Loading...
102207 CC Reg MinCITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2007 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies, Turgeon, Wellens and Woodruff; Associate Attorney Mayeron; Administrator Dawson; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Wellens moved, Callies seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, September 24, 2007 Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of September 24, 2007, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Work Session Minutes, October 8, 2007 Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of October 8, 2007, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, October 8, 2007 Turgeon moved, Callies seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 8, 2007, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Staffing -Liquor Store Part-time Clerk SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 2 of 13 C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-065, "A Resolution Approving Licenses to Retailers to Sell Tobacco Products for CUB Foods Shorewood, Holiday Station Store #12, and Oasis Market." D. Authorization to Dispose of Public Works Equipment (This was moved to Item 9.D under General/ New Business.) E. Authorize Expenditure of Funds from the Equipment Replacement Fund for a Toro Groundsmaster (This was moved to Item 9.C under General/ New Business.) F. Accepting Proposal for Professional Design-Build Services for Amesbury Well Controls G. Community Rec. Resources 2007 First and Second Quarter Report Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Jim Hoban, 5525 Manitou Lane, stated he had three items that were disturbing him that he wanted to bring Council's attention. He expressed concern about safety with regard to Mr. Herkal's property (located on the south side of Glen Road just west of Manitou Lane). He explained that last fall the house on the property was demolished and clearing of the property was started which resulted in four large piles of brush being created. A hole remained where the old house was located and there was no protective fence around the hole, and the hole had approximately three feet of water in it. The weeds on the property were close to chest high and the grass was almost three feet tall. There had been afive-gallon plastic gas can located on one of the piles; a week ago a child found the gas can and ended up at Hennepin County Medical Center. He then expressed concern about a property located on County Road 19 near Wood Duck Lane - he stated he had not seen any one on the property since last May and he would like the growth on the property cut. His last concern was with regard to the Nelson property on Glen Road. He understood the property owner ran an auto mechanic's business there and the man had a large family to support; but, there had been some type of shed on a flatbed trailer with a pickup hooked up to it since June. There was a constant flow of cars on the property, and he thought the property owner should be able to keep some of the cars inside the six-car garage on the property. Mayor Lizee stated anytime a resident had a concern about a property they should call City Hall, and a member of the staff would address the problem and respond back to the resident. Councilmember Turgeon stated she had spoken to Director Nielsen about Herkal and County Road 19 properties. Mayor Lizee stated often problems such as those discussed by Mr. Hoban were routed to specific staff members to address and then Council was apprised of the situation later or when Council must take action. Assistant Weed Inspector, Joe Lugowski was in the audience, and he reviewed the types of obnoxious weeds the City was concerned with. Administrator Dawson explained for any complaints filed with the City the complainant's name would remain confidential under the Minnesota Data Privacy Act. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 3 of 13 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, Glen Road Street Reconstruction Project, City Project 07-O1 Mayor Lizee opened the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M. Councilmember Turgeon stated she would recuse herself from this discussion because she owned property in the proposed project area. Administrator Dawson reviewed the procedures utilized for a Public Hearing. He explained because an assessment was being contemplated for the improvement project the City had to hold a Public Hearing before the Council could act on a resolution to order the improvement. The assessable portion of the project (the installation of City water) had been initiated by the City and at least afour-fifths vote by the Council was necessary to approve ordering the Project. The project area was Amlee Road, Manitou Lane and Glen Road and it included the public improvements that would normally be done as part of a street reconstruction project. Engineer Landini stated at its September 10, 2007, meeting Council accepted the Feasibility Report for the project. He then reviewed the improvements listed in the Feasibility Report: installation of water main for Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, and Glen Road; sanitary sewer improvements for Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, and Glen Road; storm sewer improvements for Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, and Glen Road; the reconstruction of Amlee Road to have a 24-foot driving surface with edge control; the reconstruction of Manitou Lane to have a 22-foot driving surface with edge control; the reconstruction of Glen Road to have a 20-foot driving surface with edge control; and, the construction of a storm water management pond on City property located east of Glen Road and north of the Hennepin Country Regional Rail Authority trail. Engineer Landini then stated the Feasibility Report also contained an Opinion of Probable Cost for the Project. The water main costs were estimated to be $425,000. The estimated assessment for water improvements for each of the 47 benefiting property owners in the proposed project area was assessed $9,042.55, and the remaining costs of the project would be covered by City funds. Mayor Lizee stated a public information meeting was held on July 18, 2007, to present the proposed project to the neighborhood, and to answer questions regarding the project and the possible assessment. There had also been numerous neighborhood meetings and Council discussions. She thanked those members of the audience for coming this evening. Mayor Lizee opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M. Joe Lugowski, 24710 Glen Road, stated he had come to realize that after attending four neighborhood meetings and one public meeting that no matter how much information there was at City Hall about the project there were still many uninformed property owners. He was disappointed and frustrated by the amount of misinformation that was being shared between the property owners. He then noted some SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 4 of 13 examples of the misinformation. There had been discussions regarding catch basins with release valves and he had never seen one nor did he think he ever would. There were overlay estimates for Glen Road from County Road 19 to Manitou Lane for the amount of $15,000; fifteen driveways could not been done for that cost. There was inadequate storm drain pipe which would include 27-inch pipe to the new pond, and he found it hard to believe that was inadequate. There would be 75 - 125 trees that would be cut down; milling the road would not necessarily kill the trees. He then stated he had signed a survey which did not allow him to correctly communicate his wants. The survey asked if he wanted City water. He stated he would want City water if the entire project was done and if the entire project was not done he did not want City water, but there was no way to make that clarification. He did not want to see all of the trees cut down. He stated the project would benefit everyone in the project area. He had worked for the City for nineteen years and he had never seen property owners work so hard to kill a project. If the project did not move forward, he would still like to see the drainage issues on his property resolved. He stated people had questioned why City water was not installed when City sewer was installed thirty years ago. He wondered what property owners would think ten years from now about City water main not being installed and drainage issues not being resolved for a cost of $9,000. He related his wife had stated she did not want to pay for flood insurance anymore. Wall.~yan, 24845 Glen Road, stated he appreciated Mr. Lugowski's comments; the numbers in the survey had been taken from paper work the City had sent the property owners and which had been presented at the meetings. He noted he had forwarded a copy of a neighborhood survey which had been done over the course of the last four weeks to Council. He explained that Engineer Landini had attended a meeting at the church on Glen Road two weeks ago, and he understood Landini to say there would be 4 - 5 houses that would be affected by the reconstruction project. Piroyan stated 4 - 5 houses that were in a low area and had always been in a low area. He found it hard to believe 43 other property owners would be taxed for a project that would benefit 5 property owners. He stated the City Code contained a Chapter titled Tree Preservation. He then quoted a portion of City Code Section 1103.01 He stated the City had a very defined standard for what a significant tree was. He then stated on Mayor Lizee's web site the City's Tree Preservation and Restoration Policy was listed as one of the City's accomplishments. He asked the City to adhere to its own policy. Clint Bucher 5490 Manitou Lane, stated he had attended various meetings where project planning had been discussed, and he supported the planning process. He then stated he no longer supported the project; therefore, there would no longer be more than 50 percent of the property owners on Manitou Lane who supported the project. Also, there were not more than 50 percent of the property owners on Amlee Road and Glen Road who supported the project. He commented that he understood the City had the authority to override the majority of the property owners' desires. He stated the City could consider a referendum, and if 60 percent of the people were for the project he could live with that. But, based on what he heard the majority of the property owners did not want the project to move forward. He stated it was unfortunate that 4 - 5 property owners had significant drainage issues because they were in a flood zone. Roger Rogney, 25135 Glen Road, stated his property was one of the lowest properties on Glen Road. He commented over the last 10 - 15 years the property owners with significant drainage issues had learned how to deal with the problems. He stated with the development immediately south of his property, some steps had been taken to mitigate storm water flow and drainage, and for the last three years he had not experienced any drainage problems. He commented he thought the arbor of trees on Glen Road was beautiful; it would be a shame to remove the trees. He had been told the end of Glen Road did not go straight and there had been discussion regarding straightening the road; if that were to happen he would not be able to keep the fountain in the middle of his front yard. He stated after the survey stakes were put SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 5 of 13 in and the trees that would be removed were marked, the negative impact of the project became very apparent. Mr. Piroyan reviewed the neighborhood survey results. The results of the respondents were: 67 percent were not interested in City water; 20 percent were interested in City water; 59 percent were opposed to granting the City a construction easement; on both Glen Road and Manitou Lane 75 percent were unwilling to grant special easements; and, 75 percent were opposed to the destruction of trees and property even if it meant canceling the project. Jim Hoban, 5525 Manitou Lane, stated his wife had lived at their property since 1968 and he had lived there since January 1974. He had been a resident of Shorewood since 1955, with the exception of four years when he was away at school. When he was eight years old he would spend all day in the woods near his home by Galpin Lake, and he could see 50 - 100 different deer at a time. Times had changed since then. He stated his opposition to City water by analogy. The Council was his financial broker who suggested he make a $10,000 investment on which he may have to pay interest and pay for the hookup. In addition Council's brokerage fee would be sent to him on a monthly or quarterly basis forever. He asked his broker what the $10,000 was for - it was for City water, but he already had water. He asked his broker if he had City water would the broker guarantee him that it would be better for him to have City water; he knew it would be more expensive. He went on to ask if the neighborhood drainage issues would be permanently resolved. He understood the road was too narrow and it was in need of repairs, but in 37 years the road had never failed to allow him to get from his house to County Road 19. He commented there were roads in Cottagewood that were equally as narrow and the garages on properties there were larger than his house. The City was asking the neighborhood to invest more than $500,000 (the cost of the project which was $425,000 plus the monthly or quarterly fees). He stated there were too many unanswered questions. The City would get the permanent return on his investment. If the City were his broker, he would say "no deal" because the risks were too high and the guarantees were too few. Mr. Hoban then stated in July 2007 three options were presented regarding the project: 1) do the project as defined (road construction and water main installation); 2) leave things as they were; or, 3) do a 2-inch overlay. He had not heard any discussion regarding option 3 since that time. He stated he was not against doing road reconstruction and water main installation; it would be foolish to reconstruct the road and not install water main. He questioned where the 10-foot-wide temporary access road would be located. Mr. Hoban then stated the issue was no longer about asphalt, drainage issues, loss of trees, or loss of property; the issue was "what is true and what is the right thing to do". He asked Council to vote their conscience. John Miller, 24925 Glen Road, stated placing the survey stakes in the ground and marking the trees that would be removed created a wonderful visual, and he recommended that be done at the very beginning of any neighborhood project. As a result of the stakes and markings, the property owners realized the extent of the tree damage that would occur and the serious incursions into some of the properties. He explained he had a career in construction, and based on his experiences he knew there most frequently were many ways to do things and there were often compromises that had to be made. He stated he had had a wonderful discussion with Engineer Landini, and Landini had a number of good ideas. He suggested Council give Landini the opportunity to further explore some of his ideas. He then suggested Council delay taking any action. He also suggested Council should form a committee (consisting of some property owners, members of the City staff, and members of the Council) to discuss options to save some of the trees and to resolve some of the drainage issues (which he had heard at this meeting were not as severe as he previously understood them to be). SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 6 of 13 Janice Leafer, Lake Fellowship Unitarian Universalist Church, stated she was a member of the Church's Board and the Church was on a large piece of property on Glen Road. She stated the Board voted against granting a construction easement because it was concerned about the cost for such a small congregation, and because the Church had put in a new well two years ago. The Board was concerned about the loss of trees. She commented the Church had allowed the property owners to meet at its location to discuss their concerns about the project. She stated she did not think Council would want the property owners to be very upset if the project were approved. Mayor Lizee closed the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. Mayor Lizee asked Staff to address some of the issues and questions that were raised this evening. She commented three of the Councilmembers were on the Planning Commission when the City's Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy was developed. She stated with many road reconstruction projects there was a loss of trees, but there was also a plan to replace lost trees. Engineer Landini stated if the project were to be approved the City would likely work with Cook Forestry to prepare the tree preservation plan in accordance with the Policy, unless the Council decided the City would not have to adhere to the Policy. Councilmember Callies asked Staff to review the alternatives that had been considered as part of the planning process. Director Brown stated the original draft of the Feasibility Report the scope of the project was a pavement reclamation project for Amlee Road and Manitou Lane. Council then directed Staff to include Glen Road as part of the project. The City engaged the services of a soil consultant to conduct an in-depth analysis of the subsurface soils. After the soil borings were taken and analyzed it was determined that the foundation materials would not support doing a pavement reclamation; doing a reclamation would be a poor investment of tax dollars. The project then evolved to a road reconstruction project. The City could consider patching the roads as a short-term solution. Councilmember Callies asked Director Brown to review the various road layouts that were considered. Director Brown explained the City had standards for roadway width. Brown commented that the recently modified State Fire Code included aroad-width standard of 26 feet and a cul-de-sac standard of 96 feet in diameter. He stated there had been a great deal of discussion between Council and Staff regarding the City's 24-foot road-width standard. The Project Plan was eventually revised to reconstruct Manitou Lane to have a 22-foot driving surface and reconstruct Glen Road to have a 20-foot driving surface. He explained that there was a baseline impact on trees which would occur regardless of the road width; the tree loss did not increase proportionately with each extra foot of width. Councilmember Callies questioned what were the other staff ideas referred to by Mr. Miller. Landini stated he and Mr. Miller had discussed not centering Glen Road in the right-of--way; to do that might require the City obtain rights to the land on the north side where the road would be shifted to. Callies commented the impact on the properties on the north side of Glen Road would be increased to reduce the impact on the properties on the south side of Glen Road. Councilmember Wellens stated if the proposed project was not done he assumed the roads would be candidates for overlay improvements. Engineer Landini explained three of the five drill holes performed supported there was not enough of a foundation to support an overlay. Landini then stated Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, and Glen Road were all rated as being in poor condition in the City's street inventory. Wellens stated he assumed the individual drainage issues in the project area could be resolved by doing a separate small project. Landini explained the scope of the fixes would be very limited and would likely SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 7 of 13 be cost prohibitive. Mayor Lizee commented that Council was considering the project as presented, not a different project. Councilmember Woodruff stated the property owners' survey indicated many property owners refused to grant easements. He asked Engineer Landini's perspective on the easement situation. Landini stated based on phone calls and verbal responses he had received, it would be difficult to do the project due to lack of easements. In response to a question from Councilmember Callies, Landini explained the easements would be needed for hydrants for watermain to be installed, the storm sewer improvements would require easements to install the pipe, and temporary construction easements would be required for the reconstruction of the roads. Director Brown stated when this project was last discussed at a Council work session it was stated verbal agreement had been obtained for approximately one-third of the easements, but the agreements had not been made in written form. Therefore, it would be unlikely the project would continue unless the City entered into the process of acquiring the necessary easements though eminent domain. He stated there were limited roadway improvement funds; therefore, he did not recommend the City enter into the eminent domain process because of the cost. There were many other road improvements projects that could be done and there were not enough funds to do them all. Councilmember Wellens questioned if the new State Fire Code road-width standard applied to new roads only. Director Brown stated Staff would have to determine what the impact of the standard would be on existing roads. Councilmember Woodruff commented that the City had spent a great deal of time and money (he guessed approximately $80,000) doing due diligence on the project. He then stated from his vantage point Council and Staff had learned a lot about how not to do a project. He suggested Council have discussions about how future projects should be conducted and what should be done to ensure there was an acceptable solution to the City and property owners for a project before the City spent significant funds on the project. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, directing Staff to prepare a resolution to terminate the Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, Glen Road Street Reconstruction Project, City Project 07-01. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Turgeon recusing. Mayor Lizee recessed the meeting at 8:08 P.M. Mayor Lizee reconvened the meeting at 8:18 P.M. 7. PARKS -Report by Representative A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held October 9, 2007 Commissioner Quinlan reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 9, 2007, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Woodruff stated at a previous meeting he had suggested the $3,000 in funding for the 2008 Arctic Fever event be paid out of the 2007 General Fund budget if possible. He questioned if Staff had determined if that would be possible. Director Burton stated it would be. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 8 of 13 Councilmember Woodruff questioned if the City had received any feedback on the new lighting at Badger Field. Director Brown stated the City had received a great deal of positive feedback from coaches and players about the lighting, and it received positive feedback on the field itself. 8. PLANNING -Report by Representative Commissioner Geng reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 16, 2007, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Commissioner Geng explained the Planning Commission had agreed to recommend that the Shorewood Yacht Club be allowed to rent 35 of its slips, all located on pier 4, for powerboat use. Those slips were in addition to the four slips already allowed for SYC powerboats. A. Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space Over 1200 Sq. Ft. Applicants: Jon and Nancy Tellor Location: 20050 Excelsior Boulevard Director Nielsen stated Nancy and Jon Tellor owned the properties at 20030 and 20050 Excelsior Boulevard. Water Street Homes, LLC - on behalf of the Tellors -had applied for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) to construct a new guest house with atuck-under garage and a swimming pool at the 20050 property. The existing buildings on the property would be demolished. The property was zoned R- lA, Single-Family Residential and contained approximately 39,399 square feet of area. Nielsen explained the proposed house contained approximately 1980 square feet of floor area. The garage beneath the main level had the same floor area with the garage door on the northeast side of the building. The lot would be accessed by a driveway that already served the applicants' primary residence at 20030 Excelsior Boulevard. Nielsen reviewed how the Tellors' request complied with the four criteria specified in Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the City's Zoning Code for granting a C.U.P. for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet. The total area of accessory space (1980 square feet) did not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principal structure (1980 square feet). 2. The total area of accessory space did not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the R-lA zoning district (.10 x. 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet). The proposed home and swimming pool complied with the setback requirements of the R-lA zoning district. The easement on the lot must be extinguished prior to issuance of any building permit, and evidence that the easement on the property had been eliminated would need to be provided. 4. Since the garage was an integral part of the proposed dwelling, materials and design of the building were not considered to be an issue. The new building would compliment the Tellors' house at 20030 Excelsior Boulevard. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 9 of 13 Nielsen noted the City had received a letter the City had received expressing concerns about parking for construction vehicles and construction traffic. At the public hearing, Rick Carlson, with Water Street Homes, LLC and representing the applicant, explained there was adequate parking on the subject property. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the C.U.P. subject to the following Staff recommendations. The applicant must provide evidence (prior to issuance of any building permit) showing that the easement on the property had been extinguished. 2. The applicant must provide (prior to release of the resolution approving the C.U.P.) a driveway easement and maintenance agreement, suitable for recording against the properties. The applicant must record the resolution and driveway agreement within 30 days of receipt of the resolution approving the request. Turgeon moved, Callies seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-066, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet to Jon and Nancy Tellor, 20050 Excelsior Boulevard." Motion passed 5/0. B. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Signage Applicant: Shorewood Village Shopping Center Location: 23600+ State Highway 7 Director Nielsen stated Patrick Daly, representing of the Shorewood Village Center, had submitted an application to revise the Center's existing conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for multiple Signage. The City's Zoning Code allowed each commercial property up to three signs -one freestanding and two wall signs; properties with multiple tenants may, by C.U.P., have more signs based upon an overall sign plan approved by the City. Nielsen explained the applicant made its overall sign plan more generic; rather than listing specific businesses, the Signage was allocated to categories of space. That change should result in fewer amendments to the C.U.P. in the future when occupancy in the Center changed. Nielsen then explained the City's sign regulations provided that the total area of all signs on the property not exceed 10 percent of the building silhouette as viewed from the street. The applicant's current application included a revised calculation for the silhouette which included the view from Lake Linden Drive; that area had not been included in the previous application. The revised calculations amount to 277 square feet more sign area and the total area had been allocated to various tenants within the Center. The applicant had not included all of the space it was allowed in the silhouette area; Staff suggested the applicant provide a revised calculation and reallocate the sign area accordingly. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the C.U.P. subject to review and approval of the updated silhouette area calculations. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 10 of 13 Nielsen then stated he had not yet prepared the resolution, and it would be available for Council to act on at its next meeting. He suggested Council direct Staff to prepare the resolution for the next Council meeting. Nielsen stated that Mr. Daly was present this evening to answer any questions Council may have. Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, directing Staff to prepare a resolution for a modification to a conditional use permit for multiple signage for Shorewood Village Center. Motion passed 5/0. C. Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club Findings of Fact Director Nielsen explained at its September 24, 2007, meeting Council directed Staff to prepare a draft resolution with findings of fact clarifying Resolution No. 30-78 which granted the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club's conditional use permit, and patterned after the 1969 approval, limiting the use of the facility to 30 sailboats and two powerboats for the use of the Club. Staff had provided Council with a resolution. He stated the resolution needed to be corrected - in Item B under Conclusions and Order the word "sail" should be changed to "said". Councilmember Woodruff stated he would recuse himself from this discussion; although he was not a member of the UMYC, he did sail on a member's boat and he thought that could be a perceived conflict of interest. Councilmember Callies stated Item 17 under Findings of Fact should be changed - "Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council at its meetings of August 7, September 4, and September 24, respectively, and" should be changed to "Shorewood Planning Commission meetings of August 7 and September 4 and the City Council meeting of September 24, and". Callies moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-067, "A Resolution in the Matter of Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club Conditional Use Permit" subject to the revisions agreed upon. Councilmember Wellens stated he still perceived this action as changing a C.U.P. unilaterally and revoking usage of private property for which the property owner had not been offered any compensation. The City had claimed it made a mistake in preparing the resolution. He did not think the City should impose the cost of that mistake on the property owner. He asked Associate Attorney Mayeron if there was an error in his view point. Mayeron stated the City had been given extensive advice on this item, and it was his understanding the C.U.P. was just being clarified. Motion passed 3/1/1 with Wellens dissenting and Woodruff recusing. 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Certification of Delinquent Utility Charges Director Burton stated the City Code provided for annual certification of delinquent utility charges to the property tax rolls. She explained each property owner was given an opportunity to object to that proposed certification of delinquent accounts; and as part of the appeal process, they could request a hearing in front of the Council. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 11 of 13 Burton then stated the City had received one written request for a hearing. The request was from Ron Johnson, 5355 Shady Hills Circle. Ron Johnson, 5355 Shady Hills Circle, stated he had submitted a written document to Staff objecting to the proposed certification of delinquent utility charges against his property tax and he had assumed that Council had been provided a copy of the document. He had asked Administrator Dawson to provide Council with a copy of City Ordinace 268 which established the City's Storm Water Management Utility. Mr. Johnson stated from his vantage point the City used his property as a City storm sewer, and he was forced to maintain public storm sewers on his property while at the same time he was billed for storm sewer maintenance fees. He explained in 2006 he had hired the firm of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. to assess the storm sewer, and the firm wrote a report which stated there was a problem with the City's storm sewer system. The City had been provided with a copy of that report. He cited section 905.02 of the Ordinance which stated "the city establishes a storm water drainage utility and authorizes the imposition of just and equitable charges for the use and availability of storm sewer facilities". He stated he did not think the charge was just or equitable. He commented that the City's Ordinance said just and reasonable and the State Statute said just and equitable. Councilmember Wellens stated it was his understanding that Mr. Johnson had one appeal outstanding relating to a lawsuit he had filed against the City. He stated he assumed if Mr. Johnson were to win his appeal, claiming the penalties would be part of his request for compensation. Mr. Johnson stated that was not how the Civil Rights Statute worked. He then stated the Constitution was the law for Government and anytime the Government violated the Constitution the Civil Rights Statute could take effect. Mr. Johnson stated he had two pending actions with the City. Mr. Johnson stated that over 200 mature trees on his property had drowned because of the City, and he had never been compensated for that loss. Callies moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-068, "A Resolution Directing Delinquent Sewer Charges, Storm Water Utility Charges, Water Charges, Recycling Charges, City Clean-Up Charges, Dry Hydrant Charges, and Sump Pump Charges, be Placed on the 2008 Property Tax Rolls." Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Lizee recessed the meeting at 8:55 P.M. Mayor Lizee reconvened the meeting at 9:08 P.M. B. Selection Process for Architect on City Hall Project Administrator Dawson stated at its August 13, 2007, meeting Council directed Staff to begin and follow the process to engage the services of an architect for the remodel/renovation of City Hall. Staff had developed a Request For Proposal (RFP) which was sent to smaller firms known to have experience with municipalities and in remodel/renovation projects, and to firms which requested the RFP. Staff had narrowed the number of firms down to two that Staff believed were well-suited to the Projects - Collaborative Design Group and Oertel Architects. Staff suggested the two firms be invited in for a second interview in which one or two Councilmembers would participate. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 12 of 13 Mayor Lizee suggested that she and Councilmember Turgeon participate in the interview process. Councilmember Callies stated she thought that was a good idea. Councilmember Turgeon stated she would be willing to participate in the process. C. Authorize Expenditure of Funds from the Equipment Replacement Fund for a Toro Groundsmaster This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Woodruff's request. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought the purchase of the Groundsmaster was a good idea. His question was regarding how much had been budgeted for the purchase. Director Brown stated he thought the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) had planned for $22,000 for the unit itself and a cab. He explained there was a State Contract for a rotary broom and the City had been having trouble with its rotary broom. Staff was asking Council authorization to replace the broom; Staff believed there were sufficient funds to cover the unbudgeted $5,000 for the equipment because of the approximately $95,000 in savings from the budgeted amount for the new water tanker. Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, authorizing the expenditure of funds in the amount of $26,319.64 for the purchase of a Toro Groundsmaster, a cab and rollover protection system, and a rotary broom. Motion passed 5/0. D. Authorization to Dispose of Public Works Equipment This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Wellens's request. Councilmember Wellens stated auctioning off used equipment was a terrible way to sell it; he did not think the City received much money with that approach. He suggested the Staff could consider a policy to post items for disposal on something such as EBay; he thought the City could sell the equipment for a higher price by doing so. Director Brown stated that approach would take more Staff time. Councilmember Callies stated there were some restrictions regarding the method the City could use to dispose of property. She suggested the City Attorney be consulted on this. She then stated that Staff time spent to dispose of equipment that way should be taken into consideration when determining how much money the City actually made. Councilmember Wellens stated he thought that approach would be worth it. Engineer Landini stated the Metropolitan Council disposed of equipment on EBay. Councilmember Woodruff stated he would support using EBay. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, authorizing the disposal of Public Works equipment on a public website. Mayor Lizee suggested that the City Attorney and Staff research this future and the website approach could be considered for future disposal of equipment. She thought there was reason to use Fahey Auction as recommended by Staff in this instance. Motion passed 4/1 with Lizee dissenting. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 13 of 13 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS Director Brown stated the City had experienced two water main breaks in the last ten days, and the breaks were the result of rocks being around the water main pipes. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff Administrator Dawson stated there was a Enterprise Budget work session scheduled for October 29, 2007, at 6:00 P.M.; the new network server was installed and it was functional; conversion to the new financial system had begun; and the City had received a fully executed copy of the agreement between the five cities and the Friends regarding interim funding for the Southshore Center. He stated he had heard indications that discussions regarding responsibilities of the Friends and the cities for the Southshore Center would resume sometime in the next 2 - 3 weeks. B. Mayor & City Council In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Associate Attorney Mayeron stated the City and the Church were close to reaching a resolution on the issue regarding the City-owned house. Mayor Lizee stated she held another coffee with the mayor session on October 13, 2007; she had attended the dedication of Gideon Glen which was also attended by Councilmember Wellens; and she attended the very successful and well attended Excelsior Fire District open house which was held on October 11, 2007. 12. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of October 22, 2007, at 9:22 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: ~..,~ s° `, Craig 1'ti . ~~`awson, City Administrator/Clerk `_~, l~ Christine Lizee, Mayor