Loading...
CC Minutes 1998 08 10CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 10, 1998 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6~35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Engel STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Anita Benson, Cynthia Kirchoff and Todd Hofknan APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the agenda amended to delete item 2 from the agenda, Councilman Senn requested discussion under Council Presentations and there will be an executive session to discuss two pending assessment appeals following the regular meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations~ b. Consider Request for Extension of Work Hours, Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition, Project 98- 10. c. Resolution #98-75: Accept Utility Improvements in Springfield 2nd and 3rd Additions, Project Nos. 97-20 and 98-7. d. Resolution #98-76: Approve Establishment of No Parking Zones along Kings Road. f. Approval of First Reading of an Amendment to Chapter 9 of City Code Concerning Fire Code. g. Resolution #98-77: Approve Resolution Establishing Election Judges and Rates of Pay for the Primary Election. i. Approval of Bills. j. City Council Minutes dated July 27, 1998 City Council Minutes dated August 3, 1998 k. Approve Amended Grading Plan, Highover. 1. Approve 1998 Trail Easement Payments. All voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: CANDIDATE FOR CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF, BUD OLSON. Bud Olson: Thank you. I am Bud Olson and I live over on Hazeltine Boulevard at 7331 Hazeltine Boulevard in the fine city of Chanhassen. So I just wanted a minute of your time just to introduce myself and let you know that there's going to be a race for Sheriff in Carver County and this actually is the end of a second phase of what I consider to be my campaign to get elected as Sheriff in this county. About 17 months ago a good group of public people who were concerned about our Sheriff's department and the direction it was going in asked if I would be interested in running for Sheriff and I did some soul searching and some talking with my wife and after a period of time I decided this is something that I've been planning and preparing my whole life for and so I've taken the opportunity to come out and meet our government leaders first. And it happens I left my home town last in the whole visitation process. I went out and I visited all 11 township boards that are out there in Carver County and now I've visited all 11 city councils because you are the people who direct the business of our government in Carver County. You are also the people that I would directly be responsible for as the Sheriff of your county. This is a very important part of the whole process of working in Carver County and working together in cooperative ventures. And speaking of cooperative ventures, we have one going on right now with our sheriff's department in the city of Chanhassen and I have to say that in my policing background and in my education I've studied consolidating police services and so it makes me very happy to see what we're doing in Carver County with our consolidated police service. This is the only way that we can get the job done these days. Our resources are tight. Not all of us have a lot of money to spend and with 11 cities and 11 townships and everybody has a budget and the growth cycle is upon us, we have to look at where our tax dollars are going. So I really feel that the best bang for your buck is in your county policing and your county contracts. So being a resident of Chanhassen I appreciate what the Council has done with your policing contract. I've had opportunities to speak with our local public safety people and I feel very confident that they're a good group of people that are going to work very closely with the new sheriff and that's important to me being a sheriff candidate. So I have kind of put this plan together and there's an old saying, you know plan your work and work your plan and that's what I've been doing for the last 17 months but I also learned early on that the good lord gave us two ears and one mouth for a great reason. To do more listening than to do talking and so with that... I've been out listening to what people have said about what they want for police service and what they want from their leadership in the sheriff's department. And what the future for Carver County's going to be. And I think with me being the only outside candidate in this race, we have a great opportunity to talk about our policing for the year 2000 and beyond. I think it's a great time for us to look at where we've been and where we want to go and how we're going to get that and put that road map together together so that's something that I will stress very much so in my campaign in the next few months. So this is just an opportunity for me to put a face to the name. I'm sure you've probably read a little bit about the sheriff's department race through our local newspapers and such but it's always important for me to know who I'm working with too and see the faces and say to you that I'm available and that's the way I like it. We have to be open, approachable and we have to do the job together because our communities demand it. There's a lot of accountability in government these days as we've seen in both state, local and national elections. Our politicians and our public governments are being held to a higher standard of conduct and we need to make sure that we as public servants take care of that standard and we take a lot of interest in what that means for us. So I thank you for the opportunity just to come in and introduce myself and look forward to seeing you along the campaign trail so thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you for coming and good luck. City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 Bud Olson: Thank you. REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF eUTLeT B, SARATOGA ADDITION INTO 2 LOTS; ONE LOT OF 2.75+ ACRES TO BE PURCHASED BY THE CITY FOR PARK LAND, THE REMAINING 3.45+ ACRES TO BE HELD BY THE OWNER, DOUGLAS HANSEN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN APARTMENT BUILDING AND REZeNING FROM R-12 TO eI (2.75 ACRES) AND R-12 TO PUD-R (3.58 ACRES). THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON SANTA VERA DRIVE JUST WEST OF THE SANTA VERA APARTMENTS, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Cynthia Kirchoff: Thank you. The purpose of this application is to allow the 2.75 acres to be purchased by the City for park land. This application also seeks to rezone that part of the parcel to OI to be consistent with the rest of City Center Park. The remaining eastern parcel is proposed to be rezoned to PUD. This zoning will offer the developer of the property more flexibility when it is developed into up to 30 units of multi-family residential. The original PUD in 1977 did call for I believe it was 10 units. 10 buildings with 8 units in that total PUD. However, when the site does develop the application will have to go through site plan review process and will have to comply with the design standards that staff did prepare in the staff report. The subdivision will also seek to correct the problem that was created when the existing apartment building was constructed on the current outlot. The zoning ordinance does not permit buildings to be constructed on outlots, so this will correct that problem. I'd just like to point out a couple of issues in the staff report. Mainly under parks and recreation on page 8. The Park Director has reduced the park and rec fees to 50%. That should be reflected in the staff report. Also this application was reviewed last Wednesday, August 5th by the Planning Commission. They did approve it by a vote of 4 to 1. They did voice a concern regarding the approval of the conceptual and preliminary PUD. This should be removed from the recommendation because you are not approving the conceptual or preliminary PUD. Therefore staff does recommend approval of the zoning and the subdivision with the conditions that are stated in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. I just have a couple of questions. Cindy, were neighbors notified within the 500 feet because we don't have a list of that or anything? Cynthia Kirchoff: Yes they were. Mayor Mancino: That also did not accompany the Planning Commission review either so thank you for that. On page 6 under.., development design standards and where at the top where it says setbacks and you have street frontage and then there is a little note that says the PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 65%. Would you, before we get into preliminary plat, etc, according to ordinance about the PUD standards for hard surface coverage for high density residential is 50%. So... make sure that the applicant realizes that. And that's on page 1200.4... I just want to make sure that there's some discrepancy there and if you could double check me, I would appreciate it. Is there anyone here tonight wishing to address the City Council on this issue, and let me tell you where we are for those who just walked in. We're right now reviewing number 3 under new business and that is the request for subdivision of Outlot B, Saratoga Addition into two lots. One lot of 2.75 acres to be purchased by the city for park land and the remaining 3.45 acres to be held by the owner Douglas Hansen for the development of an apartment building. Would either of you that came in tonight want to address the City Council on this? Okay. State your name and address. Doug Hansen: I'm Doug Hansen. My address is 11969 North Shore Drive, Spicer, Minnesota. And I'm the owner. We developed the land. Bought the land from Pat Kerber. Developed the land. Went through City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 Planning Commission and Council in '77 and did the first phase of the apartment project in '79. It was scheduled for 80 units. We built 18 of them and that was the first phase then my partner and I split up in '82. Started in '79 and it was a three year, long drawn out thing and it's been on hold since then. But now I'm ready to finish it if we can put this whole thing together. I have one, you mentioned hard cover of 65%. It's not 65%? It's 50%? Mayor Mancino: Well that's something that I just asked Cindy to check. Doug Hansen: Oh, okay. The reason for that is. Cynthia Kirchoff: Well I was just going to make a comment that we did increase the hard surface coverage to 65% based upon that 40% of the overall parcel was being sold to the city for park land and that is so we increased the hard surface coverage by 40% over. 40% of 35% which is permitted in the R-12 district. Over the 50%. That's why it's 65. Mayor Mancino: ... one more time. Cynthia Kirchoff: Okay. 40% of the overall parcel of the 6.6 acres was sold to the city for park land. Therefore we took 40% of the 35% which is permitted in the R-12 district which is 14.6%. So we added that onto the 50 that was permitted by PUD. Mayor Mancino: An interesting way, okay. Don Ashworth: IfI may. So when Doug comes in, we're going to be looking at the larger parcel so therefore in doing your calculations you did them in that fashion to make sure that the part he had left, that he could I guess develop it normally because again we're still going to look at all the space when we do the calculations. Did you follow that then Doug? Doug Hansen: The old part is existing. Mayor Mancino: We've got it now. Okay. Doug Hansen: And that is more hard covered so it's, this is offsetting that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Doug Hansen: I have one concern. There's a wetland on my land and this was news to me. Mayor Mancino: At the Planning Commission meeting, I saw that yeah. Doug Hansen: Somehow this appeared. You know we bought the land from Pat Kerber. It was corn fields. We went through the planning process and the council and the development process and the whole thing. There's no wetland at that time. I guess this came on the books in '92, from what I understand. Mayor Mancino: We've done a lot of changing. Doug Hansen: And I had no notice. No knowledge and there isn't a drop of water over there. It's used as, you know it's a treed area now. All the trees have grown up. And it's used as a dumping ground for brush City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 and whatever. You could examine it and take a look at it but it's not wet. Some of the park land drains on it from the road north. Goes through the fence. The fence acts as a filter. But the water flows down on my land and behind the berm there and, but there's no water standing. I just can't believe that after all those years that it could be designated a wetland without the owners knowledge. And if my project, if I can work around a so called wetland, that's fine but I'm concerned that I can get a road in there and access to it and I just wanted to bring that up tonight. Mayor Mancino: Well the wetland has not been fully delineated yet, correct? Cynthia Kirchoff: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: And it will need to be prior to your bringing in the preliminary plat, etc. So they will get a wetlands specialist, you will to get it delineated and to see if it needs to be mitigated or what. Doug Hansen: That's what I understand. Councilman Berquist: The memo from our coordinator is saying with the rule changes, it may not, unless it supports water, how does he put it? Meet ground water hydrology to support a wetland. If it doesn't meet that, it wouldn't be construed as a wetland. Doug Hansen: I can't imagine, I've had it for 30 years here so. Councilman Berquist: It makes mention of a berm that possibly created the wet spot so. Doug Hansen: This is the berm... Councilman Berquist: That's actually on the northeast comer... Oh, okay. Mayor Mancino: Well just so you know, we don't have the expertise to make the decision tonight, etc. That will be done when you bring in preliminary plat. You can certainly go over that with Phillip. Doug Hansen: ...after 30 years and declare it a wetland. Well thanks. That's all I had to say. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much for coming. Doug Hansen: Thanks for listening. Councilman Berquist: Can I just ask? I mean let's say worst case, somebody comes out. A hydrologist comes out says... What does that do to...project? Cynthia Kirchoff: He'll just have to maintain setbacks from the edge of the wetland. They're noted in the report. Doug Hansen: But does the setback include a road access? Or just building? Councilman Berquist: I mean I want to believe that there will be no wetland found or delineated. But if there is, this could... City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 Mayor Mancino: It depends on the size of it. It depends again whether it can be filled and we have credits. There's a lot of different options. Councilman Berquist: Well I'd rather hypothesize up from with him standing here than come back later on and now he comes before us and says son of a gun. They found a wetland. Now what do we do but maybe that's the better way to approach it. Doug Hansen: Well I was concerned about it. I still am concerned about it. Mayor Mancino: Steve, I don't think we can... Comments from council members. Or any questions at this point? Councilman Berquist: I have a question for, Cindy you made mention at the end of this.., about park fees. You said it was in the staff report. I didn't remember reading it and I can't find it. Cynthia Kirchoff: No, it wasn't placed in the staff report. No, no. It's added, amended. I amended that section to say that the Park Director has reduced the park and trail fees by 50%. Councilman Senn: So that what's in the staff report is incorrect is what you're saying? Cynthia Kirchoff: Yes. Yes. Councilman Senn: And why are we doing that? Mayor Mancino: I think Todd Hoffman will be able to answer that for us. Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. When the original development occurred Chanhassen Pond Park, later named, renamed Kerber Pond Park, appropriate. Pat Kerber sold them the original property. Was given as park credit for the subdivision. The entire subdivision. Western Hills, these apartment units. But the City Council at that time was concerned that if we're going to build an apartment complex, meaning four different subdivisions of apartments, some 80 in total, that they should have some playground equipment for those children who would live in those apartments, even with the presence of the elementary school just to the south. And so if you will, the Council at that time tagged an additional requirement which was $1,000.00 per addition for a total of $4,000.00 onto the development. If we fast forward 20 some years, how do you translate that into park dedication fees of today? Is it 100% credit and you forget about the City Council's desires some 20 years ago to see playground equipment? I don't believe so. Do we go to the other extent, require full park and trail dedication? I don't believe that's fair. And so I represented to both Doug and his attorney, Craig Mertz that I would recommend the City Council and Mr. Hansen meet halfway at 50%. Mayor Mancino: What is 50%? Todd Hoffman: Roughly $15,000.00-$17,000.00. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Councilman Berquist: That was the only other question that I have... City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Then may I have a motion please. Councilman Berquist: I will move approval of the subdivision, this would be 98-7 of Outlot B to create two lots. One of 2.75 and one of 3.85 acres subject to the following conditions. That future development must comply with development design standards and that the wetland be delineated at site plan approval. And that we, the City Council approve the rezoning of 2.75 acres, Lot 1, Block 1, Saratoga 3rd Addition from R-12 to Office Industrial. That we rezone 3.85 acres, Lot 2, Block 1, Saratoga 3rd Addition from R- 12 to Planned Unit Residential and we waive second and final reading. Roger Knutson: Mayor... four positive votes to pass. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. And Steve, did you read every condition, 1, 2 and 3? You did, didn't you? I'm sorry. Councilman Berquist: I did not do 1 purposely. Mayor Mancino: Why not? Councilman Berquist: We're not enterting into a PUD agreement right at this point. Mayor Mancino: Okay. May I have a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council approves Subdivision #98-7 of Outlot B by creating two lots of 2.75 acres and 3.85 acres with the following conditions: 1. Future development must comply with the development design standards. 2. The wetland shall be delineated at the time of site plan approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council approves the rezoning (98-3 REZ) of 2.75 acres (Lot 1, Block 1, Saratoga 3rd) from R-12 to OI and rezone 3.85 acres (Lot 2, Block 1, Saratoga 3rd) from R-12 to PUD-R and waive second and final reading. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Senn: Well, because of the 4/5 thing I'll vote for it. I'm not going to hold him up but I have my real reservations about doing that. Mayor Mancino: So we have four yes's. Thank you very much for coming and it was approved. APPROVE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, MARLIN AND LINDA EDWARDS PROPERTY, AUDUBON AND LYMAN BOULEVARD. City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mayor Mancino, members of the City Council. Staffwas used as a part of the referendum planning process by the park task force. It identifies 11 parcels of property, a couple to the north, parcel number 2 was just acted upon this evening. Again the Hansen property. Parcel 1 is the Dirk's property in the northwest comer of Lake Lucy and, rather to the south. And parcel 3 which we're discussing tonight. The other larger properties were all identified as larger potential tracts for acquisition through the referendum. Parcel 3, the Marlin and Linda Edwards property became known to the city over a half a dozen years ago when Marlin had plans to subdivide his property. Sell his house. Move to Prior Lake and retain the other portion of his property, the larger portion. He knew it was within the Bluff Creek corridor and he knew the city had interest in that corridor and so he called and asked if we had any interest in purchasing that property. At that time I said I thought the city would have interest in acquiring that property or could have interest in acquiring that property, but the Park and Recreation Commission certainly did not have the dollars at those times to set aside for the acquisition. And so it just sat on the back burner. The Park Task Force put it back onto the front burner with this map stating that preservation in the Bluff Creek corridor is a primary goal of the community. Throughout the entire planning process, land subdivision process from Highway 5 all the way down to Lyman Boulevard, the City attempted at every chance that it could to acquire a preservation buffer for public open space within the corridor. We accomplished some of that through dedication. Some through outright purchase. Some through easements. We attempted to condemn a piece which was not successful. We tried by a number of methods to preserve that corridor.., and then the fact that preserving this acreage on the comer there of Lyman and Audubon, preserves a pretty nice view shed into the Bluff Creek corridor. Seemed enough reason to go ahead and pursue the acquisition. In addition, the Watershed District has stated that they will, are willing to participate in the financial aspect of the purchase. Phillip Elkin and the planning department has petitioned the Watershed District for a plan in this area which would pay 25% of the land costs and 50% of the trail construction through that area. They have not responded in written manner but they have stated publicly that they feel strongly about the project. The referendum was approved and we had initiated negotiations on these land acquisitions. The Marlin Edwards piece was appraised and what we found in the appraisal process is that they need 2.5 acres for each lot and they have approximately 4.9 acres of high ground. And so he's contending that through some process he could ask for a variance for that. 1 acre and get 2 acres, excuse me, two lots out of the property. Or by delineating the wetland, find a good enough delineator that could come up with that extra. 1 acres to accomplish the two lots. And so there was a negotiation on the price coming up from a value of one lot, not all the way to the value of two lots because if you will, it's a draw poker match. Do we want to push Mr. Edwards? Or does Mr. Edwards want to push us so again we attempted to negotiate in the middle and come up with a reasonable offer. A third reason to acquire this property became evident when we negotiated the easements for the Bluff Creek connection trail. If I can refer you to a different plan. The Bluff Creek trail starts at the northern boundary here at the connection to the Chanhassen Business Center. Travels through a section of public open space and connects to Valley Ridge Trail at this point. And then it continues on private property on these lots. The issue with this trail is that this easement for trail purposes has been present here for over some 20 years, since this subdivision was approved. However, for ease of taking that easement, it was just described as a utility easement that was already in the area. Well that utility easement did not accommodate the trail construction as we proceed through these lots. The majority of the easements, the new easement negotiations progressed smoothly with the exception of the Monson property which is Lot 2. If you recall the Monson's were before the City Council for a lot split to retain their home and to build another home. As a part of that lot split we requested that easement for that trail. They did not approve of that request. In fact they withdrew their application for the lot split based on the fact that they did not agree with our assessment of what kind of a cost or what kind of a value should be placed on these easement for the trail. They think it severely impacts the value of that second lot and we do not hold that belief. With this issue in contention we looked at, well if we were thinking about buying the Edwards property, should we just reroute this trail around the City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 Monson property. Bring the trail terminus down to the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Audubon, where we'd like to be anyway. The dollar difference is certainly there but for $84,000.00, I certainly believe that we're getting a much larger bang for our buck than chasing after an expensive easement up on the Monson property. The trail project, easement acquisition budget can pay for a portion of this. The Watershed District has been petitioned for a portion of this and then the Open Space budget would pay for the remainder. There's a couple of side items that would go along with my recommendation and any approvals by the City Council. The fact that we have a soy bean crop out there planted by Gayle Degler, he has an agreement with Mr. Edwards. He does not pay rent on the property but he manages the land and keeps it intact. And so it's Gayle's soy bean crop. If you approve the purchase, we'll be out there staking the trail within the next couple of days and we would destroy a portion of the soy bean crop so we need to pay Gayle for that. That is accounted for in this approval. In addition, in order to engineer plans, stake and provide all the other professional services to realign the trail, I've asked Howard R. Green to provide their costs and they have done that for the City Council in their proposal for additional costs is $5,580.00 as detailed in the attached report in your packet. With that it's staff's recommendation that the City Council authorize the purchase of the Marlin and Linda Edwards property. The subsequent agreements to that with the Gayle and Lois Degler and the Howard R. Green contract... Mayor Mancino: So bottom line is $90,000.00. Little bit more. And Howard R. Green has already done the, on the Monson property, a realignment. They have staked the realignment and done that engineering. That's all ready. Todd Hoffman: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay, questions. Comments. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Todd, in terms of the, so far basically everything you've talked about simply focused on a trail, which is already designed in another location. What are the other reasons or can you elaborate more on why we should use or, how do I say it, limited resources left from the referendum in relationship to this parcel versus other ones we've identified. Todd Hoffman: The parcel, the Bluff Creek corridor, the preservation of the corridor is a primary value to the community. It was identified in the referendum survey. We've had a Bluff Creek corridor task force. The park task force identified this as desirable. It's going to keep, probably two houses from being built on that comer and interrupting that view shed as you drive along the Lyman Boulevard area. The land use, I think is a bargain for the acreage that you're seeing. When this city builds out, a little grassy comer, you know 8-10 acres parcel of property on the Lyman corridor today seems fairly insignificant. However, when this city builds out it will have a keen impact on the view shed as you drive through that area. It allows the trail corridor a trail head. It could accommodate future development for those type of activities. If you wanted a trail head or parking or picnicking or other types of activities, walking through just a very narrow, linear corridor in the Bluff Creek is not that desirable. Having additional public open space for wetland restoration, upland restoration. Having those public lands available is desirable for now. Now and in the future and you can accomplish it at a very reasonable price I believe today. Councilman Senn: This parcel itself doesn't hook to anything else in relationship to our acquisitions on the corridor? Todd Hoffman: Not presently but in the future the western edge of this property would be sought for public ownership. City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 Councilman Senn: And whose property is that? Todd Hoffman: That's the Mattson property. All of that would be wetland Mark that would be acquired as a part of the platting process. Not through cash acquisition. Councilman Senn: Alrighty. Mayor Mancino: Any other comments? Councilman Senn: Not at the moment. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Steve. Councilman Berquist: Todd, like I mentioned in the work session. I didn't read this before we got here so I'm coming at this a little bit raw this evening. A couple things come to mind that I end up questioning. I remember when we talked about.., mention in here of what you would estimate the easement to cost... It seems, I mean I know this is one of the pieces that we identified in the...and it was always sort of there. Now where we're at it's, I feel like I need more time to become convinced that this is a viable piece of land for us as... At the present moment it feels as though there's almost a we need to do something, we need to get something going... I mean that's kind of what I'm sensing right now and maybe it's right and maybe it's wrong but I myself am, and...just like to have some time to sit back and digest that if in fact this is something I truly feel that we can invest our money in. Maybe in a while I would become convinced but... Did you get any sense that you're out there looking for. Todd Hoffman: Looking for what? Councilman Berquist: Looking for something to get the process rolling. I don't know. Todd Hoffman: No. The land acquisition, if I can speak directly to the referendum. The land acquisition portion was the top priority of the entire referendum and so I am frustrated if the Council is frustrated on the open space acquisition part. We have not gone out there and bought a 40 acre or 80 acre expanse of open space. Councilman Berquist: But there was almost a direct split in the survey that was done on, the items of interest to the citizens of Chanhassen and one of them was preserving the Bluff Creek watershed. That did not go over well in the survey... Todd Hoffman: Preserving Bluff Creek? Councilman Berquist: Preserving the Bluff Creek watershed. That was low on the priority list from the public's perception... Todd Hoffman: Yeah, I didn't reference it specifically for this issue but the Bluff Creek vision has been discussed and studied by, you know we know where we're at. You'll recall for yourself Councilman on the north side of the railroad tracks we attempted to condemn a piece of Bluff Creek property but it was wooded and so it is different than this and we failed at some $90,000.00 an acre whereas today we can buy 10 acres for $84,000.00. 10 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 Councilman Berquist: Well but, and that's not a true comparison. You know we were talking about all buildable stuff versus negligibly buildable stuff. Todd Hoffman: Well at the present time, yeah 2.5 acres. Are we, am I asking the Council for approval so we can move on with the project? Absolutely. Without this approval we do not move on with the Bluff Creek trail. We will be back to either, you know working with the Monsons on that acquisition. Does that easement cost us $20,000.00? $40,000.00? $50,000.00? I do not know. I did not know numbers out in the report for that reason and I won't do it here. Because I don't know what that number would be but those are the options and it felt at least for me that if we were out looking at the Edwards property independent of this trail, it had to have some value and I've attempted to, as best I could, describe the value that I see in it. If the Council's not comfortable with that, just let me know if you want me to give you more time on the Edward's property. If you want us back working on the Monson's. We have a promise made to this community that we will build this trail in 1998 and it's up as the next segment. They want to start on the north end of this trail and we need somewhere to end it so. Councilman Berquist: This is my last question. I'm still going to, in my own mind, my idea.., mull it over and come to a conclusion. Last question is the trail head. Between Monson and the next property versus down at the... Speak to one versus the other. Todd Hoffman: It simply works better to put people at an intersection off of the end of a trail. You have a controlled intersection where the cars are stopping and people are looking for turning movements and if you terminate a trail there, it's safer. The trail, besides being some 300 feet from the intersection at the other location, is also on an incline. You come right up a hill onto the embankment there at Audubon Road. Councilman Berquist: I didn't like how it terminated, how it came out onto Audubon. That was a problem that I had. I liked it better where it, I like it better south. I'm done. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Let me give a couple comments. Mine. I hope that they're very clear and if you have any questions, please ask me. I'm going to try and stay a little bit above the clutter of this. First of all, I am for, there's no question. Absolutely an advocate of finishing off the trail and getting it done. And if the Edwards property turns out to be better than Monson's, I'm fine with that. However, I am not in support of using the open space referendum money to accomplish that. There is no question being on the park task force, the referendum task force, that this was one of the pieces and we did talk about it but our first priority was really to get big parcels, open space and when we put out a brochure we said preserve open space, $1.755 million, we said purchase large parcels or parcel of highly desirable open space. And it certainly came up as the dominant component, the priority in our survey that we did. Preservation of public open space. So I would like to see us pursuing, I would like the focus to be really with the referendum money to be larger parcels to look at in that area south of Lyman. And I'd like our attention to be focused there. The open space referendum dollars. I'm also wondering Todd if with Edwards couldn't we just buy an easement through their property since 3.5 acres is wetland that they wouldn't be building on anyway. And there's 4.9 acres of upland. Could we buy an easement through there and negotiate some sort of an easement versus purchasing the land? Todd Hoffman: The easement would go through both of what Mr. Edwards believes to be his lots and so then we would get into the situation, well what now? How does that devalue with these lots and. Mayor Mancino: Well he's still have a lot left if we just buy an easement. 11 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 Todd Hoffman: Sure, yeah. I haven't asked him the question. I don't know if he's interested so I won't even guess for the Council. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Todd, if this is a '98 segment and everything's effectively set to the north, why haven't we, or I mean why don't we know the value of the Monson easement or the appraisal? Why haven't we had this appraised with everything else? Todd Hoffman: It was left off of the quick take as well. We have it appraised. The value which was offered to them is nowhere where they believe it to be so they are not going to sell the easement for that value. Negotiations, which included probably 30-45 days ago, which were going on concurrently with their subdivision and those type of things. Everything they indicated to us and to the attorney's office is that they felt this impacted the lot. If we wanted the easement, we were in effect going to purchase that lot and they would prove that fact and so the cost would be the value of that lot which they're in. Councilman Senn: I'm lost. I thought when Monsons came in before we were saying to get their subdivision they had to give us the trail area. I don't remember any appraisal or anything and now you're saying there was an appraisal that's there and they turned it down, etc, etc or what? Todd Hoffman: Yeah. In addition to the appraisal then we offered to construct the driveway access. Councilman Senn: This is after they were in here before, correct? Todd Hoffman: Correct. And offered to plant trees along the trail as well to help mitigate their concerns. Councilman Senn: Okay, and what is the appraised value of that easement? Todd Hoffman: I'd have to look at the file. I've got 88 of them upstairs. I don't know the value. Mayor Mancino: You don't know it off the top of your head? Todd Hoffman: Each one of them. No, I do not. Mayor Mancino: I'm just concerned because we haven't looked at any big pieces, I don't want to nickel dime and not have.., get away from the referendum.., watershed district for land would be 5%. 50% would be...the construction of trails. So are you saying Todd that that, are you saying that all the trails constructed in the Bluff Creek corridor would.., back from Purgatory? Todd Hoffman: I don't know that to be true. This particular project, which includes raising the water level and building a dyke. Actually the trail itself is going on the dyke which is being constructed to improve the water quality in that area and as a part of that project the district's interested in participating. Roger brings up a good point. The Monson acquisition, since it was so contentious has been left by the wayside and at this point, if you want us to go back to that, it will, that process will take longer than this year's construction season. And just so you know that. If you want to study Edwards farther, that's fine. But if you, for whatever reason decide not to pursue Edwards we'll be into the 1999 construction season for the trail. 12 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 Councilman Berquist: I mean Nancy brought up purchasing an easement through the Edwards to construct... Is there any way that we could do it through the Edwards property? And essentially have two lots but one of them would need some significant.., not to get into the details. Councilman Senn: But it's all primary. Councilman Berquist: Is there any, where it terminates, how it aligns, given the contentiousness of the property owner, it would seem to make some sense to do... as to how we can get that trail down there. Short of buying the entire parcel. Mayor Mancino: ...investigate it. Councilman Berquist: Yeah. Yeah. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Edwards is willing to sell the property. He's not been, it's not been a delightful courtship with him. I don't believe that I've received a feeling that he's of a real interest to see that our trail is completed. But again I'll have to ask the question. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, did you have another question? Councilman Senn: Well I'm just, the entire parcel's in the primary zone, right? So technically under our ordinance they can develop what? Todd Hoffman: Current zoning is 2.5 acres per lot. Mayor Mancino: They've got 4.9 did you say that's upland? Approximately. Todd Hoffman: That's not delineated. That's not surveyed. That's guesstimated. Councilman Senn: But is it his desire otherwise to...two parcels or two lots in there? Todd Hoffman: If you bring a road in off of Lyman and do one or two lots. If you're trying to seek financial benefit...two lots. You need 5 acres. You have 4.9. Their initial look at the property so you're going to get a wetland delineator in there and try to find you another. 1 acres. Councilman Senn: Or you can do a trade off on a trail easement or something and get lots less than 2 ½, right? Todd Hoffman: Excuse me? Councilman Senn: Or you could do a trade off on the trail or something and get lots of less than 2 ½. Todd Hoffman: Sure. Councilman Berquist: ... commiserate with Todd in trying to get something accomplished... 13 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 Councilman Mason: Well, I typically go along with staff on things like this. There do appear to be some ifs and anode's here. Mayor Mancino: Todd, do you feel comfortable coming back to us with some different options on that one to see if we can do something about an easement through the property and look at maybe an incentive for the easement versus... Todd Hoffman: Sure, and if those are both dead end roads, where does the Council wish me to? Mayor Mancino: If those are dead end roads, let us know and. Todd Hoffman: I can answer that question in a phone call in the morning. I'm going to sit for another two weeks and then come back and do this again. The contractor would like to start, move from this to connection trail and they need a stockpile site for soil and the Bluff Creek trail needs that soil if it is to be constructed. Councilman Berquist: We're building a dyke along that.., would not come onto the Monson's property. If we acquire an easement through the Edwards property there... Todd Hoffman: Yeah, well the Edwards property would probably be a cut site to push back across the creek onto the fill. The fill location. The Edwards property has high land which we can stake the trail through if we own it, to use that dirt. If you seek an easement, it's going to have to be along the creek and then it would probably be all a cut section as we go through there. Councilman Berquist: There's no low lying area that's outside of the wetland that we could surcharge and... ? Todd Hoffman: Sure, there's a variety of options on the Edwards property as you come across there. The home is there. I don't know what their feeling is about the trail. If you would take an easement, you would be hugging it right on their south property line to reduce the impact to the future properties and the existing property. The ingredients as far as the cash, if you're uncomfortable with that part. I'm not sure what part you're uncomfortable with. Seem to be about the best we could ask for other than the fact that we're spending open space dollars, which are supposed to be buying big pieces of wood somewhere in the city. The dollar amount is really fairly low. These are what I would call clean-up pieces that we've had on the books for a number of years. Mayor Mancino: But Todd we haven't pursued... I mean if there was a clean-up piece, if we had pursued some of the other bigger parcels.., we were spending you know $1.5 to buy a big parcel and have some left over, it would be obviously a much easier decision. The timing.., bigger parcels because we have this... from Lyman down, some wonderful parcels that either.., and let's go ahead and look at. Todd Hoffman: I understand the difficulty in decisions but we are not going to answer that other question either by the time we need to make this decision. Councilman Berquist: ... question is. Todd Hoffman: The acquisition of a larger parcel. 14 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 Councilman Berquist: Will we have discussion regarding the watershed participation? ... be forthcoming. Todd Hoffman: I do not know. It's been out, the petition's been out for over a year. Councilman Senn: But I don't understand why one needs to drive the other. You know I spoke at length up front, well in fact we all spoke at length up front about identifying the opportunities to minimize what we need to put in so how would I say, what we need to put in to maximize what we get off of that referendum. And it just seems to me that there's some real viable options here with the property owner working together to accomplish that without us paying a whole lot of money. Now maybe they work out, maybe they don't but it just seems to me they haven't been pursued. I think we ought to pursue them and see if we could work something out. I mean to me, and again this is just on the surface. You know it appears that there's a perfect compromise here in allowing two residential lots with the trail. The property owner gets what they want. We get what we want and neither one of us has to spend a lot of money to accomplish it. Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please? Do we do a motion? Yeah, let's do a motion...looking at other options. Councilman Senn: Why don't we just instruct them to go back and look at other options? I'd rather do that than. Don Ashworth: You could do a motion to table but I mean you're basically accomplishing the same thing. Mayor Mancino: Second please? Councilman Senn: To? Mayor Mancino: That motion. To go back... Councilman Senn: No, I thought we were just saying we could just say that. I don't, didn't really see the need, there's no need for a motion, is there? Mayor Mancino: Do you have any other questions for us? If there is, I think that we would, the other thing when you talked about timing a little bit. First we have two other trails to start on. Secondly, if we do have an agenda for a work session this Monday and if between now, if something comes up and you want to come and we would certainly, or at least I would. We can ask other council members if... and give us the new input and... Councilman Berquist: I'm fine with it. I just want to know if Todd picked up on what he said. Mayor Mancino: Great, thank you. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Mancino: Going ahead under Council Presentations. I would like to just deliver to councilmembers something from Mr. Lindahl and the Southwest Transportation Coalition... And I would also like to add councilmembers, how would you like to go forward on... looking ahead at the next Council session or if you 15 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 would like Evan or someone from MnDOT to come back.., pretty comfortable going ahead and looking at it at our next Council meeting. Councilman Mason: I don't have any trouble with this. Councilman Senn: I'm torn on that. The reason I'm torn is if you purely want to look at the 212 corridor issue as an issue upon itself only dealing with a roadway, I guess I'd be comfortable doing that but that's not the way I'm looking at it. The way I'm looking at it is, what decision we make in relationship to this is going to affect a lot of other decisions that we're trying to kind of sort our way through now in relationship to what do we want to develop when, where, you know how, you know etc, etc which to me feeds back into kind of you know, I'm going to say more deliberately how you'd look at a decision on this. You know purely as a road corridor issue I'm very uncomfortable with that memorandum. I'm even more uncomfortable with it as an issue as it surrounds overall Chanhassen and effectively what it could do in relationship to timing and everything else which are issues we haven't really even discussed. I'm not sure whether focusing on a roadway issue you know at the next Council meeting would get us where we really