View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
City Council Meeting Minutes
October 11, 2010
1. Roll Call
Mayor Klausing called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for October: Johnson; Roe; Ihlan; Pust; and Klausing). Acting City Manager and Finance Director Chris Miller served in place of City Manager Bill Malinen who was out of town. City Attorney Charles Bartholdi was also present.
Mayor Klausing noted that Councilmember Dan Roe had previously advised that he would be unavailable for tonight’s meeting due to a business commitment. Mayor Klausing announced that Councilmember Pust had earlier advised that she was ill and unable to attend tonight’s meeting.
2. Approve Agenda
Councilmember Ihlan requested removal of Consent Items 7.e and f respectively entitled, “Adopt a Resolution Approving the Request by George C. Brandt, Inc. and T-Mobile for a Telecommunication Monopole Facility as a CONDITIONAL USE at 2975 Long Lake Road;” and “Adopt a Resolution Approving the Request by Schadegg Commercial Real Estate, Inc. for a PUD AMENDMENT to allow an Adult Daycare Use in Centre Pointe.”
By consensus, the agenda was approved as amended.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Klausing called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared to speak at this time.
4. Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report
Mayor Klausing announced the upcoming annual Community Dialogue hosted by the City’s Human Rights Commission on Monday, October 25, 2010 from 5:30 – 9:00 pm. a the Roseville Skating Center. Mayor Klausing noted that the event was free, but pre-registration was required on the City website at human.rights.ci.roseville.mn.us or by calling City Hall before October 22, 2010.
5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications
a. Recognize Roseville Genisys Credit Union for their Sponsorship of the 2010 Rose Parade and Summer Entertainment Series
Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Jill Anfang introduced Genisys Credit Union Branch Manager Tim Daisy and provided a brief history of the organization and their involvement in the community and its recreational programs.
Mr. Daisy thanked the City of Roseville for the opportunity to support and be involved in the City’s community partnership efforts.
On behalf of the community, City Council, and staff, Mayor Klausing recognized and expressed appreciation for the generous and significant sponsorship for the 2010 Rose Parade and the 2010 Summer Entertainment Series by Roseville Genisys Credit Union.
Klausing moved, Ihlan seconded, recognition of and appreciation of Genisys and their generous and significant sponsorship for the 2010 Rose Parade and the 2010 Summer Entertainment Series by Roseville Genisys Credit Union.
On behalf of the City, Ms. Anfang presented plaque of appreciation to Genisys.
Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; and Klausing.
b. Recognize Goodmanson Construction for their Sponsorship of the 2009 New Year’s Eve Celebration and to Announce their Sponsorship of the 2010 Celebration at the Roseville Skating Center
Recreation Supervisor Kevin Elm introduced Goodmanson Construction representatives present Cami and Merl Goodmanson.
On behalf of the community, City Council, and staff, Mayor Klausing recognized and expressed appreciation for the generous and significant sponsorship of Goodmanson Construction for their fourth year and contribution of the 2009 New Year’s Eve Celebration at the Roseville Skating Center and for their offer to again sponsor the event in 2010.
Mr. Elm presented a plague to the Goodmanson firm.
Mr. Goodmanson expressed his appreciation in being involved in the community and the skating center.
Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded, Goodmanson Construction, Inc. for their sponsorship and generous involvement in the 2009 New Year’s Eve Celebration at the Roseville Skating Center and for their offer to again sponsor the event in 2010.
6. Approve Minutes
a. Approve Minutes of September 27, 2010 Regular Meeting
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the minutes of the September 27, 2010 Regular meeting as presented
Ayes: Ihlan; and Klausing.
7. Approve Consent Agenda
There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the request of Mayor Klausing, Acting City Manager and Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.
a. Approve Payments
Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
b. Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000
Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows:
Curb Masters, Inc.
Blanket P.O. for ice control material
North American Salt
Treated road salt per bid
Leaf pickup program seasonal labor
Road salt per bid
c. Approve Agreement Allowing Ramsey County Attorney’s Office Direct Access to the Police Department’s Online Records Management System
Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of RMS User Agreement (Attachment A) between the Roseville Police Department and Ramsey County Attorney’s Office for access by the County Attorney’s Office to the City of Roseville Police Department’s Online Records Management System; and authorizing execution of the document through signatures of appropriate City staff.
d. Accept 2010 Ramsey County Traffic Safety Initiative Grant
Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded, approved participation in and acceptance of a 2010 Ramsey County Traffic Safety Initiative Grant for the purpose of covering office overtime for traffic safety enforcement.
a. Adopt a Resolution Approving the Request by George C. Brandt, Inc. and T-Mobile for a Telecommunication Monopole Facility as a CONDITIONAL USE at 2975 Long Lake Road (Former Consent Agenda Item 7.e)
Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this request as detailed on the Request for Council Approval (RCA) dated October 11, 2010.
Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification on the location of properties owned by Asure Properties, Inc., and their written e-mail speaking in opposition to this application, stating that it would “not enhance our property at 3050 Old Highway 8.”
Mr. Trudgeon advised that the Azure property was the townhome development on Old Highway 8 and 88.
There was no public comment.
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10848 (Attachment E) entitled “A Resolution Approving the Installation of Telecommunication Monopole Facility on the Commercial Property at 2975 Long Lake Road as a CONDITIONAL USE in Accordance with Roseville City Code, Section 1014.01 (PF10-021).”
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion based on the communication from Azure Properties, Inc. directly across the highway, opining that it provided evidence in the record of adverse impacts to property value and quality of life for residents, thus making the impact outweighing the need.
Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion, referenced language of the Azure Properties, Inc. e-mail, questioning their concern about the telecommunication tower not “enhancing their property,” and questioned whether that was sufficient basis to deny the request.
Ayes: Johnson; and Klausing.
b. Adopt a Resolution Approving the Request by Schadegg Commercial Real Estate, Inc. for a PUD AMENDMENT to allow an Adult Daycare Use in Centre Pointe (Former Consent Agenda Item 7.f)
Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed the request as detailed in the RCA dated October 11, 2010.
Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern related to the second condition in Section 7.0 (b) regarding not allowing an external recreation area due to the need to eliminate additional existing parking spaces; and opined that such external recreation area needed to be part of an adult daycare facility, and suggested reducing parking spaces to facilitate it.
Applicant and Property Manager Dick Schadegg
Mr. Schadegg advised that there was no licensing requirement for an outdoor recreational area since this was a senior daycare rather than a childcare facility; and that the facility would serve as an indoor social center for clientele of extended Hmong families needing this type of adult daycare for their family members to facilitate family work schedules. Mr. Schadegg noted that the applicant had not requested any outdoor recreation area; and given the configuration of the building, it would be difficult to provide such an area. Mr. Schadegg advised that this use would require fewer parking spaces than a normal office use as participants would not be driving and be dropped off directly at the front door by other family members, and only employees of the facility using parking space.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10849 (Attachment D) entitled, “A Resolution Amending the Centre Pointe Planned Unit Development Pertaining to 2890 – 2920 Centre Pointe Drive (PF10-027).”
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the motion agreeing that this appeared to be a good use; however, she reiterated her concern for the need for future flexibility to provide an outdoor recreational area.
9. General Ordinances for adoption
a. Consider an Ordinance Amending Roseville City Code, Section 1007.015 – Title 10, Zoning Regulations, to Include a List of Prohibited Uses within all Industrial Districts
Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment and prohibition of certain uses in Chapter 1007 Industrial Districts as detailed in the RCA dated October 11, 2010. Mr. Trudgeon reviewed various goals and policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in the Land Use, Economic Development, and Environmental Protection Chapters emphasizing the need for land use and development that is sensitive to and protective of the City’s environmental quality, natural amenities and aesthetics.
Mr. Trudgeon noted the list of prohibited uses proposed for amendment (Attachment B) and significant discussion raised throughout the process for potential alternatives. Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff continued to review those alternatives with merit for integration into the new zoning code still under development. Mr. Trudgeon noted the discussion held at the Planning Commission Public Hearing and concerns expressed by dissenting members, not with the prohibited uses listed, but whether the list was inclusive to all potential prohibitive uses that could come up in the future..
At the request of Councilmember Ihlan, Mr. Trudgeon confirmed that the written list of prohibited uses suggested by Dick Lambert, Chairman of the Roseville Citizens League dated October 5, 2010, would be integrated in the Use Chart as appropriate and modified accordingly.
Councilmember Ihlan noted two blanks in the chart (Attachment B) related to ornamental iron work; with Mr. Trudgeon noting this was an oversight on staff’s part, as well as related ordinance language that would be corrected before final draft and would be signified as “NP” for a non-permitted use.
Councilmember Ihlan suggested clarifying the Use Chart by removing double negatives on the chemical use portion. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this had been brought to staff’s attention previously as part of the process and that the correction would be incorporated as part of the new zoning code language.
Mayor Klausing requested that the City Attorney speak to affects the proposed ordinance amendment could have on pending applications.
City Attorney Charles Bartholdi advised that, under MN State Law in zoning cases, recent interpretations had indicated that no developer rights exist until construction of improvements are underway, with numerous cases supporting this interpretation. Mr. Bartholdi noted that there were several cases where a developer had actually acquired permits but not commenced construction, and were not permitted to proceed. Therefore, City Attorney Bartholdi, opined that this ordinance, if properly adopted, could apply to the currently-proposed asphalt plant as well.
Tam McGehee, 77 Mid Oaks
Ms. McGehee referenced an article in today’s St. Paul Pioneer Press related to this issue; and opined that it was up to the City Council to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens; and further opined that current performance standards did that; and questioned why the City Council hasn’t denied this current asphalt plant application. Ms. McGehee questioned what the City would gain, if granted an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) over what was already in the record.
At the request of Mayor Klausing, Mr. Trudgeon responded to Ms. McGehee, addressing the adequacy of current performance standards and how they were applied. Mr. Trudgeon noted that, as part of the environmental review process, substantial information had been submitted from various sources that would assist the City in making a determination as to whether this particular use could or could not meet those standards. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was between the applicant and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and that there were numerous questions on the sufficiency and accuracy of data submitted, thus the request for additional information. Mr. Trudgeon advised that it was up to the MPCA to respond to each of the comments received; however, he noted that staff had not seen those responses at this time, and was waiting until they were received before responding to citizens requesting an EIS, since that information would be used by staff to make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the proposed asphalt plant met the City’s performance standards or not. Mr. Trudgeon noted that it was important to have quantifiable information to make that judgment, thus staff was waiting to complete their review process until the MPCA had completed their review responses.
Ms. McGehee opined that staff had sufficient information from the 167 comments made to the MPCA; and noted that it was not clear from comments in the newspaper article and there was no guarantee whether MPCA staff would move forward to seek an EIS; and questioned if City staff would make their recommendations based on information already available, and if so, why further delay.
Mayor Klausing clarified the request currently before the City Council for amending City Code Chapter 1007 Industrial Districts to prohibit certain uses; and asked that Ms. McGehee focus her comments on that issue. Mayor Klausing noted that a previous application related to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for outdoor storage for the proposed asphalt plant was not currently before the City Council, pending completion of the environmental review before the MPCA. Mayor Klausing opined that at this point, it was premature to determine what the City Council’s action or response would be.
Ms. McGehee opined that the City’s existing performance standards were sufficient, and further opined that those highlighted on the proposed Use Table were less enforceable than those already in place. Ms, McGehee noted exceptions not currently addressed on the proposed Use Table, including that of a nuclear plant, nuclear waste storage facility, or a refuse burner. Ms. McGehee opined that the original asphalt plant application had provided a misconception and that it should have been brought forward before the CUP came forward.
Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the fuel tank addressed by Ms. McGehee was not part of the original application for staff review, but had been added by the applicant given the nature of the MPCA environmental review process as part of a future consideration.
Vivian Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn Road
Ms. Ramalingam expressed concern with lists being problematic if standards are formulated broadly and applicable to any situation.
Steve Dorff, Meritex, representative, business owner on the west side
Mr. Dorff expressed opposition to anything that would further hinder business marketing and redeveloping land; allowing for job growth. Mr. Dorff opined that the Industrial Zoning should continue as currently outlined and in the former master plan for the industrial area.
Greg Korstad, Attorney for Bituminous Roadways, Inc.
Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
Mr. Korstad spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance changes, as outlined in written comments, provided as a bench handout, and attached hereto and made a part thereof.
Mr. Korstad, while in partial agreement with City Attorney Bartholdi on the general rule under State law, opined that there was sufficient case law supporting such a change in ordinance in the middle of an application process, creating manifest injustice for the applicant, and that this application would meet that exception to the general rule.
Megan Dushin, 2249 St. Stephen Street
Ms. Dushin sought clarification on issues discussed prior to her arrival at tonight’s meeting related to the previous asphalt plant application and the ordinance amendments currently before the City Council at tonight’s meeting, which were addressed by Mayor Klausing.
Ms. Dushin opined that, based on comments in the RCA dated October 11, 2010 and meeting minutes of the October 2010 Planning Commission meeting, more time was needed for review of proposed environmental standards and issues, in addition to providing incentives for green industries.
Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane
Mr. Grefenberg noted that he shared Ms. Dushin’s concerns, and opined that the EAW nearing completion was not the final decision-maker, nor was the MPCA, but that the City Council was. Mr. Grefenberg advised that he shared the environmental concerns addressed in the EAW; however, noted there were other concerns related to traffic, impacts to surrounding businesses, and whether the plant met the goals and policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grefenberg noted that the City had previously indicated its interest in being a leader in green initiatives; and while the City had been told that this was an advanced asphalt plant, there were no givens, with citizens looking to the City Council to ensure that impacts to the community would be minimal if the plant proceeded and once it was up and functioning, it would be too late. Mr. Grefenberg opined that once the MPCA makes their decision on environmental issues, the City Council needed to make a critical decision on the impact to the community’s vitality.
Mr. Grefenberg reminded Councilmembers of their previous commitment in June of 2009 that it would send a more extensive notice to those neighbors having requested notice, and asked that they follow through on that commitment.
Related specifically to tonight’s request for prohibited uses in Industrial Districts, Mr. Grefenberg asked that the City Council not provide legal ammunition to anyone seeking private profits and not looking to the best interest of the community.
Returning to City Council discussion, Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the proposed amendments in an effort to clarify and articulate particular uses that would not be acceptable to the community. Mayor Klausing opined that he disagreed with Mr. Korstad, noting that when an industrial area was already well established, as it was in Roseville, the proposed amendments made sense. Mayor Klausing opined that he didn’t think staff, the Planning Commissioners, or he considered the amendments as an either/or situation, and that adopting performance standards seemed the most appropriate step to take as an interim approach until the new zoning code was adopted.
Councilmember Johnson echoed those comments of Mayor Klausing; however concurred with public comments that an actual list could be limiting. Councilmember Johnson suggested that this is the first component in what he hoped to see as a criteria-based component of the new zoning code, and expressed his interest in participating in that discussion. Councilmember Johnson opined that this amendment provided more compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the proposed amendments to clarify what is already prohibited under the City’s Industrial Zoning Code. For the record, Councilmember Ihlan provided her written comments, attached hereto and made a part thereof, related to the asphalt plant as well as the action currently before the City Council.
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1397 (Attachment C) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Roseville City Code, Title 10, Section 1007, to Prohibit Certain Uses in Industrial Districts.”
Mr. Bartholdi noted that this would require a 3/0 vote, as it was an ordinance and required a majority vote of all of the members of the City Council, not just those members present.
a. Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Management Plan Presentation
Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke provided an update and presented the EAB Management Plan, including the nine components of the Plan and a management approach: Inventory; Management Options; Ordinance; Wood Handling; Planting; Public Outreach & Education; Training; Monitoring; and Budgeting.
Discussion among staff and Councilmembers included enforcement of quarantines; proposed 2011 budgeting of $100,000 and subsequent funding for a revolving fund as needed; with the initial 2011 funding used to purchase equipment and staff training to allow staff to perform injections for treating trees, and some removal of dead and/or poor Ash trees; with Mr. Brokke advising that staff was not anticipating treatment of boulevard Ash trees, but their removal and replacement.
Additional discussion included the City’s tree inventory and statistics from other communities on the effectiveness of their treatments, as well as comparable Ash tree inventories and budget impacts to those communities, with that information currently unavailable; and impacts of winter conditions on EAB spread.
Mr. Brokke noted that the City had approximately 2,000 Ash trees, with 150-200 identified as in poor condition and needing removal.
Councilmember Johnson expressed concerns with availability of budget funds and resources.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of the Roseville Parks and Recreation Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Management Plan (Attachment A) and approach, dated September 28, 2010.
Councilmember Ihlan clarified that her support of the motion was that it was specific to receiving and approving the plan; however, she concurred with those concerns expressed by Councilmember Johnson related to committing to funding allocations and/or funding sources.
11. Public Hearings
a. Public Hearing for Roseville Wine & Spirits, LLC, d/b/a Snelling Liquors application for Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Transfer
Finance Director Chris Miller reviewed the notification process for tonight’s Public Hearing; previous suspension and fine related to the previous ownership group that had been served and paid and not related to this new ownership group; and completion by staff of necessary background checks for the current applicants and ownership group, with no outstanding issues.
Mayor Klausing opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:34 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on Roseville Wine & Spirits, LLC, d/b/a Snelling Liquors, 2217 Snelling Avenue N, application for Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Transfer; with no one appearing for or against.
The applicant was present, and briefly addressed questions of the City Council specific to their location.
12. Business Items (Action Items)
a. Consider Roseville Wine & Spirits, LLC, d/b/a Snelling Liquors application for Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Transfer
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the application request by Roseville Wine & Spirits, LLC, d/b/a Snelling Liquors, 2217 Snelling Avenue N, for Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Transfer.
b. Consider Employee Benefits Cafeteria Plan
Human Resources Manager Eldona Bacon briefly reviewed the requested action detailed in the RCA dated October 11, 2010.
Discussion included how the proposed plan(s) were underwritten by Health Partners, while serving as a self-insured public sector pool, offering significant reductions based on individual city-client claims, but with premium rates negotiated on the experience averaged across the entire pool of over 33,000 individuals.
Ms. Bacon briefly reviewed higher claims for the City’s dental coverage, and proposed slight increase for all tiers to remain self-insured.
Ms. Bacon addressed the one additional year remaining on the Long Term Disability and Life Insurance; but addressed recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) increases to their table ratings for various age groups and subsequent increases for additional life insurance options available to employees.
Ms. Bacon reviewed the City’s Employee Wellness initiatives for increased preventative care for employees through employee health check-ups, moving from 30% to 60%; and suggested an additional incentive per from $10 to $25 per employee to provide additional incentive, ultimately reducing the health benefit claims.
Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of the 2011 employee insurance programs, fund allocations, and respective contracts, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 11, 2010; and to authorize staff to enter into any necessary contracts and/or Joint Powers Agreements (JPA’s) with the National Joint Powers Association (NJPA) pool; subject to review and approval of applicable contracts by the City Attorney.
c. Consider a Resolution Approving the Request by Eagle Crest Senior Housing LLC and Clear Wire for a PUD AMENDMENT to allow additional Wireless Telecommunication Equipment at 2925 Lincoln Drive
City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed the request of Eagle Crest Senior Housing LLC and Clear Wire for approval of a PUC AMENDMENT to allow additional wireless telecommunication equipment on the rooftop at 2925 Lincoln Drive as detailed in the RCA dated October 11, 2010; and addressed.
Mayor Klausing asked staff to clarify the City’s ability to not consider the request based on health concerns, as addressed by a written public comment included in tonight’s packet.
Mr. Paschke advised that the City could not base their denial solely on health issues for telecommunication antenna, as that is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and applicants were required to seek permits specifically from the FCC.
Discussion included interpretations of zoning code (Section 1013.10) for Industrial and Business Districts, as well as permitted uses in residential neighborhoods; and different land use parameters established by Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreements beyond those provided in zoning code.
The applicant was present, but had no comment.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10850 (Attachment F) entitled, “A Resolution Approving an Amendment to the EagleCrest Planned Unit Development, 2925-2945 Lincoln Drive (PF10-022); to allow EagleCrest Senior Housing LLC the installation of additional freestanding and flush-mounted telecommunication equipment on their campus.
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion, opining that there was no basis for this permitted use under City Code, and at a minimum, it would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Ayes: Johnson and Klausing.
d. Consider Approving the Request by United Properties for the PLAT for a Senior Cooperative Residence at 2008 – 2010 Cleveland Avenue
City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request of United Properties for approval of a PLAT to allow the proposed senior cooperative residence at 3008-3010 Cleveland Avenue to be developed in two phases, consistent with the development approval as detailed in the RCA dated October 11, 2010; and dividing the land into three specific lots for phased construction.
Mr. Paschke clarified that tonight’s action was specific to approve the plat and lot lines; and that if and when the assisted living phase of the project came forward, the Outlot and lots to the south would then need to be developed, and a new plat created to house the assisted living project, and that it would then have to meet all terms and conditions as required by the City Council.
Discussion included non existence of any underlying zoning; phasing of the project and the approval process for each.
United Properties representative and developer Alex Hall was present but had no comment.
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of the PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT (Attachment C) of 2008-2010 Cleveland Avenue for United Properties; based on the information and comments detailed in Sections 4-6 and the condition so Section 7 of the RCA dated October 11, 2010.
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion, opining that she did not have sufficient information about the requirements applying to the PUD in a B-6 or Residential Zone, specifically related to landscaping, green space and other considerations; and without that specific information about a future concept plan for the Outlot, the record provided insufficient information to meet plat procedure ordinance requirements at this time.
At the request of Mayor Klausing, Mr. Paschke reiterated that when the City Council previously approved the PUD Amendment for the project, as downsized from another previously approved project in 2008, all that information had been provided at that time and the project received subsequent City Council approval. Mr. Paschke noted that this action as to plat the land consistent with those previous approvals, as they had both expired; and that it was not necessary to have a sketch plan once a project had proceeded to a development plan, since that included provisions related to utilities, grading, infrastructure, and landscaping, as well as other provisions to be addressed and negotiated through that plan.
At the request of Mayor Klausing as to any concerns from a legal standpoint, Mr. Bartholdi responded that as long as staff had received and approved the information previously provided and approved by the City Council that was adequate.
13. Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
14. City Manager Future Agenda Review
Acting City Manager Miller distributed upcoming draft agenda items and briefly reviewed those items.
15. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Mayor Klausing discussed scheduling time for public comment at a meeting prior to adoption of the final budget and tax levy; as well as potentially cancelling the December 20, 2010 meeting if appropriate.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:08 pm.