Loading...
1999-08-03 Council minutesPage No. 1 August 3, 1999 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY ` STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, August 3, 1999 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Krebsbach and Schneeman. Councilmember Dwyer had notified Council that he would be absent. Councihnernber Huber had notified Council that he would be late and arrived at 7:45 p.m. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Councilmember Schneeman moved adoption of the agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Councilmember Krebsbach moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on July 6, 1999 as amended. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Krebsbach moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move item 6b, July 13 Parks and Recreation Commission minutes, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the June 8, 1999 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. b. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the July 27 Planning Commission meeting. c. Acknowledgment of a memo from NDC4 regarding its draft budget for 2000. Page No. 2 August 3, 1999 d. Acknowledgment of information regarding the National League of Cities Congress of Cities. e. Acknowledgment of the Code Enforcement monthly report for July. f. Authorization to purchase five laptop computers, modems, mounts and antennae from Portable Computer Systems, Inc., in the amount of $39,996.00, including tax. g. Authorization for staff to proceed with the striping of city streets and to fund $8,000 for this purpose from the street sweeping budget. h. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated August 3, 1999. i. Approval of the List of Claims dated August 3, 1999 and totaling $242,068.78. j. Authorization for the City Administrator to attend the ICMA Conference from September 26 through September 29. j Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PARKS AND RECREATION Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she had questions about the COMMISSION MINUTES Commission's discussion about maintenance of the track at Henry Sibley High School and the discussion about the city's contribution. She stated that she would like more information in terms of the Sibley Park ballfield area. Assistant Hollister clarified that Chair Spicer's comments about a misrepresentation of the cost refers in general to the school district and not to the track. Responding to a question about Commissioner Linnell's comments about recreation program bus trips departing from West St. Paul, Assistant Hollister explained that the recreation programmer does a lot of piggy backing with West St. Paul programs because they have many things going on and a lot of the field trips leave from West St. Paul City Hall in order to get economy of scale. The comment was that Mr. Linnell would like more of the trips to leave from Mendota Heights. Page No. 3 August 3, 1999 Assistant Hollister was directed to check into maintenance policies, not only regarding the running track but the ballfield complex as well, and also the co- participation with the City of West St. Paul. It was noted that the City does not want to be put into the position where some of the city's residents are precluded from participating in programs because West St. Paul is taking the space. Administrator Batchelder clarified that the track is not part of the Sibley Park where the city has a maintenance agreement with the school district. The second point of clarification was on j oint programming of trips. He stated that the deal that Mendota Heights, West St. Paul, South St. Paul and Inver Grove have worked out is that if each city plans a portion of the trips it is joint participation and there are no non - resident fees. Often, Mendota Heights does not have enough children registered for a trip to justify the trip. He informed Council that none of the children who sign up for trips are left out, because if one bus fills up, another bus is provided. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to acknowledge the minutes of the July 13, 1999 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Krebsbach moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on July 20, 1999. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Abstain: 1 Mertensotto Councilmember Huber moved approval of the minutes of the special meeting held on July 27, 1999. Mayor Mertensotto seconded the motion. Ayes: 2 Nays: 0 Abstain: 2 Krebsbach, Schneeman SUPERAMERICA TIF Council acknowledged a letter from Mr. Peter Coyle, of Larkin Hoffinan, Daly & Lindgren, legal counsel for SuperAmerica, regarding the SuperAmerica Tax Increment Agreement. Council also acknowledged an associated memo from Administrator Batchelder. Mr. Mike Cronin, representing SuperAmerica, and Mr. Gary Van Queeg, from Larkin, Hoffinan, were present for the discussion. Page No. 4 August 3, 1999 Mayor Mertensotto gave a history and reviewed the letter from Mr. Coyle responding the Council's concerns about the transfer of ownership between SuperAmerica and Marathon Oil. Councilmember Krebsbach asked what the percentage of ownership is. Mr. Van Queeg responded that all of the assets of SuperAmerica were transferred to the new company, Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, and this represents 38% ownership in the new venture. Marathon Oil has 62% ownership. Councilmember Schneeman moved to reconsider the previous ruling made by Council in regards to the SuperAmerica (Ashland Oil Company) merger with Marathon Oil, now known as Speedway SuperAmerica. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilmember Krebsbach moved that the city waives its right to exercise or terminate the pay -as- you -go tax increment agreement under the terms of the agreement between the city and Super America (Ashland Oil) and finds that the merger of SuperAmerica (Ashland Oil) and Marathon Oil is not a transfer within the meaning of the agreement. Councilmember Schneeinan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 99 -20, BUROW Council acknowledged an application from Ms. Lynn Burow for a conditional use permit for a detached garage at 1219 Victoria Road. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Ms. Burow was present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the information Council has is that Ms. Burow does not have an attached garage now and that if she had an attached garage she could not retain that garage and build a second one unless the existing structure was sealed off. He stated that it appears that the Planning Commission has considered all of the aspects of the issue. He further stated that if Council grants approval, the approving resolution should state that the applicant does not have an attached garage. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would like to delay approval until Council has letters of approval from the neighbors. Page No. 5 August 3, 1999 Administrator Batchelder pointed out that notices of the Planning Commission hearing were sent out to all property owners within 350 feet of the Burow property and that no one appeared to object or sent objections to the city. Ms. Burow pointed out that the staff memo is in error where it states that the garage would be at the northwest corner of the lot -- it would be in the northeast corner. She informed Council that her house is stucco and she wants to put vinyl siding on the garage because stucco is so expensive, and the Planning Commission said that would be fine. The garage will match the color of the house. Councilmember Krebsbach felt that it would only be fair that the neighbors have a greater understanding of what Ms. Burow's intent is. Councilmember Huber responded that there was a public hearing and it was televised on cable tv. He did not know what else the city could do. Councilmember Schneeman agreed, stating that there is no point in delaying action. She also stated that she does not know how Council j can dictate to Ms. Burow what she can put on her garage. If there had been any objection, people would have called City Hall. Ms. Burow informed Council that her neighbor, Mrs. Boland, is aware she plans to build a garage and she knows the materials. City Attorney Tom Hart stated that the hearing notice satisfies the public notice requirement and adequate notice has been made under the requirements of the city's ordinance. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the notice did not inform other property owners that the application is for a detached garage or that Ms. Burow plans to use siding. People who were adjacent to the property were not informed that there would be a detached garage at the corner of the property. Attorney Hart responded that the plans are available and there was a public hearing and there were no public comments. If someone had a concern they could have appeared at the hearing or watched it on cable. He stated that Council's task is to determine whether there are conditions that should be applied to the conditional use permit in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. If there are concerns on health, safety and welfare, Council needs to consider Page No. 6 August 3, 1999 them. If there are not concerns, Council should determine whether there are conditions which should be placed on the permit that protect the legitimate interests of the public. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that her point is that she does not feel that the neighbors were appropriately informed. Councilmember Huber responded that if Council wants to work with staff on changing the information that goes out to neighbors on public hearings, he would be willing to discuss it, but that Council cannot change it selectively. Councilmember Schneeman moved adoption of Resolution No. 99- 42, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE FOR 1219 VICTORIA ROAD," amended to include that the applicant does not have an attached garage. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion Ayes: 3 Nays: 1 Krebsbach There was discussion over changing the form of hearing notices to give more information as to what is proposed to be done, including j location, etc. Attorney Hart stated that he believes what Councilmember Krebsbach is saying is that the city should include the nature of the improvement that is the subject of the conditional use permit. He stated that he would support that, but that the city must avoid details. Notifying the recipients of the nature of the improvement is appropriate but how the city describes it must be very objective. Mayor Mertensotto directed Assistant Hollister to prepare a draft resolution on the structure of public notices for Council consideration. CASE NO. 99-23, CONVENT Council acknowledged an application from the Convent of the OF THE VISITATION Visitation for a wetlands permit to allow additional parking at Visitation School. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Architect Gary Ostberg was present on behalf of Visitation. Mr. Ostberg informed Council that during certain times of the year there are sports activities and there are cars parked on both sides of Visitation Drive. It is very difficult when school is in session, and Visitation would like to build a 62 car parking lot between the trees along Visitation Drive. The first 500 feet of Visitation Drive was Page No. 7 August 3, 1999 owned by MnDot and was deeded to the city. There are three ponds on the Visitation property and when the site is disturbed for grading, construction will be within 100 feet of a wetlands. Visitation plans to restore the property as quickly as possible after constructing the lot. Mayor Mertensotto asked if drainage will be increased and where the runoff will flow. Mr. Ostberg responded that he believes that all the ponds are tied together. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the parking lot will increase the rate of flow so that the water will go into the pond faster and then to the other ponds. He asked where the water goes after is goes off Visitation property. Mr. Ostberg responded that the southwest part of the parking lot will go back to the southwest of the property, which is where the trees are. Only .one quarter to one third will go to the pond. Mayor Mertensotto stated that his concern is that the city pay j attention to where the increased flow will go, the time it will take to get there, and whether the storm facilities are adequate to handle it. He stated that Council will ask city engineering staff to the storm water drainage plan to be sure it meets city requirements. Mr. Ostberg stated that Visitation had talked about doing curb and gutter around the parking lot but the Planning Commission did not want it. He also stated that he reviewed the plans with the City Planner and Public Works Director and they did not see any problems. Responding to a question from Councilmember Huber, Mr. Ostberg stated that Visitation will definitely stripe Visitation Drive and landscape the area between the parking lot and the drive and will also be signing pedestrian crosswalks to direct pedestrians. Councilmember Schneeman moved adoption of Resolution No. 99- 43, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR CONVENT OF THE VISITATION," amended to reflect that approval is based on Alternate A, and with the added condition that no earth moving occur until city engineering has reviewed and approved the storm - water drainage plan. Page No. 8 August 3, 1999 Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 99 -24, KRUEGER Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Robert Krueger for a ten foot front yard setback variance to allow construction of an addition to his home at 646 Brookside Lane. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Krueger was present for the discussion. Mr. Krueger reviewed his plans for Council. He informed Council that the existing porch is 20 feet from the property line and is attached to the main structure. The addition will go onto the back of the house. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, he stated that the porch is closer to Brookside Lane than the addition, which will be 1 1/2 feet back from the porch. The addition will be 32 1/2 feet from the street, and the porch is 32 feet from the street. Mr. Krueger informed Council that at one time he owned the property that Brookside Lane, but gave the city the right -of -way and was told that he could do what he wanted. Councilmember Schneeman noted that all of the neighbors were notified and have approved of the addition. Councilmember Huber asked if there is any reason to grandfather the porch since it is non - conforming. Mayor Mertensotto responded that he does not think there is a need to recognize the porch because there will be no change to it. Councilmember Schneeman moved adoption of Resolution No. 99- 44,, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A HOME ADDITION FOR 646 BROOKSIDE LANE." Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 99-25, CENTRE Council acknowledged an application for approval of a POINT SIGN PLAN comprehensive signage plan for the Centre Point Business Park. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Rancone, representing Roseville Properties, was present for the discussion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Page No. 9 August 3, 1999 Mr. Rancone showed Council a sketch of the business park and informed Council that he has a contract with Gopher State to put one of the signs on their property. The signs will be two masonry piers of brick and block with illuminated letters. (He showed Council a rendering of the sign.) It is about seven feet to the top of the piers and about 6 feet from the ground to the top of the signs. The lighting is similar to the City Hall sign, and the signs will be about 14 feet in total length. The signs would be big enough to be seen from T.H. 110 and the corner of Lexington Avenue. If enough space is not provided under the signs there will not be enough room for snow build up and people will not see them. No one knows where Center Pointe Drive is and the signs will help direct them. The two signs that are currently proposed are identical and the lighting will be turned off by 10:00 p.m. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 99- 45, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN FOR CENTRE POINTS BUSINESS PARK OF ROSE VILLE PROPERTIES." Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Assistant Hollister informed Council that whereas Roseville Properties had originally applied for two variances under the strict interpretation of the ordinance, Commissioner Tilsen suggested that the city consider this the comprehensive signage plan for the office park so no variances would be needed. Responding to a question about whether this precludes individual property owners from future signs, Mr. Rancone stated that 50 square feet. of signage is allowed for each building. He would take the total square footage for these signs and reduce the overall square footage'of sign space allowed for the development. He felt that there would still be adequate sign area still available. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that each sign must stand on its own merits. CASE NO. 99 -26, FEFFER Council acknowledged a request from Mr. Tony Feffer for concept plan review for a proposed office PUD on Lexington Avenue. Mr. Feffer and Mr. Bruce Everly were present for the discussion. Mr. Feffer stated that the property is located at the corner of Lexington Avenue and Mendota Heights Road and consists of 2.24 acres., He proposes three residential style office buildings with a Page No. 10 August 3, 1999 total of 22,500 square feet for the three structures. He showed pictures of similar developments in two other cities Mayor Mertensotto asked why the developers wish to proceed under a PUD. Mr. Feffer responded that in order to get the character of a three building development that is the only way he can do it. The only other choice is a rectangular, 3 story building. The buildings would be set up as legal condominiums which wold allow businesses to buy either a portion of a structure or all 6,000 square feet. Mayor Mertensotto stated that a PUD is generally used where a development can meet all requirements if done individually and uses common facilities. The city's PUD procedures require ten acres of land, and Council has the liberty under the ordinance to reduce that requirement to five acres, but he does not recall any PUD under five acres. Mr. Feffer responded that Section 13 of the Zoning Ordinance allows Council to waive the 10 acre minimum requirement and his view is that if Council could waive the 10 acre requirement it could waive j the five acre requirement. He stated that he is not asking for any variances on parking and all setbacks are pursuant to B -1 zoning. The property lends itself to this type of development. Mayor Mertensotto asked what the advantage is to the city from a development standpoint. Mr. Feffer responded that the development would be sold as units or as buildings. He would set it up as legal condominiums, and it is likely-that, 'given the size of two of the buildings, they will be sold to one user. The other, 10,000 square foot, building would probably be split up. Mr. Everly stated that the market will be executive level offices, like dental and law firms, and that he feels the concept will improve the look of the area. He informed Council that his offices is part of a condominium association. Responding to a question from Councilmember Schneeman, Mr. Feffer stated that there is a county - designated ingress /egress, so the development has to share acces's with Turner's Gymnastics. Page No. 11 August 3, 1999 Councilmember Krebsbach asked Mr. Feffer to clarify why he cannot do this without a PUD. Mr. Feffer responded that on this piece of property he could not build three buildings without variances for setbacks from each other. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that if Council likes the concept, the alternative would be to grant variances. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the development would have to have a separate parking lot for each building. Responding to a question, Mr. Feffer stated that there would be adequate parking space without a PUD and that he has done a calculation that shows 38.9% green space. Councilmember Schneeman noted that there was talk about garages. She asked where they would be. Mr. Feffer `responded that he has talked about the possibility of putting in two garages but that is not something he needs . Mr. Everly stated that the benefit to the city is that there will be an owner who will have quite a bit larger investment than a warehouse building. The buildings would be valued 30 to 40% more than a tilt up block structure. Mr. Feffer informed Council that he first approached city staff on the concept of an office /service project and one of the issues was dock doors. Then he carne up with the idea of this type of development. One of the issues with a two building development would be that the market he is trying to reach is lower than 10.000 square feet. It would be difficult to find a couple of users that need that much space. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that if the development were one larger building and one smaller one, she feels it would look more like an office building and would reduce the need for variance if the property were divided in two. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if the desire is for one tenant in each of the small structures and two. or three in the large structure, he did not understand that condominium approach. Page No. 12 August 3, 1999 Mr. Feffer responded that it is still set up as a legal condo even though there is one owner in a building because he would own a percentage of the total association property. Attorney Hart stated that the nature of the ownership would be determined by the condominium documents. The developer would have to determine how many units there would be per building and that would have to come before Council. Someone would own a unit and have an interest in the common areas that belong to the association. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would like two buildings. Assistant Hollister stated when the applicants came to staff, they wanted three buildings. The only way to do that would be as a PUD. Council has indicted that they do not want to go less than 5 acres for a PUD, and if there are to be three buildings, this would have to be divided into three lots. Staff has not analyzed the proposal in that light, but can do so and fully examining the buildings and the lots for conformance to standard guidelines of the zoning district. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council has religiously adhered to not going less than 5 acres for a PL D. He did not know what the alternatives are for this site, but if there were more than one lot, there would need to be more curb cuts on a busy street. He stated that this is a concept that Council has had no background or experience with and he felt that Council would like to see some express proposal. He stated that this is not the right site for a PLTD. Mr. Feffer responded that he wants to do something that has a chance of getting approved but does not want to spend a lot of money on a proposal. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he feels he can say that the Council is not enamoured with the proposal as a PUD. Also, there was a comment made that 2.4 acres may not be large enough for three buildings. He stated that there must be some continuity of use also, and cohesiveness of activities to bring people to the site. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that traffic problems would also be a question what kind of traffic the development would generate in terms of trips per day. MENDOTA HOMES Council acknowledged an update report from Public Works Director Danielson regarding the landscaping letter of credit from Mendota Page No. 13 August 3, 1999 Homes. Council also acknowledged associated documentation and a letter from Mr. David Hellmuth, legal counsel for Mendota Homes. Mr. John Mathern, from Mendota Homes, was present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that of the 34 units in the development, the owners of 13 of the units are present for this discussion. Mr. Mathern stated that he is present on behalf of his letter of credit and the letter from his legal counsel. He stated that he sent a response to the July 14 letter to him from Mr. Danielson. He stated that work cannot be done between units 842 and 840 because there is an addition under construction at 840. That work will not be completed until the end of August. On that basis, he requested an extension from Mr. Danielson. His other concern in his letter is that issues of maintenance may be getting confused with landscaping, such as weeds, etc. He stated that if he is going to be held accountable for maintenance as well as landscaping, he needs more time.. He has done drainage work and replanted trees and had two or three re- inspections and each time additional issues come up that were not discussed the first time. He stated that the last unit will be sold and occupied in September and he would like to prepare a list with city staff on what needs to be done. Mayor Mertensotto responded that if Mr. Mathern has not done maintenance to begin with and is expecting residents to do it, he has created a situation where the association is not capable of taking over. Council would like to see this development completed. The city has had a lot of money tied up in this as well, and Mr. Mathern could not have developed the property without city assistance. Now Council is getting complaints. He stated that without going through all "of the complaints that have been documented in the July 14 memo, he regards those items as being Mr. Mathem's responsibilities. He stated that Mr. Mathern must get the project to the point where it can be turned over to the association and then becomes maintenance. He asked Mr. Mathern what items in the July 14 letter he feels do not fall into his responsibility. Mr. Mathern responded that he attempted twice last year to turn the association over to the association. He is still running the association. There was litigation by two members of the association and those are coming to an end. He believes he can resole the issues in September and then turn the association over to the association and leave as president. If the July 14 letter is to be used as the Page No. 14 August 3, 1999 definitive issues, he would not take issue with it. He stated that he would just ask for an extension of time to complete that list. Mayor Mertensotto asked the residents if they would agree to granting an additional sixty days to complete the items that are listed in the July 14 letter from Mr. Danielson. That 60 day period would constitute August and September and would end 60 days from today. Completion of all items must be done by October 1. Mr. Mathern responded that he would not argue with that or the items on the list and will take care of them. Ms. Jean Meyer, 831 Monet Court stated that she has expressed many of her complaints to Mr. Danielson and Mendota Homes. Right now the biggest complaint is that they do not do things in a workmanlike manner or with good materials. Regarding Mr. Danielson's June 11 letter stating that irrigation needs to be repaired, she stated that she lives right next to the large pit. That is a 9 1/2 by 11 1/2 foot.,area where they put bark with no tarp under it and now weeds are growing up. There are two scrubby shrubs in that oval, and more shrubs are needed as well as some perennials. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the city needs one source that collects all the information. Ms. Meyer responded that the tree that was planted last spring in front of her property has a six inch gouge out of it. Mayor Mertensotto asked Ms. Meyer to document her concerns in writing. Ms. Phyllis Meyer, 842 Monet Court, stated that her comment is that Mr. Mathern never meets a deadline. She asked what will happen if the work does not get finished by the deadline Council set Councilmember Krebsbach stated that her concern about not meeting the deadline is that part of the discussion in the letter is that this is viewed as maintenance and that is why Council is setting a deadline. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council certainly wants to have a completed project. This project should have been completed and squared away long ago and there are still many discontented owners. Mr. Jack Barber, 810 Monet Court, stated that he thinks many things went 'on long before he moved in on April 17, 1998. He has been Page No. 15 August 3, 1999 reading a file that goes back to September, 1996 that is saying } exactly the same things the residents are saying tonight. Someone needs to supervise the work that is being done so that it is done right. If it had been done the first time, the residents would not be here tonight. Mayor Mertensotto responded that Council needs to talk about what is acceptable workmanship. That certainly is not putting wood chips onto sod without plastic under it. Mr. Barber stated that the residents are not looking for golden issues. They are looking for a reasonable 4 inches of dirt under landscaping, etc. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council has set deadlines that have not been met and has to do something. Almost one -third of the homeowners have come tonight to complain about the project, and that is not typical in Mendota Heights. Mr: Barber stated that this is not an organized campaign to get people out. He did not think there is anyone in the development who would not want to see a reasonable job done so that Mr. Mathem can go. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Mr. Mathem has agreed to the issues in the letter an has committed to do them in 60 days. He further stated that Mr. Mathem had better meet that deadline or Council could make a finding that his letter of credit would be in jeopardy. City Attorney Hart stated that by its very terms, the letter of credit secures the landscaping. There would be a breach under the developers agreement and there could be a claim for damages if the letter of credit does not complete the work. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the city could needs to go after more than $65,000 to get the work done, Council will do it. He stated that as the developer, Mr. Mathem knows that the work needs to be done. He further stated that he is tired of this, that he wants the issue resolved, and that he is not impressed with Mr. Mathern's attorney's letter. Mr. Barber stated that he would like to see the work that is being done be supervised by someone other than the developer or city staff - someone who is a professional in the field. Page No. 16 August 3, 1999 Mayor Mertensotto responded that if Mr. Mathern is not going to i provide supervision and gets into this situation again, he will just be jeopardizing his own financial well being. Council is not going to provide a supervisor for this - the city is not the developer. Council wants the results to correct the issues. Mr. Barber stated that he has tried to keep Mr. Mathern from wasting money on the project, and if he dies it right the first time, he won't have to do it again. Councilmember Schneeman asked Mr. Mathern if he has a contract with a landscape architect or if he has changed landscape architects. She asked who is doing the work, because he seems to be doing a poor job. . Mr. Mathern responded that he has used a couple of different companies. Because of the number of people here, he has agreed simply to accept the July 14 list. The trees have been planted and the shrubs have been planted. He stated that he will accept the issues in the letter. The city staff will provide him with elevations for drainage areas and he will attend to a wall that has come up as an issue. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Mr. Mathern must call Public Works Director Danielson for an inspection. He asked Mr. Mathern to work in cooperation with the city and get this done. Council wants to see a successful project and wants the residents to be happy with a project that is completed as soon as possible. BUDGET WORKSHOP Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Batchelder regarding adjourmnent to the scheduled budget workshop on August 17: Mayor Mertensotto stated that if Council is going to meet early on a meeting night, it should be for discussion of Freeway Road or the Comprehensive Plan. Treasurer Shaughnessy stated that Council must certify a preliminary levy by September 1. Mayor Mertensotto stated that that would give Council time to review the document and meet with department heads if Council has concerns. Page No. 17 August 3, 1999 Administrator Batchelder stated the proposed budget is no where near the levy limit. What is important to remember is that the preliminary levy is what the city will put in a notice to the property owners. Councilmember Krebsbach felt that Council should conduct a budget workshop. Mayor Mertensotto responded that Council is going to have another meeting on August 17 and will have the budget by then. If Council members have some specific questions they can bring them up at that meeting and Council can discuss them. Councilmember Huber moved to rescind the 5:30 p.m. starting time for the August 17, 1999 meeting and return the meeting to its regular 7:30 start time. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Schneeman moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:20 p.m. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk ENUA-WI; Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor