Docstoc

CITY OF SAUK RAPIDS - Download as DOC

Document Sample
CITY OF SAUK RAPIDS - Download as DOC Powered By Docstoc
					                               REGULAR MEETING
                         SAUK RAPIDS CITY COUNCIL
                    City Hall Council Chambers, 115 2 nd Ave N.
                               Monday, May 9, 2005
                                      7:00 PM
                                    MINUTES

7:00 PM

1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Campbell called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00pm. Members present: Kurt
Hunstiger, Marilyn Patterson, Art Daniels, and Don Pappenfus. Others present: Ross
Olson, City Administrator, Igor Lenzner, Rinke-Noonan, Terry Wotzka, SEH, Todd
Schultz, Community Development Director, Roger Schotl, Public Works Director, and
Leah Meyer, Administrative Assistant.

2. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
Councilperson Hunstiger asked to add Preemptive Light Changers for Emergency
Vehicles, as Other Staff Items 12A. Todd Schultz asked to add JP’s Grill and Bar
Advertising as Consent Item 10M. He also requested to pull item 5A, Planning
Commission Minutes, from the agenda for clarification from the Planning Commission.
Roger Schotl requested to add Change Order for Ground Water Tower as Regular Item
11F. Igor Lenzner requested to add DIM Timeline Discussion as Other Staff Items 12B.

3. Approve the Agenda

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Patterson and seconded by Councilperson Hunstiger
to approve the agenda with changes and additions. Motion carried unanimously.

4. Approve Minutes
   A. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 25, 2005

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Daniels and seconded by Councilperson Patterson to
approve the Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 25, 2005 with changes.
Motion carried unanimously.

   B. Special City Council Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2005

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Hunstiger and seconded by Councilperson Patterson
to approve the Special City Council Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2005. Motion carried
unanimously.

5. Receive and File
   A. Regular Planning Commission Minutes of April 4, 2005
PULLED OFF THE AGENDA

6. Mayor’s Communications
None



5-9-05
7. Audience Items/Visitors
   Total Time Limit 10 Minutes for Items NOT on the Agenda
None

8. Employee Service Awards Presentation
   A. Melissa Milner – 5 Years
Not present.
   B. Robert Weyer – 5 Years
Present to accept award.
   C. Steve Brown – 10 Years
Not present.

Mayor Campbell thanked the staff for their service and stated he would present the
awards in person to those employees not able to attend the meeting.

9. Public Hearings (7:05 PM or As Soon Thereafter)
    A. Applicant                                Purpose
         Opportunity Manor, Inc.                To consider giving host approval to the
                                                issuance by the City of Sartell of
                                                commercial facility revenue obligations in
                                                one or more series, under MN Statutes,
                                                Section 469.152 through 469.1651 (the
                                                “Act”), in order to finance the cost of a
                                                project located in the City.
                                                       1. Continue Public Hearing
Ross Olson stated the Public Hearing was continued from the April 11 th City Council
Meeting at the request of the applicant due to their inaccuracy in the public notification.
The issue was remedied and the correct posting published. A letter submitted by Briggs
and Morgan stated that Opportunity Manor, Inc. (Opportunity) has asked the City of
Sartell, Minnesota, to issue a tax-exempt Note on Opportunity’s behalf to finance the
acquisition and construction of an office facility and to refinance outstanding debt used to
finance the acquisition of three 4-bed facilities located in St. Cloud and Sauk Rapids used
by Opportunity to serve persons with developmental disabilities. The Note issued on
Opportunity’s behalf would not exceed $1,900,000. To accomplish this purpose, federal
law requires that before a borrower like Opportunity can spend tax-exempt bond proceeds
on a project, the governing body of each municipality in which the project is located must
hold a Public Hearing and approve the use of tax-exempt bonds in the municipality.
Because Opportunity would like to use Note proceeds at its facilities located at 120 16 th
Street Court., Sauk Rapids, Opportunity is asking the Sauk Rapids City Council to hold a
Public Hearing. Jim Christianson, Opportunity Manor, was present for questions.
Councilperson Patterson asked if the facility in Sauk Rapids was an existing facility. Jim
Christianson stated it is an existing facility. Councilperson Patterson stated that St. Cloud
has been removed from the Joint Agreement since the Public Hearing in April. Jim
Christianson stated that is because they have since approved their portion of the project.
There would now be 2 Joint Agreements: 1 between Sartell and St. Cloud, and 1 between
Sartell and Sauk Rapids.




5-9-05                                       2
                                                    2. Close Public Hearing

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Hunstiger and seconded by Councilperson Daniels to
close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

                                                 3. Consider Action
Igor Lenzner stated that Mike Noonan, Rinke-Noonan, reviewed the documents and they
appear to be in order.

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Patterson and seconded by Councilperson Pappenfus
to approve the Resolution giving host approval to the issuance of a commercial facility
revenue note for a project by Opportunity Manor, Inc. located in Sauk Rapids, MN, under
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.1651 and authorizing execution of a
Joint Powers Agreement. Motion carried unanimously.

   B. Applicant                             Purpose
      Sauk Rapids Softball Assoc.           To consider a request for an On-Sale 3.2
                                            Beer License for the Sauk Rapids Softball
                                            Association, located at 1 st Street South
                                            and 10th Avenue South for the months of
                                            May through October 2005 at a prorated
                                            fee.
                                                   1. Open Public Hearing
Ross Olson stated the Sauk Rapids Softball Association is requesting the renewal of their
3.2 Beer License for the 2005 summer season. Staff has performed the basic background
checks and they have come back clear. Staff is recommending approval of the 3.2 Beer
License for the Sauk Rapids Softball Association.

                                                    2. Close Public Hearing

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Daniels and seconded by Councilperson Patterson to
close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

                                                    3. Consider Action

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Daniels and seconded by Councilperson Hunstiger to
approve and authorize an On-Sale 3.2 Beer License for the Sauk Rapids Softball
Association.

Discussion: Councilperson Patterson stated the Purpose of the Hearing states “at a
prorated fee”. Leah Meyer stated that is an error. Following research it was discovered
that the Softball Association’s fee was to be according to the Fee Schedule beginning in
2005.

Motion carried unanimously.




5-9-05                                      3
   C. Applicant                                 Purpose
      Mike Kloss                                Request for rezoning to C-1 from R-1.
                                                Request for a variance from the parking
                                                requirements, and Site Plan Approval
                                                        1. Continue Public Hearing
Todd Schultz stated the Public Hearing was continued from the April 26 th Special City
Council meeting. Since that meeting, the Planning Commission has reconsidered the
matter and has made the following recommendation: To approve the Site Plan and to
allow a PUD overlay of the existing R-1 that would allow office uses as defined in our C-
1 district, primary and secondary schools accredited by the State Department of
Education, and Day Nurseries and Nursery Schools, and a variance from the 32 required
parking stalls to 30 on the condition that the basement could not be occupied without the
applicant coming back to the City for a future Site Plan approval (because of Building
Code restrictions the basement can not be used without an elevator which the applicant
does not intend to install at this time). This is the property that was recently granted a
Minor Subdivision with the following conditions: That the subdivision for Tract A only
be valid with a Site Plan, rezoning, and variance approval for the conversion of the
building which lies on Lots 10-12, Block 9, of the Town of Sauk Rapids, and that a deed
restriction be attached to Tract A that would attach it to Lots 10-12, Block 9, of the Town
of Sauk Rapids also stating that the lot can only be used for parking, not development.
The Council action requested is to approve the Site Plan and to allow a PUD overlay of
the existing R-1 that would allow office uses as defined in our C-1 district, primary and
secondary schools accredited by the State Department of Education, and Day Nurseries
and Nursery Schools, and a variance from the 32 required parking stalls to 30 on the
condition that the basement could not be occupied without the applicant coming back to
the City for a future Site Plan approval, and on the condition that a deed restriction be
placed on the parcel described as Tract A, forever attaching it to Tract B. Councilperson
Patterson asked if the language would cover the possible school usage the Council was
advised of at the last Public Hearing. Todd Schultz stated yes, that the language was
taken directly from our Ordinance. Councilperson Patterson asked if there was an
elevator to connect the 1 st and 2 nd floors. Todd Schultz stated no. Councilperson
Patterson asked why one is needed between the basement and the 1 st floor, but not for
between the 1st and 2nd floors. Todd Schultz stated he did not know, but the Building
Inspector advised him that the basement could not be used without an elevator.
Councilperson Patterson asked if there was concern with sign requirements of the R-1
district. Todd Schultz stated that R-1 signs are limited to 8 square feet without a
variance. Councilperson Patterson asked if the PUD overlay is forever of if the applicant
could request it be removed. Todd Schultz stated the applicant could ask for a
modification to the PUD or add uses if the City feels they are appropriate. Igor Lenzner
stated it could also be rezoned. Councilperson Patterson asked how the taxes would be
affected in regards to the R-1 zoning. Todd Schultz stated that taxes are based on use,
not zoning. Councilperson Patterson stated that a neighbor at the last Public Hearing
expressed desire for some type of landscaping as a buffer, but not fencing. Todd Schultz
stated the Council could add landscaping as a condition if they desired. Councilperson
Pappenfus asked if the basement could be used as a recreational room in case of
inclement weather. Todd Schultz stated no, storage is the only allowable use for the
basement. Councilperson Hunstiger stated the applicant stated he has no interest in use
of the basement at this time, though a possible tenant may have interest in the future.
Mike Kloss, applicant, stated that the signage restrictions could be an issue. He does not


5-9-05                                       4
have a definite sign plan at this time, but envisions a sign similar to that across from
Benton Station, approximately 4 feet wide by 6-8 feet tall with the name of the building
and of the tenants. He stated there is an existing sign in the yard that is larger than the 8
square feet. Todd Schultz stated that since the neighborhood is predominantly residential
he advises that the Site Plan remain as is and the applicant come to the Council in the
future for a sign variance when a sign plan is in place.

                                                       2. Close Public Hearing

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Hunstiger and seconded by Councilperson Daniels to
close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

                                                         3. Consider Action
Councilperson Patterson discussed language to add landscaping as a condition.
Councilperson Hunstiger asked the applicant if he had a landscaping plan. Mike Kloss
stated that landscaping was proposed with the daycare potentially becoming a tenant to
divide the play area off. If the daycare does not get State approval they will not become a
tenant and landscaping would not be an issue. Mayor Campbell stated he does not
believe it to be strictly a daycare issue, but a buffer issue at the request of the neighbor to
the north.

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Patterson and seconded by Mayor Campbell to
approve the Site Plan and to allow a PUD overlay of the existing R-1 that would allow
office uses as defined in our C-1 district, primary and secondary schools accredited by
the State Department of Education, and Day Nurseries and Nursery Schools, and a
variance from the 32 required parking stalls to 30 on the condition that the basement
could not be occupied without the applicant coming back to the City for future Site Plan
approval, that a deed restriction be placed on the parcel described as Tract A, forever
attaching it to Tract B, that a landscaping plan be prepared and brought before the
Council before the PUD be valid, and that a sign plan be brought before the Council if
and when needed.

Discussion: Ross Olson asked for clarification if the PUD would not be valid until a
landscaping plan was submitted to the Council, regardless of the daycare becoming a
tenant. Mayor Campbell stated that was correct, the purpose is to be a buffer for the
neighbor to the north. Ross Olson questioned if the applicant would need to come back
to Council with a sign plan only if the sign was larger than the 8 square feet allowed by
Ordinance. Councilperson Patterson stated her intention of that portion of the motion
was to remind the applicant that if he needs a sign larger than allowed by Ordinance he
would need to come back to the Council for a variance.

Motion carried with 4 yes votes (Patterson, Campbell, Hunstiger, and Pappenfus)
and 1 no vote (Daniels).

   D. Applicant                                Purpose
      Homestead                                Villages of Creekside-Pre Plat
                                               Amendment
                                                      1. Open Public Hearing



5-9-05                                         5
Todd Schultz stated the applicant has changed their Preliminary Plat in this manner:
Block 7 has been changed to single-family residential from Bay Homes. In addition,
Omega Place has been realigned so it impacts less wetland than on the approved
Preliminary Plat. This reduces the number of lots in Block 7 from 22 to 11. The PUD
Agreement will be modified to not allow any deviations in lot size or setbacks for these
lots. The County has not approved the road to the development; Lot 43 of Block 3 is
proposed to become a Community Center with a swimming pool rather than a single-
family home; The private road between the patio homes and townhomes has been
widened to 33 feet from 25 feet because the developer wants to accommodate street
parking. The City previously imposed no parking on the narrower road due to emergency
access concerns. There are no further concerns by staff for parking on the widened road.
In addition, another approach with breakaway barriers has been added to the west end of
the townhomes to accommodate the Fire Chief’s concerns; The 5 foot wetland buffer is to
be shown on the plan for all lots adjacent to the wetlands; and the Outlot for the lift
station has been made larger at the request of the City Engineer. The plat should only be
approved on the condition that the drainage and utility easements be subject to final
design. Staff has no issues with the application. Councilperson Patterson asked if we
could see the Preliminary Plat again if the County does not approve the road. Todd
Schultz stated yes. Councilperson Patterson asked how drainage would occur on the
wetland island and if rain gardens were still proposed. Terry Wotzka stated the intent is
to still do the rain gardens. There may be an issue in regards to access to the rain gardens
in the event that maintenance is not kept up by the association. Article 9 obligates the
association to the maintenance of the rain gardens. Councilperson Patterson asked if the
rain gardens would be in the front of the lots. Terry Wotzka stated final design has not
been done, but they are thinking of placing a rain garden in the center of the cul-de-sac
and placing the remainder of them on the outside perimeter in the back of the lots. James
Schmitz, applicant, stated the County was not going to give them mitigation if they did
not move the road. He can save 6,000 square feet of mitigation so they volunteered to
move the road. Their Mitigation Hearing is scheduled for May 10 th at 10:00am.

                                                      2. Close Public Hearing

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Pappenfus and seconded by Councilperson Patterson
to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

                                                      3. Consider Action

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Hunstiger and seconded by Councilperson Daniels to
approve by Resolution the Amendment to the Preliminary Plat and PUD Amendment as
proposed on the condition that the drainage and utility easements be subject to final
design, that the cul-de-sac have a 15 foot right-of-way, that all of the drainage and utility
easements have a 20 foot maintenance easement, and that the 5 foot wetland buffer be
shown on the plat for the lots adjacent to the wetlands. Approval includes authorizing
staff to make the necessary changes to the Developers Agreement and PUD Agreement to
accommodate this request.

Discussion: Councilperson Patterson stated she will be voting no for the motion because
she still believes that the wetland island should be made into park land and because
Benton County has not given their approval for the road to the development.


5-9-05                                        6
Motion carried with 4 yes votes (Hunstiger, Pappenfus, Campbell, and Daniels) and
1 no vote (Patterson).

10. Consent Agenda
    A. Approve and Adopt Resolution Approving the Application to Conduct
       Gambling for the Church of the Sacred Heart
    B. Approve and Authorize Temporary Non-Intoxicating (3.2 Beer) Liquor
       License for Sacred Heart Church
    C. Approve Plumbing Contractor License
    D. Award the 2005 Sealcoating Bids
    E. Approve Special Event Permit for JP’s Grill and Bar for a Breast Cancer
       Fundraising Event June 4, 2005
    F. Approve and Authorize Agreement for Police Services for a Breast Cancer
       Fundraising Event to be held at JP’s Grill and Bar on June 4, 2005
    G. Approve Minnesota Lawful Gambling Application for The Lions Club of
       Sauk Rapids for August 3-7, 2005
    H. Approve Councilperson Patterson’s Appointment to the Regional Task Force
       Developed to Look at the Possible Creation of a Regional Human Rights
       Office
    I. Approve Councilperson Daniels as our Representative to the Area Planning
       Organization (APO) Executive Board
    J. Approve and Adopt Resolution Amending Phase 1 ROW Agreement with
       MNDOT
    K. Approve the Purchase of Parcel 47 – Fire Station Location
    L. Approve Bridge Property Lease Rates
    M. Approve JP’s Grill and Bar Advertising
Councilperson Patterson requested to pull item 10E for discussion. Mayor Campbell
requested to pull item 10I for discussion.

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Patterson and seconded by Councilperson Hunstiger
to approve Consent Items A-D, F-H, and J-M. Motion carried unanimously with
Councilperson Daniels abstaining.

10E.    Approve Special Event Permit for JP’s Grill and Bar for a Breast Cancer
        Fundraising Event June 4, 2005
Councilperson Patterson stated she pulled the item to discuss the proposed fencing for the
event. Proposed is a 4 foot orange snow fence. In her experience, if not installed
properly that type of fence will fall down and become a tripping hazard. She talked to
Ross Olson and Curt Gullickson today. Curt Gullickson believes the fence issue needs to
be addressed to prohibit minors from accessing the area. She proposed the idea of a
fence within a fence (2 snow fences with a few feet in between them) to prohibit the
handing of alcohol over the fence and making access more difficult. She would like a
condition added to the motion that the fencing also be installed to the satisfaction of the
Police Chief. Mayor Campbell stated that Bubba’s also has an outdoor event and in the
past has used 6-8 foot chain link fencing. He suggests JP’s have higher fencing than the 4
feet proposed. Ross Olson stated that he talked to Curt Gullickson and he stated the
owner of JP’s is willing to accommodate the Police Chief’s requests. Mayor Campbell
stated he prefers a 6 foot fence, preferably chain link. Councilperson Daniels stated he


5-9-05                                      7
does not believe they make a 6 foot snow fence, so the fence would have to be of chain or
steel. He also agrees that the fencing should be 6 feet in height and of a sturdy material.

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Daniels and seconded by Councilperson Pappenfus to
approve and authorize the Special Event Permit in conjunction with the current On-Sale
Intoxicating Liquor License for JP’s Bar and Grill for June 4, 2005 with fencing to be a
minimum of 6 feet in height, metal or steel, and to the satisfaction of the Police Chief.
Motion carried unanimously.

10I.   Approve Councilperson Daniels as our Representative to the Area Planning
       Organization (APO) Executive Board
Mayor Campbell stated the request is to approve the replacement of Mayor Mark
Campbell as our City representative to the APO Executive Board with Councilperson Art
Daniels. He is making the request because as a single parent, and based on the number of
night meetings before the Council, he needs to reserve parenting time. The APO
meetings are on Tuesday nights, which is one of his parenting nights. He made the
personal decision to place his children above the APO. Councilperson Daniels has
attended all of the APO meetings in his place since he took office in January. He
believes it is appropriate for someone to be there to represent the City and be a permanent
member.

Motion: Moved by Mayor Campbell and seconded by Councilperson Patterson to
approve the replacement of Mayor Mark Campbell as our City representative to the APO
Executive Board with Councilperson Art Daniels. Motion carried unanimously.

11. Regular Agenda
    A. ISD 47 – Site Plan Approval (Pleasantview)
Todd Schultz stated that City Ordinance requires that any construction on school property
get City Council approval after a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
According to the applicant, this building will be located more than 100 feet from any
property line. The Public Works Director asked the question: “will the building be steel
siding and roof, or vinyl and shingles?” The answer at the Planning Commission meeting
was steel, to match the other buildings on site. Staff has no issues with the request.
Councilperson Patterson stated she hopes the existing tree at the site will remain. Don
Benoit, Sauk Rapids School District, stated the tree is safe.

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Patterson and seconded by Councilperson Hunstiger
to approve the construction of a storage shed for Pleasantview School. Motion carried
unanimously.

    B. City of Sauk Rapids - Mayhew Creek Park
Todd Schultz stated that the Joint Powers Board and the City of Sauk Rapids Park Board
are proposing a building to be constructed at Mayhew Creek Park to be used for storage,
future bathrooms, and a concession stand. Because this building would be located on
City park property, it requires the approval of the City Council upon recommendation of
the Planning Commission. There are no setback requirements for this district. In
addition to the building, the Joint Powers Board and Park Board would also like to
construct a parking lot that would be placed in the location of the future tennis courts.
They are proposing that this parking lot be constructed with Class II, but the Ordinance


5-9-05                                       8
requires that all parking lots be on asphalt surfaces, so this will require a variance. In
addition, the Ordinance requires that when more than 30 yards of fill is deposited or
removed, a CUP must be obtained. In this case they are proposing to move 2200 cubic
yards of material. Due to the size of this parking lot, the City Engineer is concerned that
it may require a holding pond. The Public Works Director is concerned that the Class II
parking lot won’t meet ADA requirements. Staff recommends tabling the parking lot
component of the application until staff has more answers for the Planning Commission.
However, the Council can consider the Site Plan for the building itself. Staff has no
concerns with the Site Plan. He spoke with Councilperson Patterson who mentioned that
the same issue was on the agenda in November of 2004 and there was a comment from
the Fire Inspector at that time regarding concern in regards to the length of the access
road to the building and future fire hydrants. Fire Code states that roads have to be
installed to get emergency equipment within 150 feet of the building. In talking with
Roger Schotl, his recollection is that the applicant talked to the Fire Chief at the time,
Bruce Trushenski, and he stated he was comfortable with the proposal with the
understanding that when the concession stand was opened those conditions would have to
be met. Tim Schueller, Fire Chief, stated he is comfortable with the recommendation of
the previous Fire Chief. Councilperson Patterson asked if it would be appropriate to
approve only Phase 1 of the Site Plan as Phase 2 is the concession stand. Todd Schultz
stated they could approve the item in that manner, or as is with the condition that the
concession stand not be used or opened until the concerns of the Fire Chief are met.
Councilperson Patterson stated there was discussion of moving the Phase 1 doors. Don
Benoit, Sauk Rapids Schools, stated they did consider moving the doors to the east and
the west of the building however changed their mind after the engineer raised concerns of
rain runoff. The doors will remain to the north and south of the building. Councilperson
Daniels asked where the funds would come from. Mayor Campbell stated the School.

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Patterson and seconded by Councilperson Daniels to
approve the Site Plan on the condition that Phase 2 not be constructed until all concerns
of the Fire Chief in regards to access have been met.

Discussion: Mayor Campbell asked when the project would begin. Don Benoit stated
July or August of 2005.

Motion carried unanimously.

     C. Homestead Final Plat Approval
Todd Schultz stated the plat will contain 49 single-family homes, 24 bay homes, 10 patio
homes, and 1 community center. The requirement for the 5 foot wetland buffer to be
noted on the plat was added to the Amendment to the Preliminary Plat and will need to
be added to the Final Plat as well. Street names will also need to be changed per Kirk
Abraham, Public Works. Staff is requesting approval of the Final Plat of Villages of
Creekside and the Developers Agreement with attachments on the condition that the
agreements are executed, that the drainage and utility easements be subject to final
design, street names be changed per Public Works, and the 5 foot wetland buffer be noted
on the plat. Igor Lenzner stated there are blanks in the documents that still need to be
filled in. Most of the information is identification information and will be inserted
properly when the documents are executed. The developer has requested a change in the
Park Dedication Fee portion of the Developers Agreement. What is currently in the


5-9-05                                       9
document is that the developer will pay Park Dedication Fees for the entire development
in exchange for having the fees locked in at today’s rates. Since they are doing the
development in phases, they would like to have the fee reduced if the development
density is reduced. He is concerned that there would be the potential for the City to pay
money back to the developer. If the Council is inclined to approve the request he advises
they do so with an expiration date. The developer also has concerns regarding the lift
station that they are going to pay for and install. The lift station will service more than
their development. The agreement states that the developer will pay for the lift station
and when it is completed the City will sign a revenue note to pay them back through a lift
station service fee imposed on those serviced by the station. They would like to have that
agreement separate from the Developers Agreement for bank loan purposes. He does not
see that as an unreasonable request. The developer is also concerned with the 20 year
reimbursement limit. They ask that the City look at the possible service area and adjust
the fee based on what they anticipate the actual future service area will be. If that is not
possible, they would like the time limit extended to make sure they are reimbursed for
their expenses. Jack Kahlhamer, Finance Director, has stood very firm on not extending
the 20 year limit. Councilperson Patterson asked if the City ever reimbursed a developer
for Park Dedication Fees. Igor Lenzner stated he does not recall ever reimbursing a
developer. Councilperson Hunstiger stated other plats have changed, but he does not
recall the City reimbursing fees. Todd Schultz stated that Church Hill East’s plat was
reduced by 1 or 2 units and no credit was given for that reduction. James Schmitz,
applicant, stated that if their mitigation gets turned down there would be 22 homes that he
would have paid Park Dedication Fees for which would not be built. The R-3 apartment
will not be at Final Plat until next summer. They do not want to pay for more units if
they are only able to get 40 in the complex. Councilperson Patterson stated the wetland
mitigation questions would be answered soon so she is inclined to suggest tabling of the
matter. She is concerned that so much information is unknown and the Agreements are
not completed. Igor Lenzner stated an option is to pull the R-3 zoning out of the
prepayment and have the developer pay those fees when it comes in at the rates at that
time. In regards to the blanks in the documents, most of them are not controversial
issues. In regards to the lift station, the engineer identified the area the lift station would
serve when developed. We do not, however, know how fast that area will develop. Terry
Wotzka stated he has no way to predict how fast any area will develop. Councilperson
Hunstiger asked how to deal with the note questions. Igor Lenzner corrected his earlier
statement that the note is for 15 years, not 20. The concern of the Finance Director is a
long term obligation, and the developer is concerned that they will not be fully
reimbursed for their costs. Todd Schultz stated Jack Kahlhamer’s position is for the
language to remain as is and if needed, the developer can come back to the Council in the
future for modification to the agreement. Igor Lenzner stated he did not believe the
agreement could be modified after the fact without making the appropriate findings.
Mayor Campbell asked if it was possible to restrict the note by a term other than years.
Igor Lenzner stated yes. They could say that if a certain percentage of the amount was
not paid by the 15 year limit that the term continues another 5 years. Mike Dougherty,
lawyer for the applicant, stated they would like to continue to work with staff on the best
solution for the note reimbursement. There is no risk to the City at all as they have no
obligation to pay anything other than what is received by those who hook up to the
station. Igor Lenzner stated the developer is willing to come back to the Council at the
next meeting to resolve the issue. Councilperson Patterson stated the maintenance
agreement notes an approved landscaping plan and asked if that is something that needs


5-9-05                                        10
to be presented to the Council. Todd Schultz stated that was an error and should be
stricken. Councilperson Patterson asked if the developer would maintain the trail to the
north, as the current language in the maintenance agreement states that “all trails” are to
be maintained by the developer. Todd Schultz stated the intent of staff is that the north
trail not be maintained by the association. Councilperson Patterson stated there is a
blank space on the second page of Exhibit H-2, the Limited Revenue Note, which seems
to make reference to payment sources and needs to be addressed. She also stated that
Exhibit H-1 is not clear if it relates to City cost versus the entire cost of infrastructure
improvements. Igor Lenzner stated he would confirm that and make sure there is a
reference that the definitions from the PUD Agreement apply to the revenue note and
trunk fee. Councilperson Patterson asked if the wetland markers were to be placed on the
buffer or delineation lines. Todd Schultz stated the intent is for them to be placed outside
of the buffer.

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Hunstiger and seconded by Councilperson Daniels to
approve the Final Plat of Villages of Creekside and the Developers Agreement with
attachments on the conditions that the agreements are executed, the drainage and utility
easements be subject to final design, authorizing SEH to prepare Plans and
Specifications, the Park Dedication Fees relating to the R-3 portion of the plat be paid at
the time of Final Plat at the rate in effect at that time, the lift station revenue note be a
free standing document with the developer’s continued work with Staff to identify the
service area and timeframe for the revenue note, the streets be renamed with approval by
Public Works, the 5 foot wetland buffer be noted on the plat, the association documents
provide easement to the City for rain garden and drainage maintenance, the discussion
relating to the approved landscape plan be stricken from the agreement, the Maintenance
Agreement be modified to note that the association will not maintain the northerly trail,
the recommendation that there be no parking on Oracle Place be added to the
association documents, the blank in the agreement relating to the Revenue Note be filled
in, the monument be placed on the buffer boundary of the wetland, and that the PUD
Agreement and H-1 document tie together with definitions from one tying to the other.
Motion carried with 4 yes votes (Hunstiger, Daniels, Pappenfus, and Campbell) and 1 no
vote (Patterson).

    D. Plans and Specifications for the Fire Station Improvements
Todd Lavold stated they are requesting final approval for the plans and specifications for
the Fire Station. They have included the following deduct items for the base bid: epoxy
flooring, landscaping, fitness room, artwork, planter wall, ceramic tile in restrooms, and
additional small vehicle bay. The estimate for the entire package minus functional
replacement is $2.46 million. That amount is over what the City authorized, so they may
need to modify the plan utilizing deduct items which they have identified worth
$350,000. Councilperson Patterson asked for details for the 3 rd small vehicle bay. Todd
Lavold stated the purpose for the 3rd bay would be to house a future ambulance, Fire
Inspector’s vehicle, and Fire Chief’s vehicle. Councilperson Patterson questioned the
fitness room as a deduct item as the employee use of the fitness room would serve the
community and possibly cut down on future health care costs for City staff. She advised
the east elevation on the plans did not seem correct. Todd Lavold stated they have
updated the elevation since the packets were prepared. Councilperson Patterson asked if
drainage had been addressed and if holding ponds were needed. Terry Wotzka stated that
they are adding less than 1 acre of impervious surface, so by general rule they are not


5-9-05                                       11
required to add ponding. They are, however, adding some ponding in the form of 2 catch
basins to the sides of the vehicle bays. They are also allowing for emergency overflow to
go on top of the catch basins before going into the building. The storm sewer discharge
will go to the grassy swale at 5th Street. They have also looked at providing an area that
might catch some of the larger grit through the catch basins. Councilperson Patterson
asked if instead of solely daylilies in the landscaping plan they could look at native
flowers to incorporate with them. Todd Lavold stated maintenance was one of the key
reasons they chose daylilies. They would certainly look at other plants if desired. Mayor
Campbell asked what the proposed entry system for the station was. Todd Lavold stated
they are looking at access cards similar to what is used at the Public Works Building with
5 access points, 1 that would be used for the fitness room exclusively. Terry Wotzka
stated they received notice from MNDOT last week that because the station is being built
using Federal and State money they will need to build according to prevailing wages.
Brad Forbrook feels that this requirement will not be a problem since the contractor that
provided SEH with the facility cost estimates is a prevailing wage general contractor.
Ross Olson stated there was concern by the Fire Fighters of the windows in the hose
tower due to potential damage to windows. Todd Lavold stated that has been an ongoing
issue and they believe they have found compromise with providing a smaller opening.
Councilperson Patterson stated that she hopes they will be able to incorporate all aspects
of the plans, but if utilizing deducts is necessary she hopes the Council will be well
educated as to the needs of the items in order to make accurate decisions. Todd Lavold
stated that after bids they will prepare that information for the Council and submit it prior
to the City Council meeting.

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Patterson and seconded by Mayor Campbell to
approve the plans and specifications for the Fire Station improvements with the east
elevation updated in the plans and the consideration to incorporate other native perennials
to the landscaping plan.

Discussion: Councilperson Hunstiger asked if the motion was the appropriate place to
address the landscaping. Councilperson Patterson stated she is merely requesting they
look at other possibilities and since landscaping is part of the plans and specifications she
feels it appropriate. Councilperson Daniels stated he did not know why they need to
address the landscaping until they find out what the station itself is going to cost. He
questioned why they would spend the extra $50,000-$200,000 for something that they
won’t technically be using. He believes they should worry about the building first, then
the landscaping. Councilperson Patterson stated the landscaping is a deduct item and
could be taken off if needed, but since the area is residential she thinks they should try to
do screening and make the area look nice.

Motion carried unanimously.

    E. Life Cycle Housing Recommendation from the Planning Commission
Todd Schultz stated that at the April 11 th City Council meeting, the Council considered a
recommendation by the Planning Commission relating to Life Cycle Housing (LCH).
The City Council tabled action on the recommendation until after the LCH Board made a
recommendation to the member cities after their quarterly meeting held on April 28 th.
The Council LCH representatives are Marilyn Patterson and Don Pappenfus. They have
met and are recommending that the City Council table action on the Planning


5-9-05                                       12
Commission recommendation and item 1, the Housing Study, of the LCH Board
recommendation until the May 23 rd City Council meeting. Item 2B of the LCH Board
recommendation addresses holding a joint meeting between the Planning Commission
and the City Council to discuss possible amendments to the LCH agreement. The
Council representatives believe it would be beneficial to hold a joint meeting to discuss
the LCH program in general, the amendments, our City’s position on lot size, PUDs, and
other possible ways to provide for LCH through options such as townhomes and patio
homes which seem to be playing a bigger role in the housing market today than they were
just a couple of years ago. If this meeting is held, the Council representatives
recommend inviting other representatives of the housing industry in the St. Cloud area,
such as the builders and the Central MN Housing Partnership, to offer a broad-based
perspective. The intent would be to hold the joint meeting the week of May 16 th.
Therefore, the Council action requested is to table action until May 23 rd on the Planning
Commission recommendation and item 1 of the LCH Board recommendation in order to
hold a joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission as
recommended by the LCH Board during the week of May 16 th. Councilperson Patterson
stated she believes the LCH Board made a concrete plan and recommendation. They do
not deny that there are issues and are proposing a housing study and possible
amendments to address them. She hopes we can put our frustrations aside and work
together as a region to find a solution. The LCH agreement is relatively new and it is
difficult to judge if it is effective after only 2 years. She believes the recommendation
Councilperson Pappenfus and herself made to the Council is fair. Councilperson
Hunstiger asked why we should hold a joint meeting with the Planning Commission
when they already made a recommendation to the Council. There are already 79 LCH
lots in our city; 5x more than what the entire area created. Councilperson Patterson stated
there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. The issue is that it is important to
decide if it is valuable to create LCH lots, separate from the gap financing issues. She
thinks the Council and Planning Commission need to discuss other ways to do LCH. She
believes the joint meeting could be an educational experience, as well as an opportunity
for everyone to air concerns. Councilperson Hunstiger asked why we should continue to
create the LCH lots when only 15 have been used in the entire area. Councilperson
Patterson stated the 15 were all that were available at the time. The LCH Board received
a report from the Central MN Housing Partnership which stated there is a potential pool
of 79 buyers with an additional 12 buyers stating they are ready to buy for
spring/summer 2005. We need to address supply and demand. Mayor Campbell stated
the issue with LCH is the lack of gap financing. He questioned why there is the LCH
program when the real guide is the market. Councilperson Patterson stated that is one of
the questions in front of the Council; if there is value creating homes at less than market
value. The current price point is $149,900. Part of a good planning perspective is to
have a variety of housing and price points in a community. Councilperson Daniels stated
the Council has to admit that the LCH program is not working. Lenders claim that if a
person can qualify for a LCH home they can qualify for any home. The current bylaws
are going to have to be changed in order for the program to work. He is no longer in
support of LCH and believes the Planning Commission has also “seen the light”. Mayor
Campbell asked for Jane DeAustin’s position. Jane DeAustin, CMBA, stated they
support affordable LCH for the St. Cloud area communities. She has not seen the
recommendation made by the LCH Board so she does not have a formal position on that,
but CMBA does support LCH. Councilperson Patterson stated the joint meeting could
help address the questions and concerns of the Planning Commission and Council. She


5-9-05                                      13
does not believe we should throw away an agreement without looking at all available
options. Mayor Campbell said the RFA states the joint meeting would occur the week of
May 16th and asked for a specific date and time. Todd Schultz stated the proposal would
be to meet any time that week. Staff would arrange the meeting. Mayor Campbell stated
that to get 12 people together with 1 week notice would be a challenge. Councilperson
Pappenfus stated he reviewed the subject of LCH from 2000 and the questions the
Council is asking now are the same questions the Council at that time was asking. There
is something wrong with that and the issue needs to be resolved. Councilperson
Hunstiger stated he supports the Planning Commission recommendation. There is no
reason to continue creating LCH lots when the numbers to support them are not there.

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Hunstiger and seconded by Councilperson Daniels to
suspend participation in the Life Cycle Housing program and agreement, and to not
participate in the Life Cycle Housing study, until the concerns and questions of the
Council have been addressed.

Discussion: Igor Lenzner asked if the intent of the motion was to suspend the approval of
LCH lots and/or to participate on the LCH Board. Councilperson Hunstiger stated they
would still participate on the Board, but would not create any more LCH lots.
Councilperson Patterson stated she is concerned that the motion constitutes withdrawal
from the agreement as there is no definite end date. The agreement states that a member
must give a 120 day notice to the board and other members if they are going to
withdrawal. Igor Lenzner stated the agreement does state that, however he does not
believe withdrawal is being proposed. Suspension of the creation of LCH lots at the City
level would not be a violation of the agreement, but a signal to the Board that you are
suspending the creation of the lots and you will either like the results of the study and
recommence or will eventually terminate the program. The agreement also states that a
city is not at fault if they fail to meet their annual commitment due to lack of financing.
Councilperson Patterson stated that if the Council wants the issues to be resolved they
should participate in the study. Councilperson Hunstiger stated a housing study was done
2-3 years ago and the same questions were never answered. Councilperson Patterson
stated it is imperative to update studies because things change. We should not rely on
other cities to fund the study so we can make our decisions. Mayor Campbell stated he
has struggled with LCH and its concept from the beginning. He understands both sides
of the argument, and is now at the point where he can extend his support for LCH, but he
is not sure how much longer he will be able to. There needs to be a point when the
Council says the issues will be resolved. He is also confused by the request for the joint
meeting. He is not sure that some want to be educated and there are others that are very
firm in their stance. He does not see the need for the meeting when no new information
will be available at that time.

Motion failed with 2 yes votes (Hunstiger and Daniels), 2 no votes (Patterson and
Campbell), and 1 abstention (Pappenfus).

Discussion: Councilperson Patterson stated the joint meeting was proposed so everyone
could get around the same table for discussion. She believes we should support the
housing study and agrees the issues need to be resolved as soon as possible. Mayor
Campbell asked if there were any more plats beyond those already in the process coming
to the City between now and July. Todd Schultz stated he was not aware of any.


5-9-05                                      14
Motion: Moved by Councilperson Patterson and seconded by Mayor Campbell to table
action on the Planning Commission recommendation, participate in the LCH study, to
arrange a meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council after the housing
study results are received for discussion, and to have a final decision on the City’s
participation in the LCH program by October 31, 2005.

Discussion: Councilperson Hunstiger asked if that included the City paying a portion of
the housing study. Councilperson Patterson stated yes. Councilperson Hunstiger stated
he would not then be able to support the motion.

Motion carried with 3 yes votes (Campbell, Patterson, and Pappenfus) and 2 no
votes (Hunstiger and Daniels).

   F. Change Order for Ground Water Tower
Roger Schotl stated they have run into unforeseen problems with the restoration of the
ground water tank. The cost of repair would not exceed $4,750.

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Daniels and seconded by Councilperson Patterson to
approve the Change Order for the ground water tower.

Discussion: Ross Olson noted that the Change Order also allows for the addition of 3
days to the work schedule.

Motion carried unanimously.

12. Other Staff Items
    A. Preemptive Light Changers for Emergency Vehicles
Councilperson Hunstiger stated that he would like to see Staff and the Fire Department
research the possibility for preemptive light changers for the fire vehicles. Mayor
Campbell stated he would like to see the recommendation as soon as possible.
Councilperson Hunstiger stated he would like the recommendation at the next City
Council meeting if possible. Tim Schueller stated that Matt, City Mechanic, did some
research and got a price estimate from Opticon of approximately $750 per unit. They
have 8 vehicles and would not ask for all at one time. Perhaps they could get half this
year and half within the next couple of years. He also talked to Roger Schotl and a few
years ago MTC Bus Service had a grant for the light changers and they may still have a
couple left that we could pursue. Mayor Campbell stated he has seen MTC’s and theirs
do not change the lights, but extend them or change them faster. They do not turn them
to green as the City is looking for. Councilperson Daniels stated the City definitely needs
them. Mayor Campbell asked if they were currently in the police vehicles. Roger Schotl
stated no, that Curt Gullickson has not been in support of them due to safety concerns.
Mayor Campbell stated the federal grant program did make all of the lights in the City
ready for this type of use. He is 100% in support of the light changers and would also
like to see them installed in the police vehicles in the near future. Ross Olson stated he
talked with Jack Kahlhamer, Finance Director, and he has ideas for potential funding
opportunities and will be able to present those with the recommendation at the next City
Council meeting.



5-9-05                                      15
    B. DIM Timeline Discussion
Igor Lenzner stated he has presented the DIM relocation sites to 3 business owners and
has had 2 of them respond in a negative manner. He would like to give the business
owners a time frame of 30-60 days to respond to the DIM proposal. He would like
direction from the Council if this is something he has the ability to do or if they believe
the item should be placed on the next City Council agenda for consideration.
Councilperson Patterson stated she agrees with the deadline, but also believes it is a
serious issue and should be brought back to the Council for approval. Igor Lenzner stated
he would have the item on the next City Council agenda. He would also like to have the
deadline in order to give the businesses a timeline of what is expected of them.
Councilperson Hunstiger stated a deadline is necessary because the City is on a project
timeline.

13. Other Council Items and Communications
None

14. Approve List of Bills and Claims

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Patterson and seconded by Councilperson Pappenfus
to approve the list of bills and claims. Motion carried unanimously.

15. Adjournment

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Patterson and seconded by Councilperson Pappenfus
to adjourn the Regular Meeting. Motion carried unanimously.

Mayor Campbell adjourned the meeting at 10:00pm.


Respectfully Submitted,



Leah Meyer
Administrative Assistant




5-9-05                                      16

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:32
posted:4/22/2010
language:English
pages:16