City Council Meetings

Watertown City Council Regular Meeting Mayor Michael Walters Adam Pawelk Fred McGuire Dan Schuette Kay Thul 1/9/2024 - Minutes 1. Call To Order And Roll Call Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the Watertown City Council was called to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 6:32 p.m. on Tuesday, January 9, 2024, by Mayor Mike Walters. Council Members Present: Michael Walters, Adam Pawelk, Fred McGuire, Dan Schutte, and Kay Thul. Council Members Absent Staff Present: City Administrator Jake Foster, Public Works Superintendent Mike Dressel, Logan Pysick and Mark Kaltsas City Planner Others Present: 2. Adopt Agenda Foster reported there have been no additions or corrections since January 8 at 4 pm. The additional item is the resolution for the purchase of PID 10.0091800. This parcel is being purchased for our second water tower site. The purchase agreement was approved and signed by the seller on Sunday, January 7, 2024. COUNCILMEMBER MCGUIRE MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COUNCILMEMBER THUL SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3. Consent Agenda Discussion And Approval Foster stated he has updated the 2024 Organizational Statement and Resolution to reflect the changes discussed at the City Council Worksession. Mayor Walters stated the City did receive a donation for lighting the Da Vinci Wing downtown from the Watertown Area Fine Arts Council. COUNCILMEMBER PAWELK MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED WITH A CONDITION. COUNCILMEMBER THUL SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3.A. 3A - December 12, 2023 - Regular City Council Meeting Minutes  the Watertown Area Fine Arts Council. COUNCILMEMBER PAWELK MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED WITH A CONDITION. COUNCILMEMBER THUL SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3.A. 3A - December 12, 2023 - Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 3.B. 3B - 2024 Fee Schedule 3.C. 3C - Step Movement For Robert Hoen 3.D. 3D - Pond Improvement Pay App 1 3.E. 3E - 2023 Mill And Overlay Pay App 6 3.F. 3F - Liquid Waste Hauler Licenses 3.G. 3G - Resolution For 2024 Firefighter PERA Increase 3.H. 3H - Market Adjustment For Logan Pysick 3.I. 3I - 2024 Organizational Statement And Resolution 3.J. 3J - WAFAC Donation 3.K. 3K - Resolution For Water Tower Property Purchase 4. Open Forum 5. New/Old Business 5.A. 5A - Request For Quotes - Batwing Zero Turn Mower Mike Dressel gave a brief background, In 2024 the city had planned for the acquisition of a batwing zero turn mower that would be capable of mowing roughly 104 inches in width. The batwing zero turn mower is a 2024 CIP project with an anticipated cost of $38,000.00. This mower would be replacing a 2018 Toro 100-inch mower. The new mower will be one of three zero turn mowers that staff use to mow and maintain the turf areas in the city parks and at facilities. The other two mowers are 60 inches wide. The 104-inch mower can mow up to 9.68 acres per hour at 80% width, whereas the 60-inch mowers can mow up to 5.56 acres per hour at 80% width. COUNCILMEMBER PAWELK MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR QUOTES FOR THE BATWIND ZERO TURN MOWER. COUNCILMEMBER MCGUIRE SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 5.B. 5B - Cove At River Ridge Preliminary Plat Mark Kaltsas, City Planner presented the item coming from the Planning Commission after being considered at the December Planning Commission meeting, and it's a request by Alliant Ventures, 10 LLC, and Nesvold Farms for rezoning of a portion of the property from A, agricultural to PUD River Ridge and then rezoning of a portion of the property from agriculture to R1, single-family residential, as well as preliminary plan and site plan review to consider the subdivision of the property into 66 single-family lots. The subject property is located on the east side of County Road 10 between Tuscany Village and Sugarbush and it surrounds the Lutheran Elementary School. It's currently comprised of some upland wetlands and wooded areas. There's no structures currently on the property. So the property is zoned A1 Agriculture by the city's comprehensive plan. It's guided for low density residential. It's approximately 32 acres in overall size. So as council is familiar with this property, the City considered a sketch plat for this property in 2021 and then on several occasions discussed and considered a preliminary plat for the property in 2022, ultimately ending in the denial of the preliminary plat for an 83 lot, ultimately down to 77 lot subdivision single single-family subdivision. Sugarbush and it surrounds the Lutheran Elementary School. It's currently comprised of some upland wetlands and wooded areas. There's no structures currently on the property. So the property is zoned A1 Agriculture by the city's comprehensive plan. It's guided for low density residential. It's approximately 32 acres in overall size. So as council is familiar with this property, the City considered a sketch plat for this property in 2021 and then on several occasions discussed and considered a preliminary plat for the property in 2022, ultimately ending in the denial of the preliminary plat for an 83 lot, ultimately down to 77 lot subdivision single single-family subdivision. Following the denial of that the applicant went back had some additional meetings relating to the property internally as well as with the city to discuss potential revisions and options for the development of this property and came back with a new application for a 66 lot single-family subdivision that would be broken into two parts. The applicant would be proposing to break the site into a southern side, which would be the area that's to the south of the Lutheran Elementary School and then a northern side which which would be the portion that comes off of Madison and Sugarbush to the north. Creating two kind of distinct sides to the development, the applicant was able to develop a plan that shows the north side is R1 single family lots meeting all standards of the R1 zoning district. Those would be done as proposed under straight zoning of the R1, and then 45 lots that would be developed on the southern portion as a PUD or planned unit development. Those lots would range in size from about 6,500 and then up from there with a variety of different sizes getting bigger depending on where those are. The application that's in front of you is a little bit unique in that the city spent the better part of two years reviewing this particular property as well as reviewing very detailed plans for grading, utilities, storm water tree preservation, traffic, and with that ultimately then with the applicant coming back with a plan that wasn't the same but had many of the similarities, the city tried to apply just some standard of reasonableness to what the submittal would look like coming back knowing that there was still this site plan layout that was up in the air. The plans that are presented tonight aren't fully, they didn't fully go back and re-engineer every aspect of this plan, which is a little bit unique. However, given the amount of time and the in- depth review that had been completed prior to this submittal, in previous submittals. We could look at the site plan layout in this particular case and feel really confident about some of the more detailed aspects then following suit and being brought back to the city for final review with a final plat. This is our process out of the city's ordinance and we kind of talk through and look at kind of what layers get added during what process. And so we're at that preliminary plat site plan process if annexation was applicable we'd look at it. But with the preliminary plat and site plan we sometimes get into a rezoning, sometimes we kick that to final plat. That's something that varies depending on the project. You can see when we get through preliminary plat, we have comprehensive plan kind of determined or we have an amendment that runs parallel. We have phasing layout, streets, parks, utilities, in terms of feasibility done, traffic impact done. If there's a school impact for adequate public facilities, it'd be something we would look at. Then from there, from preliminary plat, we get in, is there an annexation that would be required? Is there rezoning that would be required? And then in final plat, we request and get full construction documents, a development agreement, covenants, homeowner association. So I just wanted to, this is right out of our ordinance. This kind of lays out the things that we do in the process. With that, if you read about kind of the general review procedures that kind of at top, there's latitude in that. It gives the city latitude to just kind of go through some of these steps depending on what's what's required. Some of the steps might get waived, some are kicked to other parts of the process. I just wanted to be or give a little bit on that just because this is a little unique in that we've looked at it, we denied an actual preliminary plan with full plans and specs. And so we're bringing back to you really a simplified version of, we're really focused on just the layout and site plan with the knowledge that the city engineer, city fire department, city utility department, city planner all looked at the plan to say, based on the knowledge we already have, this will work if adopted or approved like this. And then we're kind of pushing the revision of all those detailed plans out to the final plat, which if you look at our process actually is when our process says we get those. We're just a little bit more thorough typically on the upfront side, which we were in the first go around with this particular project. There's a couple of things that we touched on in the packet. When we went through this the first time, the applicant has now revised it to split it into an R1 and a PUD, and there are distinct this will work if adopted or approved like this. And then we're kind of pushing the revision of all those detailed plans out to the final plat, which if you look at our process actually is when our process says we get those. We're just a little bit more thorough typically on the upfront side, which we were in the first go around with this particular project. There's a couple of things that we touched on in the packet. When we went through this the first time, the applicant has now revised it to split it into an R1 and a PUD, and there are distinct differences between those two processes and those two types of approval. I'll focus on the plan unit development because that has more of the subjective criteria in the ordinance versus the R1, which is very objective. With the PUD portion of the property, the developers asking the city to consider the development of 45 single-family lots. And we specify in our planned unit development district certain standards. We talk about the intent and why, open space requirements, permitted uses, and about some of the other goals and kind of key aspects of a planned unit development. The developers is trying to hit on a couple pieces of the planned unit development criteria. One is preservation of open space. And if you go back to our table, we say that a planned unit development for single-family detached has to have a minimum of 25% open space. In this particular case, there's a couple of pieces to this. The developer or the owner of this property already negotiated a deal with the City previously relating to the wetland conservation area that dedicated 6.29 acres to the city and that is being applied towards the park dedication requirement for this property. But with that and the open space being proposed in this development, the applicant's proposing 44% of the development is undeveloped or it's encumbered by non-structure like a stormwater pond, drainage, swales, utilities, things of that nature. But with that 25% they're proposing 44% in that. I think the other thing that we looked at is in this particular case relationship to adjoining land one of the things that we talked about when anybody approaches the city about this particular property or a vacant property like this that has surrounding existing developments is trying to relate to those existing developments with the proposed development. So in this case, the developer has now come back with a plan that has R1 on the north side, which that relates to the Sugarbush development better than what was previously proposed. R1 is kind of our lowest density sewer residential zoning district. We have some rural estate districts on the south side trying to relate to the Tuscany development with something that has similar lot sizes actually their minimums are larger than the single-family portion of the Tuscany development but trying to relate to that so there's kind of two sides to this particular development. Mr. Kaltsas showed the progression of what happened on this particular property. The first concept that was submitted to the city, this is a concept that was developed by not this developer but a different developer with the property owner. This particular concept went through Planning Commission and City Council at a sketch plot. You can see in this development, there's a road connecting the north and south sides. That was recommended to be removed once there was a, during the initial sketch plot development in favor of trying to preserve some more natural resources, but also trying not to have a large piece of public infrastructure that was not loaded on either side by houses, which is, it's not really efficient and it has a higher taxpayer cost long-term because you don't have anybody on that particular. So it went from 84 lots with that particular layout to a concept with 84 lots without the road, connecting the two and now having a cul-de-sac on kind of both sides of the development, leaving that gap in between. And then that kind of got pared down to 83 lots in a revised concept. And one of the differences between these two concepts is in all of the kind of conversations and discussions we had, there was this idea or emphasis that we continue to push the distance here as far as we can to try to start to save more of the existing infrastructure and so you'll see that as kind of a theme as these concepts evolve. This one starts to push it even further north and then we got to concept 477 lots. It started it kept kind of shrinking that footprint to try to get to a point where there was more preservation of that existing tree stand. Then concept five you can see there's a bigger swath that's being maintained on the now south property line as well as then some of that eastern property line 75 lots and now down to the current proposal which is 66 lots. And one of the things that is noticeable here is that the city, in talking to the developer and the developer, ultimately in their design, there's kind of two pieces. There's a outlot A where they're trying to create open space that's not necessarily preserving more trees. There are some trees in that outlot, but that's really more of an open space preservation that really benefits the adjacent lots by not having lots back up. But then you can see this kind of configuration starts to try to preserve the tree line. So if you think about that kind of angled line that this is starting to create, now if you look at the next piece you can kind of see how the the existing tree line which is this the things that is noticeable here is that the city, in talking to the developer and the developer, ultimately in their design, there's kind of two pieces. There's a outlot A where they're trying to create open space that's not necessarily preserving more trees. There are some trees in that outlot, but that's really more of an open space preservation that really benefits the adjacent lots by not having lots back up. But then you can see this kind of configuration starts to try to preserve the tree line. So if you think about that kind of angled line that this is starting to create, now if you look at the next piece you can kind of see how the the existing tree line which is this green line that squiggles across, you can see how that relates. So trying to kind of mimic that tree line or parallel that line to an extent with the design of the site in terms of the preservation areas. And the developer did provide now kind of an update overlay same exact image over the top of the aerial. There's a couple of things that you can see from this aerial that just kind of show kind of how that tree line currently falls on that property and then the areas that are going to remain as preserved. One thing I would note, if you're in a school parking lot and you're looking out, there is a tree line that the school has that is not going to be impacted from that. So I think from a visibility standpoint inside that school line, it's going to feel very much the same when you're passing by and you get to the point where you can actually kind of see in, you know, that hill drops off, that's going to remain somewhat similar to what's there now. So from a visibility on the public side, from the street piece, there's going to be similar. Now, as we looked at kind of then