Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Approval of Minutes: June 1, 2004 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL . REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,NUNNESOTA JUNE 1, 2004 Mayor Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Council members Helkamp, Menden (8:45 p.m.) and Joos present. Absent: Lehman. Also Present: Gregg Voxland, Acting City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director and Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator. NOTE: There was a quorum present. The pledge of allegiance was recited. Helkamp/Joos moved to approve the Agenda as written. Motion carried 3-0. Mayor Schmitt noted he attended a couple of meetings since the last council meeting. He noted he attended a Scott County Alliance for Leadership and Efficiency (SCALE) meeting where a planning process for the common police and fire range was discussed. He noted there had been open houses for the openings of the Voyager Bank and Greystone Construction Co. in the month . of May and he also had the honor of helping with the Memorial Park presentation on Memorial Day. The following item was added to the Consent Agenda. 9. Hearings on Tobacco Violations. Helkamp/Joos moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried 3-0. Mayor Schmitt asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Helkamp/Joos moved to approve the bills in the amount of $471,304.41 plus $11,372.86 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $482,677.27 (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 acknowledge receipt of the "Waiver and Admission of Violation" from Hennen'sTexaco, Inc., 807 East First Avenue, for the sale oftobacco to a minor and impose a penalty for the first violation in the amount of $200.00 and a suspension of the license for two days, beginning at 12:01 a.m. an June 11,2004 and ending at 12:00 midnight on June 12,2004. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Joos moved to acknowledge receipt of the "Waiver and Admission of Violation" from Twin Cities Stores, Inc. dba Oasis Market #528,615 South Marschall Road, for the sale of tobacco to a minor ~nq impose a penalty for the second violation in the amount of$500.00 and a \ ";'. 1 Official Proceedings of the June 1, 2004 Shakopee City Council page-2- suspension of the license for five days, beginning at 12:01 a.m. an June 11, 2004 and ending at 12:00 midnight on June 15,2004. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Cncl. Helkamp notedhe attended the Chamber of Commerce meeting in May and reviewed the financials. He noted some of the events were great successes. He noted he spent a week reviewing the Request for Proposals (RFP's) for the joint Fire Arms and Fire Training Facility. He noted the RFP's were now narrowed down to two candidates and next week these two candidates would be interviewed. Cncl. Joos noted he sat on the Board of Review with Cncl. Menden and he felt that Board had . taken the appropriate actions. He noted he also attended the joint School Board meeting where the School Board, Scott County, and City Council discussed issues that would concern all of the entities. Joos/Helkamp moved to recess at 7:09 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the Economic Development Authority meeting. Mayor Schmitt re-convened the City Council meeting at 7:10 p.m. . Mr. Snook, Economic Development Coordinator, reported on the Application for Business Subsidy (for tax abatement) requested by Challenge Printing. Mr. Snook noted that the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) considered this request at their meeting of April 28, 2004. Challenge Printing was proposing to move into the former ADCbuilding at 1000 Valley Park Drive in Valley Green Business Park and to expand the building. This application was for approximately $2 million in tax abatement from the City and Scott County. Mr. Snook stated after the EDAC reviewed this business proposal, they unanimously passed a motion to recommend to the City Council and staff that they prepare a Contract for Private Development between the City, Scott County and Challenge Printing for consideration at a public hearing on the proposed tax abatement and to set a date for a public hearing on the proposed tax abatement as mandated by State Law. Mr. Snook stated that Challenge Printing was doing a consolidation and relocation plan that would move the company operation to Shakopee from Eden Prairie. When the business consolidated (three different facilities) there would be need for a larger building site and the former ADC building had been proposed for this site. There were no expansion opportunities at their current sites. Challenge Printing was proposing to expand the site as well as get new equipment. The facility would include manufacturing space, office space and some warehouse space. The expansion ofthe current ADC space would cost approximately $3,000,000. The fee and permit costs are estimated to be $20,000 and the additional machinery costs are estimated at $9,000,000. The expansion would create approximately 80 new jobs ranging between $12.00 and $32.00 per hour. Mr. Snook stated the Company was requesting a $2,000,000 tax abatement from the County and from the City jointly. Mr. Snook noted that from the Minnesota Official Proceedings of the June 1, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Department of Employment and Economic Development the City would receive upwards of $500,000 for the Minnesota Investment Fund. From the $500,000 the City could retain up to $100,000 for their Revolving Loan Fund for economic development and Challenge Printing would get the balance of the money as a low interest loan. Mr. Snook noted Challenge Printing was also looking at $400,000 from the state for ajoh skills partnership funding for work force training. It was anticipated that some people would not transfer and new people would need to be trained. Mr. Snook stated upon review ofthis application it appeared that this project was in the best interest of the City. This company would be a player in the City's economy and they would takeover an unused building and expand it, thus creating new jobs for the City. Mr. Snook stated this project met the City's goals as outlined in the City's Business Subsidy Policy and was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A contract would need to be entered into for Private Development with the City and Scott County. If this business did locate in Shakopee the City's tax base for commercial/industrial would be expanded. The job and wage goals established for the business thru the City's Business Subsidy Policy would need to be complied with and the business would need to remain in Shakopee for at least five years. Mr. Snook noted that the City's financial consultant conducted a financial analysis for the tax abatement and recommended that the abatement be calculated on the increase in valhe of the existing building (this figure is realized after the building.is re-assessed after the sale) bd they recommended abatement for the increased value of the new expansion portion ofth6 building (this value of the . new expansion was estimated at approximately $2.6 million). The a1?atement would occur over a 15 year term from 2006 to 2020. It was noted that the abatement for~ertainTeed and ADC were for six year terms but the abatements were only for the expansions o~ current businesses. Challenge Printing would be a new business for The City of Shakope,e and they would also expand the building once the business was here. , I Mr. Snook noted the City would abate a total of approximately $541,000 over the full term and Scott County would abate about $611,000 over the full term. The tot~l abatement was estimated to be about$1.15 million dollars. It was also noted that the City and ,Scott County would be well I within their respective statutory abatement limits. Because of this pr?ject, it was estimated that there would be an increase in market value of about $5.5 million for this property. ! 1 I Mayor Schmitt noted that this abatement was structured around the incremental value between , the current taxable value and the sell price along with the valuation of the addition to the facility. I This abatement for Challenge Printing Company was capitalizing on the incremental. I i Mr. Lothenbach, owner of Challenge Printing Company, gave a pres~ntation of his company. Mayor Schmitt stated the purpose of this presentation was to introduse the City Council to the business, what the business did and to set the stage for going into the 'public hearing. Tonight was only to ask some pertinent questions about the business; no decision needed to be made tonight on this tax abatement. Mr. Lothenbach noted his company w~s a $70 million company. I I I ! , i I , I I I Official Proceedings of the June 1,2004 Shakopee City Council Page -4- It had been recognized nationally as one of the fastest growing companies in the nation and he felt he had only reached the tip of the iceberg with the company. Mr. Lothenbach stated there was a tremendous upside for this company for the future. The company was receiving much national exposure because the type printing press that the company was going to buy was extraordinary at this time. He felt this was a very conservative proposal that he presented to the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC). He stated he was looking for what he needed to make the deal work. Originally, he had asked for $2 million in tax abatements and now he was down to $1.1 million. He noted that he did have other options but this was move to Shakopee was his preferred option. The mix of employees in his business was somewhere around 60% blue collar workers and 40% white collar workers. He noted he also employed many temporary services workers. He noted in the last few years, his printing business had diversified into other sectors of the printing industry and there was a lot more business opportunities for the printing business to come. Because of the growth of the company he . needed to expand his facility and in Eden Prairie there just was no room for expansion. Mr. Lothenbach stated he needed the City and the County to offset some of the costs of moving the company. He stated that he thought the move to Shakopee was about a $12,000,000 cost to the company. Mr. Lothenbach broke down the figures to come up with the $2 million figure that he had been asking for tax abatement. He stated he did not even know if this move would work now because some of the figures he had received just recently where higher than expected; he was trying his hardest to make the move happen. He was trying to make the figures work but reality needed to be faced. He knew he was asking for a lot but he thought he could make this project work with the $2,000,000 figure. He wanted to bring something back to the table for the City. He stated some of the big accounts that the company has. Mr. Lothenbach replied to Cnc1. Helkamp that he did not care to out grow the size of the Shakopee building when it was all expanded. That was enough area for him because he wanted to be the best not the biggest. Cncl. J008 thought it would be good to have the public hearing and hear what others had to say about the tax abatement for the business. . Joos/Helkampmoved to direct staff to prepare a Contract for Private Development between the City, Scott County and Challenge Printing, Inc. for consideration at a public hearing on the proposed tax abatement. Mr. Lothenbach noted ifthe public hearing took place he was fairly confident that the deal would be possible. Mayor Schmitt explained how the figures were arrived at for Mr. Lothenbach. Mayor Schmitt stated that he thought this company had the kind of jobs this community was looking for. Mayor Schmitt thought this was a promising opportunity for the City. Motion carried 3-0. Official Proceedings of the June 1,2004 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Joos/Helkamp offered Resolution No. 6062, A Resolution Calling For A Public Hearing On The Tax Abatement For Certain Property In The City Of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 3-0. Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, reported on the Preliminary Plat for Valley Creek Crossing located north of County Road 78, west of Marschall Road and South of Evergreen Lane. This site was located southeast of the ACC 2nd Addition. Mr. Leek oriented the proposed single-family plat. He noted access to this development would be from County Road 78 as well as from the north through the ACC 2nd Addition with the continuation of Evergreen Lane. Mr. . Leek noted that this Preliminary Plat for Valley Creek Crossing went before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Valley Creek Crossing with many conditions. Mr. Leek highlighted a few of the conditions. Mr. Leek noted that the park dedication would be met through a combination of dedicated parkland and a cash contribution; the exact amount of the cash contribution would be determined at the time of final plat approval for Valley Creek . Crossing. Mr. Leek did note that only a portion ofthe land being proposed for park dedication was usable for active park activities; the other portion of the parkland was in a conservation easement and would be more suitable for passive park activities. Mr. Leek noted that this plat also included a site for a Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) Booster Station and one of the conditions noted that an agreement for the booster station between the developer and SPUC needed to be in place before the recording of the final plat. Mr. Leek stated that he had conversations with the developer and SPUC regarding this booster station condition. Mr. Leek noted because of the exception of the farmstead on the comer of County Road 78 and Marschall Road a few conditions pertaining to temporary signage have been included in Resolution No. 6055. Mr. Leek noted where trails and sidewalks would be located in this Valley Creek Crossing Preliminary Plat. Mr. Leek noted a sidewalk was proposed for one side of Evergreen Lane. The issue of sidewalks was raised with the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission did not want to require additional sidewalks in this development because of the severe changes in grade elevations. Mr. Leek thought eventually there would be a regional trail along County Road 78 that would hook up with the sidewalk connections on Evergreen Lane. Mr. Themig, Park, Recreation and Facilities Director, approached the podium and explained the proposed parkland. He noted the majority of structured active park activities would occur either at Westchester and/or Providence Point Park (11 acres) about ~ mile away. He stated it had always been the intention that a park would be located in the ACC 3rd Addition to serve ACC 2nd Addition and ACC 3rd Addition. Cncl. Joos was concerned about accessibility from the ACC 2nd Addition and access into this park from the Beckfigp. Pm-~ Estates development. Mr. Themig noted there were no trails Official Proceedings of the June 1, 2004 . Shakopee City Council Page -6- running through the proposed ACC 3rd Addition. Right now, there was no opportunity for foot traffic other than the roadways. Mayor Schmitt noted he would have liked to see more access to the park for the residents south of the park. It appeared many of the lots were isolated from the park from the south. Mayor Schmitt felt the park needed to be opened up to the residents in the south portion of the development. Mayor Schmitt reviewed the map again and noted some changes had been made and this was more acceptable to him. Mr. Leek noted why there were no more sidewalks in the development other than the one on Evergreen Lane. Mr. Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer, noted the streets throughout the development were 36-foot wide streets. Mayor Schmitt suggested to Mr. Leek that there be a language clarification in conditions II.B.K and II.B.L in Resolution No. 6055 regarding who will address the condition and the reference to Outlot F needed to be checked. Mr. Leek noted he would follow-up on this direction. Dale Dahlke, Associated Capital developer on this project, approached the podium and stated that City Engineering had asked him, because of grades within this site to make two changes in . the streets. Mr. Dahlke noted the unnamed street connected up to Evergreen Lane and fan to the north and did have a sidewalk on it. Mr. Dahlke noted the steep grades and changes in elevations was one reason why some connection points were not there that normally would be there. He noted from one point to another point in the development there was over 100 feet in grade elevation change. Mr. Dahlke noted the streets were designed the way they were in aI1. attempt to make the streets as easy as possible for people to walk on safely. He noted he was working with the City Engineering Department on the fine details for the Preliminary Plat of Valley Creek Crossing. He noted there was a substantial grade elevation from the creek to the park. Joos/Helkamp offered Resolution No. 6055, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota Approving The Preliminary Plat Of Valley Creek Crossing, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 3-0. Mr. Leek reported on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning request and request for MUSA for Gonyea Land. Company for property located north of Valley View Road and east of Staghorn Drive. Mr. Leek oriented the site. Mr. Leek noted the request was to 1) re-guide the property [from Rural Residential to single-family], 2) to rezone the property [from the zoning of Rural Residential to RIB] and 3) to extend MUSA to the subject property. Mr. Leek noted because of all the uncertainties in this plat at this time staff had not made a specific recommendation. He noted there some good reasons to allow the changes and there were some good reasons not to allow this development right now. Mr. Leek did state that the Planning Commissi9n did review this proposal and did recommend to the City Council on 6-1 vote that the request for the MUSA extension be approved and on a 7-0 vote the Planning Commission recommended the re-guiding and the rezoning of the subject site. Mr. Leek noted that about 31 Y2 percent ofthe floating MUSA from the Metropolitan Council given to the City approximately two (2) years ago (SlJ.PP9sedly an allocation for 10 years) had already been allocated by the City. Official Proceedings of the June 1,2004 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Cncl. Helkamp inquired about a gravity sewer system. Mr. Loney addressed this question. Mr. Loney noted what would need to happen for this area to get City sewer. The drainage in this particular area was also discussed by Mr. Loney. Mr. Loney stated some more drainage studies would need to be done in this area so storm water management could be done correctly. Mr. Leek addressed the planning in this general area and thought the parcels to the south would be developed in a timely fashion but he thought the parcels to the north were questionable as to when they would develop. It was noted that there were difficulties in serving this general area with City sewer and more storm water management planning needed to be done for the area. Mr. Thomson, City Attorney, noted because this was a vote for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan four votes was needed for approval. Mr. Thomson noted there was no resolution tonight to deny the request, so the appropriate action tonight would be to table the request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning request and request for MUSA for Gonyea Land Company and to direct staff to come back with a resolution either to deny or approve the requests for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning request and request for MUSA for Gonyea Land Company. The motion to table this request would only take a majority of the quorum [two votes out of three]. Mr. Leek noted there was sufficient time in the review period for this action to happen. Brad Gonyea, Gonyea Land Company, noted he met with City PI8nning staff and City Engineering staff and he was well aware of the lift station issue, as well as the storm water issues and Valley View Road issues. Mr. Gonyea noted it was his intention to solve all of these issues before a preliminary plat was brought forward. He stated he would work with City Planning Department and City Engineering Department to help resolve these issues. He was well aware of all the storm water requirements for this subject site. He stated he was aware of the costs for the sanitary sewer [lift station at this time and the hook-up cost in the future] and he was willing to accept these costs. Mr. Gonyea responded to Cncl. Joos question regarding a way to have the developer pay for the sewer when it was extended to the area. Mr. Gonyea thought there would be some financial guarantee of some sort required of the developer by the City for this purpose. Joos/Helkamp moved to table the request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning request and request for MUS A for Gonyea Land Company for property located north of Valley View Road and east of Staghorn Drive until June 15,2004 and hopefully there would be at least four council members in attendance at that meeting so this issue could be voted on at that time. Cnc1. Helkamp noted that this was a challenged area to get MUSA to and there were other areas crying for MUSA where the extension of MUSA can be served more easily. Cnc1. Joos felt there needed to be further discussion on the extension of MUS A within the City. Official Proceedings of the June 1, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -8- Motion carried 3-0. Cncl. Menden entered the Council Chambers and took his seat at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Themig, Park, Recreation and Facilities Director, reported on the additional design services for Huber Park. Mr. Themig stated he now had the dollar figures from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates for the additional design services that he had been directed to get at a previous council meeting. These additional services were for: 1) sound analysis for the park [essential], 2) analysis of pedestrian crossing safety issues crossing Hwy 101 at the Sommerville intersection [essential]. 3) grant applications [could be cost effective], 4) permits[could be cost effective], 5) electrical plans for park features [essential], and 6) 3-D modeling plans [depict character) . Cncl. Menden asked Mr. Themig if the 3-D modeling could be added at a later date. Mr. Themig responded yes to this question. Cncl. Joos agreed with Cncl. Helkamp that the City can live with a two-dimensional drawing; however, he did think the 3 D modeling would be helpful for the community to see the project. Mayor Schmitt suggested that the 3 D modeling be left out at this time and deal with other design . options. Helkamp/Menden moved to approve additional expenditures with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates for final design and construction documents for Huber Park to include the sound analysis for a proposed fee of $5,000, pedestrian crossing analysis on the intersection ofHwy 101 and Sommerville Street for a proposed fee of $3,800, electrical plans for park lighting for a proposed fee of $800, grant application assistance for a proposed fee of $2,000, and assistance with permits for a proposed fee of $1 ,500. Motion carried 4-0. Helkamp/Joos moved to authorize replacement of the City Hall air conditioning units with high- efficiency units proposed by Associated Mechanical at a cost of$12,405. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Joos moved to remove the Final Plat of Park Meadows from the table, and to table it again to a date uncertain. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Leek reported on the Final Plat for Church 151 Addition located south of CSAH 16 and east ofCSAH 83. Mr. Leek oriented the site via the document camera. Mr. Leek noted the Council had previously approved the preliminary plat for the entire Church 151 Addition. This application was for a final plat for a portion of the Church 151 Addition. The portion to be final platted included only the residential portion; the final plat for Church 151 Addition for the proposed commercial portion, located on the north side of the preliminary plat, would come at a later date. Official Proceedings of the June 1,2004 Shalwpee City Council Page -9- Mr. Leek stated the Final Plat drawings of Church 1 sl Addition before the Council tonight were substantially compliant with the Preliminary Plat of Church 1 sl Addition. Mr. Leek noted there were conditions in Resolution No. 6060 that pertained to park dedication. He noted that the park dedication would consist of dedicated parkland as well as cash in lieu of parkland. He noted the amount of cash in lieu of parkland was spelled out in Resolution No. 6060. He noted there was a condition in Resolution No. 6060 that the developer would work with the Park And Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) and Mr. Themig to develop a plan for the Church 1 sl Addition park development. Any cost for developing this park would then be credited against the cash in lieu of parkland amount stipulated in the conditions in Resolution No. 6060. . Mr. Leek noted there were sidewalks proposed on one side of each street throughout this plat. Mr. Leek addressed CncL Menden's question regarding Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) well sites in this final Plat of Church. 1 sl Addition. Mr. Leek stated that he thought this issue had been essentially resolved between the developer and SPUC. He noted there was a draft agreement covering these well sites between the developer and SPUC. Mr. Leek addressed the architectural standards for this development. He noted he had been working with Mr. Wollschlager, the developer, to try and come up with an acceptable design for the buildings. Mr. Leek showed graphics and explained what the proposed buildings would possibly look like. He noted that he now thought these buildings were compliant with the design code for the City. Helkamp/Joos offered Resolution No. 6060, A Resolution Of The City Of Shako pee, Minnesota Approving The Final Plat of Churchl sl Addition, and moved its adoption. Cncl. Joos and Cncl. Menden still were not happy with the design of the buildings. Cncl. Menden stated he would like to see a break in the roofline of the buildings. He felt that would help the monotony of the buildings. Motion carried 4-0. Helkamp/Joos offered Resolution No. 6056, A Resolution Of The City Of Shako pee Approving A Request To Amend The 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update To Extend MUSA To The Certain Property Located South of STH 169 And West Of County State Aid Highway 79, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Joos offered Ordinance No. 707, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending The Zoning Map Adopted In City Code Sec. 11.03 By Zoning Land Generally South Of STH 169 And West Of County State Aid Highway 79 To Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the June 1, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -10- Mr. Leek reported on the findings regarding the elevations of the berm located at the Shenandoah Apartments. Mr. Leek noted that this berming issue at the Shenandoah Apartments had been tabled to get additional information. He stated he found in his review that there were portions on the berm where the'elevations were above the stipulated height, where the elevations were below . the stipulated height, and some places where the elevations were right on the stipulated height. Mr. Leek noted the concern that staff had was on the west end of the berm and that was not even the subject of this complaint. The complaint was more on the east end. Mr. Leek noted that he received some photographs via email from the Clifford Stafford's showing the berm in various areas within the Shenandoah Apartment site. Mr. Leek also had some photos taken by staff of this same berm. These photos were shown via the document camera and explained by Mr. Leek. Mr. Leek did note that the Stafford's property was higher than County Road 16 and across the street from the Shenandoah Apartments. Mr. Leek noted staff was looking for direction they could give the developer to address the concerns raised by the Dellwo's and the Stafford's. Clifford Stafford, 2328 Eagle Creek Boulevard, noted he sent an email to the City noting how they felt about the situation resulting from the construction of the Shenandoah Apartments. He stated he did not think all of the pictures he sent had been shown and he thought some of the pictures he sent had been cropped. Mr. Leek addressed this concern. He stated allfive pictures had been printed out and no one on his staff manipulated the pictures; he printed the pictures out as they were received. Mr. Stafford also presented these email pictures with his description of the views. He stated that he did receive a lot of light from the cars in the drive and along the garages from the Shenandoah Apartments and he stated noises were heard coming from the Shenandoah Apartment's parking lot. Kathy Stafford, 2328 Eagle Creek Boulevard, gave some history ofthe Shenandoah Apartments. She noted there was much opposition to this project by the neighbors. This development had caused many problems for the neighbors. According to Ms. Stafford, the developer had not followed through on some of his promises made to the neighbors. She stated she assumed that they would b~ getting a nine-foot berm with pine trees on top of it along County Road 16. She stated the berm was constructed before the apartment was in. She was concerned about the noise and the lights. She would like to see the berm built to a height where they were not getting light coming on to their property and she would like the noise issue addressed as well, so they were not bothered by the noise. She noted that this apartment complex had never been maintained by the developer. He had not fulfilled his obligations. She would also like to see some more plantings on the berm. She stated the berm was not reflective of the pictures shown on the developers illustrative drawing. Cncl. Menden requested staff to validate the number ofplantings shown on the plan and the number of actual plantings. He also noted there was discussion on whether the berm was suppose to be seven feet in height or should it be nine feet in height. Mr. Leek stated that the number ofplantings corresponded with the landscape plan. He thought the Stafford's were referring to some drawings that were done for illustrative purposes to show relationships to Official Proceedings of the June 1, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -11- certain landscape features at maturity. He noted that the illustrative drawing did indeed show many more trees than the landscape plan showed. Mr. Leek noted the developer took elevations of the berm in January 2004 and again in May 2004; a nine-foot berm had been shown on the plan. Mr. Leek showed the elevations received from the developer. Cncl. Helkamp noted he had been to the site and he stated more dirt was not going to solve the problem. He felt the problem was a lack of trees. Mayor Schmitt stated he thought the planting schedule should be re-looked at and the developer needed to be held to this planting schedule and to the design standards in effect at the time the Shenandoah Apartments Final Plat was approved. Cncl. Menden and Cnc1. Joos noted they were comfortable with directing Mr. Leek to verifythe actual number ofplantings to the planting plan that was approved in 2001 and to stipulate to the . developer that his planting plan needed to look more like the drawings that were done for illustrative purposes to show relationships to certain landscape features at maturity and shown to the residents. The elevation problems on the west end of the berm also needed to be addressed by the developer. Mr. Leek will follow up. Mayor Schmitt noted the representation of the berm showed a consistent berm along County Road 16 and right now the berm dipped and peaked. Helkamp/Joos moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a Contract For Visioning And Strategic Planning Services between Carroll, Franck & Associates. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). (The work purpose shall not exceed $30,000 unless agreed to by both parties.) Mr. Loney reported on the Milwaukee Manor storm sewer improvements. He noted that this was a follow-up to the Council action directed on September 2,2003. At that time a petition had been presented to the City Council from the residents of Milwaukee Manor asking the City for storm sewer improvements to be installed. Mr. Loney showed via the document camera some pictures of this proposed storm sewer improvement. Mr. Loney gave some history of the storm sewer issue in this development. Mr. Loney noted that Council had directed staff to work with . the Homeowners Association of Milwaukee Manor to come up with an acceptable solution for all. Mr. Loney noted the low quote he had received for all the improvements proposed was around $32,500. Mr. Loney explained what the storm sewer improvements consisted of for the approximate $32,500 figure. Mr. Loney presented this figure to the Milwaukee Manor Homeowners Association. The Milwaukee Manor Homeowners Association notified the City that they were only willing to pay for 25% of the pipe installation (City to pay approximately $25,000 and the residents of the Milwaukee Manor Homeowners Association would pay approximately $8,000 in total). Official Proceedings of the June 1, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -12- Mr. Loney noted there was plan to put in a storm sewer pipe originally in the Milwaukee Manor development but that pipe was taken out as part of the approval process for the Milwaukee Manor Final Plat. Mr. Loney explained the water flow in that area. Mr. Loney noted that in 2003 the Public Works Department wentin and cleaned up the ditch and pond because it was left unmaintained and it was in need of a lot of maintenance. This cleanup of the pond and ditch was done with a condition that the Milwaukee Manor Homeowners Association would start . maintaining this ditch and pond. Mr. Loney noted the City had cleaned up this area significantly but there was ongoing maintenance that needed to be continued. Mr. Loney noted the money collected from the Milwaukee Manor Homeowners Association for storm water charges annually was insignificant compared to the clean up costs incurred by the City. Mayor Schmitt noted all the Council was really talking about was putting storm sewer along Dakota Street and about 30 feet to the east of Dakota Street. There would be a long linear pond running between Dakota Street and Minnesota Street. Renee Vanoni, 559 Milwaukee Road, President of the Milwaukee Manor Homeowners Association, approached the podium. He gave a brief history of the development of Milwaukee Manor. He stated based on information from the Planning Commission meeting the developer went to the City Council and asked fora scaled down version of the drainage system'because of challenges encountered with bedrock. This request was granted by the City Council despite the recommendation from the Planning Commission for an enclosed storm water system. Mr. Vanoni noted on July 25,2000 the legal counsel for the Milwaukee Manor Homeowners Association wrote a letter to the City asking the City to release money to the Milwaukee Manor Homeowners Association so they could hire a contractor to finish the drainage system (the developer had died leaving this drainage system partially finished). The City responded on July . 27,2000 that they were aware of the unfinished storm water system but they needed to contact the heirs of the estate first before releasing any money. The bottom line was the money was released to the estate of the ,developer and nothing was done with the storm water system. The Milwaukee Manor Homeowners Association felt this was an eye sore and hazard to the community. Mr. Vanoni noted the design change was made by the City Council and this change should never have happened in the opinion of the Milwaukee Manor Homeowners Association. The City had control over the escrow money and released it knowing the storm water drainage improvements were not completed. He noted the homeowners of Milwaukee Manor believed they paid for a well functioning storm water drainage system. He also noted more than half of the storm water came from some place else but happened to run through their property. Mr. Vanoni stated it did not seem fair the Milwaukee Manor Homeowners Association should have to pay half of the cost of the improvement (they already paid once for it when they bought). He stated the amount of $8,386.62 cents was all the Milwaukee Manor Homeowners Association was willing to pay. Mr. Vanoni thought it was possible to reduce the length of the pipe and thus reduce the cost of the improvement. Mr. Loney stated he thought the length of the pipe could be looked at and he Official Proceedings of the June 1,2004 Shakopee City Council Page -13- thought there might be some other ways to lower the cost. It appeared the main goal of the Milwaukee Manor Homeowners Association was to get the storm water drainage system along Dakota Street fixed. Mr. Vanoni also showed some pictures via the document camera of the area. He stated some day a speeding car coming down the hill on Dakota Street would flip into the ditch. Mr. Loney noted that the standard for the storm water system for this system was before his employment with the City. He noted the standard at that time would have been a storm water pipe. Mr. Loney stated he thought Mr. Vanoni was correct that the City Council did approve a whittled down version for a storm water system; the Planning Commission did recommend a storm water pipe. It was noted today the maintenance of a storm water system was part of the storm drainage fee. Mr. Loney noted, in this case, the City was trying to do some kind of improvement and to save maintenance money. Mr. Loney gave an example of how other residents handled this situation. Mr. Loney stated this storm water ditch was in the City's right of way and it was the City's obligation to maintain the ditch. The storm water drainage system as it is now was functioning but not in an acceptable manner for the residents of the Milwaukee Manor development. There was ongoing maintenance for this ditch, however. Mayor Schmitt and Cnc1. Joos agreed that this drainage system needed to be fixed. Cncl. Helkamp stated if this drainage system were.repaired it would be an enhancement to the properties. Cnc1. Helkamp noted if this total improvement were assessed 100% to the households now living in the Milwaukee Manor development, it would mean a payment of approximately $650 per household. He saw that much benefit to each property owner. He did not think that amount of money was unreasonable for the homeowners. He stated the City was doing some of the work for the storm water improvement. Cnc1. Menden noted that he did have a big problem with the City paying for this improvement because in 15 years the residents would have paid for the improvementthrough their storm water fees. Cncl. Joos pointed out the people who benefited from this improvement were the homeowners in the Milwaukee Manor development. He thought most likely the homeowners got a breal{ on the price of the property originally because not as much money initially was spent on the storm drainage system. The City would still have the maintenance in the ponding area after these improvements were made. Mr. Loney noted the Storm Drainage Utility Fund was established in 1985 as a way to get away from storm water assessments because storm water assessments were very difficult to prove benefit. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, suggested if the City Council could come to some cost participation agreement staff should be directed to use that cost participation percentage and come to some agreement with the Milwaukee Manor Homeowners Association. Mr. Thomson stated that legally he did not think the City was under any obligation to do anything because the City approved the plan in the first place. Official Proceedings of the June 1, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -14- Mr. Helkamp noted the engineering costs for the storm sewer improvement were quite significant and the City would be picking up that cost. He would like to see the Milwaukee Manor Homeowners Association pay their fair share. Helkamp/Menden moved to direct staff to approach the Milwaukee Manor Homeowners Association's with a proposal of cost sharing of 75/25 (75% for the homeowners and 25% for the City) in the cost of the actual construction and with the City also contributing the engineering staff time that would be ,required for this Storm Sewer Improvement. Motion carried 4-0. Helkamp/Joos offered Resolution No. 6053, A Resolution Adopting Design Criteria For Chapter . 12 Of The City Code, Subdivision Regulations, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Loney reported on the draft of Scott County's 2005-2009 Highway Capital Improvement Program (CIP). He noted for the last couple of years Scott County had been giving the City the opportunity to comment annually on their CIP plan prior to the finalization of the CIP by the Scott County Board. Mr. Loney stated Scott County's CIP from last year showed some railroad safety improvements to some Shakopee crossings, improvements to County Road 17 in 2008 and County Road 21 was starting to be funded (an EIS was being done). Now the City was being asked to comment about next years CIP for Scott County. Mr. Loney stated he put together a list of CIP requests from the City of Shakopee for Scott County. Mr. Loney requested Council members to add, revise or delete comments from his draft letter to the CountyBoard regarding CIP improvements. This addition, deletion of revision could be done via e-mail to Mr. Loney. He would then send a letter to Scott County combining all the CIP requests from staff and councilors. Mr. Loney did note that the City did get some results from Scott County with what the City requested to.be put into Scott County's CIP. Mayor Schmitt did think County Road 17 should be improved up to County Road 78 if the County was going to improve County Road 17. As of now the proposed improvements were for the intersections at 4th Avenue and County Road 17, 10th Avenue and County Road 17 and Vierling Drive and County Road 17. Mr. Loney noted he had added one item to the lists of possible CIP projects that the City would like to see done and that was the signalization of the intersection at County Road 83 and Valley View Road. Mr. Loney would like to add this request to the letter. Helkamp/Joos moved to direct staff to move the letter forward to Scott County regarding the draft Scott County 2005-2009 Highway Capital Improvement Program with the addition of Mr. Loney's comment regarding signalization at the intersection of County Road 83 and Valley View Road. Motion carried 4-0. (CC Document No. 354) Official Proceedings of the June 1, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -15- Helkamp/Joos offered Resolution No. 6059, A Resolution Outlining The Meaning Of Substantially Complete As Contained In The Developer's Agreement For Public Improvements, . and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Joos moved to authorize staff to enact the re-purchase agreement with Lano Equipment, Inc. on the 2003 8-185 Bobcat for the price of $3,690.23 with the funds to be expended from the Internal Service Equipment Fund. (Motion carried under the. Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Joos moved to terminate Jamie Theis's probationary status and to have Jamie Theis fill the Maintenance Operator position in the Public Works Department. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Joos moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the Joint Powers Agreement For Assessment of the City Of Shakopee with Scott County for the 2005 assessment year in the amount of $1 09,700. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Joos moved to reclassify the Recreation Fund from an Enterprise Fund to a special Revenue Fund. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Helkamp/Joos moved to approve of transferring enterprise fund equipment and purchases thereof from the Intemal Service Fund back to the respective Enterprise Funds. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Voxland, Acting City Administrator, reported on the 2005 tentative budget calendar. It was decided to tentatively start the budget workshop sessions at 5:00 p.m. but this time would be followed-up with Cncl. Lehman to see this time was satisfactory for him. Mr. V oxland noted that the preparation ofthe Audit Report for 2003 had been delayed. He noted that this report needed to be sent into the State by the end of June. If the Council did not want a special meeting he proposed that he bring this report to the Council at the first meeting in July. Mr. Voxland noted that this year there was a major change in the way documents were prepared. Cncl. Helkamp was not sure the Council's fiduciary responsibilities allowed the Councilors to submit documents before they were reviewed. Mayor Schmitt suggested that this audit report be given to the Council on June 29,2004 at 6:00 p.m. in a special meeting. . Helkamp/Joos moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to purchase aGE Osmonics water softener from MN Plumbing, excluding the bulk salt delivery system, for $3,405. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the June 1, 2004 Shakopee City Council Page -16- Helkamp/Joos moved to approve the application and grant a temporary on-sale 3.2 malt liquor license to the Shakopee Lions Club, in the designated beer garden adjacent to the concession stand atYahpah Park, June 5 and 6,2004. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Joos/Menden moved to adjourn to June 15,2004 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:32 p.m. 72JJirL J . Ct:- J ith S.Cox City Clerk . Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary