The URL can be used to link to this page

03-12-12 CC Reg Mtg Agenda PacketCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2012 AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee Hotvet Siakel Woodruff Zerby B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Joint City Council /Planning Commission Minutes, February 21, 2012 B. City Council Special Session Meeting Minutes, February 27, 2012 C. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes, February 27, 2012 D. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, February 27, 2012 E. City Council Executive Session Meeting Minutes, February 27, 2012 F. Joint City Council/Park Commission Minutes, February 28, 2012 G. City Council Executive Session Minutes, March 5, 2012 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal from Consent Agenda A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Approval to Purchase Picnic Tables for Parks C. Tennis Court Resurfacing Attachments Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes Claims List Administrator's memo Administrator's memo 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken) CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA — March 12, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Attachments 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Mark Sylvester, Report on Lake Minnetonka Conservation District activities 7. PARKS A. Report on the recent Park Commission meeting Minutes 8. PLANNING A. Report on the recent Planning Commission meeting B. Zoning Code Amendment - Allowable Encroachments Planning Director's memo, Draft Ordinance C. Animal Regulations — Farm and Other Animals Planning Director's memo, Draft Ordinance, Resolution D. Erickson Final Plat Planning Director's memo, Resolution E. Campbell Residence - Expansion of Nonconforming Structure Planning Director's Site Address: 450 Lafayette Avenue memo, Resolution 9. ENGINEERING /PUBLIC WORKS 10. GENERAL /NEW BUSINESS A. Establishing Election Precinct Boundaries and Polling Places Deputy Clerk's memo, Resolution B. Council Chambers Audio /Video Updates Administrator's memo C. Mound Fire Commission Representative Administrator's memo 11. OLD BUSINESS A. Trail Plan Administrator's memo CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA — March 12, 2012 Page 3 of 3 Attachments 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Department Project Updates 2. Financial Update Finance Director's memo B. Mayor and City Council 13. ADJOURN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, 12 March, 2012 7:00 p.m. Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #313: Authorization to purchase 11 picnic tables for the city parks at a cost of $7917.30. Agenda Item #3C: Authorization to resurface courts at Cathcart and Silverwood parks for a cost of $7,700. This includes one tennis court, one full size basketball court and one 1 /2 basketball court. Agenda Item #5: There are no public hearings scheduled for this evening. Agenda Item #6A: Mark Sylvester, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) representative, will report on recent LMCD activities. Agenda Item #7A: Bob Edmondson will report on the recent Park Commission meeting. Agenda Item #8A: Michael Garelick will report on the recent Planning Commission meeting. Agenda Item #813: The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning Code that would allow "porticos" as an allowable encroachment into the required front yard setback for older homes. In that same amendment a provision is included addressing accessibility ramps, geared toward making it easier for the elderly to stay in their homes longer. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend the amendment. A draft ordinance is included in your packet for your consideration. Agenda Item #8C: After considerable discussion over the past few months, the Planning Commission has recommended a new chapter to be included in the City Code, addressing farm and other animals (but not dogs). A draft ordinance as well as a resolution approving a summary for publication are included in your packet. Agenda Item #8D: After more than two years, Bill Erickson and his neighbors have resolved the boundary issues associated with their properties and submitted a final plat for the Bill Erickson Addition. In case you do not recall, the plat splits up a large vacant parcel of land and redistributes the pieces to the surrounding property owners. The applicants have complied with the conditions included in the preliminary plat. Executive Summary — City Council Meeting of March 12, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item #8E: Matthias K. Builders has requested a building permit allowing the expansion of a nonconforming home at 450 Lafayette Avenue. Based upon a Zoning Code amendment adopted last year, this type of request requires Planning Commission review and recommendation and City Council approval. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the permit. A draft resolution documenting the City's action is enclosed for your consideration. Agenda Item #10A: Consideration of approving a resolution to establish precinct boundaries and polling places. Agenda Item #IOB: Consideration of the purchase and installation of additional camera and microphone for the council chambers. Agenda Item #IOC: Recommendation to appoint Councilmember Woodruff to serve as representative to the Mound Fire Commission. Agenda Item #I I A: Consideration of moving the oversight of trail development and implementation to the Planning Commission and direct the commission to develop design criteria and provide recommendations on implementation. Staff recommends Council proceed with the county road 19 segment and put this segment out to bid. Doing so provides real costs for constructing trail segments. Agenda Item #12A: A financial update report is provided. #Za CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012 MINUTES 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING Acting Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:04 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Acting Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Planning Director Nielsen Planning Commission Chair Geng; Plan Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick, Hasek and Absent: Mayor Lizee and Councilmember Woodruff B. Review Agenda Acting Mayor Zerby asked that Item 2.A Hasek moved, Davis 2. RESIDENT Acting Mayor Planning Com Administrator Heck explained t National Research Center (NR# results pertinent to planning and as key drivers of overall quality national benchmark. Eighty -fivf enforcement issues (e.g., run do` 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 PM Siakel; Administrator Heck; and issioners Arnst (arrived at 6:25 P.M.), be added to the agenda. ing the agenda as amended. Motion passed 9/0. ing Commissioners. He asked Administrator Heck to provide the the results of the resident survey conducted in 2011. City Council commissioned a resident survey which was conducted by in 2011. The meeting packet contains a copy of a summary of survey ming. Land use planning and zoning was one of three services identified services for the City. Each of the key drivers was rated much above the ercent thought there was no a problem or a minor problem with code buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles). Commissioner Hasek asked if the responses about code enforcement issues means there are no issues or does it mean they are being addressed. Administrator Heck stated from his perspective it means problem properties and nuisance issues are not an issue. Administrator Heck reviewed opportunities for improvement related to planning and zoning. They include improving walkability throughout the City, increasing shopping and other types of commerce within the City, increasing the availability of affordable quality housing, and making changes that make the City an affordable and desirable place to retire. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2012 Page 2 of 8 Heck noted the Commissioners should have received a copy of the full survey results. And, they had been invited to a meeting the previous week during which a representative from NRC presented the results of the survey to the City Council. Acting Mayor Zerby stated he was pleased with how the survey was conducted and that he thought it was scientifically done. He thought the questions asked did not appear to reflect any bias. He noted he was surprised to find out that street lighting was one of the four lowest rated City services and the rating was much below the national and small city benchmarks. In the past he has heard residents express their preference for limited lighting; they didn't want an overly illuminated environment. He stated that street maintenance /repair (e.g., filling potholes) was another one of the four and that rating was similar to the national benchmark and below the small city benchmark. He found that somewhat interesting. He explained there are some rural type roadways in the City with low or no bituminous edges that breakdown faster. He stated having multiple refuse haulers travel the streets creates additional wear and tear on roadways. Commissioner Hasek asked if a lot of people from the inner city or cities with a lot of street lighting have relocated to the City over the last ten years. If so, they were conditioned to a lot more street lighting and they may find the lighting in the City to be insufficient. The City has a rural style of lighting. He explained the survey results about the aspects of quality of life in the City indicated 29% thought it is an excellent place to retire, 40% a good place to retire and 22% a fair place to retire. That adds up to 91 %. He questioned the comment that people don't consider the City as a desirable place to retire. Administrator Heck explained fair is not considered desirable, and 69% think it is good to excellent. Administrator Heck explained that at the end of the provide additional comments or suggestions. Some of Comments were made about the poor quality of cable majority were related to the lack of walkability and sa City as does the lack of affordable life -cycle housing. There is limited opportunity for the elderly to remain home. Thy respondents were given the opportunity to - espondents took advantage of that opportunity. ;,e and speeding in certain parts of the City. The on City streets. Some of it ties to retiring in the re is limited access to starter homes in the City. to City when they can no longer remain in their Heck noted the survey was a perception survey; it answers the whats not necessarily the whys. He stated the Planning Commission may want to decide if there are topics in the survey it would like additional information from residents on. The same thing applies to the City Council and the Park Commission. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought it would be better to have a joint meeting of the Council and Commissions to discuss the possibility of conducting smaller, more detailed surveys about specific topics. Councilmember Siakel stated from her vantage point the results of the survey indicate the City is doing more right than wrong. For the most part, the residents are pleased to live in the City and with the services the City and special districts provide. She commented that there isn't a lot the City can do to improve cable television service (which was rated as the lowest service) other than to encourage the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission to communicate with Mediacom about issues residents have. She stated the City could seek additional information about street lighting concerns. She commented that if she was asked if there is ample street lighting in the City her first inclination would be to respond no. She stated lack of trails and walkways are an issue. Siakel then stated the highest participation rates for community programs and events were for Music in the Park and Arctic Fever, noting those are two of the more recent events the City has become involved with. She noted that only 30% of the people have used the Southshore Community Center (SCCC) at least once CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2012 Page 3 of 8 in the last year. She stated that presents an opportunity to increase awareness about it in the community. She then stated the participation rates in recycling for the City's residents are much higher than the national and small city benchmarks. Yet 89% strongly or somewhat agree with increasing recycling options, and 82% want the City to provide organic material collection (both food and yard waste). She noted that 50% strongly or somewhat supported a single trash hauler and the other 50% somewhat or strongly opposed that. She stated a great deal of discussion has to be had about that if it is to be considered. Acting Chair Zerby stated he asked if the information was available on a location basis. He noted the City was developed at different times. There is some dichotomy between the east side of the City and the west side. He commented the lighting concern could be in the west part of the City. Administrator Heck explained that for this survey NRC did not do any geographic tracking. The survey was anonymous. He then explained that respondents were fairly representative of age and length of time as a resident. It was fairly well balanced. Commissioner Hasek stated he was surprised to learn that 60% c participated in any community programs or events listed 'in the sur that concerning. He then stated he was pleased to learn that 23 officials or some other local public meeting. He thought that is a gc there are times when a neighborhood needs to weigh in on items for such as the potential redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing area, involved. Councilmember Siakel stated based on the survey use to get their information about the City are the be used to help get additional information from re: Commissioner Arnst arrived at 6:25 to communicate to respondents indi( , over the last 12 a A they had not znths. He found of local elected number. He then stated he thought and then there are times, re community should get •e frequently used avenues residents website. She then stated they could about a few planning and zoning related topics. Arctic Fever every avenue possible has to be used Councilmember Siakel asked how the 60 %© non - participation rate in any community programs or events listed in the survey over the last '12 months compared to the national and small city benchmarks. She stated she doesn't know if 60% is �400d'or bad. Commissioner Hutchins asked how the survey results will be factored into setting priorities for the City, City Council, the two Commissions and staff. He stated the survey didn't gather much information about the importance of things, The survey primarily measured people's exposure and thoughts about current circumstances about things such as services and events. Residents may rate something low yet it is not important to them. For example, the concern about street lighting may not be important even though a number of people rated that service low. 1. Shorewood Goals for 2012 / 2013 Acting Mayor Zerby stated last year Council and staff identified strategic goals during a couple of strategic planning sessions. He asked Administrator Heck to provide the Planning Commission with a list of the eight goals this evening. He stated Council and staff discussed and refined the goals earlier this year. He CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2012 Page 4 of 8 noted the strategic planning process is ever evolving. He asked the Commissioner if they wanted to comment on them while noting he understands it is the first time they have seen them. Commissioner Hutchins asked if the goals were listed in priority order. Administrator Heck stated that is the next step is for Council to complete during a future work session. Key outcomes and objectives also have to be identified. Administrator Heck stated the maximum number of goals should be 7 — 8. Some goals should be completed in one year and others will take multiple years. He asked the Planning Commissioners to provide him with what they think the priorities should be and he will funnel that information to Council for consideration during its prioritization process. Commissioner Davis stated from her perspective some of the Acting Mayor Zerby stated he thinks some of the results some of the goals at this time. He then stated his personal the strategic plan to residents via the City's website soon; Councilmember Hotvet stated encouraged the Commissi prioritize the goals. Commissioner Arnst stated she thought the gc community demographics was good. She then sta worse over the last few years and that should be c+ and people have lost their jobs. She went on to stz given strong consideration as an allowable thing in Councilmember Hotvet st and that could involve vol Acting Mayor Zerby ask( staff are heading in the i good and this is forward stated the Commissioners point consider survey results when they Bond to changing service needs for changing ny residents' economic status has changed for the ed. For example, property values have gone down strongly believes accessory apartments have to be T. imunity involvement is a thread through each goal lion making is also a common thread. if they thought the goals were realistic and if Council and issioner Hasek commented that any movement forward is ner Davis stated she thought the goals were good. Zerby ,tor Heck their thoughts about priorities if they would like. 3. ON WORK PROGRAM 2012 Director Nielsen stated each year the Planning Commission develops a work program for the year. The meeting packet contains a copy of its proposed 2012 work program. He noted a few tasks are carried over from 2011. He explained the task Zoning Code General Provisions study will go on throughout the year. The life -cycle housing study will also go on throughout a large portion of the year. The tasks include a few items related to the GreenStep Cities Program. Nielsen explained Planning District 6 will be revisited; it is the east end of County Road 19 in the City. District 6 was discussed in length a few years ago. No changes were adopted at that time. Councilmember Siakel asked if the area Nielsen is referring to is where the Garden Patch is located. Nielsen stated it is mostly the commercial area along that corridor including the relatively new office building and the Garden Patch. Acting Mayor Zerby asked if some of that is covered in the County Road 19 Corridor Study. other. c survey add credence to the importance of is to start communicating information about ully in the next month or two. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2012 Page 5 of 8 Nielsen stated some of the transportation aspects are such as a sidewalks but not the land use part of it. Nielsen explained the zoning on those properties recognizes existing uses but not how the City would like to see the area redeveloped. He noted the property owners of those commercial properties were not very helpful during public hearing about District 6. The residents in the Timber Lane area didn't want change and the commercial property owners wanted to see a change to higher use. Ultimately, nothing ever happened. He stated this time the residents need to be brought into the process earlier. Acting Mayor Zerby stated this has been talked about for a long time. Nielsen stated that is true but nothing was ever done. Nielsen noted that the C2 zoning in the area was never intended to be it prudent to revisit this again and find out what the commercial l residents want. Director Nielsen asked the Councilmembers if there is anything program. He noted some items on the work program were direct€ schedule there will be about 3 — 4 items on each meeting agenda.' Acting Mayor Zerby asked Director Nielsen if the goals tie into thought they did. Director Nielsen stated it is difficult to get the community impact on them. Acting Mayor Zerby asked if the goal provide of residents is included in the work program. Cc things such as trails and sidewalks and traffic stated the work program task to amend the T routes could be expanded to discuss other issues part of transportation, noting the City has no sidewalks if that is what the goal means. Council discussion was about how to get elderly reside Center there. Hotvet their stated trails. is Dart of tl Nielsen stated he thought aners want and what the to add to the 2012 work commented based on the program. he something could have a definite diverse transportation options to meet the needs ner Arnst asked what that means. Zerby responded could be part of that goal. Commissioner Hasek Ltion Plan regarding Minnesota State Aid (MSA) stated she thinks about things such as bus lines as over that. Arnst suggested calling it trails and Hotvet stated it is her recollection that part of the r would like to go to the Southshore Community Councilmember Siakel stated there was also some discussion about light rail. Director Nielsen noted the MSA routes task is a housekeeping item. The MSA map has been adjusted and all that needs to happen is hold a public hearing. Administrator Heck explained the Minnesota Department of Transportation Commissioner of Transportation has already approved the designation of two roadways as MSA routes. Zerby stated the sustainability related tasks in the work program tie to the goal address water quality and other natural resource challenges. Director Nielsen stated he is considering adding a task to review rules and regulations about impervious surface in particular permeable pavers. He explained the City encourages people to use permeable pavers but it doesn't give credit for using them. He stated he thought there needs to be an incentive for using them if the City wants to encourage people to use them. That will be discussed as part of the General Provisions discussion. Councilmember Siakel explained in 2011 the Ad Hoc Trail Committee (the Committee) prioritized a lot of trail work that had been done and it developed a Trail Plan Implementation Report (the Trail Plan). Staff took the plan and estimated what it would cost to implement the Trail Plan. The costs were never presented to the Committee. The residents have clearly expressed a desire to make the City more walkable. She asked CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2012 Page 6 of 8 the Planning Commission what it thinks its role is regarding trails. Does it want to be involved with specifics such as the type of surfaces and what each trail will look like? She stated she would like there to be more detail in the Trail Plan. Commissioner Hasek expressed his agreement. He stated he was part of the Committee and the Committee made a decision not to get into the details about what the trails would look like. It did not think it was appropriate at that time. He then stated the costs for various types of surface differ greatly. Director Nielsen explained that responsibility for carrying through with the Trail Plan has been assigned to the Park Commission. When it looks at each individual segment it will talk about surface type. He then explained the City may not be able to make all the decisions. For example, if the proposed trail along County 19 were to be constructed in the County right of way (ROW) and it has to be at least 10 feet wide. Commissioner Hasek recommended the Planning Commission participate in discussions about or take over carrying through with the Trail Plan. The Planning Commission is responsible for setting transportation directions in the Comprehensive Plan which includes motorized vehicles, biking and walking. He clarified he thought the Planning Commission is potentially better suited for the task, noting he means no disrespect to the Park Commission. He stated in some communities transportation includes parks and trails. Acting Mayor Zerby stated he envisions the Park Commission weighing in on the need for trails and the Planning Commission discussing the details of the trails. He then stated he has suggested people (representatives from Council and the two Commissions) walk the potential areas for trail expansion this spring to get a view of what the areas look like and what the potential issues are. Commissioner Davis stated residents with neighborhood problems quite frequently bring their concerns to the Planning Commission. She suggested starting on trails in areas where people want to walk to places but it is too dangerous to do so because of traffic. People will quickly find out what kind of support the City will get about from residents who come to complain. Councilmember Hotvet agreed with Davis' suggestion. Commissioner Hasek stated from his perspective there needs to be a walkable link between the intersection of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road and CUB Foods. He then stated although he would be willing to give the City an easement to build a trail he is very concerned about what it would cost to do so. Acting Mayor Zerby stated people need to find creative solutions. Commissioner Arnst stated the City went through similar discussions about 12 years ago. She then stated from her perspective it will take political courage and money. She stated she agrees trails are not just about the residents who live in a particular area. 4. SMITHTOWN CROSSING Director Nielsen stated he hoped that this task would have been done by now. He explained that in October 2011 the Planning Commission had an open house to give residents an opportunity to comment on the Smithtown Crossing Study Report (the Study) and it later held a public hearing on the Study. At the end of the hearing the Commission decided it should take the time to discuss the comments made by residents about the Study. The Commission does want to solicit feedback from residents outside of the neighborhood near the Study area. The Commission had met with commercial property owners, then it met with a panel CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2012 Page 7 of 8 of developers, and finally it had the open house. Concern has been expressed about some elements of the plan. A Commission study session has been scheduled to specifically discuss them and how to address them. He noted it is important to get this Study right. Councilmember Siakel asked the Commission what type of support it wants from Council on this. Director Nielsen explained that the American Legion has put its vacant piece of property up for sale; one of three parcels it owns in the Study area. If the Legion is successful in selling that one property there will be another property owner in the mix of people involved. He then explained he has had conversations with a party interested in acquiring and redeveloping the gas station property located in the southeast quadrant of that intersection. There is a senior housing developer who has been talking about assembling some parcels on the northwest quadrant. Another developer is discussion the possibility of senior housing in some of area of the City. Commissioner Arnst asked Director Nielsen if senior housing would be the exclusive use for the northwest quadrant or are the developers considering mixed use. Nielsen stated the party he has been talking with is senior housing only. He commented there does seem to be a market for senior housing. He also commented that any redevelopment of the northwest quadrant would likely be done in phases. Councilmember Siakel stated there is a mixed -use development that includes some senior housing that is going to be done in the City of Wayzata. She asked if that along with senior housing in other communities around the Lake might satisfy the need for senior housing in the Lake community. Acting Mayor Zerby stated he would prefer to use the 'word affordable housing, noting seniors need affordable housing. He then stated because he lives close to the Study area his biggest concern is the transition from mixed -use or commercial to residential. He noted his neighbors have indicated they are not opposed to affordable housing as part of the redevelopment, but they do not want massive structures close to the residential area. Commissioner Davis stated some of the Commissioners think that any housing should also allow for housing for residents who can contribute to the area; residents of all ages. Commissioner Hasek stated from his perspective a living community includes everyone; from the very young to the very old. The very old residents are the ones that need assisted living. He noted that the monthly costs for assisted living outside of the community for an elderly couple he knows are extremely high. The costs are not affordable.' Acting Mayor Zerby thanked the Planning Commissioners for coming. Chair Geng noted that this is Commissioner Arnst's last meeting as a Planning Commissioner. On behalf of the Planning Commission he thanked her for all of her hard work and her contributions. He stated she will be missed. Director Nielsen stated he is trying to schedule a GTS training session for either March or April. As part of that the Planning Commission has talked about a segment of that being about senior housing. If Council would attend that segment it would be helpful. He noted that segment will be video recorded. 5. ADJOURN CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2012 Page 8 of 8 Arnst moved, Hasek seconded, Adjourning the Work Session of the City Council and Planning Commission of February 21, 2012, at 7:05 P.M. Motion passed 10/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT' Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Acting Mayor Bria CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012 MINUTES 1. CONVENE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 5:10 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Siakel, and Zerby; Absent: Councilmembers Hotvet and Woodruff B. Review Agenda Siakel moved, Zerby seconded, approving the agenda as presenter 2. INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR THE PLANNING C Three candidates were scheduled for interviews. One candidate, C The following candidates were interviewed for the consideratic Commission. A. Larry Muehlberg, 25700 Birch Bluff Road B. Ed Hasek, 24315 Yellowstone Trail #2B 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD LARGE CONFERENCE RM 5:00 P.M. inistrator Heck Motion ON Polson, withdrew his candidacy. f appointment to the Planning 3. INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR THE PARK COMMISSION The following candidates were interviewed for the consideration of appointment to the Park Commission. A. Justin Mangold, 5810 Echo Road B. Bob Edmondson, 19585 Shady Hills Road 4. ADJOURN Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Special Meeting of February 27, 2012, at 5:57 P.M. Motion passed 310. Christine Freeman, Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST Brian Heck, City Administrator /Clerk #Zc CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012 MINUTES 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Siakel, and DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; and En Absent: Councilmembers Hotvet and Woodruff B. Review Agenda Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as 2. 20 -YEAR MUNICIPAL WATER PLAN Zinistrator Heck; Finance Director ion passed 310. Mayor Lizee thanked Staff for preparing a very impressive and extensive 20 -Year Water Plan and accompanying report for expanding the City's municipal water system throughout the City. She stated the report is very easy to understand. Administrator Heck noted that preparation of the Water 'Plan was a group effort. He explained that Director DeJong and Engineer Landini worked closely with Director Brown on preparing the detailed spreadsheet for watermain extension (a copy of which is included in the meeting packet). Brown also prepared the details, definitions and assumptions section of the report. He asked DeJong and Landini to walk Council through the spreadsheet. Director DeJong stated the Water Plan spreadsheet is fairly thorough and it mirrors the spreadsheet prepared for the 20 -Year Pavement Management Plan (PMP) for each segment of roadway in the City. DeJong explained the Water Plan spreadsheet shows each segment of roadway in the City and whether or not watermain is installed. Director Brown identified what size watermain pipe would be needed and how deep the pipe would have to go down into the ground based on information he had available. Brown also estimated the cost per segment of roadway to extend watermain. The Water Plan spreadsheet includes one column for the estimated cost to install watermain by cutting open an existing roadway section that is not scheduled for reconstruction and to restore the pavement. There is another column for the estimated cost of installing watermain at the same time a segment scheduled for full reconstruction in the PMP is reconstructed. The costs to install watermain are significantly less when done in conjunction with a reconstruction effort. DeJong then explained that Brown has identified segments where the watermain installed will have to be over sized to meet water system demands over and above meeting the domestic supply demand (the supply used by the consumer). The larger watermain is called a trunk watermain and it is 12 inches in CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES February 27, 2012 Page 2 of 6 diameter. It is needed to provide adequate flow to properties further away from the water towers. The domestic supply watermain is 8 inches in diameter. The spreadsheet identifies what size pipe is needed for each segment. It breaks out the installation cost for domestic supply as well as the cost to oversize the watermain. For example, the estimated cost for installing watermain by cutting open an existing roadway section and restoring the pavement along Country Club Road is $339,000 with $28,000 of it being for oversizing the pipe. He stated property owners that will be served by the extension should not have to pay the costs of oversizing. DeJong went on to explain the spreadsheet identifies the number of existing lots per segment that will be served. It calculates the cost per lot based on the cost for the domestic supply per segment. The per -lot costs very significantly. The lowest cost is $6,108 and the highest cost is $118,000 (for a watermain segment that would only serve one lot). He stated extending watermain to serve just one property doesn't make financial sense. He explained the average per -lot cost is $15,093 based on 2012 dollars. The average per -lot cost factors in the per -lot cost for segments that would serve only one property. DeJong noted there aren't any watermain installation projects "schec in progress by now. He stated an attempt was made to coordinatf other pavement maintenance activities (seal coating as well as mill not been done in a lot of detail. If Council decides it wants to:mo led for 2012. They watermain installa and overlay project forward with the would have to be ion projects with ), noting that has Water Plan, Staff can adjust the PMP so that maintenance will not be done to a roadway segment where watermain will be installed a year or three later. For example, the PMP schedules Club Lane to be sealcoated in 2012 and the Water Plan schedules watermain to be installed along that segment in 2013. He noted the meeting packet contains a copy of a map prepared by Engineer Landini which shows where watermain is currently installed, and it depicts where and when watermain will be installed based' on the Water Plan. Mayor Lizee reiterated the Water Plan is very Councilmember Zerby asked if the capacity of the two existing water towers and the current wells could serve the expansion of municipal water throughout the City. Engineer Landini stated Director Brown has indicated the two towers and the wells would be able to serve the residential watermain expansion identified in the Water Plan. Director DeJong clarified with the exception of the Islands in the City because there is no infrastructure out there. Mayor Lizee asked if the Cities of Minnetrista and Mound have municipal water that could be extended to the Islands.' Engineer Landini responded Mound has City water close to the area but he is not sure about Mayor Lizee noted Council has asked Staff to develop the Water Plan. She clarified that Council is not being asked to approve the Water Plan this evening. She asked Council if it wants the City to implement a 20 -Year Water Plan. She then asked if Council has any thoughts about what the water connection charge should be. She noted the current connection charge is $10,000. Councilmember Zerby suggested hiring an outside consultant with expertise in this area to help with marketing municipal water and to help identify what the connection charge should be in order to entice people to convert from private wells to City water. He commented older communities like the Cities of Rochester and Red Wing have transitioned to municipal water. He expressed confidence that there must be someone with the expertise and broader insight to help the City with this. Councilmember Siakel noted she found the information provided to be very helpful. She appreciated the fact that the information in the Water Plan and PMP are cohesive. She stated she does like the idea of CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES February 27, 2012 Page 3 of 6 having a 20 -Year Water Plan. She asked when the 20 years begins. She suggested focusing on the first 3 — 5 years of the 20 years. She recommended engaging the community in discussions about expanding the City's water system. She stated she thought property owners would connect to City water if it was available based on the residential survey results. She then stated communication to the residents is critical and she thought that should be started sooner versus later. She commented that if she had the opportunity to connect to City water she would do that and she noted she thought it would increase the value of her property. She stated if property owners are provided with a 3 — 5 advance warning that water will be extended to their area and options for when that does occur property owners would be more receptive to the idea. She expressed her support for hiring a consultant with expertise in this area to help with this effort. She thanked Staff for their efforts. Councilmember Zerby stated if property owners know what City water will be extended to their area in a few years they may decide to do minor things to keep their wells functioning until that time. He then stated there are a lot of opportunities to help entice property owners who have the option to connect to City water but haven't done to do so. He also stated there is a definite need for a long -term water system expansion plan. Mayor Lizee asked if looping the water system (to ensure there is backup) was factored into the Water Plan. Engineer Landini explained the original water plan developed in the 1990s factored in a strategy for creating loops in the system. That was factored into the PMP. Landini explained installing watermain along Country Club Road and Yellowstone Trail would create an excellent loop. They are some of the first roads on the watermain installation schedule. He stated the first five years of the schedule are hitting the loops and that will create the efficiencies for the Water System. Mayor Lizee stated the next steps should be to focus on the next 3 5 years and soliciting public input. She asked Staff to provide Council options for dates for a meeting with residents at the Southshore Community Center regarding City water and the potential plans for expanding the City's water system. Councilmember Siakel requested Council be provided an opportunity to preview a presentation for the meeting. The presentation should address the history of City water and the plans for expansion. Council should be present at the meeting to demonstrate its support. She suggested addressing the first few expansion segments during the first meeting. She asked how to move forward with finding outside expertise to help with this, noting this is a complicated and expensive issue. Councilmember Zerby asked Director DeJong if he has done any analysis of the benefits of additional revenues from new connections to City water. DeJong responded that to date no analysis has been done of the revenue. DeJong explained that because there is sufficient water system infrastructure in place the cost to produce more water is limited. There will be a slight increase in the use of electricity, and the amount of chemicals used to treat the water. There will not be a need to add staff to support 100 — 200 additional users of the system. He noted he thought it would be cost effective to add more users. Zerby commented that many service providers offer subsidies or incentives to new customers because they will recoup the costs in the new subscription fees for their services. He asked if there is some short- term subsidy the City can offer to entice people to connect to City water. DeJong responded that would be a challenge because that could cause equity issues. DeJong stated he would have a difficult time justifying charging new customers less than the $10,000 connection charge being that is what people have paid most recently. He noted the average cost according to the spreadsheet calculations is that much more. Zerby stated it may be helpful to add a column for additional revenue to the spreadsheet. He thought it would grow exponentially over the years. DeJong stated that could be an interesting analysis but he has CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES February 27, 2012 Page 4 of 6 not had time to do that. DeJong suggested putting that on hold until Council decides if it wants to continue to move forward with a 20 -Year Water Plan. He stated Staff will assemble some additional information prior to a presentation at a public meeting. Administrator Heck asked Directors DeJong and Nielsen and Engineer Landim if they think Council has provided them with enough information to move the Water Plan forward. He also asked if they had a clear idea of what type of outside resource assistance is needed. Is it to help market the plan or to cost out the plan? He stated one of the questions that will be raised in the public meeting will be about the cost to residents. He then stated he doesn't get the sense from Council that it wants to assess the property owners for 100 percent of the cost to install the watermain. It's his understanding that Council wants Staff to identify policy options for paying for the cost to expand the water system. He asked how the costs for the expansion should be spread between the benefiting property owners, the City's residents and the City. He reminded everyone of the resident who not too long ago told the City that he thought the $10,000 connection charge is too high because the watermain is already in place near his property. Heck asked Councilmember Zerby what skill sets are needed for '`a consultant to help with this effort. Zerby stated a person who has helped another municipality go through a similar process. Councilmember Zerby agreed that Council needs to reassess the p charge. He noted sometimes the City has subsidized the cost to s( push back from property owners because of the $10,000 connecti Waconia splits the installation costs equally between the property oN doesn't assess for roadway maintenance; that cost is born by the ent provided with what type of cost recovery strategies have worked for the water connection extent. He stated there has been charge. He noted that the City of rs and Waconia. He noted the City City. He stated he would like to be Councilmember Siakel asked if the schedule in the PMP is fairly firm. She then asked if the consultant could focus on watermain extension projects and associated roadway maintenance projects for the next five or ten years. Administrator Heck stated Council can decide what time period starting in 2013 a more firm and detailed Water Plan and PMP should focus on. Siakel then asked when in 2013 the Plans would start. Siakel reiterated a good communications plan is critical and she stated she supports hiring a consultant with the Councilmember Zerby stated he would like there to be a Water Plan that goes out 20 years. He noted any future Council can change things. Councilmember Siakel clarified she thought having a 20 -Year Water Plan is a good idea but she thought the main focus should be on the first five years of the Plan. Mayor Lizee and Zerby agreed with Siakel. Mayor Lizee suggested Council agree to a 2012 goal of refining the water policy and confirming which projects will be done in 2013. Councilmember Siakel asked Staff if it has what it needs from Council to continue to move forward. Director DeJong stated during its regular meeting following this work session Council is going to consider a resolution approving the specifications and estimate and authorizing the advertisement for bids for the 2012 mill and overlay project. Club Lane is one of the roadways in that project, yet it is scheduled for watermain installation and sealcoating in 2013. He suggested that before Council awards the bid it decide if it wants to include Club Lane in that project should the 2013 watermain installation come to fruition. He stated it makes sense to consider watermain installation when reconstruction occurs. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES February 27, 2012 Page 5 of 6 DeJong explained that last week the City received a call from someone who was relocating their elderly parents and needed to sell their property. The child found out there is a deferred assessment against the property for watermain that was installed in 1996. The parents did not want to hook up to City water at that time and they were over 65 years of age at that time so they qualified for the deferral. The assessment at that time was $5,000. It is now over $10,000 when interest is factored in. DeJong questioned how to ensure enough property owners will hook up to the watermain after it is installed to make it pay off. He stated there is no way to project that. Therefore, there is no way to project when the City will receive the additional water revenues. He noted there are a number of properties that could be connected to City water but the property owners have chosen not to connect to it. He asked Council if it wants to create a policy that requires property owners to connect to City water within a defined number of years after watermain being installed. Councilmember Zerby stated he thinks the reason that there are around 300 properties that are not connected to available watermain is because the cost to connect is too high. From his vantage point it is a conversion problem; converting from well water to City water. He then stated the City is trying to find the answer to that problem. He went on to state being on City water is the way of the future for a, number of reasons with one of them being safe water. Hopefully outside expertise can help the City figure out how to entice property owners to convert. He also stated the City could mandate property owners connect to City water as soon as it is available to them. Or the connection charge could be lowered to something they will accept, noting that is his desire. Director DeJong stated it makes Staff i cost of $10,000 knowing the calculated He then stated that he knows of other in opposition from residents. He indicatec stated using modest inflation assumpti million. Mayor Lizee agreed there are a lot of p Administrator Heck summarized his u this evening. There is a desire for St about the history of the water systei resources are available for hire to help years; and, to review and refine if necf Staff to identify various policy optio charging for the connections for Counc -rvous to hear it is too expensive to hook up to City water for a average per -lot cost to install watermain is slightly over $15,000. nicipalities that when they have installed city water have run into he anticipates similar opposition to the 20 -Year Water Plan. He ,ns the cost to implement the Water Plan will be close to $30 icv items that have to be addressed. .erstanding of the concerns and desires he heard Council express to identify meeting date options and to prepare a presentation and plans for expanding it. Staff is to find out what outside ;fine the 20 -Year Water Plan with a strong focus on the first five ,ary the financial analysis including revenues. There is desire for regarding installing watermain, connecting to watermain and to consider. Heck stated the Water Plan provides Council with a lot of information but not enough for it to approve the Plan. Before that can be considered Council needs community input and additional financial analysis. Council also needs to consider options about how to pay for the expansion over the next few years. He noted that it will take at least 2 — 2.5 months at a minimum to get policy related options together and to do some additional financial analysis. He explained Rusty Fifield, Senior Vice President with Northland Securities, worked with the City on developing a new water rate structure. He asked Director DeJong if Mr. Fifield could do the cash flow analysis and how long it will take to do that. DeJong stated he isn't sure if Mr. Fifield is the right person to do ensure looping of water system expansion is factored in appropriately, but he is capable of doing the financial analysis. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES February 27, 2012 Page 6 of 6 Heck indicated there may be a need to hire two consultants with different areas of expertise; one with engineering expertise and one to do additional financial analysis. He stated he thought it will take at three months to do what Council is asking for. Director DeJong stated Staff will need to obtain formal authorization from Council to engage a consultant. That will not happen until Council's March 12, 2012, meeting. After that it will take time to get proposals from various consultants and authorization to accept a proposal. Administrator Heck stated he thought WSB & Associates conducted the 1990s water study. Engineer Landim clarified WSB & Associates did not exist at that time, and he stated he thought OSM did that work. Heck then stated the next step for Staff is to provide Council with 'a proposal for getting outside consulting services for consideration during its March 12 or March 26 meeting. Staff will research when the Southshore Community Center is available for a public meeting. Mayor Lizee suggested giving Staff until the March 26 3. ADJOURN Siakel moved, Zerby seconded, Adjourning the City Coun 6:49 P.M. Motion passed 310. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST to bresent a Session of February 27, 2012, at Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City #ZD CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. She noted that Councilmember Woodruff is not in attendance this evening, and Councilmember Hotvet will be joining the meeting later. Lizee noted that there will be a City Council Executive Session immediately following this regular meeting. The purpose of the Executive Session is to discuss the City Administrator's performance review. Those Councilmembers present for this meeting and Attorney Keane will participate in the Executive Session. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Hotvet (arrived at 7:28 P.M.), Siakel, and Zerby; Attorney Keane; City Administrator Heck; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; and Engineer Landim Absent: Councilmember Woodruff B. Review Agenda Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 310. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, February 13, 2012 Siakel moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of February 13, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 310. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, February 13, 2012 Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 310. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolution Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 27, 2012 Page 2 of 9 B. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 12 -010 "A Resolution Granting Preliminary Plat Approval for Christmas Lake Estates." C. Organic Recycling Program Update Motion passed 310. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. PUBLIC HEARING None. 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Sue Hnastchenko of the South Tonka League of Women Voters will speak about the Proposed Constitutional Amendment for Voter ID Mayor Lizee introduced Sue Hnastchenko from the League of Women Voters (LWV) Minnesota (LWVMN) South Tonka. Ms. Hnastchenko is here this evening to give Council a presentation about the proposed Constitutional Amendment for voter ID. Ms. Hnastchenko stated she is a Boardmember f She thanked Council for the opportunity to come Ms. Hnastchenko explained that informed and active participation i' advocacy. The LWV does not supp does educate, advocate and lobby c Female voters understand what it w take a stand on the issue of voter IE for voter ID on the ballot. The L oters Minnesota South Tonka. LWV is a nonpartisan political organization that encourages Drovernment, and influences public policy through education and or actively advocate for a specific party or individual. The LWV Specific issues. The LWV has its roots in the suffrage movement. like to not have the right to vote. It's very natural for the LWV to 'he LWV is actively opposing putting a Constitutional Amendment believes voting is a constitutional right of every citizen. It is fundamental to our democracy. It is the Country's history and the State's history to expand voting rights for all beonle_ not to withdraw them. Following are the highlights of Ms. Hnastchenko's presentation. The LWV opposes voter ID because: it doesn't think it belongs in the State Constitution; there are checks and balances that already exist within the system to ensure the integrity of the electoral system; it will result in increased costs` for local, county and state governments; and, it creates barriers for eligible individuals to exercise their Constitutional right to vote. The LWV doesn't think voter ID belongs in the State Constitution for the following reasons. The Constitution establishes enduring principals that are the foundation of the State's representative government. It is not the place for procedural measures in polling places. Procedures belong in statutes and laws so they can be changed as technology and times change. Voters are being asked to vote without knowing the true definition of what government- issued ID is. The wording in the Amendment is very vague. If the Amendment were to pass it would not be implemented until the 2014 Legislative session. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 27, 2012 Page 3 of 9 The people who crafted the original legislation that was approved by the State Senate and House of Representatives and vetoed by Governor Dayton in 2011 did say this Amendment would be based on the same principal of current voter ID and current address. Military IDs, student IDs and passports would not be accepted forms of ID. There will be implications for the absentee voter. There will also be implications for Election Day registrants. Currently they can bring a utility bill and proof of address and register to vote. It's likely they will be given a provisional ballet, then go and get their government- issued ID and then return to the election office to cast their ballot to have it be counted. Vouching for someone on Election Day would be eliminated. Minnesota's election system is recognized as being excellent. Minr voter turnout. Why would the State want to do anything to lose tha application contains an oath that the person is eligible to vote and''i When a voter signs the Voter Roster at the polling place they are it are and that they live at the address on the Roster. The voter is also are committing a felony that carries up to a $10,000 fine and five y( checks and balances to verify voter identity throughout the system and after Election Day. Each voter has a history that moves with the address and their state. If a voter did not vote in the last election,tl and they have to go through the verification processes again. The honesty in the most recent statewide recounts. There is only one type of fraud that a voter pI Minnesota has never had a single case of voter ii system is felons voting before completing probati problem with felons voting would not be solved issued ID does not say the person is a felon. This u is :a consistent national leader in Ltus? The State's voter registration iowledges that it is a felony to lie. ect taking an oath that is who they :)gnizing that if they are lying they in jail. Minnesota has a<,number of )re Election Day, on Election Day vhen they change their name, their name is taken of the Voter Roster e's election system was tested for Ll is going to prevent and that is impersonation. nation in voting history. The only problem in the certain situations. That rate is 0.0006 percent. The ioto ID because a driver's license or government - to be addressed. The increased costs for local, county and state governments seem to be being over looked. All cost estimates projected for voter ID are costs that would be incurred by the State. The costs do not include those that would be incurred by local and county governments. The cost estimates are for the photo ID. The voter ID requirements would have to be used for all elections at the school, city, county and state level. The new system will require educating election officials, election judges, and city clerks. It appears there will he a provisional ballet process and that will require additional work. It's estimated that each precinct will need two additional judges, ballot boxes, and paper work. The ballots will have to be secured until all of the provisional ballots have been turned in. The number of days for the provisional ballot time keeps changing. Election offices' will have to stay open for that time. The LWV is concerned about the barriers voter ID will create for eligible individuals who want to exercise their Constitutional right to vote. A document produced by the Brenna Center for Justice (the Center) which was provided to Council talks about barriers to citizens and it also breaks down the costs to local governments. The Center estimates that approximately 11 percent of the United States citizens lack a valid photo ID. Requiring voter ID would suppress the vote of the most vulnerable members of society. Elderly, disabled, and low- income voters often have no current photo ID and are less likely to have transportation and the means to get an ID. Eligible minority voters are less likely than eligible white voters to have a current photo ID. Over 18 percent of people between 18 and 24, including students, do not have a current photo ID. Because of the short amount of time between when students start college away from home and the elections many of they will not have the opportunity to get a government- issued CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 27, 2012 Page 4 of 9 ID with their school address on it. Those are the people that should be encouraged to participate in government. The State must provide a free Voter photo ID to those who need or want one and it must also educate voters. The cost estimate prepared by Minnesota Management and Budget is $5 million. There have been lower estimates and higher estimates thrown out. That figure does not include any local government costs. Individuals needing to get an ID will bear a cost for secondary documentation such as birth certificates and marriage licenses. Many people cannot afford to nor have the opportunity to take time off of work to go to the Department of Vehicle Services to get a government- issued ID. That is more of a hardship issue in outstate Minnesota. For example, the closet Department of Vehicle Services office for people who live in Sauk Center is in St. Cloud and that is about 100 miles away. True election integrity does not come from a Constitutional Amendment for voter ID. It comes improving the processes for registering voters and maintaining voter lists, recruiting more election judges and ensuring they are well trained in election law, and making sure that felons who have had their right to vote taken away from know how and when they can get their right to vote back. This concludes Ms. Hnastchenko's presentation. Councilmember Siakel told Ms. Hnastchenko that she did a nice job of recapping and presenting this topic. Siakel thanked her. Ms. Hnastchenko stated that she thought voter II lot of hidden costs and barriers that would result f A person in the audience stated the State of Wi about an elderly woman who has voted in every woman relocated to Wisconsin to live near her because she can't find her birth: certificate and to c Ms. Hnastchenko someone who will stated there the LWV has prepared Ms. Hnastchenko coul City Hall if she has a information. She then s Administrator Heck se She asked Heck if he February 21, 2012, and from Senator Olson. y ID. lified in the news. She thinks they are a has voter ID. She saw something on the news in the State of Ohio where she had lived. This r. The elderly woman can't vote in Wisconsin id things she was born at home. have been given and most people can think of a lot of issues and nuances' about this that need to be shared. She noted that a video on this topic. She stated there isn't time to show the video this evening but I be invited back to do that. She suggested Ms. Hnastchenko leave information at ny. She stated voters could also contact the LWV of South Tonka if they want tated that it doesn't make sense to do this in the City of Shorewood. She noted that nt a letter to State Senator Gen Olson outlining the City's arguments against this. has gotten any feedback from Senator Olson. Heck noted he sent the letter on that there was a hearing on this topic on February 22, 2012. He has not heard back Ms. Hnastchenko stated the Amendment was passed in the hearing on February 22 d A person in the audience asked if the City has estimated what it would cost the City for voter ID. Mayor Liz& stated the City has not done that. She noted each year's General Fund budget includes a line item for elections. She expressed that city elections are administered to ensure there is no miscount or CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 27, 2012 Page 5 of 9 voter fraud throughout the election process, from training election judges to conducting recounts, when necessary. Councilmember Zerby stated the video Ms. Hnastchenko referred to is on the LWV of Minnesota's website. Ms. Hnastchenko stated the website is www.lwvmn.org and when a person clicks on the icon I Oppose Voter ID it will direct the person to the video and the outtakes. Mayor Lizee thanked Ms. Hnastchenko for coming this evening and sharing information. She noted this meeting is being video recorded for viewing at a later date. Councilmember Hotvet arrived at 7:38 P.M. 7. PARKS A. Report on February 14, 2012, Park C Commissioner Edmondson reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 14, 2012, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Edmondson noted that the Commission encouraged Eagle Scout candidates to come forth with project proposals they can do for the City. B. Ice /Warming House Policy Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, approving the City of Shorewood's Outdoor Skating Rinks and Warming House Policies as presented. Motion passed 4 /0. 8. PLANNING A. Report on February 21, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Davis reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 21, 2012, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Minor Subdivision /Combination and Lot Width /Area Variance Applicant: Mike and Elizabeth Cannon Location: 28170 / 28180 Woodside Road Mike Cannon, the applicant, stated he is present to answer any questions Council may have. Director Nielsen explained that Mike and Elizabeth Cannon own the property at 28170 Woodside Road. They are proposing to convey a small portion of that lot to the limited liability corporation that owns the lot to the south at 28180` Woodside Road. Both lots are somewhat substandard in terms of width for the R -IA/S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland zoning district in which they are located. Mr. Cannon proposes conveying the small triangle in the southeast corner of the 28170 property to the 28180 property to equalize the width of the two lots and bring both of them into compliance with City's Zoning Code relative to nonconforming lots. Nielsen then explained the City's zoning regulations require substandard lots to meet at least 70 percent of the width and area requirements of the zoning district in which the lot is located in order for it to be considered buildable. The R -IA/S zoning district requires lots to have 40,000 square feet in area and 120 CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 27, 2012 Page 6 of 9 feet of width, as measured at the building line (front setback). Currently, the northerly lot contains 37,155 square feet of area and is 98.5 feet in width. The southerly lot contains 39,495 square feet of area and is 71 feet in width. The proposed division/combination results in the northerly lot having 35,687 square feet of area and 95 feet in width, both of which exceed the 70 percent standard. The southerly lot will have 39,045 square feet (after dedicating 17 feet of public right -of -way for Woodside Road) and 84 feet in width. Both area and width for the southerly lot will meet or exceed the 70 percent requirement. The applicant has also provided drainage and utility easements around both of the lots. The two lots share a driveway and will continue to share a portion of it for the near future. Nielsen noted the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this during its February 8, 2012, meeting. Staff and the Commission unanimously recommend Council approve the minor subdivision/combination and lot with/area variances. Councilmember Zerby stated the applicants have submitted a good plan and it appears to have been well studied by Staff and the Planning Commission. Mayor Lizee concurred, Mayor Lizee expressed her appreciation that the Staff, the Planning Commission and the applicants worked together on this. Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO.'' 12 -011 "A Resolution Approving a Subdivision and Combination of Real Property and Lot Width and Area Variances for Michael and Elizabeth Cannon." Motion passed 4/0. 9. ENGINEERING /PUBLIC WORKS A. Accept Overlay for Bids for Mill & Engineer Landim explained the 2012 Capital Improvement Program has earmarked $298,000 for the 2012 mill and overlay project. Streets chosen for mill and overlay must have a foundation capable of supporting the surface and have a PASER (pavement surface evaluation and rating) rating of 4 or higher. The streets chosen for 2012 are Clover Lane, Club Lane, Elder Turn, Knightsbridge Road, Lakeway Terrace, Pleasant Avenue, Tee Trail, Wood Drive and Wood Duck Circle. He stated this evening he is asking Council to authorize the advertisements for bid for this project. He noted the bid opening for this project is scheduled for April 2, 2012, at 10;00 A.M. Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 12 -012 "A Resolution Approving Specifications and Estimate and Authorizing Advertisements for Bids for 2012 Mill and Overlay City Project 12 -02." Motion passed 4/0. 10. A. Appointments to the Park Commission Mayor Lizee stated earlier this evening Council interviewed two applicants for the two Park Commission seats that will become vacant on March 1, 2012. The two seats are for three -year terms. She noted Justin Mangold is a new applicant and Bob Edmondson currently serves as a Commissioner. She thanked them for taking the time to be interviewed. Councilmembers Siakel and Zerby stated they were impressed with the candidates. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 27, 2012 Page 7 of 9 Siakel moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO 12 -013, "A Resolution Making the Appointments of Bob Edmondson (3 -year term) and Justin Mangold (3 -year term) to the City of Shorewood Park Commission effective March 1, 2012." Motion passed 4/0. B. Appointments to the Planning Commission Mayor Lizee stated that just prior to this meeting Council interviewed two applicants for the two Planning Commission seats that will become vacant on March 1, 2012. She noted Larry Muehlberg is a new applicant and Ed Hasek currently serves as a Commissioner. She thanked them for taking the time to be interviewed. Zerby moved, Adopting RESOLUTION NO 12 -014, "A F Hasek (3 -year term) and Larry Muehlberg (3 -year to Commission effective March 1, 2012 ". Councilmember Hotvet asked if it is possible to app explained the motion on the table is to appoint both Siakel seconded. Motion passed 311 with Hotvet C. Hennepin County Dispat Administrator Heck explained that in 2011 Henner resolution supporting the construction of a new Shei (the Center). The new Center would be constructed i of Commissioners (the Board) has approved that pr( services. The resolutions of support for the new Cc Minnetonka Police Department (Excelsior, Greenw Excelsior Fire District (those same four Cities plus that the costs for dispatch services would not be p Cities. : esolution Making the Appointments of Ed rm) to the City of Shorewood Planning one of the applicants. Councilmember Zerby County Sheriff Stanek asked Council to adopt a s Office 911 Emergency Communications Center he City of Plymouth. The Hennepin County Board ;t. The Board is considering charging for dispatch r adopted by the Cities served by the South Lake 1, Shorewood and Tonka Bay) and served by the -ephaven) were done with the understanding that ;ed on to the public safety organizations and the Heck then explained Mayor Lizee received a letter from Sheriff Stanek stating the Board is considering the possibility of charging communities for dispatch services. Stanek indicated in his letter that he does not support doing that while noting that is the Board's prerogative. Stanek encouraged member communities to let their respective representatives on the Board know that they want the dispatch services to continue to be at no cost. Heck noted the SLMPD Coordinating Committee supported SLMPD Chief Litsey sending a letter to Commissioner Callison expressing the Committee's desire to have the Sheriffs Office continue to dispatch services at no charge. The Committee encouraged each SLMPD member city to also send a letter to Commissioner Callison. Heck asked Council if it would like him to draft a letter to Commissioner Callison expressing the City's desire to have the Sheriffs Office continue to dispatch services at no charge. Councilmember Siakel expressed her support for Administrator Heck writing a letter. She asked if Heck wanted Council to pass a motion for this. Councilmember Zerby stated residents are already paying for those services through the taxes they pay Hennepin County. He then stated charging for dispatch services places more of a burden on cities. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 27, 2012 Page 8 of 9 There was Council consensus to have Administrator Heck draft a letter for Commissioner Callison under Mayor Lizee's name. 11. OLD BUSINESS None. 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. GreenStep Cities Update Administrator Heck explained an outside company did an energy, assessment of City Hall earlier in the day. Building Official Pazandak was present for the assessment. The findings indicate the output of energy at City Hall is less than what similar facilities have. The company stated some energy output could be saved by installing motion - sensing lights in certain areas. The company commented on the lighting system in the lower level of City Hall; an area not used very much. The company may recommend replacing the lighting system down there. Heck then explained Council directed Staff to research installing a third camera in the Council Chamber as well as an overhead microphone (mic) in the audience area of the Chamber. The firm who put the sound system into the Chamber expressed concern that the overhead mic may interfere with the rest of the system too and provide too much feedback. That firm suggested having that mic connect into the audio recording system but not to the speakers in the Chamber to avoid that problem. There may be a need for an additional monitor for the third camera. Heck noted park recycling containers have been delivered and they will be put into the parks as soon as weather permits. He noted the two organics collections haulers will contract directly with the individual residents. He stated the City will do the marketing campaign for the organics collections pilot project. 2. Department Project Update Administrator Heck noted that each department head will provide an update on what they are working on Engineer Landini noted that he is working on the 2012 mill and overlay project Council considered earlier this evening as well as the sealcoat project and stormwater improvements in the east end of the City. He stated on March 9, 2012, he will attend a meeting about the tree restoration project near East Stratford Place and Apple Road for the creek restoration project. Mayor Lizee noted she spoke with some of the property owners in that area this past weekend and she stated she will attend the meeting. Lizee thanked Landini for providing her that information. Director DeJong stated the Finance Department is working on year -end journal entries in preparation for the 2011 financial audit and doing final financial reports for 2011. He is working on a couple of legislative items. He is involved in a process to minimize some of the reporting the Governmental Accounting Standards Board is considering requiring of cities. As part of their annual financial report cities would have to provide a five -year prospective of summaries of revenues and expenditures. He is working with the League of Minnesota Cities and Metro Cities to try and head off additional reporting requirements of an unfunded mandate on reporting budget information twice to the Office of the State CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 27, 2012 Page 9 of 9 Auditor. He then stated per the agreement to provide some financial services to the City of Excelsior he has processed two payroll periods, one claims list and processed Excelsior's utility receipts for last month. He noted the two Cities have similar charts of accounts so it makes doing Excelsior's work relatively easy. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission has recommended Council approve a farm animal ordinance and an ordinance amendment on allowable front yard encroachments. They will be on Council's March 12, 2012, meeting agenda. He is in the process of scheduling a government training session for some Saturday in April. One segment of that session will include a presentation on senior housing. He attended a diseased tree inspection training program put on by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. It's possible the Bill Erickson plat may be on Council's March 12, 2012. Staff has been working with an owner of a property on Lafayette Avenue. The property is very substandard and the owner proposes to rebuild the house under the existing nonconformity rules adopted in 2011. He noted the Christmas Lake Homeowners Association has agreed to fund the cost of 100 percent aquatic invasive species (AIS) inspections (above the $10,000 contributed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) at the boat landing at Christmas Lake for 2012. The AIS working'" group has a meeting scheduled for February 29 to talk about inspection details. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Hotvet noted David Bigham, a very special resident of Shorewood and member of the community, passed away on February 22, 2012, Mr. Bigham was a very special mentor, a community leader and a friend to many. He was a great human being. His passing is a'big loss for the community. 13. ADJOURN Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council at 8:03 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Christine Freeman, Recorder I1 Meeting of February 27, 2012, Christine Liz&, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator /Clerk #2E CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 8:16 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, and Absent: Councilmember Woodruff 2. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S PERFORMANCE REVII Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel and Zerby; and Attc of the meeting was to discuss the City Administrator's performance 3. ADJOURN The City Council Executive Session of February 27, 2012, was a RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Christine Freeman, Recorder 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS Immediately following Regular Council meeting ; and were present. The purpose at 8:46 P.M. Christine Lizee, Mayor #2F CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 MINUTES 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel Park Commission Chair Quinlan; P Gordon, Kjolhaug, Robb and Swagger Absent: Councilmember Woodruff B. Review Agenda Edmondson moved, Hotvet seconded, ap 2. RESIDENT S Mayor Lizee welcc Commission a brief Administrator Heck noted thi National Research Center (N_ the survey. The survey was rc provided with a copy of the ft of survey results pertinent to and recreation than questions parks and if so how. It also as Park Comissione of the results of the 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 PM ; and, Administrator Heck Hartman, as presented. Motion passed 11/0. asked Administrator Heck to provide the Park survev conducted in 2011. •k Commissioners attended the meeting on February 13, 2012, when - esented the 2011 resident survey results to Council. NRC conducted tative of the community. He also noted the Commissioners have been ey results. He stated the meeting packet contains a copy of a summary and recreation. The survey contained more questions related to parks d to planning and zoning. The survey asked residents if they use the ;m what sort of City sponsored activities they participated in. Heck reviewed a few areas of concern related to parks and recreation. The survey results indicated 60% of the residents didn't participate in any of the community programs and events listed in the survey once in the 12 months prior to the survey, including Minnetonka Community Education summer recreation programs. A significant number of residents indicated they did not visit or attend an event at the Southshore Community Center (SSCC) once in the 12 months prior to the survey. Of those that did 87% indicated the service was good or excellent. To date there hasn't been any discussion at the Council level or by the Park Commission as to whether or not the SSCC should follow under the umbrella of the Commission. Heck reviewed some of the good things the survey results identified related to parks and recreation. Visiting a City park was rated as one of the five highest community participation activities; 87% indicated the visited a City park at least once in the 12 months prior to the survey. That rating is much higher than the national benchmark and small city benchmark (cities with populations at or lower than 10,000) for cities CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION February 28, 2012 Page 2 of 10 NRC has done surveys for. The survey results indicate only 28% rate park improvements as essential or very important, while noting there are a couple of exceptions to that. He commented that he interprets that to mean the residents like what the City has to offer and that they want the parks to be maintained so they are usable. In response to a question from Commissioner Robb, Administrator Heck explained questions asked that are specific to the City do not have benchmarks. Robb expressed he was surprised to learn that 87% of the respondents indicated they had visited a City park in the 12 months preceding the survey. Chair Quinlan explained the survey results indicate that the use of paths and trails are at the top of the list of recreation facilities used. Their use was significantly higher than any ether facility. The survey results make it very clear how important they are to the residents. The use of paths and trails was 80% and playground equipment, the second highest use, was 38 %. Also, 52% indicated they thought trails and walkways should be expanded. He expressed hope that the City will continue to make trails a priority. He stated he was pleased to find out that Music in the Park had the highest participation rate, 23 %, for community programs and events. He noted the Park Commission has debated whether or not that program should be continued. He explained Artie Fever had the next highest participation at 10 %. He noted no one attended skateboarding camp. Administrator Heck noted the people who attended that camp apparently were not from Shorewood. Mayor Lizee noted that responders had to be 18 years of age or older and it was unlikely they would have attended the camp. Councilmember Hotvet stated she agreed with Chair Quinlan that trails are important to the residents and the survey results confirm it. She then stated the next task at hand for trail expansion is determining what the hard costs to do so are, noting that does not imply the City is not committed to expanding trails and walkways. They are still a high priority for the City. Commissioner Edmondson stated from his perspective the use of trails has become a general way for people to get exercise and to travel. They are used more than going to a park to get some specific type of exercise depending on age. The use of trails is growing, Councilmember Siakel explained the survey did not address the "why" component of things. She stated if someone is asked if they like trails they probably will respond they do. She then stated safe access to trails is a problem, Commissioner Gordon stated based on the survey results she will change her rating of the importance of trails a lot. She then stated it is up to Council to determine how to make it safe for people to get to the parks. Mayor Lizee stated she thought there needs to be more interaction between Council and the Park and Planning Commissions about how to provide access to the parks via trails, link trails together, and factor in trails and walkways when roadways are reconstructed or reclaimed. Councilmember Siakel stated she thought there is an opportunity for the Council and two Commissions to work together to move forward with at least some aspects of the Trail Plan. She then stated there is a role for the Planning Commission when it comes to taking the Trail Plan to the next level with regard to the specifics of how a trail is constructed. It's the Planning Commission's area of expertise. The Trail Plan should also tie into the 20 -Year Pavement Improvement Plan (PMP). She recommended Council and the Commissions serve as the cheerleaders for and the voice to the community for moving the Trail Plan CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION February 28, 2012 Page 3 of 10 forward. The next step is to add more detail to the Trail Plan. She stated she has heard concerns expressed about Council not moving forward with the segment of trail from the LRT along County Road 19 up to the shopping center located in the City of Tonka Bay. She explained that she and some of the other Councilmembers thought they needed to be provided more detail on the costs to construct it before approving it. She noted she agrees there is a need for more trails in the City. Commissioner Edmondson stated he thought it paramount to coordinate the installations of trails and walkways with the reconstruction or reclamation of roadways. The construction costs for the trails will be cheaper. Chair Quinlan suggested reviving the Ad Hoc Trail Committee. The Committee could meet on an as need basis. The Committee could discuss the issues in a work session environment and identify ways to diffuse the issues. He commented that he has no idea if the same residents would be interested in serving on the Committee. Councilmember Hotvet stated from her perspective surveying work to come up more solid cost estima scenarios. Councilmember Zerby agreed that the Planning become involved with the future expansion of tr a previous evening Council and Staff discussed a tentatively watermain is scheduled to be installed al From his vantage point that would be the oppo roadways. He stated that at times the word trail ere that goes through Carver County. That trail is 10 being discussed is safe pedestrian access and tha t prudent to consider safe passage ways for non -vehi stated the trail priorities can be reviewed and he sug phase would be to do some engineering and worst case cost estimates for the most likely Commission, Engineering and Public Works need to ils. He stated that during Council's work session the 20 -Year Water Plan.'' The Water Plan reflects that ong Country Club Road and Yellowstone Trail in 2013. rtune time to install a trail or walkway next to those to ates confusion for people because they think of the trail feet wide and it has striping on it. He clarified what is could be a variety of things. He stated he thought it cular traffic such as pedestrians and bicyclists. He then gested infrastructure plans also be factored in. be discussed sooner versus later. Chair Quinlan stated Trail Plan priorities can be reprioritized based on roadway priorities. Councilmember Zerby stated he anticipates that people will have sticker shock when they are provided with solid construction cost figures. He then stated Council will have to make some hard decisions after they get that information. The cost figures provided by the Finance Director already created sticker shock. Councilmember Hotvet stated construction projects often cost three times as much and take twice as long as anticipated. Chair Quinlan stated he thought it prudent to have enough information to be ready to respond to grant possibilities when they present themselves. Mayor Liz& stated there is real community support for safe trails and walkways. When trail segments are considered safe passage ways to school should be factored in. She then stated she thought community support could be built if residents knew the intentions far enough in advance. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION February 28, 2012 Page 4 of 10 Councilmember Hotvet stated if residents knew the roadway in front of their property is to be reconstructed or reclaimed they may be more receptive to constructing a trail or walkway. Commissioner Edmondson stated safe passage ways, options to stay healthy, access to dining and retail areas, and access to schools are important to the community. He then stated the Ad Hoc Trail Committee did identify the three points that have to be considered when considering trails and they are safety, common sense and value. He also stated if watermain is to be installed along Country Club Road and Yellowstone Trail in 2013 it would be the perfect time to construct trails or walkways. Commissioner Gordon asked if the City has a long -range plan for roadway reconstruction. Mayor Lizee responded the City has a 20 -Year PMP and a draft of a 20 -Year Water Plan. The two Plans are somewhat integrated. Trails and walkways could be integrated into that. She then stated it's prudent to provide that information to the residents. Commissioner Gooch Hartmann asked if property owners are assessed to extend watermain. Mayor Lizee stated at this time they are. Administrator Heck sated watermain extension is assessed, but roadway reconstruction and maintenance are not. Heck then stated he assumed trails would not be assessed. He explained that when CUB Foods was constructed a walkway was installed along Lake Linden Drive south of Yellowstone Trail and it was not assessed for. Commissioner Edmondson stated if a roadway is to be milled and overlaid he asked if that may be an opportune time to install a trail or walkway. Mayor Lizee stated it would be. Councilmember Zerby noted the City tends to try and deal with drainage issues as part of mill and overly projects; it would be a good time to also consider trails and walkways. Commissioner Kjolhaug askec Administrator Heck responder explained that Staff has indic estimates from that are still rel could potentially be applied to ways since the sidewalk was 1 approximate $72,000 cost est ! relatively accurate. He person standard and the trail segmen engineer firm should be able to no it he is Trail Plan includes a feasibility analysis for each trail segment. ibility studies or reports have been done for any segment. Heck kes about 2.5 months to complete a feasibility study. The costs )ugh. Hard costs are obtained through the bidding process and they 1 segments. Heck noted the City has not built any off - street passage aong Lake Linden Drive. He stated the City Engineer thought the construct a short segment of trail from the LRT Trail south was not so sure it is accurate because the estimate was built on a 9 -ton not be built to that standard. Commissioner Robb stated a good the costs close to actual. Administrator Heck there is a cost for do came up for conside the top three priority ty could do feasibility studies for all of the trail expansion segments, but questioned if all the studies would be done at the same time or when they nissioner Gooch Hartmann suggested it may be prudent to do studies on Administrator Heck stated Council will discuss some of these issues during its March 12, 2012, work session. He noted that trails segments along Country Club Road and Yellowstone Trail are not included in the Trail Plan for the first five years. He acknowledged that Councilmember Zerby recommended revisiting the priorities earlier this evening and possibly moving those two segments up on the priority list. Councilmember Siakel noted that Council has discussed hiring a consultant to help firm up the Water Plan. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION February 28, 2012 Page 5 of 10 Commissioner Edmondson stated it's difficult for him to believe that business owners would not want to be supportive when they could benefit from making it easier for non - vehicular traffic to get to their businesses. Councilmember Hotvet commented that she thought taking 2.5 months to complete a feasibility study seemed like a long time. Administrator Heck stated Director Brown and Engineer Landim think that is a reasonable amount of time to prepare a good feasibility report, noting information would have to be obtained from a variety of sources. Hotvet stated if Council makes a decision to move forward with some feasibility studies during its March 12 meeting she asked if that means Council would have the needed information in 2.5 months. Heck responded some answers would be available, while clarifying he is not committing to it taking just 2.5 months. Councilmember Siakel explained the Ad Hoc Trail Committee reviewed old trail leaps and at work that had been done by previous work groups. She stated she thought the Committee did a good job of prioritizing. She asked if the City already has more information that could be useful`. She stated she supports the idea of melding trail projects into the 20 -Year PMP and Water Plan. She suggested doing feasibility projects for the top five reprioritized trail projects. Chair Quinlan asked what the plan is for addressing Smithtown Road. R) issues; for example, along Administrator Heck stated that it's his recollection that Director Nielsen provided the Trail Committee with a map depicting where there are ROW issues are along Smithtown Road. He stated after Council has decided if the trail will be built on the north or south side of that roadway then the community can be engaged to help convince property owners to grant the City easements necessary to construct a trail. If property owners are unwilling to grant the needed easements Council will have to decide if it wants the City to obtain the needed ROW through the eminent domain, process. Commissioner Robb stated an engineering study has to be done in order to make that determination. Chair Quinlan stated when properties go up for sale he asked if there is an opportunity for the City to adjust the ROW or to obtain the easement as part of the sale. Administrator Heck explained the seller would have to do that before they sold the property or the purchaser would have to do it once they owned the proverty. Administrator Heck stated that he has discussed having the City Attorney draw up easement papers for the City -owned property located next to City Hall to ensure the City will have the needed easement there. Mayor Lizee stated it may be prudent to look at separate trail segments along Smithtown Road. She explained the City of Victoria built a very nice trail which stops at the Shorewood boundary. Residents question why it does. Maybe they will be more receptive to continuing a trail into Shorewood now. She stated demographics are changing and people want trails and walkways. Commissioner Gordon stated trails are something all ages can enjoy. Councilmember Zerby stated having more trails and walkways would improve the sense of community, noting the survey rated that low. There is not connectivity in the City. Councilmember Hotvet asked what the specific next step is regarding trails. Administrator Heck explained that during its March 12 meeting Council will discuss which group is best suited to handle non - vehicular CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION February 28, 2012 Page 6 of 10 transportation needs in the City. Staff will also discuss how to get better information on the costs for doing trail related business. Hotvet asked Heck if Council will be provided with costs for developing the feasibility reports during that meeting. Heck responded he will talk to Engineer Landim about that. Councilmember Zerby stated he thought the City could obtain some of the ROW it needs. For example, there are only two property owners with property abutting the west side of Country Club Road. Councilmember Siakel stated one resident came before Council recently and expressed concern about his safety when he goes out to get mail. Therefore, she questioned if it may make more sense to have the trail on the east side of Country Club Road. Councilmember Zerby stated doing that could create issues with crossing the street to get to another segment of trail that is yet to be built. Siakel stated there are many questions that need to be discussed and resolved. She went on to state if the City has already identified the properties along Smithtown Road where there is an issue with ROW and she asked if at the time of sale the City can purchase that ROW at a reasonable cost. Mayor Lizee stated the City could also ask that it be deeded to the City. Councilmember Hotvet stated if the City buys some ROWS then other property owners will also want to be compensated for granting easements. Mayor Lizee explained that when the State deeded wha t they just divided it up with all the properties. Adm descriptions were written the City controls everything because the City has maintained it. It is the piece off of it is legal ROW. Councilmember Hotvet stated other explained that when the City plats an area it designates the plat. Commissioner Robb state a good understanding of possible objectives of the 3. CO inistrator Heck was then Highway 7 and is now Smithtown Road inistrator Heck explained that the way the legal that is on the asphalt through adverse possession the asphalt that is questionable as to whether or not roads are different. Heck stated that is true and the width of the road and it acquires that as part of )f Council's goals is to implement` the Trail Plan. He assumed Council had that is going to be. Administrator Heck stated those were examples of S date Council has ,agreed to eight strategic planning goals, noting a list of those goals is included in the meeting packet. The next step for Council is to prioritize the goals and for Staff and Council to identify objectives. He explained Council and the Planning Commission discussed the goals during their joint February 21, 2012, work session. The Planning Commission recommended adding an economic condition or status to the goal "respond to changing service needs for changing community demographics" because the economic conditions for residents has been changing. That Commission also thought it possible to consolidate a couple of the goals. He extended the Park Commissioners the opportunity to provide their perspectives on what the priorities of the goals should be. Heck related that Councilmember Zerby had previously stated that it is difficult to prioritize the eight goals because they are all important. Heck stated priorities have to be identified so the staff and the Commissions know where to focus the majority of their resources. This is particularly important to know for the 2013 budget process. Commissioner Kjolhaug stated from his perspective the goals are not mutually exclusive. He then stated the goal "commit to sound financial management through efficient utilization of financial resources" applies to the other seven goals. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION February 28, 2012 Page 7 of 10 Commissioner Robb stated he assumes the plan is to make the goals a little more definitive and after that the different groups will develop the tactics for accomplishing the goals and objectives. Administrator Heck stated the meeting packet contains some examples of objectives and tactics that may be used to demonstrate progress made in achieving the goals. He then stated some of the goals are ongoing. Other goals will be achieved and taken off of the list. Councilmember Hotvet stated she agrees with Commissioner Kjolhaug's comment that committing to sound financial management through efficient utilization of financial resources should become an element of each of the other seven goals. Commissioner Robb stated an example of an objective could be Councilmember Siakel explained last year Council and Staff This year Council decided a goal about sound financial mana; budgeting being an element of it. Council has agreed that poll( noted that for the last few years Council has balanced the City' other fund balances. She stated Council needs to decide if it vantage point balancing the General Fund budget would be a gc Administrator Heck encouraged the Park their priorities. Councilmember Zerby regard to strategic plan 4. GIDEON GLEN Administrator Heck explained th idea of including Gideon Glen as Chair Quinlan stated that from 1 But, it doesn't seem to belong increasing its use. He explainer about bringing it into the fold of it would add a dimension to the r the budget by a certain percent. rted discussing priority based budgeting. nent should be added with priority based and fire services are the top priority. She Jeneral Fund budget by using funds from ants to continue that practice. From her send him thought it important to share' whz this is an ever evolving document. on the goals and s been accomplished to date with to last Park Commission meeting Chair Quinlan brought up the park system. iantage point Gideon Glen is a forgotten asset. It is a wonderful asset. nyone in terms of addressing issues that come up, promoting it, and it he has spoken with Administrator Heck and the Park Commission Park Commission. He stated it is a good educational space. He thought s and recreation assets. Mayor Lizee agreed that Gideon Glen is somewhat in a holding pattern. She explained Gideon Glen was established through a partnership between the City, Hennepin County and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). It was part of the County Road 19 and Smithtown Road corridor redevelopment. She noted it is part of a bigger plan. She stated the part that is still unknown is what is going to happen at the northwest quadrant of the County Road 19 and Smithtown Road intersection. That quadrant will probably be linked to other areas via a trail or walkway. She asked if the Planning Commission has a desire to make Gideon Glen more visible or have it become a higher use area. She stated there are probably lots of things that can be done with Gideon Glen if the Park Commission wants to revisit it with the MCWD. She then stated people forget how wonderful Gideon Glen is until they go there. She noted an Eagle Scout project had been undertaken in that area. She explained you can learn about the "big woods" aspect of the area and CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION February 28, 2012 Page 8 of 10 how it has changed over the last 5 — 8 years with the growth of the plantings. She stated that she thought that it would be great to link Gideon Glen to the rest of the City's parks as well as to the Cities of Excelsior and Tonka Bay. Councilmember Hotvet suggested encouraging the school to go to Gideon Glen for the fifth graders' education about wetlands. It would introduce a new group of people to that area. Chair Quinlan stated he thought it would be a good field trip. The area is interactive with its explanatory plaques. Commissioner Gooch Hartmann stated there is an opportunity to involve the schools and the MCWD in introducing students to the area just by going to Gideon Glen. She then stated it would be nice if the MCWD would have an interest in educating students about wetland restoration. Councilmember Zerby noted that parking at Gideon Glen is a problem. He asked if the Park Commission is suggesting adding parking. Chair Quinlan agreed that accessibility is a big problem. Commissioner Edmondson stated it is the number one problem in that area. Mayor Lizee asked if there will be some safe passage way for pedestrians from nearby parking areas. Edmondson noted there is a spot where a bus could pull -off and then drop -off students. Mayor Lizee noted that a few years ago representatives from the Cities of Orono, Shorewood and Tonka Bay as well as a few agencies participated in a high -level study about a County Road 19 trail. She stated that getting things done often requires partnership arrangements. She explained that there had been a maintenance program in place for Gideon Glen for the first five years of its existence. MCWD was to do the maintenance during that time. She asked if the Park Commission is suggesting that the City become responsible for that maintenance. Chair Quinlan stated he doesn't know what the current maintenance arrangement is. Administrator Heck explained it is his understanding the MCWD was responsible for the maintenance of Gideon Glen for a period of five years after the plantings were well established. Two to three years ago the MCWD conducted a controlled burn of the area because there were too many noxious plants, and it planted more native species to reestablish the area. Based on comments made by Planning Director Nielsen there appears to have been some discussion with the MCWD about it managing the maintenance of that area permanently. He noted is not sure if that is true or not. He related that Engineer Landim spoke with representatives from the Minnesota Conservation Corps and found out that the City could purchase hours from the Carps for maintaining things such as Gideon Glenn and the City's rain gardens. The cost would be $1,000 — $2,000 annually. Councilmember Zerby stated that he is interested in the Park Commission becoming more involved with Gideon Glen. He then stated there are outstanding questions about that area that have to be answered first. For example, how to address the issue of limited parking, what the cost would be for Public Works to maintain Gideon Glen, and what its use would it be. He expressed his support for the Commission studying those things. Chair Quinlan stated with the Council's and Planning Commission's involvement with the Smithtown Crossing area potential redevelopment it would be the opportune time to build accessibility to Gideon Glen. Mayor Lizee suggested the Park Commission have a planning meeting that includes representatives from the MCWD. They participants could go to the area and hear about what the MCWD's plans are for the area. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION February 28, 2012 Page 9 of 10 Councilmember Zerby stated in conversations he has had with representatives from the MCWD he has learned the MCWD is still interested in helping with Badger Park initiatives and it is waiting for the Park Commission to contact it. The MCWD will not initiate that contact. Commissioner Edmondson commented that if the American Legion does building a new facility in the Smithtown Crossing area as part of a coordinated redevelopment area its facility could have a wonderful view of Gideon Glen. Mayor Lizee noted the MCWD is aware that the Legion wants to stay in that area and that there are partnership opportunities. 5. BADGER PARK Councilmember Zerby encouraged the Park Commission to District (MCWD) about Badger Park initiatives. He noted funding. Chair Quinlan stated once the Park Commission h MCWD about the Commission's ideas. Councilmember Siakel noted that the resident survey results`in+ the Southshore Community Center (SSCC). She recommended Badger Park redevelopment plans. She noted that from her culture and recreation. ntact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed MCWD is interested and it has some identified specifics it can approach the ite that many residents don't know about s Park Commission factor the SSCC into tage point the SSCC falls under parks, Commissioner Edmondson stated there are many opportunities to be had if Badger Park is redeveloped Mayor Lizee stated the City has a Master Parks Plan that was updated by TKDA a few years ago. She noted that plan was sent to an aspiring Eagle Scout who is looking to do a project. She asked if that Plan is still the vision of the Parr Commission for Badger Park, Chair Quinlan responded he considers it to be the grand ambition if there were an unlimited budget and unlimited time. Chair Quinlan explained that over the past few months the Park Commission has prioritized a list of amenities. During its last meeting the Commission prioritized the goals for Badger Park. It discussed whose needs it thinks the Park should satisfy and ultimately how it should look. He stated the Commission continually references the TKDA drawing for the Park. It takes it as the standard and then it move things around from there. He then stated the TKDA plans for Badger Park are the most ambitious of all of the plans for the City's parks. The vision for Badger Park is very different than what the Park is today. Because of the Commission's grand ambitions for Badger Park it sometimes stumbles when it comes to deciding to do needed maintenance. Administrator Heck stated the Park Commission has identified what it believes are the strengths and weaknesses of Badger Park. He commented that some of the components on the TKDA plans for Badger Park are very attractive. But, based on the resident survey results the ambitious plans for Badger Park are not needed. 6. ADJOURN Zerby moved, Hotvet seconded, Adjourning the Work Session of the City Council and Park Commission of February 28, 2012, at 7:05 P.M. Motion passed 11/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION February 28, 2012 Page 10 of 10 RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT' Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Bria Christine Liz&, Mayor #2G CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2012 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 5:01 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Wo( Absent: None B. Review Agenda Hotvet moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presen 2. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF THE CITY ADM REVIEW Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zer The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the City Administrator's 3. ADJOURN 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM 5:00 PM and Zerby, and Attorney Keane Motion passed 510. 3 5TRATOR'S PERFORMANCE and Attorney Keane were present. :)rmance review. Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, adjourning the City Council Executive Session of March 5 2012, at 5:47P.M. Motion passed 510. RESPECTFULLY SUl Jean Panchvshvn, Reco ATTEST Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator /Clerk COUNCIL ACTION FORM Department Council Meeting Item Number Finance March 12, 2012 3A Item Description: Verified Claims From: Michelle Nguyen Bruce DeJong Background / Previous Action Claims for council authorization. The attached claims list includes checks numbered 52723 through 52780 & EDA checks numbered 1220 through 1221 totaling $329,911.27. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the claims list. 3/08/2012 10:26 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood 2,060.63 000000 BANK: 1 BEACON BANK 16,500.00 001221 DATE RANGE: 2/28/2012 THRU 99/99/9999 052724 7,098.35 052726 13,741.20 052727 6.40 CHECK VENDOR I.D. 052729 NAME STATUS DATE 00051 1,718.31 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H D 2/28/2012 00092 052734 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 2/28/2012 20005 16.89 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC D 2/28/2012 29422 052739 EHLERS R 3/12/2012 25848 U.S. BANK - CORPORATE TRUST - R 3/12/2012 00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -4 R 2/28/2012 00052 PERA R 2/28/2012 29306 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 R 3/12/2012 16275 AMERICAN MESSAGING R 3/12/2012 29379 ANDERBERG, WAYNE R 3/12/2012 1 BOB BULTHUIS R 3/12/2012 04081 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS R 3/12/2012 17300 CENTERPOINT ENERGY R 3/12/2012 26100 CENTURY LINK R 3/12/2012 04500 CITY OF CHANHASSEN R 3/12/2012 29271 DREW KRIESEL R 3/12/2012 29322 EXCELSIOR FLORIST R 3/12/2012 12125 FEDEX KINKO'S R 3/12/2012 08712 G & K SERVICES R 3/12/2012 27195 GRAINGER, INC R 3/12/2012 10000 GROUT, TWILA R 3/12/2012 1 HEATHER HOLM R 3/12/2012 INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOUNT PAGE: 1 CHECK CHECK CHECK NO STATUS AMOUNT 000000 11,612.57 000000 2,060.63 000000 1,366.43 001220 16,500.00 001221 5,250.00 052723 1,663.50 052724 7,098.35 052726 13,741.20 052727 6.40 052728 50.00 052729 100.00 052730 253.98 052731 1,718.31 052732 326.87 052733 557.19 052734 691.38 052735 81.48 052736 16.89 052737 1,097.26 052738 139.28 052739 24.20 052740 100.00 3/08/2012 10:26 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood 2,411.05 052743 BANK: 1 BEACON BANK 100.00 052745 DATE RANGE: 2/28/2012 THRU 99/99/9999 052747 15,598.14 052748 620.21 052750 447.08 CHECK VENDOR I.D. 052752 NAME STATUS DATE 10680 2,006.80 HENN CTY -P.W. GEN. HAZARDOUS W R 3/12/2012 11087 052757 ICS - HEALY -RUFF R 3/12/2012 11010 94.50 INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER R 3/12/2012 1 052762 JIM BEARDSLEY R 3/12/2012 13302 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES IN R 3/12/2012 13975 M/A ASSOCIATES INC. R 3/12/2012 00079 MEDICA R 3/12/2012 15176 MENARDS R 3/12/2012 15875 MIDWEST CRANE CORP. R 3/12/2012 17275 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DIST R 3/12/2012 16480 MINNESOTA AWWA R 3/12/2012 00085 MINNESOTA LIFE R 3/12/2012 06650 MN DNR ECO- WATERS R 3/12/2012 18093 MORTON SALT, INC. R 3/12/2012 15900 OFFICE DEPOT R 3/12/2012 29332 ON SITE SANITATION INC R 3/12/2012 15000 PAETEC R 3/12/2012 1 PAMELA KOLTES R 3/12/2012 1350 PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE R 3/12/2012 22347 RUMPCA COMPANIES, INC. R 3/12/2012 29423 SETON IDENTIFICATION PRODUCTS R 3/12/2012 1 SHIRLEY MAH KOOYMAN R 3/12/2012 INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOUNT PAGE: 2 CHECK CHECK CHECK NO STATUS AMOUNT 052741 210.00 052742 2,411.05 052743 101.32 052744 100.00 052745 61,827.00 052746 436.95 052747 15,598.14 052748 620.21 052750 447.08 052751 30.00 052752 525.00 052753 415.66 052754 2,006.80 052755 4,053.04 052756 117.82 052757 685.10 052758 527.31 052759 94.50 052760 781.26 052761 94.00 052762 419.21 052763 150.00 3/08/2012 10:26 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood 240.00 052766 BANK: 1 BEACON BANK 27.50 052768 DATE RANGE: 2/28/2012 THRU 99/99/9999 052770 87.86 052771 1,081.12 052772 1,101.77 CHECK VENDOR I.D. 052774 NAME STATUS DATE 22950 90.66 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE R 3/12/2012 29339 052779 SKEIE, PAT R 3/12/2012 23500 591.67 SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT R 3/12/2012 29201 999999 SPANNAUS, BARBARA R. R 3/12/2012 1 STEVE KELLEY R 3/12/2012 29101 SUN NEWSPAPERS R 3/12/2012 23738 T- MOBILE R 3/12/2012 23726 TKDA ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLAN R 3/12/2012 25000 TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES R 3/12/2012 25848 U.S. BANK - CORPORATE TRUST - R 3/12/2012 70200 VERIZON WIRELESS R 3/12/2012 29413 VOYAGER FLEET SYSTEMS, INC. R 3/12/2012 27190 WACONIA FARM SUPPLY R 3/12/2012 83900 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI -MN R 3/12/2012 29417 WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. R 3/12/2012 19800 XCEL ENERGY R 3/12/2012 05305 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES E 3/12/2012 06572 DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA D 3/01/2012 07900 HAWKINS, INC. E 3/12/2012 09400 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL E 3/12/2012 10576 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC E 3/12/2012 13070 LANDINI, JAMES E 3/12/2012 INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOUNT PAGE: 3 CHECK CHECK CHECK NO STATUS AMOUNT 052764 116.93 052765 240.00 052766 82,257.00 052767 27.50 052768 100.00 052769 149.88 052770 87.86 052771 1,081.12 052772 1,101.77 052773 318.38 052774 217.47 052775 3,160.04 052776 90.66 052777 550.39 052778 1,583.32 052779 10,714.79 999999 6,034.81 999999 591.67 999999 100.00 999999 49.50 999999 74.00 999999 50.00 3/08/2012 10:26 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 4 VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: 1 BEACON BANK DATE RANGE: 2/28/2012 THRU 99/99/9999 CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT 18500 WM. MUELLER & SONS, INC. E 3/12/2012 999999 2,438.95 19445 NGUYEN, MICHELLE E 3/12/2012 999999 74.80 19500 NIELSEN, BRADLEY E 3/12/2012 999999 120.00 20950 KENNETH N. POTTS, P.A. E 3/12/2012 999999 2,291.66 27590 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE & SUPP E 3/12/2012 999999 1,559.63 28451 WSB AND ASSOCIATES, INC. E 3/12/2012 999999 1,774.00 29100 ZIEGLER, INC. E 3/12/2012 999999 2,927.41 29232 HECK, BRIAN E 3/12/2012 999999 40.00 * * T O T A L S * * NO INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOUNTS CHECK AMOUNT REGULAR CHECKS: 57 242,864.85 0.00 242,864.85 HAND CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 DRAFTS: 4 15,631.30 0.00 15,631.30 EFT: 13 17,534.76 0.00 17,534.76 NON CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 VOID CHECKS: 0 VOID DEBITS 0.00 VOID CREDITS 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ERRORS: 0 VENDOR SET: 01 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 74 276,030.91 0.00 276,030.91 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 74 276,030.91 0.00 276,030.91 REPORT TOTALS: 74 276,030.91 0.00 276,030.91 03 -08 -2012 10:09 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR -MARCH 12, 2012 PAGE: 1 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC 3/12/12 01/15 -02/15 MAINT General Fund Municipal Buildings 74.00 TOTAL: 74.00 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 3/12/12 RECYCLING Recycling Utility Recycling 13,741.20 TOTAL: 13,741.20 AMERICAN MESSAGING 3/12/12 612- 534 -3975 & 612 - 818 -591 General Fund Public Works 3.20 3/12/12 612- 534 -3975 & 612 - 818 -591 Water Utility Water 1.60 3/12/12 612- 534 -3975 & 612 - 818 -591 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 1.60 TOTAL: 6.40 ANDERBERG, WAYNE 3/12/12 02/29 & 03/01 SNOW SHOVEL- Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 50.00 TOTAL: 50.00 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 3/12/12 BEARINGS, LUBE, CLAMP General Fund Public Works 97.77 3/12/12 BAND CLAMP General Fund Public Works 7.02 3/12/12 OIL FILTER General Fund Public Works 25.10 3/12/12 BATTERY General Fund Public Works 110.59 3/12/12 WIPER BLADES General Fund Public Works 13.50 TOTAL: 253.98 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 3/12/12 5755 CTRY CLUB RD General Fund Municipal Buildings 212.29 3/12/12 24200 SMITHTOWN RD General Fund Public Works 704.05 3/12/12 5745 CTRY CLB RD & 25200 H General Fund Parks & Recreation 226.52 3/12/12 20630 MANOR RD- WARMING HOU General Fund Parks & Recreation 57.39 3/12/12 5735 COUNTRY CLUB RD - SSC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 207.50 3/12/12 20405 KNIGHTSBRIDGE RD Water Utility Water 88.63 3/12/12 28125 BOULDER BRIDGE DR Water Utility Water 221.93 TOTAL: 1,718.31 CENTURY LINK 3/12/12 952 - 470 -6340 General Fund Municipal Buildings 120.88 3/12/12 952 - 470 -2294 General Fund Public Works 57.21 3/12/12 952 - 470 -9605 Water Utility Water 74.39 3/12/12 952 - 470 -9606 Water Utility Water 74.39 TOTAL: 326.87 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 3/12/12 21740 LILAC LANE Water Utility NON - DEPARTMENTAL 389.72 3/12/12 6180 MILL STREET Water Utility NON - DEPARTMENTAL 120.27 3/12/12 21740 LILAC LANE- INTEREST Water Utility NON - DEPARTMENTAL 35.28 3/12/12 6180 MILL STREET - INTEREST Water Utility NON - DEPARTMENTAL 11.92 TOTAL: 557.19 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 3/12/12 SSCC CORDINATOR SVCS Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 5,000.00 3/12/12 MONTHLY COMMISSION SVCS Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 1,034.81 TOTAL: 6,034.81 DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA 3/01/12 MONTHLY DENTIST PREMIUM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 591.67 TOTAL: 591.67 DREW KRIESEL 3/12/12 CONTRACT SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 280.00 3/12/12 GENERAL SUPPLIES Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 61.38 3/12/12 EQUIPMENT RENTAL Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 165.00 3/12/12 EVENTS EXPENSES Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 105.00 3/12/12 PAID WAYNE ANDERSON FOR SN Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 80.00 TOTAL: 691.38 03 -08 -2012 10:09 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR -MARCH 12, 2012 PAGE: 2 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 2/28/12 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 4,887.78 2/28/12 FICA W/H General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 2,123.60 2/28/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 733.17 2/28/12 FICA W/H General Fund Council 80.60 2/28/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Council 18.87 2/28/12 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 633.45 2/28/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 148.15 2/28/12 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 288.34 2/28/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 67.43 2/28/12 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 292.44 2/28/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 68.40 2/28/12 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 176.05 2/28/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 41.17 2/28/12 FICA W/H General Fund City Engineer 128.05 2/28/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund City Engineer 29.94 2/28/12 FICA W/H General Fund Public Works 614.98 2/28/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 143.82 2/28/12 FICA W/H General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 128.07 2/28/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 29.94 2/28/12 FICA W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 274.22 2/28/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 64.13 2/28/12 FICA W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 15.88 2/28/12 MEDICARE W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 3.72 2/28/12 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 351.58 2/28/12 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 82.24 2/28/12 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 64.09 2/28/12 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 14.99 2/28/12 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 15.09 2/28/12 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 3.53 2/28/12 FICA W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 72.01 2/28/12 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 16.84 TOTAL: 11,612.57 EHLERS 3/12/12 EDA- 2007A- PUBLIC SAFETY FI 2007A EDA Debt - W 2007A EDA Ref Debt 5,500.00 3/12/12 EDA- 2007B- PUBLIC SAFETY PO 2007B EDA Debt - P 2007B EDA Ref Debt 5,500.00 3/12/12 EDA- 2007C- PUBLIC SAFETY FI 2007C EDA Debt - E 2007C EDA Ref Debt 5,500.00 TOTAL: 16,500.00 EXCELSIOR FLORIST 3/12/12 LARRY BROWN'S FATHER General Fund Council 81.48 TOTAL: 81.48 FEDEX KINKO'S 3/12/12 PLANS -19755 NEAR MT. BLVD General Fund Protective Inspections 16.89 TOTAL: 16.89 G & K SERVICES 3/12/12 CH SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 131.38 3/12/12 PW SVC General Fund Public Works 895.14 3/12/12 SSCC SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 70.74 TOTAL: 1,097.26 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 3/12/12 FEB SVC Water Utility Water 24.75 3/12/12 FEB SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 24.75 TOTAL: 49.50 GRAINGER, INC 3/12/12 LIGHTS BOLLARDS FOR CITY H General Fund Municipal Buildings 139.28 TOTAL: 139.28 03 -08 -2012 10:09 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR -MARCH 12, 2012 PAGE: 3 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT GROUT, TWILA 3/12/12 PAKS & REC & LEGAL TOOL WK General Fund General Government 24.20 TOTAL: 24.20 HAWKINS, INC. 3/12/12 CHLORINE Water Utility Water 100.00 TOTAL: 100.00 HECK, BRIAN 3/12/12 AIS SYMPOSIUM REGISTRATION General Fund Administration 40.00 TOTAL: 40.00 HENN CTY -P.W. GEN. HAZARDOUS WASTE 3/12/12 2012 HAZARDOUS WASTE General Fund Public Works 210.00 TOTAL: 210.00 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 2/28/12 P/R DEDUCTS - DEFERRED COM General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 1,535.96 2/28/12 P/R DEDUCTS - DEFERRED COM General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 127.54 TOTAL: 1,663.50 ICS - HEALY -RUFF 3/12/12 PHONE LINE FAILURE WELL #3 Water Utility Water 2,411.05 TOTAL: 2,411.05 INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER S.W. MET 3/12/12 BATTERIES General Fund Public Works 101.32 TOTAL: 101.32 KENNETH N. POTTS, P.A. 3/12/12 MONTHLY PROSECUTION SVC General Fund Professional Svcs 2,291.66 TOTAL: 2,291.66 LANDINI, JAMES 3/12/12 SEC 125 REIM General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 10.00 3/12/12 MAR WELLNESS General Fund City Engineer 40.00 TOTAL: 50.00 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INS TRUST 3/12/12 ANNUAL PAY PLAN - CMC -3397 General Fund Municipal Buildings 54,633.00 3/12/12 ANNUAL PAY PLAN -MEL -7406 General Fund Municipal Buildings 7,194.00 TOTAL: 61,827.00 M/A ASSOCIATES INC. 3/12/12 TRASH CAN LINER General Fund Parks & Recreation 436.95 TOTAL: 436.95 MEDICA 3/12/12 MEDICAL PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 15,598.14 TOTAL: 15,598.14 MENARDS 3/12/12 CEDAR General Fund Parks & Recreation 23.52 3/12/12 PAINT Water Utility Water 23.90 3/12/12 PAINT Water Utility Water 297.42 3/12/12 PAINT Water Utility Water 52.57 3/12/12 SHEET PLYWOOD FOR CEILING Water Utility Water 121.30 3/12/12 CONCRETE FLOOR PAINT Water Utility Water 66.65 3/12/12 TIMBERS FOR STORM OUTFALL Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 34.85 TOTAL: 620.21 MIDWEST CRANE CORP. 3/12/12 ANNUAL CRANE INSPECT General Fund Public Works 447.08 TOTAL: 447.08 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 3/12/12 STORMWATER BMP- DEBBIE SLAK General Fund Council 30.00 TOTAL: 30.00 MINNESOTA AWWA 3/12/12 JOE LUGOWSKI Water Utility Water 175.00 3/12/12 CHRIS POUNDER Water Utility Water 175.00 03 -08 -2012 10:09 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR -MARCH 12, 2012 PAGE: 4 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT 3/12/12 GREG FASCHING Water Utility Water 175.00 TOTAL: 525.00 MINNESOTA LIFE 3/12/12 LIFE INS General Fund Unallocated Expenses 415.66 TOTAL: 415.66 MISC. VENDOR BOB BULTHUIS 3/12/12 GARDEN FAIR SPEAKER Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 100.00 HEATHER HOLM 3/12/12 GARDEN FAIR SPEAKER Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 100.00 JIM BEARDSLEY 3/12/12 GARDEN FAIR SPEAKER Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 100.00 PAMELA KOLTES 3/12/12 SHARED ZUMBA FITNESS -01 /15 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 94.50 SHIRLEY MAH KOOYMAN 3/12/12 GARDEN FAIR SPEAKER Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 150.00 STEVE KELLEY 3/12/12 GARDEN FAIR SPEAKER Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 100.00 TOTAL: 644.50 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 2/28/12 STATE W/H General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 2,060.63 TOTAL: 2,060.63 MN DNR ECO- WATERS 3/12/12 2011 DNR WATER REPORTS Water Utility Water 2,006.80 TOTAL: 2,006.80 MORTON SALT, INC. 3/12/12 SALT General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 4,053.04 TOTAL: 4,053.04 NGUYEN, MICHELLE 3/12/12 FEB MILEAGE General Fund Finance 74.80 TOTAL: 74.80 NIELSEN, BRADLEY 3/12/12 WELLNESS General Fund Planning 120.00 TOTAL: 120.00 OFFICE DEPOT 3/12/12 GEN SUPPLIES General Fund Administration 68.60 3/12/12 GEN SUPPLIES General Fund Administration 49.22 TOTAL: 117.82 ON SITE SANITATION INC 3/12/12 BADGER PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96 3/12/12 CATHCART PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96 3/12/12 FREEMAN PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 266.13 3/12/12 SILVERWOOD PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96 3/12/12 SOUTH SHORE SKATE General Fund Parks & Recreation 45.96 3/12/12 CHRISTMAS LAKE BOAT ACCESS General Fund Parks & Recreation 235.13 TOTAL: 685.10 PAETEC 3/12/12 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD -C.H. General Fund Municipal Buildings 135.86 3/12/12 24200 SMITHTOWN RD -P.W. General Fund Public Works 46.90 3/12/12 BADGER /MANOR / CATHCART PARK General Fund Parks & Recreation 145.60 3/12/12 26352 SMTWN RD /28125 BLDR Water Utility Water 98.70 3/12/12 24255 SMITHTOWN ROAD Water Utility Water 100.25 TOTAL: 527.31 PERA 2/28/12 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 3,286.29 2/28/12 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Administration 757.15 2/28/12 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Finance 377.66 2/28/12 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Planning 388.21 2/28/12 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Protective Inspections 243.70 2/28/12 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund City Engineer 149.74 2/28/12 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Public Works 746.15 2/28/12 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 161.59 03 -08 -2012 10:09 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR -MARCH 12, 2012 PAGE: 5 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT 2/28/12 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Parks & Recreation 354.54 2/28/12 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 18.57 2/28/12 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA Water Utility Water 432.09 2/28/12 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 80.80 2/28/12 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA Recycling Utility Recycling 17.65 2/28/12 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 84.21 TOTAL: 7,098.35 PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE 3/12/12 LIFE INSURANCE General Fund Unallocated Expenses 781.26 TOTAL: 781.26 RUMPCA COMPANIES, INC. 3/12/12 BRUSH DISPOSAL General Fund Tree Maintenance 94.00 TOTAL: 94.00 SETON IDENTIFICATION PRODUCTS 3/12/12 CHEMICAL HAZ PIPE MARKER Water Utility Water 308.30 3/12/12 CHEMICAL HAZ SIGNS Water Utility Water 110.91 TOTAL: 419.21 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 3/12/12 GEN SUPPLIES General Fund Public Works 26.46 3/12/12 PAINT Water Utility Water 23.49 3/12/12 PAINT Water Utility Water 14.73 3/12/12 GEN SUPPLIES Water Utility Water 36.28 3/12/12 PAINT Water Utility Water 15.97 TOTAL: 116.93 SKEIE, PAT 3/12/12 JAN -FEB - COUNCIL WS General Fund General Government 240.00 TOTAL: 240.00 SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT 3/12/12 OPERATING BUDGET EXPENSE General Fund Police Protection 82,257.00 TOTAL: 82,257.00 SPANNAUS, BARBARA R. 3/12/12 02/28 -FRONT DESK HELPER General Fund Administration 27.50 TOTAL: 27.50 SUN NEWSPAPERS 3/12/12 RESOLUTION NO. 12 -009 -02/ General Fund Administration 71.94 3/12/12 ORD NO. 489 - 01/19 General Fund Administration 77.94 TOTAL: 149.88 T- MOBILE 3/12/12 952 - 463 -5836 - BRIAN HECK General Fund Administration 87.86 TOTAL: 87.86 TKDA ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 3/12/12 2012 MILL & OVERLAY Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 1,081.12 TOTAL: 1,081.12 TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES 3/12/12 MAR NEWSLETTER SVC General Fund Administration 707.41 3/12/12 MAR NEWSLETTER SVC General Fund Parks & Recreation 141.07 3/12/12 MAR NEWSLETTER SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 253.29 TOTAL: 1,101.77 U.S. BANK - CORPORATE TRUST - TFM 3/12/12 EDA- 2007A- PUBLIC SAFETY FI 2007A EDA Debt - W 2007A EDA Ref Debt 1,750.00 3/12/12 EDA -2007B -PUB SAFETY POLIC 2007B EDA Debt - P 2007B EDA Ref Debt 1,750.00 3/12/12 EDA -2007C -PUB SAFETY FIRE 2007C EDA Debt - E 2007C EDA Ref Debt 1,750.00 3/12/12 1996A- G.O.WA REV BOND Water Utility Water 318.38 TOTAL: 5,568.38 VERIZON WIRELESS 3/12/12 L.S. PHONE SERVICES Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 217.47 03 -08 -2012 10:09 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR -MARCH 12, 2012 PAGE: 6 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT TOTAL: 217.47 VOYAGER FLEET SYSTEMS, INC. 3/12/12 GAS SVC THRU 02/24 General Fund Public Works 3,160.04 TOTAL: 3,160.04 WACONIA FARM SUPPLY 3/12/12 OIL CHAIN SAW General Fund Public Works 77.45 3/12/12 THROTTLE CABLE General Fund Public Works 11.03 3/12/12 THROTTLE CABLE General Fund Public Works 2.18 TOTAL: 90.66 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI -MN 3/12/12 24200 SMITHTOWN RD -PUB WOR General Fund Public Works 383.60 3/12/12 5735 COUNTRY CLUB RD -SSCC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 166.79 TOTAL: 550.39 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 2/28/12 P/R DEDUCTS -HSA General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 1,366.43 TOTAL: 1,366.43 WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 3/12/12 PROJ 2739 -01 APPLE RD CHAN Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1,583.32 TOTAL: 1,583.32 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE & SUPPLY 3/12/12 TIRES FOR UTILITY TRUCK General Fund Public Works 1,559.63 TOTAL: 1,559.63 WM. MUELLER & SONS, INC. 3/12/12 FEB SVC General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 2,438.95 TOTAL: 2,438.95 WSB AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 3/12/12 JAN- BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTI General Fund City Engineer 822.00 3/12/12 GIS & CAD SUPPORT General Fund City Engineer 952.00 TOTAL: 1,774.00 XCEL ENERGY 3/12/12 12/24- 02/08/12 SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 507.25 3/12/12 12/24- 02/08/12 SVC General Fund Police Protection 3.63 3/12/12 12/24- 02/08/12 SVC General Fund Public Works 578.70 3/12/12 12/24- 02/08/12 SVC General Fund Traffic Control /Str Li 27.31 3/12/12 12/24- 02/08/12 SVC General Fund Traffic Control /Str Li 3,417.14 3/12/12 5700 CTY RD 19 General Fund Traffic Control /Str Li 31.60 3/12/12 5700 CTY RD 19 UNIT LIGHTS General Fund Traffic Control /Str Li 189.08 3/12/12 12/24- 02/08/12 SVC General Fund Parks & Recreation 672.56 3/12/12 5735 COUNTRY CLUB RD Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 672.42 3/12/12 24253 SMITHTOWN ROAD Water Utility Water 353.38 3/12/12 12/24- 02/08/12 SVC Water Utility Water 446.96 3/12/12 12/24- 02/08/12 SVC Water Utility Water 1,002.62 3/12/12 12/24- 02/08/12 SVC Water Utility Water 2,287.96 3/12/12 12/24- 02/08/12 SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 524.18 TOTAL: 10,714.79 ZIEGLER, INC. 3/12/12 RETROFIT WING TO LOADER Equipment Replacem Equipment Replacement 3,982.41 3/12/12 CREDIT FOR WING KIT Equipment Replacem Equipment Replacement 1,055.00 - TOTAL: 2,927.41 03 -08 -2012 10:09 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR -MARCH 12, 2012 PAGE: 7 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT * *PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/27/2012 - 99/99/9999 General Fund Council 1,300.00 General Fund Administration 10,443.50 General Fund Finance 5,209.09 General Fund Planning 5,354.74 General Fund Protective Inspections 3,361.53 General Fund City Engineer 2,065.35 General Fund Public Works 10,291.88 General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 2,228.75 General Fund Parks & Recreation 4,890.24 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 256.20 Water Utility Water 5,959.69 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 1,114.40 Recycling Utility Recycling 243.39 Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1,161.60 TOTAL: 53,880.36 FUND TOTALS 101 General Fund 257,459.87 307 2007A EDA Debt - W Fire 7,250.00 308 2007B EDA Debt - Police 7,250.00 309 2007C EDA Debt - E Fire 7,250.00 403 Equipment Replacement 2,927.41 404 Street Capital Improvemen 1,081.12 490 Southshore Community Ctr. 9,085.80 601 Water Utility 18,591.10 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,042.28 621 Recycling Utility 14,020.86 631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 2,952.83 GRAND TOTAL: 329,911.27 ------------------------- - - - - -- TOTAL PAGES: 7 #3B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Park Picnic Tables Meeting Date: Monday, March 12, 2012 Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator Reviewed by: Twila Grout, Recreation Coordinator Attachments: Policy Consideration: Annual purchase of picnic tables Background: The Park Commission is in the fourth year of a program to replace the old wooden picnic tables with new coated steel tables. The Commission reviewed quotes from two companies and is recommending purchasing the same table from the same company as previous years. The Commission recommends purchasing 11 tables for a total cost of $7,917.30 Financial or Budget Considerations: The purchase is planned for in the 2012 park CIP. Options: 1) Authorize the purchase of the tables; 2) Do not purchase the tables Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the Council approve the purchase of tables as recommended by the park commission. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will order the tables and distribute them around the parks. Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services and attractive amenities Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 1: (2 #3C U2 MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Tennis court resurfacing Meeting Date: Monday, March 12, 2012 Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator Reviewed by: Twila Grout, Recreation Coordinator Attachments: Policy Consideration: Resurfacing of Cathcart and Silverwood Courts Background: The Park Commission is recommending resurfacing the courts at Cathcart and Silverwood. These courts were resurfaced in 2009 and are on a three year schedule for maintenance. The Manor Court was also part of the program; however, the contractor suggested more extensive work be done on this court so the Commission asked staff to investigate options for the Manor court. The cost to resurface the courts — one tennis court, one full size basketball court, and one % basketball court — is $7,700.00. Financial or Budget Considerations: The purchase is planned for in the 2012 park CIP. Options: 1) Authorize the resurfacing; 2) Do not resurface. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the Council approve the project as recommended by the park commission. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will contact the contractor and schedule the maintenance. Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services and attractive amenities. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Quinlan convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Quinlan; Commissioners Gordon, Hartmann; Administrator Heck. Absent: Council Liaison Woodruff. B. Review Agenda Robb moved, Edmondson seconded approval of 2. MATTERS FROM THE FL There were no matters from the floor 3. RECAP JOINT Quinlan stated the meeting with council was go and liked that council came up with goals for th related to the goals. Swaggert asked about trails Quinlan stated there was a committee that''addre report. Robb asked about the purpose of the con the work of the committee as it relates to trails. Swaggert, Robb, and Motion carried. I asked for comments. Robb stated it was good and the commission can work on the items rho "owns" the trails. planning of the trails and producing the — what the deliverables were. Quinlan outlined Heck outlined that at present, Park Commission is the overseer of the trail implementation plan. The suggestion is to move this to the Planning Commission as they have better experience with public hearings and since trails are part of the transportation plan, it makes sense to have it with the PC. Heck also stated that trails that go through the parks are the purview of the Park Commission. The commission spent some more time talking about the level of feasibility studies. Kjolhaug asked if there is a way to prepare a lower level study that might separate some trails from others. After additional discussion, the commission moved on to the next item. 4. REVIEW QUOTE FOR RESURFACING TENNIS COURTS FOR CATHCART, SILVERWOOD, AND MANOR PARKS. Commissioner Quinlan introduced this item and stated this is the same firm that did the coating in the past and the work appears to be good. 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD CITY HALL 7:00 P.M. 0 PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Heck indicated that Dermco- Lavine has done an excellent job in the past. He stated that staffs concern is investing $6,500 in Manor to seal it might not be the best use of funds, which is why staff recommends holding off on the maintenance of the Manor court so staff can assemble other options that might be better and more longer term fixes. After some additional discussion, Commissioner Hartman made the following motion as stated below. Commissioner Hartman moved to recommend the city contract with Dermco- Lavine to resurface the court at Cathcart and Silverwood, and have staff consider additional options for Manor. Grodon seconded the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Kjolhaug departed the meeting at 7:45 5. REVIEW AND RECOMMEND PURCHASE Commissioner Swaggert moved to recommi Playscapes in the amount of $7,917.30 inclu motion. Motion carried. 