Loading...
032596 CC Reg Min . . . ~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDA Y, MARCH 25, 1996 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Protem Stover called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Protem Stover; Councilmembers Benson, McCarty, and Shaw; City Engineer Brown, City Administrator Hurm, City Attorney Keane, and Planning Director Nielsen. Mayor Bean. Absent: B. Review Agenda McCarty moved, Shaw seconded to approve the agenda for March 25, 1996 as amended by deleting Item 1 C. Council Commitments and Items 2 A . through 2E. Approval of Minutes and adding Item 7 A. Set Date for Public Hearing for Watermain Extension from Boulder Bridge System to Victoria City Limits for April 22, 1996 at 8:00 p.m. Motion passed 4/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Protem Stover read the Consent Agenda for March 25, 1996. Benson moved, McCarty seconded to approve the Motions on the Consent Agenda and to adopt the Resolutions therein: A. RESOLUTION NO. 96-27. "A Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit and a Driveway Setback Variance for Camp Coffee." B. Motion to Approve Permanent Appointment - Larry Brown, Director of Public Works. C. RESOLUTION NO. 96-28, "A Resolution Approving a Biennial Gambling License - American Legion Post." D. Motion Authorizing Purchase of a Caterpillar Road Grader Model 140H from Chisago County in the amount of $135,288.02 with trade in of current machine. E. Motion Approving Extension of a Contract with Research Quick for Work with the Snowmobile Task Force. Motion passed 4/0. . . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 25, 1996 - PAGE 2 4. PRESENTATION ON UPCOMING REFERENDUM Tom Berge, Director of Business Services, thanked the Council for their time. He stated he would like to present some information regarding the upcoming April 23, 1996 referendum for facility improvements to the high school and the middle schools. He stated the School Board is faced with a shortage of space, buildings which need to be updated and needs for improvement of the technology available for student use. Mr. Berge explained that when Dr. Jett arrived in Minnetonka in July of 1995, his fIrst task was to consider what had been presented to the voters one year prior and had not been approved. He then considered all the data that had been acquired and held ten meetings with a total of over 300 people in attendance. This research and conversation has produced the proposal for the upcoming referendum. Mr. Berge reported the high school currently has an enrollment of 2000 students which is expected to increase to 2700 students by the year 2003. The middle school is projected to increase by 300 students in that same period. The referendum will allow for the high school to be expanded to a capacity of 2500 students and the middle school expanded to accommodate 200 additional students. It will include updates to the existing facilities including replacement of windows with more energy efficient windows, upgrades to the heating and mechanical systems and rewiring of the buildings. The referendum will also include an annual levy of $250,000.00 per year for ten years to purchase technology for the classrooms. This referendum represents a 6.5 million dollar reduction compared to the referendum which was proposed in February 1995. Bruce Taher, School Board Chair, stated that due to the increase in enrollment, the School Board has been forced to expand the facilities. He stated there are no funds provided by the State for this purpose so unfortunately the burden is placed on the taxpayer. He explained he was here this evening as a volunteer in the district to ask residents and City Council for support of this referendum. He noted the district had gone through an immense amount of research to develop this proposal. It is extremely cost effective and deserves the support of the community. Councilmember McCarty expressed that kids are our future and if we do not support them, it is questionable where the City will be ten to twenty years from now. Councilmember Shaw noted these were good schools and did deserve the support of the community. Mayor Protem Stover thanked Mr. Berge and Mr. Taher for their time. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Jerry O'Neill, 25540 Nelsine Drive, stated he did not believe the watermain installation would increase his property value by $5,000.00. He noted there is a State law which requires that the City must provide evidence of the increase in value. He stated he had visited City Hall and believes the City has no valid documentation of the stated increase in value. City Attorney Keane explained prior to the undertaking of discussion of this project, he recommended and the City engaged an appraiser to seek professional judgement as to the demonstration of requisite benefIt to sustain the levy assessment. The professional opinion of the appraiser after examination of the area to be assessed was that the property would benefIt in excess of the amount of the levy. Keane noted the City does have the summary opinion of benefIt of the appraiser. The City will consider objections or appeals on a case . . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 25, 1996 . PAGE 3 by case basis. Keane explained a property owner who does not believe their property will benefIt in excess of the amount of the levy must fIle an objection with the City prior to or at the time of the assessment hearing. By filing a written objection with the City prior to or at the time of the assessment hearing, the property owner reserves the right to have a hearing at District Court within the 30 days before the closing of the assessment hearing. Mr. O'Neill asked if the documentation he had looked at last week was the only information available. City Administrator Hurm noted Mr. O'Neill had read the written opinion of the appraiser. Keane noted there is further explanation available at the appraiser's offIce. There was direction to staff to check with the appraiser and obtain a copy of that information. Mr. O'Neill was advised to contact the City in one week to check if the information was available. 6. PLANNING. Report by Representative Commissioner Turgeon reviewed the actions taken and recommendations made by the Commission at its March 19, 1996 meeting (detailed in the minutes of that meeting). A. Consideration of a Petition Requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Watten Ponds Planning Director Nielsen explained a petition has been received from residents requiring an Environmental Review of the Watten Ponds project. He explained the petition had been submitted to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) who had determined the City of Shorewood to be the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU). The RGU is required to determine if there is adequate information in the petition to warrant a Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W). Nielsen explained the EQB provides specifIc rules and guidelines for the evaluation process. He explained there are rules that establish an EA W be mandatory in some projects and there are also rules which establish exemptions to an EA W. Nielsen explained it appears that this project would be exempt from an EA Wunder the rules governing small residential projects. Keane verifIed that the Watten Pond project would be exempt of an EAW. Keane explained the EQB rules have specifIc categories for determining what Environmental Review is appropriate for a project. One category sets mandatory review with a predetermined threshold. If that threshold is met or exceeded by nature of the project an EA W is automatically required. The second category for initiation of an EA W is by petition or discretionary review. There are also exemptions to the rules which determine a minimum threshold which must be exceeded to require an EA W. Keane noted the Watten Pond project is exempt as it does not exceed 20 units and there is no discretion for the City to exert as the RGU. Keane explained this exemption is included under Minnesota Rules 4410-4600, subpart 12A. Hurm asked if the Planning Commission would be reviewing the same issues addressed in the petition and possibly be more strict than the EA W. Nielsen noted the Planning Commission would be addressing the loss of vegetation and the affect to the wetland areas. He noted one area which may not be addressed is the wildlife. He stated there was a report of a sighting of an unusual breed of frog in the area. The City could contact the DNR about this situation and obtain their advice even without the petition. Nielsen noted that the area is zoned for residential and any development in that area will disrupt the wildlife for a period of time. . . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 25, 1996 - PAGE 4 Keane explained the EA W process is an exercise in an effort to disclose potential for significant environmental impact. According to the rules provided, this project does not meet the threshold for that impact. He noted that his experience has been that application of the City's procedures of staff, Planning Commission and City Council really provide a greater level of scrutiny than completing an EA W. The City's site plan procedures, design requirements and ordinances provide a greater amount of environmental protection than the EA W. He stated that the conclusion that this project is exempt from the EA W will not exclude the City's opportunity and effort to protect the environment. Benson moved, Shaw seconded to conclude that the Watten Pond project is exempt to the requirement of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet pursuant to Minnesota. Rule 4410-4600, Subpart 12A. Motion passed 4/0. 7. CONSIDERATION OF AN AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING SBA COMMUNICATIONS TO TEST ON SOUTHEAST TOWER Nielsen reported SBA, Inc. has requested permission to conduct equipment testing on the water tower site to determine if the site is worth pursuing as a potential location for their telecommunication equipment. He noted the company will drive onto the site with a boom truck and raise their antennae and their vehicle will drive around the site performing the tests. The City Attomey has considered the insurance issues and reviewed the entry agreement which requires SBA, Inc. to provide and insurance and reimburse the City for damages or costs incurred. The testing will occur on and off for a period of six months. If the location is determined to be suitable, SBA, Inc. would be required to request a conditional use permit and a lease agreement to use the site. Nielsen noted this use of the water tower is an issue which the Planning Commission is examining. Councilmember Shaw confirmed that approval of this testing does not presuppose approval of a lease. Keane confirmed it did not and recommended that issue be included in the motion. McCarty moved, Benson seconded to approve the entry and testing agreement with SBA, Inc. for the Shorewood Water Tower site with the provision that approval does not include approval of a lease agreement. Motion passed 4/0. Keane noted there is also an understanding that SBA, Inc. will provide the requested procedures of the testing and results of the testing to the City of Shorewood. 7 A. SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF INSTALLATION OF WATERMAIN ON SMITHTOWN ROAD FROM THE BOULDER BRIDGE SYSTEM TO THE CITY LIMITS O:f VICTORIA. Hurm noted there is a public informational meeting scheduled regarding this issue on April 1, 1996 from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. City Engineer Brown noted there were a number of residents on Boulder Court who had expressed interest in having the watermain extended into their area. He noted this may be considered if all residents in the area are interested. . . . .' ~ REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 25, 1996 - PAGE 5 Benson moved, Shaw seconded to set the Public Hearing for consideration of installation of the watermain on Smithtown Road from the Boulder Bridge System to the City of Victoria border for April 22, 1996 at 8:00 p.m. Motion passed 4/0. 8. ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF REPORTS Hurm stated staff has been meeting with representatives of the City of Victoria to discuss the possibility of sharing water with the north end of their community. The parties involved feel that at this point it would be appropriate to hold a joint meeting of the Shorewood City Council and the Victoria City Council. Hurm reported this meeting is scheduled for March 28, 1996 from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at the Victoria City Hall. Hurm stated it is also necessary to schedule a joint meeting of the Shorewood City Council and Planning Commission to discuss the goals and objectives included in the Comprehensive Plan. At that meeting Planning Director Nielsen will also discuss the requirements of affordable senior housing. There was Council consensus to schedule this meeting for April 9, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. 9. MA YOR AND CITY COUNCIL REPORTS - None 10. ADJOURNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS Shaw moved, Benson seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting at 8:32 p.m. subject to approval of claims. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Lorri L. Kopischke, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial ATTEST: ) i "'::)':J j~".b L..L~tlTl ~uet- , ROBERT B. BEAN, MAYOR ,,;vW]