need to get on that. I mean I hate to say it but I liken it to all the time we're spending effectively on our strategic planning process effectively trying to come down to some ends in relationship to you know answering some of those questions. Where do we want to go? When do we want to go there and how do we want to go there, etc. and this looks like, to me like one of those things jumping right up front saying you know, you know answer me now. Answer me now but I don't see the need to answer it now. I'd rather finish the strategic planning process and then answer it you know a little more deliberately at that time. Mayor Mancino: ... Councilman Berquist: I don't know that that, the strategic planning process.., memorandum as it is now addresses what I perceive to be short... The insertion of, I have no idea...item 13, there's a whole list of reasons why we shouldn't consider...buy into that. And it won't make a bit of difference to me. I'll be dead. If not, I'll be gone. But it will make a huge difference to... Mayor Mancino: That's exactly opposite of what Hennepin County is saying and why they want Hiawatha Trail is the exact opposite of what's here. That's in City Business this week... Would you though, for our work session that comes up on the 17th, read this and then let's take a few minutes on that work session and decide and plan how we do want it. Just because I brought that up tonight, will you be prepared... ? Any other council presentations? Councilman Berquist: The only thing I want to say before we get off the memorandum...the 19th at Chaska City Hall, 7:30 to 9:00...there's a meeting on 212. Just to, and he's going to talk about what...and I think it would be worthwhile for the city... Mayor Mancino: I will be out of town so if someone does, would you take notes for us. Councilman Senn: August 19th? Mayor Mancino: Admin Section. Councilman Senn: Oh, before you leave council presentations. Where do we sit on that speed limit study thing that Charles was going to put together and come back with? 16 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 Anita Benson: We will be doing a presentation at a future work session and then also addressing it with the budgetary process this fall based on your direction. Councilman Berquist: A few weeks ago you talked about a no parking for the Pillsbury corridor. Came down there again today and we had trucks on both sides. I mean that is scary. Anita Benson: We did extend the no parking zone. The existing on the east side. There was just no parking about 50 feet either direction from the PMT driveway. We extended that no parking zone down to Park Road to eliminate people parking right on the comer but we do need to meet with Pillsbury and work with them on how their operations will be affected by the no parking zone and just to let them know that we will do what we can within the confines of safety on Audubon Road, but that they need to also look at their parking situation and how it affects their operation. Councilman Berquist: Why can't they simply... Anita Benson: They possibly can. They do have two access points for truck unloading. One is off of Coulter Boulevard and one is off of Audubon Road. There is no thru truck traffic allowed through their parking lots. They've got it signed no trucks. So I imagine right now what we're seeing is, due to their circulation, the way it's set up now, that's why we've got trucks parked on both sides of the road. Some are going in onto the Coulter unloading and some off of Audubon. And they can possibly look at their operations and possibly do some modifications to their parking lots to allow the trucks to go through there. Those are things that we need to sit down and discuss with them. Mayor Mancino: That would be nicer than just going out and putting up the signs. But meeting with them and saying here's... Councilman Berquist: ... state those concerns but my fear is that someone's going to... Mayor Mancino: Parking? Councilman Senn: No. ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION DISCUSSION: Mayor Mancino: Admin Section. Any questions? Councilman Senn: Can somebody tell me what this Eastern Carver County Community Leaders Forum is about and. Councilman Berquist: It's a private... Mayor Mancino: Well if you remember last year, the Community Leaders Forum got together and went to the legislature and asked for money. Kind of combined resources and.., taking it apart and they didn't get the money and so what they're doing is pulling together again and saying what is it that we want to accomplish. What agencies, what cities want to be involved and just defining it better. So they have put down kind of an organizational chart to say we need a steering committee and then a finance committee and different committees to say we would still like to go back to the legislature this year. For the '99 session and ask for money but we want to do it in a more planned, in a more clear way. So they're asking the 17 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 communities, the cities of Carver, Chaska, Chanhassen, Victoria to come together and give some input. And the school district and the Arboretum. That's all it is at this point. Councilman Senn: So there's no definition to a project or there's no definition. Mayor Mancino: There really hasn't been a good definition to it and so that's what they're trying to do now. Whether we want to be involved or not will be what that definition is and we will come back.., or do we want to be involved.., go to two of the meetings to kind of pull together what it is... Councilman Senn: So who's funding this now? Mayor Mancino: Right now School District 112 is. And they have employed an outside facilitator of Springsted to pull the cities together.., will be coming back to you. At this point, other than organizationally setting it up, there's nothing... Councilman Senn: Okay. The other question as it relates to the Coulter Boulevard east of Century Boulevard budget clarification. Am I understanding this correctly that you're basically asking to increase the budget by, is it $87,000.00? Anita Benson: No. Councilman Senn: Okay, help me out. Anita Benson: Originally when we opened bids for the project the bid amount was $618,044.00. That's what we awarded to the contractor. However, when the State Aid office reviewed the plans, they identified items that were not eligible for state aid funding because they are not associated with a typical street construction. These items were included in the award of the bid with direction that we identify how they would be funded without the state aid funding and should we not be able to identify funding for them, that Council would make decisions as to whether to cut them down, eliminate them from the project to do them at another time. But we are not increasing the bid amount awarded. Councilman Senn: Okay, so we haven't gone through those. Could you go through those with us? Anita Benson: With each item? Councilman Senn: Yes. Anita Benson: Okay. We did go through when we did the award of bid. The street lighting, at the location outside of the trail was identified by the state aid office as not being eligible as a street expense. They felt it was not serving to light the street and so that's a $29,000.00 cost based on the bid amounts received. That state aid funding will participate. If we relocated them to the typical location in the boulevard between the curb and the trail so it would provide the primary purpose would be for providing light for the trail. Or for the street, excuse me. And secondarily it will also light the trail. Councilman Senn: So now stop before we got to the next one. So are you asking us there to approve relocating the lighting and thus keeping the $29,000.00. Anita Benson: From the state aid account. 