Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MINUTES <br />DRAFT <br />118 long time. He wonders, for this development, could there be more pine trees planted, perhaps on <br />119 highway land. He also noted the inclusion of a woodshop in the development - that piques his <br />120 interest. Ms. Larsen said yes a basic work shop is planned and she added that the development is <br />121 bringing forward some above average amenities. <br />122 <br />123 Michael Ostegren, 6688 21St Av S, addressed the council. He grew up in the area and moved back. <br />124 He isn't supportive of an apartment project in this particular neighborhood. In looking at other <br />125 apartment developments, he sees that access is an important element and, for this development, <br />126 access is through the neighborhood. Another concern is the size — four stories — and how that <br />127 blends into the residential area. He believes that many neighbors share his expressed sentiment. <br />128 <br />129 Mayor Rafferty remarked that those are good issues. He noted that the planned development goes <br />130 back years so it's difficult to know how that happened. He noted the age restriction for the building <br />131 but that it will still generate some traffic. He hears the comments and wishes there was more he <br />132 could do. <br />133 A developer representitive noted that they manage 55+ facilities across the state and can report the <br />134 average age of residents is closer to 75. There is not as much traffic for these developments. He <br />135 respects the concern about the impact on the neighborhood. <br />136 <br />137 Councilmember Cavegn asked the developer if he is familiar with similar develoments that go <br />138 through residential neighborhoods and the representative said yes but certainly not all. This is <br />139 admitedly tucked away but that will make it quieter. <br />140 Councilmember Stoesz moved to approve Resolution No. 22-16 and Resolution No. 22-17 as <br />141 presented. Councilmember Lyden seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. <br />142 6B) 2022 Street Rehabilitation Program: i. Consider Approval of Resolution No. 22-20, <br />143 Accepting bids and Awarding a Construction Contract; ii. Consider Approval of Resolution <br />144 No. 22-21, Approving Construction Services Contract with WSB & Associates — City Engineer <br />145 Hankee reviewed her written staff report. She reviewed the proposed project (streets included), an <br />146 alternate (thin overlay only) and the low bid received. She reviewed the proposed cost and funding <br />147 source within the City budget; also noted was the construction services contract proposed. <br />148 <br />149 Mayor Rafferty asked about communicating plans to residents. Ms. Hankee said there was <br />150 communication already on the utility review and also information was included in the City <br />151 newsletter; once the schedule is clear, information will be mailed including on water shut downs. <br />152 Councilmember Cavegn moved to approve Resolution No. 22-20 and Resolution No. 22-21 as <br />153 presented. Councilmember Ruhland seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. <br />154 6C) Consider Approval of Resolution No. 22-23, Order Project, Approve the Plans and <br />155 Specifications and Authorize the Ad for Bid, 2022 East Shadow Lake Drive Utility Project- City <br />156 Engineer Hankee reviewed her written report noting information gathered previously showing some <br />157 utility issues in this area. Staff reviewed the work proposed and asked for authorization to go out for <br />158 bid. <br />159 <br />160 Councilmember Stoesz asked about extending the project to the cul-de-sac since that is work that will <br />161 eventually be needed; that way the residents would be impacted by just one project. Ms. Hankee <br />162 indicated that she will explore the possiblity of adding that as an alternate to the bid process. <br />163 <br />4 <br />