Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Minutes 7:00 PM FORUM (Mike Schaffer, St. Michael's Church) (Mike Lewis, Crystal Care Concept Plan) REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:.......................... 7:30 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 3. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: a) REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 2001 b) SPECIAL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27,2001 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. B) Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report C) Consider Approval of Building Permit Report. D) Consider Approval of Animal Warden Monthly Report E) Consider Approval of Preliminary 2000 Fourth Quarter Budget Report. F) Consider Approval of Temporary 3.2 Non-Intoxicating Liquor License for the Church of St. Michael AprilFest. G) Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute an Agreement between the City of Prior Lake and Council 14, Local 3884, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO. 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: 6. PRESENTATIONS: A) Swearing In Ceremony for Police Officers 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. 8. OLD BUSINESS: A) Neighborhood Informational Meeting for 2001 Public Improvement Project and Consider Approval of a Resolution Ordering the Improvements. B) Consider Approval of a Resolution Receiving Feasibility Report for the Ring Road, Ordering Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Appraisals of Benefited Properties. 031901 T---~.-'.."-_._-----.- 9. NEW BUSINESS: A) Consider Approval 0 faR esolution A uthorizing Amendment tot he Prior Lake 2020 Comprehensive Plan to Amend Land Use Map for 320 Acres Located at Sections 23 and 24, Township 115, Range 22 from R-HD and C-BO to Rural Density. B) Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat to be Known as The Wilds South. C) Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Playground Equipment as identified in the 2001 Capital Improvement Program. D) Consider Approval of a Resolution Relating to Picnic Shelter Construction in 2001 and Changing the Location of Picnic Shelter Construction from that Proposed in the 2001- 2005 Capital Improvement Program. E) Consider Approval of an Interim Ordinance Imposing a Moratorium on Excavation and Mining Operations in Order to Allow the City to Study the Treatment of Such Uses in the Context of Zoning. 10. OTHER BUSINESS: 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE 12. ADJOURNMENT 031901 ""''''''--''''-''---r''''--'''' -...._...._._._..__...-...__.~._...._.........._._--_..._...'-' . - - - . _...------~..__.._..~_...__.._-_......,------_......__.._--_.. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 20, 2001 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Mader called the meeting to order. Present were Mayor Mader, Councilmembers Petersen, Gundlach and Zieska, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Planning Director Rye, Public Works Director Osmundson, Assistant City Manager Walsh, Planning Coordinator Kansier, Park Maintenance Supervisor Friedges, Public Works Maintenance Supervisor Hartman and Zoning Code Enforcement Officer Steve Horsman, Councilmember Ericson was absent from the meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: GUNDLACH: Requested moving the presentation to Lieutenant Schmidt right after approval of the agenda. ZIESKA: BOYLES dvised that due to the length of the current agenda, it would be possible to def action on Items 9( ) and 9(0), but that the other items involved certain deadlines. MADER: to Other Busines f the Met Council MOTIO BY VOTE: es PRESE A TIONS: Presentlf;9n!!!!m~tJi;;elleninfiF'_'em!9imm;"t!!!!;"!!!!Riii'nit1(!j;.j!!!!!i'!!!RlsffH' Service with the Prior Lake Police Department. Years of BOYLES: Reviewed the career of Lieutenant Steve Schmidt and his contributions to the community over the past 29 years. MADER: Presented Lieutenant Schmidt with a plaque of appreciation. SCHMIDT: Thanked the present and past Councils and the community for the honor and privilege to be able to serve the people of Prior Lake. Very much appreciated his time with the City. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 5. 2001 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES: MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 5, 2001 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AS PROPOSED. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach and Zieska, the motion carried. Councilmember Petersen abstained due to his absence from the February 5th meeting. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER T- T 1 i . .~ .. "1"r City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20, 2001 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 Fire Call Report. (E) Consider Approval of Resolution 01-14 Authorizing the Purchase of Replacement Computer Equipment. (F) Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Expenditures for the Purchase of Park Appurtenant Equipment. [Removed as part of the approval of the agenda] MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) THROUGH (E). BOYLES: Briefly reviewed the remaining Consent Agenda items. MADER: No e grills when ded. VOTE: Ay ITEMS RE Consider Appurlen ZIESKA: As FRIEDGES: get used i building a MOTION , 01-15 AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES FOR THE PURCHASE OF PARK APPURTENANT EQUIPMENT. GUNDLACH: Asked if, when the funds are included in the CIP, that means that that dollar amount is automatically spent. MADER: Advised that no funds are approved until the Council takes action authorizing the purchase. The CIP is a planning document. BOYLES: Also noted that, as in this case, just because there are $40,000 allocated, doesn't mean the staff doesn't still conserve where we can and purchase only what we need. MADER: Further commented that this item had been discussed before within the framework that spending money on things that never get used seems like a waste. Suggested that staff abandon the idea that the grills are a standard, and possibly wait to put in amenities such as grills until the neighborhood makes a request. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, the motion carried. 2 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20,2001 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public Hearing to Consider Approval of a Resolution Upholding the Decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a 12-Foot Variance to Allow a 13-Foot Structure Setback from a Rear Property Line Rather than the Required 25 Feet. MADER: Declared the Public Hearing open. HORSMAN: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, discussing the request and the process to date. GUNDLACH: Asked what the problem was with adding the deck, and if including the deck in the original plan would have meant 12-feet less of the house. HORSMAN: Advised that the deck meets the required setback from the Ordinary High Water mark, but the deck does not meet the required 25-foot setback from the rear lot line. At the time of the original applicati' . include a deck or nsidered structur ZIESKA: sked if there was a condition of approval for the variances that were no other aria ro HORSM e wishes, ws of her as it is in MARTY GORZE (4358 Priorwood Sf.) (husband of realtor): Commented that he is not directly involved in the issue, but has read the files and that this circumstance seems to give the Council the opportunity to say "yes" rather than "no" to an issue that really hurts no one. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, the motion carried. GUNDLACH: Commented that it seems that the deck was an afterthought and that had the deck been included in the original plan, the house could have been built 12-foot shorter, so in a sense this is a decision that was made early on with little or no room for maneuvering. Asked if the builder understood that? HORSMAN: Believed the builder would have known at the time the original plans were submitted, but also noted that the Planning Commission had raised the issue at its public hearing. ZIESKA: Commented that when dealing with variance requests, there are nine hardship criteria by which all requests are evaluated per the Ordinance. There were variances granted in order to be able to even build a nice house on this lot and does not believe the hardship criteria have been met in this case. 3 '-1" i . 1 "i1i City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20, 2001 MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-16 TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN DENYING THE VARIANCE. PETERSEN: Commented that the applicant requesting the variance bought the house long after the house was built and did not have the opportunity to request a deck at that time. It seems punitive to the homeowner, given that the deck has little impact on the neighbors. MADER: Stated that he did not necessarily disagreed with the applicant, but advised that the ordinance and its criteria is the most fair and uniform process with which to weigh variance applications. To grant a variance outside of the criteria, would set a precedent for future requests. Supported the resolution as proposed. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach and Zieska, Nay by Petersen, the motion carried. OLD BUSI Consider p Statement r Ryan Contracting. nVlronmen a mpact KANSIER: date, and clarification affects on excavation issue of th no supply activity, th as part of t two conditi 42. The s roadway a hours of operation. atus to taff for roject, hin the n. The II, and related pleted posed Road to the ing the MADER: Reviewed the issues before the Council and reminded everyone that this is not a public hearing, but that the Council may ask questions of any person. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-16 MAKING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR RYAN CONTRACTING. MADER: Making reference to the materials in the agenda report, asked staff for clarification of the position of the Watershed District, noting that the Watershed was specific in their statement that the EAW was not complete. KANSIER: Stated that the Watershed did not take a position supporting or denying the application, but rather commented on the information necessary for a Watershed District permit, including storm water calculations and erosion control planning. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20,2001 MADER: Further noted that the City of Shakopee had suggested that no trucks travel northerly on McKenna Road because the road was a 7-ton designed road. Asked what the roadway south was designed. OSMUNDSON: Stated that McKenna Road within the City is a 5 to 7 -ton design. Advised that in the spring, there would be road restrictions to 5-ton trucks. MADER: Commented that the DNR's position seems to be that the excavation operation is not a problem with the necessary safeguards. Further noted correspondence from Scott County discussing the number of wells for the property. It seems the decision is left to the Council. Advised there was also extensive information in the packet from Dorsey & Whitney and the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and Peterson Environmental. WILDA WAPEHPA (counsel for Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community): Asked if the Council had received courtesy copies of the information submitted to staff that day and advised she had additional copies a . I dvised that the Council had received two separate letters from Dorsey & Whit received on February 20th, and the other that was received by fax on Feb. 19th. WAPEH Assess were su are pote that hav cited su onmental ents that that there elopment ment and ZIESKA: support eferred to the fax letters and noted that there is a discrepancy where on on r three monitoring wells, and on the other it was stated that any wells increased r W APEH .;i(!f"se(!l~~na~:::~ne:illle~l9rs:::su:mmari~ea::f,~n~:ieOmmet)~SH;[rjafilo:::~na~illwr:fiA~::if!ismfnCle;;l4~ DN R has said that only one monitoring well should be made, and Scott County has said that a number of wells are necessary to be effective. The bottom line is that more study would be required on that issue. ZIESKA: Asked the Community's position. WAPEHPA: Stated that the Community would like to see three wells provided they do not harm the drinking water supply. MADER: Noted that there was a conflict between the DNR and County. The staff has advised that there are still two opposing opinions. Referred to the Peterson Environmental memo and asked for clarification in layman's terms. PETERSON (Peterson Environmental): Advised that he is a wetland scientist and a regulatory specialist, and noted that the person that did the bulk of the study was not present. Discussed the wetland about 250 feet south of the proposed mine pit, the potential ways to drain a wetland all of which could happen in this case, and the failure to address the issues further. MADER: Clarified that there are underground channels that allow water flow, and digging the pit, if there is a channel there, could allow the water to flow out of the wetland into the pit, or vice versa. 5 T- -; .. . 'I n'TJi City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20, 2001 PETERSON: Confirmed. GUNDLACH: Asked what further information would need to be provided, either in the EAW or an EIS, in order for the Council to be sure. Asked if an analysis had been done as to the drinking water aquifer. PETERSON: Advised that he would undertake some additional analysis as to what the area between the wetland and the pit actually looks like underground, and then to also develop some type of a water balance for the wetland. Noted that no analysis had been made as to the drinking water aquifer. It does appear that there may be other areas of wetland on the site. In his opinion the EAW does not meet all of the content requirements in the EQB rules and guidelines. GUNDLACH: Asked if this EAW failed to even provide enough information to determine if an EIS is required. PETERSON: Believed there were two options for the Council. The first would be to recognize the potential f 'od for supplemen OSMUNDSO reference t 76 foot diff the propo wouldn't th was a ch is a ntly in round, PETERSON: sediment allow the w have would Asked if it wouldn't require hundreds of soil borings to determine where thes lenses ompletion of a complex model? PETERSEN: Advised that at least six soil borings would need to be completed to make any determination. MADER: Asked what the size is of the wetland to the south. PETERSEN: Advised that the wetland has be to at least 2.5 acres to be a DNR wetland. MADER: Asked if Ryan Contracting had any comments with respect to the potential environmental impacts. TYLER ENRIGHT (Ryan Contracting): Advised that Ryan Contracting had performed soil borings in the location of the proposed gravel pit. Those borings contained no silt or clays. If clay had been found, there may have been water or stringers and Mr. Peterson had indicated. The borings showed coarse gravel material to 30 feet deep. MADER: Asked the depth of the gravel below the surface. ENRIGHT: Advised that below the bottom of the pit, gravel is currently 70 feet deep. The gravel is at the surface. 6 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20, 2001 GUNDLACH: Asked who completed the soil borings, and if they were hired and contracted by the applicant. ENRIGHT: Allied Test Drilling Company completed the borings at the request of Ryan Contracting. GUNDLACH: Commented that there is some confusion on his part because the experts have conflicting opinions and the test samples were paid for by the applicant. PACE: Asked staff to clarify the process of obtaining the EAW when it was requested by the Council. KANSIER: Explained that Liesch & Associates was hired through an RFP process based upon their credentials and proposal outline for the project. Liesch & Associates had all of the information staff had, and also hired a consultant to do the traffic study. Liesch & Associates independently analyzed the boring samples obtained by Allied Test Drilling Company. Ryan paid for the borings. Liesch prepare ., . dvice and directio : Commented that the EAW and soil borings were requested by the Council e he staff did not receive the soil borings until August. It seems a lot of borings in PETERS different d clay at land. ZIESKA: PETERS : Sand and gravel. Advised that most likely, if stringers existed, they would be thin those first 1 0 ~ t. EN~GH . t. WAPEHPA: Believed that the bottom line is that there are issues that have not been addressed at this time. MADER: Asked if there was any other input from those parties with a vested interest in the project. Commented that the City Attorney has advised that the City Council has acted appropriately in allowing public comment and the appropriate timeframe. PACE: Noted that the EQB rules can be used offensively or defensively. The Council used discretion in extending the period of time for making a decision in order to clarify and look at whether there was conflicting data that left the staff and consultant uncomfortable in providing a recommendation. MADER: Noted that in a work session on the matter, the consultant's opinion was that an EIS was not required. GUNDLACH: Commented that given the conflicting opinion of the experts, it is difficult to make a decision one way or another. Because of the nature of the information or misinformation, believed there was not enough for him to make a negative declaration for the EIS. 7 r- T i . 1 "-r City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20,2001 MADER: Stated that it would have been ideal to have clear information that supported one side or the other, but keep in mind there is only the opportunity within the Conditional Use Permit to mitigate the risks involved. There is no question that we don't have 100% assurance that there is no problem and will never be any problem. Reviewed the criteria that apply under Minnesota Statutes Rules 4400.1700 sub. 2. It doesn't say that if there is any risk at all, there must be an EIS. GUNDLACH: Asked if the Mayor and City Attorney are disagreeing with the attorney for the Community. MADER: I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything that has been said. The fact that there is some risk does not mean to me that there automatically has to be an EIS. It is a question of whether that risk can be mitigated to an appropriate level. ZIESKA: Agreed with the Mayor's comments. Believes that the information provided on the borings and the elevations of the property gives sufficient information to determine the risk. MADER:N MADER: N environme Suspected environme PETERSEN: but that th VOTE: Ay The Council took a brief recess. Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Excavation of Sand and Gravel for Ryan Contracting on Property Located at the Southeast Quarter Section of Section 22, Township 115, Range 22 Located at McKenna Road. BOYLES: Reviewed the action requested of the Council in connection with the proposed conditional use permit and noted two documents received and to be entered into the record. One document was from Ryan Contracting dated Feb. 19, and one letter dated Feb. 20 from Dorsey & Whitney. Staff will review each of the letters and how the proposed resolution addresses each of their concerns. MADER: Reviewed the history of this item. KANSIER: Discussed the letter received from Dorsey & Whitney noting that they requested that the CUP be valid for one year and revocable for violation of any of the conditions of the CUP. Commented that the City's ordinance does require that permits issued for excavations are limited to 12 months and that non-compliance with a condition of the permit could result in revocation of the permit. The Dorsey & Whitney letter also requests that the a supply well be prohibited, which is included in the proposed resolution. Thirdly, no water can be drawn from existing wells on-site other than residential use. Staff would not object to adding that condition, but believes it is part of the applicant's well permit. The fourth request is to limit hours of operation from 8am-5pm Monday-Friday and 9am-noon on Saturday. 8 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20, 2001 The proposed resolution limits hours of operation from 6am to 8pm Monday-Friday and 8am-noon on Saturdays with no operation on Sundays or legal holidays. Those hours are similar to what is allowed under the City's noise ordinance. The fifth requested condition deals with testing the equipment for noise levels. The City does not have the equipment to do that work, but could be accomplished through a consultant if the Council desires. The sixth condition is to construct a sound barrier wall along the western, northern and southern perimeter of the site. Staff has included provisions for landscaping and berming in addition to limiting hours of operation in order to mitigate noise impacts. Requiring sound barrier walls seems excessive. The seventh condition states that road repairs will be made prior to the operation of the mine. The City cannot require the applicant to remedy a pre-existing condition. MADER: Asked staff if there could be a condition that the applicant upgrade the existing roadway if the roadway currently is not adequate for the intended use, similar to the requirements developers enter into. Believes there may be a roadway maintenance issue. PACE: but offe period i research, valuation cks from KANSIE . di nstruction bond an f h the City of Shak e ance, but cannot f r . Request ten deal with u Ive S In la ted that inane as a tree replace nt plan that is very specific as to acceptable trees. Condition 11 requests that t condition of the s rm water rip-rap drainage to monitored and maintained monthly. Noted that t action is required the storm water permit. The twelfth request deals with the three monitoring ells being utilized. " act to the property. The thirteenth requested conditions is that no fuel storage be allowed on-site, which is included in the proposed resolution. The 14th and 15th requested conditions appear to be the same and state that all equipment must be parked on an impervious curbed surface when not in use. Staff did not require this as a condition. The 16th request is that washing operations are prohibited, which is included. The 1 ih is that a phase I archeological survey of the area be conducted. That request is basically for an EIS, which has already been determined. The 18th request has to do with installing a monitoring well near the wetland which is off-site. The City cannot require that installation. KANSIER: Further discussed the conditions Ryan Contracting felt should be modified, including the requirement of a 24-foot wide driveway. Ryan felt the requirement was excessive. Staffs intent was to insure safe passage of two-way traffic. A 20-foot roadway would allow firetruck access. Ryan also objected to the requirement for plantings along the parking area. Staff felt that based upon the site plan, landscaping is necessary. Ryan further stated that the $200,000 increase in the Letter of Credit \ for road maintenance is" excessive. Staff noted that the amount included $100,000 for r:Qiiid-p-'llpo<tU' maintenance, as well as landscaping and was increased from the original ~~ge-crupon amount to include the plant, driveway and parking area, dust control, final site restoration and reclamation, and the cost of monitoring the wetland and groundwater. Ryan also felt that a 6-foot high perimeter fences was excessive. They have a 5-foot high swing gate and the property is secured with barbed wired and snow fence. Staffs requirement of the 6-foot fence was for safety. Ryan felt that requiring an 9 T- T T ']; ... "--r City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20, 2001 impervious pad with the capacity to contain a fuel spill of 500 gallons was unacceptable. Staff believes that given the fuel tank capacity of the mining equipment and tanker truck, it is reasonable for groundwater protection. MADER: Asked what it meant that they would "unit fill" each piece of equipment. ENRIGHT: Explained what was meant by "unit fill". [Mr. Enright did not approach the microphone therefore the comments are not on the audio record.] KANSIER: Continued reviewing the objections by Ryan to the proposed CUP including specifying in the CUP a prohibition of any rock-crushing activity. Ryan advised that they fully intend not doing any rock- crushing, and staff felt prohibiting that activity mitigated the impact of noise on the adjacent property. MADER: Thought that Ryan had previously agreed that no rock-crushing would occur on-site. Asked for clarification. ENRIGHT: [ t rock- KANSIER: Staff felt t neighborh requested. lidays. unding Ryan PACE: Ask KANSIER: vised that there is an assent form which Ryan must sign as a pre-requisite to r ording the Conditi al Use Permit and is listed in the CUP. Further discussed the specific chan to the previous pr MADER: Asked for clarification of a reference in the staff report to maintaining McKenna Road and County Road 42. Also asked for clarification of a referenced in the staff report regarding tree replacement requirements. KANSIER: Advised that the basic impact on County Road 42 would be things like dust and mud or spill. There is a condition that deals with clean-up. Explained that there are replacement trees required as well as adding some trees to the berm and landscaping. MADER: Also asked for clarification regarding the developer agreement. KANSIER: Advised that the developer agreement was not included in the packet but would be similar to the standard agreement. The agreement would come back to the Council. The proposed resolution reflects the requirement at condition 9. MADER: On page 6, in reference to the Letter of Credit items, asked if the costs of restoration also included seeding. 10 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20, 2001 KANSIER: Explained that the restoration would include not only grading, but erosion control and seeding. Advised that the condition could specify the items if the Council found it necessary. PACE: Advised that the restoration conditions would be specified in the developer's agreement. MADER: Noted that there are inconsistencies between the project plan book and the conditional use permit. Assumed that the CUP prevailed. KANSIER: Confirmed. PACE: Believed it important to state in the CUP that if there is a discrepancy between the plan book and the CUP, that the CUP resolution prevails. MADER: Asked for clarification as to whether the resolution is clear when it states that there is no fuel storage on-site that means no storage tank and no fuel tanker. on-site in with fuel KANSIE impervi absorbi ed on the e pit from sked staff and Council if they wanted to attempt to incorporate revised language de the staff input and hold a special meeting within seven days due to the time d this time, dline. as to the course of action. PACE: Believed that reviewing the conditions, providing staff input, and directing preparation of a final resolution for consideration at a special meeting would be the simplest course of action from an administrative standpoint. Cautioned the Council that staff worked very carefully to make sure that there was a basis in the record to formulate the conditions that they had set out. In order to go through and add or supplement these conditions, you will need to review the basis in fact in the record. Councilmembers agreed to review each of the conditions and then allow staff to bring back a revised resolution at a special meeting. MADER: Started with III on page 2 of the resolution and began reviewing each of the conditions, asking that Councilmembers feel free to comment. [The minutes identify only those conditions where specific concerns were identified, even though each condition was mentioned and given the opportunity for comment.] 11 Y- T T i . :r ...,.. City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20,2001 III(d) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services, or improvements, which are either existing or proposed. MADER: Commented that he has some concerns regarding the use of road in a capacity that it wasn't design for. Would like to see the CUP address that issue. Proceeded through the proposed conditions. IV(a) The resolution approving the CUP is not valid prior to being recorded. PACE: Suggested revising the language to say the CUP is not valid prior to being recorded. IV(b)3 The plans must be revised to identify a 24-foot wide paved driveway from the public street to the parking lot and a paved parking lot. MADER: As Prior Lake. OSMUNDSO Advised that commercial specified a 4-f' 0 each other. OSMUNDSO MADER: N refilling pa d that basically this condition will be revised to note that the plans must reflec he fuel Proceeded through the remaining conditions. IV(b)4 The parking area must be buffered by screening with additional plantings. This is to be shown on a revised landscaping plan. MADER: Believed there was some discrepancy in the location of the parking pad. Asked staff for clarification. KANSIER: Referred to a map which showed the proposed location of the parking pad, the driveway and McKenna Road. Did not believe the parking area was buffered by the edge of the pit as maintained by Ryan and advised that a combination of berming and trees is required. MADER: Asked if the total perimeter of the pit is being buffered with trees. KANSIER: Stated that there are some existing trees on the site, and that most of the required landscape concentrates on the westerly side of the property. MADER: Continued to review each of the conditions. IV(b)7 Utility plans indicating electrical line locations must be submitted. 12 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20,2001 KANSIER: Advised that this condition was required because the applicant had originally indicated that a generator would be used on-site. If that is no longer the case, the condition could be moot. MADER: Suggested adding language that said the plan was only required if there was to be electrical equipment on-site. PACE: Suggested that on the items where the plans need to be revised language should be added that states the items need to be revised to the approval of City staff. MADER: Noted that that standard should apply to any case where new documents are provided. IV(b)8 The plans must be revised to identify a monitoring well at the northwest corner of the site. The exact location, depth, and specification are to be based on recommendations from a certified independent consultant approved by the City. MADER: see if th County to ome back evelopers ensures the following [items (a)-(g)). KANSIER: Reviewed the estimates for each of the items (a) through (g) and advised that the $200,000 Letter of Credit is about 125% of the total estimated costs and seems appropriate. MADER: Commented that the intention is to not put the City in a position of creating a gravel mining pit without proper reclamation for the site once it is abandoned. Believed that to restore the site to something useable once the project is complete should be the goal. Asked if there is something in the Letter of Credit or the CUP that would require that the costs for adequate reclamation of the site and the wetland are covered. pr PACE: Questioned whether the Ma~ believed that a larger bond is required for these purposes. MADER: Commented that given the fact that the City cannot identify the nature of a catastrophic event, a larger guaranty seems appropriate. 13 r- T T i . .. '-';- City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20, 2001 MADER: Proceeded reviewing the proposed conditions. IV(c)3 A secured gate and 6-foot high perimeter fence is to be installed prior to beginning work. The property must be signed as private property. MADER: Noted the applicant's objection to the 6-foot high fence. Asked for Councilmember input. ZIESKA: Believes due to the slope ratio, it is necessary from a safety perspective to have a perimeter fence. PACE: Asked if fence opacity was an issue. KANSIER: area. MADER: N fueling pad hat the I ' uel s th sand e t refueling must take place on an impervious pad that has the capacity to contain a fuel spill of 500 gallons. MADER: N !!i~na~!;!!!!as!!!'re'iGt1f.sl,ma;iso(Jss~!!!!!~nis:~!ifem!!!is~!f{)~!'in(i(J(jje!!!T moved to the impervious pad. ent be IV(d)2 No lighting is permitted on site. MADER: Commented that this condition was intended to mitigate the impact on the adjacent neighborhood. PACE: Asked about truck lighting after dark in the winter time, and suggested that if the applicant specified in their documents that they would not be operating in the winter time, it should be included in the CUP. KANSIER: Noted that operating a mining operation is seasonal work similar to grading. MADER: Suggested bring the issue of hours back when we come to that item. IV(d)3 The project is limited to 12.91 acres as indicated in Exhibit A. Any excavation beyond the area identified in Exhibit A will require the preparation of a new EA W. 14 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20, 2001 MADER: Suggested that excavation beyond the 12.91 acres should not only include a new EAW, but also a new application. KANSIER: Clarified that every year, the applicant will be required to submit a new application. The intent behind the condition was that the EAW was discretionary rather than required. MADER: Asked if the condition were limited to the 12.91 acres, what happens if they excavate outside that area, and at that point what is the City's remedy. KANSIER: Advised that the City would then go in and stop the operation since it would not be in compliance with the approved CUP. PACE: Advised that if the applicant didn't stop operation voluntarily upon receiving the City's citation, then the City would need to go to court and seek an injunction. She could not make a determination to what the judge's decision would be. Advised that there is case law that discusses expanding a gravel pit. ZIESKA: oted that in the EAW the soil borings detected the water table at 808 feet, and th document provide y Ryan talked about the water table at 743 feet. Ryan is proposing to mine d n to 850 feet. If t water table is really at 808, then there is (:mly 42 feet separation rather than 50 f t. which is therefore PACE: conditio lained that the conditions are intended to mitigate against any adverse impa and so a f that sort would be appropriate. ZIESKA: i:ng~ma:::me&Ra:ino":::~natHjftRe::~!ooftom::m()T~~~n~~:f,'i~:m:sAee:le above any known water on the site. f 50 feet OSMUNDSON: Believed that the bottom of the pit is currently proposed at 850 feet. MADER: Noted that in a significant number of gravel pits, the water level is above the floor of the gravel pit. There was some discussion regarding the 50 foot separation standard imposed by the Minnesota Department of Health and whether that was a guideline. Suggested deferring that item back to staff for the number. PACE: Advised that there has also been a provision added which states if there is a discrepancy between the plans and the CUP, that the CUP controls. So creating a limit in the CUP is probably a valid point. IV(d)4 The project approval is only for the extraction and screening of sand and gravel. There is to be no crushing, washing or other mineral processing conducted on site. 15 ,- T T i . I n -,;- City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20, 2001 MADER: Believed that the original intent of the application was to not include any rock-crushing activities and that there was an indication by the applicant that they may add those types of operations, so the condition is appropriate. PETERSEN: Advised that the noise from rock-crushing activities is the largest complaint by Lakeville resident near that pit. IV(d)5 The installation of a water supply well on site is prohibited. Any water needed on site is to be delivered from off-site sources. BOYLES: Noted that item 3 in the list submitted by Dorsey & Whitney suggests that no water be drawn from wells on the site except to serve the homestead on the property. Asked if the Council wanted that provision to be added. MADER: Requested adding the provision. Then continued reviewing the remaining conditions. ,., I as a resu 0 IS proJec IS 0 U e rom e Sl e south to CSAH 42. No traffic is permitted to the north on McKenna Road into the City of Shakopee. A sign stating "Trucks-No Right Turn" must be posted at the entrance to McKenna Road. GUNDLACH ounty PACE: Ask ZIESKA: N Road 42. It MADER: As d if the City has the authority to restrict trucks from going north on McKenna, a noted that if ther became an issue with truck traffic to the north, it could be addressed at th annual renewal of OSMUNDSON: Explained that it would be difficult to restrict the northbound traffic, but would rather be a cooperative effort. PACE: Suggested adding a provision to the CUP that stated that any condition deemed to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction does not invalidate the CUP or any of the other provisions. IV(d)10Hours of operation are 6am to Bpm Monday through Friday (weekdays) and Bam to 12noon on Saturdays. The operation is not allowed to operate on Sunday or legal holidays. ZIESKA: Asked if the hours are normal construction hours per the City's ordinance. KANSIER: Advised that the hours imposed are somewhat more strict than typical construction hours. PACE: Advised that the applicant's plans indicated they would only operate until 7:30pm. GUNDLACH: Stated that he would have liked to ask a representative of Ryan of their intent but they had already left the meeting. 16 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20, 2001 ZIESKA: Suggested modifying the hours during the weekday to 6:30am to 7:30pm. MADER: Suggested accommodating Ryan's request to operate on the four legal holidays specified. Further noted that representatives of the Shepherd of the Lake Church had approached him about imposing a Wednesday evening restriction due to their Church services. However; they do not expect to be in operation at that location until 2002. V. The CUP is valid for one year. Atthe expiration........ of the City or its residents. PACE: Asked if the Council wanted to include an explicit statement that the renewal may be subject to another EAW based upon the results of any monitoring or additional information. MADER: Agreed. , 1999) submitted by Ryan Contracting is attached hereto as Exhibit (A) and incorporated as part of this resolution. MADER: there is prevails. t states if resolution Dis e oth st Whitn ing t t testing before operations begin and thereafter each month to evaluate nois ss of muffling, the issue of the sound wall barrier, issue of vels and PACE: A ~e~:::~::n~ise:ma:no:::ml!r ' BOYLES: Confirmed. PACE: Noted that the testing would then be a reasonable requirement. Suggested that if the Council wished to impose the condition, the applicant have the testing done at whatever interval the City deems appropriate and then provide copies of the test results to the City. GUNDLACH: Noted that with regard to regulating noise, the City cannot be more restrictive than State statutes. PACE: Asked what the Council would determine as a reasonable interval for this time of testing. BOYLES: Suggested that the testing take place prior to beginning work and then semi-annually. GUNDLACH: Recommended that the provision all include that the City can require testing upon receiving complaints. BOYLES: Further discussed the requests by Dorsey & Whitney for a sound wall, use of native tree species and the issue of monitoring wells. 17 ,- T I . 1 "7Ji City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20, 2001 The Council consensus was that requiring a sound wall would be excessive given the other conditions imposed in an attempt to mitigate noise. Also, the Council reached a consensus that the current tree replacement ordinance in place was adequate in addressing the types of trees to be used. MADER: Asked staff if they feel they have enough specific information. Commented that it is important that even though the list of conditions is extensive, that this is a gravel excavation project located inside the City limits of a small city with a public well nearby, developed residential areas that may be impacted, and other developable areas. ZIESKA: Invited any additional comments by Dorsey & Whitney at this time. PETERSON: operation acceptable Discussed two specific points. On the hours of operation, suggested a bit more that a would d Mr. WAPEHPA: streamlinin start time be more k Peterson t of the is not MADER: S recommen review of t to be so re with a annual ant not PACE: Ask Mr. Peterson to ex lain what a esometer is. PETERSON: Explained that a pesometer is a type of well that has a very specifically set screen interval so that hydraulic heads can be deducted. It is usually set up in a nest of three wells with different intervals in order to detect which direction ground water is moving. ZIESKA: Added that he would have also provided a representative from Ryan Contracting to make additional comments, but they were no longer present. There was some discussion among the Council and staff as to the time and place of the special meeting. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO DEFER THE ISSUE OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO A SPECIAL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 27,2001 AT 6PM AT THE FIRE STATION. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, the motion carried. The Council took a brief recess. 18 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20, 2001 The Council discussed which items should be dealt with and which items could be deferred to the special meeting. Consider Approval of a Resolution Awarding Bid Through the State Cooperative Purchasing Program for (1) One 5-ton Single Axle Cab and Chassis Truck; and (2) One CAT Front-End Loader. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-17 AWARDING BID FOR ONE 5-TON SINGLE AXLE CAB AND CHASSIS TRUCK TO BOYER STERLING TRUCKS AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $42,868.38. HARTMAN: Discussed the base prices and the prices for the options, noting all the options were standard to make the cab and chassis an acceptable truck. Further noted that the other costs were for the snow plow equipment. MADER: equipm re will be ow many MADER: a point of the p HARTMA vehicles parks m out of the up. VOTE: es by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, the motion carried. MOTIO BY GUNDLACH SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-18 THE PU AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $128,840.51. ARDING ATEDIN OSMUNDSON: Discussed the rationale for the staff recommendation in connection with the staff report. PETERSEN: Asked where the John Deere loader rated in the staffs opinion. OSMUNDSON: Advised that in price the John Deere was bid higher than the Case, but lower than the Cat. Staff felt that the Case and Cat loaders were better products. MADER: Discussed including the cost of money in future life cycle analysis. Asked staff that if the approximate 6% cost of the money was factored in over 10 or 15 years, did staff still feel the additional costs for the Cat was justified. OSMUNDSON: Discussed the considerations for the future trade-in value for the machine, fuel cost savings and comparisons researched by staff. Even given the cost of money, felt the purchase of the Cat was the right decision in the long-term. 19 r- 7' i . T '-';- City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20,2001 GUNDLACH: Concerned about productivity issues. Asked staff to comment on how the horsepower of the vehicles compare. Commented that providing productive equipment is important because otherwise the City would presumably incur additional employee wages for lost time. OSMUNDSON: Noted that the City's current machine has 115 horsepower. The Cat loader is 150-160 horsepower, and the weight is 5000 Ibs. more. Staff is looking to purchase a machine that will do more and meet the City's long-term needs. The machine should be faster and more productive. ZIESKA: Believes the estimates for operating hours are very conservative based on the use and hours of the current loader. Commented that this loader would probably acquire 5500 hours in its lifetime which would double the fuel savings and drive down the annual cost difference. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, the motion carried. NEW BUSI Consider [This item was deferred to the February 27, 2001 Special Meeting] MOTION ZONE C DESIGNA 22 WEST. t and nship Consider Removing 115 North, that a PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 01.XX APPR NGE TO THE R-2 DISTRICT AND REMOVING THE SHORELAND D MADER: Asked the deadline for action on this item. KANSIER: May 8, 2001. MADER: Suggested to the applicant that the item be deferred to a meeting where five members are present. Apologized that the applicant has stayed so long. Believed it may be in the applicant's best interest for the full Council to consider the issue. Asked for the applicant's opinion. PACE: Advised that the courtesy is extended to all applicants where a 4/5th vote is required, but that it did not preclude the Council from discussing the matter. STEVE AUCH (Centex Homes): Advised that he would appreciate any feedback the Council would like to offer, but did not have a problem with deferring the item to the next meeting. MADER: Advised that it would be inappropriate for the Council to discuss the matter, reach a consensus, and then act to defer it based upon which Councilmember were present. 20 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 20, 2001 AUCH: Advised that this was an important decision in their planning timeline and that the issue could be deferred to the February 27,2001 special meeting, but that they would need a decision at that time whether there were 4 or 5 Councilmembers present. [This item was deferred to the February 27,2001 special meeting.] Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving the Purchase of Equipment through State Cooperative Purchasing for (1) One new 16-foot Rotary Lawn Mower; and (2) a Replacement Skid Steer Loader. [This item was deferred to a subsequent meeting.] Consider Approval of a Resolution (1) Amending the 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Program Relatin. ... izing the Prepaf'< ed in the 2001 C Consid to Fun [This item was deferred to a subsequent meetin inancing OTHER USINESS I COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: MADER: on a Bill proposed by Representative Lipman that would curtail or rescind the Metropolitan Council's authority for veto power over Comprehensive Plans of municipalities. He argues that the veto power takes the responsibility for local planning away from local elected officials. Advised that Representative Lipman had asked him to offer comments. Asked Councilmembers if they wished him to offer testimony and if the Bill held a position supported by the Council. GUNDLACH: Commented that the Council has been consistent on the issue. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO OFFER TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF HOUSE BILL 4B. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, the motion carried. Frank Boyles, City Manager A motion to adjourn was made and seconded. The meeting adjourned at 12:07: 21 ,- T T ':I: . .. "-r COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 27,2001 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, Planning Director Rye, Public Works Director Osmundson, Planning Coordinator Kansier and Recording Secretary Meyer. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: BOYLES: Requested adding approval of Invoices to be Paid to the Consent Agenda since the Council would not be meeting again until March 19, 2001. MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. VOTE: . . .. MADER: distribut minutes av not been al g with the MOTIO BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGEN VOTE: es by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: NONE. PRESENTATIONS: NONE. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. OLD BUSINESS Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Excavation of Sand and Gravel for Ryan Contracting on Property Located at the Southeast Quarter Section of Section 22, Township 115, Range 22 Located at McKenna Road. MADER: Advised that this issue was discussed in length at the last regular meeting and noted that the action taken at the last meeting included a negative declaration for an Environmental Impact Statement. Further asked staff to review those conditions in the proposed resolution that have been modified since the last meeting. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER '~'---"--"--""---_.'''''-''._--''''- it III City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 27,2001 BOYLES: Discussed the three areas of change in the modified resolution noting each of the specific changes addressing in particular the issues of monitoring wells, the process in the event of a significant environmental contamination, and the recommendations by Liesch & Associates. RYE: Reported that the meetings regarding the issue of the number of monitoring wells was a misunderstanding between the DNR and Scott County as to the type of monitoring wells. Scott County was most concerned with the direction of ground water flow, where the DNR was interested in addressing water quality. Upon further discussion, the County did note that they felt the gravel pit operation would not significantly affect the ground water flow. The recommendation of staff remains installation of one monitoring well for water quality and that there was not a need for three additional wells to monitor ground water flow. ERICSON: Commented that the staff has appeared to cover all of the issues raised at the last meeting. MADER: Commented that while the City has an ordinance that permits gravel excavation, that it must be done b' . located ne approving e application, and due to the uniqueness of the site, there is an obligation t enough sa ,i;;; uards to preserve the public interest. Asked Mark Olson of Liesch & Associate professional!!:opinion an EIS was not re uired. ~III ". MARK OLS~:~ (L A at AssessmerU! Wor t impacts waiant S. ~~m MADER: Asled rn~! m!i" MARK OLS~N: Advised that his professional recommendation is that the conditions impose proposed r";' olution, including modifications that Liesch & Associates had recommended, ad protect the vironment and ad'acent ro ert owners from the ro osed minin 0 eration. by the uately MADER: Noted a letter from Liesch & Associates dated Feb. 27, 2001 and asked that it be entered into the official record. Asked if there is anything in the proposed resolution that seems arbitrary or unnecessary as far as protecting the environment. OLSON: Advised that in his opinion the conditions are appropriate. Further noted that several of the conditions must be completed prior to the actual mining which will provide some baseline data that will be compared to data collected as the pit operates so there will be on-going monitoring. MADER: Further commented that there had been requests by both the applicant and the counsel for the Mdewakanton Sioux Community to address the Council on this topic. Noted that in his opinion there is no new information to be provided by the parties. Asked for Council member input. ERICSON: Agreed and noted that the positions of each of the parties had been discussed at length during the public hearing process. Also advised that the bylaws do not prohibit any Councilmembers from asking questions of either party. MADER: Further noted that the applicant has requested a 3D-day extension before the Council acts on the issue. Believed that no new information would be provided with an extension and that there 2 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 27,2001 probably is not a point where there is absolute consensus between all the parties involved. Asked for Councilmember input. GUNDLACH: Agreed that there has already been significant information provided and there would be no benefit from an extension. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY ERICSON TO ACT ON THE ISSUE AT THIS TIME WITHOUT ANY EXTENSION AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-19 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXCAVATION OF SAND AND GRAVEL FOR RYAN CONTRACTING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER SECTION OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 115, RANGE 22 LOCATED AT MCKENNA ROAD. oted that page 7 of the approving resolution provides review at one year, I use permit may be revoked at any time if there is non-compliance with t that the ny of the PACE: difficulty the dev re is any et forth in ZIESKA: Credit b Letter of There w consensus among the Councilmembers that the adjustment should be made. ERICSO . en though he believes that the use of the property does not support the enjoyment of neighboring properties, or what should be developed within the City. Stated he would not support the motion. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION AT ITEMS 4(C)10 AND 4(C)11 TO REQUIRING A LETTER OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $420,500 RATHER THAN $500,000. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. GUNDLACH: Noted that his concerns revolved around the noise and environmental impacts and that although he still has reservations, he will support the motion because staff has proposed conditions that appear to address his concerns. MADER: Noted that he would support the motion because the City has an ordinance allowing gravel excavation as a permitted use even though he personally agrees with Council member Ericson that he would rather not have a gravel pit within the City. Believes the conditions set forth in the approving resolution imposed the necessary safeguards. 3 !' I .---r---------......--.-----------r--.-~.----'"---....-. III City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 27,2001 PACE: Advised that the conditions imposed in the permit relate to information in the record and are intended to mitigate those impacts or concerns. Conditions were not created here just for the sake of creating conditions. MADER: Believes that is accurate. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, Nay by Ericson, the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Consider Approval of a Resolution Modifying the City's Municipal State Aid Street System. OSMUNDSON: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report discussing the additions and deletions to the City's municipal state aid street system and the effects on funding. MADER: As of streets the Ci , and if that's the r an the OSMUNDSO Advised that the number of miles in the system is 20% of the total miles of stre within the City. ZIESKA: As project will OSMUNDSO be way ou being built funding. at may streets g more GUNDLACH sked why the rest of the ring road wasn't included. OSMUNDSON: Advised that it is already included in the system. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-20 MODIFYING THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET SYSTEM. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. Consider Approval of an Ordinance Approving a Zone Change to the R-2 District and Removing the Shoreland District Designation on the Property Located in Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West. KANSIER: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, noting the proposed request before the Council. Reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and discussed the criteria for amendments to the official zoning map and for rezoning from R-1 to R-2. MADER: Believes there are some outstanding issues with the rezoning and that more work needs to be accomplished with staff. Believes that the developer is acceptable to deferring the matter at this time. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 27,2001 BOYLES: Confirmed and noted that the Council did have the opportunity to act on the separate Shoreland District issue while deferring the rezoning issue by acting on the second ordinance in the staff report. KANSIER: Discussed the property in connection with the limits of the shoreland district. Further discussed the drainage on the property and the recommendation of staff. ERICSON: Asked for clarification if the lots within the Shoreland District were required to be greater in size than those not in the Shoreland District. KANSIER: Confirmed and explained that lot area for R-1 within the Shoreland District is 20,000 square feet and outside the Shoreland District the requirement is 12,000 square feet. GUNDLACH: Asked how that affected the density for R-2. KANSIE . density i allows i the mini t, but the the DNR based on from the there are d District Advised that a PUD does not negate the requirements of a Shoreland District, b didn't not etails of the Wilds PUD develo ment. RYE: Advised that there is the factor of overall density, which is established by the 20,000 square foot lot size. The Wilds PUD was probably approved under the 20,000 square foot minimum, but much of the area is also golf course which would affect the overall density. ERICSON: Concerned about density of the project, particularly 50 foot lots in an R-1. However, noted that smaller lots are preferable to higher density. The current townhome projects within the City, while very well done with respect to quality, are really getting overcrowded within the spaces provided. Would like to see not having maximum density for all projects and that this Council take a look at reducing overall density. Would support removing the property from the Shoreland District strictly on the drainage issue, but advised he had concerns about the overall project. GUNDLACH: Would support removing the property from the Shoreland District given the drainage. Also concerned about building single-family homes on lots that are 50-60 foot wide. Suggested other alternatives to rezoning the property R-2 in order to manage density, including use of a PUD. MADER: Suggested that the Council focus on the issue of the Shoreland District and allow staff to further work with the developer on the rezoning issue. Supported removing the property from the Shoreland District. 5 r --r-------.-...-'"..---.....-----...-..-.-.---T-..~-..--...-...............-............ . '-"'-' lIT City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 27, 2001 MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 01-01 REMOVING THE PROPERTY FROM THE SHORELAND DISTRICT. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO DEFER ACTION ON THE APPLICATION TO REZONE. There was some discussion as to whether a specific date of deferral was necessary. STEVE AUCH (Centex Homes): Asked for the earliest date possible for consideration of the rezoning application. MADER: Advised that there is no March 5, 2001 regular meeting, so the earliest possible date would be March 19, 2001 which is a rather extensive agenda. Suggested the first meeting in April, noting it would give staff some time to further fine-tune the application given the differing opinions on how the property s ... aff and council hol n t Include AUCH: Advi d that he would certainly like to work with staff towards an amenable solution b re that time. VOTE: Ay The Council took a brief recess. Consider State Cooperative Purchasing for (1) One new 16-foot Rotary Lawn Mower; and (2) a Replacement Skid Steer Loader. FRIEDGES: Discussed the purchase of the 16-foot rotary mower in connection with the staff report. ERICSON: Commented on how well done the analysis was regarding this purchase, and that the process is getting better and more in line with what the Council wanted to see. Supported the staff recommendation. ZIESKA: Asked what the cost was to carry the additional stock for the Jacobsen. FRIEDGES: Didn't have the exact figure, but added that there would be additional costs for carrying two types of stock. ERICSON: Asked if we'd have to acquire additional stock for the purchase of the Toro. FRIEDGES: Advised that the mower would just be incorporated in the stock on hand. MADER: Asked that the resolution include specific language as to the rationale for the higher bid. 6 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 27,2001 MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-21 APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT THROUGH STATE COOPERATIVE PURCHASING FOR ONE 16-FOOT ROTARY LAWN MOWER AS AMENDED. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. FRIEDGES: Discussed the rationale for the purchase of the 773T Bobcat in connection with the staff report. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-22 APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF THE 773T BOBCAT THROUGH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA PURCHASING CONTRACT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $18,439.41. PETERSEN: Commented that it was nice to see staff recommending the low bid. MADER: t it is also importa eeds and why. FRIEDG e, doesn't mean th OSMUN ent would not be s ' VOTE: es by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution (1) Amending the 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Program Relating to Knob Hill Park Basketball Court and Fish Point Park Trail; and (2) Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Trails and a Basketball Court as Identified in the 2001 Capital Improvement Program. FRIEDGES: Reviewed the recommendation and rationale of staff for requesting that Knob Hill Park and Fish Point Park projects be accelerated in connection with the staff report. ERICSON: Clarified that the acceleration of the projects is to get the construction done all at once without going back in and having the park under construction year after year. FRIEDGES: Confirmed. GUNDLACH: Asked if it was possible to use developer contractors, similar to the case for the Deerfield trail, in order to get a better cost. FRIEDGES: Advised that staff is considering that option for certain segments of the trail. 7 -'T''''.. h.----y-......_.............. . ........--..... r 11 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 27,2001 MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-23 (1) AMENDING THE 2001-2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RELATING TO KNOB HILL PARK BASKETBALL COURT AND FISH POINT PARK TRAIL; AND (2) AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRAILS AND A BASKETBALL COURT AS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. VOTE: Ayes Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving in Concept the Use of Tax Increment Financing to Fund a Senior Housing Project as Part of the Downtown Redevelopment Effort. MADER: Reviewed the proposed project and the past times that the Council has worked on this project. Noted that the project appears to address some of the concerns and objectives of this Council. Discussed the need by the developer for tax increment financing on a pay-as-you-go basis. The action before the Council tonight is to approve the concept for the use of tax increment so that the developer . . PACE: Beli es that approval of the resolution is a statement of intent of the Council's willin act in good ith. ERICSON: Manager a MOTION B CONCEPT AS PART VOTE: Ay reement and Authorize Execution of Same in the tter of BOYLES: Reviewed the terms of the settlement of the case in connection with the staff report. MADER: Noted that this type of suit, going through the Court process, has the potential to triple in cost. Believes the City did not have any responsibility and the issue has become whether this the best action the Council can take to mitigate damages even though frivolous suits always cost money. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME IN THE MATTER OF JULIE HAGEN VS. CITY OF PRIOR LAKE. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Comments on Proposed Scott County Comprehensive Land Use and Transportation Plan. BOYLES: Reviewed the action requested in connection with the staff report. MADER: Asked if there are any items that staff would have concern with as far as Council direction. 8 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT February 27,2001 RYE: Believes the response is consistent with the Council's positions on extending infrastructure into the Township given the past expansive and unregulated development throughout the County, couching our comments in terms of the Urban Expansion Area. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE COMMENTS ON PROPOSED SCOTT COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS I COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: ERICSON: Advised that a Letter to the Editor last week responding to an article called "Building from a Different Point of View" was not submitted by him, but by another James Ericson. Asked the newspaper to identify the author in such circumstances to avoid future confusion. 9 r --.-----c----.....--...- ...........,....--...-.-..- '--r-"-- ----y---- I .T