Loading...
031003 CC Reg Min ~ . . . ...' CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2003 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Love; Councilmembers Garfunkel, Lizee (arrived at 7:02 P.M.), Turgeon, and Zerby; Administrator Dawson; Attorney Keane (arrived at 7:08 P.M.); Engineer Brown; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Finance Director Burton B. Review Agenda Mayor Love reviewed the Agenda. Administrator Dawson requested Item 8B, An Update on the NPDES Phase II Project, be added to this evening's Agenda. Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Agenda as amended. Motion passed 4/0. Councilmember Lizee arrived at 7:02 P.M. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, February 24, 2003 Garfunkel moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of February 24, 2003, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, February 24, 2003 Zerby moved, Garfunkel seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 24, 2003, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Zerby moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein: A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Authorizing Expenditure of Funds for Sealcoat Rock C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 03-017. "A Resolution Denying a Setback Variance for David LaRose, 5965 Chaska Road." REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 10,2003 Page 2 of 7 . Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Mayor Love explained matters from the floor was a time for residents to be heard on items not placed on this evening's Agenda, and noted the direction from Council on such matters would be to have Staff provide further consideration of the issue and report back to Council on the matter of concern at a later date. He also requested audience participants wishing to address Council limit their comments to approximately five minutes apiece and avoid duplication of comment. Paul Gagner, 25650 Smithtown Road, stated he lived west of the LRT trail and had conducted a neighborhood survey based on the article written in the February 5,2003, Sun Sailor newspaper regarding the proposed trail project for Smithtown Road. He stated the survey had been conducted in door-to-door fashion, and he was present this evening to share the results of that survey, and state five points of concern with the project for further Council review. He then read the survey results and commentary into the record for the meeting. Highlights of the survey shared included statistics that 83% of residential property owners in the path of the trail were opposed to it, and 78% of a city-wide scientific random sample were opposed to utilizing coercion on behalf of the trails. He requested the methodology involved in any City research for the project be available for review. He also expressed concern for the process followed in the proposal of the trail, the rationale for its placement on the north side of the road, as well as concern for the trail crossing residential driveways, streets, and other potential crossing areas where motorized vehicles and pedestrians may meet. Attorney Keane arrived at 7:08 P.M. . Nancy Williams, 26270 Smithtown Road, stated she had moved to her property in Shorewood specifically because it did not have a sidewalk as she had experienced personal liability problems in the City of Minneapolis with sidewalks. She stated she found it difficult to believe there would be no liability assumed by the property owners for a trail crossing their property. She also stated she was not in favor of people receiving special treatment for the trail to cross properties in this project. In conversations with other residents in the pathway of the trail, she had learned the City was working with property owners to make the trail compatible with what existed on properties on an individual basis, and she thought this should be the case for all property owners. She stated she was not in favor of the trail. Lauralee Chellen, 26710 Smithtown Road, stated the City of Shorewood provided a unique living experience for its residents through its beauty and charm. Smithtown Road reflected those characteristics and helped to defme the neighborhood that could not be found in other neighboring suburbs, and she had moved to Shorewood for that reason. She stated trails were available in other parts of the City; that to add a trail on Smithtown Road would be redundant, and they would change the neighborhood character by adding increased vehicular traffic, speed, and additional pedestrian traffic. She also stated she thought the addition of a trail would increase the risks for injury and accidents along the roadway. Additionally, she noted problems existed with mailbox vandalism, and this trail would only encourage more of that vandalism. She stated the community was unique, and she requested Council preserve that uniqueness by not moving forward with the trail project. . Pat Olsen, 25775 Smithtown Road, stated she lived on the south side of roadway, and had had problems with additional water on her property since previous work on the roadway had taken place. She stated she was concerned for additional water entering her yard as part of this project as well. She went on to state her property also backed up to the Southwest LRT trail, and she related her experience with dogs being off-leash on that trail. She stated she was opposed to the trail's placement as she thought it would become REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 10, 2003 Page 3 of 7 . problematic for residents along the north side of Smithtown Road. Additionally, she did not understand the rationale for the trail, as it seemed to start and end without connections to other major features. Eric Chell en, 26710 Smithtown Road, stated he had received phone calls to his home from representatives of the City working on the trail project indicating the trail project and his dissatisfaction with the messages they conveyed. He also stated a second phone call had been received requesting he come to City Hall to examine plans for the trail project. He stated he felt threatened by these phone calls, and he questioned the need for them. He requested the Council listen to the residents opposed to the project in this case. Diana Eckerberg, 27260 Smithtown Road, stated she was in favor of the trail, as she had two small children that would potentially need to walk to the elementary school. She stated she would prefer the south side of the roadway be utilized for the trail, as there seemed to be fewer driveways and crossings on that side. She further stated she was concerned for the crossing areas where pedestrians and motorized vehicles could meet, and she thought the trail did provide connections, as it would bring kids safely home from school. She also stated her husband was concerned for the roadway width, combined with the grassy areas, and then the location of the trail, as it seemed to encroach on neighboring properties located close to the roadway. She went on to state she concurred with the people concerned for loss of privacy where trees had been planted and would now need to be removed as part of the project. Ms. Eckerberg also stated if the roadway were widened, she believed it would be less safe for children to cross Smithtown Road. . Sig Weisser, 27680 Smithtown Road, stated he had been a Shorewood resident for thirty years, and had had problems with water near his home since the last roadway project. He also questioned which Council members had approved this project, and whether they lived along Smithtown Road to deal with the impacts from this project. Paul Gagner, questioned the proposed trail width. Mayor Love stated thanked residents for comments heard this evening. He went on to state two main issues appeared to be of concern. The first included a question of how the process for the project had taken place, and secondly, he believed a review of what the impact from the trail would be on local residents would be helpful. '. Engineer Brown stated the process followed regarding this roadway project had happened in an identical fashion to other roadway projects. Of the affected property owners for the roadway, fourteen owners would need to grant easements for the project to take place from the Hennepin COlmty LRT trail to Victoria municipal border. Staff had sought addresses and phone numbers from the phone book and utility records, and attempted to contact residents affected by the project to set up appointments to come to City Hall to view the proposed plans designed by the City's design consultant, WSB & Associates. He went on to explain WSB had initially provided incorrect roadway designs, further contributing to the confusion surrounding the project. Staffhad directed WSB to redesign the project appropriately to reflect the construction of the trail taking place on the north side of the road with eleven-foot traffic lanes, two feet of shoulder on the north side of the traffic lanes, and at least five feet of turf, with a five-foot walkway on the north side of the turf. This area was planned to accommodate mailboxes, and signage. Engineer Brown also stated it was difficult to structure the walkway around trees, and the City was attempting to negotiate with residents to determine resolutions for areas that concerned property owners most in the how the project affected their property. He went on to explain meetings were scheduled to further define the construction limits in the field so that residents would be able to more accurately understand where the project would be constructed. Thus far, resident input had indicated further . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 10, 2003 Page 4 of 7 markings were needed by the surveyor to clearly convey the construction limits. Engineer Brown also noted contact had been made with most property owners affected by the project; however, approximately five residents remained unavailable to set up appointments for review of the proposed plans. He stated the bulk of the meetings had already taken place with residents, and he would be most willing to talk about what could happen in the field regarding the placement of the survey stakes. Councilmember Garfunkel requested clarification for residents regarding the nonconformities found in the width of the current roadway, and how that would impact the project. Engineer Brown explained Smithtown Road currently varied in width from 20 feet to 36 feet. The impact of this variation meant that in the areas where the roadway was 20 feet wide, it would be widened; and where the roadway was 36 feet wide, it would be narrowed, so that the end result produced a uniform roadway width of two driving lanes measuring 11 feet in width, with a 4-foot shoulder on the south side of the traffic lanes, and a 2-foot shoulder on the north side of the traffic lanes. An average width for this project was considered to be approximately 24-26 feet. Mayor Love requested Staff report back on this matter, and noted Council had held previously held Public Hearings on this matter. He stated he would like to have contact made with all affected property owners so that proper diagrams could be shared. He stated a report on tlns matter would be placed on the next Regular City Council Agenda, and he thanked residents for their comments this evening. 5. PARKS A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held February 25, 2003 Engineer Brown reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 25, 2003, Park Commission Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Commissioner Meyer was also present for questions. He noted the Park Commission Meeting was held after the Sports Information Meeting with representatives of the sports organizations, City Staff, and members of Community Rec. Resources (CRR), a firm providing Park Coordinator services to the City. Engineer Brown noted the meeting seemed to go well regarding potential changes in scheduling of the City ball fields for the Sports Organizations, and he complimented CRR on its efforts to prepare materials and present information at the meeting. He also noted scheduling software had been purchased by the City and ownership of that software would be maintained by the City as well. Commissioner Turgeon stated she had attended the Sports Infomlation meeting, noting the meeting was well attended, and information presented seemed to be well received by representatives of the sports organizations. 6. PLANNING A. Church Road Property Director Nielsen stated last summer the City had received a request from John Pastuck to purchase the excess City property at the end of Church Road. The land was originally purchased to construct a cul-de- sac at the end of the previously dead-end street. At that time, the City assumed the cost of the two street assessments, totaling $27,787.54, that would otherwise have been borne by the residents of Church Road. The rationale for this decision was that the assessments would eventually be recovered through resale to a future developer wishing to utilize the property to the east. Also, at tllat time, Council directed Staff to obtain an opinion of value for the property and to advise the nearby residents of a possible sale of the . property. The opinion of value had been received, and Mr. Pastuck had also spoken to nearby property . . . REGULAR CITY COUNCll., MEETING MINUTES March 10, 2003 Page 5 of 7 owners regarding their possible interest in the property. A letter had been received noting the lack of interest in bidding on the property at this time from three property owners in the adjacent properties. Staff recommended the property be sold to the adjoining landowner for $27,787.54, plus the cost of the appraisal. Director Nielsen also noted questions had arisen regarding the potential for keeping the property for conservation open space purposes. As previously stated, he recommended, the money spent for retention of this property as open space could be utilized elsewhere in a more productive fashion. Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded, Accepting the Planning Director's recommendation that the City- owned land at the end of Church Road be sold to the adjoining landowner for $27,787.54, plus the cost of the appraisal. Motion passed 5/0. 7. GENERAL Mayor Love requested this item be changed to New Business for future Agenda items. Council agreed. Councilmember Zerby requested clarification on the inclusion of annual sealcoat funding in the Capital Improvement Plan, and suggested the City's identification signage located at mlmicipal borders be updated. Director Nielsen stated revised signage was being considered part of the proposed streetscape plans for the City entrances. 8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Freeman Park Parking Lot Engineer Brown reported that in June of 2002, the City of Shorewood entered into a cooperative agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to close the Freeman Park access closure to State Trunk Highway 7. In consideration of this closure, MnDOT was providing the City with approximately $75,600 as compensation. Plans were approved and bids opened in July, 2002, and due to the inflated pricing, bids were rejected with the plan to rebid the project in the spring season of 2003. Engineer Brown went on to report that with ongoing fears of fuel shortages and oil pricing, it was probable that the pricing during this bidding process would resemble the pricing from last year. At the last bidding, the low bid was in the amount of approximately $257,000. Councilmember Turgeon noted that when the original discussions on this project began, it was anticipated that the compensation from MNDOT would cover the majority of the cost of the project. She questioned whether any items in the cooperative agreement stated the parking lot had to be paved as part of this closure project, as she was having difficulty spending approximately $200,000 for paving a parking lot. She questioned whether the south parking lot affected by the closure could benefit from parking designation markers, such as posts, chains, and signs, as had taken place at the north parking lot in Freeman Park. Engineer Brown stated the cooperative agreement was for the access closure only, so other options remained available for handling the parking situation in that lot. Councilmember Garfunkel stated he agreed with Councilmember Turgeon, but also questioned how the nearby residents would be impacted by the change from asphalt to aggregate in the parking area, as he could foresee dust posing a problem to residents in the area. . . . REGULAR CITY COUNCn.. MEETING MINUTES March 10, 2003 Page 6 of 7 Mayor Love stated he also supported Councilmember Turgeon's sentiments regarding the expense ofthe asphalt parking area. He noted complaints had been received about that parking area, and thought a lot with designated parking areas would prove more orderly. He stated he was also concerned with the potential dust problem in that area. Engineer Brown stated measures could be taken to help control the dust, and when utilized in the past, residents had been happy with results. He stated another impact to consider was that of drainage from the parking area. In response to Mayor Love's question, Engineer Brown went on to explain the grading of the lot had been tipped to the east, and that effort had helped the drainage. From a technical standpoint, he stated he was not completely certain the drainage in that area was the fault of the grade of the parking area, however, the grading could be performed to the same elevations as a paved parking area to alleviate any remaining concerns. Engineer Brown recommended this item be tabled to work out further details regarding this closure and subsequent parking issues. Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, tabling this item until Engineer Brown reported back on the matter. Motion passed 5/0. B. Update on NPDES Phase II Project Engineer Brown reported an extension had been requested for City as part of its implementation of the second phase of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Project. Engineer Brown complimented WSB and Associates for simplifying the process utilized in this project, and noted the League of Minnesota Cities had been working with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency with regard to questions unanswered about this project. 9. REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff 1. County Road 19 Intersection Engineer Brown stated a meeting had taken place between the City and WSB & Associates, the City's design consultant on the project, to discuss submission of a revised work program for the project. He stated he had not heard a report from the County as to the status of negotiations regarding properties in Tonka Bay affected by the project. Councilmembers Garfunkel and Turgeon noted, while the direction from the City would not change, updated progress reports had been promised by the County representatives with regard to the impacted Work Plan for the project. 2. Public Safety Facilities Director Nielsen stated the bid opening for the project has gone smoothly last week, and based on bids received, estimates appeared to be in line with projections from Kraus-Anderson, the firm managing the project. 3. Smithtown Road Engineer Brown stated there was nothing further to report on this matter at this time. . . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 10, 2003 Page 7 of 7 4. Metropolitan Council Comments Regarding Comprehensive Plan Director Nielsen shared comments received from representatives of Metropolitan Council regarding the City's Comprehensive Plan. B. Mayor & City Council Councilmember Turgeon requested the Council hold a work session meeting to discuss potential budgetary impacts from the anticipated loss of funding from the State. Council agreed, noting this discussion should be placed on a Regular City Council Meeting Agenda. 10. ADJOURN Zerby moved, Lizee seconded, adjourning the Regular City Council Meeting of March 10, 2003, at 8:33 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. -.\ f RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary . . . . .~ Neighborhood Comments City Council Meeting March 10, 2003 We want to read these comments into the official minutes of this meeting. Survey Results: 83% in the path of the trail are opposed to it. JOIo are undecided. Only 10% favor it. When you include their neighbors across the road 69% are still opposed. 75% of the survey is opposed to any coercion of their neighbors for trails, with 8% undecided and only 17% endorsing coercion. 78% of a city wide scientific random sample are opposed to coercion on behalf of trails. This research is available for your examination. Just can Paul Gagner at 470-9592. We would like to examine the methodology involved in any city research. (1) As you can see from our door-to-door results, the vast majority of those in the physical path of the trail oppose it, along with a clear majority of the neighbors nearby. A clear majority also reject coercion on behalf of the trail. If all neighbors count, then they should count when they overwhelmingly reject coercion as the method by which a trail is built. (2) When the Smithtown Trail was first proposed during the Bean administration, it was slated for the south side. That was the original engineering decision. When the Smithtown Committee opposed that trail it was switched to the north side where most of the resistance was coming from -- as it is now. We need to make it clear that we will not tolerate the violation of anyone's civil rights due to animus. The basis of the decision for putting the trail on the north instead of the south side is important, and must be demonstrably objective, not because we would ever force the trail on our neighbors to the south, but to insure that the basis of any decision the city makes is clear alld 11011-arbitrary. ObviQusly, a trail 011 the north side forces chi/drell going to school to cross Smithtown Road to the. north willy nil/y. There may be no clear advantage to one side or the other in this regard. The goal is to make sure that the engineering rationale is clear and public. We expect detailed documentation from the city in this regard. Then we can sit down with the DOT, our civil engineering consultant, our lawyers and our state representatives to examine whether the trail project is well- conceived by nature. One question we are pursuing is what the state would expect from such a decision and the process as a whole. (3) Just to state the obvious: The city of Shorewood should not be fudging on MSA requirements for an MSA funded trail. We'll confirm this with the DOT. The city should not be cutting deals for one property owner and not another. There should be no discrimination in the city's approach to this trail. We should aU be treated the same. If we believe the city is violating anyone's civil rights, through relative favor, privelege, or disfavor, we will pursue that aggressively. If the only way the city can get the residents to accept the trail is by violating DOT standards, or manipulating the residents in discriminatory ways, it is a clear sign that the trail is simply not viable. The neighbors recognize that we're all equal in this together, even if the city does not recognize that. (4) The city has presented no risk analysis, which proves that the trail, or even just the widening of the road, win not become an attractive nuisance and cause the first pedestrian-car tragedy on the Shorewood side of Smith town. Presently there is no objective statistical evidence of a major hazard. And everyone can agree that subjective estimates of safety are simply arbitrary and authoritarian. Any road, given ~nough time will be the scene of an accident due to driver and pedestrian error. But a trail slated to cross multiple driveways and siele streets is at least an obvious, objective, attractive nuisance. We intend to make sure that documentation of Shore wood's lack of analysis in this regard is on record and made public. The State ofMN may not require the city to produce this documentation, but the first one to be injured by the new configuration, will want to know whether or not this analysis was done. (5) As far as we know this council committed itself early on to not forcing trails on people who don't want them. We don't want it. And the vast majority of Shorewoodians are opposed to coercing us. As far as we're concerned the case is closed. r?6 t!2 cG -7'V ~ 3.../0..03