Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5 - Minutes 02 23 15 O� PR10r U 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake,MN 55372 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Hedberg, Councilors Keeney, McGuire, Morton and Thompson. Also present were Manager Boyles, Assistant Manager Meyer, Attorney Johnson, Assistant Attorney Schwartzhoff, Finance Director Erickson, Engineer/Inspections Director Poppler, Community and Economic Development Director Rogness, Public Works Director Gehler, Superintendent Theisen, Police Leuitenant Hofstad, and Executive Assistant Dull. PUBLIC FORUM Boyles: Reviewed the process for the public forum. Hedberg: Opened the Public Forum at 7:04 p.m. Bill Rudnicki, (2330 Sioux Tr. NIM: Requested Mayor and Council pull item 8A and associated item 8B from the agenda as the SMSC had not had an opportunity to review and respond on the SMSC Agreement concerns. Randy Dement, (16536 Spring Ave. SW): Displayed a photograph of his house and the neighboring house proposed to be a parking lot for the Prior Lake Shore Club. Stated his house is for sale for anyone that wants to look at a parking lot. Noted the Prior Lake slogan is a wonderful place to live, work and play for a lifetime noting his lifetime was not up and if constructing a parking lot, his place to live will be ruined. Stated he'd have to listen to car alarms, look at cars and boat trailers and enjoying his front yard would no longer be a possibility. Also noted screening was proposed to be on his side of the property line without compensation. Implored the Council to vote no on the reconsideration. Jen Wocelka, (3874 Green Heights): Stated landscaping on property would do nothing more but increase the value of it. Noted her written letter to Councilmembers stating Prior Lake was a lake community where there are tear-down cabins next to million dollar properties. Commented the restaurant needs to be fixed and the Shore Club group is trying to do that and make it better. Believed the city needs something like the proposed development to enjoy the lake and community. Asked the Council to make their decision based on the masses, not the few and believed the benefits outweighed the disadvantages. Val Schueler, (3904 Green Heights): Commented she knowingly purchased a home next to a bar with traffic but didn't know that she'd be living by a parking lot. Stated she had no issues with improvements to the building but the issue was with the parking lot and noted that ordinances were in place to protect residents. Commentedbat in any other job, you make a decision and don't get to backtrack and added that neighbors were not contacted and despite the applicants saying they'd keep communication open, they haven't done so since the last neighborhood meeting. Bill Cutter, (6436 Conroy St.): Stated he was new to the city and recently left an area similar but hoped the City could continue to work with the Prior Lake Shore Club ownership group to come up with something that will work. Encouraged the Council to exhaust all possibilities to find something that would work for everyone. Lance Smith, (16427 Northwood Rd.): Stated the City Council's job was to look out for the majority of the community and make decisions based on what the community feels is progress noting that not everyone will be 1 happy. Commented he owned 4 homes, 3 of which have been affected by Cpt. Jack's due to people parking throughout the entire neighborhood,walking through yards, and littering as a result of not enough parking.Added that a parking lot doesn't solve everything but would help the neighborhood. Stated the building shouldn't be reopened as is, there is no place to park, and its not very impressive. Asked the Council to consider the general consensus to work with the proposed owners to work on a plan that works for the majority. Hedberg: Closed the Public Forum at 7:21 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boyles: Noted that if Council removes items 8A and 8B,the Council has appointed Mayor Hedberg and Councilor Keeney as the negotiation team and have been given the authority to negotiate the SMSC Agreement for ultimate city council consideration. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY MORTON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA WITH THE REMOVAL OF ITEMS 8A AND 8B. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ® ❑ Nay ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 9,2015 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY KEENEY, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 2015 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton. Thompson Aye Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA Boyles: Reviewed the items on the consent agenda. A. Consider Approval of Claims Listing B. Consider Approval of January 2015 Treasurer's Report C. Consider Approval of Building Permit Summary Report D. Consider Approval of Animal Control Services Report E. Consider Approval of Fire Department Report F. Consider Approval of Resolution 15-129 Declaring the Official Intent of the City of Prior Lake to Reimburse Certain Expenditures form the Proceeds of Bonds to be Issued by the City G. Consider Approval of the 2015 Goals and Objectives for City Advisory Committees H. Consider Approval of Resolution 15-130 Approving the Sentencing to Service(STS)Joint Powers Agreement for 2015 and Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute the Same I. Consider Approval of Resolution 15-131 Awarding a Contract to Interstate Power Systems for Generator Preventive Maintenance Services J. Consider Approval of Resolution 15-132 Awarding a Contract to Klamm Mechanical for HVAC Preventive Maintenance Services 02 23 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 2 Keeney: Thanked the advisory committee members and expressed appreciation for the volunteers in the City as set forth in consent agenda item 5G. MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY MORTON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS WRITTEN. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7A. Public Hearing to Consider Cable Franchise Applications and Agreements with Integra Telecom and Mediacom Boyles: Reviewed the staff report dated February 23, 2015 in connection with the agenda item. Staff recommended the Council conduct and close a public hearing and direct staff to return at the March 9, 2015 meeting for approval of the two franchise agreements. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY THOMPSON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:29 P.M. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. Morton: Expressed support noting the financial section seemed even. Keeney: Inquired about franchise fees, whether they were collected to offset costs for maintaining right of ways, and asked about providing public access channels and educational access.Asked how fees are determined and whether staff was comfortable with the fees proposed. McGuire: Commented regarding poor service and wait times and asked if there could be a less expensive tier. Hedberg: Inquired about extending cable services and the design provisions. Boyles: Explained the franchise fees are only distributed to the City, that the City was responsible for the government access, Savage was responsible for public access and the School District was responsible for educational access channels. Also explained peg fees, where fees are deposited and funding channels. Schwartzhoff: Advised the City was limited in what can be done as cable television is highly regulated by the federal government. Noted there were provisions in place the the City had to provide channels to the schools and they benefit without having to pay for them. Explained that other provisions in the agreement address service levels and making sure the public knows about these services that must be requested. Further explained that the City can impose penalties and if there are problems, the public should contact staff as there were steps that can be taken.Added that with regard to lower tier costs,fees are set by programmers and the City, State, and Federal government have no control or authority to regulate cable costs. Addressed design provisions explaining that 02 23 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 3 there is a high cost for franchisees to extend services and if the City pushes for more length, it can affect the cable signal noting that the proposed is the middle ground compromise discussed and agreed to on both sides. Mary Korthour(VP and GM at Integra Telecom): Commented that it was important to note and for the public to understand that the cable providers hands are tied with regard to price as cable programmers dictate the prices and channels in the various packages. Noted that neither Integra nor Mediacom were making a lot of money on cable TV due to the rising cost by programmers and struggle to keep prices affordable for customers. MOTION BY THOMPSON, SECOND BY MORTON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:42 P.M. AND REFER APPROVAL OF THE TWO FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS TO THE MARCH 9, 2015 MEETING. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. OLD BUSINESS 8C. Consider Approval of a Report Discussing Design Modifications to the Duluth Avenue Intersection Project(TRN 15-000003) Poppler: Reviewed the staff report dated February 23, 2015 in connection with the agenda item. Staff recommended the Council accept a report on design modification for Duluth Avenue and provide city staff with direction. McGuire: Supported a $708,000 interim reduction but noted that it would cost more a few years down the road so it didn't seem like a good trade. Heberg: Commented the Council was considering reduction due to added costs of Hwy 13 and 150th St. project. He supported delay of the project until 2016. Keeney: Echoed comments noting he had other ideas also and he'd like to revisit scope reductions on the north side when it comes back for consideration adding that the delay would give the opportunity to explore other options. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY THOMPSON ACCEPTING DESIGN MODIFICATIONS AND SCHEDULING BID TO TAKE PLACE NO LATER THAN JUNE 30, 2016. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye 19 IK 19 z 0 Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. 8D. Consider Approval of a Councilmember Request for Reconsideration of the Council's Vote regarding Prior Lake Shore Club (Captain Jack's) City Ordinance 115-05 02 23 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 4 Keeney: Asked why the Council should reconsider as he was inclined not to unglue and vote again. Also commented that he's open to alternative solutions but did not want to reverse the decision without changes. However, in the interest of exploring alternatives, he was agreeable to reopen for discussion purposes. McGuire: Commented he believed everyone was taken by surprise when the developer notified the Council that the plan wouldn't work without 30 stalls and noted the overwhelming public comments regarding the vote which is why he was requesting reconsideration. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY HEDBERG TO RECONSIDER CITY ORDINANCE 115-05. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. Rogness: Reviewed the staff report and provided the Council with updated information from the applicant. Hedberg: Requested that the petitioner respond to one or two questions. Applicant Petschl:Advised they were working to pursue agreements on the east and west side for landscaping noting there was a signed purchase agreement to obtain the 10 foot easement on the west side as requested. Discussed the lot width requirements and the original proposel suggesting the lot could be reduced to 20 foot width,with Council's approval,to have the 8-9 feet of buffer yard on either side.Also commented that on the east side, if no agreement can be reached, they'd like to use the exception in the ordinance to count the existing landscaping. Added that there have been communications with the owner but they have been unable to reach a deal before tonight. Keeney: Noted that the property owner would be under no obligation to maintain those plantings to be counted. Hedberg: Noted that the ordinance passed requires Buffer Yard C, Buffer Yard C does not require a fence but one was being proposed, and asked whether the applicants were achieving the effect of Buffer Yard C even though they don't have the full width and asked how they could give credit and evaluate the proposed 4 foot fencing. Rogness: Explained the differences between Buffer Yard C and D,that the Code was silent on crediting a fence versus landscaping when a fence was not required, and stated that more weight was put on landscaping than fence with the exception of narrower width of buffer yard which would then seem to be interpreted to compensate for the narrower buffer yard with a fence. Commented in his opinion, better screening is achieved with a combination of fence, retaining wall and landscaping. Also explained that the ordinance recognizes that applicants can achieve the appropriate buffer yard by counting adjacent property landscaping. Keeney: Commented the reason for considering parking was to mitigate on street parking issues and he didn't see a reason to accommodate the requested parking to ensure the financial viability of the business. Stated that generally, nonconforming uses cannot be expanded, and they should fix by not making a new problem. Advised that he like to stick with the buffer yard and that a narrower parking lot was approved to make sure the appropriate screening would go in. Commented that commercial buffer yards are typically at higher levels of D or E and the 02 23 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 5 Council has already relaxed to C level. Stated he was open to approving the parking lot as originally proposed conditional upon achieving the required buffering. However, the buffering should be required. Hedberg: Recapped that the ordinance passed with the various provisions and restrictions was acceptable to the applicant except two issues which included needing at least 30 stalls and prohibition on employee on-street parking. Stated he was not asking for the buffer to be relaxed and the proposal to reconsider was not to amend anything other than the number of stalls and employee parking.At that point,the developer would need to decide if they can take on the project and Council should maintain Buffer Yard C requirements. Morton: Stated the ordinance passed required Buffer Yard C but the proposed development shows 5.5 feet on one side and 8 on the other so Buffer Yard C isn't going to be met. Boyles: Commented that in the zoning ordinance Buffer Yard C allows the width to go down to 10 feet with increased shrubs and that the parking lot as originally proposed could still be in compliance if choosing any of the widths in the Buffer Yard C requirement and with the appropriate agreements, credits, easements in place, if any are needed. Hedberg: Noted that the applicant proposed a fence and Council should rely on staff's determination whether or not the applicant is achieving the appropriate bufferyard level. Keeney: Commented there was some effect of having the full buffer setback and the distance of separation. Concerned that the amount of buffering was appropriate for a church or school but not necessarily for evening hours. Thompson: Asked whether there was any concern for buffering the back of the lot and whether the buffer easement would satisfy or exeed the needs. Rogness: Explained the Stormwater basin and landscaping proposed for the back of the lot and noted that buffering should be achieved there. Advised that there was a setback requirement when adjacent to residential property but that the Council could consider it a PUD to reduce the setback. Noted that on the west, there was 5 foot plus the 10 foot easement would equal 15 feet. On the east, there isn't the width but there are existing trees and plantings immediately adjacent. Commented that the with the 15 feet to work with,enough plantings,fencing and retaining wall for screening, and existing plantings on the adjacent property to the east, there would likely be enough screening and a good combination that would be allowed under the ordinance. Hedberg: Asked whether there was any possibility for a drive aisle less than 25 feet wide. Keeney: Noted that the ordinance provides that parking stall and drive aisle may be reduced to 58 feet, from 61 feet, within a parking ramp which would provide an additional 3 feet to work with that could be added to the east side to achieve the appropriate buffer yard. Also commented that these were minimum standards proposed for the parking lot. Rogness: Stated the ordinance has a table for parking dimensions and the original proposed parking lot met the requirements exactly. However, many parking lots have less but unsure if there were any allowances to go that narrow adding that it was also not advisable. Hedberg: Suggested amending the maximum number of stalls to 30-32 as proposed and leave the buffer yard as stated. 