Docstoc

CITY OF SAUK RAPIDS

Document Sample
CITY OF SAUK RAPIDS Powered By Docstoc
					                                   REGULAR MEETING
                             SAUK RAPIDS CITY COUNCIL
                        City Hall Council Chambers, 115 2 nd Ave N.
                                      Monday, March 24, 2008
                                            7:00PM
                                           MINUTES


7:00 PM

1.     Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:00. Members present: Marilyn Patterson, Brad
Gunderson, Paul Weber, Dave Saunders. Others present: Ross Olson, City Administrator, Todd Schultz,
Community Development Director, Roger Schotl, Public Works Director, Curt Gullickson, Police Chief,
Igor Lenzner, City Attorney.

2.      Additions or Changes to the Agenda
Ross Olson noted that regular agenda items 10A and 10B in the Council Packets have been flip flopped
and so he requested that the Council maintain the agenda items as they are listed on the agenda. Roger
Schotl requested to pull item 10B. Todd Schultz added a site map to agenda item 9B, which was placed
on the dais prior to the start of the meeting. Terry Wotzka requested to add Flood Map as agenda item
11B.

3.     Approve the Agenda
Motion: Moved by Councilperson Patterson and seconded by Councilperson Weber to approve the
agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously.

4.   Approve Minutes
None

5.     Receive and File
       A. Advisory Park Board Regular Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2007.

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Weber and seconded by Councilperson Gunderson to receive and file
the Sauk Rapids Advisory Park Board Regular meeting minutes of December 19, 2007. Motion carried
unanimously.

         B. Advisory Park Board Special Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2008.
Motion: Moved by Councilperson Patterson and seconded by Councilperson Gunderson to receive and
file the Sauk Rapids Advisory Park Board Special Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2008. Motion carried
unanimously.

 6.   Mayor’s Communications
 None

 7.    Audience Items/Visitors

3-24-08                                                                                         Page 1
        Total Time Limit 10 Minutes for Items NOT on the Agenda
Henry Oehrlein, 3425 Golden Spike Road, was upset and confused as to why he was told that business is
needed in Sauk Rapids for a tax base. Oehrlein stated that a while back the city entered into an orderly
annexation agreement with Minden Township. Oerhlein had received a letter from the City to cease
doing business. Oerhlein noted that he had talked to Todd Schultz about the letter. Oerhlein stated that in
a conversation with Todd Schultz he asked if he could buy property in the Industrial Park and was told
to take his business somewhere else. Oerhlein was upset with this statement and said that all businesses
big and small should be welcome. Oerhlein mentioned that at a previous City Council meeting he had
attended he asked what type of “Big Box Store” was coming to Sauk Rapids, and no one on the council
could answer his question, and he had accepted this response. Oerhlein went on to say that at that same
meeting about the railroad a city official told Oerhlein he was spreading rumors that there was a Wal-
Mart coming.

Mayor Campbell addressed Oerhlein’s remark and reminded Oerhlein that at the meeting in question he
asked Oerhlein if he was recruiting a Wal-Mart.

Oerhlein responded by saying that Mayor Campbell may have been making his comment to another
couple but was pointing at Oerhlein when he said it. Oerhlein stated that he did not appreciate people
spreading rumors about him.

Mayor Campbell thanked Oerhlein for his input and stated that he will address this issue with Todd
Schultz. Mayor Campbell told Oerhlein he was willing to discuss this issue further in a one to one
manner. Oerhlein declined the Mayor’s offer.

Todd Schultz stated that he had a conversation with Oerhlein two or more years ago regarding activity
taking place on his land for which he had not been granted a permit. Schultz noted that Oerhlein was
given three options at that time; to discontinue the activity, move the business to a more appropriate
location, or that he could go to the Joint Planning Board to change the code. Schultz stated that Oerhlein
chose the third option and that they accommodated the request and created an avenue for him to apply
for a permit which he has done and has received.

Oerhlein accused Schultz of not telling him the truth when he talked to him earlier and told him that
there was not a space in the industrial district for his business. Oerhlein noted that he is now working
with the Orderly Annexation Area and is content with doing this.

Mayor Campbell questioned Oerhlein if he had been in violation of operation in the eyes of the
government entities. Oerhlein responded in saying no because when he went to Foley he was told he
could operate his business off of his farm. Mayor Campbell asked if Oerhlein’s farm was zoned
agricultural at that time. Oerhlein stated that all but two acres of his farm are zoned agricultural and the
two remaining acres are zoned commercial. Mayor Campbell advised Oerhlein that his area has not been
annexed, but that there is a joint agreement between Minden Township and the City of Sauk Rapids.
Mayor Campbell advised Oerhlein that the City Council does not oversee the governing of the area
being discussed and that it is instead the Joint Planning Board, which is made up of members of both the
City and Township. Oerhlein stated that he had received a letter from Todd Schultz at City Hall.




3-24-08                                                                                              Page 2
Ross Olson stated that if Oerhlein felt he had been misguided or misrepresented by staff that he is
welcome to meet with Olson. Oerhlein responded in saying that he just wanted to see that everyone be
treated equally and fairly.

Robert Dumont, 601 River Av S, addressed the council as to whether or not the Broadway crossing was
on the agenda. Mayor Campbell advised that this item is on the agenda as item 10C, but Mayor
Campbell wanted to make it clear that at this time it is not open for public input. Mayor Campbell stated
that in order for the issue in question to become a public hearing item the council or a majority of the
council would have to agree to allow for public input. Dumont questioned the reasoning behind this
process. Mayor Campbell noted that this is how the Broadway crossing item was presented on the
agenda and therefore it was not publicized as a public meeting. Mayor Campbell noted that public
hearings are advertised as public hearings and that there is a set of rules, Robert’s Rules of Order, that
govern how the Council meetings are set up and conducted. Mayor Campbell apologized to Dumont if
he thought that there was going to be a public hearing regarding Broadway at tonight’s meeting.


8.      Public Hearings
     A. Applicant                                      Purpose
        City of Sauk Rapids                            To Consider an Amendment to Section 10.12B,
                                                       the C-3, Highway Commercial District
                                                       Architectural Standards with the City of Sauk
                                                       Rapids.
                                                              1. Open Public Hearing
Todd Schultz stated that the Planning Commission recently directed staff to visit some other Highway
Commercial areas that have been constructed recently and take pictures of the types of construction and
architecture that was being used for the purpose of developing architectural design standards for the C-3
Highway Commercial District. The existing C-3 district requires accents that are of a higher
architectural design standard but there is not language about how many accents are required or what the
rest of the structure can be constructed of. Schultz noted that the Planning Committee is advising that all
buildings would be made of the same material: stucco, stone (natural or artificial), brick, EIFS, glass, or
any combination thereof, or a decorative material approved by the City Council, Schultz stated that all
buildings would be required to have full footings and foundations. Schultz is asking the Council to adopt
the architectural design standards ordinance and summary of publication.

Michelle Johnson, 2078 45th St NE, requested that this item be tabled. Johnson stated that two weeks
ago there was discussion on forming a subcommittee to discuss this issue. She felt that it was important
that Minden Township and the orderly annexation group along with the City have some consistency in
regards to the commercial district. Johnson noted that Schultz approved of this plan when Mayor
Campbell discussed having a subcommittee formed. Johnson stated that she would like to see that the
orderly annexation board takes another look at their C-3 district and that the boards work together for
consistency and better government.

Robert Dumont, 601 River Av S, stated that he did not understand some of the language of architectural
standards and had thoughts for landscaping for that area and wondered if this was the appropriate venue
for that. Schultz advised that Dumont contact him with comments or suggestions that relate to
landscaping or other portions of that code. Schultz could then bring the comments and suggestions to the

3-24-08                                                                                             Page 3
Planning Commission. Schultz noted that this agenda item relates to just architectural standards. If the
council wanted to consider addressing landscaping issues this public hearing would not be adequate, and
it would have to go back to the Planning Commission for recommendations and be re-advertised.

Brent Jacobs, 2520 Ocarina Dr, stated that when the quarry project changed to the C-3 district the
residents were told that the architectural standards was basically for the protection of the residents living
nearby. Jacobs wanted the Council to consider putting square footage restrictions on retail stores in Sauk
Rapids to protect the neighborhoods and the downtown area.

Mayor Campbell asked Jacobs if he was requesting to limit the size of a commercial development in the
City of Sauk Rapids. Jacobs answered yes. Mayor Campbell asked Jacobs what he thought a suggested
size would be. Jacobs thought that the standard size of larger retail stores should be greater than 90,000
square feet. Jacobs stated that what was proposed in his neighborhood is 219,000 square feet. Jacobs
noted that his intention was not to shoot down the idea of retail stores in Sauk Rapids, but Jacobs wants
the City to keep in mind all the elements that come along with a store of that size. Jacobs concluded in
saying that he is just asking the council to put a cap on the size of what could be put into the C-3
District.

Mayor Campbell asked Schultz if what Michelle Johnson was questioning had been brought before the
Planning Commission. Todd Schultz said that part of the concern Michelle brought to the council
meeting was about 2 different C-3 districts, one in the Joint Planning Area and one in the city. As
articulated to the council they are both only C-3 in the sense that at the time they were created 3 was the
next district in that jurisdiction. He did not believe that it was the intent that they be the same C-3 or that
the goal of the zoning district would be the same. Schultz stated that the recommendation was made by
the Planning Committee, and the public hearing had already been advertised for tonight, and this course
of action already occurred prior to Johnson addressing the City Council. Schultz concluded in saying
that there has been no discussion at the Planning Commission level since the City Council meeting in
which Johnson was present.

Michelle Johnson addressed the Council and stated that she feels this is an important issue which
impacts businesses in the area. Johnson noted that at this point some businesses have considered pulling
out of the area, which could hurt the tax base. She concluded by saying that she feels it is important that
the City meet with the township to work together to quickly resolve this issue.

Councilperson Patterson raised the question as to how this agenda item relates to the Quarry
Development Project. She noted that it would be wise to include the Quarry Development in the
changes. Councilperson Patterson asked Schultz where things are at with the Quarry Development
project. Schultz stated that the Developer has applied for their preliminary plat approval and this
proposed change will not impact them. However, if there are any site plan changes made by the
Developer they will then be affected by the code change. At this time the current site plan falls under the
existing code and is not relevant to the new language. Councilperson Patterson said that she does not
want to see the City lose the opportunity to impact what these Developers do, and so she would like to
see staff work to get this issue resolved as quickly as possible.

 Mayor Campbell agreed with Councilperson Patterson that this issue needs to be resolved sooner rather
than later.

3-24-08                                                                                                 Page 4
                                                            2. Close Public Hearing

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Gunderson and seconded by Councilperson Saunders to close the
Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

                                                             3. Consider Action
Motion: Moved by Mayor Campbell and seconded by Councilperson Saunders to continue the public
hearing on this item until the meeting that will be held on April 28 . Motion carried unanimously.


   B. Applicant                                      Purpose
      City of Sauk Rapids                            To Consider an Amendment to Section 10.16, the
                                                     Sign Ordinance Code within the City of Sauk
                                                     Rapids
                                                              1. Open Public Hearing
Todd Schultz stated that the Sign Committee has been working on an amendment to nearly the entire
section of the City’s Sign Ordinance Code. Schultz stated that there were some specific items that he
wanted to make the Council aware of when it came to the proposed sign ordinance. He reviewed for the
Council a list of seven items that he wanted to make the Council aware of. The seven items were:
1. The Sign Committee has recommended that the D-1 standards be extended to the C-2 District.
2. This code adds significant language about electronic signs, which the code defines as “Dynamic
Display.” The draft code allows this type of signage in the C-1, C-2, C-3, and the D-1 Districts, and also
on conforming Billboards. It does not allow them as wall signage, but only as monument signage.
3. This code creates an Ordinance for the C-3 District. This language is based on language from
Minnetonka. And is intended to allow for signage that would be appropriate for Highway Commercial
Development. It does not allow for pylon signs, but instead allows for some large monument signs if the
sign is within 250’ of Highway 10.
4. This code does not regulate the number of colors that can be displayed on a Dynamic Sign.
5. Concerning the brightness language within the code, you will notice that it is uit subjective, but in
discussions with the League of Minnesota Attorney’s, it seems like it would be problematic to have
language that is more specific.
6. One of the items that catches the attention of many people that review this code, is tht Dynamic
Display signs are not allowed to transition more often than one time per minute, except for time and
temperature messages. This is based on the a study done by the League of Minnesota Cities,
Minnetonka, and SRF Consultants. This study describes the Zeigarnik effect, a psychological need to
see a task through to its end. In the case of dynamic signs, a driver’s desire to read an entire message
before it changes or to complete a scrolling message has been shown to negatively impact driver’
tendencies to maintain a constant speed or remain in a lane. To address these issues, many cities have
been imposed minimum duratiosn for messages. Minnetonka requires signs to be displayed for 20
minutes before it can transition. The Plannning Commission after much debate, settled on 1 minute for
the minimum time that each message must be displayed. This would equate to 1440 transitions in a 24
hour period.
7. One concern that has been brought up has been the impact that this sign code would have on existing
electronic reader boards in the community. The new code requires the image or message that is
displayed to be complete and it cannot be continued to the next display. One solution to this could be to

3-24-08                                                                                            Page 5
add the language: Reader board type Dynamic Display signs that are capable of written messages, but
not images that legally exist as of the date of this ordinance may continue to the following extent: The
messages displayed do not need to be complete in themselves, and may continue in content to the next
message
                                                               2. Close Public Hearing
Motion: Moved by Councilperson Gunderson and seconded by Councilperson Saunders to close the
Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

                                                              3. Consider Action
Councilperson Weber was concerned initially that this sign ordinance may be too restrictive. He was
particularly concerned with the Coborn’s sign in that Coborn’s will often use their sign to advertise
community events and functions. Councilperson Weber questioned whether or not Coborn’s and others
in the community with existing signs would be grandfathered in. Todd Schultz stated that this proposed
ordinance would apply to anyone having a sign that meets the definition of a Reader Board sign, which
he believes would include Coborn’s, the VFW, and the Legion. Councilperson Weber asked a few more
questions relating to the different types of signs and how the code relates and restricts these signs.
Schultz explained the differences in signs and how the proposed code affected the different types of
signs. Councilperson Weber asked Chief Gullickson if he was aware of the Police Department ever
having to issue a ticket due to a case of sensory overload with the flashing lights of the Reader Board
type signs. Chief Gullickson answered no in response to the question.

Councilperson Patterson questioned an item in the C-3 District that does not address what the size of the
actual sign may be. Todd Schultz said that the intent of the table in Subdivision 12 is to cover the size,
the height, and the graphic size of the sign. He further explained the size requirements for free standing
signs. Councilperson Patterson questioned why for the building wall signs there was a table that went
with a limited tenant building and not a table for a multi tenant building. Schultz said that there was a
text description of size requirements for the multi tenant building and the table is only pertinent to the
limited tenant building. Another question that Councilperson Patterson had was regarding the size of
signs as it relates to hotel signs. Schultz said that for this particular sign the size of the monument is not
covered. He agreed that it may be wise to add a size requirement in this area. Councilperson Patterson
suggested that in the wall signs portion it may make sense to identify the particular districts being
referred to. Schultz said that he would add the R1 and R2 districts to the code for this section.
Councilperson Patterson stated that she was concerned with the one minute per sign stipulation included
within the code in that she would have liked to see the time requirement extended longer than one
minute.

Mayor Campbell questioned if the City monitors or controls human signs, for example the Quiznos or
Domino’s signs displayed by humans at stop lights or street corners. Schultz said that he does not
believe that the proposed code covers human signs. Schultz noted that much of the language in the
proposed code was mimicked after the City of Minnetonka. Mayor Campbell stated that he just wanted
to make mention of this item but agreed this could be looked into at a later date. Schultz stated that he
would bring the human sign topic up at the next Planning Commission meeting.

Mayor Campbell noted that 75-80% of the information on the Coborn’s sign is used for community
advertising.



3-24-08                                                                                                Page 6
Councilperson Weber asked that Schultz look into the rotating signs as well and bring the issue back to
the Planning Commission, if needed.

Councilperson Patterson pointed out that if the group being put together to look at architectural
standards in the C-3 district was to look at doing a store size cap the sign ordinance as it relates to
monument size would need to be reexamined because it would no longer be pertinent.

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Weber and seconded by Councilperson Saunders to approve
amended ordinance 10.16 the Sign Ordinance Code within the City of Sauk Rapids with the noted
changes as presented by Todd Schultz and providing further instruction to Schultz to look into rotating
and human signs.

Discussion:

Councilperson Patterson stated that because the one minute requirement for display signs still exists in
the ordinance she will be voting against it. Mayor Campbell questioned what Councilperson Patterson
would have liked the time frame to be. Councilperson Patterson stated that the language in the Request
For Action (RFA) stated that the text /graphics could go as long as twenty minutes and so she felt there
was a lot of room for discussion when it came to this topic. She felt that five to ten minutes would have
been nice, but she feels that one minute is too short.

Councilperson Gunderson noted that he would have liked to see the time frame be thirty seconds and in
his opinion one minute is too long.

Motion carried with 4 yes votes (Weber, Saunders, Gunderson, and Campbell) and one no vote
(Patterson).

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Weber and seconded by Councilperson Saunders to approve the
Summary of Publication. Motion carried with 4 yes votes (Weber, Saunders, Gunderson, and Campbell)
and one no vote (Patterson).


   C. Applicant                                      Purpose
      City of Sauk Rapids                            To consider an Amendment to Section 10.03, the
                                                     Non-Conforming Uses and Structures Ordinance
                                                     Code within the City of Sauk Rapids.
                                                            1. Open Public Hearing
Todd Schultz advised the council that there is a moratorium in place for non conforming signs which
expires tomorrow. The Council adopted this moratorium because the existing code did not provide much
detail with what could be done to a non-conforming sign. The Planning Commission recommended
replacing the existing non conforming language in this section of the code with the language in the
proposed code. The language is essentially the same but the new language encompasses more and covers
the topic of non-conforming and conforming signs. The new language would solidify and clarify that
any non-conforming sign that underwent any substantial changes would need to meet City Code. Todd
Schultz stated that it was the recommendation of the Planning Commission to adopt the ordinance and
approve the summary of publication of the ordinance.

3-24-08                                                                                                   Page 7
                                                     2. Close Public Hearing
Motion: Moved by Councilperson Weber and seconded by Councilperson Gunderson to close the public
hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

                                                                3. Consider Action
Councilperson Patterson questioned why on page 3, part E, if the replacement, reconstruction or
restoration of a legal non-conforming land use is allowed it requires a conditional use permit but in F on
this same page the replacement, reconstruction, or restoration of a legal non-conforming development is
allowed it only requires a site plan. Schultz stated that one is site specific where the other is specific to
buildings. Councilperson Patterson pointed out spelling and grammatical errors found in the document
on page 4 and 5.

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Patterson and seconded by Councilperson Weber to approve the
ordinance amending section 10.03, the non-conforming uses and structures ordinance code within the
City of Sauk Rapids with the noted changes to pages 4 and 5. Motion carried unanimously.

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Weber and seconded by Councilperson Gunderson to approve the
summary of publication. Motion carried unanimously.

   D. Applicant                                       Purpose
        City of Sauk Rapids                           To Consider Amendments to Sections 10.02,
                                                      10.07, 10.08, 10.09, 10.10, 10.12, 10.12A, 10.12B,
                                                      and 10.13 of the City of Sauk Rapids Ordinance
                                                      Code Allowing Hoop/Tubular Framed Buildings
                                                      In the City of Sauk Rapids.

                                                              1. Open Public Hearing

Todd Shultz noted that the Planning Commission has been working on new language for Hoop/Tubular
frame buildings for approximately 14-18 months. The structural engineering language has been removed
all together from the proposed code. Schultz went over the different districts that would allow
Hoop/Tubular Frame buildings. Schultz said that he had received a call from Fairview Gardens
regarding the code for the C-2 District. Fairview Gardens is zoned ½ C-2 and ½ Agricultural-1. Schultz
noted that existing structures would be grandfathered in, but if a Hoop/Tubular building was added or an
existing building was expanded under the new code, the owners would have to apply for a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) along with a site plan.

Bob Coborn, representing Fairview Gardens, expressed some concerns that Fairview Gardens had
relating to the changes made in the code for the C-2 district. Coborn noted that he did not have a
problem with the concept of the City regulating hoop membrane structures, but he did have concerns
when it came to Section 10.12 Commercial District, C-2 Subdivision 3 which discusses uses by CUP.
Coborn stated that Fairview Gardens has about 8 membrane or Hoop/Tubular structures and some have
been replaced with permanent structures. He noted that there was a specific code for this which falls
under uniform building codes. Coborn continued to say that all of Fairview’s structures are already
reviewed by various bodies and have been to the Planning Commission and the City Council for site

3-24-08                                                                                               Page 8
plan review. He noted that his concern is one of attaching an additional restriction on to the use of
buildings by saying that Hoop/Tubular membrane structures are now required to go through the process
of a CUP when, as staff has pointed out, the structures are currently reviewed by site plan review under
the same Ordinance the City looks to for any other commercial building in site plan review. Coborn felt
that the addition of a CUP is overbearing when the C-2 classification is being used for the purposes of
nursery or horticulture. Coborn stated that he talked to his lawyer not for legal dispute reasons but for
information on ordinances. He requested that the council draw their attention to the letter provided from
his legal team regarding section 10.02. Coborn suggested that the City possibly insert Hoop/Tubular
buildings as a permanent or temporary structure in the first section of 10.02 because he felt that the
ordinance should address these two different types of structures. Coborn suggested another modification
to section 10.12. He would like to see clarification added as to what a temporary structure is under
permitted accessory uses in the proposed ordinance. He requested that the Council consider the
suggested changes or modifications and reconsider the proposed ordinance that would require a
business, like Fairview Gardens, to be exposed to a CUP.

Mayor Campbell addressed Igor Lenzner in saying that the suggested changes or recommendations
being made by Mr. Coborn are more than minor changes, and so he was assuming that if these changes
were considered they would need to be viewed in more detail before legal would advise any action to be
taken. Igor Lenzner said that the question for the Council is whether or not they are interested in
addressing existing horticultural operations and providing them with these exemptions. If the Council is
willing to review the suggested language then it should be brought back to the Planning Commission. If
not, then it is not necessary.

Councilperson Patterson stated that earlier this evening the Council had discussed architectural standards
noting that if someone had a question or concern about landscaping standards that it had to wait for
another time because the council was not dealing with this issue at the time. She noted that the public
hearing is specifically to deal with changes to Hoop/Tubular language and the suggested changes made
by Mr. Coborn also address other buildings such as private conservatories, which were not advertised in
the public hearing but was listed on the document presented by Coborn. Todd Schultz agreed that if the
council takes action on this item he would prefer to take any proposed changes regarding private
conservatories back to the Planning Commission for review.

Councilperson Patterson stated that she was struggling with why the Council would exempt existing
businesses when it comes to the CUP but would require new businesses to go through the process with
those business owners likely having the same feelings regarding the CUP.

Coborn stated that Fairview Gardens will already be going through the Site Plan review process and so
he did not feel it pertinent to go through the CUP process again, which he feels is for specialized
conditions.

Schutlz said that the site plan process is essentially an administrative process and conditions are
typically not applied to the site plan where the conditional use permit can allow for conditions to be
placed depending on circumstances.

Mayor Campbell questioned if the recommendations made by Coborn’s legal team had been brought to
the Planning Commission. Schultz said that this document had not been brought before the Planning

3-24-08                                                                                             Page 9
Commission. Coborn said that if given the chance, Fairview Gardens would appreciate the opportunity
to discuss this issue with the Planning Commission.

Mayor Campbell requested that Joe Foster, Planning Commission Chair, come to the podium. Joe Foster
said that any new conditions being considered should go back to the Planning Commission.

Councilperson Patterson stated that she does not support singling out one particular business and making
that business exempt to changes while requiring all other businesses to adhere to the new policy. She
said that she had no problem with current wording of the proposed ordinance. The only item that
Councilperson Patterson would like to see possibly added is some additional information as to what
direction the CUP might look at with regards to a Hoop/Tubular Building.

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

                                                            3. Consider Action
Motion: Moved by Mayor Campbell and seconded by Councilperson Gunderson to table this agenda
item until it goes back to the Planning Commission for review and that it be brought back before the
Council on April 14.

Discussion: Mayor Campbell asked if this motion would allow enough time to advertise for the public
hearing to bring back the R1, R2, and R3 Districts as they relate to proposed changes concerning the
private conservatories. Todd Schultz questioned whether or not the tabling of the public hearing would
still be valid considering that the public hearing had been closed. Mayor Campbell noted that this public
hearing would be minus Districts R1, R2, and R3 that deal with private conservatories. Schultz replied
that the R1, R2, and R3 districts would be re-advertised as a separate public hearing. Legal noted that
this plan would be fine.

Motion carried unanimously.

9. Consent Agenda
   A. Approve and Authorize Resolution Approving Temporary 3.2 Beer License for the Rapids
      River Food Fest.
   B. Approve the Trinity Lutheran Church Expansion Site Plan (2163 Mayhew Lake Rd NE)
      and Developer’s Agreement Modification
   C. Approve Plumbing Contractor License 2008-26
   D. Approve Employee Life Insurance Increase
   E. Approve Bid for Playground Equipment Purchase for the Fairgrounds
   F. Approve Modification to Chief of Police Job Description
   G. Authorize Posting of Chief of Police Position.

Councilperson Weber requested to pull item 9F.

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Patterson and seconded by Councilperson Gunderson to approve
consent agenda items A-E and G. Motion carried unanimously.

3-24-08                                                                                          Page 10
9F. Approve Modification to Chief of Police Job Description
Councilperson Weber stated that his concern is that in reading the job description for the Chief of Police
he feels that the requirement of 10 years of supervisory experience and educational background is too
restrictive. Councilperson Weber noted that the current description would eliminate the possibility of
any current staff applying for the position. Ross Olson stated that he believed that with the proposed job
description there is not any current staff that would qualify. Councilperson Weber felt that the City
should look within, and current staff should be given the opportunity to apply. Councilperson Weber
said he feels that the City is a small community and he would like to see the City hire from within
whenever possible.

Ross Olson said that the HAY group has reviewed this job description and provided a pay grade based
on the job description, and any changes to the analysis would have to be brought back to the HAY group
for review. He also noted that if the Council chose to go internally first there would have to be an
exception made to the current personnel policy which requires the City to post internally and externally
at the same time for non-bargaining unit positions.

Councilperson Patterson stated that as part of the Personnel and Finance Committee, it was not her
intent to exclude people. She feels that when examining job descriptions it is important to attempt to
attract the most qualified person for the position and also to look at what is going on in the industry
today. Councilperson Patterson noted that in today’s industry many Police Officers have a B.A. degree,
and so she did not feel that the requirement was being too restrictive, and she also felt that the ten years
of supervisory experience was appropriate.

Mayor Campbell said that as the other half of the Personnel and Finance Committee he also wa nted to
note that he was in agreement with the proposed job description. He stated that the current Police Chief
was hired under the same requirements and so the changes that have been made to the proposed job
description are minor. Mayor Campbell said that any changes to the job description would jeopardize the
timelines approved in 9G.

Motion: Moved by Mayor Campbell and seconded by Councilperson Patterson to approve
modifications to the Chief of Police job description. Motion carried with 4 yes votes (Campbell,
Saunders, Gunderson and Patterson) and 1 no vote (Weber).

10. Regular Agenda
    A. DSU Riverfront Parks Presentation
Jeff Martin, DSU Bonestroo, presented the work he had done with the Riverfront Planning Group over
the last few months. He presented several concept designs that were created with the goals in mind of;
expressing the river, local granite, the river setting, the rapids, park elements, natural settings and
passive areas to enjoy the river setting. He proceeded with a visual presentation of photos of the
waterfront along with explanations of the designs.

Mayor Campbell addressed Councilperson Patterson in regards to who was on the Riverfront Planning
Committee. Councilperson Patterson replied that the group consisted of approximately 6-8 members,
which included herself, some members of the Park Board, and residents. Mayor Campbell stated that the



3-24-08                                                                                             Page 11
meetings were advertised and an open house was held. Martin noted that he met with the Riverfront
Planning Committee at least five times during this process.

Councilperson Patterson had a question relating to the Request For Action (RFA). She asked why the
turnaround/ roundabouts were not included in Phase 1. Martin replied this is something that still has to
be defined and some treatment had to be narrowed down. Councilperson Patterson talked about a
proposed 2nd building in Phase 2. She said that with the City now keeping the old Checkers building she
felt that the additional building topic may need to be looked at as to whether or not it is still needed as
well as what the old Checkers building can be used for. Martin stated that the old Checkers building is
another thing that will need to be flushed out in the next phase.

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Weber and seconded by Councilperson Patterson to approve DSU to
continue with the design development, construction documents, and the bid packages that will be
reviewed by Public Works and sent out for bids when completed.

Discussion:
Ross Olson asked Jeff Martin whether or not he would anticipate that the final designs would be brought
back to the council for approval. Martin stated that the final designs would be brought back to the
council for approval.

Amended Motion: Moved by Councilperson Weber and seconded by Councilperson Patterson to
approve DSU to continue with the design development, construction documents, and the bid packages
that will be reviewed by Public Works with the final design brought back to council for final approval
and sent out for bids when completed. Motion carried unanimously.

   B. Disc Golf Course at Mayhew Creek Park – Pulled

    C. Closure of South Broadway
Ross Olson read the background description from the RFA. As part of the Railroad Quiet Zone Project,
the Council approved the closure of South Broadway at the January 28 meeting. On March 17, a public
meeting was held at City Hall to address questions and concerns pertaining to the City’s decision to
close this railroad crossing. This item was placed on the agenda as an opportunity to discuss the
comments shared by the public. If the Council decides to change or modify the current decision, Legal
will assist the Council as to the appropriate process.

Mayor Campbell advised that this agenda item was not advertised as a Public Hearing. He noted that the
City Council has the right to suspend the rules to allow for public input. Mayor Campbell wanted this
item back on the agenda so that the council could discuss this item further. He stated that if no further
action takes place at tonight’s meeting the original decision to close Broadway will stand. The Council
can elect to change this decision, but there is no requirement to do so.

Ross Olson recalled a concern that was discussed in regards to Emergency response time. There were
representatives from the Police and Fire Departments speaking on behalf of their departments at the
public meeting. Residents were concerned with how long it would take for emergency response vehicles
to get to the neighborhoods in question in the event that 1 st St. S. would become an emergency access
crossing only. Olson said that there was also concern with traffic load and what would happen with

3-24-08                                                                                           Page 12
Broadway being closed and the closure of 1 st St. S. as a result of the bridge project. Olson noted a letter
that the Council had received from Robert Dumont, which legal has had the opportunity to review and
speak on if requested. The letter speaks of an agreement contract that the City and Stearns County ha s
with Burlington Northern Santa Fe. Olson stated that there was also concerns regarding pedestrian safety
at the South Broadway crossing and at the 2 nd Ave. crossing in regards to the distance that pedestrians
would have to walk in order to gain safe access.

Mayor Campbell asked Mr. Lenzner to discuss the letter that was sent regarding who has the final say of
what crossing stays open or closes. Mayor Campbell said that the law by itself would seem to indicate
that the decision would fall on the Commissioner of Transportation.

Mr. Lenzner could not speak to the letter regarding who has the final say in terms of the closures
because it is not relevant to the situation. He noted that he would be speaking on the agreement that is in
place. Lenzner stated that the City as part of the new bridge construction executed a contract with
Burlington Northern Santa Fe that required that the City close the existing crossing at 1st St. S. He stated
that from the beginning of all of this the City was attempting to get a pedestrian crossing into the park at
this location. The emergency and pedestrian crossing is somewhat of a renegotiation of the previous
contract, and it is not part of the dealing with the crossing as it relates to the Whistle Free Zone (WFZ).
The original agreement dealt with the bridge construction going over this particular crossing and is
separate from the WFZ. Lenzner stated that if the City were to reopen 1st St. S, the City would have to
repay the relocation funds associated with the bridge project which could be close to a million dollars.
The City spent an additional $800,000 to relocate the businesses as part of the bridge project, and so if
the City wanted to open 1 st St. S., the fee would end up being nearly two million dollars with the
relocation and price of purchase fees of the three businesses included. It is not a matter of the City
having a dispute with BNSF over which crossing to keep open or close for the establishment of a WFZ.
It is a matter of the negotiation that took place with BNSF for the new bridge that resulted in the closing
of 1st St. S crossing. The City wanted to open the old crossing for pedestrian usage, but there is no such
thing in the State of Minnesota that allows for a public pedestrian only crossing over a railroad without
including the vehicular or emergency vehicle usage as well. The WFZ and the closing of South
Broadway added a new wrinkle to the situation. Lenzner stated that keeping 1 st St. S. open involves
$400,000 in improvements. He wanted to make it clear that the City did not go to BNSF stating that the
City wanted a WFZ, and BNSF told the City to close the crossing or limit the crossing. This all was
instead part of a previous agreement that the City entered into with BNSF that related to the bridge
project.

Mayor Campbell provided follow up to Lenzner’s report by stating that the legal side of this issue is that
BNSF controls the space, and with the current contract that is in place, 1st St. S. is closed.

Terry Wotzka stated that there were comments regarding traffic made at the March 17 meeting, and he
would share that information with Council in regards to existing traffic counts and additional traffic
information. Mayor Campbell questioned if the numbers acquired from the traffic study were obtained
prior to the new bridge opening and if so whether or not these numbers are still accurate. Wotzka
advised the Council that the City had done its own traffic counts. In 2005, the City did a traffic count at
2nd Ave. where 3,600 cars represent the average daily traffic. Last June another traffic count took place
while construction was taking place. One question brought up at the public information meeting was
what it would mean to 2 nd Ave. if the 3,600 cars that presently use 2 nd Avenue and the traffic from

3-24-08                                                                                             Page 13
Broadway moved over to 2 nd Ave. as well, which would mean that approximately 5,000 cars would be
using 2nd Ave. Wotzka said that the acceptable level of traffic for 2 nd Ave. is approximately 10,000 cars
per day, so the road could handle the projected 5,000. He noted that the first memorandum presented at
the March 17 Public Meeting looked at what would happen if all Broadway Avenue traffic moved to 2 nd
Ave. In this scenario, the traffic would still operate at an acceptable level in the AM and PM. Wotzka
noted that a question was brought up as to whether or not a traffic study should be done at River Avenue
with the traffic coming off of 1 st St. S. It was decided that it was not appropriate to do this traffic study
due to the bridge construction. Wotzka noted that they mimicked the Broadway crossing information in
regards to River Avenue, which was referred to in Scenario 3-A, which showed the crossing operating at
a Level C which is acceptable for that intersection. A sensitivity analysis was done, which shows how
many vehicles it would take for the intersection to reach its capacity. Wotzka said that with the
additional modifications the analysis showed that the intersection could handle up to 3,000 more
vehicles and still be acceptable. He said that with adding the Broadway Avenue and River Avenue
traffic, the intersection with some modifications and the additions of geometric signals, could handle the
additional load. He noted that another item of discussion was the concern of the pedestrian crossing at
2nd Ave. He said that there is a need for improvements to this crossing, and he believes that this is the
appropriate place for pedestrians to cross safely. Wotzka said that if the Council would like, he could
have an expert in pedestrian traffic from the State come in and look at that intersection and make
suggestions for improvements.

Mayor Campbell noted that he had asked Terry Wotzka, Roger Schotl and Ross Olson to accompany
him and go over to the 2 nd Ave intersection last Friday. He said that he was confused with what buttons
to use at the intersection and found it very challenging to get across. Mayor Campbell felt that it was a
horrible pedestrian crossing and that a lot of work would need to be done to improve this crossing.

Roger Schotl advised that Public Works will continue to make improvements to this
intersection/crossing regardless of what happens with the Railroad Quiet Zone closures.

Councilperson Patterson raised a question to legal in regards to the issue of the renegotiations with
BNSF and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/Dot). She asked if anyone had discussed
with BNSF the option of keeping Broadway open and doing what the City wants to do at 1st St S. She
noted that the City essentially will be closing two crossings to vehicular traffic with the closing of South
Broadway, which would be in her opinion a worse situation than what was intended with the bridge
agreement. Councilperson Patterson asked whether or not BNSF would look at 1st St. S. being the only
crossing that would need to be closed as the City’s way of living up to their end of the agreement in
terms of the quiet zone requirements.

Igor Lenzner stated that Ross Olson originally negotiated with BNSF and so it would be more
appropriate for Olson to address Councilperson Patterson’s question. Ross Olson stated that BNSF
comments on trading 1 st St S. for S. Broadway came at the quiet zone site visits with the Railmaster and
the Regional Rail representative. During this meeting BNSF staff said that they were willing to trade 1st
St. S. for S. Broadway. Olson noted that in this trade BNSF would not have any restrictions on those
crossings. The restrictions are put in place by Mn/DOT. Olson said that from the perspective of BNSF it
could be one crossing or another as long as one crossing is closed. Olson said that the original agreement
could not be modified to keep both crossings open.



3-24-08                                                                                              Page 14
Councilperson Patterson reiterated her concern with the closing of two intersections. She stated that the
City should take another look at this situation with regards to the restrictions from Mn/DOT and go back
to the original idea of closing 1 st St. S. in the way determined by the bridge project. Councilperson
Patterson shared some items that she found insightful from the public meeting regarding this issue that
she felt the Council should consider:
     -Increase in trains as time goes on
     -Accidents at 9th St and 2 nd Ave S.
     -Pedestrians would rather cross at Broadway instead of 2 nd Ave S, which would need to be
   addressed.
     -What would happen if the railroad deemed 2 nd Ave S crossing as the next most dangerous
     crossing for train and car interaction? And what would we do about that in the future?
     -Pedestrian crossing at 1st St. S may only be used seasonally
     -What would happen to traffic if 2nd Ave. S is closed for repair?
     -Need to improve pedestrian crossing due to budget cuts at schools
     -Concerns about knocking down posts at 1 st St. S
     -Potential impact of property value going down because of the closures
     -What would happen if there was an accident in the Quiet Zone, would we lose our Quiet Zone?
     -What would happen if we closed Broadway temporarily to see what the effects of this closure
     would mean for the City on a permanent basis?
Councilperson Patterson stated that she shared the vision of having a pedestrian friendly crossing
downtown. She said that she is starting to wonder if the dream of having a pedestrian friendly crossing is
worth the nightmare that may be created as a result of the creation of this pedestrian crossing at 1st St. S.
Councilperson Patterson said that a pedestrian crossing may be possible in the future by looking at
redevelopment along the railroad and having access to the park with an overpass above the tracks.
Councilperson Patterson concluded by saying that she would like to look at the potential to keep
Broadway open. She said that if the Council’s decision is to close Broadway, it should be done as a
mock closure to see the impact before it is closed for good and cannot be reopened.

Mayor Campbell addressed some of the comments from Councilperson Patterson. He stated that there
has been no information from BNSF on whether or not train counts will increase. One other issue was
that on 1st St. S. there was a car count of 15-17 thousand cars crossing that intersection per day, which is
far more than the number of cars on 2 nd Street South. He wanted to point out that in regards to public
safety, the distance between 9th and Broadway is shorter when comparing the distance between 9th and
Broadway and the distance between 9th and 1st St. S. Mayor Campbell stated that if there was an
accident/derailment there is a greater chance the closure will be at Broadway and 9 th. Mayor Campbell
stated that he was not taking a stance and that he was not sure what to do in terms of whether or not
Broadway should remain open or be closed. He said that regardless of what decisions are made
regarding Broadway, he did not feel that should stop the City in terms of what needs to be done at
Fisher’s, 10th St, 2 nd St. S. and 9th St. S.with regards to the Quiet Zone. He said that the City needs to
proceed with Quiet Zone projects at the other intersections on the City’s north end regardless if
Broadway is open or closed.

Councilperson Weber questioned if the City pursues the Quiet Zone, and 2 nd Ave. later goes through the
supplemental safety measures and is revamped, whether or not that would affect the work that has
already been done. Terry Wotzka stated that there would need to be improvements done, but those
improvements would not affect the work on the Quiet Zone project.

3-24-08                                                                                             Page 15
Councilperson Patterson commented that she feels there may be a misconception out there in regards to
Broadway and the Quiet Zone project. She stated that Broadway does not need to close in order for the
City to establish a Quiet Zone. Councilperson Patterson said that she feels that the Council needs to
make a decision on whether or not to close Broadway very soon. She stated that it is her understanding
that there are contracts out there to close Broadway, and if so, now is the time for discussions in regards
to Broadway before any contracts are signed or any more time is spent on what might possibly be an
unnecessary contract. Councilperson Patterson wants to see that these discussions concerning Broadway
take place now before any further action is taken.

Mayor Campbell stated that at this time there are not any contracts out there to have Broadway closed,
but that currently is the direction the Council has taken. Mayor Campbell stated that he did not mean to
imply that Broadway would stop the Quiet Zone. He wanted to clarify that Broadway should not impact
the other four intersections for the purpose of establishing the Quiet Zone.

Councilperson Patterson stated that there has been a general point of confusion about Broadway having
to be closed in order for the City to establish a Quiet Zone. Mayor Campbell stated that either Broadway
has to be closed or a four quadrant gate system needs to be installed in order for the City to have a Quiet
Zone. Mayor Campbell said that it was his understanding that the City could have a partial Quiet Zone
where Broadway would stay how it is, and the train would blow at the one intersection. Ross Olson
advised that because of the proximity of the intersections, there would have to be a stationary horn at
Broadway for all three crossings to be a Quiet Zone.

Councilperson Gunderson stated that St. Cloud City Council has a public hearing scheduled for April 7
considering the Railroad Quiet Zone improvements on 4 ½ St NE . He stated that the first time the horn
would blow would be on 9th and St. Germain. Ross Olson stated that this was accurate information.
Terry Wotzka said that he had spoken with the St. Cloud engineers, and they discussed the crossing at 4
½ St and it appears as though they are proceeding with that.

Councilperson Weber stated that there were a lot of unanswered questions. He questioned it the City
could keep Broadway and 1 st St. S. open. Councilperson Weber felt that there is dialogue yet to be had
in favor of reconsidering closing S. Broadway.

Councilperson Saunders felt that there are no problems at the Broadway crossing, and he was
comfortable with the decision for the intersections to remain closed. Councilperson Saunders said that
he did not feel that there is enough traffic to justify keeping the Broadway intersection open.

Councilperson Patterson asked Legal what direction the Council should take if they want to reconsider
their decision and what would be the ground rules in doing so. Igor Lenzner replied that technically
there was not a motion to reconsider. Lenzner said that any council member could make a motion to
reconsider the original motion being that this discussion is not taking place at the same meeting at which
the original motion was passed.

Councilperson Weber stated that the Council does have options and that they possibly should reconsider
their decision to close Broadway or that they should at least attempt to temporarily close Broadway to
see if this is indeed what they want to permanently do.

3-24-08                                                                                           Page 16
Terry Wotzka said that in terms of temporarily closing Broadway, a temporary road closure plan could
be submitted to the Local Traffic Control Company with an estimated cost of $10 -$13,000 to provide
traffic control for a one month period. Wotzka said that traffic counts at Second Avenue could also be
done at this time if the Council so desires.

Mayor Campbell said that traffic counts could potentially be done at River, Broadway, Second Avenue,
and Ninth. Mayor Campbell said that his concern is that if the City spends the money to do the traffic
study and mock closure and the numbers come back not to the liking of the S. Broadway residents those
numbers will be disputed. He said that if the numbers are not what the residents would have wanted that
does not necessarily mean they are wrong, and he wants to make sure that the final numbers are
respected. Mayor Campbell noted that he will support doing a temporary road closure at S. Broadway
and doing additional traffic studies if the residents of S. Broadway agree to respect the numbers and the
professionals presenting those numbers.

Ross Olson advised that in discussion and negotiations with BNSF, they are willing to swap South
Broadway for 1st St S. If the Council allows staff to do the necessary studies and bring back information
and modified plans to BNSF to look at, it would allow staff to discuss the options of South Broadway
with BNSF. Mayor Campbell stated that the required length of a Quiet Zone is a ½ mile.

Councilperson Patterson stated in regards to the traffic study it seems to be an issue about access rather
than movement. She said that the City should not ignore these issues. Councilperson Patterson asked
Wotzka how traffic studies deal with measurements in regards to access rather than movement. Terry
Wotzka said that the beauty of a simulation is that it will provide a real life picture of what life will be
like. Wotzka said that if the mock closure took place from April 15 until May 15, he would encourage
the Council go to this crossing and see what the traffic is like during the time of the mock closure.
Wotzka said that construction could probably start in August on the quiet zone on the City’s north end.
Councilperson Patterson commented that when viewing traffic waiting to cross 2 nd Ave. S. and
Broadway as a train passed, she noticed the same number of cars at each intersection. Mayor Campbell
stated that he observed the opposite on Broadway; he said there are extremes to the traffic at times.

Motion: Moved by Mayor Campbell and seconded by Councilperson Patterson that the Broadway
negotiations be put on hold and that SEH is allowed to go through the process of developing a jersey
barrier to temporarily close Broadway and that the traffic counts and patterns are monitored during the
temporary closure.

Discussion:
Councilperson Patterson wanted to clarify that in this motion it be included that staff renegotiate with
BNSF as discussed earlier. Ross Olson said that the renegotiations will take place.

Mayor Campbell noted that for an additional cost the jersey barriers can also monitor traffic flow.
Councilperson Saunders noted that for the sake of the residents, he is going to support the mock closure,
but he wanted to clarify with Ross Olson that this motion would not jeopardize the negotiations that are
taking place regarding 1 st St. S with BNSF. Ross Olson replied that BNSF will draft an agreement, and it
will take time for administration to review. The current motion would not hold up the process if in the



3-24-08                                                                                              Page 17
end the council chooses to continue down the same path in regards to Broadway following the mock
closure.

Councilperson Weber wanted to clarify that the traffic counts would be from 9th Street South and 10th
Street North to get the north side traffic. Mayor Campbell stated that he had mentioned River, 2 nd, 9th,
and Broadway. Wotzka said that SEH will put together a plan to share with the Council regarding the
study. Councilperson Weber questioned Olson if in his discussions with BNSF a potential pedestrian
crossing could be included at Broadway. Mayor Campbell noted that he felt this suggestion would come
up with the same response from BNSF regarding no private crossings without the allowance for
emergency vehicles.

Councilperson Patterson noted that the issue that has not been addressed is the pedestrian crossing at 2 nd
Ave S. and how the City is going to coordinate that with the mock closings and traffic study. She said
that pedestrian safety is an issue here. Terry Wotzka stated that he envisioned the 2 nd Ave. S.
improvements taking up to four months or longer to complete. One improvement that may take up to six
months is the concrete pads through the pedestrian area. Councilperson Patterson asked if the mock
closure could still allow for pedestrians to cross at Broadway. Wotzka said that there will be barriers
there, and his staff would encourage pedestrians not to cross at this site during the mock closure but they
cannot stop them. Mayor Campbell noted that the crossing arms will still be there.

Ross Olson advised the Council in regards to clarifying the information that Terry had presented. As
part of the motion, if the Council looks at the 2 nd Ave crossing with or without the QZ, it is a difficult
intersection. Olson said that he felt it would be in the City’s best interest for a representative from SEH
to look at 2 nd Ave. S. and provide in memo format pedestrian improvements that will benefit the City in
the future.

Mayor Campbell asked Terry Wotzka for a price on the improvements, the barriers, traffic count and a
person from the state to look at the 2 nd Av intersection and tell us what to do. He thought at this point the
amount could be up to $50,000. Terry Wotzka replied that he could not give an exact amount but he can
bring it to the next Council meeting. He also added in regards to the person from the state to come here
and give recommendations, he felt it could cost approximately $1,500-2,000. In regards to the traffic
analysis, he would have to sit down and generate some numbers with traffic people. He estimated $5-
10,000 more. Mayor Campbell stated that the approximate estimate is up to $20,000.

Igor Lenzner questioned if the motion was to suspend taking action on the previous decision to close
Broadway or to reverse the decision. He thought that the action was to suspend further action on closing
Broadway and then make a decision after the study and mock closure. Mayor Campbell stated that
Lenzner’s interpretation was correct.

Ross Olson clarified that no one has amended the motion to include the 2 nd Ave. S. pedestrian
improvements and asked Council if they were fine with the pedestrian improvements at 2 nd Ave. S.
being included in the motion. Mayor Campbell and Councilperson Patterson stated that they were fine
with the 2nd Ave. S. pedestrian crossing being included in the motion.

Amended Motion: Moved by Mayor Campbell and seconded by Councilperson Patterson that the
Broadway negotiations be put on hold and that SEH is allowed to go through the process of developing a

3-24-08                                                                                              Page 18
jersey barrier to temporarily close Broadway and that the traffic counts and patterns are monitored
during the temporary closure, and that SEH study and bring back to council pedestrian improvements
needed at 2 nd Ave. S. Motion carried with 4 yes votes (Patterson, Saunders, Weber, and Campbell) and 1
no vote (Gunderson)

11. Other Staff Items
    A. Cooperative Design and Construction Agreement with the Area Contract Cities Related to
        the Phase 1 Upgrade, Expansion, and Rehabilitation Improvements at the St. Cloud
        Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Terry Wotzka advised the Council that he had included the Cooperative Design and Construction
Agreement in the council’s packets only for informational purposes at this time. Wotzka said that he will
bring the agreement to the Council for ratification at the April 15 meeting. He said that any Council
members with questions regarding the document should contact him or Jack Kahlhamer.

    B. Flood Map
Terry Wotzka advised the Council that years ago there was a study of the flood plain in the south part of
town. The flood map was approved in February, and Wotzka would like to have a general public
meeting to explain changes and go over the new map. The plan would be to hold the public meeting
prior to the Council meeting and then to go over the flood map for the Council at a regularly scheduled
City Council meeting.

   12. Other Council Items and Communications
Councilperson Weber stated that he had a question regarding the Quiet Zone on the City’s north side and
where things stood with that in regards to the reconsideration of Broadway.

Terry Wotzka replied that essentially the Council has approved plans for the four crossings (9th, 2 nd, 10th
and Fishers). He said that the Council had taken Broadway and 1 st St. S. out of the approval process.
Wotzka said that it is his understanding that the north end quiet zone improvements can be done. Mayor
Campbell stated that the City cannot do 9th and 2nd without knowing about Broadway.

Ross Olson asked Wotzka if the City could still achieve construction on all four crossings, regardless of
the outcome of the study, by the end of the year. Wotzka said yes and no. He said the reason for his
answer is that the required gates could take up to a year to construct. Ross Olson stated that regardless of
the Council’s decision tonight and the construction issues, he felt that the City should move forward
with the Quiet Zone projects on the City’s north end.

Mayor Campbell stated that he would not vote on the bids on the South end until he knew that it was
worth it. He asked Terry Wotzka to verify that a stationary horn could be put in place at Broadway.

9.     Approve List of Bills and Claims

Motion: Moved by Councilperson Weber and seconded by Councilperson Patterson to approve the List
of Bills and Claims. Motion carried unanimously.

10.    Adjournment



3-24-08                                                                                             Page 19
Motion: Moved by Councilperson Gunderson and seconded by Councilperson Patterson to adjourn the
meeting. Motion carried unanimously

Mayor Campbell adjourned the meeting at 10:32.

Respectfully submitted,


Dana Furman
Administrative Assistant




3-24-08                                                                                  Page 20

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:13
posted:5/20/2010
language:English
pages:20