I'm going to get a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little I'm going to get some coffee. I'm going to get some coffee. I'm going to get some coffee. I'm going to get some coffee. I'm going to get some coffee. I'm going to get some coffee. I'm going to get some coffee. I'm going to get some coffee. I'm going to get some coffee. I'm going to get some coffee. I'm going to get some coffee. I'm going to get some coffee. Anybody here from a concert hall? Just traveling, yeah. Okay. She's out of the country, I think. Oh. I hope I believe she says maybe we should go to the center. Oh. I just lost my agenda. Do we have to sign up for it or? Yeah. Yeah. Why does it have to sign up for it? Yeah. Yeah. Why so does this sign? We'll facilitate it. Yeah, I can't help us sign a cell up. . . . . Good evening. We will begin our agenda session. We will start with personnel. Councillor Derwock to would you re in for Councillor O'Hall. So item number five, resolution 325 confirming appointments to the city of Duluth boards and commissions. Item number six, resolution 353 approving proposed specifications for the new civil service classification of senior landscape architect and specifying contract benefits for same. Item number seven resolution 354, approving proposed specifications for the new civil service classification of water plant maintenance operator and specifying contract benefits for same. Item number eight, can we hold up for just one minute? Councilor Sandy, questions on items five through seven. Oh, my bad. Seeing none. Councilor Dure-Wark, do you want to continue with purchasing and licensing, please? Sure. Item number eight, resolution 324, authorizing an agreement with Duluth Amateur Hockey Association in the amount of $75,000. Councillors, any question on item eight? Seeing none, we'll move on to planning and economic development. Vice President Neffu. Thank you, President Tamanik. Resolution of Mending, I'm sorry, number nine. Resolution 278, Resolution of Mending Resolution 89-0323 establishing the Duluth Economic Development Authority. Modifying Council approval thresholds for data expenditures from 100,000 to 150,000. Item number 10, Resolution 328. Resolution authorizing an agreement with the Duluth 1200 fund ink to transfer 1,400,000 for the purpose of administrating a historic program fund item number 11 resolution 338 resolution approving data resolution 25d-20 authorizing a first amendment to a professional services agreement with AMI consulting engineers PA to increase the contract amount by 59,319 for a new total amount not to exceed $133,419. Number 12 resolution 340 resolution accepting a grant from the Minnesota Department of employmentment and Economic Development in the amount of $2,399,086 in further authorizing a subrecipient agreement with Sofidel America. Item number 13, resolution 358, resolution authorizing a containment cleanup grant application to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development for the Goodwill Project. Thank you, President Nefue. Councillor Kennedy. Thank you, President. Tom, I'm looking at item number eight, Resolution 328, the agreement with the historic fund program. As I look at through some of the paperwork, it is particularly the 1200 fund document. Just wondering, it talks about buildings, but we also had discussed the Clayton Jackson Geem Memorial, which is not a building, but the impacts to the blight that had come to them. And wondering how they would be able to access some of this fund and if they would be eligible. I did look through some of the wording on that. It goes back and forth between buildings and historic projects or buildings, but there is language in there that might lead to believe that they would be eligible for this fund as well Onic counselor Kennedy I'm going to invite our economic development director Trisha Hobbes to come forward to address that item Shen and counselor Swanson is a Member of our 1200 fund board so I'd invite her to chime in. There's additional comments but as a reminder, the settlement agreement was focused on buildings and building owners and so that was a clarification that we had made at that point and what we had discussed was engaging the Clayton-Jex McGee Memorial organization and board when we started to talk about redevelopment opportunities. And so per that settlement agreement that you all approved back in January, that $1.4 million was focused on buildings and areas within that first street corridor. And so the program guidelines do reflect that. And can I may follow up? Yes. So when you say that you will be engaging with the Clinton Jackson McGee Memorial. And I just want to express that they were like, significantly impacted all of these years because of that building light. While I hear that and understand that they may not be eligible because it talks about buildings, it also talks about commercial horse historic districts. And there's other language in there that may be able to help them be eligible, unless you're stating that there may be some other eligibility for funding for them through another data program. President, to my next Councillor Kennedy, we do not have a data program or fund that would be available to support what I think you're describing, but as we had discussed in the past, we do want to make sure that they are an engaged partner in any redevelopment to make sure that that's reflective of the vision that they'd like to see on that corridor as well. So I think I want to pull this one because I want to have a little more conversation on that to make sure this is equitable, and I understand it is for buildings, but we have maybe the ability to move it forward for that specific historic site. to onumann at Councilor Kennedy, I do want to clarify that the historic fund guidelines are actually approved by the 1200 fund board. The action ahead of you is just to approve the transfer of funds. So any modifications to the guidelines would actually need to be initiated and completed by the 1200 fund board of directors. Certainly. I could also ask for this to be held up for a bit so we can maybe talk with a 1200 fund committee to see if there's other actions that we can move forward and make sure that Clayton Jackson McGee has some sort of compensation if needed. They may not need it, but I feel like this needs to be possibly amended or there needs to be some other compensation that goes parallel to this for them since they're not a building but they are really a historic piece of the loop. President Spanick, Councillor Kennedy, I believe Councillor Swanson and myself would be happy to have a conversation about that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Kennedy. Councillor Swanson. Thank you, President Tumonic. Just for clarification the question, so resolution 338 where we are increasing the amount. If council also passes resolution 278 increasing that amount to 150, would we no longer see this type of resolution coming forward? That is correct. So the resolution that you're referencing increasing the threshold is at the kind requests of our purchasing office so we can have consistency between what you see before you, whether it be data or city of Duluth accounts and expenses we'd like for those to be consistent across the board, not only for our finance staff but for you all and kind of operating from that same page so that's a correct assumption. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Swinston. Thank you. Manager Hubs. Any other questions on items 9 through 13? Councillor Kennedy. Councillor Kennedy. Clarification I make sure that we have that item pulled for me. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next up, Public Works and Utilities, Councillor Romail. Thank you, President Sumanic. Item 14, Resolution 341, amending contract L30871 with LHB Incorporated to provide construction administration services for the Eclan Davinie reconstruction project to increase the amount by $341,705 for a new total of $718,7002 city project number 2091. Item 15 Resolution 342 awarding a contract to Northland Constructors of Duluth Incorporated for the Eclan Davinie reconstruction project in the amount of $2,552,400. Item 16, Resolution 343, authorizing a temporary construction agreement with the regions of the University of Minnesota for improvements along Junction Avenue, Buffalo Street, and West St. Mary Street at no cost to the city. Item 17, Resolution 346, authorizing acceptance of a grant from the Minnesota State Transportation Fund for the Re-conditioning of Junction Avenue slash West St. Marie Street in the amount of $1,500,000. Item 18 Resolution 347, authorizing an agreement with Minnesota Power for Joint Construction of Utilities in Junction Avenue. Item 19 Resolution 348, authorizing agreement with the University of Minnesota Duluth for joint construction of sidewalk along Junction Avenue, Buffalo Street and St. Marie Street. Item 20 Resolution 349 awarding a contract to North End Constructors of Duluth Incorporated for the Junction Avenue West St. Marie Street Re-conditioning Project in the amount of $3,846,500. Item 21 Resolution 350, amending contract L31017 with LHB incorporated to provide additional professional information. $1,500. Item 21 Resolution 350, amending contract L31017, with LHB incorporated to provide additional professional engineering services for the Junction Avenue slash St. Marie Street, reconditioning project to increase the amount by $54,100 for a new total of $190,391. Item 22 Resolution 356, awarding a contract to North End Constructors of Duluth, a Division of Matthew Construction Company for the 2025 Street Preservation Project, City Project No. 2194, in the amount of $4,895,438.97. Item 23, Resolution 357, authorizing a contract with Stack Brothers Mechanical Contractors, Incorporated for incorporated for hot water pipe replacement at the Duluth Entertainment Convention Center deck for a total not to exceed $225,240. Item 24 Resolution 359 awarding a contract to Northline Constructors of Duluth for the Chester Park Drive Alley Project, City Project, number 2102 in the amount of $690,479. Item 25, Resolution 360, adapting the Duluth Superior Metropolitan Interstate Council's Duluth Superior Area Bicycle Transportation Plan 2025. Item 26, Resolution 361, authorizing a 54-month lease agreement with Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation for 20 motor graders for a totally semount not to exceed $1,870,856 dollars. And if I may. Yes. President, it's a monic just a couple of questions. Well, on items 19 and let's see here. 16, if we can just pull those, I'm going to abstain from those due to my employment with the university so that we can vote on them separately. And then I did have a question about item 23 for the hot water pipe for the deck. Is it typical that the city pays for these hot water pipes? Mr. Staling, is there any additional context maybe for this project that you might have or maybe Mr. Benning can provide via email Council President Twanek counselor Mail yes, I can provide some additional information relating to that pipe ironically I was with Mr. Benning all day and Neglected to ask him about this item, okay, but I will follow up with Mr. Benning in the morning and get you Information before Monday awesome Awesome. It was hard to tell from the resolution if it's, it looks like it's servicing the deck, but maybe it's on city property on railroad street or something there. Alright, thanks. Thank you, Councillor Mayo. Any other questions on items 14 to 26? Seeing none, Councillor Kennedy. I authorize To Monic. Authorized resolution 326, item 27. Authorizing the city to serve as fiscal agent for and accept reimbursement monies on behalf of the Lake Superior Violent Offender Task Force, said reimbursement monies to be paid under the Minnesota Anti-Meth Task Force program for the purpose of supporting the operations of the Lake Superior Violent Offender Task Force. Item number 28 resolution 327 authorizing the execution of first amendments to the grant contract agreements for the Auto-Theft Prevention Program, replacing as party the Minnesota Department of Commerce with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. Item number 29 resolution 352, authorizing the execution of an amended and restated joint powers agreement, renaming the Lake Superior Drug and Violent Crime Task Force as the Lake Superior Violent offender Task Force Force and incorporating updates to the Violent Crimes Enforcement Teams Operations Manual. And I do know that, if I may, Chief Sonoa has a representative here because that's a lot of here and there going on, if y'all have any questions, I really had to have him explain it to me because it seemed like there was a lot of back and forth. But. Councillor Sainte, any questions on that? I think you're good. Did you want an explanation? I do not. I think we're good. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Sainte, any other questions on items 27 to 29? No., recreation libraries and authorities, Councillor Swanson. Thank you, President. 13 resolution authorizing three year agreement with the NAACP Duluth branch for the lease of a space in the Washington recreation center. resolution 362, resolution, amending resolution 222, authorizing an amendment to the contract L30637 with Krauss Anderson construction company for professional construction management services, for the Spirit, Mountain, Shaleigh, and lift replacement projects, for an increase of $365,188. And a total amount not to exceed $390,188. Councillor's questions on items 30 to 31. Seeing none, that's the end of the consent agenda. Vice President Neff you will you read of the ordinance for the first time item number 32? Yes. Ordinance 8 and ordinance amending the official zoning map of the city of Duluth to reclassify the parcel described as 010-4680-01265 from residential traditional R1 to residential planned RP. Councillors, any questions? And if I may, yes you may. But as we'll have, Jen Moses come up. So just to clarify, from R1 to RP, there needs to be a public benefit and that would be the trail. Councillor Neff you, President Tumonic, we do ask for a public benefit and we ask them to demonstrate it on multiple levels. So for this one they have identified the preservation of open space which includes a lot of the trees on the site as well as the open space along the creek. The density of the development, which allows for less pavement and driveways and a more efficient use of streets and the trail as well. So then my next question is some of the emails that we did receive, this was never part of Hartley. Do you know the history of that at all where the ownership took place? President Tamanik and Councillor Neffi, I do know that this previously was a single family home and that it was never part of Hartley. If there's something specific in there in the history, other than that, I don't know what that would be. Okay, my my last question for now is, so this is 60 units of condos. If it were to be a traditional R1 neighborhood, and I know it's hard to figure that out, because there's a lot of what ifs in there about how many single family homes do you speculate could go in there? And in that case, if it was that type of development, what would happen with like treat treat preservation? So, President Sponett comes, learn that for you. That's a really good question. It is one that people ask a lot. And I will give my disclaimer first, which is that in order to assess how many units could actually fit on the property, we would have to go through a full site planning given the slope and where would we put streets and then how many lots could we fit in. So since we don't do that and don't have the precise number, some approximations that we use, one of them is guidance in our comprehensive plan. And the comprehensive plan says that our one would be a goal density of 4 to 8 units per acre. So overall it it's an 8 acre site, so that would equate to about 32 to 64 units. Our one does allow town homes, so I would suspect that if somebody was going to fit that many units, they would have to look at town home development. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Neff you. Councillor Mayo. Thank you, President Monic. I had a question about the RP classification. Is it possible that this development could also happen under R2 or is that I'm not sure I guess on the density side of things the difference between an RP versus an R2 or if there are any other definitions that could fit this site. President Tamanik and Councillor Mayue, I can explain a little bit about what we look at for a zoning designation. So right now the zone designation is R1, which is traditional neighborhood that follows the comprehensive plan for the site. In order for somebody to apply for a rezoning to R2, they would have to have a land use amendment or the land use in the comprehensive plan would have to support that. Part of that reason is because R2, when it's permitted by right hosts, it has a lot of other uses that could potentially apply, including significantly more density. So the option that our zoning code allows is for planned districts. With planned districts, they tell us up front, so we know what's going in there, rather than just rezoning it to a higher zone district. And then we also understand that under a planned development, people usually get additional, a little bit additional density, some extra height, things like that in exchange for them providing us with some of that public benefit. So anything that is in R1 is eligible to apply for a rezoning to a residential plan district and then they identify as part of that rezoning process what uses and density and height they are proposing for the site. Okay, so our P isn't necessarily then built into the comp plan, is that correct? President Tamanik, Councillor Mayue, that is correct. What we look at in our P is what the base zone district would be and the code lays out what base zone districts are eligible to apply for an RP rezoning. Okay. And can I just ask one follow? Go ahead. So with the density that they agree to, is that kind of built into what we'll be voting on, then they can't go over that density. It's a strict limit and upper limit I'm assuming. Yes, President Tamanik, Councillor Mayhew, that is exactly what they've had to show as part of the application. That is a maximum density. They're not allowed to go over that. And it is a maximum height. They're not allowed to go over that height. They can't add any other uses than what they've included in their application. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Mayer. Councillor Dure-Walker. Thank you, President I do have a question, but I do also want to clarify that this land was once part of heartily. My understanding is a gentleman passed away and donated the land to heartly and it was then sold by heartly to make the expansion on their childcare center in preschool. It's not necessarily relevant, but I just wanted to clarify that. My question is, one of my questions is that it looks like they're asking, you're approving of 75 total units, but they're hoping to only do 60, is that correct? or are they planning on 75. President Tbannock and Councillor Derr-Walker, the maximum that they are allowed is 75. They have told us that they are planning on 66. Depending on their final site design they've also said it might end up a little bit lower than that. Their first step is the rezoning process and And then after they get through the rezoning, they can really invest in doing the final site design and determining where things can fit with the slope on the site. People often ask for a little bit more than they're actually planning on. In case they can accommodate more. So that's why they have asked for 75, but have told us that they're planning on 66. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Duer-Walker. Vice President Neffu. Thank you, President Tamanik. Woodland was recently redone by the county. Do we know what I know that there were some meetings put in for traffic calming? Do we know what that road can support and what it currently is supporting? Yes, President Tamanik, Councillor Neff you, particularly based on the number of comments that we received on this project. We did reach out to St. Louis County transportation. We reached out to their transportation engineer, Vic Lund, who worked on that project to find that out from him. And we learned that he included this project site as part of the scoping for the Woodland Avenue Reconstruction project included turn lanes and providing gaps in the median for people to access the site. We then asked him if he had any concerns about the traffic volume generated from the site. The Woodland Avenue is designed to carry traffic of 15 to 20,000 cars per day. Right now it's carrying about 8 to 9,000 cars per day. And he said that other than he wanted to make sure there were turn lanes so people had a place to safely be able to make that turn. But other than that he said that the impact to the overall traffic load would be negligible given that the road can still accommodate many thousands of more cars a day. Go ahead. So going back to the tree preservation question I don't think that was answered. RP, I know a number of the trees will be preserved. If it were to be in R1 and they were to put 60 single family homes up there, what would be the requirement for tree preservation? President Tamanik, Councillor Neffiou, the tree preservation requirements do kick in regardless of the project. However, two points that I would make is, it was R1 they probably would have to do substantially more clearing to accommodate the additional units and then they would pay into a tree fund that the city forest or administrators, that's their option if they can't replace them on the site. Also with the proposed RP given the amount of trees that they are permanently preserving, I believe that that is likely more than they would otherwise have to replace. And then I have one quick question for attorney Lear. With this ordinance are we going to be if I remember incorrectly we are going to be a quasi judiciary body for the ordinances that correct. President Tamanik or Councillor Neff you I will have to do a little research on that and I'll get back to you on that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Neff, Vice President Neff you thank you attorney Lerre. Councillor Derracter. Thank you President Tamanik. On the topic of trees, Let's say the rezoning occurs, is there anything written in the rezoning ordinance that prevents them from, they claim they're only going to clear a certain amount of trees. Let's say the property gets sold to a new developer. Is there anything limiting them from removing more trees than what this current developer is expressing? President Tomanek and Councillor Dervoctor, that's a really good question. One of the advantages of doing an action like this as a rezoning is that all of the conditions that are in place as part of the rezoning carry with the property. So this will be its own RP district. It will remain with the life of the property. Certainly there are procedures if down the road we somebody wanted to amend that. It would have to come back to council. But the concept plan that's attached to this ordinance becomes the regulating authority over what they are allowed to build on the site even if they sell it. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Derr-Wafter. Councillor Mayo. Thank you, President Tamanik. Can you speak to the nature of the road that goes into the property? Is that going to be a private road or will that become a public road that the city has to maintain? The automatic Councillor Mayue, they are proposing a private road that they would own and maintain. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Mayue, they are proposing a private road that they would own and maintain. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Mayue. Councillor Sainte, any other questions? Thank you, manager Moses. Oh. I have a couple more. Councillor Dure-Wakter. Thank you. Let's see. I noticed they voted at this special meeting and in our packet or on the agenda there is the April 8th meeting audio provided as well. I was able to listen to the March 27th one but is that just an oversight or was there more discussion about it at the April 8th for a planning commission? President Tumana and Councillor Durwaakter, I would have to go back to the staff person and figure out why the audio was included. I'm sorry, I don't know that off the top of my head. No worries, I can just listen to it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Durwaakter. Councillor Sany other questions? Oh, all right, Councillor Diorwacter. So I, after listening to the March 27 meeting, Mr. Forseer did express that he had worked with the county when they were redoing the road to plan for this development to plan traffic. So it would work for this development which I find a little peculiar because we hadn't yet re-zoned it Is that a common practice for developers to do and to reach out to a county and have the county actually listen to them. I said, I mean, I guess my question is, are there examples in the city? Yes, President Tomanek and Councillor Derrockter, that's actually really common. Brian and titanium partners has owned the site for a while. And so the county would have done outreach to everybody that was landowners along the site and likely asked them, Are there any future projects that you have? What are you planning for the site? I do know also that titanium was considering, or at least looking at whether they could do single family homes on the site. And then as they tried to price out what that cost would be, it was a much higher cost per unit. So they decided to propose multi-family. But I do know that they were considering development of some shape at the time that the project was going on. Thank you. Next we have Councillor Mayo. Thank you, President Tamanic. On similar topic related to streets, the impervious surface with parking, can you speak a little bit to what the developer has planned for that? And maybe if they have any catch basins or things to mitigate some of the storm water flow off of parking areas and maybe minimizing the amount of parking they have on the site? Yeah, President Tamanik and Councillor Mayue. That is one of those details that they get to start figuring out after every zoning because they know generally some plans but they haven't done the final design yet. What I will say is our zoning code does have maximum parking requirements that we ask them not to exceed. And with a multifamily development, they would be doing storm water treatment and because it's near a cold water stream that stormwater treatment has some higher thresholds. So all of our regular stormwater rules apply and you know I could get more information from our stormwater engineer if you would like but I do know we've had preliminary conversations about how they make sure that there is the stormwater is going to be treated appropriately and that there are not any impacts to the creek or surrounding neighbors. Thank you. Yeah, a brief overview maybe from the stormwater person would be great if you could send that. It doesn't have to be necessarily by Monday because I know we have two sessions on this one. So thanks. We'll get that for you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Councillor Meil. Councillor Dure-Wactor. Thank you, President Tumonic and thank you, General Susper, staying at the podium. My question is that at the Planning Commission meeting on March 27th, a resident of Duluth did bring up an interesting point that the RP, the planned zoning needs to overlay the original zoning, which is R1, and R1 currently does not allow for multi-family units. And so I'm curious if you could speak about that and why it's still being considered. President Damanik and Councillor Joakter. So in the zoning world, there are such things as overlay districts and overlay districts basically go over the base zone district and add additional regulations. This is not an overlay district. So what will happen is the RP zoning designation replaces the R1 and they are eligible to apply for any of the uses in our use table that could be in the residential plan district. So the zoning code lays out the menu of options for uses that they would be eligible for in the RP and they aren't doing most of them, you know, they've asked for just a small list of uses for the site. So it does replace that. One thing that we do ask them to do is to always, as part of their application is to say, what is your base zone district? Just in case there's anything that the residential plan district doesn't regulate or doesn't cover, or we ever need to look back at what was that old zoning. We do ask for that, but the RP does replace the R1 zoning. Thank you. Councilor Sany other questions for item number 32. Thank you, manager Moses, thank you. Next we have Councillor Mayo. Public works. Thank you, President. Item 33, ordinance five is authorizing an electric line easement to Minnesota Power, Division of Elite, incorporated upon, over, under, and across real property in the Kenwood neighborhood for nominal consideration. Item 34, ordinance 6 is authorizing an electric line easement to Minnesota power, a division of elite incorporated upon over under and across real property in the Kenwood neighborhood for nominal consideration. And item 35, ordinance 7 is authorizing an electric line easement to Minnesota power, a division of elite incorporated upon over under and across real property in the Duluth Heights neighborhood for nominal consideration. Thank you, Councillor Mayo. Any questions on ordinance items 33 to 35? Seeing none, preview of, anybody have any questions? Councillor Schmanzen? No. Okay. Then we are done for this evening. Thank you.