Loading...
6/19/2006 - City Council - Regular - Minutes CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 19,2006 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present and Reinhardt was excused. Staff present: Administrator Friesen, Utility Superintendent Goman, Deputy Clerk Corl and Office Assistant Lewin. Others present: Attorneys Tom Seifert and Nancy Beck; Planner Dan Petrik; Engineer Ken Adolf; Planning Commissioner Mason 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Williamson and seconded by Hughes to adopt the agenda. Hughes amended the motion to move item 5.c) to before 5.a). All votes were aye to approve the amended agenda. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Oa) Council Minutes June 5, 2006 Motion by Widmer and seconded by Williamson to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting June 5,2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. b) Special Meeting—June 9, 2006 Motion by Hughes and seconded by Widmer to approve the minutes for the Special Meeting June 9,2006. In discussion Rockvam referred to the proposed fence at the Marina Car Wash, 4700 Shoreline and asked if they need a special fence permit. Petrik said the City requires a separate permit but we have not seen any documentation. Widmer noted the owner would like a nine foot fence. Petrik said the fence would be part of the landscaping plan and a nine foot fence is on the high side. Williamson pointed out the minutes reflect the meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. PUBLIC FORUM—No one present. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. • 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & APPLICATIONS c) Robert Olsen, 4210 West Arm Drive Council—6/19/06 1 Olsen stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approved his plans for a flag • stone patio at the lake's edge. He explained a new wall was put in last fall on his property and he would like to improve it. He continued his proposal is to construct a patio. Olsen said boulders are there now and it was filled with red rock but the association did not like the rock and it was removed last fall. He added he would like to put in a different type of flagstone with pea rock and class five gravel. Olsen stated he submitted a half section drawing to the MCWD and at that time the water was 19 inches below the top of the wall. He said they saw no reason not to allow the patio and now he needs the City to approve it. Olsen said he submitted another drawing to the City showing the present dirt level and planned patio that has a slight slope to the lake. He said the patio is seven feet deep and flagstone is the top dressing with class five gravel between the stones for the water to drain. He submitted pictures of rock at the waters edge that is grandfathered in and that is the area he would like to put in the patio. Hughes verified the rock was installed by the developer. Rockvam verified when the red rock was removed and the boulders added the edging was moved forward. Rockvam pointed out correspondence between the planner and staff and one of the items of research from the planner stated there were certain conditions agreed to with West Arm Town homes when it was built. He read the memo dated 6/19/06 that gave background on the original project. He pointed out it states leaving grass in its natural state; there are two such projects already in place and it is not sure if they were approved; Olsen's proposed patio is a problem because the original agreement does not allow anything in the 50 foot shore land impact zone and 70% has to • remain in its natural state. Seifert pointed out the planner's memo is saying an on-grade wooden patio is allowed. Williamson stated the flagstone is being separated so rain water can pass thru but that is not the purpose of the original requirement; staff tried to figure how Olsen could put the proposed patio by the lake; Spring Park has the most liberal requirements for the setback from the lake. He said this development was debated how the development would fit on the property and a big part of getting the development approved were the restrictions for the property. Williamson told Olsen he has a nice plan but it is not allowed and the original agreement was a protective measure. Petrik confirmed Olsen's intent is to allow natural vegetation and protect erosion and if other people want to do the same thing, it is not allowed. Rockvam pointed out Olsen has rip rap and he may have to add to it. He said wherever people have rip rap they usually put river rock behind it and edge the grass. He added there is a large area in the development where the grass is growing on bituminous. Petrik said the question is how impervious is the proposed patio. Olsen verified he cannot create the patio. Hughes asked if the area of rock and grass area was increased beyond what the developer did. Olsen said the extended rip rap gave him extra space. Petrik said the original landscape plan does not show rock at the waters edge. Rockvam said the residents want to protect the shoreline from eroding. Rockvam verified the patio is not acceptable and the issue is how far back could the rock go. Petrik said river rock is a small enough stone to use. Rockvam said Olsen's lot is the lowest lot • in the development and this would not be setting a precedent because his lot is the only one like Council—6/19/06 2 it in the development. Olsen asked if he could put pea rock in the location of the proposed • patio. Widmer pointed out he would be replacing the rock that was there before. Motion by Hughes and seconded by Widmer to allow replacement of the red rock with rock of a similar size to what was there before. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Cigarette License Application Approval, BP Station, 4311 Shoreline Drive (Kevin Koenig, Croix Oil) Kevin Koenig, from Croix Oil, was present for any questions on the recent sign permit applications for `BP'. He said Croix Oil is the owner of the land and currently Bill Townsend leases the site. Friesen pointed out the Planning Commission approved the sign permit. Rockvam said the Council does not want to discuss the sign permit application without information. Koenig said they are changing over to `BP' and changing the image. Hughes said the current owner indicated he is changing the interior. Koenig said the remodeling would give it more of an upscale image; Townsend is going to do the interior and Croix Oil is doing the exterior. Hughes asked if they are going to do any more with landscaping and was told not any more that what is there now. Rockvam said what they want to see at the Council level is the color graphics and it is premature to ask for approval at this time. Friesen said Koenig's presence is just a chance to give the Council information on what is going on. Koenig stated they are just changing the graphics to `BP' and the pumps will also be re-imaged. • Friesen said right now it is just the signage that has come before the City. Koenig said there are no changes in the operation of the business. Rockvam said there could be plantings along the area where the current art signs are located. Mason pointed out Mr. Townsend was not present for the sign permit application at the Planning Commission meeting and they were not able to discuss landscaping and parking. Rockvam said if no one is present the Planning Commission could table or deny the request. Hughes asked the time table of the change over. Koenig said they want to get it done as quickly as possible. He added he did not realize there were other issues involved; they want the site to look nice and BP would not be doing the landscaping, it would be Croix Oil. Motion by Williamson and seconded by Hughes to approve the renewal of the existing cigarette license for Spur/BP, 4311 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. a) Planning Commission Minutes—June 14, 2006 1. Recommendation Ordinance 62.11 —Construction Staging Rockvam explained ordinance issues were raised by the two condo projects and the Council placed a moratorium on new developments. He said he was disappointed the changes are not underlined to be more easily spotted. Rockvam noted the Planning Commission did recommend further changes. It was noted there was no one present for the public hearing. Rockvam pointed out on page 3, f. the hours are limited on Saturday to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 • p.m. Rockvam said that was a subjective paragraph. Seifert stated it was recommended to eliminate that paragraph but the Planning Commission chose to eliminate the word `loud'. Council—6/19/06 3 Rockvam was concerned the sentence serves a purpose. Beck stated the hours of operation created a question of exactly what applies. Rockvam said construction is messy and noisy. • Beck said the ordinance could be enforced if there is a limit on the hours. Widmer pointed out certain aspects of construction have to be done i.e. pilings but they are noisy. Motion by Williamson and seconded by Williamson to strike the first sentence on page 3, f. Noise — "No construction activities shall cause or permit any loud or excessive noise . . . . All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Seifert stated the Planning Commission felt there was no way to enforce this paragraph. Rockvam noted the next proposed change is on page 5. j. Signage and it is a new section added with six recommended types of signs. Williamson said signage is a solution so no one can plead ignorance. Petrik pointed out a Commissioner recommended this section. Rockvam referred to the `Hours of Operation' section regarding fueling and repair and asked if we are suggesting this is done during normal operations and Petrik said that was the idea. Hughes pointed out a scenario if there was a breakdown they would have to wait until hours of operation. Rockvam said when large equipment is being hauled it cannot always refuel during regular hours. Mason referred to a delivery of a crane at 3:00 a.m. and everything was repaired on site after work hours during the allowed time for construction activities. Widmer pointed out the crane hauling could be done only during certain hours according to our ordinance. Goman stated construction hauling cannot impede traffic • during peak rush hour times. Seifert pointed out off site employee parking cannot take place until 7:00 a.m. and this would be reducing the construction day. Williamson said the intent was not to do this during extraordinary hours and suggested we may not even need this item or change it to fifteen minutes before start time. Widmer pointed out we have to let employees park their vehicles before their start time. Rockvam added the working hours are controlled by the union. Hughes said these details could be changed over to developer's agreements and Rockvam agreed. Hughes recommended deferring this item until it is rewritten to state this. Seifert said this ordinance does require a detailed plan and it could be added that employee parking hours are different than construction activity hours. Motion by Williamson and seconded by Hughes to lay over to the next Council meeting Resolution 62. 11. In discussion Rockvam referred to page 5, 5.c. and clarified that is what the City has done and any interest we have earned 110% goes back to the developer. He referred to the next item 5.d. and asked if it would apply to projects large and small and if small ones have the same requirements as the large ones. Petrik said staff can review a project to see if it fits or is feasible with the requirements. Williamson pointed out it states the City may waive any provision, etc. and we could add a word or two regarding the size or scale of a project. Petrik said we would consistently want Council to give approval. Williamson said to add `Council' after City and `or size of project' at the end of the sentence. • Council—6/19/06 4 Hughes said an example of that is the car wash, 4700 Shoreline Drive, and anytime we have • something happening to a property i.e. change of use, or expansion it would trigger the need for a parking plan, etc. and would come before the City Council. Rockvam explained over the last couple of years the City experienced extraordinary problems and large projects have taught us a lot. Williamson referred back to 5.c. and asked if it should be estimated value or estimated costs and if it is related to dollars. Adolf said someone provides an estimate, 110% is lower that what most cities require, 125% is more typical. Williamson asked if we should change the percentage to 125%. Rockvam asked why we would want escrow on the grading. Seifert said so the City has control if they discontinue the project. Rockvam recommended the percentage to be 125% and the Council agreed. Rockvam referred to 6.a. said to change `may' to `shall'. Beck said that would take away the City's discretion if you want or do not want to do it. She added `may' gives flexibility. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 2. Recommendation Ordinance 62.12—Lighting It was noted this was recommended for approval subject to review by staff. Rockvam stated we want a research tool from the company that reviewed the lighting at the Lofts' projects to use for a visual impact of a lighting project. Hughes clarified we put up a new light and want that company to give a new reading on that light. Seifert said to do a test and compare it to the plan to make sure what is there and we should look at the draft ordinance to review it so the numbers and ratios make sense. He stated there could be issues on how much testing we want to do with the Lakeview Lofts plans. Rockvam said the lights on the Mist Lofts lights do not have baffles. Goman said we put baffles on lights by the Shoreline Place decks. Rockvam said the light chart looks like a boiler plate and we should add apartments, condos, marinas, office locations because a broader category might be better. Williamson referred to the last page and suggested not having a table and going with a minimum and negotiate it in the developer's agreement. Rockvam said we need the plan from the lighting company showing foot candles. Petrik said more categories could be added that are more conducive to the City. Rockvam said we are not ready for this ordinance. Goman said he would mail to the rep at Michaud Cooley to review before the next moratorium meeting. 3. Recommendation Ordinance 62.13 — Parking for Town homes & Multiple Family Dwellings It was noted no changes were recommended. Motion by Hughes and seconded by Williamson to approve Ordinance 62.13, parking for town homes and multiple family dwellings. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4 Recommendation Ordinance 62.14—Plan Review Rockvam stated they discussed square footage required in an R-1 District at the previous workshop. Petrik said residential was exempt but only the single family home. He pointed Council—6/19/06 5 out a duplex intensifies the district. Hughes said duplex and twin home is synonymous. . The Council briefly discussed a single family dwelling versus a double. Hughes suggested we add language referring to the size of the project. Rockvam stated the Council wants to know what is going on but not micro manage projects. Williamson referred to page 3 #13 and referred to the Mist Lofts smoke stacks, etc. The Council briefly discussed this. Seifert said the next step is to consider what action to take. Rockvam said we could find them in default with the developer's agreement and the Council agreed. Motion by Williamson and seconded by Hughes to provide the appropriate notice to the Mist Lofts with the construction at issue that is located on the roof. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Hughes referred to the same #13 and suggested removing the work `proposed' and the Council agreed. Hughes referred to #19 and suggested to also include `the water mains not documented properly'. Williamson suggested adding `or other utility equipment' to cover all. Hughes said this would try to close some of the loop holes we have and to get it up on the table. They briefly discussed the current issue with the water main at the Mist Lofts. Rockvam said an architect should be able to locate something like this. Seifert said we want the building owner and architect to think about these items at an early enough stage in the project to deal with it. Williamson recommended changing `Zoning Administrator' to City Council (top of page 3 • (f)); he verified (5) a. & c. were added in from the lighting plan and he noted (g) states waivers of requirements. Hughes asked if (7) c. is for permanent or temporary construction. Petrik said the intent is the permanent sign. Hughes said it should be noted this is done thru a separate permit process. Petrik pointed out (6) was added. Williamson said it should state `including but not limited to'. Motion by Williamson and seconded by Hughes to lay Resolution 62.14, Plan Review over to the next regular Council meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Rockvam verified the changes were noted. 5. Recommendation Ordinance 62-15 —Trash Enclosures Motion by Williamson and seconded by Hughes to approve Ordinance 62-15, trash enclosures. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. d) Judith Petron, 3836 Togo Road Re: Subordination Request 1. Head, Seifert&Vander Weide—6/16/06 2. Appraisal &Agreement 3. Resolution 06-19—Approving City's Execution of Attached Sub Ordinance • Motion by Williamson and seconded by Widmer to accept Resolution 06-19, approving the City's execution of attached sub ordinance as proposed. Council—6/19/06 6 In discussion Williamson pointed out the attorney outlined it well, the issues are the same as • the previous sub ordination agreement and there are no real issues. Rockvam said the City is in a second position in the event Petron has a default and that would cost us $15,000 to $20,000; if the market is good we could sell the house and if not we would have to levy for the money. Williamson pointed out this is administered by others and involves the local government,which is the City. Rockvam asked if we have a financial obligation if there is a default. Beck said she has not read the documents and cannot respond at this time. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. a) 6. Variance Request, 4600 West Arm Road Motion by Rockvam and seconded by Widmer to approve the variance request for Steve Bedell, 4600 West Arm Road. Upon roll call Hughes, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted not. Motion declared failed. e) Miscellaneous—None 6. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution 06-18—Naming Official Bank Signatures Motion by Hughes and seconded by Widmer to approve Resolution 06-18, naming official signatures. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Administrative Committee Minutes—6/14/06 Williamson referred to Rockvam's suggestion for a financial workshop and asked if one has been scheduled. Friesen said she was still waiting for the audit and anticipated it would be available the first part of July. Widmer asked if there was further information on the Channel Road property and was told no. b) Council—Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer 1. Dakota Rail Task Force Meeting Minutes—6/14/06 Hughes submitted pictures of the Park Island property, taken from the lake, to reference the trees that are there now. He suggested they be placed in the file for future reference. In another matter he would like to see the process outlined as to when something like a building project comes to the City Council. He said we have to establish a policy. Rockvam suggested the planners come up with guidelines. He added one way to solve this is to require a business license and from a practical standpoint we would have control as to what is going on. Hughes said we have to require an occupancy permit that would trigger a laundry list of requirements. Widmer said when a business goes for sale the new owner should be told by the seller that there are rules and regulations and they should check on what can be done on that property. The Council concluded they want to know what is going on with businesses. is Council—6/19/06 7 Williamson pointed out Reinhardt did an excellent job on the Task Force Meeting notes. He . said he is not sure if we want to spend City money for what she recommends. Rockvam said the City wanted to see public parking and they were in agreement and if they do not want to do what they said we should move on. c) Engineer 1. Schoell & Madson Re: Sunset Drive Streetscape & Mill Overlay—6/15/06 2. Schoell &Madson Re: Sunset Drive Estimate of Probable Construction Cost—6/12/06 The above communications were part of the discussion. Adolf reported he received two bids on 6/13/06; the base bid included improvements on Sunset Drive going north to the HCRRA property. Alternate bid #1 is crossing the railroad property and includes curb and storm sewer; alternate bid #2 is Sunset Drive mill and overlay, and the addition of concrete curb on the west side between Shoreline Drive and Spring Street. Rockvam asked why the county isn't doing that. Goman said it is not on their plan for a minimum of 10 years and they do not want to consider it. Hughes referred to the easterly half of Sunset the contractor for Cornerstone seems to be wearing down. Goman said escrow should cover the mill and overlay portion that fronts their property. Rockvam pointed out the work for the alternate bids should have been in the Developers Agreement. Adolf stated alternate bid#3 is mill and overlay and the addition of concrete curb and gutter on the east side of Bayview Place. He said the Council should select alternates as part of the bid award and they could take additional time to consider all of it. Hughes referred to the easterly corner of Mason's driveway (3950 Del Otero) and across the street. He said it appears the street is damaged from construction traffic. Adolf said the intent is the improvements would go • to Del Otero. Rockvam asked if the bid(s) are approved if the work would get done this summer. Adolf said the completion date is September 1st so the Mist Lofts can do their landscaping and it does not include street lighting. Hughes asked how much heavy equipment has yet to take place on those repaired streets. Adolf said the contractor has indicated they will be done with the exterior work on the buildings the end of June; they are working on the street lights leaving only the landscaping left to do. Hughes asked about the interior. Goman said the majority of it will be done by the middle of July. Rockvam said any further tuck deliveries would be on a smaller scale. Goman pointed out all deliveries go to the north side. He added the job trailer is going to be removed soon. Williamson asked how long the fencing would remain. Adolf pointed out the bids match Schoell & Madson's estimate reasonably well. He said the Council indicated they would like to see improvements across the HCRRA property and have Three Rivers Park take part in that expense; the intent is to coordinate those plans. Adolf said he is recommending alternative bid #3 not be accepted until Three Rivers is going to improve that property and maybe take part financially when they are ready in 2007. Williamson suggests we ask our attorney if we had the work done could we send Three Rivers a bill. Hughes said we should recommend curb and gutter and no curb cuts in that area and just pedestrian ramps and asked if Lord Fletcher's are still using that lot. Goman said employees of J E Dunn use that for parking and also the Sheriff's Department. Williamson verified the • yellow portion shown on the map is from escrow sources from the developer; the green section Council—6/19/06 8 is alternate bid # 2 and is the City's responsibility. Adolf said the former railroad area is only • for road improvements and if the City chooses this option it should include street lights. Seifert pointed out if the trail is crossing the road, signage and lighting would have to be included. He said we should let Three Rivers Park District know we want safety improvements at the crossing and it is going to be done with their money. Rockvam said assessing the county is not a bad idea. Seifert said they have a responsibility to provide a safe crossing. Hughes said if they have a summer lease with Lord Fletcher's and the City has to pay for this improvement, he would not want to put in curb cuts. He suggested having them come in to discuss this. Rockvam asked the timeline for bids. Adolf said the City has 60 days to make a decision but we should decide early so the job gets done. Hughes verified the developers are going to pay for their portion. Adolf said there is a meeting 6/27 and the county is providing information on future land use. Hughes said as far as approval at this meeting, he feels the yellow and green sections on Adolf s map are a go ahead and the pink section is forth coming; a concern is to give them sufficient time to get it done this year. Williamson said we have to decide which fund this is going to come from. Seifert pointed out Lakeview Lofts developer's agreement will be completed when the color issue is completed. Rockvam said we have to see what we can do to get the county to participate and street lights could be installed later. Hughes said he would only approve no curb cuts at that location. Rockvam pointed out that property cannot be used for whatever they want. He pointed out we want them to help us out and they are using the property for whatever they want and maybe we • can negotiate the situation. Seifert said he doesn't think the City wants to spend money on curbs that will be torn out in a year. Widmer said we should schedule a meeting with the county and see what we come up with. Rockvam stated we have never approved their other uses for that property. Goman asked if we have an obligation to put in the cuts that are already there. Rockvam asked when Del Otero would be done and Goman said within the next two to three months. He added all the Mist Lofts is required to do is the blacktop. Hughes verified the Council's feelings on alternate bid #3. He pointed out the contractor for the Mist Lofts claims to not have done any damage on Bayview Place. Rockvam said we could assess the money back to the property owners. Goman expressed his concern that if the decision is not made for six months, the price would increase. Widmer said we could discuss this at our next Council meeting. Seifert verified someone has discussed with Cornerstone to do all of Del Otero. Goman said yes and it has been agreed upon. Rockvam pointed out just Bayview Place is the issue. Adolf said we can go back to them again and discuss this; there is continuity with doing the area all at once; are we going to wait and take the opportunity to discuss this with Cornerstone and J E Dunn. Rockvam recommended setting up a special meeting with the county next week. d) Utility Superintendent • 1. MN Dept. of Health Re: Routine Inspection Report—6/5/06 -Noted Council—6/19/06 9 Rockvam asked if Goman has met with Norling. Goman said he and Friesen met with him today; Norling has submitted proposals; there has not been time to discuss them but the information would be available at the next Council meeting. Widmer asked Goman who is the contact person at the county for the cove by the fishing area at Coffee Bridge. Goman said it was the same person that deals with the boat launch. e) Administrator 1. Revised July Calendar a) Reschedule Administrative Meeting It was agreed to reschedule the Administrative Meeting to July 19, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. at All Stars 2. Upcoming Meetings a) June 27, 2006, 7:30 p.m. Rescheduled Council -Noted Friesen noted the grant meeting with Hennepin County is rescheduled for Tuesday 6/27 at 7:00 p.m. with the Planning Commission. She added a moratorium meeting could take place that night also. Rockvam said we could see how the meeting progresses. Friesen pointed out possible dates for a moratorium meeting are the 24th, 25th or 261h of July. 3. Star Tribune Article Re: Storage on HCRRA Property -Noted 4. Schedule Workshop Meeting Re: Lift Station#6 Change Orders/Payment Adolf said there has not been a settlement with Bolander on Lift Station #6. Rockvam asked the amounts that were discussed. Adolf said Bolander (the contractor for Lift Station #6) went from $272,000 to $220,000 and Adolf thought they have to go down to $119,000, the range of the original request. He said the amount has to be approved by the City Council and he proposed a workshop meeting with the Council and City Attorney to come • up with a cost to propose to Bolander as a settlement offer they can reject, accept or counter offer. Rockvam said we have to figure what the issues are and costs of consequences. Adolf said the attorney would be available to discuss this and that was the intent of having a special meeting. Friesen said she would set this up. 5. Redo Motion (May 15, 2006) to Reject Payment Contribution for Mist Water Main Relocation per Tom Seifert, City Attorney Williamson pointed out Seifert is advising the motion is not specific enough and the amount of money should be restated. Seifert said the motion did not make sense. Williamson pointed out they wanted an adjustment in their escrow account and the Council did not want to approve it. Rockvam said this is one issue they are asking us for something and we would like them to help us on Sunset Drive and Bayview Place. He added he thought the information given to him on the disputed amount was available to the Council. Motion by Hughes and seconded by Williamson to lay the motion on the table and bring it up at such time as appropriate with Cornerstone. In discussion Williamson said this is something the Council has already taken action on. Hughes retracted his motion. Motion by Hughes and seconded by Williamson to table the motion. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 6. Miscellaneous -None Council—6/19/06 10 • 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Williamson and seconded by Widmer to approve the claims for payment for June 19, 2006. Friesen explained the corrections the Council received. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS —None 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Island Harbor Status Report& Escrow Summary—6/16/06 b) Lakeview Lofts Status Report& Escrow Summary—6/16/06 c) The Mist Lofts Status Report& Escrow Summary—6/16/06 11. MISCELLANEOUS Hughes noted the Planning Commissioners would like the Council to discuss the after-the-fact sign permit for Innovative Marketing. He requested this put on the next Council agenda. Williamson noted they also discussed attendance issues; affirmed the Council has the final • authority; noted the Planning Commission would take the first action in dealing with this matter. Rockvam noted it was not made clear that information given to him by contracted staff should have been shared with the Council. 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williamson and seconded by Widmer to adjourn the meeting at 11.30 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK SARAH FRIESEN ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council—6/19/06 11