City Council - 01/16/1990 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 16 , 1990 7 : 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and
Douglas Tenpas
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant
to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City
Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of
Planning Chris Enger, Director of
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
Robert Lambert, Director of Public
Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording
Secretary Deb Edlund
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Councilmember Harris was absent.
PRESENTATION BY GAIL LEIPOLD, OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS & SERVICES
COMMISSION REGARDING MARTIN LUTUER KING, JR. EVENT
Gail Leipold reviewed the scheduled events and expressed appreciation
for the City Council's support of the event. Leipold said that 100
tickets had been sold to date.
Mayor Peterson commended the Human Rights & Services Commission for
taking on the project.
I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHEE ITEMS Off' BUSINEESS
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Agenda as
published and amended.
ADDITIONS :
Add Item IX.A, Appoint of Landfill Advisory Committee. Add
Item X.A. 1, Report on Southwest Transportation Coalition
Commission. Add Item X.A. 2 , City Office Paper Disposal . Add
Item X.A. 3 , Earth Week. Add Item X. B. 2 , Discussion on
Rescheduling March 6, 1990 City Council Meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES
A. Regular City Council Ke9ting held Jugsday. December 19.
1999
City Council Minutes 2 January 16 , 1990
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the regular
City Council meeting held Tuesday, December 19, 1989 as
published and amended.
CORRECTIONS:
Page 5, Item D, Paragraph 1, should read: for their
thorough responses. . . Page 10, Finance, Paragraph 2,
should read: specifications too restrictive, . . . . Page
14 , Item X.A. 1, Paragraph 1, should read: January 3 , 1990
Item XII . , Motion, should read: Anderson moved, seconded
by Pidcock to adjourn the meeting at 10: 10 PM.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, January 2 , 1990
MOTION•
Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to approve the Minutes
of the Regular City Council meeting held Tuesday, January
2 , 1990 as published and amended.
CORRECTIONS•
Item IX.A, Motion, should read: . . of the City Offices and
further that at 11:00 PM a vote shall be taken to
determine if the remaining items on the agenda are to be
continued and the meeting adjourned or the meeting
continued. A unanimous vote would be required to adjourn
the meeting.
Motion carried 3-0-1. Mayor Peterson. abstained.
III . CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List
r
B. 2nd Readingof Ordinanc2 -9 m nd n Chapter
Zoning Regulations and Adoption of R2solution No. 90-18 ,
Author' zing Summary for Publication
C. Authorize anDointrentS - oInc. for
assistance with and sp-gcifications
for e detached frontage road east of Dell Road and sQuth
f H 5. I.C. 52-177
D. ARyr9ye conveyance of Outlot H. Bluffs East 4th Addition
by Edgn Prairie to Audrae Diestler
f
City Council Minutes 3 January 16„ 1990
E. Approval of the Assignment of Credit Instruments on the
Tanager Creek Housing Revenue Bonds from Midwest Federal S
& A to Midwest Savings Association. F.A.
F. Community Center Surveys
G. Staring Lake Amphitheater Rental Policy
H. Agreement with Goodwill/Easter Seals for Recycling
Services
I. Amendments to Joint Powers Agreement for Southwest Metro
Transit (Resolution No. 90-11)
J. Authorization for Disposal of Tax Forfeited Lands
(Resolution No. 90-16)
K. Termination of Use Agreement between NAFTA and Minnesota
Gas Company
L. Receive Feasibility Study and Set Public Hearing for
Utility and Street Improvements to Mitchell Road from
Boulder Pointe Road to CSAH 1` I .C. 52-156 (Resolution No.
90-14)
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve Items A
through L on the Consent Calendar.
ITEM G
Lambert presented a revised draft of the rental policy for
the Staring Lake Amphitheater. Lambert emphasized the
point that the groups could use the facility until 9: 30 PM
and must leave the park by 10: 00 PM. The noise level
restriction would be set at 70 decibels. He noted that
Staff had discussed this item extensively with Minneapolis
and had conducted extended research.
I
Tenpas asked if this sound level would preclude any
particular type of music. Lambert replied no; however, it
would limit how loud the music was.
4
Motion to approve the Consent Calendar carried '
unanimously. E
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. JAMEsSTOWN PLANNED NIT DEVELOP ENT by Tandem Properties.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low
Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 5. 59 l
acres and from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential on 12. 16 acres, Planned Unit Development
City Council Minutes 4 January 16, 1990
Concept Review on 60.79 acres, Planned Unit Development
District on 60.78 acres with waivers, Site Plan Review and
Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to RM-6 . 5 on
12. 16 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on
37 . 65 acres, Preliminary Plat of 60. 79 acres into 17
townhouse lots, 60 single family lots, 2 outlots and road
right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on
60.79 acres. City initiated Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment for relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service
Area (MUSA) line to include an additional 7 acres of
property for a mixed use development to be known as
Jamestown. Location: South of Highway #5, east of West
184th Avenue.
City Manager Jullie reported that Staff recommended that a
presentation be made by the proponent at this time due to
the number of Public Hearings to be reviewed by the City
Council at the next two meetings. Jullie noted that the
Council would not take action on this item this evening.
A handout was presented to the City Council regarding the
proposal and the revisions by Director of Planning Enger.
Jim Ostenson, representing the proponent, presented the
plans for the 60-acre site. Three types of projects would
be developed on this property; commercial, single-family,
and multiple-family. The plans had been revised to
include 108 condominium: units, ranging from 4 to 8 units
per building. The number of driveways coming off the
public road had been reduced based on recommendations from
Staff and the Planning Commission. Ostenson believed that
an adequate buffer was being provided between this
proposal of multiple-family units and the Orrin Thompson
development. Ostenson noted that the State would be
constructing the public road to service the Orrin Thompson
project, which was the reason for approval of this road
location at this time. The commercial area consisted of
approximately 5 acres and had been redesigned to provide
better access to the site and to save additional trees.
The commercial area would consist of a convenience-gas
station, a daycare facility, and an office building. The
commercial area would not be developed for approximately 2
to 3 years and should be viewed as only a concept plan.
The proponent would return to the Planning Commission and
City Council with further detail for this area at a latter
date.
Ostenson noted that the main revisions in the plan
centered around the desire to save additional trees. The
Planning Commission had requested that the wooded area be
zoned R1-22 with the remainder of the single-family area
being zoned R1-13 . 5. Ostenson noted that this change had
resulted in the loss of one single-family lot. The
predicted tree loss at this time would be 22 . 5% with an
City Council Minutes 5 January 16, 1990
additional 12 . 5% being marked as questionable. Ostenson
noted that the proponent would retain a forester, would
establish scenic easements, and would work extensively
with the builders to save as many trees as possible.
Ostenson believed that given the site features, the
proponent had done everything possible to save the trees.
Ostenson concluded by addressing the restraints of the
Southwest Area Study. He noted that this area would be .
limited to a total of 250 units. Ostenson stated that the
proponent wished to begin the development in the multiple-
family area; however, this would be extremely difficult
with the limitation of only 55 units. Ostenson added that
this issue had been discussed with Staff and he wished to
appraise the City Council that the proponent would
possibly request consideration of additional units in the
future.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this
item at its January 8 , 1990 meeting. The Planning
Commission had requested at that time that further
attention be given to the wooded area in the southern
portion of the property to save more trees. Enger said
that Staff and the proponent had not anticipated having
the revisions completed by tonight's meeting and,
therefore, had requested the continuance. Enger noted
that residential units could be constructed next to
Highway #5 with adequate berming and noise mitigation.
Enger stated that Staff would not be comfortable at this
time to increase the development cap in the Southwest
Area; however, Staff would suggest the possibility of a
discussion at a later date. Staff recommended that a bond
be provided to secure the tree replacement.
Enger noted that the commercial area did require a
Comprehensive Guide Plan change. Enger stated that
comments had been received from the City of Chanhassen
regarding the commercial area and its possible affect on
the Chanhassen downtown area.
Enger noted that this item would need to be reviewed by
the Metropolitan Council and the City Council might wish
to hold the final approval of the Preliminary Plat until
further details were provided. An Environmental Impact
Study was necessary because the Metropolitan Council was
concerned about the impact on the lakes by urban
development. Enger added that the Watershed District was
not in agreement with the Metropolitan Council on this
theory. Enger concluded by saying that the proponent had
worked to develop a plan which was in conjunction with the
Southwest Area Study.
Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission had recommended approval of the
i
City Council Minutes 6 January 16, 1990
project based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff
Report. The majority of the discussion centered on tree
replacement and preservation. The Commission supported
the recommendation to require bonding.
Pidcock asked what the square footage would be for the
condominium units. Putnam replied from 1100 to 1300
square feet. Pidcock then asked if the garages would be
single or double. Putnam replied that garages would be
single.
Ostenson stated that a copy of the noise study had just
been received today. The study reported that there were
no noise problems related to Highway #5. The berming
along Highway #5 would be approximately 10 to 15 feet
high. The noise levels were considered to be within
reasonable limits. Ostenson noted that after further
review of the project, the City of Chanhassen had
reconsidered its position.
Anderson asked how much tree loss would be a direct result
of construction of Dell Road and Highway 5. Enger
estimated the loss to be approximately 600 caliper inches
for Dell Road and could not estimate a figure for Highway
5 at this time. Anderson noted that significant trees
would be lost due to the road construction and added that
all of the trees would be on the Eden Prairie side of the
roads. Anderson asked if the alignment could possibly be
adjusted in order to save some of the trees. Dietz
replied that a tree inventory would be completed. He
added that it could be possible to investigate reverse
curves and minor changes which might be able to save
trees. Anderson then asked if the alignment of Highway 5
could be adjusted. Dietz replied that MnDOT had agreed to
try to conform with the City's Tree Replacement Policy.
Peterson asked if the berming being proposed would
preclude the need for fencing along Highway 5. Ostenson
replied that fencing was not planned; the noise mitigation
would be accomplished only with berming.
Peterson asked if the tree replacement and bonding
R
requirements were in compliance with the City's current
calculations. Ostenson replied yes.
I
There were no further comments from the audience .
MOTION• 9
Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to continue this Public
Hearing to the February 6, 1990 City Council Meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes 7 January 16, 1990
B. FARBER ADDITION by Roger Farber. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 3.7 acres with
variances for road frontage to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals. Preliminary Plat of 7 . 6 acres into 3 single
family lots, and one outlot. Location: 6525 Rowland
Road. (Ordinance No. 2-90 - Rezoning; Resolution No.90-17
- Preliminary Plat)
Jullie recommended that February 20, 1990 be set to review
the Board of Appeals & Adjustments decision on this
development proposal.
Frank Cardarelle, representing the proponent, presented
the plans for 3 single-family lots. The plan was designed
to save trees, save the hill and preserve the pond area.
Cardarelle stated that the zoning would be R1-22 and
believed that the development would blend in well with the
existing neighborhood. Cardarelle noted that the
difficulty with the Board of Appeals & Adjustments was
regarding the flag lots.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed
this item at its December 11, 1989 meeting and recommended
approval with a 6-1 vote based on the recommendations
outlined in the Staff Report. Enger noted that the
Watershed District had not established a highwater mark
for this area and that some of the soils were considered
marginal for construction. Enger stated that the majority
of the discussion at the Planning Commission level had
centered around the future of Outlot A. The Board of
Appeals & Adjustments had difficulty in approving the use
of "flag" lots for this parcel . The positive aspects of
the flag lots would be a reduction in the amount of r,
grading and fill necessary which would result in saving
additional trees, lot sizes would be much less than that
required for R1-22 zoning, and lot sizes would exceed
those of the surrounding area. The negative aspects were
the 12% grade of the road, that 3 driveways would be
located within 150 feet on Rowland Road, and a plan would
be approved with poor soil conditions, steep grades, etc. .
Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission had reviewed this item at the
December 18, 1989 meeting where the discussion centered
around the acceptance of Outlot A. The Outlot would not
be in lieu of Cash Park Fees. The Commission recommended
approval of the project.
Anderson asked if the City would benefit more from a City
road or a private road. Enger replied that the solution
did not have to be either a public street or a private
drive. He added that the lots could be larger and the
plan changed to provide 1 driveway instead of 3 . Anderson
z
s
q.
City Council Minutes 8 January 16, 1990
asked if there were instances currently within the City
where joint driveways existed. Enger replied yes.
Pidcock asked how many soil borings would be done to
determine if the soil would support construction. Enger
replied that this had not been determined at this time.
Peterson commented that the Soil Engineer would determine
the number of soil tests to be done. Pidcock believed
that it was important to establish a required number of
soil borings. Enger replied that the wording in the
developers agreement could state that the building site
must be certified by a soil engineer.
Pauly noted that the Council could approve or deny the
proposal tonight; however, he recommended that the item be
continued until after the appeal. hearing.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOT14N:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to continue the Public
Hearing until after the Board of Appeals hearing and to be
set for February 2+0, 1990 for the consideration of the
action taken by the Board of Appeals & Adjustments .
Motion carried unanimously.
C. SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY AT 13008 GERARD DRIVE
Jullie reported that notice of the consideration of this
item had been sent to approximately 40 property owners in
the vicinity and published in the January 10, 1990 issue
of the Eden Prairie News. He added that this was a
subdivision issue.
Larry Hanson, 13008 Gerard Drive, stated that he had lived ?
on the 4-acre site for approximately 20 years. He added
that after a survey of the adjoining Beckman property had
been done it was determined that a 33 foot discrepancy
existed, and that he actually owned an additional 33 feet
of land on which a driveway for the Beckman property
existed. Hanson stated that he would like to sell the 33
foot strip of land to the Beckman estate, which would
allow the driveway to be actually on the Beckman property.
He added that this would also allow the property line to
coincide with a metal fence located on the back half of
the property and a row of pines which had been planted on
what was thought to be the property line.
Dietz stated that this would normally have been handled
administratively; however, there was opposition from
adjacent property owners and Staff would like direction
from the City Council. Dietz added that the adjacent
property owners were concerned about the potential for
City Council Minutes 9 January 16, 1990
future development of the Beckman property . Dietz
believed that the 33 feet of property should be considered
as a stand alone parcel and recommended approval of the
subdivision.
Peterson asked if the driveway would be in conformance
with City Code. Dietz replied yes.
Floyd Siefferman, 6997 Edgebrook Place, stated that his
home was within 20 feet of the back lot line of the
Beckman property and that he had believed that it would be
physically impossible for a road to be constructed to
provide access to the lot behind his home. Siefferman
believed that the subdivision of this property would be
the first step to encourage development in this area. He
recommended that an easement be granted for the Beckman
property to use the driveway and that some type of annual
compensation be given to the Hansons. Siefferman
suggested that another alternative would be to have the
33-foot strip stop at the home.
Peterson asked Dietz if the potential for future
development of the Beckman property would be enhanced by
the acquisition of this additional 33 feet. Dietz replied
that a preliminary drawing showing possible development
had been made of the Beckman property. Enger added that
the 33 feet would increase the probability of development
if the preliminary plan were to proceed further.
Anderson asked if the property could be subdivided. Enger
replied that if a plan were presented to the City which
met City Code requirements, it would be difficult to deny
platting. Enger added that if a zoning change or
variances were requested, then the City could have reasons
to deny a subdivision.
Hanson stated that the intent was to allow a property line
to exist as it was originally located and to correct an
error in a survey which had been made several years ago.
He added that if a road were constructed it would come
within 9 feet of the Beckman house.
x
Peterson stated that the issue was not whether or not
further subdivision could take place.
Siefferman believed that this would be the only chance the
City had to prevent further development of this property.
He restated that he believed an easement would be a
reasonable alternative.
Dietz stated that this subdivision would not create a
separate lot.
City Council Minutes 10 January 16, 1990
Tenpas asked how large the Beckman parcel was currently.
