Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0706 RegularREGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Date: July 6, 1999 (7:30pm) CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Present were: Mayor Mader, Councilmembers Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Assistant City Manager Woodson, Planning Director Rye, Parks and Rec. Director Hokeness, Planning Coordinator Kansier, Assistant City Engineer McDermott and Recording Secretary Meyer. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF JUNE 21, 1999 MEETING MINUTES: PACE: Page 3, under Pace, delete first sentence beginning "non-payment of taxes has other means..." MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 21, 1999 MEETING AS AMENDED. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen and Wuellner, the motion carried. Councilmember Schenck abstained. CONSENT AGENDA: A) Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: None. PRESENTATIONS: Presentation of Plaque to Retiring Fire Chief Dave Chromy. MADER: Thanked Chief Chromy for his years of dedicated service and integrity, and presented him with a plaque from the City, and took the opportunity to thank all of the men and women who serve the volunteer fire department. BRUCE SAME$: Presented Chief Chromy with a plaque and thanked him for his dedicated leadership. Stated that he hoped that he could carry on the same degree of leadership. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Council Meeting Minutes July 6. 1999 CHROM¥: Thanked the City for the honor and opportunity in representing the City, and accepted the plaques on behalf of all volunteer firefighters and their families. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Conduct Assessment Hearing for Centennial Street Improvements Project 99-12 and Consider Approval of the Resolution 99-XX Adopting Assessment Roll for Centennial Street Improvement Project, and Resolution 99-XX Awarding Bid for the Centennial Street Improvement Project. BOYLES: Introduced the Item and gave a brief history of the project and explained the assessment appeal rights available to the property owners, the process for this public hearing, and the options available to the Council. MCDERMOTT: Gave a brief description of the improvements proposed. WUELLNER: Asked whether storm sewer would be provided, and if there are any other options for eliminating the curb and gutter in order to cut costs. Also asked what the difference between the contract award and the total cost of the project included. MCDERMOTT: Answered that the road as proposed meets City standards, but that storm sewer would not be provided. The staff did not consider any other standard. The 30% increase is for indirect costs such as administrative, design, surveying, construction observation and financing. MADER: Clarified that the Council would have within its authority the option to deviate from the standard specifications. BOYLE$: Noted that if the Council were to deviate from the City's current standard, the Council would have to waive those specific requirements. MADER: Asked if there were any persons present who would like to address the Council. J~M SIMON (5366 Centennial Street): Commented that the Engineers were previously instructed to come back with a proposal that had less financial impact on the property owners. Objects to the project because it serves only five property owners and the cost to him on both lots is near $23,000. Noted that there are too many rules and fees imposed by the City for splitting lots. GEORGIAN DILLION (5375 Centennial Street): Commented that the neighborhood has not had much trouble with the roadway, and doesn't see a need to improve something that isn't broken. Also noted that many trees will be lost. ARNIE GRUETZMACHER (representing Gladys Gruetzmacher, his mother from 5344 Centennial Street): Noted that all of the property owners are against the project at this cost, and that many, many trees will be lost that act as a buffer to highway 13. AL KOCHER (5400 Centennial Street): Commented that the road has served the neighborhood adequately and that the project is not supported by any of the neighborhood at this cost. 070699.DOC 2 Council Meeting Minutes Jul.v 6. 1999 BERNIE SCHWANBECK (5401 Centennial Street): Also added that he does not support the project at this cost. Did not understand why the property owners were being assessed 100% of the project cost. Mayor MADER closed the public hearing. SCHENCK: Commented that the opposition to the project was expected, but the cost of the project was not expected. Does not support the motion at this time because of the cost. Does realize that the road will be paved in the future. WUELLNER: Because the project is not supported by the neighborhood, he will not support the motion. PETERSEN: Clarified that when a roadway is put in for the first time, the benefiting property owners are required to pay for 100% of the project. However, sympathized with the neighbors that the costs outweighed the benefits. Does not support the project at this time. KEDROWSKI: Feels the costs are unsupportable by any assessment in this case. Stated that the Council needs to re-evaluate its policy because the Council is voting unanimously against its own City policy. MADER: Has previously gone on record as not supporting the project. Believes that the policy does not need to be changed, but is merely a guideline. The City should not be obligated to proceed with a project that is unsupported by the neighborhood. BOYLES and PACE discussed the proper procedure for denying the project. There was consensus among the Council that the Resolution adopting assessments for Project 99-12 would not be adopted on the basis that the cost of the project exceeded the special benefit to the properties. MOTION BY SCHENCK, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-XX ADOPTING ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 99-12 CENTENNIAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS. VOTE: Ayes by none, Nayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion failed. MOTION BY SCHENCK, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-67 DENYING AND REJECTING ALL BIDS FOR PROJECT 99-12 CENTENNIAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY WUELLNER, DIRECTING STAFF TO REVIEW THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY TO RECOMMEND WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY, WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ACCOMPLISH PAVING OF GRAVEL STREETS. MADER: Does not support the motion not because there is not some merit to the discussion, but because he feels it is a knee-jerk reaction to this specific issue. VOTE: Ayes by Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, Nay by Mader, the motion carried. The Council took a brief recess at 8:20pm. The regular meeting resumed at 8:25pm 070699.DOC 3 Council Meeting Minutes Jul.v 6. 1999 OLD BUSINESS: Consider Approval of Ordinance 99-07 Approving a Zone Change Request by D.R. Horton and Deerfield Development for 168 Acres Located South of Fish Point Road and Wilderness Trail and East of the Ponds Athletic Facility. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 99-07 APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY D.R. HOP, TON AND DEERFIELD DEVELOPMENT FOR 168 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF FISH POINT ROAD AND WILDERNESS TRAIL AND EAST OF THE PONDS ATHLETIC FACILITY. BOYLE$: Advised that the Ordinance has been slightly revised since deferral of the item from the last meeting. The new Ordinance reduces the 1:{-2 zoning district by approximately 12 acres as a result of the survey which identified that the parcel contained 168 acres rather than 164. MADER: Allowed the public a last opportunity to address this issue. DON PATTON (D.R. Horton): Clarified that once the surveyor had looked closer at the plat and dividing line between 13,-1 and 1:{-2, he determined that the parcel contained 168 total acres, and that the piece moved from 1:{-2 to 1:{-1 was actually 12 acres rather than 10 acres. Stated that the Developer is satisfied with this plat. MARGIE ATWOOD (16992 Crimson Court): Briefly reviewed the history of the property. Questioned how this proposed level of density benefits the citizens of Prior Lake. The neighborhood has not opposed the development, only the level of density. Stated that the benefactors here are Larry Gensmer, John and Mary Messenbrink, and D.R. Horton. Further stated that the Comprehensive Plan does not dictate levels of density, and that that is a Council power. Advised that there are options within the Council's discretion if they listen to the citizens. SCHENCK: Asked what would make this project work for the neighborhood. ATWOOD: Lower density as recommended by the Planning Commission at its April 26, 1999 meeting. Wants the higher density in only the northeast quadrant (approx. 400-450 gross units). MADER: Clarified that the neighborhood would like the total density for the whole parcel to be less. That cannot be done unless the line is moved. They would like the 1:{-2 area reduced to a smaller buffer where the net effect would leave a combined density for 1:{-1 and R-2 at a lesser number. SCHENCK: Development at the level that this City has grown is never easy. The Council and staff have put the appropriate policies in place so as to accept and monitor that development. Higher density zoning provides a significant commercial-industrial tax base for our future. Advised that the final product is still subject to input through the PUD process. Supports the motion, but regrets that the developer and neighborhood couldn't come to some resolution. WUELLNER: Supports the motion, but commented that the process is flawed. Concerned and embarrassed that this process did not provide the Council nor the public what it needed to cohesively resolve all the issues without creating liability for the City. Further discussed how the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance are designed as a guide within which the Council has legislative discretion as to level of density. However, the Planning Commission, staff and Council 070699.DOC 4 Council Meeting Minutes July 6. 1~)9 studied the needs of the City, the infrastructure needs and capacity and recognized the need to diversify the City's tax base. Further discussed that where the Council has legislative authority to dictate the level of density within the Horton property, a decision to deny the developer's rezoning request must have a rationale basis supported by substantial evidence and findings of fact in the record. Also stated that the Council has a responsibility to be stewards of not only the law, but of the public trust as well especially when faced with an unpopular decision. Believes the implementation and Council understanding of the process should be improved. Suggested scheduling a training session with the City Attorney and Planning Director on zoning and the legal framework within which the Council must act. PETERSEN: Feels saddened by the fact that the neighborhood doesn't feel that 12 acres is enough. Believes the Council acted in good faith with the neighborhood. Supports the rezoning application. KEDROWSKI: Commented that this property came into the City by annexation ordinance through a petition by the property owner for business park development. No public comment was required and no citizen came forward at any point in opposition. It was a prudent Council action because the developer had previously gotten approval for industrial development from the Township. To assume that the Township's standard for development would compare to the City's standard is inaccurate. The fact is the Developer cannot sell single-family homes next to an industrial park. There needs to be some type of mixed or multi-family density. The buffer zone is intended to be a benefit and is acceptable. We need to respect the process. There is going to be ample opportunity for the neighborhood to participate in the Developer's application for PUD. This Council has to balance the concerns of the neighbors with the rights of the property owner. Believes this proposal and process does that. Supports the motion. MADER: Does not support the motion. Clarified that citizens from both Spring Lake Township and the City were present to speak at a public meeting on the annexation of this property, and that the Council rescheduled the hearing and then voted 4-1 to accept the petition. The hearing was later canceled altogether through a legal loophole which denied the public an opportunity to speak. Further, noted that in a separate meeting between himself and the Developer, the Developer stated that he could have reduced the R-2 density further. When questioned at an earlier Council meeting, the Developer confirmed that conversation. Stated that he has consistently voted against the rezoning application. Understands that the Council does have the authority to designate where the line between R-1 and R-2 could be drawn. Feels that the City ran scared when faced with the threat of litigation based upon a case that he has reviewed and has very little relevance with this case. Discussed that the findings in the proposed resolution do not show benefits to the City or the neighborhood. Disappointed in the Council's action. VOTE: Ayes by Kedrowski, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, Nay by Mader, the motion carried. The Council took a brief recess at 9:05pm The regular meeting resumed at 9:1 Opm. Councilmember Kedrowski was unable to return to the meeting due to illness. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY SCHENCK, TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO HOLD A TRAINING SESSION FOR THE COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY'S LEGAL FRAMEWORK WITHIN WHICH REZONING AND PLATTING DECISIONS ARE MADE. VOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, Nay by Mader, the motion carried. 070699.DOC 5 Council Meeting Minutes Jul_v 6. 1999 MADER: Commented that the Zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan are inconsistent. State statute require that zoning maps be updated to reflect the Comprehensive Plan within 9 months. The City has failed to do that in the case of the Deerfield property. To leave a subjective interpretation, as in this case, will put us in this position again. Further commented that the Developer gains an offensive position and the Council doesn't hear what our citizens have to say. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY SCHENCK, TO PROVIDE A SUMMARY LIST OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY THAT ARE SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE ZONING CLASSIFICATION BETWEEN THE ZONING MAP AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ORDER TO BRING THOSE AREAS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Resolution 99-66 Authorizing the Award of Bids and Execution of the City's Standard Contract for the Purchase and Installation of Wooden Flooring for the Library Resource Center. MOTION BY SCHENCK, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-66 AUTHORIZING THE AWARD OF BIDS AND EXECUTION OF THE CITY'S STANDARD CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF WOODEN FLOORING FOR THE LIBRARY RESOURCE CENTER. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Revised Library Agreement Between the City of Prior Lake and Scott County Library System. MOTION BY SCHENCK, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE REVISED LIBRARY AGREEMENT BETVVEEN THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE AND SCOTT COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM. BOYLES: Clarified that the changes to the contract were housekeeping in nature, and noted the specific changes. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Petersen, Wuellner and Schenck, the motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS: BOYLE$: Thanked the Prior Lake Association for the 4th of July Fireworks display, advised that the City of Prior Lake Web Page address is www.cityofpriorlake.com, and that the options regarding any amendment to the no wake ordinance will be referred to the Lake Advisory Commission for a recommendation. Also advised that two applicants will be interviewed for the Parks Advisory vacancy Council adjourned to Executive Session at 9:20pm. 070699.DOC 6 Council Meeting Minutes July 6. 1999 Executive Session MADER: Advised that the Council would be adjourning to Executive Session to discuss the pending Boderman litigation. The regular Council meeting resumed at 9:35pm. MAD£R: Advised that no action was necessary as a part of the Executive Session. A motion ~r.~ ~conded and accepted. Theft 9:36pm. 070699.DOC 7