Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Approval of Minutes: June 21, 2005 and July 05, 2005 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA JUNE 21, 2005 Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. with Council members Joos, Menden, Helkamp, and Lehman present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director and Jim Thomson, City Attorney. The pledge of allegiance was recited. Joos/Helkamp moved to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Schmitt stated that he attended a park walk this afternoon and that everything seems to be moving along well. The following items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 15.A.2. Greenfield West Neighborhood Park Design Changes and itemI5.A.3. Greenfield West Neighborhood Park Playground Equipment. LehmanlHelkamp moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried 5- O. Regarding item 15.B.3. Request by Fire Department for Waiver of Demolition Permit Fees, it was clarified that the Fire Department will still go through the permit process but the permit fees are waived. Mayor Schmitt asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address any item not on the agenda. There was no response. LehmanlHelkamp moved to approve the meeting minutes for April 28, 2005, May 3, 2005 (6:00 p,m.), and May 3,2005 (7:00 p.m.). (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlHelkamp moved to approve the bills in the amount of $783,890.49 plus $297,932.66 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $1 ,081 ,823.15. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). [The list of bills is posted on the bulletin board at City Hall for one month following approval]. Menden/Joos moved to open the public hearing on the proposed vacation of Prairie Street lying north of Bluff Avenue. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, reported on the vacation of Prairie Street lying north of Bluff Avenue. Mr. Leek noted that in 1986, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2721, which intended to vacate that portion of Prairie Street. Mr. Leek Official Proceedings of the June 21, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -2- offered that there was a procedural defect in the notice procedure that the city used at that time and recently the property owners discovered that the vacation was not effective. Mr. Leek stated that therefore, the property owners have petitioned for vacation again to affect the intent of the City Council back in 1986. Mr. Leek offered that city staffhas recommended denial because there was concern about potential need for access to the North for future storm and sanitary sewer service. Mr. Leek noted that the planning commission reviewed the request and is recommending approval of the vacation of that portion of Prairie Street, but did not propose any easement. Mr. Leek noted that it has been proposed in the Resolution that the City retain a drainage and utility easement to respond to the concerns that were raised by the engineering staff. He offered that the easement that is proposed is 43 ft., and the reason is to allow an area of 5 ft, adjacent to the existing building for access to that building. Mr. Leek stated that if approved, it would still result in the vacation of the street, but the retention of the drainage and utilities easement would not affect set-backs, but would affect the ability to expand into the area that would be in easement. Mayor Schmitt asked if there was anyone from the audience that would like to address this issue. Skip Reebie, Real Estate Agent, approached the podium. Mr. Reebie questioned how many feet the set-back is from the east line. Mr. Leek stated that the set-back is 20 ft. Mr. Reebie stated that because of possible reconstruction later on down the line, if the easement could match up with the set-back, then he doesn't think there would be any objection. Dean Gavin, attorney for the petitioner, approached the podium. Mr. Gavin stated that he was not aware of the proposed easement. Mr. Gavin stated that the reason his client had to do the petition is because his client had a sale on this property and through that sale, the buyer's lender made a title objection based upon Resolution No. 2721 (Resolution of Disclaimer). Mr. Gavin added that going back and fixing this is going to be very costly and time consuming as the property to the east is torrens property. He expressed that he is not advocating an easement at this point. Mr. Gavin noted that to go back and try and take something now and get an easement that the city didn't reserve for itself at that time, is going to land the people involved in a predicament that will not be easy to resolve. Cncl. Lehman asked Mr. Gavin ifhe would be agreeable to a 43 ft. easement. Mr. Gavin stated that he was not aware of the easement. Mr, Gavin offered that there would be a lot of work, time and expense for everyone, to go back and make the corrections to retain an easement. Cncl. Lehman questioned if in 1986 when the City Council passed Resolution No. 2721, vacating the property, if staff usually checks to see if the wording is proper. Cncl. Lehman also questioned the property set-back. Official Proceedings of the June 21,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Mr. Leek stated that if at some point in the future, some buyer or owner of this property proposed something other than a commercial use, assuming the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update and an ordinance that implements that "mixed use" category, different set-back standards may apply. Mr. Leek added that vacation was not defective, but rather that there has been an objection that has been raised and the validity of the resolution has not been determined. He added that he doesn't know if the vacation procedure was valid or not. Cncl. Lehman added that he is backing up the action that was made by the City Council in 1986. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, stated that in looking at the Resolution, he understands why there is an issue as to whether or not the property has been properly vacated. He added that what ever action the Council took in 1986, it does appear that they were intending not to retain anything. Mayor Schmitt added that the city does not normally require 43ft. easements on a parcel of property. He added that typically, a platted lot, depending upon its use will either require a lOft. or 20ft. side yard easement. He added that therefore he has a hard time understanding the need for a 43ft. easement. Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer, stated that ifthe city vacates the easement rights, and the city needs them later, the city will have to go buy them. He added that someday there may be a need for a potential sanitary sewer line or a storm sewer line coming up from the property, and that's why the additional easement was suggested. Kim Robson, applicant, approached the podium. Mr. Robson noted that he is the third owner of this property that has purchased this property under this draft, with the understanding that this has been vacated by the city, prior. He added that with that understanding it has been sold three times and now he has sold it to someone else. Mayor Schmitt asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak on this issue. There was no response. Discussion followed regarding retaining an easement within the proposed street vacation. Mr. Reebie added that nothing was done wrong in 1986, it's just the way they handled things back then. He noted that the legal department of the bank objected to it, on the grounds that it didn't conform with the current statute, therefore the situation needs to be corrected. Official Proceedings of the June 21, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Mr. Gavin added that the sale has already been made and there was money escrowed to try and clear up this title defect. Mr. Gavin stated that Mr. Reebie, the applicant, does not own this property as this point. He noted that if this doesn't get cleared up, then the buyer would have the right to go back and choose not to purchase this property, then all the title work would need to be switched back from 1986, forward. Mr. Leek asked Mr. Thomsop. if the objection in the case of this transaction is that it doesn't comply with current statutory requirements for vacating property, but the street was legally vacated in 1986, would action by this Council vacating it today have any force and effectand wouldn't the more rational response to the title objection be that the property was properly vacated and there is no action needed at this time, Mr. Thomson stated that a resolution vacating the property that reads the same as the one back in 1986, would have some effect, in that it would convince the title examiner that everything is done correctly and helll withdraw the objection and they can close on the escrow. Mr. Thomson added that it looks like everyone has been operating under the assumption that this property was vacated. Mr. Thomson suggested that the Council should vacate this clean and then get a separate document conveying back an easement for 20ft. or however many feet that they see fit. He expressed that he would not recommend putting it as a condition of the resolution, because it might complicate things. Mr. Thomson stated that the easements that are required are required as a condition of platting. Easements are not granted as a condition of issuing a building permit. Mr. Leek stated that his concern is; the City Council adopting a resolution vacating a street that is not going to be recorded because there has already been that action taken. Mr. Leek suggested taking a couple of weeks to confer with the objecting party to see if that sort of affIrming resolution would satisfy the objection as well as a resolution of vacation. Mr. Gavin added that there is specific language that the statute says that needs to be in a street vacation resolution, He stated that he is trying to resolve this issue with the city to come up with some type of resolution, based on what was done in 1986 and what has been the history of the property since then. Mayor Schmitt suggested different forms of action for the Council to take. Joos/Menden moved to close the public hearing, Motion carried 5-0. Lehman moved to offer Resolution No. 6263, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee Vacating 60 Feet of Prairie Street and Retention of a 43-Foot Drainage and Utility Easement at 981 Bluff A venue East, and moved its adoption, removing the words "subject to the following condition: 1. The eastern 43-feet of Right-of-Way be retained Official Proceedings of the June 21, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -5- as a drainage and utility easement;" and adding "Reaffirming Resolution No. 2721, dated May 5, 1986." Motion dies for lack ofa second. Cncl. Joos stated that he would like staff to go back and work with the attorneys and come back to the Council with a recommendation to this. Cncl. Menden would also like to see additional information. He added that there are two items he would like clarified; 1) if there is a legal vacation of this street, what action by this Council, if any, adds to the value of that and 2) if the council decides to vacate this property, he would like some information on the need for a utility easement. Joos/Menden moved to continue the request to vacate Prairie Street north of Bluff A venue to the next meeting for additional information. Cncl. Lehman stated he wouldn't support anything other than upholding what the past Council has done. Cncl. Menden agreed with Cncl. Lehman. Motion carried 5-0. Menden/Helkamp moved to open the public hearing on the Petition by Tollefson Development for the Annexation of Land in Jackson Township. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Leek reported on the Petition by Tollefson Development for the Annexation of Land in Jackson Township. Mr, Leekstated that this is an annexation of a remainder piece in what was the Marystown LLC property. He added that the majority of that property had been annexed by the city, but it was discovered by the Scott County recorders office, later on after the Council had acted on it, that there was a small cart way that was not included in the legal description. Mr. Leek stated that staff is requesting that this public hearing be continued to July 19, 2005. He noted that the public hearing notice was published in error for tonight's meeting. Lehman/Helkamp moved to continue the public hearing till July 19, 2005. Motion carried 5-0, Ann Carroll, consultant, opened the Presentation by the Visioning Steering Committee. Ms. Carroll went over the process update. She discussed the stakeholder analysis and data collection. Ms. Carroll stated that the Committee also went through an issue identification including citywide open house participation, She noted that the Committee created live issues and searched for solutions that generated a series of issues briefs. Ms. Carroll expressed that they also went through extensive strategy mapping with the City Council. Official Proceedings of the June 21, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Carol Schultz, steering committee member, presented the Draft Vision Statement. Don Wagner and Marge Henderson, steering committee members, presented the Draft Goals and Strategies. Mr. Wagner stated that the joint City Council/Steering Committee workshop included; some city staff, County Board and Planning Commission members, developer, public policy and planning students. Bob Mitchell, steering committee member, presented the Community Review. Mr. Mitchell stated that the committee is going back to the community to show everyone what has been developed and to ask them for any input. He added that the way the committee is planning on doing thisis by; a new brochure inviting input, phone or e-mail via City Hall, newspaper articles, websites, and repeated cablecast. Mr. Mitchell stated that the committee is asking the City Council for authorization to distribute draft vision statement, goals, and strategies to community for input, prior to final adoption as part of the Strategic Plan. Mr. Mitchell thanked the City Council for all of their interest in the Steering Committee. Helkamp/J oos moved to authorize the Visioning Steering Committee to distribute the drafts of the vision statement, goals and strategies to the public for review and comments. Cncl. Lehman questioned how the committee plans on improving [mancial health, as discussed in their presentation. It was added that this would come from the way that policies are set and decisions are made, which would then support individual financial health. Cncl. Lehman expressed his concerns regarding the Steering Committee's presentation. He stated that he doesn't feel that it is government's role to push religion on people. Cncl. Lehman added that a document like this, when it's complete, tends to be binding to appointed bodies and elected bodies. Cnc!. Joos stated that this document is not meant to be binding on future councils nor could it be. He discussed the intent of this document. Mayor Schmitt stated that he believes that this document is a step into the right direction. Cncl. Lehman added that a price tag needs to be put on this document, so the people know what they are buying. Mayor Schmitt stated that this is not something you can put a price tag on and is not something that would replace the Comprehensive Plan. Cncl. Menden stated that it is time to take that next step, and that he is in favor of doing so. Motion carried 5-0. ~ /'" Official Proceedings of the June 21, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Mr. Leek reported on the Extension of MUS A and Rezoning for property located south of Highway 169 and east of CR 15/Marystown Road. Mr. Leek stated that this is a request to amend the comprehensive plan by extending MUSA to about 27 acres and to rezone that property to (R2) Medium Density Residential on the east and (B 1) Highway Commercial on the west. Mr. Leek presented a map showing the site. Mr. Leek expressed that Tollefson Development has indicated that they do not have any specific plans to share regarding the 13.7 acres, which is proposed to be zoned B 1. He stated that the request for MUSA extension is consistent with the MUSA phasing and the request for rezoning is consistent with the guiding on the subject property, with respect to the existing adopted Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan Update, Mr. Leek noted that as a result, when the Planning Commission reviewed the request on June 9, 2005, they did recommend to the Council approval of the MUSA extension and the rezoning to R2 and B I. Mr. Leek added that this property has already been annexed, except for the cart way, which was discussed earlier. Discussion followed regarding the Powers' Family property. Cncl. Helkamp asked if access to the Chaska/Shakopee interceptor would be granted and whether or not there is sufficient flow capacity there, if it is developed. Mr. Leek responded that the determination in the Comprehensive Plan Update is that the area identified, which included this property, there is sufficient flow to service and they should, at the time this develops, issue permits to hook-up to the Chaska/Shakopee interceptor. Mayor Schmitt asked Mr. Leek if there would be additional accesses on County Road 15, so that everything is not confined to the easterly intersection between the Medium Density and the Highway Business. Mr. Leek stated that MNDot would not allow additional access. Mr. Leek added that additional access on County Road 15 is unlikely to occur. Mr. Loney added that this additional access is unlikely. Discussion followed regarding additional accesses. Helkamp/Joos offered Ordinance No. 732, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee Amending the Zoning Map Adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 by Zoning Land Located South of Highway 169 and North of 17th Avenue Extended to Medium Density Residential (R2) and Highway Business (B 1) Zone and Resolution No. 6262, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee Approving a Request to Amend the Comprehensive Official Proceedings of the June 21,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -8- Plan to Extend MUSA to Property Located South of Highway 169 and North of 1 ih Avenue Extended, and moved their adoption. Motion carried 5-0, Mr. Leek reported on the Preliminary Plat of Riverside Bluffs located north of CR 16 and east of Hilldale Drive. Mr. Leek stated that this had been before the Council on May 17, 2005, where at that time the applicant had agreed to an extension to tonight's date. Mr. Leek stated that at that meeting he had suggested that there were three significant issues, which were not fully resolved and if they were not fully resolved this evening, he would be bringing back the same recommendation to the Council that the Planning Commission had made. He added that there has been progress on some of these issues, but they have not been resolved. Mr. Leek noted that it is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution of denial, but the applicant will be asking for approval based on a number of additional conditions subsequent. Mr. Leek stated that one major issue was park dedication. Mr. Leek noted that what was proposed with Riverside Bluffs plat is that the Park area that was dedicated as Riverside Fields would essentially be vacated and acreage for park would be dedicated in this plat that would accommodate the 4.2 acres that was dedicated there and whatever was required by this subdivision. He expressed that the requirement for this plat is 8.24 acres of park land. He added that it appears that the park dedication requirement is not meet. Mr. Leek noted that one thing that is not clear is that that includes easement areas and includes the Prior Lake/Spring Lake outlet channel. Mr. Leek noted that the Park and Recreation Advisory Board did recommend approval, but in their statement of a recommendation for approval, they noted that the actual land dedication would have to be verified at a later time, because they were uncertain whether or not that requirement was being met. Mr. Leek added that there is an ordinance in Chapter 12, relating to park dedication that is specific about areas like channels, wetlands and ponding not being accepted as park dedication credit. He stated that some of the discussion has been about whether or not the area that was shown in this plat actually is sufficiently sized to; 1) meet the park dedication requirements, and 2) function as the active park that was originally contemplated with the approval of the plat of Riverside Fields, Mr. Leek added that the proposal with Riverside Fields was that the city would take roughly 4 acres of dedication in the southwest comer of that plat and the city would extend into the next property over to create roughly an 8-10 acre neighborhood park. He added that staffhas done work to determine what area is actually needed to fit the kinds of activity areas that typically would go into a park. He stated that what staffhas concluded is that the area shown on the Preliminary Plat of Riverside Bluffs will not accommodate that and in order to accommodate those activities, it would require additional park dedication. Mr. Leek noted that in respect to park dedication, the issue still has not been resolved. Mr. Leek stated that another major issue is; wetland delineation. Mr. Leek added that there has been significant progress made on this issue. He added that there has been Official Proceedings of the June 21, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -9- substantial progress in that area, but that there still isn't delineation or one that has been approved. Mr. Leek stated that the third major issue as being; the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed Outlet Channel alignment along with flood elevations. Mr, Leek noted that WSB has completed a flood elevation study for this area. Mr. Leek expressed that what it indicates is that there are three alternatives that are available; one alternative is to require that this plat have substantial additional fill in order to rise up the plat, the other alternatives propose stepping down the channel. Mr, Leek stated that staffs recommendation to the applicant was that they need to go back and look at those three alternatives, determine what impact they have on the plat configuration, what the relative costs are, along with the cities' interest in making the channel function as intended. Mr, Leek added that there has been a lot of progress and additional information brought to the table, but it's not a resolved issue. Cncl. Joos asked Mr. Leek how long it will take to resolve some of these issues. Mr. Leek stated that when the alignment decision is made, then the Watershed District can begin the design process, which is about a 2 month process. Mayor Schmitt and Mr. Leek discussed the process issue, Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director; discussed the work staffhas done relating to the amenities within the park. Mayor Schmitt asked if there was anyone from the audience who wished to address this issue. Brian Sullivan, Ryland Homes, approached the podium. Mr. Sullivan stated that the concept is to gain as much park land as possible and to try to corporate a greenway corridor. He stated that as Ryland Homes is working their way through the process, trying to figure out how to accommodate the desire for a greenway corridor, how to accommodate the city's desire for active park land and how to accommodate Ryland Homes desire to create a unique and desirable neighborhood, they came up with idea of how all these elements could be combined. Mr. Sullivan presented a map showing the subject area. He added that for Ryland Homes part of the development, it makes sense to have a greenway corridor. He noted that the greenway corridor is part of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Sullivan expressed that this would become an amenity for the city and for development Mr. Sullivan discussed the channel design alternatives. Mr. Sullivan also discussed the wetlands as they relate to the channel. Mr. Sullivan stated that they are asking for a continuation to the July 5, 2005 meeting. Discussion followed regarding the channel location. Official Proceedings of the June 21,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -10- Mr. Leek addressed the alignment of the channel. Discussion followed on drawing changes regarding the subject area. Cncl. Helkamp stated that the issue that everyone needs to focus on is whether or not an approvable preliminary plat can be obtained. He added that he is not willing to go against staff recommendations on how to handle these issues. Mr. Loney added that a hydraulic study needs to done, so the city can see how the plat lines up with the future design. He stated that the results show that the plat doesn't make it. Mr. Loney added that there are still a lot of design options that need to be looked at regarding the channel. Cncl. Lehman added that he is upset that the map presented tonight doesn't match the map he has been studying for the past five days. Menden/Helkamp offered Resolution No. 6243, A Resolution Denying the Preliminary Plat of Riverside Bluffs, and moved its adoption. Cncl. Menden questioned at what point the changes become significant enough that they require additional review by the Environmental Advisory Committee, the Park and Recreation Board and the Planning Commission. Mr. Leek stated that it is a sufficient change to require the Environmental Advisory Committee and the Park and Recreation Board to view it, that per say should mean the Planning Commission recommendation of denial stands the way it is. Mr. Leek added that he agrees with Mr. Loney in that there is enough uncertainty that he is not sure that those details will all be pulled together in two weeks. Cncl. Helkamp stated that two weeks will not be a sufficient amount of time for the issues to be resolved to come before the Council again. Cncl. Joos stated that the time extension needs to be realistic. Chris Enger, Ryland Homes, approached the podiwn. Mr. Enger stated that he appreciates the time and effort the Council has spent on this plan. Mr. Enger apologized for any inconvenience it has caused. Mr. Enger stated that Ryland Homes has proceeded and worked on this in good faith. He added that the reason for the change in the plans is that they have tried to be responsive on this. He noted that Ryland Homes would like to continue to move forward on this with the City Council and city staff. Mr. Enger noted that Ryland Homes has made significant progress since the last meeting. Mr. Enger added that they would appreciate it if the Council would continue to work with Ryland Homes for this final bit, to end up with a plan that works for the city, Official Proceedings of the . June 21, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -11- Cncl. Helkamp offered a friendly amendment to condition this denial on not receiving an extension request for a 60 day extension from the developer, if a 60 day extension is not received within 48-72hrs, then the denial will hold. Mr. Thomson stated that if the developer is not willing to agree on 60 days, then his recommendation is that the Council acts on the pending motion. Mr. Thomson added that what is before the Council tonight does not comply with the city's subdivision regulations and is more than adequate grounds to deny this plat at this time. Mr. Enger added they would request a 60-day extension. Cncl. Helkamp withdrew his friendly amendment. \ Cncl. Menden added that there needs to be a call made on this. He stated that based on the possibility of the plat changes, he questioned if the Council should be the only ones reviewing the next revision of the preliminary plat. Cncl. Menden added that there are advisory committees that should be seeing these changes and making recommendations to the City Council. Cncl. Menden called the question. Mayor Schmitt noted that the question has been called. Mayor Schmitt stated all those in favor oflimiting debate say yeah. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Schmitt asked who is in favor of the motion to deny the plat. Motion Denied 2 to 3 with Council members Joos, Lehman and Menden dissenting. Helkamp/Lehman moved to accept the 60 day extension for the preliminary plat of Riverside Bluffs. Motion carried 4-1 with Cncl. Menden dissenting. Randy Noecker, A Developer for Ridge Creek, approached the podium. Mr. Noecker stated that there has been discussion about converting much of the park land onto his property, He offered some of his concerns regarding this issue. Mr. Noecker noted that there needs to be a lot more discussion to solve this issue. He also noted that there are sometimes give and takes that need to be taken care of in a development. Lehman/Menden moved for a 10 minute recess. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting recessed at 9:50p.m. Mayor Schmitt re-convened the meeting at 10:00p.m. Lehman/Helkamp authorized appropriate city officials to enter into an agreement with Front Range Consulting, Inc. to conduct a Time Warner Cable cable franchise fee.review not to exceed $6,000 for the City of Shakopee. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the June 21,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -12- Mr. Leek reported on the Appeal of Board of Adjustment and Appeal's Denial of Overheight Accessory Structure Variance at 3683 County Road 79. Mr. Leek stated that Dennis Jeurissen and Joan Doolittle made application for a height variance to allow the construction of an accessory structure on their property that exceeds the height limitation in the Rural Residential zoning district. Mr. Leek presented a map showing the subject property, He noted that in this zoning district the height limitation is 15ft, Mr. Leek added that this height is measured as the average distance between the peak of a sloped roof and the eave of the roof. Mr. Leek expressed that in order to accommodate certain vehicles that the applicant needs to accommodate; they have proposed on the North side of the building to have 14ft. walls, as a result the average height is 18ft. He added that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on June 9, 2005, reviewed the applicants request and denied the variance request at that time, Mr. Leek stated that the applicants did make application for appeal to the City Council. He noted that staff does not make a recommendation on appeals. Dennis Jeurissen and Joan Doolittle, applicants, approached the podium. Mr. Jeurissen stated that before they bought this piece of property, they knew that they wanted to put up a building this size. He added that the County told them that they could put up any sized building that they wanted, but the city stated that there would be a 15ft. limit. He stated that they were fine with the 15ft. limit, because the building they wanted to put up was only 14ft. and that's why they bought the property, so they could put up this building. Mr. Jeurissen offered that it then came up that Shakopee measures their buildings from the top of the sidewall to the peak, half way up and down, He added that since the City of Shakopee measures the buildings that way, the city should have told the applicants how they measure the buildings, before the applicants bought the land. Mr. Jeurissen expressed that they have the land and now can't put up the building. Mr, Jeurissen added that Mark Noble, Planner I, came up with an alternative which would include; 13ft. sliding door and 12ft. sidewalls, but the applicants would prefer not to have a sliding door. Mr, Jeurissen stated that he would like to accommodate a dump truck, motor home and farm machinery in this building. He added that just across the street from them, they could put up a building, up to 24ft. in height. Mr. Jeurissen stated that this building would be 243ft. back from the road. Mr. Jeurissen added that they don't have any close neighbors. Mr. Jeurissen stated that if they would have known they couldn't build this building, they would have built elsewhere. Cncl. Lehman suggested building the building into the land. The applicants noted that their land is too flat. Mr. Jeurissen added that it is only going to be 3ft. higher than what is allowed. He also offered that it's all wetlands around them, so you couldn't build there anyway. Cncl. Lehman noted the unique characteristics of Shakopee and how those characteristics are valued. He added that the only real way to get back to this is to allow a variance to Official Proceedings of the June 21,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -13- have variations in projects. He expressed that he is okay with what the applicants are proposing. Mr. Jeurissen added that he would plant trees to hide the building. Mr. Leek stated that the code provision provides that there is a limitation of the height of the residence or 15ft., whichever is less for every residential zoning district, up to and including rural residential. He noted that the only residential district that is accepted is the Agricultural Reservation Zone. Cncl. Joos stated that this structure is appropriate in the Agricultural Zone. He added that the applicants have a limited amount of space as to where they can put this building because of the septic system. He expressed that when we start expanding beyond what we have, then that we run into problems. Discussion followed regarding the height of the house. Mayor Schmitt asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to address this issue. There was no response. MendenlLehman moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution upholding the appeal of the applicant, thereby granting the requested variance and direct staff to prepare a resolution for Council's consideration based on the buildings' proximity to the wetlands, where it sits on this lot, the needs of the applicant and the height of the house, Cncl. Menden added that he doesn't see where something in an excess of 15ft. is out of reason. Cncl. Joos noted that it seems that the correct information wasn't passed onto the land owners, properly. He stated that he has a tough time granting variances to fix the situation. Cncl. Joos offered that this needs to be looked at in the long term. Discussion followed regarding the ordinance relating to this issue. Motion carried 4-1 with Cncl. Joos disse~ting. Mr. Themig reported on Receiving a Report and Setting a Hearing Date for Fillmore Street Extension. Mr, Themig went over the background. He described what the Huber Park Feasibility study included. He added that the cost to construct Fillmore Street from First A venue is estimated to be $96,800, which is 100% assessable based on the city's policy. Mr. Themig stated that in the Feasibility Study, the costs are split 50% between the city and the adjacent property owners. Mr. Thernig noted that the alley improvements call for: the construction of storm water systems, repaving and gutters along the alley, behind the businesses, as well as providing additional parking that will serve the park in the future. He stated that the costs for the alley improvements are $78,200, in which the Official Proceedings of the June 21, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -14- city would pay 58% of the costs and the adjacent property owners would pay 42% of the costs. Mr. Themig stated that the total cost for the Alley Power Line Undergrounding is $66,730, in which the costs are to be shared based on 1996 downtown alley project, which includes: the city/SPUC sharing costs for the undergrounding and running service to the buildings and the property owners paying the connection charges. Mr. Themig offered that the park parking lot construction cost is $323,000, which is the Huber Park project budget cost. Mr. Themig noted that two items that are not resolved yet relate to the lateral water main looping and the trunk water charge. He noted that the issue is that the Feasibility Study, if accepted, will be sent out with some unknown questions related to water main looping, which shouldn't affect the public hearing or the review of the Feasibility Study by the affected businesses. He added that there will be an answer on July 19, 2005. He explained that the original estimate for the Park Area Power Line Undergrounding was $150,000 and the new estimate is $115,000 which SPUC has committed to paying. Mr. Themig stated that the SPUC consensus to charge a Trunk Water Charge is based on nine acres of park outside of flood plain and beyond the grandfathered area, at a cost of $12, 132. Mr. Themig stated that in order to make the community build playground date of October 4th through the 9th, the public hearing would need to be held on July 19,2005. He stated that the city's portion of the assessment is paid for from the general fund. Mr. Themig discussed the project budget. He also discussed the comparison with the 1/28/05 estimates, in which none of these costs include water main looping charges. Mr. Themig stated that the action requested is to call for a July 19, 2005 public hearing. He added that staffwill continue to work with SPUC on water main looping and have the determination on July 19,2005. Cncl. Lehman stated that at some point there needs to be a policy worked out so that everyone understands what the rate payers and what the residents are paying for. Cncl. Lehman asked if the electrical connection would need to be done before the blacktop is put down. Joe Adams, Planning and Engineering Director for Shakopee Utilities, approached the podium. Mr. Adams stated that the service lines to the customers off the alley would need to be placed underground at the time that the alley is being paved. Mr. Adams explained the costs. Discussion followed regarding who is benefiting from this park. Helkamp/Menden offered Resolution No. 6235, A Resolution Receiving a Report and Calling a Hearing for the Fillmore Street Extension and Alley Improvement Project, Project No, PR2005-3, and moved its adoption. Mayor Schmitt stated that the commitment price is $1.4 million, regardless of where it is funded from. Official Proceedings of the June 21, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -15- Motion carried 5-0. MendenlLehman moved to extend the meeting time past the 11 :00 p.m. curfew. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Themig stated that item #15.A.2 (Greenfield West Neighborhood Park Design Changes) was pulled off of consent because the city does not have trees for the park as discussed last time. Cncl, Helkamp stated that there still should be plenty of opportunities out there for the city to gain some trees. Mr. Themig stated that there is no one that offers off-site though. Mr. Themig identified the following options; 1) allocate additional funding from the park reserve fund, 2) eliminate the new trees from the park, 3) eliminate the three light fixtures, 4) eliminate the two bench nodes, 5) eliminate the water fountain and the water mister, or 6) rely on the contingency and a potential reduction in Trunk Water Charges. Cncl. Joos offered to add a 7th option; use contingency for $15,000 and allocate the additional funding from the Park Reserve Fund. Cnc!. Lehman stated that they will need to wait and see what is left of the contingency. Other options were discussed. MendenlJoos moved to take the remainder of the contingency and allocate additional funding from the Park Reserve Fund, to come up with enough for the 44 planned trees. Cncl. Helkamp questioned why the city is paying a Trunk Water Charge, when there is already water to the property. Mr. Themig stated that the Trunk Water Charges is for the improvements to the system. Discussion followed regarding the Trunk Water Charge. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Themig reported on the Greenfield West Neighborhood Park Playground Equipment. Mr. Themig stated that he has no other updates. He stated that there are funds to authorize purchase of the playground equipment. Helkamp/Lehman moved to authorize the purchase of play equipmeJ:!.t from Midwest Recreation for ages 2-5 and Sand Play areas for a total of $18,231.78, play equipment from Webber Recreation for ages 5-12 for a total of $49,944.94 and play equipment from Official Proceedings of the June 21,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -16- Flanagan Sales for the fitness and challenge play area for a total of $30,000,00. Motion carried 5-0. Lehman/Helkamp moved to authorize the purchase of 16 pes from Dell at a cost not to exceed $15,000. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlHelkamp moved to waive the demolition permit fees for all structures in which the Shakopee Fire Department is involved in for the purposes of providing fire training. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlHelkamp moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to update the City's transit fare schedule as needed to comply with the Metropolitan Regional Fare Structure. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda), LehmanlHelkamp moved to authorize staff to purchase computer software and film cutter from SignCAD Systems, Inc. for the purchase price of $13,190.00 with the funds to be expended from the street operating budget. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Loney reported on Awarding the Contract for Valley View Road Improvements. Mr. Loney stated that on June 20, 2005, a bid opening was held, in which four bids were opened for this improvement project. He added that the bids are better than expected and are under the feasibility estimate. Joos/Lehman offered Resolution No. 6267, A Resolution Accepting Bids on the Valley View Road Improvements, from the East Plat Line of Greenfield Addition to County Road 83, Project No. 2004-3 and moved its adoption; approved a 5% contingency amount on this project for use by the City Engineer in authorizing change orders or quantity adjustments on this project; and authorized the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. to perform. construction staking services on this project and other construction services, as necessary. Motion carried 5-0. LehmanlHelkamp moved to authorize appropriate city staff to close Lewis St. from 5th and 6th Avenues from June 24 to June 27, 2005. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlHelkamp moved to accept the completion of Bill Eganls probationary period, (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Helkamp moved to accept the completion of Dave Rutt's probationary period. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the June 21,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -17- LehmanlHelkamp offered Resolution No. 6260, A Resolution Changing the August 2, 2005 City Council Meeting Date, and moved its adoption, (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Helkamp moved to authorize payment in the amount of $4,572.40, contingent upon receipt of required documentation. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlHelkamp moved to authorize the proper city officials to execute the assessment agreement with Scott County for the 2006 assessment year in the amount of $124,400. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlHe1kamp,moved to approve the applications and grant an "On Sale" or "Off Sale" 3,2 Percent Liquor License, conditioned upon compliance with all licensing requirements, to: Magnum Management Corporation, dba Valleyfair, One Valleyfair Dr, (On-Sale); Raceway Park Inc., One Checkered Flag Blvd. (On-Sale); Shakopee Jaycees Inc., Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium, Tahpah Park (On-Sale); Sky Ventures LLC, dba Pizza Hut, 257 Marschall Road (On-Sale); Dangerfield's Restaurant, Inc., dba panzanella Bread Company, 1361 East 1st Avenue (On-Sale); Dangerfield's Restaurant, Inc., dba Fajita Republic, 1555 East 1 st Avenue (On-Sale); Raul Alvarado, dba EI Nopal, 815 West 1 st Avenue (On-Sale); Ballbusters, LLC, 1141 Canterbury Road (On-Sale); Sausalito's Mexican Cocina Grill, Inc., 105 South Lewis Street (On-Sale); Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 444 East 1st Avenue (Off-Sale); Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 1381 Greenwood Court (Off-Sale); Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 8002 Old Carriage Court (Off-Sale); Shakopee 1997 LLC, dba Cub Foods, 1198 Vierling Drive East (Off-Sale); Speedway SuperAmerica LLC #4546, 1298 Vierling Drive East (Off-Sale); Speedway SuperAmerica LLC #4035, 1155 East 1st Avenue (Off-Sale); Speedway SuperAmerica LLC #8510, 1195 Canterbury Road (Off-Sale); Kwik Trip, Inc., 1522 Vierling Drive East (Off-Sale); Sam's West, Inc., 8201 Old Carriage Court (Off-Sale) and RBF LLC of Wisconsin, dba Rainbow Foods, 1698 Vierling Drive East (Off-Sale). (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlHelkamp moved to approve the application and grant an "On Sale" Wine License to Raul Alvarado, 815 West 1 st A venue, conditioned upon compliance with all licensing requirements. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlHelkamp moved to approve the applications and grant an "Off Sale", "On Sale", "Sunday", and/or "Club" Intoxicating Liquor License, conditioned upon compliance with all licensing requirements, to: AFFC, Inc., dba Arnie's Friendly Folks Club, 122 East First Avenue (On-Sale, Sunday); Apple American Limited Partnership of Minnesota I dba Applebee's, 1568 Vierling Drive Road (On-Sale, Sunday); Bretbecca, Inc., dba Pullman Club, 124 West 1st Avenue (On-Sale, Sunday, Off-Sale); Babe's Place, Inc., 124 South Holmes (On-Sale, Sunday, Off-Sale); Canterbury Park Concessions, Inc., 1100 Canterbury Road (On-Sale, Sunday, Off-Sale); Dangerfield's Restaurant, Inc., 1583 East Official Proceedings of the June 21, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -18- 1 st Avenue (includes deck) (On-Sale, Sunday); Saba Entertainment, LLC, 911 East 1 st A venue (includes deck) (On-Sale, Sunday); Stonebrooke of Shakopee, Inc., 2693 County Road 79 (On-Sale, Sunday); Turtlels Bar and Grill, Inc., 132 East First Avenue (includes Banquet Center) (On-Sale, Sunday); Great Lakes, Inc., dba Shakopee Ballroom, 2400 4th Avenue East (On-Sale, Sunday); Chilils of Minnesota, Inc., 8098 Old Carriage Court (On-Sale, Sunday); Pablo's Mexican Restaurant, Inc., 230 South Lewis Street (includes outside dining and drinking) (On-Sale); Crossroads Liquor of Shako pee LLC, 1262 Vierling Drive East (Off-Sale); Roseen & Roseen Inc., dba MOM Liquor, 471 South Marschall Road (Off-Sale); Riverside Liquors, Inc., 507 East 1 st Avenue (Off-Sale); Valley liquor, Inc., 1104 Minnesota Valley Mall (Off-Sale); Hoang's South Side Liquors, Inc., 1667 17th Avenue East (Off-Sale); Sam's West, Inc" 8201 Old Carriage Court (Off- Sale); REF LLC of Wisconsin, dba Rainbow Foods, 1698 Vierling Drive East (Off-Sale); American Legion Club Post #2, 1266 East 1 st A venue (On-Sale, Club On-Sale); Fraternal Order of Eagles #4120,220 2nd Avenue West (includes outside dining and drinking) (On- Sale, Club On-Sale); Knights of Columbus Home Association, Inc., 1760 East 4th Avenue (On-Sale, Club On-Sale) and VFW Post #4046, Inc., 1201 East Third Avenue (On-Sale, Club On-Sale). (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlHelkamp moved to approve the applications and grant "On Sale" and "Sunday On Sale" intoxicating liquor licenses and a tobacco license to RAM Arizona's LLC, 1244 Canterbury Road, (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlHelkamp offered Resolution No. 6252, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created As A Result OfRLS #190, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlHelkamp offered Resolution No. 6264, A Resolution of the City of Shako pee, Minnesota, Approving Premises }fermits for the Shakopee Lions Club, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlHelkamp moved to adopt Resolution No. 6265, A Resolution Authorizing The Host Fee Agreement Between Excel Energy, Scott County and the City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda), Cncl. Joos stated that he discussed getting behind the policy with SPUC and had asked . them to come to the Council with any issues they wanted on the table. He stated that he also mention that the money thing is something that needs to be discussed between the two groups. Cncl. Menden stated that he attended the school board meeting and the EAC meeting. Cncl. Menden offered that Vision Shakopee has officially been renamed to Shakopee Downtown Partnerships and part of that partnership now includes: taking the committee that is raising the funds for the community built playground equipment and putting them Official Proceedings of the June 21, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -19- under their 503C "umbrella" and they are also looking at taking the Archery Association and putting it under that "umbrella" as well. Cnc1. Lehman added that he and Cncl. Menden attended the liaison ship with the school on future land locations in the City of Shakopee. Cnc1, Lehman noted that it was the first meeting and that there was a lot of good information along with some challenges. Mayor Schmitt mentioned the Chamber of Commerce 50th anniversary celebration this Thursday. Cncl. Menden asked for the status on the growth management policy and when the Council can expect that back in front of them. Mr. Leek stated that it would be back in front ofthe Council in July. Joos/Menden moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 11 :07p,m. Motion carried 5-0. a~~:~ City Clerk Alysia Vinkemeier, Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 5, 2005 Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. with Council members Lehman, Helkamp and Joos present. Council member Menden was absent. Also Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith S, Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works/City Engineer; Dan Hughes, Chief of Police; and Jim Thomsen, City Attorney, The pledge of allegiance was recited, The following item was removed from the agenda. 15.F.2 Applications for Wine and Beer Licenses, Strom Corporation dba Dino' s The Greek Place, Helkamp/Joos moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried 4-0, Mayor Schmitt stated that he had nothing to report on for the Mayor's Report. The following items were removed from the Consent Agenda, 15,A.l Vacation of Prairie Street North of Bluff Avenue, 15,A.2 Approval of Variance for Overheight Accessory Structure at 3683 CR 79 and 15.A.3 Final Plat for River Valley Estates (formerly Park Meadows East), located west ofCSAH 83 and north of Valley View Road extended, Helkamp/Lehman moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried 4-0. Mayor Schmitt asked if there were any citizens in the audience who wished to address any issue not on the agenda, There was no response. Helkamp/Lehman moved to approve the meeting minutes for May 17, 2005 (5:30 p.m.), May 17, 2005 (7:00 p.m,), and May 26,2005, (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda), Helkamp/Lehman moved to approve the bills in the amount of$242,858,83 plus $28,623.55 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of$271,482,38, (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). [The list of bills is posted on the bulletin board at City Hall for one month following approval], Cncl, Lehman stated that he attended the Park Board meeting and the Visioning Toolbox workshop, Cncl. Joos stated that he also attended the Visioning Toolbox workshop. Official Proceedings of the July 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -2- JooslHelkamp moved to recess for the Economic Development Authority meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Mayor Schmitt re-convened the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Helkamp/Lehman moved to direct the appropriate staff to enter into an agreement with CBG Communications, Inc. to conduct a Time Warner Cable physical audit not to exceed $17,500 for the City of Shakopee. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, reported on the Vacation of Prairie Street North of Bluff Avenue. Mr. Leek stated that on June, 212005, the Council had tabled this matter for further discussion, between the applicant, the city attorney and staff and review by the city attorney. He added that the proposed resolution was drafted with the direction of the city attorney. Mr. Leek added that this item had been on consent because the Council had directed the preparation of the resolution. Helkamp/Joos offered Resolution No, 6263, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee Approving Vacating 60 feet of Prairie Street, lying North of Bluff Avenue, and moved its adoption. Discussion followed regarding the easement for the proposed vacation. Motion carried 4-0, Mr. Leek reported on the Approval of Variance for Overheight Accessory Structure at 3683 CR 79. Mr. Leek stated that at the last meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare a resolution upholding the appeal of Dennis Jeurissen and Joan Doolittle to allow the construction of an overheight facility in the Rural Residential District. Mr. Leek stated that the reason this item was pulled off the Consent Agenda is because there was a dissenting vote at the last meeting. Helkamp/Lehman offered Resolution No. 6261, A Resolution of the City of Shako pee Upholding the Applicant's Appeal of a Request to Construct an Overheight Accessory Structure at 3683 County Road 79, and moved its adoption. (Applicant is Dennis Jeurissen and Joan Doolittle.) Cncl. Joos expressed some reasons why he doesn't think that this is the proper use for this zone. He suggested that if the Council is goirig to allow this kind of building in a Rural Residential Zone, then something may need to be done with the ordinance that would allow these kinds of buildings. Cncl. Lehman stated that he doesn't think the "text" needs a change, because there are not other people lined up with the same issue. Official Proceedings of the July 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Motion carried 3-1 with Cncl. Joos dissenting, Mr, Leek reported on the Final Plat for River Valley Estates (formerly Park Meadows East), located west ofCSAH 83 and north of Valley View Road extended. Mr. Leek stated that this is a request for final plat approval of Phase 1 of River Valley Estates, first addition, Mr, Leek explained that the subject property is located north of Valley View Road and west of CSAH 83. He stated that the proposed final plat proposes the platting of several lots on the west portion of the property. He stated that this plat is proposed to be a phased plat. Mr. Leek went over the background of the plat. Mr. Leek noted that because this is a final plat, under the Chapter 12 subdivision ordinance, it does not go to the Planning Commission for review. He stated that this final plat is consistent with the underlying preliminary plat approval that was given, when it was identified as Park Meadow East. Mr' Leek stated that the reduction of the number of lots and increases in sizes does not constitute a material change, and so he is recommending approval of this final plat. Mr. Leek explained that these lots are serviceable by gravity and the lots that would be in the succeeding phases would have to be served by a lift station. Cnc1. Lehman asked about right-of-way issues on County Road 83, Mr, Leek responded that he believes that these issues have been addressed through the preliminary plat of Park Meadow East with the County, Discussion followed regarding drainage issues relating to neighboring properties, Discussion regarding the proposed conditions of approval followed, which included discussion about deed restrictions on easements for certain lots. Jason Wedel, Pulte Homes, approached the podium. Mr. Wedel clarified the discussion on the easements. Mr. Wedel suggested another way for the city to address fence requests, He added that he hopes that the Council could consider the deed restrictions applying to the side lot lines and the rear lot line that have the storm sewer in the easement, rather than all four sides of each lot. Mr. Leek added that this is something that can be confirmed with the City Engineer. Mr, Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer, stated that the intent of the deed restriction is to gain maintenance access and that there is a pipe that may need to be replaced or repaired some day. Mayor Schmitt stated that he would accept this concept for the moment and see what can be done with future opportunities. Official Proceedings of the July 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Helkamp/Joos offered Resolution No. 6270, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee Approving the Final Plat of River Valley Estates First Addition, as presented, and moved its adoption. Cncl. Lehman stated that his concern is Valley View Road. He added that in the past there has been some issues with landscaping, trees, berrning and screening and he wants to make sure that staff is on top of this, Mr. Leek added that he believes the issue ofberming has been addressed. He stated that screening is going to be an issue of what sort of fencing or landscaping the individual property owner chooses to erect on their property. Mr, Leek stated that if they meet the zoning ordinance minimums, the city does not have a lot to say about that, as long'as they don't place that landscaping within the city's right-of-way without approval to do that. Discussion followed regarding the proposed planting of trees along Valley View Road and County Road 83. Tina Goodroad, Pulte Homes, approached the podium. Ms. Goodroad described the plan of development of the Final Plat. She also addressed the landscaping plan. Mayor Schmitt asked ifthere was anyone else who would like to address this issue. Beverly Koehnen, 2036 Canterbury Road, approached the podium. Ms. Koehnen presented a map showing her property that is adjacent to the Final Plat for River Valley Estates. She noted that if the developer is building their drainage area with an 820 ft, elevation, it would put her property under water, Mr, Loney stated thai this is not the case, He added that the elevations are much lower than 820 ft, and there is a pond in the corner. Mr, Wedel added that Ms. Koehnen's natural drainage path will not be affected, Ms. Koehnen stated that she has been told several times by the engineers that she would not get a pond because of all the development that is going on around her property. She noted that she got a pond this past winter. Cnd. Lehman asked if the culvert that goes under County Road 83, is large enough to hold the current capacity and the capacity in the future, Mr. Wedel added that the capacity in the future will be less than what the capacity is now, Mr. Loney stated that this culvert has plenty of capacity, Official Proceedings of the July 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council . Page -5- Mr. Loney added that over the years the amount of run-off area has been reduced going towards the direction of Ms. Koehnen's property. He noted that in addition, huge ponds with infiltration basins have been put in. Mr. Loney stated that Ms. Koehnen could be getting the water from the north property and he doesn't believe the water is coming from the developments. Discussion followed regarding the collection ponds. Mayor Schmitt stated that the city is proposing a drain way off of the southeast corner of Ms. Koehnen's property and down the side of County Road 83 to the culvert, on the developer's property. He added that staff has assured the Council that the water flowing from Ms. Koehnen's property to the southeast is provided for in this plat. He suggested that Ms. Koehnen get a hold of the city's engineering staff and request a full blown map of this particular project with all of the elevations on it. Ms. Koehnen stated that the applicant has never done the required 150 ft. survey of her property, although she had given them permission. Mr. Leek noted that Chapter 12 requires with the Preliminary Plats submittal to the city, that the applicant provide property line and PID information on the existing condition maps 100 ft. out from the boundaries of the proposed property. He added that the applicant did comply with this requirement. Cncl. Lehman stated that the issue is that there is a lot of water coming down from the north to Ms. Koehnen's property and if that water doesn't have anywhere to go, Ms. Koehnen's property is going to get flooded. He noted that the city is making sure that Ms. Koehnen has a separate outlet on the southeast corner of her property from her wetland area to the side of County Road 83, so it can drain down 83 and through the culvert, which is separate from the holding ponds that the developer is required to build. Ms. Koehnen offered that one person should not have to have 2,000 ft. of drainage facilities around their property. She expressed that one of her big concerns is the effect of the value of her property with the drainage facilities on all sides of her property. Discussion followed regarding concerns about burial mounds. Motion carrie'd 4-0. Helkamp/Lehman moved to authorize payment of $1,000.00 to Bart Partners LLP, the owner of Lot 1, Block 25, City of Shako pee for an easement associated with the 2005 Railroad Signal Project and agreement with Mn/DOT. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the July 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Josh Barrick, Park & Recreation Supervisor, operations and building maintenance person for the Shakopee Community Center, reported on the Community Center Chiller Compressors. Mr. Barrick stated that three compressors had failed recently, due to an unknown reason, possibly lightening. He added that one of the compressors was mechanically seized and the other two were electrically fried. Mr. Barrick stated that the Community Center has contacted three companies to submit proposals. He added that UHL Company is the company that the Community Center deals with and they are the only company that submitted a proposal for the repair. Mr. Barrick noted that the recommendation is to move forward with making the repairs for the three compressors at a cost of$24,500.00. end Helkamp stated that it would be wiser to replace all four compressors with more modern, efficient equipment. He added that he thinks that they should take this opportunity to upgrade the equipment. Cncl. Joos added that he agrees with Cncl. Helkamp, but that he is very dissatisfied with the company. He added that something is wrong with having these failures back to back. Mr. Barrick noted that the compressors that were originally replaced are in the ice arena. He added that these compressors have never been replaced except for #2 and three out of the four are 10 years old. Cncl. Joos stated that is doesn't seem feasible that three out offour compressors would fail all at once. Mr. Barrick added that these compressors are continually checked. Cncl. Lehman stated that he is supportive of getting a new system, and getting a warranty. He added that he would also ask that somehow the new compressors be protected from future lightening strikes. Mr. Barrick stated that one out .of the four compressors is still operating. Mr. McNeill offered that the cost for this new system would be over $50,000, so they would have to go to competitive bid. He added that there will probably need to be specifications drawn up that will allow more than just one bidder on this. Mayor Schmitt added that it is going to be impossible to get a full blown system rebuilt in the existing time. encl. Helkamp stated that there are statutes that need to be met. He also stated that he doesn't feel that spending $24,000 on 10 year old chillers is very prudent. Official Proceedings ofthe July 5, 2005 Shako pee eity Council Page -7- Mr. McNeill stated that this would be a formal bid process as compared to a RFP. Mr. Barrick added that most compressors come with only a I-year factory warranty. Helkamp/Lehman moved to direct staff to prepare specifications and bid and replace the eommunity Center chiller system. Cncl. Helkamp stated that the Council should also direct staff to prepare options of where the funding will come from, since this is something that is not budgeted. Mr. McNeill stated that it will come from the Park and Recreation fund. Cncl. Joos added that he would like to see the 5-year warranty deal. Motion carried 4-0. Helkamp/Lehman moved to grant Mark Themig full time regular status in his position as Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Director, effective June 1, 2005. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Lehman moved to offer Resolution No. 6268, A Resolution of Special Commendation to Michael "Pinky" Hullander on the 25th Anniversary of His Employment with the City of Shakopee, Resolution No. 6271, A Resolution of Special Commendation to Todd Brinkhaus on the 30th Anniversary of His Employment with the City of Shakopee and Resolution No. 6270, A Resolution of Special Commendation to Joe Honermann on the 30th Anniversary of His Employment with the City of Shakopee, and move their adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Lehman moved to accept Ms. Mauritz's resignation with regret, and authorize the appropriate eity officials to take steps necessary to fill the position of Building Secretary. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Lehman moved to authorize the hiring of probationary police officer Spencer Wong at Step I of the current labor contract, at a monthly rate of$3,564.50, subject to the satisfactory completion of pre-employment medical and psychological examinations. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Lehman moved to authorize the hiring of probationary police officer John Kolar at Step 1 of the current labor contract, at a monthly rate of$3,564.50, subject to the satisfactory completion of pre-employment medical and psychological examinations. (Motion carried under the eonsent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the July 5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -8- Helkamp/Lehman moved to accept Jacob Rudolph's resignation and authorize the Shakopee Police Civil Service eommission to continue the testing process to fill the vacant community service officer position. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Lehman moved to authorize the hiring of John Peterson as Telecommunications Coordinator for the eity of Shakopee, at Step 1 of Grade 6 ($42,953) with one week of vacation on the books, conditioned upon passage of a background check, and pre- employment physical examination. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Lehman moved to approve the listed parking and traffic related issues relating to Derby Days, August 3rd to August ih, per July 1,2005, memo from Mark McNeill. (Document No. 389). (Motion carried under the eonsent Agenda). Helkamp/Lehman moved to offer Resolution No. 6266, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created As A Result Of The Platting of Dean Lakes Third Addition, and move its adoption. (Motion carried under ,the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Lehman moved to adopt Resolution No. 6269, A Resolution Appointing Don McNeil to the Historic Preservation Advisory Commission. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Joos/Helkamp moved to adjourn the meeting to Monday, July 18, 2005, at 6:15 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. CO.JJtJ.~ Judith S. Cox City Clerk Alysia Vinkemeier Recording Secretary