18 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 Councilman Senn: From the State. Anita Benson: That's correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. Anita Benson: Okay, and the second item you have is the storm sewer. There's storm sewer with this project that has been over sized and also serves private land. Has contributing drainage area. That amount is approximately $36,000.00 as identified and that is proposed to be assessed to the property owner and the other $10,000.00 is work within the wetland area. The wetland berm. Or excuse me, the $10,000.00 which could not be, let me back up here. The $10,000.00 had been proposed to be funded through Surface Water Management. That included the additional piping for the critter crossings that MnDOT did not see as a roadway expense. And those we had originally proposed at the Surface Water Management program could be utilized to fund that and now that is being suggested, funding that out of TIF. Councilman Senn: 46 or the 107 It says the total illegible storm sewer cost is approximately 486. It says staff has previously recommended that the $10,000.00 be refunded through surface water management program. However, upon evaluation of... TIF funds, it's now recommended that this item be paid for by TIF. Is it the 10 or? Anita Benson: It's the $10,000.00. And the $36,000.00 is the assessable portion. And the next item is the wetland berming in the spillway. That work item is identified as a $40,000.00 work item. There was discussion to fund it through the Surface Water Management Program. This is another project that is tied in with the Bluff Creek corridor project petition that we have not heard back on yet. And that was identified as an item that should it get approved as a project, the watershed would reimburse us for a portion of those costs. However, again discussing the TIF situation and it's now recommended that we fund that through TIF. Councilman Senn: Rather than SWMP? Anita Benson: That's correct. The next item is the landscaping. State aid rules only allow a certain percentage. It would be 5% of your total allotment for any year to be spent on landscaping. That amount is about $28,000.00. Our total landscape budget, based on a low bid is $65,000.00 for the project. This is extensive landscaping. Above and beyond what we would do on a normal roadway due to the parks atmosphere and also we're doing extensive wetland plantings. So we had looked at funding a portion through the Surface Water Management funds due to the wetland enhancement plantings. However again, looking at the TIF, it's now recommended that that $37,000.00 be funded with TIF. And the total amount recommended for TIF is $87,000.00 with the $29,000.00 for the street lighting coming from municipal state aid funds by relocating the street lights. Councilman Senn: I'm sorry, when was this coming back to Council then for action or approval? I assume it wasn't going to be done simply by this memo in the administrative section. Anita Benson: I had questioned how I needed to respond to the instruction on the budget items and this is the direction I was given. 19 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I think that we were all assuming that when we asked for it to come back about funding that it would come back through.., so we could talk about this. I'd also like to see, I mean I know these things we can just say TIF will pay for it but I would like to see for the district for the, you know the years that we will be, these expenses will be on the books, I'd like to see that TIF can. I mean I have nothing that shows us that you know TIF will generate that revenue to pay for this. Anita Benson: Todd did do an analysis. We can bring it back at the next meeting. Mayor Mancino: Great. Councilman Senn: It'd be nice to see that analysis but also in relationship to the other analysis we were just given showing the potential of using those TIF funds as it related to. Mayor Mancino: District 1. Councilman Senn: District 1 and some of the short fall that's still going to exist there even after the recent bondings. So trying to tie these back together and showing us the picture would be helpful at this point. Anita Benson: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Let us make a good decision. I still want to see those lights on the other side of the trail so they can work both for the trail and the street... It just seems so, it's so efficient to put the lights on the other side of the trail so people can feel comfortable and safe on the trail and it does have, you know even if we did wattage up a little bit, would that help at all? I know that we had a lower wattage when we, when you gave us that great survey and asked us, what we wanted to see which was so helpful by the way. It was really, it was one of the best tools that I think that staff has used to survey. What if we did a different wattage? Do you think that would make any difference whatsoever? Anita Benson: Sure. When you increase the wattage, you will increase the light that you receive on the trail also. Councilman Mason: But will that, but I'm assuming MSA is saying if you want our funding the light has to be here? Anita Benson: Yes. Councilman Mason: Yeah. So increasing the wattage and putting it over there is not going to make any difference. Anita Benson: If facing it behind the trail, no. If you move it to between the trail and the curb you could increase the wattage and you'd have more light on the roadway and the trail. Mayor Mancino: ... Anita Benson: I'll bring it back to you at the next meeting. Mayor Mancino: Okay, great. 20 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 Councilman Senn: One last question. Is this, are we doing something with this tonight? Mayor Mancino: We're going to close it down... Councilman Mason: And when was it decided this was going to happen after the meeting? Mayor Mancino: On, I thought that was... Councilman Berquist: It's not on the agenda. Mayor Mancino: ...yeah Todd. Todd Hoffman: Mayor, I intended to discuss with you a letter from Dave Nyberg of August 5th at your pre-meeting but we didn't have the opportunity. I wonder if I can address the Council now under administrative presentations. It has to do with inspections and the inspection budget or if you would like to talk about it next Monday. Mayor Mancino: Inspections? Councilman Senn: What? Todd Hoffman: To the trail project. They're rapidly coming up on their budget, $30,100.00 for a full time inspector on the project. That was budgeted at 7 hours per day. The contractor's working 12 hours per day and some Saturdays and so they will not be able to inspect this project at a full time status until it's completion. In fact in their analysis, if they were to inspect it weekly from this point forward they would be at about 5 hours per week. My first direction to Howard R. Green and to Dave Nyberg was to complete the project per the budget. His response to that a day after was he does not believe that to be in our best interest. To put this project from this day forward with an inspector on the job for 5 hours. Inspection services were an hourly fee so they were not, they were estimated at an hourly cost so. Mayor Mancino: Do you have something written on this Todd? Todd Hoffman: Sure do, yep. Mayor Mancino: Can you give us this to us? Can we get to it on next Monday? Todd Hoffman: Yep. Mayor Mancino: Do you have any problems with that time wise? Todd Hoffman: Not at all. Mayor Mancino: For decisions that you need, will that work for you? Todd Hoffman: Yep, we're fine. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you. That closes tonight's meeting. 21 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1998 Mayor Mancino adjourned the public portion of the meeting at 8:00 p.m. The City Council met in an executive session to discuss two pending assessment appeals. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 22