Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Aprroval of Minutes: July 27th, August 4th, August 10th, August 12th, and August 17th, 2004 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA JULY 27, 2004 Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. with Council members Menden, Joos and Helkamp present. Absent: Lehman. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Bruce Loney, Public Works/City Engineer and TerryStang; Fire Chief. Mr. Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer, reported on improvements to the Public Works building, sanitary sewer extension/reconstruction projects, storm sewer improvements and replacement and street construction/reconstruction projects that he was proposing to be done for the next five years with focus on the next two years. He noted there would be development south ofHwy 169 and much reconstruction in the existing part of town. Mr. Loney noted there were pavement preservation and storm sewer and drainage improvements that really needed to.be done in the City. Mr. Loney noted it was proposed that the old Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) building be demolished and a new Public Works building be constructed on its site in conjunction with the J current Public Works building. Mr. Loney noted that this new public works building project was a bonded project and the remodeling of the old SPUC building had been completed. Mr. Loney presented sanitary sewer projects that he was proposing to be done in the next five years. He noted the main sanitary sewer project that he wanted to continue with out to Rahr Malting on the west end of Old Shakopee was the sanitary sewer in the River District to eliminate inflow and infiltration. He noted another very high priority item in the sanitary sewer reconstruction project was the East River District Sanitary Sewer that ran under nine trailers in a trailer park. That portion of the sanitary sewer line was in very bad shape. Mr. Loney did not think this leg of the River District Sanitary Sewer project would get done until 2005 but it too needed to get done as soon as possible. Mr. Loney noted the extension of trunk sanitary sewer really depended on where development was going. Some of the possibilities for trunk sanitary sewer extension were along County Road 83 with the trunk sanitary sewer extension being paid for out of the trunk sanitary sewer fund. Mayor Schmitt asked why the City should be in a hurry to put sanitary sewer along County Road 83. Mr. Loney noted any more development along Valley View Road and in this area would need this new trunk sewer line because the line now being used for this area was full. Mayor Schmitt would like to see a strategy plan defined for the properties along Valley ViewRoad. Mr. Loney noted the sanitary sewer trunk line extension for the County Road 15 (Marystown Road area) was shown for 2006 and would also be paid for with the trunk sanitary sewer fund. Mr. Loney noted the sanitary sewer trunk area by County Road 16 and Pike Lake Trail had vacant parcels and if County Road 21 issues were resolved then that trunk may need to be extended, possibly in 2008. It was in the vicinity of the Pike Lake Trail and where County Road 21 may be constructed that was being looked at as a possible site for a third fire station. Official Proceedings of the July 27, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Mr. Loney addressed the trunk sanitary sewer line that the Valley Creek Crossing development would be using. Mr. Loney addressed some of the storm sewer issues. He stated he hoped to get the pipe size for some of the storm sewer and increase the size of some storm sewer ponds to increase the safety factor of adjacent properties in the Pheasant Run area in 2004/2005. Money from the developer in one area had been obtained and the balance would be for oversizing the pipe and that money would come from the trunk fund. Mr. Loney noted a big trunk line was needed out in the area where the new high school would be constructed. Mr. Loney noted there was some erosion happening to the Dean Lake Outlot channel and the control structure for this area needed to be addressed. The control structure was to keep the outlet elevation in Dean Lake stable to prevent erosion. Cncl. Menden noted this Outlet Channel structure needed to be fixed now or a much bigger bill would be seen later on. It was stated by Mr. Loney, there were several control structures in the Dominion Hills area that needed to be installed to help control the flow of water. He noted a more steady water flow was needed rather than the water gushers that were happening now. Mr. Loney addressed the highlights of the Blue Lake Watershed improvements for the Blue Lake Channel. He noted there were two legs to the Blue Lake Channel and it was a very large channel. Also this channel carried a lot of water that came from Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) property. He noted there was lot of coordination that needed to be done with the channel improvements. He noted the Blue Lake Channel could not be overloaded from what it is today. Mr. Loney discussed the Prior Lake Channel. He would like to see an upgrade to this Prior Lake Channel. Mr. Loney noted the fees charged for the Prior Lake and the Blue Lake Channels may need to be looked at because much of the water draining into these two channels came for SMSC land; he was not sure what fees could be collected from the SMSC. Mr. Loney highlighted some street construction/reconstruction projects. Mr. Loney felt the completion of 17th A venue to CR 83 had a high priority and there was also the balance of V alley View Road that should be completed next year (it was moved from 2004 until 2005 because of some unresolved issues). He noted there was a half-mile stretch of 17th Avenue to County Road 83 that needed to be completed. The traffic flow in that area would be much improved and there would be good east/west traffic movement throughout this area of the City of Shakopee, when 17th Avenue was completed out to County Road 83. Mr. Loney noted under the memo of understanding, when 17th Avenue was completed the City would then turn it over to the County and the County would give the City County Road 16. Mayor Schmitt discussed the development north of l7th A venue and south of HWY 169 and noted the developer was willing to pay and construct 17th A venue out to County Road 15 (Marystown Road) from County Road 79 so plans needed to be made now if this was to happen. Mayor Schmitt stated the new high school was being built in this area and it hoped to be open by the fall of 2007. He stated that he would like to see some agreements today with the County regarding the future construction of 17th A venue west of County Road 15. There were other street reconstructions projects that were left undone from other projects and the City needed to get these streets done (streets in the old Shakopee area). Mr. Loney explained these streets. , Official Proceedings of the July 27, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Mr. Loney stated the pavement management program was being revamped trying to get a better handle on keeping the streets in Shakopee maintained so there would not need to be reconstruction as often. He was promoting more overlays and seal coatings in an attempt to keep the streets from getting into a reconstruction state. He noted the City would receive two Federal grants from the railroad for signalization at two railroad intersections (possibly Sommerville and Spencer Streets). In order to meet Federal safety and design standards some road modifications needed to be made in the intersections where the Federal.Grants for the railroad signalization occurred. The City would need to participate in the costs of the railroad signalization in some fashion. Mr. Loney addressed some sidewalks along City streets. He noted sidewalks were a big deal to build if they were not built with the development. He noted trying to complete a segment of sidewalk was very, very difficult after a development was done. Mr. Loney stated he thought the sidewalk policy might need to be re-evaluated; the assessments, as well as what streets required sidewalks needed to be addressed. The Council thought the school pedestrian traffic would be a problem without sidewalks. Mr. Loney would also like to light up some segments of sidewalk and trails that were dark areas. He noted some streetlights could be attached to some SPUC Utility poles to achieve the needed light. Mr. Loney noted there were some street reconstruction projects in 2006 that moved from the core of the City outwards. He noted there usually was something that drove a reconstruction project. Mr. Loney addressed Pike Lake Trail. He noted that several things needed to be completed in tIris area. He also thought the benefit versus the cost (environment cost and dollar amount cost) may need to be looked at in this area. This was a very interesting project. This was an areato look at in 2005 and possibly do in 2006. Mr. Loney noted Pike Lake Trail south of County Road 16 was scheduled for some improvements in 2006 but noted these improvements could be put off until later if necessary. The Shenandoah Business Park, as well as the 4th Avenue and County Road 83 intersection was discussed. Mr; Loney addressed County Road 21 out to County Road 18 and noted it was scheduled for 2006. He noted it was still in the County's CIP for 2006. Mr. Loney stated he wanted it pointed out to the County that the City was looking at having signalization next to the old junior high when it became an elementary school. Mr. Loney noted there was some intersection grants for several intersections within the City on County Road 17 that the City had received before the new stripping was done on County Road 17. This stripping helped improve the traffic accident count alone and the County was not in favor of doing intersection improvements at this time. Mr. Loney did ask the County to look at the signalization, at least for a green arrow, for the intersection of lOth Avenue and County Road 17. Official Proceedings of the July 27,2004 Shakopee City Council Page -4- He noted the County had been resistive to this request before because this arrow added time to the stop. Mr. Loney noted trunk highway 300. He noted some money had been received from the State for this road. There was money to fix this road now. Mr. Loney noted there were some big pavement restoration projects in the future (like 10th Avenue). Mr. Loney noted there could be a major project for County Road 17 in 2008. This road was proposed to be improved to County Road 78 or County Road 42. Mr. Loney explained some of the possible improvements. Mayor Schmitt thought the Bluff Street project slated for 2010 probably needed to be moved up. Mr. Loney stated he was looking for direction. Mr. Loney noted the Bluff Street area had piecemeal streets for a number of years. Mr. Loney noted it only made sense to do the entire area at one time. He would like to see everything consistent in the area. Mr. Loney noted the 2006 , reconstruction project consisting of 4th, 5th and 6th Avenue would most likely be moved to 2007 so the Bluff street project could be tied to the completion of Huber Park and be done sooner. Mr. Loney pointed out several projects were dependent on development dollars to keep the City's portion of the cost at a reasonable amount as well as assessments reasonable to everyone. He noted the City was going to apply for more pedestrian bridge grants. He also noted the Sanitary Sewer Funding and the Trunk Funds are healthy, as well as the Storm Drainage Trunk Fund. He did note the Blue Lake Channel and the Prior Lake Channel were costly. He noted the fee for the use of these channels may need to be re-Iooked at. Mayor Schmitt felt there should be a contingency plan for the charge for the use of the two outlet channels. He noted some State Aid money had been received for Vierling Drive, Valley View Road and 4th Avenue. Mayor Schmitt stated he would like to see what money had been set aside for projects. He noted he would follow up on this request with Mr. Loney. Mayor Schmitt asked if any money needed to be put aside for the Milwaukee Manor storm drainage and street improvements. Mayor Schmitt also noted as long the City would be working in the area of 10th Street the block along 10th and Main Street should be looked at too. Mr. Loney noted later in 2004 he would like to see what projects for 2005 the Council wanted to move forward on and order a feasibility study on. Helkamp/Menden moved to adjourn. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. ~6.~ 6tth S. Cox, Cit Clerk Carole Hedlund, Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCa REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,NUNNESOTA AUGUST 4, 2004 Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. with Council members Menden, Helkamp and Joos present. Absent: Council member Lehman. Also Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community DevelopmentDirector; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Gregg V oxland, Finance Director; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator and Corey Schneck, Police Officer. The pledge of allegiance was recited. I The following items were added to the agenda. IS.FA. Application for a Tobacco License for S & S Marathon, Inc. and IS.F.S. Recommendation to Appoint Mark Hillegas to the Telecommunications Commission. The following item was deleted fromthe agenda. 18. Recess for Executive Session to Discuss Labor Negotiations. Helkamp/Menden moved to approve the Agenda as modified. Motion carried 4-0'. Mayor Schmitt stated the new City flag was up at the Scott County Fair this year. He noted there was legislative action via teleconference for the Scott County Alliance for Leadership and Efficiency (SCALE). He noted National Night Out was quite successful in the Shakopee community. He noted this event seemed to grow each year. He thanked all City participants that played a role in making this a very successful evening. The following items were added to the Consent Agenda. 15 .E.1. Personnel Policy Amendments Regarding Involuntary Separations and Promotions, IS.E.2. Promotions from Engineering Technician II to Engineering TechnicianUI for Ryan Halverson and Christian Diaz and IS.F.S. Recommendation to Appoint Mark Hillegas to the Telecommunications Commission. Joos/Helkampmoved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried 4-0. Mayor Schmitt asked ifthere were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address any item not on the agenda, Cletus Link, 1216 Jefferson Street, approached the podium to discuss an application of a plat. Mr. Link noted all the proper documents had been submitted. Mr. Link was concerned about the City extending the review time by an additional 60 days because it did not fit in their timeline. Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, addressed Mr. Link's concern. Mr. Leek noted this was a fairly simple plat but he did have four pages of comments from the Engineering Department regarding this plat. Mr. Leeknoted the plat might not take the full time suggested by Mr. Link. Mr. Leek suggested Mr. Link check with Ms. Klima, Planner II, to see when the public Official Proceedings of the August 4,2004 Shakopee City Council Page -2- hearing was scheduled for the plat Mr. Link was referring to. Mr. Link also had another concern regarding excess fill being legally accepted and delivered. He would like to see the permitting process for receiving and delivering fill streaInlined. Mr. Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer addressed this concern. Mr. Loney noted the process being referred to was the City's grading permit. He noted that this grading permit could be obtained before there was any fill available from other developers. Mr. Link had other concerns regarding this grading permit and Cncl. Joos asked that staff take a look at the grading permit process to see if some of the issues brought up by Mr. Link could be resolved. Lou VanHout, Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC), approached the podiumto thank the City for having Sarazin Street paved when SPUC moved into their new building. Joos/Helkamp moved to approve the meeting minutes for June 15 and June 22,2004. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Joos/Helkamp moved to approve the bills in the amount of$739,515.31 plus $38,513.39 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $778,028.70. (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/Joos moved to open the public hearing on the proposed vacation of easements for property south of Valley Industrial Boulevard South, west of Valley Park Drive and east of Canterbury Road. Motion carried 4-0. Mr. Leek reported on the proposed vacation of easements. Mr. Leek noted there was an existing building on Lot 1, Block 1 in Valley Park Second Addition. The owners of the property wished to increase the size of the lot that the existing building was on by creating two lots rather than the three lots currently existing. He noted the lots were in two different plats and therefore, the property needed to be platted. Because the second lot would then have a building that would be constructed on it, the current easements on it needed to be vacated. Mr. Leek noted new easements would be dedicated on the lot that had the old easements when those easements were vacated. Mr. Leek noted that the Planning Commission reviewed this request and recommended to the City Council that this vacation of easements be approved with certain conditions. Cncl. Helkamp.asked if the applicant was okay with the existing water main easement. The applicant responded yes. Mayor Schmitt asked the applicant ifhe had any comments. The applicant had none. Mayor Schmitt asked the audience for comments. There were none. Helkamp/Joos moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0. Official Proceedings of the August 4,2004 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Helkamp/Menden offered Resolution No. 6092, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee Vacating Easements On Property Located South of Valley Industrial Boulevard South, West Of Valley Park Drive And East of Canterbury Road, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 4-0. Mr. Thomson, City Attorney, addressed the public hearing on the alleged sale oftobacco products to minors that allegedly occurred at the Twin Cities Stores, Inc. dba Oasis Market, 615 Marschall Road. He noted tonight's public hearing was required because this was the licensee's alleged third violation within three years. He noted the City Tobacco Ordinance provided a penalty for the third violation within three years to be a civil penalty of$l,OOO and a suspension of the tobacco license for 30 days or revocation of the tobacco license. He noted the purpose of the hearing tonight was to determine if any violation took place. . He noted the alleged violator had the opportunity to either admit or deny the alleged violation and to explain any extenuating circumstances for the Council to consider. Mr. Thomson recommended that the licensee be asked whether they admit or deny the alleged violation. Dennis King, Manager of the Oasis Market located at 615 Marschall Road and Richard Weber, District Manager for Twin Cities Stores,. Inc. (Oasis Markets), approached the podium and admitted that the violation did take place. Mr. Weber noted what had taken place since this tobacco violation occurred at the location as well as changes within his district. Mr. Weber noted he started with the company a month before this violation took place. He noted that he did not tolerate any tobacco violations. He noted there was a program within the Company called BARS to help train his clientele with regards to tobacco violations. He explained the BARS program. Mr. Weber noted the rate of tobacco violations had improved significantly since he took over this particular district. He noted he terminated several employees (23) because of the results in their training for tobacco violations. He noted in this case (Oasis Market, 615 Marschall Road) a manager was filling in for Mr. King while he was out on medical leave. Mr. Weber noted the manager filling in for Mr. King had been terminated after this violation occurred. Mr. Weber asked the 30-day license suspension be shortened because of the effect the 30 days suspension would have on the labor force at this store location. He also requested the Police Department to visit the store on a frequent basis to verify his position regarding the training of his district employees; Mr. King noted he also trained the employees under his management in carding customers. Mr. King noted it was usually part-time personnel guilty of selling to minors; he tried to run his store with full-time people. He noted his employees had to sign a form monthly that they read and understood the alcohol and tobacco policy of the company. Mayor Schmitt asked the law enforcement officer what the City's experience (track record) had been over the three violations with this business located at 615 Marschall Road. Corey Schneck, Shakopee Police Officer, noted he had done the tobacco checks in 2003 and 2004. He noted the last two violations occurred in much less than a year. The 2003 violation Official Proceedings of the August 4, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -4- occurred at the. end of 2003 and the 2004 violation occurred in May. He stated he was not familiar with the 1st violation on 2002. Jim Thomson noted the City tobacco ordinance, recently amended before the second violation for this business, specified the exact penalty for the first.and second violation for tobacco violations if the alleged violation was admitted to. He noted the penalty for a second tobacco violation was a civil penalty of a $500 fine and a five (5) day suspension of the tobacco license.. He noted for the third tobacco violation the tobacco ordinance specified the civil penalty but the Council did have discretion on whether they would revoke the license or suspend the license for thirty (30) days. He noted the Council did not have discretion per the tobacco ordinance to suspend the license for less than thirty days for the third violation. Cncl. Menden inquired what happened if a fourth tobacco violation occurred. He wondered how many chances were give a business for a tobacco violation before the license was actually revoked. Mr. Thomson noted the City ordinance did not specify a penalty for the fourth tobacco violation. The City Council had discretion regarding the tobacco license for the fourth tobacco violation. Cncl. Helkamp asked Mr. Weber ifhe advertised the tobacco products on the outside of the building. Mr. Weber relied no. He noted Mr. King had presented to him the City's new sign ordinance, which he agreed with and had been in compliance with. Mr. Weber noted the Oasis Markets did not fund market research. Helkamp/Joos moved to impose a fine of$1000 on Twin Cities Stores, Inc. dba Oasis Market #528,615 South Marschall Road, for a third violation for thesale of tobacco to a minor within three years, and moved to suspend the tobacco license for 30 days, beginning at 12:01 a,m. August 9, 2004 and ending 12:00 p.m. September 7, 2004. Motion carried 4-0. Cncl. Menden noted he attended National Out events and it was a good experience for him. Cncl. Joos noted he attended National Night Out events and it was a good experience for him also. He noted each year he had attended National Night Out events, the number of events had increased. He noted the SPUC building was now open. He noted that SPUC agreed to meet with the City's building committee to discuss the issues regarding the old SPUC building. Mayor Schmitt asked Mr. Loney the status of the railroad crossing located nearby the new SPUC building. Mr. Loney replied the status of the railroad crossing was dependent on the railroad. The railroad had to do the work at the above grade crossing but the City had all the work under the tracks at the intersection done. Mr. Loney noted the railroad had the work order from the City to take care of the above grade crossing. Official Proceedings of the August 4, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Cnc1. Helkamp noted he too attended National Night out events and looked forward to attending again next year. He complimented the Police Department for organizing the tour around town. Helkamp/Menden moved to recess at 7:45 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the Economic Development Authority meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Mayor Schmittre-convened the meeting at 7:47 p.m. Mr. Leek reported on the Preliminary and Final Plat of Valley Park 16th Addition. Mr. Leek noted the platting was occurring because the applicant desired to change the size of the lot with the existing building. Mr. Leek noted increasing the size of the lot involved two separate plats and therefore, the minor subdivision process could not be used but a registered land survey process could be used. He noted this was a relatively simple plat and the applicant had requested approval ofthe final plat simultaneously with the preliminary plat. Mr. Leek noted the Planning Commission did review the request for preliminary plat approval and recommended approval of the request with conditions. Mayor Schmitt noted the difference in the size of the old easement and the new easement. Mr. Leek noted the difference in size between the two easements occurred because of a policy change in 1999 with the change in the design criteria. Helkamp/Joos offered Resolution No. 6093, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota Approving The Preliminary And Final Plat Of Valley Park 16th Addition In The 1-2 (Heavy Industry) Zone, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 4-0. Joos/Helkamp offered Resolution No. 6080, A Resolution Of The City Of Shako pee, Minnesota Amending Resolution No. 4213, Adopting a Personnel handbook, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda) Joos/Helkamp moved to promote Ryan Halverson to Engineering Technician III at Step D, of Grade 6 in the City's Non-Contract 2004 Pay Plan. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Joos/Helkamp moved to promote Christian Diaz to Engineering Technician III at Step D, of Grade 6 in the City's Non-Contract 2004 Pay Plan. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Joos/Helkamp moved to approve the application and grant an on sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license to Ballbusters, LLC, 1141 Canterbury Road, conditioned upon meeting all requirements of the City Code. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, reported onthe removal and replacement of the exterior stucco bid for the Downtown Fire Station No. 50. Mr. McNeill noted this stucco job was very straight forward but it was over $50,000 so the bid process needed to be adhered to. The architects Official Proceedings of the August 4, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -6- (Oertel Architects) estimated the removal of the existing stucco to be approximately $14,00Owith the replacement to be in the range between $50,000 to 65,000. Mr. McNeill stated staff was recommending that one firm do the removal of the stucco as well as the replacement of the stucco. It was noted that roof repairs on Downtown Fire Station No. 50 had been completed. It was noted the flashing for Fire Station No. 50 was to be put on after the stucco was put on. The replacement of the doors for Fire Station No. 50 was also discussed. Joos/Menden moved to approve the plans and specifications for the removal of the stucco and replacement of the exterior stucco at the Downtown Fire Station No. 50, and direct that formal advertisement for bids be made. Mayor Schmitt stated he had problems with fixing up this Fire Station when it was schedule for replacement in 2008. Cncl. Helkamp and Cncl. Joos addressed this concern. Motion carried 4-0. Joos/Helkamp moved to approve the transfer of$273,581 from the 1998B Debt Service Fund to the 2000A Debt Service Fund. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Ms~ Judith S. Cox, City Clerk, reported on the application for a tobacco license for S & S Marathon, Inc., 590 South Marschall Road. She noted the Shakopee Police Department conducted their customary background investigation and they found nothing to prevent this tobacco license from being issued. Helkamp/Joos moved to approve the application and grant a tobacco license to S & S Marathon, Inc., DBA Marathon of Shakopee, 590 South Marschall Road, upon surrender ofthe existing license. Motion carried 4-0. Joos/Helkamp moved to appoint Mark Hillegas to the Telecommunications Advisory Commission to fill the unexpired term of Dixie Duffy expiring February 28,2006. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Cncl. Joos wanted to make everyone aware that Derby Days was this coming week-end starting Thursday evening with the Taste of Shakopee. Cncl. Helkamp noted the condition of the railroad crossing at Spencer Street. He thought the railroad should be made aware of the condition of the crossing. Helkamp/Joos moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday August lO, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Official Proceedings of the August 4,2004 Shakopee City Council Page -7- ~A.ep J~th s. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary " OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCa ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 10, 2004 Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. with Council members Menden, Joos, Lehman and Helkamp present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director (left 7:04 p.m.); Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer (left 7:04 p.m.); Mike Hullander, Public Works Supervisor (left 7:04 p.m.) and R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director(arrived 7: 13 p.m.). Mr. Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer, reported on the progress to the Public Works building. Mr. Loney noted a design concept for 50 years (includes future expansion) and leaving the outside storage intact was now on the table. Mr. Loney acknowledged the members of the building committee that had been working on this current design along with Oertel Architects. He noted that the estimated cost for this new building was about $500,000 higher than the cost for the previous building design presented in January of2004, where there had been a public hearing and bonding had been approved for that building. Mr. Loney thought the increase in cost was attributable to: 1) the increase in cost to the products that were needed, 2) increase in the size of the vehicle maintenance area, and 3) the import offill that was needed to match the old SPUC site to the existing Public Works Building site. Mr. Loney thought this design showed a much better layout, the flow was much better and the building was much more expandable. Jeff Oertel, Oertel ,Architects, discussed the new concept design with the Council. He noted the watershed district had been contacted and some of their input had been incorporated into the design. Mr. Oertel stated that bedrock was much closer to the surface than originally thought. He noted that an analysis of the civil engineering design and the foundation design had also been looked at. He stated that he thought the design had been changed for very good reasons. He noted the office area and operations area was out front of the site and visible to the public. He noted the vehicle maintenance area was the costliest per square foot and it had been very important to the public works personnel to have a drive through vehicle maintenance area to allow for flexibility. Mr. Oertel explained the design of the new Public Works Building. He noted the building as itwas designed now could acconnnodate any of the City vehicles. Mr. Oertel noted the walls would be designed so they would be removable walls for future expansion. Mr. Oertel noted that sanitary sewer, storm water and electrical issues had been looked at. He noted one of the key design elements was putting in the retainage pond. The pond was an attempt to filter, hold, treat and aerate the storm water drainage. This pond was very strongly suggested by the watershed district. Mr. Oertel noted that it would most likely be necessary to do some blasting on the site. Mr. Oertel noted that the new Public Works Building would meet the requirements of all accessibility standards. Cncl. J oos was concerned about the energy costs with the doors on both sides of the bays. He would like to see an energy cost analysis done. He thought there was a potential for much heat loss. According to Cncl. Joos, the building needed to be made energy Official Proceedings of the August 10,2004 Shakopee City Council Page -2- efficient. Mr. Oertel addressed this concern. He noted there were some design features included in this concept plan to address some heating features in the vehicle maintenance area. Mr. Oertel stated he would look into designing the area so waste oil could be used for heating the building; however, he did think a sufficient amount of waste oil was generated for this type heating to be cost effective. He also noted that he would take a look at all the proposed storage area for parts. Mr. Oertel agreed some of the maintenance area for now was a little overkill but to expand the bay area was extremely costly, it would be cheaper to do it now rather than later. There were comments from the Councilors regarding the use of the room and kitchen for public meetings, the use of the center of the vehicle maintenance area, showers, office space, mezzanine space, hoists and doors to name a few. Mr. Oertel discussed the renovation of the old building. It had been decided that not much of the money would be used for the old building. Mr. Oertel stated most ofthe money had been allocated for the new building but limited funds were allocated for the renovation of the old building. He noted most of the money was for cosmetic fix ups so the old building would be complementary to the new set of buildings in and proposed for the area. He noted most of the money for the interior of the building was put towards the office area because the public would view this area. Mr. Oertel explained what the old building would be used for and some of the materials proposed to be used on the exterior ofthe building. Mayor Schmitt addressed the parking. Mr. Oertel noted Oertel Architects was trying to screen all the parking from the public. Mr. Oertel stated that he would take a look at the staging of the parking. Mayor Schmitt also addressed the amount of space allocated for the office area in the old building. Cncl. Lehman stated that he did like the layout and the flexibility for future expansion of this concept plan. However, encl. Lehman was not ready to make a decision on the cosmetic fix up of the old building at this time. He thought half way through the process he would have a better idea of what he wanted to do with this old building. He did note there were some alternates included in the bidding process for the new building. He also stated the contingency amount for this project was quite low given all of the unknowns with this project (bedrock). He noted he would like to stay with the $6.5 million dollar figure and hold offwith renovations to the old building until he had an idea of what the new building was going to look like. He stated he would like to see the new City Hall done at this time also; he only sawall of the costs going up if the Council waited on the construction of a new City Hall until the finances were there and bonding for it was not necessary. Cncl. Helkamp stated that he thought it was critical that the exterior of the old building be done now; but, he did not want to spend a lot of money on the exterior. Official Proceedings of the August 10, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Cncl. Menden thought it would be good to give a face-lift to the old building at this time, because of the new buildings in the area. He thought perhaps some landscaping and screening would be a possibility so not a lot money was put into the fa9ade of the old building. Mr. Loney noted the relocation of the electrical lines and water lines would be necessary because these lines right now were in the way of this design. The cost to relocate theses lines was not included in the $6.5 million. He thought it might be possible that the telephone company would move their lines at their expense. Mr. Oertel pointed out where the looped water main interfered with the building. He noted if the watermain was not moved the size of the new building would be negatively impacted and the watermain would need to be moved for any expansion of the building in the future. Mr. Oertel noted the storm sewer would go around the site and connect with the drainage pond. Mr. Oertel noted if the telephone company would relocate the telephone lines the building would most likely be relocated 15 feet closer to the street. Mr. Loney stated he was unable to find any easements of record for the utilities on this property. Cncl. Joos stated he liked the design to a degree; he did not like all the bay doors. Cncl. Menden stated he liked the design and he would go along with what worked for the site. He stated if it was possible to accomplish all that was needed to be accomplished on this site with a different layout with fewer bay doors he would be comfortable with that. Mr. Oertel addressed the parking situation on the SPUC building site when all the fill was brought to the site. The paint shop was discussed. Cncl. Lehman noted that he did agree with Cncl. Joos regarding the doors. Cncl. Joos did acknowledge that the City was working with many type vehicles (small vehicles to large fire trucks with .booms) and various door sizes would be needed. Getting the fire tnicks in, around and out appeared to be problematic. Cncl. Helkamp noted that the thought the smaller garage doors would be more cost effective because the sensors would not be going off as often and the heat exchanger would not run as often as it'would if there where only two doors. He thought the smaller doors being opened often would help the air quality and actually cut cost. Mr. Loney stated he heard the Council saying that the layout was okay, but there were some areas that needed to be looked at again. Mr. Loney noted interest rates were rising again and Mr. Voxland, Finance Director, was looking at getting a firmer cost estimate so the City could get approval to sell bonds for the larger amount. Mr. Loney stated he was looking for a final design within the next couple of months and then to bid this project over the winter. Assuming the City did buy the SPUC site, Mr. Loney stated he was looking at demolishing the old SPUC building in the spring and then bringing m. the needed fill in the Spring also. Official Proceedings of the August 10, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Mr. V oxland noted the Council had some options they could use for funding. Cncl. Lehman would like Mr. V oxland to put together some information regarding the cost to the taxpayers if the City bonded for 10 million now for the Public Works Building, as well as, the new City Hall. He would like to see options included for financing (building fund rental) and how the proposed growth of the City would affecta $50.00 payment on a $300,000 to $350,000 home versus the increase in construction costs and interest rates if the City waited to build the new City Hall. . Lehman/Helkamp moved to direct staff to continue working on the Public Works building project as presented along with the modifications that were raised tonight and to bring back firmer numbers. Motion carried unanimously. Lehman/Helkamp moved to recess at 7:04 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Schmitt re-convened the City Council meeting at 7: 13 p.m. Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, reported on the sign ordinance for the City. Mr., Leek noted via background that planning staff had received direction from the Council regarding enforcement actions to the sign ordinance. The enforcement action regarded malt liquor license holders whose license was up for renewal. Much comment had been received on enforcement regarding violations ofthe sign code. Mr. Leek noted there were written comments on the table and in the Councilor's packets. Mr. Leek noted there was a letter from Theresa Hoffman, owner of the Pullman Club. He noted Ms. Hoffman apparently had a meeting with several of her counterparts regarding this issue. Ms. Hoffman did suggest some ideas for discussion tonight. A Ms. Debra Norwell had a suggestion for an ordinance change regarding signage for open house signs for real estate purposes. He noted there was a commuillcation from Brent Carleton, Cub Foods, regarding the 30-day limitation on temporary signs, as well as a communication from Mark Erickson, Canterbury Park, regarding sign ordinance changes in general. Mr. Leek noted he surveyed neighboring communities regarding what they did for a sign ordinance. Mr. Leek noted he looked at a cross section of developing and developed communities. He noted he also looked on-line for other sign ordinances for other neighboring cities. Mr. Leek stated he thought three main elements were raised in the letters regarding the sign ordinance. These elements were: 1) the use of neon in signs, 2) temporary signage and 3) the window coverage issue. Mr. Leek noted there were only a few ordinances that seemed to address neon in signs anymore; some ordinances however did address blinking, rotating, revolving and moving signs. Mr. Leek suggested amending the zoning code sign provision to eliminate the restriction regarding the use of steady state neOll' Official Proceedings of the August 10,2004 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Mr. Leek addressed the issue regarding temporary signage. He noted there were a couple types of temporary signage. The principle use of temporary signage was the use of pennants or banners. Mr. Leek noted the sign code now limits the use of banners or pennants (not exceeding 32 square feet) to a business for not more than 30 days per year. Mr. Leek noted other communities usually had similar provisions for temporary signage. Mr. Leek suggested a change amending the zoning code sign provision to allow two banners. at one time but still requiring a permit process to track the banners or pennants and to allow these banners up to 60 days in one year and also for a 30-day period for a grand opening. Mr. Leek addressed the window coverage issue. He stated he had surveyed several of the surrounding communities and found their sign ordinance regarding window coverage to be very similar to the City of Shakopee. He noted because there was much dissatisfaction with the 50% that the City allowed for window coverage in the sign ordinance, he was suggesting that the window coverage be amended to be 60% (possibly 50% temporary signage and 10% permanent signage) with up to 10% of the window area being allowed for permanent signage. Signs for charitable events and signs to be allowed in the public right-of-way were discussed. Mr. Leek pointed out that he was attempting to address on site signage. Cncl. Joos discussed the enforcement portion of the sign ordinance. He stated that if the Council was not willing to fund this enforcement then the sign ordinance needed to be made as simple as possible. Mayor Schmitt noted he also surveyed other communities including the City of Prior Lake and the City of Savage. He noted every City had code enforcement and how the enforcement was carried out. He noted the enforcement basically fell into two categories. These categories were: 1) the building department [mature cities] and 2) the planning department. Mayor Schmitt thought the City of Shakopee had probably reached the point where all code enforcement needed to be addressed. Mayor Schmitt stated that code enforcement would be looked at when the 2005 budget was being worked on. Mr. Leek noted this was a problem in all communities, including Scott County, it was not unique to Shakopee. Mayor Schmitt asked for comments from the audience on this sign ordinance issue. Mayor Schmitt noted this sign ordinance dissatisfaction started with the letter to businesses who needed to have their liquor licenses renewed. He would like to hear from them first. Cncl. Helkamp stated he was in complete agreement with Mr. Leek about eliminating the word "neon" in the current sign ordinance. Cncl. Lehman noted he to agreed with Cncl. Helkamp Official Proceedings of the August 10, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -6- regarding the elimination of the word "neon" for static signs but he would like to continue to see an ordinance regarding the blinking, flashing, and obscene neon signs. Mike Garen, Vice President of Canterbury Park, approached the podium and addressed the liquor license being tied to the sign ordinance. He did not feel it was right to tie compliance to the sign ordinance to the renewal of the liquor licenses. He felt all business should be treated equally to be fair, not just businesses that sold liquor. He would like to know the penalties that other cities had for their sign enforcement. Mr. Leek addressed this concern and he stated it was apparent from the codes how the enforcement was done. He noted the letter was confusing to the businesses holding liquor licenses that were up for renewal because they were not notified specifically as to what signs were out of compliance. Cncl. Joos stated there was a generic statement in the code as far as the liquor license was concerned. This statement noted these businesses needed to be compliance with all City Codes and ordinances. The sign ordinance was not specifically stated. Mayor Schmitt also noted this statement was made in the license application and it had been there for several years. Mr. Leek noted the suggestion had been brought up in June of 2004 that the Police Department and the Building official or his designee do a review of liquor license permits before the license came up for renewal. Mr. Leek noted compliance to the sign ordinance for liquor establishments could also be reviewed prior to the liquor license coming up for renewal. Mr. Leek noted he was expecting to do this review of the sign ordinance compliance as a matter of course, but he did have Council direction on sending out a letter back in June to the business establishments that , had liquor license renewals coming up soon. Mark Erickson, Canterbury Park, approached the podium to address the Council. He noted he had sent a letter to the City addressing his concerns. He noted he had six issues that related to the size of the property. These concerns addressed; 1) The number of banners allowed should take into account the number of special events going on at one time, 2) The amount of linear feet road frontage and the number of entrances, 3) He felt the promoters of the special events should be responsible for the permits for the temporary signs (banners) and for the length of time the banners are allowed, 4) Canterbury Park felt the signage not seen from public roads and on internal property should be exempt from the sign ordinance, 5) Size of wall frontage signs in the Major Recreation Zone and the size of non-front signage permitted in the Major Recreation Zone and 6) Off site directional signage for special events for a better traffic flow. ' Mr. Leek noted that he and Mr. Sampson (from Canterbury Park) had previously talked about revising Canterbury Parks pun to address some of the signage issues, with this business. This was only talked about however, it had not happened yet. Mr. Leek also noted that directional signage for this business could be looked at. Official Proceedings of the August 10, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Cnc1. Lehman noted many issues were raised for the Major Recreational Zone in Shakopee. Cncl. Lehman asked Mr. Leek if it was possible to incorporate something in the sign ordinance that addressed uses in the major recreation zone? Mr. Leek noted that this would be possible. Cncl. Lehman also asked about directional signage in the right-of-way. Mr. Leek addressed this issue with some reservations regarding directional signage. He was concerned what amount of directional signage should be permitted. He thought a permitting process for. directional signage might be workable. Cncl. Joos noted some signs were allowed in specific places, not all places. He stated if a business saw a sign and liked it, they thought they could do it! Mr. Leek addressed signage for Valley Fair and noted there were some specific provisions in Valley Fairs PUD that allowed some of their signage not addressed in other business areas. Mr. Leek also mentioned it could be possible with an amendment to the sign ordinance that directional signage internal to a site could be permitted if it were not visible from a public road. Mayor Schmitt noted the City needed to careful with using "size of the building" for signs. He thanked Mr. Erickson for his comments. Charles Capesius, 805 Third Avenue, noted signage was the most effective way to take in the tourist dollar in the town of Shakopee. He noted signage had the least amount of impact on the City's finances also (police & Fire). He was asking for leniency of the sign issue. Mr. Leek noted that window displays were not interpreted as window signage. Mayor Schmitt addressed window and wall signage for businesses. He asked the liquor businesses present at the meeting if they were comfortable with what had been proposed and they responded Yes (temporary and neon signage and a start on the banners). Mr. Leek noted there would be a public hearing on the amendments to the sign ordinance after Council had given him full direction on what the amendments should be addressing and how the sign ordinance was to be amended. He noted businesses would be given notice of this public hearing; he would need their addresses for the notification of the public hearing on the amendments to the sign ordinance, so he encouraged them to give him their address. The real estate field was now addressed. Cncl. Helkamp noted he liked the concept of allowing the open house small sandwich board signs on Saturday and Sunday with the time being stipulated for existing homes sales opposed to a new development open house sign. Ron Smith, representing Coldwell Banker Burnett stated he would like to see the ability to use the directional signs for the real estate market. He proposed that open house signage be allowed between 10:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. He noted occasionally open houses were held during the week. He noted other types of advertising were also done for real estate sales. He noted a large majority (85%) of people that looked at homes was from signs. He noted a lack of signage would have a negative impact on the homeowner as well as the, realtors. He did Official Proceedings of the August 10, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -8- state the signs should be removed every day. He proposed there be only one sign, not multiple signs, at an intersection. Mr. Smith stated he would like the different real estate companies notified on the new sign policies in the new sign ordinance when that ordinance was crafted. Mayor Schmitt noted that realtors would be notified of the public hearing and they would then know of the changes to the sign ordinance from that public hearing. Ron Tyler, from Redirections Company, approached the podium and stated he did business mainly with big builders and developers. He noted he put these business signs out basically on weekends only. He noted 90% of the properties for the big builders were sold on weekends. The need for the realtor's signs really was only for Saturdays and Sundays. He noted the City ofMinnetonka did allow these signs. He stated people also had a problem knowing what the right-of-way was. It was different all over. He noted what some cities allowed them to do in their community. He noted the signs were probably the number one traffic creator for all the builders. He stated signs were critical for the big builders. He noted the signs went away when the project was finished. He noted how these developments helped the City's bonding capacity. He noted a standard footage from the roadway was the best for companies like his when they were determining where to put a sign. Cncl. Lehman stated to Mr. Leek that he liked the visibility triangle concept for the intersections. Scott Woskie, from Destinations, a sign Company, noted that this , business did directional signs like Redirections. He noted developers said it would be difficult to' sell homes if they could not use signs. He explained how they installed their signs. He addressed the time of pickup, the sign retrieval fee and the builders being informed of the sign ordinance. He asked that their type business be informed of the sign ordinance regulations. Mr. Leek stated every time a plat was worked on with a developer that developer was informed of all the sign provisions that they were allowed and not allowed. Mr. Leek also stated the concept of a sign ordinance as not something new to the big developers. Mr. Leek thought perhaps the City would like to use a distance from the roadway rather than wording for sign placement stating on the "right hand side of the sidewalk". Mayor Schmitt noted that some of the right-of-ways sign placement was very abusive. Tom Nash, representing Continental Great Sign Company, approached the podium and noted the sign companies were responsible for 99% of the signs on the weekends. He noted he was familiar with the sign ordinance that is why the signs were present. They were willing to be responsible business owners but they wanted to promote the developments that were going on in the community. He would like to see a common sense approach used to the signs. Anisa Jones, Centex Homes, approached the podium to share the builder's perspective on signage. She noted signage was the largest source of their traffic (they tracked it) and the homes in the community represented a significant investment on their part in the community. She noted Official Proceedings of the August 10,2004 Shako pee City Council Page -9- most people came to see a new home on Saturday or Sunday when they were not working. She would like some flexibility in the signs permitted. Mayor Schmitt asked for more participation from the audience. There was none. Cnc1. Lehman noted he was okay with staff's recommendation for the basic signage that was in the packet. He noted the blinking, flashing and obscene use of neon was not addressed (he did not want to see this type signage allowed) nor was the 30 day or 60 day use of32 square feet banners addressed. He was open to suggestions on the amount of days for temporary signage with the use of a permit. He stated he was all right with the use of 60% of the window for window signage. He would like staff to take a look at and report back on the major recreation zone with major recreational uses being treated proportionately regarding the size of the business establishment. Regarding the use of other signs he did like the. signs staying at least 30 feet back from intersections and he felt a distance setback from curb or.edge of roadway made more sense than using the right side of the sidewalk. ,He thought phone numbers should be required on the signs but he was open to the time on weekends when signs would be permitted. encl. Lehman also stated he agreed with the internal signage (CUB Store issue). Cnc1. Helkamp stated that he thought the proposals to the sign ordinance in the packet all looked fine. He noted he was leaning to staying with 50% of the total window space for window signage. He felt the City should drop the "temporary" and or "permanent" signage wording and leave at 50%. He suggested dealing with large recreational areas with a separate paragraph or a PUD revision. He noted signs the City would allow in their rights-of-way should require the name and phone number of the owner of the sign, the size of the sign should be limited to four square feet with the height limited to 36". There should be one sign per builder per intersection per direction, all signs should be placed 30 feet from the intersections, have a set distance from the curb or street edge as long as not on private property unless private property owner has given his permission. Cncl. Menden stated he was okay with a static neon signs. He stated he liked the maximum of 50% for window coverage for window signs. He noted it made no difference to him if the signage was permanent or temporary. He noted he did like the idea of visiting the liquor license establishments prior to license renewal to see if they were in compliance with the sign ordinance. He also like the concept of sign's not visible from public roads to be exempt from the sign ordinance. He thought this might be a mechanism to facilitate some signage for the major recreation areas. Regarding realtor related signage, he stated he would like from 6:00 p.m. Friday to 6:00 a.m. Monday, he would like the signs to be setback 30 feet from the intersection and 10 feet in from the curb with the property owners permission if the sign is to be located on private property. He would like to see the size ofa sign limited to 36" to 40" in height (with the realtor signs being limited to four foot square) with the name and phone number required on the sign. Official Proceedings of the August 10, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -10- Cncl. Joos stated he liked most of what the Councilors were proposing. He did not like the 10 feet setback the realtor type signs were being proposed for; he would like to see a setback of no more than 5 feet. He did like the time of 6:00 pm Friday to 6:00 a.m. Monday that was proposed for the permitted time for realtor type signs. He liked the, signs being 30 feet from the intersection and he liked the idea of some completion figure being reached (for new developments) and then the signs would no longer be used. He did not want to see flashing signs for messages. He stated he was fine with the sandwich board signs for the realtors. Mr. Leek noted how he proposed some language to be crafted for the amendment to the sign ordinance. Cncl. Lehman noted the sign ordinance pertained to City streets and roads only; the City did not have jurisdiction over County Roads. Mr. Leek noted there would be language to the sign ordinance that would reflect this statement. Mayor Schmitt noted the sign ordinance would be discussed at a Scott County Alliance for Leadership and Efficiency (SCALE) meeting so the County knew what the City was doing about the City sign Ordinance. Mr. Leek would like to see some public information and education on the sign requirements. Cnc1. Helkamp thanked all the people who came to the Council meeting and gave the Council ideas on what they would like to see in the sign ordinance. Lehman/Menden moved to approve the execution of a Sales Order Agreement with Election Systems & Software, Inc. for two precinct scanners in the amount of $10,350 (total). Ms. Cox, City Clerk, noted these scanners were coming out of the City Clerks 2004 election budget and had been budgeted for in 2004. She noted the total of precinct counters for the City was now 12. She noted the County had four extra precinct counters for emergency purposes in the County. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Leek noted the City did received a letter from Ryan Companies asking that the start time for the expansion of the Challenge Printing extension construction be waived for 3 days. Mr. Leek noted this change was requested because there was a change in how the concrete walls would be constructed for expansion to the current Challenge Printing location. Mr. Leek noted this property was within the Business Park and was not adjacent to residential properties. Helkamp/Lehman moved to approve the suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operation, D, as requested by Ryan Companies, U.S., Inc. from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. start time for the purpose of concrete Official Proceedings of the August 10, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -11- placement and curing for 3 consecutive days during the week of August 9,2004. Ifnoise complaints are heard by the City the suspension can be revoked at the discretion of the City Engineer. Motion carried 5-0. Helkamp/Menden moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, August 12th at 5:30 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:12p.m. ~J.~ Mith s. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA AUGUST 12, 2004 Mayor John J. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. with Council members Matt Lehman, Terry Joos, Joe Helkamp and Steve Menden present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Dan Hughes, Chief of Police; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Mark Themig, Park, Recreation and Facilities Director (at 5:41 p.m.); and Michael Leek, Community Development Director (at 5:50 p.m.). Mr. McNeill reported that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss visioning and one item that was an emergency and needed to be addressed at this meeting. Mr. Loney approached the podium and explained the problem with the sewer to a new home on Valley View Road that occurred only two weeks after the owner moved in. The main contractor (who put the sewer in Valley View Road) is saying that the problem is not in,the main sewer and is not his problem and the contractor for the builder is saying that the problem is not in the sewer service on the private property and it is not his problem. The property owner is caught in the middle and needs the matter corrected. Mr. Loney explained that the contractor for the homeowner is willing to write a letter to the City stating that he is willing to pay up to $5,000 to fix the problem, if it is determined that it is his responsibility. Mr. Loney stated that Barbarosa, an independent contractor, estimates that it will cost approximately $4,000 to fix the problem at which time they can determine where the problem exists and who is responsible. They have the right equipment and can preserve the new street. Discussion followed. Lehman/Helkamp authorized Barbarosa to make repairs to the sewer for a new home on Valley View Road upon receipt of a letter from the homeowner's contractor that they will reimburse the City up to $5,000 if it is determined that the problem is in the sewer service. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. McNeill reported that after conducting regular business, the regular session would be adjourned to Tuesday, August 17,2004. After the regular session is adjourned, the City Council will be conducting a workshop discussion on the City's strategic visioning process. The results of this discussion will be shared at a later time. While the workshop discussion is an open, public meeting, it will not be cablecast. Helkamp/Menden moved to adjourn to Tuesday, August 17, 2004, at 7 :00 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. ~ ~. C1c ~th s. Cox City Clerk Recording Secretary . . OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 17, 2004 Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Council members Lehman, Menden, Joos and Helkamp present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Gregg V oxland, Finance Director; Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator; and Jim Thomson, City Attorney. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following items were added to the Agenda. Item No.15.B.5. Set Public Hearing for Vacation ofa portion of Fill more Street just south of 4th Avenue and I5.F.6. Discussion of the City Council Budget Workshop Schedule. Helkamp/Lehman moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Schmitt noted that he and Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, attended the Scott County Board meeting. He noted he also attended a Scott County Alliance for Leadership and Efficiency (SCALE) meeting and he also sat through some budget reviews with City department heads. The following items were added to the Consent Agenda. 15.B.5. Set Public Hearing for Vacation ofa portion of Fill more Street just south of 4th Avenue and I5.C. 5. Reimbursement Agreement with Tollefson Development, Inc. and Extension Agreement withWSB and Associates for the Design of l7th Avenue from County State Aid Highway 15 to County Road 79. The following item was removed from the Consent Agenda. 15.C.1. Approve Plans and Order Advertisement for Bids for the Pheasant Run Storm Sewer Replacement Project 2003-6. Lehman/Joos moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. 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. Lehman/Joos moved to approve the meeting minutes for June 29 and July 6,2004. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Joos moved to pay the Bills in the Amount of$2,081,388.94 plus $317,598.27 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $2,398,987.21. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). [The list of bills is posted on the bulletin board at City Hall for one month following approval]. Official Proceedings of the August 17, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Helkamp/Menden moved to open the public hearing on a petition from Tollefson Development to annex 9.5 acres of land generally located south of Highway 169 and east of County State Aid Highway 15 (property owner Greg Powers). Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Leek reported on the public hearing request for the annexation of9.5 acres ofland. He noted the additional acreage was planned to be part of the Countryside Development in that area. Mr. Leek oriented the site. Mr. Leek noted the parcels that were part of the Countryside Development project that had already been annexed by previous Council action and accepted by the State Board of Adjustments (David Voxland property and the School District property). Mr. Leek noted the property across Marystown Road (County Road 15) Marystown LLC property has been accepted for annexation by the City. Mr. Leek noted the Planning Commission reviewed this annexation proposal and recommended approval. He noted Jackson Township had held a public meeting regarding this proposed annexation and the township had not filed any objections to this 9.5 acres ofland to be annexed. Mathew Weiland, TQllefsonDevelopment, noted he was at the meeting on behalf of Mr. Greg Powers, the property owner. Mr. Weiland noted with the annexation of these 9.5 acres the full extension of 17th Avenue could now be done (from County Road 79 to Marystown Road). He noted services could be provided to this area. It was stated by Mr. Weiland that all the right-of- way for the extension of 17th A venue was included in the 9.5 acres proposed to be annexed. Mayor Schmitt asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Helkamp/Mencien moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Helkamp/JoQsQffe.red Ordinance No. 713, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Relating To The Annexation Of Gertain Property, and moved its adoption. (Greg Powers property) Motion carried unanimously. Helkamp/Joos moved to open the publi.c heari.ng to consider granting Challenge Printing, Inc. a Minnesota Investment Fund loan for property located at 1000 Valley Park Drive. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Snook, Economic Development Coordinator, noted Council was asked to adopt Resolution No. 6099, authorizing application to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) for the Minnesota Investment Fund loan for Challenge Printing. Mr. Snook noted a Tax Increment Financing (TIP) contract had previously been approved by Council for Challenge Printing. Mr. Snook noted another aspect to getting Challenge Printing to move to Shakopee and expanding their business here was helping them attain a Minnesota Investment Fund loan in the amount of approximately $440,000 to assist Challenge Printing in purchasing equipment. Mr. Snook also noted that the Minnesota Investment Fund program also presented the City the opportunity to set up an Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund. Staff was Official Proceedings of the August 17, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -3- recommending that this public hearing be continued to the October 5,2004 meeting. The purpose of having this public hearing was to accept the application submitted now (deadline was coming up soon). The required public hearing could take place at the October 5, 2004 meeting for the loan agreement and the Business Subsidy Agreement. It was these documents that required the public hearing according to State Law. Mr. Snook noted what money would be in the Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund. The applicant noted that he had no comments at this time. Julie Eddington, Legal Counsel from Kennedy and Graven, noted the Council needed to approve the application process and then continue the public hearing to approve the loan agreements. Joos/Helkamp offered Resolution No, 6099, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee Authorizing Application To The Minnesota Department Of Employment And Economic Development For The Mi.nn~sotaInvestment Fund For Challenge Printing, Inc., and moved itsadoPtjon. Motion carried unanimously. LehmanlMenden moved to continue the public hearing to October 5,2004 on granting Challenge Printing, Inc. a Minnesota Investment Fund loan for property located at 1000 Valley Park Drive. Motion carried unanimously. It was noted the required completed documents from the State of Minnesota would be available for the October 5, 2004 meeting. Lehman/Joosmoved to accepts with regrets the resignation of Brian Langdonand JeffJan.sel} fromthe Economic Development Advisory Committee, and authorize stafftoadv~rtis,(}f6rthe committee openings. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Cncl. Lehman noted that he, Mr. Leek and Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, attended the roundtable discussion on transportation held by Congressman Kline and Congressman Istock, Oklahoma, sub committee chairman to the Transportation Appropriations Committee (Federal). Cncl. Lehman noted the access to 69/169 was discussed at that roundtable discussion. He noted he attended the Park and Recreation task force meeting and stated they were doing a very good job. Cncl. Helkamp noted he attended a SCALE meeting. Cncl. J008 noted he attended a Shakopee Public Utilities meeting where the new facility and painting of water tanks was discussed. Official Proceedings of the August 17, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Cncl. Menden noted he attended the Environmental Advisory Committee and at that meeting there was much discussion on doing an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) on the Prior Lake Outlet Channel and some of the improvements to that. Channel. He noted he attended the School Board meeting where planning was going on regarding the new high school and they were also looking for more property to' acquire for additional facilities. Cncl. Menden stated to the School Board that the City would try to work with them to keep them on schedule so ground could be broken next spring for the new high school. Mr. Leek reported on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezoning and request for MUSA for Gonyea Land Company for the property located north of Valley View Road, east of Staghorn Drive and west of Canterbury Road. Mr. Leek oriented the site. He noted the plat of Park Meadows was to the west of the subject site and Greenfield Addition was to the west of Park Meadows. Mr. Leek noted that 593 acres oftheShakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) was in this area also. He noted the southwest corner of the subject property was currently guided and zoned for single-family residential. The request was to re-guide and rezone the balance ofthe subject propertyfQLsingle"~amily,J:esidential use and forR7':IB zoning p~rposes and to extend MUSA to the site. Mr., Leek noted the Council had previously, questioned'many items about this proposed site. The questioned items regarded storm drainage-(report fromWSB has been received) additional ponding and infiltration, extension of Valley View Road (curved or straight) and sanitary sewer (lift station for now is required). Mr. Leek noted that in the Comprehensive Plan Update single-family guiding had been proposed for this area. Mr. Leek noted the Planning Commission did review this request and they didr.ecommend the re-guiding, rezoning and the extensioncpfMUSA. They did discuss some ofthesame issues the Council discussed but they did recommend to re-guide to single-family residential, rezone to R-1B and to extend MUSA at'this time for thissite..,,-; Mr. Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer,-noted how the site with a proposed lift station would be served by the City's sanitary sewer system. The size of the lift station was discussed. Mr. Leek noted rather than have a homeowners association responsible to pay for the maintenance of the lift station the engineers comments contained a recommendation that the developer escrow funds for the maintenance, subsequent removal and connection to the temporary lift station. Mr. Loney noted that he had dollars in the 2005 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for possible extension of the City's sanitary sewer out to this area, so maybe the developer should think about putting the dollars for the lift station towards the sanitary sewer line out to the area as well as paying their Trunk Sanitary Sewer charges. Brad Gonyea, Gonyea Land Company, stated he was available for any questions. He did state that he was very aware of all of the issues and he was willing to accept his responsibility of maintaining the lift station, putting it in and removing it. He noted that he would get the City the right-of-way th<;lt wa~ needed for the Valley View Road project. He noted in addition to the Official Proceedings of the August 17, 2004 Shako pee City Council Page -5- storm pond that would be required for the toO-year flood he was willing to provide storm ponding for neighboring properties. He noted the association would be carrying, insurance to cover accidents resulting from the lift station and the storm ponding. Mayor Schmitt called for audience comments. There were none. Joos/Lehman offered Ordinance No. 712, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shako pee, Minnesota, Amending The Zoning Map Adopted In City Code Sec. 11.03 By Rezoning Land Generally Located North Of Valley View Road And West Of County Road 83 From Agriculture Preservation (AG) Zone To Urban Residential (R-1B) Zone, and moved it adoption. Motion carried unanimously. JooslLehmanoffered Resolution No. 6098, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee Approving A Request To Amend The Comprehensive Plan To Guild Certain Property For Single Family ResidentiaLDevelopment And Extend MUSA To The Property, and moved its adoption. CnchMenden stated hewouldlike:to see some of the funds for the maintenance, hook-up and removaL of the lift-station put towards the construction of the sewer line for this area. '. ,. ~. > " Motion carried unanimously. Mr. . Leek reported on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Request for Gene Juergens for property located south.of 4th Avenue and east of Roundhouse Street. Mr. Leek -oriented thesite.>,;Mr. Leek noted the applicant was requesting re-guiding from high density residential to medium density residential and a rezoning from Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) -Zon~;tO;.Medium Density ResidentiaL(R-2) Zone. Mr. Leek noted the difference in the density . , ",levelsibetween the two zoning classifications. Mr. Leek stated a project of six twin homes was being proposed. Mr. Leek noted the Planning Commission did review this proposal and did recommend approval ofthe requested re-guiding and rezoning; there was much interest in the request at the Planning Commission meeting. The applicant stated he would be glad to answer any questions. Mayor Schmitt asked for audience comments. There was none. Helkamp/Lehman offered Ordinance No. 7lI, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending The Zoning Map Adopted In City Code Sec. 11.30 By Rezoning Land Generally Located South Of 4th Avenue And East Of Roundhouse Street From Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone To Medium-Density Residential (R-2) Zone, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the August 17, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Helkamp/Lehman offered Resolution No. 6097, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee Approving A Request To Amend The Coll1prehensive Plan To Guide Certain Property For MediumDensity Residential Development, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Leek gave an update on the Shenandoah Apartments. Mr. Leek reviewed some photos of the site Mr. Noble, Planner I, had taken recently. Mr. Leek stated this update was for Shenandoah Apartments as well as for a section of Shenandoah Place to the north ofthe Apartments. He stated these two parcels had issues with turf establishment, some trees not doing well and other issues. Mr. Leek noted the developer of the subject site had laid sod on the boulevard and in the area leading up to the berm along County Road 16. He noted it appeared that watering of the sod was taking place regularly but the seed mix on the berm was not doing well. Mr. Leek was ofthe opinion that some trail work on the site needed to be addressed, as well as debris on the site. Mr. Leek stated that neighbors had brought up concerns on,the'sitefromtheir vantage point along Eagle Creek Boulevard. Mr.Leek said a set of cross-sectionaLdrawings gave, rise to the concerns, because they did not match to the approved.landscapeplan. ,Jlowever, generally the landscaping installed did conform to the approved landscaping. plan (therewere>a' few exceptions). Mr. Leek noted Heritage Development was not interested in bringing additional' ',' dirt to raise the level ofthe berm one foot. Mr. Leek noted he and staff and Heritage Development talked about an alternative for the dirt on the berm. He noted sections of four foot fencing on the berm was an option to provide additional screening for the residents across the street. Mr. Leek stated that he felt this fencing would do a better a job of screening than an additional foot of dirt would do. Mr. Leek showed where the developer proposed to locate the fence with perhaps a few more trees. Mr. Leek was ofthe opinion that the turf and trees should have been established and maintained beforethe units were occupied. Mr. Leek stated he thought a pretty good j ob;was done where the sod was installed now, but the drainage pond and the berm along County Road '16 left something to be desired. Brett Comstock, stated the seed that was planted on the berm was a drought resistant seed. He noted the berm was not irrigated and neither was it irrigated along the street. He stated the seed could take up to a year to germinate because of the type seed it was. He stated the weeds along the berm had been sprayed and would continue to be sprayed. He noted the drought resistant seed needed to establish deeper roots on the berm than the sod. He stated from his perspective the fence was a better solution to accomplish the desired screening. He noted once the trees on the berm were fully matured the trees were fairly dense on the berm. He asked they be allowed to remove the fence sections once the trees are fully grown and the trees performed the screening desired. He addressed the Outlots. He stated the paths and walkways were going to be done within the next month in the areas where they could be safely installed at this time. He stated some of the trees had not been planted yet because of the temporary sign. Official Proceedings of the August 17,2004 Shako pee City Council Page -7- Cncl. J oos stated he would like to get the opinion of the landscape architect on this particular landscape to see if the landscaping proposed would really work. Cncl. Helkamp would like to hear from the City's landscape architect also. Mr. Comstock stated the outstanding issues he was aware of right now were the turf establishment, the pathways and the second lift of asphalt in this area. The fence and/or additional trees across the road from the neighbors were discussed. Mr. Comstock stated the fence was not the best solution for the property owner of the apartments but he was trying to find something that would work for screening for the residents across the street. Cncl. Lehman had a concern regarding maintenance on the fence that Mr. Comstock was proposing. .. Cncl. Helkamp suggested thatthe City';sLandscapearchitect review plans submitted by the developer stating all that was going to, be done for landscaping (watering, plant types, soil consistency) and see if what was proposedwould,work. He stated he might be. okay with the fence ifit were extended"fuitherto:thirwestt.If,thetieeswere packed in to tight that would be a problem when they matured: The-fence pn:>vided:immediate screening for the neighbors.' encl. Lehman suggested that Mr. Leek continue with staff to resolve the issue and ifthat required working with more City staff then he should have that option at his disposal so this issue could move forward and be rectified. Mayor Schmitt stated some resolutioirtothescreening issue needed to happen. This issue had been going on for sometime now. He suggested the date of September 7,4004 be the date this issue needed to be resolved by. "Mn..Leekstated hewas.okay with that date. Mr. Leek, City staff and representatives for the applicatjVwould.sitdown and come up with some specific plan to identify how the turf would be estaqlished.Mr. Leek noted he and the applicant would move forward with plans on installing a fence'withtheunderstanding that the applicant would remove the fence some time but until the fence was removed the property owner would maintain the fence. Cncl. Helkamp stated he would like to see opacity used rather than tree height used as a measurement for when the fence could be removed, Mr. Comstock stated he would like to be able to continue with the clubhouse. According to Mr. Comstock moving forward with the clubhouse would alleviate some of the issues with the holding pond. The Council was not convinced this was the case. The Council thought that if an agreement regarding the berm and turf establishment. could be met with staff, the residents and the applicant then this agreement could be discussed at a workshop scheduled before the September 7,2004 meeting. There was consensus by the Council that no more building permits would be issued for this site until something was done to resolve the issues on this property. Helkamp/Menden moved to recess at 8:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the August 17, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -8- Mayor Schmitt re-convened the meeting at 8:35. Mr. Leek reported on the Comprehensive Plan Update. Mr. Leek gave an overview to the Comprehensive Plan Update. He noted the adopted Comprehensive Plan had not been entirely redone. This was an update; only certain areas were addressed. Some of the major concepts brought forward with this update were: 1) end land use classifications (MUSA phasing) within the City of Shako pee, 2) MUSA allocation and phasing with inclusion of language and criteria allowing flexibility, 3) land use plan for the Downtown Riverfront District as well as the downtown area, 4) land use plan for the west end of Shakopee [around Marystown Road and 17th Ave extended] 5) land use for the Marshall Road. area and 6) distillation of the Natural Resources Inventory and identifying Greenway Corridors. There was discussion on commercial being located at the interchange of Marys town Road and TH . . ,~ 169: and other/or lack of other commercial areas. Mr. Leek thought the conversations should continue with Jackson Township regarding staging and land use for Jackson Township., Mr. Le.ek ,,,,,. wouldJike.tostart conservations with Louisville Township also. The access to some of the 'c1!"possible,eommercial areas>appeared to. be a problem. Mayor Schmitt thought the City needed,to .....oc",,q,;lookat where the next industrial park would be. Not all the land in the City of Shako pee needed ~'."~-:---__:'.;:; 4.-:,.p~k"'"! to be used for housing. Mayor Schmitt would like to see this Comprehensive Plan Update approved but he would like as much flexibility in the Comprehensive Plan Update as possible. Mayor Schmitt asked to hear comments from the audience. ",,,,,;,;.>RonVanRipet,fromMarystownLLC, andDan Johnson, Marystown LLC, stated that he had been told by developers that 27 acres was just too much land to be all neighborhood commercial. r,..~;;.I:Ie.noted the. area around MarystownRoadnorth of Mr. Power's property should be commercial- ;'t'''~'atid.residential. This was one of the areas where access was problematic and because of the size of the site, there needed to be a residential component. Jan Shutrop, 6865 Eagle Creek Boulevard, representing the Shutrop family farms approached the podium and thanked the City for listening to their concerns regarding the MUSA phasing of their family farm. Ed Wagner, 120 North Main, riverfront area, approached the podium and thanked Cncl. Lehman for all the hard work he did for the Riverfront area. He stated in his opinion that mixed use was a very good use of the land in this area. Casey Wollschlager, Tollefson Development, noted the area south of the VoxIand property should be in phase one for MUSA. Cncl. Helkamp thought the flexibility was there if the logistics were there to extend MUSA to the land in question. Official Proceedings of the August 17, 2004 Shako pee City Council Page -9- Lehman/Helkamp offered Resolution No. 6102, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving The Comprehensive Plan Update Contingent On Approval By The Metropolitan Council, and moved its adoption with the changes as recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. (CC Document No. 356) Lehman/Joos offered Ordinance No. 705, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shako pee, Minnesota, Amending The Zoning Map Adopted In City Code Sec. 11.03 By Rezoning Land Generally Located North Of Carriage Circle And East Of Barrington Drive From Rural Residential (RR) To Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Joos moved to authorize the appropriate City Officials to proceed with an EAW for the proposed high school project located south ofTH 169 and west of Gounty State-Aid Highway 79. "....- (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). . Lehman/Joos moved to authorize the appropriate City officials.to enteFinto an.extension ,cAgreement with WSB Engineering, Inc. for the completiori'ot'the EA..W' for~'thenew'high"school:;.; (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Joos offered Resolution No. 6103, A Resolution Setting The Public Hearing Date To Consider The Vacation Of Fill more Street Lying South of 4th Avenue East. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). . Mr. Loney reported on approving plans and ordering advertisernentforhidsf6rtnePheasant Run Storm Sewer Replacement project, Project No. 2003-6. Mr. Loney explained the project in the >,1-' Pheasant Run area. Mr. Loney noted when this area was initiallydesignedi-there 'Was'a.n- error in the sizing ofthe pipe and this pipe sizing needed to beaddressed'IV1r;"~dI1iwwas';~ftheopinion' that some of the pipes needed to be oversized because of all' the drainage 'intl1earea: "With the plan Mr. Loney had now for the storm sewer replacement it was believedtnaf the high retaining wall could be saved. This had been a great concern to certain residents. Mr. Jay Hastings, 2187 Mathias Road, approached the podium with some suggestions as to what might be done to fix the problem. Mr. Loney noted the maintenance to these stormwater ponds was going to be done. The Public Works Department was coming up with a plan to do maintenance to holding ponds. He noted the reason to fix this storm water issue was not because of some water on the easement area, the pipes needed to be re-sized to handle a large water event. He wanted to put in a safe system that would operate correctly and protect property. It was noted that the money to fix this area would come out of the Storm Water Trunk Funds. The developer had paid his correct share for trunk storm water at the time the area was developed. Official Proceedings of the August 17, 2004 Shako pee City Council Page -10- JooslLehman offered Resolution No. 6101 A Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications And Ordering Advertisement For Bids For The Pheasant Run Storm Sewer Replacement Project, Project No. 2003-6, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Lehman/Joos moved to authorize the appropriate City Officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. to provide construction surveying and engineering services associated with the design of outlet structures for the Dominion Hills Development. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Joos moved to authorize Public Works to retain Truck #108 until the next truck becomes due for replacement in order that Public Works will continue to have an emergency standby vehicle. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). ;~ .. Mr. Loneyreported onthepossiblefuturewarning signals that were to be installed at the railroad crossings on Sommerville Street and Spencer Street. He noted that grants had been applied for through the,Minneseta Department of Transportation ,railroad safety program. He noted the City had qualified to' applyfor'tllese grahts;~cMr.,Lortey'noted,forthe grant/application to continue to move forward the pUicem:ertt"of the signal cabinetlocatiortfor the warning signals at Sommerville Street and Second Avenue and Spencer Street and Second Avenue needed to be determined. He stated the cabinets that were needed were so large (6' x 6' x 9'), they would not fit betweenthe railroad tracks. He noted the best location (as far as driving vehicles were concerned) would be in the southeast quadrant of the intersections. Mr. Loney noted on,SomniervillleStreetthetevvasenoughroadway to locate that cabinet between the sidewalk anq Mr. Loney suggested other possible options for the cabinet at Sommerville Street. Mr. Loney notedthebesfl6cati6rHorthe'cabinetatSpencerStreet was probably in the southeast quadrant, there also. Henoted'some road improvements also needed to be made around the railroad crossing at Spencer Street. Mr. Loney eXplained what some of the improvements needed to be. Cncl. Menden suggested these cabinets for the railroad signals be combined and located between Sommerville Street and Spencer Street. There was also the suggestion by Cncl. Helkamp that these cabinets be located in the commercial district. Mr. Loney noted for the cabinets to be located in the commercial area, the City would need to purchase easements. However, Mr. Loney did agree with putting the cabinets in the commercial area. Mr. Loney noted he would pass on to MnDOT that the City would provide location/locations for the railroad signal cabinets. Official Proceedings of the August 17, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -11- Mr. Loney stated the Council was telling him the cabinet areas were identified: The first option was in the commercial district as identified and if this site was not acceptable there was also the fallback position of the southeast quadrant at the railroad crossing itself Helkamp/Lehman moved to direct staff to move forward with possible sites for the location of railroad cabinets on the north side of the tracks at Sommerville and Spencer in the commercial area with a secondary option being the southeast quadrant and to send' a letter to :MNDOT letting them know the City had locations for the signal cabinets. Motion carried unanimously. Lehman/Joos moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into a reimbursement agreement with Tollefson Development, Inc. and the City of Shakopee for the design of 17th Avenue, from County State Aid Highway 15 to County Road 79. (Motion carried under the :" Consent Agenda). Lehman/Joos moved to authorize the appropriate City Officials to enter into an extension .l:lgr~ement with;:WSB.. & Associates, Inc. for the ,design of 17th A venue, from County.State,;\j.<t ,"Highway15toCountyRoad'i79. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Joos offered Resolution No. 6096, A Resolution Accepting work on the Tahpah Park Parking Lot and Vierling Drive Trail Improvement, from County Road 79 to Sage Lane, Project No's 2002-3 and 2002-1, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Joos moved to authorize appropriate City Officials to enter into a contractual agreement ;;, "with the Oakota County Receiving Center for transportation services to their facility. carried under the Consent Agenda). ..behrpan/JoqsIDoved to acknowledge the satisfactory completion of probation and authori.2;e.the ;'['etention ofT.J. Baker as part-time Community Service Officer, effective August 5, 2004, (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Joos moved to authorize the hiring of probationary police officers Matthew Edwards at Step 1 of the current labor contract, at a monthly rate of$3,358.58, subject to the satisfactory completion of pre-employment medical and psychological examinations. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Joos moved to authorize the hiring of probationary police officers William Dane at Step 1 ofthe current labor contract, at a monthly rate of$3,358.58, subject to the satisfactory completion of pre-employment medical and psychological examinations. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Joos moved to authorize the hiring of probationary police officers Christian Chadderdon at Step 3, which is a monthly rate of$3,918.34, of the current labor contract, subject to the Official Proceedings of the August 17, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -12- satisfactory completion of pre-employment medical and psychological examinations. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda), Lehman/Joos moved to hire Terry Meiller as Natural Resource Specialist at Grade 6, Step E ($43,708), effective August 23, 2004, contingent upon successful completion of a pre- employment physical and background check. The position would be subject to the successful completion ofa one-year probationary period. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Joos moved to declare the following property as surplus: 1983 Chevrolet PK, Vin No. 1GCHK34MXDJ151763;1996 Ford Crown Victoria, Vin No. 2FALP71W8TX1l8I83 and 2000 Ford Crown Victoria, Vin No. 2FAFP71WIYX168587 (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Joosoffered Resolution No. 6094, A Resolution AppointingJudges.OfElectionAnd Establishing Compensation, and moved its adoption. (Motionc,arried under;the,Consen.t Agenda); Lehman/Joos offered Resolution No. 6095, A Resolution0hangirig The:November 2, 2004 City Council Meeting Date, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Lehman/Joos moved to approve the application and grant an on sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license to Costa Del Sol, Inc. 815 West 1 st Avenue, conditioned upon meeting all requirements of the City Code. (Motion carried under the ConsentAgenda). Lehman/Joos offered Resolution No. 6100, A Resolution.OfJhe City Council Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Authorizing The Issuance" Sale and.DeliveryQfItsRevenue Bonds For The Benefit Of St. Francis Regional MedicalCenter;:p-ayable'SolelyfrorHRevemiesPledged Pursuant To The Indenture, Approving The Form Of AndA.tithorizingl'heExecution And Delivery Of The Revenue Bonds And RelatedDocuments~AndProvidihgFor The Security, Rights, And Remedies With Respect To The Revenue Bonds, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. McNeill suggested in order to maximize the time for the budget meetings the August 19, 2004 meeting be cancelled because the Mayor and one Councilman would not be able to attend and the Planning Commission met at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. He suggested this meeting be rescheduled for August 26, 2004 when the entire Council could meet and would have the Council Chambers for as long as needed. He noted there was a meeting scheduled for August 24,2004 regarding Pheasant Run and to receive comments from Jackson and Louisville Townships. Mr. McNeill noted the County was planning a tour of the new jail facility for around 4:30 p.m. that evening also. Mr. McNeill noted there was also a third budget review scheduled for Thursday August 31,2004. He noted the levy needed to be certified by September 15, 2004. Official Proceedings of the August 17, 2004 Shako pee City Council Page -13- Mr. McNeill noted there was support from the Council to have the meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 19,2004. Mr. McNeill asked for the amount of interest in touring the new jail facility. There was some interest shown. Lehman/Helkamp moved to recess for an executive session at 10:25 p.m. to discuss labor negotiations. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Schmitt re-convened the meeting at 10:42 p.m. Mr. McNeill announced that the Council just met in a closed session to discuss labor negotiations and that no action was taken. Helkamp/Menden moved to adjourn to Thursday, August 19,2004, at 5:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:43 p.m. ..wt:J ~.. t~l~tox . ... -' Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary .--....-