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