the rest of the development is now 3.11, which falls into the 1.7 to 3.5 units per acre that the city's comp plan stipulates, and so that's within that. This image here started to show some of the trail connectivity. You can see the pink lines and the orange lines showing trail connectivity within this development. So you can see that ultimately we'll have a trail on County Road 10 that the applicant's providing the open space for. The city has that in its plans to develop that trail all the way through to Madison. The developer would develop this trail down on the east side, the southeast side, this pink trail here that loops down and connects then creating a loop with the wetland conservation trail. And then you can see that they would also reconfigure to the extent needed the trail that comes through Wildflower now down by the lift station to continue to maintain that loop. And then they would also provide a trail connection all the way to the new Madison Park. There is quite a few trail connections, one in the Southwest corner, one in the Northeast corner, one on the East side, and one in the Northwest corner. Currently there's two sidewalks, one on each side of the road, that comes into the development from Tuscany and they would be pulling both of those sidewalks into the development. One note, it's in the packet, I'm not going to go very long, it's a recommendation of the Planning Commission, the developer agreed, and that was that there would be a sidewalk added in this stretch along those lots to just have double-sided sidewalk along the frontage of both lots or both sides of the street with lots in that particular area and so that's along 7 and 13. Everything that's in the R1 has to meet all of the standards of the R1 zoning district. 12,000 square foot minimum square footage per lot, 80 feet lot frontage at the building setback line, ten feet side yard setbacks, 35 foot front yard setbacks, and 10 foot rear yard setbacks. They're proposing that the 21 lots developed on the north side of the property would all meet all applicable requirements of the R1 zoning district. That should be highlighted because that is something that then really makes the decision on the R1 piece more objective. Do they check the boxes? Do they meet the criteria? And if they do, then we'd have to make a finding kind of in favor of them being able to rezone and develop that. Park dedication and open space. There is no other park dedication being proposed. Our park master plan doesn't also, we also don't call for any park dedication in this particular case. We have a park facility in Wildflower, Sugarbush, and in Tuscany. And if you look at how we lay out our park master plan and then you look at our service area, radiuses that we put together, this property doesn't call for or warrant an additional park facility. We'd be looking at either cash in lieu of park, or in this case, there's already been a dedication made by the owner of the property. Wetland delineation and buffers, that's all been, the wetland delineation has been completed, certified and approved by the county and the buffers then are also shown and have been approved by the city in the sense that we know what they are proposing and what they're allowed and so there won't be wetlands or wetland buffers on private lots, which is something that we don't permit under our current ordinance. We require a berm along County Road 10 and they provided more berm along County Road 10. That was one of our kind of points of emphasis in the original preliminary plat and we continue to emphasize that. One of the pieces that was shown previously that will be updated with the we know what they are proposing and what they're allowed and so there won't be wetlands or wetland buffers on private lots, which is something that we don't permit under our current ordinance. We require a berm along County Road 10 and they provided more berm along County Road 10. That was one of our kind of points of emphasis in the original preliminary plat and we continue to emphasize that. One of the pieces that was shown previously that will be updated with the new plot is the landscape plan. We'll have a chance to review that between preliminary and final plot to show that they meet all aspects of the berming and buffering requirements. Tree preservation, they did obviously manipulate the plan. That was one of our kind of largest points of concern and also of intent with this property. It went from something below 15% preservation to now over 30% preservation on the property. If you go back and look at the tree preservation plan and I've looked at this a couple of different times to just try to see where and what this is, this is you can kind of see all the individual trees but if you really get into the depths of this and you review it against the inventory and then you go out in the field and look, unfortunately there's not significant clusters of what we consider to be our high quality or significant trees on this site. They're spread throughout the entirety. The significant trees that I look at is any of the old growth or hardwood trees that we have in Minnesota, burrs, maples, hickories, butternuts, anything in that kind of family that we would look as high quality trees. Unfortunately, they're just kind of one-off trees there's a there's a couple of oak trees that are really right on the edge of The wooded and upland area that would be really difficult to save in any scheme of development, because once you start manipulating grades, watershed, drainage, and everything else, the chance of those trees surviving on kind of a one or two off situation is limited. And we've seen that. The idea here is to try to preserve as much of a cluster of trees without discriminating against species, but really just saying, let's get as much of the tree canopy and as much of an area as we can to try to maintain some of the views and some of the kind of quality of the woodlands that exists on a property. The developer's proposing now is kind of up to that 30%. that requirement works. And it's based on not only the percentage of trees removed to try to establish a multiplier, but then the amount of caliper inches also removed. They're gonna have to provide that mitigation plan that will be presented to the city with the final plat. The city will have an opportunity to review the final plat as well as that mitigation plan. But there will be an opportunity for the city to kind of direct where that mitigation happens and there's going to be some really good reforestation opportunities within some of the open space areas that are being utilized for storm water, there's areas around those storm water basins that I think will be able to accommodate quite a bit of the trees planted, as well as outlot A, which is an area that doesn't have as many trees on it now that will have the ability to have some more trees with that mitigation plan. At the end of the day, the Planning Commission had really a couple of things that they commented on. They talked about the trail and sidewalk connection and location and then there was a discussion about lots 11, 12, 13 which was brought to the Planning planning commission by the adjacent homeowners. The city had conversations between planning commission and the city council meeting relating to that. Ultimately planning commissioners discussed the development and made a recommendation to the city council recommending approval of the development as presented with one condition relating more specifically to the layout and that is for really for the City Council to determine if lot 13 should be relocated, removed, or the lot line should be adjusted. There was discussion as to whether or not the lot could be located in between lots 1 and 17, which is this area where the trail is. The developer provided a response. We had discussed that prior to actually the Planning Commission meeting as to whether or not there was any adjustments that could be made on the southern end of that. And there's really some limitations with grading, with utilities, and with the trail. Even if you move the trail, grading and utilities limit what you can put back into the end of this cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac ideally is a better lot if you can make it work, but because of the way the sewer works in this particular development, the grades and that pretty significant slope going from west to east, it made it challenging the developer provided a response that they aren't able to relocate that lot in between 1 and 17. The Planning Commission also made the comment just on the trail as a condition of the approval that's now included in the resolution that the trail would be extended along lots 7 through 13, not outlot A, noting that that a lot a if the sidewalk was extended would have to become a city maintained sidewalk and that's not something we would typically do in a development. There's the grades and that pretty significant slope going from west to east, it made it challenging the developer provided a response that they aren't able to relocate that lot in between 1 and 17. The Planning Commission also made the comment just on the trail as a condition of the approval that's now included in the resolution that the trail would be extended along lots 7 through 13, not outlot A, noting that that a lot a if the sidewalk was extended would have to become a city maintained sidewalk and that's not something we would typically do in a development. There's also then the cost long term of how that sidewalk gets allocated and you know who ultimately pays for that. Planning Commission with that recommended just in front of lot 7 through 13 block 9. The resolution is included in the city's packet. The last note I'll make is just on the zoning ordinance. So between preliminary plat and final plat we're going to draft a PUD river ridge zoning ordinance. The city's approval of this development is subject to that ordinance being adopted. is subject to the ordiance being adopted. The PUD ordinance then goes back it's going to go through Planning Commission City Council as any other ordinance does so there'll be a public hearing on that ordinance specifically. One of the things that was noted in the Planning Commission meeting discussed with some length was the developer did provide some elevation some pictures of some example homes that detail has not been worked out and For the r1 side of the development the city doesn't have the ability to adopt Additional standards on top of that development relating to architecture on the PUD side we do and we have historically adopted those standards We make mention in the resolution that they would be consistent with Tuscany village that doesn't mean they're gonna be the same exact that just means that when Council and Planning Commission get to review and adopt those, that we would look towards having consistency between architectural standards. And so there's more detail that's going to have to be presented by the developer ultimately to say, you know, we're able to address and meet those standards. And the standards really we're talking about are going to deal with front building facade and building materials. Those are the standards we've historically addressed. We've talked in most of our PUDs about garage door color. We've talked about certain percentage of stone or brick or masonry on the front of a building facade. We've talked about building exterior materials, front facades, side facades, rear facades, types of shingles, roof lines. Those are the things that we'll discuss and bring back with an ordinance for consideration ultimately by Planning Commission and Council with the preliminary plat. And if for whatever reason we can't adopt an ordinance or you deny an ordinance, you would essentially be denying the preliminary plat. Councilmember Pawelk asked about how the how some of the proposed trees are going to be removed and if some of the additional spaces between the two developments could be saved. Kaltsas showed where the proposed ponds would be located and explained the grading of the ponds and the final grading on the project. Some of the tree can not be saved due to the grading of the ponds but if more trees could be saved the city would look into those options. The grading and pond size need to follow not only city guidelines but also state guidelines. Councilmember Thul asked Kaltsas to revisit the traffic concerns. Kaltsas stated there would only be a Northbound right turn lane off of Hwy 10 only at this time. This would be design stipulated by the county and then the count's kind of traffic generation projections. This particular development did not trigger a traffic impact analysis under their standards. The landowner did a traffic impact analysis prior to any developer having a concept. Councilmember Schutte stated the three most recent PUD developments that have applied for PUDs in Watertown, Elk development, Dollar General, and Tuscany have had a laundry list of furtherance of building out a development, everything from price point, architectural drawings, landscaping plans included in their preliminary plot plan, why is this developer not being held to those same standards. Kaltsas explained a landscape plan with the preliminary plan for this development was received, rather than pushing back to get it redone, we just simply said at this point we know the plan can be done and we know how. We understood from the developer what it took to get this done and we thought just getting the layout nailed down before we put anymore effort into kind of drawing and reviewing, we would not have brought this in this condition had we not done two year of pre-base work on this plans several times through. Greg Pearson. 1017 Treviano Lane North. I'd like to thank the city for the wetland trail. I didn't really appreciate it. We moved back in 2019 but until this spring when I got a dog I really appreciate that trail and the maintenance of it. They do an excellent job maintaining it. I'd like to thank the city and the developer for addressing many of our concerns. I do have some questions. anymore effort into kind of drawing and reviewing, we would not have brought this in this condition had we not done two year of pre-base work on this plans several times through. Greg Pearson. 1017 Treviano Lane North. I'd like to thank the city for the wetland trail. I didn't really appreciate it. We moved back in 2019 but until this spring when I got a dog I really appreciate that trail and the maintenance of it. They do an excellent job maintaining it. I'd like to thank the city and the developer for addressing many of our concerns. I do have some questions. I know the HOA was mentioned. I'd like to know the status of that. My quick search on the internet told me that any PUD required an HOA. I know it can't be the same as Tuscany Village probably, but there should be some standard. You've talked about that, so I'm glad to hear that. The other question is, I'm a little concerned with the traffic through our development. Now, we have two exits, but one of them is a fire road. I was wondering if the connection between the new development and our development could be a fire road, which would provide them a second exit, but it wouldn't be something that delivery trucks would be going through there. There are kids that live in those townhouses along that road, and I'm a little concerned about all the traffic that's going to happen. So if that could be made a fire road for a second exit just like it is in Tuscany Village, I'd be happy with that. And then back last spring at one of the Planning Commission meetings, someone talked about affordable housing. And my question is, who decides what's an affordable house? What standard do you use for affordable housing? Is it based on someone that's worked 34 years of their life? Or is it based on a young couple just started now? Or everything in between? So who decides what's affordable? Steven Burns, 108 Rosewood, I use to farm this piece of land it is a terrible piece for agricultural. We're building a new sewer plant, we're building a new water tower at $13,000 per lot, going for sack and whack. At some point in time Watertown's got to figure this game out. Because I developed Rosewood back in 07, we did the dirt work on the industrial park in 07, they did Forest Hills in 07. It's 15 years later and some of those things, because we aren't growing, aren't filling up. And I'm not saying we should grow big like Delano, but if we're going to get new businesses in town and business owners like myself are going to have work in the area, this is a perfect piece of property to develop. There's three-year-olds already servicing it. Everybody knows it's there for development for 30 years. Like I say, I'm speaking in support of it. David Manitt, 303 Menard Way, I think this has come a long way. So first and foremost thank you to staff, the council, property owner. This has been a long process and I think at the end it's a heck of a lot better plan. There's no doubt about it. And I think a lot of what we've talked about as residents, the very positive thing, market value, what homes are abutting what districts you've addressed and the developers addressed. So a big thank you for that. I guess if I still do have one ask, it's 13. And I won't go through the long history of the wetland project, but that is something I still hold dear. And I think what you heard at the original Planning Commission meeting, not so much this last one, is residents who use that trail, say they're coming from the south, they would like to see the trees. You heard people talking about this is their place of nature. This is a calming place. This is unique to our city. And I think what you've done, I don't know Mark if you could put up the one that is existing tree cover. You've done a great job of buffering the new homes to the trail. And speaking as a guy who lives on the other side, you want to live with your backyard being trees. I think that's going to be a gorgeous setup for everybody on the sugarbush side or on the south side. So I ask the question really, if you look at the long run of homes coming down to 17, if you would take lot 13, I'm not proposing you cut a lot out, I'm saying if you take three to five feet off of each of those lots on the north side, I believe it'd be very easy to put one more lot in there. In essence take lot 13 out. As Mark has alluded to every time he's made this presentation, our goal with the PUD should be clustering tree preservation. Then I think as we come around that We would have complete cover from the homes to the trail. We would have a complete buffer between the residents of Tuscany. I believe that affects two residents right now. We heard from one at the Planning Commission meeting. And then we would also have the same number of lots with a minor adjustment. And, again, I understand the elevations are a little tough where the trail is, the big open lot, but I'm sure you could take five feet out of that. So again, if you're looking at a 50-foot lot, you have 17 lots, you cut five feet out of everyone, I believe each lot would still be well within your standards. And then you'd probably have a complete protection of the south side of that property as from the 30th Street wetland trail. But again, thank you for all the work. It's really noticeable. Diane Chapman 1035 Tribunal Lane I want to thank everyone for your time and again the tree preservation We know the importance of cities needing to expand just hoping the right is, the big open lot, but I'm sure you could take five feet out of that. So again, if you're looking at a 50-foot lot, you have 17 lots, you cut five feet out of everyone, I believe each lot would still be well within your standards. And then you'd probably have a complete protection of the south side of that property as from the 30th Street wetland trail. But again, thank you for all the work. It's really noticeable. Diane Chapman 1035 Tribunal Lane I want to thank everyone for your time and again the tree preservation We know the importance of cities needing to expand just hoping the right decisions are made for the cove development Neighborhood if approved and also for the Tarbiano and surrounding neighborhoods especially along the connecting properties If the development is approved, from what I understand, stormwater pond structures will be placed behind our home on Tarbiano Northside. I just have several questions on that and I know they can't be answered now, but just maybe something I can go back to and look at. Just hoping to be informed on what the process is for important reasons. I'm wondering how inspections will be focusing on draining and elevation level issues, what the grading plan for that subdivision will be, connecting to our backyard property, is the topography survey done first, are graphic contours done at 10 feet intervals, less with documentation. Will documentation be provided to explain how it will function? I'm just hoping we can make this proactive and make awareness so that we do not have issues there as we have in the past, or water issues become worse with the added development. I have some pictures of our backyard. I'm just going to, I'll show them up closer in just a minute. I'm just hoping that there will be some detail outflow drainage plan where these two developments meet, not that the ponds add to our existing water flow issue. The water flow issue behind our home drains to the marsh to the east wetland. Water is backed up in the past in the middle of those homes on that street affecting homes 1035, 41, 29, 47, maybe more. Just these are questions I know I can't get answered tonight but maybe in the future. Does a licensed civil engineer do the environmental review and planning? Do they involve the watershed board, the DNR, the Carver County surveyors? Just so that we're all informed of this issue, so they are informed of the issue we have and they can understand and allow to plan for existing problem so that we don't have added water issues in our basements of our homes. We have had to dig a ditch along a few of the property lines for better water flow, otherwise it fills up in our backyards. We just would like to make sure that we will be that that will be planned for very closely so we don't have continuing issues. Just some other concerns adjacent to that property. We also have our sprinkler systems that are very close to the bordering edge of the property. I'm assuming that will be marked so no heavy equipment will be you know close to that very edge and damage the sprinkler systems if the ponds are built in that area. If the development is approved we have some traffic control concerns, sorry that was you know brought up, but we're wondering if the city would request the county for just a crosswalk on County Road 10 by I think it's Deerfield and Sienna. With all that extra traffic they'll be utilizing Highway 10. It's difficult to even walk across safely even now. Just walking across the highway, it's like 15 seconds you've got before to try to cross with a vehicle coming southbound over the hill, and it's very hard to see oncoming traffic until it's too late. It's a very dangerous situation when kids are trying to get on their bikes and cross, or even adults for that matter. So it'd be nice to have a plan in place before additional traffic is added. An extra street light, I mean there is a street light on the west side of the highway just not the east side right by Trebiano. If walking you know during the winter it's really dark on the Trebiano side. So it's just more awareness for traffic to keep pedestrians But I'm also just wondering if there be a stop sign or yield sign added to the city street of Siena or Trebbiano You know unless that doesn't isn't a full street between the two But just with the traffic the new extension of that Street there could be some traffic control issues and And we are thankful for the added tree preservation plan that was updated at the last meeting. As you know, that has been a big topic of concern. Tree preservation will be beneficial to the Cove development as well as all the others. And I think this is maybe already, Mark maybe covered this, will the Cove development have a designated green park area within its development or if the owners are going to donate a dedicated usable park space, that lot 13 would be a great option for that green space. But the other question had is, and sorry, I think that might have been brought up, but the development, if it's approved for PUD, will the PUD have a homeowner association? If so, who will be responsible for the homeowner association rules, examples such as debris in the yards, campers parked in the streets, etc. Who will be in charge of the active HOA until someone takes that role and position? I know I won't get answers on this tonight, but just wanted awareness made. I'm thankful for your time and listening to our community concerns. And I don't know if anyone wants to see these pictures up close. Mayor Walters, asked Diane to email in her questions and concerns, our engineer can look as association rules, examples such as debris in the yards, campers parked in the streets, etc. Who will be in charge of the active HOA until someone takes that role and position? I know I won't get answers on this tonight, but just wanted awareness made. I'm thankful for your time and listening to our community concerns. And I don't know if anyone wants to see these pictures up close. Mayor Walters, asked Diane to email in her questions and concerns, our engineer can look as some the drainage issues. Foster stated staff could address quite a few of her questions and concerns when she emails them to the City office. Tim Nesvold, 3995 Quail Ave, Just first of all I want to thank the staff, council, planning commission for all the hard work and staff has worked through multiple renditions. I think there might be seven renditions if I'm not mistaken. And so I know these guys have spent a lot of time on it. Council, I know you guys have talked with a lot of people, among myself, the developer, etc. It's just been a long process, so I thank you for all that. I wanted to talk a little bit, there's been discussion of the lot count's gone down from 83 to 66. And just from a casual observer, that probably doesn't mean a whole lot except that I just, and these aren't Bob's numbers, but they're my numbers, I'm just kind of looking at this trying to do a best estimate based on what other developers have talked about. And that loss of 17 lots is in the neighborhood of probably 15,000 to maybe 20,000. Maybe Bob can correct me on that, but it's a lot. That's the cost increase by that diminishment of lots. So I commend Bob, number one, for coming out, bringing this development to Watertown. It's been a while since we've had a new development, and for kind of hanging in there through this compromise situation. So I guess my point is that I would encourage to hold on to the current amount of lots. I believe there's a good buffer on the Tuscany side, some as far as 200 feet between houses. I think lot nine, it's down to about 100 feet between the existing house structure and what would be the new lot 13 structure. Sonica's next one up, eight, is a little less than that, but still I think 75. So short of setting a new precedent for these ginormous backyard setbacks. I think the R1 is a 10-foot setback backyard. PUD is generally 20 feet. Alliant has given that whole outlawed A 1.3 acres or whatever to this development. I just, where our concern as property owners, we of course want to see this succeed and go forward. But at some point economically this is, and I think we're teetering on that, and Bob hasn't really shared numbers with me, but I would suspect the idea of losing another lot is astronomically a big deal as we keep ticking away at the economics on this. But anyway again thank you for all your hard work and time in getting this project through. Thanks. Mary Sloniker and we are at 1047 Trebbiano and I'm happy that you have done so much in preparing and working and organizing for this. The only sad thing for our family is we are 75 feet from the house right behind us. We are up and looking down right on that lot space, lot 13. And all of our living space in our house is at the back of the house with big windows and now we see deer laying in the trees and trees back there and I realize that has to go for this development. But for somebody living right off of our living space where we have big windows in our bedroom, our four season area, and our living room. That's what we're gonna see from now on when we look out our window if lot 13 is developed. So everybody else, it pretty much took into consideration with no houses behind them, but we're just kind of the one that's stuck where the last house comes around. And it, this last plan was the only one that really changed and came way around that edge like that. And that just happens to be where we are. And I'm sad about that, but I just wanted to share how I felt. So thank you. Kyle Jarvis. I'm the vice president of the Chamber of Commerce Just wanted to say that This is this is good for business We need lots We need the city needs as I said a plan for sustainable growth that provides this or this provides that and You know, that's this is good for this is good for we need to hit 5,000 people, you know that. This is good for that. And it's, like I said, good for business. Mayor Walters explained what Kyle is referring to when he mentioned that we need to hit 5,000 people. Just to elaborate on that, when the city hits 5,000 people, it does open up a lot more state funding That is not available to cities that are less than 5,000 people and that's kind of what he was referring to and we're at like 49 65 or some number just below 5,000 right now Councilmember Pawelk asked Kaltsas & Foster to address the question regarding connecting Sienna drive a condensed or fire road for the two developments and the difference a developers agreement and a HOA. Kaltsas explained developments that have more than 30 lots, the state fire code, Appendix D, funding That is not available to cities that are less than 5,000 people and that's kind of what he was referring to and we're at like 49 65 or some number just below 5,000 right now Councilmember Pawelk asked Kaltsas & Foster to address the question regarding connecting Sienna drive a condensed or fire road for the two developments and the difference a developers agreement and a HOA. Kaltsas explained developments that have more than 30 lots, the state fire code, Appendix D, requires two points of access. It could be a fire access. That's not something we would typically do when we have a street there to connect. That would be something we'd do where we couldn't get a street connection, maybe a full street connection. You know, if you go back to the comp plan, to our planning documents, and I'll just give you my planner hat, we wanna connect neighborhoods, right? Interconnected neighborhoods is better, builds sense of community, creates efficiencies for plowing, emergency services, trips generated on a road. Honestly, having more points of access creates less trips on your road, right, because it disperses traffic. For example, somebody who's on Trebiano now, who's going to go to downtown, might choose to go to Siena and then out on this new road and turn right out of there because you might have a better sight line, or if you're making a left turn, you actually might have a better sight line out of here. It does start to disperse, so typically we would promote multiple points of access. It's not to say that you couldn't look at something like that if there was a strong, you know, desire on that part of the council to do that. Typically though, we want to interconnect to the extent we could. I honestly would, my recommendation to you was to connect these two cul-de-sacs down here for that purpose, but there's a lot of cost in that and there's a lot of issues. That's why we said, okay, that this particular case, it doesn't make as much sense. But, you know, I think for this, trying to get two points access helps the development overall. And it also helps to kind of ensure that we're not going to get too much traffic at any one particular spot. The other thing I just mentioned, we did try to get this particular driveway down over here and the between the school and the property owner they weren't able to come to kind of an agreement and so it got it got pushed to here. Ideally we would have had a joint access somewhere further away from Deerfield and Treviani intersection to try to get up on the top of the hill but that that's something that you know maybe as that road corridor gets redeveloped by the county is something we can go back and look at again. So that's that particular issue. I'd engage engineering too in that conversation if we got to that. Foster added that there are a couple of spots in town where we have trails that for whatever reason get used by delivery trucks, four-wheelers, all that sort of thing. One specifically is where Angel Avenue Southwest goes to the landings lane, and then there's the trail that connects then to that other side of Angel Avenue Southwest. We constantly get complaints from residents that there are delivery trucks and cars all the time. Kaltsas stated on the HOA and covenants, so the city, when we say we require an HOA, if there's common ownership items, so common maintenance, common ownership of walls, land, outlots, things of that nature, we require the HOA to be developed. When we review HOA though, what we review is only, it's not us, it's the city attorney. All they review is that it organizationally is in accordance with state statute and is properly set up. The contents of the HOA and the covenants that would be then put on or the stipulations the HOA would govern is outside the city's jurisdiction. So if you have an HOA now, if you have a covenant on your property now, the city cannot enforce or regulate that covenant. The only thing that we can, well, we can't do anything with that. Regulations of covenants are by either the HOA, if the HOA owns property. It's an issue that a lot of HOAs were formed without ownership of property. So then HOAs can, if they don't own property, they're not a party to those covenants and they can't enforce. If they own property, and I mean, in my career, I've tried to make sure they own, even if they own a one foot by one foot square, where the signpost goes for the neighborhood sign, they then as an HOA can enforce covenants within their development or enforce other stipulations that the HOA has. If they don't, it would have to be like, say somebody had a covenant in their development that said no sheds. The city allows sheds. So if we allow sheds and the covenants don't, the covenants would have to be enforced then by the HOA. There's no HOA, the covenants have to be enforced by a private property owner who's subject to those covenants. So they'd have to bring their own lawsuit against a neighboring property owner. The city doesn't, we don't stipulate covenants and we don't enforce covenants and the HOA, we only ensure that if one's going to be set up and, and or if something in the development was stated as being common ownership, that the documents were done correctly. We make sure the title work is complete and that the organization's set up and then the entity is would have to be enforced then by the HOA. There's no HOA, the covenants have to be enforced by a private property owner who's subject to those covenants. So they'd have to bring their own lawsuit against a neighboring property owner. The city doesn't, we don't stipulate covenants and we don't enforce covenants and the HOA, we only ensure that if one's going to be set up and, and or if something in the development was stated as being common ownership, that the documents were done correctly. We make sure the title work is complete and that the organization's set up and then the entity is there to support that. As council knows, we have many developments in the city that probably started with an HOA that no longer have an HOA because as the development gets done and the management goes away, if they don't have a common ownership piece, they don't have a shared landscaping cost or they don't have an outlot that they maintain or they don't maintain the siding on the houses, then oftentimes those peter out because people don't want to pay dues on top of taxes and everything else that goes along with it. HOA docs, we check when they come through at the time of development agreement. So now the development agreement is an agreement between the developer and the city, and it typically just speaks to the development of the property physically. And once that a property is physically completed, that typically most of the provisions in the development agreement go away, right? It ends or they there's nothing that would carry on with the property. For a PUD, our ordinance is what really gets and stipulates the conditions that those properties have to abide by. We would stipulate in our ordinance setbacks, accessory structures, permitted uses, accessory uses, conditional uses. We can stipulate those on top of or more restrictive than our base level zoning. In the R1 district, our zoning is what governs. We have R1 standards and then any provision relating to say we have a no steel siding, no standing seam siding provision that applies to all R districts, R1, R2, R3. That would be in place. That's an architectural standard that's in place, but that's in our kind of base ordinance. The R1 piece of this doesn't have any other stipulations. As long as they meet building code when they put up a structure and then they meet our base level codes, we don't have any other kind of stipulations or governance over that. Foster addressed Ms. Chapman, as she said in talking about the HOA, had some concerns with recreational vehicles parked on the road, junk in the front yard, all that sort of things. Our nuisance and junk ordinance that we do have applied throughout the city. So those sorts of things would still be managed and enforced by the city through our nuisance ordinance or job ordinance or any sort of court enforcement effort. So, important to note too that that stuff is handled regardless of whether or not there's an HOA. Kaltsas stated covenants expire in the state of Minnesota. So after, I think it's 30 years is our current statute. So if you are in a development, it's more than 30 years old and there's covenants, you're not subject. I mean, those covenants go away. They're not perpetual, they're not in perpetuity. So it's something people don't think about or people don't know, but that is the reality of that. Councilmember Thul asked about the storm water pond in outlet A. Kaltsas stated there would be some sort of a ponding system here. It's not gonna be that exact shape and layout because in the previous plan, there was a kind of a pre-basin, a treatment basin, and then another basin. When lots, got reconfigured and Outlot A lost the lots that backed up to the Tuscany, that pond started to push west. It's going uphill a little bit, but it would be there. So as drainage, kind of addressing that one question, as drainage comes down here, it is going to be directed into this pond in those backyards, whereas now that drainage kind of continues to go out. A lot of the drainage that currently sheets off like this towards that development is going to get captured and taken out of the equation and brought into this system. Councilmember McGuire asked about the ownership of outlot A and the buffer between the R1 and the PUD. Kaltsas stated the City would do the maintenance on the pond but the buffer strip ownership/responsibility would be something to discuss later on as this has not been decided yet. Councilmember Schuette stated, we've come a long way on this. It's been a long ride. I do think this is probably the most close to the most reasonable solution that we're going to find for this piece of property. So thank you, developer. Thank you, landowner. And thank you guys for all the work that you put in. I am still fearful of the downstream process. I know we have a PUD ordinance stage gate that could potentially, with going down the road of having a PUD, prevent us from getting to a point in time where, say, a developer purchased land for a lot of money and expected an end result that we don't agree to. So I'm concerned about that. But outlining the Councilmember Schuette stated, we've come a long way on this. It's been a long ride. I do think this is probably the most close to the most reasonable solution that we're going to find for this piece of property. So thank you, developer. Thank you, landowner. And thank you guys for all the work that you put in. I am still fearful of the downstream process. I know we have a PUD ordinance stage gate that could potentially, with going down the road of having a PUD, prevent us from getting to a point in time where, say, a developer purchased land for a lot of money and expected an end result that we don't agree to. So I'm concerned about that. But outlining the process helps. having the PUD ordinance requirement in place aids in that a lot. I am still concerned about the consistency of one application to the next, but back to what I just said, that kind of comes into play, right? I do believe I did take the time to go to the back of a couple of these homes on the backside of Treviano. I think this is the best plan that we're going to get to, minus I do believe that lot 13 needs to be removed. It is extremely close to those other homes. I think it's in the best interest of our people not the business of Watertown. The people of Watertown is what matters to me and I think that that is our best case scenario and makes the most sense. The economic sense of whether or not this development goes forward is between developer and landowner and purchase of land price combined with development costs for that development. And for that reason I do believe that lot 13 for the best of our people and the development needs to be removed. Mayor Walters the community feedback has played such a huge part in getting to where we're at. The involvement and determination, the discourse of the community played a huge factor in the development, the layout, and the scope of this project. It's changed based on our community's very clear expectations of what we wanted to see there. I think the process worked very well in this case. The community gave a lot of feedback, specifically about, you know, sparing the trees, about having a lesser density, about pushing those homes away from Tuscany, you know. All of those things were achieved through several meetings and preliminary, excuse me, the planning commission meetings and the feedback. The preliminary plat went through two reviews at the planning commission. Both times those were approved. After a lot of refining and addressing concerns, it really now, like Adam just mentioned, it boils down to, we're talking about one lot, whether it should come or go. I think it's amazing and probably one of the best examples in the community. I've been up here a long time where the community stayed together, gave really good input, and has progressed this along. A couple of words that was mentioned too about the economics of our city. We heard our Chamber of Commerce speak to that. Most people know that growth is needed and it's been mentioned. I heard people and I saw people on Facebook saying that this is a small town, I love small town, we don't want to see it grow and stuff. It's obviously an unsustainable philosophy for a city. I think like we saw here with the feedback, we want to see measured growth, we want to see thoughtful, quality growth in our city, but it is a must. A town that's denying development. You just wouldn't want to go there, you wouldn't want to build there. The growth also brings a broader tax base, as has been mentioned. The cost of everything goes up every year, everybody knows that. I mean our policing, our health insurance, those two things alone this year went up $150,000 just to keep the services that we received last year. So we have to come up with a lot more money just to keep the present state. And of course you want to improve and of course you want to grow and stuff, but again, that expanded tax base helps pay for that, makes it possible. We have a new wastewater treatment facility, we have a new water tower being built. Without growth, our water bills would be through the roof. We didn't choose to just build a new wastewater treatment facility for $25 million. It was thrust on us because we were near capacity and the state was changing guidelines so we had to update our equipment. The school needs growth, the city needs growth, but on the bright side, our downtown, there hasn't been a vacancy in our downtown in several years. So again, real important, I just wanted to mention too, it was brought up about the tree board, and I just want to jump around. I've been taking notes for a few years. I've definitely heard all of you guys at all of the Planning Commission meetings. But the tree board, I just wanted to mention that. I started on the park board in 2008 through 2010. I've been 14 years up here. This is my 14th year. I've never heard of the tree board being mentioned, to be honest, until the last couple months. I was on the Planning Commission liaison for six or seven years. I know that that group discusses landscaping and tree removal and replacement on literally every project in town. That group is very, very protective of our trees, of our green space. I'm just telling you, you have a group that is out front on that issue and they care very much. Our city planner has been here a long time. He says he's not aware of a tree board ever being utilized. He said that type of activity has always been done by  through 2010. I've been 14 years up here. This is my 14th year. I've never heard of the tree board being mentioned, to be honest, until the last couple months. I was on the Planning Commission liaison for six or seven years. I know that that group discusses landscaping and tree removal and replacement on literally every project in town. That group is very, very protective of our trees, of our green space. I'm just telling you, you have a group that is out front on that issue and they care very much. Our city planner has been here a long time. He says he's not aware of a tree board ever being utilized. He said that type of activity has always been done by the planning commission. It's his understanding that the tree board was created to review city- owned and managed trees. And just so we're clear, a full tree survey and tree inventory was done on this property. The developer will be required to submit a tree mitigation as was mentioned and replacement plan should the development move forward to that. And just again, on the north end, the sugar bush, that again, that is completely now zoned as R1. So there's nothing the city could do to really influence that or stop that at this point as was mentioned as well. The city already has its zoning rules for R1 and those will be abided by. But we're talking about very expensive lots. It was kind of mentioned too that I think Mr. Nesvold mentioned it, by just eliminating those 17 lots, has probably increased the cost of each one of the lots that's left by $20,000. So again, particularly the lots by Sugarbush, those are going to be primo lots. You're talking similar to King's Highland type of... I think you're going to see that this is going to actually raise people's property values in that area. I know people have concerns about that. There's people who have certainly started off the conversation by saying that PUDs should never be used and should not be used on the south end. Again, the PUD is what's literally saving a lot of the forest there. It's created those outlots that have pushed the neighborhood away from Tuscany Village. I've seen the R1, it was up there for a minute too, but I saw the R1 original plan and the city wouldn't be able to stop them from buzzing a significant part of those trees down. Also, again, those lots would be right up on Tuscany's back door steps, which we tried to avoid. And the city noted that in the PUD architectural standards will be similar to Tuscany, 20% front facade, masonry type of stuff, and no vinyl siding. That's kind of what was in Tuscany, and I think that we're gonna, hopefully the Planning Commission and the Council will hold the same standards there. If that was R1, they wouldn't have those standards. Again, you can have vinyl siding in R1 and there is not a front facade of 20%. So again, I really think that a lot of people put a lot of time and a lot of effort into this. They expressed their concerns, but I also believe that the community, they won on all fronts. And I don't mean that there's a winner and a loser, but I mean, because the developer, if this moves forward, is still going to get to build here, but I think that, I mean by we won, that all of the concerns were pretty much addressed. We're down to basically one lot that people are, that we're still kind of talking about, it's amazing that that's really kind of where we're at. I'd point this out too, we're going to see more development. Mark brought that up, we have another developer that's coming forward next month. The bottom line, Watertown is a very desirable place, particularly now. There's a lot of growth going on north of us, south of us, and as a matter of fact last month I mentioned it earlier but last month we were notified by one of the business magazines that Watertown is being recognized as one of the best managed cities under 10,000 people. So again that attracts people when you're tax based and all that stuff looks good and I think this is a big win. I just wanted to also mention that because I know the next phase, once we build these lots, they're going to be very expensive. Someone mentioned affordable housing. These are going to be mid-range to upper range. Certainly the ones in Sugar Bush, I believe, are going to be upper range types of houses. Anyway, I just wanted to comment on some of those different issues that have come up. I really appreciate all of you guys that have stepped forward and made your concerns known COUNCILMEMBER MCGUIRE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION #2024-01 APPROVING PLAT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE COVE AT RIVER RIDGE. COUNCILMEMBER THUL SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED 3-2. 6. Other Reports 7. Claims COUNCILMEMBER PAWELK MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 9, 2024, CLAIMS PACKET. COUNCILMEMBER THUL SECONDED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 7.A. CLAIMS 8. Adjournment MAYOR WALTERS MOVED TO ADJOURN THE JANUARY 9, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.  7. Claims COUNCILMEMBER PAWELK MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 9, 2024, CLAIMS PACKET. COUNCILMEMBER THUL SECONDED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 7.A. CLAIMS 8. Adjournment MAYOR WALTERS MOVED TO ADJOURN THE JANUARY 9, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER PAWELK SECONDED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 309 Lewis Avenue South; P.O. Box 279, Watertown, MN 55388 ________________________________________________________ Michael Walters, Mayor ATTEST:__________________________________________________ Jake Foster, City Administrator