Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 02/06/2001 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 6,2001 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher, Ronald Case, Jan Mosman, and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Parks & Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Public Safety Director Jim Clark, Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, City Planner Michael Franzen, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Peggy Rasmussen I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. She introduced Student Representative Kathleen Luther who is learning more about City government. H. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION Council Forum is held the first and third Tuesdays of the month from 6:30—6:55 p.m. in Heritage Room II. This will be scheduled time following City Council Workshops and immediately preceding regular City Council Meetings. It is important if you wish to visit with the City Council and Service Area Directors at this time that you notify the City Manager's office by noon of the meeting date with your request. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Case added an item about the City Manager review process, under XIII.A. Reports of Councilmembers. Tyra-Lukens requested to move up Item 3. on Birch Island Woods, under XIII.C. Report of Parks and Recreation Services Director, to immediately follow VI. Consent Calendar. Rosow added a closed session to discuss pending litigation. MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Case, to approve the agenda as published and amended. Motion carried 5-0. V. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,JANUARY 16,2001 Mayor Harris made a change on page 13, the third paragraph under X.A. The second sentence should read, 'Mayor Harris said.that the City Code requires ten acres on non-sewered or City-water-supplied areas, and she has reservations about sub-dividing these eight lots further. She requested Bob Lambert to expand on CITY COUNCIL NI MUTES February 6,2001 Page 2 existing protection of the Bluffs by current City and Met Council positions on movement of the MUSA line." Butcher made a correction on page 18, in the last paragraph, which should read, ". . . to have a TIF district that is non-qualified because the City is subsidizing some of the housing . . ." MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, January 16, 2001, as published and amended. Motion carried 5-0. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. ENTREVAUX by Pemtom Land Company. 2nd Reading for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 30.45 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 30.45 acres. Location: Pioneer Trail and Bennett Place. (Ordinance No. 4-2001-PUD-1-2001 for Zoning District Change) C. BLUFFS EAST 17TH by Hustad Land Company. 2nd Reading for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 5.78 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 5.78 acres, and Site Plan Review on 5.78 acres. Location: South of Pioneer Trail at Franlo Road. (Ordinance No. 5-2001-PUD- 2-2001 for Zoning District Change and Resolution No. 2001-28 for Site Plan Review) D. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-29 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF ENTREVAUX E. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-30 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF IVERS ADDITION F. APPROVE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH HONEYWELL FOR MAINTENANCE OF CONTROL SYSTEMS AT THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT G. APPROVE PROPOSAL FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION OF THE PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE/PRAIRIE LAKES DRIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WITH WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES,INC.,I.C. 95-5372 H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 6-2001 AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2.22 RELATING TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSIONS AND TASK FORCES I. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-31 SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 20, 2001, TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A TAX INCREMENT (TIF)DISTRICT FOR ROLLING HILLS SENIOR HOUSING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 6,2001 Page 3 J. RECOMMEND REAPPOINTMENT OF EDWARD SCHLAMPP TO LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to approve Items A-J on the Consent Calendar. Mayor Harris referenced Item G. and asked Dietz what are the actual City costs on that traffic signal. Dietz replied the cost for construction of the signal is anticipated to be $175,000, plus the cost of design, which is estimated to be about $23,600. Of that amount, the 1994 Hartford Place PUD will supply $71,000, so the City's cost is about $127,000. The source of funding is from TIF funds. Motion carried 5-0. XIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR 3. Birch Island Woods Appraisal Jeff Strate, representing Friends of Birch Island Woods, was asked to give Council a report. He said that the group is making progress in establishing reasons for a no-cost conveyance of the property to the City. They have found another precedent in Minnetonka for the County doing this, and they have looked at other conveyances in the County. So far it is encouraging and they are confident that when the group has a chance to talk to the Board of Commissioners they will receive a good hearing. Last week the Legislative Committee from Minnetonka, headed by Ellingson, worked with Tom Workman on a new Bill, H.F. 529, that would require Hennepin County to convey or sell the property to Eden Prairie at an undisclosed price. They also secured endorsement from other state legislators, including Ed Oliver. Commissioner Johnson is aware of this Bill. Strate said he would e-mail the language of this Bill to the Councilmembers. Gerri Westermann referenced the joint appraisal that was conducted by the City and County. The value placed on the property was disappointing. There is a potential `Brown Field" that was not taken into account in the appraisal. She encouraged the Council to authorize an environmental assessment of the property. Enger said the County agreed to provide a Phase I Environmental audit and will split the cost of that with the City. With regard to a Phase II or III, Enger said he didn't know who would bear the cost of that, although it is usually the seller. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 6,2001 Page 4 VH. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PART OF VALLEY VIEW ROAD IN SECTION 11, T116, RANGE 22, VACATION 00-03 (Resolution No. 2001-32) Enger said official notice of this public hearing was published in the January 19, 2001, Eden Prairie News. Hennepin County Transportation Department has requested the City conduct the public hearing process to vacate excess right-of- way south of Valley View Road adjacent to the Land Rover Dealership. Upon vacation, the excess right-of-way will become part of the Land Rover site. Mayor Harris asked if anyone wished to address the Council. No one did. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Mosman, to adopt Resolution No. 2001-32 vacating the right-of-way of part of Valley View Road in Section 11, T 116,Range 22 as described in the resolution. Motion carried 5-0. B. SUNNYBROOK PLACE by Baton Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.71 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.71 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM- 6.5 Zoning District on 7.71 acres, Site Plan Review on 7.71 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 7.71 acres into 17 lots. Location: Sunnybrook Road. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change, and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) Enger said official notice of this public hearing was published in the January 25, 2001, Eden Prairie News and sent to 27 property owners. This is a 16-unit, single-level townhome development, with two- and three-unit buildings. The project is located at 12650 Sunnybrook Road. Randy Zejdhk of Baton Corporation presented the plan. The site is zoned rural, and they are requesting a change to RM-6.5 for a low-density multifamily development. There would be 2.2 units per acre. The 16 units would have 1,460 square feet of living space on the main level. The lower level would have 1,200 square feet to be finished by the owner if desired. They are one-level rambler walkout/lookout townhomes. Prices will be approximately $220,000 and up. Options can push the price over $300,000. The construction process would be to build a two-unit model home and sell from it. The company anticipates they would be owner-occupied. They are adding to the conservation easement, so there would be no future development in that area. Franzen said the developer has a project that is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The Council is being asked to transfer density in order to have units built at the southern end of the property. Wetland mitigation will be done on the site. The amount of wetland fill is six percent of the property. The Community Planning Board voted 4-2 to recommend approval to the Council. Those who voted against it said it was because of the density and proximity of some units to CITY COUNCIL nMgMS February 6,2001 Page 5 Highway 212. Some residents who spoke to the Planning Board at the public hearing also mentioned these concerns. Mayor Harris asked if anyone wished to address the Council on this project. Libby Hargrove, 12640 Sunnybrook Road, said her property is adjacent to the development. She believed the density of the townhomes should be less. Along the north side of the townhomes there is only 25 feet between the back of the townhomes and the wetland area. To provide more distance, she recommended filling some of the wetland. The units are set back only 10 feet from the lot lines along each side, or a total of 20 feet between units; and those that have porches are even closer. She said her main concern, however, is the four units that would be built close to Highway 212. Unit 16 appears to be about 85 feet from the edge of the highway, and between units 16 and 13 the average distance would be about 95 feet. The developer said it would be easy to move those units to the north end of the property. She didn't believe anyone would be able to park safely on Sunnybrook Road, where the entrance to the development is located. There would be limited parking for guests. She liked the single-floor plan; but that increases the amount of acreage needed. She suggested units 1, 2 and 3 be made into two-unit buildings so they can fit better in that location and would not need a variance. She would like to have a privacy fence installed to protect her property, especially along the north and east sides. Mrs. Hargrove showed pictures she took of the wetland. In the north of the property there is a natural drainage area. Laura Bluml, 10540 West Riverside Drive, said she walks through this area quite often. She believed it would be a mistake to put houses on the west side near the highway. Regarding the density transfer question, she thought the City might not want to do that; 20 feet apart is better than 10 feet apart. She would like to see access to Highway 212 into the site. She would also like to have sidewalks to enable people to walk to the downtown area. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Franzen said the developer has worked on an alternative plan and asked him to talk about that. Zejdlik showed an alternative plan. It showed the area that needed to be filled and mitigated and they were able to change that for this alternative plan. He took the units from the clustered area, left the ones by TH 212 and moved some units to the north area. That would allow him to build 17 units instead of 16. Regarding City staff s concern about the density and the wetland, he tried to alleviate mitigation and some of the density concerns. The wetland fill would be reduced by adjusting this to a two-unit building, making the NURP pond more oblong in shape and pushing the units up toward the property line. This would mean a 50 percent reduction in wetland fill. However, it would require greater site- development cost by reducing the number of units. If this alternative were adopted, and he had to reduce the number of units, he requested that the City CITY COUNCIL AE NUTES February 6,2001 Page 6 compromise or reduce his obligation to pay the cost of extending the sewer line from the cul de sac to the north side of the townhomes. It doesn't benefit this property at all. Mayor Harris asked if unit 14 is closer to Highway 212 than unit 16. Franzen replied there is some additional space between the building and the wetland, so it could be moved to the east and still meet the front yard setback requirements. Mosman said she looked at the units near Highway 212. She suggested taking one of the three-unit buildings and moving it closer to the road, turn it to gain about 120 feet, which would save some trees. The trees would help buffer the sound from the highway. Zejdlik said he was told the three-unit building wouldn't fit there without a lot of wetland fill. Mosman wondered if there could be a trade-off between wetland fill and losing the trees. Case said he would like to have a philosophical discussion regarding density transfer. The City has used it to save wooded areas and bluff land or creek land that could have been developed. But on this site it doesn't appear the City would be saving land that could have been developed because the wetland area could not be developed. There is just one piece of dry land that can be developed. Suddenly they are moving density off wetland, that he wouldn't have approved filling, onto a little piece of dry land. It doesn't feel that density transfer fits in this case. He asked if they could refuse to do a density transfer; this is a little four-or five-acre piece of land rather than 7.1 acres. Enger said perhaps they should consider what the City has done in the past. Franzen said the wetland on this property is 2.4 acres, leaving 5.10 acres above the wetland. They would be transferring density off the northwest corner of the property. If they just use the high and dry area to calculate the density,that would be three units per acre, so it would be necessary to transfer partial density off the wetland in order to justify the plan as submitted. The alternative plan would be two units less, and may be close to the guide plan if they are looking at the net density above the wetland. The City has done density transfer in the past off lakes when the City has had that portion dedicated to the City and it is adjacent to park property, and for other reasons such as saving trees. Enger asked Franzen if it is true that density transfer, however it has been granted by the Council, is dependent upon development of the site plan. Franzen replied yes, it is whether the Council is comfortable with the setbacks, open space, etc. because that would become the valid reasons for considering the change. It isn't just gaining open space; Council has to be happy with the net result. Rosow said he believed that there are constitutional issues regarding the wetland mitigation process, which is the taking of property. Just because the property has a wetland on it doesn't mean the property owner doesn't have the right to develop CITY COUNCIL NIINUTES February 6,2001 Page 7 it. That is why there is reasonable regulation about wetland replacement. If an owner is going to fill wetland it needs to be replaced 2:1. Rosow suggested Council frame its discussion, not around whether it is a certain number-of-unit property or whether there are really four acres that can be developed versus seven, but whether it meets all the code requirements of the setbacks, etc. Franzen showed an alternate plan which he said was based on comments heard at the Community Planning Board. This is a 13-unit proposal. The east side of the property has more units. It was suggested that the units in the three-unit building on the southeast corner be staggered. This would meet the intent of the ordinance for wetland fill. Tyra-Lukens asked if it would remove the need for the setback variance. Franzen said he believed the one along Highway 212 would meet the 30-foot setback requirement from the highway right-of-way. The wetland buffer strips would be meeting the requirement for a 10-foot setback and 15-foot buffer. There are certain criteria in the code, such as the percentage of the site left as wetland and the percentage left undisturbed. The code takes into consideration wetland quality. He discussed this with Leslie Stovring and Gene Dietz, and they agreed with him that it was low-quality wetland. Tyra-Lukens said she was much more comfortable with the plan presented by Franzen. It reduced the need for variance requests. There is a great deal of land placed into a conservation easement on the north end of the property. However, there is the request by the developer to consider with regard to reducing the cost to him of extending utilities to the north end of the property in exchange for a reduction in the number of units, and the whole question of assessments for Sunnybrook Road. Dietz said when assessments were calculated for this property, it was assumed four units could be built on this site without the need for utility extensions and street extensions. To provide utilities for this project,there will be a public sewer built as part of this project, and the developer is incurring the cost. The City requires developers to extend utilities through their property at their cost. That has been the City's practice and is in the City's policies. The water main will be looped through this property to go to the north. Case inquired, when it is necessary for utilities to cross property to reach a new development, wouldn't that be the new developer's responsibility? Dietz replied the assumption is if all developers bring utilities through their property, then the next piece of property can connect, etc. That is the City's policy. Butcher said she walked the land with Mrs. Hargrove and felt the transition isn't very good from single-family homes to this density of townhomes. She believed that was the concern of the two people on the Community Planning Board who voted against the plan. When a transfer of density is done and the developer is asking for this kind of density, clearly other things have to benefit the City for the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 6,2001 Page 8 Council to go ahead and do it. Butcher said she was not comfortable with the units close to the road because it is a big safety issue. She would rather see those units really reduced or not there at all. If the City were going to go with the plan with higher density, she recommended the higher density should be put in the core units, but perhaps still remove one unit from the core. She believed the area was much better suited to a different scenario because the transition is not good. Getting any more than a few single-family homes would be a benefit for the developer. Mosman asked Dietz, since the wetland is low-quality, could the cluster units be put up in one highland area, and could the developer pay a fee instead of having the NURP pond? Leslie Stovring told her that the highland area is more desirable to save than filling some of the wetland, because an integral part of having wetland is to have highland for the benefit of animals, such as deer. Mosman asked if this wetland could be extended so animals can cross Sunnybrook Road and have a continuation of green space. Dietz replied the City has allowed the developer pay a fee in lieu of a NURP pond, but it has been on a site where there have been just a few units or a commercial site not large enough to support building any type of NURP pond. The City has taken cash in lieu of that. The City has NURP pond standards to treat all water before it leaves the site. The question would be do they choose to make the wetland quality worse? Perhaps they could create a pond within a wetland. Mosman asked about Tyra-Lukens suggestion to put units from the west end to where the NURP pond is, and could there be some dredging on the site. Dietz replied that might be a possibility, because they would have to cross the wetland anyway with sanitary sewer and water. However, if there is some reduction in the number of units and they are put elsewhere on the site, it would be preferable to put the NURP pond on the site. Case said he understood that the amount of water coming off impervious surfaces from the front part of the homes and the road must be very small compared with what comes down from Highway 212. Perhaps they could let the drainage go into the low-grade wetland, function without a NURP pond, and take money in lieu of the NURP pond. Dietz replied he didn't know what the legal ramifications would be if they did that. Although they have sometimes taken cash in lieu of a NURP pond, he would prefer to build a pond elsewhere on the property. Franzen said it would be necessary to check that out with the watershed district. Case said he was wondering if they built the NURP pond in place of the mitigation pond,would there be any loss of wetland. Dietz replied that when you mitigate wetlands you have to mitigate type for type. The City's rules are to replace on a ratio of 1:1. If you went due north of unit 8 CITY COUNCIL NIIN=S February 6,2001 Page 9 and created a NURP pond there, it may require more wetland mitigation, but it could be done. There are some possibilities here that haven't been explored. Part of the area where the wetland is located could be used as a building site. He said he would look at the grading plan. Zejdlik said he would have no problem with putting a NURP pond into the wetland and mitigating it, and he could move the units as requested. Dietz said in addition to mitigating the pond to wetland, there would probably be more mitigation required. On the other hand, there is property on site where mitigation could be performed. Mayor Harris said she heard concern expressed about the developer's plan as it was presented and a preference for the plan presented by staff, a request to see where those houses proposed for the western side of the project might be moved to the east side, and to move the NURP pond. It might be preferable to continue this process, have staff look at alternatives, and then bring the project back to the Council on a date certain. Rosow asked Franzen when the 120-day requirement expires. Franzen said it expires April 11. Enger said Council has closed the public hearing. Council would need to reopen it if they are going to continue the public hearing. They will be looking at a significantly different plan. Mayor Harris said she believed they should reopen the public hearing. Case said he did not want the proponent to go away confused about what the Council wants. How many units would Councilmembers be comfortable with? They should make it clear. Mayor Harris said it was the density that was a problem. One of the plans got the number down to 13 units. Tyra-Lukens said there are too many units on the plan as presented. She would not be uncomfortable with twinhomes on the site. Butcher said she had a problem with location of the units near Highway 212; one is 85 feet from the road. She would like to see both units moved down to the core group and a buffer left between the core group and Highway 212. She was comfortable with twinhomes. There is a lot of land here that can't be developed and that it in a conservation easement is meaningful. All of those things together make her feel comfortable with the core group. Mayor Harris said she was comfortable with the twinhomes, but wanted the proponent to address the issue of the density and different placing of the NURP pond. CITY COUNCIL AI NUTES February 6,2001 Page 10 Case said, regarding the wetland issue, he believed they should keep the NURP pond and have it placed by staff even if it is in an area where wetland must be mitigated. Dietz said he had an idea to present at this time. What if the cul de sac remained as it is,with units 12, 11, 10, 9 and 8 on it? Drop one of the units from 3, 2 and 1, and put another two-unit building next to it where the pond is shown. This would require more wetland to be filled. Immediately west of the units where the pond is now, they would create a pond within the wetland area and then do all the mitigation within the wetland between units 14, 15 and 16. It seems there would be more wetland impact, but they could mitigate on-site, and if they put a conservation easement over it there would be more conserved wetland than there is today. Franzen said he concurred with that idea. Zejdlik said on the boundary of the property along Highway 212 there is a buffer of trees so he would like to explore where is the best place to put the pond. Quite a bit of land can be gained without destroying a lot of trees. Dietz said he believed the pond needs to be near Sunnybrook Road because the basins collecting water are near Sunnybrook. Case said he was not sure that it is best to smooth out the wetland buffer behind units 10, 9 and 8. He liked keeping the buffer irregular. Butcher said there is a very short back yard between the units and the neighbors behind them, and she would not want future residents to encroach on the wetland. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher, to reopen the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher, to continue the public hearing for 30 days to a date certain. Motion carried 5-0. VIH. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the Payment of Claims. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Butcher, Case, Mosman, Tyra-Lukens and Harris voting"aye." IX. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS X. PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) ANALYSIS — HARTFORD COMMONS,ROTTLUND HOMES Uram said the City has been working with the proponent on a revised plan for the past couple of weeks. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 6,2001 Page 11 Tim Whitten, Executive Vice President for Rottlund Homes, said he was representing David Bernard Builders & Developers, a division of Rottlund Homes. He said they had a different site plan and have revised their TIF request as a result of Council direction at the January 16, Council meeting. Ryan Companies agreed to lower the purchase price of the property by $500,000. Rottlund looked at the development cost per unit. The amount of infrastructure needed for the construction of a home is much more than goes into commercial infrastructure. They wondered what would happen when they took the commercial portion out and replaced that with townhomes. In doing this they found a project that could create the scenario they were working toward. As a result, they proposed to substitute 26 townhouse units for the 30,000 square feet of commerciaUretail space. There would be 82 affordable housing units, 19 of them for people with an income of less than $68,000, plus 90 moderately priced homes. Their current request was for $3,854,447 in TIF over a 15-year term, to support a Note of $1,500,000, which would require a City contribution of $192,723, or approximately$13,000 a year. This project would generate over $1 million in City fees. Case wondered if Rottlund still can't build 82 affordable homes and 90 moderately priced homes without some government subsidy. Whitten replied that was correct. They had to stretch to reach $2.5 million, and when they went from $2.5 to $1.5 million they added more layers on top of this. No matter what scenario they look at, they can't do it by themselves. They would be building townhomes on commercial property and really building the affordable units on their own. Uram said staff and Rottlund Homes have spent a lot of time on this project. Staff wanted to eliminate use of TIF and also to make the project market feasible for Rottlund. There are several scenarios. Scenario 1 is a request for $3,854,447 in TIF over a 15-year term to support a Note of $1,500,000, requiring a City contribution of$192,723. Scenario 2 is based on a program started back in the late 1980s, where the City would provide a subsidy up to 25 percent of the estimated market value. The TIF subsidy would be approximately $1.2 million. The third scenario would be just to develop a TIF district around 82 units classified as affordable. That would provide a TIF subsidy of $175,000. The final scenario was not to provide any TIF. Reasons for that could include use of TIF as a non-qualified housing district,which the City has not done in the past. Tyra-Lukens asked what is the total TIF subsidy figure under Scenario 1. Uram replied $3.8 million. Tyra-Lukens asked what is the difference between a total TIF subsidy and a TIF Note. Uram replied what is being proposed from a financial standpoint is they would take the estimated TIF collected over 15 years and then discount that back to today and how much that would support. The$1.5 million would be discounted at nine-and-a-half percent interest. Whitten asked for feedback from the Council so his company could decide whether to go forward or not. CITY COUNCIL AENUTES February 6,2001 Page 12 Mayor Harris said this was not a public hearing, but if there were someone in the audience who wished to speak they could do so. Don Klingel, 10940 Kiawah Drive, said he is a member of the Westwood Townhouse Association near the proposed development. He believed Scenario 2 was a good plan and would be good for the surrounding community. It addresses traffic reduction, which he calculated would be approximately 344 cars making two trips per day. That is a lot less than a commercial development would generate. It would also be good for Eden Prairie to help meet its affordable housing goals. Eden Prairie is one of the unique communities in the nation regarding technology. This plan would also be good for public officials. The Mayor's Housing Task Force was charged to determine what must change to meet the City's housing goals. At the January 16 meeting, he understood there were concerns about changing TIF policies. However, the Housing Task Force is asking for change. The Council could show other communities it takes affordable housing to heart. Butcher said there isn't enough affordable housing in the area and some people don't have good places to live. The question is whether this is the best possible way for Eden Prairie to create affordable housing. This is the most expensive land in Eden Prairie, so is this the best place to put affordable housing in terms of the cost, because the City would be subsidizing the cost of the land. If it were possible to put more density on that land it might make the cost-benefit ratio better. She was worried the City might get requests from other developers if the City were to set that precedent. She was also aware of the concern expressed by other City residents, because of the commercial portion being removed in these scenarios, that the kind of synergy brought about by having the Eden Prairie Center close by would be lost. Butcher was also worried about the townhomes being purchased at $134,000 by persons at the low income level, and after living there a year or so could sell them at the market