6. DISCUSS EAGLE SCOUT Quinlan talked about the Eagle Scout Robb stated he thought continuing the Football field. The Commission direct commission. The Commission is also projects. Quinlan stated that this is the last meeting for work and contribution to the commission.. Nick told the commission the Marines called four months this summer. t,omm ssioner awagger the motion and it carrie RESPECTFUL CT asing the picnic tables from Midwest and freight. Edmondson seconded the looking to do. Commissioner ing along the east end of the er of the project suggested by the of a form for future Eagle Scout Robb and thanked him for his excellent to duty and he will be going to training for rn the meeting, Commissioner Edmondson seconded rned at 8:00 p.m. Brian Heck — City Recorder i, — : I -- City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Zoning Code Amendment — Allowable Encroachments Meeting Date: 12 March 2012 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: I — Planning Director's memo, dated 12 January 2012 11 — Draft Ordinance #sB MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Policy Consideration: Should the City adopt an amendment to the Zoning Code that would allow porticos to encroach into front yard setbacks and, if so, how much? Background: Last November the City considered a variance request involving an entry structure encroaching into a front yard setback (see Attachment I for additional background — note: the request was withdrawn by the applicant, so there was no Council action on it). The Planning Commission and Council agreed that there were merits to the request and directed staff to prepare an amendment that would allow such features for older homes. The proposed amendment (Attachment 11) includes the recommendation by the Commission that the portico could extend across fifty percent of the subject home. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. Financial or Budget Considerations: None. Options: Approve the amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission, modify it, or deny it. Recommendation / Action Requested: Approval of the amendment is recommended. Next Steps and Timelines: The amendment will go into effect upon publication in the official newspaper. Connection to Vision / Mission: This amendment is viewed as providing a healthy environment and a sustainable tax base. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:12 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Arnst, Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick, Hasek, and Hutchins; Administrator Heck; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Hotvet Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hutchins moved, Hasek seconded, approving the agenda for February 21, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 7/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • February 8, 2012 Arnst moved, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2012, as presented. Commissioner Arnst took a moment to recognize Christine Freeman, the Recorder who prepares the minutes, for the amazing job she does with capturing the conversations. Hutchins seconded. Motion passed 7/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — ZONING CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING ALLOWABLE FRONT -YARD ENCROACHMENTS Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on a March 12, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen explained that during November 2011 the Planning Commission considered a request for a front yard setback variance for a property located along Fatima Place. The applicants wanted to build a front porch that would encroach into the front yard setback area. Because the request did not meet the standards for granting a variance the Commission recommended Council deny it. The City Council considered this item during its November 28, 2011, meeting and denied the variance request. Nielsen then explained that the applicants raised some issues with regard to older homes and how entry features are treated. Those issues generated consensus among the Planning Commissioners and Councilmembers that the Zoning Code (the Code) should be reviewed to determine what, if any, changes CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 2 of 9 should be made in terms of allowable encroachments in the front yard setback area. The Commission discussed proposed amendments to the Code during its January 17, 2012, meeting. The Commission suggested adding a definition for a portico. It reads "Portico — A covered walkway in the form of a roof supported by columns or pillars, usually attached to a building, and leading to an entrance of the building." The Commission also suggested amending the Code to allow ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act to encroach into any required front, side or rear setback, provided that a front setback of not less than 20 feet and side and rear setbacks of not less than five feet shall be maintained for a detached single - family, two - family or townhouse dwelling in any residential zoning district. Nielsen went on to explain the amendment includes the following provisions for a detached single - family, two - family or townhouse dwelling constructed prior to May 19, 1986. A one story enclosed entrance may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet. The entrance shall not exceed six feet in width. A one story open portico may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet provided: the length of the portico shall not exceed fifty percent of the width of the silhouette of the building, excluding eaves, as viewed from the street; and that the area shall not be enclosed nor screened with mesh, glass, or other similar material, except for guardrails no higher than 42 inches and at least 60 percent open. Nielsen noted the meeting packet contains a copy of a draft amendment to Shorewood's Zoning Code as it pertains to allowable front yard encroachments. A definition for portico was added to Section 1201.02 Definitions. Section 1201.03 General Provisions Subd. 3.c.(2) was replaced almost in its entirety to allow for ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons to encroach into setbacks, and to allow for porticos on older homes. He also noted the variance request referenced earlier in this discussion would fit within this proposed amendment quite well. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M. Don Gloude, 4675 Fatima Place noted he and his wife had submitted the application for the front yard setback variance referenced earlier. He stated that per the discussion during the November 28, 2011, City Council meeting it is his understanding that this amendment would allow for them to build their proposed portico without a variance. Director Nielsen stated if Council approves this proposed amendment to the City's Zoning Code a variance would not be required to construct the portico. Mr. Gloude asked if they would have to wait until the Ordinance is published before construction can move forward. Nielsen stated that technically yes, but often times Council is asked for permission to issue the building permit before the Ordinance is published in the official newspaper for the City. Mr. Gloude clarified that Council did not deny their variance request during its November 28 meeting. He and his wife withdrew their application that evening after Council discussion per Council's recommendation and followed that up with a written withdrawal on December 13 He stated during that meeting they were told that certain fees would be returned because they withdrew their request and that has not happened. Chair Geng suggested Mr. Gloude follow -up with Director Nielsen on that. Nielsen stated he thought the escrow was to be returned. Chair Geng thanked Mr. Gloude for his patience. Geng stated he thought this is a better solution for the City. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:26 P.M. In response to a question from Commissioner Hasek, Director Nielsen explained the largest required side yard setback the City has is 20 feet and that is on lakeshore lots. Nielsen stated the typical residential side CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 3 of 9 yard setback is 10 feet on each side. In response to another question from Hasek, Nielsen stated the smallest rear yard setback is 35 feet. Hasek questioned why someone might need to have a ramp extend 30 feet into a rear yard setback. Hasek asked if anyone else finds that problematic. Director Nielsen recommended that the encroachment into the rear yard setback for ramps be changed so that setbacks of not less than 20 feet shall be maintained. Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, recommending approval of the Zoning Code Amendment pertaining to allowable front yard encroachment subject to changing it to require a rear setback of 20 feet be maintained. Motion passed 7/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. 2. CITY CODE DISCUSSION — ANIMAL REGULATIONS (Except Dogs) — FINAL DRAFT Director Nielsen stated the meeting packet contains a copy of the fifth, and hopefully final, draft of an amendment to Shorewood's Municipal Code Chapter 704 that will establish rules for the keeping of farm and other animals. This draft includes the final two revisions recommended by the Planning Commission during its February 8, 2012, meeting. The Commission asked to see the final draft before it was sent to Council. Commissioner Hutchins stated Section 704.09 Subd. 2.(1.) states "Any person having more than the allowable number of animals set forth in paragraphs g. and h., above, shall not replace animals in excess of those limitations." He asked if having more than the allowable number of animals means at the time the ordinance is approved. Director Nielsen responded it does. Hutchins asked if it needs to say that. Hutchins expressed concern that a person could buy more than the allowable after the ordinance goes into effect. Nielsen stated the phrase "at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance" will be added to that provision. Commissioner Arnst asked for confirmation that no one will be grandfathered in; everyone will have to apply for a permit. Director Nielsen confirmed that. Hutchins moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the final draft of an amendment to the Shorewood Municipal Code establishing rules for the keeping of farm and other animals subject to amending Section 704.09 Subd. 2.(i.) to read "Any person having more than the allowable number of animals set forth in paragraphs g. and h., above, at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance shall not replace animals in excess of those limitations." Motion passed 7/0. 3. CITY CODE DISCUSSION — LIFE -CYCLE HOUSING — ACCESSORY APARTMENTS Director Nielsen explained one of the topics on the Planning Commission's 2012 work program is life - cycle housing. One potential aspect of this is what is referred to as "accessory apartments ". The City's Zoning Code limits the number of dwellings to one per property for single - family residential zoning districts. The Code does not allow for accessory apartments in single - family homes. The proposed amendment would allow people to create an apartment within a dwelling. Allowing accessory apartments would address both ends of the life -cycle housing spectrum. It would support older parents moving in to single - family homes with their adult children, or adult children moving in with their parents. The concept of accessory apartments in single - family homes is not a new idea around the country. Cities in the eastern part of the country have been addressing this for 20 or more years. CITY OF MI W:j►1411 0y TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 12 January 2012 RE: Zoning Code Amendment — Allowable Front Yard Encroachments FILE NO. Zoning Code (1201.03 Subd. 3) Last November the City denied a variance request involving an entry structure encroaching into a front yard setback. Although that application failed to meet the standards for a variance, the applicants raised some issues that resulted in direction from the Planning Commission and City Council to review what types of structures may be allowed within the front yard setback area. As you are aware, the Shorewood Zoning Code (Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(2) allows single - and two family homes and townhomes built prior to 19 May 1986 to construct a six -foot wide entry enclosure that encroaches as much as four feet into the required front yard. The intent of that provision was to allow an energy saving airlock at the front entry to the home. The Code goes on to allow terraces, steps, stoops and similar (ground level) features to encroach 4.5 feet into the front yard setback. It also specifically prohibits porches and balconies from the same exception. The arguments raised by the variance applicants included a desire to have a structure leading to the entryway that would allow people, especially elderly visitors, entering the building to stand out of the rain as they wait to enter. In discussing this, a consensus of the Planning Commission agreed that some sort of amendment was in order to provide for this type of feature, but that the issue of encroachment must be addressed cautiously. In reviewing our Code against those of other cities, one of the first suggestions staff makes is to better define what it is we are allowing to encroach. The feature to which people appear to be sympathetic is best described /defined as a "portico ". Following is a proposed definition derived from several dictionary sources: "Portico — A covered walkway in the form of a roof supported by columns or pillars, usually attached to a building, and leading to an entrance of the building." # f j % PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Zoning Code — Front Yard Encroachments 12 January 2012 With that added to the definitions section of the Zoning Code, it must be determined how much this type of architectural feature should be allowed to encroach. For the sake of consistency, it is suggested that the current provision in Subd. 3.c.(2) serve as a guide. The enclosed entry is limited to one story in height and is allowed to extend four feet into the required setback. It is worth noting that this portico could be wider than four feet, but the encroachment into the front setback is limited to four feet. This would allow a covered walkway wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair, even if the house was built right at the setback line. While an enclosed entry is limited in width to six feet, it is suggested that the portico could be longer than that. Again, in reviewing other codes, a percentage (e.g. 25 percent) of the width of the dwelling, as viewed from the street should be adopted. To put that number into perspective, the application that was denied included a feature that was approximately 17 percent. To minimiz the visual impact of the encroachment, language requiring the structure to be essentially open (i.e. no walls) should be included in the amendment. For example: "This area shall not be enclosed nor screened with mesh, glass, or other similar material, except for guardrails no higher than 42 inches and at least 60 percent open." Finally, mention was made of accessibility for the elderly and the disabled. Currently, our Zoning Code does not make provision for ramp systems that rise above grade to encroach into the front setback. It is also difficult to grant a variance in such cases because variances are limited to circumstances unique to property, not individuals_ This issue has arisen in conversations about life -cycle housing. In some cases providing for such features could allow people to remain in their homes, if access was easier. As we consider allowable encroachments, the following provision is offered: "Ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons in compliance with the American Disabilities Act may encroach into any required front, side or rear setback, provided that a front setback of not less than 20 feet and side and rear setbacks of not less than five feet shall be maintained." At the risk of being presumptuous, an amendment to the Zoning Code incorporating the above suggestions would read as follows: "(2) For a detached single - family, two - family or townhouse dwelling in any residential zoning district, ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons in compliance with the American Disabilities Act may encroach into any -2- MI N". a.". I NON i:�.�:.ss�n��sQa RONNIE "(2) For a detached single - family, two - family or townhouse dwelling in any residential zoning district, ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons in compliance with the American Disabilities Act may encroach into any -2- Memorandum Re: Zoning Code — Front Yard Encroachments 12 January 2012 required front, side or rear setback, provided that a front setback of not less than 20 feet and side and rear setbacks of not less than five feet shall be maintained. For a detached single- family, two - family or townhouse dwelling constructed prior to 19 May 1986: (a) A one story enclosed entrance may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet. The entrance shall not exceed six feet in width. (b) A one story open portico may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet, provided: (i) The length of the portico shall not exceed twenty -five percent of the width of the silhouette of the building, excluding eaves, as viewed from the street; and (ii) This area shall not be enclosed nor screened with mesh, glass, or other similar material, except for guardrails no higher than 42 inches and at least 60 percent open." This item is scheduled for discussion at the 17 January meeting. If possible, we would like to schedule a public hearing on an amendment for the 8 February meeting (21 February at the latest). Cc: Brian Heck Tim Keane Laura Hotvet -3- - S- E- C- O- N- D-- D- R- A -F -T- CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SHOREWOOD ZONING CODE AS IT PERTAINS TO ALLOWABLE FRONT YARD ENCROACHMENTS Section 1. City Code Section 1201.02 is hereby amended to include: "PORTICO. A covered walkway in the form of a roof supported by columns or pillars, usually attached to a building, and leading to an entrance of the building." Section 2. City Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(2) is amended to read: "(2) For a detached single - family, two - family or townhouse dwelling in any residential zoning district, ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act may encroach into any required front, side or rear setback, provided that a front setback of not less than 20 feet, a rear setback of 20 feet, and side setbacks of not less than five feet shall be maintained. For a detached single - family, two - family or townhouse dwelling constructed prior to 19 May 1986: (a) A one story enclosed entrance may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet. The entrance shall not exceed six feet in width. (b) A one story open portico may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet, provided: (i) The length of the portico shall not exceed fifty percent of the width of the silhouette of the building, excluding eaves, as viewed from the street; and (ii) This area shall not be enclosed nor screened with mesh, glass, or other similar material, except for guardrails no higher than 42 inches and at least 60 percent open." Section 3. That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publishing in the Official Newspaper of the City of Shorewood. Attachment II ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this day of 2012. CHRISTINE LIZEE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRIAN HECK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK -2- i, — : I -- City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Animal Regulations — Farm and Other Animals Meeting Date: 12 March 2012 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: I - Planning Director's Memo, dated 16 February 2012 11 — Draft Ordinance III — Resolution Authorizing Summary Publication #sc MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Policy Consideration: Should the City adopt regulations regulating farm and other animals (not dogs or horses) within Shorewood? Background: The City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the current City Code and make recommendations relative to the regulation of farm and other animals (dogs and horses are addressed in other sections of the Code). The Commission spent the last few months reviewing five drafts of a proposed ordinance addressing farm and other animals in Shorewood (see Attachment 1). The proposed ordinance limits the types of animals that may be kept, addresses confinement and shelter and prescribes enforcement measures for the keeping of animals. In its study, the Commission was mindful of sustainability and the ability of residents to do some minimal "urban farming ". In this regard, chickens, fowl and bees were included in the list of allowable animals that could be kept on residential property. The final draft of the Code Amendment (see Attachment 11), adds an entire new chapter to Title 700 of the City Code. Since the ordinance is rather lengthy for publication purposes, a resolution authorizing publication of a summary of the ordinance has been included in your packet for consideration (Attachment III). The Commission was unanimous in recommending the new chapter. Financial or Budget Considerations: Negligible. The cost of permitting and enforcement is intended to be covered by existing staff. Options: Approve the amendment, modify the amendment, or deny the amendment. Recommendation / Action Requested: Given the considerable amount of work done by the Planning Commission, it is recommended that the ordinance and the summary ordinance for publication be approved. Next Steps and Timelines: The summary of the ordinance will be published in the official newspaper, after which it will be in force. Connection to Vision / Mission: The proposed draft is viewed as contributing to a healthy environment. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 3 of 9 yard setback is 10 feet on each side. In response to another question from Hasek, Nielsen stated the smallest rear yard setback is 35 feet. Hasek questioned why someone might need to have a ramp extend 30 feet into a rear yard setback. Hasek asked if anyone else finds that problematic. Director Nielsen recommended that the encroachment into the rear yard setback for ramps be changed so that setbacks of not less than 20 feet shall be maintained. Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, recommending approval of the Zoning Code Amendment pertaining to allowable front yard encroachment subject to changing it to require a rear setback of 20 feet be maintained. Motion passed 7/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. 2. CITY CODE DISCUSSION — ANIMAL REGULATIONS (Except Dogs) — FINAL DRAFT Director Nielsen stated the meeting packet contains a copy of the fifth, and hopefully final, draft of an amendment to Shorewood's Municipal Code Chapter 704 that will establish rules for the keeping of farm and other animals. This draft includes the final two revisions recommended by the Planning Commission during its February 8, 2012, meeting. The Commission asked to see the final draft before it was sent to Council. Commissioner Hutchins stated Section 704.09 Subd. 2.(1.) states "Any person having more than the allowable number of animals set forth in paragraphs g. and h., above, shall not replace animals in excess of those limitations." He asked if having more than the allowable number of animals means at the time the ordinance is approved. Director Nielsen responded it does. Hutchins asked if it needs to say that. Hutchins expressed concern that a person could buy more than the allowable after the ordinance goes into effect. Nielsen stated the phrase "at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance" will be added to that provision. Commissioner Arnst asked for confirmation that no one will be grandfathered in; everyone will have to apply for a permit. Director Nielsen confirmed that. Hutchins moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the final draft of an amendment to the Shorewood Municipal Code establishing rules for the keeping of farm and other animals subject to amending Section 704.09 Subd. 2.(i.) to read "Any person having more than the allowable number of animals set forth in paragraphs g. and h., above, at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance shall not replace animals in excess of those limitations." Motion passed 7/0. 3. CITY CODE DISCUSSION — LIFE -CYCLE HOUSING — ACCESSORY APARTMENTS Director Nielsen explained one of the topics on the Planning Commission's 2012 work program is life - cycle housing. One potential aspect of this is what is referred to as "accessory apartments ". The City's Zoning Code limits the number of dwellings to one per property for single - family residential zoning districts. The Code does not allow for accessory apartments in single - family homes. The proposed amendment would allow people to create an apartment within a dwelling. Allowing accessory apartments would address both ends of the life -cycle housing spectrum. It would support older parents moving in to single - family homes with their adult children, or adult children moving in with their parents. The concept of accessory apartments in single - family homes is not a new idea around the country. Cities in the eastern part of the country have been addressing this for 20 or more years. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 16 February 2012 RE: Farm and Other Animals Ordinance — Fifth Draft FILE NO. City Code (Title 700) Attached (Exhibit A) is the fifth draft of the ordinance amendment regulating farm and other animals (but not dogs). The latest two revisions appear on page 10 in purple type. We have also attached a (hopefully) final draft so you can see it in the form in which it will be published. If there are any questions relative to this item, please feel free to contact me prior to the meeting. Cc: Laura Hotvet Brian Heck Tim Keane Attachment I - F- I- F- T- H-- D- R- A -F -T- Chapter 704 FARM AND OTHER ANIMALS 704.01 PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish regulations and controls regarding the keeping of animals other than domestic pets such as dogs and cats, within the city limits of the City of Shorewood. 704.02 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. S u bd . 2 . AUTHORIZED CITYPERSONNEL. means the e hi e f of p lie-e The Chief of Police, the health authority, their designees, and other personnel assisting in the enforcement of this chapter. S u bd . 3 . RURAL FARMANIMAL. metre Cattle, mules, sheep, goats, swine, llamas, ostriches, emus, and including, but not limited to, other animals typically maintained in a farm setting but not in an urban setting. 4URBAN FARMANIMAL. fneans du eks- Ducks, geese, turkeys, chickens, guinea hens, bees, and rabbits. S u bd . 5 . MALTREATED ANIMAL. mew one An animal that has not been given adequate food, water, or proper shelter as speeified i n seetier 701.13 from the weather, veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering and with humane care and treatment, or that has been subjected to the conduct prohibited by Minn. Stat. § 343.21. NUISANCE ANIMAL. An animal, conditions caused by an animal, or the improper care and maintenance of an animal that result in running at large, offensive odor, excessive noise or damage to property, so as to disturb the rights of or threaten the safety of a member of the general public, or interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of their property. OWNER. fneans A person owning, keeping, harboring or acting as custodian of a-d-&g er ethef an animal. All adult occupants of the property where the animal resides or is kept is are considered an owner or owners. PERSON. means a An individual, firm, partnership, or corporation. Subd. 8. PREMISES. fneans A building, structure, shelter, or land where ° dOg Of Oth an animal is kept or confined. S u bd . 9 . UNDER RESTRAINT. r° ,,,-, in a d fne s L ( at heel beside ., ° „ having b• cu stody of it an d ^b'the to that pe is ^ nd; (b) An animal being within a private motor vehicle of a person, owning, harboring or keeping the animal; or controlled by a leash not exceeding six feet in length. c„ ��0 VETERINARYHOSPITAL. means a A place for the treatment, hospitalization, surgery, care and boarding of animals and birds, under the direction of one or more licensed veterinarians. c WILD ANIMAL. raeans any Any of the following: a. Front - fanged venomous snakes, including the viperidae and elapidae families of snakes, such as rattlesnakes and cobras; b. Snakes over 8 feet in length; Reptiles that have the physical ability as an adult to cause substantial bodily injury as defined in Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 7a, to humans and /or domestic animals, such as python snakes and crocodilians; d. Animals that can transmit rabies and cannot be vaccinated against rabies exeep Mammals that as a breed are considered wild by nature because of breeding, history, character, habit, or disposition; and f. Mammals that have at least 25 percent of their heritage from mammals specified in subparagraph e, above. g. �Alil' anima'" speeifz^�n Specifically, such animals as a wolf, fox, skunk, raccoon, mink, bobcat, deer, and monkey, but does not ine '° not including a fish, bird, ferret, hamster, or gerbil. 704.03 ENFORCEMENT. The Chief of Police or designees will enforce the provisions of this chapter, with the assistance of other personnel when appropriate. 2 704.04 RIGHT OF ENTRY. Authorized City personnel have the right to enter upon a premises at reasonable times for the purpose of discharging their duties imposed by this chapter when there is reasonable belief that a violation of this chapter has been committed. 704.05 IMPOUNDING OF ANIMALS. Subd. 1. Seizure and impoundment. Authorized city personnel may seize and impound an animal found to be in violation of this chapter. These personnel may enter onto private property to seize and impound animals when: They have a reasonable and immediate concern for the animal's health, safety or welfare; b. They have a reasonable and immediate concern for the health and safety of human beings or other animals as a result of the animal's continued presence on the property; or , They have reasonable cause to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred or is occurring and that seizure is necessary to prevent further violation, but only after a reasonable effort has been made to contact an occupant of the property. Subd. 2. Interference. A person must not interfere with authorized city personnel impounding an animal, nor refuse to surrender an animal to these personnel. Subd. 3. Cost of impoundment. The animal owner is responsible for costs for the impounding and housing of an impounded animal. 704.06 HEALTH AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS. Subd. 1. All - lh health of Health standards. The owner of an animal kept in the city must comply with the following standards. a. An animal kept outdoors or in an unheated enclosure must be provided with adequate shelter and bedding to protect it from the sun, rain, snow, and temperatures below 50 degrees Fahrenheit. b. The shelter must include a moisture proof and windproof structure of suitable size to allow the animal to stand in an upright position and to lie down stretched out so that no part of its body need touch the sides of the structure. The structure must be made of durable material sufficient to allow retention of body heat with a solid floor raised at least two inches from the ground and an entrance covered by a flexible windproof material or self - closing swinging door. The structure must be provided with sufficient quantity of suitable bedding material consisting of hay, straw, cedar shavings, blankets or the equivalent to provide insulation and protection against 3 cold and dampness and to promote retention of body heat. The structure must be structurally sound and maintained in good repair. In lieu of the requirements of paragraphs a and b, an animal may be provided with access to a barn with a sufficient quantity of loose hay or bedding and protection against cold and dampness. d. If an animal is confined by a chain, the chain must be so attached that it cannot become entangled with the chains of other animals or other objects. A chain must be of a size adequate to restrain the animal involved and must be attached to the animal by means of a well fitted collar. The collar must be large enough to allow free breathing but small enough to avoid being easily pulled over the animal's head. A chain must be at least three times the length of the animal as measured from the tip of his nose to the base of his tail. fe. An animal must be provided with sufficient food and water to meet adequate necessary nutritional requirements. f. No person shall deposit or cause to be deposited upon any lot or in any street, alley, lake, river or other body of water, sewer or manhole or bury or conceal in any way, a dead animal or part thereof. The owner or other person having charge of an animal at the time of its death shall remove or cause to be removed the dead body of such animal within 24 hours after death to a crematory, sanitary landfill, rendering factory or any other place approved by the Chief of Police or his designee. Subd. 2. All animals stands Maintenance standards. An owner of an animal kept in the city must comply with the standards below. Bef r An action tb enforce the provisions of this chapter shall follow the procedures set forth in Chapter 104 of this Code. An owner must maintain an animal and the area where it is kept so that no odor that offends the senses of a reasonable person is detected, for more than one day, off the property where the animal is kept. b. An owner must maintain the property where the animal is kept so that there is no erosion, and no drainage of water contaminated by the animal, onto adjacent properties or into public waters or wetlands. 0 The An owner must manage the feces and other bodily wastes from the animal in a timely and sanitary manner that prevents health risks and prevents odors that are prohibited under paragraph (a) above. All feed kept for animals shall be stored in animal- proof, galvanized containers. Subd. 3. Comm°reial kennels / veterinary hespita P eterinary clinic with indoor overnight care avid indoor kennels. In addition to the standards established under par-agr-aph Subd. 1. above, eemmefeial kefi els and vet i hospitals veterinary clinics with indoor care and indoor kennels, where allowed by zoning, must comply with the "e,.,ifig stand.,Ms Minnesota Rules Chapter �) i00, as may be amended. M ULL= 5 and athef pests must be established and maifitai* (A"" 704.07 WILD ANIMALS. Subd. 1. Wild ctlih nals� j ?rohihited. A person must not keep, own, harbor, or otherwise possess a wild animal within the city, except as provided in ' afag fap Subd. 2. below. . . ........ IIIE1 Subd. 2. Wild animals alloired. Wild animals may be brought into the city for the purpose of entertainment, education, or display only by the following: a. A zoo operated by a governmental agency or a tax - exempt, non - profit corporation, b. The department of natural resources; C. Other similar public educational or charitable organization; 0 d. A circus; or e. A City- licensed pet shop. An organization listed above may bring a wild animal or animals into the city under this par-agr-ap h subdivision only if the organization can and does comply with the standards contained in par-agr-ap Subd. 3. below. No organization covered by this pafagfap subdivision may have wild animals within the city on more than 7 days in a consecutive 12 -month period, except that an organization listed above that has a wild animal within the city on the effective date of this section may continue to keep that animal as long as it lives if the organization obtains a permit from the City and complies with the standards specified in pafagfap Subd. 3. below. Subd. 3. Standards for keeping of wild aniNi, An organization that has a wild animal must comply with the following standards at all times that it possesses a wild animal within the city. a. A non - governmental organization must have liability insurance to cover potential personal injury or property damage caused by the animal(s), in an amount of at least $300,000 per person per occurrence. b. The animal(s) must be kept in a locked cage or other secure enclosure at all times when the public is allowed to be near them. C. The cage or enclosure must be constructed of sufficient materials so that a person, including a child, cannot put a finger, hand, or another portion of the body into the cage or enclosure so that the animal(s) could touch it. Alternatively, structural barriers may be used to keep the public away from the cage or enclosure. d. Only personnel with adequate training or experience in handling wild animals may have contact with the animal(s) while in the city. e. The animal(s) must be transported to the display location in the city in a secure enclosure sufficient to prohibit potential contact with humans or other animals, except the personnel identified under subparagraph (d) above. f No sale of a wild animal(s) may occur, nor may orders for the sale of wild animals be taken. g. The display location must be inspected by authorized City personnel before the wild animal(s) may be brought into the city. h. Authorized City personnel must be allowed to periodically inspect the display location during reasonable hours while the animal(s) is /are in the city. 7 If a wild animal bites a person, the animal must be forfeited immediately to authorized City personnel for rabies testing. 704.08 FORFEITURE OF ANIMAL OWNERSHIP RIGHTS. Subd. 1. Forfeiture of rights. The ownership rights of a person owning the following types of animals may be forfeited to the City pursuant to the procedure in this section: a. A public nuisance animal; `,rte b. A wild animal; and C. A maltreated animal. In addition, the ownership rights of with respect to other animals owned by the same owner may be forfeited if he /she has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to properly care for or control the such animals in order to prevent it any of them from becoming a public nuisance animal or a maltreated animal. Subd. 2. Notice. Authorized City personnel must notify the owner or apparent owner of the animal sought to be forfeited that the city intends to forfeit his /her ownership rights. The notice must be served on the owner personally or by registered mail. The notice must be in writing and state the reasons why forfeiture is sought, including a summary of applicable incidents. The notice must state that the owner has a right, within 10 days after receiving the notice, to request a hearing before a Hearing Officer appointed under City Code seetie X Chapter 104. w ithin days after feeei ing the "efiee. The request for a hearing must be in writing and must state the reason or reasons for the request. A failure to request the hearing will constitute an admission of the facts alleged in the notice, and the animal will be deemed forfeited to the City. Subd. 3. Findings of fact. If the owner requests a hearing, the hearing will be held w ithin d� ft °r the eity feee ve ez� ' a Th r° ,.,, g in will be held in accordance with siLr�crzn� cc.! . _ car. Tnc� City Code se efi vvv Chapter 104. The Hearing Officer must make written findings of fact and reach a conclusion whether the allegations are true and whether the animal will be forfeited to the City. The findings and conclusions must be made within 10 working days after the hearing and must be served on the owner personally or by registered mail. The decision of the Hearing Officer is final but may be appealed by a writ of certiorari to the District Court. Subd. 4. Animal confinement. After receiving the forfeiture notice and during the forfeiture proceedings, the owner must keep the subject animal confined within his /her home or within a secure covered enclosure. If the owner fails to do so, or if there is an immediate threat to public health or safety or to the animal's health or safety, authorized City personnel may immediately impound the animal and keep it at the impound facility at the owner's expense until a forfeiture determination has been made. Subd. 5. Forfeiture. If the animal is deemed or ordered forfeited, the owner must immediately give the animal to authorized City personnel, and a failure or refusal to do so is a misdemeanor. Authorized City personnel may use reasonable force and go onto private property to take the animal into custody. Subd. 6. Disposition of forfeited animal. Authorized City personnel will determine on a case by case basis whether forfeited animals are destroyed or given to new owners who will adequately care for and control the animal. 704.09 FARM ANIMALS. Subd. 1. Rural farm animals. Unless otherwise provided for, a person shall not keep, own, harbor, or otherwise possess a rural farm animal within the city. Subd. 2. Urban farm animals. A person may own, keep, harbor, or otherwise possess urban farm animals within the city in accordance with the provisions of this section. a. An urban farm animal ` ed e the f y ent afd may only be kept in the buildable af % yard of the property, as defined by the Zoning o�e Code. o , . C. The urban farm animal must be contained on the property by the use of a fence or other appropriate containment device or structure. d. Roosters are not allowed. A estiere�esr.�rsn�eeeerefn��s C. The urban farm animal must be contained on the property by the use of a fence or other appropriate containment device or structure. d. Roosters are not allowed. A e. An urban farm animal must not be kept on residentially -zoned property if it is being used as part of a commercial purpose, whether or not the commercial use occurs on the residentially -zoned property. f. The ground or floor of the area where an urban farm animal is kept must be covered with vegetation, concrete, or other surface approved by the Shorewood Planning Department, so that it can be, and is, sufficiently maintained to adequately dissipate offensive odors, in compliance with section 704.06, Subd. 2. a. and c. of this chapter. g. The number of chickens, ducks, geese, turkey..: to hens, or rabbits shall not exceed feu (4) six (6). h. The number of bee hives shall not exceed four (4). Any person having more than the allowable number of animals set forth in paragraphs g. and h., above, shall not replace animals in excess of those limitations. Permit issuance; fees. (1) No urban farm animal may be kept in the City of Shorewood until a permit to do so has been approved by the Zoning Administrator and issued by the office of the Building Official. No permit shall be granted until the necessary fee has been paid and until the Building Official or staff representative has inade an inspection of the property and has ascertained that the premises comply with all requirements of this chapter. Detailed plans and specifications, accurate and drawn to scale, must be submitted with the application including, but not limited to the following: (a) Site plan showing the location and setbacks of existing and proposed buildings, fences and structures on the subject property. (b) Architectural plans showing floor plans, building elevations and dimensions. (c) Landscaping plan showing how the shelter structure and confinement areas will be screened from adjoining properties. (2) The applicant for any permit required under the provisions of this chapter shall provide with the application the written consent of 75 percent of the owners or occupants of privately or publicly owned real estate within 150 feet of the outer boundaries of the premises for which the permit is being requested or, in the alternative, proof that the applicant's property lines are 150 feet or more from any structure. Where a street separates the premises for which the permit is being requested from other neighboring property, no consent is required from the owners or occupants of property located on the opposite side of the street. Where a property within 150 feet consists of a 10 multiple dwelling, the applicant need only obtain the written consent of the owner or manager, or other person in charge of the building. (3) Fees: (a) The permit fee and other fees and charges set forth in this chapter shall Violation of this chapter shall be grounds for administrative enforcement pursuant to chapter 104.03 of this code. 'O 11 CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 700 OF THE SHOREWOOD ZONING CODE TO INCLUDE CHAPTER 704: FARM AND OTHER ANIMALS Section 1. City Code Title 700 (Animal Regulations) is hereby amended to add: "Chapter 704 FARM AND OTHER ANIMALS 704.01 PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish regulations and controls regarding the keeping of animals other than domestic pets such as dogs and cats, within the city limits of the City of Shorewood. 704.02 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. AUTHORIZED CITY PERSONNEL. The Chief of Police, the health authority, their designees, and other personnel assisting in the enforcement of this chapter. RURAL FARMANIMAL. Cattle, mules, sheep, goats, swine, llamas, ostriches, emus, and including, but not limited to, other animals typically maintained in a farm setting but not in an urban setting. URBAN FARMANIMAL. Ducks, geese, turkeys, chickens, guinea hens, bees, and rabbits. MALTREATED ANIMAL. An animal that has not been given adequate food, water, or proper shelter from the weather, veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering and with humane care and treatment, or that has been subjected to the conduct prohibited by Minn. Stat. § 343.21. NUISANCE ANIMAL. An animal, conditions caused by an animal, or the improper care and maintenance of an animal that result in running at large, offensive odor, excessive noise or damage to property, so as to disturb the rights of or threaten the safety of a member of the general public, or interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of their property. OWNER. A person owning, keeping, harboring or acting as custodian of an animal. All adult occupants of the property where the animal resides or is kept are considered an owner or owners. Attachment II PERSON. An individual, firm, partnership, or corporation. PREMISES. A building, structure, shelter, or land where -an animal is kept or confined. UNDER RESTRAINT An animal being within a private motor vehicle of a person, owning, harboring or keeping the animal; or controlled by a leash not exceeding six feet in length. VETERINARY HOSPITAL. A place for the treatment, hospitalization, surgery, care and boarding of animals and birds, under the direction of one or more licensed veterinarians. WILD ANIMAL. Any of the following: a. Front - fanged venomous snakes, including the viperidae and elapidae families of snakes, such as rattlesnakes and cobras; b. Snakes over 8 feet in length; Reptiles that have the physical ability as an adult to cause substantial bodily injury as defined in Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 7a, to humans and /or domestic animals, such as python snakes and crocodilians; d. Animals that can transmit rabies and cannot be vaccinated against rabies; Mammals that as a breed are considered wild by nature because of breeding, history, character, habit, or disposition; and f. Mammals that have at least 25 percent of their heritage from mammals specified in subparagraph e, above. g. Specifically, such animals as a wolf, fox, skunk, raccoon, mink, bobcat, deer, and monkey, but not including a fish, bird, ferret, hamster, or gerbil. 704.03 ENFORCEMENT. The Chief of Police or designees will enforce the provisions of this chapter, with the assistance of other personnel when appropriate. 704.04 RIGHT OF ENTRY. Authorized City personnel have the right to enter upon a premises at reasonable times for the purpose of discharging their duties imposed by this chapter when there is reasonable belief that a violation of this chapter has been committed. 2 704.05 IMPOUNDING OF ANIMALS. Subd. 1. Seizure and impoundment. Authorized city personnel may seize and impound an animal found to be in violation of this chapter. These personnel may enter onto private property to seize and impound animals when: They have a reasonable and immediate concern for the animal's health, safety or welfare; b. They have a reasonable and immediate concern for the health and safety of human beings or other animals as a result of the animal's continued presence on the property; or They have reasonable cause to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred or is occurring and that seizure is necessary to prevent further violation, but only after a reasonable effort has been made to contact an occupant of the property. Subd. 2. Interference. A person must not interfere with authorized city personnel impounding an animal, nor refuse to surrender an animal to these personnel. Subd. 3. Cost of impoundment. The animal owner is responsible for costs for the impounding and housing of an impounded animal. 704.06 HEALTH AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS. Subd. 1. Health standards. The owner of an animal kept in the city must comply with the following standards. An animal kept outdoors or in an unheated enclosure must be provided with adequate shelter and bedding to protect it from the sun, rain, snow, and temperatures below 50 degrees Fahrenheit. b. The shelter must include a moisture proof and windproof structure of suitable size to allow the animal to stand in an upright position and to lie down stretched out so that no part of its body need touch the sides of the structure. The structure must be made of durable material sufficient to allow retention of body heat with a solid floor raised at least two inches from the ground and an entrance covered by a flexible windproof material or self - closing swinging door. The structure must be provided with sufficient quantity of suitable bedding material consisting of hay, straw, cedar shavings, blankets or the equivalent to provide insulation and protection against cold and dampness and to promote retention of body heat. The structure must be structurally sound and maintained in good repair. In lieu of the requirements of paragraphs a. and b., an animal may be provided with access to a barn with a sufficient quantity of loose hay or bedding and protection against cold and dampness. 3 d. If an animal is confined by a chain, the chain must be so attached that it cannot become entangled with the chains of other animals or other objects. A chain must be of a size adequate to restrain the animal involved and must be attached to the animal by means of a well fitted collar. The collar must be large enough to allow free breathing but small enough to avoid being easily pulled over the animal's head. A chain must be at least three times the length of the animal as measured from the tip of his nose to the base of his tail. An animal must be provided with sufficient food and water to meet necessary nutritional requirements. f. No person shall deposit or cause to be deposited upon any lot or in any street, alley, lake, river or other body of water, sewer or manhole or bury or conceal in any way, a dead animal or part thereof. The owner or other person having charge of an animal at the time of its death shall remove or cause to be removed the dead body of such animal within 24 hours after death to a crematory, sanitary landfill, rendering factory or any other place approved by the Chief of Police or his designee. Subd. 2. Maintenance standards. An owner of an animal kept in the city must comply with the standards below. An action to enforce the provisions of this chapter shall follow the procedures set forth in Chapter 104 of this Code. An owner must maintain an animal and the area where it is kept so that no odor that offends the senses of a reasonable person is detected, for more than one day, off the property where the animal is kept. b. An owner must maintain the property where the animal is kept so that there is no erosion, and no drainage of water contaminated by the animal, onto adjacent properties or into public waters or wetlands. An owner must manage the feces and other bodily wastes from the animal in a timely and sanitary manner that prevents health risks and prevents odors that are prohibited under paragraph a. above. d. All feed kept for animals shall be stored in animal - proof, galvanized containers. Subd. 3. Veterinary clinic with indoor overnight care and indoor kennels. In addition to the standards established under Subd. 1. above, veterinary clinics with indoor care and indoor kennels, where allowed by zoning, must comply with Minnesota Rules Chapter 9100, as may be amended. 0 704.07 WILD ANIMALS. Subd. 1. Wild animals prohibited. A person must not keep, own, harbor, or otherwise possess a wild animal within the city, except as provided in Subd. 2. below. Subd. 2. Wild animals allowed. Wild animals may be brought into the city for the purpose of entertainment, education, or display only by the following: a. A zoo operated by a governmental agency or a tax - exempt, non - profit corporation; b. The department of natural resources; C. Other similar public educational or charitable organization; d. A circus; or e. A City - licensed pet shop. An organization listed above may bring a wild animal or animals into the city under this subdivision only if the organization can and does comply with the standards contained in Subd. 3. below. No organization covered by this subdivision may have wild animals within the city on more than 7 days in a consecutive 12 -month period, except that an organization listed above that has a wild animal within the city on the effective date of this section may continue to keep that animal as long as it lives if the organization obtains a permit from the City and complies with the standards specified in Subd. 3. below. Subd. 3. Standards for keeping of wild animals. An organization that has a wild animal must comply with the following standards at all times that it possesses a wild animal within the city. a. A non - governmental organization must have liability insurance to cover potential personal injury or property damage caused by the animal(s), in an amount of at least $300,000 per person per occurrence. b. The animal(s) must be kept in a locked cage or other secure enclosure at all times when the public is allowed to be near them. C. The cage or enclosure must be constructed of sufficient materials so that a person, including a child, cannot put a finger, hand, or another portion of the body into the cage or enclosure so that the animal(s) could touch it. Alternatively, structural barriers may be used to keep the public away from the cage or enclosure. d. Only personnel with adequate training or experience in handling wild animals may have contact with the animal(s) while in the city. 5 e. The animal(s) must be transported to the display location in the city in a secure enclosure sufficient to prohibit potential contact with humans or other animals, except the personnel identified under subparagraph (d) above. f. No sale of a wild animal(s) may occur, nor may orders for the sale of wild animals be taken. g. The display location must be inspected by authorized City personnel before the wild animal(s) may be brought into the city. h. Authorized City personnel must be allowed to periodically inspect the display location during reasonable hours while the animal(s) is /are in the city. If a wild animal bites a person, the animal must be forfeited immediately to authorized City personnel for rabies testing. 704.08 FORFEITURE OF ANIMAL OWNERSHIP RIGHTS. Subd. 1. Forfeiture of rights. The ownership rights of a person owning the following types of animals may be forfeited to the City pursuant to the procedure in this section: a. A public nuisance animal; b. A wild animal; and C. A maltreated animal. In addition, the ownership rights with respect to other animals owned by the same owner may be forfeited if he /she has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to properly care for or control such animals in order to prevent any of them from becoming a public nuisance animal or a maltreated animal. Subd. 2. Notice. Authorized City personnel must notify the owner or apparent owner of the animal sought to be forfeited that the city intends to forfeit his /her ownership rights. The notice must be served on the owner personally or by registered mail. The notice must be in writing and state the reasons why forfeiture is sought, including a summary of applicable incidents. The notice must state that the owner has a right, within 10 days after receiving the notice, to request a hearing before a Hearing Officer appointed under City Code Chapter 104. The request for a hearing must be in writing and must state the reason or reasons for the request. A failure to request the hearing will constitute an admission of the facts alleged in the notice, and the animal will be deemed forfeited to the City. Subd. 3. Findings of fact. If the owner requests a hearing, the hearing will be held in accordance with City Code Chapter 104. The Hearing Officer must make written findings of fact and reach a conclusion whether the allegations are true and whether 0 the animal will be forfeited to the City. The findings and conclusions must be made within 10 working days after the hearing and must be served on the owner personally or by registered mail. The decision of the Hearing Officer is final but may be appealed by a writ of certiorari to the District Court. Subd. 4. Animal confinement. After receiving the forfeiture notice and during the forfeiture proceedings, the owner must keep the subject animal confined within his /her home or within a secure covered enclosure. If the owner fails to do so, or if there is an immediate threat to public health or safety or to the animal's health or safety, authorized City personnel may immediately impound the animal and keep it at the impound facility at the owner's expense until a forfeiture determination has been made. Subd. 5. Forfeiture. If the animal is deemed or ordered forfeited, the owner must immediately give the animal to authorized City personnel, and a failure or refusal to do so is a misdemeanor. Authorized City personnel may use reasonable force and go onto private property to take the animal into custody. Subd. 6. Disposition of forfeited animal. Authorized City personnel will determine on a case by case basis whether forfeited animals are destroyed or given to new owners who will adequately care for and control the animal. 704.09 FARM ANIMALS. Subd. 1. Rural farm animals. Unless otherwise provided for, a person shall not keep, own, harbor, or otherwise possess a rural farm animal within the city. Subd. 2. Urban farm animals. A person may own, keep, harbor, or otherwise possess urban farm animals within the city in accordance with the provisions of this section. a. An urban farm animal may only be kept in the buildable area of the rear yard of the property, as defined by the Zoning Code. b. An urban farm animal that is kept outside must be provided a shelter structure of appropriate size, that is accessible to the animal at all times as provided in section 704.06 Subd. 1. of this chapter. The shelter structure and confinement areas shall be adequately screened to the satisfaction of neighboring property owners as provided in section i.(2) of this subdivision. Screening may be achieved by fencing or landscaping, or a combination of both. C. The urban farm animal must be contained on the property by the use of a fence or other appropriate containment device or structure. d. Roosters are not allowed. 7 e. An urban farm animal must not be kept on residentially -zoned property if it is being used as part of a commercial purpose, whether or not the commercial use occurs on the residentially -zoned property. f. The ground or floor of the area where an urban farm animal is kept must be covered with vegetation, concrete, or other surface approved by the Shorewood Planning Department, so that it can be, and is, sufficiently maintained to adequately dissipate offensive odors, in compliance with section 704.06, Subd. 2. a. and c. of this chapter. g. The number of chickens, ducks, geese, turkey, guinea hens, or rabbits shall not exceed six (6). h. The number of bee hives shall not exceed four (4). Any person having more than the allowable number of animals set forth in paragraphs g. and h. above, at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance shall not replace animals in excess of those limitations. Permit issuance; fees. (1) No urban farm animal may be kept in the City of Shorewood until a permit to do so has been approved by the Zoning Administrator and issued by the office of the Building Official. No permit shall be granted until the necessary fee has been paid and until the Building Official or staff representative has made an inspection of the property and has ascertained that the premises comply with all requirements of this chapter. Detailed plans and specifications, accurate and drawn to scale, must be submitted with the application including, but not limited to the following: (a) Site plan showing the location and setbacks of existing and proposed buildings, fences and structures on the subject property. (b) Architectural plans showing floor plans, building elevations and dimensions. (c) Landscaping plan showing how the shelter structure and confinement areas will be screened from adjoining properties. (2) The applicant for any permit required under the provisions of this chapter shall provide with the application the written consent of 75 percent of the owners or occupants of privately or publicly owned real estate within 150 feet of the outer boundaries of the premises for which the permit is being requested or, in the alternative, proof that the applicant's property lines are 150 feet or more from any structure. Where a street separates the premises for which the permit is being requested from other neighboring property, no consent is required from the owners or occupants of property located on the opposite side of the street. Where a property within 150 feet consists of a multiple dwelling, the applicant need only obtain the written consent of the owner or manager, or other person in charge of the building. (3) Fees: (a) The permit fee and other fees and charges set forth in this chapter shall be collected by the City before the issuance of any permits and the Building Official, or other persons duly authorized to issue the permit for which the payment of a fee is required under the provisions of this chapter, may not issue a permit until the fees shall have been paid. (c) The City Council shall, from time to time, establish a fee schedule by ordinance." Section 2. That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publishing in the Official Newspaper of the City of Shorewood. 704.10 PENALTY. Violation of this chapter shall be grounds for administrative enforcement pursuant to chapter 104.03 of this code. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 12 day of March, 2012. CHRISTINE LIZEE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRIAN HECK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK 9 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, on 12 March 2012, the City Council of the City of Shorewood adopted Ordinance No. entitled "An Ordinance Amending Title 700 of the Municipal Code to Add Chapter 700 — Farm and Other Animals; WHEREAS, the City staff has prepared a summary of Ordinance No. as follows: 1. The amendment adds an entire new Chapter 704 to the Code. 2. The provisions of this ordinance establish regulations for the keeping of certain animals in Shorewood. 3. The amendment sets forth the types of animals that may be kept, the number of animals that may be kept and the manner in which they may be kept. 4. The amendment provides a system of permits and establishes enforcement measures relative to the keeping of animals. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD: The City Council finds that the above title and summary of Ordinance No. clearly informs the public of intent and effect of the Ordinance. 2. The City Clerk is directed to publish Ordinance No. by title and summary, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, subdivision 4. 3. A full copy of the Ordinance is available at Shorewood City Hall. ADOPTED by the Shorewood City Council on this 12th day of March, 2012. ATTEST Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator /Clerk Attachment III i, — : I -- City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Bill Erickson Addition — Final Plat Meeting Date: 12 March 2012 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: I — Final Plat 11 - Draft Resolution #8D MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Policy Consideration: Should the City approve a final plat allowing Bill Erickson and his neighbors to rearrange the property lines common to their respective lots? Background: In August of 2009 Bill Erickson and his neighbors received preliminary plat approval to rearrange the property lines common to their lots at 27930, 27940 and 27944. They proposed to split up one large parcel in the middle and combine the pieces with their respective properties. The project has suffered considerable title issues and has received several extensions of the deadline for filing the final plat. The title issues have now been resolved and the applicant has submitted the final plat (see Attachment 1). The plat is consistent with the approved preliminary plat and the applicant has addressed three conditions imposed on the subdivision: 1) the owners have granted a conservation easement to the City for the wetland that occupies the parcel being divided; 2) they have created a driveway easement agreement for the common driveway serving the properties; and 3) they have posted an escrow to ensure that the portion of the tennis court that would become nonconforming due to the rearrangement will be corrected. The two easement agreements are attached as exhibits to the draft resolution (Attachment II)included in your packet for consideration. Financial or Budget Considerations: The proposed final plat places no financial burden on the City. In fact, the City stands to gain by the drainage and utility easements and the conservation easement being obtained as a result of the plat. Since no new lots are being created, there are no park dedication fees or local sanitary sewer access charges. Options: Approve the final plat, deny it, or modify it. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the final plat and again commends the neighbors for improving the zoning conformance of their lots and resolving their boundary issues Next Steps and Timelines: The applicant has thirty days from his receipt of the Council resolution to record it with Hennepin County. Connection to Vision / Mission: The plat and the improvement of the property boundary issues contribute to a sustainable tax base. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 I rMWM"!!1 Sca le In re'- The north line of Lot 1, Block 1, Bay Park Addition, has an assumed bearing of South 87'57'47' West, — — — — — — — NORTH I f - -- — — — - - - -- - Icy 66 rk-1 (-)L. LIL UUL -IIL-1 % I/ / - c) ' -Al 11 ry A A V'Li, L yu, El L-1 L m 0 0 t for sewer pipeline P, ME DETAIL r Doc. No, 40 20005, -- , 1 Aln n East 586.55 L 31,7 -.E A In r� jH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ A-ILe earellol with and 889 feet north of the south ;m, of Sec, 5 7. East line Tract N, South fin, T N, R.L.S� - 6 R.L.S. N-. 8 A In JUF /I V- ul v (< outherly line of Lot 2, block 1, Q Beginning_ mot, I - - - - - - ji - - - - - - - - Johnson Hollow 'S 34.5 t East -jiOZ60 I t - - -_ 2 1 n 0 f ----- ------- - - - - -- 1: - Aline QN6 701-71117 and J5.16 feet s outh of the s outh fire T,,,t N, R.L.S. No. 3 S'ly e xtension 37 N89 '28 94 " W 300. Eo,, for S R=8 of the south lips Tract — f \p C6 ' 06 9T - N, P15, No. 8 _ - - \ A ho, pa,difel oh and 35.16 feel south I k East line Trac 91t y-170 74 Z Sewer Pipeline Per D (SEE DETAIL B) -R.L.S. No. 8 - 12 7 0 - - - -- - _. _ - - - - N Q= 18 I E oPmen t for Sewer Pipelin K Doc. 40200 5 z� �; W\� „ n 6/ :° HB3i ao`t�i n�j e ^8 00_ 6 016 56 a-- – - – – — — — — — — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7SEr DfflF o\ w 1 42100 =n7-02J cD r f"" 4\5' S 8 T _j J , . 4 0 WEST 448.59 lR lift Stot'% Easement per Dm Mo. 4020005 JH A k9 (SEE DETAIL B) 48 - - - - - - - - - - --- n iAl ;7 rnl o A b. conchal VA. Santa !in, F,;f Ls' tic. 8 \4 r7UL-L- U YY I - - - - - — West 132.16 - - - - - too ---------- F qz `a c N P070 JH JH \\ q ,./ �� 527 °51 '54'£ 51100- Nr42w'# 1564--' Ma 10), art V ,( o" j 4, 107.49 a "igs on N W0432 E 4Z W-�aox e0o" z ` 7 1 t 30 V5A Sn so \\Q' V"s 2 A aok I �,iotesa KNOVN WATER ELEVATION ;y Sewer Ma A • MINNETONKA, A C A CCORD ING Westerly line of Lot 1, Block I Johnson Hollow r j"'s" H" Ok )EPARTMENT OF NATURAL & Its southerly exlension 1907 221.50 N 67*57'47' E line of Bay Park Addition -southerly line of jolmne _F -1 WE51 �'S= 93051 FEET, MGVD. 1929 SEE JH I�SW Cor, Pf to I, 8P-k 1, J-61w heaq �- a j2.8 _ _LL_ — -_ • -15-206`9=928I83 feet DETAIL 1 -- - - - - -- T - - - - - - 69.41 rM or 3; ?Yatlon 5 - IF 7 40 7 ' 903 SEE (N,G,V,D. 1929) 441 - - - - - - -BPA-' —EAST 122 DETAIL A A A fl. n 1 66 DETPJL A _PO�Vi7 • E 4TI �7 NW corner of Oullot A Ban, Pork Addition A s8rol'56'w BPA BPA 3 17 f LILll V. OffAll A 1 1 ' rM of 4 Pork W I t Benchmark Ition I Judicial Landmarks se ka( 'P%7 '�6 intersection o f a li determined � & th south e Manhole 5 4 vrk: Sanitary Manhole 25 Pu rsuant to Torrens case no. 177 5 e eur� extension �"o ") - — — — — 1h I V� ol g, Ij asl & 21 feet &t south uth of the NW o f th wa shery line of Lot 1, Black 1, Johnson H 1 b" — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - — v C/ of outlot A, a4r PARK AD01770N \% atlon=931,60 feet MG.VS, 1929) A 00 93 _ , A F) F) i i / f ri L, Ll 1 1 1, 1-< - '66 " f wo l� Fd. capped 2' iron pipe, hay '7 .42 Sec, 6, T. 116, R. 23, 005 525.82 East Fla. Hann. Co. CIM S, Q Car. of Sec. 31 IlJ C, Sc,I h R 23 line Sec. 31, T. 117, . _Z50, u-Pr ... a, f k o r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i II DEVOTES FOUND ✓UOICIW LANDMARK DETAIL A Prest 448.60 oufsuovol to Ton-ens Cos& No. 1772,5) J ;'�_ \ 1� I DENOTES 112-INCH X 1 4 INCH SET IRON V�pr i -IPE MARKED SY LICENSE NO. 22414 4 4 ------------- line a, 0 ----------- , Hollow Vo DFNOIE� 2 "ON 11P1 NII , � ) 1 , J ohns on 1/11, L f Int I n V L 0, 1 v v ✓ HI FS OR41NAGE & UTIZTITY 545, DENOTES 1, - / 45 DEDICATED ON 10HlYSON HOLLOW )Ul V UUNI V DENOTES OR ACE & L1774 TITY FASEWIMS 14 I - 7- \ . � J -_ -�'/ _1\ %tl AIN 3 IS' DEDICATED ON 8A)' OARff ADDITION 631,32 N88 A �V 10 S'ly line of Johnson Hollow 7- 4" %k ko C� tot — IM 1, Bo Pork n5ua .. %'01nolge utlxltv Easements are shown thus: a �ds e I "z N88109'28'E n Hollow SV line of Johnson I z Park Additil) _" _" 711 P,,k Addition 7 L — . . . . . . . . . . d ''on 207,80 S87*57'47"IN 421.17 f I I 24.4± N'l flies of Be Pork n' A r) r� S88- 0 1'56'W 324.42 - Found AM (set (421.57 Boy Park) -1 Lj L I -------- pursuant to Arrra - Cos, me I r) --- Found AM (set I a , o f a rna determined by Jd)cbl LaadMorks act My line of 2�ao�t Lo Pa Mahlon lid llYy line of A Adoiflan G j SE Can Of Lot I ON I ------- - --- Case go. 17725) 1, L-1 A pI ,,.j i Te case Pa. 17725 & Ihs 044 Mansion 1W corner Addition of OU A I Re. 03 Bay Pa n - / Found JILY (set pu r su ant 1 of the 111Y kal of Lot 1, Black t Johnson Ho ion ;rest t ot.)v (' ___ at found) A 2 � 00 ", C n ' . ,I I I IU _ � t' Detail not to scale / L""ILC /7 Wes qWPVT 9 nP Q qT4P PTq Attachment I CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF BILL ERICKSON ADDITION WHEREAS, the final plat of Bill Erickson Addition has been submitted in the manner required for the platting of land under the Shorewood City Code and under Chapter 462 of Minnesota Statues, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and WHEREAS, said plat is consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of the City of Shorewood; and WHEREAS, the final plan is consistent with the preliminary plat previously approved for the project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as The plat of Bill Erickson Addition is hereby approved. 2. Approval is subject to the Grant of Permanent Easement for Conservation Purposes, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Appurtenant Easement for Driveway Purposes, attached hereto as Exhibit B, being recorded contemporaneously with the final plat. 3. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Certificate of Approval for the plat on behalf of the City Council. 4. That the final plat, together with the easements referenced in 2., above, shall be filed and recorded within thirty (30) days of the date of certification of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the execution of the Certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Clerk shall be conclusive, showing a proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statutes and the Shorewood City Code. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 12th day of March 2012. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator /Clerk GRANT OF PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES THIS EASEMENT is made , 2012, by Billy K. Erickson and Karen J. Erickson, husband and wife, David K. Wessner and Patricia A. Wessner, husband and wife, and Jack A. Norqual and Gretchen Norqual, husband and wife (hereinafter "Grantors ") in favor of the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter "Grantee "). WHEREAS, Grantors are the owners in fee of the following properties, parts of which are subjected to the easement granted herein, to wit: a. David K. Wessner and Patricia A. Wessner, husband and wife, are the owners of Lot 1, Block 1, Bill Erickson Addition, City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. b. Billy K. Erickson and Karen J. Erickson, husband and wife, are the owners of Lot 2, Block 1, Bill Erickson Addition, City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Jack A. Norqual and Gretchen Norqual, husband and wife, are the owners of Lot 4, Block 1, Bill Erickson Addition, City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has granted Applicant's final plat approval of Bill Erickson Addition in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of the platting of Bill Erickson Addition, the City of Shorewood requires a portion of said platted lots to be subjected to a permanent conservation easement for purposes of preserving wetlands and providing a wetland buffer zone. WHEREAS, the Grantors hereto are amenable to granting the City of Shorewood a perpetual easement for conservation purposes in the establishment of such a wetland buffer zone. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the City's approval and in satisfaction of the condition imposed, Grantors hereby grant to Grantee a perpetual conservation easement over, under and across the Easement property, which is described on the attached Exhibit "A ". The terms of the easement are as follows: Exhibit A 1. Except as permitted by this document, no action of any kind shall be undertaken to change or disturb the landscaping, open spaces, wetlands and vegetation existing as of this date. No buildings, clothesline poles or playground equipment may be constructed nor installed in the Easement property. No earthen nor organic material may be removed from or placed on said easement property. No application of fertilizers, whether natural or chemical. No activity detrimental to the preservation of scenic beauty, vegetation and wildlife. No cutting or removing healthy native trees except for disease control or as allowed or directed by Grantee. 2. Grantors retain the rights in the easement property: a. To clear any debris including dead vegetation, dead trees and tree stumps. b. To clear non - native vegetation. This includes but is not limited to European Buckthorn. C. To plant native plants, flowers, bushes and trees enhancing the scenic beauty. d. To apply herbicides, pesticides and insecticides for noxious weed and pest control. e. To arrange for professional services to control/eradicate algae in the pond water area. f. To construct walkways, benches, as well as a bridge to the island in the pond water area. 3. Grantee may enter upon the Easement Property for the purposes of inspection and enforcement of this easement and may take whatever actions are necessary to restore the Easement Property to the conditions required by this Easement. Grantors shall not be liable for the actions of any third party, other than its employees, agents or contractors, which may violate the terms of this easement. 4. Failure to enforce any provision of this Easement upon a violation of it shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to do so as to that or any subsequent violation. 5. Invalidation of any of the terms of this Easement shall in no way affect any of the other terms, which shall remain in full force and effect. 6. This Easement does not convey a right to the public use of the Easement Property nor does it convey any right of possession in the Easement Property to the public or the Grantee. Access by the Grantee to the Easement Property shall be limited to access necessary for purposes of inspection and enforcement as specified in paragraph 3 above. Grantee shall not be entitled to share in any award or other compensation given in connection with a condemnation or negotiated acquisition of all or any part of the Easement Property by any authority having the power to eminent domain. Grantee hereby waives any right it may have to such an award or compensation. 2 7. The recording of this Easement shall constitute the Grantee's agreement to be bound by its terms. 8. This Easement shall run with the Easement Property and be binding on the Grantors, their successors and assigns, and inure to the benefit of the Grantee, its successors and assigns. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantors hereto have signed this instrument on the date set forth beside their respective signatures. Dated: Dated: David K. Wessner, Grantor Patricia A. Wessner, Grantor STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Subscribed and acknowledged before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Minnesota, by David K. Wessner and Patricia A. Wessner, husband and wife, this day of 2012. Notary Public Dated: Dated: STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Billy K. Erickson, Grantor Karen J. Erickson, Grantor Subscribed and acknowledged before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Minnesota, by Billy K. Erickson and Karen J. Erickson, husband and wife, this day of 2012. Notary Public 3 Dated: Dated: STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Jack A. Norqual Gretchen Norqual Subscribed and acknowledged before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Minnesota, by Jack A. Norqual and Gretchen Norqual, husband and wife, this day of 2012. Notary Public Netw/Erickson/GranC 11 APPURTENANT EASEMENT FOR DRIVEWAY PURPOSES WHEREAS, David K. Wessner and Patricia A. Wessner, husband and wife, "Grantors" are the owners of the following described real property located in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, to wit: Lot One (1), Block 1, BILL ERICKSON ADDITION WHEREAS, Billy K. Erickson and Karen J. Erickson, husband and wife, both "Grantees" and "Grantors ", are the owners of the following described real property in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit: Lot Two (2), Block One (1), BILL ERICKSON ADDITION and WHEREAS, Bill K. Erickson and Karen J. Erickson, husband and wife, are the trustees of the Karen J. Erickson Revocable Trust dated August 14, 2008, "Grantees ", which owns the following described real property in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit: Lot Three (3), Block One (1), BILL ERICKSON ADDITION WHEREAS, Grantors David K. Wessner and Patricia A. Wessner desire to create non- exclusive perpetual driveway easement over Lot 1, Block 1, BILL ERICKSON ADDITION, benefiting Lot 2, Block 1, BILL ERICKSON ADDITION, as well as Lot 3, Block 1, BILL ERICKSON ADDITION. and WHEREAS, Grantors Billy K. Erickson and Karen J. Erickson desire to create a non- exclusive perpetual driveway easement over Lot 2, Block 1, BILL ERICKSON ADDITION benefiting Lot 3, Block 1, BILL ERICKSON ADDITION. Exhibit B WHEREAS, all parties hereto desire to set forth the obligations as regards the future maintenance of said driveway easement. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby convey and agree as follows: A. Grantors David K. Wessner and Patricia A. Wessner hereby convey to Billy K. Erickson and Janet K. Erickson, husband and wife, owners of Lot 2, Block 1, BILL ERICKSON ADDITION, a non - exclusive perpetual driveway easement over Lot 1, Block 1, BILL ERICKSON ADDITION, which easement is described as follows, to wit: An easement for driveway purposes over and across that part of Lot 1, Block 1, BILL ERICKSON ADDITION, which lies within a 15.00 foot strip of property, the centerline of which is described as follows: Commencing at that corner of said Lot 1, which is the intersection of the northerly line of said Lot 1 and the westerly line of Smithtown Road as shown on the plat of said Bill Erickson Addition; thence on an assumed bearing of South 8 degrees 38 minutes 00 seconds West, along the easterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 7.58 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 89 degrees 49 minute 28 seconds West 299.83 feet; thence southwesterly 169.15 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a central angle of 12 degrees 12 minutes 28 seconds and a radius of 793.87 feet; thence South 77 degrees 58 minutes 05 seconds West, tangent to last described curve, 62.90 feet; thence westerly 119.47 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the north, having a central angle of 18 degrees 42 minutes 25 seconds and a radius of 365.90 feet; thence North 83 degrees 19 minutes 24 seconds West, tangent to last described curve, 46.56 feet; thence North 80 degrees 37 minutes 44 seconds West 66.94 feet; thence North 83 degrees 12 minutes 00 seconds West 185.74 feet; thence North 60 degrees 47 minutes 00 seconds West, along a line which is parallel with and 7.50 feet northeasterly of the northeasterly line of Lot 2, said Block 1, a distance of 45.00 feet, and said line there terminating. B. David K. Wessner and Patricia A. Wessner, husband and wife, as Grantors, owners of Lot 1, Block 1, BILL ERICKSON ADDITION and Billy K. Erickson and Karen J. Erickson, husband and wife, as Grantors, owners of Lot 2, Block 1, BILL ERICKSON ADDITION, hereby jointly grant to Billy K. Erickson and Karen K. Erickson, trustees of the Karen J. Erickson Revocable Trust dated August 14, 2008, owner of Lot 3, Block 1, BILL ERICKSON ADDITION, a non - exclusive perpetual easement for driveway purposes over said Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, BILL ERICKSON ADDITION, which easement is described as follows, to wit: An easement for driveway purposes over and across that part of Lot 1, and Lot 2, Block 1, BILL ERICKSON ADDITION, which lies within a 15.00 foot strip of property, the centerline of which is described as follows: Commencing at that corner of said Lot 1, which is the intersection of the northerly line of said Lot 1 and the westerly line of Smithtown Road as shown on the plat of 2 said Bill Erickson Addition; thence on an assumed bearing of South 8 degrees 38 minutes 00 seconds West, along the easterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 7.58 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 28 seconds West 299.83 feet; thence southwesterly 169.15 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a central angle of 12 degrees 12 minutes 28 seconds and a radius of 793.87 feet; thence South 77 degrees 58 minutes 05 seconds West, tangent to last described curve, 62.90 feet; thence westerly 119.47 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the north, having a central angle of 18 degrees 42 minutes 25 seconds and a radius of 365.90 feet; thence North 83 degrees 19 minutes 24 seconds West, tangent to last described curve, 46.56 feet; thence North 80 degrees 37 minutes 44 seconds West 66.94 feet; thence North 83 degrees 12 minutes 00 seconds West 173.11 feet; thence South 38 degrees 13 minutes 05 seconds West 46.98 feet; thence South 1 degree 39 minutes 23 seconds East 86.18 feet; to the southerly line of said Lot 2, and said line there terminating. C. That the parties hereto agree they shall cooperate in and be jointly and severally responsible for the provision of and payment for maintenance and upkeep of the driveway surface contained within the driveway easement granted herein. D. That the easements and maintenance agreements contained herein shall run with the land and bind the Heirs, Assigns and Successors of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands as their free act and deed on the date set forth beside their respective signatures, intending to be bound hereby. Dated: Dated: STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) David K. Wessner, Grantor Patricia A. Wessner, Grantor Subscribed and acknowledged before me, a Notary Public, in and for the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, by David K. Wessner and Patricia A. Wessner, husband and wife, this day of 2012. Notary Public Dated: Billy K. Erickson, Grantor and Grantee Dated: STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Karen J. Erickson, Grantor and Grantee Subscribed and acknowledged before me, a Notary Public, in and for the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, by Billy K. Erickson and Karen J. Erickson, husband and wife, this day of 2012. Notary Public Dated: Dated: STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Karen J. Erickson, as Trustee of the Karen J. Erickson Revocable Trust dated August 14, 2008, Grantee Billy K. Erickson, as Trustee of the Karen J. Erickson Revocable Trust dated August 14, 2008, Grantee Subscribed and acknowledged before me, a Notary Public, in and for the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, by Karen J. Erickson and Billy K. Erickson to be known to be the Trustees of the Karen J. Erickson Revocable Trust dated August 14, 2008, this day of 2012. Notary Public Netw /Erickson/Appurtenant Easement 11 #8E MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Campbell Residence — Expansion of Nonconforming Structure Meeting Date: 12 March 2012 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: I - Planning Director's Memorandum 11- Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City approve a building permit for the renovation and expansion of a nonconforming single - family home, located at 950 Lafayette Avenue? Background: See attached staff report for detailed background information. In addition the Planning Commission asked that the Council be provided with the floor area to lot area tabulations. The floor area of all structures, including the garage is 1905 square feet. The ratio of floor area to the 6369 square foot lot is 29.9 percent. Additionally, the Commission factored into their unanimous recommendation to approve the permit, the fact that the common driveway that cuts through the subject property adds hardcover that does not exclusively benefit the applicant. The Commission likened it to not counting the city street in front of most homes. The hardcover percentage if the driveway and the land underneath it are subtracted is 29.2 percent. Financial or Budget Considerations: None. Options: Approve the permit, modify the permit, deny the permit. Recommendation / Action Requested: Approval of the permit is recommended. Next Steps and Timelines: Process the building permit. While some demolition of the building could occur before then, road restrictions are in effect until 1 May. Connection to Vision / Mission: Allowing the renovation of a grossly substandard (zoning and building codes) contributes to a sustainable tax base. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ® SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 - (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 - www.ci.shorewood.mmus ® cityhaI1 @d.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 29 February 2012 RE: Campbell Residence — Expansion of Nonconforming Structure FILE NO. Property (450 Lafayette Avenue) BACKGROUND Dan Krieter, Matthias K Builders, has submitted plans for a substantial renovation of the home at 450 Lafayette Avenue (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). The home is quite substandard with respect to zoning requirements, as well as building code compliance. Since the renovation involves an expansion of the building, it is subject to Plamiing Commission review and recommendation and approval by the City Council. Lafayette Avenue is essentially a private driveway that serves four lots on a small peninsula of land extending into Lake Minnetonka (see Exhibit B, attached). The subject property is zoned R- lA /S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland and contains only 6369 square feet of area. As shown on the site plan for the property (Exhibit C), the existing home encroaches into the side yard setbacks required in the R -lA /S district. No doubt starting as a summer cottage, the existing home is plagued by a foundation system that does not meet building code requirements. The second floor also exhibits unsound structural support. The applicant proposes to remove the existing upper level, replacing it as shown in Exhibit E. Leaving the first floor walls intact, the foundation will be underpinned using screw piles and grade beams to achieve Building Code compliance. As shown on Exhibits C and D, the renovation includes an addition to the lower level on the north end of the building and additions to the upper level on both the north and south ends. Building elevations are shown on Exhibit E and architectural renderings of the building are shown on Exhibit F. At 38.11 percent, the property is well over the 25 percent hardcover limitation required in the Shoreland overlay district. The applicant intends to remove the existing gravel driveway and a ®1, # PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Campbell Residence — Expansion of Nonconforming Structure 29 February 2012 substantial amount of concrete sidewalk area. The result will actually be a reduction in hardcover to 34.41 percent, as shown on Exhibit G. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Shorewood amended its regulations last year to comply with State legislation regarding nonconformities. Sections 1201.03 Subd. l .d. and Subd. Li. of the Shorewood Zoning Code, shown on Exhibit H, provide the guidelines for addressing nonconformities. Following is how the applicant's request complies with the Code: Subd. I.d. This section simply provides that where nonconformities cannot achieve complete compliance, the plans for rebuilding are subject to Planning Commission recommendation and City Council approval. While no public hearing is required, the applicant has been in touch with the two adjoining neighbors. He will provide written comments from them prior to Tuesday night's meeting. According to the project architect, both neighbors are in agreement with the plans and have granted approval for the contractor to use their properties as necessary to do the renovation. This section also requires a demonstration that the project conforms substantially better with current zoning requirements. The most significant compliance proposed in the applicant's plans is with respect to hardcover. A 3.7 percent reduction is considered quite substantial. It should be realized that one of the ways they intend to achieve the reduction is the removal of the existing gravel driveway. Technically, the Code requires two parking spaces, one of which is already provided by the existing garage. The applicant proposes to install a "geo- grid" in place of the current gravel driveway. Approval of the building permit should include engineered drawings for this geo -grid system, at least 9'x20'. Subd. Li. The proposed plans do not increase the nonconformity and the expansion areas comply with setback requirements. The architect spent considerable time with staff to understand the requirements in this regard. The result is a creative solution to fitting more house on the property. In spite of its unique angles, the house maintains a traditional cape cod character. 2. Even with the proposed additions, the house and existing garage do not exceed the 30 percent building to floor area ratio. 3. Over the past several years, staff has met with previous owners and prospective buyers for the subject property. All wanted to enlarge the existing structure. As noted in 1. above, the character of the proposed design should fit in with the existing neighborhood. Approval of the neighbors, while not required, is an indication that the home fits. N Memorandum Re: Campbell Residence — Expansion of Nonconforming Structure 29 February 2012 4. Although the upper level will be larger, by stepping it in, the impact on the two adjoining residences is considered to be minimized. 5. Since the existing structure is already too close to both side lot lines, there is no opportunity to make up any deficiency. RECOMMENDATION Staff is in agreement that the subject property is one of the most difficult we have seed in terms of significant renovation. In this regard, the applicant, the architect and the owner are to be commended for their efforts to comply with Shorewood's zoning requirements. Subject to a requirement that engineered plans for the geo -grid parking space be submitted with the building permit, approval of the plans is recommended. Cc: Brian Heck Joe Pazandak Dan Krieter Bob Shaffer -3- I L W-7- 7 1 0 C Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Campbell Residence Co SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" . f -0" I I SITE AREA - 6,369 SQ. FT. \ I a\ m /- HIGH WATER LINE SITE PLAN i GENERAL NOTES FLOOR t ROOF PLANS Exhibit C PROPOSED SITE PLAN THE FOUNDATION Architec1s 1 0,nndi -1, P.A. 11 se1e460 - if "V", Alin„rsorn 55401 '. u, f „r,rl«no„arch can, pl,,— 61 2 .340.5430 f- 612 . 3405431 Lei BENCH \`\ __-f__ -- Y- �.� 4 ;.. -- SGREE �' \\ `, 6 i ____________ ____�\ ` :ENTER ON WALL i —_ a i I SCREEN PORCH I 1 ITPH3464 II 1-3464 •�, 14'•11• 105' i \ I—e4&4.4 I' -b° J 1rTll W ��7 O QO a a .0 �N 5 a F CENTER OPEN Wxa" (FINISH) STRUCTURAL B "x5" ( FINI5H) STRUCTURAL ' \\\ j WALL ENTRY P05T5; 4 THUS . \ \ \\ P05T5; 4 THUS UP I – DNING AREA FAMILT ROGt i 9 ' car SEE S' -TURAL \ \• -%1 E..a NEER DRAUItYS % \ 4 36" DIRECT VENT GAS 4I A3 n FIRST FLOOR PLAN FIREPLACE UNIT ISLAND � T• � w � (NICJ NEW EXTERIOR STUD E R� WALL a FIREPLAGE O KITCHEN .ry'b ♦ 6 b .. NEW FOUNDATION WALL UTILITIES UTILITIES GLOSEi d FOOTING; 4 • 4S" 5EE Ib . -�•, 3. -b. e EXISTING FIREPLACE TO BE REMOVED M IL ITpH2644x2 m -`�` I 1 FUDROOM He gFFICE - I b' -0 4' -II' x C OVERHANG OF —{- 41. 33AATH I SECOND FLOOR \ ABOVE O U t PORTION EXISTING HOUSE 3 E i0 BE REMOVED 4 T l_ gar U FEN EXTERIOR 5TUD _ WALL ALIGN W WALL IAWN2523 IAWN2523x2 tlNS 056x2 ® SECOND FLOOR \ I °s NEW FOUNDATION I' -8�• d\'SI i i \ T5 6 \ \ — WALL d FOOTING; i \\ C�CE SEE (1)51m. CENTER ON 4 M BATH I i \ BENCH BENCH \`\ __-f__ -- Y- �.� O Z 1rTll W ��7 O QO a a .0 �N 5 a F CENTER OPEN Wxa" (FINISH) STRUCTURAL B "x5" ( FINI5H) STRUCTURAL ' \\\ j WALL ENTRY P05T5; 4 THUS . \ \ \\ P05T5; 4 THUS FOUNDATION DESIGN ' SEE S' -TURAL \ \• -%1 E..a NEER DRAUItYS % \ 4 4I A3 n FIRST FLOOR PLAN 6y SCALE: 1/4" z F -0" Matthias K. Builders 3521 Webster Av. S. SL Louis Park, MN 55416 t Qza,S J,w diz Flan, aFz_�E «'part pmp,ved trym ,nY�rn vd :tu„Iv .i, §,Iva xrsd n,�Ar,fn- t�usaraYS,eLac nta,u Revision No. pate W U z W O Z 1rTll W ��7 O QO a a .0 �N 5 a F U capvngf:t 201 2 FLOOR & ROOF PLANS Date 02/02/12 Project No. 06 -03 .� I A 1 Exhibit D rf'� SECOND FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS AI SCALE: 114° = 1' -0" Ix CEDAR HORIZONTAL5 SPACED I"; RANDOM 51ZIN6 ARRANGED AS 5HO:NN _•■ .u■.■ ern • ' j � ■��i•: � ■■■■ moom GONTIWOJS RIDGE VENT 14'x18" NON - OPERABLE GABLE VENT 2.5 FIBER CEMENT TRIM BOARDS TD. PATE SECOND FL30R DECORATIVE K- BRACKETS: 10:12 PITCH 5IM TO SLOPED ROOF; 2.5 FIBER CEMENT TRIM FINISH TYPICAL: MA VIN INTEGRITY WOOD-ULTREX WINDOWS 4 PATIO DOORS TO B3R ■1 ul I■ of III I■ III I■ o� oil Sol 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ - ------------- ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ So ■■11 ■� - - -gym ■ ■■ ■ ■1 1■■ � �� E ,:�et 2DI 3 A 11 A7 SCALE: 1 /4" : 1' -0" Exhibit E ■ ■ ■ ■ ■�� ■ ■■1 ■r nn in all n ■I ■ all ■■ �_�_ ■m �� ■■ ■■ I ■■ "'"'"' 1■■r ■� ■■ ■■ I ■■ ■■ Ine ■ ■■■■■■■■ isommommommil �■ ■■ ■■ 1 ■1 ■■ m ■ ■I Is ■ ■1 son x __ ecaw ■ ■ ■ ■� INN ■� ■■i_ /_._. ■ Iwo n ■- _ __ . ■■ ■ofd' 1■■■■■■■■■■■■■I mmmmmmmam=mmmmmmm __ ■u ■n ■ ■ TYPICAL: 2,6 FIBER DEMENT TRIM 0 FIR57 FLOOR WINDOWS d DOORS _0 NORTH ELEVATION 12 SCALE: 1/4" . T -0" NEN CONCRETE FOUNDATION a CLIPPED CORNER OF EXISTING I HOUSE; SEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DRAWIN65 SOUTU ELEVATION `12 $GALE: 1/4" : I' -0" ________ TD. EX75TIN'i RATE __._._._._ FIRST FLOOR 5°x6" (FINISH) P05T5, 4 THUS CONNECT EA. P05T TO FOOTING ./ 51MPSON STANDOFF BASE, OR APPROVED EGUAL NEW FOUNDATION 0 POSTS; SEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DRAWING{— �- -NEW FOUNDATION FOR NEW SCREEN PORCH SEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DRAWINGS CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT — TYPICAL: ASPHALT 5HINGLE5 a SLOPED ROOFS U.N.O. —14'x1b" NON - OPERABLE GABLE VENT IO 2x8 FIBER CEMENT TRIM BOARDS TD. RATE SECOND FLOOR - - - - -- ' --- SHUTTERS ---- TYPICAL: MARVIN INTEGRITY HOOD- VITREX WINDOWS 4 PATIO DOORS 26 FIB GHENT TRIM 0 — E NTT'GFBJtG i EMENT FAYAA BOARD a RAT LON rJ TRIM B� 0 KN-L TD. E7 R -- - - - - -- SECOND FLOOR - -- - - TO. EX5TINS RATE FIRST FLOOR ICAL D EMENT SHINGLE ING; "I" r/- EXPOSURE ICAL: FIBER CEMENT CORNER ARDS FOUNDATION 0 SCREEN CH SEE 5TRIKTURAL INEER DRAWIN�{�------ BENCHES a EACH SIDE OF ENTRY NEW FOUNDATION 0 POSTS; SEE 5TRUCTURAL ENGINEER DRAWING{ Ix4 CEDAR 1.1 CEDAR Ixb CEDAR 2x2 FIBER CEMENT TRIM a INSIDE CORNER OF SHINGLES; TYPICAL DECORATIVE WOOD TRELLIS ---- TRELLI5 DETAIL SCALE : sy' = 1' -0" THE FOUNDATION Archtrecrs i C'on.cu11 - 1, R A. '12 77 /A . ..nee Y-th, Suite 460 1 (inncnpnlis, Al sorn 55401 :v:vw foundunonmel;. rom phone. 617.340.5430 6- 612340 5131 n ■1 !M 111 1 li �■ 5 p ■ }rtrtp}e ■ yy��1 yy { } � ®{ 33 � E�■ {{ 11 �� ,■ EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 114" . 1' -0" WALL GAP FOR GAS FIREPLACE VENT - NEW FOUNDATION FOR NEW FIREPLACE SUMP -OUT ABOVE; SEE STRUCNRAL ENGINEER DRAWINGS 2,4 FIBER CEMENT TRIM a SECOND FLOOR WINDOWS .0 look, ®ill milli 1' n■ ■I le ■1 Rol In ■k flail _ ■111 .u■■ I 6nn /e ■ ■■en ■1 ■■line ■nenl 4.4 CEDAR VERTICAL5 2.8 FIBER CEMENT TRIM BOARDS FIEBRGH- ENTFASGI BOARD a FLAT RCCF NJGV r✓ TRIM EOfJAO 4N_L `X,1�4'WFCC4Y; TRIM SIM TO W NDC^6 a FIRST FLou R �I �II r ii�riE■i�ikiii�■ii it iid�1 � ' \�"� � I w Big 1 ► ■■■ ■■■ ■■u ■r■ou■■ I rr ►1�■ ■■1 I Kim NMI DECORATIVE 1 ■. ■ ■n ■■! ■1 ■ ■ ■ ■r nl I' i ■el I ■■■■■ 0 ■■■■■■■ 1■ ■■nl r ■1 ' - iri■on ®■7 ®oi n.so.u.on.u.n.i .u■ nnn PITCH 51M. TO ELOPED IN CEMENT TRIM FIN15 I■n■■n■■n■■urn ■o.n ■u■■u■u u■r■ '� 1 ■ ■I [simimmimminso low . ■ ■■sr ■ ■ ■ ■..■1 .■..■ �'' moll B EIR CEMENT ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ NOUN I ■r ■ ■I moll TRIM � �. B ENCHES; Matthias K. Builders 3521 Webster A, S. St L P k MN 55416 ;hxlvn:. N:l}�r;.'ead aTbl ec ::naclh. 1� +, ora,r..mlr�r nr ox;- Revson No Date W W �F a U < w l � ~ W Q O a s 00 �N 5 � I�--1 Project No. 06 -03 U (�K) )JEST ELEVATION E ,:�et 2DI 3 A 11 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS `ALI6N— 2x6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM a FIRST r Date OZ /OZ /IZ FLOOR DOORS t WINDOWS �I 5_REEN'weDOIN, TRIM SM 1 Project No. 06 -03 TOWN 0 FIRST FLOOR (�K) )JEST ELEVATION A 11 A7 SCALE: 1 /4" : 1' -0" Exhibit E PROPOSED ELEVATIONS THE J ARCHITECTS 212 Third Ave. N, Suite 460 Minneapol MN 55401 www.foundationarch.com p. 612.340.5430 f. 612.340.5431 Matthias K. Builders 3521 Webster Av. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 1 c2itN, ihattie plw, spamcaf cn, or repw pepared by ire a. under my dire! xip =rvia 4 t�:zt I am 3 dLiv raasisred A. ShWWdc. W c C w z 0 copyright 2012 FIRST FLOOR PLAN—OPTION A Date 2.20.2012 Project No. 11-12.3 EXTERIOR fRENDERING5 A 1 11 Exhibit F ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS I � Ln o O z O z O lD N w i ..� a m m to r+ I-i Ln o o o X M In N U C� Q Q Ln z p z_ F Ln z Ln x LLJ U N w x w O O >- w � m z O U w J w � w I � w w Z w 0 c ,; F O O O= Q ? 7 Q cn S S S U U D> LL. i N C7 I � Ln o O z O z O lD N w i ..� a m m to r+ I-i Ln o o o X M In N U C� Q Q Ln z p z_ F Ln z Ln x LLJ U N w x w O O >- w � m z O U w J w � w I � w w Z w 0 c ,; F O O O= Q ? 7 Q cn S S S U U D> Exhibit G HARDCOVER TABULATIONS O lD U� lD N N i ..� m m to r+ I-i Ln W lD aq O X M N N U al m Ln N M N Q H O O LL. N C7 Z F— N Ul) X S w p w Z W J w CC Z D Q z w � O J w Z ' I I I J Y Q w � > > H O S Q R E Q 0 N S U U' C) 0 Exhibit G HARDCOVER TABULATIONS d. In instances where complete compliance cannot be achieved, nonconforming structures may be moved or rebuilt, when it can be demonstrated that the structure has less impact on adjacent properties, and conforms substantially better with current zoning requirements. Approval of such cases shall take into consideration existing and proposed landscaping, sight lines, and site drainage, and shall be subject to review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. Subd. U. i. Lawful nonconforming, single - family residential units may be expanded, provided: (1) That the expansion does not increase the nonconformity and complies with height and setback requirements of the district in which it is located; (2) That if the nonconformity exists because the lot area does not meet the minimum requirement for the district in which it is located, the expansion shall not increase the floor area of all structures to lot area ratio to greater than 30 %. (3) That the granting of the expansion shall not adversely affect the aesthetics or character of the adjacent property. (4) That any expansion shall take into consideration the protection of light and air to the adjacent property. (5) That in cases where a structure is too close to a lot line, the city may require that the discrepancy be made up by enlarging the opposite required yard space. (Example: where a building is eight feet from a side lot line in a district in which a ten foot setback is required, the city may require a 12 foot setback on the other side.) Exhibit H EXERPT — ZONING REQUIREMENTS o�ntbrmities CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A BUILDING PERMIT TO ADD ON TO A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AT 450 LAFAYETTE AVENUE WHEREAS, Matthias K. Builders (Applicant) represents Kay Campbell and Ralph Campbell III, the owners of the real property located at 450 Lafayette Avenue in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the property does not conform to the lot area requirements of the R -IA/S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland zoning district, in which it is located; and WHEREAS, the existing home on the property does not conform to the setback requirements of the R -IA/S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland zoning district, in which it is located; and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes a significant renovation of the existing home and expansion thereof, and WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code requires that the expansion of a nonconforming structure be subject to Planning Commission review and recommendation and City Council approval; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council, dated 29 February 2012, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 6 March 2012, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at their regular meeting on 12 March 2012, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT point The lot contains 6369 square feet of area and is approximately 48 feet wide at its widest 2. The existing home on the property is located 1.6 feet from the westerly side of the lot and 5.6 feet from the easterly side of the lot. 3. Neither the existing house nor detached garage located on the property comply with the setbacks of the R -IA/S zoning district. 4. The Applicant proposes to expand the existing home and the additions to the structure comply with setback requirements. Attachment II Existing impervious surface on the property amounts to 3 8. 11 percent of the lot area. lot area. The proposed renovation, including the building additions, amounts to 34.41 percent of the 7. The proposed floor area of all structures on the lot (1905 square feet) amounts to 29.9 percent of the lot area. 8. The existing house on the property does not comply with current building code requirements. The proposed renovation/addition to the home will bring it up to building code standards. 9. The Applicant has taken the location and views of the two adjacent homes into consideration in siting the proposed house on the subject property. CONCLUSION A. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicant's request for a building permit to expand a nonconforming structure at 450 Lafayette Avenue. B. The City Administrator /Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 12th day of March, 2012. CHRISTINE LIZEE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRIAN HECK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK 2 Legal Description (450 Lafayette Avenue) That part of Lot 21, "Auditor's Subdivison Number 313, Hennepin County, Minnesota ", described as follows: Commencing at the southeasterly, corner of said Lot; thence west along the south line of said Lot to a point therein distant 86 feet, measured along a line which makes an interior angle with the northeasterly line of said Lot of 53 degrees 15 minutes to the point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence southwesterly along the southerly line of said Lot a distance of 20.27 feet: thence northwesterly 79 degrees 56 minutes to the right a distance of 91.8 feet; thence at an angle to the right of 30 degrees 05 minutes to the northerly line of said Lot; thence southeasterly along said line to a point distant 47 feet West along said line from the northeaterly corner of said Lot; thence Southeasterly 145 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to an easement and right of way over and across a strip °of land 15 feet in width along the lake shore on the southerly side of Lot 21. Exhibit A 3 � 11% City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Establishing Election Precinct Boundaries and Polling Places Meeting Date: March 12, 2012 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk Reviewed by: Brian Heck, City Administrator Attachments: Resolution; Proposed Precinct Map #10A MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Policy Consideration: Consideration of establishing new election precincts boundaries and polling places. Background: At its meeting on January 23, 2012, the City Council discussed the consideration of reducing the number of precincts in the city. Council agreed to keep the island precinct and reduce the mainland from four to three precincts. With the recently approved state -wide redistricting plan, the city remains completely in Congressional District 3 and Legislative District 33B. Staff has worked with Hennepin County and the city's Planning Department to prepare a four - precinct map option. Attached is a Resolution establishing precincts and polling places for Council consideration this evening. The proposed four - precinct plan includes the following voter /population statistics: Precinct # # Registered Voters 18+ Population Shorewood P 1 139 150 Shorewood P 2 1,543 1,610 Shorewood P 3 1,325 1,541 Shorewood P 4 1,902 2,029 TOTAL 4,909 5,330 The 18+ population shows the potential for the number of additional registered voters. It has been staff's experience that the actual number of voters on Election Day rarely exceeds the number of registered voters. Staff is confident that number of voters who come into the new precincts to vote on Election Day will be of manageable size for the election judges. All of the polling places on the mainland meet the federal accessibility requirements. Accommodations are made to assure that the island polling place is accessible to elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities. This includes clearly marked accessible doors and at least one parking space for persons with disabilities near the accessible entrance. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Establishing Election Precinct Boundaries and Polling Places March 12, 2012 Page 2 As part of the redistricting process, the city will need to review and establish its precinct boundaries and polling places. In establishing precinct boundaries, the precincts may not be split by congressional and legislative lines. As noted above, the city is completely in Congressional District 3 and Legislative District 3313. Financial or Budget Considerations: Reducing the number of precincts from five to four will save the city approximately $2,800 in election judge salary and equipment costs. Options: 1) Approve the Resolution Establishing Precincts and Polling Places as provided, which reduces the number of precincts from five to four. 2) Direct staff to prepare other precinct plan options for consideration at the March 26 Council meeting. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends council adopt the Resolution Establishing Precincts and Polling Places as provided. Next Steps and Timelines: If council approves the plan as proposed, staff will forward the information to Hennepin County as required, for submission to the state. If council determines to proceed with some other option, staff will bring that option back to the March 26 Council meeting for approval. A decision must be provided to Hennepin County no later than April 3. Connection to Vision / Mission: Providing quality public service and sound financial management. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 12- RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES WHEREAS, the legislature of the State of Minnesota has been redistricted; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute section 20413. 14, subd. 3 (d) requires that precinct boundaries must be reestablished within 60 days of when the legislature has been redistricted or at least 19 weeks before the state primary election, whichever comes first; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota hereby establishes the boundaries of the voting precincts and the polling place locations as follows: Precinct 1 (Private Residence, 4445 Enchanted Point, Shorewood, MN 55364) Those islands in the westerly part of the city, to include Goose Island, Spray Island, Shady Island, and that part of Enchanted Island that lies within the city limits. Precinct 2 (Minnewashta Church, 26710 West 62" Street, Shorewood, MN 55331) That portion of the city lying west of Eureka Road to the westerly shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. Precinct 3 (Southshore Community Center, 5735 Country Club Rd, Shorewood, MN 55331) That portion of the city lying east of Eureka Road to Mill Street. Precinct 4 (Excelsior Covenant Church, 19955 Excelsior Blvd., Shorewood, MN 55331) That portion of the city lying east of Mill Street to the easterly border of the city. Attached to this resolution, for illustrative purposes, is a map showing said precincts and the location of each polling place. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 12th day of March, 2012. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST Brian Heck, City Administrator /Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD , C... 2Eb P. SAft"Cu C-TM Cnemw, C .v C. _� (Lake NIinneNashta) Precinct Map N A ® 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet 55� Shorewood Planning Department 02/12 * Precinct Voting Locations: D Precinct 1 (P1) - Private Residence, 4445 Enchanted Point D Precinct 2 (P2) - Minnewashta Church, 26710 West 62nd St. O Precinct 3 (P3) - Southshore Community Center, 5735 Country Club Rd. O Precinct 4 (P4) - Excelsior Covenant Church, 19955 Excelsior Blvd. 1: (2 #1OB U2 MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Audio and Video addition to Council Chambers Meeting Date: Monday, March 12, 2012 Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator Reviewed by: Julie Moore, Communications Coordinator; Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk Attachments: Quote and Services for Camera and Microphone Installation Policy Consideration: Should the Council authorize the purchase and installation of an additional camera and chambers microphone? Background: The City Council, during the January 9 meeting, discussed the issue of electronic agenda packets. Council member Zerby indicated there are dollars set aside to purchase computers and software for council members. He said his preference is to use these dollars to purchase a third camera for the chambers. Mayor Lizee indicated another need is for a microphone in the chambers to pick -up comments from the audience. Council directed staff to look into the cost to purchase and install a third camera and audience microphone. Staff contacted Alpha Video, the contractor that designed and installed the audio and video system in the chambers. Alpha met with staff, reviewed the current system, and then prepared a quote to provide and install equipment. Installing an audience microphone that connects to the speaker system will result in feedback. To resolve this issue, Alpha Video proposes to by -pass the speakers and have the microphone input only to the audio recording. Audience comments will be recorded; they will not be output over the chamber speakers. Financial or Budget Considerations: The proposed cost for the entire installation is $7,520.00. The Equipment fund allocated $10,000 toward the purchase of equipment for Council computers and software. Options: 1) Authorize the purchase and installation as quoted; or 2) Authorize the purchase and installation of only the audio component; or 3) Authorize the purchase and installation of only the video component; or 4) Do nothing. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends council approve the purchase and installation as quoted. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will contact Alpha Video to purchase and install the equipment. Staff will provide council with an estimated timeline after the order is placed with the company. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 AV City of Shorewood Camera Addition Scope of Work AAAQ 18954 2/27/12 r A& - LPI- I/'�''�+''I DC0 J the visual communications experts Alpha Video & Audio, Inc. 7711 Computer Avenue Edina, MN 55435 952.896.9898 / 800 - 388 -0008 www.alphavideo.com AW AW Introduction Alpha Video and Audio Inc. is pleased to present this proposal for the Camera Addition. This statement of work document outlines the equipment and services that Alpha Video will deliver and the responsibilities of The City of Shorewood for a successful implementation. Camera and Microphone Addition Alpha Video will provide and install one ceiling mounted microphone in the ceiling of the council chambers to provide coverage of the audience. An additional input card will be added to the audio processor to accommodate the new microphone. The audio processor's programming will be updated as well. One new camera will be provided and wall mounted. The camera will be integrated into the existing system with a new three screen monitor added to the equipment rack (only one of the screens will be used). Additional Installation Information or Requirements This proposal assumes that all existing equipment required for the functionality of the system is in proper operating condition and without defect. If any of the required existing equipment is not in proper operating condition, a change order may be required for the functionality outlined in this proposal. This proposal also assumes that work can be carried out continuously throughout the day with limited to no interruptions. If daily interruptions do occur during on site work, change orders may be required based on installation inefficiencies related to these interruptions. Standards of Integration General • System and components will be installed in a neat and professional manner. • All equipment will be new and blemish free unless otherwise noted in this document. • Any above ceiling components shall be installed with trim rings and /or grommets when necessary. For more information, please contact: p . Lf��lAV10CC] e-mail: i n f o @alp ! ha vi de o. 388-0QQ8 e ail: ino a�alpvideo.com the visual commu experts www.alphavideo.com 2 • All rack equipment will be installed using proper manufacture supplied mounting hardware. • All rack blank spaces will be filled with either a blank or vent panel depending on need. • All racks will have proper ventilation to prevent heat buildup and increase equipment life expectance. Wiring and Cables • All rack cabling will be bundled neatly with cable ties or hook & loop depending on requirements. • Low and high voltage cabling will be separated in according with NFPA 70 (National Electric Code) 2008 specifications. • All cabling in conduit will comply with the conduit fill specifications in NFPA 70 (National Electric Code) 2008. • Proper strain relief at connections and joints will be used. • Sufficient service loops shall be provided for all above ceiling elements, above racks, in racks or in cable trays so that components may be minimally moved or serviced without cable strain. • All connectors are sized to fit the specific cabling and are installed in accordance with manufacture specifications. • All permanently installed cabling will be labeled with permanent CAD generated labels. Installer Testing and Adiustments • Proper grounding will be verified on all equipment. • Video displays shall be properly aligned and free from distortion. • Cabling and loudspeakers shall be tested for proper polarity. • Audio shall be free of distortion, hums, buzzes or pops. • Loudspeaker systems shall be tested and equalized to provide uniform frequency response. • Control system program shall be tested for proper system operation and shall be free of glitches. Any issues will be brought to the attention of the programmer for correction. LPHAVI0CC] the visual communications experts For more information, please contact: p. 952 -896 -9898 11-800-388-0008 e -mail: info@alphavideo.com www.alphavideo.com AW AW Documentation Alpha Video will provide shop drawings that reflect the final system design. Upon project completion, a full set of "D" size as -built drawings will be provided, which will include components of the video, audio and control systems and any architectural documentation used during the installation. Those drawings will become property of The City of Shorewood upon receipt of final payment for this project. Proiect Management Alpha Video will appoint a project manager that will be the main point of contact for The City of Shorewood regarding this project. The project manager will manage the installation timeline and coordinate work with any additional trades involved in this installation. Installation can only begin when the project manager has been notified that construction progress has reached a point that electronic equipment can be installed in a secure and clean job site. Change Requests When the scope of work is agreed upon, any changes to that scope must be requested as a change order. Change requests shall be submitted in written form so that both parties fully understand the request. Any costs resulting from change orders shall be the responsibility of The City of Shorewood. System Warranty and Support Alpha Video offers a standard 90 -day warranty on all systems installations. During the 90 days, Alpha Video will facilitate system service, phone support or repair at no charge for labor, travel, and /or shipping on any Alpha Video installed system or component. All system hardware is covered under the terms and conditions of each manufacturer's warranty. Alpha Video, at its option, may repair or replace any product or part of the products, which proves defective because of failure, under normal use, for the length of the 90 -day warranty period. An optional extension for a full 1 -year support agreement is available for purchase during the 90 day warranty period. Phone support is available Monday through Friday during regular business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Alpha Video's office number is 952 - 896 -9898. Calls will be V LPHAVIDC -0 thevisual communications experts For more information, please contact: p. 952 -896 -9898 11-800-388-0008 e -mail: info@alphavideo.com www.alphavideo.com 4 i Aff returned within a four -hour period. If the issue cannot be rectified over the phone a technician will be on site within 24 — 48 hours. Alpha Video will not be open on various holidays that occur during a Monday - Friday work week. The City of Shorewood agrees that prompt and full access to the system will be granted to Alpha Video at any time Alpha Video is on -site to service the system. Products not provided by Alpha Video but included in this installation will not be covered by this warranty. Alpha Video is not responsible for any failure of equipment that is connected to or caused by Client furnished equipment. The warranty coverage will commence on date the Certificate of Completion form is signed by both Alpha Video and The City of Shorewood. Service issues after the 90 -day period will be handled as time, materials and travel, plus fees associated with such work unless a warranty extension has been purchased. This warranty does not cover system misuse, reconfiguration or negligence on the part of The City of Shorewood. Client Responsibilities This statement of work indicates the responsibilities of Alpha Video and Audio Inc. As in any system installation, this project contains a number of customer responsibilities. They include, but are not limited to: • Any High Voltage AC necessary • Any necessary conduits, back boxes, or structural supports for mounted equipment • One key point of contact for control system design verification • Owner furnished equipment described above (PC, PC monitor, laptops, etc.) • Provide access to the job site during normal business hours (7am to 5pm M -F) • Coordination with Client staff for training times • Disposal of existing equipment, cabling, and racks LPHAVI0CC] the visual communications experts For more information, please contact: p. 952 -896 -9898 11-800-388-0008 e -mail: info@alphavideo.com www.alphavideo.com 5 i F_ Client Sign -Off As an appointed representative of The City of Shorewood, I hereby agree with and approve the above statement of work including all outlined Client Responsibilities. A purchase order for this project, in verbal or written form indicates acceptance of this statement of work. Date: Company: Name: Signature: J#V LPHAV10CC] thevisual communications experts For more information, please contact: p. 952 -896 -9898 11-800-388-0008 e -mail: info@alphavideo.com www.alphavideo.com the Visual communications experts 7711 Computer Ave, Edina MN 55435 Phone: 952 - 896 -9898 - Fax 952 - 896 -9899 - Visit us at www.alphavideo.com Quotation Date Quote # Cust # 02/27/12 AAAQ18954 We are an equal opportunity employer ID # Item Description Prepared For: Unit Price Sales Representative: Julie Moore Phone: (952)474 -3236 Mike Pouh City Of Shorewood Fax: Sales Executive 5755 Country Club Road IP2 BIAMP 2 CHANNEL LINE /MIC STANDALONE INPUT CARD Shorewood, MN 55331 Terms: NET 30 952 - 841 -3365 3 Ship via: Best Way mikep @alphavideo.com ID # Item Description Qty Unit Price Ext. Price 1 M40W -12 AUDIX CEILING MIC 1 $265.00 $265.00 2 IP2 BIAMP 2 CHANNEL LINE /MIC STANDALONE INPUT CARD 1 $195.00 $195.00 3 BRC -300 SONY IND THREE CCD PTZ CAMERA 1 $4,095.00 $4,095.00 4 BRCWMZ330 SONY WALL MOUNT BRACKET FOR BRC -300 1 $165.00 $165.00 5 PW -PR4.5 TRIPP -LITE POWER SUPPLY 1 $40.00 $40.00 6 V -R43P MARSHALL TRIPLE 4 IN LCD MONITOR 1 $970.00 $970.00 7 INTEGRATION LABOR Alpha Video Integration Labor 1 $1,340.00 $1,340.00 8 MATERIALS Alpha Video Integration Materials 1 $450.00 $450.00 Shipping charges are not included and will be billed at actual cost. Sub Total $7,520.00 Sales tax is not included and will be billed at actual. Sales Tax $0.00 Shipping $0.00 Total $7,520.00 Accepted by: Date: PO: All information contained within this quote is valid for the next 30 days. Thereafter, all prices and applicable charges are subject to change. MINIMUM 15% RESTOCKING FEE WITH ORIGINAL PACKAGING. 02/29/12 CONFIDENTIAL Page 1 of 1 1: (2 #ZOC U2 MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Mound Fire Commission Representative Meeting Date: Monday, March 12 2012 Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator Reviewed by: Attachments: Policy Consideration: Assign representative to Mound Fire Commission Background: The City of Mound provides fire services to Shady and Enchanted Islands. The City of Shorewood contracts for this service and as part of the contract, participates in quarterly meetings with the City of Mound and other cities contracting for service — collectively referred to as the "Mound Fire Commission." The meetings are held to get input and feedback on policy issues related to the operation, policy, and budget of the Mound Fire Department. Greg Pederson, Mound Fire Chief, leads the meetings and brings the Commissions feedback and input to the Mound City Council. The other contracting communities have two representatives, generally the administrator and a council member. Staff feels the Shorewood Council should appoint a Council member to participate on this commission and to provide representation in cases where the Administrator is unable to attend. Financial or Budget Considerations: No financial impact Options: 1) Appoint a Council member; 2) Do nothing Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends Council appoint a Council member to the Commission and suggests Council member Woodruff to serve on this commission, as he is a resident of the area serviced by the Mound Fire Department. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will notify the Mound Fire department of the additional representative from Shorewood. Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public service. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 ® #11A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Shorewood Trail Plan Meeting Date: Monday March 12, 2012 Prepared by: Brian Heck, City Administrator Reviewed by: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director Attachments: 2011 Trail Plan Policy Consideration: How should the Council move forward with the trail program? Background: The City Council created a trail committee in January 2011 to review the trail plan developed in 1996, recommend revisions, establish priorities, and present a final report to the Park Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council for adoption. The committee finished its work in the summer of 2011 and the Council approved the plan. During the budget process, staff developed a capital improvement program (CIP) based on the priorities established in the plan and began by using the estimated costs presented to the committee and included in the final report. In October 2011, staff identified a grant opportunity for the top priority trial, the segment along county road 19 from approximately the bus garage to the Hennepin County LRT. The committee rated this trail segment as a top priority as there are only two property owners and it creates a safe connection from a major regional trail to a local business center. It is also the starting point for the trail system along County Road 19 that would ultimately extend northward to the Dakota trail located in Orono. Staff found during the grant preparation process that the original estimates for the trail segment was too low in comparison to what other cities estimate. It should be noted the original estimate was based on the cost the DNR uses for trail development. The revised estimated turned out to be more than double the original estimate. Staff also revised the CIP to reflect the increase in costs. Understandably, Council voiced concern over the estimated cost to complete the entire plan and is hesitant to pursue potential grants until they have a better understanding of the process and the costs. To address the concerns raised by Council, staff prepared the following for council to consider. 1) The current plan places implementation of trails under the oversight of the Park Commission. Staff feels trails or pathways along roadways should be moved to the Planning Commission. Those trails that are wholly within park boundaries will remain under the purview of the Park Commission. 2) Cost is a major issue. Council wants a better idea (e.g. hard costs) — for building a trail. One of the only ways to get a firm cost is to obtain bids for a project. Staff is in the process of preparing a feasibility report for the project we have going now, the segment along county road 19. The feasibility report will provide preliminary design and estimated costs. The report is scheduled to Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 be completed by the end of April. Council will need to determine if they want to proceed with this project or not. Staff estimates each feasibility report will take 2.5 months to complete. Financial or Budget Considerations: The estimated cost for completing all the trail segments over a 20 year period is $1.8 million. Given the difficulty in projecting costs that far into the future, it may be advisable to focus on the projects slated for the next five years. Options: 1) Keep oversight of trails with the Park Commission; 2) Move oversight of trail plan implementation to the Planning Commission; 3) Reconvene the trail committee to move forward with implementation; 4) Continue with the planning process for the County Road 19 segment; 5) Stop the work on the County Road 19 segment; 6) Begin feasibility reports on alternate segments — note each segment takes approximately 2.5 months to complete. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends council formally move the oversight of trail development and implementation to the Planning Commission and direct the commission to develop design criteria and provide recommendations on implementation. Staff further recommends Council proceed with the county road 19 segment and put this segment out to bid. Doing so provides real costs for constructing trail segments. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will work the trail program into the Planning Commission calendar and staff will proceed with the feasibility report in preparation of putting the project out to bid. Connection to Vision / Mission: Providing trails /pathways for non - vehicular traffic that is safe, promotes a healthy environment, attractive amenities, and quality public services and meets a need identified by residents that is currently insufficient. MEMORANDUM Date: March 9, 2012 To: Mayor Lizee Council Members From: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Re: Preliminary December, 2011 Monthly Budget Report The 2011 General Fund budget has come in almost exactly on budget for the year. Total revenues at this point are 100.6% of budget. Overall expenditures are at 100.6% of budget which is higher than the three year average of 97 %. These numbers are still preliminary and subject to adjustment. Staff continues to prepare year -end adjusting journal entries in anticipation of the audit which is scheduled for the week of April 16 -20. The overall observation to be made is that four years of generally flat budgets have moved the departments to spending almost all of their allotted budget. Whatever "fat" there was that allowed the city to come in under budget and add something to the fund balance each year is now basically gone. There is an almost 50/50 likelihood of being over budget rather than under in most departments. This is good from the standpoint that we are no longer taxing residents any excess amount over what is needed for operations. The caveat is that the deficits that are budgeted will actually begin to eat into the existing fund balance so we need to make adjustments to the structural deficits in future budgets. REVENUES • License and permit revenues are up about $20,000 over last year. Staff believes this is a sustainable increase in activity from the levels of the past couple of years which is reflected in the 2012 budget. • Charges for services are running just under last year, but are on track to make budget. • Fines and forfeitures are almost exactly on budget for the year. • Miscellaneous revenue is lower than previous years which will merit additional analysis prior to budget discussion this summer. EXPENDITURES Administration, General Government, & Elections — The total expenditures in these areas are over budget by about $36,000 because of two primary reasons — both related to staffing. The elimination of the Web Coordinator position resulted in about $22,000 of extraordinary costs related to severance payout, and accumulated vacation and sick leave. The other $12,000 that exceeds budget generally comes from salary allocations to these departments that resulted in lower expenditures in other departments. Staff will continue the analysis of time spent in each department that was begun last year to better analyze salary allocations in the budget. • Finance — Salary allocations will be reviewed as part of audit prep and additional costs may be transferred out to utility operations. Over in both supplies due to increased software maintenance costs and support services for some outside accounting assistance to prepare for the audit last year. Travel and training is over primarily due to additional meetings that the Finance Director has attended with the League of Minnesota Cities and Metro Cities to improve our legislative outcomes. • Municipal Buildings — costs have been coded differently this year as we recognize bond payments as transfers rather than expenditures, but the total expenditures are under budget. • Police and Fire are on budget. • Public Works - over because more wages have been coded to this department based on actual time spent. Staff will continue to analyze this as part of the consolidation strategy implemented for the 2012 budget where most smaller maintenance budgets have been consolidated into the general Public Works budget. • Streets and Roads — the freeze thaw issues last winter caused a significant expenditure on blacktop for patching this summer and drove this over budget. • Snow and Ice — Lack of snow in November and December will keep this under budget. • Sanitation and Waste Control — over because more weed spraying in the parks was needed this year. Please contact me or Mr. Heck if you have any questions. Attachment: December Monthly Budget Spreadsheet Monthly Budget Report Preliminary December 31, 2011 YTD YTD 2011 % of 2011 Expected Variance 2010 December Adopted Annual % of 2011 (Negative) % of Budget Year to Date Overview Actual 2011 Budget Budget Budget or Positive 2008 2009 2010 REVENUE Property Taxes 4,717,205 4,730,062 4,763,319 99.3% 98.7% 99 98 99 Licenses and Permits 154,112 174,047 98,200 177.2% 100.0% 90 65 145 Intergovernmental 69,133 68,217 69,401 98.3% 100.0% 120 102 106 Charges for Service 41,882 33,816 35,075 96.4% 91.0% 91 91 91 Fines and Forfeitures 55,806 51,629 52,000 99.3% 88.0% 67 96 101 Miscellaneous 86,906 55,117 63,900 86.3% 80.3% 118 55 68 Transfers from other funds 33,465 40,000 40,000 100.0% 100.0% 100 100 100 TOTAL 5,158,509 5,152,888 5,121,895 100.6% 30,993 EXPENDITURES Department Council Personnel 16,794 16,794 16,800 100.0% 99.0% 97 100 100 Materials and Supplies 1,175 684 1,300 52.6% 100.0% 206 219 98 Support and Services 45,776 77,443 102,430 75.6% 95.3% 98 89 99 Total 63,745 94,921 120,530 78.8% 25,609 Administration Personnel 144,743 152,078 142,828 106.5% 100.0% 134 89 98 Materials and Supplies - - - 0.0% 13.3% 20 20 0 Support and Services 3,153 5,138 4,760 107.9% 76.3% 20 133 76 Capital Outlay 1,631 - - 21.7% 0 0 65 Total 149,527 157,216 147,588 106.5% (9,628) General Government Personnel 214,687 257,201 226,387 113.6% 100.0% 98 109 118 Materials and Supplies 14,064 13,859 18,500 74.9% 78.7% 81 85 70 Support and Services 31,220 35,851 32,350 110.8% 87.3% 80 85 97 Capital Outlay 1,213 - - 45.3% 0 87 49 Total 261,184 306,911 277,237 110.7% (29, 674) Elections Personnel 39,864 273 4,781 5.7% 89.3% 121 17 130 Materials and Supplies 3,570 1,798 2,300 78.2% 100.0% 169 88 72 Support and Services 1,508 - - 100.0% 215 83 56 Total 44,942 2,071 7,081 29.2% 5,010 466,198 431,906 Finance Personnel 147,242 163,467 153,224 106.7% 88.7% 91 93 82 Materials and Supplies 7,576 7,786 6,950 112.0% 87.3% 79 85 98 Support and Services 7,547 8,845 6,575 134.5% 63.0% 32 56 101 Capital Outlay - - - 18.3% 0 55 0 Total 162,365 180,098 166,749 108.0% (13, 349) Professional Services 178,604 188,962 199,000 95.0% 99.0% 10,038 98 109 90 Planning and Zoning Personnel 175,554 168,102 170,694 98.5% 96.7% 101 98 91 Materials and Supplies 149 261 655 39.8% 100.0% 624 122 23 Support and Services 6,882 8,079 11,810 68.4% 99.3% 77 75 146 Total 182,585 176,442 183,159 96.3% 6,717 Municipal Building - City Hall Materials and Supplies 51,244 50,002 16,500 303.0% 86.7% 35 131 94 Support and Services 54,496 105,845 157,750 67.1% 69.7% 79 89 41 Capital Outlay 15,713 1,534 - 26.3% 0 0 79 Transfers 163,326 103,950 103,950 100.0% 81.7% 45 100 100 Total 284,779 261,331 278,200 93.9% 16,869 0 0 0 Police Support Services 949,337 997,606 995,750 100.2% 100.0% 103 100 100 Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 229,435 230,068 230,066 100.0% 99.7% 100 100 99 Total 1,178, 772 1,227,674 1,225,816 100.2% (1,858) Fire Support Services 322,535 337,131 337,130 100.0% 100.0% 102 102 102 Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 272,629 270,697 270,697 100.0% 98.0% 98 98 98 Total 595,164 607,828 607,827 100.0% (1) Inspections Personnel 115,081 120,007 109,096 110.0% 100.0% 112 97 98 Materials and Supplies 29 154 300 51.3% 9.0% 1 19 7 Support and Services 4,575 4,438 6,700 66.2% 62.3% 67 53 67 Total 119,685 124,599 116,096 107.3% (8,503) City Engineer Personnel 94,497 96,174 111,103 86.6% 96.0% 102 86 100 Materials and Supplies 152 495 1,255 39.4% 65.7% 79 82 36 Support and Services 8,531 13,550 13,320 101.7% 47.7% 46 41 56 Capital Outlay 538 1,057 1,000 105.7% 57.0% 85 32 54 Total 103,718 111,276 126,678 87.8% 15,402 Public Works Service Personnel 289,828 272,443 184,107 148.0% 100.0% 107 96 98 Materials and Supplies 62,043 79,175 71,200 111.2% 93.0% 119 73 87 Support and Services 41,106 43,832 41,440 105.8% 92.3% 93 88 96 Capital Outlay 100,000 50,000 50,000 56.7% 0 170 0 Total 492,977 445,450 346,747 128.5% (98, 703) Streets and Roads Personnel 88,822 95,817 113,459 84.5% 93.0% 112 74 93 Materials and Supplies 80,253 123,123 85,000 144.9% 100.0% 134 73 94 Support and Services 21,274 25,340 34,000 74.5% 84.0% 45 116 91 Capital Outlay 700,000 700,000 700,000 100.0% 100.0% 100 100 100 Total 890,349 944,280 932,459 101.3% (11, 821) Snow and Ice Personnel 55,052 45,209 56,567 79.9% 100.0% 87 87 135 Materials and Supplies 32,453 29,462 45,117 65.3% 78.3% 78 85 72 Total 87,505 74,671 101,684 73.4% 27,013 Traffic control / Street Lights Materials and Supplies 2,528 6,467 5,000 129.3% 100.0% 192 85 42 Support and Services 40,893 54,307 52,149 104.1% 97.0% 103 97 91 Total 43,421 60,774 57,149 106.3% (3,625) Sanitation / Waste Control Personnel 5,827 626 2,281 27.4% 100.0% 313 428 184 Materials and Supplies - 30 100 30.0% 3.3% 6 4 0 Support and Services 3,210 7,847 4,400 178.3% 57.0% 171 0 0 Total 9,037 8,503 6,781 125.4% (1,722) Tree Maintenance Personnel 20,625 20,916 14,020 149.2% 93.7% 118 44 119 Materials and Supplies 107 331 1,425 23.2% 10.7% 11 17 4 Support and Services 11,461 8,433 13,250 63.6% 72.0% 45 86 85 Total 32,193 29,680 28,695 103.4% (985) Parks and Recreation Personnel 153,637 151,983 185,708 81.8% 100.0% 106 107 96 Materials and Supplies 14,237 17,394 19,800 87.8% 96.0% 119 82 87 Support and Services 95,697 86,967 91,900 94.6% 100.0% 101 210 103 Transfers 42,000 42,000 42,000 100.0% 100.0% 100 100 100 Total 305,571 298,344 339,408 87.9% 41,064 Unallocated - - - 0.0% 0 0 0 Total Expenditures 5,186,123 5,301,031 5,268,884 100.6% (32,147) 98 96 97 Net Revenue less Expenditures (27,614) (148,143) (146,989) Note: The balanced budget includes $150,000 of fund balance in the Transfers item of the Revenue section.