Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft February 7, 2011 Minutes4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 7, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Myser, Council members Erickson, Hed- berg, Keeney and Soukup, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Public Works Director Albrecht, As- sistant City Engineer Poppler, Parks and Fleet Supervisor Friedges, Finance Director Erickson, Building and Transportation Director Kansier, Police Chief O'Rourke, Community Development and Natural Re- sources Director Parr, Planner Matzke, Assistant 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. The Public Forum will be no longer than 30 minutes in length and each presenter will have no more than ten (10) minutes to speak. Topics of discussion are restricted to City governmental topics rather than pri- vate or political agendas. Topics may be addressed at the Public Forum that are on the agenda except those topics that have been or are the subject of a scheduled public hearing or public information hearing before the City Council, the Economic Development Authority (EDA), Planning Commission, or any other City Advisory Committee. The City Council may discuss but will not take formal action on Public Forum presentations. Matters that are the subject of pending litigation are not appropriate for the Forum. Comments: No person stepped forward to speak. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY ERICKSON TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECOND BY KEENEY TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 18, 2011, MEETING MI- NUTES AS PRESENTED, VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Keeney and Soukup. Hedberg abstained due to his absence at the meeting. 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 Treasurer's Report. C. Consider Approval of 4th Quarter Investments Report. D. Consider Approval of Resolution 11.015 Authorizing the Purchase of Three (3) 2011 Crown Victoria Police Interceptors. E. Consider Approval of Resolution 11.016 Approving a Wetland Replacement Plan for the 2011 Water Quali- ty Maintenance and Retrofit Project (City Project #11 -012). Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com F. Consider Approval of Resolution 11.017 Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for Receipt of a $25,000 Community For- est Bonding Grant. G. Consider Approval of Resolution 11.018 Accepting the Improvements for the Industrial Park Utility Exten- sion and Resolution 11.019 Accepting the Improvements for the Maple Glen Second Developments. Councilmember Hedberg requested that item 513 be removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Erickson requested that item 5D be removed from the consent agenda. Mayor Myser requested that items 5A and 5E be removed from the consent agenda. MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECOND BY HEDBERG TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS MOD- IFIED. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried. Hedberg: Regarding item 5B, commented that the treasurer's report shows an increase of $21.4 million in fund balances to $23.8 million, which was anticipated. Questioned by the general fund balance increased from $4.8 million to $7.1 million. J. Erickson: Replied that the change to the overall budget is due to the receipt of the second half of tax levy monies. Stated she will have information about the percentage of the tax levy that went into the gen- eral fund at the next meeting. Hedberg: Commented that taxes comprise more than half of the general tax fund and will be a topic of conversation in budget work sessions. Myser: Affirmed that general fund reserve policy is planned for discussion at the first budget meeting. Erickson: Regarding item 5D, stated that Ford Crown Victoria's will not be available after 2011 and ve- hicles selected after that date will have additional expense in retrofitting. Suggested that five vehicles should be purchased this year rather than three with two placed in storage to allow for continued used of the existing retrofit package and to allow time to test out retrofitting for whatever kind of vehicle will be pur- chased in the future. O'Rourke: Affirmed that the final date for ordering a Crown Victoria is March 1. Stated that Ford has elim- inated the police interceptor and next year it will be on the SHO on a Taurus platform. Concurred that the retrofitting equipment currently on the cars will not fit on next year's model. Described equipment that is in- cluded in a retrofit and associated costs. Estimates a cost of approximately $2,500 per car for the equip- ment. Erickson: Asked when an additional two vehicles will be needed. O'Rourke: Replied that the City has been purchasing three cars per year, holding each car approximately three years after which much of the appurtenant equipment is still serviceable and could be used again. A benefit of purchasing two additional vehicles could be 2011 prices. Have heard that vehicles will be more expensive in 2012. Noted that a downside is finding storage space and $44,000 of funding that is not bud- geted in 2011. Noted that new technology may be developed by 2012. Over the next three to four years, the entire fleet will be switched out and because of downsizing, it is most likely that little of the equipment will be transferable. Erickson: Asked O'Rourke's recommendation. O'Rourke: Believes it depends on the budget. Commented on snow and difficulty for police cars to get around and next year's plan might be to order two all -wheel drive vehicles. Erickson: Suggested that staff be directed to research the scenario of purchasing two more Ford Crown Victoria's by March 1 to see if it is the most economically feasible plan. DRAFT 02 0711 City Council meeting minutes Myser: Replied that consideration should be given to delaying purchase of the three proposed vehicles if Ford is changing its platform for police interceptors. O'Rourke: Noted that the 2012 vehicles are expected to cost more and there will also be the retrofitting cost. Keeney: Asked if the higher cost is attributed to the all wheel drive option. Believes adding that capability sooner would be desirable. O'Rourke: Stated that both of the new Fords were on display at the police chiefs' conference and vendor representatives advised them that the cost of new vehicles would be approaching $30,000. Soukup: Asked if there will be additional cost in training for officers if the vehicles are changing from rear wheel to all wheel drive. O'Rourke: Replied that they do handle differently and training would have to be considered. Commented that Chrysler is not building an all wheel drive Dodge Charger police vehicle because Dodge does not be- lieve it would be suitable for police work. Noted that the SUV -style all wheel drive vehicle is rated for high speed driving. Currently there no four -wheel drive vehicles suitable for high speed because they tend to be higher off the ground and prone to tipping. Soukup: Asked if all wheel drive vehicles would have a package for carrying prisoners. O'Rourke: Affirmed that the new vehicles will be called a police interceptor and will be equipped for carry- ing prisoners. Erickson: Believes there appears to be a savings of $10,000 to the City by buying two additional Crown Victoria's this year based upon the anticipated increase in cost of $8,000 per vehicle in 2012. MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECONDED BY KEENEY TO DIRECT STAFF TO RESEARCH AND REPORT WHETHER IT IS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO PURCHASE TWO ADDITIONAL CROWN VICTORIA POLICE INTERCEPTORS BEFORE MARCH 1. Friedges: Believes another benefit to the recommendation to buy two additional Crown Victoria's this year and one all wheel drive this year is that it would give the Police Department and staff a chance to test the all wheel drive and the Chevy Caprice that is going to be offered as an interceptor. Putting them in invento- ry this year and putting them in service in 2012 will give staff a chance to see how they perform and a bet- ter view for 2013 on which vehicles should be purchased. Keeney: Stated he has some concern about storing vehicles believing it more efficient to store as cash in the bank. Pace: Queried whether the motion was to approve the purchase of three Crown Victoria's. Erickson: The motion is just for the directive. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried. Myser: Regarding item 5A, asked if alternatives for lowering costs for Internet and telephone have been explored. Boyles: Replied there are a variety of costs based on activity areas; some based on the telephone system and some attributed to Internet connection. Stated that staff has been working with the school district and the county on Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP). Myser: Asked if the cost of Internet vs. phone can be separated. Boyles: Replied the invoices reflect $3,359 this month and the majority of the cost is in phone service. Myser: Asked if the City knows what the cost might be for VoIP. Boyles: Can work with the school district and County to learn that. Erickson: Commented that the City of Savage also uses VoIP. DRAFT 02 07 11 City Council meeting minutes MOTION BY MYSER, SECONDED BY KEENEY TO DIRECT STAFF TO COME BACK WITH CONCLU- SION ON DECISIONS TO LOOK AT VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL WITHIN 90 DAYS. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried. Myser: Regarding item 5E, asked if the $19,000 is sent to the wetland bank or if it will be spent in the local watershed for mitigation purposes. Albrecht. Replied there is not a bank available in our watershed for the City to purchase credits from. Acreage of wetlands have been created and credits of that wetland are being sold to us. The bank has to be registered with the State and the State monitors it to assure that when a credit is purchased it is de- ducted from the balance. This is the best value option for the City to fulfill this 1990s requirement. Staff is moving forward on establishing a bank in the watershed so future credits can be invested in our area. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY ERICKSON TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: 5A Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. 5B Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report. 5D Consider Approval of Resolution 11 -015 Authorizing the Purchase of Three (3) 2011 Crown Victoria Police Interceptors. 5E Consider Approval of Resolution 11 -016 Approving a Wetland Replacement Plan for the 2011 Water Quali- ty Maintenance and Retrofit Project (City Project #11 -012). VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried. PRESENTATION Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) Annual Report Community Development and Natural Resources Director Parr named the members of the EDAC and introduced Chair Deno Howard. Howard listed the accomplishments of the committee for 2010 and distri- buted the marketing piece used by the Committee. Stated the Committee focused its efforts in the down- town area in 2010 and conducted a survey with the downtown businesses. Reviewed the feedback from the survey as well as the feedback from the Meet and Greet held on October 14 at the Wild's. Stated the Committee plans to conduct surveys with industrial park businesses in 2011. Comments: Hedberg: Stated this presentation and the 2011 objectives were discussed at the last EDAC meeting where he suggested that the EDAC should meet with the EDA to review the objectives for 2011 before ob- jectives are approved. Erickson: Concurred with Hedberg's comments that EDA and EDAC should work together. Compli- mented the marketing piece and encouraged updated statistical information. Parr: Commented that many of the statistics were taken from Metropolitan Council demographics. Keeney: Complimented the work done on the promotion /marketing side. Suggested that the Jeffers Na- ture Preserve be added to the amenities page. Soukup: Complimented the EDAC on its work and suggested the population demographic be updated on the marketing piece. Myser: Complimented the survey stating he believes it opens the lines of communication with the busi- nesses and will have a big impact on the perception of the City as a friendly place to do business. DRAFT 02 07 11 City Council meeting minutes Howard: Stated the Committee identified some of the feedback as areas that need communication or edu- cation such as taxes since the City may not be able to change an individual's taxes as much as communi- cate about why taxes are what they are and educate people on the process and appeal. Myser: Commented that the City's focus on jobs, services and tax base can help to grow the tax base so taxes can be spread over a bigger audience which can have an impact on an individual's taxes. Hedberg: Stated that the common perception that taxes are too high don't have much data behind the opinion so he seeks to get information about taxes in the area and see if Prior Lake really is that high. Erickson: Added that education can also tie into property values noting that Prior Lake's tax capacity rate is lower than neighboring communities. Howard: Stated the EDAC has plans to invite County representatives to provide a tax education event for businesses. US Hwy 169 /1494 Interchange Project Building and Transportation Services Director Kansier introduced Mark Olsen from McCrossan / Kraemer Joint Venture (the 169 / 494 contractor) and Susan Youngs (project communications). Olson described the stages of the project which is projected to be complete in 2012. Youngs provided project phone, email and website contact information. Erickson: Complimented the mayor of Edina who chaired the Hwy 169 Coalition while this project was brought to fulfillment. Asked about a traffic simulation. Olsen: Replied that a simulation will be available for public information by April or May. Erickson: Asked about the roundabouts. Olsen: Replied they are designed to interact between the surface street and the interchange movements. Keeney: Stated that this project will impact economic development for Prior Lake and also the daily life of residents. Soukup: Asked how much time this change will take from people's commute to the metro area. Olsen: Replied that traffic models speculate those forecasts and it is expected to improve immensely. Myser: Stated he is struck by the complexity of the design. Noted that the Hwy 169 Coalition was instru- mental in securing federal stimulus monies for this project and complimented them for it. PUBLIC HEARING No public hearing was scheduled. OLD BUSINESS Consider Approval of a Report on the CR 21 and Arcadia Avenue Intersection Improvements. Public Works Director Albrecht commented that the Council's work session on this date considered al- ternatives for improvements of CR 21 through the City and reiterated the City's desire to consider long term and have the most flexibility for future decisions. Noted that the final outcome of long term planning does change the need for the Arcadia / CR 21 intersection improvements. Stated that design layout and ease- ments for the project need to begin in order to retain the option of completing the improvements in 2011. Soukup: Clarified the plan for turn lanes and asked if signal lights will be permanently placed. Albrecht: Replied that direction from Council would be needed before construction work begins on this in- tersection to determine if a temporary or a permanent signal is installed. Hedberg: Believes this intersection needs improvements this year. Asked when Council direction is needed in order to complete construction in 2011. Albrecht: May. 5 DRAFT 02 07 11 City Council meeting minutes Hedberg. Stated this is the next step in a process that has been underway for a number of years and he will be mindful of an April /May deadline. Keeney: Asked if the design to the east would be compatible with any of the CR 21 options that were viewed at the work session. Albrecht: Replied that Main Avenue and Arcadia Avenue are designed to match CR 21 options. Perma- nent curbing would not be built for the median. Keeney: Asked if right of way is wide enough on CR 21. Albrecht: Replied that a small amount of acquisition would be needed on the north side and these plans have been incorporated into campus plans of the property owner. Staff has been working with property owners on the south side of CR 21 also. Keeney: Asked if it is an option to build this intersection with signaling to turn on to streets on the north side of CR 21 prior to doing anything with the south side. Albrecht: Affirmed that is the intent to complete three - fourths of the project and wait until spring 2012 to work with property owners on the south of CR 21. Keeney: Commented the City should be mindful that people are living in these areas and disrupting their homes is a sensitive issue. Asked if tonight's action will give staff direction to initiate conversations with homeowners. Albrecht: Affirmed, adding that it allows design work to be completed which can be shown to people so they know where the road would go, etc. It allows staff to work in good faith with the residents. Erickson: Asked when CR 21 is scheduled to open up to Hwy 169. Albrecht: Replied that is expected in the summer or fall of 2011. Erickson: Concurred with remarks that it needs to remain on the Council's "immediate radar" as traffic will increase when the connection goes through. Myser: Concurred that decisions with Arcadia and CR 21 need to dovetail and decisions must be made. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY KEENEY TO DIRECT STAFF TO PROCEED WITH PRELIMINARY DESIGN WORK TO DETERMINE REQUIRED EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE ARCADIA INTERSECTION PROJECT. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried. Consider Approval of a Report on the 2011 Street Reconstruction Project Sidewalk Design. Assistant City Engineer Poppler reviewed the project area; proposed dates of reconstruction; and issues raised at the public hearing of sidewalks, road alignment, trees and driveways. Stated that the goal of si- dewalks is to link residential areas to park and commercial areas and the cost of including sidewalks in this project is expected to be greater than $80,000. Noted that ADA compliance changes require greater eval- uation and ongoing maintenance of sidewalks. Surveys revealed that existing roadway was encroaching on private property and reconstruction will realign it to the City right of way. Stated that a ten -stall parking lot is planned by the ball park between Rutgers and Lois streets. Stated that staff has determined that surmountable curb should be used in the project. Erickson: Commented that pedestrian safety is a key issue and some people thought it would be safer to not have a sidewalk as drivers might speed if they are aware of a sidewalk in place for pedestrians. Poppler: Responded that any time pedestrians are removed from the street it is safer for them; but agreed that drivers might use greater speed if they see no person in the roadway. Erickson: Asked if rain gardens will be considered in the low areas where driveways will be altered. Poppler: Affirmed that rain gardens are being offered. Erickson: Asked why Rutgers and Lois streets no longer connect. 6 DRAFT 02 07 11 City Council meeting minutes Poppler: Replied that those streets were separated in 1975 and it is not clear if it was done to create the ball park or to prevent flow- through traffic. Erickson: Asked why residents are asking for it to be connected at this time. Poppler: Some residents say drivers are cutting through on Grayling and also that Grayling is not wide enough for emergency vehicles. Erickson: Asked if residents are asking for signage to designate no parking on one side. Poppler: Replied that would have to be petitioned. Keeney: Asked if a traffic count has been conducted on Rutgers. Poppler: Replied there are only about 150 homes in the neighborhood and traffic is low volume. Keeney: Stated he generally favors sidewalks, but does not like to remove trees. Seems there is not a lot of support for the sidewalk in the neighborhood and he is not adamant about having the sidewalks for this project. Asked if there is merit in leaving the roadway alignment where it is and getting easements from property owners. Poppler: Responded that it makes sense to place roadway on the City right of way and the roadway will be straight when it is realigned to that. Hedberg: Believes that Lois to Rutgers should not be reconnected as it would cut off the ball field and would encourage traffic from CR 42 to cut through the neighborhood. Commented that this is a quiet neigh- borhood with low traffic volumes and he does not want unnecessary loss of trees so he could support not having sidewalks. Soukup: Made reference to the loss of trees in her neighborhood during a reconstruction process. Does not believe this project needs sidewalks. Asked if streets will be widened in this project. Poppler: Replied that, generally, the streets will be narrower and two new parking lots will be established. Myser: Asked how common it is for a roadway to end up on private property. Poppler: Replied that roadways are rarely in the center of the right of way, but generally they are not out- side of the right of way as they are in this case. Myser: Asked if it would be more expensive to purchase the right of way easements in order to leave the roadway where it is. Poppler: Replied that the process of designing the roadway and acquiring the easements would add time and increase the costs due to delay. There is also expense in writing the descriptions of the easements. Myser: Asked if there were people in favor of sidewalks. Poppler: Believes there were some, but they were outspoken by the people who did not want them. Myser: Supports not having the sidewalks, not connecting Lois and Rutgers and having surmountable curbs in this project. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY ERICKSON TO DIRECT STAFF TO REVISE THE DESIGN PLANS TO ELIMINATE THE SIDEWALK ON RUTGERS AND BOUDIN STREET. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried. Consider Approval of an Ordinance Amending Section 1102.1103 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordin- ance. Community Development and Natural Resources Director Parr reviewed discussion from the work ses- sion and the proposed ordinance amendments that reflect the consensus reached at the work session. Hedberg: Clarified that all restaurants, lodges and clubs with liquor must have a conditional use permit. Parr: Affirmed. Hedberg: Favors amending the ordinance to have Section 1102.1103(5)(e) read "...less than 100 feet from an R -1 Use District..." DRAFT 02 0711 City Council meeting minutes Erickson: Asked if that would mean that a bufferyard is necessary only next to R -1. Parr: Replied that Code requires bufferyards for land uses next to each other. Erickson: Asked what the bufferyard would be between R -2 and C -2 serving liquor. Parr: Replied it would depend on how far away the uses are from each other. Separation is one of the things to take into account. Erickson: Asked about the definition of bufferyard E. Parr: Provided an example and added that if the Planning Commission or City Council thought there should be more trees, it could be added to the conditional use permit. Erickson: Stated he has spoken with people who would be affected by the distinction between R and R -1 and asked if any residents who live in R -2 or R -3 districts came to the public hearings. Parr: Replied that two public hearings were held; and residents living on 160th street across from the car wash commented that they would support a family restaurant, but would not care for a bar to be located there. Erickson: Commented that the hours being proposed would restrict a bar. Stated he did not get a feeling that the public had a concern about the difference between R and R -1, and since restrictions can be added by the Planning Commission and the City Council, he will support R -1. Keeney: Asked if the intent is to have no hours restriction if the business is located by an R -2 which would allow a bar to operate until 2 a.m. next to R -2. Erickson: Replied that the Planning Commission and City Council can place limitations on it and a bar would not automatically be able to go there. Keeney: Believes the finding must be made at this time and that people don't want to have a bar next to the place where they live. Sees no reason to be less restrictive for an R -2 district. Does not support the R- 1 distinction and believes only limited hours usage should be allowed when next to a residential district. Erickson: Asked for clarification from the City Attorney about what can be restricted. Pace: Replied that if a business meets the conditions, it should be granted a Conditional Use Permit. Conditions can be imposed for something such as pedestrian safety, etc. where the CUP seeks to limit im- pact and create a buffer. Conditions cannot arbitrarily be imposed. This ordinance proposes that if the proposed business is less than 100 feet, then "e" is triggered for additional conditions. Keeney: Stated he is concerned about making distinctions between residential districts so when a decision is made it will look as though the Council is causing that business a problem. If the Council makes a gene- ralized ordinance, it would eliminate spot- zoning. Myser: Will support R -1 believing the other neighborhoods are protected with the restrictions that have been put in place. Erickson: Asked the City Attorney to comment on the language, "...limit the impact of a business on neighboring residential properties..." Pace: Replied that "e" says it is restricting the hours of operation for those businesses that are within 100 feet of an R (or R -1) district. It has identified when you can limit the hours of operation. When looking at a particular situation, the City might learn through a public hearing or the staff report that an area needs spe- cific protections; but the City cannot apply the general paragraph to any situation. Parr: Added that most commonly it is conditions such as landscaping or signage that are not called out in the ordinance as a hard and fast condition, but are additional things that need to be addressed. Soukup: Stated that it seems the discussion is on how to make the City more business friendly. EDAC says the City needs to be less of a bedroom community and bring in more business and retail. Agreed with that but stated that residents need to be represented equally regardless of whether living in an R -1 or R -3 district. Erickson: Concurs with Keeney. DRAFT 02 0711 City Council meeting minutes Keeney: Stated that the City has established a goal to bring in restaurants. Believes it is dangerous to re- linquish restrictions without having a specific reason to do so. A bar is incompatible adjacent to residents. Believes this amendment is only being considered because of existing situations that are limiting economic development, but there are long standing ordinances and statutes that set out distances to be from schools, churches, etc. and to ease the restrictions more than intended would be rash. Stated that does not build a good community in the long run. Hedberg: Believes there are a number of situations where a restaurant that serves liquor and keeps the bar open until 1 or 2 a.m. that are compatible with a residential area. Noted that Lakefront Plaza is adja- cent to a restaurant that is licensed to serve liquor until 2 a.m. Believes there is a difference between R1 and multiple family housing in the expectations of adjacent property uses. We are placing the City in a competitive disadvantage if this expansion of use is not allowed. Myser: Believes that the community wants more options and more services and this amendment would be good for the community. MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY ERICKSON TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WITH LANGUAGE THAT SPECIFIES CONDITION "e" APPLIES TO ALL "R" USE DISTRICTS. VOTE: Ayes by Erickson and Keeney. Nays by Myser, Hedberg and Soukup. The motion failed. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY SOUKUP TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WITH LANGUAGE THAT SPECIFIES CONDITION "e" APPLIES TO "R -1" USE DISTRICT. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Hedberg and Soukup. Nays by Erickson and Keeney. The motion carried. NEW BUSINESS Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving a Minor Amendment to a Planned Unit Development Plan Known as Jeffers Pond and a Resolution Approving a Final Plat to be Known as Jeffers Water- front Addition. Planner Matzke outlined the proposed minor amendment stating that the developer is asking for a reduc- tion of interior unit sizes and a six percent reduction in overall impervious surface for Jeffers Waterfront Ad- dition townhomes. Tom Wolter of Mattamy Homes provided conceptual drawings of buildings. No specif- ic building plans are proposed at this time. Matzke added that, in the past, the City Council has approved minimum standards. Keeney: Asked if the plats have been redrawn to show reduction in the size of the units. And whether the reduction of size is planning for more units or more green space. Matzke: Replied that the lot sizes have not yet been set. There will be the same number of units. Keeney: Asked if development fees are based on the total value of the project and if the City does any re- view to assess that value. Matzke: Replied that the engineering department justifies the bid and the City does follow up on it. Stated that the original bid was high so the City engineers looked at it again. Noted that the developer obtained a bid from a contractor to use as a basis. Erickson: Asked if there will be more green space with this proposal. Matzke: Affirmed, stating that overall there will be about 10,000 square feet of less building. Soukup: Asked how much class 1 product will be used. Matzke: Replied that the ordinance provides minimum standards of how much has to be used and that four and six unit buildings will have most of the class 1 on the sides. Brick and siding are both class 1 ma- terials and information about such product will be available at the building permit stage. Hedberg: Asked for description of finishes usually used. 9 DRAFT 02 07 11 City Council meeting minutes Wolter: Indicated the development will be similar to a development by the Red Tail Elementary School. Hedberg: Asked what is anticipated for finished square footage. Wolter: Replied that the square footage will range from 1,500 square feet with an unfinished basement up to 2,500 square feet. Believes all units are planned to be the same width and the reduction in