►
From YouTube: Council Meeting 07 02 2018
Description
Agenda Items include Ordinance No. 18-08, 18-09, 18-10 and 18-11. Also included is Resolution No. 18-30 and 18-31.
B
D
A
C
A
E
A
E
A
E
A
Ask
that
the
people
who
are
on
committees
and
their
terms
are
expiring,
that
they
would
temporarily
continue
until
I've
made
official
appointments,
because
I've
got
a
lot
of
applications
and
people
expressing
interest,
but
I
haven't
had
time
contact
everyone.
Yet
so
before
I
get
a
motion,
I
did
put
out
that
the
airport
board
biron
Kali's,
has
stepped
down
and
I'd
like
to
replace
him
with
Shan
Cruz.
F
A
G
A
Alright,
well,
let's
put
Mike
down
forth
in
there
and
with
that,
I
would
like
to
hear
a
motion
to
appoint
all
the
board
and
committee
members
with
expiring
terms
to
act
as
interim
board
members
until
a
formal
reappointment
has
been
made
and
approved
the
appointments
of
Shan
crews
to
the
airport
board,
Christy
Lakai
to
the
urban
renewal
district
board,
Adam
l'olam
and
Mike
down
forth
to
the
industrial
park
board
and
Jean
Moulton
to
the
library
board.
Is
there
anyone
willing
to
make
that
motion
move
by
Kaufman
solo?
Second,
by
councilman
Bueller,
any
discussion
I've.
A
Yes,
and
if
you,
if
anyone
wants
to
change,
please
contact
me
and
you'll
just
serve
until
I've
made
a
formal
change
in
whatever
your
capacity
is
now
and
I'll
make
a
formal
announcement
when,
after
I've
had
a
chance
to
juggle
that
all
around
any
other
comments,
all
right,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye.
Those
opposed
signify
by
saying
nay
motion
carries
item.
Number
five
is
the
second
reading
of
ordinance
number
18.
A
I
I
H
I
I
J
I
Think
they'll
have
to
be
careful
just
with
it
being
r1
and
when
they're
you
know,
selling
more
Lots
people
are
probably
purchasing
them.
Thinking
that
they're
gonna
have
single-family
near
them.
This
is
this
works
out,
because
there
hasn't
been
anybody
adjacent
any
Lots
sold
with
the
intention
that
it
would
stay
single-family.
So
it's
kind
of
a
nice
buffer
area
for
along
art,
collector
route
on
second.
A
Any
others
all
right
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye.
Those
opposed
signify
by
saying
nay
motion,
carries
item.
6
is
second
reading
of
ordinance
number
18,
Oh
8,
amending
the
zoning
district
boundaries
for
a
portion
of
lot
3,
&,
4
of
Northridge
edition
and
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
and
ask
Brandi
to
introduce
this
one
Thank.
I
You
meryt,
so
this
is
another
one
that
you
guys
had
the
first
reading
a
month
ago.
You
didn't
have
it
on
there
last
council
agenda,
but
this
is
just
trying
to
clean
up
the
split
zoning
on
the
property.
So
it's
it
has
c2
local,
commercial
and
c3
highway
commercial
and
they're,
proposing
to
rezone
at
all
to
c3,
highway
commercial.
A
J
A
J
I
A
Thank
you.
Brandy.
Item
number.
Seven
is
second
reading
of
ordinance
number
eighteen
dash,
ten,
adding
chapter
nineteen
point:
one:
zero
to
title:
nineteen
of
the
revised
ordinances
of
the
city
of
Watertown
regarding
the
operations
of
transportation
network
companies-
and
this
is
a
second
reading
and
council
action.
Only
there
isn't
a
public
hearing.
But
if
there's
anybody
that
wants
to
talk
about
this
I
will
entertain
that
seeing
none
Matt.
Would
you
like
to
just
describe
what's
going
on
here.
G
Yes,
thank
you
mayor.
As
you
said,
this
is
the
second
reading
of
this
ordinance.
It's
a
transportation
network
company,
ordinance,
I
guess
for
shorthand.
Basically,
what
it
provides
is
a
scheme
to
regulate
transportation,
network
companies
in
Watertown,
ie,
lyft,
uber,
etc
those
types
of
companies.
Basically,
it
would
provide
an
application
process
and
it
would
provide
certain
restrictions
on
how
they
can
operate,
provide
the
city,
a
regular
update,
a
monthly
update
of
all
the
drivers
that
are
employed
by
those
companies.
G
A
G
Currently,
the
city
has
has
determined
that
transportation
network
companies
function
or
essentially
act
like
taxicabs
and
so
are,
as
we
currently
sit,
we've
determined
that
they
must
comply
with
the
taxicab
ordinance,
which
requires
a
license
and
going
through
that
process,
and
so
they're
not
currently
illegal
in
Watertown.
They
just
must
comply
with
the
taxicab
ordinance,
which
is
a
tedious
process.
E
G
Well,
well,
along
the
lines
of
the
background
checks.
You
know.
State
law
covers
the
background,
checked
aspect
requiring
criminal
background
checks,
as
well
as
sex
offender
registries,
etc
same
as
we
do
what
we
would
do
for
taxi
cab
drivers,
insurance
requirements
by
state
law
I
believe
are
actually
more
strict
for
transportation
network
companies
than
we
have
for
taxi
cab.
Companies.
G
H
G
What
you
know,
one
thing
that
is
different
is
that
you
know
we
we
do
the
background
checks
on
taxi
cab
drivers
under
the
transportation
network
company
ordinance.
We
trust
that
the
companies
are
doing
it
because
they're
required
to
by
state
law,
whereas
there
is
no
taxi
cab
scheme
under
state
law.
It's
all
city
ordinance,
driven.
G
L
You
know
I'm
all
for
I've
used,
uber
and
locations,
I
haven't
used,
lift
and
it's
a
it's
a
great
service
site,
but
for
Watertown
here
and
I.
Think
it'd
be
great
for
us
here
in
town
as
well.
One
of
my
concerns
is
is
that
the
taxis
per
se
are
really
at
a
disadvantage
from
what's
required
of
them
talk
about
what
they
charge.
That's
what
up
to
them,
what
they
charge
so
they
have
to
serve
24
hours
a
day.
Is
that
a
state
requirement
or
a
city
ordinance
requirement?
That's.
L
So
my
question
there
is
is:
why
would
we
require
that
of
a
taxi?
Why
would
we
do
that?
Why
don't
we
let
the
chips
fall
where
they
may
and
people
can
use
what
service
they
want.
That's
my
first
question
and
then
the
second
question
is:
is
why
are
we
okay
with
not
doing
the
background
checks
on
these
lyft
or
uber
drivers
for
whatever,
but
we're
required
of
the
taxis?
What
why
is
it?
Okay
that
we're
relying
on
somebody
someplace
else,
maybe
to
do
it
and
we're
not
relying
on
the
taxi
owners
here
to
do
it?
G
Well,
I
guess:
well
one!
You
know
this
was
kind
of
a
first
shot
at
this
and
it
certainly
opened
two
amendments
and
changes,
but
we
would
we
would
be
regulating
the
transportation
network
companies
secondarily
to
the
state,
whereas
taxicab
we
we
primarily
regulate
them,
so
the
state
does
not
have
no
statutory
requirements
of
four
set
for
taxis.
So
to
answer
your
question,
we
may
want
to
put
in
some
sort
of
a
requirement
that
we
do
those
background
checks
as
well,
but
this
is
this
is
the
way
other
cities
have
done.
This
don't.
L
Get
me
wrong.
Man
I'm
not
challenging
I'm,
just
I'm
trying
to
look
at
the
logic
of
a
taxi
and
what's
required
to
them
and
the
transportation
network
company,
and
it
seems
like,
if
we're
putting
more
of
a
burden
on
there,
and
we
think
that's
important
I,
don't
understand
why
we
wouldn't
apply
that
across
the
board
or
we
say
it's
not
important
and
we
put
the
onus
on
the
business
which
we
do
with
many
many
other.
L
Well,
all
our
other
businesses
in
town
with
their
employees.
We
rely
on
them
to
manage
their
employees.
So
that's
where
I'm
coming
from
it.
I'm
not
saying
that.
What's
in
this
is
wrong.
It
might
require
if
we
can
to
make
some
changes
to
our
taxi
ordinance
to
put
it
on
a
on
a
level
playing
field
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
why
we
have
to
look
at
the
logic
of
why
those
requirements
are
with
one
and
not
the
other
yeah.
L
A
M
Question
I,
don't
know
if
we
know
the
answer
to
this
question
dude
has
it
typically
been
a
burden
in
the
eyes
of
the
taxi
cab
service
that
we've
got
here
to
have
to
supply
that
service
24
hours
a
day?
Do
we
know,
have
they
ever
made
a
suggestion
or
a
request
that
you
know
that
we
minimize
those
hours
that
we
would
you
know,
take
that
requirement
down
to
something
different
I.
J
Actually
did
talk
with
the
taxi
cab
owners
and
they
stated
that
they're
okay
with
the
24
hours,
because
it
gives
them
some
built
in
business,
no
matter
what
and
things
like,
there's
a
lot
of
times
that
they
go
4:30
5
o'clock,
they'll
pay
someone
up
and
take
him
to
either
Minneapolis
or
to
Sioux
Falls.
So
they
were
ok
with
that.
As
of
now,
I
did
tell
them
that
there
was
items
that
they
did
not
like,
or
they
found
to
be
burdensome
going
forward
to.
J
G
There
are
certain
advantages
that
taxis
will
still
have,
for
example,
they
can
still
take
cash,
they
can
catch
street
hails.
Obviously
you
know
what
it
may
not
have
as
much
of
that
in
Watertown,
as
we
would
in
a
bigger
city,
but
having
that
24
hour
requirement
and
some
of
those
things
in
the
taxicab
ordinance.
You
know
the
big
hurdle
for
another
taxi
cab
company
is.
G
They
have
to
come
in
front
of
the
council
and
improve
there's
an
economic
necessity
for
a
new
taxi
company,
and
so,
if
the
current
cab
company,
we
only
have
one
thinks
that
those
burdens
provide
provided
a
little
bit
of
protection
to
their
business.
Still,
they
may
not
want
to
alleviate
those
those
additional
requirements.
I,
don't
know.
A
L
My
only
comment
to
that
is
I
think
that
should
be
a
business
decision
and
not
a
city's
decision
that
if
it's
a
it's
effective
for
them
to
to
work
24
hours
a
day
and
that
should
be
their
decision
and
not
ours
is
where
I
would
go
with
that
and
if
that
gives
them
an
advantage,
so
be
it
and
they
can
take
somebody
in
Minneapolis.
You
know,
but
to
put
it
as
a
requirement.
H
A
A
N
Questions
Matt.
You
had
said
that
the
fee
there
may
be
a
fee
associated
with
this,
something
that
we'd
look
at
further
down
the
road.
Is
that
a
fee
to
that
company
or
is
it
a
fee
to
the
individual
drivers?
That's
my
first
question
and
then
you
said
they
also
had
to
be
registered.
So
if
a
guy
is
registered
in
Sioux,
Falls
or
Minneapolis
and
wants
to
come
up
to
Watertown
for
the
weekend
and
work,
would
he
be
able
to
do
that?
That's.
G
N
G
Would
actually
be
lyft
or
the
whatever
transportation
network
companies
decide
to
operate
in
Watertown
would
send
us
a
report
of
all
the
drivers
that
are
registered
with
them
to
operate
in
our
community
and
so
I.
Don't
know
I!
Guess
I'm
not
familiar
enough
with
their
business
operations
to
know
if
you're
a
lyft
driver
in
Watertown.
Can
you
go
to
that
Minneapolis,
Sioux,
Falls,
I,
don't
know.
N
O
K
H
O
O
It
varies
by
the
community
or
city
that
they're
going
to
because
each
pretty
much
nationwide,
a
lot
of
the
states
have
left
it
up
to
the
individual
municipalities
to
regulate
TNC
companies
kind
of
like
what
we're
talking
about
tonight
here
at
the
City
Council,
a
driver
can
eat
them
from
Waterdown
can
go
down
to
Sioux
Falls
a
driver
from
Sioux
Falls
can
come
to
here.
But
if
I
wanted
to
go
to
Minneapolis
or
Sioux
City
Denver,
you
have
to
follow
the
current
regulations
that
are
set
up
in
place.
O
They're
like
if
I
wanted
to
go
to
Denver
I
actually
have
to
have
a
medical
form
filled
out
by
a
licensed
physician,
signed
off
almost
kind
of
like
a
DoD,
physical
and
so
to
speak,
just
operate
within
Denver
area.
Minneapolis
has
other
regulations
as
well,
so
but
again
for
the
South
Dakota.
It's
pretty
much
wide
open
as
far
as
community
to
community.
O
O
M
O
Not
authorized
right
now
to
operate
in
the
state,
South
Dakota.
It's
only
lift
as
far
as
I'm
aware,
I
can
pick
up
a
what
say,
a
passenger
here
in
Watertown,
and
they
want
to
go
to
Minneapolis
I
can
easily.
We
can,
as
drivers
can
easily
do
that,
when
I'm
at
Minneapolis
I
might
be
limited
on
picking
up
rides
there
because
of
their
current
city,
ordinances
or
other
places
that
are
sometimes
the
the
a
path
certain
things
in
place
for
cities
were.
A
G
A
A
Item.
Number
eight
is
the
second
reading
of
ordinance
number
eighteen
dash
eleven
amending
section.
Nineteen
point:
zero:
nine,
zero
one
of
the
revised
ordinances
of
the
city
of
Watertown
to
limit
the
definitions
of
taxicab
and
motor
bus
for
hire,
and
this
is
the
second
reading
and
I
will
look
for
a
motion
to
approve
move
by
Councilman
Wallander
second,
by
Councilman.
Why
all
right!
Matt!
You
want
to
tell
us
what
you've
done
here.
Yes,.
G
A
Cleans
out
any
other
questions
or
comments
all
right,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye.
It
was
a
post
signify
by
saying,
nay,
motion
carries
item
number
nine
is
resolution
of
intent
to
enter
into
a
lease
agreement
with
Chris
Hatton,
hey
lot
1
and
a
portion
of
lot
9
of
the
Hanten
industrial
park
edition
I.
Look
for
a
motion,
second,
for
approval,
move
by
Councilman
Bueller
second
way:
councilman
Albertson
any
discussion.
G
G
A
G
A
Any
questions
or
comments,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye.
Those
opposed
signify
by
saying
nay
motion
carries
item
number
10
is
the
plat
of
all
of
place.
Addition
look
for
a
motion,
second,
for
approval,
move
by
Councilman,
Danforth
and
second
by
Kaufman,
l'olam
Brandis,
here,
to
give
us
a
little
introduction
on
this
one.
I
Okay,
so
the
petitioner
is
Robert
and
Kathryn
year,
Deakin
owners
of
the
property.
The
background
to
this
plat
is
the
petitioners
submitted
a
plat
of
olive
place.
Addition
through
recent
annexation
and
zoning,
which
was
approved
by
City
Council.
The
petitioners
brought
seven
point:
six
six
acres
into
city
limits
to
combine
with
the
existing
point
for
three
acres
on
the
northwest
corner
of
14th,
Avenue
Northwest
and
second
Street
Northwest.
I
Some
facts
about
what's
involved
here
is
the
zoning
is
r1
single-family
residential
the
park,
dedication
for
the
olive
place
Edition
was
approved
on
June
27th,
which
was
last
Tuesday
as
a
condition
of
the
annexation.
This
was
approved
to
include
sufficient
recreational
use
easement
with
to
accommodate
a
10-foot
bike,
trail
future
bike
trail
and
in
cash
in
lieu
of
the
5%
land
dedication.
That
amount
was
determined
to
be
$7,000
in
7050
three
dollars
and
seventy
cents
that
amount
will
be
lower.
If
land
is
needed
to
accommodate
such
bike
trail,
the
amount
will
be
adjusted
accordingly.
I
The
cost
recovery
pro
rata
share
is
required
for
the
portion
of
2nd
Street
Northwest
that
abuts
the
property
on
the
east
boundary
there,
as
I'm,
showing
on
the
cursor
a
development
agreement
for
the
Plateau
olive
place.
Addition
provides
improvement,
assurances
that
are
included
for
this
plat
to
be
approved
by
City
Council
Watertown
municipal
utilities
confirms
easements
are
sufficient,
even
if
a
recreational
use,
these
easement
encroaches
within
the
ten
feet
to
accommodate
a
bike
trail
and
then
Vince
Foley
is
the
acting
agent
for
the
year
two
guns
and
is
proposing
substitute
language
or
variances
that
city.
I
P
This
isn't
even
a
subdivision
development.
This
is
only
one
lot.
Brandi
did
make
one
statement
that
I
want
to
clarify.
She
said
fee
dedication
and
easement.
It's
the
easement
is
if
an
easement
is
granted
on
any
fee
property
there's
also
a
crediting
back.
