Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting was duly held at the Woodbury City Hall, 8301 Valley Creek Road, on the 11th day of June, 2003.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor William Hargis called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Audience, staff, and Council pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
ROLL CALL
Upon roll call the following were present: William Hargis, Michael Madigan, Peter Rekow, Cheryl Hurst, and Michael Charron. Others Present: Barry Johnson, City Administrator, Mark Vierling, City Attorney; Dwight Picha, Community Development Director, David Jessup, Public Works Director, Tom Syfko, Consulting Engineer, and Barry Peters, Consulting Engineer.
Mayor Hargis welcomed those watching at home to join the Council meetings and call City Hall if they need information. He also referred to the manila brochures located on the chairs entitled "Welcome to the Woodbury City Council Meeting" and noted there are Public Input Sign-Up Sheets, and invited audience members to sign them and give them to a staff member if they wished to comment during the meeting. He also noted that the times listed on the Agenda are only estimates and that items may be addressed by the Council earlier or later than those times listed.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
No items scheduled.
OPEN FORUM
Linda Ji, 10590 Pinnacle Way, addressed the Council. She said there is something circulating in the community about the Country Farm Preschool closing down because of the cost of doing business and the special assessments. She said there were a lot of parents who really liked that program and she said it is unfortunate that they have to close because of the assessments. She said she is also concerned about the business campus in the Comprehensive Plan. She was hoping it was going to be high tech development and she is concerned that the City is not moving in that direction. She said there is affordable housing planned for that area and is not concerned about that. Her husband's company used to be a Woodbury company and it is a high tech spinoff from 3M, but they had to leave Woodbury because they couldn't have lab space in their office space. Because you can't have lab space and office space together, which any high tech company would need, it is very hard to open a business in Woodbury. She said Oakdale has done a good job on developing a business park on Hadley Road and she asked if Woodbury had any intention of doing something like this.
Mayor Hargis said this area is still guided for business campus, but with the economy the way it is, the efforts are on hold. He said a couple of meetings ago, the Council postponed the extension of the sewer lift station because this area wasn't going to develop in the near future. Dwight Picha, Community Development Director, said the largest area designated for business development is in the northeast corner of the City. He said the force main has been constructed for this area, but the lift station was delayed because of the large cost of the project. There are also a series of environmental issues in that area that staff is addressing with the City of Afton and the Valley Branch Watershed. He said in an office building or office showroom, lab space is permitted. He said 3M has several buildings in Woodbury that are office buildings that have laboratories in them.
Mr. Picha referred to the Country Farm Preschool and said this was a five acre parcel on the north side of Brookview Road, east of Woodbury Drive. This project was approved by the Council about 6-9 months ago and it is within the Phase 1 area where there was an older home on five acres and they sold it to a developer. Member Madigan asked if this area would have fallen into the small lot exception, so that there were assessments that would have been less than larger homeowners would have been assessed. David Jessup, Public Works Director, replied that this would have fallen into that category. Member Madigan said that the City Council adopted a policy about a year or so ago for parcels of five acres or less, wherein the owner could defer the assessments until they developed their property, and then they would begin to pay those assessments over a ten year period of time.
Mayor Hargis stated that it isn't fair to say the assessments caused the people to sell their property, but the character of the land around them is changing and the highest and best use of that property, in their opinion, was something other than the Country Farm Preschool.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Hargis explained that Consent Agenda items are considered routine and are adopted by one motion in an affirmative vote of the Members. He said there is no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in which event the item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered during the Discussion portion of the agenda.
Moved by Mayor Hargis, seconded by Member Madigan, to approve the Consent Agenda, Items 6A through 6O.
Item A To approve the minutes of the May 28, 2003 City Council meeting.
Item B To approve Pine Bend Paving, Inc. as the contractor for the 2003 Park Pavement Maintenance Project at a total project cost of $252,185.00, and authorize the City Administrator and Mayor to execute an agreement regarding same. The total project amount will be divided between Closed Debt Service Fund for new trails in the City Centre area at the low bid cost of $44,800.00, and trail, parking lot, and court rehabilitation and reconstruction of other park areas as described above at a cost of $207,385.00.
Item C To approve the Turnberry HOA Final Site and Building Plan, Case No. 03-38, by a 6 to 0 vote, subject to the following conditions:
Item D To adopt a motion approving Change Order No. 6 in a deduct amount of -$7,986.20 associated with the I-494/Tamarack Road Interchange Project.
Item E To adopt the following resolution: RESOL. NO. 03-159
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING PRIVATE CONTRACTING FOR THE FAIRWAY MEADOWS UTILITY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS CONDITIONAL TO COMPLETION OF DEVELOPERS ACTIVITIES
Item F To adopt the following resolution: RESOL. NO. 03-160
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING PRIVATE CONTRACTING FOR THE WATERSTONE ADDITION WATER, SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS CONDITIONAL TO THE COMPLETION OF DEVELOPER ACTIVITIES
Item G To adopt the following resolution: RESOL. NO. 03-161
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF THE PRELIMINARY REPORT UPDATE AND ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2002C STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - VALLEY CREEK ROAD FROM WOODCREST DRIVE TO SETTLERS RIDGE PARKWAY RECLAIM AND OVERLAY PROJECT
Item H To adopt the following resolution: RESOL. NO. 03-162
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF $610.00 TO MICHAEL AND KIMBERLY WETTELAND, AND PAYMENT OF $260.00 TO PRESERVE TWINHOME ASSOCIATION, AND PAYMENT OF $240.00 TO PETER JOHNSTON, AND PAYMENT OF $280.00 TO PRESERVE MEADOW HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., ALL FOR THE ACQUISITION OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS FOR THE TAMARACK ROAD FROM BIELENBERG DRIVE TO SEASONS PARKWAY STREET IMPROVEMENTS S.A.P. 192-102-09
Item I To adopt the following resolution: RESOL. NO. 03-163
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF A FORFEITED 1997 CHEVROLET CAVALIER AND AUTHORIZING RETAINING AND REPAIRING A FORFEITED 1998 NISSAN MAXIMA
Item J To issue a tobacco license to RBF Corp. of Wisconsin dba Rainbow Foods, to sell tobacco, tobacco products and tobacco-related devices at 7050 Valley Creek Plaza for the period of June 12, 2003 to December 31, 2003.
Item K To adopt the proposed policy on private design of improvements.
Item L To adopt the following resolution: RESOL. NO. 03-164
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AUTHORIZING REORGANIZATION CHANGES TOPUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION AND CENTRAL GARAGE STAFFING, AND THE RECLASSIFICATION OF ROBERTA BERTRAND FROM SECRETARY TO FLEET ASSISTANT EFFECTIVE JUNE 16, 2003
Item M To adopt the following resolution: RESOL. NO. 03-165
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, APPOINTING THREE PEOPLE AS PAID ON CALL FIRE FIGHTERS/EMT'S EFFECTIVE JUNE 12, 2003
Item N To adopt the following resolution: RESOL. NO. 03-166
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, APPOINTING JOHN ROBERTSON AS PUBLIC SERVICE WORKER STREETS EFFECTIVE JUNE 23, 2003
Item O To approve the Abstract of Bills for May 30, 2003 in the amount of $326,189.91, and the Abstract of Bills for June 6, 2003 in the amount of $137,144.66.
Voting via voice:
Cheryl Hurst - aye
Michael Charron - aye
Michael Madigan - aye
Peter Rekow - aye
William Hargis - aye
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Dwight Picha, Community Development Director, outlined Council Letter No. 03-403. The site is located west of Cottage Grove Drive and Brookview Road is to the south. The property consists of 70 acres, with a 5 acre edge of it zoned business campus. The proposal is to change this to R-4 High Density for a potential affordable housing project in the future. The remainder of the property is zoned R-4, with the northern half being high density residential and the south half is mixed use residential. The proposal is for the southern 40 acre parcel and would consist of 97 detached townhomes. There is no preliminary plat for the north yet. This project is being designed by the City's engineering department and a bid date will be set in the near future. Settlers Ridge Parkway will be upgraded in the future in 2004 or 2005. Part of Brookview Road will not be there in the future as this development progresses. There will be a public street design that will go through the plat, with cul-de-sacs on the west end. They will be building both detention ponds and an infiltration pond, as well as four rain gardens within the development. The rain gardens will be in the back yards of the townhomes and they will be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association.
Mr. Picha stated that Eastview Road goes through the Turnberry project and will then go to east Settlers Ridge Parkway. Settlers Ridge Parkway will be constructed through this area as the developments occur. He said this area is part of the Powers Lake Water Management area and this plan has been designed to meet those standards. They will be building a large infiltration pond, in addition to the more standard stormwater ponds, and adding the rain gardens. The stormwater management for the north side of the development has not been addressed in detail at this time. This project is required to conform to the Growth Management Plan of the City. This development's first allocation was in 2003 of 105 units. They are proposing to plat about 90 units within the first phase, so they will be slightly under the allocation. This is because the southwest corner of this parcel drains and provides sewer from the Dancing Waters development, so there are no utilities available at this time. This area cannot be developed until other infrastructures are brought into the area. This also applies to the north side.
Jim Erkel of the Planning Commission addressed the Council. He noted that there were many discussions with the two watershed districts regarding this project. The Commission raised some questions about how that designation under the Comp Plan actually happened. There were also questions about putting affordable housing in the isolated tract. Heritage Development explained that the northern half of the project will be based on market conditions in the future and it will have to wait for the infrastructure and lift station to be put in place. The Commission discussed the possibility of approving the PUD without amending the Comp Plan and redoing the zoning designations. Staff suggested that this would add another layer of approvals that would be needed at a different time. There were questions about park dedication and the fact that in this project there was going to be a payment, as opposed to setting aside land. This brought up a question as to where the next closest park was to this project. The Commission voted to recommend amendment of the Comp Plan and the rezoning of the five acre tract. They then addressed the PUD and approved unanimously to approve the PUD, subject to staff's recommendations.
Linda Ji, 10590 Pinnacle Way, addressed the Council. She said she thought there was going to be another freeway ramp onto I-94. Old Cottage Grove was going to be moved over one-half mile and she thought this was going to connect to 94. She is concerned about putting housing on that road as it will be very loud and is isolated from the rest of the housing development. She is also concerned about whether the business campus and affordable housing go together in the same area. She doesn't think it makes sense to put the affordable housing in now and then hope that the business campus will develop into a nice business campus.
Moved by Member Rekow, seconded by Member Madigan, to close the public hearing.
Voting in favor: Charron, Hurst, Madigan, Rekow, Hargis
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Mr. Jessup referred to the interchange question and said that it is correct that Settlers Ridge Parkway and/or Cottage Grove Drive is one of the major streets within the City and is identified as a collector street. It does extend northerly to the I-94 corridor and passes over I-94 into Lake Elmo. When the Comprehensive Plan was updated, the City did investigate the need for a freeway interchange at Settlers Ridge Parkway and I-94, and based on the studies that were done at that time, it was determined that an interchange will not be needed at that location, at least not for the next 20 years. He said vehicles using Settlers Ridge Parkway will have to go east or west to either Manning Avenue or Woodbury Drive to get onto I-94.
Member Hurst said she has a concern about the affordable housing and that it doesn't fit into the philosophy of integrating or scattered sites in a development. This plan is rather removed. She referred to Heritage Communications and noted that they have a big fence around it and doesn't believe that people will be walking into the business parks. She doesn't believe that this corner should be designated as housing, but thinks it should stay as business park community.
Mayor Hargis stated that there are a lot of examples where there is housing the same way as this housing is proposed for this project and it seems to work out well. He doesn't think the proposal takes away from the overall strategy of spreading the affordable housing throughout the community. He asked Mr. Erkel why he voted against the project.
Mr. Erkel explained that he voted no on the Comp Plan amendment for two reasons. The first is the same argument about making the change here applied to several other tracts that were bisected by the designation, both on the Comp Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. He would rather deal with these together, rather than one at a time. He was also concerned that because the development at the north end is not firm at all, it seemed better to him to wait and get a proposal in that reflected current conditions and then proceed at that point.
Member Charron said that there seems to be a lot of questions about the north side of this development. He asked if the Council could approve the southern half and not designate that northeast corner as affordable housing or not change the land use at this time. Mr. Picha replied that it could be done either way. Staff felt it was better to do it up front and not have to deal with the issue of people asking why it wasn't planned initially as part of the development and that they weren't informed of it. Staff thought it would be more appropriate to address it at this time. There are high density pieces along this area and the concept was to have high density parcels between the more intense commercial/industrial uses. Because of the wetland complex that will be preserved, many of the townhomes will be adjacent and will have views of the large wetland area. There is also an open space corridor complex proposed which will go west into the Arcon development, which will have a small neighborhood park. Staff felt the proposal had a lot of amenities of a residential area. He said there has to be a stepping of land uses and it is difficult to determine where that should be.
Member Madigan asked how many acres make up the northeast business park. Mr. Picha said it was a little over 800 acres. Member Madigan said that is not concerned about losing 2-1/2 acres of the 800 acres. He is not opposed to make an exception for the 2-1/2 or five acres. He said it is natural to have the transition between single family residences and business parks and high density residential. He believes this serves another goal of the Comp Plan, which is to build affordable housing within the City. He said the ideal scattered site concept would be individual units scattered, but when you are going with a land trust concept, it would be an exception. He believes the scattered site policy means that the units are scattered throughout the City.
Member Hurst stated that one side of the green space will be business park and the other side of the green space would be housing. Member Madigan thought this would be an amenity to the housing.
Member Charron asked if there were pathways going through the wetland. Mr. Picha replied that this was what the developer intended, to have a trail system around the wetland and ponds. He said there will be a bikeway on Settlers Ridge Parkway and Eastview Road. These would be part of the parks system.
Ms. Ji stated that for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, it requires two-thirds vote. It would take four Council members to approve the Comprehensive Plan change for that piece of property. Mark Vierling, City Attorney, stated that the zoning requirement was changed, but the Comp Plan amendments remain the same, and the two-thirds is correct.
Member Charron asked if the affordable housing units are rental or ownership. Member Hurst replied that the City doesn't know this at this time. Mr. Johnson said these could be a tax credit project, like Lakeside. This is settled by the developer.
Tom Von Bisch of Heritage Development addressed the Council. He said that Heritage Development has developed in the City of Woodbury since 1989. He said he has worked hard with staff on this project and it was intended to be an integrated product, not an isolated piece of land sitting off on the side. This was always intended to be a integrated project that had a single family component, a multi-family component and a rental apartment component or a condominium component. This changed when Eastview was placed through the middle, but it also set up a good situation for them where the southern piece, which is more compatible with the single family that was on the southern side, and at the higher density which was already zoned in the north, that this component made sense. The five acre piece under commercial zoning in the City doesn't work. The statutes and the way the ordinances are written right now in Woodbury indicates that this land is inadequate for setback and inadequate to meet the code as it is today. He said it was their intention to try to work with the City in its affordable housing goals. These units are ownership units. He also thought that KOA was asking to expand at this point and is one of the most successful campgrounds in the metropolitan area. He said this parcel might support smaller businesses, but would not be suitable for large businesses. He said there are some access issues for this site if it is used for commercial use.
Mayor Hargis commented that someday the owner of the campground's estate plan will designate the property be used at its highest and best use, which is not a campground.
Member Rekow asked what Member Hurst envisions as a more suitable way to accomplish this objective. Member Hurst said that it seems to be a natural break for commercial and residential. She could see on the other side adjacent to the business parks having a bank there or an office building. She said there are many office buildings that are on the trail system. She said there will always be opportunities for affordable housing components in a development. Member Rekow said that he is swayed by history, where the Council is compelled when there is an opportunity to follow through on the affordable housing. Member Hurst asked why the affordable housing area couldn't be in another area. Mr. Picha said that staff has negotiated affordable housing in the larger PUDs, and this project is on the smaller size. He said that the developer needs some things from the City and in return they gave the City some things. In this case, they meet the City's plan. Member Hurst asked if the City could buy some of these units like the Habitat for Humanity.
Moved by Member Madigan, seconded by Member Charron, to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Case Nos. 03-12.
Voting via voice:
Michael Charron - aye
Michael Madigan - aye
Peter Rekow - aye
Cheryl Hurst - nay
William Hargis - aye
Moved by Member Madigan, seconded by Member Charron, to amend the following ordinance, Case No. 03-13, contingent upon final approval from the Metropolitan Council:
ORD. NO. 1735
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM BCD, BUSINESS CAMPUS DISTRICT TO R-4, URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL FROM THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Voting in Favor: Charron, Madigan, Rekow, Hargis
Voting Against: Hurst
Absent: None
Member Madigan said there were going to be both infiltration and retention ponds. He asked what the capacity of infiltration was compared to retention ponds and will the retention ponds have infiltration on the sides or will they be true retention ponds. Mr. Jessup replied said he doesn't know all the specifics of the ponds, but he could provide that information to the Council. He said the infiltration pond is large in size and he doesn't believe it has been fully designed, so he is not sure about the sides versus the bottom. Member Madigan asked if the conditions that are recommended by staff require the developer to design those ponds in the manner specified by staff, or does the Council need to do something further on this issue. Mr. Jessup said it is agreed that it will be an infiltration pond. Member Madigan asked if the recommended conditions could require the developer to meet the requirements of the City with regard to the stormwater ponds, which haven't been developed yet. Mr. Jessup replied that this can be done.
Member Madigan referred to the rain gardens and said they will be maintained by the homeowner's association and asked if this was in the conditions of approval. Mr. Picha said he isn't sure if it is in the conditions, but it shows on the plan within the area that is owned by the homeowner's association. The rain gardens will be owned by the association. Member Madigan asked what mechanism the City would have to require maintenance, if at some point in the future maintenance is not being done in a manner that the City finds appropriate. Mr. Picha said that when they get to the developer's agreement, which will be approved by the City Council as part of the final plat, this is where more detailed conditions are inserted. Member Madigan asked if the Council should put a condition of approval here that the developer will agree to this in the developer's agreement. Mr. Johnson stated that condition no. 8 covers this, although not specifically referring to the rain gardens. It makes the homeowner's association responsible for all maintenance, repair, replacement, removal of all landscaping placed in the public rights-of-way, outlots owned by the association, drainage and utility easements, etc. He believes this would cover the rain gardens. Member Madigan suggested adding the language "including, without limitation, rain gardens" after the word "landscaping."
Member Hurst commented that there has been homeowner's who don't cut their weeds or something and the City will go in there and clean it up and send them a bill.
Member Madigan stated that the City has required in the developer materials at times that certain notices be provided to homeowners, and asked if there should be a requirement in the developer's materials about the rain gardens, that they are not to be encroached upon.
Member Madigan said that the Council saw a memo or a letter regarding stormwater water issues during construction and because of all the rain that we have had this spring, it was a real problem. He said this is directly tributary to Powers Lake and he wants to know what the City can do with this development to ensure that we don't run into those problems in the future. Mr. Jessup replied that what staff is going to do generically, which will include this project, is to look at how large of an area can be opened up for grading at one time, the time period in which it must be restored, greater emphasis on short-term sedimentation ponds which aren't part of the permanent plan, and trying some materials that helps get particulates out of the water more quickly. He said that staff is reviewing the grading permit requirements and the inspection procedures that the City has been following and they will be bringing this before the Council in the near future. He doesn't believe there is anything further that the City needs to do with regard to the engineering conditions to address this problem.
Member Charron commented that in terms of the encroachment, he is comfortable putting the language in, but he doesn't believe it is going to be an issue with these particular units if they are not single family units.
Moved by Member Rekow, seconded by Member Charron, to approve the Planned Unit Development/Preliminary Plat, Case Nos. 02-53 and 02-54, subject to the following conditions:
Planning Conditions:
Engineering Conditions:
and with the revision to Condition No. 8:
8. The Garden Gate Homeowner's Association shall be responsible for all maintenance, repair, replacement, removal, etc. of all landscaping, including, without limitation, rain gardens, that is placed with the public rights-of-way, outlots owned by the association, drainage and utility easements, pathway easements and maintenance access areas. All sidewalks shall be swept each spring and kept clear of snow, ice and other obstructions by the Homeowner's Association.
Voting in Favor: Charron, Madigan, Rekow, Hargis Voting Against: Hurst Absent: None
DEPARTMENT REPORT
Neighborhood Meetings
Planning Commission Scheduled for June 16, 2003
Council Workshop Agenda for June 17, 2003
Public Hearings Scheduled for June 25, 2003 Council Meeting
Other Meetings
Member Madigan asked if the liquor issues would include a discussion about whether the City wants to go to the 2:00 a.m. closing time. Mr. Johnson replied that this would be one of the items to be discussed. The Council would have to adopt a new ordinance to change the time to 2:00 a.m. Another issue to be addressed is that the City has always considered liquor licenses to be granted for restaurants, and there is nothing in the ordinance that requires that establishments primarily sell food. Many other cities have this in their ordinances. He said that the City does not have a requirement that food be served until a certain time in the evening. By having the food service cut off at an early time in the evening, the establishment would then just be a bar environment.
DISCUSSION
Dwight Picha, Community Development Director, outlined Council Letter No. 03-405. City Walk Development is requesting the Council approve a preliminary development agreement for the City Walk project. The developers are going to try to close on this property by Friday and they have insisted that the City enter into an agreement that further defines some of the things that were laid out in the preliminary plat, planned unit development agreement. The main issue is the upgrading of Hudson Road, which is an expensive project, $1.8 million. The condition of approval indicated that the developer is responsible for 100% funding of that project. The intent was that the City was hoping there would be projects on both sides of the road. The intent of this agreement is to state that they are still responsible for that, however, the City would hold a public improvement hearing and assess as much of the benefit as it can to the different property owners in the area that are benefiting by the improvement. The City does not have the money to finance any shortfalls there may be, so the agreement indicates that they will have to pay whatever is necessary to get that road upgraded. This agreement goes into more detail than the original condition of approval.
Mr. Picha said there is another item that has not been agreed upon and this is paragraph no. 6 - Termination of the Agreement. This project was officially approved on November 13, 2001. Last year in November the Council approved a one year extension. At that time there were significant meetings with the developer indicating that they needed to get this project going or it shouldn't go ahead. The City has a policy of not extending permits unless the developer is showing significant progress toward getting the deal done. Since then, they have been negotiating with a lender to get the money in place to buy the property, but nothing else has been done. Staff has indicated that they need to have everything done and ready to go by that date for this project to proceed. This means that the final plat would have to be recorded, the developer agreement in place, and all letters of credit. The developer doesn't feel this allows them enough time from June until November on this size of a project and are asking for some leniency on that condition.
Mr. Picha stated that staff is comfortable with the agreement and are recommending approval of it.
Jack Hoeschler, attorney for City Walk Development, addressed the Council. He is requesting that the last sentence of paragraph 6 be stricken of the agreement. They are hoping to have all of the items completed by this date. He said there have been a lot of negotiations between the Leccese organization and Fidelity. There has been a concern about the extra million dollars on Hudson Road that made the money partner nervous. Negotiations are going on right now with the construction lender and the concern has been that everything is killed if it isn't all in bed by the 13th of November.
Mayor Hargis noted that Mr. Hoeschler and himself were partners together at the law firm of Doherty, Rumble & Butler at one time, but they haven't been partners together for almost 20 years.
Mr. Johnson stated that the primary concern is that because of the intention to purchase a portion of this site for an affordable housing project using funds that the EDA has levied, the money is tied up until this project either has a firm go or a no go decision. It is making it hard for the City to make any plans to consider alternatives. As Member Charron has expressed a preference that the affordable housing in the prior development be an ownership project, it would be possible if the City doesn't use the funds in this case, but the City can't make plans to shift the funds because of the uncertainty. Given the history of this project, it is hard to have confidence that this is going to go ahead. They may purchase the property, but that isn't the same thing as the development going ahead. He doesn't believe there is any reason why they can't meet that November deadline and why the City shouldn't have a firm date so that the City can make its plans as to what to do with its funds.
Member Madigan asked if the Council approves this agreement as is, and had an application in November, could they enter into a new agreement to assess and distribute. Mr. Johnson replied that the Council could do this. The developer wanted a six month extension of the timeframe, but staff indicated that it should be close to the November date.
Mr. Picha said that the six month extension was offered on Monday or Tuesday and the revised proposal was offered to the Council tonight. The developer indicated that their concern is that there are two very large four story apartment buildings with parking structures in them and their construction lender is concerned that they won't be able to get it designed, bid and the project in place by that November date. Their lender will not give them any money for letters of credit unless the project has been bid and everything is placed and they know the numbers work.
Roger Hoeschler, who represents the owners who sold this property, addressed the Council. He said they are concerned too that the deal should go forward and there is a possibility that it will not go forward. The owners have been waiting for their money for several years. He thinks that the lenders are looking at this as a drop dead base. If they have some flexibility knowing that there are serious weather problems in November and it may not get done by then, it would be more appealing to the lenders to have a six month extension. He said that until now, the developers have had money invested, but nothing like they'll have on Friday the 13th, which will be another $4.5 million invested.
Member Charron asked if striking that last sentence precludes the Council from saying no to this project after November 13. Member Hurst thought that it does.
Mr. Hoeschler said that Fidelity is in as an equity partner, and not a lender.
Mayor Hargis stated that if the Council agrees to drop the last sentence, it doesn't mean they are going to grant an extension. Member Hurst said she is aware of another developer who is waiting to see what happens in this case, as they are interested in the property also.
Member Madigan said that even if the Council drops the last sentence, the agreement will terminate and be of no force and effect on November 13 unless things have progressed.
Mayor Hargis referred to the assessment issue and indicated that there is a $1,792,000 commitment and the City is going to try to get the benefited properties to contribute to this project and there may differences of opinions on this. If the City can't prove up the assessments, the burden for the cost of Hudson Road falls back on the developer.
Mr. Johnson referred to paragraph 4 and asked Mr. Picha if the redevelopment of the Outlet Center would proceed, but this project would not proceed, would this interfere with the assessment of the road project against this property. He asked if this wording was acceptable, because the agreement would expire if they don't go ahead. Mr. Picha replied that this was the case, as long as the City knew that the agreement was would be null and void as of November 13. Staff didn't think there would be any way the project across the street would go ahead between now and then. Mr. Johnson stated that if the Outlet project would proceed and the road project would be built, as long as the agreements are in effect, the City doesn't have any ability to assess them until they actually initiate their project.
Member Madigan asked if the developer's agreement would solve this problem. Mr. Johnson wasn't sure about this. The timing of the payment isn't solve by that last paragraph. Mayor Hargis suggested this be clarified between now and the time of the developer's agreement. Mr. Johnson said it doesn't have to be changed, as long as these agreements don't continue to be extended, it isn't a problem.
The Council agreed to delete the last sentence of paragraph 6 of the agreement.
Moved by Mayor Hargis, seconded by Member Madigan, to approve the Agreement to Assess and Contribute between City Walk Development, L.P. and the City of Woodbury, with the deletion of the last sentence of Paragraph 6. Termination.
Voting in Favor: Charron, Hurst, Madigan, Rekow, Hargis
Voting Against: None
Absent: None
OTHER ITEMS
Member Hurst commented that the City mowing less than before and there are some residents that are pleased with this. She received a comment that once you let it go to long grasses, you can't ever go back to a mowed look because the base is ruined. She asked if a discussion could be done at the July or August workshop to look at what areas the City has decided not to mow and what the Parks department feels their savings is and if some areas should be re-evaluated. Member Madigan thought this was a good idea, but thought this issue should be run through the Parks department first to get their input.
Mayor Hargis commented that while he was out running, he noticed that all the private businesses mowing have their property clean cut right up to the edge. Member Hurst said she noticed that First National Bank is mowing to the curb, as well as Wellington, but then there are the long grasses growing in the middle with weeds. She said it isn't fair to those businesses when the City requires them to keep their grass mowed, but the City can't do it on their property. She said she has received a lot of complaints about County Road 19. She said the Korean lilacs are the best things on a roadway. They are tall, green, bushy, and withstand the salt. She said they should have done that with County Road 19.
Mayor Hargis adjourned the Council meeting at 9:08 p.m.
Detailed information on agenda items is available on the June 11, 2003 City Council Agenda.