CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 6, :20 P.M. CITY HALL

Transcription

1 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 6, :20 P.M. CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer, Rockvam were present. Staff present: Administrator Weeks and Office Assistant Farness. Others present: Tom Seifert, City Attorney; Ken Adolf, City Engineer; Planning Commissioner Mason. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Hughes and seconded by Reinhardt to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Reinhardt noted there was not place for a Public Forum on the agenda. This will be placed on all future agendas. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 17, 2006 Motion by Williamson and seconded by Widmer to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting January 17, All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council & Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & APPLICATIONS a) Yearly Declaration of City Liability Limits Motion by Williamson and seconded by Reinhardt to approve Option A to not waive the statutory tort limits. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) 2006 Multiple Dock License Applicants Weeks verified they were the same quantity and configuration as last year. Reinhardt inquired about 3930, 3940 Sunset Drive in a residential area and asked if they were rentals. Weeks said those addresses are multi-family units and the multiple rental docks are allowed. 1

2 Motion by Hughes and seconded by Williamson to approve the multiple dock license applications for Four votes were aye and Rockvam abstained. Motion declared carried. c) Construction Update Mist Lofts 1. Site Lighting Plan Schoell & Madson Scheme & Alternate Scheme Heidi Kurtze, Cornerstone & Jeff Schoeneck, Architect, were present for the discussion. Kurtze reported the tower crane is coming down 2/13 and they hope to have model units open to the public by 3/20; the dry wall and brick is being put up in the north building; the elevator will be started on 2/10 and completed the end of June; stair wells are being completed; stucco should be done in four to six weeks; Xcel has activated the transformers for the north building and will begin their cabling and the first transformer to the south building on 2/13 and all should be active by 3/1. Kurtze acknowledged the communications from Schoell & Madson regarding the paving of Bayview Place. She has forwarded them to J.E. Dunn and they would be addressing the correction in the spring. Kurtze also stated Brad Ridgeway, J.E. Dunn, will address the water line additional charges issue in two weeks. She is requesting time to discuss this with Schoell & Madson and J. E. Dunn. Rockvam suggested the target date to resolve these issues to be the first Council meeting in March. Williamson asked the location of the transformer for the south building. He was told it would be east of the building north of the lift station. Williamson stated he hoped it would be less obtrusive than the north building. He asked when in the spring will the landscaping be done. Kurtze said it would be between April and June, the landscaping company would know. She noted not much would be planted before May. Rockvam asked if the entire property would be landscaped. Kurtze said excavating had to be done for the fountain with some infrastructure, the grass would be planted last in the fall, and planting would take place all summer long. Williamson referred to the meeting with Mason, the property owner to the east of the project, and Mason was told they would get back to them. Kurtze said the right of entry agreement was too formal, she is in the process of changing it to a simple letter and plans to meet with Mason on Wednesday. She noted the trees and arborvitae are not going to be planted on his property. Williamson referred to the commercial space and asked who was interested in renting it. Kurtze said a local spa in the southwest area is interested in 5,000 square feet and lease negotiations are in progress. She also noted there is a possibility for an upscale wine store but they have not yet received a letter of intent. 2

3 Schoeneck referred to the proposed lighting plan and briefly discussed it in relation to Lakeview Lofts. He said the proposed plan is extended on Shoreline Drive, Bayview Place and Del Otero. He pointed out that was questioned and Light Spaces reviewed the lighting and their revised plan shows lights were moved on Shoreline Drive and Del Otero for more even aesthetics. He said the count was reduced by two or three lights. Hughes pointed out the first plan showed double lights on Del Otero and they are replaced by single lights. Schoeneck said it was changed for parking purposes. Reinhardt asked the candle power and was told they are four foot candle and some are 6 foot candles. Rockvam asked the candle power on Shoreline Drive and this was not known. Reinhardt asked the height of the poles and was told 14 feet. Hughes said the Council did not approve 14 foot poles. He thought only 20 foot poles were approved. Schoeneck pointed out on the private portion of Del Otero is more sensitive to residential. Rockvam verified the lights on the Mist Lofts property are 14 feet and on Shoreline Drive they are 20 feet. Rockvam asked the height and foot candle of the temporary lights at Lakeview Lofts. He said it would be helpful to see those lights to get a better idea of the look. He added the temporary lights light the area well and one thing to keep in mind is to have the area well lit. Reinhardt questioned the look of the height of 14 foot poles in the development and 20 foot poles on the other side of the street. Rockvam agreed the Council only approved 20 foot poles. Schoeneck asked if the Council would consider 14 foot poles in the Mist Lofts site. Hughes said he would like to see a vertical scale drawing with 20 foot poles across the street from 14 foot poles on Del Otero in the site. Rockvam verified the 14 foot poles would be inside the parameters of the development. He asked if the parking lot would have a center lane. Schoeneck said it would and have twoway traffic. Rockvam pointed out cars would be backing into the two way traffic. Widmer confirmed there would not be banners on the poles especially the 14 foot poles because they would be too short. Rockvam said it was agreed to just have holiday banners. Hughes asked the height of the light fixture at the top of the pole. He noted that semi-truck clearance is 13 ½ feet. Mason asked what lighting would be at the entrance of the garages. Schoeneck said there would be a shorter version of the other ones. Rockvam asked where the street lights would be set. He was told they would be hanging over the street on Shoreline. Williamson said the current ones are 35 feet. Adolf confirmed they are 35 feet on Shoreline Drive. Reinhardt asked if the 14 foot poles are for cost or aesthetics and was told aesthetics. Williamson pointed out the principal issue is the residents on the lower floors and they should not have to deal with street lights shining in their windows. Kurtze 3

4 said the motivation is aesthetics and providing a good product to the customer. The Council briefly discussed the residential units getting obtrusive light shining in their windows. Rockvam pointed out the lights do not affect the south side of the north building itself. Williamson asked the wattage of the lights and if they were all the same. The wattage was not known and they are all the same. Mason asked if the fixture is similar to Lakeview Lofts and was told they are the same. Seifert asked if the new plan was prepared by Schoell & Madson. Schoeneck said it was prepared by Light Spaces. Seifert said the 14 foot poles in the area adjacent to the parking ramp and the parking area would light less area than the 20 foot poles. Adolf said the plan started out as the Mist Lofts light plan and has expanded to Del Otero and Bayview Place. He added originally the parking lot was 14 foot poles and this was carried forward on the Schoell and Madson plan. Rockvam asked which plan was Light Spaces plan. Schoeneck said the current plan is suggested by Light Spaces and is the best light solution. Seifert said the plan in September was approved but no other subsequent plan has been. Adolf clarified the lights approved on the Streetscape Plan were 20 foot lights. Rockvam verified the lights would hang over the parking lot the same as Lakeview Lofts. Williamson verified the light illuminates the access to the underground parking area. Schoeneck said a wall pack will light the area over the garage and cast downward. Hughes said a fabulous job had been done with the lighting plan, but if we approved 20 foot poles and they are requesting some 14 foot poles, he would like to see elevations of the poles before taking any action. Schoeneck clarified what is streetscape and what is the development and the 20 foot poles are Spring Park property and the 14 foot poles are in the development. He added they are differentiating what is vehicular and what is pedestrian. Hughes pointed out there is commercial with the residential. Kurtze stated the point is not so much commercial and residential as it is vehicular and pedestrian. Hughes said he did not like the idea of two different size light poles across the street from each other. Williamson said the chart does not reflect the existing lighting and thought it was showing the complete establishment of all the lights. Adolf said the plan he has shows Lakeview Lofts, Mist Lofts and the City s responsibility. Williamson said this plan needs that clarification. Rockvam said it is important to know who is paying for what. He added the reason for these lights is to tie the entire area together and that same reason is for the lights at Bayview Place and Shoreline, and Bayview Place and Del Otero. Hughes said the lights at the northeast corner of the development by the trail are for safety. Schoeneck said there would be lights on bollards for the trail on the north side of the north building. Rockvam asked if the sidewalk on the north abutted the railroad property and if there was lighting all along that area. Schoeneck said there are also other lights within the development i.e. along the 4

5 trellis on the front edge of the south building, on the arch entry, north building canopy entrance, at patio area and in and around trees areas. Rockvam said a common denominator is in the north east area with the trail and trail traffic. Schoeneck said he anticipates the trail would have additional lighting by the county. Mason asked if there was any motion detector lighting and was told no. He also asked if there could be adjustments if it was determined the lighting is too much. Schoeneck said the wattage of the lights could be changed. Reinhardt reiterated the request made by Hughes. She said if the Council is going to consider 14 foot poles where proposed, they would like to see who is paying for what and an elevation of all the lights. Schoeneck asked what else the Council is looking for. Hughes said they want uniformity in the downtown area. Williamson said they want it all coordinated. Hughes asked if the 14 feet is at the top of the pole or at the bottom of the light and this should be shown on the elevation. Kurtze pointed out a safety factor if all the poles are 14 feet in the development. Williamson said there is a template difference in the plan and he would accept it if the elevations are done. Hughes requested a photo metric in the plan. They briefly discussed light fixtures and shapes of fixtures. Mason asked the placement of the light on the south side of Del Otero and was told it would be placed on the backside of the sidewalk. Rockvam said it would be easier to visualize the lights if Lakeview Lofts lights were in place. Weeks will let the Council know when those lights are scheduled to be installed. Schoeneck verified the request: elevation sketch of the 14 foot and 20 foot poles and the 14 foot poles on Del Otero; location of the light on the pole. Weeks confirmed the Council is okay with the placement of the lights. d) Providence on Lake Mtka Predevelopment Agreement Motion by Hughes and seconded by Williamson to postpone action on the predevelopment agreement to the next meeting. In discussion Hughes said he discussed this with Nancy Beck, City Attorney, and she said she will review it. Seifert said a signed Predevelopment Agreement is a vehicle to accept the check for $100,000 and obligate the City to work with the developer. He said the City should want the contract signed if they have the check for $100,000 from the developer. Williamson said the Council was presented something with not enough time to review it. He said he wants to review the document with the maker, discuss and make revisions so as to not repeat past problems. He stated the agreement is a binding agreement and he would like to discuss this with Beck. 5

6 Rockvam said he feels there may be a lot of unanswered questions that have to be answered before the public hearing and fears some issues may not get resolved in time and this cannot happen. Seifert said the developers could ask for their $100,000 to be returned. Rockvam asked the status of the escrow account. Weeks said it has not been figured yet. Rockvam said the attorney should take over the escrow account as soon as possible and send a report to the Council once a month as is being done on the other developments. Reinhardt said clarifications have to be made to the agreement. Weeks asked how long is needed to review it. Williamson said he needed a couple of days to review the agreement. He added he would not be railroaded and ramrodded into approving it with such a short notice before he has time to review it. Hughes said large documents take time to read. Seifert said it was unfair to blame him. Williamson said he needs a week, not 30 hours. Weeks verified changes could be given to Beck by the end of the week. Seifert said to take whatever time is necessary. He pointed out there is not going to be a full Council until the first meeting in March. Williamson said it was presumptuous the Council is not meeting the second Monday in February. He added he wants to meet Beck in person to discuss revisions and he wants clarifications. Rockvam pointed out Williamson did not want a full Council to discuss a previous developer s agreement. Hughes said he would like to meet informally with Beck without the full Council. Rockvam said he wants the public to understand that now they want to meet without the public. Williamson said it is inappropriate to proceed with this document. Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson and Rockvam voted aye and Widmer voted no. Motion declared carried. Seifert verified this is being laid over until there is a full Council. Williamson said it was being laid over to the next Council meeting. Rockvam asked for a motion to instruct the attorney to maintain the escrow account for this development. Motion by Williamson and seconded by Reinhardt to instruct the attorney to maintain the escrow account for this development. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS a) Resolution Cont. of Funding Western Communities Action Network Motion by Williamson and seconded by Widmer to approve Resolution 06-08, continuing funding of WeCan. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Resolution Support of Trail Development 6

7 Williamson pointed out there is no focus on the development of a trailhead concept in Spring Park. He encouraged the Council to add another Therefore in the resolution that we enter into negotiations for specific planning for a trailhead. Reinhardt said the concept of the trail has passed thru all of the boards. Weeks said the Master Plan has been adopted and from that they will hold meetings and there would be more time for input. Williamson read the last paragraph of the resolution that the City encourages Three Rivers Park District to expedite implementation of its adopted Master Plan... and he stated their Master Plan contains no feature of a trailhead concept. Rockvam said we should identify in the resolution the trailhead, parking, egress and ingress, and restrooms. Seifert verified the City has sent the county a letter regarding this. He suggested passing the resolution with the letter attached. Weeks said he would look for the letters and add another Therefore. Rockvam said to place this back on the agenda for the first meeting in March. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Police Commission Minutes January 13, 2006 a) Police Cop Out Reports December 2005, January 2006 b) Activity Report December 2005, January 2006 c) OPD CAD Report January 2006 d) Orono Scanner The above minutes and reports were noted. Hughes suggested meeting with Lord Fletcher s Restaurant before they enter into contract agreements with summer bands. Rockvam said Weeks should set up a meeting with Tom Emer, from the restaurant. He noted that once Lord Fletcher s was aware of the problems last summer, they immediately responded to them and we want to resolve potential issues before the coming season. Williamson suggested having them in to report on events. Seifert reminded the Council the City does not allow amplified music. Rockvam pointed out the difference between dinner dance and a public dance. He suggested Weeks check the past minutes regarding this matter and meet with Emer. Weeks pointed out to the plea for help from the Orono Police Dept. for feedback in setting the direction of the police department in 2006 and beyond. b) Council Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer Reinhardt suggested an extra Council packet put in a three ring binder be made available for the public to use. Staff will make an extra packet for this. c) Engineer Water Tank Pay Request No Water Tank Project Cost thru February 6, 2006 Adolf said the pay request consists of payment for the driveway construction and landscaping at City Hall. Williamson asked what outstanding issues are related to the water tower. Adolf noted touch up painting is needed, some landscaping and 7

8 punch list items. Rockvam asked if a concrete curb is going to be put in when the driveway is done. Adolf said if it is it would have to be a separate project. Adolf referred to Lift Station #6 and reported the generator will come on automatically if there is a power failure and there is a soft start on the motors. Rockvam asked if concrete curbs could be considered when that street is redone. Adolf said the intent is to replace the curbs that were there. Rockvam said the building did not look as bad as he first thought. He pointed out a lip at the bottom where a brick facing could be placed. Reinhardt said the landscaping should be heavy and this would make it look better. d) Utility Superintendent No Report e) Administrator 1. Channels 8 & 20 Schedules - Noted 2. February Calendar Weeks requested the second Council Meeting in February and the Administrative Meeting be cancelled because of Council absentees. Williamson asked for the request to be separated. Motion by Widmer and seconded by Reinhardt to cancel the Administrative Meeting in February because of absentees. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Motion by Widmer and seconded by Reinhardt to cancel the second Council meeting February 21, Reinhardt noted Rockvam, Widmer and Weeks would be absent and asked if the business for that meeting could wait. Williamson said the meeting should not be cancelled because of claims for payment. Weeks pointed out the claims for payment status was okay. Williamson said he had concerns with the forward progress of the proposed project and we should take advantage of the time. He said the Council would avoid taking substantial action at that meeting. Widmer asked why the meeting for February 8 th is still going to be held if there is no Predevelopment Agreement. Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson and Rockvam voted no and Widmer voted aye. Motion declared failed. Weeks asked who would chair the meeting and it was decided that could be determined that night. Weeks reminded the Council of the meeting Tuesday February 7 th at 11:30 a.m. and to arrive by 11:15 a.m. for a photo at the water tower. 8

9 In another matter Hughes asked if the property owner at 4032 Shoreline Drive has obtained a building permit for the work he is doing. Weeks stated the Building Inspector said one is not needed. Williamson suggested the information provided might not be complete. 3. March Calendar - Noted 4. Building Report January 2006 Williamson suggested another column added to the report showing the fee paid to the City. 8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT Motion by Williamson and seconded by Reinhardt to approve the claims for payment for February 6, All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Widmer asked what #11 to Martin Benefit Adm. was for and was told it was for the flex plan administration. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None 10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted. a) Mist Lofts 1. Schoell & Madson Re: Bayview Place repaving due to construction use Hughes asked if the City should get their own prices for the concrete curb and gutter. Adolf said it was logical to have the construction done all at once. Rockvam asked if there was going to be a surmountable curb by the garage at 3948 Shoreline Drive because that property is lower than the curb. Williamson said this could be pursued with Goman. Rockvam said to put this on the agenda for March 6 th. 2. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Status Report, Pmt. Schedule, Request 3. Cornerstone Chg Order Requests 1/30/06, Schoell Madson Response 2/2/06 b) Mound Fire Department 2005 Summary 1. January 2006 Report c) Mn DNR Mound s Request Shoreland Mgmt. Standards Williamson pointed out Mound is asking for a 30% reduction in shoreland management standards. He asked if the higher density would have an impact on the quality of the run off water. He suggested we find out the position of the MCWD and the LMCD on this. Weeks said the planner is reviewing this. In another matter, Williamson pointed out he requested the remedies the developers used to resolve their erosion control and storm sewer issues and has yet to received them. d) League of MN Cities LMC Policy Committee Membership e) Spring Park s Letter to Henn. Cty. Sheriff Re: Water Patrol Bldg. Paint Color Williamson noted the building was not built to the City s expectations and now that the county is prepared to repaint the building we have an opportunity to 9

10 suggest a color. Rockvam said the maintenance is scheduled for this summer and we would like to see a blend of the surrounding buildings with earth tone colors. Rockvam said the maintenance personnel for the county are getting in touch with the City. He suggested Weeks call Lt. Storms for a name to contact. f) Allied Adjusters Letter Re: 4484 West Arm Road Reinhardt asked if there has been any discussion with the City on this. Rockvam pointed out it is out of the City s hands and we usually do not hear the end result. It was noted the greatest concern of the home owner was the mold. g) Lakeview Lofts 1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Status Report, Escrow Summary & Request h) Providence on Lake Minnetonka 1. Letter to Park Hill & Park Island Residents from Michael J. Gorra i) Moratorium 1. Moratorium Workshop Homework Weeks noted this assignment from the planner to the Council and Planning Commission. Williamson said he does not have definitions of what he wants and he is more concerned with what he doesn t like. 11. MISCELLANEOUS - None 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Williamson and seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the meeting at 10:03 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK (Via Media Sources) WILLIAM D. WEEKS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER 10