It's
not
just
on
deeded
property.
There
is
a
utility
easement.
There
is
not
yet
a
bikepath
easement
set
forth,
and
so
it
it
works
out
into
the
actual
equation.
A
Okay,
but
that's
normally
when
it's
already
planted
platting
was
a
requirement,
and
this
is
something
we
normally
negotiate
easements
without
an
exchange
of
money.
That's
not
our
normal
practice.
If
this
were
something
new
we're
coming
in
this
has
been
here
for
years
and
then
we're
asking
to
put
a
bike
trail
on
after
the
fact,
then
that's
when
we
usually
would
see
a
monetary
exchange
of
half
of
the
value
of
the
land,
so.
P
A
A
A
A
Bike
know
the
bike
path
easement.
If
we,
if
we
made
this
into
a
bike
path,
easement
to
be
coincided
with
the
utility
easement,
then
you
could
argue
that
you
should
be
reducing
the
fee
accordingly,
at
half
of
the
value
of
the
land
and
and
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
it
clear
to
the
council.
We
don't
normally
do
that.
If
there's
a
this.
P
A
P
P
A
I
A
Putting
a
bike
path
there
is
more
than
we
normally
would
require.
This
is
not
your
normal
flat
this.
This
is
unique,
and
so
everything
about
it.
It's
the
first
time
around
for
everything,
but
this
is
a
big
chunk
of
development.
Even
if
it's
only
one
house,
it
is
the
entire
parcel
of
development,
and
this
is
the
time
that
we
get
what
we
get
for
public
improvements,
bike
trails,
sidewalks
pipes,
Road,
curb
and
gutter.
Most
of
that
stuff
is,
there
is
almost
all
there.
A
L
P
Let
me
interrupt
you
for
a
moment
about
the
discussion
trail
that
we're
going
down.
The
unions
have
agreed
that
there
will
be
a
bike
path.
We
haven't
negotiated
out
the
sidewalk
requirement.
The
concept
of
what
we're
trying
to
work
with
in
that
parcel
is
something
different.
We
don't
necessarily
want
to
lay
down
without
it
might
end
up
this
way,
but
we
want
to
at
least
explore
with
the
architect
with
the
park
and
Rex
for
a
different
stretch
of
bike
path.
P
Much
like
what's
perhaps
the
best
way
to
describe
is
down
by
the
title:
company,
the
old
railroad
depot,
that's
a
different
type
of
setup
on
the
bike
path
and
there
isn't
a
sidewalk
requirement
there.
But
what
we
want
to
do
is
keep
all
the
options
open
to
negotiate
those
terms
and
have
what
is
in
effect,
a
development
agreement.
P
We
don't
know
at
this
point
we
collectively
being
the
city
the
park
and
Rec
and
the
Europeans
don't
know
if
the
bike
path
which
Europeans
have
guaranteed
can
go
through
will
be
on
right
upon
right
of
way
on
deeded
property,
on
easement
property
or
even
just
as
a
license
on
fee,
because
it
hasn't
been
designed.
Wouldn't
it
appear.
L
L
What
I
would
like
to
see
on
this
then,
pending?
What
I'm
hearing
on
of
events
is
that
we
go
with
what
we
know
we
would
require,
and
you're
gonna
have
to
have
a
my
guess.
Is
you're
gonna
have
to
have
sidewalk
requirements
according
to
ordinance
around
that
whole
well
other
than
the
little
corner
down
there.
You're
gonna
have
that
sidewalk
all
around
it,
because
there's
a
budding
road
is
that
correct?
No.
D
L
P
L
P
P
We
disagree
with
the
four
point,
six
seven,
but
that
that's
been
a
late
development,
but
just
for
the
sake
of
this
discussion
on
that
sentence,
that's
in
the
union's
perspective,
the
worst
possible
scenario,
because
it's
just
a
bike
path,
stuck
down
the
west
side
and
that's
where
it'll
be
that
that's
the
specificity,
so
in
other
words,
we've
built
in
that
backstop
for
the
city,
but
the
city,
staff,
Park
and
Rec,
and
the
Erdogan's
they're
architects
all
want
to
see.
If
there
isn't
something
else,
we
can
work
out.
That
looks
better.
A
M
Just
to
clarify-
and
we
discussed
this
at
Park
and
Rec
at
length
and
I-
think
part
of
the
the
negotiation
that
you're
talking
about
would
be
different
standards
that
you
that
the
Erdogan's
would
would
require
for
the
bike
trail
versus
our.
What
our
standard
might
be,
yes,
which
would
be
you
know,
just
maybe
an
asphalt
path.
M
That
is
just
to
be
clear.
That
is
part
of
the
negotiation
scenario
for
them
with
the
city,
yes,
and
then
just
also
to
clarify,
if
in
this
negotiation,
if
there's
disagreement,
we
would
take
this
to
to
arbitration.
Is
that
correct,
yes,
and
that
would
you
would
bear
the
ordinance
would
bear
the
cost
of
any
of
that
activity.
Correct!
Okay,
just
want.
H
M
A
For
the
council's
benefit
within
the
60
foot
right-of-way,
there
is
enough
room
to
put
a
10
foot
wide
bike
trail,
but
it
leaves
no
Boulevard
like
a
foot
or
1.33
feet,
a
Boulevard
which
is
insufficient
to
sustain
a
grass
strip.
So
the
4.67
gives
six
feet
total
of
Boulevard
so
that
the
bike
path
would
be
if
they
dedicated
four
point
six
seven
feet:
a
10
foot
wide
bike
path
would
be
placed
along
the
property
line
and
there
would
be
a
six
foot
Boulevard
for
a
grass
strip
and
trees.
A
Six
feet
is
the
to
sustain
a
tree,
and
that's
where
that
number
comes
from
it's
not
an
ordinance
requirement.
It's
a
desire
of
the
Park
Department
to
have
a
wide
enough
strip
to
support
a
tree
if
they
wanted
to
plant
a
bulb
our
tree
and
right
now,
I,
don't
know
that
they're
planning
to
plant
any
Buller
trees,
but
that's
so
that
they
have
the
ability
in
the
future.
So
that's
why
that's
where
the
4.67
in.
P
That,
since
we're
talking
about
the
four
point,
six,
seven
that
that's
been
a
late
change,
the
Europeans
have
given
me
authority
based
upon
the
last
information
that
we
had
of
for
two
point:
six:
seven,
in
other
words
a
four
point,
a
four
foot
Boulevard.
You
got
to
make
sure
that
you
keep
the
definitions
of
the
parcels
in
mind
when
you
talk
about
Boulevard
you're,
not
talking
about
specific
location
of
property.
P
Sometimes
we
refer
to
Boulevard
in
that
context,
but
here
we're
not
because
the
boulevard
is
the
green
space
outside
of
sidewalk
or
path.
Okay.
So
it's
that
green
space
is
the
boulevard
that
we're
talking
about
all
of
it.
One
way
or
the
other
will
fall
in
the
right-of-way,
six
foot
or
eight
foot
or
six
foot
or
four
foot
will
fall
in
the
right-of-way,
which
is
his
city
property.
Then
the
bike
path
in
the
worst-case
scenario
would
start.
P
So
what
we
had
been
discussing
was
the
the
four
foot
Boulevard
as
the
worst
case,
if
we're
not
able
to
come
to
an
agreement
that
if
that
would
be
the
the
fallback
position
that
the
city
could
do
that
now
it's
moved
to
six
foot.
It
I
want
to
paint
a
visual
picture
for
you
and
why
we
think
the
four
foot
is
adequate.
F
P
A
Is
very
expensive
to
them
and
and
we're
keenly
aware
of
that,
but
it's
still
development
and
we're
trying
to
look
at
this
as-
and
this
is
what
I
presented
the
first
time-
I
talked
to
them,
we'll
start
with
what
our
basic
requirement
would
be
for
anybody
wanted
to
develop
this,
whether
it
be
in
215
Lots
for
residential
homes
or
1
lot.
This
is
development.
A
What
would
our
basic
requirements
be
and
then
we'll
start
there,
and
if
any
of
those
are
objectionable,
they
can
bring
those
up
and
ask
for
relief
from
the
council
and
and
that's
where
we
are
today.
This
would
require
a
park
dedication.
This
would
require
a
sidewalk
and
pretty
much
that's
it.
That's
all.
We
have
left
everything
else
the
roads
are
built.
There
is
an
obligation
to
pay
back
where
the
city
building
the
road
for
them,
but
they
don't
have
to
build
the
road.
We
don't
have
to
have
that
in
our
development
standard.
A
So
I
guess
what
what
they're
asking
for
is?
Relief
from,
maybe
part
of
them
or
the
park
board,
gets
to
say
whether
they
receive
property
or
money
and
they
wanted
property
and
the
Europeans
want
to
give
money.
Instead
of
property
am
I
getting
that
right,
No
they
were
they're
willing
to
give
both
they're.
P
Willing
to
give
both
they
just
don't
want
it
located
without
consideration
of
the
ascetics
number
one.
They
don't
want
it
constructed.
Without
consideration
of
the
aesthetics
number
two
and
number
three,
they
don't
want
to
be
forced
into
the
only
stretch
in
the
city
where
there's
this
larger
standard
on
residential
property
than
anyplace
else
in
the
city.
A
P
P
A
P
P
A
P
A
A
A
A
P
P
A
P
I
can't
say
that
that
is
a
plan
because
I'm
I'm
presupposing
what
the
end
looks
like,
but
they're
they're
planning
on
having
the
house
and
the
carriage
house
connected
by
a
tunnel
set
in
the
middle.
If
you
drive
by
you,
can
see
some
stakes
out
there,
that's
where
it'll
be
everything
else
will
be
in
a
park-like
setting
big
yard
type
of
setting.
P
They
have
agreed
to
a
covenant
on
the
land
that
a
second
utility
service
cannot
be
established
for
another
residence
without
going
back
all
the
way
through
the
property
or
the
process.
So
it's
a
it's
a
one
house
set
up
and
then
a
couple
of
different
iterations
have
been
sketched
out
by
the
architect.
Nothing
is
a
plan,
but
it
involved
some
of
them
involved
some
wrought
iron
and
places
some
of
them
as
involved
benches
and
places.
But
right
now
it's
you
know:
you're
wasting
money
having
the
architect
draw
stuff.
J
P
A
P
Well,
we
start
talking,
we
get,
we
know
we
can
get
the
building
permit.
We
know
Olive
place
is
going
to
go
forward
if
we
don't
get
the
building
permit,
I'm,
not
sure,
but
if,
if
we're
moving
forward,
then
we
have
the
conversation
with
Jay
and
his
staff
with
with
the
architect
trying
to
figure
out
what
is
going
to
that
Westside
is
going
to
look
like
that's
the
next
step
and.
A
M
P
You
do
built
in
in
that
payment
in
lieu
amount
because
it
would
be
accrediting
back,
but
the
agreement
requires
the
park
board,
Park
staff
to
agree
on
that
crediting
as
well,
and
so,
if
we
say
you,
this
should
deduct
$2,000
from
the
payment
in
lieu
amount
and
park
staff
says
no,
it
should
only
be
one.
We
have
a
disagreement.
Would
you
know
work
to
sort
that
out?
But
so
that's
that's
that
cap
there
isn't
going
to
require
any
money
other
than
that
cap.
Okay,.
M
Without
the
city
approving
right
and
the
idea
that
we
would
have
to
potentially
negotiate
what
we're,
what
we're
doing
for
for
that
refund
or
to
bring
back
whatever
I
would
like
to
see
us
consider
some
sort
of
a
maximum
amount.
I
mean
a
cap
that
says
we
could
go
up
to
this
amount.
Has
that
been
considered
at
all.
A
L
L
Sarah,
let
me
finish:
please:
why
don't
we
go
back
to
the
base
requirements
so
that
you
can
get
your
plat?
They
can
start
their
work
and
as
you
get
it
ironed
out
as
to
what
the
plan
is
going
to
be.
However,
you
modify
what
the
process
is
for
modifying
development
agreement
come
back
and
modify
it
take
the
five
percent.
L
If
that's
what
the
in
lieu
dollars
are,
we
get
those
you
you're
gonna
have
a
sidewalk
requirement,
because
we
have
ordinance
requirements
for
that
put
those
in
and
then
this
council
then
knows
what
we're
signing
off
for
then,
as
it
gets
negotiated
and
discussed,
and
higher
level
detail
can
come
back.
Then,
however,
up
development
occurred.
Does
this
come
back
for
if
it's
modified,
Matt
I
mean
it's
come
back
to
the
council
or
that
just
handled?
If.
L
A
I
I
want
to
clarify,
though
I,
if
I
led
you
to
believe
that
I
disagree
with
what's
being
proposed,
then
I
apologize
because
I'm
not
saying
I
disagree.
This
just
landed
here,
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
review
it.
I
want
to
understand
what
it's
saying
and
I
want
to
know:
who's
agreed
to
it
and
I'm,
open
and
I
think
this
is
what
the
Europeans
are
doing.
A
Here
is
really
a
gift
to
our
community
and
we're
asking
them
to
be
held
to
the
same
standard
as
someone
putting
14
homes
on
that
land
and
they're,
putting
one
home
on
this
land,
so
I
I
feel
for
them
they're.
They
should
still
have
to
do
the
basic
things
to
make
sure
we
have
a
transportation
network
and
that
we
have
all
of
our
required
things
that
we
would
get
with
any
development.
A
D
A
A
And
that
four
point,
six
seven
versus
two
point,
six
seven
and
I
attempted
to
explain-
is
to
allow
for
a
boulevard
great
enough
to
put
a
tree
that
could
support
a
tree
if
a
tree
were
ever
desired.
Do
we
have
less
than
six
and
hour
boulevards?
Yes,
you
can
find
lots
of
examples.
This
is
a
negotiation
with
the
park
board,
and
so
that's
why
that
if
they,
if
you're,
okay,
letting
that
go,
we
have
a
lot
of
boulevards
that
don't
have
trees
in
them
as
well.
A
tree
probably
won't
survive
in
a
4-foot
manner.
M
M
A
A
M
There's
a
desire
definitely
for
some
green
space,
but
I'm
gonna
come
back
to
this
again
and
it's
the
when
you're
talking
about
an
arbitrator
you're
talking
about
the
negotiation
but
before
I
would
say
that
I
want
to
say
that
I
think
the
Park
Board
agreed
to
take
it
to
the
council
and
the
Park
Board
agreed
that
the
concept
was
right.
But
it
was
up
to
this
council
to
make
a
decision
on
what
direction
we
need
to
go.
M
P
D
M
That
was
their
requirement
and
again
I.
Don't
know
how
that
how
you
would
arbitrate
that,
but
I
think
if
we
may
want
to
consider
some
sort
of
like
say
some
sort
of
a
cap
if
we're
gonna
go
this
direction,
something
that
says:
okay,
we'll
go
above
and
beyond
by
20
percent
or
ten
percent.
That's
our
maximum!
The
the.
A
F
O
M
A
A
P
This
is
the
the
sidewalks
on
2nd
come
in
when
the
abutting
property
is
completed,
number
one
and
on
4th
Street,
when
the
abutting
property
comes
in
I'm.
Keeping
in
mind
that
that
might
be
depending
on
how
the
bike
path
thing
goes,
that
4th
Street
installation
might
go
away,
because
the
bike
path
might
become
that
that
construction
and
then.
P
P
H
P
We're
trying
Matt
and
I
are
trying
to
write
language
that
fits
to
end
of
the
road
scenarios,
but
the
possibility
of
a
bunch
in
the
middle
exists
so
the
language
that
that
we're
proposing
I
think
given
if
the
language
is
approved
as
discussed,
because
some
of
the
property
falls
on
city
property
may
fall
on
city
property.
Matt's
d
would
be
a
better
paragraph.
G
Hey
nice
comment:
real
quick
I
may
be
a
little
biased.
Cuz
I've
spent
a
lot
of
time.
The
last
four
days
poring
over
this
specifically
Friday
night
at
10:30,
but
anyway,
it's
true
I
got
the
email,
yeah
I
I
feel
like
when
I
the
one
thing
I
took
away
from
the
park
board.
Is
we
just
want
to
make
sure
we
get
a
bike
path
there
and
I
feel
like
this
language
innate
the
last
two
paragraphs
of
eight
well,
it
leaves
open
the
room
for
the
parties
to
negotiate
on
standards
and
the
potential
arbitration.
G
P
P
A
G
Under
the
city's
language,
under
the
sidewalk
requirement,
the
city
would
have
the
right
to
order
that
sidewalk
in
at
any
time
there
was
sidewalk
adjacent
to
that
property.
The
developers
are
proposing
that
the
only
time
we
can
order
sidewalk
in
is,
if
all
property
adjacent
to
the
west
side
of
the
property
is
completed.
A
sidewalk
completed.
A
A
A
G
Q
A
Q
A
A
A
H
Q
L
So
that's
north
peace
with
that
little
sidewalk
that
city-owned,
it
will
be
will
be,
and
so
the
suggestion
is
even
with
the
city's
language
that
that
long
stretch
of
sidewalk
wouldn't
go
in
until
all
those
other
adjacent
sidewalks
would
go
in
so
you'd
have
the
side
east
side
of
the
water
tower
you'd
have
that
block
whatever
it
is?
I
can't
see
it
three
or
five
or
whatever
it
is,
and
in
the
city's
part,
and
in
what
about
second
Street
and
what
about
16th
Avenue.
G
A
P
Q
M
G
M
A
A
A
I
don't
mind
it
so
much
here
because
they
have
that
already
written
to
their
development
agreement
for
everything
else.
All
around
it.
I
do
mind
it
on
second
Street,
because
we
have
people
who've
lived
in
their
homes
for
decades,
without
a
sidewalk
on
their
land
and
normally
we
would
not
order
a
sidewalk
in
unless
there's
an
accessibility
issue.
A
We
don't
want
to
do
it
on
one
side,
because
somebody
else
promised
it
on
the
other
side
and
that's
I,
don't
like
that
on
second
street.
This,
this
part
I,
don't
mind
so
much
I.
It's
the
other
side,
where
we
don't
already
have
a
waiver
of
right
to
protest
from
the
adjacent
property
owners,
so
they're
going
to
fuss,
and
we
may
never
get
that
sidewalk
in
there
as
a
result,
because
I
guarantee
you
they
will
fight
it,
and
that
will
be
very
unpopular
for
the
council
to
take
that
hard
line
against
those
people.
A
P
The
unions
would
request
the
proposed
language:
I,
don't
have
the
authority
to
negotiate
off
in
that
and
that's
and
you
know,
I'll
tell
you
Matt
and
I.
We
talked
about
language
or
different
numbers
on
that
four
point:
six
seven
two
point:
six:
seven
I
don't
have
I
didn't
have
authority
nor
time
to
get
authority
other
than
the
two
point,
six
seven
and
that
that
that's
why
we
ended
up
and
the
idea
being.
Let's
take
that
worst-case
scenario
and
so.
P
Yes,
that's
what
that
that's
one
argument?
Yes,
but
then
the
flip
side
is
what
what
does
that
require.
It
requires
two
feet
of
their
problem.
It's
so
you
can
say
what
is
aesthetically
pleasing
with
XY
or
Z,
but
until
we
have
a
full
concept,
we're
if
we
have
that
particular
type
of
distinction
in
the
language
we
haven't
considered
the
whole
project,
the
whole
aesthetics,
the
whole
standard
may.
L
I
have
a
question:
if
I'm
on
the,
when,
if
we
do
the
five
percent
is
it
five
percent
I
know
that
in
lieu
of
the
dollars
is
based
on
some
calculation
of
what
it
was
paid
for
value
or
whatever,
but
is
the
five
percent
then
also
equate
to
land
area?
So
if
this
is
seven
point,
six,
six
acres,
it's
five
percent
of
that.
What
how
do
if
we
take
that
option?
How
do
we
determine
where
that
land?
What
right
do
we
have
to
dictate?
Where
that
five
percent
of
land
is?
L
A
Is
the
park
board's
interrogative
and
if
they
would
take
a
position
that
was
completely
unacceptable
to
a
developer?
In
theory,
the
developer
could
just
be
given
the
choice
of,
do
it
or
don't
develop,
but
as
far
as
I
know,
that's
never
happened.
The
park
board
is
real
people
and
they
want
to
negotiate
with
you.
So.
I
Feet
that
is,
if
so
right
now,
though,
we're
asking
for
a
four
point:
six
seven,
we
did
calculate
it
before
to
find
out
what
that
length
of
north
and
south
would
be
for
five
extra
feet,
and
that
came
to
what
did
we
have
fifty
nine
thousand
nine
hundred
around
that
and
that's
the
cash
in
lieu
plus
the
land
for
that
extra
easement.
I.
Think.
A
I
They
were,
they
were
okay
with
that
being
negotiated
here
and
that's
something
to
wear.
As
far
as
when
you
were
talking
about
what
the
Park
Board
decides,
then
they
can
come
to
City,
Council
and
appeal
it,
but
we're
not
there,
because
they
they
did
leave
it
open-ended.
Just
as
long
as
we
had
ten
feet
four
or
that
we
were
able
to
put
a
10-foot
by
trow
in
there.
Okay.
L
A
L
P
P
Well
be,
but
I'll
tell
you
as
an
attorney
representing
somebody
and
they
come
to
me
and
they
say
okay,
so
we
got
to
work
through
a
park
board.
Dedication
requirement.
I'm
gonna
have
to
tell
them
look,
don't
waste
your
time.
We
just
have
to
go
to
City,
Council
and
start
negotiating
all
the
particulars
staff
Park
Board
myself
have
been
negotiating
trying
to
come
up
with
some
terms
that
provided
for
a
backstop
for
the
city
that
has
the
bike
path
guaranteed.
P
L
L
P
The
thing
is:
don't
mr.
Danforth
is
we're
gonna
end
up
you
guys
it's
7
o'clock,
every
development
agreement.
That's
gonna,
come
before
the
City
Council
is
going
to
have
to
be
negotiated
if
we
can't
figure
out
standards
ahead
of
time
with
staff
on
a
recommendation,
because
if,
if
it's
just
we're
going
to
approve
a
park
board
dedication
of
X
percent
of
land
and
then
let's
go
ahead
and
put
the
Platts
in
and
put
the
developments
again,
I
seriously
wonder
whether
developers
are
going
to
run
that
risk
they're
going
to
be
willing
to
take
that
risk.
P
L
Afraid
Vince
I'm
not
suggesting
that
that's
what
happens
in
every
case,
I'm
saying
in
this
particular
case.
In
order
to
get
your
client
the
plat
completed
for
them
to
be
able
to
pull
a
building
permit,
we
have
to
go
with
what
I
know.
There
are
so
many
questions
on
this
thing.
I'm
scratching
my
head,
no
I
could
just
say
heck
with
it.
Go
for
it.
You
guys
we'll
handle
it.
I
don't
have
the
confidence.
It's
gonna,
get
done
that
I'm
gonna
understand
it.
I
would
never
sign
this
in
business.
L
L
I
P
P
The
language
that
is
included
except
for
8a,
has
to
come
for
the
before
the
council
to
have
a
a
payment
plan
or
a
schedule
that
has
to
come
before
word
before
the
council
to
make
those
decisions.
The
mayor
can't
finance
officer
can't
the
Finance
Committee
can't
it's
got
to
come
before
the
full
council
number
one
number
two,
then,
when
you
turn
to
the
park,
dedication
requirements.
P
I'm
telling
you,
mr.
Danforth,
that
there
are
specifics
in
that
language.
There
is
a
payment
in
lieu.
There
is
a
a
bike
path,
but
if
you're
gonna
require
design
prior
to
this
moving
forward,
that's
cart
before
the
horse,
because
they're
working
through
this
process
trying
to
get
the
building
permit
and
trying
to
get
the
architect
with
the
park
and
Rec
people
to
try
to
come
up
with
something
that
looks
nice.
If
you
want
to
just
have
an
asphalt
bike
path,.
A
Okay,
the
issue
here
is:
they
want
to
pull
that
permits
thing
at
this
house
moving
on
there.
So
if,
if
the
council
would
approve
something
that
standard
in
language
was
full,
knowing
that
it's
probably
going
to
be
challenged
and
we'll
work
on
that
and
maybe
with
a
committee
and
then
bring
it
back
later,
meanwhile
you're
moving
the
house
you,
they
will
have
an
obligation
and
to
put
the
put
the
bike
path
in
as
the
city
wants.
D
A
Are
you
asking
I
mean
that's
I
mean
that's
safe
from
the
city
you're
asking
for
concessions
that
make
it
safe
for
the
developer,
who
may
leave
and
then
leave
us
with
a
pile
of
nothing
or
make
it
safe
for
the
city
and
then
let
the
developer
chip
away
at
it
to
make
it
better
for
himself
and
I.
Think
Mike's,
saying
he's
not
comfortable
doing
the
part
where
it's
safe
for
the
developer
but
uncertain
for
the
city.
A
L
L
L
D
L
P
P
It
has
to
come
back
to
you,
I,
don't
think
it
has
to
come
back
to
you,
because
what
this
does
is
sets
the
the
requirement
for
payment.
It
sets
the
requirement
for
a
bike
path
and
then
from
that
base
the
city
and
the
uragan
z--
negotiate
and
if
they
end
up
with
an
agreement,
we're
good
there's.
No,
it's
a
consent
agenda
item.
G
Know
that
you
know
he's
right
he's
right
if
this
is
approved,
as
is
I
mean
you'd
have
to
go
through.
If
you
took
action
on
this
tonight,
you'd
have
to
go
through
and
indicate
which
of
these
are
comfortable
with
and
which
ones
you
aren't
say,
you're
comfortable
with
the
payment
plan,
but
not
the
sidewalk,
etc.
That
would
be
encompassed
in
one
or
more
motions
tonight.
Then
it
would
not
have
to
come
back
to
Council.
If,
if
nothing
in
here
changes
but
I
guess
I
was
just
answering
your
question
in
a
general
sense.
I
What
we
brought
to
plan
Commission,
the
language
is
up
here
on
the
screen
and
it's
it's
saying
that
it's
saying
that
we
would
require
a
five
foot:
recreational
use
easement
for
a
total
of
15
feet
along
the
west
side
of
the
property
boundary,
including
the
required
10
foot,
utility,
easement
and
then
also
then
it
says,
city
has
made
the
decision
to
accept
cash
in
lieu
of
land
for
the
remainder
of
the
requirements.
This
is
calculated
to
be
fifty
five
thousand
nine
hundred
and
thirty
dollars
and
twenty
six
cents.
I
J
P
I
D
P
C
C
A
C
A
E
is
where
we
have
our
standard
language
that
the
city
reserves
the
right
to
order
sidewalks
in
and
the
Europeans
have
requested
a
revisions
and
I
personally
recommend
that
you
remove
that
first
sentence
and
not
approve
that
and
the
rest
of
it
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
that,
but
it's
up
to
you.
That's
a
part
that
hog-tie
is
the
city
mayor.
I
So
this
is
going
to
be,
if
you
guys
are
comfortable
taking
payments
over
a
five-year
term,
usually
like
vallivue,
had
to
pay
a
pro
rata
share
for
second
street
as
well,
and
they
paid
it
all
in
one
before
we
recorded
the
plat.
This
is
taking
into
consideration.
This
isn't
a
subdivision
like
Valley
View
was.
A
This
is
paid
upon
development,
so
if
this
doesn't
happen,
the
city
doesn't
get
paid.
So
if
this
is
a
deal-breaker
for
the
developer,
the
city's,
not
any
farther
ahead.
So
that's
up
to
the
council
on
whether
they
would
want
to
defer
their
payment.
It's
a
substantial
payment
$31,000
and
the
developer
is
asking
to
be
able
to
make
that
in
five
equal
installments.
So
there's
no
interest
and
if
you're,
okay
with
that
I,
don't
think
that
I
mean.
A
Are
we
in
danger
of
having
to
deal
with
that
for
everybody?
Yes,
but
you
can
make
findings
that
this
citchen
situation
is
unique
because
maybe
because
it's
a
huge
chunk
of
land
like
rural
in
an
urban
setting
held
to
an
urban
standard
which
is
extremely
expensive.
So
normally
we
don't
see
seven
acre
lots
with
city
limits.
So
you
could
say
that
you're
doing
this
in
this
case,
because
it's
such
a
large
lot
and
that
you
wouldn't
entertain
doing
this
for
standard
lots
of
9,000
square
feet.
Do.
L
A
J
Right
I'll
make
a
motion
on
to
a
that.
We
accept
the
irrigants
requested
language
I'm.
Ok
with
that,
because
it
is
one
owner,
honey,
large,
parcel,
I,
don't
think
it
sets
the
precedent.
You
know
it's
not
a
subdivision.
It
is
one
owner,
one
land,
one
house,
no
secondary
how
it's
being
added
unless
they
come
back
through
the
whole
process,
so
I'm.
Ok,
with
that
structure,.
D
J
A
G
A
A
So
with
the
standard
language
go
with
the
language
they
requested
or
something
in
between,
and
this
is
the
one
where
I
said.
We
already
have
waivers
of
right
to
protest
and
Valley
View
addition,
so
I'm,
ok
with
the
4th
Street
requirements.
2Nd
Street,
though,
is
different.
We've
got
existing
homes.
There
we're
making
an
we're
gonna
order,
sidewalks
in
on
those
homes
some
day
before
uriens
would
have
to
put
their
sidewalk
in
there.
L
I,
like
our
language,
is
that
so
is
that
what
I'm
reading
up
here
is
our
language?
Yes,
I,
like
our
language,
because
we
have
them
the
choice
of
whether
we
want
to
order
all
or
part
of
it
in
if
we
don't
think
part
of
it
should
go
in,
we
have
the
right
to
not
order
that
part
in
correct.
You
know,
and
if
that's
the
issue
with
second
Street,
we
need
to
sort
out
than
it
does,
but
I
think
we
need
to
stay
with
our
standard
standard
language.
Okay
can
I
make
a
motion
as
such.
M
Would
we
want
to
leave,
as
the
mayor
mentioned,
the
14th,
Avenue
or
4th
Street
Northwest
part
of
it?
Would
we
want
to
leave
that,
as
is
in
lieu
of
the
fact
that
this
is
so
unique
and
they
are
putting
the
by
Carolyn?
We
do
want
to
do
that.
Have
the
standard
language
for
the
I
don't
know
if
we
can
do
that
or
not,
but
why.
A
M
A
A
A
A
M
L
A
L
Again,
I
go
back
to
it.
We
get
the
greatest
flexibility
by
sticking
with
solely
our
language
and
and
then
we
can,
if
we
choose
to
negotiate
or
defer
or
whatever
we
can
do
that.
But
why
not
stay
with
our
standard
terms
right,
no
I,
understand
I,
get
it
I,
get
it
but
I'm
just
saying
I'm.
Now
this
is
I'm
referring
to
the
council.
A
C
J
N
N
A
G
The
council
will
have
a
choice
of
the
first
two
paragraphs
and
then
the
last
starting
with
the
parties
agree
was
the
most
recent
most
recently
negotiated
language
that
we,
both
the
city
and
the
developer
agreed
upon
and
I
will
I
will
just
state
that
a.j
brought
forward
the
the
motion,
the
language
of
the
motion
of
the
park
board.
Just
so
everybody
knows
exactly
what
the
motion
was
motion
by
Schriver
to
accept
cash
in
lieu
of
land
in
the
amount
of
seven
thousand
fifty
three
dollars
and
70
cents
to
meet
park.
G
Dedication,
ordinance
contingent
on
an
agreement
subject
to
City
Attorney
approval
that
guarantees
a
trail
and
yet
to
be
determined,
location
on
right-of-way,
deeded
property
or
easement
along
4th,
Street
Northwest
with
a
yet
to
be
determined
construction
standard
and
that's
based
on
that
direction
from
park
board
is
how
mr.
Foley
and
I
developed
the
language
that
you'll
see
at
the
bottom
of
eight.
G
The
first
paragraph
is
the
city
standard
language
stating
we're
taking
a
dedication
and
payment
in
lieu.
The
second
paragraph
is
the
exact
same
as
the
first
paragraph,
except
it
allows
for
a
payment
plan,
and
then
the
third
paragraph
and
the
fourth
paragraph
are
what
Vince
and
I
had
agreed
to
based
on
the
park
board's
motion.
Okay,.
A
G
A
L
G
P
That's
one
item
and
then
the
actual
location
factors
into
it
also
because
the
land
or
the
part
of
the
trail
that
would
sit
on
the
right-of-way
did
your
degan
should
get
no
credit
for,
because
that's
city,
property,
okay,
the
property,
then
that
is
on
the
idioms.
It
could
either
be
deeded
or
easement
and
both
of
those
would
have
a
different
calculation.
P
Part
of
the
problem
with
any
determination
of
deed
versus
easement
is
the
the
lending
package
that
goes
along
with
most
houses
is
for
a
specific
legal
description
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
we're
talking
about
easement
property
versus
deeded
property.
Easement
property
won't
be
a
problem.
Deeded
property
done.
We
might
have
a
problem.
G
A
L
A
L
A
L
A
We
don't
we
don't
make
them
put
the
sidewalk
in
just
now,
because
we're
contemplating
a
bike
trail.
But
if
we
do
put
a
bike
trail
and
they're
gonna
get
a
bill,
they
agree,
they're,
not
gonna
protest.
It
they're
gonna
be
required
to
pay
their
pro
rata
share,
what
they
would
have
paid
for
a
sidewalk
because
they
acknowledge
they
have
a
requirement
put
a
sidewalk
there.
So.
L
In
lieu
of
and
gosh
ominous
I,
don't
know
how
you
figure,
but
let's
just
say
today's
terms
are
what
the
total
sidewalk
requirement
would
be
on
on
that
side.
I
mean
that
should
be
built
into
this
right.
It
would
be
and
should
be,
because
that
is
a
factor.
I
I
don't
want
to
forego
a
sidewalk
pay
for
land
to
get
a
bike
trail.
Then
we
could
take
any
way
that.
G
Maybe
what
you
know,
that's
why
that
language
isn't
specified
in
there
one
it
wasn't
hasn't
been
discussed
yet
how
that
would
work,
but
I
suppose
it's
possible.
The
city
would
just
put
a
bike
trail
in
right
up
to
the
road,
although
I
don't
think
we
want
that
and
then
also
require
them
to
put
a
sidewalk.
In
still
that's.
G
L
J
G
A
A
A
G
A
D
P
D
P
A
P
A
A
J
A
C
A
A
A
P
D
D
A
We
are
reconvened.
Item
number
12
on
the
agenda.
Is
authorization
for
the
mayor
to
sign,
grant
extension
for
the
Upper
Big
Sioux,
River,
watershed
implementation,
project
segment,
7
I,
look
for
a
motion
and
second
for
approval.
They
have
a
motion
by
solemn
and
second
by
Bueller
and
I,
see
Rodgers
here
to
tell
us
briefly
what
this
is:
Roger
Justice.
K
K
Basically,
the
purpose
of
this
is
that
two
years
ago,
when
we
went
to
the
DNR
to
get
approval
for
the
grant,
we
asked
for
a
three
year
time
period
with
the
funding
and
whatnot
that
goes
with
it.
When
the
contract
came
back
from
DNR,
they
had
changed
the
language
to
reflect
two
years
and
not
three
years.
It
was
a
little
confusing
at
that
time,
but
they
said,
don't
worry
about
it.
When
you
get
down
to
the
end
of
the
two
years,
we'll
extend
you
a
year.
K
K
A
A
Item
13
is
the
first
reading
of
ordinance
number
18
12
amending
title
21,
adding
chapter
21
point
one:
five
r1
a
single-family
residential
district,
and
this
came
with
the
recommendation
of
the
Planning
Commission.
This
is
the
affordable
housing
committee's
recommendation
for
a
smaller
lot
size,
and
this
is
just
a
first
reading.
So
there's
no
action
and
brandy
you
want
to
give
a
quick
synopsis
of
what
it
is.
Yeah.
I
I
will
make
this
one
quick,
so
we
are
proposing
that
the
minimum
lot
size
be
5000
square
feet.
The
minimum
lot
width
be
50
feet
that
there
be
six
foot
side
yards,
want
six
foot
on
one
side,
nine
foot
on
the
other
side,
and
there
can
be
six
feet
on
both
sides
if
there
is
improved
secondary
access
to
the
rear
yard.
That
was
done
so
then
people
could
access
their
rear
yards.
I
Fifty
five
maximum
lot
coverage
to
alleviate
drainage
issues,
and
then
there
will
be
shared
walls
will
be
allowed
between
lot
lines
as
long
as
each
home
has
sufficient
lot
with
the
fifty
feet
and
then
also
we
added
the
limitation
of
a
12
foot.
Maximum
driveway
width
is
allowed
and
it
it'll
be
allowed
to
be
larger
as
long
as
there's
20
feet
of
contiguous
curved
frontage
and
that's
reserved
for
on
street
parking.
A
Alright-
and
anybody
have
any
questions
about
this,
I
would
like
to
change
the
name
of
it
before
we
advertise.
We
have
an
r1
single-family
residential
district,
so
this
is
r1
a
single-family
residential
district
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
add
a
qualifier
to
differentiate
what
this
is
and
I
was
thinking
like
r1,
a
compact
single-family,
residential
district
or
r1,
a
single-family
residential
access,
district
attraction,
district
catalyst,
district
growth,
district
progress,
districts,
Park,
District
vision,
district
I'm,
open
to
suggestions,
so
I
just
want
to
plant
that
seed,
and
let
me.
D
A
I
A
J
I
A
A
I
H
A
Thank
You
Randy
item
number
14
is
also
Brandis.
First
reading
of
ordinance,
number
18
13
amending
chapter
21
point
3,
2,
O,
3
and
chapter
20
1.90,
allowing
by
conditional
use
and
defining
commercial
recreational
uses
within
the
I
1
light
industrial
district
in
just
the
first
reading;
no
action
but
trying
to
explain
what
this
is.
Yep.
I
So
this
came
from
councilman
bill,
Hauer
and
albertson,
bringing
it
forward
after
we
had
talked
to
a
couple
businesses
where
we
would
like
to
have
the
option
for
them
to
come
forward
with
the
conditional
use
application
to
the
board
of
adjustments
to
be
able
to
have
a
commercial
recreational
facility
in
the
i1
light
industrial
district.
You
guys
had
heard
this
a
couple
years
back,
but
that
was
and
it
failed
because
they
were
also
trying
to
propose
it
for
the
i2,
which
is
heavy
industrial
and
that's
that's
an
appropriate
light.
Industrials
a
little
more
restrictive
uses.
I
So
then
we're
defining
that
as
a
place
designed
and
equipped
for
the
conduct
of
sports,
leisure
time
activities
and
other
customary
and
usual
recreational
activities,
either
active
or
passive
and
operated
as
a
business
and
open
to
the
public
14
years
of
age
and
older.
And
that
is
so.
You
know
for
daycares
situations
and
then,
when
we
actually
brought
this
to
the
Planning
Commission
they
wanted
to
strike.
We
were
going
to
add
the
daycare
facility
non-residential,
which
is
right
now
allowed
in
our
ordinance
as
a
permitted
use.
I
A
E
I
E
I
But
I
know
that
and
that's
something
that
we'll
explore,
because
we
need
to
be
looking
into
daycare
facilities
in
general.
Anyway,
where
the
plan
commission
asks
that
we
have
certain
design
standards
that
then
they
don't
have
to
state
their
own,
finding
findings
of
fact
for
each
specific
one,
but
where
it
would
be
outlined
in
our
ordinance
so
and
that
that
we
can
get
I
mean
that's
in
the
hopper.
We
need
to
get
that
something
done
there.
A
A
F
Thank
you.
Gonna
get
some
pushback
on
the
age,
because
what
you're
doing
is
you're
eliminating
kids
sports
of
various
flavors
that
come
in
at
eight
nine
six
six
gymnastics
comes
to
mind.
I
used
to
have
a
conflict
of
interest
on
this
one,
but
I
don't
anymore,
that's
one
that
comes
to
mind,
so
that
would
apply
to
them.
Why
not?
That's.
I
Actually,
what
we're
trying
to
eliminate?
Because
we
don't
want
children
that
are
you,
know
and
daycares
are
different
because
they
have
to
have
certain
amount
like
you
can
have
12
kids
per
caretaker,
but
there's
nothing
limiting
the
amount
of
children
or
adolescents
within
these
facilities
and
when
they're
in
a
lightened
up
industrial
district,
it's
more
hazardous.
So
we
don't
want
to
necessarily
condone
that.
Q
A
A
L
L
I
Because
if
they're
doing
it
in
a
contractor
shop,
they're
going
to
need
what
because
they'll
come
in
for
to
get
their
permit
and
if
they
are
taking
up
everybody's
parking,
spaces
and
contractors
can't
get
their
equipment
in
and
out
that
I
mean
it'll
have
to
be
addressed
at
when
they're
in
front
of
the
Board
of
Adjustment
and
they'll
have
to
have
a
plan
for
how
their
parking
will
work
and
function.
This.
A
A
C
A
E
C
D
A
Opposed
signify
by
saying,
nay,
motion
carries
item
number
16
is
authorization
for
the
mayor
to
sign
a
grant
application
for
the
campus
galoot
trail
project
and
I'll.
Look
for
a
motion,
second,
for
approval
moved
by
councilman
y
second
by
Councilman
l'olam,
and
this
received
the
recommendation
of
the
committee
prior
and
Vanessa
gave
her
presentation
explaining
the
various
different
phases
of
the
lake
comp
ESCO
loop
trail
project
and
with
the
third
phase
being
that
part
over
on
the
west
side,
which
seemed
most
probable
to
get
grant
funding
and
grant
funding
takes
a
long
time.
A
So
we
want
to
get
started
as
soon
as
possible
and
there
has
to
be
a
grant,
a
notice
of
intent
to
submit
a
grant
application
signed
by
this
by
me
by
next,
like
the
16th
of
July.
So
we
would
like
to
see
a
motion
to
authorize
the
mayor
to
sign
all
associated
documents
with
applying
for
a
grant,
including
that
Notice
of
Intent
and
the
future
actual
grant
application
any
other
documents
associated
with
it.
C
A
A
All
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye,
those
opposed
signify
by
saying
nay
motion,
carries
item
number
17
is
authorization
for
the
mayor
to
sign
a
prairie
lakes,
wellness
center
sponsorship
agreement
with
professional
hearing
Services
Inc.
You
know
look
for
a
motion
second
and
we'll
talk
about
it.
Mike
also
a
bill
powers,
second,
by
Councilman,
Danforth,
hey
Glen!
Do
you
want
to
talk
about
this.
E
This
is
this
is
the
the
third
one.
That's
come
before
us
now
relative
to
sponsorship
agreements
at
the
curly-q's
Wellness
Center.
This
has
gone
through
the
approval
process
by
Prairie
lakes.
The
the
signage
was
looked
at
by
a
little
committee
of
councilman,
Danforth
and
Roby,
and
myself
and
Mayor.
You
saw
this
as
well
man.
You
worked
with
Ryan
on
the
the
contract
itself.
I
guess
I
have
nothing
further
to
add
at
this
point,
I,
don't
recommend
that
we
and
I
think
Kristen
you've
already
built
out
the
first
installment.
E
A
Any
other
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
it
was
opposed
signify
by
saying
nay
motion,
carries
item
number
18
is
consideration
of
change
order
number
one
final:
two:
the
contract
with
Smith
and
Smith
construction
for
the
highway
81
storm,
sewer
structure,
improvements,
project,
number
1809
for
a
decrease
of
$200,
and
this
came
with
the
recommendation
of
the
committee
and
there's
just
a
thing
that
we
didn't
do
that
was
would
have
cost
us
$200.
So
this
is
the
project's
done
motion
by
a
Bueller
second,
by
l'olam.
A
Is
there
any
discussion,
see
none
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye.
It
was
a
post
signify
by
saying,
nay,
motion
carries
item.
19
is
consideration
of
change
order
number
one
to
the
contract
with
donek
ink
for
the
sanitary
sewer
improvements
project
number
1808
for
an
increase
of
twelve
thousand
six
hundred
forty
five
dollars,
and
this
dollar
amount
would
pay
for
fabric
over
excavation
fabric
and
extra
crushed
concrete
for
stabilizing
the
road
base
moved
by
a
councilman.
Why,
second,
by
councilman
l'olam
any
discussion?
A
This
received
the
recommendation
from
the
committee,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye.
Those
opposed
signify
by
saying
nay
motion
carries
item.
20
is
consideration
of
change
order
number
two
to
the
contract
with
rounds,
construction
for
the
landfill
stormwater
improvements,
project
number
1818
for
an
increase
of
nine
thousand
seven
hundred
ninety-four
dollars
twenty-five
cents,
and
this
dollar
amount
is
to
reroute
a
storm
sewer
because
they
ran
into
a
vein
of
garbage
in
the
dirt.
Is
there
a
motion
for
approval,
move
move
by
Albertson?
Second,.
D
A
Opposed
signify
by
saying,
nay,
motion
carries
item
number
21
is
consideration
of
a
contract
with
Mac
land
surveying
LLC,
for
construction
support
on
shooting
range
construction
project,
16
19,
and
that's
we
don't
we're
short-staffed
right
now,
so
this
would
give
us
some
extra
help
in
the
engineering
department.
Is
there
a
motion
to
approve
motion,
my
damn
forth?
Second,
my
l'olam
any
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye.
It.
E
A
S
S
So
we
had
some
numbers
in
there
for
design
of
fence
relocation.
Stuff,
like
that,
since
that's
probably
not
going
to
happen
yet
this
year
we
will
deduct
that
out
of
our
contracts,
so
you
will
see
most
likely
a
decrease
from
us
unless
the
buildings
are
proposed
to
get
built
here
in
the
near
future.
So
I
would
ask
also
maybe
a
secondary
or
amended
motion.
Typically,
the
the
FAA
likes
a
quick
turnaround
on
the
grant
offer.
S
So
once
you
submit
the
application,
the
FAA
will
actually
send
you
the
the
grant
offer
to
accept
the
money
and
they
typically
want
a
fairly
quick
turnaround
with
that
documentation.
So
I
would
ask
the
council
if
they
could
authorize
the
mayor
to
sign
all
the
appropriate
documents
with
the
grant
offer
remain.
S
M
S
You
what
why
do
you
have
to
do
them
yeah?
We
have
to
do
them
for
our
pavement
design.
So
we
have
to
know
what
the
soils
are
with
the
associated
properties.
Typically,
the
California
bearing
ratio
is
the
is
the
property
that
we
use
for
the
FAS
pavement
design,
that's
what
it's
for,
and
it
also
lets
you
know
what's
out
there,
you
know
if
it's
six
inches
of
concrete,
how
much
base
course
it
lets
us
know
if
we
have
some
salvageable
items
underneath
there
as
well.
We've
ran
into.
S
A
S
There's
one
thing:
I
just
wanted
to
bring
up
for
information.
We
recently
been
told
from
the
FAA:
they
do
have
a
I,
don't
want
to
call
it
a
stimulus
package,
but
there's
been
a
billion
dollar
boost
to
the
AIP
program.
They're
thinking
it's
going
to
be
phased
over
a
3-year
process.
We
don't
know
any
specifics.
How
the
program
is
going
to
be
managed,
but
certainly
we've,
we've
wastewater
tone
as
your
terminal
apron
reconstruction
as
a
potential
project
for
that
what
they
are
telling
us
and
again.
S
This
is
a
not
set
in
stone,
but
it
could
be
a
possibility
of
a
hundred
percent
grant
funding
so
zero
match.
You
know,
I,
don't
know
how
the
eligibility
is
going
to
work
with
the
projects
if
it's
going
to
be
geared
towards,
maybe
smaller
GA
or
or
airport
such
as
Watertown,
but
just
wanted
to
get
it
on
your
radar.
It's
something
we're
certainly
going
to
be
corresponding
with
the
FAA
and
and
getting
more
information.
T
L
S
We
don't
have
a
lot
of
information
on
it
as
of
yet
they're,
just
kind
of
I
think
they're
still
sorting
it
out
in
Washington
on
how
they're
gonna
manage
it
and
how
they're
gonna
determine
eligibility
and
then
and
run
it,
but
we,
what
we're
being
told
is
it's
gonna,
be
run
over
a
three-year
period.
So,
even
if
it's
not
this
next
year's
project,
it
could
be
something
when
you
start
looking
at
your
your
a
new
terminal
or
something
like
that.
Possibly
we
don't
know
yet
anyway,.
D
E
D
A
N
Yes,
I'd
like
to
bring
up
from
our
June
4th
meeting
the
enhanced
lighting
project
on
highway
212
phase
2
myself,
along
with
the
rest
of
the
council.
We
approved
that
project
and
we've
I
personally
have
had
a
lot
of
pushback
on
that
from
members
in
the
community
and
I'd
like
to
discuss
that
tonight
and
possibly
take
a
revote
on
that.
E
Q
Q
C
Just
wanted
to
point
normally
this
one
kind
of
got
missed
as
being
on
the
consent
agenda.
So
before
we
proceeded
tonight,
though,
you
guys
awarded
the
bid
basically
to
proceed
with
the
project.
It
is
not
normal
for
a
it's,
not
unnormal,
for
a
street
assessment
project
to
not
have
a
budget
with
it.
It's
there
kind
of
the
unknowns.
Until
we
know
what's
happening,
this
one
was
really
unknown.
This
was
done
after
the
lot
was
sold.
So
what
will
happen
now?
Is
these
actually
do
come
out
of
the
general
fund?
So
what
will
happen?
C
Is
I
will
bring
forth
the
next
meeting.
The
first
budget
supplement
so
that
you
guys
have
a
chance
to
then
approve
that,
but
this
is
not
out
of
the
normal
to
to
kind
of
see
an
assessment
come
up
without
it
being
budgeted
the
previous
year,
because
they
are
they're
kind
of
an
unknown
when
they
happen.
So
right.
A
Okay,
we
do
have
a
need
for
an
executive
session
in
order
to
discuss
and
consult
with
legal
counsel
on
contractual
matters.
So
look
for
a
motion,
second,
to
go
into
executive
session,
moved
by
Alice
McCollum
second,
by
Councilman.
Why?
All
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye,
it
was
opposed
signify
by
saying,
nay
motion
carries
we
are
in
executive
session.