Loading...
082304 CC Reg Min ~ . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 2004 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING In the absence of Mayor Love, Acting Mayor Garfunkel called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Acting Mayor Garfunkel; Councilmembers Lizee, Turgeon, and Zerby; Administrator Dawson, Attorney Keane (arrived 7:05 P.M.), Engineer Brown, Finance Director Burton, and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Mayor Love B. Review Agenda Zerby moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, August 9, 2004 Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, Approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2004, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, August 9, 2004 Lizee moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2004, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. C. City Council Work Session Minutes, August 9, 2004 Zerby moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2004, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Lizee moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein: A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Staffing C. Authorizing Submittal of the 2004-2005 Winter Trail Activities Permit . . . CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES August 23, 2004 Page 2 of8 D. Authorization of Performance Pay for Liquor Store Manager Motion passed 4/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. 6. PUBLIC HEARING None. 7. PARKS A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held August 10, 2004 Chair Davis reported on matters considered and actions taken at the Park Commission Meeting of August 10,2004 (as detailed in the minutes ofthat meeting). She also noted communications were still being received, mostly in favor, of the proposed Dog Park area in the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park. In response to Councilmember Garfunkel's question, Chair Davis explained the proposed park would include approximately 17-25 acres of open space for dogs to run, and Carver County Parks had indicated it would be requesting funding donations from municipalities approximately 10-15 miles from the proposed park. She stated representatives from the Park District would be returning to speak further with the Shorewood Park Commission at a later date. Approximately $30,000 of the $47,000 necessary for funding of the proposed park had already been received from Chanhassen and Victoria. Councilmember Turgeon stated she would not be opposed to contributing to the proposed park at a later date. Engineer Brown also stated South Tonka Little League had submitted a request for replacement of an existing scoreboard with an electronic scoreboard at Freeman Park, as well as other maintenance items associated with appropriate field use at the Little League fields in the park. He noted the Park Commission held a lengthy discussion regarding whether sponsorship stated on the scoreboard assigned the scoreboard to the Donor Policy guidelines being developed by the Commission in recent months. Councilmember Zerby questioned whether the sponsorship could be made a removable portion of the slgnage. Councilmember Turgeon stated she was concerned for establishing a precedent by allowing additional signage in this case as the signage was being placed in a City park. She was also concerned for potential impacts to the Donor Policy. Acting Mayor Garfunkel stated he thought the size of the signage seemed an issue for consideration. If the signage was large, the perception of the sponsorship seemed to be advertising; if the signage was small, the perception seemed to be commemorative. He stated he was not opposed to some sort of recognition, if it was not obtrusive in nature. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES August 23, 2004 Page 3 of8 . Councilmember Lizee questioned whether the Freeman Park Plaza plans, if submitted for review prior to the Special Meeting of the Park Commission for this purpose on August 30, 2004, could still move forward with construction this fall as desired by the donors and Shorewood Parks Foundation. Engineer Brown responded affirmatively, noting it was imperative the detailed plans be submitted in a timely fashion for the Special Meeting to take place on August 30,2004. 8. PLANNING - Report by Representative Commissioner Conley reported on matters considered and actions taken at the August 17, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). A. Barrington PUD Final Plan and Final Plat (Att. - Draft Resolution and Development Agreement) Applicant: Brian Harju (Capestone Builders) Location: 20755 and 20775 Manor Road . Director Nielsen explained a final plan and final plat had been submitted for this Planned Unit Development project located on the old Carmichiel Auto Salvage site. The project proposed eleven twin home buildings (a total of22 units) plus the existing home on the site. He stated the final plans depicted tree placement near the entry to the site on the south end, near the small pond on the northerly portion of the site, and throughout the interior portion of the development. Director Nielsen also explained a development agreement had been