02 23 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 6 Keeney: Suggested adding a condition of the applicant to have a recorded easement as the property right would need to be memorialized either by easement or lease to allow for construction and maintenance of buffer yard. Johnson: Commented that anything less than and easement could be revoked and the applicant could use a buffer yard easement or a lease otherwise maintenance would be on trust between the property owners. Hedberg: Noted the ordinance allowed for offsite buffering to count toward buffer yard and asked whether that would also require an easement. Johnson: Explained that a permanent improvement generally would like permanent solutions but the ordinance allows for off site plantings to be counted. Keeney: Stated a permanent easement would be the voluntary agreement that would be needed in this case. McGuire: Commented that after planting shrubs and trees and tear it down or new people property owners cut out the landscaping, who cares; it's their property. Added that they can't protect everyone from everything but supported buffering on the east side. Keeney: Stated it protects the two properties from having a nonconformity and if they've lost the use of the property, a formal signed easement should be in place.Added that if more land is needed for the parking lot to meet standards, the applicant should acquire it and didn't see how the majority could dictate to the Council to approve something outside of the ordinance. Commented he was trying to protect people's homes and this specific buffer protects specific neighbors who's properties are dramatically impacted. McGuire: Noted that many people have said that the property value would decrease and that he is thinking about all the other people and making an attempt to protect the neighborhood. Stated he received two or three emails from realtors saying properties will be devalued if the restaurant goes as the restaurant adds something of value. Noted realtors did provide specific numbers but there is some value. Agreed that they should do everything possible to protect the abutting property owners and believed that was being accomplished by requiring Buffer Yard C.Added that never in his 37 years in government has he had the number of emails and phone calls on one topic in support of it. Keeney: Commented that if a parking lot was placed next to anyone in support, they would have a different opinion and wouldn't want to lose$40-50k in property value. Hedberg: Stated that amount is dramatic and it was not their job to protect the property value decreases. Keeney: Commented that no one has refuted the number or come back with an appraisal to show otherwise and he disagreed as it was the Council's job to protect property values and the one or two owners affected. Hedberg: Suggested allowing the 30-32 stalls and then leaving it up to the developer to make sure there is adequate screening and buffer. Rogness: Confirmed with Council their intent was that the developer could meet any of the width and corresponding screening requirements in Buffer Yard C. 02 23 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 7 MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY HEDBERG TO AMEND ORDINANCE 115-05 CONDITION K TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 30-32 STALLS. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ® ® ® ❑ ❑ Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. McGuire: Asked Attorney Johnson to address employee parking. Johnson: Advised that the Council could not ban certain classifications of people from parking on site or on street. Keeney: Noted that the condition was put in place to attempt to mitigate the on-street parking issues and if not doing anything to mitigate,then they are just expanding the business. Expressed concern with on-street parking with employees leaving at late hours. Suggested trading for no parking after 9 p.m. Hedberg:The applicant was requested to come forward. Applicant Burk: Stated guests decline after dinner rush and at that point staff begin to be cut. Commented it didn't seem fair to say that employees can't park on a street where it is legal for everyone else to park. Added that they'd love to help alleviate on-street parking by encouraging bicycles, ride shares, etc. and on average, they would likely have maybe 20 people still working after 9 p.m. McGuire: Commented that the developer agrees to minimize on-street parking and noted that enforcement would be difficult at best. Keeney: Noted that enforcement would be complaint based rather than by patrol. Hedberg: Suggested asking the developer to provide a certain amount of employee only parking between the two lots to eliminate a portion of on-street parking. McGuire and Keeney: Agreed to entertain the suggestion. Applicant Burk: Stated the last two employees would park in the lot so they don't have far to walk at the end of the night and added that getting people in and out of the lot decreases the traffic on the streets. Applicant Petschl: Commented that they were unsure of staffing at this point but they could issues permits or designate 10 spaces to employees. Keeney: Stated the point is to get to a point of not using any on-street parking for this business and he wanted to make sure we move in that direction so parking problems don't continue into the future.Added he didn't want to increase the parking by 32 stalls and still have overwhelming on-street parking. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY THOMPSON TO STRIKE CONDITION M RELATED TO EMPLOYEE ON STREET PARKING AND REPLACE WITH A MINIMUM OF 10 DESIGNATED OFF-STREET EMPLOYEE PARKING STALLS SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE PROJECT SITE. 02 23 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 8 VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye E E E E E Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS/COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS 11A. Executive Session—Conduct a Closed Session to Discuss with Legal Counsel the Welcome Avenue Special Assessment Litigation Hedberg: Recessed the meeting at 9:13 p.m.to Executive Session. Reconvened the meeting at 9:44 p.m.Stated Council provided direction to the City Attorney for negotiations on Welcome Avenue appeals. McGuire: Commented that Councilor Keeney suggested a team be established to continue the Welcome Avenue appeals negotiations and that he would support establishment of a negotiation team for this matter. ADJOURNMENT With no further business brought before the Council, a motion to adjourn was made by MCGUIRE, seconded by KEENEY. The motion carried and the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. V"'q— — Frank ity Manager 02 23 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 9