HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Minutes
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
TUES., SEPT. 7, 2004
7:00pm
Fire Station No.1
1. CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m.
2. PUBLIC FORUM: The Public Forum is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address
concemsto the City Council. The Public Forum will be no longer than 30 minutes in length. Items to
be considered as part of the Council's regular agenda may not be addressed at the Public Forum.
Topics of discussion are also restricted to City governmental topics rather than private or political
agendas, The City Council will not take formal action on issues presented during the Public Forum.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
4. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AUGUST 16, 2004 MEETING MINUTES:
5. 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.8s a separate . category.
Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid.
Consider Approval of a Request to Authorize the Initiation of Civil Action to Bring an Injunction
Requiring the Property Owner to Remove a Fence Erected within a Drainage and Utility Easement.
Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of the 2004 Pavement Markings
Agreement with Scott County for the Installation of Epoxy Pavement Markings for Crosswalks.
Consider Approval of a Fixed Asset Policy.
A)
B)
C)
D)
6.
7.
8.
A)
B)
C)
090704
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA:
PIBllll"leARINGSiN~NE.
11111.IIAIII18:
Watershed Outlet Structure Project (Shannon Lotthammer)
Concept Plan for Development of Shepherd's Path.
Concept Plan for Construction of a Town Office Development (A RIMA Real Estate Property)
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
9. tlIIBISINSSS::
A) Consider Approval of a Resolution Initiating the Vacation of Roadways in Connection with the Ring
Road Improvement Project #02-06.
B) Consider Approval of a Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed, Ordering the Preparation of an
Assessment Roll and Establishing a Date of the Assessment Hearing for the Ring Road Phase II /
CSAH 23/ TH13/ Five Hawks Improvements (Project 02-06)
C) Consider Approval of a Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed, Ordering Preparation of an
Assessment Roll, and Establishing the Date of the Assessment Hearing Date for the Downtown
Street Reconstruction and Rainwater Garden Construction Project (Project 04-01).
D) Consider Approval of a Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed, Ordering Preparation of an
Assessment Roll, and Establishing the Date of the Assessment Hearing Date for the 2004
Improvement Project #04-11.
10.
A)
NiW...BI.SINESS:..:
Consider Approval of a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan from RHD to C-CC and
R1LMD for 20 Acres for Town Office and Townhomes (Arima Development)
B) Consider Approval of a Resolution Adopting Proposed 2005 City Budgets and Certifying Preliminary
2005 City of Prior Lake Property Tax Levy to Scott County Department of Taxation.
C) Consider Approval of a Report Regarding Skate Park Operation and Improvements.
D) Consider Approval of an Ordinance Regulating Body Art Establishments.
E) Consider Approval of Creation of a Jeffers Pond Natural Preserve Coordinating Committee.
F) Consider Approval of a Recommendation to Name the Ring Road.
11. OIHERBISINESS/COINCILMEMBERREPORTS:
12. ADJOURN MINT
090704
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 16,2004
CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Present were Mayor Haugen, Councilmembers Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska, and LeMair, City Manager Boyles, City
Attorney Pace, Planning Director Kansier, Public Works Director Osmundson, Communications Coordinator Oster, and
Administrative Assistant Meyer.
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. Items to be considered as part of the
Council's regular agenda may not be addressed at the Public Forum. Topics of discussion are also restricted to
City governmental topics rather than private or political agendas. The City Council will not take formal action on
issues presented during the Public Forum.
Bovles: Reviewed the procedure for the public forum.
Presentation of a Petition for Expansion of the Skate Park
Amber Croswell (4401 Dakota Street): Presented a petition of over 300 signatures requesting additional investment in
equipment for the skate park.
Hauaen: Asked how kids can be discouraged from abusing amenities such as the hockey rinks and the Downtown planters.
Croswell: Suggested that if the skaters and rollerbladers were more challenged by the equipment, they might not look
elsewhere to practice those stunts.
Hauaen: Advised that this will go back to the staff level for them to look at.
Blombera: Commented that she would like to see the staff continue to review other items as well, such as the hours of
operation, and the types of equipment. Suggested that the lack of interest may be because we did not get it exactly right
and we knew this project would be a work in progress.
Zieska: Suggested looking at some Tier 1 equipment that wouldn't have to be gated or supervised. Supported looking at it
again.
Diane Sentrvz (16910 Elm Avenue): Thanked the City for a wonderful Lakefront Days celebration, and thanked
Councilmember Zieska for his participation as a judge in the 4th of July Boat Parade. Discussed her understanding of the
Council's vision to expand Downtown to the Lake, and her concerns that the expansion of CSAH 21 will adversely impact
the marina and the Downtown. Also believed that excluding businesses located outside Downtown Prior Lake from taking
advantage of the faCfade improvement program is unfair.
Bovles: Explained that the faCfade improvement program is funded from a Tax Increment Funding generated in the
Downtown area. The rationale is that since the Downtown area was initially impacted by the TIF District, those funds should
be reinvested in that area.
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2004
DRAFT
Hauaen: Discussed the many, many meetings and the participation of the Downtown business owners in the citizens
committee to provide input in the CSAH 21 reconstruction. Those issues include everything from traffic flow, congestion,
speed, access, and amenities. Nothing is final yet, but there are many things still being discussed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Zieska: Requested adding an item under Presentations to discuss the success of Lakefront Days.
Bovles: Requested adding an item under New Business to Initiate the Vacation of a Drainage and Utility Easement Located
on 5191 Hope Street. Secondly, under New Business, to Consider Approval to Begin Civil Proceedings to Enforce the City
Code.
MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried.
APPROV At OF MEETING MINUTES
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY BLOMBERG, TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 2, 2004 REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES AS SUBMITTED.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, 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 Control Monthly Report.
(E) Consider Approval of Monthly Fire Call Report.
(F) Consider Approval of Resolution 04.125 Approving the Final Plat and Development Contract for Deerfield Industrial
Park.
(G) Consider Approval of Resolution 04.126 Amending City of Prior Lake Data Practices Procedures.
Bovles: Reviewed the items contained on the consent agenda.
MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY ZIESKA, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: NONE.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Consider Approval of Adoption of a Business Subsidy Policy.
Sullivan: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report.
Mayor Haugen opened the public hearing.
2
City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2004
DRAFT
No persons were present to address the Council on this matter.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY BLOMBERG, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zleska and LeMair, the motion carried.
leMair: Believed the step was a necessary tool that can be utilized to help local business.
Zieska: Agreed and supported the referral to the EDA for discussion.
Hauaen: Commented that one of the items mentioned in the public forum by a business owner was her dissatisfaction with
the City having a fal{ade improvement program that was not available to businesses outside the Downtown area. Policies
of this type are intended to address that issue and provide additional tools for economic development.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA, DIRECTING THAT THE BUSINESS SUBSIDY POLICY BE REFERRED
TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR INPUT.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of a Resolution Vacating an Easement on Northwood Road (Bud Cooke).
Kansier: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff
report.
Survey tar:
BUD COOKE
Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open.
No persons were present to address the Council on this matter.
_-----0~-~"
...-: ;II ~7<!' .......,
/~;: II j///
\~'~'\> //
. ' \;~::>.
/
MOTION BY BLOMBERG, SECOND BY PETERSEN, TO CLOSE >\
i\ \
~~~~;~~:~~~~: Blombe~, Peteresen, Zieska and LeMair, ~"'':\ '-
Blombera: Believed the action was appropriate.
Petersen: Seemed like a housekeeping issue.
Zieska: Suggested that staff make it a policy to review the previous year's projects on an annual basis for easements that
are no longer needed so that these items can be cleaned up in a more timely manner.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 04-127 VACATING AN EASEMENT ON
NORTHWOOD ROAD (Bud Cooke).
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Peteresen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried.
PRESENTATIONS:
Lakefront Days Successes
Zieska: Thanked the Chamber of Commerce for their great efforts during Lakefront Days. Noted that most of the celebration
is put on through their effort. Also thanked the many volunteers and the Chamber Planning committee, led by Sandi Fleck,
that spends a good part of the year planning and organizing the event.
3
City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2004
DRAFT
LeMair: Recognized the amazing volunteer effort that is put in by City staff and the Chamber.
Blombera: Very proud of the Lakefront Days celebration, its volunteers, City staff and Chamber.
Hauaen: Commented that this was a great 5 days that demonstrated tremendous community spirit. Also thanked Sandi
Fleck, the Chamber membership, and the City staff.
[REMOVED] - Proposal for Multi-Sport Training Dome (Mike Gresser).
OLD BUSINESS:
Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving the Preliminary Design Plan for the Realignment of CSAH 12 from
TH13 to CSAH 17.
Albrecht: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, noting that the primary issues include (1) sidewalk
locations, (2) addition of a driveway cut at 3582 Basswood Circle which will be worked out by a private driveway permit
although the assessment issue will need to be resolved, and (3) green acres tax program impacts upon rural property.
Since the parcel is enrolled as one 19 acres parcel, it will not fall under the 10 acre threshold required to get green acres
status. Advised that the staff and engineer recommendation is for two sidewalks the length of the corridor.
Chris Chromv: Reviewed the six options and their impacts for sidewalk layout through segment #2 (Sunset Trail to eastern
boundary of Spring Lake Park) of the project.
CSAH 12 Reconstruction between TH 13 and CSAH 13
Se ment 2 - Sidewalk Evaluation Criteria
Pedestrian Safety/Utilization Construction Cost Right-of-Way Needs Property Impacts
OPTION DESCRIPTION
2 - II' oonorllle ___lks wi
4' mlnlmum bMl .
1=
H
L
H
H
Maxlmlzea safety be""'" by pIO\Ildlng '*'"trien e.t. 5130.000
18C/11ly tit both aid.- d the lO8dway
Minimir.. R/W NMdalD 10' behind c...rb R....... in acceplable g,.... on .u
and guttar, corridor 'Oridth or 58'. dnv-ys. Rtodvc.. _liable otta_
partUng and ,""",,-na dm..w.ys on both
.icIaa
14'ooMr*e ~
1DoMtd on ___ -'de of
2 CSAH 12. ... mlnlmum bllId.
L
H
H
H
Achilowa irnp<'CNed ~n safety. .....Ita in Eat Se5.ooo
additioMl pedntrian cn>aaInga, _ _
peel_an .....
Minimiz.. R/W Needa 10 10' be"ind curb R....1ta in lICCIIplable gradea on .,1
.nd guttar, corridor _ or 515'. driveways. Rllduc.. available otta~
partcinll .nd a"_a dm..w.ys on
aid......uk ..cia
1-8' COI1CnII. IIldIIwIIIk
IocIIhId on nOIttl side of
CSAH 12. ... minimum bIwd.
M
M
L
L
3
"""~ Im".- peel_an ,"",ety, ..aulta in eat. S106,OOO
.dditlonel peeteatrien .......nga
Requi.... 13' be"ind curb .nd g_, R.....1la in 3 d_V g_ inc....ing
c:onido< width of 58'. Addillonal new RIW from _than 1ml. IlO g__ "'.n ,~
_ H_rd l.... Rd and lime Rd and 1 d""'--Y Increasing from 17'" 10
II_than 2mfo. R_I dd~y
tum IORlU11da al2&ilO, 2e54, 2elIe, 2874,
and 28M. Add_I_ and
landacap;ng Impects. Reduc. partcll1{l
and~. driWways
,-8' ClCInCfIIte ~
Iocatwd on ~ side of
4 CSAH 12. 4' minimum bIIId. """.... itnpto\I'ed pIIdMtlian safety, ,....Ita in Eat. $105.000
lIddllicnal pIIdealrIaII oroallinp
M
M
M
M
Requ'_ 13' behind c...m and gtAt.ar, Rnu"ln 2 d_y DNd- incr_ing
c:orridotwidlh or 58', Utiliz.. bating from....then 1ml.1lO ~a....than 15"",
plalllld RNI betwMn ~ l.... Roood Adclltional tr.. _ la~1>inII ;mpaclll.
and lime RolId RecI_ partcing .nd sholteM cIfMoways.
5
1.11' __lIIdIIwIIIlI:
IocIIlIId dllllotlV ..hind lhe L
curb. ..... side of CSAH '2
Achiww pecNIilrIan aafely equlvalent IlO 1-5'
slcWMlk due IlO mailbox and lrafIico signing
confllcla. .._In addIIionaI ~n
...-.lnga
M
H
H
ElIl. $115,000
MinimizM R/W NMds 10 10' behind curb R....ln ~bIe II..... on.1l
and g_r, <:o,ridor width 01 58'. d"-ys. RIId_ ~ri<ing and
sh_.~ys.
0llMt plUpOMd AIlgnmMt
6 of CSAH 12. ,-8' cone,'"
~ on ....... side. 4'
minimum bM1
M
L
M
L
~ ImjlfOWd ~.n safety, taauIlIln eat. $105.000 plus 522,000 10< Adeln'l OMilln
addIlionaI pecIM1rian c_inga F_
Requn. 13' behind ClUtt> and 11_,
cortidot widIh 01 59'
R_y .Iignment s,,1ft willlMUlt In
acqulallion d 3031 or 3034 (lDla1 ta....).
H - High Level of Achievement in Meeting Objectives
M - Acceptable Level of Achievement In Meeting Objectives
L - Low Level of Achievement in Meeting Objectives
8/11104
City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2004
DRAFT
Albrecht: Clarified that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet petition was received by the Environmental Quality Board
and that completion of the EAW would need to take place prior to the County commencing with the final design. The EAW
petition does not affect the Council's consideration of the preliminary design approval tonight. Also advised that property
owners on the north side of segment #2 have requested to address the Council should the Council choose a wider sidewalk
on the north side.
Blombera: Asked for clarification as to how the sidewalks/trail meet across the three segments.
Albrecht: Explained that proposed alignment is that segment #1 and segment #3 would have an 8 foot bituminous trail on
the north side and a 5 foot concrete sidewalk on both sides of the roadway. Segment #2 proposed a 5 foot concrete
sidewalk on the north side and also on the south side due to the lesser width through that corridor. If the Council were to
determine that only one sidewalk is required through segment #2, it raises the question whether two sidewalks are
necessary in segments #1 and #3.
Petersen: Asked for clarification if the County will be picking up half of the sidewalk costs if two sidewalks are constructed.
Grea IIIka: Advised that the County is reviewing its Comp Plan and Transportation Plan. One of the discussions taking
place is that the County would likely pick up the cost of a trail along County highways where its Parks & Open Space Plan
currently shows a trail along a County highway. In this case, segment #2 along CSAH12 is shown to have a County trail. It
is likely that the Council will adopt such a policy as it goes through the process, and ultimately bear the costs of one side of
that corridor. It is not official policy today, but is the direction the County is headed.
Zieska: Asked traffic volume and design standards for CSAH 12 and Northwood Road.
Chromv: Recalls that current traffic volume on the east end of the corridor is just over 4000 vehicles per day, and on the
west end about 1600 vehicles per day. The Year 2000 plan for the County highway system forecasts an increase of 50%
across the corridor. However, that forecast does not factor in the growth goals of the City of Prior Lake through annexation.
Osmundson: Advised that an educated guess would be that Northwood Road is likely at about 2000 trips per day.
Zieska: Commented that staff did an excellent job putting together the matrix. Asked if, with respect to Option #6, the rating
of acceptable would move to unacceptable if a total property taking were required.
Albrecht: Advised that technically the need for the right-of-way might be acceptable, but the associated impacts and costs
of property related to that might make it unacceptable.
Zieska: Stated that that demonstrates his point is that there might be a cheaper sidewalk option, but to put the sidewalk in
we might have to spend a lot more on property acquisition.
LeMair: Asked for clarification that putting in an 8 foot trail with a 4 foot boulevard would have significant property impacts
upon either side of the segment, and that placing an 8 foot trail right next to the curb would have impacts upon placement of
signs and mailboxes.
Albrecht: Confirmed and advised that an 8 foot trail will have intrusive impacts on either side, but is less intrusive on the
south side. That isn't saying that the property owners on the south side will not have concerns with impacts upon their
properties.
5
City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2004
DRAFT
Hauaen: Asked the significance of a driveway slope that exceeds 15%.
Chromv: Advised that grades steeper than 15% are not advisable because entering and exiting the driveway without
scraping a car bottom or bumper as the slope evens out is difficult. Steep grades are also more difficult for snow removal for
the City and winter maintenance for the homeowner.
Blombera: Commented that the matrix was helpful in creating a picture for her. She recently leaned toward supporting one
sidewalk through segment #2. However, that option (#3) has unacceptable impacts upon right-of-way needs and property
impacts. Her standard for what is acceptable is the impact upon pedestrian and vehicle safety. Believed that in four of the
six options, driveway grades are significantly impacted and that impact reduces the pedestrian safety. Through her
evaluation of the criteria, that puts her back to one 5 foot sidewalk on either side (Option #2). Supported placing the one
sidewalk on the north side.
Petersen: Commented that his biggest concern is cost, particularly that to acquire additional right-of-way. The corridor
width is the same with one or two sidewalks, so believed adding both sidewalks is the best choice. Supported Option #1.
Zieska: Commented on the evaluation matrix, and that significant emphasis should be given to safety and property impacts.
Asked people to try to look at the issues without emotion, even though it may impact their neighborhoods and property.
Stated that given the cost of the overall project, to not include a sidewalk because of the additional costs is not a
reasonable argument. Cost is important, but this is a $9.6 million project. The cost of an additional sidewalk is less than
0.7% of the total project cost. We would be in great error to make a safety decision based upon this type of cost. Given the
input tonight from staff, and the matrix, supported either option #1 or option #4.
leMair: Commented that he has tried to remain open minded and gather some experience and pay attention to how
sidewalks are used. Would like to see an a foot sidewalk and that it is the safest. But also understood that there are
significant driveway impacts with the a-foot sidewalk proposal. Believed it is his responsibility to look to the future uses and
impacts upon the neighborhood. Believed that two sidewalks in Segment #2 is the best alternative (Option #1), with a foot
trails in segments #1 and #3.
Hauaen: Understood that this is an emotional issue with many, many differing perspectives. He could have supported one
8-foot sidewalk if it made sense. Candidly, there are too many negative impacts. From a safety perspective, supported two
sidewalks in Segment #2 (Option #1), with a-foot trails on both sides through segments #1 and #3.
Petersen: Noted that with Option #1 we stay within the 56 foot corridor, and there is the least amount of impact. With the
County participating is some of the costs, believed Option #1 is the most viable.
Zieska: Concerned about driveway grades because that is a big impact. Asked if there is any additional impact from the
impervious surface of the additional sidewalks.
Albrecht: Advised that there is additional impervious surface between one and two sidewalks, but there is also the creation
of some infiltration of storm water. The Watershed District has been involved in this project from the beginning and falls
within their permitting criteria.
Zieska: Added that if the Watershed is comfortable, he is comfortable with the impervious surface issues. The Watershed is
a very good steward of the Watershed regulations.
Hauaen: Asked if the sidewalk costs along the undeveloped property in segment #3 should be passed through to the
developer as the property develops.
6
City Council Meeting Minutes
August16,2004
DRAFT
Albrecht: Commented that passing the costs through to the developer as the property develops is possible. In this case,
since the north side is the County's portion of the property, and they are participating in the costs, the preference would be
to construct the sidewalk with the project. In that regard, it gets done correctly and timely.
Hauaen: Asked if Councilmember support to this point is that segment #1 would have an 8 foot trail on the north side, and 5
foot sidewalk on the south side. Segment #2 would have 5 foot sidewalks on both sides, and segment #3 would have an 8
foot trail on the north side and 5 foot sidewalk on the south side.
Councilmembers LeMair, Petersen, and Zieska concurred with the clarified sidewalks, with the inclusion of the service road.
MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY PETERSEN, APPROVING RESOLUTION 04-128 APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY
DESIGN PLAN FOR THE REALIGNMENT OF CSAH 12 FROM TH13 TO CSAH 17, WITH SEGMENT #1 HAVING AN 8
FOOT BITUMINOUS TRAIL ON THE NORTH SIDE AND A 5 FOOT CONCRETE SIDEWALK ON THE SOUTH SIDE;
SEGMENT #2 HAVING 5 FOOT CONCRETE SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES; AND FOR SEGMENT #3 HAVING AN 8
FOOT BITUMINOUS TRAIL ON THE NORTH SIDE AND A 5 FOOT CONCRETE SIDEWALK ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
Zieska: Clarified the proposed motion. Commented that his final evaluation is of options 1, 2 and 4. When evaluating safety,
property impacts, and cost, stated that Option #4 (an 8 foot sidewalk) would have a great impact upon residents on the
south side. Option #2 (one 5 foot sidewalk) would not handle all the pedestrian traffic safety for the future. This leaves
Option #1 (two 5 foot sidewalks) as the best altemative in his opinion.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, Nay by Blomberg, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of a Report Concerning Topsoil Requirements, Landscaping, Sodding, Week Control, Erosion
Control and Drainage Issues on New Lots.
Kansier: Reviewed the agenda in connection with the staff report, ultimately discussing three policy decisions for further
research and discussion.
leMair: Commented that he did not want to see an increase in topsoil requirements. Also believed that current landscaping
requirements seem appropriate. Would like to see increased enforcement of weed control and erosion control, but that the
current complaint process seems to be appropriate. Also did not want to see an additional survey required after grading
because of the burden to staff and the increased cost to the homeowner.
Zieska: Agreed with Councilmember LeMair. Asked about the process on a foundation inspection.
Hutchins: Explained that to see an as-built survey after the lot has been backfilled, would help to determine if the grading
plan has been met. It is difficult to determine if the grade ultimately meets the elevation. Every little bit that the grading plan
may be off affects the water run-off. It slows the process down for new construction, but the requirement is used in other
cities.
Zieska: Asked if we know how many foundations might have been installed incorrectly over the past five years.
Hutchins: Had no numbers, but guessed that out of 1500 homes built, maybe 10 or 11 would have foundation issues.
7
City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2004
DRAFT
Bovles: Commented that where an as-built grade survey is effective is when there is a third or fourth owner of a property
who wants to come in and level an area or put in retaining walls.
Hutchins: Advised that the other thing an as-built survey does is verify setbacks.
Zieska: Believed the verification of setbacks has sold him on the requirement of an as-built survey.
Blombera: Asked if topsoil is required for back yards.
Albrecht: Explained that our ordinance addresses front and side yards, and does not regulate the requirement for native or
imported topsoils for the back yard. It is a somewhat nebulous issue.
Blombera: Suggested that the ordinance require backyard topsoil, and require enforcement.
Hutchins: Believed that requiring backyard topsoil will also add $3000-$4000 in cost to the building permit.
Blombera: Also suggested that some language be included in the weed control ordinance to identify natural area plantings
versus weeds. Also supported the as-built survey requirement.
Hauaen: Believed the landscape and sod requirements are fine. Additional enforcement is needed for weed control.
Supported as-built survey requirement. Believed further discussion is needed on the issue of topsoil and enforcement of the
requirements.
LeMair: Believed that most homes are providing topsoil as part of the final grade. Believed enforcement is very difficult.
Zieska: Suggested spot checking the three major developers to see how big the problem is.
Blombera: Would be comfortable with spot checking. Asked if that includes adding the back yard.
LeMair: Did not support adding the back yard at this time.
Zieska: Agreed.
Petersen: Agreed.
Pace: Asked the Council to consider that if as-built grading surveys are required and something is missed, the City is at risk
for some potential liability. There may be a way to do it while putting the oneous on the builder or the developer. With
respect to topsoil, the homeowner should assume some risk.
Petersen: Asked how other cities handle it.
Pace: More discussion needs to take place with those cities to determine what their risk might be and what measures they
take to mitigate that risk.
Albrecht: Added that the City is already assuming some liability because we do a final grading plan. An as-built survey
would allow us to verify that the work in the field was done correctly on a lot by lot basis.
Hauaen: Suggested researching this item further and bringing the issues back to the Council for consideration.
8
City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16,2004
DRAFT
Pace: Suggested that the City get developer input as well.
Bovles: Clarified that there was not support for requiring back yard topsoil, but there was support for incorporating the
definition of natural area plant material, following up with the liability associated with requiring as-built grading surveys, and
begin spot checking for enforcement of the current topsoil requirements.
Councilmembers confirmed.
Consider Approval of Revisions to City Tax Increment Policy.
Sullivan: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report.
LeMair: Believed it important to get the policy up-to-date and supported moving it to the EDA.
Zieska: Agreed and suggested using a formula to define a living wage.
Blombera: Believed some refinements may be needed, but would support bringing it to the EDA for comment.
Consider Approval of a Resolution A warding Contract for Renovation of Pumphouse No.4
Osmundson: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report.
Petersen: Asked where the pumphouse was located.
Osmundson: In the Brooksville Hills addition off Itasca.
Zieska: Noted that the bid came in under the estimate.
Hauaen: Asked if there is concern that Greystone is so much lower than the next bidder.
Osmundson: Explained that staff is assuming that Greystone is able to provide their own concrete, where other contractors
have to sub out that work.
MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 04-129 AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
RENOVATION OF PUMPHOUSE NO.4 TO GREYSTONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF
$69,870.00.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving a Pension Increase for the Prior Lake Volunteer Fire Department
Firefighters Relief and Pension Association.
BOYLES: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, noting that the City would not be required to make
any additional contribution.
9
City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2004
DRAFT
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 04-130 APPROVING A PENSION
INCREASE FOR THE PRIOR LAKE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT FIREFIGHTERS RELIEF AND PENSION
ASSOCIATION.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, and LeMair, the motion carried. Council member Zieska abstained since he is
a member of the Prior Lake Volunteer Fire Department.
Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Expenditure of Up to $20,000 for Improvements to be Made for
Winter Hockey Rink Maintenance.
Boyles: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, asking that the resolution, if adopted, be amended to
eliminate the last "whereas".
LeMair: Advised that last Monday at the last Parks Advisory Committee meeting, there was significant discussion on the
shortfalls affecting our community in soccer fields, baseball, hockey, park lighting and so on. It is important to keep the
hockey association as an active member of the community. Also believes the park activity helps support Downtown
businesses. Did not believe this is the long-term solution, but would support the motion.
Zieska: Asked if the City is the sole contributor to providing the storage facility.
Boyles: Advised that the Hockey Association solely owns the Zamboni. They also will provide heaters and all the volunteer
labor for operating the Zamboni.
Petersen: Asked about the locker rooms.
Boyles: Explained that the $20,000 will be for garage storage only.
Blombera: Supported the action because of the contribution on behalf of the Hockey Association and that it is similar to the
partnership that takes place with other sports organizations.
Hauaen: Commented that there is no question that our park facilities will need to grow. Believed this is phase one of the
solution to address those needs. In connection with the update of the park component of the Comp Plan, believed
additional discussion will need to take place to address a more global solution.
Mary Jo Blaisdell (President of PL Hockey Association): Thanked the Council for their action tonight, and for its openness
in working to address the future hockey needs of the community.
MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY PETERSEN, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 04-131 AUTHORIZING THE
EXPENDITURE OF UP TO $20,000 FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE FOR WINTER HOCKEY MAINTENANCE,
STRIKING THE LAST "WHEREAS" IN THE RESOLUTION.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried.
10
City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2004
DRAFT
Consider Approval of a Resolution Initiating the Vacation of a Drainage and Utility Easement Located on the
Property at 5191 Hope Street SE. '"
Kansier: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report.
Blombera: Commented that this refers back to what Councilmember Zieska
brought up earlier that items of this sort should be reviewed on an annual
basis.
MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 04-132 INITIATING THE VACATION OF A DRAINAGE
AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 5191
HOPE STREET SE.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair,
the motion carried.
"s..~
~ ..;;:::~1:. v '~":-.. ' . '
.......... ~."
I """,m<Jl,
1DI: ", llodl; 1...nocu. fl'JfD, ~t COllnt",I'tI.nrw-IW"" "I.. ~ thl- l(J<"oII'tin"
of the ~ hauM .. .t..... rhi.. Ulth ttIy of ~.eotWJibM". 1"7.
Consider Approval to Initiate Civil Proceedings to Enforce Section 1104 City Code (Craig Kuenzel).
Bovles: Reviewed the agenda item noting that Mr. Kuenzel has disturbed a stream bed without a grading or Watershed
permit. Staff has attempted to work with Mr. Kuenzel to address this matter, those deadlines have been exceeded and the
property owner has been unresponsive. Staff seeks authority to require forced removal.
Councilmembers supported the action to enforce of its ordinances because of the dangerous potential impacts upon other
properties.
MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR, AUTHORIZING STAFF TO USE WHATEVER LEGAL ACTION IS
NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ENFORCE THE ORDINANCE.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
With no other comments from Councilmembers, a motion to adjourn was made and
10:20pm.
nded. The meeting adjourned at
Frank Boyles
11