Council Minutes

Mankato City Council meeting minutes for Monday, April 09, 2012

Monday, April 09, 2012
7 p.m.
MInnesota River Room

 

 
                   A Regular Meeting of the Mankato City Council was held on April 9, 2012, at 7 p.m. in the Minnesota River Room of the Intergovernmental Center with Mayor Eric Anderson presiding. Council Members Tamra Rovney, Karen Foreman, Charlie Hurd, Jack Considine, Mark Frost and Mike Laven were present. Also present were City Manager Patrick Hentges, City Attorney Eileen Wells, Community Development Director Paul Vogel, City Engineer Jeff Johnson, and City Clerk Cheryl Lindquist. Following roll call, the Pledge of Allegiance to Our Flag was given.
Approval of Agenda
Mayor Anderson asked for any changes to the agenda and acknowledged staff’s memo that the recognition of a lifesaving award to Tammy Mason this evening would need to be rescheduled. Mr. Frost moved and Mr. Considine seconded a motion to approve the agenda, less item 4.1.The motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Frost moved and Ms. Foreman seconded a motion to approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of March 26, 2012. The motion carried unanimously.  
Recognition
This item was removed from the agenda.  
Consent Calendar
Mayor Anderson asked for any changes to the Consent Calendar. Mr. Frost requested item 5.6 be removed for further discussion, Ms. Foreman requested item 5.7 be removed for further discussion, and Mayor Anderson requested item 5.5 be removed for further discussion. Ms. Rovney moved and Mr. Frost seconded a motion to approve the balance of the consent calendar.  
(5.1) Motion approving liquor license renewals (May 1, 2012 through April 30, 2013) for on sale intoxicating, off sale intoxicating, Sunday liquor, permanent non-enclosed premise/outdoor patio, wine, Club and 3.2 percent malt liquor (on and off sale).
(5.2) Motion approving Buster’s request for an exemption from Mankato City Ordinance 9.74 to allow for the consumption of alcoholic beverages within the parking lot for car/bike night (May 2012 – September 2012).
(5.3) Motion approving Buster’s request for temporary non enclosed premise in the license premise on April 29, 2012 for Joe Huiras benefit fundraiser.
(5.4) Resolution Amending Fee Schedule (Taxi Cab Fee Increase).
(5.8) Resolution Authorizing City of Mankato to enter into an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for Phase 1 Construction of Transit Facility.
(5.9) Consideration of bids on Improvement No. 10097; reconstruction Madison Avenue from North 7th Street to Trunk Highway #22.
(5.10) Resolution Granting Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Café in the B-1, Community Business District – 251 Bunting Lane.  By Request of Sarah Myking. 
(5.11) Resolution Granting Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Child Care and Fitness Facility in the B-3, highway Business District – 1700 Premier Drive.  By Request of Marsha and Scott Madigan. 
(5.12) Resolution Granting Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Carpet and Flooring Business in the B-1, Community Business District – 1912 South Riverfront Drive.  By Request of Clark Diel. 
(5.13) Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Eastwood Energy Center No. 2 – Power Lane.  By Request of the City of Mankato.
(5.14) Resolution Granting Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Concrete Plant in the M-2, Heavy Industrial District – 3301 3rd Avenue.  By Request of Holtmeier Construction.
(5.15) Resolution Vacating Well Easement – 90 Telemark Drive.  By Request of Joe Lee and Patricia Lee.
(5.16) Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into an Agreement with Sign Pro Allowing Advertising Device in Kiwanis Park (retrofit of existing sign to dynamic message board).
(5.17) Clarification of Motion approving temporary on sale intoxicating liquor license for Mankato Area Catholic Schools, DBA MACS Nite, 145 Good Counsel Drive, Mankato, on May 5, 2012 from 5 p.m. to 12 a.m.
 
(5.5) Mayor Anderson referred to the requested motion approving purchase of replacement vehicles for Public Works Department (Park and Utility Divisions) and Community Development Department (Housing) and Engineering Department. Mayor Anderson asked if the city has ever purchases used equipment and asked if would be less expensive. Mr. Hentges replied that in the past, the city has purchased used equipment but added that the city is now carrying vehicles longer than normal usage. Mr. Hentges stated that purchases are based on the age, usage, condition, mileage etc. of the vehicles.  Ms. Foreman also asked if the equipment would have the capability to use flex fuel. Mr. Hentges replied that he believes most of them are and that most of the city diagnostics are for Ford.
Mr. Frost moved and Ms. Foreman seconded a motion to approve purchase of replacement vehicles for Public Works, Community Development and Engineering Departments.  The motion carried unanimously.
(5.6) Mr. Frost referred to the proposed Resolution Amending Rental Density Map established in Mankato City Code Section 5.42, Subd. 20. Mr. Frost asked if surrounding property owners would be notified if changes are requested to the rental density map. Mr. Vogel replied that this particular item was essentially a “mapping error” but added for existing neighborhoods; staff would contact neighborhood associations to get feedback. Mr. Vogel added that the rental density map could not be done administratively; that each amendment would need to go before the city council.
 
Mayor Anderson opened the floor for anyone wishing to speak to this item. There was no one wishing to speak.
 
Mr. Hurd moved and Ms. Rovney seconded a motion to approve the Resolution Amending Rental Density Map established in Mankato City Code Section 5.42, Subd. 20. The motion carried unanimously.
(5.7) Ms. Foreman referred to the Resolution Approving Agreement with Green Tech Recycling (electronic waste contract) and commended staff on this item. Ms. Foreman indicated, however, that there are multi-family residential buildings where residents do not receive a utility bill so they would have a hard time showing proof of residency if they were to use this service. Ms. Foreman asked staff to look into this issue going forward. Mr. Hentges stated that for the city clean up days, a photo ID is accepted and was confident a workable solution could be developed.
Ms. Foreman moved and Mr. Considine seconded a motion to adopt the Resolution Approving Agreement with Green Tech Recycling (electronic waste contract). The motion carried unanimously. 
Public Hearings
(6.1) Community Development Director Paul Vogel presented the Resolution Granting Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Mixed Use Commercial Building in Excess of 10,000 Square feet of Floor Area and Resolution Granting Variance under Section 10.46, Subdivision 11 (variance from the height requirement of the B-1 district increasing the allowable building height from 35 feet to 47.5 feet) – 1601 Monks Avenue; By Request of Kyle Smith.  Mr. Vogel outlined that the request are associated with the applicants plan to redevelop the existing strip mall locate at 1605 Monks Avenue. The proposal is for a three story mixed-use building with commercial on the first floor and residential units on the 2nd and 3rd floors.  
 
Mr. Hurd questioned the private storm line that is located beneath the existing facility. Mr. Vogel replied that the applicant is looking at alternate storm drainage but any relocation is not required because it is a private line.
 
Mayor Anderson asked that if service lines in the street into the site would need to be upgraded, if that would cause existing roads to be disrupted. Mr. Vogel there could possibly be some disruption but not for any extended timeframe. Mayor Anderson also questioned access in and out of the property. Mr. Vogel responded that there would be access off Bunting, Monks and Stadium. Council Member Considine added that at the Planning Commission Meeting, there was more concern over pedestrian traffic than vehicle access.
 
Mayor Anderson opened the public hearing:
 
There was no one wishing to speak. Council Member Laven asked that if the applicant was present, he did have questions for him.
 
Kyle Smith, applicant, acknowledged Mr. Laven’s email from the past weekend and did admit there were recent problems with his rental units at College Town and he would be immediately addressing those issues.
 
Mayor Anderson closed the public hearing.
 
Mr. Hurd moved and Ms. Foreman seconded a motion to adopt the Resolution Granting Conditional Use Permit to Allow Mixed Use Commercial Building in Excess of 10,000 Square feet of Floor Area and Resolution Granting Variance under Section 10.46, Subdivision 11 (variance from the height requirement of the B-1 district increasing the allowable building height from 35 feet to 47.5 feet) – 1601 Monks Avenue. The motion carried unanimously.
(6.2) Mr. Hentges stated this was an estimated assessment hearing on Improvement No. 10192; Reconstruction of Carney Avenue from West 7th Street to the south city limits including:
·         West 7th Street from Sibley Street to Carney Avenue; and
·         Rose Street from Allan Court to Carney Avenue; and
·         West 9th Street from Hazel Street to Carney Avenue; and
Moreland Avenue from Woodland Avenue to Carney Avenue.
Mr. Hentges stated that the project is estimated to cost $1.6 million with approximately $865,000 coming from assessments. Mr. Hentges added that in addition to work show on the estimated assessment roll, owners may make use of city financing for the replacement of sanitary sewer and water services as well as surfacing or reconstructing driveways and parking areas.
 
Mr. Hentges explained that the final assessment will be adopted in the fall of 2013. If property owners do not pay the assessment in full within 30 days of billing, the amount will be certified to Blue Earth County Taxpayer Services over a 10 year period with an annual interest rate of 4% beginning with 2014 taxes. Residential property owners may request a 15-year repayment schedule if the total amount is greater than $5,000.
 
Mr. Considine asked if staff was working with those properties that had unusually high assessments with this project due to being on a corner lot with more than one street having assessments. Mr. Hentges replied that staff was developing a policy and that would be brought before the council.
 
Mayor Anderson opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Anderson closed the public hearing.
 
Mr. Considine moved and Ms. Rovney seconded a motion to adopt the Resolution Adopting Assessment for Improvement No. 10192. The motion carried unanimously.  
(6.3) Mr. Hentges stated this was an estimated assessment hearing on Improvement No. 10186; West Second and Marcy Street Phase 3:  
·         Spence Street from west Second Street to Mound Avenue; and
·         West Second Street from Marcy Street to Spence Street; and
·         Marcy Street from West Second Street to Mound Avenue.
 
Mr. Hentges outlined that this project represents the final phase for that area and includes new sewer mains and sanitary sewer as well as a drainage system constructed to capture and maintain stormwater runoff. The project also includes a new street design consisting of a 30-foot wide bituminous surface with concrete curb and gutter and new driveway approaches on West 2nd Street; Marcy Street will be a 32-foot wide street with sidewalk on the west side; Spence Street will be constructed as an alleyway, 12 feet in width.
 
Mr. Hentges added that completion of the project will be in late august of 2012 and the final lift of blacktop placed in 2013. Final assessment will be adopted in the fall of 2013. If payment in full is not received within 30 days of billing, the assessment amount will be certified to Blue Earth County for collection over a 10 year period with an annual interest rate of 4% beginning with 2014 taxes payable.
 
Mayor Anderson opened the public hearing:
 
Norman Pettis, appearing on behalf of Aldine Pettis, 628 W. 2nd Street, questioned the assessment policy (similar to item 6.2 - Carney Avenue) for corner lots whereby work was done in 2011 and now again in 2012. Mr. Hentges stated that the city does not have a policy for assessments incurred over a consecutive one to two (1-2) year timeframe but added that staff could look into this further.
 
There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Anderson closed the public hearing.
 
Mr. Frost moved and Ms. Foreman seconded a motion to adopt the Resolution Adopting Assessment for Improvement No. 10186. The motion carried unanimously.
(6.4) Mr. Hentges stated this was an estimated assessment hearing on Improvement No. 10187; 2012 Alley Rehab and Overlay Projects:
·         Alley 13-402: From Willard Street to Marshall Street between State Street and Van Brunt Street; and
·         Alley 13-403: From Stoltzman Road to Willard Street between Van Brunt Street and West Pleasant Street; and
·         Alley 13-428: From Willard Street to Marshall Street between Van Brunt Street and West Pleasant Street; and
·         Alley 13-343: From Record Street to Carroll Street between Van Brunt Street and West Pleasant Street; and
·         Alley 13-433: From Marshall Street to Record Street between West Pleasant Street and Fulton Street; and
·         Alley 13-434: From Record St to the west between West Pleasant Street and Fulton Street; and
·         Alley 13-435: From Fulton Street to Lewis Street, west of Marshall Street; and
·         Alley 13-436: From Marshall Street to Record Street between Fulton St and Lewis Street; and
·         Alley 18-157: From Lincoln Street to Grove Street between 2nd Street and Broad Street; and
·         Alley 18-403: From Warren Street to the north between Coy Street and Parry Street; and
·         Alley 18-404: From Davis Street to the north between Parry Street to Norton Street; and
·         Alley 18-408: From Weaver Street to Davis Street between Warren Street and Norton Street; and
·         Alley 7-279: From Madison Avenue to LaFayette between North 2nd St and N. Broad Street (Petition Alley).
 
Mr. Hentges explained hard surfacing of aggregate or deteriorated alleys is the only good long term solution to dust control, reduced maintenance, and eliminating aggregate runoff into the storm drainage system. Each alley should take approximately one week to complete.
 
Mayor Anderson opened the public hearing:
 
Dave Hageman, 340 Parry Street, questioned his particular alley and asked where the project would end as it is a dead end street. Mr. Johnson responded it would end approximately at the temporary structure across from Mr. Hageman’s property.
 
There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Anderson closed the public hearing.
 
Ms. Rovney moved and Mr. Hurd seconded a motion to adopt the Resolution Adopting Assessment for Improvement No. 10187, 2012 Alley Rehab and Overlay projects. The motion carried unanimously.   
(6.5) Mr. Hentges stated this was a Project feasibility hearing on Improvement No. 10188, (Critical links sidewalk program), installation of sidewalk on the north side of Fair Street.
 
Mr. Hentges outlined the sidewalk and trail ordinance under 6.05 of the city code which requires the installation of sidewalk on any street which improvement that was listed on the sidewalk and trail system map and list. Mr. Hentges noted that Fair Street is listed on that map as requiring a sidewalk and is being considered for street resurfacing as indicated on tonight’s agenda (item 6.6).
 
Mr. Hentges noted that the sidewalk on Fair Street was schedule to be installed on the south side of Fair Street last year, but was delayed to evaluate potential installation on the north side of the street. One of the primary reasons that the north side is being proposed is or safety reasons. If people living on the north side would want to use the sidewalk (if installed on the south side), they would have to cross the street in order to use it and there are no intersections on the north side of the street, only T-intersections exist on the south side. Additionally, there is a sidewalk on the north side of East Main Street that allows people living on the south side streets to walk down those streets to the sidewalk on Main Street to access the area schools, (with the exception of the portion on Fair Street from Maribou Drive to Kennedy Street).
 
Cost was approximately $10,000-$15,000 cheaper on the north side since there would not be as many curb cuts, tree conflicts were about the same on both sides. The north side does, however, have power lines in the boulevard. Mr. Hentges noted that there are several locations along Fair Street where students are getting picked up/dropped off from school on the south side. If the sidewalk was to be constructed on the north side, ISD 77 indicated that there would be no problem for bus pickup/drop-off on the north side.
 
City Engineer Jeff Johnson provided an overview of the pedestrian counts on Kennedy and Fair Streets taken from April 3-5, 2012. Mr. Johnson outlined that the data concludes that most of the pedestrian crossings occur where existing sidewalks are in place; the data also shows that on average, 25%-30% of all pedestrians that utilize the Kennedy and Fair Street intersection travel down Fair Street west of Kennedy where no sidewalk exists.   
 
Mayor Anderson opened the public hearing (Ms. Foreman requested that speakers should articulate which side of the street they prefer for the sidewalk):
 
Stacy Johnson, 2004 Fair Street stated he has lived on Fair Street for 13 years and opposes the sidewalk on the north side. Mr. Johnson thanked the council and staff for working with residents on this issue. Mr. Johnson stressed that by having the sidewalk on the south side; it would be safer and tie into existing sidewalks in the area and stated he had a signed petition by 24 residents. Mr. Johnson stated that there are four (4) busy street crossings on the north side and 1 busy street crossing and 4 side streets on the south side. Mr. Johnson also commented on a resident that has a legally blind child that lives on the south side which would make it easier for child to walk to school. Mr. Johnson also commented on the fewer driveways on the south side, current bus routes, and fewer obstacles (trees, hydrant, and utility poles). Mr. Johnson also questioned why the city council installed the sidewalk on the north side of Main Street (for safety reasons) since there are 8 cross streets on the north side and 4 cross streets on the south side. Mr. Johnson argued that side streets have little impact to safety. Mr. Johnson urged the council to construct a south side sidewalk that is aesthetic, consistent and safe. 
 
Mr. Hurd questioned how someone could get from the north side of Fair Street between Holly and Kennedy if the sidewalk is on the south side. 
 
Chris Hughes, 1712 Fair Street, stated he opposes the city recommendation and felt by having it on the south side it would better connect to other sidewalks in the area. Mr. Hughes noted that there are more driveways on the north side and numerous obstacles.
 
Pam Grems, 2113 Fair Street and stated she lives on the south side of Fair Street. Ms. Grems stated that 26 years ago they asked the city about a sidewalk for the area and was told then that there would never be one on their street. Ms. Grems stated she was surprised to receive this information and that city staff has been very courteous and helpful regarding this issue. Ms. Grems stated she believes the sidewalk should be located on the north side and that it would be the safest route. Ms. Grems also disagreed with Mr. Johnson and felt side streets are more of a safety issue than increased driveways. Ms. Grems stated that if the sidewalk was installed on the south side of Fair Street there would be more driveways and intersecting streets making it more dangerous. Mr. Grems also stated residents with the power lines buried underground already paid for that when they purchased their house.
 
Teresa Rohlk, 2129 Fair Street, stated she supports the city proposal for the sidewalk on the north side and trusts the city’s expertise. Ms. Rohlk stated there were six (6) intersections from Plainview to Kennedy and felt the north side would be the safest.
 
Alison Key, 152 Manitou Drive, stated that there driveway is off of Fair Street on the south side and agrees with the city’s recommendation. Ms. Key stated that their driveway is very short and if the sidewalk was installed on that side, they probably wouldn’t be able to use it. Ms. Key also stated that it gets very icy on that side whereby the north side during the winter months gets the sun which would be helpful in keeping the sidewalk dry.
 
Charles Butler, 1708 Fair Street has lived in the area over 25 years and was also told there would be no sidewalk for that area. Mr. Butler stated there is a fence in the area with ongoing trespassing and felt the sidewalk should be placed on the south side. Mr. Butler also asked the city council to consider placing a 3-way stop at Holly and Fair Street and to also consider sidewalks on east/west streets. Mr. Butler also commented that it feels Fair Street has turned into a thoroughfare.
 
Neal Haglin, 2008 Fair Street, stated he opposes the city’s recommendation and favors the sidewalk on the south side. Mr. Haglin stated he has two small boys and feels kids will take the “shortest path” to get to where they are going. Mr. Haglin also questioned whether the school district could actually decide which side the bus stops are and felt that was determined by the bus companies.
 
Teresa Rohlk, 2129 Fair Street, indicated that she felt residents living on the south side of Fair Street would go down Maribou or Manitou to East Main Street (where there is a sidewalk) to get to Kennedy School.
 
Jeremy Pieper, 2128 Fair Street, stated he lives on the north side and is in favor of the engineering proposal. Mr. Pieper stated that he has friends on the south side of Fair Street and feels this issue should not be turned into “a sidewalk is great as long as it’s not in my yard”.
 
Bob Berg, 1912 Fair Street, stated he lives on the north side as well and is supportive of a sidewalk. Mr. Berg stated that he didn’t have a preference on which side the sidewalk should be located but that he agrees with the previous speaker that most are supportive as long as it’s not located on their side of the street.  Mr. Berg also complimented the city engineering staff.
 
Mike McLaughlin, 238 N. Plainview, questioned why not all streets that are resurfaced get sidewalks. Mr. Hentges indicated that if they don’t, they are not on the critical link sidewalk or in a recent situation where the city did not have sufficient right of way. Mr. McLaughlin also asked the city to consider a crosswalk at Plainview and Fair Street and to consider a sidewalk to the Victory Drive path. Mr. McLaughlin also asked if there were any plans to install sidewalk on the east or west side of Plainview, Black Eagle, or Manitou. [The council replied only Black Eagle at this time].  
  
Wendy Greiner, 2104 Fair Street, stated that she lives on the north side but her parents live on the south side. Ms. Greiner stated she opposes the sidewalk on the north side. Ms. Greiner stated that her parents would not be able to get out and walk if it were installed on the north side.
 
Rhonda Hughes, 1712 Fair Street, opposes staff’s recommendation and feels it should be located on the south side. Ms. Hughes also requested the city look at installed a 3-way stop at Holly and Fair and also consider parking on only one side of Fair Street with a bike/walking sidewalk on the other side. Ms. Hughes also indicated she did not feel residents at Sunray and Belle would walk west to go east.  
 
There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Anderson closed the public hearing.
 
Mr. Laven moved and Mr. Frost seconded a motion to adopt the Resolution Declaring costs to be assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment for Improvement No. 10188, installation of sidewalk on the north side of Fair Street.
 
Mr. Laven thanked residents for speaking on this issue and asked them to blame the council, not each other, for the decision. Mr. Laven indicated that years from now, demographics change and he can support the sidewalk on the north side from a safety aspect.
 
Ms. Foreman also stated she would support the motion but that it was a difficult decision and there was a lot of good input. Ms. Foreman did ask staff to explore burying the powers lines on the north side.
 
Mayor Anderson indicated he would vote against the motion and it came down to connectivity issues. Mayor Anderson did agree there were valid points made tonight on both sides.
 
Mr. Considine stated that the installation of sidewalks is the most unpopular thing the council does and the goal is to keep kids as safe as possible.
 
With members Rovney, Foreman, Hurd, Considine Frost, and Laven voting in favor and Mayor Anderson opposing, the Resolution was adopted.  
(6.6) City Engineer Jeff Johnson stated this was a Project feasibility hearing on Improvement No. 10189; 2012 resurfacing program which includes Surface milling, selected curb and gutter replacement, selected installation of subsurface drain lines, and bituminous resurfacing on:

·         Hoffman Road from Victory Drive to Hilltop Lane; and
·         Map Drive from Stadium Road to end; and
·         Memorial View Court from Plum to end; and
·         North Broad Street from Thompson Street to Mabel Street; and
·         Pohl Road from Glenwood Avenue to Jaycee Court; and
·         Pohl Road from Jaycee Court to Balcerzak Drive; and
·         Pohl Road from Stadium Road to south 800 feet; and
·         Premier Drive from TH 22 to Excel and Excel to Excel; and
·         Reed Street from Caledonia to Madison Ave; and
·         Agency Road from Main to Glenwood Ave; and
·         Clover Lane from Main Street to Agency Road; and
·         Excel Drive from Premier Drive to Technology Drive; and
·         Excel Drive from Technology Drive to Premier Drive; and
·         Excel Drive from Premier Drive to Victory Drive; and
·         Fair Street from Plainview Avenue to Bassett Drive; and
·         Fair Street South from Victory Drive to McConnell Street; and
·         Front Street from Liberty Street to Byron Street; and
·         Liberty Street from Riverfront Drive to Front Street; and
·         Glenwood Avenue from Hanover Street to Locust Street; and
·         Glenwood Avenue from Locust Street to Parkway Avenue
Mr. Johnson stated that the project is estimated to cost approximately $1.3 million with $200,000 being paid by General Obligation Bonds; $25,000 from G.O. Water Revenue Bonds; $25,000 from G. O. Sewer Revenue Bonds; $150,000 from Stormwater Revenue Bonds; $50,000 from the General Fund; and $799,537 in estimated Special Assessments. Mr. Johnson added that Liberty St. and Glenwood Avenue project would not be assessed to property owners since it hadn’t been a long enough timeframe since their last assessment for those streets.
 
Mr. Laven questioned if the Glenwood project would have a disruption to Glenwood Cemetary since Glenwood is their only access. Mr. Johnson said they would be sensitive to that issue and could work with funeral homes; Mr. Hentges added that typical milling is done one lane at a time.
 
Mayor Anderson opened the public hearing:
 
Jim Timmerman, 118 Agency Road, asked if the curb will be repaired.
Mr. Hentges replied that catch basins will be evaluated and the curb replaced if required; mud jacking could also be considered as an option.
 
Lowell James, 1302 Fair Street, indicated that he didn’t think Fair Street was in that bad of shape and that assessments were tough on the elderly. Mr. James indicated that he has been “snowed under” with assessments as Pfau Street has been done twice, Fair Street once, this year the sidewalk is being installed and there is talk of doing his alley.
 
Gerald Salfer, 1616 Fair Street, requested that the electricity poles would be buried in conjunction with the project. Mr. Hentges indicated that the city is looking into this issue and will bring it back before the council. Mr. Salfer asked what thickness the base is under the sidewalk. City Engineer Johnson replied 4 inches.
 
There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Anderson closed the public hearing.
 
Mr. Considine moved and Ms. Foreman seconded a motion to adopt the Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment for Improvement No. 10189. The motion carried unanimously.  
(6.7) Community Development Director Paul Vogel presented the Resolution Amending the Land Use Designation of the Northwest Corner of Stadium Road and South Victory Drive from Industrial to Medium Density Residential; and a Motion Approving the Preliminary Plat of Anne’s Acres. By Request of Maury Haefner.  Mr. Vogel explained that the proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan depicts approximately an acre of residential development on the southern portion of the subject property and would construct 10 apartment units at the site. The proposed Land Use Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive Land Use Plan which seeks to reduce conflicting land uses.
 
Ms. Foreman questioned whether the final plat would come back depicting a sidewalk for the area.
 
Mr. Frost asked if the pond is protected. Mr. Vogel replied that the wetland is delineated and memorialized.
 
Mayor Anderson opened the public hearing.
 
Warren Smith, Survey Services, indicated there would be no sidewalk planned for this site as there are cul de sac streets on either side and didn’t feel it was warranted.
 
There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Anderson closed the public hearing.
 
Mr. Hurd moved and Ms. Foreman seconded a motion to adopt the Resolution Amending the Land Use Designation of the Northwest Corner of Stadium Road and South Victory Drive from Industrial to Medium Density Residential; and a Motion Approving the Preliminary Plat of Anne’s Acres. The motion carried unanimously.
City Manager’s Report
(7.1) Legislative Update – Mr. Hentges stated that currently the Minnesota Legislature is on spring break but that when they return, the bonding bill will be a major priority. Mr. Hentges credited bipartisan cooperation for the inclusion of Mankato’s Civic Center expansion request in the Senate bill; Mr. Hentges stated that there has been significant progress regarding our need and the inequities with the other civic center requests. Mr. Hentges also mentioned that another priority would be possible technical amendment to the tax bill such as changes to business property taxes that may be part of a “global agreement” regarding bonding, taxes, and other legislative issues. (There was no action required by the council on this item).  
(7.2) Mr. Hentges provided a draft 2013 Budget Calendar beginning with the Strategic Plan adoption being considered at the May 14 meeting. Mr. Hentges also stated that budget work sessions begin on May 7 with a proposed budget being sent to the council in mid August 2012. (There was no required action by the council).  
Reports of City Council Members
(8.1) Ms. Rovney moved and Mr. Frost seconded a motion approving Community Grant allocations. The motion carried unanimously.  
(8.2-8.3) The Multi-Modal Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes from March 27, 2012 and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from March 28, 2012 were accepted without discussion.  
Miscellaneous Business
 
(9.1) Mayor Anderson reminded the council of the next Regular City Council Meeting, April 23, 2012, 6 p.m. (followed by council work session).
Public Open Forum
 
Paul Schmidt, 232 Marcy Street, spoke of need of proper drainage with this project and indicated that right now water drains to his garage. City Engineer Jeff Johnson indicated that the street will be lowered 4 inches with this project.
 
Eleanor Kottke, 914 N. Broad Street, asked if there was anything the city could do to correct the property at 916 N. Broad Street that is in disrepair. Ms. Kottke stated it is an eyesore for the neighborhood and to those residents who try to keep up their properties.
 
Council Member Considine referenced the invitation to lunch extended by County Commissioner Stuehrenberg and indicated that if more than three council members attend there would be a quorum and it was too late to post it as a meeting.  It was agreed that no more than three council members would be attending.
Adjournment
There being no further business before the council, Ms. Rovney moved and Mr. Frost seconded a motion to adjourn. With all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
 
 
 
 
  _______________________
 Eric T. Anderson, Mayor
 
 
ATTEST:
 
 
___________________________
Cheryl S. Lindquist, CMC
City Clerk