Loading...
CC Minutes 1-11-21City Council Meeting – January 11, 2021 17 Mayor Ryan: Congratulations! We waste no time around here. Councilman McDonald, welcome back. It’s nice to have you. If you would like to say a few words you are more than welcome but it’s not necessary either. McDonald: Thank you for the opportunity and as the Mayor well knows, I’m never at a loss for words. I too would like to thank everyone who showed support for me but most of all I would like to thank the Council for showing support and confidence in my ability to work with you as we go forward in the future. There are a number of issues that I think as a Council, as I said in my interview there’s a number of unfinished issues that need to be taken care of and I look forward to working with Council to address all of those so that we arrive at a solution that is best for the community. Again, thank you to each and every member of the Council for your confidence in supporting and voting for me. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, Councilman McDonald. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVE A REQUEST FOR A REZONING AND A FOUR-LOT SUBDIVISION (DEER HAVEN) WITH VARIANCES LOCATED AT 6480 YOSEMITE. Mayor Ryan: Ms. Aanenson? Aanenson: I have a PowerPoint for this if you could put that up, please? Thank you. This Planning Case 2020-22, Deer Haven Addition, appeared before the Planning Commission on December 1st so it’s here before you tonight. Again, the applicants are Mr. and Mrs. Ashfeld and I know Mr. Ashfeld is on Zoom so if there is questions for him. Also, the City Engineer is on too if you have specific questions regarding that. I’ll go through but is there is more technical questions I believe Mr. Howley would be the best to answer those. So this application is requesting subdivision approval with a variance for the use of a 33-foot right-of-way, a 24-foot street, and the use of a private street serving four houses. The existing home gets access via Yosemite and a private drive serves the existing home in the back of the lot. So that existing right-of-way, that narrow part here, is the part that is 33 feet wide. The property currently is zone Rural Residential but is guided for low density. I may take a few more minutes to explain some of the options here just for the new Council members. Within the low density zoning district you can have single family 15,000 square foot, which is what this application is applying for so that’s the minimum. You could also go for a PUD or a RLM zoning which if you were to dedicate a significant or kind of a nexus of open space then you could maybe compress some of the lots. But this application is going for the straight single-family which is our most common low density. Again, those lots meet all the standards of the 15,000 square-foot requirement and frontage. So again, the home coming off of is currently being served off of the single driveway off of Yosemite. The property will be serviced by sewer and water so again the subdivision is to create three new home with the existing home remaining. Again, the street, extending sewer and water and providing stormwater which I will go through in a minute. So the tree removal, there is tree fencing that has to be installed off on the edge and verify removal and disturbed calculations. There was a note in the tree preservation area that some of the grading needs to be City Council Meeting – January 11, 2021 18 verified because some of that might be some additional tree loss. The City Forester also mentioned that too some of the trees are maybe some overgrowth so the replanting of that would improve in some of those areas. Grading and drainage, it generally slopes to the north and the existing home again will remain. The grading is proposed over two phases: Phase 1 for the improvements for the utilities and the street and stormwater basin, and then the second phase is each lot would be custom-graded. The City establishes a bench lot elevation and depending on the type of home that comes in the staff would work with them on that. That’s another way to kind of work around some of those tree preservations and save as many trees as kind of working on each individual house plan instead of mass grading which is typically what you see with a little bit larger subdivision. A little bit more nuance and care. With drainage routed away from the homes into the two private stormwater basins, and these are up here but I’ll let the City Engineer go through a little bit more detail on that and then the geotechnical required upon submittal of the final construction plans. That’s pretty standard with a subdivision, a condition. So the existing public utilities consist of sanitary sewer and water main and the sewer will be extended approximately 500 fee to an existing manhole over here, which is on the end of the cul- de-sac right now on Wood Duck Circle. That would be extended, and the water main extended approximately 350 feet from the abutting subdivision also so you can see sewer and water coming in. The public and private streets which was one of the issues looking at this. So the subdivision on the Nye property contemplated extending that cul-de-sac so that subdivision is not going forward. Looking at providing access using the existing driveway is what led to the variance. The applicant is requesting… Mayor Ryan: Ms. Aanenson? Sorry to interrupt. The Nye property that we approved before is not moving forward? Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s been extinguished, correct. There’s a new owner there and they’re going to leave the property intact. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Thank you. Aanenson: The proposal is to extend the 20-foot wide public street from Yosemite with the existing 30-foot public right-of-way, trying to work within the existing right-of-way. The applicant is requesting a variance from out 60-foot standard. We typically have a 31-foot wide street within that 60-foot right-of-way. This would be making it a 30-foot and putting the 33 existing and going to the 24-foot wide so that would be the deviation of 31 versus the 24. Having said that, our private street is a 30-foot right-of-way with a 7-ton design with a 20-foot right-of- way. I think the Planning Commission kind of entered around the difference in that but you wouldn’t want to have a wider street into the, it didn’t make sense, the majority felt making this a wider street when you got a narrower street coming in. Again, the City Engineer also supported those recommendations. An easement from the property to the north is required to construct the public street. The applicant has engaged the property to the north and then the private street would serve these four lots right here. Here’s a little bit more illustrative. I think the Planning Commission, we realized after that meeting to try and show it in a little bit different visual. This City Council Meeting – January 11, 2021 19 would be the 24-foot wide, the common part here, and then this would be then again, the right- of-way is 30-foot but the paved portion would then be the 20-foot rise. I think this illustratively shows up a little bit better and then just go over here. So this is where that temporary cul-de-sac, Wood Duck Circle, would still terminate here but there is right-of-way here. It’s just not being improved at this time. That would allow the property owner to the north or off the Nyes Addition which could come back in the future. That would be another public hearing and address that at a future date. Mayor Ryan: And that had to do with too long of a cul-de-sac, is that correct? Coming off of Wood Duck Lane? Aanenson: That was one of the issues that we had at the time, correct… So, again the variance, private streets are permitted and the variance criteria is specific to other variance criterias for the private street. Again, looking at this property, the fact that the lots are being custom-graded is another benefit of using the private street again making sure that each home fits uniquely on each lot. Then the right-of-way width does not permit a 30-foot wide street when you are up here so that would be the other variance within that request. We illustrated here the variance findings that are required so it’s not mere inconvenience. In order to subdivide this property because of the existing 33-foot wide right-of-way makes it a hardship and the existing surrounding topography and the conditions are based uniquely to this property as we previously stated and cannot be substantially detrimental to the public welfare. Again, all the lots meet the minimum 15,000 or bigger so it’s consistent with what’s in this drawing. The Planning Commission did discuss this, they did vote 5-1. One member recused himself and that would have made the seven members of the Planning Commission. One of the Planning Commissioners is adjacent and recused himself. The one against felt that the, was concerned about that width of the two streets so that’s why we try to show that a little bit more what that impact would be of having a 24-foot right-of-way and then going to a 20-foot instead of trying to make private street wider. Hopefully that explains to the rest of the Council and staff’s recommendation on that. So, we are recommending approval as did the Planning Commission in the 5-1 vote that we would support the rezoning from Rural Residential to Single Family RSF, again the most common zoning district and approval of preliminary plat with the four lots and one outlot. I didn’t mention that there is a large outlot on the other side of that street for preservation and then the variance with the two right-of-ways and adopt the findings of fact that were approved by the Planning Commission. With that I would be happy to answer any questions or the applicant or the City Engineer would answer those. Mayor Ryan: Does the applicant want to say anything? If the applicant is on and you would like to say a few words? Ken Ashfeld: Thank you, Mayor Ryan and City Council members for the opportunity to address you this evening. My name is Ken Ashfeld living at 6480 Yosemite and I’m representing myself and my wife for the Deer Haven subdivision application this evening. Firstly, please allow me to congratulate Council members taking the oath of office this evening. I’ve been working within City Council Meeting – January 11, 2021 20 municipal government now for over 40 years and it’s always amazed me at the amount of dedication that goes into doing your job. I also want to thank your staff that has been so professional and helpful and advising me through the application process as this property is quite unique with it’s positioning as an infill parcel. Your staff has prepared a comprehensive report and I really have nothing more to add. I will stand for questions that Council may have of me but before I address any questions I would like to say that it’s always been my belief that with property ownership goes stewardship responsibilities. I, as well as the previous owners of this property, have placed a high value on maintaining the property to a high standard. As I get older and that responsibility becomes a burden, with your approval, I welcome new neighbors and a homeowners association to assist with the obligation, as well as being new residents to the community. I ask for your support for this project and thank you Madam Mayor and Council. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, Mr. Ashfeld. Let’s begin with questions. We have the applicant obviously on line, Ms. Aanenson, and then you said Mr. Howley with any engineering questions he’s also joining us via Zoom so if anyone has any questions. Council Campion, I’ll start with you. Campion: No questions at this time. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Rehm, any questions? Rehm: Yes, so I did visit the area. I wasn’t able to see the whole area because it looks like it’s a private street and I wasn’t sure if I could drive along there so I was trying to get a good idea of what that area looked like. One of my questions is about the outlot. If there’s plans for how that will be maintained. I know I had read something about maybe a neighbor wondering what would happen if someone just abandoned a car there. Are there any plans to put restrictions on what that outlot be used for? That would be one of my questions, I guess. Aanenson: If I could answer that one. Mayor Ryan: Do you have a picture of the outlot? Aanenson: Yeah. It’s up here. So this is the area that’s going to be in the outlot. That question was also raised at the Planning Commission and what we recommended that there be an association because there is a private street so they’re going to have to manage the plowing. In addition, there’s a turnaround back here to get, you know for snow plowing. I think we also talked about this then that there be some additional capacity for removing snow because this part, the public part, would be plowed but then this area here. So they would have to put together an association to manage that. That’s a good question. That was also brought up and the Planning Commission. That association would also manage this property here to make sure that it stays in good shape. Mayor Ryan: Go ahead, Councilwoman Rehm. City Council Meeting – January 11, 2021 21 Rehm: So my other question is, like I said I skimmed the information on it and it seems like there had been public hearings. If someone could summarize how the neighbors, I know there’s been a neighbor that did present tonight to the Council, but if I can get a little more information about how the neighborhood is perceiving that and, I’m assuming you did have a public hearing on this? Aanenson: That’s correct. That public hearing was held at the Planning Commission meeting on December 1st. Again, the one main issue that was brought up was the same as Mr. Meyers, was managing the stormwater. That was the main issue that was brought up at the public hearing. There wasn’t that many people that commented on it. I again would maybe let the City Engineer address that. Rehm: Okay. Mayor Ryan: Mr. Howley? Howley: All right, I’m here. Can you hear me? All right. The question had to do with stormwater, correct? So this development, with any other development in town that triggers permitting through us and the Watershed District would have to meet all the rules. The applicant isn’t asking for any sort of variances from those rules at this point. The plans are still preliminary but there is two stormwater BMPs being shown to manage the runoff from all of the private areas, meaning the houses and the private street, and then there will be a little bit of water that would be directed east to Yosemite and there will have to be some sort of a sump structure or something put down there to manage the public stormwater. When you think of stormwater, it’s not going to make anything worse. I think that’s the way you have to think about it because there are rules in place for rate control, volume control, water quality, erosion sediment control and the like and they’re not asking for any variances on those rules so we didn’t have any issues with the stormwater design. Mayor Ryan: Anything further? I have a couple of questions on stormwater but Councilwoman Rehm, do you have any further questions with stormwater or any other questions on the development at this time? Rehm: I would like to hear a little bit more about the private street and how that works but I can listen to the responses later. Yeah, that would be my other concern about that street and how that would work for the houses there. Mayor Ryan: Okay, Charlie? Thank you. Charlie, I know you’re going to be on for the entirety of the call here but just since we are talking about the stormwater basins, when you look at the grade and I know that it said that the stormwater runs predominately north and I’m guessing that’s where Mr. Meyer lives, to the north of the property, and you know we look at normal rates of stormwater when we do grading, but how about know that we’re plowing these streets and we City Council Meeting – January 11, 2021 22 have excess with snow pileup. Is that also considered as part of the, when you’re sizing these basins? Howley: Yes, Madam Mayor. Part of the rate control calculations is to not only look at just two- year, ten-year, hundred-year events but also a 10-day snowmelt event and so the engineers when they’re designing their stormwater system account for that and it’s just handled within the modeling. These basins, don’t really think of them as ponds, they’re not going to be holding water. These will probably be filtration-type basins. Infiltration if they could get it so it would detain the water and release it at a slower rate to mimic existing conditions. Mayor Ryan: And so with the, when you go through excavating of this property and I know it’s kind of rolling back there so now there’s a little bit of a dip but then it leans, kind of tilts back towards the north and the water runs that direction, is there anything going to be built up then on the north side of the road so it doesn’t have a greater impact to any of the properties to the north? Again, looking at those grades, I know it was a challenge when we were looking at the Nye property and just how those houses sit in there. In support of this plan my biggest concern always is having the tree loss and the grading that now all of a sudden water is being pushed on other properties, and although we go through some of the process of kind of doing the study of the rate of water to leave the property, residents always are concerned that water is now going to be dumped onto their property. Can you address that? Howley: Yes. As part of the stormwater design the engineers, who is the developer’s engineers, not our engineering staff, we don’t design it, we just review it. You look at the existing conditions and you map drainage areas and on this property there’s a drainage divide the very south end would go south and the north part would go north. In the proposed condition when all the grading changes, you still have to look at what water went north and what water went south and you have to meet existing conditions and not exceed those. The two basins for the private stuff which is the vast majority of all of the new development, there’s two basins up there and there on the north end so that even on that very north end there would be a little bit of a berm built up on the north end that would make sure that all the water does get into these basins and then it gets piped, their current layout is piping the discharge to the north in a controlled way. You could think of it as there would be a berm on that very, very, very north end that would stop any sort of surface water from going to north before it is treated and managed. Mayor Ryan: Perfect. The last question as it relates to stormwater you said that some of it then will go to the east and so we’ll just have to maintain that from our public, I don’t remember what word he used, some fancy engineering word, that then came onto Yosemite and we would have to manage that as a city. What were you talking about there? Howley: There is storm sewer infrastructure in Yosemite already. There’s quite a bit of it, actually. It’s a pretty elaborate design. What we would do is because downstream of all that infrastructure we already have ponds so what we want to do is install pretreatment, and the term I used was a sump, and I’m guessing that’s the way the developer will want to manage it. It’s that City Council Meeting – January 11, 2021 23 east/west driveway that’s going to be fairly flat and that is the public drainage and that’s going to end of going east towards Yosemite and if we put in, for example, a sump structure, what that is it’s an oversized catch basin that has a depressed bottom that allows the water with the sediment to accumulate in it before it goes downstream down the pipe. That sump structure would be a piece of public infrastructure that we would add to our list when we run around in the fall and vac out all of our sumps. It’s a pretty standard way to do things and sounds to me like the appropriate approach due to the constraints of available right-of-way and lands that put in another sort of pond or filtration basin that then we would have to maintain. We would much rather just maintain a structural sump than any sort of a surface basing. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Makes sense. Thank you Mr. Howley. Councilwoman Rehm, I’ll go back to you unless somebody else had a question on the stormwater. Does anyone else have? Councilman McDonald? McDonald: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The one thing that I’m kind of concerned about is that we’ve had a lot of discussions about the use of our ponds and about monitoring them. I understand that these are going to be private ponds but they do have an impact on the City infrastructure. Are we going to monitor these ponds at some point if we feel that… Howley: Again, they need to be cleaned out or reach capacity that we would inform the homeowners association that that work needs to be done. Yes, Councilmember McDonald, the developer or the homeowners association ultimately would be party to an operation and maintenance agreement for those basins and that requires them to annually inspect them and maintain them as necessary. We, as staff look every year to receive these reports and if they for some reason don’t live up to their obligations, the agreement would allow us to do the work and then invoice them or assess them to offset our costs so it’s a formal agreement that gets recorded at the County with the property and we monitor it annually. McDonald: Okay. Thank you. Then the other question I’ve got concerning stormwater is that the current situation as I understand from the gentleman that came up is that he does get water during any kind of a rain event. By putting these ponds in do you feel that we are going to make the situation a little bit better as far water drainage. Howley: It would be tough to say that we are going to make it better from a rate or volume control. We will be making it better from a water quality control, meaning how clean the water is that would be coming to the north, it is going to be better than it is today. The rules don’t make the developer make it better, if I’m saying that correctly, but we’re not going to certainly make it any worse. McDonald: Okay. That’s important. I have no further questions. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. Councilwoman Rehm I’ll go back to you. I know you had a few other questions, one concerning the sizing of the street? City Council Meeting – January 11, 2021 24 Rehm: Yeah. What I read was that street’s pretty narrow and I would like to hear a little bit more about the street and how they are planning on working that. I know I had heard that the garbage trucks would be able to get in there, the fire trucks would be able to get in there but I would like to hear a little bit more about how that will be handled? Aanenson: I’ll take it at first and if Charlie wants to add to it. You have to first look at the existing conditions and as I mentioned the property coming in, trying to make sure I’ve got the two slides. Maybe I’ll start with this. Existing Conditions. We’ve got a significant amount of trees in the area so looking at the existing driveway which already is using that same right-of- way making it the right-of-way and preserving these trees along here. That created the outlot. Because we already have 33 we are going to 24 on this north portion which is the driveway, being used as a private drive but it’s technically a public right-of-way of only 33 feet making that 24 feet. Because of that, if I can illustratively show it staying with that 24 to 20 feet so that’s where that came into play. So the 20 feet is the standard, that’s the pavement width. 30 feet of right-of-way, 20 feet of pavement width for a public street. Again, the benefit of that would be preserving the outlot where those significant trees are and then also doing the custom grading so that’s kind of a trade-up when we look at that variance for that. I’ll let the City Engineer comment a little bit more on the existing right-of-way and why he felt the 24 feet was the right transition for that. Howley: Yeah, you bet. So what’s not shown on that diagram we’re looking at there is where that big arrow is at the north where the green turn to the south goes, is there needs to be a design to accommodate a turnaround there and that’s one of the conditions of the approval of the final design. It is because our City operations need to maintain the green and so if we are driving down westerly with a snow plow, we’ve got to get out of there. Then we back up to the south and then pull out and head east again. So we need a turnaround on the green and that would accommodate some lost vehicle that doesn’t know where they’re going, they have the ability to turn around or what have you. We would maintain that street. Now, we can’t build a bigger street than 24 in that available right-of-way. I mean, it is what it is. The adjacent property owners reportedly aren’t on board with giving any more right-of-way so we’ve got a narrow public right- of-way and the original thought was that this whole thing would be a private street, meaning there wouldn’t be any green there, it would all be yellow and it could have just been 20 feet wide the who way. Well, the City Attorney informed us that we can’t put a private drive in a public right-of-way so that is the reason for the variance as for the narrower street. Staff supports it. It’s manageable operationally. You can grade it in there. We can get the drainage to work. Utilities, all that good stuff. The developer does need to acquire a little bit of a roadway easement. That’s what’s shown on the left-hand side of slide there. There has to be a little piece of rectangular roadway easement from the property owner to the northwest and that has been tentatively agreed upon and the legal documents have be written up, they just haven’t been executed yet. So, 24 feet for the public road, we can manage that. So then once it turns private and goes to the south, the code allows a private drive to be 20-foot wide so why go any wider than that? It just adds impervious. It adds more tree removal. More grading. So if the homeowners association wants to manage a 20-foot wide road, great, right? At the very south end of that yellow private road City Council Meeting – January 11, 2021 25 though there needs to be another turnaround for fire code and that’s what Kate is highlighting there. They are providing all of the accommodations that they need to and the roadway widths are absolutely in our opinion reasonable and prudent for the challenging existing conditions that exist. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Howley. Any other questions, Councilwoman Rehm? Rehm: No, that’s it. Thank you. Mayor: Great. Thank you. Councilwoman Schubert? Schubert: No other questions. Mayor: Thank you, Councilman McDonald? McDonald: No further questions. Mayor: I have one, well two questions actually. Mr. Howley, you weren’t here but I know you would remember this Ms. Aanenson. In terms of the sanitary sewer, I know on the property to the south, that development to the south. I know I walk by it every day so I can’t believe I can’t. Not Anthem. Was it Anthem? Anyways, they had to have a gravitational sanitary sewer pump because of the elevation change. Is that something that is part of this development as well? Howley: Madam Mayor, no. To my knowledge everything can be drained via gravity sewer. In the green that’s highlighted there? They will extend gravity sewer all the way around and then to the south and then those homes can hook up to that without the need for any pumps. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Perfect. I remember that being a concern in the other development. Then, and the last is actually for the City Attorney, and Mr. Meyer I know one, we’re neighbors and I walk this area all the time and so I know the amount of development that has taken place in this area has been a lot for that area to just kind of take in. And it’s actually a conversation that I had with our City Attorney and City Manager a couple months ago about the development of private property and what we can say yes to and what we can say no to and what our obligation as a Council are. The legal rights of a private property owner and what basis do we have to deny an application. So, if the City Attorney wouldn’t mind just kind of going through the rights of a private property owner when it comes to developing their land and what we can and can’t approve as a Council. Poehler: For property rights, you have the right to make an application for an sort of permit or land use under the City Code and then it’s up to the terms of the City Code that this Council has set in the past, to apply that to whatever the land use application is. So you’ve got your requirements that you need to apply to whatever the specific application is. In this case it’s a rezoning and a variance and a preliminary plat. Your ability to deny is limited when you have City Council Meeting – January 11, 2021 26 specific applicant in front of you and you have to tie any basis for denial to some element of the Code that that application does not meet. In this case you’ve Planning staff and the Planning Commission that has indicated that it is there opinion that this meets those requirements and then it’s up to you to decide if you agree with their interpretation and their application. Mayor Ryan: Thank you for that clarification and it’s not only helpful for new Council members as well, but you know it’s not to… Mr. Ashfeld I know you’ve been working with staff for quite some time on your piece of land, your property, and what to do with it. I know there’s been a lot of changes along the way but I also know that it’s sensitive to neighbors that all of a sudden once was an empty open space now has a number of houses in it, whether it’s a small parcel of land or a large parcel of land like we have experienced off of Galpin with that development. So there is a lot a change in development; however, City Council is restricted to allow individuals to develop their property to whatever our City Code is and I wanted to make sure that was very clear. I appreciate the hard work that done by City staff to make sure that the impact in tree loss was minimal by doing the individual grade of the different lots and then allowing that private street again to have tree preservation along the east side. Thank you for explaining that about the private property rights. I’ll go around and see if there is any other questions from any Council member, before I ask for a motion. Councilman Campion? Campion: No additional questions. Mayor Ryan: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Rehm? Rehm: No additional questions for me. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Schubert? Schubert? No additional questions. Mayor Ryan: Councilman McDonald? McDonald: No additional questions at this time. Mayor Ryan: And I don’t have any further questions either. With that, I would stand for a motion. Council McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approves the Zoning Ordinance rezoning the property from Rural Residential District (RR) to Single-Family Residential (RSF); and The preliminary plat to create four lots and one outlot with a variance for the use of a private street to provide direct access to the four lots and a variance to use the 33-foot City Council Meeting – January 11, 2021 27 right-of-way and 24-foot street section subject to the Conditions of Approval in the staff report; and Adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5-0. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, Mr. Ashfeld for being on the call tonight. I appreciate it. Ashfeld: Thank you Mayor and Council. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS Mayor Ryan: I just want to say again congratulations to our three new, one returning, but three new Council members. I’m really looking forward to having a full City Councilo moving forward. We have obviously a lot on our plates starting with finishing up with hiring the City Manager, going through that process, which will continue next week so it will be great to have a full Council on board and I just want to, again, extend my congratulations to all of you. Councilman Campion, it’s great to working with you this year. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Johnston: Madam Mayor, just a little teaser that Feb Fest is going to happen. It will look different and there will be some virtual events as well but I’m going to leave the bulk of the excitement for you formally invite folks at our next meeting. Mayor Ryan: Perfect. And it’s fully virtual? There’s no gathering? Johnston: That’s correct. Mayo r Ryan: Okay. I just wanted to make sure to clarify that. Are there any questions on the Correspondence Discussion, Councilman Campion? CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION – None Mayor Ryan: With that, I would entertain a motion to adjourn? Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Schubert seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The council meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Submitted by Heather Johnston Interim City Manager