Enger replied approximately 8 acres. Tenpas asked what
would preclude the owner from constructing a road on the
opposite side of the parcel. Siefferman replied that the
east side was extremely steep.
Pidcock asked Hanson if the easement alternative could be
a consideration. Hanson replied that he had mixed
feelings. Mrs. Hanson stated that it was their intent
only to return the property line to where it had always
been believed to be. She added that her main concern was
to remove them from liability issues.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Peterson to close the Public
Hearing and approve the proposed subdivision of property
at 13008 Gerard Drive.
Anderson stated that in the past this had been handled
administratively and believed that it was within the
rights of the property owner to request the subdivision.
Peterson concurred.
Tenpas asked if a public road would be required. Enger
replied that a public road would need to be extended in
some way.
Motion carried 3-1 . Pidcock voted "NO" .
D. VACATION NO. 90-01 OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN
LOT 1 . BLOCK 1 C ASg POINT (Resolution No. 90-13)
Jullie reported that notice of this public hearing was
published in the December 27, 1989 issue of the Eden y
Prairie News.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-13 to vacate the
Drainage and Utility Easements. Motion carried
unanimously.
V. PAYMENT g,F CLAIMS
City Council Minutes 11 January 16, 1990
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve Payment of
Claims No. 56830 through No. 57063 . ROLL CALL VOTE:
Anderson, Pidcock, Tenpas, and Peterson all voted "AYE" .
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
VIZ. PETITIONS, BEOUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Prairie Lutheran Church - Request for extension of time
limit to conform with exterior material standards
Enger reported that the Prairie Lutheran Church project
was originally approved in 1987, a variance was granted to
require that 30% of the exterior would consist of brick
when Phase II was constructed. Enger stated that Staff
wanted direction from the Council as to whether this
proposed addition, which is smaller than the originally
proposed Phase II, should constitute Phase II and the 30%
brick requirement be enforced at this time.
Merrill Ronning, representing the Church, presented the
plans for the addition. He added that he believed that
this was only an addition and was not equivalent to Phase
II , which consisted of an expansion of the sanctuary and
would in essence double the size of the existing facility.
Ronning stated that the Church would like to have the
addition constructed by the Fall of 1990.
i
Peterson stated that the City requirement for brick, j
glass, or better material was for maintenance purposes and
added that he could support an administrative approval if a
guaranteed that when Phase II was proposed, there would
not be a request for anything other than the 30%
originally agreed to.
Anderson stated that originally a hardship was presented
as the reason for the request and believed that any
addition should be considered as Phase II. Anderson added
that he could go along with this proposal if a time limit
were established for the building to be in compliance with
the 30% requirement for brick.
Peterson asked if a 5-year time limit would create a
hardship for the Church. Ronning replied that he was not
able to answer at this time. Peterson noted that the 30%
requirement represented a significant concession from the
normal City standards.
Ronning stated that he would agree that at the time of the
construction of the next unit the Church would be required
to be in compliance with the 30% brick for the exterior
material .
I
City Council Minutes 12 January 16, 1990
Peterson recommended that the wording be any addition in
' excess of 10, 000 square feet would require compliance with
the 30% brick exterior building material requirement. r
City Attorney Pauly recommended that the wording in the
original agreement not be altered and it remain that
compliance would be required with the construction of ,
Phase II .
MOTIO
Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas that no Site Plan Review
for this addition was necessary, but required that any
subsequent additions be subject to a Site Plan Review.
Motion carried unanimously.
r
B. Receive petition for Extgnsion of Beverly Drive in Section
29 and Order Feasibility S:udy. I.C. 52-18t
x
Dietz believed that it would be premature to extend
Beverly Drive at this time. He added that a valid
p
petition had not been presented to the City and,
therefore, recommended denial of the request.
A realtor representing Mr. & Mrs. Douglas stated that the
extension of Beverly Drive would provide a better access
for the property. The property was approximately 12 .9
acres and the Douglas's would like to subdivide the
parcel .
g
John Turnbull, 10001 Dell Road, stated that approximately
4 years ago he had given property to the City for the
protection of the scenic value of this area. He added
that he wanted the wildlife to stay in this area.
Turnbull believed that Douglas wanted the City to pay for
a road which would enhance the sale of his property.
Ron Hron, 17170 Beverly Drive, stated that he did not
favor a feasibility study.
Ken Kuntsmann, 9999 Dell Road, stated that he was opposed
to a feasibility study. He added that the ecology in this
area was already very fragile.
Fred Allis, 10005 Dell Road, stated that this proposal
would have a road going to nowhere. Allis also noted that
Indian burial grounds existed in this location and
believed these were to be protected.
There were no further comments from the audience.
City Council Minutes 13 January 16, 1990
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Tenpas to deny the request for
a feasibility study for the extension of Beverly Drive.
Motion carried unanimously.
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY gOMMISS ONS
IX. APPOINTMENTS
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS. BOAR„PS & COMMISSIONS
A. Repgrts of Couacilmembers
1. Southwest Coalition Committee Report
Pidcock stated that the checking account balance for the
Southwest Area Coalition was $443 . 12 and the savings
account balance was $41, 624.47 . She added that donations
had been received from all of the government agencies with
the exception of Hennepin County, which was to be received
this month.
2 . City Office Paper Recyclin
Anderson stated that the City Offices throw away an
enormous amount of paper and recommended that the City
take the lead and recycle the paper at the Goodwill
location provided at Menards Center. Dawson replied that
the Goodwill location was not set up to handle business
volumes at this time. Anderson stated that the memo had
stated that office paper was accepted. Dawson replied
that he would look into this item further.
Peterson asked if there was a more efficient way to
dispose of the paper. Dawson replied that presently the
paper was taken to the Rueter facility.
Anderson asked Dawson if the City was sure that the paper
taken to Rueter was being recycled.
3 . Earth Week
Anderson stated that after discussing Earth Week with the
Park, Recreation, & Natural Resources and Waste Management
Commissions, he believed that a committee should be
established to plan activities for Earth Week. Anderson
recommended that the committee consist of one person from
the school , one person from the Parks & Recreation
Department, one person from the City Council, one person
from the Waste Management Commission, one or two Staff
members, and possibly two members at-large. Anderson
believed that there was money available to work with.
Dawson added that approximately $18 , 000 was available.
City Council Minutes 14 January 16, 1990
Anderson said that the week could begin with a Clean-Up
Day and have other activities planned during the week.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to appoint Councilmember
Anderson as the City Council representative. Motion
carried unanimously.
Peterson asked Anderson if he would be prepared by the
next meeting to make recommendations for members of the
committee. Anderson replied yes.
B. Report of City Manager
1. Reschedule date and time for interviewing candidates
for boards/coimissions
MQTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to set the date of
February 21 , 1990 to conduct the interviews for
Board/Commission Candidates. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Landfill Advisory Committee Appointments
Jullie reported that a decision had been made to develop a
committee to review the issues regarding the landfill . It
was determined that a 7-member committee should be
considered. He added that Council may wish to formalize
the committee.
Pidcock stated that she and Councilmember Tenpas would be
willing to serve on the committee. She added that the
purpose would be to lobby State Agencies and to get the
message out to the public to acquire greater acceptance on
a state wide basis. Pidcock stated that she and
Councilmember Tenpas would make formal recommendations for
members at the next City Council meeting.
3 . Resghedule March 6 . 1990 City CoUpcil me2tiM.
Jullie reported that four Councilmembers would be
attending a conference and would not be available for the
March 6, 1990 City Council meeting and recommended the
meeting be rescheduled for March 13, 1990..
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to reschedule the
March 6, 1990 City Council meeting to March 13, 1990.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. Report of City Attgrnev
City Council Minutes 15 January 16, 1990
D. Report of Director of Planninct
E. Director of ParlSs. Recreation & Natural Resources
F. Report of-Director of Public Works
G. Report of Finance Director
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII . ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10: 30 PM.
i
i
f
I
i
i
i
i
}
i
f
i