Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 06 10 City Council minutes 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES December 6, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Myser, Council members Erickson, Hed- berg, Keeney and Millar, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Public Works Director Albrecht, Finance Director Erickson, Fire Chief Hartman, Building and Transit Services Director Kansier, Community Devel- opment and Natural Resources Director Parr, Recreation Coordinator Barstad, Police Chief O’Rourke, As- sistant City Manager Meyer and Administrative Assistant Green. PUBLIC FORUM The Public Forum is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns to the City Council. It will be no longer than 30 minutes in length and each presenter will have no more than ten (10) minutes to speak. Items to be considered on the agenda may be addressed at the Public Forum unless they have been or will be the subject of a public hearing or public information hearing at the City Council, the Econom- ic Development Authority (EDA), the Planning Commission, or any other City Advisory Committee within the foreseeable future. Forum items are also restricted to City governmental topics rather than as a plat- form for private agendas. Matters that are the subject of pending litigation are not appropriate for the Public Forum. The City Council will not take formal action on Public Forum presentations. City Manager Boyles explained the concept of the Public Forum. Comments: No person stepped forward to speak. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Keeney asked that a new business item, Bylaws Discussion, be added to the agenda. MOTION BY MILLAR, SECONDED BY ERICKSON TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS MODIFIED. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECONDED BY HEDBERG TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 15, 2010, MEET- ING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA City Manager Boyles reviewed the items on the consent agenda. A. Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. B. Consider Approval of Ordinance 110-07 Amending Section 901 of the Prior Lake City Code Section With Respect to Winter Parking Restrictions. C. Consider Approval of Resolution 10-114 Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter Into a Coopera- Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com tive Agreement with Scott County for Cost Share of Aerial Photography. D. Consider Approval of: 1) Resolution10-115 Approving Appointments to the Communications-Technology Advisory Committee; and 2) Resolution10-116 Approving Appointments to the Parks Advisory Committee. E. Consider Approval of Resolution 10-117 Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute the City’s Standardized Construction Contract for the 2010-2011 Monitoring Well Project Councilmember Erickson requested that item 5B be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY ERICKSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS MOD- IFIED. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. Erickson: Asked how the public will know a snow emergency has been declared, the time frame from dec- laration to implementation and areas to be involved. Albrecht: Replied that proposed ordinance revision is adding standardized language that allows for a snow emergency to be called if needed prior to November 1 or later than March 31. The snow emergency declaration would be creating parking restrictions for the hours of 2 – 6 a.m. continuing the current ordin- ance that governs the November-March period. The City publicizes a snow emergency giving as much no- tice as possible using all local media. The entire City would be involved, and extra attention is paid to the downtown area and more heavily traveled roadways. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 110-07 AMENDING SECTION 901 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE SECTION WITH RESPECT TO WINTER PARKING RESTRICTIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. PRESENTATION Lakefront Holiday Dazzle Event. Recreation Coordinator Barstad stated the event is scheduled for Friday, December 10 from 6 – 8 p.m. Described activities planned and noted that events to support charities will also be held. Explained this event is planned to replace the Downtown Dazzle and is hoped to alleviate problems associated with hold- ing it downtown, such as limited parking and theft at participating businesses. Stated that the City and the Chamber is collaborating on hosting the event and participants can expect a fun, family-friendly event. Comments: Hedberg: Stated this was a fun event to have downtown, but understands the issues. Believes it was a smart decision to move it to the park. Pleased to see the charity-oriented events. Millar: Stated this will be a strong event at the park and concurred he is happy to see the charitable organ- ization partnerships. Erickson: Asked if the annual Winter Blast event will be eliminated. Barstad: Replied that it would and the resources from the Winter Blast will be diverted to this event. Stated there will be several smaller events, such as free hot chocolate at the skating park, throughout the winter. Erickson: Asked if there will be any indoor activities at this event. Barstad: Replied that crafts, face painting, and the Tree of Warmth will be inside. Noted that space hea- ters will be set up on the back porch of the pavilion and there will be bonfires to help people stay warm. 2 12 06 10 City Council meeting minutes Keeney: Commented that having outdoor festivals in the winter is another wonderful example of the gen- eral Minnesota experience. Myser: Asked about businesses that did not support having the event downtown. Barstad: Replied that apparently at least six businesses downtown were having significant issues. PUBLIC HEARING Public Hearing for Proposed 2011 City Budgets and Property Tax Levies. City Manager Boyles provided information about the requirements and process of the tax levy system. Stated that the City’s portion of the total property tax bill is approximately 29%. Spoke of the City’s process for developing the budget considering property tax and fund balance revenues, fund balance reserves and the capital improvement plan. Stated the 2030 Long-Range Vision and Strategic Plan was reviewed and priorities were updated; and a review was made of the long term financial plan. Reviewed the proposed 2011 budget explaining the anticipated revenue and expenditures, changes in service levels and efforts made in savings and reductions. Explained that the revolving equipment fund and the debt service fund were not previously budgeted, but have been added for transparency. Described the enterprise fund budg- ets. Advised the public about the remainder of the process. Comments: Hedberg: Commented that the 2010 budget did not set out the debt service funds or revolving equipment fund; and since those two items are set out in the 2011 requested budget, it appears as a nearly $4.6 in- crease in revenues. Asked what the actual debt service revenues and revolving equipment fund expendi- tures will be for 2010. J. Erickson: Replied that the revenue includes a tax portion of approximately $1,112,000 of property taxes that went into the debt service fund. Special assessments are expected to be $400,000 - $425,000. Inter- est on investments will be about $35,000, transfers from the general fund, water and sewer funds will be slightly less than what is shown for 2011. Hedberg: Stated the revolving equipment fund shows a budget of $396,000 for 2011. Asked what the revenues for 2010 are. J. Erickson: The tax portion was $260,000 – a $10,000 increase is planned for 2011; interest would be comparable; transfers from water and sewer funds was $90,000 in 2010 and a $10,000 increase is planned for 2011. Hedberg: Deduced that the total increase from 2010 to 2011 appears to be between $300,000 - $400,000. MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECONDED BY HEDBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried and the public hearing opened at 7:12 p.m. Comments: Wes Mader, 3470 Sycamore Trail SW, stated the City has been making claims about reduced city spend- ing and holding the line on taxes. Presented his comments about spending and tax collection for the past five years stating that the City spent more than collected at a rate greater than inflation during that period of time. Stated that reserves are scheduled to be reduced over the next few years. Believes the City has been spending and borrowing too much and cannot sustain the operations and maintenance of the assets. Believes the comparison between 2010 actual balance and 2011 proposed budget is not valid. Reiterated that economic times are hard and the proposed budget should be denied. John Myser, 16015 Northwood Road, attended most of the budgeting work sessions and questioned whether direction was provided by the Council. Stated that his taxes were increased; and from his point of 3 12 06 10 City Council meeting minutes view taxpayers do not have a choice about taxes; they receive the bill and have to pay it. Would like Coun- cil to consider reducing spending and reducing the levy. Charles Menking, 16119 Northwood Road, stated he pays $459 per month on property taxes on a cabin valued at $358,000. Stated he has tried to appeal his property tax. Asked how many different property tax districts there are in Prior Lake and why they are so different. Believes the City should not raise the levy. Jim Marchessault, 3218 Butternut Circle, complimented City Manager on the presentation. Stated he sees two different Americas: government employees and private sector employees. Spoke of his own ex- perience from 2008 – 2010 and his decisions to lay off employees, etc. Stated he knows of other busi- nesses who have done the same. Stated he sees no retraction in government. Robert Peterson, 14956 Pixie Point Circle, lived there since 1955, asked if this public hearing is intended to provide information or just to comply with the law. Stated he could not understand what was being dis- cussed; that he came to the public hearing to find out what the City is spending the money on and why, but did not get that message. Kathleen Deonarine, 15386 Fish Point Road, commented that an increase in spending seems to be planned and questioned why citizens accept the increases. Stated she wants the protection of police and fire, etc. but the City seems oblivious to economic conditions in asking for more taxes. Asked if a tax in- creased is planned and how it is justified. Ken Loehlein, 2960 Terrace Circle SW, stated he has an insurance and financial business and has been able to stay in business only by making tough decisions. Stated he is employed and lives in the City; spends tax dollars here and wants to keep his family here. Would like to be able to get a better picture of what the money is being spent on. John Myser, 16015 Northwood Road, asked what the Council would have to hear from the citizens to de- cide to change the current spending plan. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried and the public hearing closed at 7:54 p.m. Comments: J. Erickson: Suggested reviewing questions and comments from public input and deciding whether res- ponses need research before responding. Myser: Brought up the comparison of 2004 and 2009 spending and reconciliation of comments about whether spending is flat or increasing. J. Erickson: Asked if that is the time period that the Council wants analyzed. Myser: Believes it is appropriate to respond to the query. W. Erickson: Commented that no Council members from that time period are currently serving. Myser: Seems it would be appropriate to comment on whether the numbers were correct and what caused the increases from 2004 to 2009. Hedberg: Noted that several different years were directly or indirectly referred to from 2000 to 2011. Be- lieves it is important to understand how the population of the City changed during that period of time as well. Wants information to be related to the change in population and the demand in services that changed during that period of time. Myser: Asked Mader to clarify what funds he was referring to in his comments about fund reserves. Mader: Responded he was referring to fund balances for 12 funds. Stated the information on revenue, spending and taxes were from the general fund; and that all of the information he cited was taken from the 2004 and 2009 financial statements. Hedberg: Clarified that total fund balances are over $20,000,000. 4 12 06 10 City Council meeting minutes J. Erickson: Affirmed that the treasurer’s report for October listed $22,000,000 for all funds. W. Erickson: Believes the funding sources should also be identified as not all are from property taxes. Keeney: Commented that revenues are cyclical and the timing of audited statements to the receipt of funds might cause some confusion. J. Erickson: Concurred stating that end of year statements will show higher fund balances due to tax rev- enues received in December. Myser: Asked if car allowances were rolled into salaries. J. Erickson: Replied that direction was received from Council that no employee should go backwards so car allowances were rolled into salary and will be phased out through attrition. Myser: Asked for a response about the query referring to how many taxing districts there are in the City. J. Erickson: Replied that classification rate plays into tax rate and that is set by the State. Explained the tax capacity rate and noted that commercial, industrial, apartments and cabins might have different tax classification rates. A cabin is probably a higher classification than a residential home valued for the same amount. Stated that there is only one City property tax rate or “district.” W. Erickson: Reiterated that the City has no control over classifications as it is done by the County. Sug- gested that person contact the County. Myser: Asked for response regarding Peterson comments about whether the presentation was intended to be informative or serve compliance. J. Erickson: Responded that the City does need to be in compliance with the law; but it is also desired to share information so people understand how the staff and Council develop a budget. Keeney: Added that the most useful document to review to learn what money is spent on is the expense summary which was included in the report that was handed out. Stated that debt services are more difficult to understand due to the allocations. J. Erickson: Stated that referendum and EDA debt payments are reflected in the debt services funds for buildings. Other debt service, such as for roadway reconstruction, is reflected in bonding debt services. Keeney: Stated that the pie chart in the presentation also shows how the money is being spent. J. Erickson: Stated that staff also added information believed to be helpful such as expenses per capita. Myser: Commented that over time there are accounting changes such as cost accounting on projects, or trying to reflect staff time on projects that are funded by enterprise funds. Then if previous years are not restated, it might appear as increases without understanding that the process for reflecting expenditures have changed. Stated that benchmarks will be set for the City, such as spending per household, etc. for the future. Asked for response to the query about how the City justifies its spending. J. Erickson: Replied that the overall valuation for the City went down more than 4%. Each property is a piece of the pie; but the pie has shrunk. With a levy increase of zero and with one property value decreas- ing less than 4% and another property decreasing more than 4%; a property owner would not see a de- crease in tax levy unless their individual property valuation exceeded the 4% decrease. W. Erickson: Added that commercial property values dropped more than residential property values. Since commercial pays a higher rate than residences, the residential properties picked up the difference. Myser: Asked for response to the query of what the Council would need to hear to reduce spending. Keeney: Responded that in terms of justifying the increases, it is an incremental process. Sometimes that process does not track along with the economic condition. Believes, personally, that everyone is living beyond their means. Stated that the Council hears from the public that it wants new roads and parks, and more police and fire protection; and that is all expensive. Large changes to the budget cannot be made without changing the services that are provided. Stated that the Council would have to hear from the public that a reduction of service is desired in order for the numbers to go down. 5 12 06 10 City Council meeting minutes W. Erickson: Added that the Council must look at the things it can change and current Council members came into their position with some things in place that have debt service on them. Infrastructure and con- tracts are place that cannot be changed. The Council tries to make things as efficient as possible. Millar: Stated that Council members live in the City and pay taxes too. The City has been making cuts over the past three years, reduced the number of employees, reduced services at parks, etc. Concurred with Keeney’s remarks about the public needing to say that it wants fewer services. Stated the budget needs to cover costs from the community; and noted that the staff gets as much life out of equipment and supplies as possible. Hedberg: Stated that since 2007 there are fewer City employees, per capita spending is down $1 from 2006 and per household spending is up $11. Stated that decisions have been made to commit to infra- structure maintenance and spending is higher on that than in the past. Otherwise, money has been spent on public safety, sewer and water, streets and parks. Agreed the Council needs to hear from the public, specifically, what they want less of if they want less spending. Stated the most important activity for resi- dents to become involved in to make a difference is the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan meetings where broad priorities are set. Feels the City has a responsible budget. There has been significant reduction in non-tax revenues such as the unalloted homestead credit monies and greatly reduced building fees; but the City has not cut away the core services that the public expects. Myser: Commented that he voted against the preliminary budget and does not support increased spend- ing during this period of time. Believes the staff is phenomenal, but the wage increases are not justified. Supports Hedberg’s statements on critical services; but believes the City has “Cadillac” parks that need to be evaluated. Stated the City still has a significant portion of residents who are unemployed or underem- ployed. Boyles: Read into the record for the truth in taxation hearing an email from the Minnich’s of 14390 Water- sedge Trail with their comments that government should keep spending within means and not raise the tax burden. RECESS A recess was called at 8:40 p.m. RECONVENE The Mayor reconvened the meeting at 8:47 p.m. OLD BUSINESS Consider Approval of a Report from the Community Safety Advisory Committee on Synthetic Mari- juana (aka K-2). Police Chief Bill O’Rourke commented that cities in 15 states have controlled one or more synthetic can- nabinoids that are on the market. Less than two weeks ago, the assistant administrator for the Drug En- forcement Administration added five specific synthetic cannabinoids to the list of Schedule 1 narcotics un- der the Controlled Substance Act. The Center for Disease Control has reported overdoses, suicides, etc. with the chemicals used. Finalization of the action will carry criminal sanctions and regulatory controls for this product. Stated that two Prior Lake teens were found with K2 during an unannounced drug sweep at the high school. Presently, there is no state-wide regulation, but it is being considered. Some local gov- ernments have tried to control the sale, possession and use of the products. Duluth has enacted ordinance and is presently being sued by owners of local “headshops.” Some communities have passed resolutions recommending support of statewide regulations or statutes. Stated that the Community Safety Advisory Committee supports an effort similar to that of Duluth. 6 12 06 10 City Council meeting minutes Comments: Erickson: Stated it is good news that the Federal government is taking action and that the State may also. Originally, he believed the City should have an ordinance. Asked when State legislation might become ef- fective. O’Rourke: Replied it would most likely be a high priority that could be implemented within days of signing; otherwise it is typical for new law to become effective each August 1. Erickson: Asked if there is any business in Prior Lake that is selling the product. O’Rourke: Replied he is aware of one location in Shakopee that is selling it. Erickson: Commented that the City would probably not be sued if no local business is selling, and ordin- ance could allow it to be a penalty for a person to be in possession of it in the City. O’Rourke: Replied that synthetic cannabinoid was added to federal registry. This provides a 30-day win- dow of intent to place it in the Controlled Substance Act which provides notice to businesses that sell it that it will be a federal crime to possess and distribute it. Police can take product away from a person possess- ing it and the only additional thing ordinance would provide would be criminal charges for possessing it. Erickson: Commented that State statute would provide that also. Based on federal action and potential state action, believes it might be redundant for the City to pass an ordinance also. Asked about Ivory Wave. O’Rourke: Responded that the DEA lists five artificial marijuana products by listing them specifically, so there is the chance of some product not being included because of some other isomer included in the product. There is talk of the State defining it as any product with any derivative of cannabinoid. Ivory Wave is a designer drug from a cocaine base. Erickson: Asked if Ivory Wave should be included if the City were to pass a resolution making a recom- mendation to the State. O’Rourke: Responded it might be good to encourage them to look more broadly than synthetic cannabino- ids. Keeney: Asked if the shops in Shakopee will be shut down when the Federal regulations go into effect. O’Rourke: Replied that the special agent in charge of the local office of the DEA said they would come out and remove product from the shelves if we know if any place that has it. Keeney: Stated that would cut off the retail supply for the area and should remove the bulk of the problem. Asked if there is any additional reason for us to look at an ordinance in the interim until the State does something. O’Rourke: Replied it would only be to impose criminal sanctions for a small amount. A large amount would be processed at the Federal level. Keeney: Supports encouraging State regulation. Hedberg: Supports adopting a resolution supporting State action; however, if State action is not taken dur- ing first quarter of 2011, it should come back to a Council agenda to adopt local ordinance. Millar: Concurred with Hedberg comments about bringing back to Council if no State action is taken soon. Myser: Supports adding broad comment about including other designer drugs to a resolution supporting state legislation. Pace: Cautioned against making a comment so broad that it is vague. Believes the recommendation should list specific chemicals. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLU- TION SUPPORTING THE ADOPTION OF STATEWIDE REGULATIONS AND/OR STATUTES PROHIBIT- ING SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS; AND TO MONITOR STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTION SO THAT IF NOTHING IS FORTHCOMING BY THE END OF MARCH, THE TOPIC WILL BE BROUGHT BACK TO A COUNCIL AGENDA. 7 12 06 10 City Council meeting minutes Erickson: Expressed concern that calling a product synthetic cocaine might not be specific enough and queried whether the term Ivory Wave should be used. Hedberg: Replied that is a brand name and we would not want the product excluded if it had a different name. Erickson: Suggested it should be listed as drugs “such as” rather than calling it synthetic cocaine since there is no definition at this time. Hedberg: Asked what language should be used to accomplish the objective. O’Rourke: Proposed, “all forms of synthetic marijuana, without taking pain relievers and other common products off the shelves.” Believes some of the isomers are so close to legal drugs that lawmakers want to make sure they do not interfere with legitimate products. It needs to be conveyed to the legislators that the threat is broader than just synthetic cannabinoids. Erickson: Sought clarification of the final motion. Hedberg: Offered as an amendment to revise “synthetic cannabinoids” to other synthetic narcotics. Millar: Seconded the amendment. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLU- TION SUPPORTING THE ADOPTION OF STATEWIDE REGULATIONS AND/OR STATUTES PROHIBIT- ING SYNTHETIC NARCOTICS; AND TO MONITOR STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTION SO THAT IF NOTH- ING IS FORTHCOMING BY THE END OF MARCH, THE TOPIC WILL BE BROUGHT BACK TO A COUNCIL AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. Consider Approval of an Ordinance Amending Section 1102.1103 (C-2). Community Development and Natural Resources Director Parr provided a background of the discus- sion on this topic. Reviewed the proposed language and its impact on residential districts. Comments: Myser: Asked for clarification of the difference between the language from the presentation and that pro- posed in the previously distributed handout. Parr: Replied that it exchanges “public” for “customer” and characterized the entrances as “all main cus- tomer entrances.” Other changes that were distributed in the packet were made from the proposal of No- vember 15. Erickson: Asked what the definition of “main” should be and suggested eliminating “main” and replace it with “all customer entrances.” Parr: Responded that the Building Official states there can be more than one main entrance. Reviewed several businesses in the City with multiple main entrances in proximity to parking areas or signage. Those entrances that are not considered main would be back doors, some without hardware. Erickson: Commented that if a business had a back door entrance that is allowed to be a customer en- trance, it could still be called main. Parr: Replied that the intention of the term “main” was to provide consistency with the building code. The term may or may not provide clarity and could be removed if desired. Hedberg: Expressed appreciation to the Planning Commission and staff for their work in figuring out how all the pieces fit together. Elimination of the word “main” would be appropriate. There is a chance, that by matter of practice, a restaurant could start treating a back door like it is an entrance and that should be cause to review the ordinance. Believes this ordinance construction meets the intent of the deliberation on 8 12 06 10 City Council meeting minutes November 15. Commented that there is a difference between R-1 use districts and the other R use dis- tricts; a R-1 district has more intent and expectation that it is going to be quiet around the home. Pace: Suggested revising “e” to say the following additional conditions. Millar: Supports the language proposed and believes it reflects the intent. Erickson: Concurred with Hedberg’s comments that it has been long process and this proposal achieves what is desired to be accomplished. Keeney: Disagreed that the consensus of the Council was to allow this use abutting R-2 through R-4 dis- tricts with no setback. The restricted hours of operation clause would not be effective if abutting an R-2. Parr: Stated that regarding R-1, when other areas of the ordinance don’t kick in the hours of operation, it would not be zero feet. There is a 60-foot setback for a building in a C2 district; however it could be less if referring to an existing building that does not meet the setback and that would have to be looked at as part of the CUP. Keeney: Stated it is known that several of the existing buildings don’t meet the setback limits. Strongly opposes the triggering condition of the hours to be only R-1. Could result in someone putting in a bar in an existing building in a C-2 district that is next to an apartment building or duplex and that scenario has not been discussed in any previous draft. Other drafts always had a limitation on the hours. Believes this is short-circuiting the public hearing process. People might strongly object to 2 a.m. closing time rather than 11 p.m. If the language changes the hours limitations to all R use districts, could support. Myser: Questioned the choice of using “pedestrian safety” and some of the other proposed language brought forth at this meeting. Pace: Replied those were chosen from a recent case because whatever conditions were imposed in a CUP should accomplish the protection of a neighborhood. Myser: Questioned what would happen if a customer were given entrance through a back door by staff and if that would characterize it as a customer entrance. Parr: If it were happening on a regular basis, would assume it should be looked at. Part of the CUP is to have each door considered as it allows the Planning Commission to look at the site specific. If a CUP is is- sued and the business is not abiding by it, the CUP could be revoked. Pace: Stated that signage could be required that restricts customers from using a particular door; and awareness of violations would have to be complaint driven. Myser: Asked if an emergency exit required a vestibule. Pace: No. Myser: Sought feedback on whether “e” would be exclusive to R-1 districts. Parr: Commented that staff considered the R district vs. R-1 understanding that the Council wanted pro- tections for R-1. Indicated the ordinance proposal could revert to former language. Erickson: Asked what the disadvantage would be if language were changed to “abuts an R Use District.” Parr: Replied that it would rule out more areas that could be eligible for a CUP for this use. Displayed the C-2 areas that abut R districts on the map. Noted that if a public right-of-way separates the areas, they are not abutting. Erickson: Asked how it applies to the town center. Parr: Replied the town center has different rules and does not fall into these conditions. Erickson: Asked if, for example, the Buffet Palace would be eligible for a liquor license because their cus- tomer entrance is more than 100 feet from the abutting residential property. Parr: Replied that it is part of the overall Crossroads site which abuts a residential property and would have to meet the conditions listed under “e.” Erickson: So, they could have a license with limited hours. Parr: They could possibly have a license if they could get a CUP, meet all the requirements listed under “e” and any other conditions the Planning Commission may believe appropriate. 9 12 06 10 City Council meeting minutes Hedberg: Asked if Park Nicollet Avenue is a collector street. There are a number of uses in that area that would fall within the distances referred to next to the R3 district and wondered if it would count as abutting. Parr: Responded that Park Nicollet Avenue would eliminate them from being abutting. Keeney: Suggest deleting “-1” from the first line of “e.” All of the other conditions meet the intent. Millar: Asked if this will this change any of the scenarios for the C-2 areas. Parr: More properties would be impacted. A number of C-2 areas are abutting the R-2 and R-3 districts. Pace: Stated that staff worked to write language that met the direction given. Asked if the Council wants the restrictions in “e” to apply to all R districts or only R-1 districts. Keeney: Commented that the process started because existing ordinance does not allow any liquor within 100 feet of any residential district and there was a desire to allow liquor with limited hours. Believes the language accomplishes that by triggering clause “e” with any R use district which accomplishes the goal, but does not further allow unlimited hours which would be a further relaxation than was originally intended. Did not intend to have a full bar adjacent to a R use district. Hedberg: Believes there are situations in C-2 districts where it would be a mistake to limit hours and there should be a higher standard when abutting R-1. Keeney: Responded the original intent was to limit the hours and if changing more than that, it would be a different conversation. Erickson: Stated he would like to have time to reflect on the changes brought to this meeting. Myser: Concurred with tabling it until the December 20 meeting to allow time for reflection. Millar: Will support tabling. Keeney: Believes direction should be provided to staff. Myser: There is opportunity to visit the sites. Asked if anyone desires further information about the impact of R vs. R-1 for item “e.” Millar: Asked how the Council can get from the point of reflecting to coming up with a solution. Parr: Replied that staff can craft another version for consideration based on today’s conversation. Under- stands there is not support to go forward because of the R vs. R-1 distinction. Myser: Seems to be consensus about the entrances. Boyles: Clarified that language would remain the same except for discussion on R-1 vs. R. Parr: Stated that it needs to be considered site by site so it may result in two sets of language. MOTION BY KEENEY, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN UPDATED COPY OF PROPOSED LANGUAGE INCLUDING THE “ALL CUSTOMER ENTRANCE” CHANGE AS DIS- CUSSED, AND A REPORT ON THE DISTINCTIONS OF R1 AND R FOR TRIGGERING CLAUSE OF E, AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL. Pace: Asked if the intent of Bufferyard E is to only apply if it is less than 100 feet from an R district. Keeney: Replied he is fine with the original language, but to open it up to all R districts was never the in- tent. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. NEW BUSINESS Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Execution of the City’s Standardized Professional Services Contract for the CR 21 and Arcadia Avenue Intersection Improvements. Public Works Director Albrecht provided the history of why the intersection improvements are being con- sidered. Stated that the impacts of opening CR 21 to the north are as yet unknown. Feasibility studies have been completed for Arcadia, Pleasant and Main intersection improvements. The 2010 budget in- 10 12 06 10 City Council meeting minutes cluded right of way acquisition and design, but some of those funds were moved to 2011 for design and the timeframe is now condensed to have the design and construction completed in 2011. Proposals have been sought for survey, design and right of way acquisition and construction of the Arcadia intersection im- provements. Explained the advantages of seeking the proposals for survey and design at the same time so expenses are not incurred in translation of separate proposals. Explained the proposals received and the benefits offered by each consultant. Comments: Keeney: Reiterated that the total cost of the project is $2.6 million with the County funding $750,000. Asked if the County funding is conditional. Albrecht: Replied that it is conditional upon moving forward with the project next year. This is not the typi- cal County cost share because the City proposed the project and is asking them to put it in their ten-year plan. Keeney: Other alternatives are being studied with no schedule for them. The City will have to do some- thing and is inclined to go forward with survey phase. Asked what the best case scenario timeline might be for a bypass. Albrecht: Replied that if the Council would decide the bypass is the best thing for downtown, the City would need the County to pick up a large portion of that project. It is not on their list, so it would likely be ten years or more. Something to control the traffic flow is needed in the interim. The RFP was set up so the consultant understands the City will not have a good decision basis until the end of January to begin design work. Keeney: Supports moving forward with the survey and supports WSB as the consultant. Erickson: Will support. Asked if the Arcadia intersection reconstruction would not be done if the Council selects a bypass option for downtown. Albrecht: Believes the project needs to be done for interim traffic relief, but the intersection would be built less expensively and considered temporary. If the City takes no action, the traffic could create a scenario where the County would determine what should be done such as restricted intersections. Erickson: Realizes the WSB proposal is more costly, but they have the expertise needed and the extra cost is a very small percentage of the project. Millar: Will support. Concurs with staff’s recommendation of contracting with WSB. Hedberg: Will support. Clarified that staff favors WSB because this project will require challenging water resources and water quality management. Albrecht: Added that WSB also has in-house right of way staff. Myser: Asked what the difference would be if the City chose Bolton and Menk. Albrecht: Replied that a DNR wetland north of CR 21 is key to the project and it needs to be unclassified as a DNR wetland in order to be used for stormwater management. WSB’s regulatory staff for this project will be better and the City might incur additional cost with the less experienced staff levels of Bolton and Menk. Myser: Asked about the traffic from the casino. Albrecht: Replied that the casino has made significant improvements over time that could probably be tied to traffic counts. They also have many employees and their shift changes might impact traffic flow. Keep- ing CR 21 viable benefits both the downtown and the SMSC. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECONDED BY KEENEY TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 10-118 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CITY’S STANDARDIZED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE COUNTY ROAD 21 AND ARCADIA AVENUE INTERSECTION IM- PROVEMENTS AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO WSB. 11 12 06 10 City Council meeting minutes VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. Bylaws Discussion Councilmember Keeney requested the Council consider a revision to section 207.4 of the City Council By- laws regarding the public forum. Sought clarification on the language, “or will be the subject of a public hearing in the foreseeable future…” defining an ineligible topic of discussion at the public forum; and sug- gested that language could be stricken unless a public hearing is already scheduled on a given topic. MOTION BY KEENEY, SECONDED BY HEDBERG TO REFER THE TOPIC TO THE BYLAWS COMMIT- TEE FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE ANNUAL MEETING FOR CONSID- ERATION BY THE COUNCIL. Erickson: Asked if the committee would ordinarily look over this when it meets. Pace: Replied it has been the committee’s practice to review the bylaws line-by-line, but this motion is ap- propriate. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Millar. The motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS Community Events Erickson: Friday night is Lakefront Holiday Dazzle. Keeney: Reception to honor outgoing Councilmember Millar at 5 p.m. on December 20. Invited all to come and express appreciation for his contributions. Thanked Millar for his service. Erickson: Added that the reception will also recognize advisory committee members who are retiring. Hedberg: Listed all of the advisory committee members who are retiring. Myser: Receptionist Alice Baker is resigning after 11 years of service. Thanked her for offering a happy, friendly welcome to visitors to City Hall. ADJOURNMENT With no further comments from Council members, a motion to adjourn was made by Erickson and seconded by Keeney. With all in favor, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Frank Boyles, City Manager Charlotte Green, Administrative Asst. 12 12 06 10 City Council meeting minutes