Loading...
2020-04-27 City Council Special Meeting MinutesCity of Albertville Special Meeting Monday, April 27, 2020 MINUTES Via Teleconference 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order Nafstad took Roll Call: Present: Hendrickson, Cocking, Olson, and Halling Hudson joined the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Absent: None Staff: City Administrator-PWD Nafstad, City Attorney Mike Couri, Fire Chief Eric Bullen Others Present: Mike Leuer, Scott Dahlke,Maren Lapham, Vikram Aggarwal 2. Amendments to the Development Agreements for Hearing Meadows Commons Nafstad reported that revised development agreements were approved at the previous meeting rd that allowed 100% of the signal cost for 53 Street NE/CSAH 19 traffic signal to be part of the Lot 2 Development agreement which includes the multifamily and townhome housing. However, there are concerns that a signal would be needed once the daycare was up and running. After discussions with the developer, the developer was not under the understanding that the city could install the signal and special assess Lot 2 for the cost. Couri felt the agreement read the other way. He stated there would need to be a letter of credit at the time of permit but allow the city to special assess the signal and then draw down the letter of credit the cost of the signal at building permit time. Couri stated the amendment to the development agreement for discussion tonight is to allow the developer to pay for the traffic signal either by letter of credit or cash and there would be no special assessments put on the lot. The other option is the city could still special assess the light following state statutes but they would not have a waiver of assessment which allows the developer to dispute the assessment. The city would also need to assess all properties that receive benefit of the signal. Cocking had concerns that there may be a signal needed for the Goddard school and what if the housing component doesn’t get built and the city is stuck with either no signal or paying for the signal. Couri doesn’t see a way to ensure the city’s protection unless they stay with the previously approved development agreements or require letter of credit at time of plat. Cocking wasnot comfortable with that. Couri reported the final plat needs to be recorded within 120 days from approval which is about two and a half months away. Lapham stated that their intent is to absolutely move forward and they are on track with their plans. She stated that with current events they are worried if they may be delayed although that is not how they plan to come across and they felt nothing has changed with the project. Cocking stated that even though the traffic showed the Goddard School wouldn’t generate enough traffic to require a signal, but he doesn’t want to inconvenience the remainder of the neighborhood if there are backups at the intersection. Couri felt it more likely to be traffic accidents than overall volume. Aggarwal stated he was ready to work and pay his share down the road for the signal if it becomes necessary, especially if the apartments are not going in. He stated he has spent a lot of money this far to make the project happen; Aggarwal’s consultant felt there is no option to fail, they must come to a solution. Couri stated the land owner is opposed to special assessment of the signal costs. Nafstad stated that the agreement does allow the city to special assess the daycare lot as well. Lapham felt that if development occurs across CSAH 19 and requires the signal, then Lot 2 shouldn’t bear 86% of the signal cost. Council discusses waiver options. Couri stated there is not a way to accomplish everyone’s goal. Halling inquired if single family housing drives the need for a signal would they be assessed or just commercial properties?Nafstad replied that the city has not assessed residential. Halling didn’t see additional risk on the city’s part. Halling felt that apartments should not pay more than their fair share if the city should assess the costs. She felt that they have had reassurances from all parties that the development would move forward and it is worth the risk to move forward as presented this evening. Olson inquired what happens if accidents increase in a year or two and they need to assess the properties on the east side CSAH 19. Halling inquired why vacant property would be assessed and Couri replied that they need to assess by class and those lots are guided commercial. However, Lot 2 cannot develop housing without the stoplight in place. Olson inquired if there were deferral options. Couri replied they could defer a set number of years or until housing is built. He stated the assessment would be activated earlier but the city would not collect the assessment until that time is up or housing built. Leuer was not accepting of that arrangement. He felt the east side could develop and wouldn’t have to pay their fair share; he just felt he couldn’t agree to assessment terms. He is willing to pay for the light as was previously agreed upon. Leuer felt it is not fair for him to pay for the majority of the signal if traffic from the school causes the need for the signal while the housing wasn’t going in. Leuer wants to see the cost of signal tied to the building permit rather than the property. Hudson inquired why the assessment waiver would be required. Couri replied that it was a significant cost to defend against an appeal of an assessment such as occurred with a previous development. Hudson stated it is just a matter of who holds that risk at this point. Dahlke inquired if the city would be willing with a minimum percent for the daycare to pay for the signal, if Leuer could put a minimum of, for example, 50% of the signal cost. Leuer stated he had not thought of it and knows he has to pay for some of the signal. He is open to something more reasonable rather the entire cost of the signal, but if the housing doesn’t develop he doesn’t want to be holding the full cost of the signal. Nafstad stated that the commitment to the public Meeting Date: April 27, 2020 was that a signal would be put in by and before the apartment housing is built. Hendrickson asked if they could assign minimum assessment percentages to the agreementand Couri replied they don’t know what the number would be but it has to be an exact number and where any remaining percentages would come from. He stated they could put in a minimum cost to assess with the ability to assess more with or without a waiver that the excess amount would be contested. It would be open to appeal. Hendrickson clarified that if the apartments are built, the full cost of the signal will be on Lot 2. Cocking felt they are far off of what they reviewed at the last meeting. He felt they should not be put in the position to determine value to benefiting properties. He felt they amended the agreement last time at the developer’s request. Halling felt that they should move forward as so much investment has been put into the project and there is a good faith effort to make the project happen. Hendrickson wants to see the school developed. Council discussed including a minimum assessment in the development agreement for Lot 2 in order to have a safety net if a traffic signal does become needed by some means. Halling felt the Goddard School is not going to be the sole cause for a traffic signal. Hudson said to be consistentif they waived the 14% for Goddard School at the last meeting, they should maintain that premise. Halling stated Aggarwal was willing to pay the 14% once needed. Olson stated that they can use the assessment process at a later dateif needed. Nafstad stated the 429 assessment will require assessment of both residential and commercial benefitting properties. Hendrickson would like to see at least 50% as a safety net and Olson stated he would support that. Leuer stated that he would be open to 36% to meet the 50% along with the 14% from the Goddard School. Couri clarified that if the city assesses more, each party would be able to appeal Couri reported the agreement would be amended to include traffic signal cost assessment to a minimum assessment of $108,000 for Lot 2 and $42,000 for Lot 1and allows the city to assess before the apartment housing is built and both parties can appeal any amount in excess of those amounts. Leuer clarified if the apartment housing comes along quickly he would be responsible for the full amount of the traffic signal. Cocking stated he did not want existing residential assessed for a stop light. Motioned by Halling seconded by Hudson, to approve the amended Development Agreements for Heuring Meadows Commons Lot 1 and Lot 2with amendments to include traffic signal cost assessment to a minimum assessment of $108,000 for Lot 2 and $42,000 for Lot 1and allows the city to assess before the apartment housing is built and both parties can appeal any amount in excess of those amounts. Ayes: Hendrickson, Halling, Hudson and Olson. Nays: Cocking. Absent: None. MOTIN DECLARED CARRIED. 3. Designate Kristie Moseng Deputy City Clerk Nafstad reported that with staff working from home during the Governor’s Stay-At-Home order, a backup tothe City Clerk to sign plats, contracts and election items is needed. Meeting Date: April 27, 2020 Motioned by Cocking, seconded by Olson, to designate Kristie Moseng as Deputy City Clerk. Ayes: Hendrickson, Cocking, Halling, Hudson and Olson. Nays: None. Absent: None. MOTION DECLARED CARRIED. 4.Adjournment Motioned by Cocking seconded byHalling, to adjourn the meeting at 9:08 p.m. Ayes: Hendrickson, Cocking, Halling, Hudsonand Olson. Nays: None. Absent: None. MOTION DECLARED CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, __________________________________ Kimberly A. Hodena, City Clerk Meeting Date: April 27, 2020