prepared, and was in need of formatting revisions. He went on to state the roadway for this project was private and would be maintained by the homeowner's association rather than the City. He stated the final plan and plat was subject to the City Engineer's approval of these plans and specifications associated with the project. Engineer Brown stated Staffhad'been working with Roger Anderson, the developer's Engineer, to resolve issues associated with ponding on the site. These issues had been resolved and reviewed by City Engineering Staff. Plans were in order for the project, and the biggest hurdle remaining for the successful completion of the project was review by the City Engineer of the watermain extension outside the proj ect area. Councilmember Lizee questioned whether any provisions for lighting were part of the plans. Brian Harju, of Capes tone Builders, stated lighting had been prepared to Department of Transportation standards. He stated lighting would be placed at the entrance to the site, and on both street areas and in the cul-de-sac area shown on the plan. Director Nielsen stated lighting would be part of a separate planning item at a later date. Councilmember Turgeon complimented the developer on the plans for the site, and noted the site in its current condition, was being well maintained throughout construction phasing. Councilmember Zerby questioned the types of block to be utilized in the retaining walls throughout the project. Roger Anderson, Engineer for Capestone Builders, then reviewed the block types and locations throughout the proj ect. . Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 04-070, "A Resolution Approving the Barrington Planned Unit Development Final Plan and Final Plat for Brian Harju (Capestone Builders), 20755 and 20775 Manor Road." CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES August 23, 2004 Page 4 of 8 . Councilmember Zerby stated he thought this was a great project and he was excited to see progress being made on the site. Councilmember Lizee agreed. Motion passed 4/0. 9. GENERALINEW BUSINESS A. Approval of 2005 Funding for SLMPD Administrator Dawson explained the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Coordinating Committee met August 4, 2004, and by consensus forwarded a proposed budget that would increase member cities' contributions by 4.1 % compared to the budget recommended for Fiscal Year 2004. He explained Shorewood's required contribution, if approved, would be $690,092. Administrator Dawson then went on to review the necessary approval time line for the budget review by Councils, noting action must be taken on the 2005 contribution to the budget by September 1,2004. Councilmember Turgeon expressed disappointment in receiving the budgets from SLMPD so late in the time line for budgetary consideration. She stated the lack of time to consider the budget forced Councils to view the budget in a "reactionary" mode, and she requested a change be made in the budget planning process for next year to allow more time for review. She further noted the lack of time impacted the ability to mediate any situations requiring resolution prior to the approval deadline. She requested the budgets be presented to Council no later than June 1 of each year for adequate time to consider the budget. . In response to questions related to timing within the budget planning process, Administrator Dawson explained SLMPD Chief Litsey may have waited for 6 months of operational data at the new facility for accuracy in preparing the 2005 budget. In addition, Administrator Dawson would forward further information regarding the services provided by the Cornerstone Agency. Lizee moved, Zerby seconded, Approving a Contribution of $690,092 for the 2005 South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Operating Budget. Councilmember Zerby stated he agreed with Councilmember Turgeon's issues related to the timeliness of the budget; however he also stated he was sympathetic to there being a new facility. He was quite certain the Chief understood the frustration Council had indicated and he thought a requested increase of 4.1 % was fair, and would provide the City with services at a value to the taxpayer. He thanked Chief Litsey, City Staff, and Council for its efforts in bringing the budget forward. Motion passed 4/0. . Counci1member Turgeon explained the City of Tonka Bay had responded to a letter from the City of Excelsior regarding options for budget consideration in the near future. She stated, with regard to the letter from Tonka Bay to Excelsior, that she had no problems with the idea of a panel helping the Councils to work the problems associated with approval of the budget, however she believed certain stipulations should apply. Specifically, she believed there needed to be a "sunset" date included when discussing the idea of a panel, and there needed to be a time line determined regarding how long each Council would have to respond to the panel's recommendations. She stated she thought the end of the year would be too long for consideration of issues to be resolved, and she suggested the panel be . . . CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES August 23, 2004 Page 5 of8 established by mid-September of this year, and October 31, 2004, as a deadline for completion of tasks before the panel, with an early November consideration by Councils. Any mediation resulting from the unresolved issues required binding arbitration, and to that end, she requested an estimate from a mediator on the necessary time for arbitration. Council indicated consensus for these suggestions, and Administrator Dawson stated he would send a supplemental letter to the City of Excelsior further explaining the position of the Shorewood Council. Councilmember Zerby requested a draft of this letter be submitted to all Councilmembers prior to being sent fonnally to the City of Excelsior. 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Southwest LRT Trail Crossing at County Road 19 Engineer Brown explained that at a Regular Council Meeting held on July 26, 2004, Council heard a request through petition to make the Southwest LRT Trail crossing at County Road 19 as an official trail crossing. Under State Statute, this action would result in all vehicles yielding right-of-way to pedestrian traffic. After considerable discussion with representatives from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, SLMPD, Hennepin County and the Three Rivers Park District, regarding the safety of this action, Hennepin County performed an installation of a pedestrian crossing at County Road 19 at the LRT Trail crossing. Engineer Brown noted County Road 19 carried traffic volumes in excess of 15,000 vehicles daily, with speeds often in excess of 40 miles per hour. Engineer Brown went on to state from a technical standpoint, a marked pedestrian crossing at the LRT trail on County Road 19 was unacceptable. He noted two hours after the signage and crossing had been designated, there was a "near miss" involving four vehicles and pedestrians at the posted trail crossing. He stated the excessive traffic and increased speeds along this roadway made the situation very unsafe. He stated the installation performed was not acceptable, and one viable solution, although clearly not perfect in this case, would involve the installation of a "safety island" whereby pedestrians would be able to stand approximately halfway across the roadway on an island before crossing to the other side. Engineer Brown stated WSB and Associates had concurred with his assessment of the unsafe situation and Chief Litsey of the SLMPD had submitted an emailletter expressing his disappointment for installation of the crossing with no input from the police department regarding this issue. This email also stated Chief Litsey's concern for a potential increase in accidents due to the changes in signage and markings in the area for pedestrians. In response to Councilmember Turgeon's question, Engineer Brown explained the legal designation for a crosswalk had changed in the last year. The signage posted for the trail crossing was now considered enforceable due to the size of the signage and color intensity of the signage. Engineer Brown noted, however, nowhere in any of the posted pedestrian crossing signage was it indicated motorists would need to yield orstop for pedestrians. Furthermore, he stated bicyclists were not considered pedestrians in these crossings. He also stated the signage posted did meet enforcement standards; however, motorists were uncertain how to respond. Councilmember Lizee stated she did not think the pedestrian signage at the trail crossing was safe or effective in this case, as she also did not think people knew they needed to stop at this crossing. Councilmember Turgeon agreed, noting the current crossing seemed to provide a false sense of security CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES August 23, 2004 Page 6 of8 . for pedestrians. She also stated to post "No passing on the shoulder" signage would help but still would not be enough to deter motorists refusing to yield to pedestrians as required. Elizabeth Van, 24710 Amlee Road, stated she was one of the residents in support of the crossing and had brought the issue to Council via petition. She stated representatives of all agencies referenced by Engineer Brown were aware of the trail crossing issues, and noted placement of the signage posed a "double-edged sword" in this case. She also stated she was quite surprised the signage had been posted so quickly. She further stated representatives of both Hennepin County and MnDOT had insisted the trail crossing area required additional police patrol, and MnDOT representatives did not believe any additional signage was warranted in this case as all Drivers' Education manuals clearly informed motorists that they need to stop at posted crosswalks such as this one. Also, Ms. Vann stated, people would be crossing on the trail with or without appropriate signage, and with the signage it became enforceable for police to ticket those motorists that did not follow the signage. She stated she agreed some advance warning of the posted signage would have been better received by all parties involved and construction of a "safety island" seemed a better solution; however, at this point in time, the signage provided enforcement of the issue. Carolyn Nicklow, 5585 Harding Lane, stated she used the trail and crossing quite frequently, and while she appreciated the efforts made by the County, she thought the signs made it worse for crossing as motorists were not certain about how to handle the situation. She stated she thought safety should always come first, and flashing lights were certainly required in this case. She also stated she thought the County would have realized this was a family area with the park nearby and would have provided additional safety measures. . Patricia Arnst, 5480 Teal Circle, stated she believed there was ambiguity on County Road 19 currently since the signage had been posted. She stated pedestrians on the trail had been and would continue to be certain that they needed to stop at the crossing, but the same could not be said for motorists. She stated she supported Engineer Brown's comments and also thought the signage and crossing brought more confusion to County Road 19. She also stated police enforcement efforts would need to be limited simply due to budget constraints at this time. Ms. Arnst further stated she liked the idea of a "grass roots" beginning to this issue, but wished the writer of the petition and fliers being shared in nearby neighborhoods would include a name and phone number rather than calling themselves Shorewood residents only as she was a resident that did not agree with the situation as stated in the flier. Acting Mayor Garfunkel stated he was quite concerned about the situation as it seemed to provide an opportunity for mistakes to be made by motorists at the expense of pedestrians. Councilmember Lizee stated the crossing was not adequate in its current state. She questioned Engineer Brown regarding the liability of the situation. Engineer Brown explained the liability rested with the County since the roadway was a County owned roadway, and the County had performed the installation of the signage. Council indicated by consensus that a letter be sent to Hennepin County Commissioners regarding the unsafe situation created by the installation of the pedestrian signage at the trail crossing, and requesting help in this matter. . . . . CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES August 23, 2004 Page 7 of 8 B. Rejecting Bids for the County Road 19 Intersection Project Engineer Brown explained bids had been received and were opened on August 4, 2004 for the County Road 19 Improvement Project. Bids were checked for accuracy and tabulated. He then shared the bid tabulations noting the lowest bid provided was 28.69% above the engineer's estimate for the project. He went on to explain City Staff had discussed the matter with representatives of Hennepin County. These representatives were requesting the City reject the bids in order to allow revisions to be made to the County's portion of the roadway section that they believed would result in substantial changes to the amounts of a second bid. Engineer Brown noted Staff had relayed its skepticism in whether the revisions could result in substantial savings. Despite these concerns the County was requesting the project be re- bid. Discussion ensued regarding the potential areas the County believed could be impacted by revisions. In response to Councilmember Turgeon's question, Engineer Brown explained the County would not be supplying any additional funding to offset any additional costs incurred as part ofthe market situation related to the project. He then shared a revised timeline for the project indicating the construction phasing for the project would need to be split differently but would still begin this year. Zerby moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 04-071, "A Resolution Rejecting Bids for the County Road 19 Intersection Project." Motion passed 4/0. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff 1. CR 19 Construction Update Engineer Brown stated there was nothing further to add at this time. 2. Timber Lane Watermain Engineer Brown stated Staff would need to re-contact residents along Timber Lane regarding the potential water main installation in that area, as only three residents had responded to the City's request for input on the project. B. Mayor & City Council 1. Liquor Committee Recommendations from Liquor Marketing Study Administrator Dawson explained that the City had contracted with Dakota Worldwide Corporation earlier in the year to provide a Liquor Marketing Study to determine potential impacts to the City should another liquor store operation begin in the City. The study had considered a number of options and after considerable review by the Liquor Committee; it was recommended the Council take no action toward implementation of a new liquor store at this time. Administrator Dawson explained the committee's recommendation also included revisiting the concept of a opening a third liquor store within the City at this time next year in preparation for the 2006 budget deliberations. ~ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES ... August 23, 2004 Page 8 of8 . . . 12. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, Adjourning the Regular City Council Meeting of August 23, 2004, at 8:57 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLYSUBNUTTED Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary Garfunkel, ~g Mayor