Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Minutes NO FORUM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Date: FEBRUARY 4, 2002 1 CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:.......................... 7:30 p.m. 2 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 3 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF JANUARY 22,2001 MEETING MINUTES: 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 a Resolution Authorizing Full and Final Payment to Ingram Excavating, Inc. for Construction of Lakefront Park Improvement Project. C) Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving the Common Interest Community Number 1079 (Deerfield Condominium) Seventh Supplemental CIC Plat. 5 ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: 6 PRESENTATIONS: A} Certificate of Commendation for Lifesaving Efforts (City Council and Fire Chief Bruce Sames) B) Proclamation in Recognition of the Breaking Barriers Award Conferred upon Kathy Daggit. 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. 8 OLD BUSINESS: A} Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Change Order NO.2 as part of the 2001 Improvement Project (Frogtown). B) Consider Approval of a Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Prior Lake and Scott County Regarding Telecommunication Facilities in County Rights of Way. 9 NEW BUSINESS: A) Consider Approval of a New Standardized Development Contract. B} Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into a New Lease Agreement for City Perks. C) Consider Approval of a Joint Resolution for Orderly Annexation Between the City of Prior Lake and Spring Lake Township Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.0325. (Morlock). 020402 .. " . ........ .-........-"...----.....-..-----~...-~.---. I 10 OTHER BUSINESS/COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 11 ADJOURNMENT 020402 .. ....._.......~_..__.~._._...........- REGULAR COUNCIL MEEl:ING MINUTES January 22, 2001 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Present were Mayor Haugen, Councilmembers Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska, City Manager Boyles, Public Works Director Osmundson, Planning Director Rye, Code Enforcement Officer Horsman, City Engineer McDermott, Assistant City Manager Walsh and Recording Secretary Meyer. Counci/member Ericson was absent. OATH OF OFFICE: City Manager Boyles gave the oath of office to Jim Petersen who accepted the duties and responsibilities of the office of City Counci/member. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Bovles: Noted that, due to extenuating circumstances, the resignation of Counci/member Ericson would not be effective until a later date. The Presentation item and Item 10F would be removed from the agenda. Also requested that item 10A be removed from the agenda at the applicant's request. Advised that the City had received a letter from the applicant's attorney advising that they would waive the 120-day rule. Further requested adding as agenda item 10G consideration of appointment to the Planning Commission. Lastly, requested moving item 9C be moved to the beginning of Old Business. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING, JANUARY 7, 2002 REGULAR MEETING, AND JANUARY 11, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 7,2002 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska, the motion carried. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 7, 2002 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska, the motion carried. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 11, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska, the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: (A) Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. (B) Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report. (C) Consider Approval of Building Permit Report. (D) Consider Approval of Animal Warden Monthly Report. (E) Consider Approval of Fire Call Report for December, 4th Quarter Report, and Annual Report for 2001. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER City Council Meeting Minutes January 22, 2002 (F) Consider Approval of Resolution 02.05 Authorizing Purchase of Two (2) 2002 Crown Victoria Police Interceptor Squad Cars from Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Program. (G) Consider Approval of 2001 4th Quarter Investment Report. (H) Consider Approval of Resolution 02.06 Approving Prior Lake Lions Club Premise Permit for Lawful Gambling. Gundlach: Asked that Item (E) be removed. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) - (D) AND (G) AND (H) AS PROPOSED. Bovles: Reviewed the consent agenda items. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska, the motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: Consider Approval of Fire Call Report for December, 4th Quarter Report, and Annual Report for 2001. Gundlach: Noted that in December 2001 the volunteer firefighters responded to 50 calls, and for the year a total of 590 calls. Thanked the volunteers for the enormous efforts they give throughout the year. HauQen: Also noted the time the Council had spent at a recent burn and what a learning experience and appreciation he had garnered from the experience. Zieska: Thanked the Council for taking to the time to see first-hand the duties involved in fire training and rescue. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, the motion carried. PRESENTATIONS: Presentation to Retiring Councilmember Jim Ericson, [This Item was Removed from the Agenda] PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of a Variance to the Lakeshore Setback on the Property Located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. Horsman: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. The Council took a brief recess. Pace: Explained that the agenda report identifies that the public hearing subject is different from the staff report and the issues that that report raises. The adjournment was taken to clarify that the notice required by law and distributed to property owners in fact identified the correct item for consideration with respect to the impervious surface, which it did. Zieska: Asked for clarification if the concrete cap runs right to the water's edge, and that the additional impervious surface requested was for the patio. 2 City Council Meeting Minutes January 22, 2002 Horsman: Confirmed. Gundlach: Asked what percentage of the impervious surface was the house itself before considering the driveways and patio. Horsman: Approximately 28% for the structure which was done under permit, with a maximum requirement of 30% for the total impervious surface coverage area for the lot. Hauaen: Asked what the original square footage for the house was, and then for the addition. Believed the original expansion for the house in effect doubled the size of the structure. Horsman: Did not have those numbers off-hand. Believed that assumption was correct. Gundlach: Asked staff to clarify the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow 38% impervious surface. Horsman: Explained that the Planning Commission felt that the three-car garage was approved for construction and thus there was a hardship if there was not an allowance for the driveway. Gundlach: Asked how the boat house was figured into the impervious surface calculation. Horsman: Advised that the current impervious area is approximately 57%. Further discussed that typically the DNR does not view tarped boat covers as impervious surface. Hauaen: Asked if there was any other discussion with the applicant about an alternative to the patio cap. Horsman: Most of the discussion with the applicant was through written submitted materials and the applicant's counsel, and he did not believe any brainstorming regarding alternatives took place from a staff perspective. Gundlach: Asked staff to review how this impervious surface situation came to the City's attention. Horsman: Advised that the situation started with a complaint regarding the construction of the deck, and then during follow~ up it was determined that the property owner had failed to acquire a building permit for the deck, which led to the impervious surface issue. Zieska: Asked staff to walk this particular situation through the hardship standards. Horsman: Advised of each of the nine hardship criteria and how this situation did not meet said criteria in connection with the staff report. Hauaen: Asked how this property affects or is impacted by adjacent properties. Horsman: Was not familiar with other properties in the area, and advised that his concerned was focused on the compliance of this property. Zieska: Advised that in his understanding there are not other properties in the area that have the extent of impervious surface as this property. 3 T 1 City Council Meeting Minutes January 22, 2002 Allison Gontarek (representing Mark Crouse): Distributed presentation materials. Discussed application of each of the nine hardship criteria, noting the presentation of alternatives, the peculiarities of the property in order to protect the property, reasonable use of the property rather than optimal use, the statement from the DNR to the homeowner that the impervious surface from the patio did not have significant impact on the lake, the improvements to the property, and that the hardship was created by changes in code rather than action of the homeowner. Further stated that the granting of the variance does not adversely impact neighboring properties, that the stabilization is not a convenience, but a protection, and that financial impact should be considered when discussion of an alternative cap should be required. Suggested that this could be an excellent site for some sort of alternate infiltration solution. Further noted that staff had not handled the application well and that there may be a due process violation. There was some discussion between Councilmember Zieska and Ms. Gontarek regarding the statements from the engineer's letter and the inferences that could be drawn therefrom. Ms. Gontarek admitted that while the report did not specifically recommend the cap, it did inferred by its overall content that the cap was a possible solution. Councilmember Zieska read verbatim from the engineer's letter of December, 2001 which recommended a drain tile system. Pace: Advised that if there is an alleged due process violation, the applicant should speCifically state the facts as she sees them. Gontarek: Discussed the chronology and appeal process as identified in the written materials distributed. Suggested that there have been issues that should be brought to the Council's attention. Pace: Indicated that variance considerations outside this application are not relevant. Gontarek: Proposed that she has an applicant who has a significant investment in his home and is willing to explore alternative infiltration. Would hope to reduce the impervious surface below the 30%. Gundlach: Asked if the applicant has pursued providing alternative proposals to the Council. Gontarek: Advised that the applicant does not wish to incur the additional expenses unless there is an indication that the Council would be receptive. Pace: Reviewed the process to date, including the original Mr. Crouse applied for a variance to build a deck after-the-fact. The Planning Commission recommended denial. The whole process cannot be looked at in isolation, and the goal is to try to bring the violations and mistakes as close to the ordinance and code requirements. Further explained the process if the Council hypothetically approved the variance as proposed. Gontarek: Pointed out that the issue before the Council is impervious surface. Pace: Believed that the request cannot be looked at in isolation because this property has been before the Council on a number of issues where ecology of the lake is a concern. Explained the process at both the Planning Commission level, and the City Council level, neither of which are a violation of due process. Believed it is being unfair and somewhat untruthful that there is a violation of due process. Gontarek: Stated that the point is that when the governing body revised the resolution, the appeal process is compromised. Pace: Disagreed that the applicant was deprived in some way of his opportunity to appeal based upon the Planning Commission rendering its decision. 4 F~ Y"3,4- City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT January 22, 2002 Zieska: Advised that in his understanding there are not other properties in the area that have the extent of impervious surface as this property. Allison Gontarek (representing Mark Crouse): Distributed presentation materials. Discussed application of each of the nine hardship criteria, noting the presentation of alternatives, the peculiarities of the property in order to protect the property, reasonable use of the property rather than optimal use, the statement from the DNR to the homeowner that the impervious surface from the patio did not have significant impact on the lake, the improvements to the property, and that the hardship was created by changes in code rather than action of the homeowner. Further stated that the granting of the variance does not adversely impact neighboring properties, that the stabilization is not a convenience, but a protection, and that financial impact should be considered when discussion of an alternative cap should be required. Suggested that this could be an excellent site for some sort of alternate infiltration solution. Further noted that staff had not handled the application well and that there may be a due process violation. There was some discussion between Councilmember Zieska and Ms. Gontarek regarding the statements from the engineer's letter and the inferences that could be drawn therefrom. Ms. Gontarek admitted that while the report did not specifically recommend the cap, it did inferred by its overall content that the cap was a possible solution. Councilmember Zieska read verbatim from the engineer's letter of December, 2001 which recommended a drain tile system. Pace: Advised that if there is an alleged due process violation, the applicant should specifically state the facts as she sees them. Gontarek: Discussed the chronology and appeal process as identified in the written materials distributed. Suggested that there have been issues that should be brought to the Council's attention. Pace: Indicated that variance considerations outside this application are not relevant. Gontarek: Proposed that she has an applicant who has a significant investment in his home and is willing to explore alternative infiltration. Would hope to reduce the impervious surface below the 30%. Gundlach: Asked if the applicant has pursued providing alternative proposals to the Council. Gontarek: Advised that the applicant does not wish to incur the additional expenses unless there is an indication that the Council would be receptive. Pace: Reviewed the process to date, including the original Mr. Crouse applied for a variance to build a deck after-the-fact. The Planning Commission recommended denial. The whole process cannot be looked at in isolation, and the goal is to try to bring the violations and mistakes as close to the ordinance and code requirements. Further explained the process if the Council hypothetically approved the variance as proposed. Gontarek: Pointed out that the issue before the Council is impervious surface. Pace: Believed that the request cannot be looked at in isolation because this property has been before the Council on a number of issues where ecology of the lake is a concern. Explained the process at both the Planning Commission level, and the City Council level, neither of which are a violation of due process. Believed it is being unfair and somewhat untruthful that there is a violation of due process. 4 :- 1 City Council Meeting Minutes January 22, 2002 Gontarek: Explained that the homeowner raised the structure within the same footprint and was within the required code. Petersen: Asked if there was a way to pursue considering other engineering alternatives. Rve: Agreed that the engineering data may offer alternatives at some point, but that the allowances need to be set out in the ordinance in order to consider it as an option. Zieska: Understood from the reading materials regarding the proposal to use rain barrels and trenching, or combinations thereof, that the calculations still do not provide for adequate infiltration. Also discussed soil compaction. Gontarek: Advised that the engineering firm seems to believe the desired effect can be accomplished in some manner whether its through the use of rain barrels or trenching, some combination thereof, or some other alternative. The homeowner would like to get below 30%. Zieska: Noted that he is skeptical based upon the calculations. Hauaen: Advised that if the applicant is looking for a guaranty of acceptance, none will be given. Commented that the physical structure is definitely an asset, but when you circumvent the rules, you assume some risk. The City's job is to provide continuity in its regulations and in the best interest of the entire community. Believes the applicant bears the risk and cost if he wishes to bear the responsibility to provide data for consideration of any alternatives. Gontarek: Believes Mr. Crouse is willing to explore the possibilities. Gundlach: Believes that it is frustrating and unfair to hear that staff has been uncooperative when the variance applications have come after construction. Asked what steps Mr. Crouse has taken to mitigate any of these issues. Gontarek: Believes that Mr. Crouse's frustration with staff is that he feels he did not get any answers as to what he needed to do. Mr. Crouse is prepared to take steps to mitigate this issue, and is merely looking to the Council for direction in that regard. Mark Crouse (15507 Calmut Street): Noted that he would like to find a happy resolution and mitigate the issues surrounding the impervious surface. Discussed his frustration with staff, the process, and the communication tonight. Hau~en: Suggested that Mr. Crouse direct his comments toward more productive dialogue at this point. Crouse: Advised that he is willing to spend the money for engineering analysis of the alternatives. Clarified that he was advised that the concrete cap was necessary as a protection of the structure, and discussed some of the information he has received with respect to alternatives. Petersen: Would like to see some cooperation in exploring some of the alternatives. Asked the City Attorney how the Council could proceed at this point. Pace: Advised that the City ordinances do not allow the Council to accept an alternative to the impervious surface as it stands. Suggested that the City may want to complete its own study over the course of the year independent of this property owner. Further noted there are also staff time and cost implications. Ultimately, if the alternative doesn't work, there is still an enforcement action to remove the additional impervious surface. 5 t City Council Meeting Minutes January 22, 2002 Crouse: Commented that from a cost perspective, he could've just removed the concrete months ago. He is trying to find a happy alternative. Tom Loftus (4215 Euclaire Tram: Commented on some of the adjacent properties in the neighborhood in comparison to Mr. Crouse's property. Asked if some consideration could be given with respect to runoff because of nearby green space, and the 400 feet of lakeshore to the north. Discussed that substandard lots on the lakeshore will continue to have these types of variance tug-of-wars. Believed that exploring a mitigation plan or study that would provide for some alternatives within the City ordinances has some benefit to both Mr. Crouse and in addressing similar situations for property owners on the lake in the future. Also noted that the property itself is unusual given its substandard size and topography. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, the motion carried. Gundlach: Concerned with dealing with these types of issues after-the-fact. Noted that the Watershed recommendation and City ordinance indicate that 30% impervious surface is the acceptable standard. Further noted that there may be an engineering alternative, but change the ordinance at this time is not feasible or appropriate with additional study. Believes there is little choice. Petersen: Would like to see the City and applicant find a reasonable solution, but also believes the ordinance parameters allow little room. Zieska: Commented that even though the lot is attractive, believes that the City has attempted to find a resolution. The Planning Commission approved an impervious surface up to 38%. Supported the Planning Commission decision to deny. Hauaen: Noted that the hardship criteria is determined by state statute, and that when Mr. Crouse purchased the property he should have been aware of its limitations. Even so, would like to see some sort of resolution allowing the property owner to provide information to the City for a possible alternative. Pace: Noted that the impervious surface already exists. Suggested that the Council could deny the variance, but suspend action to require the additional impervious surface removed until such time as the applicant provides and bears the cost for an alternative. Suggested authorizing her to negotiate with the applicant and his counsel to enter into an agreement by which the applicant would provide supporting engineering data at his expense to be reviewed as a possible alternative to removal of the impervious surface. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-07 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE LAKESHORE SETBACK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska, the motion carried. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO SUSPEND ENFORCEMENT OF REMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD OF TIME AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY SIXTY DAYS TO NEGOTIATE THE TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND PROPERTY OWNER BY WHICH THE APPLICANT WOULD PROVIDE SUPPORTING ENGINEERING DATA AT ITS EXPENSE FOR POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO REMOVAL. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska, the motion carried. 6 City Council Meeting Minutes January 22, 2002 OLD BUSINESS: Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Final Payment to Valley Paving for Linden Circle Construction (City Project 00-14). Boyles: Reviewed the item in connection with the staff report. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-08 AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT TO VALLEY PAVING FOR LINDEN CIRCLE CONSTRUCTION (CITY PROJECT 00-14). Gundlach: Asked if the additional costs can be assessed to the property owners in the project. Boyles: Advised that the assessment process would have to be re-opened. This is typically a risk the City bears when it levies before the project is complete. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska, the motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving the Public Works Design Manual. McDermott: Provided a quick overview of the changes in the Public Works Design Manual, and how it compares to other communities, in connection with the staff report. Boyles: Asked if other communities are similar to Prior Lake. McDermott: Confirmed. Gundlach: Commented that he found the document comprehensive and understandable. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-09 APPROVING THE PUBLIC WORKS DESIGN MANUAL. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska, the motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Staff to Solicit Bids for Athletic Field Lighting at The Ponds Athletic Complex. Friedaes: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. Boyles: Clarified that this project would complete the lighting project within this 40-acre parcel, and that including a football field on field #7 as well actually gives the City a 2-for-1 use of the property. Friedaes: Confirmed, and added that we've been working in cooperation with P.L.A.Y. on both the design and funding for the project. Hauaen: Noted that each of the fields 1, 2 and 7 are primarily for youth baseball. Friedaes: Clarified that the recommendation is to bid for lighting field #7 with field #1 and #2 as an alternate to see where the prices come in. 7 ,.. .. 1 City Council Meeting Minutes January 22, 2002 Zieska: Noted that the Parks Advisory committee had also recommended approval as proposed by staff. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02.10 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING AT THE PONDS ATHLETIC COMPLEX. HauQen: Commented that the partnership between the City and P.LAY. is the kind of efforts needed within our community. Thanked P.L.AY for their contributions and efforts. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska, the motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution Awarding Contract for Construction and Monitoring of a test Well to Determine Feasibility of the Development of a FIG Well for Brooksville Hills. Osmundson: Reviewed the item in connection with the staff report. Zieska: Noted that one of the reasons the City is considering a FIG well is due to the long timeframe it takes to acquire and drill a Jordan well, and that that process is underway and would potentially be on-line by 2003. Osmundson: Advised that if a production well is feasible, it would probably not go on-line until November, so it would not be a factor this summer, but would be available for summer 2003. The process could possibly be moved up, but there would be additional costs, as well as issues with the noise and inconvenience impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. HauQen: Believes that proceeding expeditiously and with a sense of urgency is necessary. Also noted that well development is only one piece of the larger groundwater plan that needs to be developed. Gundlach: Asked if drilling a production FIG well precludes the City from obtaining a permit for a Jordan well. Osmundson: Advised that his discussions with MnDOT indicate that drilling a FIG well is looked on favorably when determining the necessity for the Jordan well. Petersen: Asked if parts for wells are interchangeable from well to well. Osmundson: Explained that each well is different, but that the staff has taken some steps to prepare for and eliminate the extent of downtime. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02.11 AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MONITORING OF A TEST WELL TO DETERMINE FEASBILlTIY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FIG WELL FOR BROOKSVILLE HILLS. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska, the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Consider Approval of a Resolution Denying the Planned Unit Preliminary Plan for a 43-Unit Townhouse Development and Resolution Denying the Preliminary Plat to be Known as Eaglewood East. [This item was removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant.] 8 City Council Meeting Minutes January 22, 2002 Consider Approval of a Resolution Accepting Quotes and Awarding Contracts for the Purchase and Installation of Sanitary Sewer Lift Station to Serve the Concession/Restroom Building at Thomas Ryan Memorial Park. Osmundson: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. Zieska: Asked the timing on the third phase of the project. Osmundson: Believed staff would be back to the Council in approximately one month, and that the project would take only a couple of days. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-12 ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION TO SERVE THE CONCESSION/RESTROOM BUilDING AT THOMAS RYAN MEMORIAL PARK IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $38,761.00. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen. Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska, the motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a Three- Year Lease Agreement for 16220 Main Avenue. Boyles: Briefly reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. MOTION BY PETERSEN. SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-13 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A THREE-YEAR lEASE AGREEMENT FOR 16220 MAIN AVENUE. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen. Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska. the motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of a Jet Vac Truck through the State Cooperative Purchasing Program. Boyles: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-14 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A JET VAC TRUCK THROUGH THE STATE COOPERATIVE PURCHASING PROGRAM. Gundlach: Asked about the calculation of insurance. Boyles: Advised that the City does not carry replacement insurance. and that the vehicles was purchased in 1995 and was depreciated accordingly. . Osmundson: Advised that the life expectancy of the new vehicle is 15 to 20 years. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska. the motion carried. 9 T 1 'T City Council Meeting Minutes January 22, 2002 Consider Approval of Resolution Authorizing Conveyance of Tax Forfeited Land to the City of Prior Lake for a Regional Pond. Boyles: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-15 AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF TAX FORFEITED LAND TO THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE FOR A REGIONAL POND. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Resignation of City Councilmember Jim Ericson, Declare a Vacancy on the City Council, and Consider Method for Filling City Council Vacancy. [This item was removed from the agenda.] [ADDED] Consider Approval of Appointment to Fill Planning Commission Vacancy. HauQen: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, noting the quality of each of the candidates and recommending Dan Ringstad for a term expiring October 31, 2004. MOTION BY HAUGEN, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPOINT DAN RINGSTAD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A TERM EXPIRING OCTOBER 31,2004. Zieska: Thanked each of the applicants, noting how good it is to see so many volunteers. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska, the motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS I COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: Zieska: Noted that the Parks Advisory Committee discussed again the construction of a skateboard park, and was generally in favor of the project with a few concerns. Believed timing and funding were the biggest issues. Frank Boyles. City Manager A motion to adjourn was made and seconded. The meeting adjourned at 1 0:40pm. 10