_ ission position, and earlier that day lie also received a phone call and notice of interest from another interested person. He noted Council had previously interviewed one of the interested individuals to be the City's representative on the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission. He asked Council how it would like to approach filling the vacancy. Director Nielsen indicated that because of the vacancy the Planning Commission has experienced a few situations where there has been a lack of a quorum. Councilmember Bailey stated if Council was going to have to meet on June 20, 2009, to interview the candidates he suggested Council have a budget work session to discuss some of the recommendations Councilmember Woodruff had made about the 2010 draft budget. Councilmember Woodruff stated he has a commitment at the Deephaven Council meeting that evening but he will try and work around the commitment. Mayor Lizee stated she did not want to have a work session on July 20`x' unless Council was committed to addressing most of their operating budget concerns. She then stated the combined time for the special meeting and the budget work session should be no more than two hours. There was Council consensus to interview the candidates during a special session on July 20, 2009, and to have a budget work session immediately following the special meeting. In response to a question from Mayor Lizee, Director Nielsen stated even if a new Planning Commissioner were selected that evening it would not provide him with the time to orient the new Commissioner prior to the July 22, 2009, Planning Commission meeting. Discussion moved to Item 11.B.1 on the agenda. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff Administrator Heck stated he hopes to have the final punch list for the City Hall renovation project prepared shortly. He and Director Burton have been working on closing out the operations of the Southshore Community Center for the period of March through June 2009. He has provided the Councilmembers with all the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) 2010 draft budget information that he has received. He noted the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD) has dropped down to 0.83 percent. He anticipates the cities will receive notice of what the certified IPD will be in the next three weeks. He explained if Shorewood were to take its share of the cost for police salaries and benefits out of its base levy and put them in a special levy its base levy has to be reduced by the same amount. He would not recommend Shorewood do that because that would reduce its base levy to provide other services. He stated the League of Minnesota Cities estimates the state budget shortfall to be anywhere from $4 billion to $7 billion for 2012 and 2013. He thought it prudent for Council to consider the long-term impact on decisions made about the City's budget. Director Nielsen stated the City has two good candidates for providing hearing officer services for administrative code enforcement appeals. He assumes Council will want to interview them. B. Mayor and City Council A; , Page 21 of 22 COUNCIL MEET ES Councilmember Bailey requested SLMPD Chief Litsey provide more information on SLMPD general fund reserves and reserves in the designated funds. He would like to know what happens each budget year when revenues exceed expenses. Mayor Lizee stated the SLMPD auditor recommends the general fund reserves be no less than 5 percent, and that level of reserves is not high enough to plan on using them to help offset shortfalls. Councilmember Turgeon commented there were approximately $118,000 in general find reserves at the end of 2008 and there were approximately $180,000 in reserves of the designated funds. Mayor Lizee suggested Councilmembers schedule time with SLMPD Chief Litsey and have him address their questions. Councilmember Woodruff stated he attended a recent Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board meeting during which the idea of creating an exotics prevention plan for Lake Minnetonka was discussed. A number of other agencies participated in that discussion. The goal is to have the plan prepared by the end of the year with implementation beginning no later than March 2010. He noted an aquatic invasive species named flowering rush has been found in Smiths Bay and Browns Bay. The DNR is trying to determine how prevalent this species is in the Lake. He explained that people can buy this plant and put it in their ponds, but they must be careful of what they put in the Lake. Councilmember Turgeon sated she had spoken with Director Nielsen about the Gideon Glen property which she thinks is an eyesore. She asked someone from the Watershed District, who happened to be at the site, what the cooperative agreement between the City and the Watershed District stipulates as the City's responsibilities for maintaining the area are. She asked Staff to work with the Watershed District on this. Mayor Lizee stated there is a City Hall open house scheduled for Wednesday, July 15`x', from 5:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M. The Excelsior Fire Department annual firefighters fundraising dance is schedule for Friday, July 17`x', from 5:00 P.M. to midnight. Discussion moved to Item 12 on the agenda. 1. Mayor Discuss Proposal for Joint County Road 19 Trail Meeting This was discussed after Item 10.E. Mayor Lizee stated there has been a group that has been meeting for the last two years regarding the possibility of connecting the Dakota Trail in Orono and the LRT Trail. The formation of the group was initiated by Orono Mayor White. She has met with Orono Mayor White and Tonka Bay Mayor LaBelle on this. There has been a lot of preliminary design work done by Hennepin County, the Three Rivers Park District, the Cities of Orono, Shorewood and Tonka Bay and the Metropolitan Council. A few weeks ago she was been contacted by Andrew Gillett at Hennepin County about having a joint meeting of the three Cities Councils at the Grey Freshwater Center to discuss this opportunity. The joint meeting of the Councils has to be called by the Mayors of the Cities. Mr. Gillett will work with the Cities' Administrators to schedule the meeting. Discussion returned to Item I LA on the agenda. CITY a [LAIR FS July I Page 22 of 12. ADJOURN Turgeon owed, Zer y seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of July 13, 2009, at 10029 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor brianyHeck,- ity AYdministrator/Clerk