Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft March 1, 2010 Meeting Minutes o~ PRIO~ tO~ 4646 Dakota Street S.E. U ~ Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 ~INNESO'\~ '" REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm. Present were Mayor Myser, Council members Erickson, Hed- berg, Keeney and Millar, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Public Works Director/City Engineer Albrecht, Finance Director Erickson, Building and Transit Services Director Kansier, Fire Chief Hartman, Assistant City Manager Meyer, Communications Coordinator Peterson and Administrative Assistant Green. City Council Meeting Minutes March 1,2010 DRAFT PUBLIC FORUM The Public Forum is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns to the City Council. It will be no longer than 30 minutes in length and each presenter will have no more than ten (10) minutes to speak. Items to be considered on the agenda may be addressed at the Public Forum unless they have been or will be the subject of a public hearing or public information hearing at the City Council, the Econom- ic Development Authority (EDA), the Planning Commission, or any other City Advisory Committee within the foreseeable future. Forum items are also restricted to City governmental topics rather than as a plat- form for private agendas. Matters that are the subject of pending litigation are not appropriate for the Public Forum. The City Council will not take formal action on Public Forum presentations. City Manager Boyles explained the concept of the Public Forum. Comments: No person stepped forward to speak. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY MILLAR, SECONDED BY HEDBERG TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 16, 2010, MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. Erickson abstained due to his absence at the meet- ing. The motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA City Manager Boyles reviewed the items on the consent agenda. A. Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. B. Consider Approval of Resolution 10-015 Authorizing Payment for CR 21 Extension, SAP 70-621-024. C. Consider Approval of Resolution 10-016 Reaffirming the Authorization of Execution of the Delegated Contracting Process Agreement for the CR 42 and McKenna Road Signal Project. D. Consider Approval of a Report Proposing an Administrative Complaint Policy. Councilmember Erickson requested that items Band C be removed from the Consent Agenda. MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS MODIFIED. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 City Council Meeting Minutes March 1,2010 DRAFT Erickson: Queried how receiving stimulus funding for the CR 21 extension and McKenna signal projects would affect property taxes. Albrecht: Replied that the CR 21 project will receive a total of $17 million in stimulus money, which will directly impact the City tax levy with a reduction of about $90,000. Additionally, State Aid dollars that would have been used on that project can be redirected to the CR 12 project reducing the 2010 tax levy for that project by about $300,000. In a similar fashion, the McKenna project will result in a $155,000 savings to City taxpayers. MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 10.015 AUTHORIZING PAYMENT FOR CR 21 EXTENSION, SAP 70-621-024; AND RESOLUTION 10.016 REAFFIRMING THE AUTHORIZATION OF EXECUTION OF THE DELEGATED CONTRACTING PROCESS AGREEMENT FOR THE CR 42 AND MCKENNA ROAD SIGNAL PROJECT. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. PRESENTATION CR 21/ Main Avenue / TH 13 Feasibility Study Public Works Director Albrecht explained that the City has embarked upon several studies in the past few years regarding transportation and reviewed the most recent study by Bolton and Menk for the CR 21 / Main Avenue / Hwy 13 segment. Reviewed recommendations of the study noting that downtown business- es have had opportunity for comment on plans for traffic movement in the downtown area. Spoke of issues and costs. Introduced Bolton and Menk representative Chris Chromy. Stated that the infrastructure changes would be staged over many years, but the City needs to decide how it wants the roadway to look in order to initiate inclusion into the County's transportation plan and facilitate seeking funding sources. Described potential interim pedestrian crossing across CR 21 on Main, the potential long term solution of a split grade crossing for Main / CR 21, and a potential Pleasant Street three-quarter intersection with Hwy 13. Explained that Arcadia and Pleasant need to be planned early in order to provide proper grading for the Main / CR 21 intersection. Noted that bridging would be very expensive and partners would be sought for costs. Explained that a 20% factor is built into the budget for long-term projects since inflationary costs are unknown and such things as soil borings, etc. which would help to define the parameters of the project have not yet been done. Stated that Council direction is requested on the intersection options. Comments: Hedberg: Queried how the proposed stage three and four construction could be done at different times due to different grade levels. Albrecht: Stated that the north, south and east segments of the CR 21 / Hwy 13 intersection would be built to the permanent condition and the west segment would be temporary until stage four is reached meaning such things as retaining walls, storm sewer work, etc. would not be completed until stage four. Hedberg: Believes it is important to proceed with the CR 21 / Arcadia intersection in 2011 to be ready for the Hwy 169 connection in 2012. Believes the Main / CR 21 four-way stop sign will be non-functional then and the Arcadia intersection needed to help with traffic. Believes a Comprehensive Plan review should be done, which would govern whether the bridge is decided upon. Stated the current Comprehensive Plan calis for significant downtown development and he believes that would require the bridge option. Believes the infrastructure decided upon should be considered for a five-year window rather than 15-20 years in or- der to be ready for the opportunities to build on the traffic that comes from Hwy 169 or those opportunities might be forever lost. Hopes such a project could be a good candidate for outside funding. Millar: Clarified that the budget for the bridge option would be $14 million. 2 City Council Meeting Minutes March 1, 2010 DRAFT Albrecht: Confirmed it is estimated at $14.3 million which does not include such things as street scaping; added that there would be a more defined cost as the project moves through planning stages. Millar: Concurred it would be important to move forward on the Arcadia intersection so it is completed be- fore the Hwy 169 connection is opened and asked about the expected traffic count. Albrecht: Replied that significant increases are expected. Currently the Casino generates the greatest traffic and traffic count will also depend upon how many drivers from the south will use CR 21 vs. CR 17. Noted that the County is trying to move forward quickly on improvements to CR 17. Millar: Expressed concern for pedestrian safety when crossing at Main / CR 21 and believes the bridge option would be safer for pedestrians. Erickson: Concurred that the Arcadia intersection improvements should be undertaken and asked if the Main / Ridgemont intersection is planned in the proposed stages. Albrecht: Affirmed and displayed changes planned for 2013. Erickson: Asked about a possible time frame for completing an at-grade crossing at Main / CR 21. Albrecht: Replied if the City pays for it alone, it would be 2018. The County indicated we can work with them in getting it in their transportation plan when our plans are complete so costs can be planned, but 2015 would be the earliest. The City is beginning the project with the Arcadia intersection with the intent of having the County take the lead on the remainder of the intersection projects. Commented that with a plan in place, it is more likely that the County would accelerate the at-grade option. Erickson: Asked why the "jog" is proposed for the pedestrian crossing at Main / CR 21. Albrecht: Replied that there will be a barrier constructed that forces people to focus on crossing just one direction of traffic at a time. Studies show these types of crossings are a fairly safe option. Chromy: Added that studies show that people make good decisions on when to cross the first set of lanes, but without barriers they continue crossing the second lane without looking for a break in the traffic. This configuration has pedestrians facing the oncoming traffic. Erickson: Believes the City needs to look at getting the below grade traffic and at grade main street cross- ing to have a viable downtown; and that something needs to be in place when CR 21 goes through to Hwy 169. Keeney: Commented that having a bridge would result in giving up right-in, right-out access for vehicles and the bridge option seems like spending money for the convenience of people already in a vehicle who could go around the block. Albrecht: Commented that the original study had an at-grade intersection; businesses felt that the two halves of downtown would be separated forever, and believed traffic across them was important. Busi- nesses were very involved in the early study and seemed interested in the long-term economic standing of downtown rather than just their own tenure. Those businesses believed a bridge was important and per- ceived it as a long-term solution. Noted that an at-grade intersection renders entrances to some of the businesses nearly impossible and the right-in, right-out movement would not really be practical. Keeney: Stated he sees this as an expensive solution and that the visual impression between the two halves will divide downtown anyway. Asked what the primary benefit would be in having a left-turn access onto Pleasant Street. Albrecht: Replied it would be needed to get into downtown from Hwy 13 south. Keeney: Clarified that such a left turn would depend on a break in traffic caused by the signals at CR 21. Asked about the pedestrian underpass. Albrecht: Replied there is existing trail by the wetland on CR 21 and the underpass would tie into that trail. Keeney: Asked it there is any right-ot-way acquisition cost. Albrecht: Replied that wetlands south of Pleasant would have to be acquired, but the land has a low valu- ation. Keeney: Asked about signaled crosswalks. 3 City Council Meeting Minutes March 1, 2010 DRAFT Chromy: Replied that the safety perspective of signals is based on pedestrian use, but does not include driver's perspective. Lights present security for pedestrian, but drivers do not necessarily stop for them. Keeney: Asked if signals could be added later if desired. Chromy: Affirmed that signals could always be added and the County may not want to plan for one at this time. Keeney: Stated he does not favor a bridge, but agreed that something needs to be planned for Main and CR 21. Asked where snowmobiles would go. Albrecht: Replied that snowmobiles are not allowed on CR 21 now and is not sure that the proposed in- tersection changes will change snowmobile traffic. Keeney: Supports three phases, but not the bridge. Myser: Asked about expenses of an at grade pedestrian crossing. Albrecht: Responded that the cost is projected at $700,000 and would include increasing the width of CR 21, acquiring right of way, rebuilding sidewalks and moving traffic during the construction period. Myser: Concurred that safety is important. Commented that dividing downtown could negatively impact jobs which seems counterproductive to the SCALE initiative of having 50% of residents employed within the County. Suggested that the County could be reminded that the City's downtown should be vital for em- ployment in the area. Sought clarification about the added costs for a bridge crossing. Albrecht: Replied that $6.8 million is proposed for the last phase. Chromy: Reiterated that $14.3 million is for the entire project. Albrecht: Added that if stage four is not done, stage two might be revised; but that the proposed fourth stage would add costs of $6-7, Myser: Suggested that a bridge could be built wide enough to add businesses on the bridge which would connect downtown, provide land for additional businesses, and become a draw for downtown, Albrecht: Commented that had not been thought of and noted that the height of the bridge would have to be considered to allow room for the traffic to flow beneath it. Chromy: Commented that cost would have to be considered as well. Myser: Queried whether the value could be calculated considering the benefit of joining the downtown as well as adding buildable space. Albrecht: Commented that with such levels of cost being approached, it might be worthwhile to consider realigning CR 21 south of its current location and encompass downtown as a whole. Noted that properties would have to be acquired but it might be a good option if the City wants to consider the costs and the time frame. Myser: Replied he would encourage it. Noted that this proposed project focused on the roadways and he would support looking at the downtown in its entirety as well as any planning that could be done to attract stimulus dollars. Erickson: Commented on youth that cross CR 21 to get to school or go to parks and asked where they would cross if CR 21 were realigned, Albrecht: Replied that level of planning has not been done on any proposal to realign CR 21, but noted that such things as underpasses and other amenities can be planned when developing a new roadway more easily than when trying to retrofit existing roadway. Millar: Asked how the County might view realigning CR 21. Chromy: Commented that in the past, County engineers felt it was worth discussing. Indicated that there would need to be an environmental study to learn impact to homes, comparison costs would be calculated, etc. Keeney: Stated there may be additional alternatives to consider if the City is considering spending this kind of money redeveloping downtown. Suggested it might be cheaper to move the buildings at some point and the existing buildings are not worth this kind of money. Expressed concern that the City is considering a direction it cannot afford and that a reasonable approach should be considered. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes March 1,2010 DRAFT Myser: Stated he does not feel sure about what any of the options would cost nor the benefits. Supports not getting too far out there, but encouraged thinking about what is best for downtown. Hedberg: Stated the City has for several years been talking that that the downtown could become a signif- icant business district over the next couple of generations and he can foresee that it could result in valua- tion of up to several hundred million dollars. Progressive steps with the roadway and infrastructure would be needed to get there and the Council would have to work together and with the public. Believes we need to enable and set the stage for the next 20-40 years on focused economic development. Economic Development Advisory Committee Annual Report City Manager Boyles briefly outlined the focus of the EDAC and introduced EDAC Chair Deno Howard. Howard informed the Council of EDAC's goals to recruit and retain businesses in Prior Lake, described plans to have a presence at City events and marketing pieces that are being developed. Howard explained the business interviews being conducted and stated that the EDAC would like to be involved in appropriate ordinance reviews and business subsidy options. Comments: Erickson: Commented that membership requirements on the EDAC include being a person who either works or lives in Prior Lake. Congratulated Howard for helping the Committee become active in developing business in the city. Keeney: Asked if a preview of interview results could be provided. Howard: Replied that the upcoming EDAC meeting will be the first time that members will address data received. Hedberg: Commented that the EDAC performs an important activity and that bringing more businesses with jobs for people to work at in Prior Lake fits with the work of the Economic Development Authority. Millar: Stated that the EDAC has put a positive image and face on the City and community in terms of at- tracting and retaining businesses. Myser: Thanked the Committee for its efforts noting that surveys are critical to addressing issues and keep businesses. Suggested that the EDAC focus on retention and that the Economic Development Authority needs to provide resources for new businesses. 2010 Census Communications Coordinator Peterson provided information on the upcoming Census commenting that Minnesota is teetering on losing a seat in the house. Stated that Census forms will be delivered in mid- March and residents should complete and return the forms. Commented that an Inside City Hall was con- ducted with the State Demographer and she expressed concerns that "snowbirds" might be counted out of state. Advised all people who reside mainly in Minnesota to fill out their Census form in Minnesota and be counted here. Comments: Erickson: Affirmed the importance of keeping representation in Minnesota. Keeney: Encouraged everyone to complete their Census forms. Millar: Concurred. Hedberg: Commented that completing the Census is one of the few things defined as a critical responsibil- ity of government all the way back to the origin of our country. Myser: Concurred. PUBLIC HEARING No public hearing was conducted. 5 City Council Meeting Minutes March 1, 2010 DRAFT OLD BUSINESS Consider Approval of a Report on the Bluffs of Northwood Meadows. City Manager Boyles introduced the topic recalling that residents of the Bluffs of Northwood Meadows spoke at a public forum and are represented by Bruce Huemoeller. Suggested there might be future issues similar to this one. Stated that City Attorney Pace had researched this situation as well as pertinent or- dinance and case law. Pace provided a background stating that this Planned Unit Development in Northwood Meadows contains three subdivisions (Bluffs, Coves, and Villas). Each of the subdivisions was approved and each has its own covenant with differing parameters. The plat for the Bluffs was approved in 2006, but the covenants were not filed until 2009. Lakeland Construction Finance held the mortgage on the Bluffs. When the developer of the Bluff's, Manley Development was not able to redeem the property, Lakeland became the "owner." Lakeland filed amended covenants in January 2010. The Bluffs' covenants state that only the owners of lots can enforce the covenant and the covenants also state they may be amended by a vote of two-thirds of the owners of the lots. Lakeland owns two-thirds of the lots and may change the covenants. The original covenants allowed two styles of homes and specified minimum size of the homes. The revised covenants filed in January 2010 added a home type (split-entry) and reduce the minimum square footage. Pace indicated the City received a letter from Mr. Huemoeller representing Northwood Meadows indicating that litigation is a possibility if the City does not enforce the original covenants and rescind a building permit for a lot Lakeland sold to Fieldstone Family Homes. Pace stated that Section 6.2 of the Developers Agreement for the PUD prohibits developers from suing the City. Stated she reviewed the contract for plats and the PUD list items for things that would create a breach but found nothing dealing with the covenants. Pace stated she does not believe the City has the authority to enforce the covenants, nor would it want to put itself in that position. Pace commented on an allegation that the developer of the Bluffs was held to a lesser standard of devel- oper than the developer of the Coves and Villas. She believes the allegation arises from an agreement the City reached with Manley that created a mechanism to complete the final wear course and landscaping in the Bluffs. Pace asked Building and Transportation Services Director Kansier to comment on the agreement with Manley and what led to it since Kansier and Pace were both involved in the solution. Kansier affirmed that the City tried to draw on Manley's Letter of Credit and learned that Lakeland, the bank holding the LOC, was insolvent. With the goal of completing the improvements without having taxpayers billed for it, a plan was devised to finish the street and fulfill tree requirements and collect future payments with each building permit that is granted for the Bluffs. Such a step was not necessary in the Villas and Coves because the developers completed those items. Commented that if the City were allowed to enforce covenants, it would always having to assure that covenants were current and would have to review each building permit for covenant compliance in addition to zoning, building codes, grading, etc. Such com- pliance requirements would add to time needed to review plans, as well as add to the obligations of build- ers, permittees, code enforcement, etc. Public Works Director Albrecht confirmed that the City used this mechanism to complete the improve- ments for the Bluffs as the City wanted to assure that improvements were completed without assessing and thereby penalizing the existing residents of the Bluffs. 6 City Council Meeting Minutes March 1, 2010 DRAFT Pace underscored the point that the development approval process set out in the Subdivision Ordinance permits the City, staff, City Attorney and consultants to request additional information from the developer, including copies of any "Proposed covenants." Staff routinely requests covenants to review to assure zon- ing compliance before a project is begun. Comments: Hedberg: Covenants deal with a wide range of things in the relationship between developers and home- owners and among homeowners regarding maintenance, upkeep, architectural features, etc. Expressed surprise that homeowners and their attorney focused on their covenant as the thing that the City is sup- posed to enforce as their concerns are limited to square footage, style and architectural features. Asked what the City's subdivision ordinance 103.203 says about those types of items. Pace: Replied that Subdivision Ordinance usually refers to setbacks, yards, impervious surface, minimum size lots, etc.; it does not require a certain size or style. Hedberg: Report refers to section 103.203, Design Feature, stating the City has developed design stan- dards for the downtown district and queried why a PUD cannot have requirements surrounding those is- sues tied to ordinance. Pace: Replied that Section talks about layout of streets, alleys, pedestrian ways, easements, lot areas, etc. that are used in evaluating a subdivision. In a PUD, the property is essentially rezoned with the purpose of offering greater flexibility in development than a traditional subdivision allows and an alternative to devel- opment as outlined in the residential, commercial or industrial use districts of the ordinance. Kansier: Stated the City can request specific design elements but did not in the Bluffs of Northwood Mea- dows. Hedberg: Supports the report which states that in this situation there is no redress with the City. Believes it is appropriate in many cases to include design standards in a PUD in order to maintain quality housing developments. Pace: Agreed that could be included, but the enforcement should be in the PUD Development Agreement and not in the covenants. Recommended against the City doing anything in this situation, but indicated the Council could direct the Planning Commission to issue a rezoning of the PUD back to its original residential zoning district if the Council believes there has been a breach in the PUD Contract. Hedberg: Believes that would not solve this problem of the developer building smaller homes with lesser features. Millar: Asked if the City has any precedence for the requested action. Pace: Replied she is not aware of any city that enforces private covenants and, basically, cities do not have the right to do so unless they are a party to the covenants. Millar: Clarified that the Bluffs' covenant states that only owners of lots have right to enforce covenants. Pace: Affirmed. Millar: Reiterated that only the owners have the right to change the covenant, and asked if the City is open to lawsuit. Pace: Replied she is unaware of any cause of action. Millar: Believes that the City has no legal responsibility in this case. Erickson: Asked if streets are public or private. Kansier: Public. Erickson: Clarified that the City is maintaining these streets. Albrecht: Affirmed that the City has accepted the streets in this development and maintains them. Erickson: Queried about the suggestion to turn this question to the Planning Commission. Pace: Replied it was her intent to apprise Council of all options explaining that there is a provision of the zoning ordinance to return it to the way it was before it was made a PUD, but that she was not recommend- ing such action. 7 City Council Meeting Minutes March 1, 2010 DRAFT Erickson: Commented that if the City were going to try to enforce covenants, it would be trying to enforce a constantly changing situation since owners can continuously change them. Will accept the report. Keeney: Stated his understanding that the City owns none of the lots, is not a party to the covenants in any way, that the covenants were not incorporated into the development contract, Manley Developers was in default so the development was completed under an amended agreement, and at this point the City can- not withhold building permits under the agreement. Does not see anything the City can do in terms of the building permits. Myser: Stated he heard nothing that the City can do to help the residents in this situation. Does not see the City enforcing covenants and would be reluctant to get into the business of setting design standards by a government body rather than the free market. Pace: Commented that a second letter was received from Huemoeller demanding that the City stop work on the building permit for a lot, advising that Northwood Meadows was considering suing the City if it did not issue a stop work order and reiterating some earlier comments. Stated that her letter, dated February 11,2010, addresses all the issues except a potential lawsuit. Noted that the Development Agreement pro- hibits them from suing. Myser: Stated he sees no alternative other than accepting the report. MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY ERICKSON TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. NEW BUSINESS No new business was scheduled. EXECUTIVE SESSION City Manager Boyles explained that the Council operates under the Open Meeting law and listed several topics that could be discussed in executive session including discussion of labor negotiations. MOTION BY MillAR, SECONDED BY HEDBERG TO ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. RECONVENE Mayor Myser reconvened the meeting and stated that the Council conducted an Executive Session dis- cussing labor negotiation matters. Direction was given to staff and no further Council action is necessary. OTHER Community Events Keeney: Stated that registration for PLAY is underway. Myser: Congratulated Prior lake area professional hockey player Zach Parise for his success in the Olympics. ADJOURNMENT With no further comments from Council members, a motion to adjourn was made by Millar and seconded by Erickson. With all in favor, the meeting adjourned at 10:18 p.m. Frank Boyles, City Manager Charlotte Green, Administrative Asst. 8