Loading...
082707 CC Reg Min CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2007 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. A. Roll Call , Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies, Turgeon, Wellens and Woodruff; Administrator Dawson; Attorney Keane; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Administrator Dawson stated at an earlier Council work session, Council asked that Item 9.B, 2008 Interim Funding for Southshore Center, be added to the agenda. Wellens moved, Woodruff, Approving the Agenda as Amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, August 6, 2007 Woodruff moved, Callies seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of August 6,2007, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, August 6, 2007 Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of August 6, 2007, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, August 13, 2007 Woodruff moved, Callies seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of August 13, 2007, as amended in Item 10.A, Page 10, Paragraph 8, Sentence 1, change "Councilmember Wellens noted he was not in support of water main installation along Glen Road." to "Councilmember Wellens noted he was not in support of watermain installation along Glen Road based on the survey results.", and in Item 10.A, Page 11, Paragraph 3, Sentence 1, change "Walt Knutson. 24820 Glen Road, stated if Council was discussing widening Glen Road to a maximum" to "Walt Knutson. 24820 Glen Road, stated if Council was discussing widening Glen Road west to a maximum". Motion passed 5/0. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 27, 2007 Page 2 of 11 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Woodruff moved, Callies seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Staffing - No action required C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-054, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Additional Accessory Space to Gregory and Lorraine Scott, 28100 Woodside Road." Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. Vacate Drainage/Utility Easement - John Pastuck Addition Location: 6105 Church Road Mayor Lizee opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 P.M. Administrator Dawson explained an easement vacation required a Public Hearing be held. Engineer Landini stated that Mr. Pastuck, 6105 Church Road, had requested to vacate the drainage and utility easement within Lot 1, Block 1, in exchange for another drainage and utility easement on the same lot. The exchange of easements would enlarge the buildable area of the lot and allow construction of a different shaped home than originally planned. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Mayor Lizee opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:09 P.M. Landini stated Staff recommended the request be approved subject to Mr. Pastuck submitting as-built record drawings, a deed, and either a title opinion or a title insurance commitment. In response to a question, Engineer Landini suggested the resolution include Mr. Pastuck submitting the information within thirty days of the adopting of the resolution or the resolution would be void. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 27, 2007 Page 3 of 11 Callies moved, Wellens seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. NO. 07-055, "A Resolution Approving Easement Vacation at Lot 1, Block 1, John Pastuck Addition", subject to Mr. Pastuck submitting as-built record drawings, a deed, and either a title opinion or a title insurance commitment within thirty days. Motion passed 5/0. 7. PARKS - Report by Representative A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held August 14,2007 Park Commissioner Norman reported on matters considered and actions taken at an August 14, 2007, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Wellens stated based on the success of the Music in the Park event featuring Big Walter, maybe the Park Commission could consider spending less to advertise for that performance when it was repeated in 2008. 8. PLANNING - Report by Representative Planning Commissioner Hutchins stated there had not been a Planning Commission meeting since the last City Council regular meeting. A. Conditional Use Permits for Two Houses on One Lot/Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet Applicant: John and Kristi Marquardt Location: 5985 Afton Road Director Nielsen stated John and Kristi Marquardt owned the property at 5985 Afton Road. He explained the subject property was zoned R-l A, Single-family Residential and contained 40,204 square feet of area. The Marquardts wanted to live in their existing house on the property while their new home was being constructed. Once the new house was completed, the old house would be demolished. The City's Zoning Code limited the number of single-family dwellings on a site to one; therefore, the Marquardts applied for a conditional use permit. Nielsen explained the proposed building plans included attached garage space that, when combined with the utility shed on the north side of the lot, exceeded 1200 square feet of total accessory space. For this the Marquardts had also requested a conditional use permit. Nielsen reviewed how the Marquardts' request complied with Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.c.(4) of the City's Zoning Code which limited the number of single-family dwellings on a site to one. 1. Keeping an existing house should not result in a less desirable location for the new house. The existing home was nonconforming with respect to R-IA setback requirements. The new home would be situated in the center portion of the lot and it would conform with all R-IA setback requirements. Although some trees would be lost to construction, the proposed home would be situated to minimize removal of existing trees on the property. The applicants' landscape architect had modified the original grading plan and the amount of fill they would use to try and protect two trees located at the northeast corner of the new home. Tree replacement SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 27,2007 Page 4 of 11 would consist primarily of nine evergreen trees along the Afton Road side of the property and three sugar maples - two on the east side of the lot and one in the southwest corner of the property. 2. There must be some assurance that the existing house would be removed upon completion of the new one. The applicant would be required to provide the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of a bid to guarantee removal of the older house and restoration of the site. Should they chose to move the house off the lot instead, they must obtain a moving permit which would be subject to Planning Commission review and Council comment. 3. The approval must have a time limit. The Code allows the builder six months to complete the new home. It would be likely the applicant would have to request an extension; therefore, the Planning Commission recommended the time limit be extended to nine months. Nielsen then reviewed how the Marquardts' request complied with the four criteria listed in Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.4.(4) of the City's Zoning Code for granting a conditional use permit for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet. 1. The total area of accessory space (1304 square feet) would not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principal structure (5606 over two and one-half stories). 2. The total area of accessory space would not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the R-l A zoning district (.10 x. 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet). 3. The proposed garage and the existing shed would comply with the setback requirements of the R-IA zoning district. Existing and proposed landscaping would be adequate to soften the larger garage space. 4. Because the garage would be an integral part of the house, materials and design were not considered to be issues. In fact, the garage would be split into two elevations, facing east and south. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request subject to the following Staff recommendations. 1. The applicants' landscape architect must submit recommendations relative to the two trees located at the northeast corner ofthe new home. 2. The applicants must provide a copy of their contractor's bid for demolishing the older house and restoring the site. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants must provide the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit, for 150 percent of the bid amount, to guarantee that the house will be removed and the site restored. 4. The existing house and outbuilding must be removed within nine months of the applicant receiving a building permit for the new house. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 27, 2007 Page 5 of 11 Wellens moved, Callies seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-056, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Two Dwellings on One Lot for John and Kristi Marquardt, 5985 Afton Road" subject to Staff recommendations, and Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space Over 1200 Square Feet. Motion passed 5/0. B. Setback VarianceNariance to Expand a Nonconforming Structure Applicant: Craig and Sandra Erickson Location: 4715 Lakeway Terrace Director Nielsen explained Craig and Sandra Erickson, 4715 Lakeway Terrace, had requested a rear-yard variance to build a larger deck at the rear of their house. The property was located in the R-l D/S, Single Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district and contained over 16,000 square feet of area. Nielsen reviewed a property survey showing the location of the existing home including a rear room addition and an existing deck and a site plan showing the applicants' proposed deck location. Nielsen noted that this property was the subject of a previous variance in 1990. He then explained in that case the previous owner of the property had a 20-foot x 32-foot deck that encroached into the rear yard setback. That owner was granted a variance to construct a 20-foot x 20-foot porch over part of the deck, leaving a 12-foot x 20-foot deck on the north side of the deck. The Ericksons now proposed replacing the existing deck with a lower level deck that would be 30 feet long, with one end that is 24 feet wide and the other end 15 feet wide. A landing approximately 5 feet x 10 feet would connect the porch area to the deck. The proposed deck would be 20 feet from the rear lot line instead of the 35 feet required by the Zoning Code; it would increase the nonconformity of an already nonconforming structure. Nielsen stated he had distributed to Council a document submitted by the applicants stating how they thought their request complied with the criteria for granting of variances. He stated many of the items stated in the document related to what he would classify self-imposed hardships. Nielsen then stated the Planning Commission reviewed the request and thought the request it did not comply with the criteria for granting variances. He explained Section 1201.03 Subd. I.k. of the City's Zoning Code stated: "That such expansion does not increase the nonconformity and complies with height and setback requirements of the district in which it is located." The Commission thought there would adequate room to build on the site without a variance. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the request. Director Nielsen stated Mr. Erickson was present this evening to answer any questions Council may have. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Director Nielsen stated the same rules would apply to a deck or a patio. Councilmember Wellens questioned if the statement in the applicants document "The 20-foot variance that we are requesting is in line with the 20-foot variance granted to neighboring properties directly to our north and their immediate neighbor to the north." was accurate and if it had any relevance. Director Nielsen stated the property to the north had a 20-foot setback; he was not sure about the property to the north of that one. Mr. Erickson stated he was requesting a setback that was the same or similar to his adjoining neighbors. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 27,2007 Page 6 of 11 Mr. Erickson stated when the variance was granted in 1990 the house was located 53 feet from the street to maintain continuity in the neighborhood. He explained that the Planning Commission thought there were other locations for the deck that would not require a variance; the corner to the south was larger but was heavily wooded and steep. He stated he was trying to put in a discrete patio that was similar to his two adjoining neighbors. Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-057, "A Resolution Denying a Setback Variance to Craig and Sandra Erickson, 4715 Lakeway Terrace." Motion passed 5/0. C. Setback Variances Applicant: Location: Thomas and Patricia Scherber 5080 Shady Island Trail Director Nielsen explained earlier in the year the City had received a complaint alleging that Thomas and Patricia Scherber, 5080 Shady Island Trail, had added fill and paved their driveway over their property line onto an adjoining residential lot (which was owned by the Shady Island Home Owner's Association). The complaint also cited a small utility building and various construction materials that had accumulated on the property over the years. The complaint was found to be accurate. The owners of the property were sent a zoning violation notice. Nielsen went on to explain that the Scherbers' attorney subsequently appealed to the City Council for additional time. The City Council granted the property owners 30 days of additional time, in which they were to either file claim for adverse possession or apply to the City for a variance. They did apply for a variance that would allow them to have their driveway extend up to the property line instead of the five- foot setback requirement. They also asked for a five-foot setback variance to place their 8-foot x 12-foot shed five feet from the property lines in the southwesterly corner of their lot instead of the ten-foot setback requirement. Nielsen then explained that the Planning Commission reviewed the request case at its August 7, 2007, meeting. Ms. Scherber was present at that meeting. At that meeting Ms. Scherber stated they would be willing to remove the part of the driveway that was not in compliance with the five-foot setback requirement. The Planning Commission did not think the applicants satisfied the hardship criteria for granting a setback variance for the shed; therefore, Mr. Scherber stated they would either move the shed or build a narrower shed to bring it into compliance with the setback requirement. Nielsen stated the City received a letter from the Scherbers last week which stated they were willing to comply with the setback requirements, and they asked that their deadline correct the zoning violation be extended to October 15,2007. Because of the Scherbers' cooperation, Staff recommended the Scherbers' be granted the extension. Callies moved, Woodruff seconded, granting Thomas and Patricia Scherber until October 15, 2007, to correct their code violations. Motion passed 5/0. D. Extension of Time Appellant: Location: John McMasters 4530 Enchanted Point SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 27, 2007 Page 7 of 11 Director Nielsen stated John McMasters, 4530 Enchanted Point, had been granted a deadline extension to correct code violations. Mr. McMasters called recently to advise the City that he was not going to make the new August 22, 2007, deadline and requested an extension; Mr. McMasters had stated the hot temperatures and lack of help from his family members were the reasons he was not done yet. Nielsen stated he was not able to inspect the property that day to see if progress had been made on correcting the violations. Nielsen then stated he would check on the progress to date the next day. If noticeable progress had been made on correcting the violations Staff recommended granting an extension to September 4, 2007, at which time the matter would be turned over to the City Attorney. Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, granting John McMasters, 4530 Enchanted Point, an extension to September 4, 2007, to correct his code violations subject to noticeable progress having been made as of August 28, 2007. Motion passed 5/0. 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Authorize Expenditure of Funds - Network Server replacement Administrator Dawson stated the City's main network server was scheduled for replacement this year. The current server was installed in February 2002. Council had been provided a memo from Staff as well as a proposal and quote for the server from the City's computer consultant. Councilmember Woodruff stated that from his vantage point the server would be more powerful than the City probably needed, but there would not be a significant difference in cost to downsize it. In response to a number of questions from Woodruff, Director Burton made the following clarifications: ~ The cost for the hardware from the consultant would be approximately the same cost if it was purchased directly from Dell Computer. ~ The server would run Microsoft Small Business Server 2003, which included the operating system, and the City would be licensed for up to twenty users. ~ Licenses for the Microsoft Office Suite for individual workstations were not included in the proposal; the workstations already had that software and it would be compatible. ~ The proposal was for a not-to-exceed amount. ~ The un interruptible power supply for the existing server had recently been replaced and would be used on the new server. ~ Internal hosting of email was not part of this proposal, but it would allow for that at a later date. Councilmember Turgeon questioned who would be responsible for executing the server backups. Director Burton stated that had not been determined yet. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought the Symantec Backup application could be setup to execute automatically and someone would only have to remember to load a tape. Director Burton stated the server would be installed in September 2007. The new financial system would be installed in October 2007 and should be operational in November or December 2007. Director Brown clarified the rack-mounted monitor currently in place would be used on the new server. SHORE WOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 27,2007 Page 8 of 11 Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, authorizing the purchase and installation of computer network equipment as proposed. Motion passed 5/0. B. 2008 Interim Funding Proposal for Southshore Center Administrator Dawson commented that at a Council work session preceding this meeting, Council discussed the 2008 Interim Funding Proposal for the Southshore Center. Dawson explained that the Southshore Center working group had forwarded to the five cities' councils a concept proposal for 2008-only funding arrangements between the cities and the Friends of the Southshore Center. In the concept proposal the five cities would pay the Friends an amount totaling $17,600 (each city's portion would be based on its share of cost for the construction of the building); and the cities would also proportionally match up to $25,000 in new net funds raised by the Friends. If all five cities approved a proposal for the concept funding by early September, Senior Community Services (SCS) would continue to provide services through the end of 2007, and there would also be funds available from the Friends for SCS to continue to provide services in 2008. Dawson stated that all of the city councils had approved the agreed to the concept proposal prior to a meeting of the Southshore Center working on August 13,2007. He explained at that meeting Deephaven reported that a condition of its approval was an amendment to Section 6 in the 1996 Cooperative Agreement. Deephaven's release any funds would be contingent on an amendment. Dawson summarized the provisions of Section 6 of the 1996 Cooperative Agreement: a) Shorewood would have the right of first refusal and would pay the other cities back their initial contribution to the building (a total of $300,000); b) if a third party purchased the facility, the cities would share proportionately in the proceeds of the sale; and c) if Shorewood took possession of the building and subsequently sold it to another party within ten years, the other cities share proportionately in the proceeds of the sale. He commented item "a" above was often referred to as the "Shorewood Option". Dawson then reviewed the changes Deephaven had proposed to Section 6 of the Cooperative Agreement; the changes were specified in the draft agreement for interim funding prepared by Deephaven. The following changes would replace Items a, b, and c in the original Section 6 which were summarized above: "a) Any of the participating Cities may purchase the Center by repayment to each of the remaining Cities an amount equal to their original capital contribution plus a rate of return of 5.0% per year on their original capital contribution dating from July 1, 1996; and b) In the event the Center is sold to any entity other than one of the participating Cities, the proceeds of the sale shall be allocated and paid to each City proportionate to its original capital contribution". Dawson stated with the exception of the changes to the "Shorewood Option" the five cities were in general agreement; the cities had had not expressed any concerns with the other conditions stipulated in the draft interim funding agreement prepared by Deephaven. Mayor Lizee stated the requested changes to the "Shorewood Option" had been discussed by Council for the first time at the preceding work session. Councilmember Callies stated she was not in support of having the approval of the 2008-only interim funding for the Southshore Center being contingent upon changes to the 1996 Cooperative Agreement; they were two separate issues. The City had previously agreed to the interim funding. The funds that were being committed to and the uncertainty of the Center did not justify re-negotiating the Agreement. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 27, 2007 Page 9 of 11 She also stated it would be more appropriate to change the Cooperative Agreement at such time that the on-going funding for the Center changed. At the time the 1996 Cooperative Agreement was entered in to, it was contemplated that the Agreement would be in existence for 25 years. At that time it was also known the building would increase in value over that time period. She then stated that from her vantage point it was opportunistic to require a change to the 1996 Cooperative Agreement agreed to by the five cities as a condition of interim funding. Councilmember Wellens stated he agreed with Councilmember Callies. He then stated he was a little dismayed by the way the requirement was brought to the Council's attention. All five cities had previously approved the interim funding, and for Deephaven to link the City's "capitulation" to a change in the contract to Deephaven's approval of the funding was from his vantage point "unfriendly". Wellens stated he was open to discussing changes to the Cooperative Agreement as a separate issue, but not as a condition of the interim funding. He stated he was not in favor of changes to the Cooperative Agreement at this time. Councilmember Turgeon stated she disagreed with Councilmembers Callies and Wellens. She clarified that the five cities had agreed to the concept proposal for the interim funding. She gave Deephaven credit for effort and reading the fine print in the Cooperative Agreement and funding it didn't make sense. She stated she did not think Deephaven's position was a threat, nor did she think the City was being taken advantage of. Turgeon then stated she would change it to a 5 percent per year valuation increase to principal plus 5 percent, or the appraised value, whichever was less, and the City should receive some compensation for the land it donated to build the South shore Center. She thought those items could be added into the draft interim funding agreement prepared by Deephaven. She stated reasonable people could come to reasonable conclusions. She did not think that stating that Deephaven resolution should be considered as threatening interim funding was be accurate. She was very respectful of Deephaven's conclusions. She believed the cities had been through enough turmoil with other agreements, and Deephaven's request was not a "deal breaker". Turgeon went on to state the amendment to the Cooperative Agreement specified in the draft interim funding agreement was one "small nit" in a very long list; she wanted to "get this off the list and move forward". Deephaven's request for changes to the Cooperative Agreement was not threatening and the changes did remove a very important item out of the agreement; that being if City purchased the building and then sold it, the City would have to pay a percentage of the proceeds to the other cities. She stated the point had repeatedly been made that the South shore Center was an asset and everyone should protect that asset; all the cities had agreed to move forward with the concept proposal to maintain the asset. From her vantage point the cities should not be expected to continue to invest in the building without recouping some of their investments. She stated she would approve the draft interim funding agreement (Le., which included changes to the Cooperative Agreement) as presented with minor modifications to the 5 per cent per year valuation increase (it would be changed to principal plus 5 percent or the appraised value whichever was less) and to include the City receiving compensation for the land it donated. Councilmember Woodruff stated he agreed with Councilmember Turgeon's comment that there should be a "cap" on the 5 percent per year valuation increase not to exceed the appraised value and the City should receive compensation for the land it donated. He then stated from a business perspective, Deephaven had a chance to renegotiate a deal that it apparently thought was not a good one in hindsight and it took the opportunity to do that. One should take those opportunities when they appear. He then stated he could support the draft interim funding agreement with the changes he just mentioned, with the SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 27, 2007 Page 10 of 11 knowledge that the issue of the Cooperative Agreement would have to be addressed in the future anyway. He commented that this issue was not much different than the issue with the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department discussion (i.e., regarding the Joint Powers Agreement) that went on for a couple of years. He stated the issue was not going to go away and the City would have to reach an accommodation of some sort. He then stated he agreed with Councilmember Turgeon's support of the draft interim funding agreement subject to the changes discussed. Councilmember Wellens stated what should be in the contract (e.g., the compensation for land) was not in there. Councilmember Turgeon stated the interim funding agreement could be modified; it did not have to be accepted for face value. She also stated the interim funding agreement could be approved with conditions. Mayor Lizee stated the topic at hand was the proposal for interim funding that was prepared by SCS, the Friends, and the Southshore Center working group; funding necessary for staffing and programs through 2008. After the interim funding was agreed to by the five cities, the cities could then consider the future needs of the communities and building ownership. She was concerned if the discussions digressed to how much each city would receive if ownership of the building changed, focus on the immediate need for interim funding would be diminished. Councilmember Woodruff stated the interim funding was for maintaining the Southshore Center; it could not be used for staffing and programming. Callies moved, Wellens seconded, not to have interim funding contingent upon changes to the 1996 Cooperative Agreement. Motion passed 3/2, with Turgeon and Woodruff dissenting. 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Proposal for Bridge Inspection Engineer Landini stated the City had received a proposal from WSB and Associates for inspection of the Shady Island Bridge. The bridge had been and would continue to be inspected annually. He explained the proposal was based on six hours of inspection, three hours of preparation of the MnDOT report, and preparation of a one-hour summary report for the City. Staff recommended the proposal be accepted. Mayor Lizee commented that the bridge was the only one in the City. Director Brown stated the bridge was six years old, and the last inspection indicated the bridge was structurally sound. He explained that because of vibrations due to plowing it was common for plates and anchors to come loose; therefore, staff re-torqued and check torqued the bolts twice each year. Director Brown explained that MnDOT required special certification for bridge inspectors. Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, accepting the proposal for professional engineering services for inspection of the Shady Island Bridge with WSB and Associates as submitted. Motion passed 5/0. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 27, 2007 Page 11 of 11 Administrator Dawson stated all the necessary documents had been filed with the Minnesota Appellate Court regarding the suit filed by Ron Johnson against the City. Administrator Dawson stated he and Associate Attorney Mayeron had met with Pastor Nyambu last week regarding the damages to the City-owned house. He expected the City would receive a proposal from Pastor Nyambu in the next few weeks. Director Brown stated the light for Park Lane had been ordered, but Xcel Energy was not able to install it as of yet due to its commitments to solve problems resulting from recent storms. Director Brown stated a traffic study had been order for Park Lane and for Lake Linden Drive. He explained the City had ordered traffic counters for those purposes; the counters had recently been calibrated (which took longer than expected) and the counters would be put out as soon as school resumed (to get a more accurate count). He commented another traffic count would be conducted in the spring at Park Lake to assess the traffic flow when the park was more heavily used. He stated traffic counts would also be conducted around the City to establish a database on traffic information. Director Brown stated one pump was failing at the Radisson Road lift station. He anticipated the cost to repair or replace the pump would be $6,000 - $7,000. He stated he would email Council the repair and replacement comparison costs. Administrator Dawson explained that the County Road 19 boundary change was awaiting the closeout of the County Road 19 project. It was important that all the project costs assigned to Tonka Bay be identified before the project was closed in order to have them be paid for by Hennepin County rather than the City. Director Brown explained Hennepin County changed the design of the median installed at the LRT and County Road 19 crossing, and the County forced the elimination of the shoulder. He stated he thought there may be changes to the squared end of the median after the upcoming snow plow season had ended. He also stated the City had requested the County to install clear signage stating traffic did not stop for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the road. B. Mayor & City Council Councilmember Woodruff reported on a full meeting of the LMCC which he recently attended. 12. ADJOURN Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of August 27, 2007, at 8:22 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. ATTEST: C~L~ Christine Lizee, Mayor RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder