HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Minutes
2
4-<) 3
L\/0
Ring Road Feasibility Report Work Session - 5:30 - 7:00 p.m.
FORUM: 7:00 P.M. - 7:30 P.M.
(Bill Rudnicki - Cost Impact Analysis)
(Merlyn Olson Homes Concept Plan)
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
1
CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ......................... 7:30 p,m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: ~~~
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF JANUARY 22,2001 MEETING MINUTES: ~'fV\P-~~
4
CONSENT AGENDA: Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and non-
controversial are included as part of the Consent Agenda, Unless the Mayor, a Councilmember, or member of
the public specifically requests that an item on the Consent Agenda be removed and considered separately,
Items on the Consent Agenda are considered under one motion, second and a roll call vote, Any item removed
from the "Consent Agenda" shall be placed on the City Council Agenda as a separate category.
A) Consider Approval of Invoices to Be Paid.
5
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA:
6
PRESENTATIONS:
A) Park Fee Study Presentation (Greg Ingraham)
7 PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.
8 OLD BUSINESS: OJ -O~
LI - () A) Consider Approval of a Resolutior! Approving a Final Plat for St. Michael's Addition.
L1 -- D B) Consider Approval of a Resolution~~~roving a Park Fee Study Report and
Authorizing a New Park Dedication Fee ',Incorporation into the 2001 Fee Schedule.
9 ~EW BUSINESS: ~ C)I-IO
~) Consider Approval of a Res~ Awarding Bid through the State Cooperative
Purchasing Program for Purchase of:
. (i) a 5-Ton Single Axle Cab and Chassis Truck
(ii) a Front-End Loader Q I ....J I
,\.,\:J B) Consider Approval of a Resolutio~ 10 r1t:Jitional Use Permit for a Gas
Station 1 Convenience Store I Car Wash on Property located at the Southwest Corner
of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail known as Holiday Station Store.
Consider Approval of a Resolutio~prOVing Preliminary Plat for Matson's Addition.
Consider Approval of a Resoluticr rsuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.17'4, subd. 10
Declaring Buildings Located Upo~ Ce in Property to be Structurally Substandard.
OTHER BUSINESS/COUNCILMEMJ~R REP~~+'l-
ADJOURNMENT ~Ol-}'
'-\ -\) C)
L\ - t) D)
10
11
16~00 Eagle Creek Ave, 5.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
T- !
'Ii
. 1
'1'1rr
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
January 22, 2001
CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Mader called the meeting to order.
Present were Mayor Mader, Councilmembers Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, City Manager
Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Finance Director Teschner, Police Chief O'Rourke, Planning Director Rye,
Public Works Director Osmundson, City Engineer McDermott, Planning Coordinator Kansier,
Assistant City Manager Walsh, Water Resources Coordinator Leichty and Recording Secretary
Meyer.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
BOYLES: Requested adding an executive session to discuss pending litigation issues,
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JANUARY 8. 2001 REGULAR MEETING.
MADER: Clarified that on page 4 regarding the storm water fee study, the report was amended to
reflect the appropriate zoning districts.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE JANUARY 8, 2001 REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA:
(A) Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid.
(B) Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report.
(C) Consider Approval of Building Permit Report,
(D) Consider Approval of Animal Warden Monthly Report for December.
(E) Consider Approval of Monthly Fire Call Report for December and 2000 Annual Report.
(F) Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Execution of the 2001 Joint Powers Agreement
for Traffic Markings, Street Sweeping, Crack Sealing and Seal Coating.
GUNDLACH: Requested removal of items (A) and (F).
BOYLES: Summarized the remaining consent agenda items.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(B), (C), (D) AND (E) AS SUBMITTED.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA:
Invoices to be Paid
GUNDLACH: Asked for clarification as to an $8056 payment to United Software Tech on page 4.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. 5,E" Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-~._--_._._,..._-'-".,-_._..........__...._.._--_.._'....r
I .-----.-..
111
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT.
January 22,2001
GUNDLACH: Also asked about an item on page 11 in the amount of $2993.00 to Wahl's Enterprises,
TESCHNER: Did not remember what the charge would cover without checking the purchase order,
MADER: Asked about a charge on page 1 regarding health insurance for the Mayor and Council.
TESCHNER: Clarified that the payment is for accident insurance,
MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE INVOICES TO BE PAID,
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried,
Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Execution of the 2001 Joint Powers Agreement
for Traffic Markings, Street Sweeping, Crack Sealing and Seal Coating.
GUNDLACH: Asked the City Manager to summarize the agreement and services.
BOYLES: Explained the purpose and advantages of entering into the joint powers agreement for street
maintenance.
MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-04
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE 2001 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC
MARKINGS, STREET SWEEPING, CRACK SEALING AND SEAL COATING,
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried.
PRESENTATIONS:
Presentation: Outlet Structure and Channel Improvement Studies (Paul Nelson, Executive
Director, Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District)
PAUL NELSON: Provided an overview of his presentation and introduced Dave Moran for a brief
statement.
DAVE MORAN: Thanked the City for its cooperative efforts with the Watershed District with respect to
work completed in the clean water partnership program on Sand Point ponding, the Fish Point
channelization, and the experimental hydrovortechnic program. Presented the Council with a check
for $23,000 for its reimbursement from the grant program. Also complimented the efforts of
Councilmember Gundlach as liaison to the Watershed District.
MADER: Thanked Mr. Moran for his past and continued participation on the Watershed District Board
as well as the Scott County water planning group.
NELSON: Continued to discuss the Outlet Box Study, the Outlet channel, alternatives for channel
improvement, next steps including working together to determine fair cost splits. Further discussed
runoff management, a recent grant, and pursuing grant efforts for education matters.
MADER: Noted that there is certainly support from this Council to control both the level of the lake and
the water quality.
2
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT,
January 22, 2001
,;1.\:
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Public Hearing to Consider Approval of a Resolution Ordering the 2001 Improvement Project
and Preparation of Plans and Specifications.
The Mayor declared the public hearing open.
BOYLES: Explained the point in the process the Council is considering at this time and suggested a
revision to the proposed resolution.
McDERMOTT: Briefly reviewed the project including the need for improvements, costs and funding of
the project, and the project schedule.
GUNDLACH: Asked for clarification as to what portion of the project is actually being assessed, and
how the City is funding it. Asked if there is a priority issue as far as the trunk reserve fund that would
prohibit the City from using the fund for another project if we proceed with this one.
McDERMOTT: Advised that the residents are being assessed about 20% of the actual project cost. The
City is paying approximately $800,000 through the Trunk Reserve Fund, $46,000 through the
Collector Street Fund, and $40,000 through the Water Quality Fund. Clarified that completing this
project does not mean other projects planned in the Capital Improvement Program would take its
place.
GUNDLACH: Asked Finance Director Teschner to clarify the rationale of the assessment committee in
recommending a front footage assessment, and asked how corner lots are assessed.
TESCHNER: Noted that the lots in the benefited area vary greatly from 50 foot lots to 100 foot lots.
When the parcels are not similar in terms of value as well as size, the most equitable means of
distributing costs is the front footage assessment. Secondly, due to the relative consistency in the
shape or dimension of the lots where the front footage of the lots represents the lineal footage of
pavement and sewer and water that is going down, the project lends itself well to applying the
assessment on a front footage basis. For corner lots there is no penalty. The lots are assessed based
on the short side.
MADER: Commented on the reasons the City would consider moving forward with the project. The first
indication is the neighborhood's support of the project. Secondly, there is a City obligation to provide
reasonable and safe roadways and sanitary sewer systems in protection of the public health and
welfare. Clarified the intent of the public hearing was to hear concerns about the project outside of the
actual assessments which would be discussed at the assessment hearing. Asked for comments from
the public.
VIC ORESKOVICH (16240 St. Paul Ave.): In favor of the project, but concerned with the way the project
is assessed. Discussed previous statements by Mr. Teschner at an October 16, 2000 assessment
hearing regarding the City's policy to use unit assessments. Also questioned why there was a 15%
engineering cost and a 5% administration fee when the staff is already paid a salary. Asked the
Council to stand by their past policy to use unit assessment.
TESCHNER: Explained that the costs for engineering design and administration are not duplicative, but
rather the cost is being paid by the benefiting properties rather than being budgeted over the overall
3
r
I
III
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT.
January 22, 2001
.:1.';:
tax base, Also advised that the engineering staff can more economically complete the work than hiring
it out.
ERICSON: Commented that because the issue at this time is not the assessments themselves, he has
not yet evaluated whether the unit assessment or the front footage assessment is more appropriate.
At this point, there is only a recommendation as to the assessments before the Council.
MATT SPENCER: (16220 St. Paul Ave. S.E.): Asked when the project idea was first brought to the
Council.
McDERMOTT: Advised that the project has been in the five-year Capital Improvement Program for
many years. Notices were sent to property owners in early November of last year. The project was
moved up one year due to sewer and utilities difficulties in the area.
MADER: Asked when the Council first heard about the project.
McDERMOTT: In June of 2000 the Council authorized preparation of the feasibility report.
SPENCER: Made the point that that much of the wear and tear on the streets and sewer is from
Grainwood School, rather than the single-family homes, and that the school should be assessed its
proportional share.
ROBIN ORESKOVICH (16240 St. Paul Ave.): Advised that nearly all of the traffic on St. Paul Avenue is
due to Grainwood School. Does agree that the sanitary sewer system is in need of repair and that the
watermain is not adequate to serve the area. Suggested more advanced notice for projects of this
size so that property owners can prepare.
TROY Moss: (4955 Dakota Street): Believes the streets need to be repaired, but has some concerns
with the assessments. Asked the date of the assessment hearing.
TESCHNER: Advised that the meeting will probably take place late in September or early October. Also
advised that the Council may wish to conduct an informational workshop prior to the assessment
hearing to discuss the assessment method because staff will need to know the assessment method in
order to prepare the assessment rolls.
MADER: Suggested an informational session was necessary and asked staff to follow up with that
meeting.
CARL DINGMAN (16260 St. Paul Avenue): Supports the project and appreciates the efforts by staff.
Believes that the City's front footage assessment method misses the goals of fairness and equitability
set forth by Minnesota statutes and the City's assessment policy. Discussed the City's front footage
policy with regarding to state statute, including benefit received and property value. Discussed the
statutory definition of front footage, his suggestions for getting equitable assessment, and his flagged
lot property and its proposed assessment.
GUNDLACH: Asked how 33 feet becomes 148 feet in the proposed assessment. Asked if the resident
is aware that the amount of the assessment cannot exceed the benefit and that a unit assessment or
flat rate may exceed the benefit for some of the properties in the neighborhood,
DINGMAN: Explained that frontage as defined by Minnesota statute is the portion along the highway
right-of-way. That portion is 33 feet. Since the lot is a flagged lot, it is calculated differently and include
4
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT .
January 22, 2001
the entire width of the lot. Reiterated that he is in support of the project and did not wish for the other
neighbors to be further burdened by his particular situation, but asked the Council to considered an
alternative for his and similar properties.
MERIDEE CROCKER (16044 Jordan Ave. S.E.): Asked for additional consideration with respect to the
amount the City will contribute for her required hook up for a realigned sewer service.
McDERMOTT: Explained that the sanitary sewer service along Jordan Ave. would be abandoned.
Meridee's home will need to change its sewer service alignment. Marilee is asking for extra
consideration beyond the 50% contribution by the City for those persons who are required to hook up
to the longer service. Staff had proposed that such properties pay 50% hookup rather than the 100%
required by other property owners who have the option.
MADER: Advised that the Council will take another look at the issue and will discuss it at the
informational meeting.
DOROTHY ENGEL (5108 Memorial Trail): Advised that she does not support making Memorial Trail into
a two-lane road, and there is probably not a need for a two-way roadway in this area.
MADER: Advised that the City Engineer has acknowledged that there has been no request by any
residents for a two-way road in the area.
LEONA JOHNSON (16047 Jordan Ave. S.E.): Strongly supported the project, but questioned the
equitability of the front footage method of assessment. Discussed front footage method versus unit
assessment as well as benefit. Also discussed assessments for corner lots. Thanked the engineering
department and Council for their help through this process.
PAT LYCHMAN (4949 Minnesota St.): Discussed an alley being abandoned along her property as well
as where the curb cut will be. Noted that the alley is between Minnesota Street and Dakota. Noted
that her 50 foot lot assessment is $2400 and seems equitable considering the current or potential
value of the property.
MCDERMOTT: Advised that it would probably cost around $20 per foot to remove and replace the curb.
Typically, the City could vacate the alley if requested by the adjacent property owners. The alley is on
the plat as an alley. There are no easements in the area, It appears to be used only as yard area.
COLLEEN OTTMAN (5056 Minnesota Street S.E.): Opposed to including sidewalks along the east side
of the park. Also opposed to making Memorial Trail a two-way street, or putting any trailway through
the park.
TROY Moss (4955 Dakota Street): Doesn't necessarily agree with the unit assessment method. Has
street frontage of 31 feet and is being assessed for 141 feet. Does not believe there is appreciable
benefit. There is consideration shown to corner lots. Asked for similar consideration.
ROBIN ORESCOVICH (16240 St. Paul Ave.): Believes consideration should be given to alternatives for
flagged lots. Supports a unit assessment. Also asked about replacement of trees.
McDERMOTT: Advised that trees removed that are in the public right-of-way are not replaced. For
trees on private property, the City has in the past worked with the homeowners to replace the trees.
5
I ,:
'I
III
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT.
January 22,2001.",;
MIKE KNOX (16130 St. Paul Ave,): Supported the project and asked the City to consider a sidewalk
along St. Paul Avenue connecting 160th to Grainwood.
MADER: Commented that the issue of assessment is not an exact science. There are rationale
arguments for each side of the issue. Advised that none of the debate takes the cost away, it just
changes who pays for it. Asked for understanding and patience as the Council addresses the issue.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried.
The Council took a brief recess,
MADER: Explained that the resolution prepared for the Council to consider would authorized the City
Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the project.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY MADER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-05
AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PROJECT.
GUNDLACH: Did not support the motion because of the difficulty in equitably assessing the project until
the City can come up with an aiterFl!l~'QY t~A~it. . C '.J
d.)rtt ~ l-r () r~ ray- " .
ERICSON: Discussed his concerns with the project including, the MinnesotalDakota St. alley, the
recommendation with making Memorial Trail a one-way, the sidewalks proposed, tree replacement,
and suggested preparing for the Council a parcel-by-parcel assessment method comparison.
ZIESKA: Asked the rationale for making Memorial Trail a two-way street. Suggested making the street
wider for public safety issues, but keeping it a one-way. Concerned about the issues of public health
with the current sanitary sewer and water.
PETERSEN: Suggested not delaying the project because it is necessary. Would like to consider
keeping the one-way on Memorial Trail. Noted that time is of the essence and the real issue is
assessments which can be refined and further addressed. Suggested proceeding with the project.
ERICSON: Believes these different issues need to be addressed before the project proceeds.
MADER: Agrees that the project is necessary with the sewer and water line problems in the area. Also
agrees that there are some issues that could be addressed before plans are developed. Suggested
that staff address the issues raised tonight and bring back a recommendation and rationale for each
issue. The issue could then be deferred but only in the short-term,
OSMUNDSON: Advised that the alley is really a totally separate issue outside preparation of the plans.
As far as Memorial Trail, staff was operating under the recommendation that the street be widen to
accommodate the public safety issue. With respect to the sidewalk, the recommendation came from
the City's policy to connect its trails and pathways. This is a policy issue for the Council. With respect
to tree replacement, if there is any way to not remove trees, w.e don't. If trees need to be removed,
they are replaced. The assessment comparison can be completed by the end of the week.
MADER: Asked if staff can adequately consider these items without incurring additional expense in
preparing the plans and specifications.
6
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT.
January 22,2001
"J ,.;
OSMUNDSON: Believed it is necessary to proceed as quickly as possible so that construction can begin
in the summer while school is out. Staff could come back with answers to Council questions while still
preparing the plans and specifications.
ERICSON: Supports the project, but wants the issues raised tonight addressed.
GUNDLACH: Would like the assessment cost comparisons to also show comparable benefit as well as
cost.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
Consider Approval of Report from Mediacom Regarding Cable Television Issues.
BOYLES: Briefly reviewed the agenda item and the status report submitted by Mediacom.
BILL JENSEN (General Manager, Mediacom): Reviewed the improvements over the past three months
and the new services on the horizon.
ZIESKA: Commented that there has obviously been improvement, but warned that that effort needs to
continue.
GUNDLACH: Asked about the majority of trouble calls.
JENSEN: The vast majority are total outages for any number of reasons, including problems with the
service.
MADER: Commented that based on these figures, 60% of the subscribers are calling on an annual
basis. Suggested an update on what would be an appropriate target for the number of calls.
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE THE REPORT FROM MEDlACOM
CABLE.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Text of the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Relating to the Location Criteria for Property Designated as Low-to-
Medium Density Residential.
BOYLES: Reviewed the proposed amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
GUNDLACH: Suggested deferring the item until such time as the Planning Commission and Council
can discuss defining the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan consistently and specifically as
R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4.
ERICSON: Agreed with the suggestion, but it will take considerable time to put together a plan and
have it considered by the Metropolitan Council. Until that is accomplished, believed it would be
prudent to have something in place.
7
I
- .,.
I
~
I
111
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
January 22, 2001
,:I .';
RYE: Discussed the process and timeline for putting together such a plan. Estimated 6 months.
MADER: Also noted that in order to proceed to that end, staff would need to specifically identify the
designation for a parcel in the cornfield in the northernmost part of the City. By not making the plan
that rigid, it allows the Council some latitude.
GUNDLACH: Asked if this amendment addressed or defined, for example, a recent proposal to have 50
foot single family lots and call it R-2 out of low-to-medium density,
MADER: Believed the amendment with its 15 criteria gave the Council the parameters by which a
project could or would not proceed based upon the facts of the project.
MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-06
AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATING TO THE LOCATION
CRITERIA FOR PROPERTY DESIGNATED AS LOW-TO-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried,
Consider Approval of Contract for Oversizing of Storm Sewer with Stonegate Apartments (City
Project 00-34)
BOYLES: Briefly reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report.
MADER: Suggested that the Council not consider a contract that has not been agreed to by the
Developer.
BRYCE HUEMOELLER (Attorney for Affordable Housing Developers): Affordable Housing is asking the
Council to approve the contract with the modification that the seal-coating requirement be removed,
Approval of the contract is necessary in order to proceed with the plans and financing application,
Deletion of the overlay is fair and consistent with current City policy. The Developer was told at the
onset that there were no ponding or storm sewer runoff issues because it was a 2-acre site. When
the issue of ponding came up during the CUP application, it added cost for the Developer. Requiring
the overlay as well adds further additional costs to the Developer. Noted that an officer of Affordable
Housing is present to execute the agreement after the Council considers its request.
ERICSON: Asked staff if draining to the pond rather than the post office site had been addressed as far
as neighboring properties.
MADER: Advised that both the Public Works Director and City Engineer have indicated that the
drainage to the pond is satisfactory.
HUEMOELLER: Further discussed the project costs with respect to storm sewer improvements.
Believes it appropriate to waive the seal-coating requirement as it is not consistent with the current
design manual or past practice. Advised that the road would be supervised and inspected by the City
before a Certificate of Completion would be issued. The upcoming addition of the ring road in this
area would probably require an overlay to Tower Street so the short-term benefits of the seal-coating
would be a waste of funds.
8
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT,
January 22, 2001 ,I "
MADER: Asked whether the issue is overlay or seal-coating, and if there were warranties in the
purchase agreement for the property.
HUEMOELLER: Noted he had not seen the contract, but had heard both requirements mentioned.
Believes the requirement is seal-coating. Believes the conversation with regard to surface water
management was with the staff in attempt to investigate the potential development of the property.
PETERSEN: Believes that the seal-coating is probably a waste of the developer's money and the
requirement should be deleted so the project can proceed.
MADER: Agreed.
ZIESKA: Noted that there would be City inspections as to the patch, and a two year warranty would
take it through two freeze cycles.
ERICSON: Concerned with getting a good decent road out of it, rather than seeing sink holes and
patches all over the place. Suggested at least patching the whole half of the road.
MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-07
CONTRACT FOR OVERSIZING OF STORM SEWER WITH STONEGATE APARTMENTS (CITY
PROJECT 00-34) DELETING THE SEAL-COATING REQUIREMENT AT EXHIBIT D.
ERICSON: Does not approve of the project, so will not be supporting the motion.
PACE: Asked the City Engineer if the revisions she suggested were acceptable to Mr. Huemoeller.
HUEMOELLER: Confirmed.
ERICSON: Asked what changes were made.
McDERMOTT and PACE clarified and advised that the changes were acceptable.
The motion and second accepted the revisions.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, Nay by Ericson, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of a Motion Postponing a Decision on the Need for an Environmental
Impact Statement for the Ryan Contracting Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Minnesota
Rules 4400.1700. Subp. 2a.
KANSIER: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. Discussed the rationale for
deferring action on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement, including the number and types
of wetlands on the site, and the number and type of wells that should be permitted on the site. A
decision can be delayed up to 30 days until February 20,2001 to afford staff some additional time for
clarification. Deferring action on the EAW does not affect the timeline on the CUP.
MADER: Asked if action is deferred, does the Council have to take action on the CUP on February
20th.
9
I'
~
I
I: 11
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT:
January 22,2001,1 ':
KANSIER: Yes, absent a special meeting, There are 11 days between the decision on the EAW and
the decision on the CUP.
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO DEFER ACTION TO FEBRUARY 20, 2001.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
Consider Approval of the Prior Lake Chloride Monitoring Program.
BOYLES: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report and discussed the issues
before the Council including staffing and funding,
LEICHTY: Briefly discussed the specifics of the program.
ERICSON: Asked about the methodology and how we get the most accurate readings.
LEICHTY: Advised that we would use a GPS in order to get as close as possible to the same location,
and that City staff would be supervising the sampling process.
MADER: Asked about the length of the study. Suggested that 10 months would be too short to acquire
meaningful data and that the program be conducted on an annual basis. Suggested that the staff
determine whether to use the MnDot laboratory and equipment, but that it is important for City staff to
supervise.
ERICSON: Agreed that conducting the program on an on-going basis is necessary.
LEICHTY: Clarified that the 10 month figure was used because that is how long throughout the year we
could acquire samples. The program would be on-going with an annual report to the Council on the
findings,
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE THE PRIOR LAKE CHLORIDE
MONITORING PROGRAM WITH THE DIRECTION THAT STAFF SUPERVISION IS REQUIRED,
AND THAT STAFF IN CONJUNCTION WITH MNDOT DETERMINE WHAT EQUIPMENT WOULD
BE USED.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Two 2001 Ford Crown Victoria
Squad Cars through the State Cooperative Purchasing Program.
BOYLES: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-08
AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF TWO 2001 FORD CROWN VICTORIA SQUAD CARS IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $42,506.00.
GUNDLACH: Asked why the Crown Victoria rather than a front-wheel drive.
10
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFl"
January 22, 2001 .'
O'ROURKE: There are only two vehicles approved as pursuit vehicles, the Crown Victoria and the
Chevy Impala, which is front-wheel drive but is slightly smaller. One of the benefits of remaining with
the Crown Victoria is that parts and maintenance products are interchangeable from model year to
model year.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried
ERICSON: Suggested removing items such as these that appear on an annual basis and are
cooperatively bid to the Consent agenda.
OTHER BUSINESS 1 COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
ERICSON: Discussed abuse of the right-of-ways, including signs and newspaper boxes and asked for
the status.
PACE: Noted that she is reviewing the case law and a report is forthcoming.
O'ROURKE: Advised that theCSO has advised him that some signs have been put up higher and are
now bolted on.
MADER: Noted that there has been some voluntary compliance by developers, and overall the City
does look better.
ZIESKA: Advised the Council that the Prior Lake Fire Department responded to the Murphy's Landing
fire and that the new tanker truck worked commendably.
GUNDLACH: Discussed the editorial in last week's paper and suggested that the editor read her own
paper if she wants to know what the City is doing for economic development.
Executive Session Discuss Pending Litigation
The Council retired to Executive Session.
After returning from Executive Session, the Mayor advised
that no formal action was necessary.
A motion to adjourn was made and seconded. The meeting adjourned at 11 :35 pm.
11
I' r
11
I
l,In