rate, so they would no longer be affordable. Mosman asked if they hadn't previously addressed having some control over the market to keep them affordable. Uram replied staff discussed this with Rottlund Companies. One thing staff is concerned about is the amount of administrative time that would have to go into monitoring this over the years. Mayor Harris said she understood Whitten to say that Scenario 2 was not acceptable. Whitten said he couldn't give the Council an answer as to whether the company would accept Scenario 2. However, if that is something the Council would support, the company would look at it and give it their best shot. They needed to know what the Council would support so they can move forward or move on to other projects. Case said he liked this project. If the City doesn't put affordable housing in this location, he wondered where they would put it. However, the land value is high, and he didn't believe the City could force affordable housing onto the most valuable land in the City. Perhaps it could be placed within the Golden Triangle CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 6,2001 Page 13 area. If this project were free of public subsidy, he could accept it, but he couldn't support it otherwise. Tyra-Lukens said she felt the same way. She was troubled by the loss of the retail portion of the project,which was attractive to her. Therefore, she was reluctant to go ahead with it. Mayor Harris said she had trouble with the City subsidizing market-rate housing and putting residential housing onto commercially priced land. The fact remained, even if the Council agreed that night to go forward, they would expect this project to go through the normal review process, as every project does. It would have to pass rigorous staff and citizen review. No project comes out at the end the way it went in, and Council might not be able to support the project at the end. Council would make a decision based on the recommendations that came forward from those groups. Tyra-Lukens said she was saddened by the loss of affordable housing that this project would bring. She hoped there would be money available to do this in the future from the state to provide the subsidies required. Mosman said she would have voted to spend money on this project because there is no state money or other funding available. She would have voted to support one of the scenarios. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher, to decline use of Tax Increment Financing for the Rottlund proposal. Motion carried 4-1, with Mosman voting nay. XI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS XII. APPOINTMENTS A. APPOINTMENTS TO THE 212 HIGHWAY CORRIDOR COMMITTEE Dietz said TH 212 has been designated by MnDOT as an interregional corridor from I-494 to the South Dakota border. MnDOT is establishing a coordinated committee structure to develop a Corridor Management Plan for TH 212. The requested action is to designate a member of the Council to serve at the policy level and a staff member to serve at the technical advisory level. At the Policy Advisory Committee level, he expected the plan to be done by the fall of 2001. There would be approximately three meetings, and the committee is expected to invite legislators to a meeting during the current Legislative Session. Mayor Harris said, in the interests of continuity, because Councilmember Mosman is serving on the 212 Corridor Commission, she would be the logical one to appoint to the advisory committee, and she has agreed to serve. The technical support would come from Mr. Dietz. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 6,2001 Page 14 MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher, to appoint Councilmember Mosman to the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) and the Director of Public Works Services to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the TH 212 Corridor Management Plan. Motion carried 5-0. XIV. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. Report on I-494 Corridor Commission—Councilmember Mosman Mosman reported that she attended a meeting of the commission three weeks ago. Former Councilmember Ross Thorfinnson was hired as an expert legislative consultant. He will be putting in between 8 to 10 hours a week and will be going to Washington and the state capitol, as needed, where he has a great number of contacts. Mosman will be going to Washington, D.C. for two days of organized meetings with legislators on March 13 and 14. Mayor Harris will also be attending after the Congress of Cities. The reason for these meetings is that Minnesota is far behind with federal funding for highways compared with other major cities. The I-494 Corridor Commission is trying to help MnDOT obtain the funds needed to accomplish the planned expansion of I-494 before the Crosstown is closed down for reconstruction. The strategy on these two projects is to show solidarity with all of the involved cities. They suggest that cities aid in studying intersections, bridges, land acquisition and planning to help push the process along on the I-494 corridor. Mosman was able to tell them that at the January 16 meeting, the City Council approved the hiring of a consultant to study options for access at I-494 and Prairie Center Drive. Representatives from the I-494 Corridor Commission are planning to visit each City Council sometime during the coming year to present their work. 2. City Manager's Evaluation Process—Councilmember Case Case is a member of the committee doing the City Manager's evaluation this year. Mayor Harris is the other member. He said they have not had a committee meeting yet. However, he understood that some of the evaluation forms have already been sent out and he believed the process should be put on hold until they have a chance to meet. Case asked if each of the five Councilmembers received an evaluation form. Enger said they were sent to the Councilmembers he worked for last year, which included Ross Thorfinnson. Case objected to this, saying it is the current City Council which is responsible for setting the bonus for CITY COUNCIL MNUTES February 6,2001 Page 15 last year's performance and the pay raise this year, and it is accountable to the public for these decisions. Mayor Harris said the evaluation should be the Council from last year, since Thorfinnson's tenure ended December 31. He helped define the goals for last year. Councilmember Mosman didn't have the advantage of working with the City Manager last year. However, she could be part of the Council's conversation about the City Manager's work, based on the results of the evaluation forms. Mosman would be responsible for defining the goals for this year. Mosman said she has been working with Enger over the last 5 to 10 years as a member of commissions, and since her election in November she has met with him a number of times. Tyra-Lukens suggested letting Mosman vote, based on the results of the other councilmembers' evaluations. The information gathered could be considered by her and then she can vote. Enger said the City Manager is responsible for meeting the goals that were set a year ago, and perhaps the evaluation work needs to be done at the end of the year instead of into a new year. Mayor Harris said she would recommend doing the evaluation at the end of the year. That would mean the evaluation would be completed by those who were the policy makers and who worked with the City Manager that year. Voting on the information gathered would be done in the new year. She said Councilmember Mosman could vote and participate in the discussion based on the figures the other councilmembers have on their evaluations. Case did not like setting a precedent for a time when there may be mostly new members on the Council. Enger said if there should only be two remaining members on the Council after an election,there would be a lack of knowledge as to what work was done, and that would skew the figures. Using councilmembers the City Manager worked with the previous year would follow the process adopted by the Council. Enger said it was his understanding that the Council may only change the following year's process, if they decide to do so. He apologized if there was any miscommunication with Councilmember Case regarding the process. Enger said the time frame for sending out and receiving back the evaluation forms is a problem. That is why he has already sent them to members in the community. He expanded the City staff list beyond department heads this year. Community members were asked to return the forms to Mike Barone. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 6,2001 Page 16 Mayor Harris asked that Mike Barone give the evaluation forms to her to hold onto,prior to evaluation by the committee. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. February 10 Special Meeting on Flying Cloud Airport Enger said further questions had arisen regarding the format of the meeting on February 10. Invitations to the individuals and groups the Council requested to present information have been sent out, and they have been asked to respond so Council would know who is coming. A response was received from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District they will be in attendance but do not choose to make a presentation. The draft agenda was reviewed. Enger said he understood three hours would be allocated for both the presentations and closed session. He assumed the Council would want an hour for the closed session, leaving two hours for the public meeting portion, with time allotted at the end of the presentations for persons to speak. His suggestion was to give 25 minutes to the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission, 20 minutes to Zero Expansion, 5 minutes for each of the staff members, 10 minutes for former State Representative Barb Haake, 10 minutes for each of the watershed districts and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge, leaving 25 minutes for public comment at the end. He asked if that was the way the Council wanted to allocate the time. If so, how does the Council want the moderator to handle this? City Attorney Rosow will be giving instructions to the Administrative Law Judge as to how to conduct the meeting. Enger asked for Council's answers to such questions as whether the Council would allow questions of the presenters from the audience, and would the Council ask questions of the presenters. Enger said he has asked the staff who are speaking to give the information in written form to the Council. Mosman had asked Enger if the meeting could be held in the Heritage Rooms. Enger said the Council asked to have the meeting televised, and Council Chambers is a better place to do that. A City resident asked if the meeting could be announced on the reader board; however, Council agreed with Enger that this would make the meeting more like a rally and open to different opinions about the airport expansion. Mayor Harris asked councilmembers to address the agenda first. Mosman said the people who have been invited are probably working hard on their presentations, and she would prefer to give twice as much time and subtract time from the number of persons who can speak at the end. CITY COUNCIL NIINUTES February 6,2001 Page 17 Butcher said she is concerned that City staff is only having 5 minutes. Those watching on television would benefit from having more information from the staff. Mayor Harris said she does a lot of public speaking and 25 minutes is a long time. She never speaks more than 15 minutes. Having that amount of time makes the speaker focus on the most important things he or she wants to say. Tyra-Lukens wondered if there would be a number of questions Council may want to ask of the presenters in that 25 minutes. Council agreed to allow 5 minutes out of the 25 for the Council to ask questions of the presenters, to give Zero Expansion 25 minutes, and to give Scott Kipp and Don Uram 10 minutes each. There will be 10 minutes left for public comment. Enger said didn't know if all of these other groups have responded as to whether or not they have accepted the invitation. At Mosman's request, Enger will ask the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District if they would be available for questions. Case said he didn't expect everyone who speaks would be as much against expansion as the Council is. He is looking for people to speak to the merits of various legal alternatives. However, someone in favor of expansion could speak to the failings of going ahead with a lawsuit for certain reasons. That would help the Council to gather information on all alternatives and steer it toward another avenue. He didn't want people saying expansion is a great idea and good for the community, however. The Council has taken a stand on that. However, the Chamber of Commerce was asking if they can speak and address the merits of various alternatives, and he would be in favor of that. Enger said he was confused by that statement. He received requests from both the Chamber of Commerce and the Metropolitan Airports Commission to be allowed time for presentations. He informed them they would be allowed to speak during the general portion of the meeting for 2- 3 minutes, provided they give information on how to stop the airport expansion. He thought this reflected what the Council said at the last Council meeting, when the February 10 meeting was changed from a public hearing to a special meeting. He said the Council has been quite clear that it wanted to hear opinions that would explore the City's options to oppose expansion of the airport. Rosow said he has given instructions to the Administrative Law Judge that the Council has directed it would listen only to information that would explore non-expansion of the airport. Case explained if someone were to stand up and say they believe it is not good to proceed with a lawsuit against the airport, and they would CITY COUNCIL NIINUTES February 6,2001 Page 18 recommend the City pursue certain other alternatives, he wouldn't object to hearing the reasons why. Rosow said he understands that people are to address options to oppose the expansion. If someone wants to talk about why the expansion should proceed, that person would be told to sit down by the Administrative Law Judge. Enger said "addressing options" isn't really correct because that means "I'd like to talk about the option of not opposing the airport and here is my opinion on it." Council wants suggestions and information and ideas on different ways to oppose the airport, legal and otherwise. Rosow said he would suggest the Administrative Law Judge sit where Mayor Harris usually sits and the councilmembers sit on one side and staff resources on the other side. He asked if the Council would like a verbatim transcript of the session or rely on the tape. Mayor Harris said they would like a transcript. Enger said that would serve as the minutes of the meeting. Regular minutes would be more of a short summary, and would be the ones Council would actually review. Rosow asked if the Council wanted him to attend a meeting of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission on February 7. He asked what if that group could not decide to present what the Council wants to hear. Baker expressed concern that what they are asking of this commission is nothing less than what divides them. The whole group doesn't agree to opposing the expansion of the airport. The Council formulated that group, and to ask one person represent the whole group is inappropriate when they don't all agree. Tyra-Lukens asked if the presentation should be from both the commissioners appointed by the council and those appointed by MAC and the airport commission as well. Butcher thought it should be from both groups. She said what we are asking them to do may split them up, and they may not be able to operate in the same capacity as they have been doing in working as a team and negotiating through difficult issues. It may change the whole makeup of the group. Mayor Harris said one question that was raised is where there is an individual that may not agree with the presentation, can that person speak as an individual as opposed to a member of the group? Rosow responded he believed they could speak as individuals. The Council is choosing to hear the majority report and not the minority report. He assumed the majority would be opposed to expansion because Council appoints six members and MAC appoints one. Mosman said she didn't know many people on the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce;but of those she has talked to more than half are opposed to the airport expansion, so they do not provide a unified front either. She CITY COUNCIL NIINUTES February 6,2001 Page 19 believed the Council could ask the Flying Cloud Airport Commission to give the majority opinion. Case believes the Council needs the input of those in that group who are opposed to expansion. If they want to speak as individual commissioners and not speak for the whole group, that would be fine. It was set up to be a contentious group because it is a flawed setup. Butcher said if the Council does that it needs to be careful about whose voice is speaking for the commission. She would be comfortable having just one of the members speak, but not on behalf of the whole commission. Rosow said he would suggest the City Manager revise the invitation to the group that it is not the commission being invited to speak but the City- appointed commissioners who care to address the topic. They can decide among themselves how to divide up the time. Council agreed that the invitation to the Flying Cloud Airport Commission should be revised to reflect that position. Mayor Harris said she believed Rosow should be at the meeting of the commission on February 7 because he has heard that conversation and could answer questions about it. Council agreed questions to the presenters from the audience would not be allowed, only from the Council. Enger asked who is going to decide what to do about presenters going over their time. Rosow said he could ask the Administrative Law Judge that when the time is up, if there is a member of the Council who wants to hear more the member can say so and ask if the others agree. If so, the presenter would be given more time. C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR 1. Request from Eden Prairie Schools Regarding Forest Hills School Park Playground Lambert said City staff has been working with the School District staff in the evaluation of the Forest Hills School Park site to accommodate the renovation of the playground. The plan for renovation of the playground relies solely on the ability to remove a hill that was developed with excess fill from the original park development. This must be removed in order to accommodate playground expansion and to meet ADA requirements. The cost to remove the hill could be in excess of$100,000; however, the City is sometimes able to find contractors who may be in need of clean fill and are willing to remove the fill at no cost. CITY COUNCIL NIINUTES February 6,2001 Page 20 Lambert was not asking for approval of the request at this time. The City has no money budgeted over the next five-year period for playgrounds at Forest Hills School Park; however, there will be discussions regarding the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) scheduled for a workshop on May 1, 2001. He would have some idea then on the cost, and Council can decide whether it can afford to assist in redevelopment of this playground. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to authorize City staff to assist the School District in seeking contractors that may be interested in fill available at Forest Hills School Park; also to authorize staff to evaluate the feasibility of providing some funding support for this project during review of the Capital Improvement program later this year. Motion carried 5-0. 2. Anderson Lakes Park Reserve Plan Lambert said the City transferred ownership of the Anderson Lakes Park Reserve to Hennepin Parks. At that time they agreed it would be developed according to the City's plan. A few years ago, Hennepin Parks decided not to move the nature center from its present location. However, they will be developing nature trails in the park. Lambert asked if Council concurred with the following process for reviewing the proposal from Hennepin Parks for development of the park reserve. 1. Review the proposed park plan and phasing plan with the Parks and Recreation Citizens Advisory Commission. The Commission is to provide input to the City staff and comments relating to recreation needs. 2. Review a proposed park plan and phasing plan with the Community Program Board to obtain input and a recommendation to the Council relating to program needs, environmental sensitivity, and staff concerns. 3. Notify the neighborhood of a public meeting at the Planning Board and obtain input from the neighborhood and a recommendation from the Planning Board to the City Council. 4. Review and approval by the City Council. Case asked if the City transferred ownership through a no-cost conveyance. Lambert said the City got back from Hennepin Parks all of the City money it had in the park,which was less than$500,000. Tyra-Lukens said she was concerned that the only neighborhood involvement would be in step 3. She asked if the park is directly across from any residences. Lambert replied yes, it is across from the Anderson Lakes Parkway and is residential. Tyra-Lukens asked about parking. Lambert said the original park plan had an access road at Amsden Way, and the parking lot was up where the CITY COUNCIL Mr-T=S February 6,2001 Page 21 nature center was originally going to be. The parking lot would not be seen from the road. In Hennepin Parks the parking lots are always screened from the road. However, the access road is now placed at the intersection of TH 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway, and it might make more sense to have the access road at Franlo Road to avoid congestion further down. Lambert supposed there would be controversy about access at Franlo. This is a land-use issue and will be coming before the Planning Board. As far as how the City can program use of the park, that is a discussion that would be coming before the Parks Commission and the Program Board. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to approve the process for reviewing the proposed Anderson Lakes Park Reserve development plan as proposed by City staff. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Birch Island Woods Appraisal Lambert said the appraisal was not as good as the City had hoped for, but they did agree with the County that they would jointly select an appraiser and accept the appraised price. The 31 acres south of Indian Chief Road was valued at$650,000. The parcel north of Birch Island Woods, which is guided industrial,totals a little over four acres, of which approximately 2.9 acres is considered usable and is valued at$385,000. Staff is recommending the City Council limit the matching grant applications for Birch Island Woods to the 31 acres south of Indian Chief Road. MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Mosman, to authorize staff to limit grant applications for Birch Island Woods to the 31 acres south of Indian Chief Road. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Appointment of Task Force for Developing Program and Design for Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Entry Lambert referenced the January 16 Council meeting when the Council moved to create a Purgatory Recreation Area Task Force, and adopted the Mission and Charter Statement. The Council agreed to appoint members to the Task Force at the February 6 meeting. The Council also authorized developing a Request for Proposal for consultant services for developing the program and design of the Purgatory Recreation Area. An RFP has been forwarded to two consulting firms that have extensive experience with similar types of projects. Mayor Harris said she would like to recommend the following names to the Council. • Council representative—Jan Mosman. • Community Planning Board—Sue Stock and Vicki Koenig CITY COUNCIL MUgUTES February 6,2001 Page 22 • Program Board—Harry Moran and Therese Benkowski • Parks and Recreation Citizen Advisory Commission—Sue Dickman Case recommended Pat Richards as one of the Citizens-at-Large. Butcher recommended Terry Randolph as a second Citizen-at-Large. MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Case, to appoint the individuals discussed to the Task Force for Developing Program and Design for Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Entry. Motion carried 5-0. D. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR 1. Draft Comprehensive Guide Plan Update Enger said staff was asking the City Council to approve distribution of the prepared draft document of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Update to the Metropolitan Council. The Plan needs to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for an informal review to determine if it is complete. The Plan must also be distributed to adjacent jurisdictions and school districts for a required six-month review period. The staff suggests the draft Plan also be submitted to the Community Planning Board for an advisory recommendation. The Plan would then be reviewed by the City Council. Lambert said a more detailed Guide Plan will follow this draft document. MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Butcher, to direct staff to distribute draft copies of the Plan to the Metropolitan Council to review for completeness (an informal review);to adjacent jurisdictions and school districts for the required review and comment period; and the Community Planning Board for an advisory recommendation. Motion carried 5-0. E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DIRECTOR 1. Review Development and Infrastructure Issues on Eden Prairie Road, South of Riley Creek Dietz showed the sketch of the area under discussion, which he said has become ripe for development. He said a developer has been working with the City staff regarding the redevelopment of the Cedar Hills Golf Course for a housing project. The developer is going to be coming to the Planning Board to describe his housing development project. Neighborhood meetings are being planned by the developer. The area of concern to the City is south of Riley Creek and between Spring Road and Dell Road north of TH 212. The development is moving toward density transfers. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 6,2001 Page 23 Regarding the development of Eden Prairie Road going down to TH 212, Eden Prairie Road will be built down to Riley Creek, and Spring Road will be reconstructed. There are steep grades going down Eden Prairie Road south of the creek. A lot of grading will be needed. Reconstruction of the road will be an issue and will be expensive. The choice Council will need to make is whether to extend City services to the bluff lots. It is possible to maintain them on well and septic systems. Owners may expect additional utilities developed. The City has property adjacent to the creek but there is not good access for utilities. Drainage issues will need to be addressed. It will be necessary to maintain the wooded area. There is an extremely steep segment of road in the last 45 feet. The City could close it and make a cul de sac. Another possibility would be to put in a median and have right in and right out only. Another possibility is to regrade the slope. They could realign Eden Prairie Road over to Spring Road and just put a cul de sac down near the steep slope. Dietz said Eden Prairie Road is very dangerous near the creek and there are frequent accidents, so something has to be done about it. Between Eden Prairie Road and Spring Road there is probably 120 feet of grade change and a lot of trees. Regarding MAC's acquisition of parcels along Eden Prairie Road, only one parcel has been acquired south of Riley Creek. Dietz said he didn't know if there are any others. MAC believes that takes them out of special assessments,but the City doesn't agree with that. Dietz said so far the City has not done any real work on this project. There are probably around 400 acres involved in the development. When the steep slopes are taken out, it is reduced to 250 acres. He would estimate that the cost of building Eden Prairie Road from TH 212 to the creek, and utilities within that corridor, probably will be as much as $2 million. This could result in a cost of$8,000 to $10,000 per acre. The timing is such that the developer is ready to begin, so the City staff will have to work its way through. Dietz said if the City doesn't make the right choice about how to serve the area, it won't work. That is why it is necessary to find out what the neighborhood wants to do. Special assessments are spread over a period of time, with interest, which gets to be expensive. The City needs to find out how many want the utilities and how many don't. Looking at the area involved, it is entirely possible to say five lots in the neighborhood will always have a well and septic. The City does not have to extend utilities, so would not have to do special assessments. Dietz said he expected this will be as tough a project as any the City has had. He wanted the Counaihnembers to know about it before they start getting phone calls. This area has always been zoned as two-and-a-half units per acre. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 6,2001 Page 24 Enger said this is going to be a politically charged situation. Council has seen other special assessment projects that are very small compared to this one. The City has tried more citizen involvement. Staff wants to know Council's preferences regarding outreach and if Council wants to be involved in that. For example they could meet in a sector as a Council. Rather than have the staff wade into a political process with neighborhood meetings, Enger wanted to know the Councilmembers' opinions. Dietz said one possibility would be to establish a task force of neighbors. However,the task force probably won't get everyone to agree. Enger asked if Council would like to discuss this at a future meeting, and if they would like staff to provide some suggestions for a skeleton of a process Council could build on. Councilmembers agreed to this and Enger said he would bring it to the next Council meeting. Dietz said he believed the developer has already talked to some of the neighbors and is ready to begin neighborhood meetings. Case said at the first meeting in January, Councilmembers discussed their goals for the year. He and another Councilmember talked about dedicating a staff person who would be a liaison for the Council with community projects that are controversial. This project may be one of those. Case said he also talked about having workshops in neighborhoods and inviting people to walk the area with the Councilmembers. This project is a good opportunity to try some of these ideas. Dietz said in the meantime staff would not go to neighborhood meetings the developer may hold. F. REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DIRECTOR G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XIV. OTHER BUSINESS XV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Mosman, to adjourn to a closed session. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.