Loading...
1983 07 11 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 11, 1983 Acting Mayor Geving called the meeting to order. with the Pledge to the Flag. The meeting was opened Members Present Councilwoman Watson, Councilwoman Swenson, and Councilman Horn. Mayor Hamilton came late. Staff Present Bob Waibel, Don Ashworth, Bill Monk, Scott Martin, and Roger Knutson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the agenda with the addition of Easements, Project 82-1. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the consent agenda pursuant to the City Manager1s recommendations. a. Set Special Meeting Date with Chaska/Eden Prairie/Chanhassen City Councils, Status Report, Transportation Technical Committee, July 12. b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Adaptive Reuse of Vacant School Buildings for Non-Educational Purposes. Final Reading. c. Revenue Sharing Audit, Authorization to Enter into Contract, DelaHunt Voto and Company. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. MTC REAPPOINTMENT: Gail Kincannon was present seeking Council support for her reappointment to the MTC. The Metropolitan Council will be holding a public hearing on July 21st at 7:00 p.m. in the Plymouth City Hall for all applicants who are applying for metropolitan commissions. Mayor Hamilton came at this point in the meeting. Councilwoman Swenson moved to direct staff to proceed with a endorsement for Gail Kincannon for reappointment to the MTC. seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving negative votes. Motion carried. letter of Motion Mayor and Horn. No MINUTES: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the June 6, 1983, Council minu- tes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. Councilwoman Swenson and Councilman Geving abstained. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to approve the June 13, 1983, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Mayor Hamilton abstained. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved to approve the June 21, 1983, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Geving. Councilman Horn abstained. Motion carried. Council Meeting July 11, 1983 -2- Councilmen Horn moved to note the April 27, 1983, Planning Commission minu- tes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved to note the May 25, 1983, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. I Councilman Geving moved to note the June 8, 1983, Planning Commission minu- tes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS FOR CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE PROPOSALS: Barb Orlowsry-a~o~aak, Cable Communication Committee, were present to answer questions. Councilwoman Swenson - Under the System Design and Service Requirements, item 2, page 4, "Construction of underground cable where all other uti 1 i- ties are underground at the time of construction." We have a provision at such time as the other utilities are put underground that these will also go under at the franchisee's expense? Don Ashworth - Typically Pat, if you have overhead in an area and it1s an existing area, you allow the cable to be overhead as well. If there is a desire of the City to see that switched it becomes a City expense. You may be able to assess the neighborhood for it. Most cities allow the cable to go overhead if other things are overhead. Councilman Horn - I think Pat1s question is a good one. The telephone com- pany went inro-established areas and buried their cable after it was already in, what if the power company would choose to go and do this then who would pay to run the cable underground at that point? I Barb Orlowsky - The only thing that I can really tell you is this par- ticular piece of paper that you have deals with what we are asking the cable companies to bid on. If there are some requirements that the City deems necessary, it1s something that we have to talk to the cable companies about and write it in the ordinance so that they are governed by the ordi- nance that's written by the City. Mayor Hamilton - This is merely asking the people who are out in the world to come in and bid on the system here. It1s not the absolute final docu- mentation. Councilwoman Swenson - What is the franchising authority? Bob Haak - The City of Chanhassen. Counci lwoman Swenson - The reason I question is that here it says "not I appointed by the City or franchisee", on page 6. liThe franchising authority believes that such a corporation should be developed by community members, not appointed by the City or franchisee." I I I Council Meeting July 11, 1983 -3- Barb Orlowsky - This refers to an on-going group of concerned people who want to become involved with the overseeing of the service that's being provided to the City. Councilwoman Swenson - This keeps the reigns of control within the City. I think this is the important thing that has to be done so we are absolutely positive that at no time does the control of the franchise get out of our hands. Councilman Horn - I would just like to expand on one of Pat's questions about this committee, if it1s isn1t appointed by the City who makes sure it gets appointed and established and how does it maintain itself? Bob Haak - The franchising authority may appoint a board of directors if no corporation is formed after 18 months of the establishment of the system. Don Ashworth - Roger (Knutson) will be here some time after 9:00, I see that as a legal question you might ask him later in the evening. Mayor Hamilton - It seems to me in other communities after they have let the bids the group that was the cable commission at that time remained as the cable commission. They were the people that followed up with any problems or questions that came up. The wording in here is confusing and I would think we would want anyone who is bidding on the franchise to at least have some clarification of that. Councilman Horn - I understand that the question has come up several times and it1s gorng-back and forth by the FCC or somebody about the rate regula- tions as to whether the City has the right to regulate future rate increases. One of the concerns that I have always had if the City does not have that authority, is that someone will come in and buy a bid saying they are going to give the citizens a low rate and if the City has no require- ment put on them for the type of increase that they can impose, after one year they can charge you anything they want and I think it leaves the opportunity open for this company to come in and bid a low rate initially just to get the bid from us. Barb Orlowsky - If you look at the sheets it does say that we cannot grant a raise for two years. That's pretty much standard as far as what the other communities have requested and received from the cable companies. Councilman Horn - But some of the legislation regarding what cable com- panies can ~s in a state of flux right now and I think we should be up to speed on what the latest changes are to make sure we have covered our- selves as well as we can. I know that rate control is one of the big issues that they are still working on. Barb Orlowsky - That might be something that we could consider putting into our ordinance regarding a percentage of rate they could ask for. Councilman Horn - The other concern that I have heard about in other installations-around the City, I don't see anything in here on what their restoration plan is going to be after they come in to an area. I know one of the real concerns they have had up in some of the northern suburbs are that they have damaged trees, they have riped up a lot of property. Barb Orlowsky - That also is an area that can be covered in the ordinance that tells them that they have to restore, if not, they are fined and have to pay for the restoration. Council Meeting July 11, 1983 -4- Councilman Horn - They have a performance bond that they have to post? Barb Orlowsky - Absolutely. Councilman Horn - One of my other concerns is typically when a cable com- pany moves ~o an area they set up a construction site within the area and I am familiar with the one in Brooklyn Center and they have equipment strewn allover the streets. They park allover the place. They really make a mess. I was wondering if we have any type of considerations set up for where the construction site would be, making sure they have to conform to all of the same things that any other business in Chanhassen has to. Barb Orlowsky - I don1t know that that1s a concern that we should have to deal with at this time. All we are really looking for is for the different cable companies to come in and give us recommendations and bids on the ser- vices they are going to supply. Before we make a final decision as to which company will be granted the franchise that1s the time that you can ask them for recommendations or ask them or suggest to them where you would like it to be and under what conditions. I Councilman Horn - You don't think we would want to get input from the dif- ferent companies before we choose one to find out what their plans are? Barb Orlowsky - I am sure they all pretty much operate in the same way in all the different communities. If there are any concerns I think the best thing we could possibly do would be to go into one of the communities that any particular cable company is working in and find out whether or not the citizens in that community have a problem with what the cable company is doing. I Don Ashworth - One of the questions that I had was in terms of the bonding to make sure that the work was completed. I did have a chance to talk with Roger Knutson and I think he can clarify some of the issues such as the corporation and rate structure as well because I think that is handled through statute as far as the limitation for the number of years and also the percent of increase. The third area in terms of work to be completed really falls under statute, your authority to require a bond for them to assure that they complete all of the work and that they do it in a timely manner. Just as we do with our development contracts, it becomes our responsibility to assure that we define restoration and failure to complete the project, etc., but our authority to get that bond really comes from state statutes. You do not have to have that in here and I did clarify that with Roger that it was not necessary to have the bonding or security for the specific work that was going to be completed outlined at this point in time. Councilman Horn - Just a word of caution in dealing with these people. They tend to-make a lot of promises that they mayor may not be able to back up and I think we have to question them very carefully and go into a lot of detail with them because there is a lot of fluff in this industry. Councilwoman Swenson - Some of these things that we are saying can be I handled at a later date, I guess concern me somewhat because we tell them what we want them to commit to and then write the ordinance around what they have committed to and if we do not have some of these stipulations in the original commitment it's sort of the tail and the dog. I I I Council Meeting July 11, 1983 -5- Bob Haak - That1s one of the reasons why we have an attorney to completely go-through everything that they are going to do for us, to write our ordi- nance or however we are going to get our ordinance taken care of and these things will be worked out during the process. Councilwoman Swenson - Is there any possibility of finding out at what time they figure that the entire City would be covered? Barb Orlowsky - I don't think the entire City will ever be covered because or-the fact that the requirements by the cable company indicate that they have to have a minimum of 30 dwellings per street mile in order for it to be feasible for them to run the cable. Councilman Geving - Is there a timetable of events that will occur after these bids come in? Bob Haak - The next step is to look at the bids. We will have to go thro~them. Councilman Horn - Is there a request for the life of the system. Are we going to have-them specify a lifetime of this thing? After that has to be changed, who pays for restringing the new cable? Barb Orlowsky - We are talking about fifteen years. We are granting a franchise for 15 years. At the end of the 15 years or any time within that they have to keep their equipment in operating condition otherwise they will get cracked down by the cable board. That's not anything that we really have to concern ourselves about. If at the end of 15 years to ser- vice that we are getting is not what it should be then we don't have to renew the franchise. If they are not performing in the manner that is regulated by the Minnesota Cable Board then there are legal things that they have to go through, through the state. Councilman Horn - I would request that Roger research what went on in the northern ca~area because they seem to be having a lot of problems up there so that we can make sure we avoid any of the problems as well as we can. RESOLUTION #83-30: Councilman Geving moved the adoption of a resolution authorizing the advertisement for bids for a cable communications franchise. Resolution seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PROPOSED WATER SURFACE USAGE ORDINANCE: Amend Section 3.05. No watercraft shall be moored, docked or stored over- night on any lakeshore site or on the waters of any lake unless said watercraft is either: (a) currently registered, pursuant to Chapter 361 of Minnesota Statutes, in the name of the owner of a lakeshore site on said lake or in the name of a member of said owner1s household, or (b) one boat not registered to the homeowner or a member of the homeowner's family, or (c) currently registered as a guest boat at any privately-owned commercial resort or commercial boat landing located on said lake. Amend Section 4.09. Direction of Travel. The operation of motorized watercraft in other than a counter-clockwise pattern of travel is prohi- bited in speeds in excess of 15 MPH upon the following lakes: Lotus Lake. Council Meeting July 11, 1983 -6- Add a Section 16. The number of boats launched from any and all public accesses on anyone lake shall not exceed the DNR Guidelines. Add a Section 3.13. Section 3.01 through 3.12 of this ordinance shall not apply to any lakeshore property owned by the City of Chanhassen. I Councilwoman Swenson - I would like to go on record by saying that I do not feel that this is right. I will go with this ordinance because I think that it is here and something of this nature is going to be accepted but I, for the large part, I think this entire structural regulation thing, with the possibility of installation of fueling facilities and advertising things and that type of thing, is totally unnecessary. I don It believe that we require any type of regulation of this kind on private property. I have never heard of any complaints. I don't think anybody has abused their lakeshore. I haven't been told of anybody that has received any. I think we are exceeding our responsibilities by doing this. It has become much more restrictive that it started out to be. I think we asked for something simple and I think we have come up with a very voluminous point by point thing. I think this is an unnecessary ordinance that is going to be very difficult to enforce. Glen Grenier - Representing the Carver Beach Property Owners Association. I think we agree with Council IS feeling of fear on being overly restrictive. One comment on 3.05, there is possibly some clarification of that under the definition of owner in 2.18 so I guess we would agree with the deletion of 3.05 entirely. The comment on the direction of travel on Lotus Lake, Section 4.09, you had discussion on associating it with a speed, we would agree that associating it with a speed is prudent, however, a speed greater than slow no wake would probably also be prudent. Slow no wake is one to two miles per hour. This makes it still quite restrictive for the fishermen. Perhaps a speed association of something like 15 MPH. That would go underneath the wire of waterskiing and still allow fishermen travel. We would desire to go, as the Carver Beach Property Owners Association, we would desire to go on record as concurring with the City Attorney in a proposal for the addition of Section 3.13 to the proposed ordinance. I Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the Water Surface Usage Ordinance with the previous noted amendments and subject to approval by the DNR. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. LAKE MINNEWASHTA BOAT ACCESS STUDY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Don Ashworth noted that the biggest point of concern was IILittle Minnie" and unrestricted access in that area. The recommended solution is a split access that would allow 15 parking spaces for IILittle Minnie" and be designated as a maximum 10 HP access. The remaining parking spaces would be allowed in a separate portion of the regional park with no horsepower restriction. The third recommendation was that the existing boat access adjacent to Leachls Resort be closed to insure that boat traffic would use the regional park. "Little Minniell should be surface zoned as IISlow - No Wake ". Staff was directed to amend the conditional use permit by incorporating the recommendations of the committee and resubmit it to the Council. I I I I Council Meeting July 11, 1983 -7- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAYS 41 ANo-7: Bob Reutiman and Joe Gorecki,-as-well as several property owners-were-present. Bob Waibel - This case was initiated out of a Comprehensive Plan amendment request to change the designation of the Reutiman property from low density residential to commercial. The property is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Highways 41 and 7. It includes a "T" shaped parcel on the north extending down to West 64th Street. Staff recommended that the property has the potential for commercial or medium density residential or a combination of the two. The Planning Commission basically agreed with the recommendation. However, since the pending application was for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, to a commercial use, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request but suggested that Mr. Reutiman seek other land use alternatives for the property. I did suggest that if the City Council is contemplating denial of the request that they give the applicant the best ideas they have for the potential use of the area. Councilman Geving - Who lives in that house to the furtherest north part of the property? Bob Waibel - That is owned by Mr. Reutiman. His sketch proposal that he showed to the Planning Commission was a conversion of this unit to poten- tial office use. He also showed a schematic access coming out on Oriole to Highway 7. Councilman Geving - Once the rezoning proposal was approved, it wouldnlt necessarily have to be a motel, it could be any commercial venture, is that correct? Bob Waibel - At staff discussions we were contemplating a P-2 type of zoning which would allow for medium density residential and limited commer- cia 1 . Scott Martin - An overall mixture of medium density and commercial which is, I think, kind of what the Planning Commission was leaning towards although they didn't go as far as initiating that sort of amendment. Councilman Geving - Basically, our charge here tonight is to review this just like the Planning Commission without any other properties involved except the 4 acres of Reutimanls. Bob Waibel - The initial review of this did mention the fact that this pro- perty did have some unique features to it in the fact that there is a significant grade between these residences on the west and the retired gra- vel pit area where the development would be proposed. It1s mentioned that perhaps impacts between this land use and the residences could be minimized if proper site design applications were used, such as maintaining the grade and using screening plantings on the top of the ridge. Councilman Horn - I find myself on the fence on this one. I don't find that area to be satisfactory for single family houses but on the other hand we would want a reasonable buffer transition between existing houses that are already there. Councilwoman Watson - There are services available across the street to a medium density. You can't run commercial traffic or high density traffic through those little neighborhood streets. As far as this proposal goes, I wouldn't feel that we should make any Comprehensive Plan change amendments based on what we have received. Council Meeting July 11, 1983 -8- Councilman Horn - I would go along much easier with a request for commer- cial on the property immediately adjacent to Highway 41. I wouldn't say that I would throw out commercial totally from this whole corner but I think on the property that we are looking at it1s out of place. Bob Reutiman - We moved out into that area in 1915 when I was six years old. We proposed a liquor store on the property when Gene Coulter was Mayor and it was tentatively approved. This whole area up until two years when you changed the zoning was proposed commercial. According to the report from the Highway Department, which is incorrect, there is a 15 foot access onto Highway 7. There are two other accesses onto Highway 41 and we didn't propose another access. We proposed possibly combining these two in one possibly as an ingress. This house on the corner, I have owned for 12 years. I realize you are all pretty happy with your real estate taxes in Chanhassen from all the reports. You are going to have to look for some other source of taxes and you are not going to get it on single family or two family homes because I was on the school board in Minnetonka for nine years, and every time you put up a house you lose money on real estate taxes because of what the school system costs. The only way you are ever going to pullout of it is commercial property. You can come up with 50 people saying that they don't want it here, they come up with a petition. As a matter of fact when we put this in over here, Shorewood Shopping Center, we had at least that many people on a petition against it. You see them over in that shopping center all the time. You have commercial south of here. Gowens Gardens is commercial. You have Reed's Drive In right next to it which is commercial. The only people who have a ligitimate right to object to this are the people living right here in these homes and still they are buffered by the hill. It isnlt logical to talk about one and two fami ly homes, not even townhouses are a logical thing there. The only logi- cal this is possibly a motel, a good restaurant. Somebody objected the other night to a motel because he said he couldnlt bring his clients there because they are too far away from everything else. He would like a restaurant along side but he didn1t propose that restaurant there at that time. The only reason he brought up the restaurant is so he could object to the motel moving in there. That petition doesnlt ask for you to come out and say, yes, you can have commercial in there. All we want you to come out and say is, what is the most logical thing to put in there? Don't say that the only logical thing is residential in there because it isn't true. Councilman Horn - You talked about running the access road in from Highway 41, do you have concurrence with your neighbor to the east? I I Bob Reutiman - He would like it but he would like me to front for him and then come along and say yes, I like that too. As a matter of fact they didnlt want us to come before you this evening. They wanted to wait a while and all come in together but inasmuch as we were slated for the agenda, we thought we would come before you and tell you what we would like to do. At that point we would like to get your imput. Mayor Hamilton - I think what you are hearing what the Council has said, that the proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan to change to a commer- cial zone in there is not what we would want to do this evening. However, I a proposal from you back saying specifically what you want to do with the property, it would be better for us to have something to look at than you just saying you maybe want to put something in there. It would be best if we could look at a plan. I I I Council Meeting July 11, 1983 -9- Councilman Horn - I guess I have a little trouble understanding your stra- tegy on this whole thing. It would seem to me that rather than going through a request on commercial adjacent to a residential, you would have picked the fellow along Highway 41 to come in for a commercial request first and work your way back. Bob Waibel - The do want to avoid incremental land use changes. Ideally we would be looking at the whole area in its entirety. Councilman Horn - As I understand your request, it's for commercial on the whole liT" shaped property. Bob Reutiman - That's right. Councilman Horn - As I understood Bob's original request is that he would like us to give some guidelines as to what we would accept. Mayor Hamilton - What we are saying is residential is the way that it is zoned currently. Just to ask to change something to commercial, perhaps never would get accepted. Councilman Geving - There is no guarantee to the developer that there would ever be a commitment on our part that we would approve it. You have to show us a plan of what you intend to do with that entire seven acre corner. Bob Reutiman - I realize that you wouldn't outright make it commercial because at that point we would come in with a plan and you would be on the hook. We realize that. That wasn't the approach. The approach was for you to say is it more logical for it to be commercial than residential. Mayor Hamilton - I think what we are saying is there has been a lot of study and thought put into a Comprehensive Plan which was accepted by the Metropolitan Council last year and that is still the plan that is in effect for the City of Chanhassen and we are going to stick to that. Bob Reutiman - When you did accept that plan everybody around the area is notified that this is going to happen but when you changed this area from proposed commercial to residential I as a property owner, actually an absentee property owner because I live on Galpin Lake Road, was not notified. I had no imput whatsoever as to what you were doing. Any more than when I put in the gravel pit and I came before the Council and asked for a permit. They said I didn't need one and yet later they came around and shut me down. At neither point has anybody given me notice but still you give everybody else notice when anything else is proposed. Councilman Horn - From my perspective I am not going to state this evening that I will not consider anything that doesnlt totally follow the Comprehensive Plan. Councilwoman Watson moved to deny the request for Comprehensive Plan amendment request to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan from low density residential to commercial designation, Lot I and a portion of Lot H, Bardwell Acres. Motion seconded by Coucilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting July 11, 1983 -10- SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, 651 BROKEN ARROW ROAD: Mr. James frerich is requesting a six foot side yard setback variance-to construct an addition onto his existing residence at 651 Broken Arrow Road. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommended approval. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the six foot side yard setback variance request for 651 Broken Arrow Road, Planning Case 83-8. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD: Mr. Ron Ytzen is requesting six foot and 2t f~s~yard setback variances to construct an addition onto his existing residence at 9227 Lake Riley Blvd. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommended approval of the requested variances. Councilman Geving moved to approve the side yard setback variances as requested for Ron Ytzen~ Planning Case 83-10. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, AND SHORELAND MANAGEMENT SETBACK VARIANCES 3613 RED CEDAR POINT DRIVE: Dr.-rumir Proshek is requesting a 12 foot front yar~ two foot side yard setback, and seven foot shoreland management setback variances to construct a residence on Lots 7 and 8, Block 4, Red Cedar Point. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommended approval with the conditions that: 1. The home will not be constructed on the existing foundation. 2. That hard surface parking be provided for a minimum of two cars on the severed property to the north. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the front yard, side yard and shoreland management setback variances for Lots 7 and 8, Block 4, Red Cedar Point, Variance Case 83-9, with the two conditions as recommended by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SANDPIPER TRAIL/TANAGERS LANE: Mrs. Herb Pfeffer were present. Mr. and RESOLUTION 83-31: Councilman Geving moved the adoption of a resolution authorizing the City Engineer to proceed with the storm sewer project in the amount of $4,000 using MSA Funds. Resolution seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton~ Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I PROJECT 82-1: Councilman Horn moved to approve two agreements with George Schroers concerning acquisition of easements across his property necessary for Project 82-1. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen I Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. A motion was made by Councilman Horn and seconded by Councilwoman Watson to adjourn. Motion unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager