[0:01] [music]

[0:08] Call the meeting to order. All rise for the pledge of allegiance.

[0:14] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[0:19] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:26] justice for all.

[0:32] Roll call. Council member Leech is absent.

[0:36] [snorts] Approval of the agenda. Is there any additions?

[0:41] Council have anything? Do I have a motion to approve the agenda

[0:46] as presented? >> Motion to approve.

[0:48] » Motion by Joe. Do I have a second? >> Second.

[0:50] » Second by Brad. >> Call the question. All those in favor

[0:54] signify by saying I. >> I.

[0:56] » Opposed. Motion carries. Four in favor, none against. Approval of the minutes of

[1:02] the August 19th, 2026 regular meeting. I'll receive them in your packet. Is

[1:09] there any corrections or clarifications needed

[1:14] within those minutes?

[1:21] Hearing nothing. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of the August 19th

[1:25] meeting? Motion to approve. Motion by Scott. Do I have a second?

[1:30] » I'll second. >> Second by Joe.

[1:34] Any last minute discussion? Call the question. All those in favor

[1:39] signify by saying I. >> I.

[1:42] » Opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries. Four in favor, none against. This now

[1:48] brings us to our public open forum. Is there anyone here that would like to

[1:52] speak to the council? Is there anyone here that would like to

[1:57] speak to the council? Oh, we've got one.

[2:02] Just a reminder, you have three minutes. >> Uh, Anna Schmall, 901 Lakeshore Drive.

[2:08] I'd like to begin by emphasizing something that I believe is important. I

[2:12] am not against apartment developments. I'm against the planning that led to

[2:15] only having one entry and exit through a culde-sac. Increased traffic will affect

[2:20] the safety of my family, our quality of life, and our property. Most people

[2:25] would be against this entry and exit option if they lived where we do. We

[2:28] have a right to be concerned. My kids safety matters. I'm genuinely worried

[2:32] about the impact of adding traffic. Fairway pines in the main street are in

[2:36] our area, yes, but they connect directly to Main Street. My concern is where the

[2:40] new vehicles will be concentrated and how they're going to move through the

[2:43] area. We can't control whether someone speeds, rolls through a stop sign, or

[2:47] drives carelessly. That is true everywhere. But here we can control how

[2:51] much traffic we intentionally send into this area in the first place. There's

[2:55] been discussion about a three-way stop sign at Main Street Lakeshore. Maybe

[2:58] that would help. Maybe it make it worse with cars queuing up on Lakeshore.

[3:02] Should there be a sidewalk along Case Stage Drive? Will it help? Have an

[3:06] engineer look at that intersection in that entire route regardless of the

[3:10] development size. If the engineer proves safety, great. If the engineer proves

[3:14] lack of safety, let's go back to the drawing board. I've been told that this

[3:17] was my mistake, that we purchased property next to undeveloped land.

[3:21] Lesson learned. I knew the area would grow, but I never imagined someone

[3:24] planned to use a culde-sac as a sole driveway for a two-story apartment

[3:28] building. It's a mistake I'll only make once. I have 10 years of personal

[3:32] experience living in this area and witnessing safety concerns firsthand. We

[3:35] may agree to disagree on those concerns. I respect that. I don't want to see

[3:39] anyone get hurt and then have to wonder if there was something more I could have

[3:42] done. For me, it comes down to doing what can be done proactively for a safer

[3:47] outcome for the future. We're not able to stay for the remainder of the

[3:51] meeting. I thank you for your time. Whether we agree or disagree, know that

[3:54] I have no ill will toward any of you. I truly and honestly want the best for

[3:58] everyone always and in all ways. Thank you and take care.

[4:03] » Thank you. Okay, go ahead.

[4:12] Hello, my name is Andy Martin. I am a partner in the Sock Center 24 LLC. I'm

[4:17] also the CEO of GC Real Estate Partners, which is a property management firm.

[4:22] It's been founded in 20 2004. We managed 6,000 apartment buildings. If this

[4:26] development is built, we would one be the owner and we would continue also as

[4:31] the manager. Uh requesting that the city council approve the development as it is

[4:36] proposed. Um, you know, I left the planning commission and the city council

[4:40] meetings, uh, the last previous ones feeling like the bad guy, which was

[4:44] disappointing. Um, we, when you're a developer, you find land in communities

[4:49] that needs housing. Uh, that you look for things that are platted and zoned

[4:53] and are ready to go. And that's exactly what this is. Taking that a step

[4:57] further, uh, is that this area has not changed since it was platted. It's it

[5:03] it's exactly played out as how it was set up to be. Going uh beyond that,

[5:08] we're also talking about building a project that I would argue will be the

[5:13] nicest uh project in the entire sock center community both by amenities and

[5:18] features. So, and then one step further, we are meeting every single piece of the

[5:23] zoning and we're exceeding in most instances of the requirements. So, um,

[5:29] couple other things quick that were brought up in previous meetings. There

[5:33] was one comment that said this is not consistent with the neighborhood. I

[5:36] would argue that, um, to the to the end, there's a sixplex, a 59 plex, senior

[5:41] housing, uh, short-term housing next door for the Eagles Nest. Uh, so it it

[5:48] fits right in that use. And then there's a lot of discussion about second about

[5:53] traffic. And that's the thing that has absolutely got the most attention and

[5:58] and um you know I I read through the packet leading into this and the

[6:02] followup information that's been gathered by the police department and so

[6:06] forth and and all of it direct points to the fact that there's actually a very

[6:11] very low use of low number of traffic within the area especially well what

[6:16] it's been constructed and set up for. Um and so I guess in closing my our

[6:23] position is that the development should go through as planned. Um, you know, we

[6:29] can't hold up an a development saying maybe there could be more traffic. I I

[6:34] have a lot of reasons which I won't go through that I don't think that's the

[6:37] case. But and if the addition of more walkways need to be happen after

[6:41] afterward, so be it. And in closing, u there is also on page 18 of the plan a

[6:47] drawing which shows adding walkways. we're more than happy to agree to do the

[6:54] walkways that are with inside of our development and everything that we

[6:57] control out by the front what's what's noted on. So, with that closing, I hope

[7:02] that um again, it's just been this has been as I'm on the other side of the

[7:07] table, but this has been a very frustrating process that in many

[7:11] instances feel like it's just continues to be dragging out as as the hope that

[7:15] it should go away and and we're just trying to build exactly what the

[7:18] intended use was in the highest and best.

[7:21] » Thank you for your time. >> Thank you.

[7:24] Is there anyone else that would like to speak?

[7:30] Brendan Schmall, 901 Lakeshore Drive. Uh, safety always has been and always

[7:35] will be our biggest concern. We've been told that the development will be safe

[7:38] and it won't be that bad. And my response is simple. We will see. Nobody

[7:43] can predict the future, but to me, adding that many more vehicles and trips

[7:46] to this area is asking for trouble. I hope I am wrong. Our two little girls,

[7:50] my wife, and I spend a lot of time outside, in our yard, driveway, on the

[7:54] street, and on the trail. The added 144 vehicle trips will definitely impact

[7:58] this. We have been told that we are only seeing it from one point of view and

[8:02] that we are biased, which is fair to say because it will impact us more than

[8:06] most. Of course, we are invested. It's our front door. But proximity does not

[8:10] make our safety metrics wrong. It makes us the experts on this specific corner.

[8:14] There is a need for additional housing in sock center. We do not have an issue

[8:17] with the apartment. When the main streeter apartment went in, you never

[8:21] heard from us. This is because it was a better plan and the driveway emptied

[8:24] onto Main Street. Our only issue is the apartment using a residential culde-sac

[8:28] as a driveway instead of using Main Street. There has also been talk of a

[8:33] sidewalk all along Lakeshore Drive. Again, this is not something we are

[8:36] asking for and has gotten off topic. We would never ask our neighbors to put a

[8:40] sidewalk across their property. What has been uh what has been asked is to truly

[8:45] look at an alternative. This design, whether original or modified, is flawed.

[8:50] Because we were told uh we are only seeing one side and biased, we contacted

[8:55] a number of people to ask their opinions. We Googled and reached out to

[8:58] a number of realators, contractors, and developers from different towns and

[9:01] cities to ask questions. We did not say what or why we were asking and that we

[9:05] just wanted an honest opinion. The cons consensus was this is not a good plan

[9:10] and they do not understand why it would be done this way. They all pretty much

[9:14] said the same thing. This looks like poor planning and should have been done

[9:17] different from the start. It sounds like a situation of too little too late. This

[9:21] does not necessarily have to be. I believe there is an alternative we if we

[9:24] are just willing. The main street or driveway seems like the most logical

[9:28] option. Has this truly been explored to the fullest? Has compensation for the

[9:32] wear and tear on the driveway been suggested? A reduction in size and

[9:35] number of units. Building twin homes, a land swap, any of these options seem

[9:39] like a better choice. As I mentioned, I hope I am wrong and nothing bad happens,

[9:43] but if it does, I truly hope you feel you have done everything and exhausted

[9:47] all options. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[9:53] Anyone else who would like to speak?

[9:57] Call a third time. Is there anyone else that would like to speak?

[10:03] Okay, seeing no one, our public open forum is now closed. We have no public

[10:08] hearings. >> [clears throat]

[10:10] » We'll move on to reports and presentations.

[10:13] EDA report, Vicki.

[10:22] So, the EDA met today in regular session at noon. They just had a few items on

[10:26] their agenda for discussion. They did get updates from the chamber and from

[10:30] sock center opportunities. Uh the hospitality study that still continues

[10:34] to be a work in progress being sent out to various hotel franchises and

[10:38] developers that may be interested in working on a hotel. Uh they got an

[10:42] update on the author's phase 2 construction. Uh the the curb and

[10:46] everything is in now. So it's uh looking really good. We should be start offering

[10:50] them for sale. Actually, we have the signs up for sale right now, but we're

[10:54] not actively doing anything until uh the paving is in and the lot monuments are

[10:59] in there so people can see where they're going. Uh they also uh discussed the

[11:02] apartment complex because that was uh that whole development was part of the

[11:06] EDA and they were the ones that worked on the 24 unit when it was a tiff

[11:10] project a couple years ago. And so they did give some input on that and reviewed

[11:15] it for compliance with uh what the original plan was. And then also we're

[11:19] still waiting to hear back on our SCDP grant application which was the

[11:23] residential rehab. Last year in 2025 they issued the awards on the 12th of

[11:29] September. So we're getting pretty close. We're hoping that we're in that

[11:32] same same time frame. Uh we're hopeful because we did have a

[11:37] strong first application. So if we get that, we'll have that's that $600,000

[11:41] grant to help uh with rehab with some residential homes in Sock Center. Um, a

[11:46] have no action tonight for you. >> Okay. Any questions, comments on that?

[11:54] Parks report. >> Uh, the park board met today at 5:00.

[11:58] That was their regular meeting. Uh, they did get their public works report of

[12:01] course. And then the campground, they got a monthly update on the on the the

[12:05] financials for the campground. We have one month left in there. So, the end of

[12:08] September, we'll be closing that up for the year. Uh, they're unfinished

[12:12] business. As you know, the archery range project, we have not started the archery

[12:15] range, but we are starting to work on what will the rules be and and exactly

[12:19] how that final layout will be. I've asked we've asked the board to kind of

[12:22] be thinking about that because at our next meeting then we'll get into that in

[12:25] more detail. They've also been monitoring the community garden as you

[12:29] know uh this last couple years. You know, there's been less and less

[12:32] interest in that. Some people are interested in having a garden, but not a

[12:37] lot are interested in helping to maintain it. And so, they're keeping an

[12:39] eye on that. And at the end of the year, they'll likely make a recommendation on

[12:43] whether it's used, if it's reached its useful life and is ready to be retired.

[12:48] Um, the campground, they have that tent bathroom that they're looking to do next

[12:51] year. And so they're going to be looking at or giving some ideas of a design idea

[12:57] uh for that campground bathroom. Um, that's of course be pending if it stays

[13:01] in the budget until after the first of the year, but they're still starting to

[13:04] work on that. We do have some upgrades for some of the campsites. Uh, we have a

[13:09] few left. I think there's eight of them left that um still have the old

[13:12] electrical underground. So, we'll be burying in new electrical with their new

[13:16] uh services and also straightening a couple sites out. So, then that'll be

[13:20] the final sites and the entire campground will be um up to code with

[13:24] current electrical and water and sewer. And that's something that was planned

[13:28] for this fall. So, they'll likely depending on I hate to say it if winter

[13:31] comes soon or not, but they would be working on fall or early spring. And

[13:35] then also because the water is so low on Hobok and Creek right now, they're

[13:38] looking at getting out there and just doing that uh clearing of the area where

[13:42] the bridge is going to go through and start looking at that. So, um but that

[13:47] was for the pedestrian bridge that's going to go over it'll come from the

[13:49] campground and head out to Hickman Park. And so that's they have no action items

[13:54] for you tonight, but this is kind of what they're working on.

[13:57] » Okay, questions, concerns? Okay, we'll move on to our action items.

[14:03] 7 A approve resolution 2026-63 approving the conditional use permit for

[14:10] 24 unit apartment. >> So I'm I'm not going to reread the staff

[14:15] report from the last meeting. You all have it in your packet and you had it in

[14:18] the minutes. Um but uh at that meeting nine members of the public spoke in

[14:23] opposition to the proposal citing concerns over parking, pedestrian

[14:26] movement and traffic increases as a result of the proposal. Uh the city

[14:30] council ultimately tabled that request for two weeks directing staff to obtain

[14:34] costs to install a sidewalk or trail connecting Main Street to Kates Estates

[14:38] Drive. Since the meeting, the city council members received additional

[14:41] emails from a member of the public outlining additional proposed

[14:44] conditions. They felt the council should consider. It's up to the council if they

[14:48] wish to reopen that to consider additional public comment or not. That's

[14:51] up to you. That's not part of the packet. I'm more focused on what the

[14:55] council had directed staff to do at the last meeting. Um, a trail could

[14:59] potentially be located along the south side of Lakeshore Drive from Maine to

[15:03] Kates Estates, then cross to the east side of Kates and then into the

[15:06] entrance. As you see that is in the drawing there that that we do that see

[15:09] how that could potentially look. We got some cost of installation of the trail.

[15:14] Um, and this is actually I think from Lakeshore Drive uh and then down to the

[15:19] um apartment but not within the apartment. So that's about a $20,000

[15:24] cost to do that. Uh in addition uh since that meeting uh this the Stock Center

[15:30] police chief was out there and you have his report where he's had that since the

[15:35] last council meeting their department has been monitoring the pedestrian and

[15:38] vehicle traffic in the area of Main Street, Lakeshore and Lake Bridge. The

[15:41] amount of traffic is notice of there has been much more underwhelming that has

[15:45] been advertised. They have some solutions that would slow down traffic.

[15:48] However, there uh his recommendation could be a three-way stop at Main Street

[15:53] and Lakes Shore Drive. So, all three directions they have to stop, a stop

[15:56] sign at at Kate's Estates and Lakeshore Drive, and I believe that was already in

[16:00] the proposal. And then stop signs at Lakeshore and Lake Ridge, which is

[16:05] further to the east. Um, and then of course, if the apartments go in, we'd

[16:09] have a stop sign coming out of the apartment complex. Uh, they would make

[16:12] the entire length of Main Street going uh north from the golf course 30 miles

[16:16] per hour. Um, and there's 30 mile power signs down to the far south end, but

[16:20] then it's not signed. we put some more signs up that that would maintain 30 the

[16:24] entire length. In the past, that was a higher speed road. Uh he recommend they

[16:29] could put up fluorescent pedestrian walking signs in the area. You know, not

[16:32] the flashing ones, but those, you know, the ones that showed that there's

[16:35] pedestrians. Um and of course, he said that they could make a bike or

[16:39] pedestrian lane along the entire length of Lake Shore if that's a concern.

[16:43] However, that would eliminate parking on that side of the road. Uh he said we as

[16:47] the police department could beef up patrols out there if needed. However,

[16:50] they have not seen a heavy number of speeders. Uh they were out there with

[16:53] Mark patrol cars, his low profile, low profofile squad and personal vehicle

[16:57] with LAR checking speeds. Um most of the pedestrian traffic were adults and any

[17:03] under 18 were accompanied by adults. So he did put in a stop sign location

[17:08] proposal in your packet which are the ones that I just had mentioned. And then

[17:13] also to further evaluate traffic because that seemed to be the most concern. Uh

[17:17] we reached out to colleagues at MIDOT and Sterns County Engineer regarding

[17:20] perceived traffic impacts and a traffic impact study. They said due to the small

[17:24] scope of the project, there wouldn't be a large enough sampling to make a

[17:28] definitive determination to make any impactful changes. That's what they I

[17:31] was told. And MINDOT noted that they did review the project proposal in relation

[17:35] to its roundabout and they determined no impact for that as well. Um, as you

[17:40] know, traffic impact studies are usually when a proposed project will generate

[17:44] like 100 more vehicles per hour. Uh, we've done a couple of them. We did one

[17:47] for Walmart. We did one for Quick Trip. We haven't had to do one for a

[17:51] residential one, not in the time that I've been here anyway. Um, and of

[17:55] course, these studies will take 3 to six months to complete if we were to do

[17:58] that. Um, also any additions and you have the resolution which has all the

[18:03] conditions and the findings in your packet. If you want to make any

[18:06] additional conditions or changes, they should be stated for inclusion in the

[18:10] resolution. So if you make a motion one way or the other and you have any

[18:13] changes to the resolution in the packet, then you should state them at that time

[18:17] so we make sure they're in the record. So the the request tonight is the

[18:22] approval of the resolution approving uh resolution 2026-63

[18:28] add approving the request for the conditional use permit to Saxiner LLC

[18:33] 24 LLC 24. Do you have any questions for me?

[18:39] questions, concerns [snorts]

[18:45] otherwise I will look for a motion.

[18:56] » Vicki, I have a couple questions. >> Sure. Um,

[19:00] talking about conditions specifically, um, and I know I sent you

[19:05] a email with a number of conditions outlining the majority of the conditions

[19:10] that were also submitted by, uh, the general public. Um, I'm not going to ask

[19:15] you to add them all into the con into any uh specific

[19:21] conditions here, but there was a lot of them that talked about the traffic

[19:25] study. And you stated that the traffic study was only typically warranted when

[19:30] there's greater vehicles than what's being presented in this proposal.

[19:33] Correct. >> That's what Yes.

[19:35] » And that was that was information you gathered from

[19:39] who? Mindat and Sterns County Highway

[19:42] Engineer. >> Um, is there specific

[19:49] numbers that meet the criteria of when a study should be done outside of the 100

[19:54] for residential? >> Well, that's when when they're generally

[19:58] if you're going to bring a commercial and that's most of the time when they

[20:01] come in is when there's going to be a commercial. If there's going to and like

[20:05] they said before, they'll do like 100 per hour. they expect it to increase by

[20:10] 100 per hour. That that is the number that they gave me is typically when they

[20:15] would start requiring one. >> So with that, I did do a little research

[20:19] on that and and MINDOT traffic impact study guidance is generally not

[20:22] warranted for developments generating less than 250 peak hour vehicle trips or

[20:27] 2500 new daily trips unless there's unusual circumstances. So that's from

[20:31] MDOT's guidance. >> Thank you.

[20:36] » Okay. Any [clears throat] other questions,

[20:40] comments?

[20:44] » So, my general thoughts are um you know, we look back to this and we

[20:50] um zoned that as R2 back in 2005, our comprehensive plan in 2018. Uh labeled

[20:57] that for highdensity uh living, which is what the developer is, you know,

[21:02] suggesting in this spot. So, it's zoned appropriately and it meets that those

[21:07] criteria. When that comprehensive plan was [clears throat] presented in 2018,

[21:10] there was a public hearing. At our planning and zoning, we also had a

[21:14] approval at the council level. Um, I did rewatch that council meeting and there

[21:18] was no comments opposed to the zoning the plan at that time. Uh, with that

[21:24] being said, I I know this traffic impact study is a big thing. Um but with 144

[21:30] proposed daily trips, it falls underneath the the peak hour

[21:36] uh demands for a study from MNDOT. Peak hour generation from this is

[21:39] approximately 15. Even if we go to 20, you're looking at one vehicle every 3

[21:44] minutes on average. We go to that three-way stop. Um did a quick AI search

[21:49] study on that says about 4 seconds it would clear that intersection, those

[21:51] vehicles. So we would pass through quite a significant amount of vehicles in that

[21:56] time. You know, even the 144 in 1 hour. So looking at that, the traffic demands

[22:02] for those those studies would would meet that criteria. Um I mean, you know,

[22:07] we're looking at market rate rents and a developer who's interested in in coming

[22:11] to town, increasing our tax base, helping our our revenue generation for

[22:15] this community. Um all intents and purposes. I mean, this looks like a very

[22:20] nice nicely done uh development and reading the article from the planning

[22:23] and zoning commission what what the amenities are going to be. So, there's a

[22:26] lot of positives that that come out of this and again it's zoned appropriately

[22:30] meets those conditions. I I understand the concerns of the neighborhood and the

[22:34] traffic increase. Um it's it's more than what they're accustomed to, but I I can

[22:39] attribute to I live on a dead end road for 11 years and now I've got uh you

[22:43] know 40 new lots that are in in the neighborhood and another 40 that are

[22:46] planned there. So that's that's how things go and they change um with it and

[22:51] you know as as you do your due diligence whether you're buying or or already

[22:54] there and studying that is is you see what may come from a from a property

[22:58] site and how it's done. So um with that I mean my my thoughts are um in support

[23:04] of approval of the conditional use permit.

[23:07] » Okay. Is that a motion? [clears throat] >> I just giving my opinion at this time.

[23:10] I'm I'm I'm letting everyone share share their share their positions and issue.

[23:15] We'll uh we'll we'll make our motion as it relates to the itself.

[23:19] » If you don't mind, I'll make a few comments. Um couple thoughts come. This

[23:24] is our third third meeting in in reference to this uh development and I

[23:31] can understand from the developer that it seems like um you know, we're kind of

[23:36] against it. I think in every meeting and every person that spoke, everybody

[23:40] stated we're in favor of an apartment building. There's been no question about

[23:44] that from the get-go. I think how it ended up, where you're at, and how that

[23:50] land got to a point to where it would come and be designed and developed off

[23:55] the end of the culde-sac is an oversight on the city's part, not you as the

[24:00] developer. In my opinion, when that was brought up and when the when Main

[24:04] Streeters apartment was built, there was still access to Main Street after that.

[24:12] Correct. >> No.

[24:14] » No. >> There was no access after Main Streeters

[24:16] apartment went up. >> When that when it was platted, Main

[24:19] Streeters had a lot and this lot and then [clears throat] the third lot that

[24:22] Brock built, there was [snorts] it was platted into three lots. The two

[24:26] accessed on to Kates and the one onto Main Street.

[24:29] » Right. >> So, in the original plan, let's go all

[24:31] the way back then to 2005. That was an entire field.

[24:35] » You mean like the 2002 plan? >> The 2002 plan.

[24:39] » The 2002 plan. Kates Estates was a through road and came down to Fairway

[24:45] Pines area. >> Okay.

[24:48] Very interesting. So in all of these different developments, in all of these

[24:52] different plans, the city never once took upon themselves to say, we now have

[24:58] this acreage on the far back of all of this land that was open along Main

[25:03] Street North to be apartment complexes, and we put ourselves in this position

[25:07] that we're in today. Well, when the city developed this section of it, we only

[25:12] had this small area. That was the part that the developer let go tax forfeit

[25:16] that then we picked up. So, we didn't have control of the whole thing. Uh we

[25:21] just had control of that part of it. And the and the city did look at several

[25:26] different options of how to make that work. Um and their initial one was a

[25:33] through road that came down Kates and went out main streeters, but because of

[25:39] the shoreland in order to push the density further away from the shoreland

[25:43] because this had bigger apartments where he's building and so they pushed the

[25:48] density south and then they needed that extra land to get it down there. So then

[25:54] that made this terminate in the culde-sac because of it being only 24

[25:58] units. At that point they said, "Okay, then the culde-sac will be fine and it

[26:02] doesn't need to be a through road." And so that's kind of how that happened was

[26:06] that they looked at a couple different options and this was the option that was

[26:10] selected. Because of it being in Shorland, they had to have less density

[26:14] toward the lake, push the density to the south, away from the lake, requiring

[26:18] that to be a bigger lot, meaning it went all the way across and now there was no

[26:22] room for the road anymore. So that's how that that's how that evolved over time.

[26:28] Again, I think as this whole area got

[26:32] developed, we still found ourselves in a predicament that we are now at a point

[26:37] of allowing because that's how we designated highdensity, you know, um,

[26:43] residential area to develop a 24 unit in a shoreland district, which I think that

[26:49] in itself has a different conversation, but you know, um,

[26:55] off of a culde-sac and I just can't imagine we would do that. This just my

[26:59] own opinion. I just can't imagine we would do that, but we did. And so now

[27:04] what do we do? We got we can only apply conditions. At the end of the day, we

[27:07] can only apply conditions because we can request

[27:12] smaller size of complex.

[27:16] My vision was is if you would have presented a 12 unit, I would have

[27:19] probably supported that. You know why? I can give you the reason. Because if you

[27:23] look at the size of the property and you look at the number of duplexes that are

[27:27] currently there and you say, "Well, this size of property and how it's developed

[27:31] here potentially, best case scenario, we could get six duplexes, 12 residential

[27:36] units, 12 houses. I could support a 12unit apartment complex because there's

[27:42] reasoning. Right now, we're just saying, well,

[27:44] we're going to do 24 units because, well, we there's a need for it."

[27:51] Um my other thoughts are is we also know

[27:55] that there's a property that's to the south, large field that's not been

[27:59] developed, um potential develop whether it's uh that land. An additional

[28:04] condition that if the council feels we have to move forward in that direction

[28:07] to me would be to add language that would um

[28:13] I can't use the word require but that would entertain the idea of additional

[28:18] um relationship with the developers to that property to potentially bring

[28:23] another access into or exit into that apartment complex. it looks like the way

[28:29] you have it laid out on your design, there's plenty of room in that southeast

[28:33] corner to do so. Um, again, trying to find ways, trying to find solutions so

[28:39] that maybe when the additional land gets proposed, maybe when additional land

[28:44] gets developed to the south, we can still address some of these traffic

[28:48] concerns. [clears throat] I don't know that the traffic concerns

[28:51] ever is going to go away. It's there. um sidewalks. As far as I'm concerned, the

[28:56] sidewalk should be uh installed all the way along as proposed and it should be

[29:01] the cost of the developer. We wouldn't be putting in the sidewalks if it wasn't

[29:05] for this development. Um just my opinion on the sidewalks and

[29:10] I agree with uh Mr. Jensen uh in his observations on the stop signs and the

[29:18] speed control uh seems sufficient. That's my thoughts.

[29:23] Okay. >> Any [clears throat] other comments?

[29:25] » Well, everybody else put their two cents in, so I'm going to as well. Um, with

[29:29] that sidewalk, I'm I'm for the one in between Kates Estates and Main Street

[29:33] North. It's the residents on Lakeshore Drive that are having the issue with the

[29:37] traffic. There's there's what, six units, five

[29:42] units down Kate Estates? six >> six units

[29:45] » that if the property owners want sidewalks down that it's they're not the

[29:50] ones that really spoke and against it with the traffic. It was more that they

[29:55] just didn't want it in their neighborhood. But the people on

[29:58] Lakeshore Drive aren't going to be using one down estate. So that there,

[30:03] you know, then the property owners have to maintain it. You know, I wish I

[30:07] didn't have a sidewalk in my property because I have to maintain it because if

[30:10] I don't, I'm going to get fined from the city. So, I have to maintain it. That's

[30:14] another requirement they're not looking at. They're going to have to make sure

[30:16] it's shoveled. It's contract snow removal. And as far as the traffic

[30:21] [clears throat] numbers are always brought, 144 additional vehicles per

[30:25] day. There's 1440 minutes in a day. Take that, divide it by 144. That's one car

[30:32] every 10 minutes. Okay? Yeah. They're not going to be driving at hours a day.

[30:36] will take it at 12-h hour period from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. That's one

[30:40] additional car every 5 minutes. There is more than that. There's a guy

[30:46] in my neighborhood that drives by my house every 10 minutes. I'm not going to

[30:50] say anything to him because it's his right. It's a public use road. He can

[30:54] use it. I'm not going to complain about it because people are just driving

[30:58] around and people aren't going to be driving in there. They might drive in

[31:02] there to start with to look at the apartment, but then it's going to be the

[31:05] residents going to work, going to wherever they're going to the grocery

[31:09] store or whatever. If that's one additional car every 5 minutes, that is

[31:14] so minuscule in the grand scheme of what sock center has with traffic going

[31:19] through this town. So, I understand the concerns of people driving by. I drive

[31:25] that road almost every day. Do I have to? No. But I choose to because it's a

[31:30] cut across from Lake Shore out 271. I'll stop driving it. I if if traffic's an

[31:36] issue, I'll stop driving. That'll be one less

[31:40] car. So then we're down to 143 trips a day. So

[31:45] I don't see where the big concern is. And if we have the subject matter expert

[31:48] with the police chief saying that he has no safety public safety concerns with

[31:53] the increased traffic in that area. That's who I'm going to go with. I'm not

[31:59] going to take a former military guy like myself, you as a route driver for your

[32:04] input on a public safety aspect. I'm going to listen to the guy that's in

[32:08] charge. He has no concerns. There's always going to be a concern because

[32:12] people are dumb, stupid, whatever, and drive that way. We're never going to fix

[32:17] that. Whether it's on case estates, Lake Shore, Main Street, the interstate, it

[32:21] doesn't matter. It's it's going to happen. There's accidents happen because

[32:25] they're called accidents. We can mitigate it as much as we can with speed

[32:29] control, extra squad patrols, stop signs, stuff like that there. I think we

[32:35] need to put in the additional measures to slow the traffic, but we cannot deny

[32:41] a developer or make him move his property somewhere else when he has met

[32:46] all of the requirements per city code planning and zoning. We cannot deny him

[32:51] that. He has every right. That'd be like me telling you that you can only build a

[32:56] patio home on your property. Even though you can build whatever you want as long

[33:00] as [clears throat] it's within zoning, we cannot

[33:03] deprive somebody their livelihood because people have concerns and I get

[33:09] the concerns. I really do. But that's why we need to put in the mig mitigation

[33:13] of traffic control and the PD. And like Joe said, if there's extra patrols that

[33:18] are required, go talk to him, go talk to Melissa. They will increase patrols.

[33:22] They're doing it out on Belt Line right now because of the increased traffic on

[33:26] Fridays and Sundays. They focus their needs to where it needs

[33:31] to be. And if this is an area that it needs to be, especially to start with,

[33:34] and start issuing tickets, people are going to realize that this is not a

[33:38] place we can speed. So, I

[33:43] I don't foresee an issue with that going in there. E 24 units or if it's a 12unit

[33:49] town home or patio homes there. Again, we cannot force him to build patio

[33:54] homes. And patio homes are different than

[33:59] rental units. A lot of people need the short-term rentals because either

[34:03] they're just starting out in their career here in Sock Center or the area

[34:07] or they're a newly married couple, don't have the financing to put down a down

[34:11] payment on a house. So, a lot of people live in apartments for one to two years

[34:16] and move on to with their career or their or their family life. So, we are

[34:22] in a need of nice, decent, short-term housing here in

[34:28] town. So, that's my two piece or two cents worth.

[34:33] Okay. I guess I'm

[34:38] with Brad's comments, I'm a little confused on where he's [clears throat]

[34:43] really coming from because at a previous council meeting, you told us the city

[34:47] shouldn't be in the development business. we should leave it up to

[34:51] developers. So now we got a developer sitting here that wants to develop and

[34:55] you're nitpicking him to the point that he could walk away or it's not going to

[35:00] happen. So I got to try to understand which side of the fence you're standing

[35:06] on. Um

[35:10] the other point is that we talked land swap and all that and putting it out on

[35:15] the west side of town. We legally can't do that because that'd be called spot

[35:21] zoning, which is against state law. You can't you can only

[35:27] go and change the zoning if it's adjacent to an existing zone. So, this

[35:33] is um R2 multif family dwelling. We can't

[35:39] just drop a multifamily dwelling in the middle of a residential or an industrial

[35:44] park or anything because it's against the state law. So

[35:48] that needs to be brought up so people don't think that we're not looking at

[35:52] that. Um I did agree with Joel one when he mentioned that uh we came along and

[36:00] had the public hearings for the comprehensive plan. We had the hearings

[36:04] for the reasonzoning. There wasn't anybody here that had a

[36:09] comment and had anything against any of it. And we've had openings on,

[36:16] you know, I everybody cheered when I said, "Yeah, we maybe went the wrong

[36:19] direction." That's hindsight's 2020.

[36:24] But also, in the last 20 years, I haven't seen anybody stepping up and

[36:27] putting their name on the planning commission or the park board or anything

[36:31] else if they knew better than what we were

[36:35] told we were elected to do. So, it's kind of contradictory on their

[36:41] part, too. Um,

[36:46] to me, we got a developer sitting here. He's met all the qualifications.

[36:51] You know, we could probably reszone the golf course. And if we did that, we

[36:58] went through that already. We know what happens there because the that same

[37:02] whole north end all of a sudden didn't want nothing.

[37:06] So we could if we reszone the golf course, we could put it right across

[37:09] your driveway. >> Perfect.

[37:13] » So, but you know the only thing is is we got to look at the infrastructure that's

[37:17] there. The infrastructure is there for that.

[37:22] So that's my

[37:26] opinion. There's nothing else. Do I have

[37:30] » I do have a comment since you wanted to single me out. So, let me just uh try to

[37:33] help help you understand a little bit. First of all, I like how you always

[37:37] address me personally. That's really appreciative. But secondly, let me just

[37:40] tell you, let me tell you this. Um >> I can't think of a time that you've

[37:44] probably agreed with me since I've started. So, that's that's normal. And

[37:48] so, I expect you. But in regards to why am I in so in opposition of it?

[37:56] Because in every meeting we've had a full house and these people have never

[38:00] seemed like they really don't make a dang bit of difference. Nobody seems to

[38:04] be listening to everybody that has spoke spoke in

[38:08] opposition other than the developer.

[38:12] Every one of them that have spoke spoke in opposition.

[38:16] So at some point people do have an input of what happens in their neighborhoods.

[38:22] People do and should have a have input in how the city plans and develops. At

[38:29] some point, we the council need to take into consideration the impact on the

[38:35] people that it is in this case abetting or or next to. And yep, you're right.

[38:42] The city has, you know, we we've had a lot of different developments that have

[38:45] come and gone. You know what? If if it's about just simply looking at it and

[38:51] saying, "Okay, it meets the criteria. It meets the criteria. It meets the

[38:56] criteria." Doesn't matter what people think. Meets the criteria. You can have

[38:59] them all over. You can have we can have all sorts of things happening, right?

[39:05] So, I guess in regards to to your comments, what side of the fence, I've

[39:09] always been pretty clear, and I think you can ask anybody out there what side

[39:12] of the fence I'm on, is I like to listen to the people. I like to make decisions

[39:17] not only based on the people, but also what's best for the community in the

[39:21] bigger picture. We're not going to agree to this obviously. It's we're we're on

[39:25] two different sides and that's that's perfectly fine. That's that's the world

[39:28] we live in. That's fantastic. But as far as me personally and singling me out,

[39:34] thanks. But I don't need [clears throat] >> just

[39:38] to kind of address listening to the people and stuff. Yes, certainly we

[39:40] we've heard what they've had to say. we've listen we've taken that input into

[39:43] it to be tabled it to to study this further. Um you talk about you know

[39:48] having their input and stuff to make those decisions. Certainly that's that's

[39:52] a factor but when it's zoned the way it is we've got these things set up. We

[39:58] need to follow the the laws that dictate the approval and stuff. making a a

[40:03] decision because the opposition in the neighborhood would be, you know,

[40:06] arbitrary and capriccious denial, opening us up to litigation that the

[40:09] developer would be able to obviously probably win in a court of law and this

[40:13] would still be approved and go through. It's just delays his process. And if we

[40:18] were going to make decisions strictly on the opposition or who speaks the

[40:22] loudest, nothing would ever happen in the community because there's always

[40:26] going to be a group opposed to certain things. Uh, I mean, we see, you know,

[40:30] the the development there, the old interpretive center where we've got now

[40:34] Quick Trip going in. You know, how many people are opposed to that property

[40:37] being developed, you know, how many people are opposed to what went in

[40:40] there, you know, why didn't we choose a better business, things like that.

[40:42] There's always going to be opposition to everything. You need to make your

[40:45] decisions based on good planning, what's correct to the community and and what

[40:50] the greater enhancement is. I mean, we have, yes, opposition in the

[40:53] neighborhood. There's support in the neighborhood as well um that I've spoken

[40:58] to. The broader community also does warrant their input as well and from

[41:03] what I've heard from them too, their support for this this project and

[41:06] understanding that yes, there are concerns but there is a benefit to the

[41:10] community and it's the community as a whole. Not we're not making decisions

[41:13] neighborhood by neighborhood because again we would never accomplish anything

[41:16] in this community. And >> I want to just caveat on what Joel said

[41:20] there too because I that's exactly what I was going to say as well too. The

[41:24] people on any public hearing or any issue like this here, the only person

[41:30] that normally speaks in favor of that project is either the land owner or the

[41:35] developer. Um I've sat in on planning and zoning for variances. The only one

[41:40] that ever speaks in favor of it is the person that wants to do the project. the

[41:46] people that are speaking in opposition of it there there's there's people that

[41:49] have legitimate gripes. The schmoles live right at the end of Kesates. I get

[41:52] that. The people that live on Kates Estates, I get that. But then you have

[41:55] Emily Dunn who lives a third of a mile away to the east. You have Amy T.

[42:00] Schaefer that lives over a half a mile away with a loud voice about this and I

[42:08] live a half a mile away. It it's not affecting us like it is these other

[42:12] people. So, it's the people that are speaking in opposition that are the

[42:17] ones that are going to speak. The people that want the project, because I have

[42:21] spoken to other people that live on Lakes Shore Drive. I'm not going to

[42:24] mention names. If people want to know, they can come talk to me afterwards, but

[42:28] they're 100% in support of it. So, we're not hearing their voices because it's

[42:34] already been the plat is there. the

[42:40] all we are doing is putting conditions on it. Now everything is approved and

[42:45] stamped for the developer to proceed except for

[42:50] us passing this conditional use permit. So nobody really needs to speak in favor

[42:55] of it because it's already there and on the docket to be built. It's just

[43:01] waiting for the conditions to be assigned to it. But you have, if I can,

[43:05] you have to remember we have to approve the conditional use permit. That is

[43:10] their chance to be heard. That is our chance to do the due diligence. There is

[43:14] a one step that requires approval. It ain't just a stamp. We are we have to

[43:20] approve the conditional use permit. That's our way to put whether it's

[43:25] input, whether it's reducing the size, whether it's sidewalks. That's why it's

[43:31] here. >> That's what we're doing. And that's why

[43:32] we all voted besides one person last meeting to table it so that we could get

[43:38] further input. So we are doing our due diligence.

[43:41] » We have listened. We've I've gotten emails. I've gotten phone calls.

[43:46] So we have listened to that and the conditions are in here. The only other

[43:50] condition I would like to see is is probably just that one stretch of

[43:53] sidewalk from Kates Estates to Main Street because that is going to what's

[43:58] going to affect the residents here that are voicing their opinion. The other

[44:01] piece of it down Lakeshore Drive, no. The piece down Kates Estates, we could,

[44:06] but that's going to affect six buildings. Really

[44:11] » or you got nine units with the the six that park along or the three on the

[44:15] sixlex side there? >> Yeah. And which side do we put it on?

[44:19] You know, and even the one that's connecting the trailer, it's only going

[44:21] to be it's going to be another dead end sidewalk that goes nowhere except for

[44:25] into the street. So, I know we've discussed sidewalks

[44:31] at meetings with the whole Highway 71 construction project, the the author's

[44:38] edition. It always the sidewalks always are an issue because they don't go to

[44:42] anywhere but a dead end. But this here is a good connecting piece to that trail

[44:47] for those residents of where that traffic congestion or the increased

[44:51] traffic is going to start, which is at that intersection.

[44:56] I believe they've brought many people. Everybody that spoke had brought reasons

[45:00] why um and concerns. Um so I I think it's not just because

[45:06] they're the loudest. They actually brought legitimate things to the table

[45:10] for us to consider. That's my opinion. >> Correct.

[45:13] » I agree with that. I mean, I'm not saying I'm just again the loudest

[45:16] voices, the people that are are the one making their voices heard, right? Or

[45:20] bringing those concerns and we're we're validating. We're listening to them and

[45:24] taking their input. Again, that's why we tabled it to to hear those voices and

[45:28] and study this further. >> But again, right, if we had the 15 20

[45:34] people who are in support of the project speaking too, it it'd be the same thing.

[45:37] They just chose not to step in front of the crowd, whether it's fear of being

[45:42] alienated in the neighborhood or anything like that. Or they just don't

[45:45] don't want to be like that. I you know, again, everybody has their reasons for

[45:48] speaking or not speaking. >> Yep.

[45:53] Okay. Any other comments? Otherwise, I will look for a motion.

[45:58] » I'll make a motion with the conditions that are currently listed in the

[46:03] resolution and then also to add the ones that uh Chief Jensen had put in with the

[46:08] stop signs and marking the speed limits, but that's going to be something that's

[46:12] not going to be on the developer. But I think that is one of the mitigation

[46:17] things that we can do as a council and as a city to control that traffic.

[46:22] » Okay. So it wouldn't be part of his conditional use permit. It's something

[46:26] requested by that that the city will take care of.

[46:29] » Okay. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[46:33] » So your proposal is just the sidewalk from

[46:37] Main Street to Kates. >> Nothing as far as from Kates to

[46:41] Lakeshore. >> No.

[46:45] We want to would we want to state that if we see a need that that would be you

[46:49] know we can we can put you know put that in in the future if we see a need

[46:55] » need for the project that he you know we put it in at his cost at that time.

[46:59] » We got a motion. I need a second and then we can discuss more and he can

[47:03] amend his >> Okay. I'll second his motion.

[47:06] » Okay. >> Okay. So I will that's a good point Joel

[47:10] and that's I I appreciate the input. So yeah, I'll amend that if there is a need

[47:14] in the future from

[47:18] Lakeshore Drive down Kates Estates to the Culdeac

[47:23] to that third twin home down on the south

[47:25] » with a proposal on the south or east side as it's in the map.

[47:30] » Yes.

[47:35] And not in front of the twin homes, but in front of the other side.

[47:38] » Correct. >> Okay.

[47:42] Any other discussion >> is there? So the questions then as far

[47:46] as sidewalks in his development that's not a requirement

[47:51] that's going to bring it from the apartment out to the

[47:54] » that's on that's really on him. That's that's not going to affect

[47:59] what we're looking at here really I don't think.

[48:01] » Okay. So, and then >> he's already stated that he he'll take

[48:04] care of anything internally. And if that's something that his residents

[48:08] would like, you know, that that's that's not something that we're looking at

[48:14] because they're not expressing their concern over sidewalks inside the

[48:18] development itself. >> Okay. Just asking for clarification.

[48:22] » That's on his property anyway. So, >> so then also are you are you referencing

[48:27] in your conditions the stop sign as presented in this drawing here which

[48:33] shows a three-way stop at Maine and Lakeshore, a stop sign at Kate's Drive,

[48:38] and a stop sign at the >> all the access.

[48:43] » Chief Johnson had put in his letter those conditions, but that's not a

[48:47] condition for the developer. That's something that the city will obviously

[48:52] install. >> What about the stop sign out of his out

[48:55] of his >> out of his driveway?

[48:57] » Driveway. Is that that his responsibility?

[48:59] » That's one of them. >> Yeah, that'll be one, I guess. Yeah. Out

[49:01] of his getting on >> right away then.

[49:06] » Okay. So, that' be four more or no, six more.

[49:10] » Yes. >> Six more stop signs up there.

[49:15] Okay. We have a motion and a second. Does

[49:20] everybody understand the motion?

[49:26] » Hearing nothing. I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying I.

[49:31] I. >> I. Opposed.

[49:32] » I. >> Motion carries. Three in favor, one

[49:36] against. 7B, accept resignation, ambulance

[49:41] department. So, so we have four four uh members of

[49:45] the ambulance department that have uh submitted their resignations. Harry Dunn

[49:49] on August 20th, Libby Matthews on August 20th, Tim Dval on August 6th, and Jordan

[49:54] Hartman on August 31st. These are people that have been not been taking call over

[49:58] a long period of time. And so, uh they have now just decided not to be to be no

[50:05] longer part of the service. So, looking to accept the resignations as presented.

[50:11] Okay. Questions, concerns?

[50:15] » I have a question. Four resignations at one time. Is that not a concern or is

[50:20] that just >> They're all moved out or moved on.

[50:22] » Basically, two of them have jobs elsewhere and haven't been taking calls

[50:25] or doing anything. Kathy has left most of them on just in goodwill.

[50:32] » No. And now that Brian has taken over, he is looking at the roster and is

[50:39] working on if you're not there to take calls for some other reason. Um, one

[50:45] joined the Air Force, another one's working in Wadina.

[50:49] So, it's >> and they got a couple other

[50:53] paramedics that are possibly going to be coming to our ambulance service as well.

[50:58] » He's just basically cleaning house. If they don't want to take calls and it's

[51:01] been a period of time, there's no need for having you on the roster.

[51:05] » Well, I know. Yeah. Two of them. One moved, got a job out of town and so he's

[51:09] he's moved and then another one was uh for his career path is also resigning

[51:14] for that. So, I mean, >> yeah,

[51:15] » I know I know those ones. Yeah, they they're they're pursuing other

[51:19] opportunities. So, it's not like they weren't taking calls necessarily for two

[51:22] of them. >> Um

[51:24] » yeah, the other ones just hadn't been >> they're on the roster. They were there,

[51:27] but >> they decided to step away.

[51:29] » Fair enough. >> Okay. Any other questions?

[51:32] » I question the same thing, Brad. [laughter]

[51:36] » Um, do I have a motion to accept the resignations as presented?

[51:40] » So, move. >> Motion by Brad. Do I have a second?

[51:42] » I'll second. >> Second by Joe.

[51:46] Call the question. All those in favor signify by saying I.

[51:49] » I. I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Four in favor.

[51:52] None against. 7 C. Approve pay request number one. author's edition number two

[51:59] or addition two. >> So pay request one has been received

[52:02] from Stantech on behalf of Lour Construction for work completed for

[52:06] author's edition 2 through August 13th. Uh the contract or the work completed

[52:11] today is 620,67161. We do retain 5%. And so the amount due

[52:17] with this request is 58963803. So we're looking to approve that pay

[52:22] request number one to Lour Construction for that amount.

[52:27] questions, concerns. Do I have a motion to approve pay

[52:33] request number one? >> Motion to approve.

[52:35] » Motion by Scott. Do I have a second? I'll second it.

[52:40] Any other discussion? >> Call the question. All those in favor

[52:44] signify by saying I. I. >> I. Oppose. Abstensions.

[52:49] » I. >> Motion carries. Three in favor.

[52:53] None against one abstension. Unfinished business. 8th Street Storm

[52:59] Water. >> So, at the last city council meeting on

[53:02] August 19th, the council had questions regarding the necessity of extending the

[53:06] storm sewer past the end of 8th Street to the river near the school. A question

[53:11] was raised whether the line could be installed up the end of 8th Street and

[53:14] then connect to the existing 24 in and then upsize in the future if necessary.

[53:18] So, Keith App Engineer is here. uh he'll be able to answer those questions and

[53:22] any other questions you have regarding this specific part of the project.

[53:28] [snorts]

[53:30] » Thank you Vicki. Uh just uh piece of information first of all

[53:35] just uh we were talking about the 30-inch terms of age and whatnot. We've

[53:40] been looking into that. Just so you all know, the best information we have at

[53:45] the moment, and this is a, you know, reference that was in a different letter

[53:50] uh about a different project that this was that 30-inch was probably installed.

[53:54] It was installed with the WPA authority back in so it' be the late mid to late

[54:00] 30s. So that pipe is actually a little older than we thought. It's probably

[54:04] closer to 90 maybe a little over 90 years old since that was put in. And

[54:09] there is reference that was done for the highway department which believe that is

[54:13] mindot is what it was called at the time back in those days. So just a little

[54:18] piece of information regarding that as it relates to the existing uh storm sur

[54:23] goes across the school property that's a 24 in it is a HDP type pipe that go

[54:28] that's in there. That pipe unfortunately is about 11 feet higher at where we sort

[54:35] of connect to it than uh than what is needed in order to get that drainage

[54:41] from that junction there on just east of Ash on 8th Street. It's 11 ft higher

[54:48] than that area. Happens to be about the same elevation as the low point and

[54:52] Wigggon just for your sort of relative reference as to kind of what that

[54:57] elevation is. You know what that means to us is, [sighs] you know, could we

[55:02] utilize it, you know, temporarily go through there, put the whole pipe in the

[55:06] ground and have 11 foot jump? Maybe. The problem is that water would be obviously

[55:12] sitting in there all the time. Um, that would cause potential freezing at that

[55:19] especially at that far east end. So, that may not be a good situation for

[55:24] that to be done that way. Uh, the other option is either do essentially do

[55:29] nothing. You know, another option be either don't do a street and don't do

[55:34] that any of that work and then it allows it to be done at some point in time in

[55:38] the [snorts] future. So, that's another option that could be done. Um, I did

[55:42] reach out to Mandot to see just where they are at with their storm water

[55:46] analysis so far. I haven't heard back from them yet as it relates to, you

[55:51] know, what are their specific needs coming out of there? Do they match what

[55:55] we believe they should be? and just see if they're we're all on the same page

[55:59] with that, but they're I know that they're quite a ways behind us in terms

[56:03] of uh you know, their analysis, [snorts] their their detailed design. So, it may

[56:08] be a while before they actually have that kind of information, but I did

[56:12] reach out and ask them for that. So, that's kind of where we're at with that.

[56:16] So, the the elevations just simply do not work um to in order to connect to

[56:22] that existing. So, uh, with that, I'll entertain any questions you might have

[56:26] on that, and I I'll give you a couple quick updates on authors and and the

[56:30] 2025 project. >> Did we drop up the main line going up 8

[56:35] Street that much? That is a >> it's just the it's the grade from all

[56:41] the way from the low point on 71 all the way to the east. So, we we set that

[56:47] elevation so that we it's actually not all that deep at at Highway 71 enough so

[56:54] that we actually have arch pipe in in that area going right out to to Highway

[56:58] 71. So, that's not very deep in through there in order to pick up that storm

[57:02] water. You know, we they'll have connections coming down 71 from each

[57:06] direction to connect to that. And then it's pretty much a minimum grade all the

[57:10] way from there to the east. >> Okay. So, it's the flow

[57:16] It isn't. You said it comes up 11 feet.

[57:20] » Yeah, that's comes up 11 feet. So, they've got a much uh steeper pipe as it

[57:25] relates to from kind of at the end of the I'll call a culde-sac, but at the

[57:30] end of a street there down to the flood plane is a much steeper pipe and it's a

[57:35] smaller pipe. >> Okay.

[57:39] » So, unfortunately, it's not really a viable option for us.

[57:43] » Yeah. I I'm just going back from when I used to do [snorts]

[57:48] contract tiling and you were water finds the easiest

[57:54] flow and you you can set a tile line one/10enth

[58:00] on grade for 100 ft but it's in a 30-inch pipe it's going to flow that

[58:06] one/10enth doesn't mean nothing but that's kind of what I'm

[58:13] struggling with because how did it work before?

[58:18] » Well, it >> but now we've done this and now it can't

[58:21] work. >> It it worked. It doesn't work in the

[58:24] sense that we don't the water actually doesn't get into the system. The system

[58:28] once it gets fills up. There's no place for the water to go. So, you end up with

[58:33] kind of ponding all over the place. We have ponding that happens in Browns

[58:37] Park. Remember I mentioned how it's above the hydraulic grade lines above

[58:40] the top. We know that that area floods during larger events. It comes right out

[58:45] of the manhole through there. And what'll happen is we know that it

[58:48] happens on 71. It's not as much anymore, but it still happens there. Uh and and

[58:54] then along the way that water once it gets filled up, little bits as to say at

[58:59] Pine Street and Bird Street and Ash Street, they just the water just has to

[59:03] stop essentially let that slug kind of go through and then [snorts] it drains

[59:08] down. So you don't see it a ton. It just doesn't really

[59:13] function. It doesn't flow like it's supposed to. It doesn't capture the

[59:17] water from the drainage area like it's supposed to. Um what you know what

[59:21] things go through kind of like a wave. As it comes through the rain event, it

[59:25] kind of comes through there and during that peak of that wave, everything sort

[59:29] of stops until it goes by and then the other drainage areas coming into it are

[59:35] allowed to get into the pipe. And that's it's a little hard to see. You don't see

[59:39] that all the time, but we see it at we see it at Brownsport. We see it at 71

[59:44] for sure. We know those two areas flood. Um, you know, Ben might be able to speak

[59:48] if he's aware specifically of seeing some flooding areas on some of the

[59:53] streets through there. I'm not here all the time, so I don't see that. I am not

[59:57] aware that that's occurred, but it it's possible that that Ben sees those

[1:00:01] things. So certainly you could ask him that question, but um but that's kind of

[1:00:05] what I would anticipate and that's what the model shows. The modeling shows that

[1:00:09] flooding at Browns Park and indeed that doesn't happen during larger events. So

[1:00:16] you know this thing being built back in the 1930s,

[1:00:20] as I stated last time, it was never made for all of those connections that have

[1:00:25] happened since. You know, at pine there's water that comes in. At birch

[1:00:29] there's water comes in. Ash's water comes in further on e on a eighth street

[1:00:35] a little bit east of Ash down at sixth street down at fifth street as it as

[1:00:40] that 30 inch goes up none of those connections were most likely ever

[1:00:44] planned for with that pipe can I say that definitively no because it wasn't

[1:00:48] around back in 1930 but because the pipe doesn't change in grade doesn't change

[1:00:53] in size that tells me that most likely it was never planned for more water to

[1:01:00] get into that pipe from where it starts at 71 to to the end.

[1:01:07] » Okay. >> Sorry.

[1:01:11] 24 in was never part of that. >> No.

[1:01:17] 247.

[1:01:21] » It's totally >> separate.

[1:01:24] Yeah. >> Correct. They're not They're separated

[1:01:29] all from the block between East Street and Ash. It's about halfway in between.

[1:01:34] That's where the 30 inch goes and heads to the north and east. And there is no

[1:01:39] pipe from there down to the end of a street. There's there's nothing. There's

[1:01:43] actually a little pipe that goes from East Street back to that that that

[1:01:48] junction spot essentially on A Street. Yeah.

[1:01:50] » But that's all that's there right now. The stuff that was put in at the end of

[1:01:54] a street, that was all done with the school project back in I don't remember

[1:01:59] the year exactly that was put in, but it was largely done for the school.

[1:02:05] » Okay. >> That's why it's plastic. We don't

[1:02:09] normally put that kind of stuff in. It was before my time. So that was back in

[1:02:14] I don't know, probably back in the you know in the '9s someplace when that was

[1:02:18] put in maybe. So, >> so basically this is just an update.

[1:02:23] You're not looking for any direction >> or

[1:02:26] » No, it's an update. You know, at this stage, I'm not looking for specific. I

[1:02:30] mean, we're still that currently is in the plans are being developed. If you

[1:02:34] wish that to be put on pause, that portion of it, I can certainly do that.

[1:02:40] If you want to say, let's continue with the design. We may not bid it, but if

[1:02:44] you want to continue with design, you know, you can give me direction to do

[1:02:47] that. If you give me if you wish me to pause specifically, you know, that would

[1:02:52] be something I'd like direction on before, you know, and that would be like

[1:02:55] a street in general. If we want to put a street from Ash to the east on pause for

[1:03:01] us to talk about a little bit more, um, that would be obviously your

[1:03:06] prerogative. >> Okay.

[1:03:10] Comments? >> My thoughts? We keep it in there and

[1:03:13] keep planning for. or we can always pull it out later, but you know, we may as

[1:03:15] well have the plan and be prepared for it if if we get to that point.

[1:03:19] » Our hands are getting tied here with it. >> Yeah. With this information. Yeah. And

[1:03:23] then we can always pull it later if we need to.

[1:03:25] » I think we just proceed there. >> Agree. So,

[1:03:28] » okay. >> Okay. Just a slight update on the

[1:03:31] overall project on phase one is I'm looking at the pond, the two main

[1:03:35] ponding areas. One at Second Street South, one at Second Street North. I

[1:03:39] mentioned before we might be able to make them smaller. I'll be working with

[1:03:42] the wershed. I think the one on Second Street South, we might be able to

[1:03:46] actually totally eliminate that one and actually replace it with just a ditch

[1:03:51] system that kind of goes along the north edge of that open space where Ben puts

[1:03:56] the where the city puts the uh >> puts the snow piles in there. It would

[1:04:00] save us money from that excavation. We do have to do some excavation for the

[1:04:03] ditch, but it would be less than the actual pond, plus we'd have less pipe as

[1:04:07] well. So, we're looking at doing that. And also with the watershed requirements

[1:04:11] on the storm water uh quality as I mentioned before for that one on Second

[1:04:16] Street North, we likely are going to be able to make that a little bit smaller

[1:04:20] through there. So I'm working on some of those details, but I just want to give

[1:04:23] you an update on on that. Um the other two things just author's editions

[1:04:27] update. So all of these Vicki already stole my thunder. The the uh most of the

[1:04:32] gravel and the curb and gutter is all in at this point in time. So you can

[1:04:35] actually drive through there. I met Scott driving through there this

[1:04:38] afternoon. So, uh, it looks pretty nice up there. Basically, you know, so

[1:04:43] they're on track of what they had said. Uh, they've got the prep for the for the

[1:04:48] sidewalk done on Hendricks. So, that is ready for sidewalk and they'll be

[1:04:52] putting in the gravel, the rest of the gravel and getting ready for paving uh,

[1:04:56] as I mentioned before in the next two weeks. So, they're still on schedule for

[1:05:00] what they told us before on that one. Um on 2025 project all of the surface

[1:05:06] repairs uh for the walk areas and driveways have

[1:05:10] been completed. They have not there's a little bit about 200 feet of curb that

[1:05:15] they have not done at this point in time. They ran out of the the the T2 mix

[1:05:20] that they need for that. So they got ordered some more. So they're waiting

[1:05:23] for that. And then there's a little bit of a a driveway and a little catwalk

[1:05:27] that need to go in yet. So that's what's left on there. as well as we talked

[1:05:31] about the seeding. We've been talking and pushing the contractor that hey this

[1:05:35] needs to get done. Uh drought keeps being the main uh resistance which I

[1:05:40] understand we've told them that the city you can uh water that I mean they can

[1:05:44] get water the residents would be able to water those portions of their yards. Um

[1:05:49] and that's what the contractor has been told but so far that hasn't been

[1:05:54] scheduled as of yet. So but we're pushing on it.

[1:05:59] » Okay. Okay, that's all I got. >> Any questions?

[1:06:02] » Okay, thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:06:05] » 8B, Joint Meeting with SUK Center Public Utilities, September 16th, 5:00 p.m.

[1:06:12] » I guess that's it. The joint meeting is oc September 16th. [laughter]

[1:06:16] » Half hour is going to be enough. >> What's that?

[1:06:18] » Half hour is going to be good enough. >> At five.

[1:06:21] » It's going to have to be >> because we have budget meeting at 5:30.

[1:06:24] » Oh, this is on the 16th. It's printed wrong. It's the 16th in the packet.

[1:06:30] » The 16th at 5 with the PUC. >> It's an hour and a half before.

[1:06:33] » Sorry. And then the budget is the 9th. >> The budget is on the 9th.

[1:06:37] » Okay. All right. Now I'm clear as much.

[1:06:40] » It was my bad. >> So we got the next couple Wednesdays

[1:06:43] with meetings. So

[1:06:46] » So that's the 16th, >> correct?

[1:06:50] » Okay, >> that makes sense.

[1:06:52] » All right, we have no new business. That moves us to our consent agenda. We have

[1:06:58] unpaid claims of 1,12,25353.

[1:07:07] We have uh attachment resolution number 2026-64

[1:07:14] accepting contributions of $158 from the men's card playing club group to be

[1:07:20] allocated to the senior center. We have Michael and Nancy No. $100 to be

[1:07:25] allocated to the fire department. Also, Michael and Nancy know $100 to be

[1:07:30] allocated to ambulance department. Michael and Nancy [clears throat] know

[1:07:34] to be $100 to be allocated to the police department. Minnesota National Bank

[1:07:40] is donating $9367 to the police department, $9366

[1:07:48] to the ambulance department, and $9367 to the fire department. Sock Center

[1:07:56] Lions Club, the musical instruments in the park, $2,000

[1:08:02] to be allocated to the park department. and then Stock Center Public Utilities,

[1:08:06] $1,000 for night to unite. On behalf of the

[1:08:11] council and the city, I want to thank those groups for their donations. We

[1:08:16] have gambling application to conduct excluded bingo requests from St. Paul's

[1:08:22] Catholic Church for bingo on November 8th, 2026 at the Holy Family School. And

[1:08:29] we have gambling applications for exempt permit requests from the Sock Center

[1:08:33] Lions Club. A raffle on Friday or on February 24th, 2027 at the Sock Center

[1:08:40] American Legion. So, is there any questions about the

[1:08:44] consent calendar as presented? Do I have a motion to approve the

[1:08:50] consent calendar? >> Motion to approve.

[1:08:52] » Motion by Joe. Do I have a second? >> Second.

[1:08:55] » Second by Brad. >> Call the question. All those in favor

[1:08:59] signify by saying I. >> I oppose. Motion carries. Four in favor,

[1:09:05] none against.formational items. Once again, the budget meeting on

[1:09:09] September 9th at 5:30. >> And this is the one where you meet the

[1:09:14] department has will come in and talk about uh their proposals.

[1:09:20] » Okay. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved.

[1:09:25] » Motion by Joe. Do I have a second? >> Second. Second by Scott. Call the

[1:09:29] question. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

[1:09:32] » I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Four in favor,

[1:09:35] none against. Meeting adjourned. [music]

Sauk Centre City Council Meeting 09-02-2026

Transcript