size will be in the depth. Hedberg: Queried if that is consistent with the staff report. Matzke: What is being viewed is conceptual and grading plans and plans that show building renderings on the footprint of the lots indicate a 28 -foot wide for end units. They cannot make them too much bigger and still retain the impervious surface requirements. Lot sizes are the same width, but the end unit is not going all the way to the lot line. Hedberg: Stated he is glad to have the developer working in the City and believes that location is very good. In the past the City has asked for minimum square footage development in the plats. Favors doing that because the City gives up some things in a PUD in exchange for public benefits. Wants the developer to be able to respond to the market and this minor amendment responds to that. Asked what price point is planned. Wolter: Currently expects it to be around $185,000 — $200,000, but added that changes rapidly. Hedberg: Favors adding a square footage minimum in the PUD. Stated he has no interest in applying architectural standards and does not want to unduly limit Mattamy Homes in responding to the market, but wants to assure the product does not get changed dramatically in the future. Matzke: Suggested that a clear definition be identified such as finished square footage or square footage for the entire unit, etc. Wolter: Commented that the development is locked in for two -car garages as the plat limits that in its de- sign. Hedberg: Asked if it would be consistent with the developer's plan to state that the minimum is 1,500 fi- nished square feet with a two -car garage. Wolter: Suggested the minimum be 1,450 to allow more flexibility. Hedberg: Stated he favors establishing a two -stall garage and 1,450 finished square feet as minimum standards for the PUD. Myser: Asked why minimums would be established as it seems the developer should be able to make the decisions about what sells in the market. Hedberg: Agreed that would be the case when developers are working under standard ordinances. In this case, a PUD has been established where the City has made concessions with zoning ordinances in ex- change for certain public benefits. Myser: Asked why the City would not propose something else such as raingardens to improve runoff ra- ther than regulating the area of space. Erickson: Stated that this is a PUD and the City acquired the benefits of land for a school and park. This proposal is just a minor amendment; the lots are plotted and the homes will be attached so not much can be changed. Believes establishing the minimum square footage might not be relevant. Keeney: The benefit of a PUD for people who move into these neighborhoods is the consistency. Prob- lems arise if it is half built and the developer wants to finish it with anything that will sell. Early buyers are damaged by that when smaller, lower priced units come in that reduce the value of the neighborhood. Be- lieves it is not out of line to say there is a minimum unit size so there is no problem in the future with expec- tations changing. Matzke: Stated it could be attached to the resolution as a condition and it would be monitored at the build- ing permit stage. Keeney: Affirmed that it becomes part of the zoning of the PUD. DRAFT 02 07 11 City Council meeting minutes 10 Hedberg: Commented that he wants to know what the developer can deal with and build it into the re- quirements. Wolter: Stated that the units will look the same on the outside regardless of the square footage. Noted that this is not comparable to a single family development. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY KEENEY TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 11.020 APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL PUD PLAN FOR JEFFERS POND, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF A MINIMUM OF TWO -STALL GARAGES AND 1,450 FINISHED SQUARE FEET. VOTE: Ayes by Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. Myser and Erickson opposed. The motion carried. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY KEENEY TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 11 -021 APPROVING A FINAL PLAT KNOWN AS JEFFERS WATERFRONT ADDITION SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDI- TIONS; AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A DEVELOPMENT CON- TRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. VOTE: Ayes by Myser, Erickson, Hedberg, Keeney and Soukup. The motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS Community Events Keeney: Encouraged everyone to support the Girl Scout troops during "cookie season." EXECUTIVE SESSION The meeting recessed at 10:57 p.m. in order for the Council to meet in Executive Session to discuss the AFSCME Labor Negotiations. The Mayor reconvened the meeting at 12:20 a.m indicating that the City Council received a report from staff regarding negotiations with AFSCME for 2011 which required no action on behalf of the City Council.. 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 12:23 a.m. Frank Boyles, City Manager Charlotte Green, Administrative Asst. DRAFT 02 0711 City Council meeting minutes