Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Approval of Minutes: March 15, 2005 (7:00 p.m. Session) and March 22, 2005 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA MARCH 15, 2005 Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:20p.m. with Council members Lehman, Menden, and Helkamp present. Absent Joos. Also Present Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Gregg V oxland, Finance Director; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director, Dan Hughes, Chief of Police, and Jeff Weyandt, Assistant City Engineer. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following item was added to the Agenda. Item l5.F.5. Call Special Meeting of the City Council to discuss a Community Center referendum and other issues. The following Agenda item was deferred at the request of the applicant. Item 14.A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Extend MUSA and Rezoning Request from Mark Liesener for property located northofCSAH l6 and west of Riverside Fields. MendenlHelkamp moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried 4-0. Mr. Themig, Park, Recreation and Facilities Director, reported on the fencing donation from Alan Ritchey, Incorporated. Mr. Themig noted this fence was no longer required by Alan Richey, Inc. and they called and asked the City if they would be interested in this donation of fencing to be used in the City's parks. Mr. Themig noted the City was asked to disassemble the fence and to take it off site if the fencing was found to be reusable.for City parks. Mr. Themig noted he and staffmembers went to check the fence out and noted it was possible to reuse thisfence. Mr. Themig noted because this fence was reusable the park maintenance staff would disassemble the fence and take it off site. Most probably the fencing would be used to replace or for new backstops. The fencing was about 20 feet high and 104 feet in length. When the fencing was new a few years ago, it cost about $31,000 and today that fencing would cost approximately $40,000. Lehman/Helkamp offered Resolution No. 6206, A Resolution Of The City Of Shako pee, Minnesota Accepting A Donation Of Fencing From Alan Ritchey, Incorporated, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 4-0. Mr. Themig reported on the Donation from the Rotary Club for Enigma Teen Center. Mr. Themig stated this proposed donation was $3000; this donation would be used towards the purchase of equipment for the teen center. Mr. Dan Hughes, Chief of Police accepted the donation from the Rotary Club on behalf of the City. Helkamp/Menden offered Resolution No. 6211, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota Accepting A $3,000 Donation From The Shakopee Rotary, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 4-0. -"-..-"\./ Official Proceedings of March 15, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Mr..McNeill noted the City Council would like to present a resolution Of Appreciation to Ken Jaus who has been a member of the Telecommunications Commission for three years and a former member of the Community Access Corporation Board of Directors for two years. Menden/Lehman offered Resolution No. 6199, A Resolution Of Appreciation To Ken Jaus, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 4-0. The following item was added to the Consent Agenda. 15.C.3. Aquatic Park Building Design Services. LehmanlMenden moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried 4-0 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. LehmanlMenden moved to approve the meeting minutes for February 8, February 15 (6 p.m.), February 15 (7p.m.), February 22, and March 1,2005 (6 p.m.). (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlMendenmoved to approve the bills in the amount of$450,830.25 plus $123,157.55 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of$573,987.80. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). [The list of bills is posted on the bulletin board at City Hall for one month following approval]. Helkamp/Menden moved to open the public hearing on the proposed 2005 Bituminous Overlay, Project No. 2005-4 (Quincy Street, Jefferson Street, Madison Street and Monroe Street between 11th and l2th Avenue). Motion carried 4-0. Jeff Weyandt, Assistant City Engineer, reported on the proposed 2005 Bituminous Overlay, Project No. 2005-4. Mr. Weyandt noted the project area and noted what improvements were to be made for each area. He stated a feasibility study had been ordered on January 18, 2005 and had been accepted by the City Council on February 15,2005. He stated these streets had been constructed in the late 1960's and early 1970's. He noted an informational meeting had been held with the affected property owners and the 23 property owners who attended this meeting were generally in favor of the project. Mr. Weyandt stated the total cost of the project was projected to be $l66,656. He stated the street assessment ($41,664) would be assessed 25% to the benefiting properties on a per lot basis with the rate of the assessment being $432.00 per lot; the other 75% of these assessments would come from the General Tax Levy Funds. A second project within this project was for Shakopee Public Utilities to install street lighting on each block per City Code. This project too was assessed on a per lot basis, with this rate being $38.00 per lot. Official' Proceedings of March 15,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Gary and Dale Hagert, 1118 Jefferson Street noted via email that they would like to see this project move forward. Mayor Schmitt asked if anyone from the audience had any comments. Gene Pass, approached the podium and questioned the number of streetlights. Mr. Weyandt responded to this. question and stated the number of streetlights would be determined by the. City's street lighting po~icy. He stated there would be two streetlights per block. Mr. Weyandt noted the street lighting was not included in his estimate, but he was comfortable that his estimate was high enough. Sean O'Fallon, questioned the six-foot wide feathering strip. Mr. Weyandt explained this feathering strip. Helkamp/Menden moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0. Helkamp/Lehman offered Resolution No. 6204, A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And Preparation Of Plans And Specifications For The 2005 Bituminous Overlay Project No. 2005-4, and moved its adoption. Mr. Loney, City Engineer, noted because this was a City initiated project a super majority vote was needed. Motion carried 4-0. Helkamp/Menden moved to open the public hearing on the proposed 2005 Street Reconstruction Project No. 2005-1 (Scott, Apgar and Atwood Streets between 10th Avenue and Meadows North; Fuller Street between 8th and 10th A venues; Sommerville Street between 4th and 5th A venues and between 6th Avenue and Shakopee Avenue). Motion carried 4-0. Mr. Weyandt reported on the proposed 2005 Street Reconstruction Project No. 2005-1. He noted these streets were constructed in the 1950's and 1960's. Mr. Weyandt noted the project areas and he also stated some street widths would be reduced. He noted the reduction of some of the street widths had several benefits; the streets still would be wide enough to allow parking on both sides. Mr. Weyandt noted there were several improvements that would be done in this project. He stated a feasibility study had been ordered by the City Council at the November 16,2004 meeting. He stated this study was accepted by the City Council at their February 15,2005 meeting. He noted the total project cost was projected to be $1,589,085.36. He stated the street improvements ($213,131.34) would be assessed 25% to the benefiting properties with the remaining 75% of these assessments ($639,394.02) coming from the General Tax Levy Funds. The Storm Sewer improvements ($74,250) would come fromthe Storm Sewer fund. The Water main improvements ($319,000) would be paid by Shakopee Public Utilities. The sanitary sewer main line improvements ($200,750) Official Proceedings of March 15,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -4- would be paid from the Sanitary Sewer Fund and sanitary sewer service improvements ($142,560) would be assessed to the benefiting property owners. Mr. Weyandt noted the street assessments would be assessed on a front footage basis and the sanitary service assessments would by assessed at a rate of $39.90 per linear foot for section I with each service costing $1,870. The street assessments would be assessed on a front footage basis and the sanitary service assessments would by assessed at a rate of $44.4l per linear foot for section II with each service costing $1,995. Mr. Weyandt noted which streets were in which section. He stated the homeowner owns the sanitary sewer service from the main to the house; the property owner was responsible for lOO% of the replacement costs from the main to the house. Mr. Weyandt did recommend that the services be replaced at the same time the sanitary sewer main was replaced. CncI. Lehman pointed out because the street widths were reduced there was a nine percent project costs savings and the residents did see this savings in their assessment. Mr. Weyandt noted there had been an informational meeting held and 26 residents attended that meeting. He also stated the $1,870 charge for the sanitary service in section one and the $1,995 charge for the sanitary service in section two was actually the cost from the mainline to the right-of- way line. It was that portion in the City's right-of-way that the individual homeowner was responsible for. Mr. Weyandt noted this was per City Code; the homeowner owned their sanitary service from their house to the City's main line. Mayor Schmitt asked if there were any comments from those present. Susan Heldstab asked whom to contact for information if the property owner wanted the sanitary service replaced. Mr. Loney noted that the property owner was responsible for getting their sewer lines replaced. Mr. Loney stated notice was given to the property owner when the main would be replaced in front of their home.. Mr. Loney stated the condition of the sanitary sewer line to the house would not be known until the main line was opened up. Mr. Loney gave Ms. Heldstab direction on what to do. Ms. Heldstab was a property owner but did not reside on the property. Helkamp/Menden moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0. Lehman/Helkamp offered Resolution No. 6205, A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And Preparation Of Plans And Specification For The 2005 Street Reconstruction Project No. 2005-1, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 4-0. Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, reported on the Retail Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Preliminary Plat of Dean Lakes Third Addition for property located south of Highway 169, east ofCSAH 83, north ofCSAH 16 and west of Dean Lake. Mr. Leek noted this was an application for a PUD and five conditional use permits (CUP) [2 CUP'S for Class II Restaurants, 2 for drive thru windows and 1 for exterior storage for a garden center]. Mr. Leek noted Official Proceedings of March 15,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -5- this project was part of the commercial development in the Dean Lakes Development. A Lowe's Home Improvement Store, four restaurants and additional retail were being proposed for the southwest comer of the site. Mr. Leek noted Outlot A was part of the conservation open space area that was approved as part of the original Dean Lakes PUD and preliminary plat. Mr. Leek oriented the site in relationship to other activities taking place in the area. Mr. Leek stated this was a one-block plat with seven individual lots. Lot one represented the site of the Lowe's $to!e;Lot~~!3,4 and 5 would be the restaurant pads locations and Lots 6 and 7 were for additional P'-""-""--"",.......,--_..__.._,,_. '.",,,,,,,,.______._..,_,.,.._,_...____._.,,_..,',,,_ retail. Mr. Leek stated the Planning Commission did review this set of requests and has recommended approval of the requested preliminary plat and five conditional use permits and Retail Center PUD to the City Council with several conditions. Mr. Leek highlighted a few of the conditions that were on page two of the staff report. Mr. Leek noted there was discussion that Outlot A not be included in this plat. Mr. Leek's rationale for this recommendation was that if Outlot A was included in this plat it could complicate the application of the underlying easements and management plan documents for the PUD. Mr. Leek stated the applicant has agreed to remove Outlot A from this proposed plat and this has been incorporated into draft Resolution No. 6213. However, with the deletion of Outlot A there was concern about the impervious surface coverage to the Lowe's site. Mr. Leek noted it was proposed tonight that the impervious surface coverage be applied to the entire commercial site and he believed this proposal generally worked. However, Mr. Leek noted the specific storm sewer designed for this location did not have all the water going to one place, so in developing the design for each individual lot the applicant and their customers would have to pay attention to make sure that their drainage would go to where it was suppose to go. Mr. Leek noted there were conditions in draft Resolution No. 6213 that addressed this concern. Mr. Leek noted the applicant was asking that the signage be limited to what they presented tonight with additional language that says, "any other signage would need to be in conformance with City Codes". Mr. Leek felt this was reasonable. Mr. Leek noted the applicant was concerned about two conditions in connection with the Lowe's Store. These conditions regarded 1) exterior storage [a revision has been proposed with less display area] and 2) signage limitation. Mr. Leek noted a new condition has been included in draft Resolution No. 6213 that the exterior storage conform to the revised sidewalk display shown tonight. He also noted that Lowe's was requesting a variance to allow 453 square feet of signage on the front of the building (City Code allows 400 square feet of wall signage). Staff and the Planning Commission were recommending that this variance for the wall signage not be allowed. The site lightening requirements differed slightly between the City and Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC). The City's requirements pertained to spill over light (light levels) and the SPUC Official Proceedings of March 15,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -6- requirements pertained to street and driveway lighting standards. Cncl. Menden was concerned about over illumination of lighting on sites (light pollution). Mayor Schmitt addressed the outside sale of merchandise. He wanted to know if there still were sidewalk sales or exterior storage across the front of the building. Mr. Leek addressed this issue. He noted a seasonal display area was still proposed in certain areas but there was a condition in draft Resolution No. 6213 pertaining to sidewalk sales. It was noted by Mayor Schmitt that the easterly parking was eliminated with the display area being depicted on exhibit three. Cncl. Lehman addressed the direction ofthe water draining from the parking lot. Mr. Leek responded he could not answer water drainage questions on the site but there was landscaping and irrigation that would address that issue. Mr. Koppy, Civil Engineer of the Ryan Project out in Dean Lakes, addressed the drainage. He noted there were catch basins located along the curb line. He noted the 6" high curb would direct the water into the catch basins. Mark Schoening, Director of Development with Ryan Companies, stated there were only two of the thirty-two conditions that Ryan Companies would like to see revisions too. These revisions pertained to: 1) project signage and 2) seasonal sales. Mr. Lee Koppy, Ryan Companies, addressed condition no. 23 regarding the project signage. Mr. Koppy noted the signage was explained in the project narrative given to staff and referenced in condition no. 23 with the information given to him at this point regarding the signage. He noted the monument sign that Lowe's was asking for was 92.75 square feet. Ryan Companies was also asking for an additional monument sign of approximately 72 square feet that would display all four tenants. Mr. Koppy noted per City Ordinance, the Retail Center PUD did allow four monument signs within the overall development. He would like the wording in condition no. 23 to be revised to read that Ryan Companies would be allowed to construct that signage as depicted and to have any additional signage conform to City Ordinance. They would like to keep their options open. They were proposing a Lowe's monument signage with 92.75 square feet and the proj ect monument sign for the four tenants would be 72 square feet. He stated Ryan Companies would agree to limit their signage to the two signs that were proposed and any additional signage would meet the City Ordinance. Mr. Leek thought this was a good alternative. Mr. Leek stated this would require replacement language in condition no.23 in Resolution No. 6213. Cnc1. Menden addressed the storm water collection and the amount of impervious service and redirecting some of the water. Mr. Koppy addressed the storm water design. He noted this development as shown as actually contributing less storm water than the area was designed for. Mr. Loney noted the City was asking the applicant to revise the storm water calculations to reflect this increase in impervious surface because of the deletion of Outlot A. The City needed to see if the City's existing storm sewer and drainage system could still handle the amount of water now being proposed. Mr. Loney stated he felt there was sufficient capacity to handle the water, but he would like to verify it so cumulatively as this development moved forward there would not be a problem. Official Proceedings of March 15,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Mr. Leek noted there was a condition that the applicant needed to submit those revised storm water calculations for review by the City. Mr. Koppy stated Ryan Companies has a table that would be updated regarding the capacity of the existing storm water and drainage system with each lot that Ryan Companies developed in this area. This update was to track the amount of impervious surface as well as parking counts. Rob Fiebig, with Lowe's, approached the podium with a few clarifications to conditions nos. 6 & 7 (seasonal sales) in Resolution No. 6213. He noted the seasonal sales on the side ofthe building had been eliminated after the Planning Commission's meeting. Lowe's wanted the sales in front of the Garden Center and underneath the lumber.canopy only. They basically only had two areas for outdoor materials. He noted condition no. 6 could be stricken because it did not apply to the plan any longer. Mr. Fiebig noted condition no. 25 basically restricted Lowe's total of wall signage to 400 square feet. He stated the wall signage being requested was approximately 453 square feet. He was asking for a variation of about 53 square feet and that is why the amount of monument signage was restricted to less than City Code allowed by Lowe's themselves. The intent of Lowe's wall signage was to get visibility off STH 169. He noted if the wall signage had to be reduced, it would most likely be one of the secondary directional signs that would be altered. Mayor Schmitt noted he would go along with having the signage on the side of the building it was proposed for but he would not support any signage over 400 square feet. Mayor Schmitt felt this was a destination type business. Mr. Fiebig stated if the wall signage was limited to 400 square feet then the amount of square feet of the monument signage would need to be altered. It was the intentto have this monument signage reduced only if the wall signage variation was given. Helkamp/Lehman offered Resolution No. 6213, A Resolution Of The City Of Shako pee, Minnesota, Approving Dean Lakes Center Planned Unit Development #26, with the deletion of condition no. 6 and moved its adoption. Mr. Leek thought it would be appropriate to delete condition no. 6 because the outside storage was referenced by the exhibit. Cncl. Helkamp accepted this as a friendly amendment. Cncl. Lehman asked it the Council wanted to downsize the monument signage with an increase in the wall signage or did they want the monument size increased? Mayor Schmitt noted his preference was to increase the monument signage up to the maximum allowed by City Code and to only allow 400 square feet for the wall signage. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, suggested a language change to condition no. 23. This language change was the removal of the words "as proposed on page l2 of the Project Narrative for Dean Official Proceedings of March 15,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -8- Lakes Third Addition" and insert the words "shall be limited to the number, size and height requirements of City Code". Cncl. Helkamp stated this was the intent of the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Helkamp/Lehman offered Resolution No. 6214, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota Approving The Preliminary And Final Plat Of Dean Lakes Third Addition, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 4-0. LehmanlMenden moved to accept the low quote and authorize staff to purchase one used forklift from Quality Forklift Sales and Service, Inc. for the price of$14,910. Funding to be expended from the 2005 Shop Division Operating Budget. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlMenden moved to authorize the purchase of one new Terratrac AEBI TT75 from Extreme Equipment, Inc. using state bid pricing for the total cost of $93,041.60. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Loney reported on the suspension of noise regulations regarding hourly restrictions on construction activities associated with the St. Francis Regional Medical Center expansion. Mr. Loney noted this was a request from M.A. Mortenson Company, the contractor for the St. Francis Regional Medical Center expansion. Mr. Loney noted they were asking for a deviation from the start time hours (7:00 a.m.) for concrete pours on various dates. M.A. Mortenson wanted to start at 5:30 a.m. Mr. Loney noted M.A. Mortenson was requesting this change noting stamina, fatigue, lighting and safety issues as concerns. These were some really large pours (50 trucks would be needed on the average). Mr. Loney noted the pouring would be mainly in the northwest corner and staff conditioned this request on the residents being contacted. Pat Barnett, M.A. Sorenson, noted this request really was for the safety of the workers. They would like to pour early in the day rather than later in the evening. He noted he walked the neighborhood and it appeared the noise and lighting would not be an issue. He noted he would explain to the neighbors what the problem was. He noted if the neighbors did not want the early hours they would not do it early. It was only seven days that they needed to pour early and usually there were only three cement trucks on site at one time. He noted by June 1, weather permitting they would be back on the 7:00 a.m. start time. Mr. Barnett noted the large pours needing the hours restrictions adjusted would be on a Thursday or a Friday weather permitting. Helkamp/Lehman moved to approve the suspension of City Code Sec. 1 0.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations requested by M.A. Mortenson Company for St. Francis Regional Medical Center, as outlined in the memo from Joe Swentek, Project Engineer, noting the start time could begin at 6:00 a.m. rather than 6:30 a.m. as the memo stated and if residential complaints are received by the City, the suspension could be revoked at the discretion of the City Engineer. Motion carried 4-0. (Document No. CC-377) Official Proceedings of March 15,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -9- Lehman/Menden moved to accept the easement agreement between Harold and Roberta Schneider and the City of Shakopee for a utility easement on the property located at 3300 East Valley View Road.and authorize the appropriate City staff to execute the agreement. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Menden offered Ordinance No. 726, Fourth Series, an Ordinance Of The City Of Shako pee, Minnesota, Amending City Code Chapter 9, Section 9.42 Regulating Unattended Vehicles, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Helkamp moved to table the call for a special election for the issuance of General Obligation Bonds to Fund A Community Center Expansion to a work session. Motion carried 4-0. LehmanlMenden moved to authorize entering into an agreement with the Shakopee Jaycees for providing concession service at Tahpah Park through September 30, 2005. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlMenden moved to direct staff to seek proposals for the design of the Aquatic Park building from BKV, Oertel Architects, and Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). ~ LehmanlMenden moved to approve a contract extension with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates for Huber Park building design and geotechnical work in the amount of $40,550. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlMenden offered Resolution No. 6208, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota Authorizing The City To Submit An Outdoor Recreation Grant Program Application For Huber Park Redevelopment, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Menden offered Resolution No. 6209, A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A Report For Improvements To Fillmore Street North Of First Avenue To Huber Park And The Adjacent Alley, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlMenden offered Resolution No. 6210, A Resolution Of The City Of Shako pee, Minnesota Authorizing The City To Submit An Outdoor Recreation Grant Program Application For The Quarry Lake Project, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Leek, reported on the Final Plat of Riverside Fields 4th Addition, located west ofCSAH 18 and north of Crossings Boulevard. Mr. Leek noted the preliminary plat showed a looped street north of Crossings Boulevard and the proposed Final Plat showed an overlength cul-de-sac rather than the looped street. Official Proceedings of March 15,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -10- Mr. Leek addressed the sanitary sewer issue that has arisen in this case. Mr. Leeknoted in the letter received from Chris Enger, Ryland Homes, Ryland Homes wanted to reserve the sanitary sewer connection in connection with Riverside Bluffs. Mr. Enger noted in his letter that the plat for Riverside Fields 15t Addition did require Ryland Homes to construct that connection in any event. Mr. Loney, City Engineer, provided a memo that addressed this sanitary sewer connection. Mr. Leek noted according to the City's sanitary sewer plan the Riverside Bluffs area was intended to be served by the Prior Lake Interceptor. The Riverside Fields area was to be served by another sewer service system. Mr. Leek stated staff s recommendation was not to provide for sanitary sewer service rrom the Riversides Fields 4th Addition for the Riverside Bluffs Addition; if Council however, did choose to provide sanitary sewer service to Riverside Bluffs from Riverside Fields there were some specific conditions for this to happen in Mr. Loney's memo that needed to be included in Resolution No. 6187 for Riverside Fields 4th Addition. Mr. Leek addressed the overlength cul-de-sac variance request. Mr. Leek noted since the last meeting the Fire Inspector met with the Fire Chief and some concerns were expressed. The Fire Chief and the Fire Inspector felt the length of the cul de- sac would work with the conditions proposed in Final Plat Resolution No. 6187. He noted those conditions required when the 100th building permit for Riverside Fields was issued an emergency access would need to be constructed to the north from the cul-de-sac on Fescue.Circle to Southbridge Parkway. When the commercial area of Riverside Fields developed, the only emergency access required would be at the head of the cul-de-sac into the access system within the commercial development. Mr. Leek noted with this longer cul-de-sac the emergency access would be shorter. Mr. Leek stated the City Engineering Department was recommending that the lot lines be redrawn to be radial regardless of the decision on the cul-de-sac. Mr. Leek noted Resolution No. 6187 did contain a condition regarding denial of this variance and the sanitary sewer connection so staff was asking that in Councils action they incorporate the conditions proposed by Mr. Loney if Council choose to allow the sanitary sewer connection from Riverside Fields. Cncl. Helkamp noted he liked the idea of shortening the cul-de-sac to provide for more radial lots and add to the green space between the residential and the commercial development. He stated however, if the lot lines are required to be redrawn even if the cul-de-sac remains overlength perhaps the redraw of the lot lines would accomplish the more green space even with the longer cul-de-sac. Cncl. Menden noted the emergency access would still be needed after the 100th building permit was issued for Riverside Fields regardless of the length of the cul-de-sac. Cncl. Menden pointed out right now the emergency access was planned to be right in the area where Country Road 21 was proposed to be. Mr. Leek thought it was much more likely that the commercial area would be in before County Road 21 was. He stated County Road 21 was in the County's Transportation Improvement Program for 2008. Official Proceedings of March 15,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -11- Ian Peterson, Centex Homes, stated, if the Council chooses to extend the sewer from Riverside Fields to the west property line with the City Engineering Department conditions for Resolution No. 6l87, Centex homes and the other developer would take care of the costs. Mr. Peterson addressed the overlength cul-de-sac. He noted the Planning Commission did review this request for an overlength cul-de-sac and the Planning Commission as well as the Fire Inspector and the Fire Chief felt it would be better to have an overlength cul-de-sac rather than a looped street where commercial traffic could go through a residential neighborhood. Mr. Peterson asked for clarification on the radial lot adjustments. It was not his understanding if the overlength cul-de-sac was granted that the lot lines needed to be radially adjusted to the cul-de-sac. He noted the driveways could be and would be done so they aligned radially, but he was not sure the lot lines could be done radially without the removal of one lot. Mr. Leek addressed this. Mr. Leek noted the condition specified "more" radially not "absolutely" radially. Mr. Leek noted the lots at the end of the cul-de-sac looked squeezed in and that really made these lots less desirable. Mayor Schmitt stated he had a problem with the long cul-de-sac. The City was always being hit up for this variance. There were problems associated with a long cul-de-sac. He was comfortable with the long emergency access but not with the overlength cul-de-sac. Helkamp/Menden offered Resolution No. 6187, A Resolution Of The City Of Shako pee, Minnesota Denying The Variance ForOverlength Cul-De-Sac And Approving The Final Plat Of Riverside Fields Fourth Addition, and moved its adoption subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Ian Peterson noted if the overlength cul-de-sac were not approved he would need to redesign this final plat so there was a looped street that did go thru the commercial area. He noted Centex Homes still needed to provide the emergency connection to Southbridge Parkway. He noted the initial preliminary plat with the public street would again be pursued. Mr. Peterson stated he thought this public thrustreet into the commercial area from the residential area was an oversight by everyone when the preliminary plat was done for the entire project. Steve Soltau, Shakopee Crossings, asked that the Council not lose sight of the objective trying to be accomplished with this long cul-de-sac. He stated with this overlength cul-de-sac public safety was being provided. This technically was an overlength cul-de-sac but it did have a breakaway thru connection so the underlying concern was met and still the issue was addressed with the concern of commercial traffic. Mr. Soltau noted the Planning Commission gave unanimous support for not continuing the public street but allowing an overlength cul-de-sac with conditions. The Planning Commission saw this plan in a concept review. Mayor Schmitt felt the road could have been looped to the south rather than to the north to make it a through road. It was noted this area had east/west sewer runs and a ponding area and running the streetthe way the Mayor Schmitt suggested was not a possibility. Mr. Loney did not think this sewer could be realigned but he would look into it. Official Proceedings of March 15,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -12- Cncl. Lehman noted he agreed with the overlength cul-de-sac for safety reasons. However, he would like to see radial property lines around the cul-de-sac. He stated he was okay with the sewer coming from Riverside Fields for Riverside Bluffs as long as someone else other than the City paid for it. Cncl. Helkamp addressed the sanitary service in the area. Mr. Peterson noted the service of the sanitary sewer had to do with elevations. Mr. Soltau noted this elevation problem not only affected some of the residential lots it also proposed issues with the commercial development. CncL Menden called the question (limit debate). Motion carried 4-0. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, stated Resolution No. 6187 is to deny the variance but approve the plat. The plat before the Council was a plat with a cul-de-sac not a thru street and Mr. Thomson did not think all the conditions in the resolution would be worded the same if the Council was faced with a plat showing a through street. Mr. Thomson noted because the applicant expressed desire to go back to a through street he did not think the Council wanted to take action on this motion. He thought Mr. Leek's comment to table this issue tonight was the most appropriate. It was preferred that the applicant come back with a revised design showing a thru street. Mr. Thomson noted the approved preliminary plat showed a thru street and by state law the developer had the right to build that. If the final plat was consistent with the preliminary plat there was little discretion for the Council, This final plat however, was not consistent with the preliminary plat. HelkamplMenden moved to table the Final Plat for Riverside Fields 4th Addition. Motion carried 4- O. LehmanlMenden offered Resolution No. 6201,A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee Upholding The decision Of The Board Of Adjustment And Appeals To Deny A Side Yard Setback Variance At 2460 Emerald Lane, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlMenden offered Resolution No. 6202, A Resolution Setting The Public Hearing Date To Consider The Vacation Of Easement For Property In ACC 2nd Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Menden offered Resolution No. 6203, A Resolution Setting The Public Hearing Date To Consider The Vacation Of Easement For Property In Dean lakes 2n~ Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Menden moved to authorize the police captain's position to remain vacant and create an eighth sergeant's position for the Police Department. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Menden moved to accept the completion of Brian Theis's probationary period. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of March 15,2005 Shakopee City Council Page -13- Lehman/Menden moved to accept the completion of Robert Gieseke's probationary period. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Menden offered Resolution No. 6200, A Resolution Of appreciation To Kim Weckman, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlMenden moved to authorize the execution of the purchase agreement for the former Shakopee Public Utilities Commission Headquarters building and property (1030 East Fourth Avenue) between the City and Shakopee Public Utilities. (Negotiated price of $725,000) (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Menden moved to declare the following property, a 1993 Zodiac Mark 2 Virage l3'9" W/30 H.P. Mercury Motor, as surplus property. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). LehmanlMenden moved to abate special assessments on the following parcel: Parcel No. 27- 206034-0, Code 27130 with the original assessment of$I,006.97. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, reported on the meeting being requested for March 22,2005 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss whether or not to have a special election for the sale of bonds to fund an expansion to the Community Center. Helkamp/Menden moved to set a special meeting for March 22,2005 at 6:00 p.m. Motion carried 4- O. Cncl. Lehman noted he attended the County Road 41 River Crossing Task Force meeting. He noted he shared this information with Mr. Leek and something would be put together to give to Council members to keep them up to speed. Mayor Schmitt stated he thought all activity regarding this river crossing had been suspended because of the suspension of the funding for it. Cncl. Lehman stated MnDOT apparently found a funding source to move forward with the study. Mr. Leek added in doing the draft EIS the construction time is proposed to be 2040. Cncl. Lehman stated Shakopee's position was that the need would be there a longtime before 2040. Cncl. Menden noted he attended the School Board and The Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) meeting and Vision Shakopee meeting. Cncl. Helkamp noted he attended the SCALE meeting. He noted the speaker of the House, Michael Beard and Claire Robling attended that meeting and gave input as to what was going on at the state capitol. He noted a sampling was also taken of the communities that discussed the joint training facility to see where they were with this concept. Not every one had managed to get the issue of the joint training facility to their Councils yet. The feel so far was to proceed with the land acquisition. Mayor Schmitt noted that the speaker of the House, Ms. Robling and Mr. Beard were going to see Official Proceedings of March l5, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -l4- what the legislature could do for this particular project for funding and land acquisition assistance. Mayor Schmitt was going to follow up on this funding. Mayor Schmitt noted there was much going on with the City and possible tenants. Cncl. Lehman noted he was concerned about easements and their restrictions. He would like an update and clarification on this from staff. Mayor Schmitt addressed the post office and where mailboxes are placed. He was concerned about unlocked mailboxes located away from the homeowner. Mr. Leek noted he would follow-up on this idea of locked mailboxes. Cncl. Menden was concerned about the unoccupied semi-trailers on STH 169 near CR 83 that have visible display (advertising) on them. He was also concerned about two businesses with their vehicles getting closer and closer to the road right-of-way. He also was concerned about exterior lighting codes (light pollution) for the City and for SPUC. He would like Mr. Leek to email him this lighting information so he could share this information with the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC). Mr. Leek stated he would provide this information to Cncl. Menden. Helkamp/Lehman moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, March 22, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 9:53 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. B.MLJ.Cy- J (lith S. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA MARCH 22, 2005 JOINT MEETING WITH PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p;m. with Council members Lehman, Menden, Joos and Helkamp present. Also Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director and Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director. Present from the Park and Recreation Advisory Board: Ms. Souders, Mr. Clay, Arvid Sornberger (6:10) and Ms. Bercich. The following item was placed on the Consent Agenda. 5.A. Authorization to Add Four Firefighter Positions. Helkamp/Joos moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Loney, Public Work Director/City Engineer, reported on the hazardous building materials associated with the new Public Works building after inspection of the old Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) building. Mr. Loney noted SPUC did approve the agreement between them and the City where both entities would participate in the building inspection clean up of the building. He noted if a consultant was needed the City would get the consultant and then the City and SPUC would work cooperatively. Mr. Loney was requesting authority to obtain quotes up to $50,000 from the Council so this clean up could be done as needed so this project could stay on schedule. There was clean up of asbestos that needed to be done now. The asbestos removal would be the cost ofSPUC per the agreement. Mayor Schmitt stated if there was no cost to the City he had no problem with this request. Mr. Loney noted the demolition costs of this building were not part of the $6 million that had been authorized for the construction of the new Public Works building. Helkamp/Lehman moved to authorize City staff to obtain quotes up to $50,000 as per the purchase agreement for the removal and disposal of hazardous building materials in the former SPUC building. Motion carried 5-0. Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director, reported on the Community Center expansion. He responded to the several questions that had been asked last week that he did not have answers for at that time. He stated he had some of those answers tonight. Mr. Themig gave a short history and noted after much work by the Citizens Task Force, the Citizens Task Force recommended expansion to the current community center with public financing. A feasibility study was done that included participation by residents from the City Official Proceedings of March 22, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -2- and Mr. Themig noted some of the key findings of this feasibility study as well as some of needs of the residents that the community survey found. He noted the feasibility study identified some problems with the current community center that needed to be fixed. He also stated the majority of the expansion costs were with the leisure pool area. He gave a breakdown of the costs associated with the expansion of the community center. Mr. Themig noted the Task Force recommendation entailed a $25 to $27 million project. The Task Force recommended a May 24,2005 special election. Mr. Themig noted the numbers proposed for the expansion of the community center did include staffing costs of$I.9 million. Mr. Themig noted the new community center would be a far different level of community center from the present one. Mr. Themig noted the cost recovery without a building rental charge after five years was projected to jump from an 87% cost recovery to a 90% cost recovery. Mr. Themig stated with a building rel1tal charge Shakopee's cost recovery fell to 65%. He noted other cities in the Metro area had a ;cost recovery from about 96% to 57%. He stated the 57% cost recovery was from Inver Grove Heights who had debt I . service in their operating cost and that is why their recovery percentage :Was so low. I Mr. Themig included some figures of what the building rental charge wbuld be for some new City buildings and also for some older ones. He also noted what the feels are for th~ proposed new Community Center along with a comparison of fees for neighboring fitness complexes. Mr. Themig noted the average value home in Shakopee of $213,000 would be taxed about $175.91 on an annual basis or approximately $14.66 a month. If the City of Shako pee continued to grow, it was expected these tax figures would be lower. Mr. Themig used an example to show how the number of building permits grew each year and thus a decrease in taxes but a rise in property value. Mr. Themig noted the annual tax subsidy projected with the existing community center was about $549,000 with building rental factored in and $399,000 without the building rental. He noted with the new expansion the subsidy would be about $360,000 for the building alone but with the building rental factored in the subsidy would increase $1 million with the total subsidy being about $1.36 million. With the existing Community Center and expansion the tax for the subsidy is estimated at $24.70 per average household and with the building rental factored in the subsidy tax would be $68 for a total of about $93.00. There was additional subsidy from the residents of$35.92 that also went to the Recreation Fund for recreational purposes. Mr. Themig noted this number was not projected to change with the average household in Shakopee with the expansion to the community center. The total subsidy was about $129.00 with the building rental charge or approximately $63.00 without the building rental charge. Official Proceedings of March 22, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Mr. Themig noted the estimated tax impact of the new high school, the proposed community expansion and a possible new elementary school using the average house figure inShakopee of $213,000 was $175.90 for 2006 and by 2007 the estimated tax impact could be $354.00. Mr. Themig noted according to The Minnesota Citizens League Annual Report for2004 Shakopee's tax ranking in the metro area was 82 out of 111 cities. Mr. Themig noted the Task Force designated two members to serve as their spokesperson to explain their decision behind this community center expansion with public financing. Mr. Sornberger explained how the Task Force came up with their recommendation. He noted the expansion dealt with the entire community not just the sports enthusiast. This expansion offered something for everyone. He stated the community wanted their voice heard with a referendum. Mr. Themig encouraged questions. Cncl. Lehman was concerned about the serious increases for property taxes. Cncl. Joos was concerned about other big projects that would be needed in the near future. There was discussion on the Public Works building rental charge. Cncl. Menden stated they could discuss the "what ifs" but it really boiled down to giving the citizens of Shakopee the opportunity to say yes or no. He stated it was pretty well known that the subsidy to the existing community building was not going to go down. Cncl. Helkamp stated it really was not a question if the expansion would be done but rather when the expansion would be done. The community needed to decide some priorities. This was a timing issue. He was not confident that sending this question to a referendum vote now was the answer. Cncl. Joos was not sure the growth was going to be there and the budget needed to be looked at. He was concerned about the long-term viability of the community center. He was leaning toward putting this out for a referendum. There were many impacts to this community center expansion. Cncl. Lehman still had questions. These regarded the building rental fee and the importance of buildings and what dollar amount an average household could reasonably expect to support. He wanted to be comfortable that this had a chance to pass. He stated the tax impact according to his figures, was not $l75.00 that was brick and motor, there were many other costs involved. He wanted to make honest impacts known so a person could make good decisions. Mayor Schmitt stated he could argue with a couple ofthe numbers for a couple of reasons. Mayor Schmitt addressed the proposed population growth for the future. He stated he was of the Official Proceedings of March 22, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -4- opinion that the taxes would be going down as a result of population growth. He also addressed the rental fee. He stated there were three things that needed to be dealt with. Theses are: 1) the City owes the public the opportunity to vote on this, 2) if the City goes to the public then the City needs to support this so the public can make an informed decision and 3) there are things we can do. He recommended the depreciation of the building be over 40 years not 30 years (this will reduce the annual operating subsidy significantly) and he would like to reduce the cost of the building slightly. The numbers now were any where from a high $25 million to $27 million and he wanted to take the cost to $25 million no higher. Mr. Sornberger addressed the rushing of this referendum. He stated this community center issue has been ongoing for several years. He noted with the community center now proposed (it was cut from $40 million to $25 million) still has something for everybody. He stated more cuts would start to eliminate certain groups. This was a concern to him. Mayor Schmitt stated he had no doubt corporate memberships would be needed but he felt they could be obliged. Rob Root, member of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board, addressed some ofCncl. Lehman's questions regarding the rental charge. Mayor Schmitt also had some suggestions. Cncl. Lehman pointed out there was more to the cost than just brick and motor. Mr. Root also pointed out that the citizens in their survey expressed this venue as something they wanted. The question was did they want to pay for it; the referendum was the only place the question could be answered. Gretchen Theis, 2134 Muhlenhardt Road, stated this Citizen Task Force has brought to this Council another proposal on the Community Center. Each Council has asked the Community Center to decrease the subsidy from the General Fund in some way. According to the Task Force this was the way. The public needed to be educated. There would never be a good time for a community center referendum. She would like to see the Council give this referendum a chance. John Clay noted the subsidy was very high but it needed to be there. He thought caps needed to. be talked about in the future but the community center needed to be there. Mr. Clay also stated there is pent up demand for this type service and the service needed to be provided. He noted the market analysis provided by the consultant came back loud and clear Shakopee had a favorable market to support this referendum. He noted The Minnesota Citizens League Annual Report for 2004 reinforced to him that Shakopee provided below market taxes for below market services. Mayor Schmitt responded that he thought this community has a frugal tax base due to frugal German hard work in the past. Cncl. Lehman stated the reason the City's tax rate is low is because the City has a strong commercial/industrial base that many cities do not have. He disagreed with the statement. Official Proceedings of March 22, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -s- It was stated that this community center was vital to the community. It was a quality of life issue. It was important for the community to make the decision regarding the expansion to the community center. Sonja Bercich, noted there was a segment of Shako pee's population that in all likelihood would switch back to the Shakopee Community Center if the enhancements were made. She noted an attraction was needed to attract users. Mr. Sornberger stated this was a health issue also, as our society is sedentary. This is why insurance companies are interested. This was a different can of worms from the Police Department or the Fire Department. Joos/Menden offered Resolution 6207, A Resolution Determining the Necessity for the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds and Calling a Special Election Thereon, and moved its adoption, as . recommended by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board; including full building rental charge (currently 30 years). CncI. Joos stated he was willing to look at the 40-year depreciation schedule. He stated this Citizen Task Force had worked long and hard and this figure deserved to be talked about. Cncl. Menden noted he would like to see the cost for the new community capped at $25 million. CncI. Lehman stated he was not opposed to putting this out in front of the voters his issues are 1) he wanted it to be realistic and the information to be up front so voters knew what they were voting for and 2) he would hate to see it fail because it was too expensive and then the community would end up with nothing. Mayor Schmitt stated this is whatthe survey told.us, this offers something for each group and he could support this. The community needed to make the decision. Cncl. Lehman stated the truth needed to be told. Cncl. He1kamp was concerned about the number of people being asked to pay for the community center and the number of users. He noted there was a huge disparity in the number. Mr. Themig responded to this number concern. He noted the 12% figure was the number of users that would use the community center on a weekly basis. Cncl. Helkamp noted he would like to see an annual participation figure. CncI. Helkamp addressed this referendum being on a special election rather than waiting until November. Mr. Themig noted there would be some additional costs if the referendum waited until November. It all depended on when the tax levy should be started. Cncl. Menden.questioned the number of employees that would be needed for this new facility. Mr. Themig addressed this concern via emailto Cncl. Menden. Official Proceedings of March 22, 2005 Shakopee City Council Page -6- It was noted that the Task Force met and they determined that having the referendum in May would give them enough time to deliver information to the public. They were committed and l'eady to roll. Mr. V oxland advised of the numbers to be filled in for the blanks in the prepared Resolution. Motion carried 4-1 with Cncl. Helkamp dissenting. Mr. Themig noted to provide the true cost there needed to be discussion regarding the building rental and that policy. Cncl. Joos stated he needed numbers on the depreciation changing to forty years. Mr. Themig noted some alternatives available for public information for the citizens. Mayor Schmitt felt Steve Blackburn, architect with Barker Rinker Seacat, should be contacted regarding corporate memberships. Menden/Joos moved to authorize the appropriate City staffto move forward with a cost not to exceed $9,150 to do a web view interior and outside conceptual layout for the community center expanSIOn. The web view to be done by Barker Rinker Seacat would provide the residents the opportunity to look at a 3-D visual image. Motion carried 3-2 with Cncl. Helkamp and Cncl. Lehman dissenting. Joos/Helkamp moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. JJlJBf- ath S. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary